An Analysis of Fluxus Composition Techniques

VincentWJ 2007

0. Introduction
The main focus of this article will be on a specific subcategory of Fluxus output,
namely Fluxus performances, or the so-called “event scores”. These event scores
have been preserved mainly due to the effords of Ken Friedman, who collected the
majority of them in the Fluxus Performance Workbook (henceforth, FPW)1.

The main part of this article will consider the different compositional methods
used in a subset of the Fluxus event scores, illustrated with ample use of examples
and quotations. I will claim that many structures are immediately derivative from
classical/modernist compostion techniques.

0.1 Early Fluxus & its Aesthetic Principles

Fluxus is derived from the Latin verb “to flow” and brings into mind Heraclites’
doctrine that man can never step into the same river twice. Fluxus started to be
organized around 1962 by George Maciunas (1931-1978), a Lithuanian-born
American artist. Many other artists involved, such as George Brecht, Jackson Mac
Low and Dick Higgins had followed or were influenced by John Cage’s
Experimental Composition classes at the New School for Social Research in New
York City, many of which did not have any formal education in music at all. It is
mainly accepted, though often contested, that the main Fluxus period (Early
Fluxus) ended with the death of George Maciunas in 1978, although many artists
have kept on using the denomination and even artists bron after that period have
entitled themselves “Fluxus”.

George Maciunas releases together with an inventory of official Fluxus artists the
official definition of “Fluxus art-amusement”, as opposed to “Art” in 19652. Notice
that the juxtaposition of the “Fluxus art-amusement” definition and “Art” is already
in itself a compositional method. By juxtaposing the two definitions (whilst
simultaneously giving a defitition of “Art”!), Maciunas opens up a metanarrative on
the relation between mainstream art and Fluxus, and by doing so, points to the
conceptual space in which many of the Fluxus event scores take place; the
metanarrative of this definition is similar to the metanarrative in which Fluxus
performances find their structure, and in this sense it is not the literal definition of
“Fluxus art-amusement” that Maciuans proposes below, that counts, but the space
in which the conflict between the two defintions happens that is of value to my

1
From http://www.performance-research.net/pages/epublications.html#fluxus
Fluxus Perfomance Workbook (2002), eds. Friedman, K., Smith, O. & Sawchyn, L.
2
Mr. Fluxus (1997), eds. Williams, E & Noël Ann, Thames and Hudson Ltd, London, p.88
analysis. Notice also that the form and socio-historical context of a “definition”
conflict with the claims put forward in that same definition. Again, the
juxtaposition of the two definitions succesfully cancels and surpasses this
morphological problem.
ART
To justify artist’s professional, parasitic and
elite status in society,
He must demonstrate artist’s indispensability
and exclusiveness,
He must demonstrate the dependability of
audience upon him,
He must demonstrate that no one but the
artist can do art.
Therefore, art must appear to be complex,
pretentious, profound, serious, intellectual,
inspired, skillfull, significant, theatrical.
It must appear to be valuable as commodity
so as to provide the artist with an income.
To raise its value (artist’s income and patron’s
profit), art is made to appear rare, limited in
quantity and therefore obtainable and
accessible only to the social elite and
institutions.
FLUXUS ART-AMUSEMENT
To establish artist’s non-professional status in
society,
He must demonstrate artist’s dispensability
and inclusiveness,
He must demonstrate the selfsufficiency of
the audience,
He must demonstrate that anything can be
art and anyone can do it.
Therefore, art-amusement must be simple,
amusing, unpretentious, concerned with
insignificances, reuiqre no skill or countless
rehearsals, have no commodity or
institutional value.
The value of art-amusement must be lowered
by making it unlimited, massproduced,
obtainable by all and eventually produced by
all.
Fluxus art-amusement is the rear-guard
without any pretention or urge to participate
in the competition of “one-upmanship” with
the avant-garde. It strives for the
monostructural and nontheatrical qualities
of a simple natural event, a game or gag. It is
the fusion of Spike Jones, Vaudeville, gag,
children’s games and Duchamp.

