http://melchin.spiescreative.com/index.html

FLUXLIST: REPOST: re: Zen and Fluxus

Eryk Salvaggio
Wed, 18 Oct 2000 05:03:10 -0700

>From October 10th, 1999:

Today a small boy observed me through the window
at the bakery. When I said hello, he ran away.

It seems to me that this is not "art" but rather, my
experience was similar to the experience which
I had always believed was the aim of art.

A number of issues concerning aesthetics declare
the death of the innocent eye and take it for granted
that one cannot regain the innocent eye. The observation
of an object is always tainted by its relation to ones
own perceptions of previous objects and how they
relate. I disagree with this western concept.

One of the major essences of Zen is the return
to the "innocent eye." if we silence that top layer
of ego cream which buzzes with activity in the
forefront of our minds, if we are still and silent
long enough, we begin to hear through that
long romanticized (in western traditions) ego.
The connections buzz but soon slow, and we
become once again an innocent eye of pure
perception.

Now it seems to me that this initial stage of
enlightenment should be the goal of all
"creative activity." Quite frankly, the
presentation of something new ALWAYS
creates a stillness of ego and emphasis on
studied observation. Well, maybe not always.
Humans have a psychological tendency to box
chocolates rather than taste them. Humanity
has a subconscious urge to turn blobs of substances
into human faces; it stems from our initial
birthing instincts to differentiate mother from
father and parents from strangers. That's why so
many people see a face in the moon.

To me, then, revolutionary art must be aesthetically
varied from previous "art." In fact, I'm not sure
if looking to fit the idea of spirituality into art is
even remotely important; perhaps we should reject
our impulses to create a revolution in art and instead
focus on the concept of guerilla spirituality. The
__manufacturing of mystical experience.__

Working under the art umbrella to create revolutionary art
is like Che Guavera asking the Bolivian Government for
tanks. It should follow that, since revolutionary concepts
do not arise from art, rather, art from revolution, then I
think the best approach to "new art" is to ignore whether
it is art at all. The freedom we then possess is extraordinary.

How then do we manufacture mystical experiences? And is it
ethical?

Well, according to "Zen and The Brain," a fine book by James
Austin, which was published by MIT Press this year (which I
found courtesy of Max Herman) the answer is as simple as
meeting any of these criteria:

1. A feeling of deep and profound peace.
2. A certainty that all things would work out for the good.
3. A sense of ones own need to contribute to others.
4. A conviction that love is at the center of everything.
5. A sense of Joy and laughter.

This, I admit, is the shallow end of the insight spectrum.
There is a deeper end which follows these insights:

1. emotional intensity
2. an increase in understanding and knowledge.
3. a sense of unity and ones own part in it.
4. a sense of new life or of seeing the world in a new way.
5. confidence in personal survival (an after effect, it notes,
as mystical experiences make one forget the self)
6. ineffability (the inability to describe what had occurred)
7. the sense that all the universe is alive

It also says, quite importantly:

1. a sense of paradox, or that opposites coincide.
2. unusual emotional combinations; such as ecstatic joy
and serenity, or love and sadness, etc.

Now of course the role of the artist since god knows when
has been to try to capture the "glory of god," now in an
age where the glory of god is in fact little more, to most
people, than the glory of physics, beauty, or coincidence....
that is to say, we live in a predominantly atheistic age,
regardless of what one thinks about religion. The world
has little concern for deities anymore, and is looking in
a great number of other places for the experiences that
religion once accounted for.

So as artists in the late 90's- (I say artist, forgetting for
a moment that we are not out to create art anymore but
experiences, but hell, artist is a lot easier.) - we have
the challenge of creating that experience through our own
actions. The above are not to be seen as the only manner
of which to make "art" or experiences...(in fact, I will use
"experiences" from now on.) but as a blueprint for an ideal
final product. It was once said that any reaction from an
audience
is the essence of an artistic work, which in my opinion has led
to a duel between artists to outshock each other, and has taken
art down a very long funnel into a sewer. Now, I believe
we should strive for these criteria as an "essence" of our
experience making.

Is it ethical?

I am curious myself concerning whether the idea of
creating experiences which affect people in a manner
similar to mystical experiences is ethical. If it does not
presume and subvert the natural occurrences of these
experiences.

In my opinion, any mystical experience is essentially
the same. The insights gained from these experiences
are not ours to define. We are not molding dogma,
we are breaking it. We are providing an opportunity
for insight, not the insight itself.

Is it possible?

I came about this idea after Ken Friedman of Fluxus fame
asked for a short description of several pieces of Fluxus
work that I had enjoyed:

====================

"Anniversary"

Someone sneezes.

