Accessible Arts Disability Training Day

Yesterday courtesy of the Big Fag (thanks guys!), I attended a course on disability training at Accessible Arts run by Amanda Tink.

This was instigated by my project with John Demos, who's been doing a residency with our Press, funded by Arts NSW and administered by Accessible Arts.

There were quite a few things I learnt that I didn't know before. I generally treat everyone around me with respect, but when it comes a person with a disability, it's important to understand life from their perspective and make sure you know what phrases to use and how to approach them.

The section on stereotypes was one I was already very familiar with, but the section on communication was an important one for me. The difference, for example, between saying to a person who uses a wheelchair "do you need some help?" and "would you like some help?" is a good example because the idea of need perhaps takes away a little of their feelings of independence. That said, a person with a disability is not necessarily always in need of help - and they probably get asked that question about 10 times a day.

There's also many disabilities that are invisible. In fact, 1 in 5 Australians identify with having a disability, but the most prominent kinds of disabilities are psychological or health related. These people may find it difficult in work places as to whether or not to disclose their disability. Disclosure may mean they for example, would not prevail in a job interview. However should they not disclose, their disability may cause them difficulty at work.

Amanda played us this amazing video from the UK Disability Rights Commission: (you can find the second part on YouTube)

Language was also a key factor of the training session. Personally, I would never use words like spastic or retard, but I wasn't aware that perhaps a word like "handicapped" might cause offence. The best way to refer to people with impairments is to first regard them as a person, and to not assume anything about their life. So for example, you should say a "person with cerebral palsy" not "he suffers from cerebral palsy". You should not say "the deaf man", you should say "person who is deaf/ hearing impaired". And generally, it's better to find out a person's name! Also never talk about them as if they are not present, obviously. There's also things like being honest if you haven't understood what a person has said, and knowing the difference between simple language and moderate speed as opposed to talking to someone as if they were a child.

One thing that came up was how some people who are deaf sometimes don't consider themselves to have an impairment at all. Rather, that their ability to use sign language simply places them in a separate linguistic culture, one which has been extensively developed. I didn't know that before.

50 years ago being left handed was considered something of a disability. 20 years ago being gay meant you had a psychiatric condition. It's the society and world that shifts. It was interesting to look at how society has treated the issue of disability over time, beginning with a religious perspective that a person with an impairment must be so because he had sinned, or his family had sinned. Then from a medical perspective we would do the best for a person we could medically, and then they would just have to do the best they could to try and integrate within their family and get by.

The current model stemmed from the UK in the 70's where we think of people who have an impairment as not them being disabled, but rather than society itself is disabling them because of all the barriers they face, taking a wheelchair up stairs, or trying to find a cinema session that has audio captions.

Not many organisations have Disability Action Plans - only about 40% of arts organisations in Australia. It's important to understand that it's not a matter of building a ramp and hanging some audio tour headphones on the walls, it's about creating an environment that is entirely welcoming and not hostile through a range of means, both physical and emotional, and then, making the community of people with disabilities aware of those changes.

Anyway, I learnt a lot at the training session and I'm sure it will help me in my many current endeavours!

Review of Justin Shoulder & Collaborators: The River Eats

A couple of weeks ago Diego Bonetto printed Justin Shoulder's Poster for the River Eats on our Big Fag Press machine. The poster itself is amazing - one of the most intricate, visually engaging prints we've done.

As a thank you, Justin got Diego and I a couple of seats at the preview show at Performance Space a couple of weeks ago.

Poster for the River Eats, design by Matt Stegh, printed on the Big Fag Press

The River Eats is Justin Shoulder and collaborator's phantasmagorical performance which flabbergasts the audience with its somewhat trippy tale of a creature called Pinky who transforms from a histrionic self-obsessed attention whore into a mesmerising butterfly.

The scintillating performance is an overwhelming sensual experience - hypnotic light movements and dramatic music hold you spellbound while Pinky prances around in exquisite costumes undergoing her (its?) identity metamorphosis.

The audience sits disillusioned in a way that cannot quite be described in words, unsure of whether to laugh or clap, and half feeling like they may have fallen into a psychedelic dream or unknowingly consumed some illegal substance.

