6 ms·

I don't fully agree with this comment, but some repliers here would benefit from additional context. Here is the table of materials Marina provided to be used

I don't fully agree with this comment, but some repliers here would benefit from additional context. Here is the table of materials Marina provided to be used on her: https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2022/women-artists/rhythm-0 https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2022/women-artists/r... At least two thirds of the table is covered in various instruments of harm. What does that say to the viewer? I think "baiting needy and damaged people to reveal their own perversions" is a fair characterization, although it may not be a complete one.

bondarchuk 3y ago
Oh well it quite changes my view of events that she herself provided the loaded gun. I did not read the wiki article that way.
burkaman 3y ago
> What does that say to the viewer? I am interested in your answer to this question. My answer would not be "oh she must want us to hurt her with those". When I visit someone's house and they have a decorative hunting rifle hanging on the wall, I don't assume that they want me to shoot them with it. I'm sure there are a thousand different interpretations of that table, one would be that she's pointing out how everyone is as vulnerable as she is, just less visibly. Everything on that table is an object that anyone can easily acquire and walk around with (and use). I have no idea, but "please attack me" would be my absolute last thought. I understand there were suggestive instructions, but it's a piece of art produced by a human being. Nirvana has a song called "rape me", what does that say to the listener? Do you think it is meant to say "please rape the members of this band"?
- skrebbel 3y ago
  A table with a eg handsaw “that one can use on me as desired” is very different from a hunting rifle on a wall. The sign explicitly encourages people to use the items on the artist. It’s really not far off from literally spelling out “please attack me”. Of course that doesn't excuse people who do so in any way, they’re still the perpetrator. But I think your hunting rifle comparison isn’t very good.
  - EatingWithForks 3y ago
    I would still disagree. Someone apparently drank her blood which is totally out of pocket with seeing a knife on a table, honestly, and is not justified by "well there was a knife there".
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - esrauch 3y ago
      I don't know, it seems pretty in pocket with seeing "this is an art exhibit and I want wild shit to happen". Comparing it to a normal real world interaction where you expect people to just hang out and chat is ridiculous, if people just chatted it would be a totally failed set piece.
      - EatingWithForks 3y ago
        I dunno, when I saw this, I wanted to draw flowers on her skin instead, since she provided the rose as reference, and I do a bit of art myself. If people instead painted her, put her in robes, braided her hair or something else nonviolent, wouldn't that also be a spectacle?
        esrauch 3y ago
        It absolutely would not be a spectacle to the degree of being discussed on a technology site 50 years later if people braided her hair. It's not an accident that she put a number of violent items out and had her assistants riling people up, something like "someone drank her blood" is exactly what it takes to make it into art history.
  - burkaman 3y ago
    Ok, what about songs titled "Rape Me" or "Kill Me". When you heard "Try That in a Small Town", did that inspire you to go to a small town and actually try it? Does it confuse you when people attending a live Papa Roach show don't actually try to cut his life into pieces? I mean he literally just told them to, how could it be any more spelled out? Maybe music doesn't count for some reason. How about something more interactive, like those "living history" reenactment villages (https://www.colonialwilliamsburg.org/ https://www.colonialwilliamsburg.org/). An actor comes up and challenges you to a duel. Do you accept and actually fight them? Someone on a soapbox in the town square is exhorting listeners to take up arms against the redcoats. As a matter of fact, you just toured an armory, and you see a patrol of British soldiers a few hundred feet away. Do you go arm yourself and attack the soldiers? Can you point to something concrete that differentiates these live interactive performers from Abramovic? Is there any other piece of art where you'd take the content literally and attack the performer? Actually it's more than that, because if I took these instructions literally I still wouldn't attack her, since I don't desire to. You are making a leap that I still don't understand from "use as desired" to "well obviously anyone would desire to hurt her".
