Fluxus

A Child's History of Fluxus by Dick Higgins was a very easy read. It was like I was reading a childrens book (kind of waiting for some colorful pictures. :D ) I liked how Higgins described something so simple as, “The sloshing of my foot in my wet boot sounds more beautiful than fancy organ music.” I never really stopped to think of that. Personally, I love the sound of rain when it hits the window. It’s like music but minus the instruments, just a simple everyday sound. I can then see what the fluxus people meant by not being “fancy”. Less is more, right?

I was glad about the ending. Despite Maciunas’s actions, when he was dyeing the flux people came to help him. The people could have not helped Maciunas and dwelled in the past but didn’t. Happily ever after! Well, overall it was a nice story but I wish I knew more information. Especially about the end of Maciunas’s life, for it seemed too vague.

Oh Fluxus, you bring out the best (or worst) of me

“A Child’s History of Fluxus” gave me a lot to think about.  I’m going to start this reading response with a small philosophical thought (oh, me and my philosophy these days): We spend so much time searching that we forget to cherish the beauty of things around us.  I think Fluxus surrounds that thought.  It’s about taking the simplest things and making art out of it.  That’s probably why Higgins and the rest of the Fluxus artists kept refusing to use “fancy” things in their work.  A majority of the piece definitely sounded a bit “anti-fancy”.

It sparked my interests when the Fluxus people didn’t accept invitations from “fancy” museums and colleges.  It reminded me of various artists (a lot of talented youtube artists) who don’t get signed into labels.  Speaking of which, many game designers also refuse to work for companies because they fear they would lose their freedom.  I have so much respect for these people because they are not creating art to earn money; they make art for the sake of art – for their love of art.  Personally, I don’t know if I have the courage to do so.

Another idea I really loved about Fluxus people (sort of connects with something I said earlier) is that they are unwilling to have their art become too famous because the whole idea of Fluxus is its simplicity.  It reminded me of many modern day artists, movies, writers, and singers.  A lot of artists these days are making sequels to previous successful work just because “the first one was successful”.  (We wonder why sequels are not as good as the first season)  It’s all about the money again!  Musicians and writers aren’t writing for the sole purpose of expressing themselves – when they become famous it eats at their heart and they soon start creating their art FOR the viewers, FOR the fame, FOR the money, and the thing that made their initial piece beautiful gets swallowed by it all.

Lastly, I wanted to mention how when Fluxus wasn’t accepted when it first came out, it reminded me of a project I did last semester.  The project expressed that many new innovative arts are not accepted by society because society has a very narrow mind (stupid mind) of beauty.  For instance, Van Gogh’s paintings were highly criticized in the past, but now his pieces are seen as one of the most influential artworks!

Okay, I lied, one more thing!  Fluxus makes me so happy because it connected people from various countries and showed how different people have similar ideas.  It makes me love people again haha.        

Higgins - History of Fluxus

I found the Dick Higgins’ A Child’s History of Fluxus to be a nice, quick summary of the history of Fluxus. I also thought it was interesting that A Child’s History of Fluxus was just that, a short document that easily reads as if it designed to be a children’s’ story which keeps with the theme of Fluxus artists preferring simplicity over complexity. The only downside to this was that it wasn’t as informative and detailed in its descriptions of historical events as I would have liked. Of course that would get away from the core simplicity and fun that Fluxus seems to intend.

Despite the briefness of this overview of Fluxus history, I thought it was a nice overview and it piqued my interest, driving to find out more information about what Fluxus is. Another thing that I found interesting was how loose the Fluxus movement seemed, I’m not even sure if movement is the proper word to describe it. This looseness is highlighted by the descriptions of Maciunas’s attempts in 1963 and 1965 to exert more control and organization over the Fluxus group, which turned out to be contrary to the fun and intermedia nature of Fluxism.

What the Flux?

Reading this short story about the history of Fluxus was just as fun as participating, in it. the activities paralleled each other and was a great experience. What I got from the story is just like any art is created, It is born, and then grows up as a child would and if brought around the wrong elements or the wrong people it can be corrupt and lose it's original flavor, purpose, and energy. This has been true for art throughout the ages, especially in Music and in Dance where different genres of music will be born and create a buzz, as well as dances the ones that originated it, Are seen by the fancy folk as an accident and only people of their station in life can create things like this so just as in fluxus the Fancy put people that look like they created the artform or genre by giving the creations, etc. fancy names, and the artists have fancy names too. It becomes a spectacle, and is mistaken for art and seen by the general public as Art. What a shame.


