The Children of Edgewood

On March 8, 2008, The Drkrm Gallery in Los Angeles opened a new photography exhibit by Ryan Herz. The Children of Edgewood is a series of photographs taken of children and adults with a variety of developmental disabilities in 1976. This was before many laws governing the education and employment of people with disabilities broke new ground, and a time when institutionalization was one of the few options available. If the artist’s purpose was to represent the isolation and objectification of his subjects—so common an ideal for that time—then he succeeded. What I suspect he didn’t bargain for was that his exhibit would represent how little has changed in 31 years.

The pictures are very professional. They are clear, focused and the artist makes good use of light and shadow. All but a handful of the portraits show the main subject—a child or adult with a visible physical or mental disability—in isolation. One of the most poignant photographs is of a girl sitting in a hospital bed from a distance. She is facing away from the photographer and gazing out a window to a nondescript landscape. I sensed feelings of helplessness and hopelessness as well as isolation and disconnection on the part of the subject. I interpreted the gaze out the window as a longing to be part of the outside—which is out of her reach. The artist chose to represent his subject in an objectified way. There is no personalization of the girl. Her likes and dislikes, abilities and inabilities remain unknown. Her individuality is still a mystery. This leaves the viewer with only one reaction—pity.

The emotional reaction of pity is a one dimensional feeling that sees the disabled as helpless victims.. Pity was more excusable as an emotion felt towards people with disabilities in 1976 than in 2008. That is what these solitary portraits promote. The novice viewer wonders what choices these subjects had in being photographed and what they were feeling. They may even wonder beyond the portraits and wonder about their lives. What kind of choices did they have? Did they have any other choices? A more empowering, modern portrait would show these subjects demonstrating their capaibilities and their connection to the world around them, instead of disconnected and alone.
This different approach would elicite a response from the viewer that would not have objectified the subject, but rather personified the person. It would a provoke a genuine interest from to the viewer to see these people for who they are and not what they lack. With a more empowering portrait, the subjects are infused with more depth and breaks free of stereotypes and shallow emotions, such as pity. The questions will run differently though the viewers mind. Questions can be raised about the subject’s work or personal achievements. The viewer can wonder about their opinions or preferences for the mundane things the able bodied take for granted.

I’m not suggesting we depict the disabled on a pedestal. Rather, I encourage artists and lay persons to view the disabiled based on their abilities. Disability empowerment is a little known concept to most people—with or without disabilities. The artist chose to objectify his subjects by painting a victimized view of disability in his selection of prints and his choice of a unacccessible gallery, the Drkrm Gallery in Los Angeles. When I went there, I encountered stairs leading into the building. I did not see any obvious accessible routes to accommodate wheelchair users or others for whom stairs promote inaccessibility. It was telling that during the time I spent at the Gallery, I did not observe anyone an obvious disability. This leads me to wonder, did the artist consider people with disabilities as viewers and consumers of his art or just as annoymous subjects? Wasn’t an audience of people with disabilities an obvious audience to tap into? I wonder if the artist or his managers thought to contact groups or organizations of people with disabilities who would have had an ingrained interest in this subject. Finally, what tells me that the artist was leaning towards a more dated (1973), disabled person as a victim, mentality is in the description of the exhibit on the Drkrm Gallery website:
"They are extraordinary pictures, almost like classical fashion photographs. The photographer so humanizes their pain."
"Disturbing, haunting, beautiful and ugly. One can't take your eyes off the subjects. It's like he captured their souls in tortured pose."
Use of semantics is very powerful when influencing people’s views. The ambiguous portraits, people’s limited understanding of the experience of a person with a disability and the words used in these statements, all create a portrait of the disabled as a poor, suffering victim and freak. Are we equating the disabled with Quasimodo? The portraits may be from the past, but the written text is contemporary. Another statement on the website leads me to believe that the artist has a dated view of people with disabilityies:
A portion of all sales will benefit The UCLA Foundation Medical Genetics Division
Not to say that genetics research has no place in disability empowerment---properly used, it does. This above statement views disabilities from a medical perspective, in which a disability is something to be “cured,” instead of one’s way of life. A more empowering gesture from the artist would be to offer some of the proceeds to the Center for Independent Living, for example. Finally, the cost of the portraits, upwards of $1000, makes the prints cost prohibitive to the majority of the population it directly addresses.

The exhibit would have been more compelling and intresting if (Artist’s Name) had revisited this world and created modern portraits displayed along side those he took 31 years ago. He would have discovered how people with disabilities are equal participants in their communities. Thus would have created a proud image of how far disability empowerment has come in the intervening years. Of course, I would hope the exhibit would be in a gallery that is accessible to all—both physically and financially. But please, see the exhibit for yourself online or in person, I welcome to hear different perspectives.

http://www.drkrm.com/edgewood.html#statement

drkrm. gallery • 2121 San Fernando Road Suite 3 • Los Angeles CA 90065 323.223.6867 www.drkrm.com drkrmgallery@gmail.comHours Tuesday-Saturday 11am-5pm Sunday 1pm - 4pm and by appointmentAll gallery events are free and open to the public.