[HN Gopher] Rhythm 0
___________________________________________________________________
Rhythm 0
Author : board
Score : 308 points
Date : 2023-09-25 12:26 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (en.wikipedia.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (en.wikipedia.org)
| thriftwy wrote:
| Isn't that the description of that the world did to Yugoslavia
| since the last decade of the last century? It is purely tragic,
| I've been to Montenegro, Serbia and Bosnia to confirm.
|
| Life imitates art.
| rdtsc wrote:
| 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 Abramovic 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.
| helloplanets wrote:
| 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]
|
| [0]: https://www.wired.com/story/beware-the-epiphany-
| industrial-c... [1]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment#Validity
| bondarchuk wrote:
| > _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.
| neaden wrote:
| To me the problem is as an audience member here you know what
| the artist is expecting of you. She is the one putting the
| idea of violence into their heads by putting weapons there.
| This is a piece of art, and a good one, not some sort of
| psychological experiment.
| itishappy wrote:
| It may not be a good experiment, but I think there's still
| learnings to be had.
|
| If you give me a gun and say "you can put this to my head
| if you like, idk" I'm still not going to. Clearly this
| isn't true of everyone. That people rose to her bait is not
| what I would have expected.
| neaden wrote:
| If a magician invited you on stage to and gave you a gun
| and told you to point it at their head you probably would
| though right? The audience here are part of the show, and
| their role in it. Did the people who did things like cut
| her think of themselves more as actors in an extreme form
| of theater or audience members?
| itishappy wrote:
| I would shoot a magician without much hesitation,
| assuming it to be a trick. Something in this performance
| was different, I don't think it was a trick.
| neaden wrote:
| Not a trick, but the artist's previous works in this
| Rhythm series were all about suffering, for instance
| Rhythm 10 and 5 she cut her self, and Rhythm 2 she took
| medication to give herself a seizure. If you are doing a
| series on suffering where you injure yourself, the
| audience is going to understand their role in the
| performance.
| itishappy wrote:
| Right, and that's different than the magician where harm
| was never expected.
|
| I would have been uncomfortable drawing blood, even if
| she wasn't, but I'm not surprised the audience got there.
|
| I am quite surprised they put a gun to her head, and that
| there was any level of discussion/disagreement about it's
| use.
| fallat wrote:
| It's essentially an invitation to test the boundaries.
|
| "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
| terryf wrote:
| The fact that you state that "an invitation to test the
| boundaries" and focus on the razors and nails says something
| about you (and probably humanity in general as well).
|
| If you were present then what would you have done?
|
| After all you could have given her a hug. Or used the feather
| to make her laugh. There were nice things on the table to
| choose from.
|
| But yeah, I'd probably have done something not so nice as
| well. But why is that?
| ghodith wrote:
| I think the point is that the objects provided have a large
| influence on the actions of the audience. If there were
| only feathers and face paint I would think the outcome
| would have been very different. Keeping that in mind might
| change what conclusions someone takes away from the whole
| thing.
| throDisASwayze wrote:
| 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.
| flkenosad wrote:
| 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.
| demondemidi wrote:
| Satanic? Where did that come from?
| marcinreal wrote:
| I had a similar thought. It seems like an attack on morality,
| implying that there is no true morality or God-given
| conscience, only fear of consequences.
|
| > After exactly 6 hours, as planned, I stood up and started
| walking toward the audience. Everyone ran away, to escape an
| actual confrontation.
|
| Hard to judge from the wiki page, there are so little
| details, but this sounds fake and staged. I think there were
| less stunts back then so people were more trusting. At any
| rate, I get strong vibes of some kind of agenda here, and
| you're right that it's probably not a godly one.
| terryf wrote:
| The bounds of morality are a social construct. So, if you
| stage something that is purposefully meant to create an
| environment that seems to be outside of society, you will
| get behaviour that is not bound by regular social norms and
| morality. It is possible that saying this was the artist's
| goal, but who knows.
|
| But yes, there is no true morality. How can there be? In
| nature, there is only survival. A lion is happy to find
| some prey thas has had a stroke of bad luck and gotten
| stuck or hurt so it can't easily fight back.
|
| And the previous paragraph is not meant to say that the
| lion is evil. No, the lion simply is.
| raincole wrote:
| Perhaps I'm just a cynical person, but the only reaction I
| had when I read about this for the first time was "look,
| humanity isn't that awful at all."
| mcphage wrote:
| > It's an attack on the human spirit in a way. The message
| is, "look, humanity IS truly awful." It didn't _have_ to be
| an attack on the human spirit. It was open to that, and open
| to something positive. But people didn 't take the positive
| route.
|
| > 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.
|
| That's kinda weird, given that the belief that "everyone is
| evil" is one of the core ideas of Christianity. Well,
| everyone but one person, I suppose.
| flkenosad wrote:
| > the belief that "everyone is evil" is one of the core
| ideas of Christianity.
|
| Huh, never heard that before.
| [deleted]
| wizofaus wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin
| samus wrote:
| Different branches of Christianity have their own view on
| what the Original Sin means. Catholic teaching assumes
| that humans lost their supernatural attributes during the
| Fall (most importantly, perfect free will) that should
| have prevented them from sinning. Humans are still good,
| but their desires can overcome what's left of their free
| will. Protestant teaching tends to teach that human
| nature has been corrupted by the Fall and is mostly evil
| now.
| mcphage wrote:
| Um. What has been your exposure to Christian theology?
| schoen wrote:
| Some people would probably formulate the notion of
| original sin as "everyone is inclined to evil" or
| "everyone is prone to evil" or "everyone is vulnerable to
| committing evil" or "everyone is broken" or "everyone
| needs help against evil" rather than "everyone 'is'
| evil".
| mcphage wrote:
| Wouldn't that defeat the need for Jesus, then?
| schoen wrote:
| Maybe some of my formulations are too weak. How about
| "everyone has a nature that will lead him or her to do
| wrong and incur guilt"?
| Exoristos wrote:
| Traditionally, Christ is the savior (rescuer) from all
| kinds of life's ills, not only from the much-ballyhooed
| (in Protestant circles) fate of dying a jackass.
