Research Party
Recently while researching my topic of “Access” for my big idea, my search results were turning up rather dry. I broadened my search to include ‘restricted access’ and ‘inaccessible’ and struck gold! I find it interesting that access is framed most commonly by that which is not accessible. The more I have been thinking, it makes sense that access is taken for granted when it is not restricted, for example I have access to clean drinking water, but would not think to frame that as an “access issue” unless contrasted with folks who are unable to get clean water. I think this idea brings up a lot of reflection, gratitude and privilege.
I think the connotations around “access” are all about not having access or restricting it. I think a large part of our vernacular connotates accessibility as in making things accessible for folks with physical disabilities. This is still a relevant aspect of accessibility, but I think I would prefer to focus more on access to healthcare, food, education and what I would describe as basic human needs. I think this type of awareness is imperative for children, as it establishes consciousness of others in the world that we may not see directly, and builds compassion and empathy. I think getting children to think about others also invokes their natural instinct to help, and sparks creativity on how to make changes that will positively affect the folks that may not have the same access that they do. Getting children to think about access can also get them thinking about the access that others have and they do not and can potentially motivate them to advocate for themselves, as well. Verbalizing this concept for children would be asking questions about who are things made for? Who is excluded? Who is included? Why do you think that is? What makes us different? What makes us the same? What are human rights? What should human rights include? How can we make sure all humans get those rights?
The denotations seem to revolve around an access point, or a point of entry, as well as distinguishing who has access and who does not. The concepts I am leaning most heavily toward are related to the socioeconomic trends pertaining to access. These are restrictive visuals, like bars or gates. I think the monetization of everything can also represent access, as it is indicative of privilege for only those who can afford it manifesting in things like pricetags, glass display cases, limited supply/edition, velvet ropes, admissions tickets, or keys. There is a heavy history in civil rights era, and apartheid era art relating to segregation and “only” signs, representing things like the horror that was separate but equal policy which could also be represented visually with dualities, fences, even soldiers as in the case with the iconic image of Ruby Bridges. I think lines of people waiting is also a powerful visual regarding access, traffic signs could potentially be utilized, as well as security guards.
I watched the Art21 episode with Matthew Barney and Michael Ray Charles about consumption. To approach this concept with kids I think I would start with thinking about things that kids regularly consume, challenge kids to bring back things that they consume using their 5 senses. I would ask the kids to focus on something they chose to explore further but with extremes; what would happen if they consumed too much of this thing? What would it look like if they didn’t consume that thing at all? How does this thing affect them? What happens before and after they consume this thing? Teach them that consumption can occur in many different forms and how to identify when they are consuming things and how to be aware of what they are consuming and that they have control over some of it.
