I first learned about this piece in a college art class. Reading about it again, I’m intrigued by how much of the surrounding discourse (including the artist’s own comments) talks about “audience” and “public” and “humanity” in the abstract.
It seems to me that the outcome would have been heavily dependent on _who specifically_ was in the room. In that way, the piece speaks more to the psyche of _an_ audience and _a_ public, rather than _the_.
I'm afraid this is very much an "a man in a pub told me" anecdote, but a while ago I chatted with somebody who apparently interviewed people who attended the original Rhythm 0. She said that initially people were reluctant to behave in the violent ways expected, and Abromović's assistants were telling people they were spoiling the art by being too timid. None of the online write-ups mention this so idk, but it would make a lot of sense. The piece would've been a damp squib if (a few of) the audience hadn't behaved as they did.
Either way, perhaps it makes sense to think of the audience reaction as artistic collaboration, rather than innate human visciousness.
Given the date, I suspect it was influenced by the Stanford Prison Experiment, which was just three years prior. We now know that Stanford Prison was not an experiment at all [0], but at the time I imagine it was fresh on everyone's minds and believed uncritically.
The proximity to Stanford Prison, coupled with the time (8pm-2am) and her wording ("There are 72 objects on the table that one can use on me as desired. Performance. I am the object.") go a long way towards explaining what happened here. Not that the behavior is acceptable or justified, but that it certainly should not be used to come to any bleak conclusions about humans in general.
EDIT: Also, it's important to note that she had in the prior year performed four different pieces that left her wounded or unconscious. We don't know what they were told in advance, but the audience was almost certainly aware of her MO when they showed up and expecting something intense. That would both have an impact on the kind of person who chose to be there and on their behavior once present.
Attempting to extract a conclusion about human nature from this event is as ridiculous as trying to determine if hypnosis is real based on the outcomes at a hypnosis performance.
The people were not randomly selected. We are not told what their instructions were. We do not know what their relationships were with the creator/subject of the piece. None of that is a "problem" with the piece, of course, because it doesn't even purport to be science. It's not "performance art" in the sarcastic sense that you might apply to a very poorly designed social science experiment. It's actually performance art. It tells us as much about humanity as an indie film depicting the same occurrences would.
I find it interesting as well that many here seem to miss one of the main aspects of the piece: the violence of men against women. It's not just "an audience" but a very divided audience.
When you watch it back it's predominantly men who grope her body, harass her and laugh despite her visible tears.
I've seen this piece discussed in various places. Sometimes the gendered and sexual element of the violence against the artist is the main thing that is touched upon. In other contexts the women of the audience are actually backgrounded so completely that the reaction of the men is spoken about as if it's the entire audience.
Prefacing with that I love this piece and have always found it fascinating.
This has always been my main criticism. As art, it's lovely - horrifying, but fascinating.
As a critique of humanity, it doesn't sit well with me to assert anything in a general way based on the behavior of the audience. I don't see humanity so bleakly as to assume this would happen in every case with any group of people.
I feel like this type of language is standard for artists (and startup founders oddly enough). By that I mean they tend to over inflate their scope/impact. This product is going to change the WORLD!! My art is having a huge impact on SOCIETY!!
I think your assessment is correct, but that type of broad/overblown language is not uncommon at all.
I was coming to write a similar comment. It's a pity that the article doesn't talk more about the audience.
To answer your question the name is suitably cryptic and can be interpreted as referring to the artist not moving. It kind of pales compared to the my thoughts about the actual 6 hour performance which truthfully leaves me feeling a bit nauseous and disturbed
I think that's because usually, once people are in a group setting, we all kind of blend in together, acting as a group more than as individuals. Sure, there are always individuals that never conform to any groups, and they'll stick out, but most of the common human will start acting as a "person" rather than "John" when joining a group in a public setting.
I’m not sure different people would produce a different outcome. Maybe?
But if you think of it as a statistical mixture problem, there is some sample size where the same aggregate personality emerges in the crowd, much like we expect any given sample of air to have the same characteristics.
