An Analysis of Fluxus Composition TechniquesVincentWJ 2007 0. Introduction The main focus of this article will be on a specific subcategory of Fluxus output, namely Fluxus performances, or the so-called “event scores”. These event scores have been preserved mainly due to the effords of Ken Friedman, who collected the majority of them in the Fluxus Performance Workbook (henceforth, FPW)1. The main part of this article will consider the different compositional methods used in a subset of the Fluxus event scores, illustrated with ample use of examples and quotations. I will claim that many structures are immediately derivative from classical/modernist compostion techniques. 0.1 Early Fluxus & its Aesthetic Principles Fluxus is derived from the Latin verb “to flow” and brings into mind Heraclites’ doctrine that man can never step into the same river twice. Fluxus started to be organized around 1962 by George Maciunas (1931-1978), a Lithuanian-born American artist. Many other artists involved, such as George Brecht, Jackson Mac Low and Dick Higgins had followed or were influenced by John Cage’s Experimental Composition classes at the New School for Social Research in New York City, many of which did not have any formal education in music at all. It is mainly accepted, though often contested, that the main Fluxus period (Early Fluxus) ended with the death of George Maciunas in 1978, although many artists have kept on using the denomination and even artists bron after that period have entitled themselves “Fluxus”. George Maciunas releases together with an inventory of official Fluxus artists the official definition of “Fluxus art-amusement”, as opposed to “Art” in 19652. Notice that the juxtaposition of the “Fluxus art-amusement” definition and “Art” is already in itself a compositional method. By juxtaposing the two definitions (whilst simultaneously giving a defitition of “Art”!), Maciunas opens up a metanarrative on the relation between mainstream art and Fluxus, and by doing so, points to the conceptual space in which many of the Fluxus event scores take place; the metanarrative of this definition is similar to the metanarrative in which Fluxus performances find their structure, and in this sense it is not the literal definition of “Fluxus art-amusement” that Maciuans proposes below, that counts, but the space in which the conflict between the two defintions happens that is of value to my 1 From http://www.performance-research.net/pages/epublications.html#fluxus Fluxus Perfomance Workbook (2002), eds. Friedman, K., Smith, O. & Sawchyn, L. 2 Mr. Fluxus (1997), eds. Williams, E & Noël Ann, Thames and Hudson Ltd, London, p.88 concerned with insignificances. inspired. have no commodity or institutional value. significant. and texts to create new combinations of objects. He must demonstrate that no one but the artist can do art. Notice also that the form and socio-historical context of a “definition” conflict with the claims put forward in that same definition. pretentious. FLUXUS ART-AMUSEMENT To establish artist’s non-professional status in society. Again. images. It is the fusion of Spike Jones. Therefore. art is made to appear rare. sounds. amusing. The value of art-amusement must be lowered by making it unlimited. parasitic and elite status in society. profound. theatrical.org/wiki/Fluxus and other sources. If it isn’t fun.wikipedia. He must demonstrate that anything can be art and anyone can do it. He must demonstrate artist’s indispensability and exclusiveness. Fluxus is intermedia. It strives for the monostructural and nontheatrical qualities of a simple natural event. and the performances are brief Fluxus should be fun.analysis. This formulation by Maciunas has been generally adapted and eventually boiled down to five charateristics by scholars and other Fluxus artists alike3: 0 0 0 Fluxus is an attitude. skillfull. art-amusement must be simple. images and texts. . The art is small. massproduced. Fluxus should be simple. gag. Fluxus creators like to mix things up. It must appear to be valuable as commodity so as to provide the artist with an income. Fluxus like to see what happens when different media intersect. not a movement or a style. Therefore. He must demonstrate the dependability of audience upon him. serious. He must demonstrate artist’s dispensability and inclusiveness. To raise its value (artist’s income and patron’s profit). unpretentious. sounds. Fluxus art-amusement is the rear-guard without any pretention or urge to participate in the competition of “one-upmanship” with the avant-garde. the juxtaposition of the two definitions succesfully cancels and surpasses this morphological problem. Vaudeville. children’s games and Duchamp. 