I have always liked the simple because so much can be done with it especially when it's things that you can imagine for whatever object you are using, and the ideas can be simple or complex it's creates wonder, and moves things forward. The sad thing is the way the general public will see it being presented by the fake folk it is seen as the ultimate, and nothing can be done better or different, that this is the way it's done and that's it. I have seen that done throughout media

and programs. I was blessed to have grown up to see different wrestling promotions all the over the U.S. and other parts of the world thank God that I saw AWA, World Class, and the NWA first and Later WCW, Triple AAA, ECW, and I liked the WWF, before it became WWE, and TNA was great too the reason why I make this point because you got to see different styles of wrestling from all of them and you saw Truth in them they concentrated on bringing the best wrestling to the people, by presenting wrestling and not sports entertainment without all the spectacle as associated with the WWE of today. And throughout the Fluxus article you could tell Fluxus was
about giving a show, as well as people being apart of it, and it wasn't about the spectacle the people involved, and the people involved or the audience was the show sharing ideas,and doing
things that didn't seem possible.

As of a few years ago you could see identical things like this being done with books and music, Such as people forming Music bands with Household items such as Brooms, Garbage can lids, Mop Sticks, cookware etc. or Balloons, and bottlecaps that was found in the Old cartoon Show Fat Albert and was seen in Live performances of the documentary Stomp out Loud, and for the last 20+ years with the Blue man group that also thrives on crowd interaction with the performance, as was also in ECW where the audience could hand the wrestlers chairs, and signs to hit the wrestlers opponent. And with that The audience in this promotion, as well as the other earlier ones were engaged in the product and the participants themselves the energy drives the Art.

And also a few years back where artist were selling Fried Books, This is the stuff the fancy folk won't touch or even have a clue about. The fluxus artform from what I read is not stagnant and it just doesn't have one thing, that it is known for or built it's history off that, it's very inclusive and has many different influences, and many different artforms inside the Art itself which I feel that is what art is all about. You stick to the roots of something and it takes on many forms, changing the art itself. It's not One dimensional, it's whatever you want it to be, and that's Alright!

As anything that has anything to do with Art the General Public accepts the dumbing down of everything as those who jump on it for the bandwagon, and the ones that look the part of the Artform but don't know anything about it accept as what was said by a music Historian " The Music industry is not original, what they do is take a successful formula and copy it." Just as was described by the author, the fake will always copy it, or make it be almost unaccessible by making it expensive, and profitable instead of accesible and sensible which all art's original purpose is, depending on the people that originated it and those who pioneered it.

This same thing exists in Restaurants with creative and original dishes, and drinks, Movies, documentaries, TV shows, etc. You know the real when you see it, and when you experience or participate in it. And the founder of this art continued it up until he left this world which tells you something You have to love what you do, and it will keep you not only happy but young. Let's
get into the Flux.




Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids








Stomp Out Loud: Man I know the real!!!! Saw it in 97'. Been puttin' people up on it since.








Example of Spectacle, and Hype:




Spectacle and Hype Fake:





Example of The Real:






The Blue Man Group

awesome weird animals montage aired on cartoon network @ 4 AM

this is a sweet/really trippy montage if anyones interested.

What is montage?

Group members
Dan Barness
Erik Anderson
Katrell Logan

Montage script

In film, montage is the technique where short sequences from various sources are combined and edited to create a single composition.  Optical effects such as fading, dissolving, split screens, double or triple exposures may be used.  Usually, a story is being told where there is a passage of time.  In photography art, montage has a similar definition, where several images are joined together to form a bigger image. 


Lila Chiu & Leticia Trujillo

Montage (^_^)

Lila and Leticia

Camilo Blake and Mike: What Is A Montage

Montage!! Ron Sershon and Matt Siek

Montage is...

Jon, Danta', Jason

Montage

Montage is taking the seemingly unrelated and showing how there is a connection. Sometimes it is a connection that exists so deep in the abstract of the mind of the creator that it must be teased out gradually over many viewings... Other times, the placement of images resonates immediately inside the viewer like a half formed thought or idea, a suspicion... as if they always knew exactly what is being said, only they never had the words to describe it.

Meaning of Montage

Montage is a film technique where you string together a series of short clips that are not directly in chronological order. This is usually used to show a passing of time in a story, within a small real-world time frame. Apparently there is also something called "Soviet Montage Theory", in which a montage is used to create symbolic meaning.

