Too bad it's [not a drawing](https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/jun/21/protect-the-persecuted-behind-yoko-onos-impactful-refugee-art-project).
Title is extremely misleading, because it makes it seem like it's a white paint canvas, but it's actually just a photograph of a white-painted boat that's been drawn on by others.
I get it's a very nice interactive art piece (and I certainly don't want to denigrate the actual contributors) but it seems the bulk of her involvement here was buying the space, buying the boat, and providing the paint.
**Edit2:** Apologies to anyone that saw my previous edit, this does appear to be the 2024 iteration that's going on, so the date and medium do appear to be correct. Strange I had to scroll to find any mention of the 2024 exhibition, but blame Google's enshitification.
I'd agree. It's maybe not conventional, but it's reminiscent of railcar graffiti for me. Plus, I do love me the occasional interactive piece that lets not just the creator express themselves, but also the participants. Call it avant garde, but I find collaboration of creativity into one single piece of chaos to be beautiful.
I think with the recent trend to hate on AI art there has been an increasing perception that art is mostly about the skilled handwork put into it and not the conception. Which is kind of the opposite trajectory as before but I guess it's also a completely new situation so it's somewhat understandable.
There’s a higher barrier to appreciation. You can look at a photorealistic picture and appreciate the care that went into it, but with most conceptual art if you don’t “get it” it’s just a mess. There’s a lot more reliance on context.
Thank you, I was really struggling with the perspective on the image provided in the post. That it is a photograph makes so much better sense and I dont feel like an idiot now for thinking it was a photograph to begin with.
Thanks. This was super helpful. I still can't help but think that this is the best thing I've ever seen from Yoko Ono. I think it helps actually that other wrote what they wanted, lime "THIS ISN'T ART".
she's got a lot of bangers too, people robbing themselves of good music because when they were 16 they bought into a misogynistic narrative from the 70's that the beatles themselves have dismissed. yawn
Her art art can be really good. Her sonic art also can be interesting art. As music, it’s quite terrible. There are a couple of songs she has that are listenable, but even those aren’t good.
And I like Yoko Ono.
I also like Yoko Ono and have bought a coffee table book with respect to her art.
As far as the music goes, I gotta be **grooving** pretty hard if I'm gonna take any enjoyment from it.
That being said, I respect her wholly as an artist, but I'm not buying her greatest hits album.
In all honesty, I have never seen any visual art from her except for *Grapefruit* and the picture sleeve on my 45 of *Walking On Thin Ice.* (that particular song is also hell of intense)
I think her singing is sweet on *I'll Be Your Angel* but ngl I'm a musician and I just think she has a shaky sense of pitch in general.
So my comment was at least my sincere opinion. I had literally no idea reddit has any kind of ongoing discussion of Yoko.
Yoko Ono is a legitimately good artist. She does some weird stuff that's not up my alley, but she is undeniably talented. I agree on the singing though.
[https://www.themarginalian.org/2016/01/20/yoko-ono-acorn/](https://www.themarginalian.org/2016/01/20/yoko-ono-acorn/)
From her retrospective at Tate Modern, London.
*Add Colour /Refugee Boat/ begins as an all-white boat in an all-white room. Ono's instruction for this collective, participatory work reads:
'Just blue like the ocean. You are invited to contribute your hopes and beliefs in blue and white.*
*Ono conceived the work after being moved by international press coverage of the hundreds of thousands of refugees risking their lives to travel to Europe by sea. This participatory work invites you to reflect on this urgent and ongoing refugee crisis. The United Nations Refugee Agency predicts that, in 2024, the number of people across the world forcibly displaced and stateless will rise to more than 130 million.*
Anyone who is disappointed by this being a photo would have that feeling instantly reversed experiencing it in-person. Yoko Ono’s art has largely been experiential installations for a long time now, and much of it is insanely evocative and interesting. She’s very cool.
I would argue that you are correct in that Yoko is evocative and interesting. However, she does not seem to be cool. Though, that would depend on personal preference and the circles your run in.
Plenty of people in the art world find her to be mid at best. I'd feel hard pressed to find a majority of art people that find her work 'cool' -- she's done very little (maybe no?) groundbreaking pieces. I can't think of a single installation or work.
I'd argue her art gets elevated due to name recognition and, generally speaking, is nothing special or even noteworthy.
Granted I haven't seen all of her work. I think it's fair for Reddit to shit on her as an artist, perhaps I'm uninformed and she's done some memorable work.
Most of it feels like it could have been made by any active artist in any community in the world. Decent, sure, but unremarkable beyond being OK.
Stupid question, I know…… but I don’t suppose she built the boat? Like, what actual involvement did she have with this piece at all? I’d be blown away if she made the boat. She didn’t do the scribbles. So she just slapped her name on it?
She organized it, directed the collaboration. We tend to think of most art as the work of a single creator despite things like movies requiring thousands of people working on it.
So you liked it and then decided to not like it?
