1.26.2012

John Lennon and Yoko Ono


For those who may not know, this photo was once featured on the cover of TIME magazine many decades ago. For those even less in the know, pictured here is Yoko Ono and John Lennon of The Beatles' fame and legacy. But, even without any previous knowledge of who these people are, what context the photo was taken in, or what the history behind the photo is, it still manages to remain a striking image by itself. There still remains a certain subtext, or shadow of meaning, underneath the glamour which speaks even larger volumes about humanity and the nature of our experience, than any historical or socio-political interpretation could ever hope to achieve. This subtext is in many ways more important because regardless of context, there is still the steady pulse-beat that thumps in the throat of the image. This resonates with a certain part of us that is rooted and connected to an eternal humanity, existing throughout the ages. These shadows, what lives in between the lines, are what remind us that we are human; it captures a moment of innocent, sexual vulnerability and tenderness that is often concealed and bastardized by today's cultural piety. What's more, it reassures us, "expressing and embracing our sexuality is perfectly okay; we are human, after all."

For me this photo captures a shifting. It drastically affects the way I perceive the relationship between man and woman, masculine and feminine roles, love and subservience. More conventional gender roles depict woman as subservient to man, and in a way, this subservience is what defines her quality of femininity, and even reciprocally, his quality of masculinity. However, the elements in this photo show a balancing, and reversal of these roles. There's a dramatic contrast between the artifice of dark clothing and the more natural, blemished, light skin texture which adds a yin and yang element, and an interdependence between male and female. It suggests that within this balance, there exists an idyllic microcosm, a loving relationship that is in stasis with the universal macrocosm, and is in many ways, perfect.

John Lennon lies in an exposed posture that reveals something perhaps concealed within man. It is a certain vulnerability and dependence upon woman, seen by his infantile, fetal positioning that clings on to her like a newborn to his mother. He needs her to sustain life, and yet manages to give back for it in terms of love and protection. In a mythical context, this photo represents a reliance of man on the mother goddess, and life giver. Therefore, we also see a cultural shift, which manages to break away from a masculine centered culture. Yoko is the fertile provider, yet beauty and fertility is as a fragile flower, and still requires tenderness and protection in man's embrace.

5 comments:

  1. I was really enraptured not only by your photograph, but by your description, your analysis. Gender roles are obviously a key role in determining meaning and intent behind this photograph, but what I really find intriguing is the sense of love behind this photograph. The mass media has turned sex into a marketing campaign, into an agenda, or a tool to get things as we want, but it is rarely portrayed as the absolute resolution of love of another. The bond Yoko and John so clearly shared is startling. Such displays of vulnerability and trust are not so easily seen in those closest to us, much less celebrities, two people who I have not meet (and in the case of John, will never meet). I'm not really sure if John's nakedness compared to Yoko's clothed state shows his subservience to her dominance, at least if you were to take their gender roles as completely reversed. Rather simply, those were their own choices, nothing more. I do worry sometimes when we try to add external meanings, we lose the simple beauty of what our gut first feels when we view a photograph. That moment when something shifts, and all you know is this art has showed you a world you never would have seen otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I remember when Yoko Ono came into John's life...the talk of how controlling she was(at least that's what his bandmates said...). But women are often given that rap, and it sometimes just means that men don't want to be challenged or change. I would like to have been a fly on the wall when they were shooting this. Obviously, John felt comfortable in this unusual arrangement, and was very much a participant. I find it intriguing. I like your observation about the yin/yang image. I see John as a seed, germinating, his arm the first shoot seeking sunlight. And yeah, maybe he was trying to portray a new role. This picture was very arranged, so certainly there's an intentional message here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah! I think it would be interesting to compare this historically removed interpretation with one that calls attention to John and Yoko the rock star celebrities.

      I've studied a little bit into the sixties counterculture in a class I took once. One of the interesting things I learned was that for all the strong pushes for feminism and other political movements that we saw from icons of that time (like John Lennon), many still managed to remain relatively misogynistic and womanizing. So it's interesting to how the radical rock star celebrity lifestyle has a way of turning almost hypocritical. John Lennon was very politically active and often railed against the establishment, yet he also made millions from that same system and lived in a mansion. There were also many good friends of John who claimed that he had a very bad temper and could be quite an asshole. However, Yoko has been working to change John's bad rap, posthumously, into an icon for peace.

      So when we take that into consideration, it adds an interesting twist to things. Is the message behind this picture genuine? Or is it just a radical statement from an icon who is trying to keep up image appearances? How does commercial advertising in large publications affect the meaning of this picture when we bring in the context of money and celebrity appeal? When we think about these things, it almost turns the picture into a politically trendy fashion statement that's sustaining the very system it speaks out against. That was one of the faults with the counterculture; it became trendy, and therefore, hypocritical.

      Delete
    2. I agree, most people/artists seem to bitch about the system and are fighting 'big brother' yet are using the same system to make millions. I have never really figured that one out...maybe when I am rich and can light cigars with a $100 bill, I will be able to let you know. I was born in '73 and missed all messed up stuff going on, I know the world was a place where everybody had an argument and was making a stand. I have seen this pic many times, and have heard how she broke up the band. I don't think anyone will ever know what really happened....to be honest..I have never really been a Beatles fan...so I don't really care. LOL

      Delete