0 0 Notice that the interplay between Maciunas’ original defintions4 has now been lost and replaced by a rigid five-point definition. limited in quantity and therefore obtainable and accessible only to the social elite and institutions. which somehow clashes with its 3 From http://en. intellectual. ART To justify artist’s professional. reuiqre no skill or countless rehearsals. He must demonstrate the selfsufficiency of the audience. the texts are short. a game or gag. it isn’t Fluxus. obtainable by all and eventually produced by all. They use found and everyday objects. art must appear to be complex. the editor of the FPW. Whereas Maciunas talks about the “monostructural and nontheatrical qualities of a simple. 5 It would be beyond the scope of this article to analyze the concept of simplicity heren but elucidating excerpts from John Maeda’s Laws of Simplicity can be found at is homepage: http://lawsofsimplicity. Köln. 6 Godfrey. T. and clearing the way for the conceptual art movement. mainly because some of the most eyecatching features of the movement. Also. a close analysis of the resemblences is beyond the scope of this article. are presumably best analyzed from these perspectives. objets trouvés/musique concrète. or stand in a complex relation with art (history). too complex and multiple to fit into the simple outlines of contemporary art. Ken Friedman.g. They might have one or several aspects.”7 Although the events themselves might not have the “revolutionary potential”. few Fluxus events had more revolutionary potential than a stampcollecting convention. neo-dadaism. 12 . dadaist performances and language games are explored within the dense output of the Fluxus movement. p. the body of Fluxus work is much more diverse. social criticism. which adhere to these qualities. We have to conclude that. space and action. p. natural event. #4 generalizes this to “Fluxus art should be simple”5. there was not much innovation in Fluxus performance art.104 7 Fluxus Virus (1992). but many have a considerable compositional complexity. Unfortunately.”6 Other authors contrarily claim that “Fluxus was always a phenomenon on its own. Fluxus has been analyzed within art history from a sociopolitical or arthistorical perspective. Fluxus also does fit 4 Note that Maciunas’ presentation method of the manifesto. In this sense.com/category/laws?order=ASC. e. thus opening up possibilities that had never existed before.. Fluxus performances are not generally small.”. In my opinion. Many aspects of classical performances.content. short or brief. characteristic #4 seems to me a gross generalization of the subtle statement Maciunas makes on simplicity. However. which has frequently compelled critics to put forth claims such as “[…]. As I will illustrate below. classical composition techniques were translated into the space of the concept. Conceptual Art (1998). but a lot of play. the semantic space that is probed and researched in the event compositions has indeed shed a bright new light on the linguistic organization of time. despite the claims made for them by [George] Maciunas […].2 Approaches to Fluxus Mainly. is precursive to Derrida’s masterpiece Glas (1974). 0. game or gag. juxtaposition. when he writes the event score: Ken Friedman – Fluxus is Dead (1989) Send someone the smallest sculpture you own. realizes this defect later on his career. which juxtaposed texts by/on Hegel and Genet. Galerie Schüppenhauer. complex and incoherent. or have produced only a few Fluxus pieces. This article does not aim to consider the sociopolitical context of the Fluxus movement in the compositional analysis. the compositional methods that have largely been used. p. György Ligeti. Moreover. amongst others.3 The Fluxus Performance Workbook As mentioned above. Although the intention of the movement might be analyzed as anti-art-establishment. are highly influenced by tools and structures employed in the history of music and performance. It must be noted that the FPW itself is considered part of the Fluxus output and therefore not historically neutral: many artists that were related to Fluxus. Finally. However. the following analysis of Fluxus pieces follows the indexation from the FPW. Academy Editions. 8 Quote from: The Fluxus Reader (1998). and is therefore most suited for the survey that I will be undertaking on the compositional methods employed by Fluxus artists. whereas Scandinavian Fluxus-related artists such as Bengt af Klingberg. only to be applied to a different domain: the domain of concepts. the FPW offers the most comprehensive and organized collection of Fluxus performances. on equal level and without content. such as Emmett Williams’ famous elocution “Fluxus is what Fluxus does – but no one know whodunit.viii . In this sense. and not about the artworks produced. is nothing more than a metacompositional statement about the movement and the community. such as composers from the Darmstadt school. Fluxus is revolutionary in opening up a completely new domain for the arts. one equally doesn’t consider Catholic religion when formally analysing counterpoint technique in medieval motets.”8. which have been “expelled” from Fluxus by George Maciunas nonetheless are included. The claim from the movement itself that all artworks are alike.. K. ed Friedman. This is truly an important gesture and is definitely worth more analysis than this concise paper is able to give. I disagree with denotation of Fluxus as “anti-art”. I will claim. this is not a paper that deals with questions such as “what is beautiful?” or “what is art?”