QUESTIONS POSED BY BELLA TODD ON Disability Arts Online ON 13th March 2014
http://www.disabilityartsonline.org.uk/creative-minds-review
- What sorts of feedback have learning disabled artists found genuinely meaningful and constructive? How should we balance the responsibility to lift aspirations without the danger of crushing them?
- As critics we look for what is distinctive. If some of what is distinctive about a performer derives from their learning disability, how should the critic approach this?
- What sorts of creative choices made by learning disabled artists are ‘mainstream’ critics most in danger of overlooking and undervaluing?
- To those learning disabled artists who want the audience to know that they are learning disabled: where do we draw the line between incorporating an informed awareness of the specific challenges you face as an artist, and the patronising act of ‘making allowances’?
- Now that all artists are expected to be self-publicists, do blogs and other platforms provide an opportunity for learning disabled artists to enhance people’s understanding and appreciation of their work with commentary and context… or yet another accessibility barrier?
- Is too much learning-disabled art being made in a creative vacuum? How often do learning disabled artists get to be audience members, or the opportunity and encouragement to be critics themselves?
- How much value does the 250-words-and-a-star-rating reviewing system of the shrinking mainstream press have for you anyway? It’s old and cold. Do you think there might be a better way?
The Times art critic was so impressed by Corali’s performance at Creative Minds he booked them for an event he is putting on, info here: https://www.facebook.com/creativemindsproject?ref=hl
He says that “I did not label either John or Corali as learning disabled as my feeling is they’re dancers and a company first and foremost and that status as artists, makers and performers is what counts”.
The questions of quality and also inclusion are really interesting to me and I had some interesting discussions throughout the day with all kinds of people; which I suppose is one of the aims of such a gathering. To discuss, progress your thinking and then action a more comprehensive view in your work whatever that may be.
I’m still quite conflicted though in that, for instance, I fully support the Oska Bright committee’s policy to “exclude” work from non learning disabled film makers so as not to bump out contributions from learning disabled film makers I would argue that this consequently fortifies the “learning disabled arts community”…….and yet a large part of me thinks that the way forward is to be inclusive in the arts wherever possible: That is one or another way the way to “get the work out there” (a phrase which cropped up a lot at the conference) I suppose the answer is maybe that there is room for all sorts of models of project within this sphere.
RE quality and getting work “out there” Just some thoughts:
Firstly is there an “out there” that is worth visiting with your art?
Secondly, I think that all artists in whatever sphere, regardless of disability, operate on levels which can be defined by the amount and type of validation they get from an audience. The quality and quantity of this validation will then result in a greater or lesser amount of exposure/fame/notoriety.
The problem with seeking or receiving validation for your work or even for your life if your art is very personal, is the cultural world we live in. Unfortunately it is my view that large parts of the 21st century British cultural landscape are dominated by blandness, conformity and a blind acceptance that competition in the arts is a good thing. Funding for arts within this landscape is a whole other issue. My experience is also that disability arts, within this landscape, is very rarely presented in the mainstream media as anything other than a very patronising slow motion montage of ersatz emotional “journeys” soundtracked by Snow Patrol or Coldplay.
Returning to levels: An artist’s profile kind of averages out into “a single level” So you could say that a band that plays 200 gigs a year worldwide to sell-out audiences in excess of 5000 is operating on a higher level than a “successful” local band who play 50 gigs a year to an average audience of 70 to 100 people. The defining factor of quality in this case is probably commercial but it may well be critical as well. There may well be an audience that would prefer to see the local band in a pub, to Bryan Adams at the 02 arena. It’s all getting a bit complex……But within the described cultural landscape, Bryan Adams is seen as “better” than the local band. As being of better quality.
So what are the defining factors of quality and where would a learning disabled band or a band with members both with and without disabilities fit, in a mainstream cultural world?
Does any artist regardless of disability need to address these defining factors at all?
If an artist needs the support of others to facilitate them to exhibit, perform or work at all, who decides whether critical or commercial success is the aim? Or whether there is an aim at all, apart from self expression cartharsis etc.
I would respectfully suggest that all these questions are for all artists to address at some time or another.