Showing posts with label disability theory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label disability theory. Show all posts

Saturday, March 15, 2014

March 8 2014: VSA Day of Arts For All

                                         Janine Moore's "Orange Groves", 1st Place Emerging Artist


                                                     Henry Hess’s “No Place Like Home”

               (Spartan meets Pyramid Head” by Jonah Farmer.)

If you follow my blog, you know I usually go to The Day of Arts for All on March 8, to report on it. But this year, I was even in it! My piece was called “Pig Head”, which used bright colors and saturation to illustrate a pig head via digital art. Aside from art, there was also some music by Sarah Bellish, a young soloist who uses her experience with disability to write music. A great opportunity to listen to some of the great life experience disability brings, in a soulful way! There were also videos meant to illustrate the experience of disability. The theme of the day seemed  to be representing these perceptive  personal experiences.

 Then the awards came. All who participated got an award. Including me! All the pieces were great, but the two I liked best were Henry Hess’s “No Place Like Home”, showing Dorothy’s ruby slippers, which won third place in the Youth Artist category. 2nd Place in the same category went to a Halo/Silent Hill inspired piece! “Spartan meets Pyramid Head” by Jonah Farmer. 1st place in the same category went to Nathaniel Curtiss of Worthington for Where Miles Davis Recorded The Birth of Cool! A super cool use of perspective! Best in Show was called: “Beautiful Nature Life: Where Everyone Would Like to Be”, a mixed media piece by the team of Wendi Olszewski, Shawnda Osswald, and Stephanie Spencer, depicting a brightly colored rural life.

But, everyone wins in my book, because we all told our stories through art: “Why the pig head?” Someone asked me in front of my piece. “Why not?” I said. The point for me is just to create something that didn’t exist before. The image that jumped out at me in the framework of my color scheme was a pig head. I’m interested in seeing how my mind and experience as a disabled person translates to my creations, as each
artist did through their own perspective. By his/her own experience.

Going back to perspectives, the films Be My Brother is an Australian short film about a man with Down Syndrome who records everything he observes, but he cannot get his brother to record something on the bench with him. He displays a dazzling intelligence, quoting everything from Shakespeare to The Lion King, and even charms a woman who he describes as the “most attractive woman in the world”. The film ends on a bus, with his brother hugging him.    

Sensory Overload is a film from the perspective of an autistic. As such, there is intermittent sound, and sometimes it becomes increasing overwhelming. From the blaring of city sirens to a cashier tapping a pen in a café. Wild colors add to the disorientation, and autistic perspective. The film ends in silence as a woman helps the boy pick up papers he lost from his backpack.

We ended with a comedy called Jazz Hand. In this a Californian woman with a prosthetic hand enters a dance audition. While tap dancing, her hand falls off and the choreographer recoils in exaggerated disgust. She puts her hand back on! But backwards! Lots of big laughs from this one, and nice to see a “disability movie” that is a comedy. “Do you think he noticed?” Asks the dancer. Duh! Yes!

I’m pleased to have been a part of The Day of Arts for all. It was a fun time, and I got to get my art out and look and other people’s art! That’s always a good day for me when I can get positive messages about disability! We are all capable of becoming more than we appear to be. Thanks, VSA! I had a great time.
For a full list of Day of Arts for All winners visit VSA's website: www.vsao.org

                                                     ("Pig Head" by Chris Bowsman.)
                               

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

BATGIRL VOL. 2: KNIGHTFALL DESCENDS (2012) REVIEW:



"Are you seriously going to complain that you can walk again? You think you’re the only person who’s ever regained mobility?”

- Black Canary to Batgirl

Oddly, with Batgirl Vol. 2, Gail Simone goes back to Batgirl’s past rather than immediate recovery after The Killing Joke. It begins with the day she became Batgirl and puts on a bat suit while trapped in the GCPD. This volume deals more with the psychological damage caused by the Joker, instead of her physical frailty. More to the point, it incorporates The Court of Owls and even a Bane-type character in a gang. I get that it all connects her to Batman’s history, but frankly it feels a little recycled.

Batgirl faces three enemies: An epicure in a devil mask named Grotesque who can channel electricity. Now, I liked this part of the story, but mainly because there’s a brief cameo from Black Canary who trains with Batgirl and reminds her she never complained before when she was in a wheelchair. (As Oracle, leader of The Birds of Prey.)

From there, there’s a weird subplot about a young girl, (Ms. Carnes.) whose home was invaded by a mass murderer, and she now tortures evildoers for revenge! And now James Jr. is a psychopath working with The Court of Owls. Ew. Too many good-guy-turned-evil twists. But, I guess comics just work that way.

That’s not the Bane girl. Her name is Bonebreaker, her gang member. Their leader is the young girl…who’s name is Knightfall. But, as Batgirl is tracking Grotesque, the Owls take over Gotham. This is clearly meant to overlap with The Court of Owls storyline, which was running at the same time. Fair enough. I just don’t see why James Jr. had to be brought in. We’ve established that the histories are intertwined. Leave Batgirl’s family alone.

Also, her estranged mother comes and leaves again. And it’s established that Joker is tracking her a la The Killing Joke near the end. Poor Batgirl just can’t get a break with the family issues. Although I guess it follows the same logic as Court of Owls Vol. 2, where it’s revealed that Batman’s long-lost brother is leading the owls.  Not a lot I liked about this one, with it’s constant interwoven plot twists.

 One part I did like though, was when she mistakenly battles Batwoman in a police detective’s apartment, believing her to be an undercover agent of Knightfall’s gang. (Yeesh. What a corny name: Knightfall. Even the name Knightfall recalls Bane‘s entry title!) So in the end, she’s able to track Knightfall and work with Batwoman to free the prisoners. She gets the prisoners to hold Ms. Carnes back so she can fight her. The end of the novel seems to suggest a volume 3, with all Batgirl’s former villians being freed, (Mirror, Grotesque, and Gretel.)

Overall, I feel like Volume 2 kind of sacrificed the originality of exploring her recovery in favor of getting her back into action. This is okay, since action is what heroes and heroines do, but I was more upset by the co-opting of The Court of Owls and Bane-type plotlines. Surely, Batgirl can survive with an original rogue gallery rather than cheap Batman knock-offs. And not to dwell on the training scene with Black Canary, (My favorite part!) but that one scolding scene is basically all we get from the recovery angle so richly explored in the first volume.

So in conclusion, the action was fun, and I really enjoyed the first half, until The Court of Owls and a Bane clone were brought in. I don’t think Batgirl should be a Batman clone. She’s got her own individual origin (Explored in this volume!), rogue gallery, and set of issues to deal with…such as being paralyzed by Joker.

Now, some might say she can’t dwell on it forever, but I maintain that without her own set of issues, Batgirl becomes a Batman clone…and she’s capable of more than that. In sum, I knew they’d drop the recovery angle, but I guess I…was still disappointed by how quickly it was dropped. By the way, for the original characters in the first half, I give this 3 stars, but the Owl/Bane parallels are groan worthy.





Thursday, October 17, 2013

Planet of Snail (2012)

PLANET OF SNAIL (2012)




 Young-Chan Cho: “All the deaf and blind people have the heart of an astronaut.”

Planet of Snail is a documentary from South Korea. It is very slow-paced and plays with minimal sound to simulate Young-Chan reliance on tactile communication and finger taps as opposed to always using voice. His voice, one might say is the lack of sound. The story follows him along with his wife Soon-Ho. Soon-Ho has a disability caused by degeneration of the spine.

