From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Classical music
WikiProject icon Fluxus is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.


hey guys just wondering why this and many other fluxus pages fall under the music headline above- although music was very much involved it's clearly art- right? artworlder —Preceding undated comment added 08:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC).


illustration of "fluxus"

--Robertgrassi (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing lins[edit]

Michale Hesp link deleted. The only references linking the name to Fluxus when searched on Google were Wikipedia and a Wikipedia mirror. If replaced, please include reference.Arevich 21:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Tookie Sherman link removed. He is an avant garde keyboard player for the group Need New Body, but I could not locate any references linking him to Fluxus. If replaced, please include reference. Arevich 02:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Genesis P-Orridge link removed. His work was Fluxus-like and he was contemporaneous to Fluxus, but I can find nothing that actually links him to Fluxus.Arevich (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, Genesis was involved with Fluxshoe, the fluxus show that toured England in 1973Franciselliott (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed for Eric Andersen link[edit]

The article links to a wrong Eric Andersen. Arevich 03:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


An anon user replaced the word "pranksters" with "snigglers" - I've changed it back because "sniggler" is too obscure a word, and won't be understood by most readers. There also isn't much of a link between Fluxus and snigglers from what I understand of the term. Camembert


This page should be merged with FLUXUS. — Alex756

Mason Gross School of the Arts[edit]

A display by Mason Gross School of the Arts at Rutgers University has me investigating said university's involvement in the Fluxus/ Happenings movement. It appears that Maciunas may have given Fluxus a name, but the artwork may have been going on as early as the late 1950s. Rickyrab 05:16, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

György Ligeti[edit]

Are we sure about György Ligeti? Some of his work obviously bears comparison to Fluxus pieces, but I'm not sure he ever associated himself with them, and [1] suggests that he didn't ("You know the Fluxus group? I am not belonging there."). --Camembert

Well, I've taken him out for now pending some evidence that he associated himself with them, as the above link suggests he didn't. --Camembert
George Maciunas made name cards for him; Hendricks's Fluxus Codex includes the following entry for him: "It was announced in the Brochure Prospectus, version B that Györgi Ligeti would contribute 'Die Zunkuft der Music: Eine Kollektive Komposition' to FLUXUS NO. 3 GERMAN & SCANDINAVIAN YEARBOX. His score, 'Trois Bagatelles' was included in FLUXUS 1, and 'Poeme Symphonique' was published in Fluxus Newpaper No. 1." ("Fluxus Codex", pp.314) Certainly Ligeti might not have wanted to be part of Fluxus, but he was . . . dan visel 00:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Rutgers University[edit]

It's worth noting that the page Fluxus at Rutgers University is generally a much better introduction to Fluxus than this page. I'd suggest taking that page and using that as a template for this one (or at least linking to it). dan visel 00:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Buckley[edit]

Reference to the musician Jeff Buckley removed. While Buckley was associated briefly with Fluxus his contribution to Fluxus was minimal and Fluxus was only a minor influence on his career.Arevich 20:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Reference to Fluxus Archive Klaus Groh, Edewecht, Germany removed. There are no references to this archive besides mirrors of the Wikipedia article on Fluxus. It appears to be a reference to a private collection, not accessible to the public or to scholarly inquiry. Arevich (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


Is the word dissemble used correctly?

Jonas Mekas[edit]

Should the Lithuanian poet and filmmaker Jonas Mekas be included in the list of Fluxus artists? --—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

It looks that way. Badagnani 22:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Trimming artists list[edit]

  • Does anyone have any suggestions as to how to the artist/critic lists should be trimmed? Wickethewok 01:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The lists would probably look a lot better if they were laid out as tables. Arevich 01:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Ray Johnson removed. While several Fluxus artists mention Johnson as an influence, there does not seem to be any evidence that Johnson was ever a Fluxus artist himself or that he ever exhibited with them or participated with them in any Fluxus events. Johnson was also known for his fierce streak of independance and was therefore unlikely to have ever considered himself a member of Fluxus. Arevich 19:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Again for the record, he contributed to the second edition of V Tre, took part in the Water Yam festival, and spent a number of years collaborating with Brecht on mail art projects (albeit of a personal nature.) Not a big list - and he seems to be one of many artists who liked Brecht but (seriously) disliked Maciunas - but still a part of early Fluxus. Franciselliott (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

willem de ridder[edit]

