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.

Visiting the Fluxus exhibit today was a new experience for me. I thought it was very enjoyable and unique, and I’ve never actually seen any art like it before. The tour made me question what art really is. In my own opinion, I don’t think many of the displays are actually “art,” or at least the type of art that normally comes to mind. For example, the “10-Hour Flux Clock,” with 10 hours instead of 12, is just a clock that someone reinvented. Anyone could have done that, but Robert Watts took action and did. He went against conventional art and, like all the Fluxus artists, did something new. Most of the art found in the exhibit was odd to me and made me question what the artists were trying to convey. It also made me realize that ANYTHING can be art. My favorite part of the whole exhibit was the event scores because viewers can interpret them however they choose and allow their imaginations to run wild without anyone telling them they are wrong. I also thought the “Fluxbox Containing God” was a very thought-provoking piece. We look at God as beyond our reach and I think Ben Vautier exposed that well. Our tour guide said, when a person is given the box, they tend to examine and then try to open it, but are unable to because it is glued shut. I think it relates to our relationship with God, because although we do have a connection to him, we can never fully understand, or see him. I also thought the “Revealing Fact” was interesting. It had a thermometer in the middle of a box and the words “good person” and “bad person” on opposite sides. I’m not sure what Jock Reynolds was trying to express, but I believe that the temperature on the thermometer would determine whether or not you were a good or bad person. All of the artwork I looked at, I interpreted in my own way, which I thought made the experience more fun. Instead of just looking at the artwork, the viewer is able to become a part of its meaning. I think art can often be boring, but Fluxus brought on a new set of emotions. Although it is different and unconventional, and some of it doesn’t look like art at all, it makes you think and question many things. I like the fact that the Fluxus artists did something new and didn’t follow the same, mundane rules of typical art.

"The twists and turns of Blues music."

Thursday was a hectic day for all of us. After ending classes late in the afternoon, we had to immediately rush to the Macaulay Honors College Building before the Meet the Artists event began at 6:00. Upon arrival, we signed in before proceeding to the second floor, where the event was held. The event focused on the two documentaries produced by Lee Quinby, a professor at the Macaulay Honors College and Daniel Cowen, a recent graduate, the problems that occur during filmmaking, and how behooving it is to work on projects with others.

One of the documentaries, “Facing the Waves,” was centered on Bobby Vaughn, an entrepreneur who established the FTW surf store in the Rockaways after founding the Von Dutch clothing line and leaving behind a past plagued with gangs and violence, and how he transitioned from his old life to his new life. Even though Bobby Vaughn maintained a “bad boy persona,” he revealed the positive aspects of his personality, in that he was willing to go through the court system, therapy and counseling to regain custody of his son, and helping the Rockaway community by starting up surfing camps for the youth. According to the filmmakers, several filming issues were encountered; Bobby was jumping around, drinking the night before shootings, etc. Also, their diligence is epitomized by how they were able to cut ten hours of footage to make a nineteen minute long documentary.

The other documentary, “True Delta,” was based on Blues music, an indigenous folk music in the Mississippi Delta that could “make someone happy and sad,” and the struggle to keep it alive by passing it down to the next generation. What makes it a struggle is the fact that the new generation may carry out the Blues genre differently because of the changing times and how nowadays, there aren’t as much hardships as there once was. The Blues legends emphasized the positive impact that Blues music has had on the community, by giving the youth something to do besides committing crimes, and helping to unite people. Also, I noticed how there were many river and water scenes. According to the filmmakers, the main purpose of these scenes was to relate the twist and turns of the Mississippi River with the twist and turns of Blues music.

Both documentaries impressed me because the storytelling in each film was done excellently, in that the transitions between scenes were done so smoothly, such that it was relatively easy to understand what was going on, and each film’s picture quality was good, despite the limited amount of resources used by the filmmakers. It was fascinating how the camera shots usually started from the feet and slowly moved upwards to build people’s characters. I was surprised at the amount of time dedicated to producing these two films and the numerous valuable skills acquired, including patience, developing an interview style, listening and silencing oneself, keeping the camera rolling for that one sudden incredible shot, etc. Jonathan Safran Foer’s novel Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close could be related to the documentaries presented, in that they all discuss and convey how people and things adjust to the changing times and surroundings.