Burden's burden

In his article, Ward provides an analysis of artistic implications and social relationships to the fomenting and execution of Shoot as an artistic performance. More appropriately defined as a spectacle, Shoot relied on the collaboration and “acquiescence” of the audience, the marksman, and Burden himself. However, towards the conclusion of his article, Ward identifies the requirement of a “public-in-miniature” for this reenactment of an individual shot. But if Ward had identified the audience as an essential component in showing fascination to the intrepid act, why then does he characterize them as a “public-in-miniature”? In this term, is he referring to the quantitative size of Shoot’s audience or their general passivity to the hazardous performance? Had Shoot been carried out in front of 20,000 spectators at AT&T Park, would the audience still be considered a “public-in-miniature”? Whether Baroque paintings or empirical minimalist performances, an artwork is never experienced or interpreted by an entire society. So, is the role of an audience itself minimalist? Would it not be essential?

Ward allocates extensive discourse to distinguishing between public and private audience and how its representations influence the perception of Shoot as a performance. He claims that Burden executed a private act which required of a public audience “in the sense of an interested, participant group” (123). However, in terms of Shoot as a performance, is the sense of obligation by the artist (in this case, Burden) to provide an act of significant interest intensified with larger audiences? Had a hundred individuals witnessed Shoot, would the act’s empirical nature is lessened?