If you're active on the Twitter side of The Beatles fandom you'd know that just yesterday a collage John made for Paul titled "I Only Have Eyes For You" made the rounds and scared people whom, I guess, don't think about visual arts very often. Unfortunately I don't use the word "scared" lightly. People really used the words "disturbing" and "concerning" to describe this piece, with a hint of a "What was Lennon thinking about our poor Paul to make this with him in mind" sentiment that I don't think it's quite fair.
I tried to search more about this collage´s context, but all I could find (without having to buy Julian Lennon's book in which the image was featured) was that it was made in the 50s, while John was still at art college, but to be quite frank, I don't think the exact date matters too much.
What I see in this image first and foremost is desire, plain and simple. Red is a sexual colour, we have naked women sprawled, the head with its mouth open in a orgasm-like fashion, the eyes symbolizing voyeurism. If anything, as a friend of mine also pointed out while we discussed it, this collage is proof of the way John and Paul were so close they were even free to be honest about their sexual desires to one another. Even if the collage was made for another purpose and gifted to Paul later, this sentiment still stands, because Paul was the person he thought would receive this part of himself with open arms.
Is the collage "disturbing"? I guess, in a way. The same way I think growing up in the 40s and 50s in a hyper-convervative protestant society like England and discovering yourself would be disturbing. Even more if you're not entirely straight as an arrow. But I don't think John's talking about this here. This is about his feelings for the opposite sex, and they weren't always nice. Red is also the colour of blood and guts, John was also known for having violent outbursts. Would it not disturb you that the object of your desire also brings up in you violence? I don't think we'll ever know why he felt that way, but here we see that he's aware of it. At least I think so.
I saw another analysis of this collage that somewhat agreed with me, but presented this argument as if this was a bad thing? I don't know exactly what made me think this way, maybe the verbiage, but I'll never think a person exploring the nature of their desire, be it disturbing or not, is wrong. Of course domestic violence is bad and I'm in no way excusing it, but if you're willing to engage with The Beatles, you have to bear in mind they were shitty to the women in their lives in varying degrees much like every man ever in general, and specially at that time.
As a self proclaimed John Lennon Scholar i.e. I Wanna Crack Open His Skull And Look At His Brain With A Microscope, I'm happy this exists, and I think I need a little more time with it myself.
All of this to say: I like it, I think John Lennon was a good visual artist and stop being weird about art.
To lighten up the mood, look at the gay as hell collage John made for Elton in 1975! This one deserved its own post with a lot of tin hatting on my part, but whatever! I love them so much (and yes, I WILL find a way to mention their friendship in every post I make, shut up. One day the Lennon/John masterpost will come).
What's with Paul freaking out whenever his hair is about to be messed up? Like he can't hold it together that George wants to punch him in the face. John so soft, lovingly looks at P, fully understanding his bestie's ridiculous self-consciousness. George "See you in Greece. Any Tuesday afternoon" Harrison.
|The Beatles interview with the BBC, 1964 🇬🇧🧒🏻🧒🏻🧒🏻🧒🏻
dailybridgerton
yousharknotpass
pixelskylines
germansingergirl
