Masters Proposal.

The Interference of Bodies.

Masters proposal.

Introduction:

“The human body is not a thing or substance, given, but a continuous creation. The human body is an energy system ... which is never a complete structure; never static; is in perpetual inner self-construction and self-destruction; we destroy in order to make it new.” – Norman O. Brown, Love’s Body (1967)

“A feeble body weakens the mind” – Jean-Jacques Rousseau

 The human body is a fragile and often inappropriate receptacle for our minds and souls. We are constantly striving to change them, whether through “natural” means such as exercise and dieting or “un-natural” processes like augmentation, piercing and invasive surgeries. We change our bodies to match our ideals of beauty or to match our inner selves.

 Interfering with our bodies is not just limited to our aesthetic ideals, we also change our physical forms to return functionality and heal. Prosthetics, body braces (orthotics), transplants and surgical removal all change our internal and external landscapes to return them to a functional state. We change our bodies out of necessity or to survive.

 We have reached the point in medical science where we can change our bodies at will, rather than depending on the natural order. We can change to survive or become more inline with our own ideals but rarely do these coincide.

Research Question:

  

 How do we change our bodies and what is the result? What is the relationship between form and function, not just in ergonomic or anatomical terms but relating to aesthetics as a function? Can we change our views of aesthetics from a secondary feature to a function in its own right? Particularly in prosthetics and body braces? Can we change these functions from a matter of pure functionality to match aesthetic ideals? How can we quantify and compare these ideals that vary from person to person?

 The distinction between necessity and desire must also be explored. A prosthetic is necessary to regain function, but is it necessity or hubris to improve on the original? The Flex-Foot Cheetah prosthetic allows for 25% less energy expenditure than biological legs at a given speed, and increases positive work on a biological ankle three times over. What would happen if we put this improvement into aesthetics, as opposed to creating human like limbs we designed items of architecture created to not just return or improve functionality but to better fit our personal ideals of aesthetics. Would this been seen as a necessity? A way to improve or body image/psyche? Or would it be hubris? No such questions have been asked of the Flex-Foot prosthetics as it purely increases functionality, but to design something to be beautiful (whilst maintaining functionality) could be seen as shallow, or trivial.

 This view of aesthetics as secondary could be seen as detrimental to a person’s mental health, and certainly to the soul. In simple terms beautiful, well-designed objects bring us joy, whereas objects without these aesthetic qualities don’t simply fail to move us but can induce detrimental emotional states. I feel this also reflects the standards society places on the preservation of physical health over mental health. As such, do we react to physical problems due to their visibility? And can we change the way mental health is viewed by treating it via physical means, making these issues more relatable?

 The opposition between objects of use and objects of art is another subject, which will be broached. Prosthetics are viewed as an object of use, purely functional. If a prosthetic is designed aesthetically and elevated to an object of art, with art essentially having no ‘function’, does the limb loose it's purpose in translation? Can it truly be an object of art if it maintains it's function? Is it possible for a hybrid between these two states? Or does the object become a product as opposed to a piece of art?

 Matters of tactility link into this in the sense that most art is isolated in a physical sense, it’s presence unsupported by touch. By making pieces that are intimately tactile, made to be worn and touched, does the object become further removed from the artistic pedestal?

Theoretical Perspective:

 At least two paradigms must be taken into account, that of science (the medical, the material and the mechanical) and that of art (the aesthetic, the philosophical). In these terms we have to view all discussion as an amalgamation of the two, using engineering and anatomy to deduce and critique functionality and an artistic mindset to refer to ideals of look and feel. For this there must be equilibrium between logical and opinionated perspectives.

 The theoretical basis for the scientific aspect can be researched through papers such as “Prosthetic Theory: The Disciplining of Architecture” (Wrigley, 1991) with aesthetic theories backed by authors such as Weitz, “The Role of Theory in Aesthetics” (Weitz, 1956) and Santayana “The Sense of Beauty, Being the Outline of Aesthetic Theory” (Santayana, 1955). Research into both perspectives must be ongoing with practical applications and theoretical models to show interaction between the two.   

 The aesthetic hypothesis of the uncanny should also be considered. The principal of the uncanny stems from a cognitive dissonance between the familiar and unfamiliar, in terms of prosthetics these factors are fulfilled by the simulacrum of the life-like prosthetic and it’s similarity, but not quite-ness, to a biological limb. Movement adds another layer of dissonance meaning limbs that function mechanically to produce movement further decrease the comfortability of those viewing. The graph above shows a graphic representation of this, initially as an object approaches human likeness the viewer’s reaction to the object becomes more favorable. After a certain point however this reaction collapses as cognitive dissonance starts to affect the opinion of the viewer, beginning to become more favorable at the point where the object approaching on fully human. Unfortunately cognitive dissonance most often results in rejection of the object as opposed to rationalisation. This could be resolved by either making the object so realistic that it is completely indistinguishable from the norm, including it’s movement, or by reducing it’s similarity to the norm and creating an object further from human likeness.     