Willem de Ridder is an "official" Fluxusartist, who was invited by Maciunas to join them, after they met at a Fluxusconcert in Wuppertal, Germany. After Maciunas returned to the US, De Ridder became the official Fluxus spokesman of Europe and started a Fluxshop and Mailorderhouse in Amsterdam. He is also a close friend to Nam Yune Paik.

wim schippers[edit]

added Wim T. Schippers as being part of the Fluxus group of Maciunas during the sixties. he is noted in many fluxus documents, including the "Fluxus Reader" by Ken Friedman

Help with References[edit]

Added references to an article by Dick Higgins and a book by Owen Smith which support the four point summary. I need some help with formatting the references. Can anyone clean this up? Also, the 4th point about Fluxus being fun can be supported by reference/citation to Freidman's Forty years of Fluxus article. Is a citation necessary, or is the inclusion in the bibliography and external sites sufficient? Arevich 02:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Beck Hansen[edit]

Should Beck really be on the list? He's done some visual work, obviously inspired by his grandfather, but can he be considered a Fluxus artist proper? freshacconcispeaktome 17:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Beck co-wrote a book with his grandfather about Fluxus. The artists listed are all associated with Fluxus and are not necessarily only from the first wave of Fluxus. Beck should qualify on his own merits on both counts.Arevich (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

How We Met[edit]

I added the item "How we met or a microdemystification" (which was removed by soemeone with a big list of medals) but I want to put it again on the list of selected bibliography because it is a specific contribution of Fluxus artists (AY-O, BEN, George Brecht, Robert Filliou, Dick Higgins, Joe Jones, George Maciunas, Takako Saito, Mieko Shiomi, Daniel Spoerri, Bob Watts, Emmett Williams): they tell us how they met - in reality or in "Fluxus". And it is published in 1977, that's why I have put it on the first place. The item is available at the Getty Library, at the German National Library, at the Bavarian Library etc.

  • How we met or a microdemystification [Ed. Silke Paull ; Hervé Würz], AQ 16, Saarbrücken-Dudweiler (Germany), in Engl. & German, 1977.

--E.stegentritt (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

An Anthology[edit]

The La Monte Young book referred to was not titled An Anthology of Chance Operations. The actual title began with those five words and was tremendously longer, but the book is generally referred to as An Anthology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylegann (talkcontribs) 01:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Opening Image[edit]

I think the first image on the page should be Maciunas' Manifesto; for a start, because it's central to the whole movement, but also because it gives the group a philisophical base and it goes some way to countering the whimsy that tends to get attached to the group. Copyright wise, I can't see an issue with publicising a public document intended to ignite debate. See Nouveau réalisme for a similar example. For Maciunas' 1963 original, see [2] Happy to put it up if no-one disagrees. Views?? Franciselliott (talk) 10:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mary Bauermeister[edit]

Will persons interested in Fluxus please check this query and comment I've made in relation to Mary Bauermeister. Surely there is enough knowledge around to clarify the issues and come up with reliable citations. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Marian Zazeela & Bengt af Klintberg[edit]

I removed the name Marain Zazeela because her page makes no mention of any involvement with fluxus, and i haven't found any reference to her ever being involved. Even La Monte Young was only briefly involved, and distanced himself pretty quickly. Perhaps someone would like to explain why she is on the list? And why Bengt af Klintberg is as well? For that matter, why Bob Watts isn't? I've put his name on the list myself, but it was removed. Franciselliott (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

taking jabs[edit]

Fluxus is similar in spirit to the earlier art movement of Dada, emphasizing the concept of anti-art and taking jabs at the seriousness.... taking jabs? wth? this is not encyclopedia speak

anon (talk) 01:32, 19 may 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)  
No, probably not, though depending on the exact wording of the Rush 2005 citation, it may be an appropriate locution. Have you checked this source?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Reworking the page[edit]

I'd like to start rewriting the page, and would be interested in discussing key issues;

