Hacker News Reader

Comment by rdtsc | Hacker News Reader

> Although Ono has, for two decades, been comfortably rehabilitated as an artist in her own right

I don't think she is a very good artist. Everyone felt they have to like her, and galleries brought her work in because, well, she is John Lennon's widow.

Here is her performance art, she is screaming in a microphone https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdZ9weP5i68

And some drawings https://www.moma.org/collection/works/131503

It's fine, but just nothing outstanding. The article gives her the best description I've heard so far "ultimate professional widow".

View on HN

She's right up there Cattelan's banana duct-taped to a wall. In other words, she's in that grey area where you're not sure whether her art is sincere or some kind of fraud.

But that's par for the course with much of modern art. It's a vast movement occupying this Poe's Law-style zone of artistic ambiguity.

+1. To me it just seems kind of bland. I used to like her more and made a point of going to MoMA to see her when I lived in NYC, but over time she's done the opposite of "grow on me".

I still think Grapefruit is great. Nonetheless a lot of her work, especially her recent work, seems kind of disconnected form its historical context, not very daring, deep or metaphorical. It doesn't really propose anything new or seem distinctively hers. It's almost performative, like someone doing conceptual, installation and performance art "as a brand" rather than as a means to achieve something that can't be achieved via other mediums.

I think humor is common in his work and a banana taped to wall makes sense. I like his horse sculptures and Pope struck by meteorite. To me that's a whole other level than Yoko's work.

La Nona Ora at least exhibits highly realistic technique. There's no advanced technique with the banana. To me, that one is just an example of an artist trolling people.

I don't think she broke up the Beatles, I think there was a clash of personalities there that wasn't tied to a specific relationship. She did, however, ruin what was to be a legendary collaboration between Lennon and Chuck Berry.

She and Lennon may have been right for each other. I think they both reached a point of arrogance and self-indulgence that made them complement each other well. The difference was that Lennon was absurdly talented and Yoko, not so much.

And that's the problem with contemporary art in her style: a dearth of talent and a need for attention create an urge to do something, anything, to stand out in some way. Great art by a talented artist can take you into the artist's imagination, expanding your perspective. Mediocre art often comes off as a form of trolling because the point is not to show you a rich new point of view but merely to challenge you, to piss you off. Hence the urinal exhibited as a sculpture; the banana taped to a wall; the scrawled instructions on how to create the piece exhibited instead of the piece itself, there being often no piece at all, just a bit of manic-pixie-dream-girl vagueness. ("Hide until everyone goes home. Hide until everyone forgets you. Hide until everyone dies.") And curators and collectors all standing around telling the emperor what a lovely outfit he has on.

> She did, however, ruin what was to be a legendary collaboration between Lennon and Chuck Berry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXSGm0RUDxo

The withering side-eye Chuck gives to Yoko when she does her thing still gets me.

I'm not claiming to be the majority here, but I first learned about Yoko Ono and her work from a Fluxus artists' catalogue and much later found out that she was married to someone famous.

It's unlikely that Yoko's work would have been in that artists' catalogue if she hadn't married John Lennon.

on the contrary, they met after John went to one of Yoko's art shows and was intrigued by her artwork; it's probably unlikely that Yoko would have married John if it were not for Yoko's work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceiling_Painting/Yes_Painting

I remember seeing her work alongside of other artists, and before reading the plaque with the name, think, "meh, kind of underwhelming" and then seeing "oh, it's Yoko, that's why it's here".

>Here is her performance art, she is screaming in a microphone

anybody who judges an artist on the basis of one work is an ass. here are a number of those in a work that cleaved the art world into two hemispheres with a chasm between them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CbDkRFjLAQ

been a long time since I read about it, but pretty sure iirc those are celebs making cheeky cameos in that piece

Heh, well played. I was going to use that as an example but thought to keep it somewhat SFW.

For anyone that's Yoko's "Film No 4 Bottoms 1966-67" which is exactly what it sounds like, if you'd rather not click on it.

Here is a performance before Lennon; way better in my opinion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU4tCw2u_hg

edited with a better link.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com