Together the film explores their mutual dependency and quiet, slow lives. The reference to Young-Chan Cho as an astronaut in the Planet of Snail is interesting because I too consider myself an alien. Some things that an able-bodied person can do very easily, I can’t. But, I think from that I gained a desire to explain my worldview. For Young-Chan Cho, it’s the same. On one hand, he talks about his disability as no different than fading memory for a sighted person. When you remember something with sight, it’s never as clear as it was when you saw it the first time. A very insightful critique of sightedness!

    On the other hand, Young-Chan’s poetry reveals a deep understanding of how his life is alien. “What I see in front of me is my reality.” He says. “I am deaf-blind even in my dreams.” In spite of this determination, he encounters obstacles very early on in the film. While taking a Hebrew exam, Young-Chan’s professor says that he had the words in the right order, but his assistant transcribed it wrong. That is, his wife, not his assistant. But, he gets an A+!

    Later in the film, we see Young-Chan eating with friends, who look as though they may be deaf-blind as well. They get into an argument about why he married, and the other friend believes he may never marry. Much of this argument is done through tactile communication and finger tapping. I don’t know Korean sign language, and only understand little bits of American Sign Language, but the finger tapping to me seemed vital to understanding the language. Young-Chan’s friend believes he married Soon-Ho to be a live-in caretaker, which Young-Chan Cho denies, but seems shaken by.

   Through his friend, we see his clay crafts, including a mug shaped like a naked man. Young-Chan explains that he didn’t like that one very much. Soon-Ho says that sometimes he takes care of her, because sometimes her pain is so bad that she can’t even pick up the phone. “I couldn’t even say hello. I could only make screeching sounds.” She says. Nonetheless, we see Soon-Ho helping Young-Chan around the house more often than vice versa: Fixing a light, helping with food, walking on the beach, even helping to organize Cho’s play with his friends.

     The film ends with a solo trip to a doctor's appointment, where he admits he was scared to be without his companion. “I felt colder.” He says.  Then, Young-Chan Cho goes swimming, where he says he can open his eyes and see a different world. (As opposed to The Planet of Snail.) In closing, he says he's only waiting to see the most precious things. He and I have much in common. We are both astronauts; we both use words to paint our lived experiences with disability; we have many of the same fears. What will happen to me when my friends and caretakers are gone? The film explores these fears, which at times seem to contradict his coping mechanisms…art and poetry which transcends his body.

    The film is very slow-paced, but there was enough going on that intrigued me that I never lost interest. I love movies about disability experiences, other planets, and other cultures and ways of life. I identified with the main character; but only insofar as he uses art to overcome his disability, such as I try to do. The rest was new to me: The finger tapping, Young-Chan Cho’s beautiful descriptions of his disability in poetry, having a partner vs. having friends, and negotiating each other’s disability. These were all wonderfully new to me. The slow pace also helped me drink in Young-Chan's world.

     I found Planet of Snail to be a fun, dramatic and captivating experience… it is not  just internationally appealing to me, being a Korean film, but it is interculturally appealing too. I mean, I related my experiences with disability with Young-Chan They didn’t always match up. For example, in my dreams, I'm able-bodied, though it by no means is a reflection of de-valuing my life with a disability...I can simply do more in my dreams. Also, Young-Chan says sometimes he knows he’s being stared at. I would tend not to focus on it…nonetheless, I do know it probably is happening.

Anyway, this is a great film that explores many themes about disability and relationships, and the role of art as a tool for life. Highly recommended…I’d say 4/5 stars: the slow pace might be off-putting to some, but in my case, it helped me catch details like the finger tapping as communication. A wonderful film! Go see it!




Tuesday, September 10, 2013

DAREDEVIL (2003):



DAREDEVIL (2003):

Daredevil: “They say your whole life flashes before your eyes when you die. And it's true, even for a blind man.”

    Daredevil is all over the place tonally. The opening scene is of Daredevil crashing through a roof, crawling on the ground and then rolling over before being helped up by a priest. Yeah, you don’t want your superhero to appear physically inept before the movie even starts. That’s not a good sign. Though it offers a portrayal of disability, I couldn’t discern what the ethos of it was, but it definitely wasn’t an uplifting one, and straddles, at times, a tone of pity IN A SUPERHERO MOVIE. Pity doesn’t belong in a superhero movie!
 
For every client Matt Murdock investigates and then beats up in the movie, he throws a fit and goes to a confession booth to tell the priest he’s not the bad guy. The trouble is, we know that, as an audience. We want to see Daredevil kick butt, and…for as much as he does…he spends an equal amount of time on the ground, in a confession booth, or throwing a fit. The problem is that Daredevil is never given the chance to be a competent disabled superhero.
 
 In his alter ego as Matt Murdock he’s shown to be a smooth-talking ladies’ man, but he goes passive-aggressive after he loses a criminal who could lead him to Kingpin, and even has to tell the criminal’s young son: “I’m not the bad guy.” He meets Elektra Nachios (A name that makes me laugh because it sounds like nachos.) after the two of them fight and meet cute.

    That’s another problem with this movie. It tries to introduce Daredevil, Elektra, Bullseye and Kingpin (Played marginally well by Michael Clarke Duncan…but he’s just sort of…there to be evil.) Plus, they try to give you an origin story. All that just can’t fit in one movie. It can’t be a comic book movie/noir/rom-com. Another thing that gets annoying is the references to comic book artists…some of the criminals are named Bendis, Miller, Quesada…Murdock’s client is called Mr. Lee. Ha! (But, surprisingly, Stan’s cameo is as a random pedestrian instead of a client!) Also, Kevin Smith is in forensics…okay, we get it, it’s a superhero movie!

   It’s just a shame they couldn’t show that by actually having the hero be heroic. During the course of the movie he’s nearly defeated 3 times (By Elektra, Bullseye, and nearly Michael Clarke Duncan…who you might know as almost EVERYONE ELSE IN THE MOVIE.) The first defeat comes when Elektra outfights him. The second defeat is after Bullseye kills Elektra, and Daredevil’s saved by…wait for it…bats that fly through the church window. Who’s movie is this?

 Oh yeah and Bullseye kills nearly everyone he meets with pointed things, and that gets freakish and annoying. He kills a talkative granny on an airplane with a well-aimed peanut she chokes on! That’s not cool…that’s weird. How do you aim a peanut?
 
Now, I will give the film credit for at least tangentially dealing with disability and coping mechanisms. Daredevil folds his bills different ways in his wallet, uses adaptive computer equipment, and of course uses his cane, which doubles as a grappling hook/Bo staff. They have him use his radar image trick effective in some scenes, but admittedly, it’s a gimmick to help him out of tight spots. There’s a trick he uses where the sound of water outlines people. I thought that was cool, but still a gimmick.

    I cringed a lot watching this movie again…even if it does foreshadow….(I know I promised no more Batman!) Ben Affleck as a possible Batman. The film even tries to introduce the stories of two main characters…Elektra and Daredevil…just like Batman vs. Superman will attempt to do. Here’s hoping Affleck is older and wiser. And a lot less apologetic.

My main beef with the movie is the portrayal of the disability…although I agree that the noir/rom-com tone was unsettling and that might be the bigger beef with mainstream viewers. But, let’s see…aside from his super senses, he’s easily defeated, constantly needs help from Elektra (Who the movie introduces and then kills.) or random priests, and his super senses are easily overcome by noise…he’s got super hearing! Shouldn’t he have worked that out? In this movie, far from being a superhero, Daredevil looks weak, pitiful, and dumb.