  • Firstly, does anyone have a notable citation for the continuing relevance/existence of fluxus after Maciunas' death? I have about five (including MOMA and the codex - see [3]) that state it more-or-less stopped functioning with his death, and that any new instances such as fluxus heidelberg would be better called neo-fluxus. Watts and Patterson seem to be the only notable artists who kept the name going after 1978.
  • Secondly, how about three categories of artists involved? One, 1962-65, (up to the fallout around Stockhausen's Originale) two, 1966-78, (up to Maciunas' death) three, 79-present? I can't help feeling sorry for any art student asked to write about fluxus and trying to glean information from this page. Maciunas listed the artists he considered core members, which might be an alternative way to differentiate between George Brecht, say, and Cecil Touchon. The problem with anyone who claims to be fluxus being listed is the same as with surrealism or dada; If Breton or Tzara decided that you weren't in the club, then you simply weren't a surrealist or dada. I recently took out Barry Humphries and Saint Stupid's Day Parade from the category 'Dada'. It has seemingly become a synonym for 'slightly crazy'. Fluxus runs the same risk of being a synonym for 'artists having a laugh', which doesn't seem good enough for an encyclopedia.
  • Thirdly, the line about fluxus being 'an attitude', intermedia, simple and fun seems to describe the Marx Brothers' films, say, far better than Maciunas' Flux Smile (see [4]), Kubota's Vagina Painting (see [5]), Nam June Paik's solo for violin (see [6] for a slightly boring rendition) or Ono's Cut Piece (see [7]). Again, Maciunas talked about his ideas of 'Concrete Art', meaning physical, tangible, non-metaphorical, but it might be hard to pin down objectively. Could anyone else pin down what makes one work Fluxus, and another not? That would seem to me an entry level task for this page to achieve for it to be useful for vaguely interested passers-by. For me, Fluxus seems to have been the artistic equivalent of an independent record company- some artists such as Ono did work that was- and work that wasn't- fluxus, others went through a period of being fluxus, such as Per Kirkeby, and others got sacked for moonlighting, such as Nam June Paik.
  • In short, the rigour and aggressive anti-establishmentism of the original group has passed this article by (not to mention the explicit left wing dogma). Comments?? Franciselliott (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hai guys, what's going on in this paragraph?[edit]

Outsourcing part of the creative process to commercial fabricators was not usually part of Fluxus practice. Maciunas personally hand-assembled many of the Fluxus multiples and editions.[citation needed] While Maciunas assembled many objects by hand, he designed and intended them for mass production.[citation needed] Where many multiple publishers produced signed, numbered objects in limited editions intended for sale at high prices, Maciunas produced open editions at low prices.[citation needed] Several other Fluxus publishers produced different kinds of Fluxus editions. The best known of these was Something Else Press, a book publishing company established by Fluxus artist Dick Higgins. Something Else Press was probably the largest and most extensive Fluxus publisher, producing books in editions that ran from 1,500 copies to as many as 5,000 copies, all available at standard bookstore prices.[citation needed]

(the last paragraph of the "early fluxus" section)

I think it's really impressive that a single paragraph in the first third of an article contains a string of contradictory sentences each labeled "citation needed," but the rest of the article really doesn't live up to the promise. As someone who knows very little about art, I don't understand the controversy.

host= (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


Frankly - I see nothing wrong with RepublicanJacobite's edits. Yoko Ono and the other important Fluxus figures are still in the article; no longer in the list because repetition of their names is not necessary there. linking every time a name or word or a place turns up is unnecessary; and RJ simply removed those repetitive links; Ina Blom - needs her own article - write one perhaps and Owen Smith is the wrong fellow...Modernist (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Concerning your comment - First I do not claim to own any articles, second click on this -> Owen Smith<- this is the guy you included in the Fluxus article, if you want some other Owen Smith included then start an article about him...Modernist (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Modernist,

Thanks for your response. I didn't include the Owen Smith you cited. I simply listed the name Owen Smith, the one who wrote the book listed in the bibliography. If the UK politician of the same name was linked, this has to be a mistake of some kind -- I did not do it.

The problem with the artist list is that it doesn't reflect the membership of Fluxus, but only the leftovers. It also is not clear in the article when someone quoted or mentioned is an artist or a scholar. Mentions of the artists do not always discuss their work or contribution to Fluxus, but merely cite them in a passing quote.