 Judith Butler, the feminist post-structuralist, also offers views into the capabilities of a body. In an interview with Sunaura Taylor she asks “what environments make it possible for you to go for a walk?” The answer delves into the relationship between physical accessibility and social access, which leads to social acceptability. They frankly talk about Sunaura’s capabilities and the dehumanisation of actions such as picking a coffee up with the mouth, alongside the freedom of expression she feels with her range of movement, “Moving in social space, all the movements you can do which help you live, which express you. Do you feel free to move in all the ways you want to move?” She answers that the movement of picking up a coffee is available to her, but the denormalising way that she accomplishes it becomes even more difficult in some respects due to the discomfort caused by the social implications of using the mouth as a tool of prehension.

 Butler mentions the theories of Gilles Deleuze outlined in his essay “What the body can do.” A statement that challenges the paradigms by which we discuss our bodies. What can the body do? As opposed to what is the ideal form of a body? or even what is the body? This breaks the body down into a series of functions, isolating a set of capacities, creating us as an assemblage of these functions. As each body has a different set of capacities this creates an individualistic view to the human form, removing ideas of an ideal form and suggestions of what a body should be or move like. In my mind this allows for us to draw our own conclusions as to what our bodies could be.

“Disability is the social repression of disabled people, the fact disabled people have limited housing options, we don’t have career opportunities, we’re socially isolated // The disabling effects of society.” – Sunaura Taylor, Examined Life (2010)

or

“[Disability is] The social organisation of impairment.” – Judith Butler, Examined Life (2010)

Research Methods:

 This research will be conducted in both practical and theoretical terms based on; empirical data, qualitative and opinionated research, evidence based practice and published text with first hand research conducted via interviews (physiotherapists, rehabilitation specialists and patients) and visits to relevant sites and exhibitions (the 3d printing exhibition at the Science Museum and the McQueen exhibition at the V&A). 

 Accessing first hand data on the surgical procedures will be difficult if not impossible, so reliance on second hand information may be necessary. It may also be difficult to find patients willing to discuss these issues as confidentiality laws make them hard to track down, in conjunction with surgery being a traumatic experience. The ethical implications of these discussions must also be taken into account, what questions can be asked and which should be avoided? How will this information be used and who will it be available to?

 Another ethical matter is the ‘white savior.’ Used as a common cinematic trope it involves a Caucasian (generally male) saving and solving the problems of those of a different race. Kathleen Fitzgerald says of this ‘While a successful film genre, this image is problematic because it frames the person of color as unable to solve their own problems, as incompetent.’ This is pertinent to this proposal as I have no wish to become an ‘able savior,’ for lack of a better term. Someone who comes in from a place of privilege to tell people how to correct the problems they face, or forces their own assumptions onto a complex matter. I hope to mitigate this by involving those with impairment and asking for their opinions on these matters, taking on board their feelings and thoughts to check my privilege and assumptions. 

Creative Practice:

 The focus of my practice will be on the artifacts affecting the body to entice change and how these objects are formed, as well as how their function is related to this form. This will be based on the values we place on necessity over aesthetics in relation to the functionality of the body as a whole.

 Experimentation will be based on relevant materials and objects evidenced by research, with the substances and processes used informed by scientific inquiry and design driven by both aesthetic and mechanical notions. These must all be researched thoroughly and put in reference to their current state of design.

 Contextualization will occur via various methods including; observational sketches, design, painting and watercolour, casting, 3d print, sculpture and casting. Most work will begin as design sketches in various media culminating in 3d mock-ups, armatures or material experiments. As a link to the boundaries between objects of use and objects of art it may be beneficial to create two separate outcomes. One based on use created on the basis of a live brief culminating in a prosthetic to be worn and used, and another to form an exhibition containing objects which have the potential to be used but are separated from the user by normal gallery etiquette, i.e. untouchable objects crafted to be viewed and not physically interacted with but which maintain the ability to be functional to a degree. 

 Investigations into other artists, and indeed scientists, will be paramount. The work of Sophie Oliveira Barata and her Alternative Limb Project take prosthetics outside of normal bounds to crate artificial limbs with both aesthetics and functionality in mind. She created the leg Viktoria Modesta wore in the Paralympic opening ceremony, among others. Contacting her would provide valuable 1^st hand research.