So many it’s a question of whether the sample size was large enough to represent the overall population? (“Population” might just be “those who go to this kind of thing” and not all humanity)
Given that this performance has taken place in a large, western city with a random audience, what makes anyone think that the outcome would be significantly different if you would perform it multiple times, in similar contexts, assuming the audience has no knowledge of the other instances?
The pattern seems clear to me: you have a situation in which you are "allowed", even encouraged, to do harm to a person. You are "hidden" in a crowd. The crowd starts off with harmless actions but the get more intense over time, the boundary is pushed continuously. As long as you can hide in the crowd, you cheer. But as soon as you have to answer as an individual, you turn into a coward.
Of course you might think of specific contexts, in which the outcome would be different. But in a general setting? Why should this be the case?
The performance took place in 1974, barely 30 years after the fall of the Nazi regime. Under this regime, a whole people was put in a similar situation, where the treatment and dehumanization (i.e. objectification) of specific groups (in particular, Jews) got worse over time, publicly and continuously. I think in this historical context, the performance clearly referred to that time. I don't remember the 1970's, but in the 80's and still in the 90's, WW2 and the Third Reich were very much present in the public mind and often referred to in conversation. One example is Todd Strasser's novel The Wave from 1981, which shows how an "innocent" audience is transformed into an aggressive mob. I remember that this novel, and the movies based upon it, led to discussions where some people claimed "this certainly wouldn't happen here/to us/to me/now".
I think it needs a good explanation why today, or a different crowd, would be any different.
Abromovic's art isn't for everyone, but you can't really deny that this produced some really crazy reactions.
All modern art produces strong opinions in the audience, but performance art trips a lot of peoples BS sensor.
That said, I don't know how you see the results of this and not come away at least thinking about what happened. Which is the point, and that makes it successful as art.
She is also a focal point of paranoid speculation among pizza-gate and Q types. They think that elites use her as some performance art shaman that helps them do something? Not sure what, but its bad.
It's an attack on the human spirit in a way. The message is, "look, humanity IS truly awful." People walk away from it thinking, "Maybe everyone is evil." Now, does that serve a good purpose in this world? Seems a little satanic to me.
I don’t see what the difference is between this performance and one of the earlier experiments in social psychology by Milgrom and Zimbardo. There’s no way she didn’t get the idea from them. So, to me, this is neither original nor interesting.
In general, I don’t see the point of conceptual art, as it presupposes that the artist has some privileged perspective on the world that they can enlighten us all with. For me, this is a problem much better suited to the scientific method. And anyway, if the only point of your art is some abstract theory, why not write it out clearly on a single sheet of paper? I know it won’t win you the Turner prize, but it will save us all a lot of time.
I know this was supposed to be a demonstration of how evil humanity can become. But it failed to show humanity as gravitationally evil. Rather, it was a celebratory joy of how much humanity can be divided, how guilty it can feel, and how courageous or fake are its actions in face of conflict.
This was not art. This was a challenge. And "artist" submitted her life away.
I like her cannibal art where she has actors play dead bodies on a grazing table as the rich and famous pick food made into simulated body parts off the actors and chow down. The metaphor there is just so on point.
Related: this artist, Marina Abramović, has just become the first woman ever to have a solo exhibition hosted by the Royal Academy of Arts in London, which opened two days ago.
I haven't been, and it's had mixed reviews (well I haven't analysed the average of all reviews or anything, but I have seen one extremely positive one and one fairly negative one), but I thought worth mentioning as anyone interested in this thread/submission might be interested in going to see her more recent work.
(To enter the exhibition you walk through a fairly narrow doorway squeezing between a naked man and a naked woman who are standing on either side in the doorway, facing each other - or you can opt out and ask to be shown to the entrance that doesn't involve a narrow fit and naked people. NSFW photo of that doorway with two of the models used: https://d1inegp6v2yuxm.cloudfront.net/royal-academy/image/up... )
Her art sure is provocative. If her performances were just someone staring at a wall for 8 hours there would be no wikipedia page on it. We'd be talking about some other outrageous performance artist instead.