If you and the others are convinced that you're doing it the appropriate Wikipedia way, I'll bow out. Two or three times, I've explained myself to Wikipedia editors that have a different view on these things. I started to make Wikipedia contributions to this article as a result of my involvement in a debate about Wikipedia that started in the New York Times. I got a letter from Jimmy Wales telling me why Wikipedia is good. Thought I'd give it a go.

One of the problems with Wikipedia for subject experts is the need to explain oneself repeatedly from people who come from different backgrounds and different discourse communities. Experienced Wikipedia editors achieve a certain kind of standing and rank with Wiki stars and awards for the number of articles and edits they've been involved in. It's impossible to tell who they are -- most use pseudonyms and few step up to say who they are or what they do for a day job. At the end of the day, the differences in style become so great that one simply can't keep up. While I accept your view, I disagree with it. But it is clear that I can't persuade you. While I appreciate the Wikipedia venture, I don't have the time to accumulate enough edits or contributions to rise in the editorial ranks. I've spoken in the past with subject field experts to ask why they don't contribute to polish the articles on which they have done serious research with strong publications in peer reviewed sources. A few people told me that the problem was that anyone could edit, change, or remove their contributions. The first two or three times one must explain the reasons for a contribution or an idea, it's OK. After a while, one feels foolish -- Wikipedia involves a great many people with opinions. Most contributors are anonymous. While many are well intentioned, there is no way to determine their subject expertise, nor to offer a proposition in terms that would make sense to scholars.

While I would not argue that the changes to my carefully developed contributions are vandalism, I would argue that the effects -- for me -- are the same. Many talk pages make a point of saying that the editors have a life and they'll answer when they can. Like the rest of you, I have other responsibilities and I don't want to allocate time to protect my contributions to Wikipedia. I've done my best to make a case. Since several Wikipedia editors seem to be voting against me, the majority wins and my career as a Wikipedian now comes to a close.

Kenfriedman0 (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Ken Friedman

The article on Fluxus has a substantial list of artists in the text and in the list. For you to get bent out of shape because Dick Higgins and some of the other figures like Paik and Yoko are only mentioned (many times I might add) in the text is a little precious on your part - I hope you don't mind me saying. The subject is fairly well covered but can definitely be improved especially by you - who was and/or is still a part of the movement. I spent hours of my afternoon today referencing and rescuing a large section of that article. I am not a part of the Fluxus movement - while you are - and still I have labored to create an article with some credibility. Whether or not you edit here is purely up to you, learning at your own speed and skill...Modernist (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Modernist,

Well, let me give it some thought. I've avoided substantive edits for a simple reason -- because I am part of the community, I have not wanted to engage in substantive edits, even in cases where the article quotes me without attribution. It feels a bit too much like writing about myself, and that's one of the things one ought not to do in Wikipedia, as I understand it. What I was happy to do was to add links, clarify lists, etc.

On the subject of lists, I don't think it's precious to argue that a list of artists or scholars functions like an index in this context. It is a finding aid, and it is different to the narrative text. No matter how many times artists or others are mentioned in the article, the list offers a ready-to-use index that people can employ to gain a swift overview or to link quickly to other entries.

Since my note earlier today, I observe that you have indeed brought clarity and improvements to the article. I appreciate your contributions. It makes for a better article.

Kenfriedman0 (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Ken Friedman

Ken - what I did today was add the word Additional to that longer list. You mention that many of those people are peripheral to the main core group. Add another list section with the heading - main Fluxus artists or the original group or just Fluxus artists, (I'll start it), and don't link them if they are already linked. I'd like you to add your expertise to the text as well, just don't talk about yourself. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Modernist, Thanks for your invitation, but the Wikipedia approach with restrictions on what to write and how (despite drawing on the scholarly literature) make it too difficult for me to contribute at this time. If you wish to drop me an email, I'll be happy to explain why. For now, I'll leave this to others. Best regards, Ken Friedman Kenfriedman0 (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Jon Hendricks[edit]