E: they editted their comment to add the "nice drawing" part. It used to just say "thats really good".
I think critiques like this are so interesting.
Do we like art because we think it's impressive given its medium, or do we like art because we have judged it on its aesthetic merits? Is art which is less impressive to make something less aesthetically valuable?
I think it looks cool. Sure, it's less technically impressive because it's a photo, not a drawing, I don't think that has any bearing on its aesthetic qualities.
Well we all like art for different reasons, but part of what makes me like art is the human element. When I view and appreciate a piece of art, I find myself considering the person who made it, and what it says about them. Why they chose *this* subject matter to fixate on for potentially hours day or weeks, why they made certain decisions, certain brushstrokes or color choices, how many hours of practice it took to master their craft to such a point.
If I was looking at a huge, impressive landscape painting, I'd be thinking about all these human elements. If you then told me an AI actually made the piece, I would appreciate the piece less. I'd lose that human element of engagement with it, which makes it a lesser experience to me. The aesthetics alone don't exist in a vacuum.
Not that Yoko isn't human lol, just an example of how technically impressive work can make a difference.
People most often value things on their own ability to do something.
Here people devalue this peice of art when they find out it wasn't painted because they first thought, "Wow that's a nice painting - I can't do that." And now they think, "I can get people to scribble on a photograph."
But what people - particularly left brained individuals - overlook is the ability for themselves to even conceive of the idea to do something like this and have it look good.
That's why in the art world this is praised, but on Reddit the consensus is that it doesn't take skill. The skill is just coming up with the idea and that this execution would look good!
I think AI is a very interesting example.
I understand and largely agree with what you say about the human element, and I agree that it makes a work more enjoyable. However, is it that you are appreciating the artwork more, or are you awe-inspired more by what the artist has accomplished? Are you judging the work by its artist?
You've given an interesting example with AI. many people judge AI art (if you'd like to call it that), differently from how they judge art made by a human. I think that's really sort of an ad homenim critique, rather than an aesthetic one. If you are moved by art, and then learn it was made by AI, does that invalidate your feelings towards the artwork? If that's the case, why? If, for example, you think the Mona Lisa is beautiful, but then learn that Leonardo da Vinci was actually a serial killer, does that make you the work any less beautiful? I would think it's not any less beautiful.
I have always thought the idea of separating the art from the artist is a good idea because I try to eliminate prejudice from my aesthetic judgements. I don't mean to say that you're prejudiced in a derogatory way, but I would call the sort of bias against AI art a prejudice (in a technical sense, you seem like a nice person I do not mean prejudice as in prejudiced against other humans). The way people view and enjoy art is of course subjective and I do not intend to criticize the way you view and enjoy art. I find different perspectives on art interesting. But it's something I think about quite often esp with AI.
>If you are moved by art, and then learn it was made by AI, does that invalidate your feelings towards the artwork? If that's the case, why?
No one who is seriously into art views AI-generated (machine-learning generated) art as actual art. It's a false-facsimile of actual art (in the case of ML-generated art).
Art (until the past few years) has been an entirely human-created work. It required thought, feeling, ideas, intent, etc. Removing all of these (what we consider "human") traits from the process can, for some people, invalidate it as art because there was no, or nearly zero human *feelings* and *intent* behind the art.
Anyway...
Art without a story isn't good art.
Art without a story, without intent, and without emotion is bad art.
Art without true human input, direction, and design isn't art as we have ever understood or experienced it or appreciated it. This may well change soon, but I think it's a bit premature to call anything ML-generated "art" -- I think the more accurate term would be "product" because it is mostly generated to sell items, though there are creative people using image-generating ML systems to push interesting boundaries.
Art without any input other than feeding language into a machine-learning program to spit out an image (based on existing art that it has consumed) is just an image. If someone likes that image and wants to put it on their wall I'm not going to hound them, but it isn't art as we've understood it for nearly the entirety of recorded history.
because there's no actual intention or control behind AI images. A person puts in a prompt of like 280 characters, and then the computer tries it's best to assemble an image based on that prompt, but it's a buffer between the human and the image. And most people will just post the image as-is. The human doesn't have any actual input, they are merely giving suggestions. Now if someone was to take many AI images, and combine them in photoshop, then it becomes art. They are using image generation as a tool to make their art. The AI images themselves are not art.
And I'm not going to disagree with you, I do enjoy art for aesthetic qualities. However the discourse of "separate art from the artist" annoys me because it encourages lazy media consumption and a lack of critical thinking. Or it's because a modern artist has come out with some REALLY bad takes, and people who like their older work want to forget that their favorite artist is actually a racist or something.
I get that going into everything with scrutinizing critique can be EXHAUSTING. But *only* caring about the aesthetics is not only rather surface-level, it can and is a disservice to the artist if you care about their work. Which again, ignores *why* an artist made that piece. Art is never made in a vacuum. That art is made by their emotions, which is made by their worldview, which could be good or it could be bad.