This formulation by Maciunas has been generally adapted and eventually boiled
down to five charateristics by scholars and other Fluxus artists alike3:

0 Fluxus is an attitude, not a movement or a style.

0 Fluxus is intermedia. Fluxus like to see what happens when different media
intersect.
0 Fluxus creators like to mix things up. They use found and everyday objects,
sounds, images, and texts to create new combinations of objects, sounds,
images and texts.
0 Fluxus should be simple. The art is small, the texts are short, and the
performances are brief
0 Fluxus should be fun. If it isn’t fun, it isn’t Fluxus.

Notice that the interplay between Maciunas’ original defintions4 has now been lost
and replaced by a rigid five-point definition, which somehow clashes with its

3
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluxus and other sources.
content. Also, characteristic #4 seems to me a gross generalization of the subtle
statement Maciunas makes on simplicity. Whereas Maciunas talks about the
“monostructural and nontheatrical qualities of a simple, natural event, game or
gag.”, #4 generalizes this to “Fluxus art should be simple”5. In my opinion, Ken
Friedman, the editor of the FPW, realizes this defect later on his career, when he
writes the event score:

Ken Friedman – Fluxus is Dead (1989)

Send someone the smallest sculpture you own.

As I will illustrate below, Fluxus performances are not generally small, short or
brief. They might have one or several aspects, which adhere to these qualities, but
many have a considerable compositional complexity, or stand in a complex
relation with art (history).

0.2 Approaches to Fluxus

Mainly, Fluxus has been analyzed within art history from a sociopolitical or art-
historical perspective, mainly because some of the most eyecatching features of the
movement, e.g. social criticism, neo-dadaism, are presumably best analyzed from
these perspectives. However, the body of Fluxus work is much more diverse,
complex and incoherent, which has frequently compelled critics to put forth
claims such as “[…], there was not much innovation in Fluxus performance art, but a
lot of play. We have to conclude that, despite the claims made for them by [George]
Maciunas […], few Fluxus events had more revolutionary potential than a stamp-
collecting convention.”6 Other authors contrarily claim that “Fluxus was always a
phenomenon on its own, too complex and multiple to fit into the simple outlines
of contemporary art.”7

Although the events themselves might not have the “revolutionary potential”, the
semantic space that is probed and researched in the event compositions has indeed
shed a bright new light on the linguistic organization of time, space and action;
classical composition techniques were translated into the space of the concept.
Many aspects of classical performances, objets trouvés/musique concrète, dadaist
performances and language games are explored within the dense output of the
Fluxus movement, thus opening up possibilities that had never existed before, and
clearing the way for the conceptual art movement. In this sense, Fluxus also does fit

4
Note that Maciunas’ presentation method of the manifesto, juxtaposition, is precursive to Derrida’s
masterpiece Glas (1974), which juxtaposed texts by/on Hegel and Genet. Unfortunately, a close
analysis of the resemblences is beyond the scope of this article.
5
It would be beyond the scope of this article to analyze the concept of simplicity heren but
elucidating excerpts from John Maeda’s Laws of Simplicity can be found at is homepage:
http://lawsofsimplicity.com/category/laws?order=ASC.
6
Godfrey, T., Conceptual Art (1998), p.104
7
Fluxus Virus (1992), Galerie Schüppenhauer, Köln, p. 12
in into “the outlines of contemporary art”: Fluxus helped to define and develop
them.

The claim from the movement itself that all artworks are alike, on equal level and
without content, such as Emmett Williams’ famous elocution “Fluxus is what
Fluxus does – but no one know whodunit.”8, is nothing more than a
metacompositional statement about the movement and the community, and not
about the artworks produced. Moreover, these types of claims have lead critics to
reduce the whole body of work to “Fluxus whimsy”.

I disagree with denotation of Fluxus as “anti-art”. Although the intention of the

movement might be analyzed as anti-art-establishment, the compositional
methods that have largely been used, I will claim, are highly influenced by tools
and structures employed in the history of music and performance, only to be
applied to a different domain: the domain of concepts. In this sense, Fluxus is
revolutionary in opening up a completely new domain for the arts. This is truly an
important gesture and is definitely worth more analysis than this concise paper is
able to give.

This article does not aim to consider the sociopolitical context of the Fluxus
movement in the compositional analysis. Although this context is quintessential to
grasp the “feel” of this movement, one equally doesn’t consider Catholic religion
when formally analysing counterpoint technique in medieval motets. Finally, this
is not a paper that deals with questions such as “what is beautiful?” or “what is
art?”. It deals quite straightforwardly with the question “what is a well-constructed
Fluxus composition and how is it constructed?”.