I don't have a copy of Hendricks, Jon. Fluxus Codex. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc. 1989. but I presume this contains most of his theories...Modernist (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of that book, either, but the uncited claim might also possibly occur in Hendricks, Jon, ed. Fluxus, etc.: The Gilbert and Lila Silverman Collection (Bloomfield Hills, Michigan: Cranbrook Museum of Art, 1982), or in Phillpot, Clive, and Jon Hendricks, eds. Fluxus: Selections from the Gilbert and Lila Silverman Collection (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1988). For that matter, the attribution is only contextually to Jon Hendricks; the bibliography also lists one item by Geoffrey Hendricks. It cannot be all that difficult for someone with access to these books to find a page citation for a statement by Hendricks to the effect that Fluxus was a time-limited movement.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The recent 2011 NYU show basically demonstrated that. The art movement has parameters although not as specific as stated - 1978. I'll get a catalog and check it out...Modernist (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that's all that is required, though if 1979 or 1977 is claimed as the terminal year (or more vaguely, "the 1960s and 70s"), then this should be changed as well. The real issue, of course, is that "some people" (presumably including Hendricks) claim it was a time-limited movement, while "other people" say it continued long afterward, possibly down to the present. Wikipedia, however, requires that we reveal the identities of these secret operatives.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll blow their cover when I get the catalog :)...Modernist (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
You are Julian Assange, and I claim my five pounds ;-) —Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


Hendricks has been consistent throughout his career that Maciunas' death ended fluxus; "Fluxus production ceased with George Maciunas' death, May 9, 1978." Codex, p28. Also MOMA online, "Informal international group of avant-garde artists working in a wide range of media and active from the early 1960s to the late 1970s." There is no end of authorative sources who talk about parameters of the movement. As far as i can tell, very few artists involved continued using the name afterwards either. Ono didn't, Brecht didn't, Beuys I don't think did, LaMonte Young didn't, Per Kirkeby didn't, Ay O didn't, Nam June Paik didn't, Higgins sort of did, Watts did, Patterson did, not sure about Ben. Basically, a few modern artists seem to be attempting to decide to include themselves without any particular justification that I can see. I mean, just because you played with Ringo Starr in Hamburg, doesn't make you a Beatle. More so if you decide to be a beatle because you've heard 'All You Need Is Love' and quite liked it. Franciselliott (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

What do Alison Knowles and Hannah Higgins say about fluxus post 1978?..Modernist (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Good question. There used to be an Alison Knowles website, but it seems to have been taken down. I don't have any monographs, but I found this; "There is a rich Fluxus legacy in performance that is constantly revived, and new works appear regularly in the right spirit. There are also lots of objects in plastic boxes arranged by George Maciunas that are in Detroit in the collection of Gilbert and Lila Silverman. Skuta Helgasun, an Icelandic artist living in New York, has arranged the Art in General gallery space presentations. He has gathered an amazing library of Fluxus books and catalogs to display. I think the main value of this work is to transform our daily actions into art actions and thereby transform both. Fluxus uses found things and daily utilitarian things like spoons, apples, and a ladder. The importance is to put a focus on the ordinary activities of our lives in contrast to the huge spectacle art pieces we often see in museums and galleries, which is part of the drive to commodify art. Fluxus has just a different value system.' 2001, from so that would be a straight yes. Hannah Higgins has a book on Fluxus that I've read, but I don't think I still have.... but since she was 14 or so when Maciunas died- and her dad had had a very public falling out with Maciunas just after her birth, I'm not sure where to place her view. One of the things that struck me about the fluxus page a year or two ago, was how much it had been hi-jacked by modern artists who neither understood the history or the agenda. Most of the original artists started their own groups which moved in and out of Maciunas' orbit; Brecht and Watt's Yam, Higgins' Something Else, Johnson's Correspondence School, Vostell's Dé/Collage, the Beau Geste Press etc etc which have for the most part been forgotten, I would tend to the view that Fluxus was a particular brand in a crowded scene, and the only one that has really stuck. Since it was controlled very closely by Maciunas, I've taken his views as the starting point, especially the notion of the Fluxus copyright. In this regard, I think it's a lot like Surrealism's tight control by Breton. Unfortunately, like Conceptual art and Surrealism, Fluxus seems to have become a catch-all term for 'anything a bit quirky' which strips it of any real power. In the words of the Incredibles, if everybody is fluxus, then no-one is. I appreciate that this is a vexed topic. Any views welcome. Franciselliott (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Before this re-writing, I've been asking lots of artists in London about Fluxus, and nobody ever really knows anything about it. I'd really like this page to be a portal into all sorts of profound unsettling ideas, and to be a launch pad into links with all sorts of avant-garde places within and without wikipedia, from Spoerri and Roth to Higgins and Ono. Providing a framework to be able to contextualise fluxus wouldn't hurt. A good history seems the obvious first step. Franciselliott (talk) 08:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
My take is that Fluxus is an historical movement that still lives in the hands of some of the original participants; with the proviso and understanding of how things have so profoundly changed in the art world since the 1950s and 1960s. Yoko Ono as one example is an artist who has gone from being a relatively unknown performance artist to international celebrity; Yayoi Kusama too has gone from being a performance artist on the fringe to center stage; as well as others. The acceptability and popularity of their work belies the radical premises of the initial Fluxus moment. The Happening movement as well has been historicised, written about, documented and canonized; and has lost its avant-garde credential today by becoming an acceptable part of the mainstream. I mentioned Alison Knowles because she's one of the few in whose hands the movement still lives. Good work so far!..Modernist (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