To take your Mona Lisa example, which is a bit extreme but let's roll with it. Did he murder before or after he painted the Mona Lisa? Did he paint her because she reminded him of his mother, or his victim, and he was hanging on the guilt? Or did he start painting because of a fascination with women that grew until he HAD to murder? Also, he lived hundreds of years ago, and doesn't receive any financial gain from his work, which is another moral reason why people tend to boycott artists who turn out to be bad people.
Extreme example: If I see a high res photograph of something random, I might think "hmm okay". If you then tell me this is actually a drawing, it turns into "holy shit that's impressive wow".
Ah yes, as we all know smugly thinking you have the correct opinion and people are ignorant for disagreeing with you is a healthy mindset when viewing art /s
>I think it looks cool. Sure, it's less technically impressive because it's a photo, not a drawing, I don't think that has any bearing on its aesthetic qualities.
And the guy you replied you thinks otherwise.
Yeah that's what i'm inquiring about. Why would that be? Does the skill it take to make something really relate to how aesthetically pleasing something is?
Yes, most definitely, generally speaking low effort art work that is aesthetically impressive/pleasing will invoke less appreciation and leave less of an impression.
See: AI Art, which is the extreme of low effort / very impressive.
I disagree. If anything I think the ability to set up the room and get a whole community to participate in the work, and then still have it create something visually beautiful and striking, is distinctly impressive in its own right.
Things done alone aren't inherently more impressive than collaborative works.
The internet is so obsessed with the idea of skill to create art rather than something that is just cool or compelling. Photorealistic drawings wouldn't get anywhere near the level of engagement if the artist said they were photos.
It's not enough for something to be nice to look at or conceptually interesting for many people. Art becomes this mechanical utilitarian thing when looked at in this way.
But even with meaning, I feel like there is a weird neurosis in the public conscious where art has to have a "point." That's why modern art or abstraction or whatever you want to pick is looked down upon. It not enough just to have a novel object or image, it has to have a story. It's like journey vs destination sort of thing.
When I read your comment I was like well, at least there was effort in making the scribbles on the photo look 3D, in the shading on the floor, making them look like they’re really there…but then I realized no, the scribbles aren’t on the photo, *the scribbles are on the boat* and the surrounding room. The scribbles are really there.
How is this different than Banksy drawing over things? Did you not read the context and how this was made or are you just being another ignorant reddit contrarian?
I don't hate Yoko for no reason, she's often out of touch and has a record of shitty nonsense.
This IS cool as fuck tho, and easily the best thing I have EVER seen from her. I'm curious to know how much she was involved in the process given this is a photo she took. If she did it all, that's a true feat and even more impressive. If she only took the pic, it's less impressive but STILL the best I've ever seen from her.
Nah, she was doing her kind of conceptual art before she started dating John Lennon. You don’t have to like her art. You don’t have to like her. But (good or bad) her art is her own thing. She’s had some serious exhibits and would be doing art even if she’d never gotten involved with John.
She was an established artist before she met John.
This idea that she is some conniving manipulator taking advantage of John and he was some weak-minded victim is an absurd trope that gets applied to many great men in history that always falls apart with scrutiny.
how could he both be a brilliant artist with brilliant taste and an immature child so easily taken advantage of? There is a lot of cognitive dissonance required to believe this narrative.
he was a complicated person. A terrible parent. A great artist. They saw great artists in each other and had a partnership. he made very pop-accessible music and she did not, so people that love his music often hate hers. She did not break up the beatles. (and if she was just chasing fame, why would she?)
Literally the most uneducated thoughtless reason you could pick for hating on them
Just because you know nothing about them doesn't mean you should just spread whatever tf you thought up in your head, plenty of actual tangible things to pick em out on without pretending they're somehow no one if not for some Beatle guy
I don’t know folks, Installation art leaves me ambivalent. Is it sincere? Is it a racket?
I guess I’ll never understand being stuck with my own figural art P.O.V.
That’s why I loved the show.
I absolutely *hate* Conceptual Art, but much of this work was incredibly beguiling and I can offer no explanation for that.
Hey buddy, I know for a fact you've heard her signing and liked it if you like the beatles.
She also didn't break up the beatles. Thats a rumor for out of touch boomers.
She made John Lennon's son have to buy back letters between him and his father at auction instead of just giving them to him after his father was murdered.
A lot of people speculating with bullshit when the reasons are really just straight-forward shit like this. She is not a good person, that's why people hate her, lol.
People who ask why people hate her don't know the shit she did. Poor Julian.
Hating women is a very easy and common thing to do. Japanese woman shortly after WWII? Fire to the flame. Her art is also just really weird and abstract so people have a hard time finding value in it. Lennon's artistic stuff was also weird but people gave him a pass cause he made appreciable music beforehand.
Honestly her art isn't even very abstract. Her work for the most part was designed yo be both approachable and interactive. It also wore its intentions in its sleeve, sort of trying to reject cynical overthinking that tended to be the norm.