0.3 The Fluxus Performance Workbook

As mentioned above, the following analysis of Fluxus pieces follows the indexation
from the FPW, which in itself is immediate descendent of the Fluxus scores. It must
be noted that the FPW itself is considered part of the Fluxus output and therefore
not historically neutral: many artists that were related to Fluxus, or have produced
only a few Fluxus pieces, such as composers from the Darmstadt school, György
Ligeti, amongst others, have not been included in the corpus, whereas
Scandinavian Fluxus-related artists such as Bengt af Klingberg, which have been
“expelled” from Fluxus by George Maciunas nonetheless are included. However,
the FPW offers the most comprehensive and organized collection of Fluxus
performances, and is therefore most suited for the survey that I will be undertaking
on the compositional methods employed by Fluxus artists.

8
Quote from: The Fluxus Reader (1998), ed Friedman, K., Academy Editions, West Sussex UK, p.viii
According to the introduction of FPW, an “event tends to be scored in brief verbal
notations. These notes are known as event scores. In a general sense, they are
proposals, propositions, and instructions. Thus, they are sometimes known as
proposal pieces, propositions or instructions.” This analysis focuses on the external
(linguistic/semantic) form of the Fluxus performances, and provides a first
guideline for an in depth aesthetical analysis.

1. Theme & Variations

The first analysis will focus on several works by George Brecht, which extrapolate
one of the main compositional forms in classical composition – theme & variation
– into the realm of concepts and ideas.

Theme and variation structures have been present in Western music history ever
since medieval music. A variation is related to the original melody by several
keynotes and length, whereas rhythm, harmony and tonality are variable. Thus, a
variation on a theme is constrained by parameters, which are already present in
theme itself, and, a theme can be recognized and defined by those restrictions.
Length and rhythm are restrictions in time, harmony, tonality and keynotes are
restrictions in tonal material. These restrictions, more specifically those on the
variations, provide a focus on the underlying melody and the main concepts,
building blocks of this melody, and similarly serve as a connection, shared nature
of the theme and variations. Moreover, within the conceptual space left by the
restrictions, the composer is free to play with the thematic material. It is exactly
this conceptual space that is stretched and explored within the context of
restrictions different from and transcending traditional notions of rhythm and
harmony.

This broader application of restriction as I will use it means defining the borders of
concepts such as time, space, velocity, medium, number of performers, etc. For
example, a sonata by Chopin is more or less restrictive on time (duration, length),
velocity (rhythm), but very restrictive on medium (piano). Early serial works by
Stockhausen or Boulez are very restrictive on nearly all parameters, while
composers such as Ferneyhough use severe restriction, which causes an
information overload with the performer, as a source of creativity and uniqueness.
Fluxus performances play with the categories of restriction, and the restriction of
restriction itself.

However, in movement-internal analyses of Brecht’s and others’ Fluxus pieces, the

content is stressed instead of form and composition. George Maciunas, for example,
puts forth the following claim: “Concertism is a simple term, it means the opposite
of abstraction. The Ready-Made is the most concrete thing. John Cage extended it to
Ready-Made sound, noise. George Brecht and Ben Vautier extended it to Ready-
Made actions, like turning on the light.”9 What Maciunas ignores is, that although
the content of many of the Fluxus performance pieces may be “Ready-Made”, the
form is dictated by classical principles10. This is also stated by artists from the same
period, outside the Fluxus movement, such as Jill Johnston, talking about a
performance: “[…], for Fluxus actions became as methodical as Cage in their means
of production.”11

George Brecht – Drip Music (1959)

For single or multiple performance. A source of dripping water and an empty
vessel are arranged so that the water falls into the vessel.

George Brecht – Drip Music, Second Version (1959)

Dripping.

George Brecht – Drip Music, Fluxversion 1 (1959)

First performer on a tall ladder pours water from a pitcher very slowly into the bell
of a French horn or tuba held in the playing position by a second performer at floor
level.

