3 ms·

Well, you know, I see what you’re saying about Yoko - she’s not the kind of artist that makes your jaw drop or blows your mind with technique. But, to me, it’s

by ustad 2y ago

Well, you know, I see what you’re saying about Yoko - she’s not the kind of artist that makes your jaw drop or blows your mind with technique. But, to me, it’s not really about that. It’s about the journey, not the destination, right? Art’s all about the path you take, the experiences you collect, and the way you view the world. Yoko, for all the criticisms, has certainly led an interesting life, no doubt. She’s been a trailblazer, or maybe just a wild spirit, pushing boundaries and breaking norms. She’s had her share of ups and downs, but it’s the living that matters. And through it all, she’s remained true to herself. That’s something to admire, even if you don’t agree with everything she does. The destination, the fame, the recognition - that’s all fleeting. But the journey, man, that’s where the real magic happens.

rdtsc 2y ago
> she’s not the kind of artist that makes your jaw drop or blows your mind with technique. But to be displayed in MoMA she'd kind of have to be. > Art’s all about the path you take, the experiences you collect, and the way you view the world. I guess I see your point, the fact that she is the widow is also part of the artist and the artwork. That's fair. But, I'll also say that who she is is the 90% part and the 10% is the art. If one anonymized her work, it would never have made it to those galleries or exhibits.
- fipar 2y ago
  > But to be displayed in MoMA she'd kind of have to be. While I agree with you about Ono’s art, I disagree on this. I know art is subjective, but in my times at MoMA I’ve found it bimodal: works on display there either blow ls my mind or I just don’t feel anything about.
- brandall10 2y ago
  That's underselling her influence as an artist from her pre-Beatles period. She produced a handful of important avant-garde pieces and performances from the 60s in NYC and London and was a student and collaborator of John Cage, an extremely influential composer who has had dozens of exhibitions at MoMA. In fact she first met The Beatles to request a song manuscript for a Cage book. She was also well connected to that world (she was invited to join the Fluxus community and artists like Marcel Duchamp attended her NYC loft parties) and quite ambitious, so there's a non-zero chance she would have become even more prominent had The Beatles association never taken place. I have no interest in that world myself, but to say she was a nobody without The Beatles simply isn't true, she was definitely a rising star. A household name? Probably not, but possibly. An artist from that period that could be exhibited at the major international galleries, have her works studied in art schools? Absolutely.
  - rdtsc 2y ago
    Yeah. I can agree about her 60s work. However I think she would have stayed relatively obscure had she not become "ultimate professional widow" as the article put it.

by ustad 2y ago

rdtsc 2y ago

> she’s not the kind of artist that makes your jaw drop or blows your mind with technique. But to be displayed in MoMA she'd kind of have to be. > Art’s all about the path you take, the experiences you collect, and the way you view the world. I guess I see your point, the fact that she is the widow is also part of the artist and the artwork. That's fair. But, I'll also say that who she is is the 90% part and the 10% is the art. If one anonymized her work, it would never have made it to those galleries or exhibits.

fipar 2y ago
> But to be displayed in MoMA she'd kind of have to be. While I agree with you about Ono’s art, I disagree on this. I know art is subjective, but in my times at MoMA I’ve found it bimodal: works on display there either blow ls my mind or I just don’t feel anything about.
brandall10 2y ago
That's underselling her influence as an artist from her pre-Beatles period. She produced a handful of important avant-garde pieces and performances from the 60s in NYC and London and was a student and collaborator of John Cage, an extremely influential composer who has had dozens of exhibitions at MoMA. In fact she first met The Beatles to request a song manuscript for a Cage book. She was also well connected to that world (she was invited to join the Fluxus community and artists like Marcel Duchamp attended her NYC loft parties) and quite ambitious, so there's a non-zero chance she would have become even more prominent had The Beatles association never taken place. I have no interest in that world myself, but to say she was a nobody without The Beatles simply isn't true, she was definitely a rising star. A household name? Probably not, but possibly. An artist from that period that could be exhibited at the major international galleries, have her works studied in art schools? Absolutely.
- rdtsc 2y ago
  Yeah. I can agree about her 60s work. However I think she would have stayed relatively obscure had she not become "ultimate professional widow" as the article put it.