NYU Catalog of Fluxus and the Essential Questions of Life[edit]

The NYU exhibition contains works from the early 60s through the late 70s with a few works by Ken Friedman and Geoffrey Hendricks dating into the early to the mid-1980s. The latest listed works in the show are by Friedman from 1986, and Jean Dupuy from 1988. The earliest piece is by Yoko Ono dated 1955. The exhibition featured 116 works by major Fluxus artists. The catalog has essays by Hannah Higgins, Jacquelynn Bass (editor of the catalog), Ken Friedman, and Jacob Proctor. Jon Hendricks curator of the Silverman collection is mentioned in the text. Concerning Fluxus as an art movement - it is at full force throughout the 60s and 70s, by the mid-80s it seems to have petered out. However in the practice of several artists it continues to this day. Ken Friedman's essay Fluxus: A Laboratory of Ideas cites this short definition of Fluxus - as written by Dick Higgins in 1966,

Fluxus is not:

–––a moment in history, or
–––an art movement.

Fluxus is:

–––a way of doing things,
–––a tradition, and
–––a way of life and death.

Dick Higgins, Modernism since Postmodernism 1997, p. 160

Adding a bit[edit]

I'm adding a few bits to the history section, and was primarily wondering if anyone knows if the illustrated version of an anthology was widely available, or (as seems more likely to me) a one-off prototype that ubuweb got hold of??? Also, any views on classic examples of multiples, performances, and art to illustrate the article? I'm happy to upload more or less anything.... ideas?? --Franciselliott (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

List of significant fluxus people[edit]

This is clearly one of the most contentious issues here; I have a list compiled by Ken Friedman of 33 artists that seems to be pretty inclusive (Fluxus and the essential questions of life, p36); he based it on researching the names that kept cropping up in exhibitions on fluxus. In my opinion a few less important artists, and a few already mentioned in the text can be taken out, such as Vostell, but since this is an encyclopedia and Mr Friedman is an authority, I suppose they should stay. Names that are on the current list that would be lost include a number mentioned in the text, such as Charlotte Moorman and Ray Johnson, which seems OK; they can be looked up through in-line links. I'd keep Carolee Schneeman, too, but her involvement seems mainly limited to Fluxshoe. I think a separate list post 1978 of people who have been influenced or continued as Fluxish should be added. Friedman's list, then, is this;

