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.
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.
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
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.
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 Abramović 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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".
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.
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.