The River Eats was a confronting experience. The one word that came to my mind whilst watching was akrasia - the concept of acting against one's better judgement, despite conscious knowledge and prescience of events to come. This is a phenomenon which I think is present in many a mind's decision in the modern world. When this psychological conflict is applied to identity, we have people are caught in a constant battle between who they are, who they think they should be, and who society sees them to be.

Pinky is caught in this battle, and frolics from one spotlight to the next until (s)he is confronted by her equal and opposite identity, exorcises yearning for fame and fiction, and is eventually reborn into the character Oo - a beautiful black and pink butterfly whose force is derived from the river, from nature.

Justin Shoulder has created a plethora of strange creatures like Pinky, often inspired by various cultural traditions, fables, myths, stories and masquerade, and all with the intent to deconstruct how we emotionally relate to our reality.

Pinky specifically was derived from the idea in Taoism that identities have a sort of Yin and Yang, that every energy force has an equal opposite. Shoulder was also inspired by a visit to the Brazilian Amazon, which for him embodied notions of life and death, rebirth and decay.

The River Eats Trailer from Justin Shoulder on Vimeo.

Daddy's Little Princess

Daddy's Little Princess at Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre by Linda Wilken opened a couple of weeks ago. If you remember, I first met Linda by chance at the Firstdraft Depot where she was undertaking a residency and I was working at the Big fag Press. We discovered we had some conceptual ideas in common and I interviewed her for Ivory Tower Magazine last year (page 10 in this document).

Sexualisation and objectification of young girls is a current social and political issue. This exhibition represents the way young girls in contemporary western cultures develop their identity based on popular culture and stereotyping which begins in childhood. Influenced through magazines, music videos, social media and the internet, these ‘young consumers’ are being seduced into stylising themselves on hyper-sexualised ideals.

-From the Casula Powerhouse website

Here are some photos I took of Daddy's Little Princess.

[All photos are mine of Linda Wilken's work at Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre]

Mamamia

I was recently directed to this article by Amanda Dallimore on living with Anorexia via The Butterfly Foundation on facebook. It's great being connected to all these people doing fabulous things and telling true stories about body image - such a contrast to anything you'd find in any magazine.

I looked at doing an internship placement with mamamia.com.au earlier in the year when I was researching Mia Freedman as one of my inspirations. I actually just read an interview with her in the latest Dumbo Feather. I think the work she's done is amazing, and I may apply for that internship next year when I have more time.

Linda Wilken

I went over to Firstdraft Depot last week (where the Big Fag Press is located), to give a speech to some artists in residence who might be interested in doing some prints. I also sat in on talks give by the artists about their work and was particularly interested in Linda Wilken who looks at the sexualisation of young girls, and subverting gender roles which society presents us with in many ways. She's currently using imagery from Disney in collage to encourage people to question what these stories we tell our children are really saying.

*2 images: Linda Wilken

One of the points she looks at is also magazines aimed at teenagers like Dolly and Girlfriend, who inevitably get picked up by much younger girls. These magazines are filled with information about sex, makeup, fashion, etc, all which, when put in the context of innocent childhood, can be a little unnerving. This was interesting to me because I've been looking at how adult women are affected by magazines, but I've never given much thought to the fact that even child models are being photoshopped.

I've been in further contact with Linda, and I'm currently reading her honours thesis. I've arranged to interview her and use some of her work in my major project. It was very lucky for me because one of my other artist contributors pulled out.

SurveyMonkey thoughts

I've been reading through my 44 SurveyMonkey responses. Some of the answers have been really thought-provoking. About 80% of people who answered my survey described themselves in general as "informed consumers", which is great - that's pretty much the target market I was looking for. In retrospect I would have not titled the survey as "fashion", because I think a few people answered "no" as they are not informed consumers of fashion.

Consumers feel strongly about topics across a wide spectrum of issues - political, environmental, religious, culture, technological and social. Some specific issues brought up were: gender equality, gay rights, fair trade, design authenticity, poverty, health, secularism of ethics, "slow" design, renewable resources, sustainable town planning & city building, the banning of smoking in public, support of local & organic produce, anti-animal testing, anti- mass productions, and waste/ landfill ethics. The most prominent issue for my survey responders was environmental sustainability and fair trade. 7% of my responders did not answer the question.

