The author is praising Yoko Ono for creating nothing, but asking us to create ourselves. Ono's art is an interpretation of the world around us, or a challenge to see and hear the beauty in the world around us. This differs from traditional artists who challenge viewers to see their interpretation of the world around them. I agree with the authors reverence for this type of art. It is nice not being told by an artist how to feel about a certain situation, based on their interpretation of it. It is sometimes easy to tell the attitude an artist has about a certain subject matter based on their artistic representation of it, and I think this can cloud the real beauty of art.
I dont agree with Yoko Ono as a person however, and I think that what this author is missing is that Ono maybe even more conceited and artistically pushy than the traditional artists she opposes. I think that Ono shields a lack of artistic ability behind this deep philosophical idea that art is everywhere and we should create it ourselves. I think that is a true idea, but she could easily take a gorgeous photograph of a landscape and leave it at that, an interpretation up to the viewer. Instead she just tells you to do things, making herself seem like this genius artist when she is really creating nothing. I would not be so hostile towards her as a human if she had not abandoned her own child as well as the child of her third husband. The woman received a ton of money and she couldn't even financially help Juliane Lennon? That seems a little unkind to me. In the same token if my husband stole my child, I would never stop looking for her. It is unbelievable to me that she did not search harder for her daughter, and let John Lennon do the searching for her.
Overall, her ideas are good if you can look past her personality.
No comments:
Post a Comment