"I'm gonna start a revolution from my bed"

Hello again. I'm sure you know about John Lennon, the guy from the beatles. During the Vietnam War, in 1969, John Lennon and Yoko Ono held two week-long Bed-Ins for Peace in Amsterdam and Montreal, which were their non-violent ways of protesting wars and promoting peace.


Here is what I got off the internet, Wikipedia specifically.

Amsterdam bed-in
Knowing their March 20, 1969 marriage would be a huge press event, John and Yoko decided to use the publicity to promote world peace. They spent their honeymoon in the presidential suite (Room #702) at the Amsterdam Hilton Hotel for a week between March 25 and 31, inviting the world's press into their hotel room every day between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. After their other stunts, such as the nude cover of the Two Virgins album, the press were expecting them to be having sex, but instead the couple were sitting in bed—in John's words "like Angels"—talking about peace with signs over their bed reading "Hair Peace" and "Bed Peace". After seven days, they flew to Vienna, Austria, where they held a Bagism press conference.

During April 1969, John and Yoko sent acorns to the heads of state in various countries around the world in hopes that they would plant them as a symbol of peace. For eight months, the couple was not granted a single visit with any world leader. Their marriage ("You can get married in Gibraltar near Spain"), the first Bed-In ("Talking in our beds for a week"), the Vienna press conference ("Made a lightning trip to Vienna...The newspapers said..."), and the acorns ("Fifty acorns tied in a sack") were all mentioned in the song The Ballad of John and Yoko.

Drove from Paris to the Amsterdam Hilton
Talking in our beds for a week
The newspapers said
say what're you doing in bed
I said we're only trying to get us some peace.


Montreal Bed-in
Their second Bed-In was planned to take place in New York, but John was not allowed into the country because of his 1968 cannabis conviction. Instead they held the event in the Bahamas at the Sheraton Oceanus Hotel, flying there on May 24, 1969, but after spending one night in the heat, they decided to move to Montreal.


Recording Give Peace A Chance by Roy KerwoodEventually, they flew to Montreal on May 26 where they stayed in Room 1738 and 1742 at the Queen Elizabeth Hotel. During their seven day stay, they invited Timothy Leary, Tommy Smothers, Dick Gregory, and Al Capp and all but Capp sang on the peace anthem Give Peace a Chance, recorded in the hotel room on June 1. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation conducted interviews from the hotel room.

In December 1969 John and Yoko spread their messages of peace with billboards reading "WAR IS OVER! If You Want It - Happy Christmas From John and Yoko". These Billboards went up in eleven major world cities.


So do I consider this performance art? Yes I do. Lets see why. Firstly we have to define performance art. Performance art refers to 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.

So we have created a checklist. Yes it happened in 1969 during the Vietnam War. It took place in the hotels in Amsterdam and Montreal. It can be considered a performance because the two performers John and Yoko actually had a audience. The audience were primarily the media people who facilated the transmission of this art and its idea to the public. It can be considered art because it is an expression by the performance to urge the public to make love instead of war.

What is judged to be valuable art?

Uh, actually I think everyone has a different perception of 'valuable art' but here is my take on valuable art.
Valuable art has to have a concept or idea behind the artwork. I think if it is anything less than that it will just be mindless work. It has to evoke some thought (a new insight towards a certain situation perhaps) to the viewer, only then it can be considered as significant. It could reveal the artist's intention.
Secondly, the artwork has to have an aspect of originality. This is a minor quality to define valuable art however this is vital. I mean one can't possibly replicate a work (lets say the old masters) and expect to sell as well as the old masters. This aspect correlates with the previous factor.
Valuable art includes artwork that have a long lasting attractiveness to the patrons. Some call it 'investment' and others call it 'collections'. Whatever you call it,it can't be appeal for a short period of time. Think Mona Lisa. 200 years! :)She is still considered valuable art.

Okay correct me if I'm wrong?

Hello you!
I was recently reading the latest issue of TIME magazine and I chanced upon the article on a Korean artist- Sun Mu. I thought his artworks are refreshing to the art scene.It is rather comical but yet there is some political satire to the communist regime in North Korea.I shall quote an extract from the article; "He (Sun Mu) spent four years as a propaganda artist, portraying North Korean leader Kim Jong Il in unvaryingly heroic poses, but now the painter Sun Mu is having fun with the form. Since arriving in the South in 2001, 38-year-old Sun Mu — it's an assumed name — has been lampooning his old master from a musty studio in a run-down suburb of western Seoul." His painting mocks at the strict autocratic government of North Korea. In this painting, Please Have Some Medcine (I can't seem to post the picture up but here is the link http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1919276,00.html, Kim Jong Il is depicted as a dying hosipital patient being offered Coke by a North Korean Child. This work could be an encouragement for North Korea to open up to the world. I hope to see more of his work!

Mystery picture 2

Hey reader,
This is the picture I'm about to analyze! The two questions our Art teacher posed to us are

1. What is the studium of this photo?

2. What is the punctum of this photo?

I didn't know the meaning of these two words so I searched for the meaning of the words. Here is what I found.
Basically studium is the element that creates interest in a photographic image. It shows the intention of the photographer but we experience this intention in reverse as spectators; the photographer thinks of the idea (or intention) then present it photographically, the spectator then has to act in the opposite way, they see the photograph then have to interpretate it to see the ideas and intentions behind it.
Punctum is an object or image that jumps out at the viewer within a photograph- ‘that accident which pricks, bruises me.’ Punctum can exist alongside studium, but disturbs it, creating an ‘element which rises from the scene’ and unitentially fills the whole image. Punctum is the rare detail that attracts you to an image.
1. What is the studium of this photo?
The studium of this photo is the sheet of patterned paper on the wall. It seems like an ordinary wall paper however, it does not cover the whole wall. It only covers a section of it. This is odd as it does not serve it's function. Also, there are two pieces of labels flanking the side of this wall paper. The labels could be description to this wall paper. The focal point of this photograph could very well be an artwork. The intention of this photographer could be to startle the viewer as to question if one can consider the wall paper art?


2. What is the punctum of this photo?
The puntum of this photo is the wall paper of course. The pastel colours, flowery patterns contrast with the blend, white wall. It reminds me of a traditional Japanese wall paper. What strikes me is that the wall paper does not fully cover the wall and it bends at the top right corner of the wall paper.

Mystery Picture

I can't seem to post the picture?


1) What is this work made of?

Acrylic.

2) what do you think the title is?

It reminded me of blue berries at first but I decided that it looks like alveolus too? Why is there a pool of black liquid? That is a rhetorical question. I think the title is called "Smoker's Alveolus".


3) what do you think the artist wants to convey?
I think,he wants create irony out of the work. The artist is depicting a smoker's alveolus (which has probably inhaled tar causing it to be black) in an abstract manner. Although the content is disturbing yet the portrayal of it is pleasing to the eye. He also used simple, circular shapes -this could have been because he only wanted to capture the essence of it subject.

4) what do you feel upon seeing this work?
The circular ball clumped together made me disgusted at first. Later on, I felt that the black, smooth and reflective nature of the material made the work look sophisticated.It is intriguing as well as one is unable to recognize it as a familiar subject and the magnitude of the sculpture. It looks rather appetizing too.


5) why do you think it is suitable for public display?
It is sophisticated. It complements well with the sleek interior of Esplanade foyer. It would make the viewers ponder on what it could be. It is also eye catching as it stands out from the angular shapes (the stairs and platform) around the sculpture.

Hi nicole! :D