Performance art is pretty much a social science experiment as it is an art form. Life Sharing (2000) by couple artists Eva and Franco Mattes can be considered as such. And this particular experiment strikes deep in to the notion of “peep culture”. Suppose you have an irresistibly attractive neighbour living next door. Then one particular day he/she neglected to drawn the curtains when changing and you happen to chance upon it. How many of you would turn your head away instead of embracing you inner voyeur? (Not many I guess.) That is the point of many art work involving the privacy of the artists themselves as medium. Can you control your desire to “peep”? Most of us have a certain degree of moral decency. We know that actions like hiding in the changing room to drool at people changing is wrong and will likely  land you in jail. But this “peep culture” within our society is not something we can reject with our moral sense.  Especially in the third space called the internet where we have the shield of “anonymity” to protect us from being discovered, the “peep culture” runs deep into our very cyber-vein.  Life Sharing (2000) proves just that. The artists lay bare their activities and private life in their computer for all to see. It’s like someone streaking in the street asking for indecent act to be perform on him/her. He/she is asking for it. Does it make you right to go ahead and actually do it? Same goes for this work. Even if the artists ask for it, is it okay for any of us to practically intrude their private space? To many people, it is perfectly fine. Simply look at the statistic posted in the main site: http://0100101110101101.org/life-sharing/  In contemporary context, we have our social network to thanks for perpetuating the “peep culture”. The phenomenon of life sharing has become so common today that people literally post everything about their life sans bank account or password. So the question is how much can we share before we thread the sensitive zone. Life Sharing may not be as relevant as it was back in 2000 AD where social media barely thrived. But it strikes a chord because the artists revealed  details that most cyber users would not dare to. And it is inevitable that malicious individuals will exploit those revelations. Some people simply do it because they can. A girl neglected to set her birthday event to private. And a random guy who chance upon it thought it was a great idea to invite 3000 random people to said event. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206919/Riot-Facebook-party-attended-thousands.html#v-1854693716001 Even the untimely death of some arbitrary young boy or a young girl can become the brunt of ridicule and jokes. People were hurt, reputations were tarnished, and they are irreversible. The risk of artworks like Life Sharing can potentially be of catastrophic level for the artists. Is it worth it to run into such risks for the sake of proving some point? As I mentioned earlier, performance art pieces are pretty much social experiment. They produced results that grant us a “peep” into the human condition.  And chance are, we’ll be peeping at Medusa riding a wrecking ball instead of Venus de Milo.