this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
255 points (92.6% liked)

Today I Learned

17760 readers
178 users here now

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**



Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

👉wiki

👉Tate Article

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 (8pm–2am.) Studio Morra, Naples

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nieceandtows@programming.dev 53 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wow she stood still while someone slashed her throat to drink her blood. That’s commitment.

[–] mysoulishome@lemmy.world 73 points 1 year ago (5 children)

The stuff they did boggles my mind such as cutting her with thorns, sexual assault. I don’t understand do they think because it’s “art” it isn’t a fucked up thing to do to a person?

[–] Poggervania@kbin.social 35 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I wonder if it’s supposed to be part of the “art” - to show how depraved humans can be given a chance to do it scot-free.

[–] Lmaydev@programming.dev 42 points 1 year ago

Pretty sure that is literally the point of this.

[–] cactusupyourbutt@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

I always felt like this was the whole point of the performance

[–] infinipurple@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Yeah, that's pretty much the point of this sort of endurance art.

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Bro. Artists can be very edgy. Sculptures of naked people, paintings of people fucking, I bet there is some piece made out of rubber vaginas somewhere.

I don't justify what people did to her, but you bet she knew what it was going to happen, even the thorn part. Otherwise, she would have stopped with the performance right there and there.

Edit: she even made a gun and a bullet available to the public!! I'd rather think it was a blank, but if it wasn't, then yeah....

[–] H2207@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Even if the gun was loaded with a blank, at any distance where she can be the one holding it (assuming it's aimed at her) a blank would still do serious damage. When a blank is fired, solid propellant typically is ejected as well as ignited propellant and metal shavings. Too close and a blank is almost like birdshot.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Brandon Lee was killed by a blank on the set of The Crow, wasn't he?

[–] H2207@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

According to Wikipedia there was a squib load in the barrel, which was then pushed out by a blank round. So he was effectively shot, but the blank pushed out a bullet that was lodged in the barrel.

[–] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

You're assuming a full-strength blank, like they use in Hollywood. It could be a round with little/no powder. That would show if someone fired, but would not actually be capable of harm.

[–] rambaroo@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No shit she knew what they were going to do. That was the point. She was making a point about how inhumane people become when they think there are no consequences for their actions.

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I knew this as well. I was just answering the parent poster since he seemed quite shocked by human nature.

[–] cactusupyourbutt@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (4 children)

so I realize this is probably a controversial take, but is it really sexual assault in this case. She did consent to „everything“ basically

[–] Astroturfed@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ya, some things come to mind I'd normally call victim blaming but she basically invited people to fuck with her. If being assaulted in multiple ways didn't cross her mind she was living in a fantasy world. Groups of people are terrible, the larger the group the more terrible they are. One person will push a boundary and then another will take it further, so on and so forth until it's just.... Mob mentality is a real thing and it's not when you see the best of humanity.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

I mean - that's the point though, right?

She probably knew it would be bad, it went further than she expected. It's still art.

Like how you climb a mountain, it goes bad, you lose a hand but survive, no (sane) person is like, "good."

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

The point of this art is to show what humans become when they reduce a fellow person to an object.

Every person that harmed her in any way is fundamentally a bad person, but also shares a quality with all of us in that we can all choose to become that person at any time.

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

She did not explicitly state that she was OK with being touched sexually. Nor did she say she was OK being cut. She said anything goes but I believe monkey paw rules of language apply here. I would argue that the whole point here is that different people take the "permission" to different levels. I personally would never do anything to someone that I would not want done to myself unless and perhaps not even if they gave explicit permission. Here only implicit permission is given and the audience decided how far it went. Your point might have stood if there was some explicitly stated agreement that asexual acts are ok, but frankly I believe it is clear here that it does count as a violation at minimum.

[–] infinipurple@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I dunno. I admire the idealism in your attitude here, but realistically we have to look at the words she herself used: "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."

It strikes me that this quite explicitly states that there are no limits. I'm honestly somewhat surprised that she wasn't more seriously assaulted.

[–] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

but why do anything like that if she clearly didn't ask for that. Like if my mate comes over and I say "my es su casa, have free reign of the place" and he immeditaly shits on my couch I'm going to be pissed, like that's a shitty thing to do, even if I did "technically" say he could, doesn't mean you should.

