EDIT 2: Our overlord /u/dang has blocked my account again, which he likes to do from time to time when I start writing comments that he disagrees with, so I can no longer answer any more of your questions. Good chat.
Please don't delete-edit your comments in way that deprives existing replies of their context. It's unfair to your fellow users to pull the rug out from under them. You can always append whatever information you want, beginning with "Edit:" or something similar.
The fact of the performance is that Marina Abramović presented herself and 72 objects to an audience, and did nothing more. It is insanity to imply that somehow the presence of a weapon alone compels someone to use the weapon, in fact that only reflects one's own insanity... IMO.
> I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement. Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness.
The choice to hold the piece through the night for such a long time further goads the audience.
Basically, she was blatantly setting up the audience for this reaction. Repeat the same experiment in the middle of the day for an hour without putting a gun and knife on the table and you'll see a very different result.
EDIT: really, it's a piece of art about how it's very easy to manipulate an audience
EDIT 2: another downvote for not liking the same piece of art as you. Please grow a pair of balls.
Yeah, if you change the conditions you get different results.
> she was blatantly setting up the audience for this reaction
I agree that the reaction was predictable. I disagree that it detracts from the experiment/performance. In fact it's the opposite - if the reaction is random then the experiment is pointless - if the reaction is predictable - the experiment tells you something about human nature.
Why? Anyone seriously harming her would have committed a crime and get jailed.
Even if it was done via remotely operated robots via some privacy-proof Tor network, so the participants could be absolutely sure not to be punished for their crime, and someone did seriously harm her, what did it accomplish?
Not much, I'd say. Some people acting cruel when they can get away with it is expected behavior, just look at any kindergarten, not to mention the history books.
My point is, most folks think the expected behaviour was the unexpected behaviour. I think it’s the other way around.
Hardly told us anything new tho, so trivial result as such. Water is still wet.
Quite gutsy of her tho, I'll give her that.
Please grow some balls yourself and accept that not everyone has to have the same opinion and use of the downvote as you.
That sure is one interesting way of seeing it. Another way of seeing it is "Just because something is available, doesn't mean you have to exploit/use it".
If you could, with 100% security, steal without getting caught, would you?
> The choice to hold the piece through the night for such a long time further goads the audience.
People have the option to say "Nah, I'm tired, lets go home" instead of staying there if they're tired. But I'm guessing they wanted to see how it ended, so they stuck around.
In the end, people had options, and some people chose options many would consider "less good".
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedovshchina . This happened in many other countries too.
Or just look at bullying in schools.
This is how groups of people behave.
After you punish the bully the first time - usually he leaves you alone.
Impunity is the important factor, not "suggestion of violence".