Lotman / Eisenstein Response

Sasseur's influence on Lotman's film theory is pretty significant. When reading this article I sort of considered it to be a no-brainer, but that was before really noticing that it was written before I was even born, and so now I look at it as a sort of foundation text for film theory. Lotman is basically making the claim for film being it's own language using 3 distinct levels of delivery (images, dialogue, and music). He goes on to claim that these levels are interpreted differently based on the social background and education/mental capacity of the viewer. He claims that things that we have no experience with, no concept of, and no language for are ignored, despite the fact that they are still present in the medium and are still communicating information.

Lotman goes on to pose the question of "how can we reconcile cinematography having great semiotic complexity with the requirements of accessibility and comprehension to a wide segment of viewers having varying degrees of preparation." which in simpler terms is asking how can we take these 3 distinct levels and make them easier to understand for everyone. I disagree with the idea behind this question on an artistic level, and agree with it on a business level. I think it makes good business sense to make a message as easily digestible to as many people as possible just to get them to subscribe to it. However one of the great enjoyments (at least that I derive) that comes from watching film is in discovering something new, or at least something typical that is seen in a totally new way, and to lean on Eisenstein's conflict theory a little, that avoids a lot of the conflict that "good art" generates. I don't want to confirm an idea or belief through art, we have religion for that, I want my ideas and belief's challenged by art... I want it to change me.

I agree with Eisenstein (talking about collision) in that "the basis of every art is conflict and this conflict generated ideas" (maybe not every art, but in film art for sure). In my personal experience conflict has always highlighted moments and forced me to really examine things. Like raising the stakes. If I don't like something initially, and I am level headed enough to get past my initial distaste, I will find there is a conflict, and that through examining that conflict I can come to understand many things about both myself and the world around me.

So back to Lotman, If you try to make things easily understood to everyone, then I would argue that you will lose the very edge in communicating that lends a unique perspective to your message (the thing that makes it worth listening to in the first place). Essentially that by homogenizing, we devalue our messages, because the value of the message comes from creating a conflict and forcing someone to achieve understanding. Sure you can do that with a "general" message, but it only has value so long as everyone subscribes to that generality, and the simple existence of different perspectives shows that simply doesn't happen in human nature.

Lotman and Eisenstein Response

Reading Lotman's theory of semiotics in the appearance through cinema shots was quite thorough. He takes the idea of shot usage in films and emphasizes that meanings are generated as a language structure is to the audiences. I understand though he takes a completely literal approach to this idea when he said nothing was accidental in film shooting. For the most part, I completely believe in this theory in the sense that we do watch the same film more than once to generate even deeper meaning from it. We'd even look at films we'd consider bad by social standards to dissect why and how did these films go so bad by becoming critics in our own sense of fulfillment.

Eisenstein's theory of montage is a sound one. Although I don't necessarily agree to this type of approach to defining montage as he does. I look at both these ideas of montage, one linking together a series of similar themes and the other idea of collision as the high point of emotional responses. In my opinion, both of these ideas can very well define montage as we general see it essentially. As I was reading Eisenstein's reasoning for the difference, I kept getting this idea that he was talking about a higher standard of montage rather than a different meaning altogether from his friend's idea. The very high point of montage and the low point, that's how both of these ideas of montage can exist rather than separating from what they essentially show us.

Response to Lotman Reading

In the reading, Lotman analyzes how we watch a film. He notes that we bring in outside information that influences our reaction to the film, and mentions that we notice different things when watching a film multiple times because we cannot absorb everything in only one viewing.

A point he brings up that I thought was most interesting is the idea that every single aspect of a film is purposeful, and must be taken into account when critiquing a film. This includes subtle things such as lighting and camera angle, besides story and acting. Semiotics come into play here, as they influence all of the aforementioned things; the text talks about how actors' costumes, expressions, body language and general behaviors are all semiotic cues for the audience to interpret them as a character.

Because of this complicated array of semiotics, many people have a hard time noticing all of the aspects put into a film. Therefore, Lotman says that people will skim over sections or aspects of a film that they don't understand semiotically. For instance, if you do not understand the significance of lighting in a film. chances are you will not pay much attention to the lighting in a film unless it was blatantly obvious (I'm thinking of something like Sin City or 300, but some people may skim over even that).

Response to Lotman Reading

In the reading, Lotman analyzes how we watch a film. He notes that we bring in outside information that influences our reaction to the film, and mentions that we notice different things when watching a film multiple times because we cannot absorb everything in only one viewing.

