Reading #2 discusses the use of Classical portraiture, which is a traditionally elite art form, to give 'social capital' to disabled persons and counteract the negative effects of past images of disability--freak show, charity marketing, and medical photographs. How affective do you think this strategy will be?
Reading #3 describes the Cambodian Landmine Museum and the efforts of its founder to bring attention to the collateral damage caused by landmines and to assist survivors. Click HERE to visit the website. Although the Museum serves its community well and also attracts tourist attention, thus increasing awareness, do you think that images of broken and impoverished landmine victims work to perpetuate the misconception that disabled persons are to be pitied and treated as charity cases?
Re: Question 2
ReplyDeleteI think it is clear that some of these new images ARE changing how people view those with disabilities. However, at the moment, I am not sure that they are working to a positive end. It is too soon for that. I think for now these pieces are simply stirring up feelings, some negative and some neutral.
The trouble, I think, with the portraits is that the subjects are too modern to get the point across. And connection to past portraits is too subtle. From my non-art background, I think part of the respect people pay to "masterpiece portraits" comes from their age. In a time prior to photographs, they were most likely appreciated by their contemporaries as well because this was the only way to capture a likeness. But today, at least for me, even an oil painting of a current president seems a little wrong...not quite as elevated of a status as older pieces. My immediate feelings with some of the examples from the book are the same - the artist chose this subject to paint...but the intended elevation of the subject is lost on me because it seems like an outdated medium for conveying the power of an individual. I suspect that if the same poses, framing, perspectives were used in a photograph instead, my reaction may be different. The image would seem more powerful. Perhaps, with time and age, the painted portraits would be elevated in status and bring the power to the subjects that the artist is intending.
The more interesting example to me is the Alison Lapper statue, which is much less subtle because of the medium. My immediate reaction to it was that it reminded me of the Venus de Milo...a connection later made in the article. There is something about the white marble that makes the subject seem much more important and forces you to pay attention to it. I loved the author's articulation: "ALP suggests we read the VdM as an amputee... The VdM suggests we read Alison Lapper as a beautiful woman." Without people being able to put a finger on it, I think this is the place where most of the reactions to the piece comes from, whether or not their specifically connect to the VdM. The connection of this piece to classical art stirs emotion and much of the negative reaction to it is probably because it puts people in an uncomfortable space. It creates a new status for disability that we are not used to seeing...or is some minds, it devalues the classical work...and we have to grapple with those feelings.
Over time, I think these pieces will become part of the landscape and people will not consider them different anymore. This may be the point in time when the negative images are practically gone and these newer represenations of disability are not considered as groundbreaking. I wonder, then, if the negative images will reemerge with new and different meanings attached to them.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments on the topics covered so far!
ReplyDeleteI will be posting a full review to chapters 1-7 in about a week and will respond to your input as well :)