OUT OF OURSELVES<\/p>\n
.<\/span><\/p>\n 1990<\/p>\n .<\/span><\/p>\n .<\/span><\/p>\n Last month we featured a review of the highly Starting on a practical and well wheeled (I mean well The exhibition was called “Out of Ourselves” which This leads me to ask several questions. Is there a It Is my assumption that the answer to these questions lies One of the thoughts that struck me after the “Out of Finally, as I originally stated, this exhibition has been OUT OF OURSELVES . 1990 . . Last month we featured a review of the highly invigorating “Out of Ourselves” exhibition. SIMON SMITH, whose work was Included, now gives us an artist’s eye view of the event. Starting on a practical and well wheeled (I mean well trodden) subject, the most common and most ironic…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"cybocfi_hide_featured_image":"","footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-2225","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/simonsdiary.co.uk\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2225","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/simonsdiary.co.uk\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/simonsdiary.co.uk\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/simonsdiary.co.uk\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/simonsdiary.co.uk\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2225"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/simonsdiary.co.uk\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2225\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2226,"href":"https:\/\/simonsdiary.co.uk\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2225\/revisions\/2226"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/simonsdiary.co.uk\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2225"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n
\ninvigorating “Out of Ourselves” exhibition.
\nSIMON SMITH, whose work was Included,
\nnow gives us an artist’s eye view of the event.<\/p>\n
\ntrodden) subject, the most common and most ironic
\ncriticism of the Gallery was its poor access facilities.
\nThe temperamental lift (which had to be operated by
\na member of staff) was mistaken for an exhibit on a
\nnumber of occasions, but was fine if you were an
\narcheologist. The gradient of the ramps inside the
\ngallery must have been designed by a company
\ncalled “Psycho Paths” who get their kicks from (no,
\nnot Route Sixty Six”) but counting the skid marks
\nfrom our of control wheelchairs. L.D.A.F., didn’t
\ndesign the Gallery and were simply taking advantage
\nof an opportunity to use the gallery. Better an
\nexhibition with crappy access than no exhibition. But
\nit does leave rather a bitter taste when an organisation
\nsuch as L.D.A.F. can’t set an example.<\/p>\n
\nwas supposed to be sattrising the stereotyped image
\nof the disability art exhibition. Unfortunately the Joke
\nmay have been a little too obscure for most people
\nbut then most of the work was obscure. For ex-
\nample a lot of people were floundering on the
\nmeanings behind Tony Heaton’s “Six Circles’. This
\nwas a set of five blocks of wood, basically a ring
\nmade from placing five tree stumps On an imaginary
\ncircle. They were placed in such a position that a
\ngroove cut in the tops of these stumps when aligned
\ncorrectly formed the sixth circle. also the wood had
\nbeen deemed “no good” by the wood’s suppliers and
\nthe flaw in the wood was set up to form the letter “I”.
\n“This is all very well if you’re in the know but…….”
\nI would imagine hearing\u00a0 the viewers get as far as
\nsaying “I think it’s about wholeness”, but then,
\nout of feeling unsure of their interpretation, would
\nleave their enquiry into the work half baked. Originally
\nL.D.A.F., had\u00a0 intended there to be a catalogue in
\nwhich the artists would give some assistance to the
\nviewer. Tony Heaton had for example written at length
\nabout his work, explaining that the Six Circles were
\nallegorical of society, that the ghettos in society (and
\ndisability is one such ghetto) should not be ignored
\nbecause each ghetto is an integral part of that society’s
\nmake-up. Of course people were reading “other things”
\ninto the work, such as the association of wheels and
\nwheelchairs, or the concept of there being no need of
\na physical completeness to be whole. “Other things” that
\nMr Heaton accepts as the viewers prerogative to
\nattempt a discovery of the artists unconscious intentions.
