The misconception that disability equates with inferiority dates back to antiquity. However, the prejudice had its most fearful and widespread manifestation in Nazi Germany during World War II when those with disabilities were systematically euthanized. Given such history, it is not so surprising that sixty years on, disabled members of the community still face so many obstacles in the battle to have their diversity respected.
The correlating attitude, which flows from negative stereotypes of disability, is that disability arts – art produced by people who have a disability of some kind – must be second-rate art. But a paper published on the National Endowment for the Arts website by renowned actor, writer and activist Victoria Ann Lewis, offers a different take. In a passionate discussion of theater as it relates to disability, she writes: “The secret is that the disability movement offers a fierce critique of the nature of power in this country, a critique as disturbing and potentially healing as that of communities of color, the women’s movement, or gays and lesbians. Theater as an institution mimics the prevailing order, which means, not to beat a dead horse, that decision-making rests predominantly in the hands of white, privileged, able-bodied males. But theater as an art form depends on power from a different source — the passion and vision of the creative voice which knows no boundary of race, gender, class or physical ability.”
Lewis’ article was penned in 1995, at a time when disability arts were set to flourish in the wake of legislative gains for which disability rights activists had been campaigning for decades. At this historical watershed Paul K. Longmore, Associate Professor of History at San Francisco State University, argued that, subsequent to having their rights enshrined in law, the next phase for the disabled movement was “a quest for collective identity” that could “promote disability-based cultural studies that can uncover disabled values, explain the social/cultural construction of ‘disability’ by the majority culture and critique dominant nondisabled values.” Longmore suggested that one way to achieve the new cultural paradigm was for disabilities studies to collaborate with disabled artists and writers. Lewis suggests that the output of these collaborations would, combined with improvements in access to the arts for the disabled as required under the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), represent a confronting new force with the power to heal divisions between disabled and able-bodied Americans.
But in the decade since Lewis’ and Longmore’s exhortations to action, what decisions have been taken by “white, privileged, able-bodied males” that have opened up new or broadened existing avenues for disability arts?
In terms of improving access to arts venues for the disabled, terrific advances have been made. That is not to say there are not some venues dragging their heels, or that the changes have always been made with enthusiasm. In a review of the ADA conducted by a British legal expert it is suggested that had there not been a legal requirement to make such changes it seems highly likely that in many instances nothing would have been done.
A key success of the ADA legislation has been the awareness of disability, which may be correlated to an empowerment of people with disability to pursue a career in the arts. In 2001 comedian, poet, international speaker and writer, Philip Patston, established the International Guild of Disabled Artists and Performers (IGODAP). IGODAP has over 300 members with more than half based in the U.S.A.
Like Longmore, Patston argues that “as with any minority group, the first step is fighting for rights; after that the arts and culture become important. We’re now able to say who we are instead of who we aren’t.” Having attended conferences and festivals around the world Patston believes that disabled people, as part of the minority group, will be the ones to generate the arts and performance that will create a new cultural identity. Take festivals as an example. “At the moment there are two types of festivals,” he says, “festivals that are run by and organised for disabled people, and festivals organised by nondisabled people for disabled people. For me, the former are doing a lot more to develop the whole culture of disability and identity of disabled people.”
Patston makes his point with an anecdote from two conferences he attended in 2003. “The conference organised by disabled people featured high level discussion about the politics relating to disability. Whereas at the conference run by nondisabled people you were lucky if anyone mentioned the word disabled.”
However, interest from both disabled and nondisabled arts organizations continues to grow and new initiatives to promote disability arts have emerged as a result. In 2004 the International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies published its review of existing arts and disability policies with a view to sharing the lessons learned at a senior international level.
There have also been many successes for individual artists and organizations. Canada’s Kickstart festival was the inspiration behind the setting up of IGODA. The late Connie Panzarino’s honest and confronting autobiography symbolises the quest to convey a new cultural identity. And there are also nondisabled artists creating output aimed specifically at a disabled audience.
Undoubtedly the key to future growth in disability arts lies in increased funding and, crucially, the development of the market. There have been significant advances in both areas. For example the National Endowment of the Arts offers fast track grants for organizations that aim to reach underserved populations and the work of the National Arts Disability Center has made strides. Of course, as ever, there is still some way to go.
In a paper presented at the Finding the Spotlight Conference (2003), Colin Barnes, Professor of Disability Studies at Leeds University, suggests that disability arts can almost be defined as the activities of a
