Some Fluxus pieces were obviously made in reaction to the art and music market of the 1960s and therefore would be beside the point today. For example, works that mainly pervert orchestra rituals or the traditional role of the conductor are bound to a musical tradition that no longer exists in such a way, even in established New Music circles.

Furthermore, there are a number of works whose impact lies less in their performance than in their invention. "... was man auf 'nem Zettel klären kann, braucht keine Zeichnung zu werden; und was man im Kopf abwickeln kann braucht keinen Zettel!" [what you can explain on a piece of paper doesn’t need a drawing, what you can work out in your head doesn’t need a piece of paper] – that thought formulated by Tomas Schmit can be further refined to say "what you can explain on a piece of paper" should in most cases not be performed, but only read, as for example, some pieces by Mieko Shiomi and Dick Higgins.

But when the conceptual simplicity of some Fluxus activities seems to concentrate the roots of all interdisciplinary approaches in theater, visual arts, music and performance, then the question of relevance does not even arise. Then Fluxus is not merely a temporal manifestation, but the surrogate for all connective approaches in art and therefore of utmost relevance, especially today. Fluxus pieces with an especially cabaret-like character may have a certain entertainment value, yet they lack this dimension of depth. Although many of the “timeless” Fluxus works do make a point, their impact is not limited just to a punchline.

Ariane Jessulat