But what this art says to me, as a wheelchair user, is something completely different because this design is the opposite of inclusive. Is that what is meant?
This design says I should be excluded – taking it as art, this design communicates everyone having conversations and leaving me out, because that back bar will exclude me by design.
If I’m to socialise, I should be on one end or the other, but that middle part means I’ll be artificially excluded by the environment.
What it’s meant to mean is “yay us! We’re doing inclusivity!”
What it actually means, to me, is “we will make a show of valuing disabled people, but we won’t go so far as to actually include them in the design process, thereby making this bench an artifact to our own self congratulation, as well as making wheelchair users feel excluded in a far more insidious way than they already did”.
And I feel like an asshole to say it like that, but it’s so annoying to see well intentioned people fall at literally the first hurdle. Like, if they truly do see us as people who have intrinsic value that means we are worth including, then they also need to see us in our full personhood and include us in the process. The alternative is that their enthusiasm will just cause more money to be pissed down the drain on symbolic gestures that don’t fulfill their intended purpose
I could see this meaning something more – and even something inclusive – if the environment is part of the design; for a moment I ignored the steep looking sand bank, but if that’s part of the art, that changes the meaning by a lot. That would make much more sense.
I’ve lived places where the landscape changes a lot throughout the year, though, so I sort of ignored the background and took the bench itself in isolation.
I think that in this imaginary scenario, the art student is being graced with the benefit of the doubt, and it’s assumed that they just have no clue how wheelchairs function in reality. I have a hard time assuming such malice if it is in fact an art project.
However, reality likes to make fools of optimists.
But what this art says to me, as a wheelchair user, is something completely different because this design is the opposite of inclusive. Is that what is meant?
This design says I should be excluded – taking it as art, this design communicates everyone having conversations and leaving me out, because that back bar will exclude me by design.
If I’m to socialise, I should be on one end or the other, but that middle part means I’ll be artificially excluded by the environment.
Is that what it’s meant to mean?
What it’s meant to mean is “yay us! We’re doing inclusivity!”
What it actually means, to me, is “we will make a show of valuing disabled people, but we won’t go so far as to actually include them in the design process, thereby making this bench an artifact to our own self congratulation, as well as making wheelchair users feel excluded in a far more insidious way than they already did”.
And I feel like an asshole to say it like that, but it’s so annoying to see well intentioned people fall at literally the first hurdle. Like, if they truly do see us as people who have intrinsic value that means we are worth including, then they also need to see us in our full personhood and include us in the process. The alternative is that their enthusiasm will just cause more money to be pissed down the drain on symbolic gestures that don’t fulfill their intended purpose
I could see this meaning something more – and even something inclusive – if the environment is part of the design; for a moment I ignored the steep looking sand bank, but if that’s part of the art, that changes the meaning by a lot. That would make much more sense.
I’ve lived places where the landscape changes a lot throughout the year, though, so I sort of ignored the background and took the bench itself in isolation.
Maybe that’s where I fucked up.
I think that in this imaginary scenario, the art student is being graced with the benefit of the doubt, and it’s assumed that they just have no clue how wheelchairs function in reality. I have a hard time assuming such malice if it is in fact an art project.
However, reality likes to make fools of optimists.
I didn’t assume malice, but ignorance. And not malicious ignorance, either.
Given this is a public installation, though, I was giving my interpretation.
At some point it really is. It’s not like it’s impossible to find a chair user to talk to about such things.
Ok but if you’re doing an art project about including chair users, maybe run your design by like, at least one chair user.