I found this interesting site yesterday. Gill Crawshaw’s idea of using textiles to speak about the experience of disability, and the concept of shoddy is a clever and engaging one.
The author posted a variety of definitions of what disability art is and does (here) and while I agree with some of the definitions wholeheartedly others need qualification. For example, I would agree with Alan Sutherland’s view that disabled art is not therapeutic in the way that he uses the term (ie as an activity to keep disabled people occupied) but would argue that it can be therapeutic in term of giving voice to our experiences.
Then Disability Art’s Cymru provides an interesting contrast “The term ‘arts and disability’ is used to describe arts projects specially set up for disabled people, but usually led by non-disabled people… Arts and disability does not seek to reflect the experiences of disabled people’s lives in the same way that disability arts does.”
However the issue of what is or what isn’t disability art is not my main consideration at the moment. Indeed I can’t think of a time and point where such a definition would be of importance when making art, (while it does offer value when discussing art). My thoughts today are concerned with my intended audience and reaching out to them.
It’s as black and white as that. However the question of how I do this is somthing I will need to address over the coming months.
anomiepete 