[trainyperson]

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 also curious what people think of the name?

[Joeboy]

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.

[rendall]

This is really an important piece of information to understand the original art! The interpretation is vastly different because of this!

It reminds me of a story I heard about John Cage's Music of Changes, which was famously composed randomly. John Cage purportedly threw coins and consulted the I Ching to determine each subsequent note. However, during a memorial at John Cage's death, David Tudor told a story about how he saw John Cage just writing down the notes and not throwing coins. When he asked for an explanation, John Cage said the he did not have to throw coins "because my mind is random."

[cameldrv]

Similar story, I used to know an artist who knew her casually. He said that she was intensely aware of the commercial aspect of her work and is basically the art equivalent of a shock jock. She gets a lot of attention and makes a lot of money from doing the most outrageous things she can think of.

[Semiapies]

I wouldn't feel bad about anecdote in this case. All the online descriptions of the performance, including this Wikipedia article, rely solely on the artist's narrative of the events.

[lolinder]

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.

[0] https://www.vox.com/2018/6/13/17449118/stanford-prison-exper...

[Joeboy]

There was a vogue for stuff about man's innate inhumanity around this time. Stanford Prison Experiment, Milgram Experiement, Cut Piece, Rhythm 0, Sex Raft Experiment etc.

[js2]

Indeed, for a more optimistic take on humans, see this recent piece by Zeynep Tufekci:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/03/opinion/columnists/burnin...

[kortex]

I go into more detail downthread, but my take is just like the Prison experiment, the takeaway isn't "humans are terrible", rather "humans will do what is expected of them".

Even if the audience didn't know about her and her whole schtick being risky performance art, the table, the items, and the directions set up an expectation of "risky shit is gonna go down". The real question is how far the audience is willing to go in terms of inflicting risk.

[rcoveson]

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.

[EatingWithForks]

I think art does capture a perspective of humanity in a way that science does not. In a sense, you can argue science is a kind of art, also, with its own perspective of humanity-- notions of conclusions drawn only from observable phenomena isolated from interference/the world can somehow apply to a world full of interference and knock-off unforseen consequences.

I don't know how you can scientifically glean any conclusion that the artist was trying to discover or perspect, here, as effectively as she is trying to do so.

[AlecSchueler]

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.

The Guardian had an article today which touched on this for the anniversary: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/sep/25/marina-...

[AnthonyMouse]

Has anyone attempted to replicate the performance with a man as the target?

[girament]

> the violence of men against women.

Why bring gender into this? Why assume without any other indication that this would have been different had the artist been a man? Or if the audience would have been only women?

[junon]

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.

[SenAnder]

At most this shows what "performance art" enthusiasts are like. I wager they're not representative of humanity as a whole.

[itslennysfault]

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.

[AlecSchueler]

Having written some of these statements I want to point out this is done because of the impact requirements of funding programmes.

[badcppdev]

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

[capableweb]

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.

[lolinder]

It's still valid to argue that this was an audience, rather than something generalizable to humankind. Conformity looks very different depending on context: if this piece were being performed in an Amish community it would look very different than it did, not because of less group conformity (there would likely be stronger conformity) but because of conformity to different norms.

[brookst]

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)

[orbital-decay]

At any scale, especially at the scale where the aggregate personality is going to become visible, the collective behavior will dominate the individual behavior. You won't be able to separate the two unless you modify the experiment to include another part with meaningfully isolated individuals.

[vlunkr]

> “Population” might just be “those who go to this kind of thing” and not all humanity

Yeah this is the key. The audience is a group of people interested in performance art. They didn't show up for a 6 event where nothing happens.

[ImHereToVote]

I lot of society's ills are blamed on the common man. Never the elite.

[UncleOxidant]

The elite are just common men with money & power, no?

[forth_fool]

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.

[SAI_Peregrinus]

Not a random audience. An audience of the sort of people who go to six hour performance art shows.