Her “art” is absolute trash, in the worst sense. As in, she says it is art, but it is objectively garbage.
She treated people around her like shit.
Just read about how she handled the letters between John Lennon and his son.
Fuck that bitch. She rode the coat tails of someone who was an actual artist and the only discussion her “art” has created was whether or not it could be called art.
All art is subjective, imo. Just because you didn’t like what she was doing musically doesn’t mean it’s automatically bad. Also, I think art that prompts a discussion around whether it’s art or not is very, very important.
That said, I can’t comment on her character, so I’ll have to take your word on it that she was crappy to Lennon’s kid / the people around her.
When you’re interrupting your husband and Chuck Berry singing together by screeching into an adjacent mic impromptu when your only job was to play tambourine, your “art” is objectively bad.
And her reprehensible treatment of Lennon’z son is well documented, you can Google it.
All art is subjective, imo. Just because you didn’t like what she was doing musically doesn’t mean it’s automatically bad
If art is subjective, then that’s exactly what it means. Their subjective experience is that they didn’t like it, so to them it’s bad. And you’re in no position to argue with someone’s opinion on a subjective topic.
I agree with you, but so does the person you’re responding to. I think you’re missing the semantic argument they were making that criticized the absolutist language used to describe Yoko’s artistic endeavors. They were highlighting that the term “objectively garbage” was in reference to something inherently subjective.
Taking a shit in a zip lock bag, or duct taping a banana to a wall is not art.
It’s fucking lazy, pretentious, bullshit.
A literal circle jerk.
Not everything has to be Monet or Robert Frost, but there HAS to be a vehicle of creation, a filter passing through the artist.
Screaming obnoxious sounds and saying it is singing, or placing a random object on a surface is not art or commentery, ESPECIALLY when the discussion is focused on “what is art”.
Art can be proactive, controversial, or just a simple expression. But it has to have a purpose outside of “is it art?”.
Otherwise everyone claiming AI slop is not art, is a hypocrite.
Because I think it’s ridiculous to dismiss someone for having “bad art” when I don’t really think that’s a thing. I got no stake in the game, be upset about Yoko Ono if you want, but her art gets people talking and I think that’s worth something.
Here we go. Any criticism of a woman, no matter how justified, is met with charges of misogyny. Just like any criticism of the Gaza Genocide gets framed as anti-Semitism.
If such a lame defense strategy is all you’ve got, then you’ve lost the argument.
You got this narrative from somewhere other than reality and swallow it whole in complete disregard for evidence. The simplest explanation is you are willing to devour a blatantly false misogynistic narrative that attributes Yoko Ono’s success to a subsequent relationship with a man.
You don’t know me at all, but you claim to know exactly why I feel the way I feel about Yoko, and conclude with no evidence at all that I have grasped for some misogynistic fable. Your entire assumption that I have swallowed some narrative other than the truth is a LIE.
I have never disparaged her art, or her life as an artist, even though I do find her art to be shallow. Equally, my dislike of Yoko Ono has nothing to do with her being a woman. Linda Eastman has often been accused as being just as disruptive and destructive to the Beatles as Yoko, yet I don’t hold her in the same negative regard. My ENTIRE dislike of Yoko Ono stems from ONE thing: her extremely poor treatment of Julian Lennon, both during his John’s life, and especially after.
Her abhorrent treatment of him is nearly legendary. She cut off Julian from any inheritance, even though she is a billionaire, and he eventually had to sue her, and got a decent settlement. When he asked for some of his father’s letters, she forced him to buy them at auction like anyone else. She has been shitty to him for his entire life, referring to him as John’s “mistake” child, while Sean was the official Lennon offspring.
But go ahead and blame it on misogyny, even though nobody thinks the same of Linda, and not the fact that she has been a really awful person for as long as we’ve known her.
Implying that she somehow made a name solely on her own merits is not even disingenuous l, it’s blatant bullshit.
I have never disparaged her art, or her life as an artist
The first isn’t you, but for some reason you feel the need to continue that thread white-knighting for a blatantly false misogynistic narrative of Yoko Ono’s life as an artist. That wasn’t for you, but you inserted yourself into it. Well, if the shoe fits you so well, I guess you’re welcome to wear it.
I just explained very clearly what my personal issue is with Yoko, and you just dismiss it, and substitute your own unsupported narrative. Go fuck yourself.
You lack everything that would be needed to backhandedly insult your misogyny with how what she did before meeting Lennon was why Lennon gave a shit about her.
Yoko Ono is a terrible fucking human being
Her “art” is absolute trash, in the worst sense. As in, she says it is art, but it is objectively garbage.
She treated people around her like shit.
Just read about how she handled the letters between John Lennon and his son.
Fuck that bitch. She rode the coat tails of someone who was an actual artist and the only discussion her “art” has created was whether or not it could be called art.
Seriously, she is trash.
‘Walking on Thin Ice’ is the worst song in existence of music.
All art is subjective, imo. Just because you didn’t like what she was doing musically doesn’t mean it’s automatically bad. Also, I think art that prompts a discussion around whether it’s art or not is very, very important.
That said, I can’t comment on her character, so I’ll have to take your word on it that she was crappy to Lennon’s kid / the people around her.