70% of my responders avoid shopping at specific stores or buying specific products because of moral/ ethical issues. Stores include: Max Brenner, Fast Fashion Chains, McDonalds, BP, Woolworths/ Coles, Nike, Starbucks, Gloria Jeans, Cotton On, Nestle, Proctor & Gamble, Zara, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Shell, City Beach, Mossimo, YD, Amazon and Portmans. Products include: Non-organic skin/ beauty products, products made in China, non-organic foods, non-Australian made products, products which use palm oil, cheap fashion, fur products, products tested on animals, caged eggs, large coffee chains, "adult" products.

Responders said they shop at a huge variety of stores. There were responses rangeing from discount stores like hot dollar, zara, topshop, kmart & supre, chain stores like sportsgirl, portmans, jay jays, witchery and general pants, designerwear like gorman, sass& bide, allanah hill, miu miu, mimco, and some higher fashion stores like chanel, prada and bally. There was also a number of people who said they shopped at local boutiques, and well as online stores like etsy.

Magazines of responders included Frankie, Cleo, Russh, W, Numero, Oyster, Harper's Bazaar, Vogue, Lula, Dazed & Confused, OK, Grazia, Shop Til You Drop, Wallpaper, ID and Madison. Other publications: SMH, Daily Telegraph, BBC online, ABC online, the Australian, Monocle, the Guardian, New York Times online, New Scientist, Reddit, MX, and Sunday magazine. Blogs include: TheyAllHateUS, amandpalmer, showstudio, and design milk blog.

I then tried to gain an understanding of my consumers by looking at the way they make decisions. I separated answers into 4 categories: "humanist", "indecisive", "safe" and "personal". So, for example buying a present for a friend, giftcard would be the "indecisive" option, jewellery would be the "safe" option, something at the oxfam store would be "humanist" and taking her out to lunch would be "personal". In retrospect, I'm not sure these answers worked the way I wanted them to. The response for my movie choice one, for example "A Comedy because there's an actor in it who was funny in some other movie so you think it'll probably be okay" was my "safe" option, but I'm not sure it really determined attitudes, people may have simply chosen it because they like comedies.


I think the most interesting answers came from my question about definitions of beauty and weather society's ideals match what people's ideals are. Every single person who answered the question (34 responses) said they largely disagreed with societal/ media repsresentations of beauty, or that they were influenced by them and wish they weren't. There were many responses who said they recognised beauty in confidence and personality: "inner beauty", and beauty in people who were unique and different. It is therefore so surprising that media strays so far from consumer demands. It is possible, also, that some people shaped their responses based on social desirability, ie what they "should" say in reponse to such a question. But I think that largely the reponses were truthful.


45% of reponders said they did consider or strongly consider a product to have more monetary value if it is ethical/ sustainable/ fair trade/ funding charities/ protesting against malpractice/ etc. 56% said it did sometimes, and only 7% said it didn't. Examples of products people pay more for are: local food produce, fair trade coffee, free range eggs, oxfam toys, underwear made in Australia, organic products, hand made clothing, lush cosmetics, Trilogy products, organic materials & cotton, authenticity of design, vintage clothes, charity products, and non-mass produced products.

The apparent downsides of being this beautiful.

 *Image from dailymail.co.uk

Many, many of my posts so far have come across the issue of self esteem, especially among women in today's society. I am a firm, strong advocat that everybody deserves to have self esteem, feel good about who they are and the way they look. However, that is not the same thing as arrogance.

I think the idea of having a "swelled head" has been an acute fear in the last several generations, and therefore, led to what could possibly explain some of a lack of self esteem among the younger generations of today due to those fears manifested in parental behaviours.

My point is, that there is a happy medium, and I do not think Samantha Brick's recent article falls within it. I can understand her point of view - there is indeed something violating about having a car toot or someone whistle at you walking down the street. But to take it to this article and complain about several events far outside the realm of sexual harrassment which would probably flatter many women, seems a little arrogant.

An interesting fact is people generally don't like the company of others who are overly sure of themselves because it makes them feel self conscious. And that's exactly what Samantha is talking about in her article - the problem is, if this is truly what she is objecting to, her writing it on a world arena multiplies her problem! (As shown by the some 5,000 people who commented negatively on the article in just 24 hours' time.)

There have been many reponses to her writing, including this review, and a beautifully satirical survey comparing her to the character of Derek Zoolander which I found amusing and very relevant to my current field of research.

