Dail 2004

An Interview with Dr Paul Darke

(unedited or amended - not as printed)

Dail: What is disability art is to you?

PD: Disability arts is the practice of art in any media that explores the notion of disablemen t primarily from a social model and political perspective. And thatís intrinsic in the nature of the arts, so pretty pictures arenít really disability art although it may be art by disabled people. Disability art is much more work that explores the very notion of the identity of what it is to be a person who experiences disablement in a disabling society. It is highly political. Some of my friends often say oh, itís propaganda, and it is to some extent but with art so thereís craft in there, thereís depth, thereís a challenge to the fundamental way in which society is structured against disabled people as we experience and live it now.

Can we continue to ask where you think it is at?

I think it is in the u bend of the toilet on its way into the sewer. (laughs) But where itís at is problematic in that it is very much like disability and disabled people. On the surface things are much better, much more funded, much more opportunities than ever before but underneath that it is actually much worse in the sense that we now have equality per se, legislation, access, whatever but the very fact that 99 percent of some disabled people (impairments) are being aborted or terminated and many others institutionalised or segregated: thatís the reality for most disabled people but for the one or two who escape that scenario, i.e. the educated middle classes, wankers such as myself, it is much better than it has ever been for disabled people. And it is the same with disability arts, there is a minority of people who are doing very well but the problem for me there is that itís not because they are doing disability art but because they are doing art and disability. And they are negating disability arts to get the shekels from the status quo, you know the few extra quid or the access into the mainstream and for me the whole point of disability art has been to reveal the mainstream to be the oppressive and shallow and ignorant sphere of expression that it is. Not to go round and say please let us join, and thatís the problem I think too many disabled artists who were into DA are much more concerned with accessing the mainstream instead of creating their own work which should be challenging the mainstream for what it is. They end up participating in the oppression of disabled people instead of challenging the very system that creates that oppression. Take the example of Mat Fraser. This is not about individuals. But the disability community should completely excommunicate him for participating in the mainstream to the degree that he does. But equally he should not give a fuck and do whatever he wants to do. These are two very separate things and itís when they come together that you start getting problems and inconsistencies. The disability movement should be ideologically and politically consistent. I think Mat is brilliant but the work he does is not disability arts.

Is there a remedy for this?

Creating a greater degree of consciousness amongst the people within the disability arts movement to try and get them to understand that what they do can be damaging. The mainstream funders love disabled people who do things that are non-challenging that are tied up with mainstream art values. Candoco and Graeae are good examples of that. This is not disability art and we should stop saying it is. We need to be much more consistent in demarking what is disability arts and what isnít, as we as what is challenging and innovative and whatís seeking to be the mainstream and we donít do that at all. We tend to say ëtheyíre doing well letís claim them as our owní when in fact theyíre pure mainstream. There is nothing wrong with this, except that politically and ideologically it damages the aims of disability arts which is much more about destroying the mainstream which oppresses us. It has its own set of core values which are rooted in normality and not rooted in a celebration of difference and they create hierarchies. Disability arts has a much clearer idea of what its aim is which is to undermine the nature of what is the mainstream because it sees the mainstream as being at the heart of what oppresses disabled people through its belief in the idea of normality. It presumes and perceives normal to be the best. Thatís the very thing that constructs and perceives the abnormal to be second best or not worthy of life. Most disabled people live under that oppression, not under the ëliberationí of accessing the mainstream. For disabled people who want to be part of the mainstream, thatís fair enough (but itís not what disability arts is about). There is one thing more important than disability and that is class. You can see that in the work of disability arts. Within disability arts, often those seeking to be part of the mainstream come from a middle or upper class background. Those who are much more hard-line social-modelists tend to come from a working class background. Those who seek to change the social model to fit in with the mainstream are often middle-class upper class people. Class is at the key of disability empowerment. Itís difficult to get away from individuals. This is not a personal attack on individuals. Iím talking about the structures that make us do the things we do. In order to earn a living, or for dafs to survive, they have to do stuff that is either art therapy, community arts or access to the mainstream ≠ nothing whatsoever to do with disability arts. The dafs have no choice other than to do this if they want to keep their funding. But we have been far too complacent in not stating that we donít want to do that. Or even identifying that it is art therapy in reality. Again there is nothing wrong with this Ö because that can be a very liberating experience for individual disabled people on their road to the consciousness of the greater depths that disability art has to offer as a political way of thinking. This has its place but itís not disability art. How many disability arts forums have stood up and said this is art therapy and we are in it for the money? Iím not setting myself up as being better than them. I do stuff that I think is absolutely crap when Iíve needed the money. Often the funders donít care what you do. They just want to tick a box. You could actually put on the most radical pieces of work. An example of this is when the BBC put on a programme called ëFrom the Edgeí. No one seemed to be watching as the ratings were dreadful. But thatís a good thing because they were being given opportunities to make programmes that could have been absolutely brilliant. The BBC didnít even care that no one was watching ≠ they just wanted to tick their boxes. Instead the film makers created parodies of mainstream stuff. The people who make this stuff best are ënormalí people themselves being so stuck in normality. Weíre all too frightened to create something avant garde and radical as we worry far too much about audience and funders. We worry far too much about the quality of the work for future funding.