. which in itself is immediate descendent of the Fluxus scores. West Sussex UK. these types of claims have lead critics to reduce the whole body of work to “Fluxus whimsy”.in into “the outlines of contemporary art”: Fluxus helped to define and develop them. It deals quite straightforwardly with the question “what is a well-constructed Fluxus composition and how is it constructed?”. have not been included in the corpus. Although this context is quintessential to grasp the “feel” of this movement. 0. the content is stressed instead of form and composition. In a general sense. a theme can be recognized and defined by those restrictions. 1. Moreover. a sonata by Chopin is more or less restrictive on time (duration. propositions. and similarly serve as a connection. propositions or instructions. which causes an information overload with the performer. Theme and variation structures have been present in Western music history ever since medieval music. more specifically those on the variations. as a source of creativity and uniqueness. which extrapolate one of the main compositional forms in classical composition – theme & variation – into the realm of concepts and ideas. Fluxus performances play with the categories of restriction. shared nature of the theme and variations. within the conceptual space left by the restrictions. Length and rhythm are restrictions in time. It is exactly this conceptual space that is stretched and explored within the context of restrictions different from and transcending traditional notions of rhythm and harmony. length). This broader application of restriction as I will use it means defining the borders of concepts such as time. but very restrictive on medium (piano).According to the introduction of FPW. tonality and keynotes are restrictions in tonal material. the composer is free to play with the thematic material. medium. These restrictions. The Ready-Made is the most concrete thing. building blocks of this melody. harmony and tonality are variable. A variation is related to the original melody by several keynotes and length. while composers such as Ferneyhough use severe restriction. etc. George Brecht and Ben Vautier extended it to Ready- . Early serial works by Stockhausen or Boulez are very restrictive on nearly all parameters. which are already present in theme itself. harmony. and provides a first guideline for an in depth aesthetical analysis. velocity (rhythm). Thus. it means the opposite of abstraction. noise. an “event tends to be scored in brief verbal notations. Thus. puts forth the following claim: “Concertism is a simple term. in movement-internal analyses of Brecht’s and others’ Fluxus pieces. a variation on a theme is constrained by parameters. for example. they are proposals. John Cage extended it to Ready-Made sound. space.” This analysis focuses on the external (linguistic/semantic) form of the Fluxus performances. and instructions. provide a focus on the underlying melody and the main concepts. Theme & Variations The first analysis will focus on several works by George Brecht. they are sometimes known as proposal pieces. However. These notes are known as event scores. and the restriction of restriction itself. George Maciunas. number of performers. velocity. whereas rhythm. and. For example. the vessel (the bell of a French horn or tuba). but is more specific on the number of performers (two). (1994) Neo-Dada. outside the Fluxus movement. This is also stated by artists from the same period. which can either be a proposal “let’s do some dripping”. New York. Hodges. Khambatta.”9 What Maciunas ignores is. S. Drip Music. George Brecht wrote several other sets of pieces consisting of one thematic version (like Drip Music.. Cambridge UK. the source of the water (pitcher).”11 George Brecht – Drip Music (1959) For single or multiple performance. Similarly to the the Drip Music pieces. George Brecht – Drip Music. Second Version) and one more constricted variation (fluxversion). (1994) Dada and Fluxus. or a proposition “it is stated that there is dripping”. George Brecht – Drip Music. eds. Drip Music. Universe Publishing. Second Version (1959) Dripping. N. Second Version contains a verb. like turning on the light. Both the active creation of a dripping event as in Drip Music and a passive “objet trouvé” type of dripping.. Fluxversion 1 sets the most parameters for a performance and is in that sense the most restricted of the three Drip Music pieces. Fluxversion 1 (1959) First performer on a tall ladder pours water from a pitcher very slowly into the bell of a French horn or tuba held in the playing position by a second performer at floor level. Drip Music. can constitute successful performances. R. These three pieces from the early Fluxus period give already a broad illustration of the compositional methods used in performance pieces. 