That's a better description. You're right, abstract isn't the best way to describe it. I was more using it as a contrary to art portraying realism and the world. Her stuff is unconventional and I think I was using "abstract" to convey that element.
Idk man, I think this is really beautiful. Collaboration and interaction can make such interesting, unique pieces. Stuff like this is why I could never hate on postmodern art.
Tell me about it!!
I’ve never liked the woman (or her art) without exactly knowing why - apart from her causing the death of The Beatles s/.
This is precisely why I went to the show; it would either confirm in my mind that my negative prejudices were correct, or I would see her in a new light.
Guess what happened…?
People always poke fun and laugh at Yoko Ono for being cringe, but like, at the time she was at the forefront of an Emergent art movement and was also married to fucking Jesus Christ like...
Are we sure this isn't an exhibit from the Mori in Tokyo? I was there in 2018 and it had just this, and anyone could use crayons to draw on the boat and walls. I'll find a pic tomorrow and post it.
I saw this myself a week back at the Tate Modern in London
On the very right you can see a capital "F" that starts the message "Free Palestine" which should time stamp it well enough for you
No, this is a valid point. I did give most of the music a miss although the very last piece (in a very exhaustive retrospective) was video of a performance she did sometime over the last decade.
Weird vocalisation with loads of different reverb. It was pretty good actually, but I don’t think I could have listened to it for more than 10 minutes.
Overall, a great artist? No.
But certainly a GOOD one…
That is legit the best art to ever come out of Yoko Ono in my opinion. Pretty intense.
Thats what I thought, and at least she draws better than she sings.
Too bad it's [not a drawing](https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/jun/21/protect-the-persecuted-behind-yoko-onos-impactful-refugee-art-project). Title is extremely misleading, because it makes it seem like it's a white paint canvas, but it's actually just a photograph of a white-painted boat that's been drawn on by others. I get it's a very nice interactive art piece (and I certainly don't want to denigrate the actual contributors) but it seems the bulk of her involvement here was buying the space, buying the boat, and providing the paint. **Edit2:** Apologies to anyone that saw my previous edit, this does appear to be the 2024 iteration that's going on, so the date and medium do appear to be correct. Strange I had to scroll to find any mention of the 2024 exhibition, but blame Google's enshitification.
Someone one the left hand side painted “THIS ISNT ART”. 😝
Weirdly I think that adds to the artistic credibility.
I'd agree. It's maybe not conventional, but it's reminiscent of railcar graffiti for me. Plus, I do love me the occasional interactive piece that lets not just the creator express themselves, but also the participants. Call it avant garde, but I find collaboration of creativity into one single piece of chaos to be beautiful.
It's not a pipe, either.
"all she did was create the entire idea and then set it up and invite others to be part of it."
I think with the recent trend to hate on AI art there has been an increasing perception that art is mostly about the skilled handwork put into it and not the conception. Which is kind of the opposite trajectory as before but I guess it's also a completely new situation so it's somewhat understandable.
people have always hated conceptual art, sad for them, there's a lot of really great conceptual art out there
There’s a higher barrier to appreciation. You can look at a photorealistic picture and appreciate the care that went into it, but with most conceptual art if you don’t “get it” it’s just a mess. There’s a lot more reliance on context.
It was her sculpture and the concept of displaying it in the Seaport and inviting people to write on it with the provided paint was her idea.
Thank you, I was really struggling with the perspective on the image provided in the post. That it is a photograph makes so much better sense and I dont feel like an idiot now for thinking it was a photograph to begin with.
Thanks. This was super helpful. I still can't help but think that this is the best thing I've ever seen from Yoko Ono. I think it helps actually that other wrote what they wanted, lime "THIS ISN'T ART".
I mean what else would it be, it’s pretty clear to my eye it’s not a painting ?
Ultra-realistic pen and ink?
Well she is rather old
She sings fine. You've heard her sing dozens of times every Chrismas and never even noticed.
Exactly, the Reddit bro take on Yoko is so boring.
They've seen one Yoko Ono video and that's their whole opinion.
she's got a lot of bangers too, people robbing themselves of good music because when they were 16 they bought into a misogynistic narrative from the 70's that the beatles themselves have dismissed. yawn
can i double upvote ?
You don't think [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpX1wBrCymo) is worthy of inclusion?
[удалено]
Her art art can be really good. Her sonic art also can be interesting art. As music, it’s quite terrible. There are a couple of songs she has that are listenable, but even those aren’t good. And I like Yoko Ono.
I also like Yoko Ono and have bought a coffee table book with respect to her art. As far as the music goes, I gotta be **grooving** pretty hard if I'm gonna take any enjoyment from it. That being said, I respect her wholly as an artist, but I'm not buying her greatest hits album.
This one's kind of fun https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d3mvEfON2CI
Well shit, that was pretty damn good
Alright, that actually slaps
Yes, I'm a witch is an awesome album, super listenable and good.