I would add de Ridder because of his importance in Europe. If anyone has anyone else to add, or indeed has any views on Friedman's list, could they cite the reason for including/dismissing them HERE; please include citations of flux events that they were involved in.Franciselliott (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Charlotte Moorman should be included - period - end of story, [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]...Modernist (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion Carolee Schneeman, Ray Johnson can stay as well; the historical record does not belong only to Friedman, by the 70s there were all kinds of bickering and backbiting as to who mattered, who was too commercial, who was over, and who wasn't...Modernist (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
This is the crux though, isn't it?? What was fluxus? A collective, an attitude, a brand or an approach?? Johnson seems to have hated Maciunas, and only contributed to V TRe of all the official flux things; Schneeman may or may not have been involved in Fluxshoe, but so was Genesis P Orridge and Helen Chadwick, who are never considered Fluxus per se. Gilbert and George were fare more fluxus-y, but weren't involved in fluxshoe as far as I know, and are never considered part of th emovement. I don't think fluxus can be expected to carry the weight of all 60s conceptual art. No???Franciselliott (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
As for Moorman, again, she was never part of the group. She was associated with Paik, who was kicked out of the group in part for associating with her. Links are tangential, and discussed in the text Franciselliott (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Haven't been through all of the links, but [17] is just a mirror site Franciselliott (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting discussion of these ideas, confirming Schneeman's involvement as well, here Franciselliott (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Moorman and Paik were part of Fluxus when it counted - her ass was on the line; she was included in the shows as seen above - who do you think you are? Moorman was thrown out of the group because she pissed someone off and now you are taking her out of the history? Sorry but no, she stays...Modernist (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
To be clear I am not talking about Gilbert & George, I am not talking about all 60s Conceptual art, I am talking about Charlotte Moorman - who will stay in this article...Modernist (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm trying to ask for various viewpoints. I'm not throwing anyone out of anything. I haven't found any actual reference to a specific work that Moorman did as part of fluxus. If you know better, that's great. None of the above links seem to detail anything specific. Of the links, 16 is a wiki mirror, Manystuff includes pieces by lots of artists inc Duchamp and Rauschenberg, Everything2 is non-specific and factually incorrect, the moma link states 'Charlotte Moorman, who, if you consult the primary source documents and period press coverage, isn't even listed as an "official" member of Fluxus.' artist organized art is non-specific too. I'm expecting a certain amount of vitriol for daring to contribute to this page, but for the time being at least, I would think that the page deserves better debate than 'her ass was on the line'. Why do you think you can decide unilaterally who stays?? Franciselliott (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Secondly, I'm not 'taking her out of the history'. I've just written a paragraph specifically about her. She was not 'thrown out of the group because she pissed someone off', because she was never in the group. As far as I can tell, she never participated in the Fluxfests in Germany, she didn't take part in any Canal Street performances. She didn't publish any Fluxkits, her work wasn't sold in any mailorder FluxShop, she didn't tour Britain as part of Fluxshoe. She didn't join the Flux-Harpsichord Concert, Berlin 1976. If you know of a specific event that she contributed to, please share. Otherwise, or indeed as well as, please remember Wikipedia:Civility Franciselliott (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I've just supplied you with 9 references - referencing her as a Fluxus artist and you are choosing to maintain your limited view - you want civility? You gotta have it to get it...Modernist (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Read this WP:OWN - was Beuys in any Canal Street performances? Does everyone on Friedman's list referenced to specific works or are there grey areas? Like Friedman claims to have had his first solo show in New York City in 1966 - when he was 16? or 17? can you prove that with a valid reference that's not just his bio? Can you specifically document everyone on your list? The Moma link speaks volumes the vagueness is your problem; my understanding is Maciunas didn't like her; for what it's worth I crossed #16 out, although here's another link [18] and another [19], and another [20], and another [21] and another [22] see WP:Duck...Modernist (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Beuys was instrumental in setting up the early fluxfest at Dusseldorf, and performed there. Everyone on the list can easily be verified, yes. I'm not sure the relevance of Friedman's first show, but he made a number of fluxkits that can be seen in the codex. Everyone on the list is documented as being involved in a specific fluxus events or fluxkit. I'm well aware that Moorman performed with Paik, and that Paik performed with fluxus; however, he didn't perform with her at fluxus events. The question then, is, can Paik's work after he'd been expelled be still seen as fluxus? Similarly, can Brecht's art gallery shows be seen as Fluxus? What about Christo's tents?? These are serious issues, yet you seem severely threatened by the questions. She is not mentioned on the MOMA fluxus page, she is not listed as a fluxist in 'Fluxus and the Essential Questions of Life'. She is not mentioned in the Codex. She was not included in any Fluxus anthology, from Fluxus 1 to the Flux Cabinet. Fluxus is not mentioned on the Tate website that discusses her collaborations with paik As for your links; [22] talks about a gallerist after 1985 'showing exclusively Fluxus, concept art, mail art, and performance art.' [21] talks about the same gallery, after 1982. Not perhaps a trusty source, or even an unambiguous statement. [20]'s only mention of Moorman is 'Charlotte Moorman at the 24-hour Happening at Galerie Parnass, Wuppertal, 1965.' Not a fluxus event. [19] is a german broadcast, and I'm not quite sure what is said, but the footage of moorman seems to come from New York, 1964 ish, perhaps at the avant garde festival premiere of originale, also not a fluxus event. [18] is a listing for a modern film screening. Hardly a good source, or a verifiable printed one. I don't think googling 'moorman' and 'fluxus' repeatedly is a particularly useful line of approach. If you can find a verifiable printed source listing her inclusion in a specific fluxus event, then fine, she deserves to be included. It is delightful to be talking ducks with you, but if you don't want to engage with the questions of parameters that this article demands then there isn't much point continuing this discussion. Franciselliott (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Here's another one [23] - You don't seem to understand that Moorman, Schneeman, Paik, Christo, and a lot of others - and (in my opinion) Kusama as well - participated and underscore the force of the movement. Those artists appear or their work appears or has appeared in many important Fluxus exhibitions and their works have been collected in that context. Like Breton who excommunicated various artists from Surrealism; Maciunas seems to have done the same; however Roberto Matta is still considered a surrealist even though Breton excommunicated him...Modernist (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Giuseppe Chiari[edit]