11 Quote from: Johnston. Drip Music contains several instructions. All three pieces fit into the description outlined above. J. Trentham. 9 Quote from: Fluxus Today and Yesterday (1993). rain. the form is dictated by classical principles10. p. that although the content of many of the Fluxus performance pieces may be “Ready-Made”.8 10 One can see an interesting parallel with Maciunas’s treatment of “definition” in the case of his Fluxus art-amusement definition. talking about a performance: “[…]. A source of dripping water and an empty vessel are arranged so that the water falls into the vessel. e. in: Hapgood. for Fluxus actions became as methodical as Cage in their means of production. Observe: George Brecht – Word Event (1961) Exit.g.VCH Publishers. L. in playing position) and duration (very slowly). position (on a tall ladder. such as Jill Johnston..Made actions.94 . p. Fluxversion 1 contains similar instructions. which is a linguistic method occasionaly used in Fluxus performances in order to access the conceptual space complementary to the common preformance praxis. Brecht uses these fluxversions to explore the variety of possible interpretations of the thematic piece in terms of restrictions on one or more of its aspects. Performer enters stage with an instrument case. . Drum with something you have never drummed with before. places it on a stand. The thematic version is very straightforward in its description. Fluxversion 1 (1961) The audience is instructed to leave the theatre. where the opposition saxophone/trumpet caused a similar solution from contradiction/negation. The expression of the performance within language however. George Brecht – For a Drummer. George Brecht – Saxophone Solo. And: George Brecht – Saxophone Solo (1962) Trumpet. opens it and pulls out a trumpet. the fluxversion is more restrictive than the thematic version. One or both of the complementary conceptual spaces that are presented in the thematic version are explored in the seven fluxversions. In both abovementioned cases. The two restrictions are formulated as a negative restriction. George Brecht – For a Drummer (For Eric) (1966) Drum on something you have never drummed on before. A similar formulation was already implicitly present in Saxophone Solo. An elaborate example is the series For a Drummer for which he designs seven Fluxversions. Notice that negation is primarily and uniquely a linguistic operation.George Brecht – Word Event. there is no such thing – except for an occasional “do not hurry!” in a sonata – as formal negation in classical music. realizes the mistake. puts it quickly back in the case and exits. Fluxversion 1 (1966) Performer drums with drum sticks or drum brushes over the surface of wet mud or thick glue until brushes or sticks get stuck and can’t be lifted. Therefore negation presents a revolutionary tool in the realm of composition. does offer this novel possibility. Fluxversion 1 (1962) The piece is announced. Fluxversion 5 (1966) Performer dribbles a ping-pong ball between hand-held racket and drum skin. Not only George Brecht used this compositional method. In FPW there one can track . Fluxversion 4 (1966) Performer drums over drums with rolled newspaper until the rolls disintegrate. All three performances are to be done with common drumming equipment (sticks/brushes). Fluxversions 3 and 5 do not. these types of Fluxus performances are composed according to the classical theme/variation method. pillow. George Brecht – For a Drummer. Fluxversion 2 (1966) Performer drums with sticks over a leaking feather pillow making the feathers escape the pillow. and 5 all focus on the second restriction of the general piece. respectively: rolled newspapers. but in the completely unrestricted space of number of performers. Fluxversion 6 is standing out from the rest since the main exploration is not conducted in the medium/instrument or the equipment. Fluxversion 7 (1966) Performer drums with brushes inside a vessel filled with cream until the cream is thick. All three pieces are implicitly restricted in medium/instrument. The medium/instrument is common drumming equipment (drums).George Brecht – For a Drummer. George Brecht – For a Drummer. In these three fluxversions. the first negative restriction is expored in several ways. until the cream is thick. 