> 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:
Putting a razor blade, a metal bar, a gun, and a bullet on the table and inviting random strangers to do whatever they like, it shouldn't be surprising what happened. One can appreciate that it tells a story about "what people are really like" or a commentary on "conformity" or "morality". But after witnessing all horrors of history, and modern day, did we really need another confirmation? Perhaps she thought the people of Naples in 1974 had reached some enlightenment and wouldn't be like that?
All in all, not trying to criticize her. I appreciate performance art, I even went to see "The Artist Is Present" in NY in 2010, but at least this particular piece seems mostly a provocation for the shock value and to gain attention.
>Putting a razor blade, a metal bar, a gun, and a bullet on the table and inviting random strangers to do whatever they like, it shouldn't be surprising what happened.
Maybe it's not so surprising that it happened in 1974 Naples, but I would be quite surprised indeed if the same level of violence were reached in, say 2023 Tokyo, Oslo or Bern.
I wonder where all the commenters (you're not the only one) saying this is unsurprising or predictable are from.
I feel a bit skeptical about this whole piece, given how the Stanford Prison experiment and the Milgram experiment were both heavily tampered with in order to get a more bombastic result. [0][1]
I'm curious if this was ever repeated but not reported on because the results were much tamer. After all, we wouldn't be discussing this had nothing bad happened, right? If someone tried doing this but the audience was idle the whole time, would we ever know it?
Legally speaking what would have happened if an audience member had actually shot and killed her? As I understand it you can't actually give someone permission to kill you, at least in the USA.
In this case, you want Italian laws, as it happened in Naples. But I'm not familiar at all with it.
Performance art seems to regularly skirt laws, for better or worse. For example, if you participated in Seedbed by Vito Acconci (when Acconci is crawling around in the roof-space, masturbating while talking to you), could you claim sexual assault?
No idea, but I could probably think of at least 5 performance art cases that are borderline illegal but nothing ever happened as it's part of "art" or whatever.
Her art, whatever you think about it as an art or performance, is about exploring the relationship between the performance and the audience. In her case, it's also body art and endurance performing.
At least a couple others have recreated this performance, and most striking to me is the survivorship bias. Guess if the videos where literally nothing interesting happened went viral with commenters praising the artist's safety among the audience.
Reminds me of Steven Millhauser's story _The Knife Thrower_. The titular knife thrower deliberately scars his assistant and audience members before pushing the act to the extreme to satiate the demands of the crowd.
[+] [-] trainyperson|2 years ago|reply
It seems to me that the outcome would have been heavily dependent on _who specifically_ was in the room. In that way, the piece speaks more to the psyche of _an_ audience and _a_ public, rather than _the_.
I’m also curious what people think of the name?
[+] [-] Joeboy|2 years ago|reply
Either way, perhaps it makes sense to think of the audience reaction as artistic collaboration, rather than innate human visciousness.
[+] [-] lolinder|2 years ago|reply
The proximity to Stanford Prison, coupled with the time (8pm-2am) and her wording ("There are 72 objects on the table that one can use on me as desired. Performance. I am the object.") go a long way towards explaining what happened here. Not that the behavior is acceptable or justified, but that it certainly should not be used to come to any bleak conclusions about humans in general.
EDIT: Also, it's important to note that she had in the prior year performed four different pieces that left her wounded or unconscious. We don't know what they were told in advance, but the audience was almost certainly aware of her MO when they showed up and expecting something intense. That would both have an impact on the kind of person who chose to be there and on their behavior once present.
[0] https://www.vox.com/2018/6/13/17449118/stanford-prison-exper...
[+] [-] rcoveson|2 years ago|reply
The people were not randomly selected. We are not told what their instructions were. We do not know what their relationships were with the creator/subject of the piece. None of that is a "problem" with the piece, of course, because it doesn't even purport to be science. It's not "performance art" in the sarcastic sense that you might apply to a very poorly designed social science experiment. It's actually performance art. It tells us as much about humanity as an indie film depicting the same occurrences would.
