Other than the loaded messages about release of control, Stockholm syndrome, and the provoking case concerning legalities of Sado-Masochism, the documentation of this art was very adulatory to it's cause. This is because the Art withholds a mixture of mediums such as moving image, sculpture, installation and performance. In doing so this creates an 'alternative reality', and an alternative reality cannot be experienced to a genuine level through documentation. For example a photo of a piece of installation work will not fulfil the same or possibly any depth of concept that being involved and situated within the installation will. Therefore recording work that involves installation and/or performance should only be seen as documentation rather than another medium to express the same concept.
---
Possible examples explaining this idea are, Magritte's "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" where he comments on a painting of a pipe being a painting of a pipe and not an actual pipe. More real life examples could be credited with the idea of visiting a country and taking photos. The photos will usually give an incorrect view of the country and not envelop the viewer in an alien reality.
---
Further reading i found interesting (about the court case that provoked 'kidnap')
"The main case in relation to the issue of said-masochism is Brown and Others (1994), the defendants were members of a group of sado-masochist homosexuals who participated in violent acts against each other for sexual pleasure over a period of years. They were convicted of actual bodily harm under section 47 and wounding under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. They appealed on the basis of consent but were unsuccessful, both the Court of Appeal and House of Lords deciding that consent was not a valid defence in the circumstances. Lord Templeman stated: “The violence of sado-masochistic encounters involves the indulgence of cruelty by sadists and the degradation of victims. Such violence is injurious to the participants and unpredictably dangerous. I am not prepared to invent a defence of consent for sado-masochistic encounters which breed and glorify cruelty and result in offences under sections 47 and 20 of the Act of 1861…Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence.”
The main arguments presented against allowing the defence of consent for sado-masochism were the potential dangers of such activities, moral objections to the defendants’ activities and the possible corruption of young people as a result of such activities. These arguments support Dr Jepson’s statement that: “Consent should never be a valid defence when it comes to actual/serious offences against the person”, but are specifically in relation to the issue of sado-masochism.
The argument that the state should not interfere with those conducting sado-masochistic activities in private, with consent of the victim, due to the rights and freedoms of the individual has been largely unsuccessful. Although Article 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that ‘Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life’, Article 8(2) limits this, allowing the intervention of public authorities due to the need for national security or public safety or for the protection of health or morals, or rights and freedoms of others, and the European Court of Human Rights upheld the decision in Brown and Others."
Lisa Incledon - February 2005
No comments:
Post a Comment