4. respectively: until the brushes get stuck. from which we can conclude that the period seperating the instructions in the thematic piece must be interpreted as an “exclusive or”. and in time. until the feathers have escaped. As one can see clearly from the abovementioned examples. leather hose. The main compositional feature in comparison with the other fluxversions is the inclusion of a second performer. George Brecht – For a Drummer. George Brecht – For a Drummer. Fluxversions 3. Fluxversion 6 (1966) Performer drums with mallets or hammers on a helmet worn by another performer. which are played by. respectively: surface of mud or glue. Fluxversion 4 also includes a restriction on time: until disintegration. Fluxversion 3 (1966) Performer drums over drum with 2 ends of slightly leaking leather hose. George Brecht – For a Drummer. racket/ping-pong ball. vessel. instead of content contradicting title.).2. by distracting everybody else from your physical presence. there aren’t many pieces12. Eric Anderson: Opus 46 (1963). Jed Curtis – Music for My Son (date unknown) Do not prepare for the performance and even try to forget that in a short time you will be performing. The whole context of performing is denied. Mirror Piece No. whence the performance is “on”. Stage Fright Event (1991). Mirror Piece No. never. which is stressed by “doing something appropriate”. and Ben Vautier: Monochrome for Yves Klein. Ken Friedman (editor of the FPW) was also never part of the movement according to this inventory. Wind Music no. and even the performance itself. Ben Vautier: Nothing (1962). Dick Higgins: Danger Music No. George Brecht: No Smoking Event (1961).similar works by Mieko Shiomi: Wind Music. by ceasing to exist. negation is a novel. Fluxversion I (1966). c. powerful. which exploit this concept. f. nor in his 1966 Fluxus diagram. Jackson Mac Low: Thanks (1960-1).2. Mieko Shiomi: Wind Music. . Music for Wise Men features a complex relationship between title and content just like Brecht’s Saxophone Solo. For Mr M. by hiding. Selection Event (1991). Then again. Moreover. Fluxversion II (1963). by becoming someone else. these pieces often deal with “negation” in terms of absence and generally have a Zen-like touch to them. Jed Curtis – Music for Wise Men (date unknown) Commit suicide Music for My Son stresses the absence of any preparation for the performance. Anthony Cox: Tactical Pieces for Orchestra. e.2 (1966). Larry Miller: 200 Yard Candle Dash (1970). as I mentioned above. Ken Friedman: Mandatory Happening (1966). no. Falling Event.2. b. Marriage Ceremony (1967). This use of negation in an existential manner can also be found in a piece by Bici Forbes: Bici Forbes – Become invisible (1966) a. by going away.31 (1963). by sinking through the floor. by divesting yourself of all distinguishing marks. There are two pieces by Jed Curtis13 listed in the FPW. etc. h. d. The same holds for Bici Forbes. 1. 13 Notice also that Jed Curtis is not listed in George Maciunas official 1965 inventory list of Fluxus artists. compositional tool. Event for the Late Afternoon. Peter Frank: Breaking Event (1988).1 More on Negative Restrictions Although. Milan Knizak: A Week (1966). except Brecht’s For a Drummer. 12 From the approximately 570 event scores in the FPW only 20 contain an overtly expressed negation (not. simply do something appropriate. or at least not during the time of its publication. Like/Don’t Like (1981). When the time of the performance comes. Takehisa Kosugi: Distance for Piano (1965). For a Drummer (1966). Mirror Piece no. in this case the content of the performance forces the performer (if wise) the cease his existence. by concentrating so hard on some object or idea that you cease to be aware of your physical presence. However. g. The main instrument in most of these types of pieces is the grand piano. Although the content. since it embodies in its grandeur the apex of classical performance culture14. the focus shifts from the content to the context. next to (negative) restriction is the deconstruction of praxis.12 (1962) Let piano movers carry piano out of the stage. which for the bourgeoisie was a means of gaining access to a simulacrum of the representation of music and romantic culture” Attali. paradoxical and inconcievable. “[…] the piano.Ben Vautier’s piece Nothing. p. suggests an open piece with many possibilities. George Maciunas – Composition no. Ben Vautier – Nothing (1962) Performers do nothing. we might conclude that the exploration of the realm of negative contexts has.1 and No. p. One of the tools to do so is.4 . This technique involves the amplification of or (extreme) focus on the peripheral aspects of or relationships within the performance praxis. is definitely one of the pieces with the strongest restriction on them. George Maciunas – Composition no.12 are the cornerstone pieces of 12 Piano Compositions. this is truly one of the toughest event scores ever written. within the Fluxus movement. once again. This is very well illustrated in the series 12 Piano Compositions for Nam June Paik by George Maciunas.2 (1962) Tune the piano. By putting restrains on the peripheral aspects of a “classical” performance. and focus on the preparatory phase of a concert15.119 15 For an orchestral variation. see also Ben Vautier’s Orchestra Piece no. From the absence of pieces similar to Brecht’s For a Drummer. 