David Ross defends Yoko Ono

I love the idea that Jim VanKirk questions my pedigree. It's been a long time since I've been referred to as a mutt. But God bless him, he may be right. Thank God we have purebreds like VanKirk around when we need them most.

I agree, yikes, what a bad move. But he's more than his enthusiasm for one artist. Wherever he has been, he's been a force for good. Overall. Nobody's perfect.

Sorry Regina I don't share your confidence and I have to add that David has a history of strong support for Yoko. In the late 90's with David's support Yoko briefly exhibited a denim jacket with a bullet hole and simulated bloodstain in the lobby of the Whitney museum. This was a lone object completely apart from any existing exhibit.

Hi Jim. Can't agree about David Ross. I've always appreciated what he tries to be among the bastards out there, as Allen Ginsberg said about William Carlos Williams.

The reservations that have plagued Yoko Ono's Artistic reputation for the past 40 years always have been and continue to be completely legitimate not withstanding the views of David Ross whose own pedigree is suspect.

You are right Regina, Palin supporters are often quite sincere, and that is part of what makes them a force to be reckoned with. And I didn't mean to suggest you lack the gene for appreciating the sincere. That seems to be more a survival trait of those who live and work here in New York City.

And Freese is also right, I did not address the issue of Ono as a painter. But the fact is that Ono represents the idea of participatory art that emerged from the merger of the worlds of performance and object-making (and predicted the era in which we now find ourselves). Her "Painting to Hammer a Nail Into" was a poetic opening of the border between writer and reader, forty years before the Internet activated previously passive readers. Like Nam June Paik, Ono wanted to open up the creative process, and it seems she has succeeded. And as such, it seems to me that Ono was a reasonably intelligent addition to this exhibition (which I did not see, I should add).

Lisa. Established but not an international star. Hooking up with Lennon moved her to infinity. And naturally you can critique a painting w/o being a painter. (Hello, art critics.) But to critique without a grasp of the subject under investigation is the issue.

I think this whole debate is silly. As an artist, you can critique painting without being a painter. It's a perfectly valid inclusion in this show. As for your problems with Ono, your taste is your taste. It's legitimate work, especially when considered in relationship to Fluxus and Conceptual Art. And she was well-established as an artist before she met John Lennon.

I was somewhat surprised to read your comments on Ono's inclusion in this exhibit, Regina. For me the key sentence in your post was that Ono's piece has nothing to do with painting, which seems to have been sidestepped in David's response. It can be beneficial to refer to an artist who has millions as extraordinary. Money talks and all that. Perhaps that's cynical and makes me "more comfortable with the attitude of cynics who inspire apathy and a world of Sara Palin supporters". (Such disdain!) But truly, what does the piece have to do with painting? I'd like to know how the decision was made to include Ono's piece in a show about mid-century reactions to the "conventions and history" of painting. It seems to me the inclusion is a result of backroom deal making rather than context.