Friday, September 4, 2009



"Bed-ins for Peace" by Yoko Ono and John Lennon.


1. Write on what this work is about


“Henry Ford knew how to sell cars by advertising. I’m selling peace, and Yoko and I are just one big advertising campaign. It may make people laugh, but it may make them think, too. Really, we’re Mr. and Mrs. Peace,” said John Lennon during the famous 1969 Bed-in in Montreal that truly launched their peace campaign. Following their wedding at the British Consulate in Gibraltar on March 20, 1969, John Lennon and Yoko Ono flew to Paris, from where they made their way to Amsterdam to devote their honeymoon to the first Bed-in for peace, from March 25 to 31, at that city’s Hilton Hotel. Their second Bed-in, which could not be held in the United States since John Lennon was denied entry, was staged in Montreal at the Queen Elizabeth Hotel, Room 1742, from May 26 to June 2, involving LSD guru Timothy Leary, singer Petula Clark, Rabbi Abraham Feinberg and hundreds of reporters. Knowing that their honeymoon would be a magnet for paparazzi—in 1964 two businessmen had bought up Kansas City hotel sheets used by the Beatles and cut them into 160,000 pieces to sell for one dollar each—the couple decided to turn it into a public event to advance the cause of peace. The normally private, personal bed became a public stage, a podium, a forum from which, dressed in pyjamas, they explained their perspective on the Vietnam War to the world’s press. This event was in the passive resistance tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, albeit reflecting the hippie sit-ins of the late 1960s. But it differed due to a conceptual dimension that, in an age where “attitudes became form,” made it into a performance questioning the notions of identity and privacy, space and time. At the Montreal Bed-in, the bedroom served in turn as a political forum, an experimental art space and a recording studio for the worldwide hit pacifist anthem “Give Peace a Chance,” recorded on June 1, 1969, with voices including those of local Hare Krishna temple members.


basically, it is about their non-violent ways or performances to protest against war and promote peace.


2. Do you consider this as art? Why or why not?


Yes, i consider this as art, to be more specific, performance art.

"Performance art is art in which the actions of an individual or a group at a particular place and in a particular time constitute the work. It can happen anywhere, at any time, or for any length of time. Performance art can be any situation that involves four basic elements: time, space, the performer's body and a relationship between performer and audience."


As noted from above, this is considered as performance art as Yoko Ono and John Lennon staged an unusual sight where they dressed in pyjamas together with their personal bed brought out onto a public space to hold a forum to express their views towards war and peace.

It is a temporal piece of work. It consists of the four basic elements as they use the public space, spend their time expressing their views, making themselves stand out in pyjamas and engaging with the audience through their forum.


lastly, Performance Art may be entertaining, amusing, shocking or horrifying. No matter which adjective applies, it is meant to be memorable. For this piece of work, it captures the attention of people and sends out the message of promoting peace and preventing war which will be memorable.


Thursday, September 3, 2009

What is judged to valuable art?



Lets see, this is a tough one. Basically, art is rather subjective isn't it? The reponse of the viewers towards the work of art are almost never the same. Each individual has their own different opinion.



In today's context, almost everything can be called a work of art, especially so that we're living in a contemporary society where artists such as Jackson Pollock and Damien Hirst have risen up. The meaning and value of art have been altered over the past centuries. In the past, art was mainly valued for its aesthetic beauty and the painting skill/technique. However, art has taken on several different forms and meaning and the view of art is definitely more open and broader.



Alright, hope that made sense. Ok, so no, what exactly is considered to be valuable art. To consider something valuable means that it is important, significant and worth remembering or treasuring right? Yeah. To be, there are several factors which influence a valuable piece of art, first off, its meaning behind it, its uniquesness/ originaility and its aesthetic quality.



Take for example, artists such as Damien hirst or Marcel Duchamp focus more on the meaning of art rather than the aesthestic quality. Their artworks are extremely valuable due to the meaning behind it which is extremely profound and interesting. Artists like jackson Pollock and HoHo Ying are very unique and original artist who revoluntionized their own style of paintings and their works are extremely valued today. Lastly, old artists like Vincent Van Gogh or even more recent artists like Chuck close have works that are extremely valued for its aesthetic quality where their painting technqiues do not go unnoticed.



Yupp, thats how we can judge what valuable art is? Ok, yes, thats all:)