These three pieces from the early Fluxus period give already a broad illustration of
the compositional methods used in performance pieces. All three pieces fit into the
description outlined above. Drip Music contains several instructions, Drip Music,
Second Version contains a verb, which can either be a proposal “let’s do some
dripping”, or a proposition “it is stated that there is dripping”. Both the active
creation of a dripping event as in Drip Music and a passive “objet trouvé” type of
dripping, e.g. rain, can constitute successful performances. Drip Music, Fluxversion 1
contains similar instructions, but is more specific on the number of performers
(two), the source of the water (pitcher), the vessel (the bell of a French horn or
tuba), position (on a tall ladder, in playing position) and duration (very slowly).
Drip Music, Fluxversion 1 sets the most parameters for a performance and is in that
sense the most restricted of the three Drip Music pieces.

Similarly to the the Drip Music pieces, George Brecht wrote several other sets of
pieces consisting of one thematic version (like Drip Music, Second Version) and one
more constricted variation (fluxversion). Observe:

George Brecht – Word Event (1961)

Exit.

9
Quote from: Fluxus Today and Yesterday (1993), eds. Hodges, N., Khambatta, R., Trentham, L.,VCH
Publishers, Cambridge UK, p.8
10
One can see an interesting parallel with Maciunas’s treatment of “definition” in the case of his
Fluxus art-amusement definition.
11
Quote from: Johnston, J. (1994) Dada and Fluxus, in: Hapgood, S. (1994) Neo-Dada, Universe
Publishing, New York, p.94
 George Brecht – Word Event, Fluxversion 1 (1961)
The audience is instructed to leave the theatre.

And:

George Brecht – Saxophone Solo (1962)

Trumpet.

George Brecht – Saxophone Solo, Fluxversion 1 (1962)

The piece is announced. Performer enters stage with an instrument case, places it
on a stand, opens it and pulls out a trumpet, realizes the mistake, puts it quickly
back in the case and exits.

In both abovementioned cases, the fluxversion is more restrictive than the

thematic version. Brecht uses these fluxversions to explore the variety of possible
interpretations of the thematic piece in terms of restrictions on one or more of its
aspects. An elaborate example is the series For a Drummer for which he designs
seven Fluxversions.

George Brecht – For a Drummer (For Eric) (1966)

Drum on something you have never drummed on before. Drum with something
you have never drummed with before.

The thematic version is very straightforward in its description. The two restrictions
are formulated as a negative restriction, which is a linguistic method occasionaly
used in Fluxus performances in order to access the conceptual space
complementary to the common preformance praxis. A similar formulation was
already implicitly present in Saxophone Solo, where the opposition
saxophone/trumpet caused a similar solution from contradiction/negation. Notice
that negation is primarily and uniquely a linguistic operation. Therefore negation
presents a revolutionary tool in the realm of composition; there is no such thing –
except for an occasional “do not hurry!” in a sonata – as formal negation in classical
music. The expression of the performance within language however, does offer this
novel possibility.

One or both of the complementary conceptual spaces that are presented in the
thematic version are explored in the seven fluxversions.

George Brecht – For a Drummer, Fluxversion 1 (1966)

Performer drums with drum sticks or drum brushes over the surface of wet mud or
thick glue until brushes or sticks get stuck and can’t be lifted.
 George Brecht – For a Drummer, Fluxversion 2 (1966)
Performer drums with sticks over a leaking feather pillow making the feathers
escape the pillow.

George Brecht – For a Drummer, Fluxversion 7 (1966)

Performer drums with brushes inside a vessel filled with cream until the cream is
thick.

In these three fluxversions, the first negative restriction is expored in several ways.
All three performances are to be done with common drumming equipment
(sticks/brushes), from which we can conclude that the period seperating the
instructions in the thematic piece must be interpreted as an “exclusive or”. All
three pieces are implicitly restricted in medium/instrument, respectively: surface of
mud or glue, pillow, vessel; and in time, respectively: until the brushes get stuck,
until the feathers have escaped, until the cream is thick.

George Brecht – For a Drummer, Fluxversion 4 (1966)

Performer drums over drums with rolled newspaper until the rolls disintegrate.

Fluxversions 3, 4, and 5 all focus on the second restriction of the general piece. The
medium/instrument is common drumming equipment (drums), which are played
by, respectively: rolled newspapers, leather hose, racket/ping-pong ball. Fluxversion
4 also includes a restriction on time: until disintegration, Fluxversions 3 and 5 do
not.

George Brecht – For a Drummer, Fluxversion 3 (1966)

Performer drums over drum with 2 ends of slightly leaking leather hose.

