Stripping Sight Bare : Alison Jones’ ‘Portraits by Proxy’

In this paper I analyse UK artist Alison Jones’ sonic interventions Portrait of the Artist by Proxy (2008), Voyeurism by Proxy (2008) and Art, Lies and Audio Tapes (2009). In Portrait of the Artist by Proxy, Jones – who, due to deteriorating vision, has not seen her reflection in a mirror in years – asks and trusts participants to audio-describe her own image back to her. In Voyeurism by Proxy, Jones asks participants to audio-describe erotic drawings by Gustav Klimt. In Art, Lies and Audio Tapes, Jones asks participants to audio-describe other artworks, such as W.F. Yeames’ And When Did You Last see Your Father?. In these portraits by proxy, Jones opens her image, and other images, to interpretation. In doing so, Jones draws attention to the way sight is privileged as a mode of access to fixed, fundamental truths in Western culture – a mode assumed to be untainted by filters that skew perception of the object. “In a culture where vision is by far the dominant sense,” Jones says, “and as a visual artist with a visual impairment, I am reliant on audio-description …Inevitably, there are limitations imposed by language, time and the interpreter’s background knowledge of the subject viewed, as well as their personal bias of what is deemed important to impart in their description” . In these works, Jones strips these background knowledges, biases and assumptions bare. She reveals different perceptions, as well as tendencies or censor, edit or exaggerate descriptions. In this paper, I investigate how, by revealing unconscious biases, Jones’ works renders herself and her participants vulnerable to a change of perception. I also examine how Jones’ later editing of the audio-descriptions allows her to show the instabilities of sight, and, in Portrait of the Artist by Proxy, to reclaim authorship of her own image.

Australia's disabling income support system : tracing the history of the Australian disability income support system 1908 to 2007 : disablism, citizenship and the basic income proposal

The present study examined the historical basis of the Australian disability income support system from 1908 to 2007. Although designed as a safety net for people with a disability, the disability income support system within Australia has been highly targeted. The original eligibility criteria of "permanently incapacitated for work", medical criteria and later "partially capacitated for work" potentially contained ideological inferences that permeated across the time period. This represents an important area for study given the potential consequence for disability income support to marginalise people with a disability. Social policy and disability policy theorists, including Saunders (2007, Social Policy Research Centre [SPRC]) and Gibilisco (2003) have provided valuable insight into some of the effects of disability policy and poverty. Yet while these theorists argued for some form of income support they did not propose a specific form of income security for further exploration. Few studies have undertaken a comprehensive review of the history of disability income support within the Australian context. This thesis sought to redress these gaps by examining disability income support policy within Australia. The research design consisted of an in-depth critical historical-comparative policy analysis methodology. The use of critical historical-comparative policy analysis allowed the researcher to trace the construction of disability within the Australian disability income support policy across four major historical epochs. A framework was developed specifically to guide analysis of the data. The critical discourse analysis method helped to understand the underlying ideological dimensions that led to the predominance of one particular approach over another. Given this, the research purpose of the study centred on: i. Tracing the history of the Australian disability income support system. ii. Examining the historical patterns and ideological assumptions over time. iii. Exploring the historical patterns and ideological assumptions underpinning an alternative model (Basic Income) and the extent to which each model promotes the social citizenship of people with a disability. The research commitment to a social-relational ontology and the quest for social change centred on the idea that "there has to be a better way" in the provision of disability income support. This theme of searching for an alternative reality in disability income support policy resonated throughout the thesis. This thesis found that the Australian disability income support system is disabling in nature and generates categories of disability on the basis of ableness. From the study, ableness became a condition for citizenship. This study acknowledged that, in reality, income support provision reflects only one aspect of the disabling nature of society which requires redressing. Although there are inherent tensions in any redistributive strategy, the Basic Income model potentially provides an alternative to the Australian disability income support system, given its grounding in social citizenship. The thesis findings have implications for academics, policy-makers and practitioners in terms of developing better ways to understand disability constructs in disability income support policy. The thesis also makes a contribution in terms of promoting income support policies based on the rights of all people, not just a few.

Australia's disabling income support system: Tracing the history of the disability pension from 1908 to today

This article is based on a historical-comparative policy and discourse analysis of the principles underpinning the Australian disability income support system. It determines that these principles rely on a conception of disability that sustains a system of coercion and paternalism that perpetuates disability and referred to as disablism. The article examines the construction of disability in Australian income support across four major historical epochs spanning the period 1908-2007. Contextualisation of the policy trajectory and discourses of the contemporary disability pension regime for the time period 2008-now is also provided. Two major themes were found to have interacted with the ideology of disablism. This article argues that a non-disabling provision based on social citizenship, rather than responsible or productive citizenship, counters the tendency for authoritarian and paternal approaches. [Abridged]