A year later, send a postcard reading, "Gesundheit!"

1965

Ken Friedman

====================


"Smile Game"

Say hello to every pretty girl you meet.
If she replies with a smile, you get a point.
The one with the most points wins.

1965

Milan Knizak

====================

"Ice Cream Piece"

Performer buys an ice cream cone and then
(a) eats it, or
(b) gives it to a stranger, or
(c) waits until it melts completely, then eats the cone, or
(d) on finishing the piece, buys another ice cream cone.

1966

Albert M. Fine

====================

(and I quote from my letter to fluxlist:)

To me, the distinctions are evident; these pieces rely on an
individual who can perform the piece as art at any time.
They do not require an audience. They are a shifting of
the focus and attention we give to art; only changed
to give focus and attention to the "mundane." Some are
charming, simple gestures designed to make life worth
smiling about. It is the act of becoming aware, and
appreciative, of the beauty of the every day. They read
like spiritual excersizes. Like haiku. They de-emphasize
the academic, the gallery structure, the "artist." They say
that a match being lit and going out is as beautiful as any
Rimbaud. It is also, because of its purity and statement,
and inherent connection to all walks of life, "revolutionary."

(end quote)

Unfortunately, the idea of Fluxus has been tainted by egocentric
gluttons and Nam June Paik. Well, its not Nam Junes Fault,
but he introduced or exemplifies the shift of fluxus from simple,
independant-of-art gestures to the emphasis on gallery
installations,
and even Maciunas, Fluxus founder, decided on the importance
of the "artifact."

The lack of artifact is why I believe we should ignore "art."
We are creating only experience, a shift of the everyday,
__even if it is through the artifact.__ The emphasis is on
the experience by the viewer of the artifact.

I'm interested in the idea that spiritual experiences are a
derivation of panic; the brain faces its own mortality and
can no longer make sense of the world it has constructed
for itself and so experiences things without the safety net
of denial. The difference between Jesus and a Schizophrenic
was only that the spiritual experience is different from panic,
in that the spiritual experience comes with a realization that
without such constructs we are all quite well off anyway- and
panic comes when we are hurtling from a plane towards earth
at terminal velocity or are about to be hit by a bus.

Art is merely an expression of shit. Artists derive from anal
expulsive personalities; the joy of painting descends from the
pleasure of the attention parents gave you when you first learned
to poop properly. That's Freudian anyway, and I count myself
among
the shit hurlers of the world whom are called artists in polite
company.

But to make art anything more than the hurtling of fecal matter,
we
have to have the aspiration to hurl our shit to heaven until it
sticks.
Otherwise comes a shit rain of canvas and pages filled only with
the incessant ramblings and smearings of the ostracized and
unlucky.

Let us then see how to create experience without art, even if art
is a necessary requirement. It is not merely performance but a
studied lifestyle, the dedication to creativity in every avenue
of
life. It is to embrace act over artifact. In this we could call
ourselves "actists," which I meant as a joke but now, looking at
it typed, has the very serious ring of revolution to it. It is
not
a principle of conversion but rather, a process of self
enlightenment
that reaches across multiple borders and sciences.

"Fuck art, lets rock," they once said, to which, 10 years later,
was
said, "Fuck rock, lets art," and now we will say, "Fuck Fucking
art and
rocking, let's GOD."


Peace out motherfuckers,
Eryk Salvaggio
October 10th, 1999

Zen and Fluxus

Aaron Kimberly
Tue, 17 Oct 2000 23:33:47 -0700

What I learned in a brief survey of texts I had to condense into a 20 page
paper. As with all things Fluxus, it wasn't an easy thing to pin down. But
there are so many fleeting references to Zen in regards to Fluxus, that it
was an issue in need of expansion. Not all Fluxus members were into Zen, and
not all artists/performers who were into Zen were Fluxus. It was important
to me to not centralize the movement too much in the US since the
contributions from Europe and Asia were important. I had to look, on one
hand, to the phenomenon of Buddhists monks leaving Asia to teach in North
America and Europe - and the challenges that posed to modernism. Then I also
had to look at the introduction of the "avant garde" in Asia where Buddhism
was already readily available.

I began the paper with John Cage:
- his studies with D.T. Suzuki
- his use of chance and the I Ching
- indiscriminate use of sounds (which included audience participation)
- how this related to other art like Abstract Expressionism

Then I talked about the George Maciunas paradigm:
- cohesively organized, documented and charted
- his public/social interests and Leninist influences
- I discussed, with the use of a few Maciunas quotations how he used the
lingo of Zen, but really didn't embody it. e.g.. his miss-use of words like
"Ego" where Buddhism is concerned.
However, he also coined phrases like "Neo-Haiku Theatre" which were most
useful for my topic. The portable, humorous, elegant, repeatable,
iconoclastic, anti-sublime, implicative qualities of Fluxus is where I dive
in to Zen.

