In name only. A true individualist knows you're responsible for your own fucking behaviors..

Is it still assault if it's consensual?

Weirdly I don't know if I could class her as a "poor woman" ? She was the one who set up all the objects on the table which included ones that were potentially lethal and she specified the parameters of the piece and very specifically could have stopped the performance at any time by moving of her own volition and speaking. She went into it accepting her own murder as a potential outcome and was committed to carrying on regardless of what happened. It being an art peice would not have protected a participant from a murder charge while assult charges have to be made by the victim of the assault... So there was at least that.

While she may not have been able to account for the long term psychological effects and may have had some initial optimism that people would not choose the darker options made available... I think terming her a "poor woman" might actually be dismissive of the actual volition and personal grit she had in the construction and performance of the piece? While it may have been ballsy to the point bordering madness dangerous stunt performances where athletes risk death for their audiences are a thing and those performers go in with the same expectation of potential fatality.

The Stanford prison experiment couldn't be replicated and the data are widely considered useless in psychologist community. Basically someone wanted to be famous so they created a shocking but fake study.

The Stanford Prison Experiment was a sham and couldn't be replicated.

This Art project still seems gruesome....

Brandon Lee was killed by a blank on the set of The Crow, wasn't he?

You're assuming a full-strength blank, like they use in Hollywood. It could be a round with little/no powder. That would show if someone fired, but would not actually be capable of harm.

At least the gun was deactivated.

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.

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."

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.

I agree but only in the most cold technical sense. That isn't what consent is supposed to look like though. If someone verbally consents but looks uncomfortable you should have the slightest shred of empathy to check in on them or wonder if they feel pressured to consent for whatever reason.

I should stop trying to read things when I haven't slept.

Now I'm wondering why the entire audience fled when she finally moved. No one stuck around to ask if she needed help or anything?

but it is what any human being would do, given the right circumstances.

Bullshit. The experiment you linked isn't even close to what this is:

They measured the willingness of study participants, 40 men in the age range of 20 to 50 from a diverse range of occupations with varying levels of education, to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts conflicting with their personal conscience.

Participants were led to believe that they were assisting an unrelated experiment, in which they had to administer electric shocks to a "learner".

The people who violate the performer aren't instructed, in any way, by an authority figure, and the act isn't conflicting with their personal believe. They are psychopath.

You just want to excuse your own bad behaviour.

You should probably read the link you posted, because the results of the milgram experiment as touted by media is not really representative of what happened.

This is more bystander effect than submission to authority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

I don't think you have to worry about that ☺️

Agreed. She thought The Ruttles was hilarious and forced Lennon to watch it, even though the mockumentary is not kind towards her.

Oooooooookay : /

You're ELI5 but I already said I had success in therapy.

identify the things you might say that make people around you uncomfortable

therapy didnt teach me social skills or masking. As far as I have been told, masking is worse for my mental health.

There are just things one shouldn't say out loud

I literally said I would like take care of this artist rather than harm her. And then I said I have to be protective because people frequently trust me. Listen I know I sound a bit crazy but see past the aesthetics at the real arguments I am making.

Well yea, but you have to play the right notes in the right way. This is more like bringing an philharmonic orchestra to stage and not playing a single note. Actually, that would be much more creative than this.

Point me to some performance art where people are not ending up naked, cut, or doing some other edgy things in public.

Art is not everything labeled art. Btw word art comes from latin ars, which means craft or skil.