Well, the thing is, the setting says "You can use any of these and do whatever you want to her." Normaly, we have a block in our mind of how things are bad or not allowed. Well... she's given consent. It's allowed. Some people would still struggle with it, but some wont. There have been an experiment done where people would get to stand by a panel and look into a room where a person is sitting by a table. The instructor tells the person to press the button, and when they do, the person by the table screams out in pain as he's electricuted. Now, the "victim" is just an actor, pretending to be hurt, but the person pressing the button dont know that. Now here comes the interesting part. If the instructor did nothing, the person stopped pressing the button, but if the instructor told them to keep going... they did. Most people kept going with the "electricutions" cause someone said they should. Just by having someone tell you to do something or tell you it's ok, the mental locks of most people ease up. It's honestly scary, but it's how it is.
First of all your explaining the study wrong and also these scenarios are pretty different no one was directly told to fucking light her on fire that was that guys decision it’s not he same thing.
@@imcool3487 Exactly, Sure he was told he could do anything but that's not the same as being told to light her on fire. Still I see where he's coming from. A bit of a difference between burning a victim alive and burning someone who's completely willing and had the power to stop the show whenever she wanted. But at the same time its fucked up. Even if it was for art there's a high chance that would've killed her.
Tenebi Centurion Yea he could do “anything he wants” but he’d still go to prison after the cops showed up. All of them would actually cause all of them would’ve let it happen. Just because some pretentious art gallery thinks they’re above society doesn’t mean they’re above the law.
@@strike_true Im sure only the guy would get in serious trouble. If the woman survived the burning though (which seems unlikely) then no charges would be pressed so hed be fine.
5:00 “Who are you calling?…Oh of course!” I always loved how 13 played along with House XD. After House and Wilson, they were my favorite duo in the series
You can scream "consent" all you want but the fact is that every single fiber of our being has evolved to keep us alive. If someone is willing to be set on fire for "art" then their judgement is clearly compromised to the point of no longer being able to give consent.
I don't know, people is even killing themselves this days for things like internet fame. And then you have the case of the monk that fire himself as protests. Each case is unique, but the point is that the mind can be stronger that instinct
I dunno... I disagree, to be honest. The writers are clearly talented writers but they don't show it on the majority of the show. Its very repetitive, full of plotholes and is quite limited in many ways. The true brilliance is in the character development and acting. Thats what makes this show what it is.
@@BeeTeaDubs i completely agree. a lot of the back-and-forth dialogue is great, but usually only when it’s about the non-medical stuff. the medical dialogue is good, WAY better than the good doctor, but it’s full of inconsistencies, plot holes, and sometimes it’s just straight up stupid. makes for great TV though so i’m not going to whine about it
@@Whatever71315 a performance artist. She did a performance called Rhythm 0 where she had laid out 72 objects on a table. She was passive. There was a sign that said the audience could do whatever they wanted with those objects to her. It lasted 6 hours and by the end of it she had been cut and abused and stripped naked.
@@ardencho662 this is her talking about it a little bit ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-kijKz3JzoD4.html It's also since been recreated by several other performance artists.
All these great clips with no ending so you sub to watch the rest of them. Never ceases to amaze me how much companies pay to get people to spend money. America
@@bullshark3771 That depends on your interpretation. One could read the song as two cheating spouses accidentally ending up with each other or it could be that the wife caught her husband looking at the personal ads and deliberately disrupted his plans. Or you could take the admittedly far-out reading that this is a consensual game for them. Regardless, it is definitely a song with a strong theme of infidelity so Taub’s enjoyment of it is definitely a Character Moment
I always loved that House’s ringtone for the team is Mmmbop, a song by a group of three children that does nothing but spout nonsense words and platitudes. Which perhaps says something of the way House thinks of his team LOL It is an absolute jam though
The performance art where she encouraged people to do what they wanted with her is based upon a real performance art piece titled "Rhythm 0" where the performance artist Marina Abramovic stood still in a room for 6 hours and let the public do whatever they wanted to her using any of the 72 objects she'd laid on a table. She had on the table "Objects of pleasure" such as flowers and feathers and "Objects of destruction" including razor blades, a knife, and a loaded gun. On the table as well she had instructions that encouraged people to do whatever they wanted and said that she would shoulder all the blame. Throughout the performance her clothes were cut from her, she was groped, had the loaded gun placed in her hand and aimed at herself, was cut with the blades and much more. It's a fascinating piece of work and reading the accounts of what happened from people who watched, as well as her own personal accounts of what they did to her and how it made her feel are really heartbreaking and frankly upsetting.
@@akkudakkupl How? It was meant to be a demonstration of human nature with no consequences. It shows that some number of people are only good because of the rules of society holding them back from doing evil and immoral things, rather than having an innate sense of right and wrong.
Jamie Owns These people who create art at a higher level more or less are just laundering money, there honestly is so little talent or work behind most of these artists that they shouldn’t be worth nearly as much.
Jamie Owns Yeah, I agree with you there. I consider myself an artist and I don't think I could ever put up a banana and duct tape it to a wall while still living with myself. Hopefully people will start making changes about their preferences and have some more realistic standards.
