Reading #11 This chapter describes a photo exhibition hosted by NYC’s Museum of Sex. Its focus was disability and sexuality, and the photographs represent disabled people ‘s views of their own sexuality. In general, the topics of sex and disability can stand alone as controversial subject matter, and together, they can work to make the public very uncomfortable. An unexpected reaction to the exhibition actually came from local disability groups that were very upset with the use of the word ‘handicapped’ in marketing materials. They were also offended by
the labels in the exhibit which identified each person’s disability, even though the people portrayed in the photos all agreed that it was important to provide that information because many of their disabilities are not apparent. Disability groups threatened a boycott of the exhibit and museum. According to the author, disability organizations were contacted during the planning stages, but communication between the museum and organizations slowed, eventually dropping off completely. The museum assumed that the organizations were not interested in being consultants. Did the disability community react too harshly, especially since the museum tried to include them in the planning process? In a situation like this, whose responsibility was it to keep the line of communication open?
This link is to the photographer’s website, and a sampling of photos used in the exhibition is available under “Intimate Encounters.” Please be advised that some images contain full male or female nudity. http://www.belindamason.com/
Reading #12 is about an exhibit highlighting the life and work of activist and cartoonist Everett Soop, who was also disabled and confined to a wheelchair. Soop was a very straightforward kind of guy, and very deliberate and direct in voicing his ideals. His quotes supplement this chapter. One in particular grabbed my attention: “Self-determination requires healing, and healing means no longer pushing unpleasant realities under the carpet.”
How does this quote relate to museum professionals’ potential to act as active agents of social change in developing new ways of viewing and perceiving disability?
Reading #13 “Face to Face” describes using portraiture to document before, during and after images of patients undergoing reconstructive facial surgery. Paintings were made during a two year project and exhibited at the National Portrait Gallery in London, and a few other regional art galleries. Facial disfigurement is not an anonymous disability, and staring is often a sensitive subject for people with disfigurements. By separating the image of disfigured individuals from the living person using the medium of oil on canvas, do you think this is an effective approach to make it acceptable to stare? Do you think that providing a comfortable context in which visitors are allowed to truly look and reflect on the differences in visual appearance serves to change their perception of disability?
You can read more about the exhibition and see some of the
paintings HERE.
the labels in the exhibit which identified each person’s disability, even though the people portrayed in the photos all agreed that it was important to provide that information because many of their disabilities are not apparent. Disability groups threatened a boycott of the exhibit and museum. According to the author, disability organizations were contacted during the planning stages, but communication between the museum and organizations slowed, eventually dropping off completely. The museum assumed that the organizations were not interested in being consultants. Did the disability community react too harshly, especially since the museum tried to include them in the planning process? In a situation like this, whose responsibility was it to keep the line of communication open?
This link is to the photographer’s website, and a sampling of photos used in the exhibition is available under “Intimate Encounters.” Please be advised that some images contain full male or female nudity. http://www.belindamason.com/
Reading #12 is about an exhibit highlighting the life and work of activist and cartoonist Everett Soop, who was also disabled and confined to a wheelchair. Soop was a very straightforward kind of guy, and very deliberate and direct in voicing his ideals. His quotes supplement this chapter. One in particular grabbed my attention: “Self-determination requires healing, and healing means no longer pushing unpleasant realities under the carpet.”
How does this quote relate to museum professionals’ potential to act as active agents of social change in developing new ways of viewing and perceiving disability?
Reading #13 “Face to Face” describes using portraiture to document before, during and after images of patients undergoing reconstructive facial surgery. Paintings were made during a two year project and exhibited at the National Portrait Gallery in London, and a few other regional art galleries. Facial disfigurement is not an anonymous disability, and staring is often a sensitive subject for people with disfigurements. By separating the image of disfigured individuals from the living person using the medium of oil on canvas, do you think this is an effective approach to make it acceptable to stare? Do you think that providing a comfortable context in which visitors are allowed to truly look and reflect on the differences in visual appearance serves to change their perception of disability?
You can read more about the exhibition and see some of the
paintings HERE.
No comments:
Post a Comment