👉wiki
Instructions: There are 72 objects on the table that one can use on me as desired.
Performance: I am the object. During this period I take full responsibility.
Duration: 6 hours (8pm–2am.) Studio Morra, Naples
As Abramović described it later: “What I learned was that … if you leave it up to the audience, they can kill you … I felt really violated: they cut up my clothes, stuck rose thorns in my stomach, one person aimed the gun at my head, and another took it away. It created an aggressive atmosphere. After exactly 6 hours, as planned, I stood up and started walking toward the audience. Everyone ran away, to escape an actual confrontation.”
I swear so many people are actual psychopaths and just good at hiding it.
A lot of people aren’t even good at hiding it, their traits are just seen as virtues in our modern capitalist society
Couldn’t agree more. Lack of empathy seems to be a requirement to get to the top.
The idea that you can climb at all is a myth. The psychopaths start at the top and stay there.
ahem… rugged individualists*
In name only. A true individualist knows you’re responsible for your own fucking behaviors…
Lol didnt think i needed to add the /s with the italics
“After exactly 6 hours, as planned, I stood up and started walking toward the audience. Everyone ran away, to escape an actual confrontation.”
Sounds like the Internet in a nutshell
what always stand out to me every time I come across this story is the person who took the gun away
Yeah it seemed the audience divided into attackers and protectors.
Genuinely a very interesting story.
I think it really proves the act as art to me. Feels like a definite statement, intentional or not
What would you even do? If I saw this as an advertised event, I wouldn’t go. Neither participating or spectating sounds very interesting. Only psychopaths are going to show up.
This sums it up for me. An invitation can be open to everyone, but the activity they’re being invited to will determine what sort of people show up. When I read, “Come and do whatever you like to an unresisting human who will sit still for six hours,” I immediately turn away–not just because I’m not interested in “doing whatever I like” to a person, but because I don’t want to be in a room with the crowd of people that I imagine would want to do whatever they like to a person.
The authorities should recreate this act to use as a honeypot to identify all the psychos in society.
You can start for free by testing all the middle-managers.
The British have something similar at Buckingham palace. Theirs these guards that just stand around being motionless as possible which attracts people who want to do funny shit to them. They attempt funny shit and get arrested
We already have systems in place to funnel ask the sociopaths into positions where they can be monitored by everyone. It’s called capitalism and politics.
And do what? Being a psycho isn’t illegal in itself.
Assault is, and much of what was done to her would qualify.
Is it still assault if it’s consensual?
Most likely. For example you can’t consent to allowing someone to kill you - see the case where a man agreed to be killed and eaten by someone else.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3286721.stm
The man who killed him was ultimately convicted.
We’re talking about the things that happened in that performance though, not killing someone.
What the fuck. Like I’d throw some paint at her or draw something funny on her but my god.
Wait was the gun fake or real
It was real and loaded. The actor was commited to any outcome including being murdered on stage.
The audience first tested the waters and gradually escalated to more extreme forms of violence. When the violence started the audience factionalized into those who were committed to stopping her from being shot, arguing and shaming aggressors or physically stepping in.
While I don’t know if I can condone the piece ethically it certainly says more about human nature than most art pieces.
I hope someone made a list of everyone who hurt that poor woman.
Weirdly I don’t know if I could class her as a “poor woman” ? She was the one who set up all the objects on the table which included ones that were potentially lethal and she specified the parameters of the piece and very specifically could have stopped the performance at any time by moving of her own volition and speaking. She went into it accepting her own murder as a potential outcome and was committed to carrying on regardless of what happened. It being an art peice would not have protected a participant from a murder charge while assult charges have to be made by the victim of the assault… So there was at least that.
While she may not have been able to account for the long term psychological effects and may have had some initial optimism that people would not choose the darker options made available… I think terming her a “poor woman” might actually be dismissive of the actual volition and personal grit she had in the construction and performance of the piece? While it may have been ballsy to the point bordering madness dangerous stunt performances where athletes risk death for their audiences are a thing and those performers go in with the same expectation of potential fatality.
Nah, blaming her is weaksauce. It’s not about the art show. It’s about the fact that people were hurting an innocent woman – and she is innocent regardless of her choices – and doing shit they’re not supposed to be doing regardless of what she says.
