👉wiki

👉Tate Article

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

  • Lmaydev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    129
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Shialac@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      ·
      1 year ago

      A lot of people aren’t even good at hiding it, their traits are just seen as virtues in our modern capitalist society

      • Lmaydev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah it seemed the audience divided into attackers and protectors.

        Genuinely a very interesting story.

    • prole@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      “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

    • mysoulishome@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      53
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

      • Poggervania@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • El Barto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.”

        • mysoulishome@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot_(Burden)

          • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            23
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Thepolack@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

          • MaryReadsBooks@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            1 year ago

            The Stanford Prison Experiment was a sham and couldn’t be replicated.

            This Art project still seems gruesome…

            • fubo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              17
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

        • H2207@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

            • H2207@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

          • Nollij@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

        • rambaroo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • El Barto@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I knew this as well. I was just answering the parent poster since he seemed quite shocked by human nature.

      • cactusupyourbutt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        so I realize this is probably a controversial take, but is it really sexual assault in this case. She did consent to „everything“ basically

        • killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • infinipurple@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

      • a_mac_and_con@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • GigglyBobble@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          28
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Bjornir@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

          • _jonatan_@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

      • BastingChemina@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.