“My natural curiosity and strong belief that it’s important to take control of your own body and most importantly improve it or reflect your personality through altered body image, meant that facing a life of physical deformity and acceptance of the cards that were dealt to me wasn’t an option I wanted to take.  I was very sure that by losing my natural damaged limb I would gain better health and most importantly control over it all.”  - Viktoria Modesta

 Designers such as Alexander McQueen have also forayed into the territory of prosthetics, he designed legs of solid elm for Aimee Mullins in his show No. 13, a show that also used robotics to spray paint a dress on catwalk. This increased view of prosthetics as an accessory allows them to be used as a way to regain control over the body, changing and reforming it to suit the needs of the wearer.

“You know, the fact is, nobody knew that they were prosthetic legs. They were the star of the show—these wooden boots peeking out from under this raffia dress—but in fact, they were actually legs made for me.” - Aimee Mullins

Possible Outcomes:

•  ·      A record of sketchbooks, journals and exhibition work contributing to a working portfolio.
• ·      Live brief
• ·      Journals containing artists work forming the basis of research, with critical analysis.
• ·      A body of work suitable for exhibition and publication.
• ·      Artifacts of various materials contributing to the discussion of functionality over aesthetics in terms of medical and prosthetic science.
• ·      The creation of a stimulus to encourage debate over control of the body and self-inquiry as well as the ideals of necessity and hubris.
• ·      This work will benefit; pity culture, visibility of those impaired, those that rely on artificial support, academics, ideals of self-image, students and the College. 
• ·      Creation of dialogue of objects of art and objects of use.

Resource Requirements:

• ·      Access to 3D workshops (College resource)
• ·      Library access (College resource)
• ·      Studio space (Existing)
• ·      Access to papers (PubMed, online journals – more to be researched)
• ·      Art materials (Purchase when necessary)
• ·      Funding (To be researched)
• ·      Gallery space (To be researched)
• ·      Participants and 1^st hand research (To be acquired)

Who to Involve:

• ·      MA personal supervisor (Advice and Support)
• ·      College Staff (Advice, workshop access and support)
• ·      Friends and family (Support)
• ·      Fellow students (Advice, support and possible collaboration)
• ·      Other artists (Advice and research)
• ·      Funders (Financial support)
• ·      Galleries (Research and possible gallery space)

Restrictions:

• ·      Time management and deadlines
• ·      Income/home life vs. MA commitment
• ·      Workshop availability
• ·      Experience with mechanics and materials science
• ·      Stress management and depression
• ·      Funding

Preliminary Bibliography:

• ·      Butler, J. (2010) Examined Life [Online] Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0HZaPkF6qE [13/09/15]
• ·       Evans, E. (2015) Anatomy Boutique [Online] Available from: http://www.anatomyboutique.com/about-us [14/01/15]
• ·       Evans, E (2015) Emily Evans Illustration [Online] Available from: http://www.emilyevansillustration.com [14/01/15]
• ·      Ruiz, V. (2015) Street Anatomy [Online] Available from: http://streetanatomy.com [17/03/15]
• ·      Barata, S. (2015) The Alternative Limb Project [Online] Available from: http://www.thealternativelimbproject.com  [17/03/15]
• ·      McQueen, A. (2015) Savage Beauty [Exhibition] Gallery: Victoria and Albert Museum [14/03/15-02/08/15]
• ·      The Science Museum (2015) You Have Been Upgraded [Exhibition] Museum: The Science Museum [25/03/15-29/03/15]
• ·      Squid-Inc (2013) Dissecting Art: Intersecting Anatomy [Exhibition] Gallery: S3 Gallery [09/03/13-Ongoing]
• ·      Squid-Inc (2013) Blood and Bone: Structural Bodies in Motion [Exhibition] Gallery: S3 Gallery [28/09/13-12/10/13]

      Amendments:

•        The act of increasing the visibility of an individual is a double edged sword, by doing so we increase the exposure of the population to prosthetics and those that use them. This hopefully makes them more familiar and reduces the effect of the uncanny. However it also puts a lot of onus on that individual, as they are more visible and have shown through wearing a unique limb that they have confidence about their impairment the public may see it as an invitation for discussion. In some ways this is what we are seeking, a more open dialogue. The danger is in constant questioning from others, particularly those they do not know. This can become wearing and emotionally exhausting. As such I feel I need to reiterate the importance of the choice of the individual, and that all choices of prosthetic are valid when based on the individuals need. Possibly I should also have a bit more faith that those questioning will be emotive and respectful. 
•  I feel I must discuss the quote from Jean-Jacques Rousseau, by 'feeble' I do not mean to imply that those with impairments or amputees are feeble by any means, people like Aimee Mullins are proof of this. I included the quote to highlight the relationship between the mind and the body, that imbalance or damage to one effects the other. Also that those who use prosthetics are in a sense taking the prosthetic into their body and as such a 'feeble' prosthetic, in that the prosthetic is unfit in aesthetic or functional terms, weakens them as it can limit the potential of the individual or remove that conversation of potential.