Due to how this article was written it is a very easy read. It is extremely formal which makes comprehension easier. Such statements as "Oh well, you have to expect that kind of thing" really give the feeling of a face to face conversation. Normally such formal writing is discouraged, at least in modern day schooling; However, it does, obviously, have it’s place. Did Dick Higgens, the author of A Child’s History of Fluxus, normally wright in such a formal manner, of did he choose to do so specifically for a reason? It can be inferred, since he was an avid Fluxus member, that he not necessarily rejected the seriousness and formalness of high society, but instead chose a path that better fit him and his agenda - change.
"Flux", as used in this article confused me. I understand the definition of the word but rather the connotation pertaining to the art itself (in other words, what defines art as flux). Towards the beginning of the article Higgens describes the art though a passage
"Hey! - coffee cups can be more beautiful than fancy sculptures. A kiss in the morning can be more dramatic than a drama by Mr. Fancypants. The sloshing of my foot in my wet boot sounds more beautiful than fancy organ music" (Higgens 1979).
However, it still seems vague. Though it is true that one revered aspect of art is its openness for interpretation. The article may have benefitted from more examples of pieces and better descriptions of the concerts. The article was without doubt interesting. The time line painted from conception to infinity of Flux is well done an adds much to the understanding of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment