“as sophisticated as a school project.” This made me giggle. You’re not wrong, yet I loved the exhibition and I’ve been scribbling notes about it ever since. I come from a community arts background and I’ve hammered a fair few nails into canvases during my career, so I felt I’d seen those participatory art projects a gazillion times before. Yet, I loved them! And the enthusiastic response of visitors showed that there’s still a desire to be part of the art and not just a witness. The instructional works were my favourite and I’ve been writing my own ever since, which to me is one of the measures of “great” art—is it still relevant and does it influence my own making? (That’s actually two measures lol.)
Love all that you've said here, Jacqueline, and I'm fully prepared to be persuaded to a different view of Ono's work. Sometimes I think it's just a case of someone explaining it in a compelling way. It's brilliant that her work has inspired your own creative directions -- I'd love to see examples of your instructional works!
I saw the exhibition this weekend. I also wanted to like it more than I did. Your review has really helped me to understand it better and to go with the thoughts I had too. There seemed to be a lot of people really enjoying the interactive elements, so it's obviously appealing to some people. The chess boards were busy.
I'm interested in your question what makes a great artist. Is it consistency? Clearly Ono has created at least one important piece that has had a huge influence (Cut Piece). But I wonder whether it would have been considered a great work if it weren't for the fact that she had performed it and there is film documentation of it. Maybe if she had performed and documented more of these instructional text-based pieces there might be more evidence of the quality of her work?
It's a good question you raise, because I think when Ono did perform the instructional texts that's when her work moved from dry and boring to something special, or at least interesting to watch. I do think consistency of quality is one aspect of really great artists. Not everything is going to be brilliant but artists like Tracey Emin, for example, just knock it out of the park time after time.
I havent seen Onos show and dont feel particularly drawn to go to it but perhaps as a woman I should. I do think Ono had a tough time being in the shadow of Lennon but so many female artists are whether famous or not. What makes artists great? Well I have always thought a great artist is someone that produces good work regardless of the times or materials they use. eg artists such as Picasso, Hockney, Miles Davis, David Bowie. As I write this I realise they are all men so maybe I should go and see the exhibition and give Ono a chance!
Definitely give Ono a chance, Pauline, I'd love to know what you think of the exhibition and her work. I know our response to art is subjective, we have different tastes, and all that jazz, but I also think there's something about quality and consistency that marks out great artists as opposed to good ones. Where that line is, what rules we measure 'quality' by, I don't know. Nevertheless, call it instinct, but I do think Ono isn't up to the mark, and I can't help but wonder whether this is just a money-spinner for Tate.
Hey Victoria, my response to your questions has me asking more questions! I don’t know that there is any artist, even the greats, whose work speaks to everyone. As you say, a certain amount of cynicism and a sympathy for feminist viewpoints coloured the way you received her work. And I’m not educated in art history like you so I think that matters too. Sometimes I see work in a different light when I do have more information. At some point the artist hands it over to the audience. And maybe just making one work that reaches people is what matters. Or maybe it is the making of the work that matters even if no-one else sees it? An artist is never going to make fabulous work all the time so I do think there is a responsibility for the curators to select work for the story that their institution wants to tell and the quality of the work might not be as relevant. There are so many different judgements and decisions by people in positions of power that factors such as fame, history, money seem to be as important as the work itself which leaves the question of deservedness out of it in large part.
I agree with everything you say here, Amanda, and all the questions you raise. There are so many different factors as to why one artist gets prioritised or inflated over others. I'm trying to think of another artist who has made just one stand-out work that gets them so much critical attention like this. What I do think is that there are many female artists, both contemporary and historical, whose work is worthy of this kind of attention but who have not been given the platform and whose work has not been researched in this way. And I can't help but think that's partly (or largely) because they wouldn't sell tickets and wouldn't generate the income Tate (and other cultural institutions) need. Yoko Ono doesn't seem like too much of a risk given her name recognition. That's a structural problem, and whilst things are slowly changing, it's taking too long IMO!
I really like the thought you put into Ono's work. As a woman, it's always difficult for me when I don't like another famous/"great" woman artist's work, and yet I've had this experience a few times, one of those being a show at MOMA of Yoko Ono that I saw in 2015. Whenever artists intertwine romantically with a more famous male artist, it often muddies the water -- I'm thinking of Celia Paul here but then Frida Kahlo was the unicorn. I think it takes a bigger personality to shine than most women want to step into, and why should they have to?
Exactly. I agree! It's so rare that the story/art/achievements of a man gets overshadowed by the woman in his life. That's one of the reasons why I admire musicians like Madonna and Taylor Swift. They stand alone in their own right, no one can touch them. Even though they have both had to endure the standard abuse.