The people who made the choice to hurt her should have been recorded and exposed so we know who to trust and who we can’t.
The art show exposed a truth that humanity has to learn to accept if it’s to protect itself from evil.
Not saying that I am blaming her. The people who hurt her were definitely not good people… Just saying that I feel weird about her being called “poor woman” - like it minimizes the guts of what she did.
Well, I don’t mean it in that way at all, if that helps.
Wow she stood still while someone slashed her throat to drink her blood. That’s commitment.
The stuff they did boggles my mind such as cutting her with thorns, sexual assault. I don’t understand do they think because it’s “art” it isn’t a fucked up thing to do to a person?
I wonder if it’s supposed to be part of the “art” - to show how depraved humans can be given a chance to do it scot-free.
Pretty sure that is literally the point of this.
I always felt like this was the whole point of the performance
Yeah, that’s pretty much the point of this sort of endurance art.
Bro. Artists can be very edgy. Sculptures of naked people, paintings of people fucking, I bet there is some piece made out of rubber vaginas somewhere.
I don’t justify what people did to her, but you bet she knew what it was going to happen, even the thorn part. Otherwise, she would have stopped with the performance right there and there.
Edit: she even made a gun and a bullet available to the public!! I’d rather think it was a blank, but if it wasn’t, then yeah…
Edit 2: Ok, I take it back! People are fucked up indeed: “When the gallery announced the work was over, and Abramović began to move again, she said the audience left, unable to face her as a person.”
I agree she was prepared for it and expected it but still fucked. She didn’t tell them to be cruel…she just said they were allowed to. Reminds me of the Stanford prison experiment where you kind of give people a tacit permission to be evil…so they do and then we are confronted with the aftermath. I just can’t imagine I could cause someone’s skin to bleed purposefully and not feel awful…
Not the same but related…this guy was shot as an art piece
The Stanford prison experiment couldn’t be replicated and the data are widely considered useless in psychologist community. Basically someone wanted to be famous so they created a shocking but fake study.
If I correctly remember my psychology lessons from 10+ years ago though, the results of Milgram’s experiment has been reproduced countless times which sort of backs up the original point.
What is the original point?
People are fucked up
See my other post below for a little more context, but basically it showed that people will do awful things if someone in authority tells them to
To strengthen a hypothesis.
I seem to remember that it’s not well received in psychologist community, though I gotta admit I’m not quite sure. If you want, I can ask my gf who’s a psychologist.
Just get any warehouse or factory in UK where the moment somebody steps up as middle management they start being ultra evil to the employees who are too weak to do anything as they’re bound by visas etc.
I’ve seen it happen so many times, at some point I’ve been offered a job position and they told me “yeah the salary is not attactuve but you get to yell at “pakis” all day”
Like what the fuck
The Stanford Prison Experiment was a sham and couldn’t be replicated.
This Art project still seems gruesome…
There was no experiment. There was a LARP, in which the GM explicitly instructed the players to be abusive to one another. So they did. After a couple days of this bullshit, the GM’s girlfriend made him stop the game.
It wasn’t so much a sham as it was a gigantic mess, and that’s the lesson. Zimbardo conducted one hell of a mess that had to be ditched less than halfway through and was only ditched because a grad student of his came in and was appalled by what he was letting happen as part of his “role” as the warden. He’d gotten directly involved in the study and as a result fucked it all up.
No shit she knew what they were going to do. That was the point. She was making a point about how inhumane people become when they think there are no consequences for their actions.
I knew this as well. I was just answering the parent poster since he seemed quite shocked by human nature.
Even if the gun was loaded with a blank, at any distance where she can be the one holding it (assuming it’s aimed at her) a blank would still do serious damage. When a blank is fired, solid propellant typically is ejected as well as ignited propellant and metal shavings. Too close and a blank is almost like birdshot.
Brandon Lee was killed by a blank on the set of The Crow, wasn’t he?
According to Wikipedia there was a squib load in the barrel, which was then pushed out by a blank round. So he was effectively shot, but the blank pushed out a bullet that was lodged in the barrel.
Thanks.
You’re assuming a full-strength blank, like they use in Hollywood. It could be a round with little/no powder. That would show if someone fired, but would not actually be capable of harm.