14 Cf.98) “A grand piano on stage always signalled its unconventional use. 2. The Deconstruction of Praxis: Recycling of Classical Composition Techniques Another key concept. University of Minnesota Press. a quote from Jill Johnston (ibid. of which I will analyze a few below.1 (1962) Let piano movers carry piano into the stage. George Maciunas – Composition no. on first sight. never performable performance of this piece: to perform and simultaneously to do nothing.” Also. there is actually only one singular. No. Jacques (1985) Noise – The Political Economy of Music. never been explored exhaustively. restriction. 10 focuses on the practice of handing out/selling accompanying booklets before a piano recital.9 comments on the visual aspect of a piano recital: no performance is successful if the piano is not in view. observe the apparent symmetry. Also. the focus on the performance praxis. George Maciunas – Composition no. and the breaking of the highest strings. George Maciunas – Composition no. Restriction is only posed on (unusual) way of depressing/stretching. other pieces stress the physicality of the performance and aim for a more literal deconstruction of the piano. Notice that both performaces aim for a highly audible effect: all keys sounding at once. No. the pieces that will be played and the general context of the evening/location. These booklets provide the audience information on the performer. wax and polish it well. Both performances focus on the mechanics of playing piano: depressing keys and the exertion of force on stretched strings (hammering). Composition no.9 (1962) Draw a picture of a piano so that the audience can see the picture.2 focuses on the internal preparation of the piano.10 (1962) Write a sign reading: piano composition #10 and show the audience the sign. Similarly.11 (1962) Wash the piano. The last two compositions by Maciunas comment on the relation between the performer and the audience. George Maciunas – Composition no.4 (1962) Using a straight stick the length of the keyboard sound all keys together. when tuned). Following pieces fit into this picture: Jackson Mac Low – Piano Suite for David Tudor and John Cage (1961) . The following centerpieces deal on several levels with the praxis of a piano recital.11 on the external preparation. which are hence the center points of the dramatic action. All four abovementioned pieces are restricted in medium (piano) and time (when carried into/out of the stage. No. and No. George Maciunas – Composition no. This amplifies the effect of the composition. These pieces have often symbolized the whole Fluxus movement because of their potential scandalous outcome: the complete destruction of the instrument. Whereas the pieces mentioned above focus on the deconstruction of the classical praxis.George Maciunas – Composition no.6 (1962) Stretch the 3 highest strings with a tuning key until they break. etc. the actual execution is a complex task. concrete blocks. Carefully reassemble the piano. rubber balls. Distance for Piano (to David Tudor) touches on this topic. Fluxversion (date unknown) An upright piano is positioned at the center stage with its profile toward the audience. Tune the piano. the objects slide toward the audience. Mac Low’s piece has a structure similar to Maciunas’ Compositions. When he has completed his arrangement. – on the closed lid of a grand piano. Do not break any parts or separate parts joined by gluing or welding (unless welding apparatus & experienced welder are available for the 2nd movement!). Takeshi Kosugi – Distance for Piano (to David Tudor) (1965) Performer positions himself at some distance from the piano from which he should not move. it deconstructs part of the classical performance and although the instructions sound easy and straightforward. the violence that is . Similarly. All parts cut or cast or forged as one piece must remain as one piece. throws darts into the back of the piano according to the time pattern indicated in the score. 2. Thomas Schmit – Piano Piece no. chess pieces. The pedal is fixed in a depressed position. in a piece by Takehisa Kosugi.5. Toshi Ichiyanagi – Music for Piano No. The piano must be placed so that when the lid opens. The playfulness exhibited in Mac Low’s. He may arrange these objects very carefully and with deliberation. Play something.