    I watch superhero movies to escape my disabled body. No question about it. But, Daredevil’s disability (at least in the eyes of this movie.) is only a superpower when it advances the plot. The rest of the time it puts him in self-doubt and leaves him ultimately pining for the acceptance (and sex…) of an able bodied woman. (Ben Affleck’s now-wife, Jennifer Garner, whom he first met on this set.)

     If superhero movies should do anything, they should uplift people (of all abilities.) and make them feel like they can do anything. But, what do we say about a man who gets beat up 3 times in his own superhero movie? He looks weak, and trapped by his disability. I realize this film doesn’t exactly cater to disability rights, but it should’ve at least been a superhero movie. 1 star for this dull action/comedy/noir that will make you glad Marvel is sticking to action-comedies. Perhaps Affleck knows noir is more a Batman schtick.





Monday, June 10, 2013

THE SECRET GARDEN REVIEW


As I said before, one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen when it comes to disability portrayals is 1993’s The Secret Garden. Colin, the disabled character is typecast as a sour young man, who is even rumored to be a hunchback. He is described as crippled, (Yes, I know it’s Victorian times, but this set up the pathetic portrayal.) and his father doesn’t want anything to do with him or children. That being said, his father Lord Craven takes her cousin named Mary after she loses her family in India. She takes him to the Secret Garden in this castle.

    Everything about this character’s image rubbed me the wrong way. His own caretakers lock him away and Maggie Smith’s character scolds Mary for even being with him. When he becomes hysterical, they tie him down to the bed. Re-watching this movie even for the purposes of analysis was extremely hard, though I did. It is a clear case of “curing” a disabled character for “love” by magic. After Colin starts having fun in the garden, he discovers that in fact he can walk. Then, they contact his father via “magic spell”. Yes, I know. It’s meant to symbolize the beauty of “natural” life vs. the isolation of modern times. Why prove it supernaturally? Why can’t Colin just be disabled? And it’s just so darn sappy in its message. For example, after Colin walks, his father decides he loves him, AND the kicker, MARY LOVES HIM TOO. The message is clear: if you are disabled, no one will love you.

   If you’re cured though, and have the right attitude and the right body…then you can be loved! Surely, Colin’s disability was all in his mind, and had nothing to do with his intense mistreatment by those around him. No, all he needed was a little girl to show him how to have fun. It’s not like he’d never tried walking before. I apologize for my tone, but it is really difficult to watch if you have a disability. The clear implication is that a disabled life is not worth living or somehow the cause of Colin’s hysteria. Besides the fact, (and I know it’s an old book, but that doesn’t excuse it!) that the movie maintains the “You can do it…” attitude towards physiology, it also has one of those scenes where Colin hobbles over and hugs his able-bodied buddies. Such scenes were dated by 1993, one would hope, but there is a strong presumption of able-bodiedness, as Dickon and Mary watch Colin hobble; wide-eyed and smiling like goons.

    Suffice it to say, I hated this movie and its able-bodied presumptions even as a kid.Worst disability portrayal ever. But, come to find out, the movie even engages in casual racism against Indian natives, and passes off British imperial aristocracy as just part of the charm of the movie. Of course the Yorkshire girl is happy to be a maid! Of course, Mary launches into a tirade when she dare presume she’d be an Indian native. I know it’s done for sentimental purposes, ostensibly…but re-watching was a real eye-opener into how offensive this film really was (and is.) to me.

    Magic is something I have nothing against. But, only when it inspires me! This film is selling magic that isn’t really there. In fact, it’s quite nasty. And yet, it hopes to cover up its inhumanity with a pretty garden. I said I’d watch this movie because of the deep impact it had on me as a child. Now, as an adult it still has…perhaps even deeper impact. This was 1993...and attitudes like this exist. And they persist! Having seen such attitudes up close, still makes me think of Colin. But, you know? In a sense, this film is refreshing. It shows me exactly what kind of negativity I’ve been up against: The presumption that the aristocracy knows best, and a disabled life is not worth living. I’m proud to work with organizations like VSA to prove that wholly wrong. Thanks VSA Ohio! Keep up the fight for disability rights!




Monday, June 3, 2013

I’M AN INTERGALACTIC WARRIOR: ON DISABILITY AS AN ALIEN CULTURE:

I’M AN INTERGALACTIC WARRIOR: ON DISABILITY AS AN ALIEN CULTURE:





Well, it’s been an exciting weekend! I had a friend over for olives and beer while trying to explain intercultural discourse, followed a Doctor Who blog, (Blogtor Who); I got a surprise visit from my mom and went to Whole Foods for Indian. Curry tofu. Later, we had curry chicken, but my mom is vegetarian, and so she had more tofu. On the first trip out for lunch, she explained to me that she’d met a “spirit reader”; a shaman. Being a sci-fi nut and a storyteller, I usually take such readings with a grain of salt. This one especially. So, she told me that he said I was an intergalactic warrior from the Pleiades in a past life, and she had been Alantean.

    For me, I guess it was just cool to be pictured as an intergalactic warrior. I don’t believe it for a second except as cool sci-fi. Maybe I’ll write a story about it. What was interesting is that the shaman said that in my “present form” I felt pulled down by the density of my physical body. This is before he had learned that I have cerebral palsy. So, as we ate, I couldn’t stop thinking: If I know the environment of the Pleiades constellation, then maybe I can extrapolate some idea of the weapons and culture that existed there.
 
 One of the things I had read later on an astronomy website said that its surrounded by a nebula, pulsars, and flare stars. So, I got this idea of people battling in zero gravity with radiation guns, energy shield rings, flamethrowers, light saber-type weapons darken  the bright nebulous battlefield like camouflage  Though I’m sure this is all laughable to a real astronomer: If life existed on such a constellation, wouldn’t it be informed by its nebulous and poisonous environment? Can any real astronomers help me out?

   Also, I got to watch all of Joss Whedon’s 2009 Astonishing X-Men. I especially like Joss Whedon’s depiction of Professor X…although his wheelchair looks like concrete. Looking back on it, I suppose there’s an element of alienation in every Professor X portrayal, because, so far as I know…he has never been designed by a person with a disability. If anyone can prove me wrong, I’d love to be proved wrong. Professor X has always been my hero, but it never really struck me how odd his wheelchairs are until I saw him in Astonishing X-Men.

   The earliest depictions of Professor X as paralyzed were in the 60s. He has a practical manual chair, with a blanket over the legs. In the 90s X-men he has a hover chair, but I wonder if this is reflective of the density of being pulled down by his body. It seems to symbolize the hope of inclusion, but is so impractical. I think in the 80s, he retained the manual chair, but in 1989 it became a power chair in Pryde of The X-Men. Thus, in X-Men Arcade it was also a power chair, but ways were contrived by which Xavier could also walk (in the comics, and 90s cartoon.) The power chair model returned in Bryan Singer’s X-Men trilogy, and the walking power suits stopped; however, Xavier dies. Days of Future’s Past may right this wrong! In X-Men: Evolution Xavier becomes a slave of Apocalypse.

    It seems being both the world’s most powerful telepath and disabled means the writers really don’t know what to do with Professor X physically except destroy him or make him evil. Let’s not forget Warren Ellis’s Onslaught Epic! (Hover chair Xavier; 1996.) But, the Onslaught Epic does raise a good point…that people never say what they mean…Ellis’s Xavier can’t take this anymore, and years of repressed psychic darkness turn him into Onslaught. As a person with a disability, I can say I’ve been upset by the doubletalk I sometimes experience, such as when someone able-bodied says they think of me as “Just the same” as them; but obviously I’m different. Being telepathic and disabled would amplify (and perhaps verify.) this doubt. So, in that sense Xavier has been very strong for 30 years holding back. He is repeatedly referred to as the most powerful telepath on Earth, so Onslaught must be a negative manifestation of all his mental power.

