👉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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 94 points 2 years ago (5 children)

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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 28 points 2 years ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 30 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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

    This Art project still seems gruesome....

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Brandon Lee was killed by a blank on the set of The Crow, wasn't he?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (5 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    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."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago*

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 47 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (11 replies)