Don't get me wrong - I don't criticise someone for feeling good about themselves, nor for embracing the change that comes with ageing. I just feel like putting it out there so strongly makes others feel a little hopeless. Perhaps Samantha Brick could do with a little bit of a reality check - perhaps wear a fat suit and some daggy clothes and she may face a whole different set of prejudices.

Body Image Magazine Covers

I just thought I'd document here a few case studies I'm looking at in my dissertation.

Recently the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK has called for laws to be introduced that forces magazines and newspapers to mark advertising images that have been airbrushed, thereby protecting the vulnerable who may not understand the impossibility of aspiring to a digitally enhanced physical perfection.

It's a bit of a catch-22 really, because advertising in itself is about projecting a dream in order to sell its merchandise. Again we come up against the devil consumerism - what is the value of a person's self esteem?

There have been a few interesting magazine covers in the last few years to tackle this issue.

Jennifer Hawkins bares all on the cover of Marie Claire 2010

Image Reference: Marie Claire

Jennifer Hawkins’ cover shoot was done to support the Butterfly Foundation, a charity which provides support to Australians with Eating Disorders and negative body image. I really wonder whether the foundation really thought this one through. Jennifer Hawkins is Miss Universe! I mean, next to her, even naked and unairbrushed, who isn't going to feel inadequate? I can maybe see a few uneven skin tones, that's about it. I don't even really see why she needs airbrushing. It uses beautiful lighting, and she still has on make up and either a really good fake tan, or a genuine one. I know the article inside went into huge detail about how hard she works to look that good. But that is her job to do that. I certainly don't have the time or money to look that good, so how am I supposed to feel comforted by this image? I don't really get it.

Sarah Murdoch, untouched on the cover of Women’s Weekly 2009

Image Reference: The Age

This particular one was done to show that there can be beauty in ageing (I believe one of my previously mentioned mentors Mia Freedman was actually part it). We can discern a few of Sarah Murdoch’s wrinkles, but she is still extremely beautiful, and even Helen McCabe the editor said, “The one point I have to make is that this is possibly one of, if not the most beautiful woman in Australia that I've done this to, so the risk is not that high”. That kind of annoys me, I mean, maybe we should be taking risks!

Both these magazine covers have caused quite a bit of debate and personally, I can see how they could kind of be interpreted as patronising to hear these women feel good about who they are. I mean, why shouldn't they? Who wouldn't want to look like that?

But, at the very least, these initiatives do raise critical thinking about the fanstasy created by airbrushing, and raise awareness for companies like the Butterfly Foundation, as well as hopefully making the odd middle aged woman feel okay about a few wrinkles around her eyes. Ageing is a process that happens to everyone, and it seems to me, that putting all your energy into fighting it makes you look a little less classy than someone who embraces their age and does it gracefully.

"Fat" is not a feeling.

I've heard the saying "fat is not a feeling" many times in my life, and it occured to me when I read this beautiful blog post by Jo Hilder.

 

*Image from aforementioned blog post.

Diversity - A Big Question?

Since the "size zero" issue came to the forefront after the deaths of several very underweight models, there have been several initiatives to create modelling diversity, some of which retaliatied by using plus sized models on the catwalks.

As one retaliation, Gaultier in 2006 used this model (below), which definitely made a statement, I'll agree, but I'm just not sure it didn't go too far. Just like the abundance on size zero models, this model is not a role model for a healthy body image either.

 *Image from trendhunterstatic.com

Mark Fast, a London based fashion designer who uses a lot of body-hugging knitwear as his signature used what he terms plus size models alongside thinner models for several shows in 2010-2011. He states, "I think that women have such beautiful attributes, and there is so much beauty there, there shouldn’t be so much pressure to rearrange your body to a certain body type to feel happy. I have been realizing over the last few years that beauty is… is something that should be taken care of. There is so much pressure to be thinner, but if you are happy with who you are, and you are healthy and taking care of yourself, that is when you realize 'I am ok like this.' Just enjoy your body and your life".

