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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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…
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.
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?