Exploitation, Art, and LeBesco

The piece Staring: How We Look by Garland-Thomson explores the use of art in helping people become more comfortable and familiar with disability. Two artists are cited as making able-bodied people explore how they react and look at disabled people by giving them the chance to stare without fear of offending or being perceived as rude. The artists also give the disabled people agency by allowing them to choose how to present themselves. In this way the art not only allowed the starers to look at the disabled people but it also gave the disabled persons agency in choosing how they would like to be presented. Although, in these instances I believe the subjects were given agency and in a way a voice, they were still being exploited. The point of the exhibits for both artists was too give able-bodied people the change to view the disabled people from a disabled person to just as person with a disability. However, the draw of the photos and of the exhibits was still that these people were disabled, meaning that there value and interest was still defined by their disability.

Let’s define exploitation. When I searched Google the definition that popped up was “The action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work”. The first part of the definition is up for interpretation, how do we define whether or not someone was being treated unfairly? Were the subjects in these art pieces paid for helping? Where they given commission for how well the exhibit did? Where they fully aware of what their photos would be used for? One would hope that the answer to most or all of these questions is yes. However, from the articles it is unclear. It is definitely true that the artist benefited from the work or the input of the disabled people because the artists are the ones who made money and gained fame from the exhibit in a way that the subjects from the piece did not.

     So, yes, these subjects were exploited but in this sense is the exploitation bad? Or rather does the good from this exploitation outweigh the bad from it? For instance, the disabled subjects were exploited, but they also, hopefully, helped reframe how some people viewed people with disabilities. These art exhibits may have helped people with abled-bodied privilege become less afraid to look at those who are disabled or to try and change how they act or view people with disability. If these art exhibits did lead to expanding how people with disability are viewed by the mainstream able-bodied population than they exploitation was worth in the large view of the world. Whether or not it was worth it for the disabled subjected used in the pieces is for them to decide. So perhaps instead of deciding whether or not these exhibits, or anything, is exploitation based off of how they affect the larger public we should consider how the affect disabled people. If the people in these pictures feel that they were in some way given a voice, or given a chance to talk about disability in a way that they wanted to then this exploitation is useful.

What really matters when talking about the exploitation of disabled people is how the disabled people feel about their exploitation. LeBesco believes that fat people being proud and loud about their fatness is the first step to fat acceptance. We could look at disability the same way. The first step is not trying to get abled people to accept people with disabilities but trying to get people with disabilities to proudly and vocally accept and celebrate their disability. The key to avoiding exploitation as much as possible is to make sure that disabled people have a space to talk about their disability but also about their life in relation and not in relation to their disability. It’s also important to make the space that they are given to talk about their disability accessible and open to able-bodied people so that they can learn from about disability through people who have a disability.

     It is important to acknowledge that in order for disabled people to not be exploited they will have to represent and talk about themselves using only the power they possess as a marginalized group. Although it is problematic that in the art pieces discussed in Staring: How We Look the disabled people, to some degree, were exploited it is also through this exploitation that they gained fame and were able to reach a wider audience. Is exploitation the price disabled people, and marginalized groups, as a whole must pay to get their message to a wider audience? Currently I think the answer is yes.

I believe we can learn from LeBesco when she writes about disability. Although, LeBesco is specifically focusing on how fatness is a disability a lot of her main ideas can be applied to disability as a whole. LeBesco explains that “positive” fat representation in the media is often related to fatness that is normalized. Similarly we can say that disability is marginalized and hidden in the media and when we do see it we are often encouraged to find that part of the disability that is familiar, or “normal” to us in order to relate to the character. Much like we are encouraged to only like fat people if they are actively trying to get rid of their fat we are taught to like someone with a disability if they are trying to act as much like we are as possible, and ignore their disability, or through pity. I think many of the key ideas LeBesco discusses in “Revolting Bodies” can be useful when discussing disability representation. The key is to give the power and presence to disabled people so that they can be seen, as they want to be seen.

Although their has been a lot of controversy over whether or not American Horror Story’s most current season is exploitive or not I think they do show signs of moving in the right direction by providing interviews with members of the cast who have disabilities. I’ll link to a video below of one member of the cast, Rose Siggins, discussing her life and specifically at one part how she does not want to be exploited and does not view herself as abnormal. Rose demonstrates a way to spread knowledge about disability without exploiting the person who has the disability.