Even just a primer going off with no powder or bullet could cause serious injury or death, if the gun was held against your head.
At least the gun was deactivated.
I don’t believe it was, not for the original performance. Or have I misunderstood that?
Oh, I misunderstood the Tate article. For the display, it was disabled.
Yeah, that’s how I understood it too.
Well, there is the Great Wall of Vagina(s).
so I realize this is probably a controversial take, but is it really sexual assault in this case. She did consent to „everything“ basically
It’s a controversial take that has been the subject of all sorts of debate and even legislation. Some countries don’t accept sweeping consent legally for anything, some people/groups think consent must be sought, etc.
Ya, some things come to mind I’d normally call victim blaming but she basically invited people to fuck with her. If being assaulted in multiple ways didn’t cross her mind she was living in a fantasy world. Groups of people are terrible, the larger the group the more terrible they are. One person will push a boundary and then another will take it further, so on and so forth until it’s just… Mob mentality is a real thing and it’s not when you see the best of humanity.
I mean - that’s the point though, right?
She probably knew it would be bad, it went further than she expected. It’s still art.
Like how you climb a mountain, it goes bad, you lose a hand but survive, no (sane) person is like, “good.”
The point of this art is to show what humans become when they reduce a fellow person to an object.
Every person that harmed her in any way is fundamentally a bad person, but also shares a quality with all of us in that we can all choose to become that person at any time.
The goal of art like this is to get people to reflect upon these innate mentalities, not hopeful denial of their existence.
She did not explicitly state that she was OK with being touched sexually. Nor did she say she was OK being cut. She said anything goes but I believe monkey paw rules of language apply here. I would argue that the whole point here is that different people take the “permission” to different levels. I personally would never do anything to someone that I would not want done to myself unless and perhaps not even if they gave explicit permission. Here only implicit permission is given and the audience decided how far it went. Your point might have stood if there was some explicitly stated agreement that asexual acts are ok, but frankly I believe it is clear here that it does count as a violation at minimum.
I dunno. I admire the idealism in your attitude here, but realistically we have to look at the words she herself used: “Instructions: There are 72 objects on the table that one can use on me as desired. Performance: I am the object. During this period I take full responsibility.”
It strikes me that this quite explicitly states that there are no limits. I’m honestly somewhat surprised that she wasn’t more seriously assaulted.
but why do anything like that if she clearly didn’t ask for that. Like if my mate comes over and I say “my es su casa, have free reign of the place” and he immeditaly shits on my couch I’m going to be pissed, like that’s a shitty thing to do, even if I did “technically” say he could, doesn’t mean you should.
Because when you invite someone over, there’s the additional context that they are your guest and should behave as such.
During this performance art piece, that additional context does not exist. The only context is that provided by the artist, which did not set such limits.
And ethics, morals, and the wider society.
Language was never meant to be taken literally all of the time and context does in fact matter. The scumfucks who sexually assaulted her just did it because they like that sort of thing and because they can. Perhaps they have anger issues with women, too.
Yeah, I’m inclined to agree. She didn’t set any limits and told them to do what they wanted to her. Amazing it wasn’t worse in the end.
I agree but only in the most cold technical sense. That isn’t what consent is supposed to look like though. If someone verbally consents but looks uncomfortable you should have the slightest shred of empathy to check in on them or wonder if they feel pressured to consent for whatever reason.
Oh, 100%. In any other context, consent is–or should be–an ongoing event. I’m just not sure that applies in the context of endurance art.
She didn’t mean that shit literally. She didn’t actually give them permission to do anything – language doesn’t work like that.
“She didn’t mean that shit literally” where is this stated?
Common sense
Language doesn’t work like that.
Bless you.
Thx
I think legal semantics might just be beside the point. I believe she knew the possibility was there and accepted it, but the answer she was looking for is “how far does it go” when a person essentially publicly forfeits their rights. Blanket consent, the forfeiture of those rights, they don’t fundamentally change that this is a person.
They are doing it because they can.
It probably means that they would do that to anyone is they know there will be no repercussions. Like someone who is passed out drunk or a child.