\nBut for many people these ideas were unseen or ignored.<\/p>\n
\nconnection between disability and the work in a
\ndisability arts show? Is it enough to say that because
\nand artist has a disability that it is disability art? Does
\npresenting non disability art make a sham of the
\nartist because it indicated that the artist cannot
\nsurvive, as an artist without a disability would, in the
\noutside art world? Does grouping people together
\nand showing non~disability related work begin to look
\nlike a stand against misrepresentation and more like
\nthe patronising exhibitions put on by Mr and Mrs
\nBigot who “like to do their bit for the spastics”? And
\nfinally does the subject matter override the quality
\n(or lack of it) of the work?<\/p>\n
\nin the context of the exhibition and the type of audience it
\nis aimed at. Regarding the “Out Of Ourselves” exhibition
\nit is my personal belief that some work was out of context
\nregarding its subject matter and some regarding the quality
\nof its form. who am I to say? what criteria am I using to make
\nsuch comments? The Importance of criteria cannot
\nbe understated here. Because It really comes into
\nplay when as an organisation one starts to present
\noneself to a mainstream audience or a non-disability
\naudience. When we come together (instead of being
\nput together) to present our art as a “political”
\ngesture, and to try to develop our audiences understanding
\nof disability, then we must present ourselves
\nas competent otherwise we shall encourage a
\npatronising attitude to the work. But what criteria
\nshall we use to judge what is competent? This whole
\nsubject area begs the question that If (big IF) the
\nmainstream contemporary art world can make
\ndecisions on quality, then what’s to stop us?
\nMaybe one thing is a super Sensitivity we have to the
\nconcept of discrimination, we are so hurt by it that
\nwe’re petrified of applying it to ourselves or our
\nfellow artists. In my eyes this attitude of being overly
\ncautious when it comes to even constructive criticism
\ndoes a lot of people a lot of harm and comes from
\nan idea that some people can’t take it (that life has
\ndealt them enough problems already!). In some cases
\nthis may be true but with sensitivity to an individual (so
\nas not to destroy their incentive to continue) I think
\nwe could all be a bit more constructive, critically
\nspeaking of course.<\/p>\n
\nOurselves” exhibition was that the Disability Arts
\nmovement needed a spearhead group of artists from
\nall the fields of art, a group that could survive in the
\nmainstream, as an artistic branch of the
\ndisability political movement. With artists such as
\nLucy Jones, Nancy Willis, Tony Heaton, and Adam
\nReynolds, who already have their feet in the door
\nof the mainstream art world, we are not at a loss for
\nartists, some of whom were not given a fair show at
\nthe Diorama and others who did not exhibit in it.
\nI saw some of the Work presented but not exhibited
\nand was angered at the tack of opportunity to show
\nsuch interesting and well made work. Amongst these
\nwas Andrew Lisicki’s drawing of a figure in a room.
\nThis was done with scribbled lines and was making
\na point about people saying I can’t draw a straight line,
\nabout technical competence. There was a painting
\ncalled “vulnerable” by Mike O’Flara (?) depicting
\nthe vulnerability of an old blind woman. And Gill
\nGerhardt’s “Mummy look at that funny” and the
\nlist goes on. The point I’m making is that for a disability
\narts exhibition where the target audience is able bodied it
\nshould be taken into account that for some visitors the journey is
\nhard and long so to arrive to find only a small number of works was
\ndisappointing. Quality, not quantity, I hear you call, but what I’m
\nsaying is that we could have had them both. However, to be fair to
\nthe organisers some of the blame goes to the spectators. Some people
\nwere hungry for more but didn’t give what was available the time
\nIt deserved. Had they done so and had there been more literature to
\nhelp them I believe they would have felt better about the exhibition as a whole.<\/p>\n
\nprovocative, in a positive sense. It has helped the
\norganisers to understand what is desired in future
\nand just as importantly, it has brought the artists into
\na closer contact with one another. Unlike so many
\nother disability art shows in the past I feel confident
\nthat this one will be followed up. Disability art is
\npotentially full of the most profound subject areas,
\nand the artists are available, if they so desire, to work
\nin this field. I don’t think that we will be fighting for
\nthe opportunity to have our say ‘when the eloquence
\nwith which we speak attracts the audience of its own
\naccord. A good deal of the work at the Diorama
\nspoke with such eloquence.
\nSIMON SMITH<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"