Always loved the writing of this show...the dialog after the "paint thinner" video is just top-notch. Also, sorry 13...the woman is crazy. Any sane person would try to escape from someone trying to set them on fire...that's public suicide. Not very healthy!!
@@additiveartificer9365 ... that's almost exactly what I said, "her character Shala Ra'an" . Im aware she was in Mass Effect, which is why I referenced her exact character.
*Almost sets herself on fire* Art So, Inquisition was a huge Art Organisation of medieval Europe. Great! i thought they were religious nutters for a second
@@ObitoUchiha10089 technically he cant do it on every house episode uploaded to youtube! cause there actually was an episode where it was lupus. so he probably wrote the opposite XD
It seems like almost all of my favorite series have Shoreh Aghdashloo in it and I just realize this now when I'm rewatching them! Her voice is just so iconic.
@@strike_true Notice no one in the gallery tried to stop the arsonist. It doesn't matter if he was real or not. The work offered the people the chance to become active subjects instead of passive viewers, but none would. It forces you to think about your relationship with art, with others, your own passivity when facing violence. Would you have stopped him? Why not? Would you have outside the gallery? In real life? Why would we separate the gallery from real life? It is a simple piece but an effective one.
That woman in almost literally Marina Abramovic. Marina is a performance artist and once she stood for 6 hours in a museum with loads of equipment on a table and people could do whatever they wanted. Some undressed her, cut her and one guy was eventually kicked out when he put a loaded gun to her head. She didn't get mad tho 😅
I was just reading her bio because of another comment about her on here where it said the guy also had her lightly pull the trigger after having her put it to her head. Since she is 75 now I would say that it was loaded with blanks, if at all. Otherwise, unless the gun misfired or was jammed, she would have been unalived.
Notice no one in the gallery tried to stop the arsonist. It doesn't matter if he was real or not. The work offered the people the chance to become active subjects instead of passive viewers, but none would. It forces you to think about your relationship with art, with others, your own passivity when facing violence. Would you have stopped him? Why not? Would you have outside the gallery? In real life? Why would we separate the gallery from real life? It is a simple piece but an effective one.
The thing is the laws against battery and depraved indifference are still in effect. Even if she gives permission, if someone does her serious bodily harm, they still get arrested and prosecuted.
These thumbnails I swear to god how I LOL whenever I see the thumbnail and the tittle.. You edit the best shots from that episode into these marvelous pieces that work with the tittle so well its unimaginable
Am I the only one thinking that 13 sounded kind of pretentious when talking about the artist? I don't care if you're trying to break from the rational, you need to have a fucking CAT scan if you're willing to get set on fire.
Not really. It may be easy to judge her because you think “Why would anyone do that? I would never do that.” People have very different ways of dealing with certain things. Don’t believe me? Look up the monk who set himself on fire in public during the day as a form of protest.
@@darklordxerinic Yes. As a form of protest against a regime that treated him, and his fellow Buddhists, as second class citizens. He set himself on fire for a cause he believed in, that being, drawing attention to the state of Buddhist life in South Vietnam, which was basically a parade of violations of their life and liberty, because they weren't Catholics. It's a bit different than doing it as an artform with no directed purpose.
@@weebjeez My argument is that this woman’s belief in/devotion to her art is similar to the monk’s in his religion. Even if we think she’s being ridiculous, she clearly doesn’t. *Keep in mind I’m replying to the OP’s opinion that you are insane and not of sound mind if you’re willing to set yourself on fire.*
I think that humans are primal creatures if we are allowed to be what we truly are, but she wasn't sane either, by allowing someone to light her on fire she wants it as much as the person wanted it.
It fits perfectly with Thirteen’s personality. Thirteen has shown an intense interest/commitment to the idea of sticking by your beliefs/convictions no matter what, even if there is a physical or legal risk. Its consistent writing, which is one of the things that made this show great- developed characters with mostly consistent personalities/actions. And even though I really love Thirteen’s character, I agree with Chase. I don’t want to watch someone immolate.
@@anjelica948 neither would I!!! Thats got to be horrible! I mean, I’ve seen some horrible stuff in Afghanistan and Kosovo but it doesn’t mean I’d WANT to see it again!
The actual diagnosis was brain cancer and she knew. It was why she shaved her head and made it a public statement so people wouldn't see her hair fall out because of it.
I don't think I've ever hated art or an artist as much as when I watched this video. The whole thing is just a bunch of garbage, even the explanations made me roll my eyes out of my head.
The fact that the video made you: 1) feel hate to art, 2) feel like hating the artist, 3) think about art as garbage and, 4) it made you roll your eyes; it's proof that art can provoke stimulus on people.
Just when I think I've seen every episode, a "new" one comes along. I don't understand, but...at the same time, I'm not even mad. I get new (to me) episodes to watch!
"she probably huffed paint thinner" Are we going to ignore the fact that she was literally coated in paint thinner during the video and almost lit on fire?
It’s these kinds of performances that make me think of the Penn and Teller approach to their performances. They’re upfront and obvious about their magic being fake because it’s morally and ethically wrong to make the audience complicit in needless violence. When you actually invite the audience to cause harm, you are doing something terrible. I don’t really know a thing about art, so perhaps that’s the intention.
