Disability art: the artwork as a medium for translating the experience of the Other

Elena Demyanova – second-year student in the Philosophy department at the National Research Institute — Higher School of Economics»

Works of art have both authenticity and integrity. With any external impact or artificial transformation, these characteristics are lost.1 The reproduction and adaptation of a work violate its “aura” and transforms it as an artifact. The existence and “integration” of an artwork into history and life are determined by its intactness and ability to be-in-itself. In this sense, a work of art cannot be examined in isolation from its medium, as idea and content are expressed through the form used by the artist. If the form is changed, integrity is lost, and the concept is artificially placed into another medium. As a result, both the meaning and idea with which the work was initially imbued are distorted. When a cultural object must be adapted to correspond with inclusive practices, a need for a different medium arises. For instance, there is a performance piece where the artist thought to show an inability to show emotions through words or tactile sensations. They insist that the deepest communication occurs through an unbroken gaze between two people, so they remain still and look into the eyes of all participants in the performance. This action is at the very core of the creative concept. In adapting this performance for non-seeing visitors, the entire essence of the performance would be lost. A change in format leads to the destruction of the artwork’s integrity and the distortion of its initial mode of existence.

Meanwhile, the work itself could serve as a medium for representing uniqueness and singularity. Art does not exist without the human factor, as the sum total of experience and interaction leave their mark on any artifact. The world as seen by one person is dramatically different from the world that presents itself to another. Perception of the world is mediated through media itself and largely depends on the perceiver’s experience. 2 I can only comprehend and “grasp” a sign once I have some notion of the object it signifies.3 By the same token, I can only comprehend, understand and accept that world whose core principles I already share. When coming in contact with works of art, I step into a world based on the experience of the Other, and I can not only embrace that experience but share it with the world’s creator. Works of art are a medium for the translation of the experience of the Other. In perceiving them, we can see the world as it appears to a creator with an experience different from mine.

Disability art is a field in which people with disabilities represent and problematize their own experience of the Other. A work created in this field serves as a medium for the artist to identify as a person with a disability and to translate their experiences and singularity of character. It should be noted that disability art is far more than art by artists with disabilities. It is primarily a community of people who identify as people with disabilities and who express their experience as such through creative work. In this sense, the heart of the concept of “disability art” expands beyond art and self-representation to the desire to discuss the political, economical, and social problems faced by people with disabilities every day. Disability art is primarily seen in the inclusive practices employed at the “Action”4 phase, predicated on a reinterpretation of the criteria of exclusion from society and inclusion in it. The characteristics that served as justification for the segregation of minority groups are reexamined and subsequently become a marker of belonging to a cultural community, which in turn is seen in a positive light and serves as a tool for self-identification. For this reason, works of art created within the field of disability art are experiences of a person’s uniqueness, transmitted through media, which also serve as acts of self-representation and attempts to share one’s otherness with the Other.

The concept of the Other is developed within numerous philosophical systems. It traces its roots to Aristotle’s concept of friendship, 5 runs as an undercurrent through Christian philosophy, is explored in Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, and is finally reflected most completely in the philosophical systems of the twentieth century. For instance, in Being and Nothingness, the French Existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre defines the Other as “he one who is not me and the one who I am not.”6  The Other is an individual with an experience different from my own, who is a “being-in-itself” and an object that I cannot identify with myself—and therefore cannot fully understand. However, it is through the subject-object relationship with the Other that I can know my selfhood, distinctness, uniqueness, and integrity. The same happens with the Other, who discovers itself in its otherness.

Embodiment is an important medium in establishing a relationship with the Other. Appearing through the body, the Other delineates my physical boundaries and freedom. In the same way, I delineate the boundaries of the Other’s existence and presence when interacting with them. My presence in this world, along with my selfhood and uniqueness, unfolds in the body, and it becomes like a medium through which the Other discovers me-for-itself and itself-for-itself. Without coming into contact with the Other, it is impossible to exist as a final, self-aware subject, distinct from the objects around it. Only in the Other does one become themself. For the philosophy of disability art, the body and embodiment are also extremely important categories of representation and assertion of otherness. The uniqueness of artists with disabilities is largely seen in the characteristics of their bodies, so for many of them, the body becomes an object of introspection. The body leaves its imprint on the artistic artifact and often augments the artwork itself. For instance, Terence Birch’s Abstrakt Pedal (2018) is inseparable from the process of its creation: the artist represents his disabilities by working with his deformed leg. In the work of Riva Lehrer, another important figure in disability art, the image of her body is paramount, becoming a medium for communicating her otherness.

