Feminist readings of
Cut Piece often center on the feminist concept of the "
gaze", referring to the objectification of the female body and the violence enacted upon it "mediated by regimes of vision". When asked about the feminism of
Cut Piece, Ono said she "didn’t have any notion of feminism". However, as a woman functioning in the male-dominated, misogynistic art world of the 1960s, she certainly would have been aware of the power dynamics of gender and subordination of women that would eventually spark the
women's liberation movement and she has not objected to the feminist readings of her work. Contained within the performance space is the potential for violence where the audience is the male aggressor and Ono is playing the role of female victim. This reading takes Ono's body as a stand-in for all female bodies and considers her as the objectified female art object to be powerless, subjected to the violence and scrutiny of the audience's gaze. Watching some of the male audience members in the film of the performance is quite harrowing and one can see why the work has become such an important feminist work in relation to these issues. During at least one of the London performances, Ono was stripped completely nude. The power dynamic present in the New York performance was heightened in the London performance where, based on an account by critic Alaster Niven, it sounds like a
master of ceremonies prompted the audience throughout, even asking someone to remove the last strip of Ono's underwear. Even though Ono remains silent as part of the parameters of
Cut Piece, the fact that a male host spoke for her in this iteration of the work functions to silence and objectify her even further. Perhaps it is moments like these that have prompted some viewers to describe
Cut Piece as "more like a rape than an art performance". The threat of potential violence within
Cut Piece is palpable, and the feminist readings valid, however this reading often overlooks the interplay of gender with Ono's personal identity and history in a way that can expand on it even further. According to
Julia Bryan-Wilson, in
Cut Piece the body can be read as a recipient of risk and threats but also as a source of gifts. She asserts that Ono actually retains her agency by instructing the audience in what to do with the scissors, as well as asserts her right to end the performance "at the option of the performer". She also does take control at certain points, such as during the New York performance, after a particularly harrowing interaction with an audience member who cuts away her entire top and cuts through the straps of her bra, she moves her arms to prevent the remains from falling and her breasts from being exposed. Her actions in
Cut Piece differ from later feminist works, albeit inspired by
Cut Piece, such as
Marina Abromović's
Rhythm 0 (1974), where the artist fully surrendered to the audience's whims and desires during a six hour long event where audience members had a choice of 72 objects including nails, lipstick, matches and a gun. Calling back to the idea of a woman giving a piece of her soul, or allowing it to be taken via the cutting of clothing also relates to feminist theory and expectations put upon women to sacrifice everything in service of the caretaking duties of motherhood. Ono has stated that "women [are] the only people who know the pride and joy of surrender". This can be related to a type of freedom of joy felt in the act of true surrender, however the concept of surrender in relation to
Cut Piece could also refer to an expectation of passiveness or submission of women in traditional gender roles as wife, mother and caretaker. This too requires a surrender to circumstances, to power dynamics, to male dominance. In the context of giving that Ono states was her original intention as well as the concept of the sacrifice, both a part of the Buddhist myth that inspired Ono as well as Julia Bryan-Wilson's analysis of sacrifice as an important part of the work, it is perhaps important to consider that a major part of the performance for Ono was being committed to continue 'giving' to the audience "whatever they wanted to take", even when the taking is not always gracious or gentle. The reckoning of violence and generosity inherent in the piece is important to both the feminist and anti-war readings of it. == Anti-war reading ==