I agree. I guess I understand the argument that if someone says “hey I’m going to come up here and I want everyone to hurt me, physically and sexually” then people do…it isn’t wrong. But I just can’t stomach it. Maybe I’m a prude. I guess it’s legal for consenting adults. And I guess it should be legal…
It IS wrong. That’s the whole point. Good people don’t just harm innocents simply because there’s an opportunity to do it without consequences. Even with consent that shit is still fucked up. The good people understood that which is why someone took the gun away and why that poor woman is still alive.
I do wonder if someone would have actually killed her. Are they so deranged or was it a stunt?
The possibility is as horrifying philosophically as it is literally
I agree. Imagining myself in that situation literally increased my heartrate.
I can’t believe how there wasn’t a single person in the audience who tried to stop anyone. Other than the person who took the gun away from her head. Still. No one stopped the people trying to injure or assault her. No one called anyone out? It’s sickening.
I can’t believe how there wasn’t a single person in the audience who tried to stop anyone
Yeah, that’s not what’s written in the Wikipedia article.
Faced with her abdication of will, with its implied collapse of human psychology, a protective group began to define itself in the audience. When a loaded gun was thrust to Marina’s head and her own finger was being worked around the trigger, a fight broke out between the audience factions.
I should stop trying to read things when I haven’t slept.
Now I’m wondering why the entire audience fled when she finally moved. No one stuck around to ask if she needed help or anything?
The group was already self selected for those interested in attending such a performance
It may be sickening, but it is what any human being would do, given the right circumstances. To be human is to be susceptible to do this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
but it is what any human being would do, given the right circumstances.
Bullshit. The experiment you linked isn’t even close to what this is:
They measured the willingness of study participants, 40 men in the age range of 20 to 50 from a diverse range of occupations with varying levels of education, to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts conflicting with their personal conscience.
Participants were led to believe that they were assisting an unrelated experiment, in which they had to administer electric shocks to a “learner”.
The people who violate the performer aren’t instructed, in any way, by an authority figure, and the act isn’t conflicting with their personal believe. They are psychopath.
She says she takes full responsibility for what happens at the beginning. This is a big part of the milgram experiment : the scientist takes responsibility for what happens and is an important part of what explains the behavior.
The milgram experiment had the guy-in-a-lab-coat (authority figure) explicitly instruct participants to continue.
If someone lays a gun on a table and tells you you can do anything with the gun and you believe that is an authority figure telling you to shoot them with them with the gun then I don’t want to be anywhere near you and encourage you to rethink some shit.
She says she takes full responsibility for what happens at the beginning.
Exactly. She abdicated the audience of any responsibility, which basically meant that the things that people did to her are what they would in principle do to any other person if they believed there would be no consequences for their actions.
Nobody in their right mind would have assumed she wanted to have a gun pointed at her head or be sexually assaulted, or even had consented to them. But because she willingly put herself in a position where that might happen (i.e., no consent, but no active resistance), certain people took that to mean it was okay to do those things.
There is only the tiniest sliver of a difference between this and any other situation where you strongly believe that you won’t face consequences for your actions. How is what people did to her any different than doing the same shit to someone who was passed out drunk or even fully conscious but not in a position to defend themselves or report you?
You should probably read the link you posted, because the results of the milgram experiment as touted by media is not really representative of what happened.
65% go up to the maximum “lethal” voltage
You just want to excuse your own bad behaviour.
???
This is more bystander effect than submission to authority.
Bystander effect is mostly prevalent when confederates are instructed to specifically be passive, though. If there are people helping, even one person, the “bystander effect” is effectively reversed.
From Wiki article: “When the gallery announced the work was over, and Abramović began to move again, she said the audience left, unable to face her as a person”
It worked, they really saw her as an object
Is she what that one episode of House MD based on? There was a patient that essentially did the same art stunt that ended when a participant poured gas on her and started to light a match.
And now that you know part of the story, please don’t stop checking out this unknown gem:
https://youtu.be/GXyq2xUmsVQWe deserve more Cate Blanchett in comedy roles
All the Documentary Now! episodes are great.
I feel like I dont understand it and the humor is out of my league.
Fantastic show. Crazy that they got Helen Mirren to be host.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/GXyq2xUmsVQ
https://piped.video/GXyq2xUmsVQ
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Nice thank you. I watched it over dinner 🌭
“Do with me what you want” They proceed to do with her what they want
Surprised pikachu face<
but it’s le deep
sick album cover
Clearly staged because no-one drew a spunking cock on her forehead.
