June 15, 2022

"In the fall of 1961, [Yoko] Ono gave a concert in Carnegie Recital Hall.... Onstage, twenty artists and musicians performed different acts—eating, breaking dishes, throwing bits of newspaper."

"At designated intervals, a toilet was flushed offstage. A man was positioned at the back of the hall to give the audience a sense of foreboding. A huddle of men with tin cans tied to their legs attempted to cross the stage without making noise. The dancers Yvonne Rainer and Trisha Brown sat down and stood up repeatedly. According to the Village Voice, the performance finished with Ono’s amplified 'sighs, breathing, gasping, retching, screaming—many tones of pain and pleasure mixed with a jibberish of foreign-sounding language that was no language at all.'... When conceptual artists hit the big time, at the end of the nineteen-sixties, her name was virtually never mentioned.... When Ono and Lennon married, she was a coterie artist and he was a popular entertainer.... She decided that condescension to popular entertainment is a highbrow prejudice. As she put it, 'I came to believe that avant-garde purity was just as stifling as just doing a rock beat over and over.' So she became a pop star.... When 'Imagine' was released, one of Ono’s instruction pieces from 'Grapefruit' was printed on the back cover: 'Imagine the clouds dripping. Dig a hole in your garden to put them in.'"

Writes Louis Menand in "Yoko Ono’s Art of Defiance Before she met John Lennon, she was a significant figure in avant-garde circles and had created a masterpiece of conceptual art. Did celebrity deprive her of her due as an artist?" (The New Yorker).

33 comments:

Kai Akker said...

--Did celebrity deprive her of her due as an artist?

No. And it saved everyone else some unnecessary misery.

A fringe benefit of one of John's wackier decisions.

rrsafety said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kay said...

I love Yoko Ono.

rrsafety said...

I don't believe "a masterpiece of conceptual art" is something that can exist. It is an oxymoron.

Unknown said...

What Kai Akker said cannot be improved upon.

Tom T. said...

Simpsons: https://youtu.be/Wdhy2tzyrfk

Joe Smith said...

How do you get to Carnegie Hall?

Just throw random shit around on stage and make funny noises, apparently...

Ella Fitzgerald was a sucker.

Kevin said...

It didn't deprive her of anything. Her contributions to avant garde art and performance in the 1960s are well known, and she will definitely be remembered for them. Even random pop culture references like the Powerpuff Girls get this aspect of her work correct.

The bottom line is, if she didn't want to work, she didn't have to. If she had wanted to work, she could have funded an avant garde army. She didn't. People choose what they want in life, and if you have many many millions, you can act on your choices. She did precisely what she wanted to do and is no victim of anything or anyone at any time

zipity said...


Or, is she just insane....?

Howard said...

I love the Yoko Ono hate. It smells like Shadenfraude in the morning.

Maynard said...

Back in the day, I smoked a lot of pot. That's the only way one can appreciate the "artistry" of Yoko Ono.

Patrick Henry was right! said...

"Be My Yoko Ono" by Barenaked Ladies pretty much summed it up.

typingtalker said...

At the other end of the entertainment spectrum of (almost) the same era was and is Brian Wilson whose creativity and popular success was well covered last night on PBS.

The principal originator of the “California sound,” musician, singer, songwriter, record producer and co-founder of The Beach Boys, Brian Wilson is known for his novel approach to composition and recording and is widely acknowledged as one of the most innovative and significant musicians of the 20th century.

Brian Wilson: Long Promised Road

Celebrity certainly didn't deprive Brian Wilson of his due as an artist. Louis Menand will have to look elsewhere for Yoko Ono's loss of celebrity status.

Leland said...

I pressed on past the clarity that Ono meant Yoko but dropped out at "blah artist blah performed blah eating, breaking dishes". I realize I didn't need to comment on something that didn't interest me, but there are posts recently about how much one could watch a video before dropping out. For this post, that's how far I got.

Kevin said...

We get the artists we deserve.

The NYT thinks we’ve sunk to Yoko Ono level.

wendybar said...

As long as she doesn't sing....(WAIL??)

Josephbleau said...

"We get the artists we deserve. "

Well, you don't go to the show with the artist you want, you go to the show with the artist you have.

MikeD said...

I see our hostess is getting her money's worth from her New Yorker subscription.

Dude1394 said...

We should never forgive John for letting her sing on an album. John had the only album that I edited songs out.

Jupiter said...

Yeah, Louis Menand used to be somebody or something too. At least, the name seems vaguely familiar. I'm sure he was "significant". But I don't think he ever broke up the Beatles. Maybe he slept with Bob Dylan?

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Yoko Ono’s Art of Defiance Before she met John Lennon, she was a significant figure in avant-garde circles and had created a masterpiece of conceptual art

That that qualified as a "masterpiece of [avant-garde] conceptual art" tells you just how incredibly crappy "avant-garde conceptual art" was, and is

Jeff Gee said...

Yoko's books are fun, though I don't know (or care) if providing fun was intentional. John's books (In His Own Write (1964) & A Spaniard in the Works (1965)are a total blast:
I'm a moldy moldy man
I'm moldy thru and thru
I'm a moldy moldy man
You would not think it true.
I'm moldy till my eyeballs
I'm moldy til my toe
I will not dance I shyballs
I'm such a humble Joe.

Charlie Eklund said...

Yoko? Oh, no.

Kai Akker said...