George Brecht – For a Drummer, Fluxversion 5 (1966)

Performer dribbles a ping-pong ball between hand-held racket and drum skin.

Fluxversion 6 is standing out from the rest since the main exploration is not
conducted in the medium/instrument or the equipment, but in the completely
unrestricted space of number of performers. The main compositional feature in
comparison with the other fluxversions is the inclusion of a second performer.

George Brecht – For a Drummer, Fluxversion 6 (1966)

Performer drums with mallets or hammers on a helmet worn by another
performer.

As one can see clearly from the abovementioned examples, these types of Fluxus
performances are composed according to the classical theme/variation method. Not
only George Brecht used this compositional method. In FPW there one can track
similar works by Mieko Shiomi: Wind Music, Event for the Late Afternoon, Falling
Event, Mirror Piece no.2, Wind Music no.2; and Ben Vautier: Monochrome for Yves Klein.

1.1 More on Negative Restrictions

Although, as I mentioned above, negation is a novel, powerful, compositional tool,
there aren’t many pieces12, except Brecht’s For a Drummer, which exploit this
concept. Moreover, these pieces often deal with “negation” in terms of absence and
generally have a Zen-like touch to them. There are two pieces by Jed Curtis13 listed
in the FPW.

Jed Curtis – Music for My Son (date unknown)

Do not prepare for the performance and even try to forget that in a short time you
will be performing. When the time of the performance comes, simply do
something appropriate.

Jed Curtis – Music for Wise Men (date unknown)

Commit suicide

Music for My Son stresses the absence of any preparation for the performance, and
even the performance itself. The whole context of performing is denied, which is
stressed by “doing something appropriate”, whence the performance is “on”. Music
for Wise Men features a complex relationship between title and content just like
Brecht’s Saxophone Solo. However, instead of content contradicting title, in this
case the content of the performance forces the performer (if wise) the cease his
existence. This use of negation in an existential manner can also be found in a piece
by Bici Forbes:

Bici Forbes – Become invisible (1966)

a. by hiding; b. by divesting yourself of all distinguishing marks; c. by going away;
d. by sinking through the floor; e. by becoming someone else; f. by concentrating so
hard on some object or idea that you cease to be aware of your physical presence; g.
by distracting everybody else from your physical presence; h. by ceasing to exist.

12
From the approximately 570 event scores in the FPW only 20 contain an overtly expressed
negation (not, no, never, etc.). Eric Anderson: Opus 46 (1963); George Brecht: No Smoking Event
(1961), For a Drummer (1966); Anthony Cox: Tactical Pieces for Orchestra; Peter Frank: Breaking Event
(1988); Ken Friedman: Mandatory Happening (1966), Selection Event (1991), Stage Fright Event (1991);
Dick Higgins: Danger Music No.31 (1963); Milan Knizak: A Week (1966), Marriage Ceremony (1967);
Takehisa Kosugi: Distance for Piano (1965), For Mr M; Jackson Mac Low: Thanks (1960-1); Larry Miller:
200 Yard Candle Dash (1970), Like/Don’t Like (1981); Mieko Shiomi: Wind Music, Fluxversion II (1963),
Mirror Piece No.2 (1966), Mirror Piece No.2, Fluxversion I (1966); Ben Vautier: Nothing (1962);
13
Notice also that Jed Curtis is not listed in George Maciunas official 1965 inventory list of Fluxus
artists, nor in his 1966 Fluxus diagram. The same holds for Bici Forbes. Then again, Ken Friedman
(editor of the FPW) was also never part of the movement according to this inventory, or at least not
during the time of its publication.
Ben Vautier’s piece Nothing, is definitely one of the pieces with the strongest
restriction on them. Although the content, on first sight, suggests an open piece
with many possibilities, there is actually only one singular, never performable
performance of this piece: to perform and simultaneously to do nothing;
paradoxical and inconcievable, this is truly one of the toughest event scores ever
written.

Ben Vautier – Nothing (1962)

Performers do nothing.

From the absence of pieces similar to Brecht’s For a Drummer, we might conclude
that the exploration of the realm of negative contexts has, within the Fluxus
movement, never been explored exhaustively.

