Art, visual impairment and the gatekeepers of aesthetic value

D. Feeney
{"title":"Art, visual impairment and the gatekeepers of aesthetic value","authors":"D. Feeney","doi":"10.4324/9781315111353-17","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter brings the institutional contextualisation that has characterised critical approaches to art appreciation since the nineteen sixties into contact with the roughly contemporaneous emergence of the sociological re-orientation of approaches to disability that afforded an invaluable distinction between impairment and disablement. The devising of such an interdisciplinary critical framework affords consideration of the ableist assumptions at work in some of the processes through which value is determined within the domain of the arts. The roles of 'gatekeepers' at the periphery of this formal domain receive particular attention here, as the evaluative criteria underpinning the bestowal of credibility on an artwork’s candidacy for appreciation are scrutinised through the critical lens of an ableist framework borrowed from cultural disability studies. \nThe chapter takes particular issue with the performative contingencies underpinning the affirmation of the creative output of artists with visual impairment from within the field of perceptual psychology. Questioning the degree to which these appraisals can be said to be truly positive, I argue that they are informed by an insufficiently pluralistic conception of capability, and that their disproportionate prioritisation of compliance with normative representational conventions has an ultimately disabling impact on the range of pathways to creative expression that artists with visual impairment are likely to deem worthy of pursuing. Artists with visual impairment, it is suggested here, are only likely to assume a position from which they can begin to do justice to their diverse talents when visual impairment and blindness are conceived as a richly generative, rather than a competently replicative resource of creative expression. The chapter culminates in a brief review of the directions in which such an interdisciplinary approach to visual impairment and art might be applied in further research.","PeriodicalId":112450,"journal":{"name":"The Routledge Handbook of Visual Impairment","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Routledge Handbook of Visual Impairment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315111353-17","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

This chapter brings the institutional contextualisation that has characterised critical approaches to art appreciation since the nineteen sixties into contact with the roughly contemporaneous emergence of the sociological re-orientation of approaches to disability that afforded an invaluable distinction between impairment and disablement. The devising of such an interdisciplinary critical framework affords consideration of the ableist assumptions at work in some of the processes through which value is determined within the domain of the arts. The roles of 'gatekeepers' at the periphery of this formal domain receive particular attention here, as the evaluative criteria underpinning the bestowal of credibility on an artwork’s candidacy for appreciation are scrutinised through the critical lens of an ableist framework borrowed from cultural disability studies. The chapter takes particular issue with the performative contingencies underpinning the affirmation of the creative output of artists with visual impairment from within the field of perceptual psychology. Questioning the degree to which these appraisals can be said to be truly positive, I argue that they are informed by an insufficiently pluralistic conception of capability, and that their disproportionate prioritisation of compliance with normative representational conventions has an ultimately disabling impact on the range of pathways to creative expression that artists with visual impairment are likely to deem worthy of pursuing. Artists with visual impairment, it is suggested here, are only likely to assume a position from which they can begin to do justice to their diverse talents when visual impairment and blindness are conceived as a richly generative, rather than a competently replicative resource of creative expression. The chapter culminates in a brief review of the directions in which such an interdisciplinary approach to visual impairment and art might be applied in further research.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
艺术、视觉障碍和审美价值的看门人
本章将自20世纪60年代以来以艺术欣赏的批判性方法为特征的制度语境化与大致同时出现的对残疾方法的社会学重新定位相联系,这种重新定位为残疾和残疾之间提供了宝贵的区别。设计这样一个跨学科的批判性框架,可以考虑在艺术领域内确定价值的一些过程中起作用的能力主义假设。在这个正式领域的外围,“看门人”的角色在这里得到了特别的关注,因为通过借用文化残疾研究的能力主义框架的批判性镜头,对艺术品候选资格的可信度给予了评估标准。本章特别讨论了在感性心理学领域内支持视觉障碍艺术家创造性产出的表演偶然性。我质疑这些评价在多大程度上可以说是真正积极的,我认为它们是由一个不够多元化的能力概念所决定的,而且它们不成比例地优先遵守规范性的代表性惯例,最终会对有视觉障碍的艺术家可能认为值得追求的创造性表达途径的范围产生不利影响。有视觉障碍的艺术家,这里建议,只有当视觉障碍和失明被认为是创造性表达的一个丰富的生成资源,而不是一个有能力的复制资源时,他们才有可能开始发挥他们多样化的才能。本章最后简要回顾了这种跨学科的视觉障碍和艺术方法可能在进一步研究中应用的方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A personal perspective on CVI Formal and non-formal education for individuals with vision impairment or multiple disabilities and vision impairment Aging and combined vision and hearing loss Technologies for vision impairment Global data on vision loss
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1