I think Rhythm0 was mainly predictable, right down to
"When the gallery announced the work was over, and Abramović began to move again, she said the audience left, unable to face her as a person".

The aspect of the "work" that makes it particularly distinctive from the Milligram experiment is that it is announced as art, and the artist's intentions and wishes are unknown. People might think that they are expected to be sensational, for example.

Added: I would have fired the gun into a safe place to discharge the bullets!

i'm not sure what can be drawn from these experiments to understand human psychology in the medium or long term, since the moral choices of those experiments were not iterated. For example, perhaps initial instincts to torture in a consequence free environment are driven more by curiosity and a desire for norm-breaking rather than malice or sadism, and perhaps these instincts lessen in favour of empathy on repeated trials.

Perhaps a better place to look where there is iteration of moral choices in a truly private and consequence-free environment is in video games that simulate suffering where there are opportunities to imprison and torture. Games such as Dungeon Keeper, Dwarf Fortress and Crusader Kings 2 come to mind. I suspect that most gamers get bored of playing tyrannical torturers pretty quickly, and that once they are in psychological equilibrium with the game they tend to only torture and imprison a perpetrator in direct proportion to their sense of injustice and grievance due to the actions of the perpetrator.

Wow, that's very interesting.

The authority figure is usually the presence that stops people from being evil. In the Milgram experiment maybe it was a conflict of the role of the authority figure - being told it was OK seemed that wrong- that caused the perpetrators of the electrocutions to not enjoy the experience of torturing.

You of course also have the Stanford Prison experiment that lends another insight into this type of psychology.

I find the spontaneous rallying of people around the Rhythm 0 woman quite interesting from a conceptual point of view. I think that may be where a deeper truth tucked in their somewhere

I think that Milgram's experiment is very different from Abramovic's performance.

Milgram's experiment purpose was to see how far people would go in their trust of authority. People trust doctors, professors. The results of his experiment are based on the ideological relationship between those in authority we trust and our willingness to retain this trust even when faced by what are apparently cruel actions. Free agency was not in doubt.

In Abramovic's performance she transforms herself into an object. An object exhibiting no agency. Its effect on the audience was not all the same, factions developed, people tried to stop others from hurting her. She allowed people to do whatever they wanted, which eventually brought out the most primitive aspects of the audience relationship to her. Taboos were dropped, and people acted in relationship to an object which presented itself as more than an object.

After 6 hours she stopped her performance and walked towards the audience who fled from her.

Good and evil are essential parts of what make us human, an amoral struggle within us that is never resolved.

1.7k

I think that Milgram's experiment is very different from Abramovic's performance.

Milgram's experiment purpose was to see how far people would go in their trust of authority. — Cavacava

But perhaps formal authority is simply a marker for internal justification, and it is the latter which ultimately drives the outcome of these experiments?

People might think that they are expected to be sensational, for example. — Jake Tarragon

So, you're saying the artist was suggesting the audience to be ''sensational''. Isn't it strange that people would ''sexually assault'' under a creative license?

What I feel is that in the Milgram Experiment the authority was evil and so I think the subjects can be forgiven for their acts - at least that's what is the general consensus.

However, in Marina's art work people were given freedom - to be good OR bad or anything. Yet, they chose a path that was ultimately bad.

If this shows anything it's that in morality there has to be both incentive (for being good) and deterrence (against being bad). Human nature can't be trusted.

For example, perhaps initial instincts to torture in a consequence free environment are driven more by curiosity and a desire for norm-breaking rather than malice or sadism, and perhaps these instincts lessen in favour of empathy on repeated trials. — sime

Nothing is without consequence. In Rhythm 0, the acts of the audience has consequences for both it and Marina. The audience wasn't a bunch of troglodytes who didn't understand pain or death and were simply acting on curiosity. May be I'm not entirely correct on this - perhaps the audience wanted to test Marina's resolve. But they could've tickled her with the feather or done something benign and yet they chose to test the other end of the good-bad spectrum. Why is that?