    Indeed, I might not be an ancient alien warrior, but my first experience as an alien was the awareness of the difference between my mental and physical abilities. I’m at home in more a weightless, maybe formless environment. One ruled by imagination. But, at the same time, that means there’s a certain euphoria in every physical victory. Every hang out, every time I give a correct speech, turn of phrase, when my speech inspires ACTION, when I even go to the library across the street; there’s a feeling of victory, going beyond my form.

    Speaking of form, now that The Doctor is set to regenerate this Christmas, I wonder what form he’ll take next. In the sense that he’s a formless super genius unbound by time, The Doctor has always been my friend in disability experience. But, as you have seen, I have a tendency to read disability as an alien experience. Even in disability-based communities. Because no one experience is the same. For every Iron Man, or alien, cyberpunk, or sci-fi experience…there seems to me to be a disabled experience as well. I am able in this way to make the familiar seem strange. I’m comfortable looking into alien spaces.






Wednesday, May 15, 2013

WHAT FORREST GUMP’S MOM TAUGHT ME ABOUT DISABILITY IN THE MEDIA:


WHAT FORREST GUMP’S MOM TAUGHT ME ABOUT DISABILITY IN THE MEDIA:



Taking a break from comic book fights for a minute, I wanted to talk about great moms to disabled characters in honor of this past mother’s day. My first exposure to a disabled character was Forrest Gump, and from the moment Forrest’s mom has her son’s mental condition described to her, she adopts a strong can-do attitude and just takes to explaining things so her son can understand them. It is through her that he learns the witticism: “Life is a box of chocolates…” and he learns how to focus on what he’s got instead of what he doesn’t.
 
Invariably, this helps him on his trek through American history, running across the U.S. (Along with Jenny’s “Run Forrest, run!” we have “Momma said they was my magic shoes.”) and his experiences in ‘Nam, in love, and generally just preferring to explain things in ways he can understand. “…and that’s all I have to say about that!” I remember seeing this as a kid, and thinking how cool it was that the main character was disabled, and they didn’t try to change it! Beneath his simple storytelling was wisdom. (Arguably from his mother’s early attempt at communication.) And he was the hero, in a sense.

    My only other exposure to disabled characters up to that point were characters like Professor X, Tiny Tim, and the kid from The Secret Garden, which is even now to me, one of the worst movies I have ever seen, both for the story and the moral. But, here was no attempt to “cure” the character’s disability. Instead Forrest’s mom raised him so that he understood that he simply has a different way of explaining things. I am empowered by such attempts at understanding.

    Now, I know some out there will say that Tom Hanks promoted a bad moral for ex: “You should just look at things simply, and not be critical.” Maybe even some would say that since Hanks is able-bodied, he can’t play a disabled character. Well, I’ve never bought that and never have.  I don’t see “simplicity”  as the point, from the prospective of Hanks’s character. True, Forrest’s mom was tough and no-nonsense, but I see it as she was preparing him for the negativity that he would eventually face because of his condition, not because she herself was simple. She even says that he needs to do the best with what God gave him. That’s all I have to say about that.

   My point is, that as a boy I had so few role models to look up to that had disabilities. For every Forrest Gump, which argues for understanding disability as a different cultural setting/life point of view there was Secret Garden and The Christmas Carol. Both of which I hated, and should probably review at some point in this blog. Look, I understand the Christmas spirit, and Tiny Tim is there to gain sympathy; but that’s just it. He serves no other purpose. The story would’ve been equally as cheery without him. But, those were my early exposures to two schools of thought with disability. One that says “God bless us, everyone!” after being miraculously given a feast by a rich man, and one with a tough woman who said: “Do with what God gave you.” (And of course Professor X’s “We’re not dangerous [Moira], we’re different.”; but that’s another post.)

     Watching Forrest Gump’s mom was like watching my own mother who in those days told me not to focus on what I couldn’t do. But then, I knew I had a public voice. A decision to make in how to view my disability. And it still wages on in the media today…(Particularly in X-Men, I must say!) Cure us, or understand us. Sympathize with us or empower yourself with us; the choice is ours, whoever we are. And I know where I stand. Forrest’s mom inadvertently taught me how to watch movies for positive portrayals of disability, rather than outwardly pathetic ones. And it is through my own mother that I’ve felt empowered from my early days! Next time you watch A Beautiful Mind or My Left Foot, or Million Dollar baby…pay attention to how disability is treated! Happy late Mother’s Day! Love you, Mom!




Friday, May 3, 2013

Iron Man 3 Review


   Iron Man 3 Review:

     
   
Iron Man 3 is like combining Die Hard 1, T2: Judgment Day, and Iron Man! I was right that Extremis would be involved, but I’m not giving spoilers. There’s some good action and nice character development (Everyone knows its after the events in Avengers.) We learn a lot about how Tony Stark regains his faith in others, how he relates to his suits, and how he deals with threats around him. The threat this time is threefold.  No spoilers, but lets just say it’s the three big ones: Mandarin, a rival industrialist, and a former associate.

   The biggest obstacle though is Tony Stark himself, a little stressed (Shall we say…) from the events in Avengers. He comes to the realization early on that he can’t deal with every threat, and theUS government doesn’t think he can either.  So, not only is everything he loves at stake, but also his confidence. Major themes here include trust, man vs. machine, man vs. self, and of course…in plenty of explosions and fights, man vs. man. There’s plenty of that Tony Stark humor too, that makes me proud to identify (probably most.) with Iron Man aside from his dependence on technology.

    Oh! And I was right about another thing! There’s betrayal…but it wasn’t who I expected the movie to pick. People who have read Extremis should see it right away. That’s the only hint I’m giving! Needless to say though, Iron Man…well, Iron Man is Iron Man! His machines are part of who he is, which also play a role in how he sees himself, grows, and deals with terrorists/bad guys. If you take it all away, he’s still Iron Man. He can’t be everywhere physically at once, or deal with every threat at once, but he has connections anyway! Some really good comments on the nature of terrorism and its inherent relationship to the media. It essentially does what Die Hard 4 failed to do which is: make a good action movie about modern threats to society/digital crime/terrorism, and do it with style. With Tony Stark! Move over John McClane!

    But, at its core for me was the theme of man vs. machine. Will machines exist to serve us, or take away our humanity in the interests of particularly “modern evil”? (Terrorism, media, corporate greed etc…) I don’t know…I think as a disabled man, I pick up fairly easy on the man/machine symbiosis! Sounds heavy but, the movie put it all on the line and eventually Stark himself reveals the answer! A fun movie that definitely raises the stakes. In my view, it might even influence modern action movies outside of the superhero/sci-fi genre. It really plays with the psyche of the character and in the end we come full circle. No doubt he’ll be ready for Avengers 2 as cocky and high-tech as ever! Highly recommended and fun!  



Wednesday, May 1, 2013

MEET THE BLUE EAR


MEET THE BLUE EAR:

Marvel Comics has a new deaf superhero…The Blue Ear!


