John /Yoko Bed In

1. Write on what this work is about

The work is a collaboration done by John Lennon and Yoko Ono. The former being a member of the legendary band The Beatles and the latter being a Japanese-American artist and musician. 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 then held the bed in in their honeymoon suite in the hilton hotel in amsterdam, where they invited the worlds press to enter the suite for the duration of their stay, discussing about peace matters. The work was intended as an appeal to the various heads of states from different countries. His solution to peace was in his own words, to "sit in bed and grow our hair". Lennon and Yoko proceeded to send 50 acorns to various states wordwide in an attempt to plant symbols of peace all over the world.

2. Do you consider this as art? Why or why not?
I would defintely consider this art. Specifically performance art. Art is something of aesthetic value, a tool for conveying a message to the audience. To me a great piece of art must be something that not only looks good, but must be filled with substance as well. This performance by Lennon and Ono show of a sincerity and determination so great that they are willing to spend their honeymoon performing it. Their act of sitting in bed doing nothing but examplifying the movement of peace is one that is highly controversial. Even so, art is made to be judged and different people have varying viewpoints. Their intentions behind this performance may very from what critics say but nevertheless, what they have done creates for us a platform for debate, an avenue for controversy and displays their courage to stand up (or sit down) for a cause.

What is considered to be valuable art?

Hmm this has been wrecking my brains for the longest time, and I have come to the conclusion that firstly, Art is judged not by the common people (the layman, you, me) but instead, the art critics of today. Especially high flying art critics the likes of Lawrence Alloway and Roger Fry. What these people say of an artwork can make or break its value, no matter the cost behind the work.

Popular pieces of art are usually auctioned by various auction houses, and the auction house that an artist is attached to can make a great difference as well. One good example is Christie's, a leading art buisness and fine arts auction house. Being connected to such a company gives your piece of work excellent branding, and buyers generally see art auctioned at such reputable auction houses to be of a certain grade and value.

Finally, the cost of the work. The minimum value of the art should at least cover the cost of materials taken to create the work, generating normal profits for the artist^^ (econs is indeed useful).

In conclusion, everybody would like the pay the lowest amount possible for any piece of art, but with branding and criticism, certain pieces of art are deemed to be of higher value than others, make the artist famous, and monetary value of the works continue to snowball even after the artist's death.