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. — MikeL

Possibly...

The one thing that strikes me the most is that when people are free to choose between a feather and a gun, their preference is for the latter and that too, as adults, fully(?) aware of the moral implications of the two objects. At the very least, Rhythm 0 implies that some form authority is necessary to control people and, paradoxically, this authority is itself designed and put there by the very people who are prone to, as you put it, ''go sideways''.

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

I think that's a really good explanation.

The one thing that strikes me the most is that when people are free to choose between a feather and a gun, their preference is for the latter and that too, as adults, fully(?) aware of the moral implications of the two objects. — TheMadFool

If it was me who chose the gun, the reason would be one of two fold. Firstly,I would believe the gun did not work and thus show the experiment to be false when the trigger was pressed, thus bringing the game the subject is playing with us to a conclusion. The second would be to watch closely to see if I could elicit a reaction or response from the subject who is not having one -like a child tickles someone to see if they can make them laugh. Like you I find it hard to imagine that an adult would intentionally try to kill the subject. The fact that it is a simulated environment suggests a game and games suggest solutions for the audience to solve.

The fact that it is a simulated environment suggests a game and games suggest solutions for the audience to solve. — MikeL

So, if I understand you correctly, you see no tangible moral dimension in Marina's work? Perhaps, curiosity is a stronger drive than morality.

I would be pre-supposing that only a fool would offer a loaded gun that works so we could shoot them. Marina has set the conditions by offering the tools on the table. She communicates the nature of the game by telling you to try and do anything to her, and then not responding when you do. The game is: make her respond - and as it gets underway and one thing doesn't work followed by another the game naturally escalates. Thus the gun would be the penultimate resolution of the game. Either the gun doesn't work and it is resolved or she breaks out a response before she gets shot. I can't imagine anybody in that room imagining that she would actually get shot.

It's different to morality. A lack of morality might see someone approach someone defenseless on the street, grab their hand and force them put a bullet in themselves in point blank. There is no comparison.

I think a more interesting question might be what would have happened to the person if they had shot her? Would it be manslaughter or murder?

It's different to morality. A lack of morality might see someone approach someone defenseless on the street, grab their hand and force them put a bullet in themselves in point blank. There is no comparison. — MikeL

You don't get to shoot someone just to teach them a lesson. To win a game. No matter how big a potatohead they are.

I think a more interesting question might be what would have happened to the person if they had shot her? Would it be manslaughter or murder? — MikeL

First of all, given the artists commitment to her vision, I'm pretty sure there was a live bullet in the gun. As for manslaughter vs. murder.....probably manslaughter.

Well that's is the nature of this macabre game which has made it exciting for everyone involved, including the artist I would imagine.

If everyone knew the gun wouldn't work, it would be the first thing they would have grabbed, just to win the game. Instead, the audience is studying her. They are making value judgments about her. Is it a real gun or is it not? Is she that full on, or not? And every time the scenario escalates and she doesn't respond - far from demeaning her, she is winning points in the eyes of the viewers - a wow factor.

This is why there was a viewing audience who rushed in when the gun was chosen, because it was their value judgement that she was just serious enough to have put a live bullet into a functional gun. Do we know that the gun did work?

If you say that the charge would be manslaughter it suggests you understand the game being played.

I, more or less, agree with what you say. Marina was playing the audience...challenging them, prodding them, provoking them.

That said, I believe there's a moral aspect to Marina's work. The Muslim world doesn't allow women to bare skin. I have a feeling that Muslim men may view rape as the woman's fault...dressing provocatively, walking alone without an escort, etc. How different is Marina from a young woman dressed in revealing clothes and walking alone in a deserted street?

I take your point. I guess the critical difference is that she can pull the plug at any time by saying no. Generally speaking if someone wears provocative clothing, they will attract attention and advances toward themselves, but in other countries they can refuse the interest. I think by being able to end the experiment herself it is more on part with that.

I agree that there is a point of morality here. But it is not in the doing, it is in the defending. The audience begins making decisions for Marina to protect her from the ambitious nature of the game players. That's the morality- they walk the fine line of letting her express herself through this game, and taking protective steps as to how far they will let the game go.

I agree that there is a point of morality here. But it is not in the doing, it is in the defending. The audience begins making decisions for Marina to protect her from the ambitious nature of the game players. That's the morality- they walk the fine line of letting her express herself through this game, and taking protective steps as to how far they will let the game go. — MikeL

(Y)

I completely forgot about the elements in the audience who acted to protect Marina. These people counterbalance those who chose to ''harm'' Marina. So, it seems, people come in many shades and without looking at the whole, everybody, we can't get the entire picture on a situation. Thanks for the conversation