2. The Deconstruction of Praxis: Recycling of Classical Composition

Techniques
Another key concept, next to (negative) restriction is the deconstruction of
praxis. This technique involves the amplification of or (extreme) focus on the
peripheral aspects of or relationships within the performance praxis. One of the
tools to do so is, once again, restriction. By putting restrains on the peripheral
aspects of a “classical” performance, the focus shifts from the content to the
context. The main instrument in most of these types of pieces is the grand piano,
since it embodies in its grandeur the apex of classical performance culture14. This is
very well illustrated in the series 12 Piano Compositions for Nam June Paik by George
Maciunas, of which I will analyze a few below.

George Maciunas – Composition no.1 (1962)

Let piano movers carry piano into the stage.

George Maciunas – Composition no.12 (1962)

Let piano movers carry piano out of the stage.

No.1 and No.12 are the cornerstone pieces of 12 Piano Compositions, and focus on the
preparatory phase of a concert15.

George Maciunas – Composition no.2 (1962)

Tune the piano.

14
Cf. a quote from Jill Johnston (ibid, p.98) “A grand piano on stage always signalled its
unconventional use.” Also, “[…] the piano, which for the bourgeoisie was a means of gaining access
to a simulacrum of the representation of music and romantic culture” Attali, Jacques (1985) Noise –
The Political Economy of Music, University of Minnesota Press, p.119
15
For an orchestral variation, see also Ben Vautier’s Orchestra Piece no.4
 George Maciunas – Composition no.11 (1962)
Wash the piano, wax and polish it well.

Similarly, No.2 focuses on the internal preparation of the piano, and No.11 on the
external preparation. All four abovementioned pieces are restricted in medium
(piano) and time (when carried into/out of the stage, when tuned). Also, observe the
apparent symmetry. The following centerpieces deal on several levels with the
praxis of a piano recital.

George Maciunas – Composition no.4 (1962)

Using a straight stick the length of the keyboard sound all keys together.

George Maciunas – Composition no.6 (1962)

Stretch the 3 highest strings with a tuning key until they break.

Both performances focus on the mechanics of playing piano: depressing keys and
the exertion of force on stretched strings (hammering). Restriction is only posed on
(unusual) way of depressing/stretching, which are hence the center points of the
dramatic action. Notice that both performaces aim for a highly audible effect: all
keys sounding at once, and the breaking of the highest strings. This amplifies the
effect of the composition; the focus on the performance praxis. The last two
compositions by Maciunas comment on the relation between the performer and
the audience.

George Maciunas – Composition no.9 (1962)

Draw a picture of a piano so that the audience can see the picture.

George Maciunas – Composition no.10 (1962)

Write a sign reading: piano composition #10 and show the audience the sign.

Composition no.9 comments on the visual aspect of a piano recital: no performance is

successful if the piano is not in view. No.10 focuses on the practice of handing
out/selling accompanying booklets before a piano recital. These booklets provide
the audience information on the performer, the pieces that will be played and the
general context of the evening/location.

Whereas the pieces mentioned above focus on the deconstruction of the classical
praxis, other pieces stress the physicality of the performance and aim for a more
literal deconstruction of the piano. These pieces have often symbolized the whole
Fluxus movement because of their potential scandalous outcome: the complete
destruction of the instrument. Following pieces fit into this picture:

Jackson Mac Low – Piano Suite for David Tudor and John Cage (1961)
 (any number of persons may participate in one or more of the movements)
1. Carefully disassemble the piano. Do not break any parts or separate parts
joined by gluing or welding (unless welding apparatus & experienced
welder are available for the 2nd movement!). All parts cut or cast or forged
as one piece must remain as one piece.
2. Carefully reassemble the piano.
3. Tune the piano.
4. Play something.

Mac Low’s piece has a structure similar to Maciunas’ Compositions; it deconstructs

part of the classical performance and although the instructions sound easy and
straightforward, the actual execution is a complex task. The complexity of the
instrument becomes a metaphor for the complexity of the performance. Similarly,
in a piece by Takehisa Kosugi, Distance for Piano (to David Tudor) touches on this
topic.

Takeshi Kosugi – Distance for Piano (to David Tudor) (1965)

Performer positions himself at some distance from the piano from which he
should not move. Performer does not touch piano directly by any part of his body,
but may manipulate other objects to produce sound on piano thourgh them.
Performer produces sounds at points of piano previously determined by him.
Assistants may move piano to change distance and direction to directions of the
performer.