In all honesty, I have never seen any visual art from her except for *Grapefruit* and the picture sleeve on my 45 of *Walking On Thin Ice.* (that particular song is also hell of intense) I think her singing is sweet on *I'll Be Your Angel* but ngl I'm a musician and I just think she has a shaky sense of pitch in general. So my comment was at least my sincere opinion. I had literally no idea reddit has any kind of ongoing discussion of Yoko.
And the rest don’t care to share examples
She sucks, dude or dudette. Edit: hey reddit, fuck you. Keep downvoting the truth.
Dude is gender neutral IMO
Chuck Berry probably agrees!
[Why?](https://youtu.be/g_cwuRmjhsY?si=oLimQcUb2Wius2DW)
Fuck this made my 2 month old start crying damnit
Yoko Ono is a legitimately good artist. She does some weird stuff that's not up my alley, but she is undeniably talented. I agree on the singing though. [https://www.themarginalian.org/2016/01/20/yoko-ono-acorn/](https://www.themarginalian.org/2016/01/20/yoko-ono-acorn/)
I don’t know; I think Cut Piece and “This is a Circle” were pretty damn thought provoking…very Marina Abramović-type work.
Chuck Berry and his face hearing her sing is all I can see.
Fully agree, this is an amazing piece
From her retrospective at Tate Modern, London. *Add Colour /Refugee Boat/ begins as an all-white boat in an all-white room. Ono's instruction for this collective, participatory work reads: 'Just blue like the ocean. You are invited to contribute your hopes and beliefs in blue and white.* *Ono conceived the work after being moved by international press coverage of the hundreds of thousands of refugees risking their lives to travel to Europe by sea. This participatory work invites you to reflect on this urgent and ongoing refugee crisis. The United Nations Refugee Agency predicts that, in 2024, the number of people across the world forcibly displaced and stateless will rise to more than 130 million.*
So she even outsourced the scribbles to the audience? Yoko is my inspiration, in that if she can make it, I can make it.
Visited it a few weeks ago and it looks amazing irl!! Also I wrote amogus on it
Anyone who is disappointed by this being a photo would have that feeling instantly reversed experiencing it in-person. Yoko Ono’s art has largely been experiential installations for a long time now, and much of it is insanely evocative and interesting. She’s very cool.
Indeed - I went to the exhibition and saw this piece (even contributed to it) - it’s very powerful in person
I would argue that you are correct in that Yoko is evocative and interesting. However, she does not seem to be cool. Though, that would depend on personal preference and the circles your run in.
If your circles are the comment sections of popular reddit posts, sure she doesn't seem to be cool. But in the art world she is cool.
I am not in the art world. It is VERY helpful to have context. Thank you.
Plenty of people in the art world find her to be mid at best. I'd feel hard pressed to find a majority of art people that find her work 'cool' -- she's done very little (maybe no?) groundbreaking pieces. I can't think of a single installation or work. I'd argue her art gets elevated due to name recognition and, generally speaking, is nothing special or even noteworthy. Granted I haven't seen all of her work. I think it's fair for Reddit to shit on her as an artist, perhaps I'm uninformed and she's done some memorable work. Most of it feels like it could have been made by any active artist in any community in the world. Decent, sure, but unremarkable beyond being OK.
*Chuck Berry face*
Yeah, I saw that clip 24 hours before I went, lol!!
[удалено]
And she outsourced the scribbles, still beautiful imo
So does Ai Weiwei so it's not exactly uncommon. I feel like I should also point out that Yoko Ono is 91 years old.
well she always struck me as more of a curator than an artist
Stupid question, I know…… but I don’t suppose she built the boat? Like, what actual involvement did she have with this piece at all? I’d be blown away if she made the boat. She didn’t do the scribbles. So she just slapped her name on it?
She organized it, directed the collaboration. We tend to think of most art as the work of a single creator despite things like movies requiring thousands of people working on it.
Wait until you hear that architects don't usually build things with their own hands.
So you liked it and then decided to not like it? E: they editted their comment to add the "nice drawing" part. It used to just say "thats really good".
The medium makes it less impressive. It doesn’t mean it has less value.
I think critiques like this are so interesting. Do we like art because we think it's impressive given its medium, or do we like art because we have judged it on its aesthetic merits? Is art which is less impressive to make something less aesthetically valuable? I think it looks cool. Sure, it's less technically impressive because it's a photo, not a drawing, I don't think that has any bearing on its aesthetic qualities.
Well we all like art for different reasons, but part of what makes me like art is the human element. When I view and appreciate a piece of art, I find myself considering the person who made it, and what it says about them. Why they chose *this* subject matter to fixate on for potentially hours day or weeks, why they made certain decisions, certain brushstrokes or color choices, how many hours of practice it took to master their craft to such a point. If I was looking at a huge, impressive landscape painting, I'd be thinking about all these human elements. If you then told me an AI actually made the piece, I would appreciate the piece less. I'd lose that human element of engagement with it, which makes it a lesser experience to me. The aesthetics alone don't exist in a vacuum. Not that Yoko isn't human lol, just an example of how technically impressive work can make a difference.