 



http://marvel.com/news/story/18801/meet_the_blue_ear

Well, Marvel has a new disabled hero! He has a super hearing aide! Did you read the linked article? It’s interesting to me how the artist picked up the West Coast Avengers #1 and pointed out that Hawkeye lost his hearing and had to wear a hearing device. In my opinion, Marvel has always been more disability-friendly because of their focus on how ordinary people make the best of what they’re given. They already have Professor X and Daredevil as visibly disabled heroes, and now the Blue Ear shows us a hero for the deaf community, and Anthony Smith himself!
 
The artist recalls that even Anthony’s name sounded like a superhero name: “The Blue Ear”. As it says in the article, Anthony’s mom even said that her suggestion would probably not make it past the spam filters. Everyone wants to be a hero these days.

   But, I think all that I can really say is growing up as a 90s kid and watching the X-men cartoon, I was certainly inspired by Professor X. When you see someone acting as a hero who has your disability (or uses your assistive device, anyway.) That person becomes someone to look up to. This was certainly one smart mom to go and contact Marvel to give her son a hero. I think as a disabled person, for me personally, I often feel like I have to try extra-hard to perform at the super-level. It’s nice to know that Professor X is there, in my struggles, as is the Blue Ear for the Deaf community.

I think the reason for Marvel’s success with disability themes is that, aside from a diverse roster of heroes like Professor X and Daredevil, who are visibly disabled; most of the Marvel origin stories are about accidents from which the superhero gains powers. That's a constant Marvel theme: Spider-Man bit by a spider, Wolverine's skeleton replaced with adamantium steel, the X-men are all mutants who face discrimination. They teach us to cope, and how to turn apparent tragedies into strengths. A character like the Blue Ear would already have friends around who could relate to him; including Anthony, who will no doubt look up to him as a role model to go beyond his limits and be a hero. Marvel has always had a better track record with disabled characters, I will say, as opposed to DC. But, by no means is this meant to turn into a Marvel vs. DC thing. I’ve seen a quadriplegic hero in an independent comic called The Silver Scorpion. The superhero landscape is changing, and it appears to include disabled heroes too, as well.

    When I as a kid saw Professor X fighting for mutant civil rights, in my mind, he was also fighting for disability rights. His disability honed his superpower that much more. I can’t think of a better role model than The Blue Ear! Also, after you’ve checked out the above article, be sure to check out some old articles I made exploring disabilities in Marvel animated movies! They were published in the VSA Cleveland Newsletter in Fall of 2012, so you know they’re good! Well, excelsior, Blue Ear! Welcome to the Marvel Universe!

 HULK VS.: http://christopherbowsman.blogspot.com/2012/07/bruce-banner-i-know-thee-to-be-man-of.html
AVENGERS (2006):http://christopherbowsman.blogspot.com/2012/07/ultimate-avengers-any-questions-any.html
AVENGERS 2: RISE OF THE PANTHER (2006): http://christopherbowsman.blogspot.com/2012/07/ultimate-avengers-2-rise-of-panther.html
INVINCIBLE IRON MAN (2007): http://christopherbowsman.blogspot.com/2012/07/invincible-iron-man-2007.html
NEXT AVENGERS: http://christopherbowsman.blogspot.com/2012/07/next-avengers-heroes-of-tomorrow.html
DR. STRANGE: http://christopherbowsman.blogspot.com/2012/07/doctor-strange-2007.html

Sunday, April 14, 2013

DISABILITY IN THE MOVIES: A REVIEW OF OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL


OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL:

Oz: "I might not actually be a wizard..."

Glinda: "Yes, but they don't know that."



Oscar Diggs is a bombastic carnival magician in 1905 in the midst of a levitation trick. He woos the audience by cutting down visible wires and yet his assistant still “floats”. When suddenly, a little girl in a wheelchair has a request: “Make me walk.” But, the once-proud magician is flummoxed. He’s a fraud. He can’t do it. Close curtain. He then goes back to being a selfish womanizer backstage, despite the fact that he really does want to be a good man. A GREAT MAN.

    His opportunity comes when he is whisked off via tornado while escaping the wrath of a jealous carnival strongman to the Land of Oz, where he’s greeted by a charming witch, told where he is, and to beware the flying monkeys and river faeries. He’s a bit naĂŻve, so he’s promptly attacked by both. And then, he’s betrayed by the witch, who thinks the Good witch is the bad witch. Yes, he does it all for money even though he knows he’s not a real wizard.

The interesting part for me, is the friends he makes along the way.  The rest seems straight out of World of Warcraft. See, he saves a good flying monkey named Flynn. As in The Wizard of Oz, each companion I believe symbolizes a real world companion and Oz is it’s psychological counterpart in the imagination. So, Finley is actually Frank, his stagehand and assistant, who he never respected, but here he becomes good friends with. When their adventure leads them to China Town (Where everything and everyone is made of fragile China.) he encounters the seemingly David Bowie-inspired Little China Girl who lost her legs when the flying primates attacked. She’s the little girl in the wheelchair.

   It’d be easy for me to be offended when Oscar/Oz glues her legs back on, but this is his adventure. He wanted to help the girl in the wheelchair, but he couldn’t so in his mind he made her the Little China Girl. That’s part of his quest to discover he’s a great man. In fact, it’s the China Girl who later asks if there are any real wizards where he comes from, and he responds Thomas Alva Edison; which gives him the idea to become Oz The Great And Powerful. True, there is an element of pity in the depiction of disability, but it is the disabled characters that inspire him to use technology to defeat the witches, overcome his own limits, and become great.

As I said, the rest of the movie seems straight out of World of Warcraft with Oz and munchkins using fireworks and a steam machine to make him appear as The Wizard of Oz. I kept waiting for James Franco to say: “I am Oz! The great and powerful!” but it never happens, so instead we get: “It is I, the great and powerful Wizard of Oz!” and I had to think, “Does MGM have that phrase copyrighted?” I mean, the title is Oz the Great and Powerful, so it would’ve fit perfect in just that way. But, it never comes. For shame!

    There are some great homages to the original 1939 Wizard of Oz, such as the black and white film beginning in Kansas (But, never once do we hear that he’s not in Kansas anymore!) or the Poppy Fields being an important battleground. But overall, it reminds me of Oz-cum-World of Warcraft, with Mila Kunis’s green-skinned witch standing in for an orc, and munchkins for gnomish tinkers.

Entertaining and heavy on the “anything’s possible theme”, but also nice to see some disabled main characters, and side characters as well. (The Powerchair Munchkin Tinker!) Cheesy, yes, but sometimes we need to believe in ourselves to become great! Or just have flying monkey battles! Whichever you prefer…like an old-time carnival attraction, it’s got a little something for everyone!

    "Make me walk."    
                               

"I want to come with you!"

Monday, April 8, 2013

Game of Thrones Update: Season 3 Episode 2


Game of Thrones Update:

Jojen: “You can’t kill him, you know.”

Bran: “How do you know?”

Jojen: “Because the raven is you.”



    Bran’s dream of hunting a raven becomes real when he’s approached by strangers. Should I say spoilers? SPOILERS! I knew Bran had strong dreams ever since the show decided to push him out a window, but this new episode of Game of Thrones turns the knob all the way to 11. He can see through the eyes of animals and into the future. I’m particularly fond of the interactions between him and his caretakers. But, it seems someone got past him, his “aides” and his pet wolf on the way out of Winterfell, where he told him the news of his magic.

   And Bran isn’t the only one! There were a ton of new characters introduced in this episode, one of whom beyond The Wall is the same kind of wizard as Bran (Who is also disabled, but he has been since day one; so he’s a second favorite of mine!) Of course, my first favorite is Tyrion. Sadly, he still hasn’t shown me really that he’s back in the game, so to speak. He tells his confidante that she shouldn’t come into his room without permission from his father, but she does anyway. Such deference to the law worries me; isn’t normal for him.