When you’re interrupting your husband and Chuck Berry singing together by screeching into an adjacent mic impromptu when your only job was to play tambourine, your “art” is objectively bad.
And her reprehensible treatment of Lennon’z son is well documented, you can Google it.
If art is subjective, then that’s exactly what it means. Their subjective experience is that they didn’t like it, so to them it’s bad. And you’re in no position to argue with someone’s opinion on a subjective topic.
Edit: they’re/ their
I agree with you, but so does the person you’re responding to. I think you’re missing the semantic argument they were making that criticized the absolutist language used to describe Yoko’s artistic endeavors. They were highlighting that the term “objectively garbage” was in reference to something inherently subjective.
Yoko described herself as a bad mother who twice abandoned her child in search of fame.
https://www.imaginepeace.com/archives/10408#%3A~%3Atext=For+years%2C+Yoko+didn't%2C'+And+he+was+right.”
Taking a shit in a zip lock bag, or duct taping a banana to a wall is not art.
It’s fucking lazy, pretentious, bullshit.
A literal circle jerk.
Not everything has to be Monet or Robert Frost, but there HAS to be a vehicle of creation, a filter passing through the artist.
Screaming obnoxious sounds and saying it is singing, or placing a random object on a surface is not art or commentery, ESPECIALLY when the discussion is focused on “what is art”.
Art can be proactive, controversial, or just a simple expression. But it has to have a purpose outside of “is it art?”.
Otherwise everyone claiming AI slop is not art, is a hypocrite.
The fact that you’re upset about this kind of art means it’s working :)
You don’t know the thought process that lead to it.
Now where did I put those ziplock bags?
If you don’t know much about this person why are you arguing?
Because I think it’s ridiculous to dismiss someone for having “bad art” when I don’t really think that’s a thing. I got no stake in the game, be upset about Yoko Ono if you want, but her art gets people talking and I think that’s worth something.
LMAO, there’s no “bad art”? Ever saw a Hitler painting, Liefield’s pouches, or a conservative movie production?
Saying “there’s no bad art” is like saying there’s no objectively bad tasting stuff. Which there is.
Kirk Cameron would like a word you about his more recent works…
Who was this person? She performed Cut Piece in 1964 and '65 and didn’t even meet John Lennon until '66.
Her exposure and access skyrocketed after she got with John Lennon.
Implying that she somehow made a name solely on her own merits is not even disingenuous l, it’s blatant bullshit.
If it wasn’t part of a pattern of misogyny, it’d be cute how confidently and blatantly wrong you are while being completely uninformed.
Here we go. Any criticism of a woman, no matter how justified, is met with charges of misogyny. Just like any criticism of the Gaza Genocide gets framed as anti-Semitism.
If such a lame defense strategy is all you’ve got, then you’ve lost the argument.
You got this narrative from somewhere other than reality and swallow it whole in complete disregard for evidence. The simplest explanation is you are willing to devour a blatantly false misogynistic narrative that attributes Yoko Ono’s success to a subsequent relationship with a man.
You don’t know me at all, but you claim to know exactly why I feel the way I feel about Yoko, and conclude with no evidence at all that I have grasped for some misogynistic fable. Your entire assumption that I have swallowed some narrative other than the truth is a LIE.
I have never disparaged her art, or her life as an artist, even though I do find her art to be shallow. Equally, my dislike of Yoko Ono has nothing to do with her being a woman. Linda Eastman has often been accused as being just as disruptive and destructive to the Beatles as Yoko, yet I don’t hold her in the same negative regard. My ENTIRE dislike of Yoko Ono stems from ONE thing: her extremely poor treatment of Julian Lennon, both during his John’s life, and especially after.
Her abhorrent treatment of him is nearly legendary. She cut off Julian from any inheritance, even though she is a billionaire, and he eventually had to sue her, and got a decent settlement. When he asked for some of his father’s letters, she forced him to buy them at auction like anyone else. She has been shitty to him for his entire life, referring to him as John’s “mistake” child, while Sean was the official Lennon offspring.
But go ahead and blame it on misogyny, even though nobody thinks the same of Linda, and not the fact that she has been a really awful person for as long as we’ve known her.
The first isn’t you, but for some reason you feel the need to continue that thread white-knighting for a blatantly false misogynistic narrative of Yoko Ono’s life as an artist. That wasn’t for you, but you inserted yourself into it. Well, if the shoe fits you so well, I guess you’re welcome to wear it.
I just explained very clearly what my personal issue is with Yoko, and you just dismiss it, and substitute your own unsupported narrative. Go fuck yourself.
I wonder what your reasons are to bark misogyny. Lol.
Nobody gives a shit about what she did before she met Lennon.
You lack everything that would be needed to backhandedly insult your misogyny with how what she did before meeting Lennon was why Lennon gave a shit about her.
The fact that you smell misogyny where I just ridicule a shitty human being, it’s why love social media 🥰 Stay vigilant. You’re in that league.
Nobody gives a fuck why Lennon was interested in her. Keep defending this wretched disgusting example of a shitty mother. It suits you.
u mad bro
Kindly fuck off to 4chan :)?
Kindly delete your account