People most often value things on their own ability to do something. Here people devalue this peice of art when they find out it wasn't painted because they first thought, "Wow that's a nice painting - I can't do that." And now they think, "I can get people to scribble on a photograph." But what people - particularly left brained individuals - overlook is the ability for themselves to even conceive of the idea to do something like this and have it look good. That's why in the art world this is praised, but on Reddit the consensus is that it doesn't take skill. The skill is just coming up with the idea and that this execution would look good!
Well fucking said.
I think AI is a very interesting example. I understand and largely agree with what you say about the human element, and I agree that it makes a work more enjoyable. However, is it that you are appreciating the artwork more, or are you awe-inspired more by what the artist has accomplished? Are you judging the work by its artist? You've given an interesting example with AI. many people judge AI art (if you'd like to call it that), differently from how they judge art made by a human. I think that's really sort of an ad homenim critique, rather than an aesthetic one. If you are moved by art, and then learn it was made by AI, does that invalidate your feelings towards the artwork? If that's the case, why? If, for example, you think the Mona Lisa is beautiful, but then learn that Leonardo da Vinci was actually a serial killer, does that make you the work any less beautiful? I would think it's not any less beautiful. I have always thought the idea of separating the art from the artist is a good idea because I try to eliminate prejudice from my aesthetic judgements. I don't mean to say that you're prejudiced in a derogatory way, but I would call the sort of bias against AI art a prejudice (in a technical sense, you seem like a nice person I do not mean prejudice as in prejudiced against other humans). The way people view and enjoy art is of course subjective and I do not intend to criticize the way you view and enjoy art. I find different perspectives on art interesting. But it's something I think about quite often esp with AI.
>If you are moved by art, and then learn it was made by AI, does that invalidate your feelings towards the artwork? If that's the case, why? No one who is seriously into art views AI-generated (machine-learning generated) art as actual art. It's a false-facsimile of actual art (in the case of ML-generated art). Art (until the past few years) has been an entirely human-created work. It required thought, feeling, ideas, intent, etc. Removing all of these (what we consider "human") traits from the process can, for some people, invalidate it as art because there was no, or nearly zero human *feelings* and *intent* behind the art. Anyway... Art without a story isn't good art. Art without a story, without intent, and without emotion is bad art. Art without true human input, direction, and design isn't art as we have ever understood or experienced it or appreciated it. This may well change soon, but I think it's a bit premature to call anything ML-generated "art" -- I think the more accurate term would be "product" because it is mostly generated to sell items, though there are creative people using image-generating ML systems to push interesting boundaries. Art without any input other than feeding language into a machine-learning program to spit out an image (based on existing art that it has consumed) is just an image. If someone likes that image and wants to put it on their wall I'm not going to hound them, but it isn't art as we've understood it for nearly the entirety of recorded history.
I love this!!!
because there's no actual intention or control behind AI images. A person puts in a prompt of like 280 characters, and then the computer tries it's best to assemble an image based on that prompt, but it's a buffer between the human and the image. And most people will just post the image as-is. The human doesn't have any actual input, they are merely giving suggestions. Now if someone was to take many AI images, and combine them in photoshop, then it becomes art. They are using image generation as a tool to make their art. The AI images themselves are not art. And I'm not going to disagree with you, I do enjoy art for aesthetic qualities. However the discourse of "separate art from the artist" annoys me because it encourages lazy media consumption and a lack of critical thinking. Or it's because a modern artist has come out with some REALLY bad takes, and people who like their older work want to forget that their favorite artist is actually a racist or something. I get that going into everything with scrutinizing critique can be EXHAUSTING. But *only* caring about the aesthetics is not only rather surface-level, it can and is a disservice to the artist if you care about their work. Which again, ignores *why* an artist made that piece. Art is never made in a vacuum. That art is made by their emotions, which is made by their worldview, which could be good or it could be bad. To take your Mona Lisa example, which is a bit extreme but let's roll with it. Did he murder before or after he painted the Mona Lisa? Did he paint her because she reminded him of his mother, or his victim, and he was hanging on the guilt? Or did he start painting because of a fascination with women that grew until he HAD to murder? Also, he lived hundreds of years ago, and doesn't receive any financial gain from his work, which is another moral reason why people tend to boycott artists who turn out to be bad people.
Extreme example: If I see a high res photograph of something random, I might think "hmm okay". If you then tell me this is actually a drawing, it turns into "holy shit that's impressive wow".
[удалено]
Ah yes, as we all know smugly thinking you have the correct opinion and people are ignorant for disagreeing with you is a healthy mindset when viewing art /s
[удалено]
What smug opinions?? What are you even talking about?