The playfulness exhibited in Mac Low’s, and to lesser extend Kosugi’s, piece is more
prominent in the following pieces by Ichiyanagi and Schmit.

Toshi Ichiyanagi – Music for Piano No.5, Fluxversion (date unknown)

An upright piano is positioned at the center stage with its profile toward the
audience. The pedal is fixed in a depressed position. A performer, hidden from view
in the wings, throws darts into the back of the piano according to the time pattern
indicated in the score.

Thomas Schmit – Piano Piece no.1 (1962)

Performer places various objects – toys, chess pieces, concrete blocks, wood blocks,
bricks, glass vases, rubber balls, etc. – on the closed lid of a grand piano. He may
arrange these objects very carefully and with deliberation. He may construct a
building out of the blocks, or arrange the chess pieces, or arrange the various toys,
etc. When he has completed his arrangement, he lifts the great lid suddenly. The
piano must be placed so that when the lid opens, the objects slide toward the
audience.

The playfulness can be easily transformed into destruction, in a way child’s play
often ends in outbursts of violence. Destruction is also the most effective way to
comment on the kathartic element of classical performance, the violence that is
present in the dissonance of the late-romantic era (e.g. Wagner, late Chopin) and
subsequently atonal music and musique concrète is extended to the physical
mutilation of the instrument.

Thomas Schmit – Sanitas no.151, Fluxvariation 1 (date unknown)16

All the piano keys of a chromatic scale are nailed down.

Notice in the instruction no performer, duration, space, tool, color etc. is

mentioned. The only restriction, and therefore direct focus, is on the physical
presence of the instrument; there has to be one. Robert Bozzi specifically excels in
the creation of such pieces, although they are less abstract and more restricted.

Robert Bozzi – Choice 16 (1966)

A piano is lifted by means of a windlass to the height of 2 meters and then dropped.
This is repeated until the piano or the floor is destroyed.

Robert Bozzi – Choice 3 (1966)

A piano is on stage. The performer enters wearing a crash helmet. He takes a stage
position as far as possible. He lowers his head and dashes toward the piano at top
speed, crashing into the piano with helmeted head.

Choice 16 is quite similar to Schmit’s Sanitas no.151 in its language and effect, i.e. the
destruction of the piano. Interesting about Choice 16 is that time is not only
restricted by the state of the piano, but also by the state of performance area.
Whereas Schmit avoids any reference to the spatial context, Bozzi stresses it. Choice
3 introduces restrictions on the performer and focuses on the troubled relationship
between performer and instrument.

Robert Bozzi – Choice 5 (1966)

Two pianists sit behind pianos. They depress the pedals and crash the pianos into
each other several times.

In relation to Choice 5, a piece by Emmett Williams is also noteworthy, which

doesn’t focus on the physicality of the instrument, but on the physicality of the
performer and the emotional strain of a performance.

Emmett Williams – Emotional Duet (1962)

Performer A inflicts pain upon himself.
Performer B inflicts pain upon herself.

16
George Maciunas’ Piano Piece #13 (for Nam June Paik), which is quite similar to Thomas Schmit’s
piece, is generally known to be performed in the same way but not found in the FPW. An excellent
performance of this piece by Sonic Youth can be found at:
http://boss.streamos.com/download/sonicyouth/videos/hires/piano.mov
 Performer A inflicts pain upon performer B.
Performer B inflicts pain upon performer A.

Note that there are restrictions on the sex of the performers (one male, one female).
Apart from an analysis of the physicality of a perfomer, it is also an interesting
counterpoint to the classical pas-de-deux in ballet. Once again it seems that
although Fluxus “abolished” classical art forms, their often comical commentary is
grounded in classical forms.

Not only the relation between performer, stage and instrument is explored. Also
the often problematic relationship between soloist and orchestra is deconstructed
and reassembled. One of such pieces is Ben Vautier’s Piano Concerto no.2 for Paik17.
Nam June Paik was used for his physical agility and expression18, and this piece is
therefore very much suited for him as a soloist.

Ben Vautier – Paino Concerto no.2 for Paik (1965)

Orchestra members seat themselves and wait for the pianist. The pianist enters,
bows and walks to the piano. Upon reaching the piano, he jumps from the stage
and runs to the exit. Orchestra members must run after him, catch him, and drag
him back to the piano. When the [player] is finally returned to the piano, the lights
are turned off.