| samus wrote:
| Views on how Atonement works are at the very core of the
| doctrinal differences between Christian denominations.
| Painting with very rough strokes, the general agreement
| is that without Jesus' sacrifice and the Faith, humans
| would be doomed to stay in sin and never be reconciled
| with God.
| mcphage wrote:
| That mirrors my broad understanding as well.
| flkenosad wrote:
| By no means an expert, but I know lots of Christians.
| That's not how they talk. But, I mean, every church is
| different.
| skrebbel wrote:
| I could ask you the same. Ideas like "love thy neighbour"
| don't feel very "everybody is evil" to me.
|
| I recognize that there are Christian doom cults that
| think everyone is evil but I'm surprised by how plainly
| you call that a "core belief". It does not fit in any way
| the (moderate protestant) way I was raised, and it
| doesn't match the beliefs of my catholic friends either.
| Every devout Christian I know (though I know only a few)
| is an optimist about humanity.
| mcphage wrote:
| > I could ask you the same.
|
| Raised Catholic through confirmation. Long time atheist,
| although I attend my wife's evangelical protestant
| church. So admittedly an outsider's view on all of this.
|
| > Ideas like "love thy neighbour" don't feel very
| "everybody is evil" to me.
|
| I don't know why those would be incompatible. People can
| be evil, but you can love them all the same.
|
| > I'm surprised by how plainly you call that a "core
| belief".
|
| Really? Sin and the need for Jesus's salvation are
| universal through the branches of Christianity I've
| experienced. They use different terms for it--Catholicism
| talks about "original sin", protestants talk about
| "mankind's sin nature". I know nothing about Orthodox
| Christianity, but I would expect them to fit in there
| somewhere. Catholics and Protestants argue about
| salvation through faith or salvation through works, but
| they both see it as something desirable.
|
| There are lots of branches of Christianity, and so I
| don't have a full picture, but I've never heard of one
| that didn't share this belief, and I'm not sure I'd
| understand what their faith is all about at that point.
| But if you've got some info, I'm happy to learn more. I
| kinda hate to quote Wikipedia here, but it mirrors my
| understanding:
|
| > The doctrine of sin is central to the Christian faith,
| since its basic message is about redemption in Christ.
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_sin)
|
| Maybe my outsider's take on it is off, but calling these
| beliefs satanic seems way out there to me.
| flkenosad wrote:
| Thanks for this info. I see what you're saying. To
| clarify, I meant a _little_ satanic. As in, "giving
| satan" vibes. Not some truly evil ritual.
|
| > I kinda hate to quote Wikipedia here
|
| I don't mind wikipedia but it has some weird branches.
| Recommended reading, start here:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_ethics
|
| From the top of that page:
|
| > Christian ethics, also known as moral theology, is a
| multi-faceted ethical system. It is a virtue ethic, which
| focuses on building moral character, and a deontological
| ethic which emphasizes duty. It also incorporates natural
| law ethics, which is built on the belief that it is the
| very nature of humans - created in the image of God and
| capable of morality, cooperation, rationality,
| discernment and so on - that informs how life should be
| lived, and that awareness of sin does not require special
| revelation.
|
| > awareness of sin does not require special revelation.
|
| Then jump into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
|
| The link you provided highlights the word "Hamartiology"
| which I just learned is the study of sin. I've never
| heard of this study before but I have studied some
| Buddhist teachings. Buddhists teach that when you steady
| your attention on a mental object, that object grows (for
| example gratitude). To me, it follows that studying sin
| leads to increased sin.
|
| I think many modern Christians understand this and,
| therefore, sin is no longer such a central tenant to the
| faith.
| Gimpei wrote:
| 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.
| RIMR wrote:
| For someone who respects the scientific method, you seem
| awfully dismissive of peer review...
|
| So what if Milgrom and Zimbardo's studies in conformity
| already happened? We don't run an experiment once and stick
| with the results forever. That's patently un-scientific.
|
| Regardless, just because you didn't understand the piece,
| doesn't mean it's not art, and just because you found
| scientific studies to be more conclusive doesn't mean that
| this performance failed to further our understanding.
| telmo wrote:
| "Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything
| that counts can be counted" (attributed to Albert Einstein)
| bondarchuk wrote:
| > _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._
|
| The privilege is simply that they went out and did it, I
| think. Someone wants to see what happens when you do XYZ,
| they do XYZ, and that's it. I don't know why this is taken as
| a sign of extreme arrogance or anything.
| epolanski wrote:
| No type of art is for everyone, and this will have plenty of
| "it's not art, it's just a performance" detractors.
|
| 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.
| nashashmi wrote:
| 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.
| mikrotikker wrote:
| 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.
| redder23 wrote:
| I would love to see a video of this and know what kind of people
| there were in the audience. I do not thing this would turn out
| like this at all in any western country.
| samaysharma wrote:
| I haven't seen a full video but
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMWiFKl8K2o talking about it
| has quite a few pictures / snippets. This was done in Italy.
| regularjack wrote:
| This happened in a western country.
| tdba wrote:
| 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.
| StevenWaterman wrote:
| I think you answered your own question there, they would be
| arrested and tried for murder.
| capableweb wrote:
| 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.
| lancesells wrote:
| Nowadays they usually have you sign something that says you
| agree to XYZ.
| [deleted]
| hammock wrote:
| Being an artist really offers you no immunity from the law
| (or just cops, who often have little understanding of the
| law). Music performers have quite often been arrested by
| local authorities following performances.
|
| Examples:
|
| Jim Morrison (The Doors) - Miami, 1969: Jim Morrison was
| arrested for indecent exposure and profanity during a chaotic
| concert, leading to a highly publicized legal battle.
|
| Sid Vicious (Sex Pistols) - Various, Late 1970s: Sid Vicious
| faced multiple arrests, including for the alleged murder of
| his girlfriend Nancy Spungen in 1978, though he died before a
| trial could take place.
|
| Ozzy Osbourne - San Antonio, 1982: Ozzy Osbourne was arrested
| for public intoxication and urinating on the Alamo Cenotaph,
| a historic monument.
