Watching Shoot

Question 1: Frazer makes a short mention towards the end of the article about how Buren's wound, and the bullet used, sort connects the interior and exterior -making the environment and his body continuous. I feel like this analysis is sort of a stretch, reflecting some of the other fragmented analyses and experiences reported and discussed. Is this example analogous to the interdependence and relationship between public and private in this "performance"? Does the bullet do the same sort of damage and blurring of lines that Shoot does for America's cultural and public identity?

Question 2: The author goes into a lot of detail about the public/private delineation in Buren's "work", how in this case, the viewers, the audience becomes equal to the general public through their passivity and generality (that no one in the audience, or even Buren's friend, is named). I understand that there is a primary and secondary audience, and that the issues of responsibility and ethics fall primarily on the immediate crowd. However I still am confused as to what this means for the general public, then and now (without the Vietnam war background)? I think it's also interesting, although kind of dismal, when Frazer describes Shoot as a public in miniature of the real world - our subservient nature to being governed and passively agreeing to it all. Obviously the scene has changed since then - mass media is even more prominent than ever and the backdrop of the Vietnam War is no longer there (although replaced with new backdrops..) Is this how the American public still is? Can Shoot still be called a "public in miniature" of our country?