Confrontation and Celebration

I am sick of hearing about “the body” when disability relates to attitudes and states of mind I’m sick of being tickboxed and then the funders not bothering to turn up I am sick of disabled men waving their cocks and calling it radical I am sick of wafty-handed dance bollocks led by non-disabled people I am sick of inclusivity, diversity, and delivering pissing excellence

Disabled Avant-Garde

The first panel of Access All Areas, a two-day public program involving performances, talks, and screenings, included a provocation by Katharine Araniello and Aaron Williamson, a performance duo performing under the name Disabled Avant-Garde (DAG) in which they took turns shouting the above statements as they were pulled from a bowler hat. A powerful opening to a symposium on disability and Live Art, DAG’s statements referred both to general issues affecting artists with disabilities as well as to specific artists, arts organizations, and governmental representatives sitting in the audience. Such a manifesto (perhaps expected by a group that identifies itself even tongue-in-cheekily as the Avant-Garde) demonstrated an interest that DAG and many others have in speaking honestly and potently (even to the point of confrontation) about the stakes of and potential in this unique gathering in London, in March 2011.

Access All Areas presented the culmination of a two-year initiative by the Live Art Development Agency in London, which considered Live Art’s engagement with issues of disability. Following on from a similarly structured initiative in 2009 (Restock, Rethink, Reflect, which explored issues of race in contemporary performance practice and resulted in the publication Documenting Live), Access All Areas began with a small group of artists working in Live Art, who had a pre-existing relationship with the Agency, identifying central areas of engagement, concern, and potential. Two years later, and against a very different cultural and political backdrop, the Access All Areas symposium expanded on these initial provocations. Although mostly unsaid—with the exception of a blistering opening by the Agency’s Director Lois Keidan—Access All Areas came at a time when the Arts Council of England’s budget had been slashed by 30%, eliciting real fear in the UK that the most marginal art forms will be the art forms most vulnerable to the cuts. Given the precarious nature of the UK’s performance community, Access All Areas provided an essential and provocative opportunity for practitioners and institutions to reflect on the current situation, reenergize, and come together to explore paths moving forward.

The symposium was a well-conceived and executed mix of performances, talks by artists, and other activities, and featured a noticeable lack of academic speakers, seemingly a conscious effort for the symposium to stay focused on artists and artistic practice. Conversations remained rigorous even without the mention of theory, especially after the first panel, featuring DAG, Bobby Baker, Rita Marcalo, and Kim Noble. Seemingly divergent performers working in various different edges of Live Art (Baker in theatre and installation, Marcalo in dance, Noble in comedy), they presented a polemic about their work and their life experience. Their talks were much discussed throughout the day, and not necessarily because people agreed wholeheartedly with them. Marcalo, whose 2009 performance Involuntary Dances caused a national controversy when the choreographer attempted to induce a seizure onstage, read her e-mailed conversations with those who opposed and those who supported her performance. By hearing directly from the performer herself, audience members could experience the vitriol faced by Marcalo but could also consider the arguments against her work with which they may have agreed. Similarly, during Noble’s lecture performance—in which he read a possibly fictional letter denouncing his performance and insisting that his mental illness (the topic of his show) demanded “emergency clinical assessment”— the audience was given space to simultaneously laugh in agreement and sit with their own disagreements with his abrasive, ethically-questionable methodologies.

Other panels explored equally strong sentiments about which the audience (of other panelists as well as other audience members) could draw strong conclusions...