(any number of persons may participate in one or more of the movements) 1. Destruction is also the most effective way to comment on the kathartic element of classical performance. Performer produces sounds at points of piano previously determined by him. but may manipulate other objects to produce sound on piano thourgh them. glass vases. or arrange the various toys. The complexity of the instrument becomes a metaphor for the complexity of the performance. in a way child’s play often ends in outbursts of violence. The playfulness can be easily transformed into destruction. he lifts the great lid suddenly. Assistants may move piano to change distance and direction to directions of the performer. He may construct a building out of the blocks. 3. 4.1 (1962) Performer places various objects – toys. or arrange the chess pieces. hidden from view in the wings. piece is more prominent in the following pieces by Ichiyanagi and Schmit. Carefully disassemble the piano. bricks. A performer. etc. wood blocks. Performer does not touch piano directly by any part of his body. and to lesser extend Kosugi’s. mov . Robert Bozzi – Choice 16 (1966) A piano is lifted by means of a windlass to the height of 2 meters and then dropped. This is repeated until the piano or the floor is destroyed. is generally known to be performed in the same way but not found in the FPW. Thomas Schmit – Sanitas no. the destruction of the piano. Robert Bozzi – Choice 5 (1966) Two pianists sit behind pianos.e. color etc. late Chopin) and subsequently atonal music and musique concrète is extended to the physical mutilation of the instrument. tool.g. which doesn’t focus on the physicality of the instrument. is mentioned. Choice 16 is quite similar to Schmit’s Sanitas no. and therefore direct focus. Whereas Schmit avoids any reference to the spatial context. Wagner. Interesting about Choice 16 is that time is not only restricted by the state of the piano. duration.com/download/sonicyouth/videos/hires/piano. space. The only restriction. Fluxvariation 1 (date unknown)16 All the piano keys of a chromatic scale are nailed down. Robert Bozzi specifically excels in the creation of such pieces. The performer enters wearing a crash helmet. Performer B inflicts pain upon herself. Emmett Williams – Emotional Duet (1962) Performer A inflicts pain upon himself. i. Notice in the instruction no performer. An excellent performance of this piece by Sonic Youth can be found at: http://boss. which is quite similar to Thomas Schmit’s piece. He takes a stage position as far as possible. but on the physicality of the performer and the emotional strain of a performance. although they are less abstract and more restricted. Bozzi stresses it. is on the physical presence of the instrument.present in the dissonance of the late-romantic era (e. They depress the pedals and crash the pianos into each other several times. Robert Bozzi – Choice 3 (1966) A piano is on stage. a piece by Emmett Williams is also noteworthy. but also by the state of performance area. Choice 3 introduces restrictions on the performer and focuses on the troubled relationship between performer and instrument. crashing into the piano with helmeted head. 16 George Maciunas’ Piano Piece #13 (for Nam June Paik). He lowers his head and dashes toward the piano at top speed.151 in its language and effect. there has to be one.streamos.151. In relation to Choice 5. The final relationships internal to the praxis of performance is the connection between the performer(s) and the audience and the audience to itself. these relationships are worked out systematically. One of such pieces is Ben Vautier’s Piano Concerto no. and this piece is therefore very much suited for him as a soloist.Performer A inflicts pain upon performer B. p. Note that there are restrictions on the sex of the performers (one male. Orchestra members must run after him. Apart from an analysis of the physicality of a perfomer. Once again it seems that although Fluxus “abolished” classical art forms. Not only the relation between performer. their often comical commentary is grounded in classical forms. Cf. the main target of the performance is communication with the audience. which he imitates. the lights are turned off. the amusing anecdote in Toop. Ben Vautier – Paino Concerto no.2. Performer B inflicts pain upon performer A.81. he jumps from the stage and runs to the exit. and drag him back to the piano. catch him. The pianist enters.2 for Paik (1965) Orchestra members seat themselves and wait for the pianist. Many pieces consider these relationships. stage and instrument is explored. Also the often problematic relationship between soloist and orchestra is deconstructed and reassembled. Ben Vautier – Concerto for Audience by Audience (1964) 17 18 FPW also lists exactly the same performance as Emmett Williams: Piano Concerto for Paik no. In both pieces by Williams. Again. bows and walks to the