Gray Zone: Watching Shoot

Q1: I find it interesting that after Chris Burden performed Shoot, everyone called him a martyr, a heroic victim, etc.; all quick to label him under something that people could understand rather than looking at the meaning behind his art piece. Thus his artwork becoming a spectacle more than anything else. People were fascinated and interested in what he did because no one has ever put themselves in a position to intentionally get shot. Later in Frazer Ward's article he mentions if the final outcome of the artpiece were to change and Chris Burden died, then the reaction from the public would be the complete opposite of fascination, they would most likely disapprove and ridicule. So I wonder why people don't see that possibility and still ridicule him? Does this show mindless the public can be? Does it take something serious and dangerous for people to wake up and realize what is not a spectacle? I feel like this reaction from public can be compared to their reaction to the rest of the world and real life situations. Because violence is so common people don't do anything until there are real consequences, like when killings of Jews was finally called a genocide. Is this what Frazer Ward is talking about when he talks about the responsibility of the audience?

Q2: Burden claims that his art pieces are private, but he said in order to execute his work he must tell the public. If he does this, he then has an obligation but when it comes to the actual viewing of his performances, there are only a couple of people allowed in the audience therefore creating a private work. Frazer explains that this means that his work is sort of public as well and creates a 'primary and secondary audience'. I'm not sure if i understand what he is trying to say about the relationship between the private and the public. I understand the responsibility of the private audience, but what is the responsibility of the public?