I’m reading Lisa Carver’s Reaching Out with No Hands. Reconsidering Yoko Ono. It’s a very amusing and well written book. Carver has a strong personal tone – her text is filled with respect for Ono’s work. Here is why, according to Carver, Ono is such an important artist:
Yoko Ono is not pretty, she is not easy, her paintings aren’t recognizable, her voice is not melodious, her films are without plot, and her Happenings make no sense. One of her paintings you are told to sleep on. One of her paintings you are told to burn. One of her paintings isn’t a painting at all – it’s you climbing into an outdoor bathtub and looking at the sky. Most of her stuff is not even there. Thats why I love her. This is why we need her. We have too much stuff already. It clutters our view, inward and outward. We need more impossible in our culture.
Go out and and capture moonlight on water in a bucket, she commands.
We have too much stuff already. It clutters our view, inward and outward. Isn’t this just a very good and precise observation?
…
sub rosa 
Honouring what is important to us involves purpose of place. We don’t like rigidity in our culture so we confuse conciseness with constriction and even with rejection. We treat objects like things we have to “save” until we are ourselves lost under a mountain of stuff. Purpose of place, using it to display a consciously arranged group of objects (and these will change) is inclusion we can experience, that of importance to our own lives. In the end, homelessness is our home, and we discover everything is already in it’s place.
I love Yoko Ono.