“as sophisticated as a school project.” This made me giggle. You’re not wrong, yet I loved the exhibition and I’ve been scribbling notes about it ever since. I come from a community arts background and I’ve hammered a fair few nails into canvases during my career, so I felt I’d seen those participatory art projects a gazillion times before. Yet, I loved them! And the enthusiastic response of visitors showed that there’s still a desire to be part of the art and not just a witness. The instructional works were my favourite and I’ve been writing my own ever since, which to me is one of the measures of “great” art—is it still relevant and does it influence my own making? (That’s actually two measures lol.)
Love all that you've said here, Jacqueline, and I'm fully prepared to be persuaded to a different view of Ono's work. Sometimes I think it's just a case of someone explaining it in a compelling way. It's brilliant that her work has inspired your own creative directions -- I'd love to see examples of your instructional works!
Thank you for your frankness. I too found the Carnegie Hall performance provocative, although I saw it elsewhere.
I saw the exhibition this weekend. I also wanted to like it more than I did. Your review has really helped me to understand it better and to go with the thoughts I had too. There seemed to be a lot of people really enjoying the interactive elements, so it's obviously appealing to some people. The chess boards were busy.
I'm interested in your question what makes a great artist. Is it consistency? Clearly Ono has created at least one important piece that has had a huge influence (Cut Piece). But I wonder whether it would have been considered a great work if it weren't for the fact that she had performed it and there is film documentation of it. Maybe if she had performed and documented more of these instructional text-based pieces there might be more evidence of the quality of her work?
It's a good question you raise, because I think when Ono did perform the instructional texts that's when her work moved from dry and boring to something special, or at least interesting to watch. I do think consistency of quality is one aspect of really great artists. Not everything is going to be brilliant but artists like Tracey Emin, for example, just knock it out of the park time after time.
I havent seen Onos show and dont feel particularly drawn to go to it but perhaps as a woman I should. I do think Ono had a tough time being in the shadow of Lennon but so many female artists are whether famous or not. What makes artists great? Well I have always thought a great artist is someone that produces good work regardless of the times or materials they use. eg artists such as Picasso, Hockney, Miles Davis, David Bowie. As I write this I realise they are all men so maybe I should go and see the exhibition and give Ono a chance!
Definitely give Ono a chance, Pauline, I'd love to know what you think of the exhibition and her work. I know our response to art is subjective, we have different tastes, and all that jazz, but I also think there's something about quality and consistency that marks out great artists as opposed to good ones. Where that line is, what rules we measure 'quality' by, I don't know. Nevertheless, call it instinct, but I do think Ono isn't up to the mark, and I can't help but wonder whether this is just a money-spinner for Tate.
Hey Victoria, my response to your questions has me asking more questions! I don’t know that there is any artist, even the greats, whose work speaks to everyone. As you say, a certain amount of cynicism and a sympathy for feminist viewpoints coloured the way you received her work. And I’m not educated in art history like you so I think that matters too. Sometimes I see work in a different light when I do have more information. At some point the artist hands it over to the audience. And maybe just making one work that reaches people is what matters. Or maybe it is the making of the work that matters even if no-one else sees it? An artist is never going to make fabulous work all the time so I do think there is a responsibility for the curators to select work for the story that their institution wants to tell and the quality of the work might not be as relevant. There are so many different judgements and decisions by people in positions of power that factors such as fame, history, money seem to be as important as the work itself which leaves the question of deservedness out of it in large part.
I agree with everything you say here, Amanda, and all the questions you raise. There are so many different factors as to why one artist gets prioritised or inflated over others. I'm trying to think of another artist who has made just one stand-out work that gets them so much critical attention like this. What I do think is that there are many female artists, both contemporary and historical, whose work is worthy of this kind of attention but who have not been given the platform and whose work has not been researched in this way. And I can't help but think that's partly (or largely) because they wouldn't sell tickets and wouldn't generate the income Tate (and other cultural institutions) need. Yoko Ono doesn't seem like too much of a risk given her name recognition. That's a structural problem, and whilst things are slowly changing, it's taking too long IMO!
I really like the thought you put into Ono's work. As a woman, it's always difficult for me when I don't like another famous/"great" woman artist's work, and yet I've had this experience a few times, one of those being a show at MOMA of Yoko Ono that I saw in 2015. Whenever artists intertwine romantically with a more famous male artist, it often muddies the water -- I'm thinking of Celia Paul here but then Frida Kahlo was the unicorn. I think it takes a bigger personality to shine than most women want to step into, and why should they have to?
Exactly. I agree! It's so rare that the story/art/achievements of a man gets overshadowed by the woman in his life. That's one of the reasons why I admire musicians like Madonna and Taylor Swift. They stand alone in their own right, no one can touch them. Even though they have both had to endure the standard abuse.