|
| Marilyn Manson - Michigan, 2001: Marilyn Manson and his
| bandmates were arrested on charges of criminal sexual conduct
| involving a security guard during a concert.
|
| N.W.A. - Detroit, 1989: N.W.A. members were arrested for
| performing their controversial song "F** tha Police" during a
| concert, leading to a brief detention.
|
| 2 Live Crew - Florida, 1990: 2 Live Crew faced obscenity
| charges over their explicit lyrics in their album "As Nasty
| As They Wanna Be," resulting in their arrest and a high-
| profile legal battle.
|
| Pussy Riot - Moscow, 2012: Members of the feminist punk band
| Pussy Riot were arrested for staging a protest performance in
| a Moscow cathedral against the Russian government.
|
| Axl Rose (Guns N' Roses) - St. Louis, 1991: Axl Rose was
| arrested after a riot broke out during a Guns N' Roses
| concert, with Rose allegedly inciting the crowd to violence.
|
| GG Allin - Various, 1980s-1990s: Known for his extreme and
| often violent stage antics, GG Allin frequently faced arrests
| for indecent exposure, assault, and other charges during his
| performances.
| riffic wrote:
| It's so funny how this was almost my same exact (deleted)
| comment.
|
| There is a certain level of intellectual dishonesty in
| leaving your comment up, knowing it is mostly not your
| words. It would be fair to tell your comment was mostly a
| chatgpt authored one that I chose to delete knowing that
| same intellectual dishonesty you now know.
|
| (knock it off and don't ever do it again)
| bowmessage wrote:
| Why did you post it in the first place?
| qingcharles wrote:
| 90 days in jail:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIVZDpT5cQg
| siva7 wrote:
| Murder. It's not like an art performance will be given an
| excemption from italian (or any other) laws.
| riffic wrote:
| Yoko Ono did it in 1964
|
| https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/yoko-ono-cut-piece-...
| capableweb wrote:
| Slightly different though.
|
| "Cut Piece" worst case: she end up nude
|
| "Rhythm 0" worst case: someone ends up
| shooting/stabbing/killing her, or rape.
| garyrob wrote:
| Yoko did innovate and this piece might not have existed
| without her. But that should not take away at all from what
| Abramovic did. The fact that Beethoven built on the
| innovations of earlier artists does not diminish Beethoven.
| edgineer wrote:
| 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.
| motohagiography wrote:
| It sure ain't Bach. She succeeded against a self imposed
| constraint of her anxiety and baited needy and damaged people to
| reveal their own perversions. What a circle jerk. Demonstrations
| of human capacity for ugliness are a lot easier than revealing
| something beautiful. I've met a few people over the years who set
| themselves up to be victimized so that they could feel justified
| in their own malice toward the world, and it's a banal
| psychological trope you'd think people wouldn't fall for. A lot
| of conceptual and performance art to me is just sickness.
|
| The only thing that makes her interesting as a phenomena is how
| she appears as an enabler and convener in the orbit of some
| cunning and opportunistic men whose nihilism she would seem to
| validate for them. When you see our purpose as being to renew
| life and thrive, to me this kind of worship of consuming material
| experiences that Abramovic is known for is a spiritual poverty.
| bergen wrote:
| What a take. How is she exactly to blame for the way this
| turned out? She set the stage for SOMETHING to happen, wether
| good or bad things happened was completely up to the audience.
| To see this and say "this is sickness" and "she invited people
| to harm here" is baffling. You seem extremely judgemental.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| She has already performed acts of violence on herself. Acts a
| good part of her audience most likely has seen and
| appreciated, why would they go see her otherwise? And among
| the items were weapons and other instruments of pain. The
| name "rhythm 0" follows the same pattern as her other
| performances that involved self-harm.
|
| So yes, I consider it an invitation to harm her.
| [deleted]
| garciasn wrote:
| I mean, I know nothing more about the piece than what I've just
| read, but wow, that's a take and a half. I just cannot fathom
| viewing what she attempted the way you did.
|
| If anything, it offered the opportunity for humanity to reveal
| something beautiful, but instead, the audience took the
| opposite opportunity--something I honestly feel you have done
| here, but in words, which I almost felt as thorns in my
| bellybutton.
| rcoveson wrote:
| If she wanted to see people acting beautifully, she would
| have performed it at a soup kitchen, or a temple. Or even
| just in a little cul-de-sac in an average neighborhood where
| people know each other and kids are present. Everyday places
| full of totally average people who aren't used to twisting
| their minds into scenarios on the ninth meta-level above
| reality.
|
| All she succeeded in showing is that _her audience_ is full
| of people obsessed with the ugliness of humanity.
| shwaj wrote:
| There's another anecdotal comment where someone heard that
| the audience was too tame, and some time into the performance
| they were prompted/goaded into interacting in more
| controversial ways, otherwise the performance would have been
| a dud.
|
| If this is true, then it tends to support the GP post's take:
| there was an intention to bring out the worst, not a neutral
| attempt to see what would happen.
| burkaman wrote:
| Were you able to find anything backing that up? I wasn't,
| and this is a very famous and thoroughly analyzed piece of
| art. Given the lack of evidence I'm leaning towards not
| believing that anonymous third-hand account.
| rcoveson wrote:
| Even if we disregard the anecdote, we can at least infer
| that the intention was to make an original, evocative piece
| of performance art. How does that implied goal cause people
| to act? Like a bunch of avant-garde nutjobs, maybe?
| burkaman wrote:
| Agreed, that is one of the worst comments I've ever seen on
| HN. I am usually able to understand and empathize with
| opinions I disagree with, but that comment is just
| incomprehensible. I guess that's the point of the piece? I
| don't know if I would have been exposed to a worldview so
| opposite to mine if we didn't have this artwork to discuss.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| Honestly flabbergasted by your reply. How did she bait anyone?
| How did she set herself up to be victimized? People could have
| just... not been violent. That would have been an entirely
| plausible outcome, yet here we are.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > People could have just... not been violent
|
| In Naples...?
|
| https://www-ilmattino-
| it.translate.goog/napoli/cronaca/spara...
|
| https://www-napolivillage-
| com.translate.goog/cronaca/allaren...