I suspect that most gamers get bored of playing tyrannical torturers pretty quickly, and that once they are in psychological equilibrium with the game they tend to only torture and imprison a perpetrator in direct proportion to their sense of injustice and grievance due to the actions of the perpetrator. — sime

How evil can one get? Boredom or satiety will eventually reign in destructive habits. Or do they? Serial killers have to be forcibly stopped. Evil needs to be controlled and if that's impossible, snuffed out. So, you're views aren't mainstream on this one. Why do you think that way?

What the two cases show is that people can be evil under authority and in complete freedom. Basically, what it shows is that the current paradigm (incentive for good and deterrence for bad) is the correct one. It's tough being good - we need rewards to keep us motivated. It's easy being evil - we need tangible disincentives to keep us in control.

Good and evil are essential parts of what make us human, an amoral struggle within us that is never resolved. — Cavacava

If this ''amoral struggle'', a very indifferent analysis in my opinion, defines us what's the point of being good?

So, you're saying the artist was suggesting the audience to be ''sensational''. — TheMadFool

Certainly at least, the audience/accomplices felt they had a certain amount of license to be sensational given the presence of a loaded gun, razor blades etc.

If this ''amoral struggle'', a very indifferent analysis in my opinion, defines us what's the point of being good?

There is a difference between knowing what is good and doing what is good. In general we all know what is good, but we don't always do it. We continually struggle with ourselves. That struggle is not moral, our actions, the things we do, are moral or immoral.

But perhaps formal authority is simply a marker for internal justification, and it is the latter which ultimately drives the outcome of these experiments?

If I recall correctly there was a version of this experiment in which the instructor issued orders, to be obeyed, it was not the prodding method of the original experiment. The results were far different in that experiment. While people are willing to follow orders based on authority such as a medical recommendation, they are far less willing to obey commands.

interesting ... I wonder how different the results would be if the artist's mother was seated alongside, or an actor dressed as a cop was stood nearby with arms folded. Or what about having a sign saying "please don't hurt or embarrass me?".

Certainly there is a pack mentality at play, which I believe also appears in the animal kingdom. In nature, people are conditioned to follow leaders. I heard somewhere that men when hunting are more successful if following a leader and working as a group - that's part of Milgram. There is also the curiosity children have with prodding dead birds with sticks and so forth. So, while interesting, nothing too far beyond the pail - although certainly disgusting.

I find the resistive force that arose very interesting though. If we can dissolve the personalities and look at the pattern there is something there. I just can't put my finger on what it is though.

I know what the pattern is. What the experiment has done is resolved an interference pattern. The aggressors are like the wake from a boat hitting against a concrete wall. The wave then comes back out from the wall - this is the protective response.

In our ordinary lives we live in an interference pattern of choice between wicked and good.

Certainly at least, the audience/accomplices felt they had a certain amount of license to be sensational given the presence of a loaded gun, razor blades etc. — Jake Tarragon

But there was also the feather. Why didn't people choose it over the gun? The feather and the gun are equally suggestive - the former associates with laughter and joy while the latter with pain and death. Why did the people pick the gun and the knife over the feather?

That struggle is not moral, our actions, the things we do, are moral or immoral. — Cavacava

But our actions are determined by our decisions. This ''amoral struggle'' resolves into decisions and then actions. So, what tips the balance in this struggle?

In Rhythm 0, the leader is absent. The audience consisted of adults so no, curiosity doesn't fully explain its behavior.

In our ordinary lives we live in an interference pattern of choice between wicked and good. — MikeL

What if there isn't any choice, specifically, a rational choice to be good? Morality is just mirage and, obviously, people aren't convinced by the weak arguments promoting it. Think of it. The very fact that all moral theories fail to convince anyone, unless s/he is already convinced, is evidence that no one has, as yet, discovered anything substantial in the field.