Is it possible for artists to create disability arts within the mainstream?

One thing about art is that whatever the artistís intentions may be will be distorted and changed to meet the needs of the viewer. Iíve known artists who have created work in which you canít see how itís informed by disability. The mainstream is highly adept at distorting art to meet its own needs. Marc Quinnís sculpture of Alison Lapper could be a challenging piece of art but it wonít be because the mainstream will absorb it into its own traditions so that it will only ever be seen as associated with these values. The mainstream uses the notion of quality to exclude and devalue the work of others. This is something that disabled artists need to overcome and challenge.

Education

The notion of quality is given too much credence. Art school does not teach you to think creatively, rather in specific narrow bands linked to quality. Having been to a Special School I was not educated. Although I am against special schools the experience helped me to go through life with a fairly open mind and think in tangential ways. Drama school teaches you to play within the confines of what the mainstream defines as quality and that starts to undermine the very nature of their work. We are far too obsessed with mainstream notions of quality.

Audience

The mainstream is worried about audiences. The best work Iíve ever seen has had virtually no audiences. The audiences Iíve seen at mainstream or popular disability productions are often largely people who distort what they are seeing to suit themselves. I remember going to a Candoco production featuring David Toole. I was surrounded by an audience who kept exclaiming ëIsnít he brave? Isnít he wonderful?í This completely negated his brilliant work. This is the skill of the mainstream. They saw it in their own way. We should articulate for our share of the money to get to wider audiences of disabled people rather than the mainstream. Often the money is given to build theatres or put people in tours in exactly the same place as everyone goes. This is another area of deficit in disability culture that weíve almost lost and are continuing to lose the more we become dependent on the mainstream. This is why the money that we get for art therapy and community art we need to be using more creatively and constructively to access those audiences and future participants in ways that could change their lives beyond recognition. A bunch of white middle class tossers going to see Candoco will not be changed by what they see. We tend to see audiences in terms of numbers rather than audiences as people open, willing, wanting and needing the consciousness that disability art can bring to them. Weíve wasted these opportunities far too often and now the funders have a grip on disability arts that forces disability arts forums to go for the numbers rather than trying to reach those who would benefit from it most of all. Disabled people undermine, through their very existence, the whole nature of mainstream society, which is why it does so much against us either to control or absorb us or exterminate us. Because we undermine every value they have. Our very physical being creates a terror in them which forces them to wrap us up and tie us in to either wanting to be like them or killing us. The number of abortions of disabled foetuses shows how much society is terrified of us. We fail to grasp the power we have to undermine everything. The best disability art realises the terror we instil in non-disabled people.

Do you see any artists who are practicing disability arts in that way?

They are there and even some of those who work in the mainstream. For example, Mat Fraser does some fine challenging work. Anne Whitehurst who I work with a lot is one of the best. The DARE group with Nabil Shaban. I also think Steve Dwoskinís work is brilliant it has an edge to it you rarely see. Some of the work done by the Nasty Girls (Nathalie Markham, Liz Carr and Ann Cunningham) some of the work uses the fear that they instill in non-disabled people and twists it making it quite funny for us and quite frightening for non-disabled people. I think this is brilliant and Iíd like to see more of this. But too often the art that we are funding is chosen on the basis of what will make us look good to mainstream funders not those who are creating work that has a really challenging base to it. It is also good to challenge the notion of quality. There is too much obsession with ëthe lookí, apparent quality and professionalism. Everybody is obsessed with continuing professional development. This is very positive for the few disabled artists who will enter the mainstream but very damaging for disability arts itself.

The Outside Centre and the website why is it so inaccessible?