| bergen wrote:
| Ah yes, the infamous city of Naples, where people have been
| intrinsically violent and bad people for decades, because
| .. Naples.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| As Italian, with half of the family from Naples area,
| yes, that one.
| stouset wrote:
| "She shouldn't have been wearing those kinds of clothes if
| she didn't want that to happen."
| ADcorpo wrote:
| Thank you for this comment, I had a hard time pinpointing
| exactly what made me feel uneasy about all those answers
| justifying the audience behavior or explaining that they
| were setup for violence because various harmful objects
| were present.
|
| It is indeed the same way of thinking.
|
| If you murder someone, I don't see how you could blame them
| for being too close to a knife or gun. Having the
| opportunity to do something does not systematically justify
| doing it.
|
| edit: this logic does not apply even if the person brought
| the harmful object with them, the decision to do the harm
| is ultimately not made by the victim.
| dang wrote:
| Ok, but please don't fulminate or post in the flamewar style.
| We're trying for the opposite here, and you can make your
| substantive points without any of that.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| Tao3300 wrote:
| I don't agree with the commentator, but I think with extreme
| pieces like this _any and all_ interpretations are on the
| table. Challenging and disruptive things aren 't always
| handled eloquently or reasonably, otherwise they wouldn't be
| challenging and disruptive.
|
| Consider reactions you'd rather not see here as extensions of
| regrettable behaviors in the performance of the piece. In
| other words, did 'Rhythm 0' ever really end, or are we all in
| it?
|
| This is a terrible place to talk about art. We probably
| should avoid it entirely because the flamewars are
| inevitable.
| civilized wrote:
| 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/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.
| burkaman wrote:
| > 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"?
| chankstein38 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| civilized wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| She did, there's a full list here:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| We agreed on that two posts ago, so maybe there's nothing
| further to discuss.
| skrebbel wrote:
| 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.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| > A table with a eg handsaw "that one can use on me as
| desired"
|
| Does that not reveal the desires of the people who used
| the implements on her? (such as the one who cut her
| throat and drank her blood?). People could have chosen to
| _not_ use the implements on her.
| joemi wrote:
| I agree. I think the fact that people had a choice _not
| to_ use an implement is just as important as the fact
| that they had a choice _to_ use an implement. Also
| important: _how_ the implement was used. When I read
| about this performance, it's pretty immediately evident
| that the choice was a large part of this performance.
| burkaman wrote:
| 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/). 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".
| Joeboy wrote:
| You are either pretending, or refusing, or failing, to
| understand subtext and intent.
| burkaman wrote:
| Yes I am failing to understand the subtext other people
| are reading into this piece, and haven't seen a single
| comment attempt to explain it. What is the chain of logic
| that leads from "it says to do whatever I want" to "I
| will attack"?
| Joeboy wrote:
| I wasn't there and didn't attack anybody, but the chain
| of logic suggested is that Abramovic was known for works
| involving bodily discomfort, injury and risk, and that it
| was reasonable to assume she intended this piece to be in
| a similar vein. In that context, placing dangerous
| objects on a table and saying "one can use [them] on me
| as desired" is not just saying the objects exist, in the
| same way that saying "do you have any ketchup?" is not
| just asking whether your host possesses ketchup.
|
| I can see why somebody might be uncomfortable with the
| general _shape_ of argument from a "victim blaming"
| point of view. If you _genuinely_ _don 't_ _understand_
| it then again, not trying to be a dick here but perhaps
| you don 't understand subtext and intent in the way most
| people do.
| burkaman wrote:
| Thank you, this is a good explanation, but it isn't
| addressing my core point. I understand that Abramovic
| intentionally put herself in a vulnerable position, and
| that the instructions and weapons are intended to say
| something like "you could hurt me with these". What I am
| still not understanding is the transition from "could" to
| "should". The context, that this is an art piece and the
| artist has performatively hurt herself in the past, to me
| _reinforces_ the idea that I shouldn 't actually hurt
| her. To me the message is "I could, but we're both human
| beings so obviously I won't". To me, someone who takes it
| so literally that they actually attack is missing the
| subtext and context that this is art, this is a
| performance, this is a person and not a statue. They are
| failing to understand the difference between could and
| should.
|
| The question I responded to is: "At least two thirds of
| the table is covered in various instruments of harm. What
| does that say to the viewer?" I maintain that "it says
| I'm supposed to hurt her" is not a rational answer. With
| the additional context that she usually hurts herself in
| these performances, it is understandable to have that
| thought, but not understandable or rational to act on it.
| I can think of lots of art that is intended to make you
| think about your capacity to hurt innocent people, but
| none that is intended to make you actually act on that.
|
| Let me put it one other way: the commenter I initially
| replied to said that the presence of weapons on the table
| is useful context that should explain the actions of the
| audience members. I disagree, I don't think the presence
| of weapons is relevant at all or provides any amount of
| justification. I think the context you provided, that she
| usually hurts herself, is useful and does change my
| interpretation of her intent, but it still doesn't
| justify what anybody did. I still don't understand why
| somebody would choose to attack her. I also am a little
| bit skeptical that the audience would have been familiar
| with her other work. I'm not sure how the audience was
| chosen, but I don't believe the average person would have
| any idea who she was.
| Joeboy wrote:
| I'm not really clear what "supposed to" or "should" mean
| here. I'm pretty certain the audience would've understood
| it was _expected_ that Abramovic would sustain some sort
| of injury or discomfort, in line with her other pieces. I
| very much doubt anybody would subject themselves to a six
| hour performance without any idea what to expect. If
| nobody had obliged, I think it 's fair to assume
| Abramovic would've left disappointed, and would probably
| not be the conceptual art superstar she is today.
|
| There's a whole world of consensual injury that to be
| honest I'm fairly personally prudish about, but nobody is
| making either of us participate in it. If people want to
| do it, if I'm honest I'm _slightly_ judgmental but I feel
| like I should be less so.
| rcoveson wrote:
| This is art. Think about writing a book, directing a TV
| show, or putting on a play. What should happen? There
| should probably be intrigue, emotion, and excitement.
