👉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

  • cactusupyourbutt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s a controversial take that has been the subject of all sorts of debate and even legislation. Some countries don’t accept sweeping consent legally for anything, some people/groups think consent must be sought, etc.

    • Astroturfed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        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.

        The goal of art like this is to get people to reflect upon these innate mentalities, not hopeful denial of their existence.

    • frazw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

              • infinipurple@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  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.

          • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Numuruzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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.