If another Giuseppe Chiari besides Giuseppe Bartolomeo Chiari was a Fluxus artist then please make an article first. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, i see. It will take a while. Mc6097 (talk)
Take your time - I'm sure User:Franciselliott - click here - talk - will help you...Modernist (talk) 22:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I see your last revision. Thanks. For the time being, the link to that celebration concert is very fine. I hope to be able to write a entire entry in a few weeks. Mc6097 (talk)


Someone knows "wikifluxus"? What about Angelo Orazio Pregoni... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

See [article.] Ralohmann (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal (Fluxus at Rutgers)[edit]

Propose that Fluxus at Rutgers University be merged into Fluxus. There's not enough independent material there to really warrant a separate article, and I think that the content there can easily be introduced here. Another idea would be to rename "Fluxus at Rutgers University" to something that captures the full scope of the history of avant-garde art at Rutgers, since it wasn't just Fluxus (Lichtenstein was there, for instance). Also, this article is much more authoritative and much better ref'd. Even though there was already some discussion about this at Talk:Fluxus at Rutgers University, I'm starting a new discussion here because that article seems to have very little attention. Brian heim composer (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support merge - doesn't need a separate article — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Art at Rutgers may merit its own article, but Fluxus at Rutgers doesn't. Bangabandhu (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think this is accurate. While Allan Kaprow was affiliated with Rutgers University, the merger of Fluxus and Rutgers University oversimplifies the separate movement in which Kaprow and the other Fluxus members were involved. For future readers, I think that there is enough material to separate the two. Those who seek to merge the two are simply not digging deep enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No Need A merger is not warranted. Such a merger of articles would be historically accurate. Fluxus was not established at Rutgers nor anchored in Rutgers University. Rutgers University and the Rutgers University artists are significant in their own right. Even so, only three or four Fluxus artists of several dozen major figures had any direct connection to Rutgers. There are now nearly one hundred major books and exhibition catalogs on Fluxus and Fluxus artists, along with several hundred PhD dissertations, and thousands of art historical and critical articles. There are nearly one dozen major collections dedicated specifically to Fluxus at major museums around the world. This includes four in the United States: the Museum of Modern Art, the Hood Museum of Art, the University of Iowa, and the Getty Institute. In Europe, there are major collections at Stadtsgalerie Stuttgart (Germany), The Tate Gallery Archives (London), and the Henie Onstad Art Centre (Oslo, Norway). This article may require expansion, but Fluxus warrants a specific article, not a merger. Rosensnamn (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC) Rosensnamn