[+] [-] AlecSchueler|2 years ago|reply
When you watch it back it's predominantly men who grope her body, harass her and laugh despite her visible tears.
I've seen this piece discussed in various places. Sometimes the gendered and sexual element of the violence against the artist is the main thing that is touched upon. In other contexts the women of the audience are actually backgrounded so completely that the reaction of the men is spoken about as if it's the entire audience.
The Guardian had an article today which touched on this for the anniversary: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/sep/25/marina-...
[+] [-] junon|2 years ago|reply
This has always been my main criticism. As art, it's lovely - horrifying, but fascinating.
As a critique of humanity, it doesn't sit well with me to assert anything in a general way based on the behavior of the audience. I don't see humanity so bleakly as to assume this would happen in every case with any group of people.
[+] [-] itslennysfault|2 years ago|reply
I think your assessment is correct, but that type of broad/overblown language is not uncommon at all.
[+] [-] badcppdev|2 years ago|reply
To answer your question the name is suitably cryptic and can be interpreted as referring to the artist not moving. It kind of pales compared to the my thoughts about the actual 6 hour performance which truthfully leaves me feeling a bit nauseous and disturbed
[+] [-] capableweb|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brookst|2 years ago|reply
But if you think of it as a statistical mixture problem, there is some sample size where the same aggregate personality emerges in the crowd, much like we expect any given sample of air to have the same characteristics.
So many it’s a question of whether the sample size was large enough to represent the overall population? (“Population” might just be “those who go to this kind of thing” and not all humanity)
[+] [-] ImHereToVote|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] forth_fool|2 years ago|reply
The pattern seems clear to me: you have a situation in which you are "allowed", even encouraged, to do harm to a person. You are "hidden" in a crowd. The crowd starts off with harmless actions but the get more intense over time, the boundary is pushed continuously. As long as you can hide in the crowd, you cheer. But as soon as you have to answer as an individual, you turn into a coward.
Of course you might think of specific contexts, in which the outcome would be different. But in a general setting? Why should this be the case?
The performance took place in 1974, barely 30 years after the fall of the Nazi regime. Under this regime, a whole people was put in a similar situation, where the treatment and dehumanization (i.e. objectification) of specific groups (in particular, Jews) got worse over time, publicly and continuously. I think in this historical context, the performance clearly referred to that time. I don't remember the 1970's, but in the 80's and still in the 90's, WW2 and the Third Reich were very much present in the public mind and often referred to in conversation. One example is Todd Strasser's novel The Wave from 1981, which shows how an "innocent" audience is transformed into an aggressive mob. I remember that this novel, and the movies based upon it, led to discussions where some people claimed "this certainly wouldn't happen here/to us/to me/now".
I think it needs a good explanation why today, or a different crowd, would be any different.
[+] [-] throDisASwayze|2 years ago|reply
All modern art produces strong opinions in the audience, but performance art trips a lot of peoples BS sensor.
That said, I don't know how you see the results of this and not come away at least thinking about what happened. Which is the point, and that makes it successful as art.
She is also a focal point of paranoid speculation among pizza-gate and Q types. They think that elites use her as some performance art shaman that helps them do something? Not sure what, but its bad.
[+] [-] flkenosad|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] epolanski|2 years ago|reply
I'm not qualified to make these judgements nor I car for them.
But I think too, that's extremely hard to ignore her experimental work in studying the relationship between a performance and the audience.
She's been an absolutely terrific pioneer in the field and her work will certainly outlive her.
[+] [-] Gimpei|2 years ago|reply
In general, I don’t see the point of conceptual art, as it presupposes that the artist has some privileged perspective on the world that they can enlighten us all with. For me, this is a problem much better suited to the scientific method. And anyway, if the only point of your art is some abstract theory, why not write it out clearly on a single sheet of paper? I know it won’t win you the Turner prize, but it will save us all a lot of time.
[+] [-] nashashmi|2 years ago|reply
This was not art. This was a challenge. And "artist" submitted her life away.