| Very likely violence and evil. We should explore a broad
| spectrum of emotion. It's perfectly likely that most of
| what we explore is negative emotion, because originality
| is hard and positive emotion is arguably over-explored if
| you look at art as a whole through all of human history.
|
| But this isn't just some mass-produced movie or family-
| friendly Broadway production. This is _the cutting edge
| of art_. It 's supposed to _challenge_ us. So perhaps we
| 'll go beyond merely pretending at violence and do a tiny
| bit of actual violence. It's plausible, from a
| participant's perspective, that the creator of the piece
| intended that.
|
| That's what I imagine the participants are thinking,
| anyways. They aren't just average folks of the street,
| after all, they're attendees at a crazy art exhibit.
| They've got to compete with people who hang themselves up
| by hooks driven through their skin, people who bite the
| heads of bats during rock concerts, and people who whip
| each other bloody in sadist orgies.
| EatingWithForks wrote:
| 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]
| esrauch wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| lolinder wrote:
| 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#Rhyth
| m_1...
| bondarchuk wrote:
| 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.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| > Demonstrations of human capacity for ugliness are a lot
| easier than revealing something beautiful.
|
| Not always. See that Acali experiement (
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acali ).
|
| To make it short: An experimenter took a bunch of people, put
| them a raft expecting sex and violence, instead, they became
| best friends.
| itishappy wrote:
| Maybe it was about more than just her?
| popcorncowboy wrote:
| "..scissors, a scalpel, nails, a metal bar, a gun, and a
| bullet"
|
| The naivety in some of the responses to your take surprise me.
| If you walked into the centre of London, Sydney or NYC, setup a
| table which included these objects and invited the public to do
| whatever they wanted to you, the general outcome is fairly
| predictable. And the protagonists can present the profundity of
| their scene as insight and call it art. So, bravo them.
| skipants wrote:
| I agree. And something overlooked is that Rythym 0 isn't an
| incitement for good people to do something bad; it's inciting
| good people to leave.
|
| If good people pick up the roses and bad people pick up the
| guns, why would the good people want to stay in that
| environment?
| airstrike wrote:
| > Demonstrations of human capacity for ugliness are a lot
| easier than revealing something beautiful.
|
| This almost seems like an obvious truth but most people seem
| oblivious to it.
|
| In the general case, I like to say that "destroying is much
| easier than creating". Sadly, for decades now, most of art (and
| society) has been more about the former than the latter.
|
| If anyone reading this has sources, essays, articles, books to
| suggest to me that touch on this issue, I am all ears
| pmarreck wrote:
| I was born in '72, was a Psych major, and had never heard of
| this. Wow.
| girament wrote:
| [flagged]
| rendall wrote:
| > "It may be your right (or not, I don't even know)."
|
| No. This is stealing. I cannot imagine a modern legal system
| that would not recognize it as such. "How did you acquire this
| wallet?" "Oh, I found it in the street!" "Oh, no problem, then.
| It's yours."
| girament wrote:
| Ok, fair enough. But again, what's legal and what people do
| are very different things. You'd be surprised how many people
| would just keep it.
| rendall wrote:
| I would not be surprised at all. It turns out there is
| actual data on this:
| https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aau8712
| bowsamic wrote:
| 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.
| Kiro wrote:
| I downvoted because I disagree. Simple as that, and a totally
| just reason to downvote. From pg himself:
|
| > 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.
| dang wrote:
| Your account is rate limited because you've been regularly
| breaking the site guidelines:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37532272. This has nothing
| to do with disagreeing. I neither agree nor disagree; I haven't
| the slightest idea what your opinion is about anything.
|
| 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.
| bowsamic wrote:
| You took my rate limit off and then added it back on. The
| person in question did need mental health support. I delete
| edited in protest of you and your war against me
| dang wrote:
| Well yes, we take rate limits off (when there's reason to
| believe an account will stick to the site guidelines in the
| future) and we also put them back on (when there's reason
| to believe they won't). It's not a war against you. It's
| just standard moderation practice. People sometimes take it
| personally, but that's a mistake.
| capableweb wrote:
| What hints? There were 72 different objects, and a person who
| allowed spectators to become active participants, how is that
| instigating any particular situation? People could have just
| idly stand by, if that's what they wanted to.
| bowsamic wrote:
| If you put 72 things on the table, and some of them are
| weapons, and you are telling a bunch of audience members that
| they can do whatever they want and you will take full
| responsibility for it, you are quite blatantly implying
| violence and rape as possibilities.
|
| 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.
| ajuc wrote:
| > 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.
|
| 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.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| > the experiment tells you something about human nature
|
| 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.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| And yet, each generation and group needs to discover the
| wetness of water.
| bowsamic wrote:
| I just don't find it that interesting that if you put
| people into a situation that provokes people to commit
| violence then they will do it. What does that say about
| human nature? It's not something we are afraid of
| admitting nor something unearthed.
| stevofolife wrote:
| I thought her real test would be that even if she put any
| sort of weapons on the table, no one would use it/them on
| her. That's what made the experiment/art interesting.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| > That's what made the experiment/art interesting.
|
| 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.
| bergen wrote:
| >another downvote for not liking the same piece of art as
| you. Please grow a pair of balls.
|
| Please grow some balls yourself and accept that not
| everyone has to have the same opinion and use of the
| downvote as you.
| stevofolife wrote:
| Agree. People use upvote to like or agree a comment. A
| down vote inversely function the same way. He thinks he
| is view so special and deserves no downvotes at all. What
| a character.
| capableweb wrote:
| > If you put 72 things on the table, and some of them are
| weapons, and you are telling a bunch of audience members
| that they can do whatever they want and you will take full
| responsibility for it, you are quite blatantly implying
| violence and rape as possibilities.
|
| 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".
| hbosch wrote:
| If we are alone in a room for 6 hours with a loaded gun, are
| you going to point it at me? Pull the trigger?
|
| The fact of the performance is that Marina Abramovic 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.
| ajuc wrote:
| This is what happens in any group of people when there's
| impunity. Things escalate till somebody stops it.
|
| 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.
