Art History and Its Exclusions /Fluxus Exclusion

RTomens, 2018

Edward Lucie-Smith's Movements in Art since 1945 omits Fluxus, perhaps because it was first published in 1969, when some critics still regarded acts in its name as nonsense, not to be taken seriously and more to the point, a non-movement, or anti-movement which, in a way, it was. 

The book was revised in 1975. Still no Fluxus. Too early to reappraise Fluxus? As you know, it's a slippery beast, no sooner grasped than gone. Fluxus was/is more of an attitude? Perhaps.

I won't be name-checked in any art books. Me and millions of others who have/will make pictures/films/actions etc under the label 'art'. No matter. It is the fate of real Folk Art to remain obscure unlike, say, Folk Music which has been recorded in bars and preserved, to be aired now and again on Resonance FM. 

Even Art Brut has its devotees and, the last time I looked, a magazine. It has some historical significance, as you know. Jarvis Cocker made a film about it. Jarvis won't be visiting my home in a hurry. Why should he? How could he begin to cover the amount of Folk Art being made today? Nobody can. Or wants to, for that matter. We are an army of unknowns. We are not excluded by anyone, save for gallery-owners who demand ridiculous fees; should you ever wish to be shown. Money trumps talent? Not necessarily. I'm sure those wealthy enough (or with access to the bank of Daddy or Mummy) to buy gallery space may also have talent. 

They got the shows, but we've got the numbers! To paraphrase Jim Morrison. But wait, we're not at war. I'm not, anyway. Life's too short to fight battles you can't win. 

Here's the rest of the series: Art History and Its Exclusions. The original is at the top. As you can see, I've been experimenting with paint. 

RTomens, 2018

RTomens, 2018

RTomens, 2018

RTomens, 2018