[–] infinipurple@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because when you invite someone over, there's the additional context that they are your guest and should behave as such.

During this performance art piece, that additional context does not exist. The only context is that provided by the artist, which did not set such limits.

[–] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And ethics, morals, and the wider society.

[–] infinipurple@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Art's raison-d'être is to challenge ethical and moral preconceptions. You seem to have missed the core value of this performance.

Immoral art can't hurt you, the viewer. It's supposed to make you feel emotional. You should have the emotional intelligence to question those feelings and come to an understanding of why the art in question made you feel that way.

Marina went through the effort and hassle of putting on this piece, and yet still its purpose has completely eluded you.

[–] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

"Artist use lies to tell the truth" The point of art can only be done in fiction, though. Once it bleeds into the real, the protective veneer of fiction wears off. Serial killers, for example, some of them at least, could be argued to have a real artistic purpose to their deranged deeds. Things that make people feel and challenge our ethical and moral preconceptions.

They are still bastards though, they did hurt people, and it was wrong, immoral and unethical to do so.

You also misattribute whom I blame on this subject too. She's fine as far as I am concerned. She simply choose to stand in place put some items on a table and tell people the facts of the situation, but that people that CHOOSE to act wrong are wrong for it, no matter the circumstance.

Language was never meant to be taken literally all of the time and context does in fact matter. The scumfucks who sexually assaulted her just did it because they like that sort of thing and because they can. Perhaps they have anger issues with women, too.

[–] infinipurple@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. She didn't set any limits and told them to do what they wanted to her. Amazing it wasn't worse in the end.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree but only in the most cold technical sense. That isn't what consent is supposed to look like though. If someone verbally consents but looks uncomfortable you should have the slightest shred of empathy to check in on them or wonder if they feel pressured to consent for whatever reason.

[–] infinipurple@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Oh, 100%. In any other context, consent is–or should be–an ongoing event. I'm just not sure that applies in the context of endurance art.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

She didn't mean that shit literally. She didn't actually give them permission to do anything -- language doesn't work like that.

[–] Mac@mander.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

"She didn't mean that shit literally" where is this stated?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Numuruzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

I think legal semantics might just be beside the point. I believe she knew the possibility was there and accepted it, but the answer she was looking for is "how far does it go" when a person essentially publicly forfeits their rights. Blanket consent, the forfeiture of those rights, they don't fundamentally change that this is a person.

[–] a_mac_and_con@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (11 children)

I can't believe how there wasn't a single person in the audience who tried to stop anyone. Other than the person who took the gun away from her head. Still. No one stopped the people trying to injure or assault her. No one called anyone out? It's sickening.

[–] GigglyBobble@kbin.social 41 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can't believe how there wasn't a single person in the audience who tried to stop anyone

Yeah, that's not what's written in the Wikipedia article.

Faced with her abdication of will, with its implied collapse of human psychology, a protective group began to define itself in the audience. When a loaded gun was thrust to Marina's head and her own finger was being worked around the trigger, a fight broke out between the audience factions.

[–] a_mac_and_con@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

I should stop trying to read things when I haven't slept.

Now I'm wondering why the entire audience fled when she finally moved. No one stuck around to ask if she needed help or anything?

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] BastingChemina@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They are doing it because they can.

It probably means that they would do that to anyone is they know there will be no repercussions. Like someone who is passed out drunk or a child.

[–] mysoulishome@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree. I guess I understand the argument that if someone says “hey I’m going to come up here and I want everyone to hurt me, physically and sexually” then people do…it isn’t wrong. But I just can’t stomach it. Maybe I’m a prude. I guess it’s legal for consenting adults. And I guess it should be legal…

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It IS wrong. That's the whole point. Good people don't just harm innocents simply because there's an opportunity to do it without consequences. Even with consent that shit is still fucked up. The good people understood that which is why someone took the gun away and why that poor woman is still alive.

[–] Mac@mander.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I do wonder if someone would have actually killed her. Are they so deranged or was it a stunt?

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The possibility is as horrifying philosophically as it is literally

[–] Mac@mander.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree. Imagining myself in that situation literally increased my heartrate.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

🤔 It'd be a pretty interesting punishment for particularly heinous crimes, though. So there's that