Anti-Art…categorized as art? [Fluxus.]

Fluxus, when I first heard of it, was something I thought I would never be interested in, partly because the idea seemed too contradicting, and the philosophy behind it (at that moment to me) seemed to go around in circles. It was suppose to go against art, but at the same time, it was art itself. So even if the artist was trying to relieve himself from that realm of categorization, it seemed like he was always stuck there, behind this perception, that people on the outside would always view it as art. But today after visiting the Grey Art Gallery, it really did open up my eyes about the Fluxus movement. Even though the visual art sense behind it didn’t really change my opinion, the philosophy and the thought process behind it really amazed me, because it’s very difficult for art (especially visual art) to make their viewers think about their own opinions, not just about that piece, but instead a whole spectrum of controversial topics. Of course art can have religion, politics and social etiquette involved, but with the Fluxus movement, I was especially interested in Ben Vautier’s Fluxbox Containing God, because it was subtle on his part about the meaning, but at the same time, people could interpret it anyways they wanted, due to their lifestyles (especially if they are religious/non religious). I’m not a very religious person, so what I thought of the piece was that there’s this good visual of religion itself that people seem to see (which would be concurrent with the Bible, as portrayed by the Victorian picture on the box), but yet the box is glued. Which I think means that people who follow religion really don’t understand the core of religion because it’s something that’s impossible to learn, but yet people paint a picture for themselves (and essentially some guidelines) to help them deal with the mysteries. And people can never open this box and find out if God is really in the box, which is analogous to people having faith and believing even if they aren’t exactly seeing.

Another piece that I was interested by was the piece by Robert Watts, because it really did demonstrate the role changing in American society and how women were beginning to receive the same roles as men were, and that was very innovative and liberal at that time period, especially with the medium that Watts was using, which was essentially underwear. It really did take “She wears the pants in the family” to a whole new level. Even though I didn’t exactly agree with the art work, visually, I completely understood and agreed with Watt’s thoughts on sexuality in America and the exchanging of roles, as demonstrated by the cross dressing etc.

And my favorite part of the whole exhibit was the Event score, which was very open-ended and I thought it was so unique that an artist would give up his own power to visually impact you, and instead he’ll use his words so that you can create art to impact yourself. And I thought it was so liberal, because usually artists are very particular about what they put their own names to, but for the event score, it was all up to you, and I would have never thought of art to be so interactive, but at the same time individualistic. It was very neat.

I’m actually very glad that I went to the exhibit because the art really did convey a deeper meaning, but at the same time it was mixed with humor, wittiness and subtleties. It wasn’t exactly planned out, and I loved how it represented ordinary life, instead of painting picturesque pieces, because even if we don’t necessarily agree with the art work, it does relate to use one way or another, whether through everyday clocks, or doors that keep us safe, it holds a meaning to one person, that is only unique to that one person.