   Sansa is having to act happy about not being married to the King. Could it be a sign of House Stark coming together? Tyrion has already suggested that any man can have her now that she’s not married. Meanwhile Geoffrey is still setting up the wedding and generally flaunting his new wife to Sansa; and we learn that Sansa’s grandmother’s not too keen on him doing so. Geoffrey may have to face revolution from the inside, and I like it, but that’s my wishful thinking.

Sadly, there’s no Khaleesi or Milisandre in this episode, but I don’t think it means their armies are going away. I see this episode mainly as focusing on strengthening the ex-Starks. Arya is traveling with vagabond warriors known as the Brothers without Banners who seem impressed by her escape. It appears they’ve also found Brienne. With the ex-Starks gaining allies, and some of them new powers, it might be enough to topple Geoffrey. But, he seems as arrogant as ever, and I doubt he even cares what his people think of his scandals.  

In this episode, I was particularly taken by Bran’s development that he’s a wizard. He could possibly see a future in his dreams where this journey pays off. Speaking as a disabled man, I often find that my dreams compensate for not being able to physically act on all my thoughts…curiously, in his dreams, as in mine, he is able-bodied. So, I hope that symbolizes some power or influence left in him. All in all, a hopeful episode, assuming the Brothers Without Banners are friendly. I just hope my outlook isn’t misplaced! Nice Stark development, but I can’t wait to get back to The Queen of Dragons.

 


Wednesday, March 20, 2013

The Incredible Hulk Series


The Incredible Hulk Series:

                                                

A lot of talk has been going around about “Who’s the best  Batman?” “Who’s the better Spider-Man?” (It’s Andrew Garfield, by the way.) with all this “Who played it better?” going on…why is no one talking about The Hulk? There have been 4 actors for him already! Edward Norton (2008) Mark Ruffalo (2011) Eric Bana…(2003) Wait a minute. The reason there’s no one talking about Hulk is that there’s only been one real Hulk! Lou Ferrigno.

He wasn’t CGI.  He was a real life deaf bodybuilder in the live action Incredible Hulk series. They didn’t really have the budget for Hulk to be this giant thing rampaging through the city, but he’s big and tough and you get the sense that if Hulk were real, this would be him. He’s a little more human in this old series. Which is important, because in the modern movies, he just symbolizes “the monster within”  or is handy whenever they need someone to kick butt and grunt. But, because of Ferrigno’s deafness possibly, I feel that this Hulk attempts more at communication, in contrast to where we, as a hearing audience typically associate communication with verbal articulation.

 For example, in the first episode, Hulk saves a little girl from drowning by tearing down a tree and having her grab on. The girl was scared by Hulk, but he saves her. This returns Lou Ferrigno’s Hulk to his roots in Frankenstein as well as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The “modern” Hulks certainly capture the effect of Mr. Hyde, (Especially in The Avengers; since for the first hour there is no Hulk, and then he shows up to smash.) But, little is done to preserve the idea that the monster is ultimately just as sympathetic as the doctor. Lou Ferrigno’s Hulk is misunderstood and scary-looking, but like Frankenstein’s monster, he is ultimately kind.
 
As mentioned, the live action Hulk isn’t some 20-foot giant rampaging through cities, but he is strong. He rips up cars, uses trees as clubs, and even tears up houses while fighting an evil version of himself! You see, this Hulk is still trying to do good. I suppose you can make an argument that in modern movies Dr. Banner “doesn’t have control of the Hulk yet.” but in the live action version it’s made clear that the Hulk is David Bruce Banner.

 By the way, why is his name Dr. David Bruce Banner? Isn’t his name Dr. Bruce Banner? In this series though, he’s a medical doctor who’s obsessed with finding out what’s at the root of superhuman feats of strength. This seems to make more sense than a nuclear bomb or accidental overdose of gamma rays or a government scientist working with the military! No! He intentionally doses himself with gamma rays and becomes the Hulk for science! His irrational obsession drives him to superhuman feats. His transformation scenes into the Hulk are awesome, and he’s (Bill Bixby) replaced with Lou Ferrigno as Hulk. Though it’s tacky by today’s standards!

Don’t get me wrong, I liked Mark Ruffalo and Edward Norton. But, Lou Ferrigno adds humanity to the Hulk as well as a superhero! The human aspect is lost in the modern CGI. Curiously, in other iterations of the Hulk, he only speaks in minimal phrases. Lou Ferrigno does not talk. This adds more humanity I think, when he is saving someone, and more intensity when he is under threat, because he can’t explain himself! To be fair, the catchphrase for Hulk at this point was “You won’t like me when I’m angry!” which was left to Bill Bixby. Lou Ferrigno is all action!

    Stan Lee has said that part of his inspiration for Hulk was Frankenstein. The other was Mr. Hyde. Lou Ferrigno revives the possibility that the Hulk still is Dr. Banner; like Frankenstein’s monster he tries to do good but frightens the ignorant townspeople. The thing is Hulk is still Bruce Banner. He just can't talk and is a little scary-looking. Perhaps Ferrigno's deafness added to the effectiveness of him running from people he can't talk to; people he's often trying to save. (or teach a lesson!)

   In conclusion, literally, there’s only one real Hulk. I’m sure there’s motion-capture involved today, but on a purely visual level, Lou Ferrigno is the only real Hulk, and that’s the reason there can be no discussion about who’s better. The other actors did fine as Bruce Banner, but they did not become the Hulk. He was the Hulk.

All that needs to be said of Ferrigno’s Hulk is the catchphrase: “You won’t like me when I’m angry!” but I do! And he seems to be more in “control” when he is the Hulk, because of his pure muscle and focus. No caveman speech. Lou Ferrigno adds such intensity and such emotion without it; to make the Hulk strong and more human! I highly recommend looking at this series!






Friday, February 15, 2013

TRANSCENDING THE BODY THROUGH ART, DR. WHO, AND VALENTINE’S DAY:


TRANSCENDING THE BODY THROUGH ART, DR. WHO, AND VALENTINE’S DAY:



Happy late Valentine’s Day! For me, it was a day full of Doctor Who, sending out virtual valentines to loved ones, and a medical assessment. After a medical assessment, I always need a serious break from reality. So, I watched the Doctor Who movie from 1996! (Actually made as a US TV movie; a good intro to this UK series!) I’ve actually become somewhat of a Whovian as well as a Trekkie, it seems. Basically, The Doctor is a time-traveling alien, a Time Lord, a formless being who can reincarnate himself in human form. His spaceship is a police box called the TARDIS. Each incarnation has a different personality, quirks, and companions. A great show for Valentine’s Day! I’ve watched only 5 or so different incarnations. I love that the show is completely illogical and can be anything since he can be anywhere, anytime.

   Like I said, after a medical assessment, I needed a serious break from reality. I hate my body being poked at, and the time-traveling mystical alien in his flying police box did the trick. Full confession: when I started watching Dr. Who in November 2011, I was just curious what all the Dr. Who hubbub was about. But, I was hooked quite easily. The 1996 movie is a good intro, and begins with at the end of the 7th Doctor’s body, all through the 8th. Personally, I started with the 9th Doctor (2005-2006) and just watched the 8th today. Since the Doctor nearly always has companions, it’s a good show about friendship with good humor and fantastic adventures. I think my favorite is the 10th Doctor. (2006-2010) He’s very quirky and memorable, but capable of getting real serious real fast.

