Yes I am failing to understand the subtext other people are reading into this piece, and haven't seen a single comment attempt to explain it. What is the chain of logic that leads from "it says to do whatever I want" to "I will attack"?

I wasn't there and didn't attack anybody, but the chain of logic suggested is that Abramović was known for works involving bodily discomfort, injury and risk, and that it was reasonable to assume she intended this piece to be in a similar vein. In that context, placing dangerous objects on a table and saying "one can use [them] on me as desired" is not just saying the objects exist, in the same way that saying "do you have any ketchup?" is not just asking whether your host possesses ketchup.

I can see why somebody might be uncomfortable with the general shape of argument from a "victim blaming" point of view. If you genuinely don't understand it then again, not trying to be a dick here but perhaps you don't understand subtext and intent in the way most people do.

Thank you, this is a good explanation, but it isn't addressing my core point. I understand that Abramovic intentionally put herself in a vulnerable position, and that the instructions and weapons are intended to say something like "you could hurt me with these". What I am still not understanding is the transition from "could" to "should". The context, that this is an art piece and the artist has performatively hurt herself in the past, to me reinforces the idea that I shouldn't actually hurt her. To me the message is "I could, but we're both human beings so obviously I won't". To me, someone who takes it so literally that they actually attack is missing the subtext and context that this is art, this is a performance, this is a person and not a statue. They are failing to understand the difference between could and should.

The question I responded to is: "At least two thirds of the table is covered in various instruments of harm. What does that say to the viewer?" I maintain that "it says I'm supposed to hurt her" is not a rational answer. With the additional context that she usually hurts herself in these performances, it is understandable to have that thought, but not understandable or rational to act on it. I can think of lots of art that is intended to make you think about your capacity to hurt innocent people, but none that is intended to make you actually act on that.

Let me put it one other way: the commenter I initially replied to said that the presence of weapons on the table is useful context that should explain the actions of the audience members. I disagree, I don't think the presence of weapons is relevant at all or provides any amount of justification. I think the context you provided, that she usually hurts herself, is useful and does change my interpretation of her intent, but it still doesn't justify what anybody did. I still don't understand why somebody would choose to attack her. I also am a little bit skeptical that the audience would have been familiar with her other work. I'm not sure how the audience was chosen, but I don't believe the average person would have any idea who she was.

This is art. Think about writing a book, directing a TV show, or putting on a play. What should happen? There should probably be intrigue, emotion, and excitement. Very likely violence and evil. We should explore a broad spectrum of emotion. It's perfectly likely that most of what we explore is negative emotion, because originality is hard and positive emotion is arguably over-explored if you look at art as a whole through all of human history.

But this isn't just some mass-produced movie or family-friendly Broadway production. This is the cutting edge of art. It's supposed to challenge us. So perhaps we'll go beyond merely pretending at violence and do a tiny bit of actual violence. It's plausible, from a participant's perspective, that the creator of the piece intended that.

That's what I imagine the participants are thinking, anyways. They aren't just average folks of the street, after all, they're attendees at a crazy art exhibit. They've got to compete with people who hang themselves up by hooks driven through their skin, people who bite the heads of bats during rock concerts, and people who whip each other bloody in sadist orgies.

I'm not really clear what "supposed to" or "should" mean here. I'm pretty certain the audience would've understood it was expected that Abramović would sustain some sort of injury or discomfort, in line with her other pieces. I very much doubt anybody would subject themselves to a six hour performance without any idea what to expect. If nobody had obliged, I think it's fair to assume Abramović would've left disappointed, and would probably not be the conceptual art superstar she is today.

There's a whole world of consensual injury that to be honest I'm fairly personally prudish about, but nobody is making either of us participate in it. If people want to do it, if I'm honest I'm slightly judgmental but I feel like I should be less so.

As a performance artist myself, I think there is definitely an aspect of "the audience should hurt me a little bit, or at the very least threaten harm". Why are people fascinated with fire breathers, motorcycle jumpers, escape artists, etc? It's the thrill of risk.

Even without knowledge of her or her works, there's a lot of context that says "the risk is the point".

By putting harmful items out on the table, she made a deliberate choice for risk to be involved. The audience knows this. They know if she wanted a "safe" performance, she would have limited her selection. If the worst items were glue and feathers, the implied worse outcome is making her look like a chicken. Embarrassing, but not a huge harm. She put out a gun and a bullet. That implies (but does not outright verbatim say) that the sky is the limit - shooting me is an acceptable outcome.

That establishes the conceptual limit, but there are still societal shackles on behavior. Which is where "it's all about the risk" comes in. More risk = more sensational news, more notoriety for the artist. Clearly she wants something crazy to happen, else she would not put herself in a crazy position. So the audience starts pushing the limits of what is acceptable. I don't think they are harming her out of a direct desire to cause her harm, per se (might be some sadists in the audience), but there is an expectation that the risk level should ratchet up. But that ratchet doesn't occur without audience participation.

I think this perspective actually tempers the "this piece shows all humans are terrible sadists deep down" interpretation. Just like the Milgram experiments, it boils down to the general principle of humans tending to do the thing they think is expected of them.