| bowsamic wrote:
| I don't think so. Bullies don't have impunity, but they carry
| on anyway. I think it's much more to do with the suggestion
| of violence. Leaving the blank space for violence makes it
| huge in people's mind. They act it out against their best
| interests, because it's so tempting. If you remove the
| suggestion towards it at all or suggest to it and then fill
| the urge another way, the problem disappears.
| ajuc wrote:
| If she didn't say she takes responsibility - nothing would
| have happened.
|
| After you punish the bully the first time - usually he
| leaves you alone.
|
| Impunity is the important factor, not "suggestion of
| violence".
| duckson wrote:
| This performance art sure sounds like some sort of kink!
| skeaker wrote:
| 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?
| demondemidi wrote:
| Name another famous work of performance art.
|
| 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...)
| tux3 wrote:
| Note for the next audience members: take the initiative to unload
| the gun.
|
| No one has a very good reason to oppose you. Not that they could,
| you have the gun.
| euazOn wrote:
| I believe the gun wasn't loaded at first, the audience was
| given a gun and a bullet.
| redog wrote:
| Who is the one that started fighting someone with a loaded
| gun? Well done I suppose, most people would have just watched
| her die.
| badcppdev wrote:
| Just feed the bullet to the artist. Then it's art and 'safe'.
|
| Does anyone know if ingesting and excreting a (small) bullet
| is particularly unhealthy?
| flkenosad wrote:
| Putting it in your pocket and walking out would be a better
| idea.
| istjohn wrote:
| Bullets are typically made of lead, so it's not ideal, but
| I'd rather swallow a bullet than have strangers wield a
| loaded gun in my direction.
| [deleted]
| curtis3389 wrote:
| Ingesting lead isn't healthy. From wikipedia: Lead is a
| devastating and persistent neurotoxin that accumulates in
| soft tissues and bones.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Presumably this was a full cartridge (strictly speaking,
| the bullet is just the projectile; the cartridge includes
| the case, primer, and propellant).
|
| Bullets are made of primarily lead; military rounds are
| always covered with another metal; civilian rounds may or
| may not be. Either way I wouldn't want to swallow the
| bullet. Then you have the primer and powder, which I also
| wouldn't want to swallow.
| phaedryx wrote:
| Apparently, this was the last in a series:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Abramovi%C4%87#Career
| 38 wrote:
| this was depicted in 2011:
|
| https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_On_(House)
| Semaphor wrote:
| I don't understand, nothing I see on Wikipedia mentions
| anything resembling TFA?
| i_am_jl wrote:
| The Wikipedia article doesn't really discuss it, the
| reference is in the episode's introduction.
|
| The episode in question features not-Marina-Abramovic
| exhibiting not-Rhythm-0. An audience member approaches the
| table and picks up a weapon. Audience murmurs. Artist stands
| stoically. Audience member motions like they are going to use
| the weapon on the artist. Audience gasps. Artist's assistant
| protests. Artist objects to protests, then promptly collapses
| with mystery illness (House MD's writers had a thing for
| misdirecting the audience re: who's sick in the episode
| intros).
| mpsprd wrote:
| I remember this being "exposed" in the Tate modern in London.
|
| 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.
| swores wrote:
| Related: this artist, Marina Abramovic, 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.
|
| 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... )
| denton-scratch wrote:
| https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/sep/25/marina-...
| coolThingsFirst wrote:
| That seems like horrible "art" and the it only has shock value.
|
| >When the gallery announced the work was over, and Abramovic
| began to move again, she said the audience left, unable to face
| her as a person.[9]
|
| More like the audience left because they had other things to do
| and she was more interesting as an object than as a person.
| bowsamic wrote:
| Do you not think it's interesting that there was "shock" at
| all?
| praptak wrote:
| There is more than shock value though. Note that the artist
| herself did not do anything shocking. Without the public she'd
| just sit there for 6 hours and probably get bored.
| numbsafari wrote:
| Either interpretation, it's a profound statement about our
| (lack of?) shared humanity.
| egeozcan wrote:
| > she was more interesting as an object than as a person
|
| This as an excuse would describe the audience even more
| horribly.
| [deleted]
| tgv wrote:
| [flagged]
| nabla9 wrote:
| _" Art is anything you can get away with"_ - Marshall McLuhan
|
| Many people take the saying as negative, but McLuhan said it
| from deep respect for art. Art is cultural product and 'getting
| away with' is cultural process related to the audience.
|
| Horror in this case is how art presents realities of humanity.
|
| ps. Andy Warhol quoted McLuhan and made the saying famous, but
| did not originate the quote.
| capableweb wrote:
| > That seems like horrible "art" and the it only has shock
| value.
|
| It could have been nothing, if none of the audience would have
| dared to touch her. But then the audience did make it into
| "shock value" by treating her the way they treated her.
|
| They didn't have to, but seems people naturally gravitated that
| way.
| coolThingsFirst wrote:
| Right, are you sure it was unscripted?
|
| I'm just saying I'd be totally aware it's an art exhibit and
| not do anything stupid because of potential hidden cameras.
|
| Seems the "result" of the experiment is conveniently implying
| that humans by nature are evil which is just not true.
| cats_ wrote:
| How are you so sure humans aren't evil by nature?
| flkenosad wrote:
| Because children are pure. It's not until the environment
| damages them, that people become evil.
| praptak wrote:
| This does not explain the existence of evil.
| cal85 wrote:
| Even if it isn't 'scripted', there's an implied script in
| the objects laid on the table and the general presentation
| as a piece of interactive art where the audience is
| requested to participate by doing 'anything' to her and she
| won't react. They were being asked, implicitly, to break
| norms, to treat her as non-human, to get all weird in the
| name of Art.
|
| The idea that this says something profound about how people
| will 'naturally gravitate' towards violent or dehumanising
| behaviour is ridiculous.
| capableweb wrote:
| > where the audience is requested to participate by doing
| 'anything' to her and she won't react
|
| Just to be 100% clear, she never asked people to "do
| anything" nor "I won't react", this is what was said to
| the audience/participants:
| 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 (8 pm - 2
| am).[6]
| cal85 wrote:
| Those instructions strongly imply "do anything". As for
| "I won't react", that's obvious from the first moment
| someone does something to her (like moving her arms) and
| she just goes along with it. From then on, it becomes
| obbvious that it's a game, a kind of endurance test for
| the artist, with the audience trying increasingly extreme
| things to see if she really will keep going along with
| it.