   In fact, I recently bought/made a 4th Doctor costume (That wild-eyed self-aggrandizing genius played by Tom Baker from 1974-1981.)  that I’m bringing to another convention in Columbus. My friend Aaron is going as the 11th. We’re the self-titled “Dr. Who Crew”. Perhaps others will join us. I just can’t wait to be among fellow geeks, I suppose. What else? I got to play PS3 recently. What an experience for someone who hasn’t bothered with videogames in 7 years! Batman: Arkham City was good. I think I’ll review it later. Even though I’ve only just begun sort of a re-entry into the videogame scene. During the assessment yesterday, I got a little bit of a chance to explain intercultural communication with my coordinator, after explaining my interest in sci-fi, escapism, dislike of medical pokiness, etc.
 
Speaking of artistic communication, the 5th Annual VSA Day of Arts For All is coming! This is our chance to express a disability experience. Last time I went it was very inspiring and I met some brilliant young artists. No medical pokey stuff here! This is the expression of our individual life experiences as people and artists with disabilities! This year it will be at The Westerville Community Center from 9am-2pm EST; March 2nd! Come and celebrate life, art, and overcoming disability through sheer creative will! The event Ohio will be sponsored by my good friends at VSA Ohio! The address is 350 North Cleveland Avenue, Westerville, OH 43082. Hope to see you there!
 
 So, in many ways, I consider Valentine’s Day to be a chance to reflect on my good friends who see me for who I am, and not just my disability. In this regard, it was a pretty successful holiday, full of friends, and flying police boxes and art! I even did some of my own art to commemorate the nearing of the Day of Arts For All! Yesterday, was a great reminder that how I get through every challenge in life is by overcoming whatever others might think I am! Also, I’m sort of a Time Lord now! See below! Until next time!

                                             



Monday, February 4, 2013

I AM NOT MY DISABILITY: THE INCOMMUNICABILITY OF DISABILITY



                I AM NOT MY DISABILITY:  THE INCOMMUNICABILITY OF DISABILITY

What is a disability? Is it a severe mental or physical limitation? If this is so, are obese people or drug addicts disabled? Both can be either severely physically and/or mentally limiting. Is it a blessing, granting people a different and positive viewpoint on life?  Or is it a curse, confining and restrictive to otherwise able human beings? It seems that no matter how one looks at the issue, both disability and the disabled community are increasingly difficult terms to define. It is incommunicable.

 This flies in the face of the old axiom that  “You cannot not communicate.” I take communicability to mean understandability of experience. While the ADA and other laws have defined (dialogically) some terms that make disability rights understandable, disability itself is incommunicable. What I argue is that disability and the disability community are relative terms that can actually be harmful to a person if they are rigidly defined to medical diagnosis or reliance on assistive devices. To understand why I am against such definitions (i.e. wheelchair user or cerebral palsy sufferer) it necessary to relate how such ambiguous terms have been communicated through history.

Dialogue is described by John Durham Peters as sharing the same time and space.1 Its uses include the clarification of terms and the creation of dyadic relationships (where we talk to each other.) and creating a sense of shared understanding and meaning. Dialogical contexts include role-playing, philosophy, and drama, where time and space are shared. Because dialogue is fundamentally a dyadic sensation, where the meaning or truth of a statement is typically evaluated by agreement on common meanings for terms, I maintain that any set dialogical definition of “disability” or “disability community” will ultimately be more restricting to a person with a disability than would no definition at all. While it is true that a dialogical definition reached by a common meaning and sharing of inner experience on which laws have been established to protect disability rights, this dialogic search for clarity of terms forces on the disabled an illusionary collective mindset that focuses on common limitations, not abilities.

Dissemination however, would provide a much more personal definition of “disability”, thus allowing for interpretation and the personal development to the notion that I am not my disability. Dissemination seeks no definition: it is open for all to hear.    Dissemination is broadcasted to an open-ended destination; it is a feature of all speech, according to Peters.2 (Shepard, et al., 212) I argue that it allows for autonomy in speech and thought, throughout what we might call the “disability community”. Recently, it has become popular to say that there ought to be one word to characterize the disabled experience, and that this definition should point in effect to the notion that we are all handicapped.

Though I am sympathetic to such efforts, I see the search for dialogical definitions of disability “community” as limiting to the concept of community, although such definitions based on assistive devices or medical diagnosis as helpful to the individual in gaining autonomy, not the community. (“deaf community”, quadriplegics, “wheelchair-users”, etc.) It is up to the individual to interpret what his/her disability actually means through self-discovery. This is why an outlook of dissemination and interpretation is helpful, and why I argue that the community of disabled people cannot be defined by the limitations of its members, but instead by its individual overcomings.  This notion that “we are all handicapped.” is not new.

As far back as 1894, Charles Horton Cooley developed the concept that “Transportation is physical, communication is psychical.” (Peters,  184). He saw all men and women as being sensorily handicapped, but by means of new media transportation like trains, radio, and telegraph (he did not include wheelchairs and speech aids.) they could more easily bridge distances of communication between distant people. This is an attempt to squeeze dialogic thinking into media of dissemination; the sharing of two mutually held ideas and the forming of one psychic understanding.

It was Franz Kafka who challenged the idea that media could transport our souls. Humanity knows that “written kisses never reach their destination. Rather they are drunk on the way by ghosts.” (Peters, Franz Kafka to Milena JesenkĂ .) So, they have created trains, telegraphs, and aeroplanes. But, it is no good. In other words, the new communicative media could not cure Cooley’s handicap, being blind and deaf to a larger social world. It is not that “the new communication has spread like morning light over the world,” (Peters, 187-188) as Cooley would have it, but rather, that like the privileged page gifted with the emperor’s last message in Eine kaiserliche Botschaft (1919), the message is never read nor delivered: “The Emperor—so they say—has sent a message, directly from his death bed, to you alone, his pathetic subject, a tiny shadow which has taken refuge at the furthest distance from the imperial sun.” 3 (Kafka trans. Appelbaum, 49) This is a challenge to Marshall McLuhan and his school of thought. The medium may be the message, but it might not be the soul, by which I mean handicaps cannot be reasoned dialogically. As Peters’ noted, Kafka’s Verfremdung [estrangement] explodes the dialogical concept of sharing which is inherent in independent living, but not to disability.

These days, a popular phenomena within disability culture if I may call it such, is the independent living movement. The aims of the movement are to provide persons with disabilities the least restrictive environment in which to live. Which is to say, handicaps are removed through nurse aides and/or assistive devices, or whatever is needed. These aims are fine and noble. But, it raises a question: is the notion of independent living defined? Who has defined it? Under what terms? (Note that here there is a dialogical tint.)

As I have stated, any drive towards freedom should come from the disabled person himself/herself, not as part of a medical examination. I am purposing that it is when the disabled are independent themselves that they really begin to uncover their true handicaps and develop methods to overcome them. Those methods and true disabilities will be individual and as such not open to clear dialogue, but dissemination.

Is independent living harmful to this end? No. One should realize that when one says “independent” we are disseminating. It can mean different things, and levels of independence, just as Wittgenstein claimed that “Water!” could be anything not referring to water itself when used in isolation as a word.4 (Wittgenstein trans. Anscombe, 10) In just that way, one can learn to laugh at one’s own handicap. It is a language-game, and I must play with it in different ways. In effect, the disabled must depend on others as must depend on others. It is wrong to say we don’t need others. We are all handicapped, I believe, robs the individual of his or her own uniqueness.

