Exploring the Shades of Noir journal around Disability, I came across a pertinent article about a research project undertaken by a LCF tutor examining what adjustments might encourage wider participation in fashion for visually impaired students. I was instantly intrigued by the title ‘Understanding Visual Impairments by Claudette Davis-Bonnick’ (Davis-Bonnick, 2020), partly because I recently assisted a student who admitted that, having forgotten her glasses, her vision was impaired.
One aspect of the research highlighted a multimodal approach to teaching, where a number of senses were engaged to enhance learning. It was noted that Fashion has become very visual-centric, with emphasis on what something looks like (Davis-Bonnick, 2016). So audio resources were advocated, which would help not only visually impaired students, but those with specific learning differences. The sense of touch was found to be under employed and different techniques around feeling shapes, edges and textures were trialled.
This approach resonated with the artworks of Christine Sun Kim and Khairani Barokka. Both incorporated elements of the artists’ relationship to their different senses in their art; interrogating the ‘disablity’ in one of their senses. Barokka was transforming what she was feeling ‘to make an ‘invisible disability’ visible, through refusing to stand up to perform, and through the paint’s visualisation of my pain’ (Barokka, 2017)) and Kim was using various objects to create a language which could translate her thoughts and emotions more truly (A Selby Film, 2012); an embodiment of her audio ‘disability’.
These resources drew my attention to the reductionist emphasis of fashion on a single sense, both limiting the scope for designs and the entry for potential designers. They also prompted me to consider the exciting possibilities within fashion practice that could be extrapolated from them; to include the entirety of the human experience in the design of a garment, from touch, smell and sound, to emotional, political and social responses.
As a side note, I had never regarded wearing glasses (which I do myself) as a disability. But perhaps it is just a matter of degrees whether one is labelled ‘disabled’ or ‘normal’. And therefore, following the social model of disability, Davis-Bonnick’s research is an example of where making adjustments to help visually impaired people could benefit all students. Further, it is this labelling of someone as ‘disabled’ or ‘normal’ which according to Critical Disability Theory, leads to a binary approach of othering and the ‘oppression of disabled people perpetuated in many societies globally… Perhaps if there were more recognition that there is no single acceptable mode of embodiment, and that all bodies are unstable and vulnerable, then rather than being labelled as deficient, the bodies that are further from normative standards would be revalued as simply different.’ (Shildrick, 2012)
I had never considered that whole groups of people might feel excluded from Fashion because of how they had been labelled. Maybe we should approach the delivery of education in our institution with the idea that we are, all of us, differently abled.
Bibliography
Davis-Bonnick, C. (2020) ‘Understanding Visual Impairments’. Disabled People: The Voice of Many, pg 106-108.
Davis-Bonnick, C. (2016) Seeing is Believing Documentary. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqgxB9iaq2s (Accessed: 1 May 2023)
Barokka, K. (2017) ‘Deaf-accessibility for spoonies: lessons from touring Eve and Mary Are Having Coffee while chronically ill’, Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance, Vol. 22(3), pg. 387–392.
A Selby Film (2012) Christine Sun Kim. Available at: https://vimeo.com/31083172 (Accessed: 1 May 2023)
Shildrick, M. (2012) Critical Disability Studies: rethinking the conventions for the age of postmodernity. London: Routledge.
Hi E-Sinn. I just wanted to leave a quick message saying I enjoyed reading your blog post. That Shildrick quote is great, isn’t it? And I definitely agree that making things inclusive for visually impaired students is likely to benefit all.
Thanks Carys! The critical analysis going on in this area is so thought provoking. I wish I had more time to read through it all.
Hi E-Sinn, I really liked the way you used the oversight of visually impaired students’ needs from fashion education as a way to connect the different resources given to us. You mention the reductionist emphasis of a single sense in fashion design and the need to include the entirety of the human experience. I liked that you connected this to the social model of disability and critical disability theory, challenging the labelings of people as ‘disabled’ or ‘normal’ and instead recognising the value of all bodies as different and unique. I teach Graphic design which is a highly visual discipline and though we encourage students to always be inclusive of different abilities in their designed outputs I’m not sure we’ve found the best method for this yet. You highlight the need for a multimodal approach to teaching that engages multiple senses, including touch. Maybe this could also be a way to get students to engage more in inclusive design practices.
Hi Emilie! I’ve been looking at a few resources around accessible design and there is this website https://universaldesign.ie/What-is-Universal-Design/The-7-Principles/ in the EDI staff area of Canvas. There may be a few things that would be transferable to Graphic Design although it is mainly focused on architecture and environmental design. My perception (my ignorance) of Graphics is that it is by default a visually led discipline, but maybe with emerging technologies, there is room for incorporating other sensory aspects into designs; 3-D printing for texture, or braille, audio text to speech? On a tangent, I’ve been dipping into UAL Decolonising Arts Institute seminars mainly on decolonising language but there were some interesting arguments around the language of visual culture, and how the Euro-centric view has dominated the discourse. There was a presentation by Khairani Barokka (didn’t realise she has an association with UAL) where she argues that ableism has dominated (colonised) visual culture and how we need to retrain our thinking/perceptions around what is a ‘good/normal’ body. Visually, we could be looking to include all kinds, as well as colours, of bodies in the images we produce. And within all disciplines, there is a lot of work to do in including and expanding our understanding of other cultures’ visual styles/languages. This reply is a bit all over the place, it’s quite late at night!