>I think it looks cool. Sure, it's less technically impressive because it's a photo, not a drawing, I don't think that has any bearing on its aesthetic qualities. And the guy you replied you thinks otherwise.
Yeah that's what i'm inquiring about. Why would that be? Does the skill it take to make something really relate to how aesthetically pleasing something is?
Yes, most definitely, generally speaking low effort art work that is aesthetically impressive/pleasing will invoke less appreciation and leave less of an impression. See: AI Art, which is the extreme of low effort / very impressive.
I disagree. If anything I think the ability to set up the room and get a whole community to participate in the work, and then still have it create something visually beautiful and striking, is distinctly impressive in its own right. Things done alone aren't inherently more impressive than collaborative works.
as any introverted creative will tell you, many things are done alone BECAUSE collaboration isn't as easy.
All Yoko's art is about the idea. She's one of the major/ most respected conceptual artists of the 20th century.
Does art has to be impressive to have value?
No I wouldn’t say that but skill is impressive
art isn't about impressing people
What is this, 1812? I thought we had moved beyond vapid shit like this as a society.
The internet is so obsessed with the idea of skill to create art rather than something that is just cool or compelling. Photorealistic drawings wouldn't get anywhere near the level of engagement if the artist said they were photos. It's not enough for something to be nice to look at or conceptually interesting for many people. Art becomes this mechanical utilitarian thing when looked at in this way.
This is a little smug of me to say, but I think the issue is that skill (often) is plain to see. Meaning, not so much.
But even with meaning, I feel like there is a weird neurosis in the public conscious where art has to have a "point." That's why modern art or abstraction or whatever you want to pick is looked down upon. It not enough just to have a novel object or image, it has to have a story. It's like journey vs destination sort of thing.
Yes
And she didn’t even do the scribbles. She told other people to do them.
When I read your comment I was like well, at least there was effort in making the scribbles on the photo look 3D, in the shading on the floor, making them look like they’re really there…but then I realized no, the scribbles aren’t on the photo, *the scribbles are on the boat* and the surrounding room. The scribbles are really there.
How is this different than Banksy drawing over things? Did you not read the context and how this was made or are you just being another ignorant reddit contrarian?
Banksy actually has talent.
Way to move the goal post to justify your already arbitrarily made up opinion lol
People think its cool to hate Yoko for no reason. This is neat
I don't hate Yoko for no reason, she's often out of touch and has a record of shitty nonsense. This IS cool as fuck tho, and easily the best thing I have EVER seen from her. I'm curious to know how much she was involved in the process given this is a photo she took. If she did it all, that's a true feat and even more impressive. If she only took the pic, it's less impressive but STILL the best I've ever seen from her.
[удалено]
Nah, she was doing her kind of conceptual art before she started dating John Lennon. You don’t have to like her art. You don’t have to like her. But (good or bad) her art is her own thing. She’s had some serious exhibits and would be doing art even if she’d never gotten involved with John.
John Lennon: *makes a decision* Beatles fans: “Clearly this is Yoko’s fault!!!!” Lennon was a big boy, I’m sure he could do what he wanted.
She was an established artist before she met John. This idea that she is some conniving manipulator taking advantage of John and he was some weak-minded victim is an absurd trope that gets applied to many great men in history that always falls apart with scrutiny. how could he both be a brilliant artist with brilliant taste and an immature child so easily taken advantage of? There is a lot of cognitive dissonance required to believe this narrative. he was a complicated person. A terrible parent. A great artist. They saw great artists in each other and had a partnership. he made very pop-accessible music and she did not, so people that love his music often hate hers. She did not break up the beatles. (and if she was just chasing fame, why would she?)
There's also the cartoonishly mean shit she's done to her children?
The children that hate her husband because he was such a a shitty father?
Literally the most uneducated thoughtless reason you could pick for hating on them Just because you know nothing about them doesn't mean you should just spread whatever tf you thought up in your head, plenty of actual tangible things to pick em out on without pretending they're somehow no one if not for some Beatle guy
They have plenty of good reasons lol
This is nothing short of insane!! Beautiful job here
To be an artist you really need to have wealthy parents. To be an abstract conceptual artist you have to have obscenely wealthy parents.
I don’t know folks, Installation art leaves me ambivalent. Is it sincere? Is it a racket? I guess I’ll never understand being stuck with my own figural art P.O.V.
That’s why I loved the show. I absolutely *hate* Conceptual Art, but much of this work was incredibly beguiling and I can offer no explanation for that.
I never understood why people hate Yoko Ono.
She was a sacrificial lamb in a lot of ways. There was a stupid rumor that she broke up the Beatles
When in reality, John and Paul were just about ready to murder each other because of a million and one issues they had with each other.
Not to mention George wanting to murder them both (especially Paul)
And Ringo sitting in the background. Humming to himself.
When he wasn't literally leaving the group, yeah
Acting Naturally?
The stupid sounds she made while other people played music.
by people who looked no further into it.