In summation, is the drive for dialogical clarification of terms and truth misplaced? Perhaps so, but not without benefits. Laws and media have furthered the rights of people with disabilities. However, the community cannot risk finding the one true definition. The aim should be not the dialogical we are all handicapped, but rather a product of dissemination. I am not my disability. As Goethe’s Faust put it: “Name is but sound and smoke, befogging heaven’s blazes.”5 (Goethe trans. Kaufmann, 327)





Sunday, January 27, 2013

CONSTRUCTING JAMES CASTLE AT THE URBAN ARTS SPACE OSU:


CONSTRUCTING JAMES CASTLE AT THE URBAN ARTS SPACE OSU:

Yesterday, I went to the Constructing James Castle Exhibit. James Castle was a deaf artist (1899-1977) who did most of his work with found materials. (Soot, packaging, paper, matchboxes etc.) most of his work reflects his life as a deaf man in rural Idaho and his experience at the Gooding School for the Deaf. (1910-1915.) Even though in his day he was labeled “uneducable”; if you look at his work, you know that’s not true.

The first pictures I saw were of his house in Idaho, drawn on matchboxes with soot. The attention to detail was so realistic, from texture to depth, to lighting, that I felt as if I had entered a turn of the century house. Things like drawers, and stoves, old grammophones, were drawn on the notches of the matchboxes so they appear to be open. Also, he paid great attention to doors; (either an as idea, or a physical concept.) so that you could really enter the room and take note of the textures. Here was a man who was really inviting you in: and on the top of the back he’s written “Jim”.

Keep in mind this was mostly done on soot. I have trouble even drawing with a pencil! Yet, a few of his later “Dream House” paintings appear to be in watercolor. Perhaps he had a stroke of luck and found some, and the painting shows his happiness. His work was all done with what he found. There are sections of paper dolls with different expressions, held together by string and molded into human figures with often squared heads. It made me think at first of the Lego exhibit, only more expressive, because it was carefully made out of scraps.

His depiction of the school was most affecting to me. He made booklets out of matchboxes and cigarette packages, paper scraps, that show his daily life there. What struck me was that the depictions of the deaf students were often those short expressionless or sad squared figures, while the faculty was drawn tall, straighter, and with more vivid expressions; smiling faces, glasses, school uniforms etc. Was this how the administrators saw the deaf students? It seems so.

The students in the classrooms (again drawn with soot!) always sat in a semicircle, wooden rough chair vividly depicted. The drawing showed a deaf girl struggling to learn. (she did not look happy.) I marveled at how someone could draw a chalkboard and the classroom with such clarity in soot! Also, again, many of the students were faceless blockheaded figures. One could say that this was coincidental, but in another work called “Knucklehead”, there is a man who’s head is represented by a fist in the shape of the word “dumb” (as in “deaf and dumb.") in sign language. Clearly, this was the “uneducable” and “illiterate” artist trying to demonstrate his frustration with able-bodied faculty through his grasp of colloquialisms.

Castle’s grasp of language went beyond signing, and I also saw that his notes included sophisticated linguistic notation which he may well have learned at the school. Perhaps he was not so uneducable as his teachers once thought! I saw for example in his notes he would phonetically sound out words. Such as: “Ie Zi AI SED” (possibly sounding out “I said.) or “P!D”  (Differentiating breaths in “p and d” sounds.)

Other pieces from the school period of his art include booklets made out of cigarette cartons, matchboxes, and different packages, where he would draw in things like the dormitories; a single bed with an enormous window; again, an amazing understanding of light and depth, and again his obsession with doors. In various matchbox pictures, such as a depiction of a country road, I even saw the scribbling of long-division: Was this so he could get the dimensions right, something he had been learning, or both?

That must’ve been because his supplies demanded it, and because he was illustrating his own deaf worldview, and fascination with doors.   Several other happier pictures include depictions of his teachers in kaleidoscopic formations. According to the exhibit, one of his teachers had once shown him kaleidoscopes and he became fascinated. Some of these were even on paper! One of them was lined, which probably means it came from the school. Also, James Castle was enthralled by black and white contrast, owing to his medium, soot; particularly in the school uniforms. One depiction shows a student in uniform raising his hand, with headphones nearby. I recognized this as an old hearing test, and Castle had drawn the student in black and white uniform, behind a black gate. I didn’t know if the students were actually separated for the tests, in those days, or if it reflected his fascination or frustration. Perhaps both.

One of the distinguishing factors in Castle’s work is the ability to make art out of whatever he found, and throw his emotion onto his re-creations. Several of his later works from the 60s reveal a much more colorful selection as he began using magazine covers and cereal boxes, and re-created a Valentine’s Day ad with a toy soldier in it. Probably, he could imagine the vibrations of the toy flute, just as he could feel the vibrations in the comings and goings of open and closed doors. I was vaguely reminded, in his later period, of Andy Warhol, though the resemblances probably stop in that they are reflective of the cultural media of the ‘60s. Castle’s from the Deaf perspective.  Because of the magazine paper, his re-creations and art probably were allowed to be more colorful; and were certainly more in abundance by the 1960s, and color was no problem. Suddenly, an artist who drew in soot was in full color.

Though much of his work in the exhibit was in that school period, the color productions later on were some of my favorite. The others from the school period show a counter-narrative as well as a deaf life world. (I.e. “Knucklehead” and the hearing test; showing he was only “uneducable” because had a different worldview.) Perhaps once his teachers’ agendas were gone he constructed for himself through his art, a Deaf Culture, and was happier. One sees the counter-narrative disappear and become more representative of (as always.) deaf life experiences.

I’m extremely happy that I got to see all these pieces. It is proof that both a Disability Culture and life experience can be recorded by art. Too often, I think as it is represented in media, we must chose one or the other. Yet, here was a man, who had the ingenuity to both create and represent his world, with only his environment as his palette, and hence is probably not widely recognized in mainstream art today. The idea of Deaf Culture was probably not even recognized in Castle’s time, and he made it himself!  There’s no doubt in my mind that he understood that he simply had a different sensory experience. Yet, his linguistic knowledge represents an attempt at understanding the alien speaking world; similar to how I try to understand the walking world through rhetoric and linguistics.

Lastly, if there’s anything that art does, it is to create something beyond oneself, and beyond one’s mortal existence. I felt as if James Castle was keenly aware that his perception was unique. Just as I feel my cerebral palsy is a unique sensory experience. But, to have that awareness of deafness as a social problem rather than a strict medical one, at the turn of the century, is amazing as technology is ultimately the driving force behind increased accessibility and mainstreaming. I can’t speak for James Castle, but think that maybe we can glimpse so of that idea in his obsession with doors. Coming and going: pictures of things like grammophones, or things that he could hear vibrations of, might also have glimpsed the idea that he could adapt to the world.

REMEMBER: Nobody gave him a pencil or paper. He didn’t expect to be famous. He did most his drawings with soot. James Castle found all those things, he adapted the world around him into his art. He made the world see his voice, even if he couldn’t hear. He wasn’t “uneducable”; He wanted people to see. I saw: I was moved by his creativity and brilliance. He constructed his own world. From paper dolls, to scraps of junk molded into soot sketches, James is the Unheard Master of Disability Culture in the 20th century. The exhibit is open until Feb. 24. See it if you can! (PS: Google images couldn’t find “Knucklehead”, although it is a fascinating piece!)


 (Paper doll.)

                                                   (School period matchbox booklets.)

                                                                (Inside of House.)


                                        (Self-portrait, year unknown; source of color unknown.)

(On matchbox, Side of House.)