- civilized 3y ago
  What it says to me is not necessarily "please attack me" but "I want to see what happens if you are offered these temptations, and this is most of what I am interested in during this performance". It's quite dark. She could have offered many other more benign, creative, playful options.
  - burkaman 3y ago
    She did, there's a full list here: https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/abramovic-rhythm-0-t14875 https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/abramovic-rhythm-0-t148... Only ~6 of them are things that I would classify as "weapons", and maybe ~10 others are not weapons but things that you could obviously use to hurt her (scissors, needle, etc.) There was food, paint, clothes, makeup for anyone that wanted to do something benign and creative. I disagree that the weapons were "temptations". It is not normal to be tempted to hurt someone merely because you have a weapon and opportunity.
    - civilized 3y ago
      You're quite sure you don't see the difference between (1) a decorative hunting rifle and (2) laying out a large array of weapons and other dangerous objects for an audience and saying the following to that audience? > 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. I agree it's not normal to want to hurt someone just because you have an opportunity, but you really don't see the artist doing anything to shift the possibilities of "normal", by phrasing the instructions in this way?
      - burkaman 3y ago
        I do see a difference, I just don't agree that the intended message is "please literally hurt me". Even if you believe that is the intended message, it still isn't rational or acceptable to act on it.
        civilized 3y ago
- chankstein38 3y ago
  I'm not saying I'd go bad either but when I go to my friend's house and they've got decorative hunting rifles they usually lack a sign instructing to "Use this on me however you wish"
  - burkaman 3y ago
    But if there were such a sign, you still wouldn't shoot them. So in what context would you actually shoot? Maybe if it was a stranger instead of your friend? Maybe if they said "don't worry, it's art, it's ok"? I'm trying to understand what about the context here is making the audience members' actions seem normal and expected to some commenters here.
    - chankstein38 3y ago
      That's fair. Honestly I think the difference I'm thinking about is deindividuation stemming from being in a crowd that is in this situation. I'm still pretty sure I wouldn't shoot but if everyone else was poking with a pen I might also. I guess my point is that there are a lot of factors in this situation that aren't just individuals making decisions. Even thinking about the Milgram experiment, though of course that was authority figures telling them what to do, in a crowd I feel like the people who take charge and start some action typically end up being a defacto authority figure. I don't think you're wrong though that there are DEFINITELY some outliers in this. The blood drinking is weird. The person holding the gun to her head is probably cause for a mental evaluation. But, overall, I feel like I can't blame some of the more mild cases presented here for their actions.
lolinder 3y ago
Other important context is her past performances [0]. Rhythm 0 is the last of five performances in which she injured herself, intentionally lost consciousness, and took medications that gave her seizures. In one of the performances a sympathetic audience came to her rescue when she fell unconscious, so she performed the next one alone with a cameraman who was instructed not to intervene. Once again, in contrast to the picture of humanity she seemed determined to paint, he intervened anyway. Given that history, I sure wouldn't have shown up for Rhythm 0, and I don't know many decent people who would have either. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Abramovi%C4%87#Rhythm_10,_1973 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Abramovi%C4%87#Rhythm_1...