piano. When the [player] is finally returned to the piano. Emmett Williams – For La Monte Young (1962) Performer asks if La Monte Young is in the audience. of which I will present some below. one female). The ultimate consequence of this line of conceptual inquiry is the complete absence of the performer or the merge of the performer with the audience: the audience becomes performer. . it is also an interesting counterpoint to the classical pas-de-deux in ballet. this can be on a very basic level – imitation.2 for Paik17. Emmett Williams – Duet for Performer and Audience (1961) Performer waits silently on stage for audible reaction from audience. Phaidon London UK. Nam June Paik was used for his physical agility and expression18. which is often quoted as one the foundations of mutual understanding – or by question–answer games. Richard (1999) György Ligeti. Upon reaching the piano. Sometimes the reference is even more direct as in Luce Fierens’ Possible Flux Performances or Post Flux Games. take instruments that are provided to them. excerpt) Go to the nearest café and wait for Godot! Most of these pieces were to be performed outside the classical environment of the performance hall. Whereas dadaism focuses on direct action. If the audience does not respond to the invitation. which provides an obvious reference to Duchamp’s famous Fountain. Robert Watts – C/S Trace (1963) An object is fired from a cannon at a cymbal. C/S Trace and similar pieces do not deal with the actual firing or landing of the object. but can also be located in several other neo-dadaist pieces. . Luce Fierens – Possible Flux Performances or Post Flux Games (1987. focusing on absurd or paradoxal proposals. there are a few categories of Fluxus peerformance pieces. Give something to your neighbor. but with its trace. Whereas dadaist performances usually involved very concrete act. 2. in public spaces. the Fluxus pieces usually commented on a metalevel to the environment. which I think of minor interest.and festivities. This is already clear for the Washroom piece. Several of these types of pieces were created by Robert Watts. Ben Vautier – Three Pieces for Audiences (1964) 1. Metadadaism Next to the compositional methods used. 3. 3. Talk together. These pieces are usually molded around a neo-dadaist approach. such as Washroom. Several other pieces are connected with the itenerary to and from a performance. Robert Watts – Washroom (1962) The local national anthem or another appropriate tune is sung or played in the washroom under the supervision of uiformed attendent. These last two pieces (among many others by Ben Vautier) complete the Fluxus analysis of the classical realm of performance and the recycling of classical composition procedures. instruments should be distributed among them. Change places. sit on the orchestra seats and play for 3 minutes.The audience is invited to come to the stage. its narrative. most notably the Exit pieces by Ay-O. Most of these pieces commented on developments during the dadaist/surreaist period. Mandatory Happening is indeed a performance that cannot possibly not happen once initiated. Conclusion In the previous sections I have aimed to initiate the research into the structural properties of Fluxus performance art on several levels. deconstruction of praxis and so-called metadadaist approaches to organizing the conceptual performance space and the linguistic methods that can be employed to do so. I have touched on theme/variation principles.wikipedia. and has a radical quality similar to previously mentioned Ben Vautier’s Nothing. which is common throughout the FPW and the play with the instructions themselves. Having made your decision.org/wiki/The_Game_%28game%29 . the happening is over. The cause of this shift is mostly due to the fact that all the performances are written. thus providing space for language game techniques such as the play with titles. As a final note I would like to quote Friedman’s Mandatory Happening. it is specifically this piece that is resonated in the viral game “The Game”: it cannot be not played.this category of Fluxus output is more referential to action: meta-action. http://en. 19 Interestingly. A more complete analysis of the whole Fluxus performances would obviously include performance praxis and its sociopolical context. the play with compositional methods and imposes an extreme restriction on the performer19. 4. Ken Friedman – Mandatory Happening (1966) You will decide to read or not read this instruction. The contextual and performative extremities that are required by the Fluxus event scores have paved the way for the all later body/performance artists that we know and love. and research into the pieces that were missing/omitted from the FPW. The inevitability of the piece sublimates the metadadaist qualities.
Report "An Analysis of Fluxus Composition Techniques"