An experience from the previous group tutorial changed what I planned to write about for this blog post.
In a discussion on how digital media can be used as a way to increase accessibility for disabled students I was told I was ‘silencing’ the conversation because I made a point that, by prioritising only digital solutions for access to technical spaces rather than investing in making actual workshop spaces more accessible, the university may be prioritising profit over actual access – to make a space more accessible doesn’t increase the number of consumers who can use it during any given time, whilst a digital resource increases the potential consumers exponentially.
This perspective comes from previous experiences as a metal tech where conversations asking for investment in height adjustable welding tables were seen as an extravagance, whereas the expectation to produce ‘how to vlogs’ in metalworking to advertise and draw in more students was seen as a priority even the actual workshop space couldn’t physically facilitate that many students.
I fully understand the potential of digital media in reaching a wider audience, and its potential to increase accessibility: I am not some luddite set against using digital technology: My entire practice is centred around technology and its relationship to the body in Art, Politics and Society.
However, I am against the way the University functions like some kind of financial ad agency, using whatever is fashionable in tech as a way to cram in more students to increase profit margins whilst white washing the exercise as an example of increasing access.
Will the students accessing these new digital only resources actually be from disabled, poor and intersectional backgrounds or will it just be a way for UAL to reach further Globally in its exchange of certification for capital (Groys)
Moreover, I am very disappointed when the language of Crenshaw and Critical Theory is used as a way to close down conversation or critical perspectives of the university, especially in a peer to peer pedagogical environment. I would much rather have had a deeper conversation about finding the balance between physical and digital resources and how they can be used to supplement each other in increasing access.
“By making a virtue of marginalisation, breaking ourselves down into ever smaller and mutually hostile groupings, we make it impossible to build a mass movement capable of taking on extreme concentrations of wealth and power.” Sarkar, A., 2025. Minority Rule: Adventures in the Culture War. London: Bloomsbury.
From my own experience trying to create situations of equity and equality within a learning environment, it always comes down to resources, space and time. No one ever visibly tries to prevent intersectional support, like Ade Adeptian said “the harder progress is systemic” as Crenshaw outlined, exclusions can render individuals invisible, enabling the absence, or allocation of resources to elsewhere.
I believe that the increased exposure and discussion of work by Artists like Christine Sun Kim, or Donald Rodney (One of my favorite Kinetic artists) bring a deeply personal lens to this conversation. Their use of humor and subtle discomfort not only highlight how language, race, gender, social norms can be barriers but also through art a medium to bring people together.
Rodney, D. (ed. various), 2025. Donald Rodney: A Reader. London: Whitechapel Gallery.
Groys, B. (2009). “Education by Infection.” In: Madoff, S. H., Art School (Propositions for the 21st Century), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 27–?
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.