In Rhythm 0, the leader is absent. The audience consisted of adults so no, curiosity doesn't fully explain its behavior. — TheMadFool

Sorry, I was talking about two different things in the one paragraph. The Milgram experiment with the authority figure was one thing and the Rhythm 0 things was the other.

What if there isn't any choice, specifically, a rational choice to be good? — TheMadFool

Well that's a point. Perhaps though it may have to do with social hierarchy instincts. I think power over people is a thrilling proposition for many. We all jostle for our place at the table. It is the drive that causes many people to seek positions of power. That plays out though against empathy and social conformity. If Rhythm O was not showing any emotion, and the authority you alluded to was absent, the empathy and conformity drive may have been significantly impaired leading to an unchecked hierarchy drive.

But there was also the feather. Why didn't people choose it over the gun? — TheMadFool

Well, quite! People often find it easier to be aggressive than tender I guess, even in play/quasi play.

If ever I come across such a work I think I will attempt to upstage the artist and ermmm upstage a coup. I would tickle the gun with the feather and make a big speech.

"I would like to thank Marina for providing this interesting and exciting space in which we can consider human history, psychology and the future of politics and humanity. For that is the whole purpose of this wonderful work, of course.... No excuse me Sir - no you don't understand. Put that down please. You really can't do that. Thank you, now where was I?..."

I would tickle the gun with the feather and make a big speech. — Jake Tarragon

:D

Your explanation is good but so much for morality then.

I, more or less, agree with the conclusion of the Milgram Experiment. People can be evil when commanded by authority to be so. — TheMadFool

The part that got me about the experiment wasn't that people would do bad things when directed by authority, it was how trivial the level of authority that was required.

As for the Rhythm 0 set up, just because the "artist" said they could do anything they wanted, that doesn't mean they could. They were still subject to laws. If they physically hurt the woman, they would have gotten into trouble. What types of things did people actually do?

Morality is just mirage and, obviously, people aren't convinced by the weak arguments promoting it. Think of it. The very fact that all moral theories fail to convince anyone, unless s/he is already convinced, is evidence that no one has, as yet, discovered anything substantial in the field. — TheMadFool

Milgram and Rythem 0 may show that people vary in moral reasoning development.

According to Kohlberg's stages of moral development, it makes sense that low development would result in obedience in the Milgram study, and due to the lack of constraining authority, transgression in Rythem 0.

Milgram and Rythem 0 may show that people vary in moral reasoning development. — praxis

I find the Milgram experiment chilling. Like most people, I put myself in the place of the subjects who "shocked" people when directed by the tester. Would I have done the same? I'm not sure. I'd really like to find out.

Rhythm 0 is different. The woman made herself a victim. Challenged people to dehumanize her. What would the people have done if they could really do anything they wanted with her? Maybe the important question isn't why the people did the things they did, but rather why did the others let them do it?

Maybe the important question isn't why the people did the things they did, but rather why did the others let them do it? — T Clark

Actually some participants acted to protect her from the worst of it, I understand.

What would the people have done if they could really do anything they wanted with her? — T Clark

Well, that's a point. Maybe what they did was the partially the result of a frustrated sexual drive. If it was a guy would they have done the same thing? Were most of the perpetrators male?

Well, that's a point. Maybe what they did was the partially the result of a frustrated sexual drive. If it was a guy would they have done the same thing? Were most of the perpetrators male? — MikeL

I would assume most were male and that the proportion of the really bad things were done by males was even higher. It doesn't have anything to do with a frustrated sexual drive, it has to do with a lack of respect for people in general and women in particular.

It doesn't have anything to do with a frustrated sexual drive, it has to do with a lack of respect for people in general and women in particular. — T Clark

For the Rhythm 0 piece, I think it has more to do with the ease in which we can regulate our empathy or make a shift in our perception from person to object. But come to think of it, isn't it a bit absurd to compare a rigorous scientific study (Milgram), to what basically amounts to an artistic stunt (Rhythm 0)? For all we know, Marina Abramović had people in the ready to escalate the situation if it didn't occur naturally. Artists are known to contrive publicity for profit. They're born tricksters.

