Marina’s Arena
The arena defines the fighter: a QUIZ
In 1974, Marina Abramović performed her Rhythm 0 in Naples. She declared herself the object and with brief instructions she dared an audience to use props such as lipstick, knives and chains on her body. The performance lasted for 6 hours. It started out with a passive audience and ended in gruesome violence with Abramović in shock and in tears. People touched her and even minor sexual assaults were carried out on her body. People stuck rose thorns in her stomach, aimed a gun at her head, ripped her clothes and cut into her skin.
This performance is often used as an example to show that humans are inherently evil and that they will misuse power and act violently once they are given the chance. I disagree with this view. Let’s look at the instructions that the audience were given in Rhythm 0:
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 (8 pm – 2 am).
Later Abramović stated: "What I learned was that ... if you leave it up to the audience, they can kill you.”
But… she was not killed and shocking as certain acts undoubtedly were, in a way, the audience acted according to the given instructions. In the performance period of 6 hours the available objects were used on her, the object -pay attention to this word - as people desired. Abramovic took full responsibility.
So, the performance does not prove that people are inherently evil and that if you were to leave it up to the audience, they would kill you. For apart from the fact that what happened was incredibly scary, there was also very human behavior. There were people who protected “the object”. There were hugs, some wiped her tears away. Someone gave her a cake. Another gave her a rose and someone gave her a kiss out of kindness. Ultimately the audience came to consist of two factions: one agressively experimental, the other protective.
In my view, the performance shows that if you set up a territory or place in which a new set of rules comes to apply, people will try and discover how they relate to these rules - or absence of rules. And yes, some will stretch them to the limit.
For me Rhythm 0 proves that the arena defines the fighter. I would now like to use this as a metaphor for the internet and do a quiz together.
Rhythm 0 Versus The Internet Quiz
1. If we set up a place with little or no rules, could it be possible that some people are going to misbehave in this place?
A Yes
B No
2. If the ruler of the arena takes full responsibility, but clearly does not act upon misconduct, will people be more likely to misbehave?
A Yes
B No
3. If people in the arena do not need to take responsibility for their deeds, will they be likely to act irresponsibly?
A Yes
B No
4. Once the arena is suspended (or the performance ends) and its rules no longer apply, will people return to the rules that they know apply in the normal world?
A Yes
B No
5. Where are people more likely to misbehave? In the boundless arena or in the normal world where rules apply?
A the arena without rules
B the normal world where rules apply
6. Do you agree that these are two separate places? The temporary or play-act place without rules and the real world of consequences?
A I agree
B I disagree
7. Would it be bad if people were continuously able to move between the ruleless arena and the normal world?
A Yes
B No
8. Would it be bad if access to a ruleless arena was to be without supervision and restrictions?
A Yes
B No
9.Would it be dangerous if everything in the ruleless arena was objectified?
A Yes
B No
10. If all people would then spend more time in the free-for-all arena and less time in the normal world with rules, would the people than gradually expect the normal world with rules to become more like the free-for-all arena?
More briefly put: would it become blurry as to which of the two is the “normal” world?
A Yes
B No
11. Would you allow (your) children to take part in an experiment like Rhythm 0 or allow them access to any such territory?
A Yes
B No
12. If yes, do you think 6 hours once would be long enough? Or would you suggest a longer period of time of exposure? For instance, 6 hours a day for many years?
A 6 hours once is long enough
B 6 hours a day for many years. Sounds like a plan.
13. Without supervision? They can handle themselves at quite young an age, right?
A Absolutely
B No
14. If we’d allow children from a young age to walk around in such arenas for the larger part of their day without supervision and without telling them that that arena is a place quite different from the world in which other rules apply, will they then display ruleless behavior from the arena in the everyday territory with its set of rules?
A Yes
B No
15. What type of people, and especially children, do you expect to be raised on platforms on which racism, bigotry, misogyny, sexism, violence, hypercapitalism, porn and fascism rule?
Enter your personal answer here (maximum of 15 words)
16. Can we conclude that we do not want any boundless arena to become too dominant in everyday life (i.e. that it will govern areas such as education, work, politics, art and culture)?
A Yes
B No
17. Should we regulate the boundless arena once things go out of hand?
(Think of a rise of misinformation everywhere spreading from the boundless arena into the normal world, a world in which science is defied, in which politicians are no longer able to properly debate with one another, in which racism and misogyny are surging again, the type of world in which children and teenagers have become historically unhappy)
A Yes
B No
Thank you for participating in this quiz. I have no further questions.