A point he brings up that I thought was most interesting is the idea that every single aspect of a film is purposeful, and must be taken into account when critiquing a film. This includes subtle things such as lighting and camera angle, besides story and acting. Semiotics come into play here, as they influence all of the aforementioned things; the text talks about how actors' costumes, expressions, body language and general behaviors are all semiotic cues for the audience to interpret them as a character.

Because of this complicated array of semiotics, many people have a hard time noticing all of the aspects put into a film. Therefore, Lotman says that people will skim over sections or aspects of a film that they don't understand semiotically. For instance, if you do not understand the significance of lighting in a film. chances are you will not pay much attention to the lighting in a film unless it was blatantly obvious (I'm thinking of something like Sin City or 300, but some people may skim over even that).

Lotman and Eisenstein

The article about Yuri Lotman and the Semiotics of Cinema was interesting. The idea of shots in a film relating to words in a sentence makes a lot of sense. If someone moves around words in a sentence it will have a new meaning, or it might not even make sense anymore. The same is true for film, where shots are specifically placed and moving them around could alter the perceived meaning of the whole movie.
The first thing I thought of when reading this was the movie Memento. The scenes are not placed in chronological order, but the movie still works and is very interesting. The same holds true for some of Quentin Tarantino's movies like Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. If another director or editor were to rearranged the scenes in these movies, the ideas and meanings would change.
Another interesting aspect in this article was the idea that each of us brings different outside information to a film. We each bring different levels of intellect, humor, maturity, culture, etc.
I've often felt about this after I've watched an enjoyable film, and one of the persons that watched it with me says "I didn't get it." Usually when that happens I try to explain what happened, but the truth is this person didn't get it because they are different than me in a lot of ways. A lot of movies can be interpreted as funny by some people and stupid by others. I've found that the disparity in opinion usually has a lot to do with the level of maturity in the people who watched the movie.
The idea of people bringing different information to a film relates to why some films are seen as "artistic" or "cult films." Some people understand them and some people don't.

The Eisenstein article on Film Form: Essays in Film Theory was all about montages. It focused on Eisenstein's disagreement on what a montage really is. Eisenstein saw a montage as a collision, and that from the collision of factors there arises a concept.
I can see where Eisenstein was going with his opinion on montages, but I think I like Pudovkin's idea better. He believed a montage was more like a linkage of pieces that expound an idea.
I think Eistenstein's collision montage would be good for certain types of movies and not for others. A collision of different styles of lighting, length, or music can be very effective in showing emotions in a film.
I've never seen Rashomon but the story's idea is really interesting. One thing happened and four people have different accounts of what happened. This goes back to the idea of everyone bringing different information to a movie from the first article. We all see reality a little differently than everyone else, depending on who we are and how we live.

Lotman and Eisenstein - Film

The first author, Yuri Lotman, focused mainly on the semiotics of film. It was interesting to see the mention of "syntax" when it came to the way that a cinematographer would compose his shots. I had never really thought of film in the terms of language, that is, I never pictured that a film could have a unique syntax. However, after reading this article, it started to make sense. The way that the shots are laid out are very similar to the way that words are laid out in a sentence. Put something, a shot or a specific word, and it changes the meaning. This makes the process of making a film very interesting and more complicated then I had ever thought of before.
Another part that I found interesting from the article about Lotman was the idea that people come to movies with outside influence. The idea that people who watch movies are influenced by their political, societal, or any other outside influences was very new to me. But, once again, it makes complete sense. Everything around us influences us whether we know it or not. So it can be seen that we would drag these influences into the movies when we go to watch them, sometimes without even realizing it.

When it came to Eisenstein, even more ideas sprang up. The writing on Eisenstein focused mainly on his idea of montage. The writing described his argument with a friend about what it means to be a montage. His friend argued that a montage is more like putting pieces together. This is how I had always thought of a montage being so I was surprised when Eisenstein said otherwise. He described a montage as a collision more then the "brick" method that his friend had stated. From this collision, Eisenstein said that "...from the collision of two given factors arises a concept." This was of thinking in terms of what a montage is was completely new to me. I tried to think of what that meant but that was difficult to imagine what Eisenstein meant by this. Apparently, so did he. The article goes on to say that he had a hard time trying to flesh out what this meant and changed his meaning of "montage" from a collision to a "fusion".
This made more sense. In the same way of thinking that Lotman described, the fusion that Eisenstein described is the idea that people bring what they see in movies and mix them in with reality. This carries a heavy semiotic idea with it and is a much easier explanation to understand when talking about what it means to say "Montage".

