Skip to comments.Yoko Ono London Exhibit: Dirt Piles In Serpentine Gallery
Posted on 06/20/2012 7:12:17 PM PDT by Vince Ferrer
Yoko Ono has unveiled her latest art for the first time in a decade called To The Light in the Serpentine Gallery, but some might be confused on what it actually means.
For example, in one work of art on display there are three identical mounds of earth labeled Country A, Country B, and Country C, in front of the classic War Is Over poster she made with John Lennon.
There are also suspended World War II helmets hanging on clear wire from the ceiling and inside there are blue jigsaw puzzle pieces.
The Daily Mail reported that it includes new and existing installations, films and performances, as well as archive material relating to several key early works.
There are several screens on a wall and one of six videos includes her 1968 slow-motion of John Lennon smiling.
It is part of the London 2012 Festival, a 12-week UK-wide celebration featuring internationally-renowned artists from Midsummers Day on 21 June to the final day of the Paralympic Games on 9 September 2012.
Yoko Ono has worked as an artist, film-maker, poet, musician, writer, performance artist and peace activist for over five decades.
Alongside her exhibition staged inside the Gallery, Yoko Ono has also put together a largescale participatory project, called #smilesfilm in Kensington Gardens.
Visitors from all over the world can drop in to a specially-designed photo booth installed outside the Serpentine Gallery and record their smiles.
These images will then be collected to make #smilesfilm, which will be exhibited in a physical form on a screen at the Serpentine Gallery and presented globally in digital form on a dedicated website, smilesfilm.com, and apps for iPhone and iPad.
Onos project at the Serpentine will tap into the transformative potential of the smile, which can change an individuals view, but also radiate out into the world. Ono associates this transmission of positive energy with healing and peace, the gallery said.
Just don’t allow her to sing.Prevent THAT by any means required.
That is one app that isn’t appear on my phone and pad.
Without Lennon’s last name, she would just be another crazy old bag lady/filthy hippie.
Yoko Ono’s only true “Art” was looking like she does and still getting John Lennon to marry her so she could live off of his money.
And I’m not putting any Asian person down. She’s just ugly.
I used to think that she was the worst singer in the universe. But now I realise that her singing talent far exceeds her artistic talent.
Yoko Ono is crazier than a sh**house rat. Always has been since she first arrived on the scene on John Lennon’s arm.
It's times like this that I wish Sam Kinison were still around to offer his perspective: "IT'S DIRT!!!!! IT'S THREE F****** MOUNDS OF DIRT!!!!! OHHHHH! OOHHHHHHH!!!"
Modern art is best viewed as a typical con game. The “artist”, is the confidence man, and the “afficianados” are the marks. Just like any con game, the con man plays upon the conceits and emotional needs of the mark, and offers an illusory product or service that the mark will desire. In this case, the artist allows the afficianados to believe that they have some highly refined taste that separates them from the common man, because they are able to detect the artistic value in the apparent trash that the con artist is hawking. Also, like in any other typical con game, the con man doesn’t take the mark’s money by force, they simply set up a situation favorable to themselves where the mark will willingly fork over the money.
This is a somewhat unique con though, because there seems to be a never-ending supply of marks, who will never realize or admit they’ve been conned, so the value of the “art” doesn’t evaporate like most fraudulent products. They can resell the crap to another mark and even make a profit!
Viewed through this lens, it’s no wonder that a professional con artist like Yoko was able to weasel her way into dominating the life of a succeptible mark like John Lennon. It was probably a very simple job for her to detect his subconscious yearnings and play upon them until he truly believed that he was not being taken advantage of by her. It really would be no different than the way that pimps convince prostitutes that they really need them and that the pimp is doing them a favor by taking 90% of their earnings and abusing them.
Yoko fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down.
Her singing is an insult to the very word, let alone the concept.
Never cared for her one whit
I still remember one reporter’s opinion in I think the New York Post, when Lennon first began with her:
“John Lennon’s new girlfriend looks something like a feminine ernest borgnine”
One of the biggest manipulators of all times.
What an ass, she needs to get a life.
The degeneration of art began with the Postmodernists/Progressives/Socialists/Fabians/Atheists.
Dewey, a Fabian Socialist, (patron saint of all education particularly in the Soviet Union and America), does not allow teachers elevating works of art and giving some “intrinsic worth” over others. It is all equal. (It is the experience and the emotions). This avoids aesthetic judgments which would ultimately result in fostering division between laboring classes and leisure classes. (From John Dewey and the Decline of American Education by Edmondson III)
We have to burn all school curricula embedded with Deweyan philosophy. ALL OF IT-—it is nasty and Godless. DOE is evil.
We have to get back the minds of the future-—back to American Ideals, not that of communists.
She IS ugly.
Such a big wide flat face on that small body.
Yes...I refer to that as the Lennon Syndrome...I’m one of the richest and most famous men in the world...can get any smoking babe I want...and the aisle parts...and there she is...her name rhymes with Choke Hold! No better sound effect for that than when she “sings”!
I always thought somehow she had something to do with that whackjob shooting Lennon. My first thought when it happened was...Who has the most to gain from this?...DING! DING! DING!...WE HAVE A WINNER!
Pretty much my views on the subject. Art ran out of ideas more than one hundred years ago. Modern artists couldn't duplicate the fantastic works by artists from centuries previous, so they had to come up with some kind of gimmick. Abstract art emerged (or oozed to the surface), and we're stuck with it. You're supposed to look at those globs of paint on the wall and see beauty...or something. If you don't, you're just an uncultured, troglodyte philistine who has no appreciation of the finer things in life.
However, the artist and his ally in crime, the art critic, will tell you what is good and what is not. Please have your checkbook open and be ready to pay the millions this dreck er art is worth.
There’s always been that possibility. She looks mean and totally self centered.
"Modern artists couldn't duplicate the fantastic works by artists from centuries previous, so they had to come up with some kind of gimmick."
Picasso said something to the effect that, "It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child." If you look at his early work, it supports that. Picasso painted this when he was 14...
...and this when he was 15:
His foray into cubism was an deliberate and contrived effort to simultaneously depict objects from multiple perspectives. I'm not a huge fan of cubism, but certainly, some of the pieces are not unaesthetic:
Furthermore, cubism was not without precedent and was a natural progression of the post-impressionist style of Cezanne and others...
"Abstraction," in and of its own right is not a bad thing. Some of the most highly regarded painters of the 19th Century dabbled with abstraction, giving their paintings titles in order to make them appear to be something real...
Again, I'm not putting up any kind of defense of a lot of the crap that calls itself modern art, I'm merely saying that abstraction, in and of itself should not be immediately discounted. If we dismissed anything that was not rigidly representational we'd have to write off such things as the Book of Kells...
Having said all that, and bringing the discussion back home to the topic of this thread, if three piles of dirt is "art", my dog is on the cutting edge of the aesthetic scene in the 21st century :-)
She could crap on a Ritz Cracker and some “enlightened artisan” will pay her six-figures for the “privilege” of displaying it in his gallery.
She had a display at the Contemporary Arts Musuem in Cincinnati about twenty years which consisted of an old rotary dial phone on a stand in a white room. She would occassionally dial it up and chat with whoever answered.
Sorry, Picasso should have stuck with his 14 yr. old vision. My view of modern art remains the same. Just call me Mr. Philistine.