|
| (And of course, at any moment she could just say "OK
| that's enough, I'm stopping this early, please stop" and
| it would be over - it's not like everyone would say "Nah,
| we are going to keep abusing you until 2am as originally
| agreed".)
| capableweb wrote:
| Unless there is some proof otherwise, I'm gonna assume it
| was genuine performance art.
|
| Taking what the author says at face value, the goal was
| "See what the public would do to a human if given tools and
| unrestricted access/allowance for 6 hours", and the
| conclusion is up to the audience and future
| viewers/readers, rather than the author trying to steer
| people into some predefined conclusion.
|
| One way you could see it is "all humans are inherently
| evil" but that's not the way I see it, as the audience
| seems to eventually be split up in one "nice" group trying
| to stop the "not nice" group from acting out.
| coolThingsFirst wrote:
| How would you convince someone that they had unrestricted
| access to a human being to do whatever they pleased with
| though?
|
| Seems almost impossible.
| capableweb wrote:
| Read the linked article and maybe watch
| https://vimeo.com/71952791 so you know what actually
| happened in the event.
|
| In this case, you write a note and let people do
| whatever. Once you see someone that cutting their skin is
| OK, I'm pretty sure you'd feel OK with whatever you had
| in mind.
| dfee wrote:
| You wouldn't do anything stupid (evil) because of potential
| hidden cameras (albeit, this was 1974), but also you reject
| that humans by nature are evil.
|
| I'm not sure how you've arrived at your conclusion,
| irregardless of my feelings about the innate evilness of
| humanity.
| coolThingsFirst wrote:
| >I'm not sure how you've arrived at your conclusion,
| irregardless of my feelings about the innate evilness of
| humanity.
|
| You go to bed in safety wake up in safety you are highly
| unlikely to be randomly harmed.
|
| What's more likely that humans aren't innately evil or
| that they are acting nice because of laws and
| repercussions?
| jstanley wrote:
| But you just said that the reason you were acting nice is
| because of the potential cameras.
| coolThingsFirst wrote:
| By stupid I obviously meant something embarassing like
| touching her in inappropriate places.
| dfee wrote:
| You're not helping yourself (or your argument) here.
| coolThingsFirst wrote:
| Literally no one cares what you think
| bhickey wrote:
| 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.
| philshem wrote:
| It resembles the less extreme "Cut Piece" from Yoko Ono (1964)
|
| https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/yoko-ono-cut-piece-...
| guerrilla wrote:
| Yeah, never give people you don't trust power over you if you can
| avoid it. Some of them will be kind to you, but that's not
| enough.
| epolanski wrote:
| 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.
|
| I find that act a terrific example of her work.
| maroonblazer wrote:
| I saw it as a commentary on how society treats the weak or
| less powerful. Some, but importantly not all, of us will
| exercise our power and will over other people, given the
| opportunity. The motivations for why some might choose to
| assert dominance over someone with less power could be
| interesting territory to explore in this piece, or perhaps a
| different one.
| brap wrote:
| Imagine how much worse this could have been, if the audience
| members were somehow completely anonymized
|
| Edit: this is not some hot take on anonymity on the web
| samaysharma wrote:
| If you prefer watching a video, this is Marina talking about
| performing Rhythm 0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTBkbseXfOQ
| trainyperson wrote:
| 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?
| capableweb wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| It's a piece though. It hasn't been performed multiple
| times because of the safety issue, but at its core the idea
| is that you could repeat it for arbitrary audiences.
|
| Yes, in practice the performance history can only shed a
| little light on the nature of audience, but the piece is
| conceptually capable of broader insight.
| lolinder wrote:
| > but at its core the idea is that you could repeat it
| for arbitrary audiences.
|
| That's the idea, but I don't see any strong reason to
| believe it. There are too many unknowns for me right now.
|
| We do not know how the event was marketed. Who was
| invited? What were they told in advance? Presumably this
| wasn't a random sample, it was a self-selected group of
| people, and how the event was presented would determine
| the type of people who showed up.
|
| Here's what I _do_ know: It was scheduled for 6 hours
| from 8pm-2am on a Wednesday, and she had previously
| engaged in some very violent performance art
| [0][1][2][3]. That suggests that the audience is self-
| selected away from people who have jobs or families, and
| that the audience was primed to _expect_ that she wanted
| a violent performance. Another commenter indicated that
| the audience egged each other on _in the name of the
| performance_.
|
| This does not suggest to me an event that could be
| recreated with an arbitrary audience by an arbitrary
| performer.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Abramovi%C4%87#R
| hythm_1...
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Abramovi%C4%87#R
| hythm_5...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Abramovi%C4%87#R
| hythm_2...
|
| [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Abramovi%C4%87#R
| hythm_4...
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| > This does not suggest to me an event that could be
| recreated with an arbitrary audience by an arbitrary
| performer.
|
| Could you explain why not? What's stopping me from
| putting on a preformance if this in my project space next
| week? (other than intellectual property concerns)
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| Joeboy wrote:
| Shia Labeouf did something similar called IAMSORRY,
| although I'm not sure _how_ similar. Suspect there was no
| loaded gun provided.
|
| Apparently a woman sexually assaulted him and was removed
| by gallery staff.
| wizofaus wrote:
| I wonder if it mightn't be tried again at some point
| using a realistic "artificial human"/android.
| junon wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| At most this shows what "performance art" enthusiasts are
| like. I wager they're not representative of humanity as a
| whole.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Has anyone attempted to replicate the performance with a man
| as the target?
| ghodith wrote:
| Didn't Shia Labeouf do a similar performance art piece and
| claim to have been raped by a woman during it?
| Joeboy wrote:
| Yes, it was called #IAMSORRY.
| girament wrote:
| > 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?
