The Fluxus Pieces, by Diego Chamy
Channel: Diego Chamy
Date: 2010-12-29

I was invited to perform some Fluxus pieces at a Fluxus event in Oslo. During the process of selecting the pieces, I went through several scores and noticed that many could be performed by "not doing anything" (just standing still for a while). An example is Jed Curtis' "Opus 1", whose instructions read: "One or more persons. Do, sense, and/or think." In this piece, the performer can stand still for a while and, if asked, say that he was thinking, which is what the piece asks him to do. I collected several pieces that allowed me to perform in this way, wrote over-elaborated descriptions of them exaggerating their impact on the world and forcing far-fetched meanings upon them, and read these descriptions to the audience before performing each piece by standing still.

Henie Onstad Art Centre's Fluxus day, Oslo, October 31st, 2010.

Background ideas:

The texts used to describe contemporary art pieces often use pretentious language to mask the simplicity, stupidity, or flatness of the described pieces. Despite the fact that simplicity, stupidity, or flatness can be positive characteristics and don't need to be hidden, art institutions tend to produce complicated descriptions in order to justify the pieces that they promote.[1] By making a clear contrast and separation between the interpretation of a piece and its explanation or description, it is possible to show the arbitrary components present in these discourses. Furthermore, through the process of writing over-elaborated descriptions, one comes to understand how these texts, once they lose their referentiality, can become something in themselves. What is "performed" then are these texts and not the pieces that they supposedly reference.

Extra information:

It was important for me not to read the descriptions using an ironic tone of voice. I didn't want to sound like I was making fun of the pieces, because that was not my intention. In any case, given the lack of audience reaction, I can't say whether people believed in my discourse or not. For example, the artist Larry Miller was seated in the front row during my performance. The last piece I perform is by him, and the description I give is the most exaggerated of all. After the performance, someone introduced us and Larry told me that I was being cynical. I tried to explain him that this was not my intention. I felt that only then did he understand my point.

Pieces performed:

"Two Durations", George Brecht (1961)
"Opus 13", Eric Andersen (1961)
"Music for My Son", Jed Curtis (date unknown)
"Opus 1", Jed Curtis (date unknown)
"Identification Exercise", Bengt af Klintberg (1966)
"Mandatory Happening", Ken Friedman (1966)
"Forest Event Number 5 (Lumberjacks' and Pickers' Union)", Bengt af Klintberg (1966)
"Attune", Larry Miller (1981)



---
[1] For example, see the Tate Britain's description of a performance by the artist Sue Tompkins: ". . . The strength of Tompkins' work is in its disruption of verbal communication. Through complex yet eloquent layerings of repetition, non-sequential juxtaposition and re-contextualisation, Tompkins reinvigorates and gives new meaning to language. . . ." The same work could be described more simply (and, in my opinion, more respectfully) as, "Sue reads news fragments out loud while dancing in a funny way."

https://sites.google.com/site/diegochamy/