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.
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.
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.
The idea is to discuss provocative things without getting provoked to sputtering grumpitude and if you can't help getting provoked to sputtering grumpitude, don't write it on HN. It's imperfect and limiting in a number of ways but it's not a particularly onerous or unreasonable constraint.
I don't think it is, nor do I think it makes any sense to deny forum users either agency or responsibility - you can choose not to sputter and if you do choose to sputter, it's not the fault of a wikipedia article.
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.
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"?
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.
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".
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.
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?
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.
> 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.
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.
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".
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"?
I wasn't there and didn't attack anybody, but the chain of logic suggested is that Abramović 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 genuinelydon'tunderstand 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.
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.
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.
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 Abramović 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 Abramović 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.
As a performance artist myself, I think there is definitely an aspect of "the audience should hurt me a little bit, or at the very least threaten harm". Why are people fascinated with fire breathers, motorcycle jumpers, escape artists, etc? It's the thrill of risk.
Even without knowledge of her or her works, there's a lot of context that says "the risk is the point".
By putting harmful items out on the table, she made a deliberate choice for risk to be involved. The audience knows this. They know if she wanted a "safe" performance, she would have limited her selection. If the worst items were glue and feathers, the implied worse outcome is making her look like a chicken. Embarrassing, but not a huge harm. She put out a gun and a bullet. That implies (but does not outright verbatim say) that the sky is the limit - shooting me is an acceptable outcome.
That establishes the conceptual limit, but there are still societal shackles on behavior. Which is where "it's all about the risk" comes in. More risk = more sensational news, more notoriety for the artist. Clearly she wants something crazy to happen, else she would not put herself in a crazy position. So the audience starts pushing the limits of what is acceptable. I don't think they are harming her out of a direct desire to cause her harm, per se (might be some sadists in the audience), but there is an expectation that the risk level should ratchet up. But that ratchet doesn't occur without audience participation.
I think this perspective actually tempers the "this piece shows all humans are terrible sadists deep down" interpretation. Just like the Milgram experiments, it boils down to the general principle of humans tending to do the thing they think is expected of them.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"..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.
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.
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.
> 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
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.