The final relationships internal to the praxis of performance is the connection

between the performer(s) and the audience and the audience to itself. Many pieces
consider these relationships, of which I will present some below. Again, these
relationships are worked out systematically.

Emmett Williams – Duet for Performer and Audience (1961)

Performer waits silently on stage for audible reaction from audience, which he
imitates.

Emmett Williams – For La Monte Young (1962)

Performer asks if La Monte Young is in the audience.

In both pieces by Williams, the main target of the performance is communication

with the audience, this can be on a very basic level – imitation, which is often
quoted as one the foundations of mutual understanding – or by question–answer
games. The ultimate consequence of this line of conceptual inquiry is the complete
absence of the performer or the merge of the performer with the audience: the
audience becomes performer.

Ben Vautier – Concerto for Audience by Audience (1964)

17
FPW also lists exactly the same performance as Emmett Williams: Piano Concerto for Paik no.2.
18
Cf. the amusing anecdote in Toop, Richard (1999) György Ligeti, Phaidon London UK, p.81.
 The audience is invited to come to the stage, take instruments that are provided to
them, sit on the orchestra seats and play for 3 minutes. If the audience does not
respond to the invitation, instruments should be distributed among them.

Ben Vautier – Three Pieces for Audiences (1964)

1. Change places.
2. Talk together.
3. Give something to your neighbor.

These last two pieces (among many others by Ben Vautier) complete the Fluxus
analysis of the classical realm of performance and the recycling of classical
composition procedures. Several other pieces are connected with the itenerary to
and from a performance, most notably the Exit pieces by Ay-O.

3. Metadadaism
Next to the compositional methods used, there are a few categories of Fluxus
peerformance pieces, which I think of minor interest. These pieces are usually
molded around a neo-dadaist approach, focusing on absurd or paradoxal proposals.
Several of these types of pieces were created by Robert Watts.

Robert Watts – Washroom (1962)

The local national anthem or another appropriate tune is sung or played in the
washroom under the supervision of uiformed attendent.

Most of these pieces commented on developments during the dadaist/surreaist

period, such as Washroom, which provides an obvious reference to Duchamp’s
famous Fountain. Sometimes the reference is even more direct as in Luce Fierens’
Possible Flux Performances or Post Flux Games.

Luce Fierens – Possible Flux Performances or Post Flux Games (1987, excerpt)
Go to the nearest café and wait for Godot!

Most of these pieces were to be performed outside the classical environment of the
performance hall, in public spaces. Whereas dadaist performances usually involved
very concrete act- and festivities, the Fluxus pieces usually commented on a
metalevel to the environment. This is already clear for the Washroom piece, but can
also be located in several other neo-dadaist pieces.

Robert Watts – C/S Trace (1963)

An object is fired from a cannon at a cymbal.

C/S Trace and similar pieces do not deal with the actual firing or landing of the
object, but with its trace, its narrative. Whereas dadaism focuses on direct action,
this category of Fluxus output is more referential to action: meta-action. The cause
of this shift is mostly due to the fact that all the performances are written, thus
providing space for language game techniques such as the play with titles, which is
common throughout the FPW and the play with the instructions themselves.

4. Conclusion

In the previous sections I have aimed to initiate the research into the structural
properties of Fluxus performance art on several levels. I have touched on
theme/variation principles, deconstruction of praxis and so-called metadadaist
approaches to organizing the conceptual performance space and the linguistic
methods that can be employed to do so.

A more complete analysis of the whole Fluxus performances would obviously

include performance praxis and its sociopolical context, and research into the
pieces that were missing/omitted from the FPW. As a final note I would like to
quote Friedman’s Mandatory Happening.

Ken Friedman – Mandatory Happening (1966)

You will decide to read or not read this instruction. Having made your decision, the
happening is over.

Mandatory Happening is indeed a performance that cannot possibly not happen

once initiated, and has a radical quality similar to previously mentioned Ben
Vautier’s Nothing. The inevitability of the piece sublimates the metadadaist
qualities, the play with compositional methods and imposes an extreme restriction
on the performer19. The contextual and performative extremities that are required
by the Fluxus event scores have paved the way for the all later body/performance
artists that we know and love.

19
Interestingly, it is specifically this piece that is resonated in the viral game “The Game”: it cannot
be not played. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_%28game%29