Fluxus Response

This article definitely deserves its title. This article was written in a way for a child to understand it. It was an amusing break from the more scholarly written articles I have been reading. The lamen terminology made me chuckle a little bit while reading and kept me interested in the writing, despite its writing style.

I like the background on how fluxus gained its foot hold in society and how it upset the “standards.” As the article put it, fancy people did not like these fluxus items because there was no monetary gain to be had and everything was simple and undermining the work of “real artists.” One segment I read that got me thinking was the section about the fluxus imitators and how one tea cup is fluxus, the art of life, while a hundred tea cups is art.

Nam Jun Paik was listed in the beginning as an original fluxus artist. I was reminded of his works with television sculptures; creating the massive tower of televisions or creating a giant image with the screens of hundreds of televisions. Yet, by the definition of fluxus imitators, provided by the reading, some of his works follow the criteria; hundred of televisions to create a sculpture, taking out the essence of everyday life art and creating actual art. So was he an actual fluxus artist? Or an imitator? Or was he both? I know this was written for a child to understand and the fluxus imatator concept may have been dumbed down, but it is still an interesting aspect to ponder, based on this reading.

Overall, fluxus is definitely an important aspect to have in our society. It reminds us of the little things in life and the beauty of simplicity. Something does not have to be extravagant or lavish to be beautiful. Beauty can be as simple as a teacup, just like the reading suggests.