Only just seeing this reply. Thank so much for taking the time. These references are super helpful. The dominance of a euro-centric approach to visual language is a big problem we come up against on the course. Especially because often-times even overseas students seek to learn and mimic this kind of design/aesthetic. Beyond the problems around the homogenisation of cultures, western design is as you say, very ableist so I’m excited to check out the refs you shared. Thank you!!
I hadn’t seen this quote before:
‘oppression of disabled people perpetuated in many societies globally… Perhaps if there were more recognition that there is no single acceptable mode of embodiment, and that all bodies are unstable and vulnerable, then rather than being labelled as deficient, the bodies that are further from normative standards would be revalued as simply different.’ (Shildrick, 2012)
So I looked it up… good god, thats a difficult piece to read!
I think what this quote/article is grappling with (at a most base and summaris’able’ level) is the difficulty in this set of labels and modes of seeing when we reference ‘disabled’. BUT, even the word ‘different’ suggests that there is a normative from which the ‘different’ might at worst ‘deviate’. Its just a ‘different’ label for the same sort of things. Naturally, humans seek to categorise, its how we make sense of the world around us. But the methodology and execution of labelling is historically actioned by the oppressors… So, sure, we need to find new and holistically acceptable ways of referencing… but changing the words wont hide this constant comparison to ‘normative’… that is, until such a time that ‘normative’ is something quite different (in human reference) to what we potentially collectively understand today.
I think the next step on from this quote (where the author says the path is unclear) is that we need to better play into the way that humans are hard wired if we want to make meaningful change… so maybe, in my opinion visibility, understanding, care and empathy are keywords to this journey along with some difficult conversations.
I don’t think humans will ever stop labelling and categorising, but the demystification and normalisation of our differences will help to avoid the continuation of Darwinian type eugenics opinion, negative intrigue/exoticification and assumption which has been at the route of historic and status quo oppression.
I did have to take a list of all the new words in this article and look them up, then read again!
You’re a star to have read that article twice, Ellen! But seriously, I do agree with your read of where we are and how far we have to travel to get to a better place for disabled and other oppressed groups. I think the difficulties you identified surrounding humans need to categorize and label is magnified by identity politics and social media. Sometimes it’s hard not to get depressed by the discourse which pits one group against another for the scraps from the top table. But as you say, words are not enough. It’s deeds that change the world. I’m interested in how ally-ship can work to affect change and what we can do to facilitate those difficult discussions and take action to support ‘others’ in a positive, constructive way.
Hi E-Sinn, I really enjoyed reading about your experience supporting students in the Fashion studios, and how you have related it to Christine Sun Kim and Khairani Barokka’s practice and other resources.
I agree that a multimodal approach to teaching and exploration is exciting and would help all students’ practice, and for all to feel included. This has prompted me to think of how photography’s proliferation has contributed to the visual-centric problem. In photogram workshops for Textile students, they are encouraged to engage with a more haptic experience with light and materials, and I think its a good precursor to exploring materials and light in a studio context.
It has also reminded me of the diopter focus dial on a camera viewfinder – the camera’s viewfinder can be adjusted for an individual’s eye sight, though it will not work for all vision that falls outside of what is considered ‘normal’. This may make some students feel excluded in our area, and perhaps needs discussion so that students know there are workarounds for focussing, or other ways to engage with photography.
It’s great to hear how you are incorporating the learning from this unit into your daily practice, especially as your discipline is presumptively visually led, as mine is. The examples you’ve cited have started me thinking about ‘workarounds’ in my area as well. Thanks for the nudge!
Hi E-sinn. I guess I envy your ability to incorporate view points or issues into your teachings or practice. I believe that this ‘normal’ agenda needs to be wiped clean and redefined, I don’t engage with words like normal well just because what is the norm and how was it accepted as the norm. I used to wear glasses when I was younger and I hated feeling less than just because my eyes were not 20/20 and I needed help just to see the screen, I wouldn’t call my younger self differently abled BUT I could tell that I was at a disadvantage to those who didn’t need them.
Needless to say I enjoyed reading your blog! Very insightful.
Thanks for sharing your experiences, Ernesto. I don’t like the word ‘normal’ either. Maybe I’m being idealistic, but I feel like no one is normal! Hopefully the knowledge from this unit will help us to build communities of belonging for our students as well as ourselves.