SubscribeI used to like the Dresden Dolls. Since a number of years ago. I liked the songs, the crazy piano and Amanda Palmer’s singing. Then I read about her Evelyn Evelyn project and how she responded to her critics, and promptly became thoroughly disgusted and lost all the respect I for her as an artist.
obviously, this is fucked-up on every level you can fuck a thing up. She’s trivializing childhood sexual abuse, by using it as a way to spice up what would otherwise be a still-pretty-ridiculous concept band; she’s trivializing the way disabled people are marginalized, stared, mocked at, and defined as Other, which would appear to be the entire concept of the concept band; she’s releasing a song “by conjoined twins,” which is a cover, and which would appear to be “Love Will Tear Us Apart.”
[...]
This project, however, is really kind of over-the-line in a more obvious way than, say, LOST, because of how it exploits that “circus freaks” trope – the characters of Evelyn and Evelyn ARE PRESENTED to the audience as a one-of-a-kind freakshow, and their disability and its “weirdness” are kind of the entire point.
Source: AMANDA PALMER WANTS TO SHOCK YOU. Just Don’t Get Upset About It, ‘Kay?
Yes, AFP, you are an artist, but that does not grant you with the right to exploit people’s experiences. Experiences you have never gone through and don’t own. People with these disabilities and traumatic experiences are not one-dimensional cartoons you can simply adopt, and it is not cool to casually use them as token special gimmicks in your art.
I wouldn’t be so disgusted if the whole Evelyn Evelyn project had not been branded as Amanda Palmer and Jason Webley saving a pair of poor, sad unfortunate twins from a life of misery. Or had they not deliberately answered interview questions in a childish tone of voice that implied that the twins don’t have distinct, separate identities, and are possibly mentally disabled as well.
‘Art’ like this reduces these very real, marginalized people to something less than human, reinforces stereotypes about them as freaks, as The Other. They are used only as a cartoon, a caricature. It’s ignorant and harmful. What makes my stomach churn are the implicit assumptions behind all this: 1) that people with disabilities are only worth that one single ‘freak’ quality, be it used for entertainment or use to create an image of a tortured artists; 2) your art is not good, or ‘real’ if you do not appear to be a suffering-insane-genius-prodigy-artist who shocks and offends people.
I just can’t respect artists who reinforce that bullshit. I don’t buy the argument that art is subjective, it’s not the artist’s fault you’re offended, either. Art should not be put on a pedestal out of reach of criticism and discussion simply because it is Art. Discourse is important; criticism is not censorship. I can accept shocking art if it has meaning and depth, if the artist uses it to challenge us and our perspectives — and this doesn’t. It’s a cheap, lazy gimmick that isn’t even fresh; a mere reiteration of a tired cliché.
In addition, the way Ms Palmer responded to the criticisms? Ugh. Huge load of ‘Why is everyone hating on me?’ (oh woe, suffering, pain!) but very little done to address the legitimate concerns. The manner in which she has framed legit criticisms from concerned fans as little but ‘drama’ is nothing short of disappointing, and shows just how much she missed the point.