---I love Yoko Ono. [Kay]

Awesome. Kay, if you come through this post again -- what specifically do you love about her?

Buckwheathikes said...

The only "art" that has ever surrounded Yoko Ono is Bill Burr's explanation of her participation on American Bandstand, which you can see here.

https://youtu.be/T4K07Kz7M8Q

The only reason Yoko Ono existed is that she was sucking John Lennon's ... well, let Bill Burr explain it.

Lurker21 said...

I hope Menand isn't thinking that success in conceptual art would have made Ono "immortal." If that still happens to artists, it's unlikely to happen to someone whose works are ephemeral. Even if the performance was filmed, that's only a recording of the artwork, and the shock that must have been so much a part of its appeal is gone. It's the Beatles who made her as "immortal" as anybody living today is likely to be.

I guess we've turned the usual hierarchy on its head. A popular performer in the days of Shakespeare or Rembrandt wasn't as likely to be remembered as a serious artist. Now the "serious" or "highbrow" artist is forgotten and the popular entertainers are remembered. Or will we forget the Beatles in time, the way we've forgotten the popular singers and bands of a century ago? Or is "stuck in the Baby Boom" condition of so much of our popular culture the only long cultural memory we have left?

Josephbleau said...

As John Hartford said, " John Lennon and his girlfriend could not show me any more, have mercy on my poor old purient interest."

Kay said...

Kai Akker said...

---I love Yoko Ono. [Kay]

Awesome. Kay, if you come through this post again -- what specifically do you love about her?

6/15/22, 7:16 PM


I think her music more than anything else, but also her art, her look/style, her general vibe. I’m not usually a fan these days of the kind of art she did, but I think it’s good for what it was and for the time period (early 60’s).

Aggie said...

I would like someone to point out an Avant-Garde artist whose work is not trite, pedestrian, banal, and devoid of any meaningful talent - just a regurgitation of things that are not considered artistic by normal people. Because everything I've seen so far is lacking even a modicum of artistic skill or style.

Robert Cook said...

"I would like someone to point out an Avant-Garde artist whose work is not trite, pedestrian, banal, and devoid of any meaningful talent - just a regurgitation of things that are not considered artistic by normal people. Because everything I've seen so far is lacking even a modicum of artistic skill or style."

Art, whether "traditional" or avant-garde, is not about displaying skill; skill is important only insofar as it allows artists greater latitude in manifesting in physical means that which they see in their imagination. There are many skilled artists whose works are technically impeccable but dull and banal; there are many artists whose work may appear to be unskilled* but which is powerful, seductive, beautiful (each in its own way) or otherwise compelling.

*I say "appear to be unskilled" because many artists who produce work that seems "not perfectly made" may be, in fact, highly trained and masterfully skilled, but they choose to draw {or paint or sing, etc.} in styles that seem clumsy or crude but which better realize their intentions. Sometimes, what seems "clumsy or crude" is simply a matter of choices made by the artist to achieve that which he he/she sees and feels internally. "Clumsy and crude" can be just a style choice. Willem de Kooning and Philip Guston are perfect examples of masterfully skilled artists who chose in their mature work to paint in a seemingly artless manner. Nearly everyone today loves the French Impressionists, but they were reviled in their day, as they did not draw or paint in the Academic manner, which is all about displaying skill. In fact, the impressionists were highly skilled in traditional drawing and painting. There are also artists who do actually lack great skill, yet whose work still is vibrant and compelling, as their work somehow communicates something unique and moving, despite its artlessness.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Art, whether "traditional" or avant-garde, is not about displaying skill; skill is important only insofar as it allows artists greater latitude in manifesting in physical means that which they see in their imagination. There are many skilled artists whose works are technically impeccable but dull and banal; there are many artists whose work may appear to be unskilled* but which is powerful, seductive, beautiful (each in its own way) or otherwise compelling.

Wrong.

It is possible to be technically skilled, yet produce nothing but crap.

it is not possible to NOT be skilled, yet produce worthwhile art. Other than things your mommy and daddy put on the refrigerator because they love you.

If it's not possible for a normal person to tell the difference between your work, and that refrigerator art, then your work sucks.

If it's not possible for a normal person to distinguish your "play" from a bunch of bored college students wasting their time, then your "play" is trash.

Robert Cook said...

"...it is not possible to NOT be skilled, yet produce worthwhile art."

Wrong, it is possible. (For one thing, how are you defining "worthwhile?") But, again, most of the art you may deem "unskilled" is made by skilled artists.

"If it's not possible for a normal person to tell the difference between your work, and that refrigerator art, then your work sucks.

"If it's not possible for a normal person to distinguish your 'play' from a bunch of bored college students wasting their time, then your 'play' is trash."


Most "normal people," (if there are any), know and care little or nothing about art, so their opinions are equally as empty of knowledge or discernment. There are persons who are knowledgeable about art, who may themselves be artists, who disdain what you call "avant garde" art, but at least their dislike is informed by knowledge. Then the disparity between those who do and those who don't like modern art comes down to personal preference. (Vladimir Nabokov hated the novels of Dostoevsky.) There will always be differences of opinion by knowledgeable people; however, the opinions of people who lack knowledge about art can be ignored.

Jack Klompus said...

"the opinions of people who lack knowledge about art can be ignored."

So can the opinions of pretentious New Yorkers who name drop a few art and literary icons and cosplay "radical guy."