I compare the Fluxus aesthetic of eloquent humour with Zen teaching
practices where humour is both an arrow penetrating the ego, and a signifier
of understanding.

Then, I discuss at length Haiku - especially in conjunction with Yoko Ono
and her Instructions. Ono's conceptual use of language is paradoxically used
to rest the mind. The viewer must respond intuitively. The empty state, she
suggests, is beyond duality. Likewise, the Zen koan is language meant to
penetrate beyond the semiotics of language.

YouTube videos seems to me to be the current manifesto form [The manifesto form was an ideal extnsion of the publicity machine for the artists of later movements for whom the theoretical or public statement was an integral part of the strategy for reaching an audience] of the 21st century, especially those that go viral. The irreverence and humor of Judson's Laipply's Evolution of Dance - one of the top ranked YouTube videos is an example. On the political end of the spectrum, which Martinelli was very concerned with there are now sites devoted to inflammatory videos such as the National Inflation Association whose manifesto is to prepare Americans for hyperinflation. They currently have 153 videos on YouTube.


 Social impact of YouTube (the short version)

Before the launch of YouTube in 2005, there were few easy methods available for ordinary computer users who wanted to post videos online. With its simple interface, YouTube made it possible for anyone with an Internet connection to post a video that a worldwide audience could watch within a few minutes. The wide range of topics covered by YouTube has turned video sharing into one of the most important parts of Internet culture.

An early example of the social impact of YouTube was the success of The Bus Uncle video in 2006. It shows a heated conversation between a youth and an older man on a bus in Hong Kong, and was discussed widely in the mainstream media.^[35] Another YouTube video to receive extensive coverage is guitar,^[36] which features a performance of Pachelbel's Canon on an electric guitar. The name of the performer is not given in the video. After it received millions of views The New York Times revealed the identity of the guitarist as Lim Jeong-hyun, a 23-year-old from South Korea who had recorded the track in his bedroom.^[37]

Charlie Bit My Finger, one of YouTube's most-viewed videos.

Charlie Bit My Finger is a viral video famous for formerly being the most viewed YouTube video of all time. It had over 245 million hits as of November 2010.^[38][39][40] The clip features two English brothers, with one-year-old Charlie biting the finger of his brother Harry, aged three.^[41] In Time's list of YouTube's 50 greatest viral videos of all time, "Charlie Bit My Finger" was ranked at number one.^[42]

YouTube was awarded a 2008 Peabody Award and cited for being "a 'Speakers' Corner' that both embodies and promotes democracy."^[43][44]

Entertainment Weekly put it on its end-of-the-decade "best-of" list. It said: "Providing a safe home for piano-playing cats, celeb goof-ups, and overzealous lip-synchers since 2005."^[45]

 

The Neo-Futurists are a collective of wildly productive writer/director/performers who create:

• Theater that is a fusion of sport, poetry, and living-newspaper.

• Non-illusory, interactive performance that conveys our experiences and ideas as directly and honestly as possible.

• Immediate, unreproducable events at headslappingly affordable prices.

We embrace those unreached or unmoved by conventional theater-inspiring them to thought, feeling, and action.

Every week we use a unique collaborative process to write rehearse and perform a new iteration of our signature late night show Too Much Light Makes The Baby Go Blind.

Every year we produce at least four other World Premiere shows that are written or devised by our ensemble members.

Since TML opened this theater has produced more than 6,000 two-minute plays for TML, and more then 60 full length plays or site-specific theatrical events.

We are proud to keep our ticket prices affordable, and Thursday Nights at The Neo-Futurarium are always pay-what-you-can.

Our Statement of Purpose

As a group, we are dedicated to:

• Strengthening the human bond between performer and audience. We feel that the more sincere and genuine we can be on stage, the greater the audiences identification with the unadorned people and issues before them.

• Embracing a form of non-illusory theater in order to present our lives and ideas as directly as possible. All our plays are set on the stage in front of the audience. All our characters are ourselves. All our stories really happened. All our tasks are actual challenges. We do not aim to "suspend the audience's disbelief," but to create a world where the stage is a continuation of daily life.

• Embracing the moment through audience interaction and planned obsolescence. In order to keep ourselves as alive on stage as possible, we interweave elements of chance and change — contradicting the expected and eliminating the permanent.

• Presenting inexpensive art for the general public. We aim to influence the widest audience possible by keeping our ticket prices affordable and our productions intellectually and emotionally challenging yet accessible.