Weíre self-taught and there is a lot of room for improvement in access terms. We will eventually get around to making more accessible. We do stuff and bang it up as soon as possible. This is no excuse but I feel that we can be too obsessed with inclusion. There is nothing wrong in creating work that is exclusively for oneself. The question of access has become a dominating force that has clouded the issue of the power of the work in itself. Iíve done stuff which Iëve been told has excluded x groups of people. I accept this but ask whether it has been understood what the work was trying to include. Often this has not been understood. So the criticism ends up not being about the work but rather about whether some people have been able to get into it or not. The lottery has used disabled people to give billions of pounds to organisations and venues to include us. Why did we ever want to be included? Because they are still putting on the same crap that they always did full of clichÈs, stereotypes and archetypes that framed our oppression. At least now we can get in the lift or up the ramp to go in and see it. What the disabled peopleís movement should say is ëkeep your theatre, give us (disabled people, asylum seekers, ethnic minority groups) the money to do what we want with it for our communitiesí rather than on making these building accessible while they put on the same crap that they always did. Itís just that now a few white middleclass disabled people can go and see it. I like the idea of playing with access. Around 1991, NDAF were launching a national poster project and there was much discussion around making this work accessible to non-disabled people. I suggested that it would be more exciting and interesting to develop something that was inaccessible to non-disabled people. Of course no one listened to me. But I think that artists who are doing work entirely for themselves should sometimes see nothing wrong in excluding people. Everybody should have the tools to create their own work. Not all work can liberate everybody at the same time. We are all intrinsically excluded form things everyday. The point is when this becomes an oppressive totality it becomes dangerous. Matthew Bourne can put on dance stuff that is completely inaccessible to anybody other than people who have gone to dance class. We have a responsibility to give people the opportunity to express what they want to say and not for everyone to be explainable to everybody. Thatís a very difficult thing and thereís a fine line where it becomes oppressive rather than liberating and where it becomes practice rather than an expression at a particular time.

Can you tell us something about the Interventionist work of the Outside Centre?

I discovered that I could buy the domain name www.leonardcheshire.com for £25. I created a text-based work of art exploring how Leonard Cheshire oppresses disabled people. Iím a great believer in doing things spontaneously. There are some images, sounds and text that form a collective statement of the nature of institutionalisation in a witty way. I wrote it in a week straight from the heart. It has some of my best writing there. I still get e-mails from people saying it would be so much more powerful if your grammar and spelling were correct. Theyíve missed the point if all theyíre worried about is the grammar. This was probably the most enjoyable art Iíve made. It was great fun. It worked for the audience as well and had over 50,000 hits in the first three months.

Future Plans

Ann and I are always working on something. Short videos, films Ö I want to write some articles about David Blunkett. Blunkett is the most dangerous politician in the country at the moment because heís blind. Heís dangerous not because he canít see but because heís blind. He has an absolute obsession with normality. Some disabled people who are almost in complete denial of who they are have this. That is why he is the most right wing Labour politician. He is the most anti-immigration politician we will have. He is the one who wants every immigrant to speak English and pass the Britishness test. This epitomises the whole struggle that disabled people have within society. I have the idea of writing a novel in the next few years. Blunkett epitomises the struggle that disabled people have within society: that is the battle between normality and abnormality. Ann Whitehurst and myself met when we were both working with WMDAF. We started to work together about 5 years ago. Annís insights and wisdom and knowledge of feminism and class has inspired me greatly. Iím a great believer in not believing in anything. I like for people to point out to me where Iím wrong so that I can come up with a whole new way of thinking. Itís like everything Iíve said today is what I believe in today but Iím open to being persuaded otherwise. Anyone who is consistent is not thinking enough.

Outside Centre

Originally this was an Arts Council funded project to archive Annís work. Now it has links to all the written work Iíve done. Itís a bit like a factory we keep banging out work.

Additional Notes and Questions & Comments Noted by the Editor

Website not accessible.

Thereís nothing wrong in doing work that is exclusively for oneself. Sometimes when we are criticised for excluding and not looking at what is being included. Interventionist Art Leonard Cheshire ≠ I was able to buy their domain name. Exploring what LC is to disabled people. A collective statement about how Leonard Cheshire oppresses disabled people.

Future Plans:

Ann and I are always working on something. David Bklunkett is the most dangerous politician in the country at the moment. He is obsessed with normality. It may only be amusing or challenging to me but thatís all right.

My belief in education is waning rapidly. Disabilty Studies Ö just another module The bit needed the most Ö BUT itís got to be there.

Alongside the social and medical models we now have the consumer model. If funders only serve to promote assimilated work Ö If the first part is true, then they canít Ö ëNormalí there a lot of normal people in disability arts who donít understand anything about disability arts.

The lottery needs disabled people to legitimise it in unimaginable ways. They need us much more than we need them. Because of their fear The best of disability arts is about recognising the terror that we disabled people instil in non-disabled people. Unimaginable terror ≠ this gives us enormous power.