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| I'd say there's a few reasons. First: the very visible
| recorded gender disparity in the audience reaction within
| the performance itself. Further: the statistical facts of
| gender based violence. The reaction in the case of this
| performance mirrors the reality outside the performance
| hall, where women almost inevitably face various level of
| gender based violence throughout their lives.
|
| Lastly I'd also say because I believe (although I could be
| wrong) the gender divide of HN is unbalanced towards men
| like myself, so it can be helpful to raise these issues at
| times where our blindspots might lead us to miss
| interesting or important elements of the stories shared. In
| cases where that blindness helps real world violence to
| thrive I feel it's doubly important that we can discuss it
| without getting defensive.
|
| > Why assume without any other indication that this would
| have been different had the artist been a man?
|
| Without any other indicator? Like I say, we have huge
| indicators in the statistical makeup of violence outside of
| the performance hall. Women are far more likely to
| experience sexual violence. Indeed, the likelihood of
| Marina experiencing sexual assault at work would have
| already been non-negligible even if she wasn't inviting
| interaction.
|
| > Or if the audience would have been only women?
|
| Please note: the audience in reality wasn't "only men." it
| was a basically even mix, but the violence of the reactions
| was far from balanced.
| girament wrote:
| [flagged]
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| > This art piece held a mirror to all of societey though,
| not just the men.
|
| The irony here is that you're continuing to focus only on
| the men despite what I read. I say that there's a huge
| gender disparity in the sexual violence that was
| committed against the artist. Somehow you've read that as
| me saying the work is a mirror of the violence men commit
| against women? But it's equally a mirror of the women who
| chose not to commit violence against her. Shadow or
| light, a mirror reflects it all.
|
| > Was that act sexualized violence?
|
| What is this argument? You're taking one example that you
| can question the sexual nature of while ignoring the
| multiple cases of literal sexual assault.
|
| Can I ask you a hypothetical question?
|
| Let's say it was a male artist and the audience was
| 50/50. Now say that almost 100% of the violence against
| that man was committed by women and that much of it had a
| degrading sexual nature, and that these women all laughed
| amongst their friends while the man they groped and
| stripped was reduced to tears, before one of these women
| eventually held a gun to his head.
|
| Would that gender disparity stand out as worth mentioning
| to you?
| EatingWithForks wrote:
| I think you're missing the point of an art, especially art
| where the audience participates. Art is meant to invoke
| societal concepts, like gender. It makes sense to bring
| gender into a context such as an art piece where the
| audience are active participants.
| girament wrote:
| [flagged]
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| Who said anything about a war between genders? Can't we
| talk about real issues raised by art without it being
| framed as a culture war? I'm a man and I don't feel in
| any way attacked by this discussion existing.
|
| If the artist was a black man and the audience was 50/50
| black and white but all of the violence committed against
| him was by white people, often was explicitly race based
| overtones, would you not find that notable?
| [deleted]
| rcoveson wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| rcoveson wrote:
| I wasn't trying to say art has no value, just that its
| value isn't in it being a source of conclusions. Art can
| raise questions that we wouldn't have had otherwise, and
| questions are the starting point of science (and that of
| further art).
|
| > 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.
|
| This is what I disagree with. If there is a conclusion that
| you think you have drawn from this work, then you should
| re-frame it as a hypothesis and test it properly. Or just
| be content with the new questions, perspectives, and the
| experience of it. Just don't go saying that you learned
| something reliably predictive about how humans behave.
| EatingWithForks wrote:
| How do I test it properly in science, except through what
| she did here? Genuinely asking. Am I paying people 10$
| amazon gift cards for the opportunity to sexually assault
| a woman? VR-cut-and-drink-woman-blood?
| ghodith wrote:
| Even if you can't ethically test it scientifically, that
| doesn't mean the alternative is to take conclusions from
| it instead. You have to recognize it's limitations for
| what they are.
| badcppdev wrote:
| 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
| brookst wrote:
| 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)
| vlunkr wrote:
| > "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.
| orbital-decay wrote:
| 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.
| ImHereToVote wrote:
| I lot of society's ills are blamed on the common man. Never the
| elite.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| The elite are just common men with money & power, no?
| lacrimacida wrote:
| They are but they don't think of themselves as common
| people except for the very aware few.
| itslennysfault wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Having written some of these statements I want to point out
| this is done because of the impact requirements of funding
| programmes.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| ...and the public has taken the lesson of "the longer the
| artist statement, the worse the art"
| BHSPitMonkey wrote:
| I don't think the public puts a lot of stock into artist
| statements one way or the other. "Good" art can have eye-
| rollingly self-important artist statements on the placard
| just like "bad" art. We all know it's just a part of the
| game the industry plays.
| forth_fool wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Not a random audience. An audience of the sort of people who
| go to six hour performance art shows.
| lolinder wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Don't forget The Third Wave (1967):
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave_(experiment)
| bjourne wrote:
| Milgram's experiments were ten years prior. And the
| interpretation of the experiments' results, that Milgram
| himself favored, was not about man's innate inhumanity, but
| about man's ability to perform inhumane acts _if ordered by
| an authority_. He emphasized that none of the subjects
| would willingly shock "the learner" unless _ordered_ to.
| js2 wrote:
| 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.
| ..
| Joeboy wrote:
| 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 Abromovic'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.
| cameldrv wrote:
| 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.
| rendall wrote:
| 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."
| WhitneyLand wrote:
| Yes! If true it reminds me of Hasan Minjaj.
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/hasan-minhajs-
| fab...
| jancsika wrote:
| > When he asked for an explanation, John Cage said the he
| did not have to throw coins "because my mind is random."
|
| Was Cage claiming some kind of spiritual musical connection
| from choosing pitches based on the I Ching? If not, then it
| was just a practical compositional consideration. He didn't
| need cryptographically secure sequences, and-- at least in
| terms of music cognition-- at worst he ended up repeating
| consecutive pitches fewer times than he should have. (And
| if he _started_ with I Ching-derived patterns he may have
| noticed the repetitions and successfully emulated them with
| his mind!)
|
| After all, his general need for random processes was to
| avoid accidentally falling back into patterns from the
| common practice period of tonal music (esp. patterns from
| the Romantic era). In other words, his mind was basically
| good enough for the avant garde. :)
| slowhadoken wrote:
| Seems to say more about the artist than the audience.
| lcfcjs wrote:
| [dead]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-25 23:01 UTC)