3 ms·
Unless there is some proof otherwise, I'm gonna assume it was genuine performance art. Taking what the author says at face value, the goal was "See what the pu
by capableweb 3y ago
Unless there is some proof otherwise, I'm gonna assume it was genuine performance art.
Taking what the author says at face value, the goal was "See what the public would do to a human if given tools and unrestricted access/allowance for 6 hours", and the conclusion is up to the audience and future viewers/readers, rather than the author trying to steer people into some predefined conclusion.
One way you could see it is "all humans are inherently evil" but that's not the way I see it, as the audience seems to eventually be split up in one "nice" group trying to stop the "not nice" group from acting out.
- coolThingsFirst 3y agoHow would you convince someone that they had unrestricted access to a human being to do whatever they pleased with though? Seems almost impossible.
- capableweb 3y agoRead the linked article and maybe watch https://vimeo.com/71952791 https://vimeo.com/71952791 so you know what actually happened in the event. In this case, you write a note and let people do whatever. Once you see someone that cutting their skin is OK, I'm pretty sure you'd feel OK with whatever you had in mind.
- drt5b7j 3y agoUnless there's proof otherwise I'm going to assume there were plants in the audience, because that's where the interests of the organizer is.