401.2 Yoko Ono Raw:

This is not what I consider art, this is a ephemeral statement of protest, and sensationalist. It's only described as art because its a realisation of an idea. Its yelling from the rooftops, or a streaker run at the football. (albeit, much more elegant). 

It is very audience centric, and definitely of its time, where it was considered risque. 

Would this have worked anywhere but Japan, in 1964, with Yoko ono as the object? (as it turns out, yes, but with a vastly different reception - Yoko as a 70 year old in 2003 is very different)

Whether art, or statement, it was certainly powerful at the time. Yoko Onos silence about what the actual intentions are (which is kinda her thing!) dilutes whatever point she was originally making, and the wishy washy "take whatever you want from it" seems ridiculous in todays society. Was it about Buddhism, or feminism. Is it violation, or is it empowering? This is where my "sensationalist" take comes from, it was (as much of Yoko Onos work) designed to provoke a reaction and controversy. In other words, its todays bait posts made by trolls.

Marina Abramović upped the stakes 10 years later with Rhythm 0 with a similar concept, reinterpretted and taken to an extreme - Yoko's original "Cut piece" was 10 minutes, where Marinas was 6 hours! This was much more provocative and revealed the truths about misogyny and racism. Her well defined statement reveals the toxic nature of our culture, and allowing, even inviting participants to use knives, saws and a gun (as well as a brush, mirror and rose) was impactful and extremely brave. The statement of this is the important part.