bondarchuk 3y ago

Oh well it quite changes my view of events that she herself provided the loaded gun. I did not read the wiki article that way.

burkaman 3y ago

> What does that say to the viewer? I am interested in your answer to this question. My answer would not be "oh she must want us to hurt her with those". When I visit someone's house and they have a decorative hunting rifle hanging on the wall, I don't assume that they want me to shoot them with it. I'm sure there are a thousand different interpretations of that table, one would be that she's pointing out how everyone is as vulnerable as she is, just less visibly. Everything on that table is an object that anyone can easily acquire and walk around with (and use). I have no idea, but "please attack me" would be my absolute last thought. I understand there were suggestive instructions, but it's a piece of art produced by a human being. Nirvana has a song called "rape me", what does that say to the listener? Do you think it is meant to say "please rape the members of this band"?

skrebbel 3y ago
A table with a eg handsaw “that one can use on me as desired” is very different from a hunting rifle on a wall. The sign explicitly encourages people to use the items on the artist. It’s really not far off from literally spelling out “please attack me”. Of course that doesn't excuse people who do so in any way, they’re still the perpetrator. But I think your hunting rifle comparison isn’t very good.
- EatingWithForks 3y ago
  I would still disagree. Someone apparently drank her blood which is totally out of pocket with seeing a knife on a table, honestly, and is not justified by "well there was a knife there".
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - esrauch 3y ago
    I don't know, it seems pretty in pocket with seeing "this is an art exhibit and I want wild shit to happen". Comparing it to a normal real world interaction where you expect people to just hang out and chat is ridiculous, if people just chatted it would be a totally failed set piece.
    - EatingWithForks 3y ago
      I dunno, when I saw this, I wanted to draw flowers on her skin instead, since she provided the rose as reference, and I do a bit of art myself. If people instead painted her, put her in robes, braided her hair or something else nonviolent, wouldn't that also be a spectacle?
      - esrauch 3y ago
        It absolutely would not be a spectacle to the degree of being discussed on a technology site 50 years later if people braided her hair. It's not an accident that she put a number of violent items out and had her assistants riling people up, something like "someone drank her blood" is exactly what it takes to make it into art history.
- burkaman 3y ago
  Ok, what about songs titled "Rape Me" or "Kill Me". When you heard "Try That in a Small Town", did that inspire you to go to a small town and actually try it? Does it confuse you when people attending a live Papa Roach show don't actually try to cut his life into pieces? I mean he literally just told them to, how could it be any more spelled out? Maybe music doesn't count for some reason. How about something more interactive, like those "living history" reenactment villages (https://www.colonialwilliamsburg.org/ https://www.colonialwilliamsburg.org/). An actor comes up and challenges you to a duel. Do you accept and actually fight them? Someone on a soapbox in the town square is exhorting listeners to take up arms against the redcoats. As a matter of fact, you just toured an armory, and you see a patrol of British soldiers a few hundred feet away. Do you go arm yourself and attack the soldiers? Can you point to something concrete that differentiates these live interactive performers from Abramovic? Is there any other piece of art where you'd take the content literally and attack the performer? Actually it's more than that, because if I took these instructions literally I still wouldn't attack her, since I don't desire to. You are making a leap that I still don't understand from "use as desired" to "well obviously anyone would desire to hurt her".
civilized 3y ago
What it says to me is not necessarily "please attack me" but "I want to see what happens if you are offered these temptations, and this is most of what I am interested in during this performance". It's quite dark. She could have offered many other more benign, creative, playful options.
- burkaman 3y ago
  She did, there's a full list here: https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/abramovic-rhythm-0-t14875 https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/abramovic-rhythm-0-t148... Only ~6 of them are things that I would classify as "weapons", and maybe ~10 others are not weapons but things that you could obviously use to hurt her (scissors, needle, etc.) There was food, paint, clothes, makeup for anyone that wanted to do something benign and creative. I disagree that the weapons were "temptations". It is not normal to be tempted to hurt someone merely because you have a weapon and opportunity.
  - civilized 3y ago
    You're quite sure you don't see the difference between (1) a decorative hunting rifle and (2) laying out a large array of weapons and other dangerous objects for an audience and saying the following to that audience? > 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. I agree it's not normal to want to hurt someone just because you have an opportunity, but you really don't see the artist doing anything to shift the possibilities of "normal", by phrasing the instructions in this way?
    - burkaman 3y ago
      I do see a difference, I just don't agree that the intended message is "please literally hurt me". Even if you believe that is the intended message, it still isn't rational or acceptable to act on it.
      - civilized 3y ago
chankstein38 3y ago
I'm not saying I'd go bad either but when I go to my friend's house and they've got decorative hunting rifles they usually lack a sign instructing to "Use this on me however you wish"
- burkaman 3y ago
  But if there were such a sign, you still wouldn't shoot them. So in what context would you actually shoot? Maybe if it was a stranger instead of your friend? Maybe if they said "don't worry, it's art, it's ok"? I'm trying to understand what about the context here is making the audience members' actions seem normal and expected to some commenters here.
  - chankstein38 3y ago
    That's fair. Honestly I think the difference I'm thinking about is deindividuation stemming from being in a crowd that is in this situation. I'm still pretty sure I wouldn't shoot but if everyone else was poking with a pen I might also. I guess my point is that there are a lot of factors in this situation that aren't just individuals making decisions. Even thinking about the Milgram experiment, though of course that was authority figures telling them what to do, in a crowd I feel like the people who take charge and start some action typically end up being a defacto authority figure. I don't think you're wrong though that there are DEFINITELY some outliers in this. The blood drinking is weird. The person holding the gun to her head is probably cause for a mental evaluation. But, overall, I feel like I can't blame some of the more mild cases presented here for their actions.

lolinder 3y ago

Other important context is her past performances [0]. Rhythm 0 is the last of five performances in which she injured herself, intentionally lost consciousness, and took medications that gave her seizures. In one of the performances a sympathetic audience came to her rescue when she fell unconscious, so she performed the next one alone with a cameraman who was instructed not to intervene. Once again, in contrast to the picture of humanity she seemed determined to paint, he intervened anyway. Given that history, I sure wouldn't have shown up for Rhythm 0, and I don't know many decent people who would have either. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Abramovi%C4%87#Rhythm_10,_1973 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Abramovi%C4%87#Rhythm_1...