 *2 images from dailymail.co.uk

 His collections were met with both praise and criticism, some of which I can see as comments to this article. I cannot believe that some people have been calling these women "fat". They are a szie 12- 14, which personally, I'm not even sure why we're calling this plus sized - the average Australian woman is a size 12-14. Obviously these women are a little larger than what you'd expect for healthy fashion models, but it just goes to show how skewed the respresentations of beauty are, if people think this is overweight. It is not. Someone commented on that article to say that they think most women of a healthy weight would be a size 10. Did anybody stop to consider that a medically "healthy" weight for someone of average height has a span of about 15 - 20 kilos? That roughly translates to about 4- 6 dress sizes. That means someone a healthy size 8 could also be a healthy size 12 -14.

*2 images from dailymail.co.uk

I mean, next to these women, who doesn't look fat?

Another example is Myer's 2011 Big Is Beautiful Plus Size Show, which also seems to have received both praise and criticism. The praise was mostly along the lines of "well done for trying", I think the general concensus was that the fashion created for the plus sized girls was too "frumpy" and what you'd expect from "plus size" fashion - ie. not so fashionable.

*1 image from Myer's Big Is Beautiful Show

The rest of the criticism was about the women involved - that they were fat, unhealthy, bad role models and altogether unspectacular, even disregarding their weight. The absolute crude-ness of some of the comments really bothered me, especially when it came from some clearly uneducated voices.

One argument was that models should be thin and pretty because that is their job and that is what they have to be good at. "Frankly, why should we? Standard-size models, like Olympic athletes, are a genetically gifted species. Most consumers understand they will never look like them. The simple fact is that clothes look better on beautiful, slender young women."

My response to that is two things. One, no, many consumers do not understand that models present us with a fantasy world, and even if they do, that does not stop them from desiring to embody the images they are shown their whole lives, whatever the cost - that is the goal of advertising. Secondly, with Olympic athletes, we are constantly hearing interviews and seeing the effort that they put in through training and eating right and everything else, that it is completely transparent that they spend a lot of effort and money to achieve what they can do. We don't see behind the scenes of the life of models - they don't tell you how much they really eat, how much time they spend exercising, how much money they spend on personal trainers. And thus, we get the impression that this could be possible for us, when it is not. I just heard on the radio yesterday that Jennifer Aniston spends $8,000 a month on how she looks! This is a reality only available to those whose professional life is looking good.

In my opinion, these shows have gone about it slightly the wrong way. The problem with putting "plus size" models on a pedestal is that they are going to be criticised. We should be aiming for a general sense of diversity that is not going to come about because someone got a couple of curvy girls on a catwalk.

There is now the abundance of people looking at the effects of fashion imagery and models on a collective sense of body self esteem such as Angel Sinclair, the founder of Models of Diversity and Sinclair Model Management.

* 2 images from modelsofdiversity.org

And of course I can't forget Caryn Franklin who I have already spoken about in this blog, and her company AllWalks. All walks did a project called Snapped, which incorporated several designers including Stella McCartney to portray some of their looks on models which showed diversity - in size, age, and skin colour. And to me, it achieves exactly that - diversity.

*5 images from allwalks.org

On a slightly unrelated point, Estee Lauder did an advertising campaign to include some diversity too.

*1 Image from Estee Lauder Idealist campaign.

I'm not entirely sure of the success of this one. Diversity to me doesn't mean pulling one girl from each demographic of society and placing them together. It's by looking at people as individuals, disregarding race, skin colour, age, size, disability, etc, and finding the beauty in who they are.

Primary Research

I was thinking about the Rally for Marriage Equality, and how mostly everyone took it as an opportunity to dress up and show their "true colours" in the company of people who also shared their views. I began thinking - what would we wear if we had no fear of judgement?

I asked a few people to describe for me what they would wear in an environment where they had zero inhibitions, zero fears of judgement and zero desire to fit in with social norms. Here are some visual representations of the answers I got:

 

Interestingly I feel like I got two variants of responses - those who would simply not bother with clothing or wear pyjamas and baggy shirts, or those who would be wearing traditional clothing from different eras, or extravagant styles or clothes worn by famous historical icons. Few people said they would wear things in between the two extremes - nobody said they would simply want to wear a t-shirt and jeans. So if our desire lies in the two extremes, why does the general population end up somewhere in the middle?

I asked this too, and most people seem concerned with social conventions, dressing in what makes their body look good, the expense of extravagant clothing, or lack of practicality. It seems we're not seeing people's true nature through their clothing.

*All images sourced from Google.