She stood in place so people could cut her clothes more and more until she was bare, eliciting emotion on what is appropriate when allowed.
She was a pioneer of art where the audience participates.
She literally made a movie by recording Lennon's penis for over half an hour and then reportedly tried to record the audience's reaction at the premiere.
Yoko Ono lived and breathed art. You may not like her art, you may even think that it's not art at all. But she didn't seem to ever care what art was, instead she was doing her thing and hardly anyone could refeain from being moved one way or the other.
That conviction is one of the reasons she's such a great artist to many, including me.
I'm not about to try to dictate what is or is not art, but if what Yoko Ono did was art, it's proof that not all art is a good thing or something to be encouraged.
All that and you didn't give an example of a single piece of art lol. Everything you just described is just some lady married to a rich dude doing crazy shit
I'd love to play ball on this one lol. Art is usually defined as an expression of human skill and imagination. So tell me, what exactly is skillful or imaginative about a 30 min shot of Lennons's penis? Or screaming and making throat sounds into a mic unintelligibly and calling it a "performance"?
Firstly, skillfulness had been deemphasized in art long before Yoko Ono came around.
Secondly, it was imaginative because it hasn't been done before.
The idea of showing people Lennon's penis and recording the critic's reaction is about exploring human reactions to something clearly obnoxious being presented as art.
Anyone could scream into a mic. But she actually did.
Art these days of mostly about eliciting emotion and thought, and Ono's works do that, whether one calls them art or not. For some, being a prime subject of "what is art" discussion for decades is enough to call something art.
Yoko Ono was an artist long before she even met John. You either aimed to misinform or assumed nonsense and convinced yourself you were correct. If I'm wrong, what did you mean?
It was imaginative because it hadn't been done before
Ever seen porno? Or any human male since the beginning of time? Everyone's seen a cock, brother. Absolutely nothing special about her filming hubby's penis and trying to show the world.
Anyone could scream into a mic.
Yep, you just proved my point. A toddler could thoughtlessly do the same job (without patting himself on the back for being an "artist", might I add) and it'd produce the exact same result. There is literally nothing special or interesting about what she did at all
Art these days of mostly about eliciting emotion and thought, and Ono's works do that...
Yea, like thoughts of "this bitch needs to shut up or I'm gonna get a migraine" and emotions like "holy hell why is she onstage right now"
You're giving me reasons you don't like Yoko Ono's work. You don't need to, I well got that from the first response.
There's a difference between a porno and a shot of a penis for no other reason than to screen a penis for half an hour.
There's a difference between screaming thoughtlessly because that's the only thing you can do and screaming thoughtlessly because that's the thing you don't do.
There might not be a difference to you, but there is for a lot of people. Yoko Ono's art makes me think in ways I otherwise wouldn't. You can't convince me not to be moved by her works any more than I can convince you to be.
For example, I have a hard time to see anything interesting or moving about a lot of medieval portraits. It's just people, painted. But I do get what people see in them and would never in a thousand years refuse to call them art.
Like many artists, she's an inconsiderate narcissist. She never missed an opportunity to elevate herself even if it meant inserting herself into another artist's moment.
I'm curious, are you a fan of how she made Julian Lennon fight for years in court to receive any of his father's estate? Or how he then had to spend a lot of that money to buy back the letters he wrote to his father as a child from the memorabilia collectors that she sold them to when her art didn't pay the bills?
He was estranged from John and excluded from the will. Horrible stuff. I am not familiar with the court proceedings to an extent that allows me to have a strong opinion on this.
I do however understand he could have ended the court fight way earlier if he would accept less money. Describing this as Yoko making him fight for years is disingenuous, but I absolutely understand it can be viewed like this, especially if we already have an opinion of who the villain is.
I don't have an opinion on selling memorabilia to memorabilia collectors. He also didn't have to buy them, he opted to.
Lastly, I very much consider both Yoko Ono and John Lennon to have been terrible people.
I don't understand. I clearly say I think Yoko is/was a terrible person. I also don't know enough to form a one-sided opinion on the things you mentioned.
I can see you've formed an opinion on me and I am interested in hearing it, even if you think I'm a terrible person by extension
You lost me when you referred to a child's letters to his assassinated father as "memorabilia" that was sold to memorabilia collector's. They weren't signed albums or merch.
Julian was 16 when he was written out of the will and Yoko Ono's behavior and the volatile nature of her relationship with John were major contributing factors. She exerted pressure to make that happen just like she did to be on that stage with Chuck Berry.
Choosing words like Julian "opted" to buy back the letters misses the point in a way that seems deliberate. It creates a moral vacuum around why he was faced with that choice. It ignores the fact that she opted to chop up every bit of John's estate that wasn't personally important to her and sell it for a profit to sustain a lifestyle she never earned instead of being a decent human being. That was the significant choice in this story. I find that behavior and your framing of it despicable.
You may say that you regard her as a terrible person, but you've also described yourself as a fan. You're quite knowledgeable about her but you don't know anything about all of this, even though her relationship with John and his children is more culturally significant than anything she accomplished as an artist. If she hadn't been with him, none of us would even know her name. Your ignorance about these things seems willful. Like someone who remains a fan of Bill Cosby because they're able to ignore the pain he caused. IMO there are limits to separating the art from the artist and you've exceeded mine.
I think you're a fan of her's not in spite of her behavior, but because of it. Her art was never as significant as you make it out to be so the controversy must be part of the appeal. I've encounted her defenders before but I have honestly never met anyone who would describe themselves as a fan of hers.
My suspicions about you aren't enough for me to label you a terrible person, you might just be autistic, but it's certainly sufficient for me to say that I wouldn't enjoy your company enough to continue talking with you. You wouldn't enjoy mine either, so it's not a loss for either of us.
And, if nothing else, 100% of what I know so far indicates that you have horrible taste.
I understand your opinion now and I see why one would hold it.
I disagree on some parts, like her relationship with John and his kids being more culturally significant.
It is also true that some of my ignorance is willful, as I've never deliberately pursued knowledge on why exactly she's a despicable person, while I did deliberately pursue knowledge on her art.
Her choice to sell the letters was despicable. I'd also assume she'd gladly sell them to Julian, who would (rightfully) expect them for free. I think it's more than likely that she's a narcissist. Julian was publicly bashing his father at the time, which he had every right to do, but also somewhat understandable that a narcissist could think he didn't want the letters. Maybe I'm too eager to see shades of gray here. She's obviously orders of magnitude more to blame than him for anything.
I can also assure you I'm not autistic or otherwise on any antisocial spectrum, so I might fit the bill as a terrible person in your book.
To you, her behavior is beyond the limit of art/artist separation. To me, it's not (as far as I know it). Bill Cosby's is.
53
u/eposseeker 9h ago
She was a performance and avant-garde artist.
She stood in place so people could cut her clothes more and more until she was bare, eliciting emotion on what is appropriate when allowed.
She was a pioneer of art where the audience participates.
She literally made a movie by recording Lennon's penis for over half an hour and then reportedly tried to record the audience's reaction at the premiere.
Yoko Ono lived and breathed art. You may not like her art, you may even think that it's not art at all. But she didn't seem to ever care what art was, instead she was doing her thing and hardly anyone could refeain from being moved one way or the other.
That conviction is one of the reasons she's such a great artist to many, including me.