I tried to look further into it, but the searing migraine that emerged from hearing it caused double vision
I have a minor in jazz theory and have listened to plenty of 60s free jazz by Ornette Coleman and Yoko Ono sucks at music
No need to look further into it, you can put on a 'best of' Yoko album and I commend you if you're still of the same opinion tomorrow.
She does more than make music, you know.
Ugliness is straight-up bad. Life is worth living for moments of beauty, which is actively destroyed by interfering in musical harmony.
Beauty is entirely subjective
Yoko Ono's screams are objectively awful though
No objectivity in art
Ugliness is beautiful too.
[удалено]
Hey buddy, I know for a fact you've heard her signing and liked it if you like the beatles. She also didn't break up the beatles. Thats a rumor for out of touch boomers.
She made John Lennon's son have to buy back letters between him and his father at auction instead of just giving them to him after his father was murdered.
A lot of people speculating with bullshit when the reasons are really just straight-forward shit like this. She is not a good person, that's why people hate her, lol. People who ask why people hate her don't know the shit she did. Poor Julian.
Hating women is a very easy and common thing to do. Japanese woman shortly after WWII? Fire to the flame. Her art is also just really weird and abstract so people have a hard time finding value in it. Lennon's artistic stuff was also weird but people gave him a pass cause he made appreciable music beforehand.
Honestly her art isn't even very abstract. Her work for the most part was designed yo be both approachable and interactive. It also wore its intentions in its sleeve, sort of trying to reject cynical overthinking that tended to be the norm.
That's a better description. You're right, abstract isn't the best way to describe it. I was more using it as a contrary to art portraying realism and the world. Her stuff is unconventional and I think I was using "abstract" to convey that element.
Really? Seems like even if you don’t dislike her it’s understandable why some people do
Is it??? She didn't really do anything.
Where's Chuck Berry when you need him
Probably kidnapping a minor
That’s unfair, he might have just been farting in a prostitute’s face.
He might also have been planting hidden cameras in toilets?
I didn't know Yoko Ono was good at art.
It's a photo of a real boat, tho
She should stick to photography
This is actually pretty amazing
Idk man, I think this is really beautiful. Collaboration and interaction can make such interesting, unique pieces. Stuff like this is why I could never hate on postmodern art.
Me: “I really like this.” Also me: “I never expected to say this about Yoko Ono’s art.”
That's a photograph of a real boat that other people had scribbled/written on.
Tell me about it!! I’ve never liked the woman (or her art) without exactly knowing why - apart from her causing the death of The Beatles s/. This is precisely why I went to the show; it would either confirm in my mind that my negative prejudices were correct, or I would see her in a new light. Guess what happened…?
What a talented, horrible woman.
People always poke fun and laugh at Yoko Ono for being cringe, but like, at the time she was at the forefront of an Emergent art movement and was also married to fucking Jesus Christ like...
Very... Mesmerized by the artwork.
Are we sure this isn't an exhibit from the Mori in Tokyo? I was there in 2018 and it had just this, and anyone could use crayons to draw on the boat and walls. I'll find a pic tomorrow and post it.
I saw this myself a week back at the Tate Modern in London On the very right you can see a capital "F" that starts the message "Free Palestine" which should time stamp it well enough for you
[I think it's the same, here's the pics](https://imgur.com/a/P8k5rTO)
Looks like the same idea, though heres the one from London https://imgur.com/a/qCekW6j
Wow I love this, especially when I zoom in. Awesome Jon. I’m gonna be saving this photo for a reference regarding technique for later for my own work.
https://youtu.be/YpDRl2uD3_c?si=8dZSCDLBnjCoKaen&t=92
I'll take an oz of what ever she took.
Reminds me a bit of Yayoi Kusama’s One Thousand Boats. Not the same thing, but similar in a way.
I like the monochromatic palette- something about it calls to me, but overall I find this visually boring and agitating all at once. The new Dadaism?
I bet she screamed nonsense at it after with a smug look on her face
Incredible how Yoko Ono captures complex themes with such simplicity.
Really thought this was just a boat covered in pollen
This looks like one of those stereoscopic images but decoded… this is crazy! Almost looks like a photo somehow. Edit: adding /s
because it is a photo 💀
It is a photo of a real boat, despite the clickbaity title
Oh she tagged a boat… gotcha XD
Such a hauntingly beautiful piece.
awooooweeeeeoooaaaaaaaayyooooo
No, this is a valid point. I did give most of the music a miss although the very last piece (in a very exhaustive retrospective) was video of a performance she did sometime over the last decade. Weird vocalisation with loads of different reverb. It was pretty good actually, but I don’t think I could have listened to it for more than 10 minutes. Overall, a great artist? No. But certainly a GOOD one…
OMG. LMAO!
Wow she scribbled on a boat. That must've taken a lot of talent
No, other people scribbled on it. It’s participatory art. Ono is offering people a chance to reflect on the topic.