What it says to me is not necessarily "please attack me" but "I want to see what happens if you are offered these temptations, and this is most of what I am interested in during this performance".
It's quite dark. She could have offered many other more benign, creative, playful options.
Only ~6 of them are things that I would classify as "weapons", and maybe ~10 others are not weapons but things that you could obviously use to hurt her (scissors, needle, etc.) There was food, paint, clothes, makeup for anyone that wanted to do something benign and creative.
I disagree that the weapons were "temptations". It is not normal to be tempted to hurt someone merely because you have a weapon and opportunity.
You're quite sure you don't see the difference between (1) a decorative hunting rifle and (2) laying out a large array of weapons and other dangerous objects for an audience and saying the following to that audience?
> Instructions:
> There are 72 objects on the table that one can use on me as desired.
> Performance.
> I am the object.
> During this period I take full responsibility.
I agree it's not normal to want to hurt someone just because you have an opportunity, but you really don't see the artist doing anything to shift the possibilities of "normal", by phrasing the instructions in this way?
I do see a difference, I just don't agree that the intended message is "please literally hurt me". Even if you believe that is the intended message, it still isn't rational or acceptable to act on it.
It's quite dark. She could have offered many other more benign, creative, playful options.