A work of art created by a person with an experience different from mine is in many ways a “body” itself, through which the viewer perceives the artist’s otherness and distinguishes their experience from that of the Other. Creative work becomes a medium for the representation of the Other’s identity, which helps the viewer and the Other find themselves and merge with themselves. Therefore, it is important to understand that not all works of art can be adapted using inclusive practices. On the other hand, a work of art that reflects the experience of a person with a disability and who is bodily and mentally different from me as a viewer allows both me and them to find ourselves. In the context of disability art, the act of the artist’s self-identification as a person with a disability is important. Through this act, they assert their presence here and now and their inclusion in social relationships, all while stressing the uniqueness and specificity of their “I.” In encountering the experience of the Other by reflecting on and interacting with it, I allow them to be the Other, by which I accept both them and myself.

1. Benjamin, W. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. — Мoscow: Ad Marginem Press, 2021. p. 72.

2. Ryanov, A. Disability art in Russia [Disability art v Rossii] // [Website]. Artguide.com. 13.09.2021. URL: https://clck.ru/YXXCC (accessed: 30.10.2021).

3. Peirce, C.  “Division of Signs” [Razelenie znakov] // Selected Philosophical Works [Izbrannye filosofskie proizvedeniya] / Trans. Golubovich, K., Chukrukidze, K. et al.  —  Мoscow: Logos, 2000. p. 180.

4. Shchekochikhina, M. Studies on inclusion and their influence on strategies for developing inclusive programs in art institutions [Issledovaniya inklyuzii i ikh vliyanie na strategii razvitiya inklyuzivnykh programm v art-institutsiyakh]. The Garage Journal: Research in Art, Museums and Culture [The Garage Journal: issledovaniya v oblasti iskusstva, muzeev i kul’tury]. 2021. 03. p. 27.

5. Apresyan, G.A. “The problem of the Other in the philosophy of Aristotle” [Problema Drugogo v filosofii Aristotelya]. // Ethical Thought [Eticheskaya mysl’]. 2014. p. 70.

6. Sartre, J.P. Being and Nothingness: An Essay in Phenomenological Ontology [Bytye i nichto: Opyt fenomenologicheskoy ontologii]. Trans. Kolyadko, V.I. — Мoscow: Respublika, 2000. p 254.

Works Cited

    1. Apresyan, G.A. “The problem of the Other in the philosophy of Aristotle” [Problema Drugogo v filosofii Aristotelya]. // Ethical Thought [Eticheskaya mysl’]. 2014. p. 65-86.
    2. Benjamin, W. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. — Мoscow: Ad Marginem Press, 2021. — 128 p.
    3. Пирс Ч. Peirce, C. “Division of Signs” [Razelenie znakov] // Selected Philosophical Works [Izbrannye filosofskie proizvedeniya] / Trans. Golubovich, K., Chukrukidze, K. et al. — Мoscow: Logos, 2000. — 448 p.
    4. Ryanov, A. Disability art in Russia [Disability art v Rossii] // [Website]. Artguide.com. 13.09.2021. URL: https://clck.ru/YXXCC (accessed: 30.10.2021).
    5. Sartre, J.P. Being and Nothingness: An Essay in Phenomenological Ontology [Bytye i nichto: Opyt fenomenologicheskoy ontologii]. Trans. Kolyadko, V.I. — Мoscow: Respublika, 2000. — 639 p.
    6. Shchekochikhina, M. Studies on inclusion and their influence on strategies for developing inclusive programs in art institutions [Issledovaniya inklyuzii i ikh vliyanie na strategii razvitiya inklyuzivnykh programm v art-institutsiyakh]. The Garage Journal: Research in Art, Museums and Culture [The Garage Journal: issledovaniya v oblasti iskusstva, muzeev i kul’tury]. 2021. 03. p. 16-51.

Share