This is really disturbing. People in general are awful, that’s my take away.
Sure they are, but the layer beyond that is that they wanted to test the boundaries. She told them anything goes, which means on some level she wanted the freaky shit, and participants didn’t want to disappoint.
Absolutely. The number of people in the comments who have missed the whole point of this piece is staggering.
It’s performative endurance art. Marina was very much hoping and intending to make a statement on the human condition and the flexible limits of our morality. The audience played their part perfectly.
I know that some of you are outraged at the whole thing, but remember that art can’t hurt you, the viewer. Art is supposed to make you feel things. And subsequently, you should have sufficient emotional intelligence to analyse and challenge those emotions and the ethical and moral preconceptions they stem from.
I’m glad I don’t get it on that level. Hopefully I never will.
I don’t think you have to worry about that ☺️
Is this what Shia LeBouf was copying?
That’s honestly mortifying.
I prefer this performance that she also did: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEcqoqvlxPY
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=mEcqoqvlxPY
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Holy shit that’s some heavy emotions! (Great song too)
Didn’t Yoko Ono do something similar?
She sat on a stage and let audience members cut off pieces of her clothing with scissors.
Not her tongue , unfortunately
I never saw the issue with Yoko Ono. I think she’s pretty funny.
Agreed. She thought The Ruttles was hilarious and forced Lennon to watch it, even though the mockumentary is not kind towards her.
deleted by creator
Is this the new schizophrenic neckbeard copypasta?
Lmfaooo shadduup theae are my gebujne thoughts lmao
Okay readinf this back idk what I meant here Im just gonna oretend I didnt write this
No need to share them with anyone but a professional.
Oooooooookay : /
I fucking hate having eyes sometimes
Y u bully me roflmao
Not normal thoughts, bud. Not trying to judge you but maybe speak to a therepist?
deleted by creator
@Franzia @CaptFeather these are things you say to your therapist, so you can talk these thoughts out and sort out what’s positive, and what’s negative, and why you feel this way. And learning to identify the things you might say that make people around you uncomfortable or worse
Because you’ve seen here you’re making people uncomfortable at best
Trust me. I rarely say the things that go through my head. Not like this, I couldn’t witness it. There are just things one shouldn’t say out loud
You’re ELI5 but I already said I had success in therapy.
identify the things you might say that make people around you uncomfortable
therapy didnt teach me social skills or masking. As far as I have been told, masking is worse for my mental health.
There are just things one shouldn’t say out loud
I literally said I would like take care of this artist rather than harm her. And then I said I have to be protective because people frequently trust me. Listen I know I sound a bit crazy but see past the aesthetics at the real arguments I am making.
@Franzia okay, let’s ELI5. one of the things you should get ot of therapy is social skills. Specifically filters. I never said masking. Masking is not acknowledging how you feel, it’s fake till you make it, as they say. Filters is not saying every thing that goes thru your head out loud. Not filtering is nearly as bad.
Here, you want to be a participant. Watch the goings on and swoop in as a white knight except dress her scantily and take photos. There’s little differencetheres little difference
Dog she is naked and bleeding with a gun in her hand pointed at her head
Does the term Attention whore describes this “art”?
deleted by creator
Performance art is all about look at me doing whacky things.
Essentially true but thoroughly reductive. Like saying “live music is all about saying look at me play all these notes”
Well yea, but you have to play the right notes in the right way. This is more like bringing an philharmonic orchestra to stage and not playing a single note. Actually, that would be much more creative than this.
Given your engagement, I’d say you couldn’t be more wrong.
Point me to some performance art where people are not ending up naked, cut, or doing some other edgy things in public.
This woman literally did not do anything during her performance art. The audience did. That’s the entire point.
You can also be held accountable if doing nothing. You actually DID nothing.
You’re missing the point entirely. It’s supposed to make you feel emotional, and to give you the opportunity to challenge those feelings and understand where those emotions are rooted.
Art is all about challenging your preconceptions, and yet you can’t seem to get over your preconception that art itself is worthless lmao
Art is not everything labeled art. Btw word art comes from latin ars, which means craft or skil.
Talk about irrelevant, good grief.