If this ''amoral struggle'', a very indifferent analysis in my opinion, defines us what's the point of being good? — TheMadFool

I think that morality is perhaps an emergent compilation of many drives. It is these more fundamental drives that is being explored by Rhythm 0. We know morality is a natural cooperative expression as evidenced by societies around the world and that sometimes it all goes sideways.

For all we know, Marina Abramović had people in the ready to escalate the situation if it didn't occur naturally. Artists are known to contrive publicity for profit. They're born tricksters. — praxis

As indicated in the video you posted earlier, Abramovic's work was performed in the 70's. Apparently it made a big splash then. In the interview you posted, which took place many years later, she seemed sincere and deeply affected by what had happened. I think her piece was misguided and maybe self-indulgent, but I assume it was honest.

I think you are probably right that juxtaposing the study and artwork doesn't make philosophical sense. The famous apples and oranges logical fallacy. Thank you for the opportunity to use the word "juxtaposing," which is one of my favorites.

After 6 hours she stopped her performance and walked towards the audience who fled from her. — Cavacava

Still a lot of thinking needs to be done, and the phenomena are complex, psychologically.

But the fact that the audience fled means that the audience was AWARE of doing wrong, and they still did it, despite the wrongness of it, and despite the recognition of wrongness.

There is a perpetration, a force which is not "evil" per se, but can be indistinguishable from evil if viewed as a black box effect, but which non-evil is a complex resultant vector of many causational factors, most of which we must first discover and then examine.

I strongly believe that 1. These experiments have a very rational explanation, and 2. we have not formulated those explanations, because 3. our knowledge of human nature is incomplete.

There may be, equally probably, an explanation which is a root explanation of man's cruel nature. By root explanation I mean it is not a complex behaviour, but an "atomic" behaviour pattern, which is not explained by other behaviour motivational patterns, but is by itself a very basic human response.

Not pretending to throw light on the truth, but just merely adding another trivia, another factual observation that might be of interest for this topic: teasing. A group effort, in which an individual is made fun of, and commensurate with the intensity of the teased individual's anger, the group's delight felt by its individual members is increasing, too. A bit similar to tearing out legs of buts and making it move nevertheless, or keeping a frog to jump beyond its wishful ability and normal motivational pattern to keep on jumping.

teasing. A group effort, in which an individual is made fun of, and commensurate with the intensity of the teased individual's anger, the group's delight felt by its individual members is increasing, too. — szardosszemagad

I've thought a fair amount about what you call teasing and I would call bullying. This isn't an original thought - I have observed that people generally bully those who have some trait, weakness, or behavior they are afraid of or ashamed of in themselves. I have found myself feeling contempt for people who make me feel that way. I can't think of any time when I actually bullied someone, but I know I've avoided them in an unsubtle way. I think some of that was probably going on in the Rhythm 0 presentation, but not in the Milgram experiment.

To be a performance artist, you have to hate theater,". "Theater is fake… The knife is not real, the blood is not real, and the emotions are not real. Performance is just the opposite: the knife is real, the blood is real, and the emotions are real."

On a Freudian basis she broke through the societal taboos that are common to men and woman. Her work, the art, liberated the audience. It enabled them to act out their deep fantasies. Art is not moral it enlightens, it illuminates our nature as humans.

More Philosophically, the being of the work, the thing that glues society together became loose. Unlike Sartre's character sitting in the park beside the chestnut tree, who suddenly understands his connection with the being of the world, her work punches and disconnects any connection cracking our mirror, exhibiting the audience's most instinctual and profound wishes and desires, the reality.

She disconnected her body from subjectivity. She abandoned her self to the audience, who saw a body but not a corpse, something alien, more than what it presented. Its power liberated them, and enabled them to act in ways that no other art work could achieve. The beauty of the work lies in its liberation of the audience, in its ability to allow them to follow through with their fantasies.

The people fled because she became a self once more, and as such she was all fucked up, by them.