[+] [-] mikrotikker|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swores|2 years ago|reply
I haven't been, and it's had mixed reviews (well I haven't analysed the average of all reviews or anything, but I have seen one extremely positive one and one fairly negative one), but I thought worth mentioning as anyone interested in this thread/submission might be interested in going to see her more recent work.
https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibition/marina-abramovic
(To enter the exhibition you walk through a fairly narrow doorway squeezing between a naked man and a naked woman who are standing on either side in the doorway, facing each other - or you can opt out and ask to be shown to the entrance that doesn't involve a narrow fit and naked people. NSFW photo of that doorway with two of the models used: https://d1inegp6v2yuxm.cloudfront.net/royal-academy/image/up... )
[+] [-] sdwr|2 years ago|reply
I'm thinking JLaw on the beach in No Hard Feelings, or any episode of Naked Attraction. Demystifying sex opens up a fuller picture of life.
[+] [-] brap|2 years ago|reply
Edit: this is not some hot take on anonymity on the web
[+] [-] rdtsc|2 years ago|reply
> 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:
Putting a razor blade, a metal bar, a gun, and a bullet on the table and inviting random strangers to do whatever they like, it shouldn't be surprising what happened. One can appreciate that it tells a story about "what people are really like" or a commentary on "conformity" or "morality". But after witnessing all horrors of history, and modern day, did we really need another confirmation? Perhaps she thought the people of Naples in 1974 had reached some enlightenment and wouldn't be like that?
All in all, not trying to criticize her. I appreciate performance art, I even went to see "The Artist Is Present" in NY in 2010, but at least this particular piece seems mostly a provocation for the shock value and to gain attention.
[+] [-] bondarchuk|2 years ago|reply
Maybe it's not so surprising that it happened in 1974 Naples, but I would be quite surprised indeed if the same level of violence were reached in, say 2023 Tokyo, Oslo or Bern.
I wonder where all the commenters (you're not the only one) saying this is unsurprising or predictable are from.
[+] [-] helloplanets|2 years ago|reply
[0]: https://www.wired.com/story/beware-the-epiphany-industrial-c... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment#Validity
[+] [-] fallat|2 years ago|reply
"Here's some razor blades and nails, do what you want, I am an art piece!"
Everyone immediately thinks "well I guess she wants us to test her with this stuff"
It's more of a stunt than anything... and since everything and anything can be art... sure... But I'd rather call it a stunt
[+] [-] phaedryx|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skeaker|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] demondemidi|2 years ago|reply
There is your answer.
(Although I'm assuming you didn't study any type of art in college, but I did so I could blather on...)
[+] [-] tdba|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] capableweb|2 years ago|reply
Performance art seems to regularly skirt laws, for better or worse. For example, if you participated in Seedbed by Vito Acconci (when Acconci is crawling around in the roof-space, masturbating while talking to you), could you claim sexual assault?
No idea, but I could probably think of at least 5 performance art cases that are borderline illegal but nothing ever happened as it's part of "art" or whatever.
[+] [-] StevenWaterman|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] siva7|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] qingcharles|2 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIVZDpT5cQg
[+] [-] philshem|2 years ago|reply
https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/yoko-ono-cut-piece-...
[+] [-] denton-scratch|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] samaysharma|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duckson|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guerrilla|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] epolanski|2 years ago|reply
I find that act a terrific example of her work.
[+] [-] edgineer|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bhickey|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mpsprd|2 years ago|reply
This piece of art is the one that made me acknowledge and appreciate modern art. It really makes you undestand the value of context and performance.
[+] [-] pmarreck|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 38|2 years ago|reply
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_On_(House)
[+] [-] Semaphor|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hnbad|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] riffic|2 years ago|reply
https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/yoko-ono-cut-piece-...
[+] [-] capableweb|2 years ago|reply
"Cut Piece" worst case: she end up nude
"Rhythm 0" worst case: someone ends up shooting/stabbing/killing her, or rape.
[+] [-] slowhadoken|2 years ago|reply