The Theory of Cinema and Film

To start of, Yuri Lotman talks about a lot of interesting issues when it comes to the semiotics of cinema. I agree with this ideas that as with everything in life there is some sort of language. When it comes to cinema, there are a number of languages out there. I'm not just talking about actual linguistics here. I'm talking about the language that the director share with his audience. The deep profound underlying subliminal messages that a video might have. These messages aren't obvious, because they're not supposed to be. They do however communicate something to us and that in itself is cinema language. With cinema, you have to look out for a number of things because everything is broken down into shots, so the canvas is broad and the opportunity to interpret something is there, you just have to look for it. It's great when in cinema you see something metaphorical, and you interpret it as something personal in your life. It evokes emotions and past experiences that can be figurative or literal. It all has to do with shots, and how they are broken apart and it's a wonderful thing how meanings change from shot to shot, and learning how to capture those meanings as a viewer is a great thing. Sure films are made for mainly entertainment purposes, but every film has some sort of rooted message or theme. While a movie may seem shallow, when analyzed and dug deeper in it's core, the true meanings are brought to the surface.

Sergei Eisenstein was considered one of the greatest film makers in the 20th century. His theory of montage really gets you thinking about the acctual characteristics of a film and how it's broken up to little bits and pieces for analysis. Films are linked together by scenes and those scenes provoke some sort of emotional response. The emotional response is brought upon us by certain techniques like the volume of the soundtrack, lighting, directions, close and long shots and the duration something is filmed. Eisenstein argues that a montage isn't just shot after shot as it is used like blocks to make a building. Montages are what links the movie together emotionally, not technically. He wanted to focus on the fact that cutting up images of reality allows us to create emotional responses in people. These are then the foundations of our sensations, emotions and ideas.

Yuri Lotman and Semiotics

Yuri Lotman was a semiotician, which is someone who studies the act of signs and their significance in books, media, and everyday life. He says that in cinema the shot is the basic unit of measurement. The order in which shots in a movie are taken affect how the viewer interprets the shots and the scene taking place. He says that we do not notice every sign in a movie and that is why we can watch movies multiple times and notice new things. Which in my experience watching movies is completely true, also watching a movie multiple times helps you understand it even better. The way we take what a scene is suppose to mean semiotically is affected by the kind of shots used, the sequence of shots, music, sound effects and other technical matters relating to film. With out some aspects of those we would not know what is going on in the scene taking place. I think with reading this article about Yuri Lotman it helped me understand that pretty much everything in a movie is set in place for a reason and that semiotics is in our life whether we notice it or not.

Semiotics of Cinema and Montage Theory

Lotman writes that everything that the viewer notices within a film has meaning, Berger adds that what the viewer does not notice results in the pleasure gained from repeated viewings of films and the uncovering of previously missed details. When interpreting a film, Lotman writes, a viewer have different levels of “preparation” based on their background information; culture, education, social and economic class, etc. Based upon this level of “preparation”, different viewers “skim off” the layers of the film that they understand, resulting in different interpretations of the film. Berger also adds that skimming also occurs when uncovering things missed in initial viewings during subsequent repeated viewing and that factors such as age and emotional and intellectual development tie into preparation and determine how much a viewer understands a film.

The concept of “skimming” layers of understanding within the viewing of a film in an interesting one, as well as one I can quite easily relate to. The age example given by Berger within this chapter, wherein he states how children can enjoyed films too adult or complicated for them by skimming off what the understand, calls to mind various early ‘90s comedies such as Dumb and Dumber and Ace Ventura: Pet Detective that I saw at a young age. Although I greatly enjoyed the slap-stick comedy of the films at the time, I didn’t really understand the plots or much of the verbal humor until I rewatched these films at an older age. During these repeated viewings I understood more as well as noticed details that made sense of my childhood memories of these films.

In regards to Eisenstein’s montage, I’m a little confused. Eisenstein’s montage is described as a collision of shots with different characteristics, yet when I think of what I understand to be a montage and the examples of it that I have seen in film then Kuleshov’s theory of a linear sequence of shots makes more sense. The examples of montage that I have seen in film are used to portray a passage of time, such as a training regime or the construction of a building or vehicle. The former is the most popular example and the first thing that comes to mind is the training montage in Rocky IV, which featuring alternating scenes of Rocky and Drago preparing for the fight. These scenes are linear and linked, even lining up at certain points and I can’t seem to recall any “collision”, unless one wants to take into account the contrast between Drago’s high tech training equipment and Rocky’s simple outdoor training. Even then I feel that the contrasts helped tie the montage together by highlighting the main conflict that the montage is leading up to.