Is Daniel Winship's art seen as "bullying"?

This what Tara Congdon wrote in her blog piece about Daniel Winship's own drawing depicting a deaf boy's head getting his cochlear implant drilled to his head:

"Precisely because of all the reactions posted on the image and its iterations across the Internet, Winship’s art must NOT be censored, as some demanded, or even labeled as bullying, as the operators of thedeafcommunity.org have done."

Art is fine. It's a form of expression based on many things. Some people don't even consider certain art as being art but a heap of mess instead. I understand that, too. Censoring art isn't a great idea, either (of course, perhaps with extreme prejudice that could depend on some things). Having said that, people do have a right to feel or think that certain art is seen as a form of "bullying." Seeing how it is provocative through the art's view own hyperbolic expression helping spread the myth continue to grow and misinform.

The owner of thedeafcommunity.org has every right to label certain art as the "bullying" kind if the person feels it has that kind of feel to it. Not quite the same thing but I think I understand the reason behind it when people think it's a form of "bullying" such as the claimed example seen in the "Bully File."

De'VIA (Deconstructing the Forced Assimilation of Deaf People) resistent art used as tactis to scare, bully and silence anyone who is pro-options for deaf children. De'VIA art is exhibited in places such as Gallaudet University.  For the an example of one such work, click on one of these links:

http://www.zazzle.com/the_deaf_militants_battle_with_the_hydra_monster_poster-228388261844109024

 

http://pinterest.com/silentmobster42/deaf-militants-battle-with-hydra-monster/

 

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=349626648493186&id=325226907599827

 

This example was shared among numerous sites on the internet in May 2013. Do note, "The Deaf Militants Battle with the Hydra Monster" poster is available for sale but without the permission of the person(s) represented on the image.
 

But are those art examples truly a form of bullying? Perhaps not. Perhaps not in the bully context as we know it but I believe I understand where this person is coming from. I cannot say that this person's viewpoint or perspective is entirely wrong saying it's a form of bullying. That kind of context need to be explored further.

Maybe some people feel that some art or drawing exhibit a form of "bullying" because of the pushiness it exhibits constantly at certain people or organization through examples of hyperboles and total exaggeration. Or that it mocks, demean, or ridicule certain people. And so on. After all, art is all about interpretation and people interpret art differently. Seeing it as a form of "bullying" is one of them.

Cochlear Implant Surgery - "It's a Beautiful Thing"

Two extremes, one is an exaggerated drawing of a boy getting cochlear implant by Daniel Winship where people responded both positively and negatively.

Commenters have used a range of words to describe the illustration, including powerful, evocative, propaganda, utter nonsense, crap, an evil depiction, sensationalistic, and patently false. Winship himself has been accused of brainwashing, labeled a sick person, and called a cunt, “closed-minded arrogant twat,” and wacko on the same level as members of the Westboro Baptist Church. Others have made assumptions, including that Winship must be an ex-implantee, that he doesn’t have children – much less any with “a birth defect” – and that his illustration reflects the opinion of the entire deaf community.

It's acknowledged that people see things differently based on a variety of reasons including life experiences whether it was a positive or negative one.

Tara Congdon went on to write about her interview with Daniel Winship his drawing seen in his Facebook.  The interview was an interesting read and insightful but I couldn't help noticed when Tara used one comment by posting a screen capture of an unknown commenter who described cochlear implant surgery as a "beautiful thing."

"I do not support a sick person who thinks this is what a cochlear implant surgery looks like.  I'm 100% sure you have never seen the actual surgery. It's a beautiful thing!"

You can see the whole context in the screen capture right before the comment was made on how beautiful cochlear implant surgery is and understand the perspective of why that person said that.  It is after all a whole different and positive viewpoint seeing that a cochlear implant surgery can be a beautiful thing. This unknown commenter have had her/his own cochlear implant surgery done and saw that it was a beautiful thing because she has gotten so much positive benefits out of her own first cochlear implant at age 4. and 21 years later will get a 2nd one this year. The unknown commenter was responding to Daniel Winship's exaggerated drawing in his Facebook of a cochlear implant surgery.

But it takes two to have a dialogue and a discussion, good or bad.

It's not surprising to see people respond negatively to this unknown person's own positive experience that cochlear implant surgery is a beautiful thing such as Dr. Don Grushkin seen in another Facebook discussion.

I'd say a lot of the vindictiveness is due to lack of understanding, miscommunication, and lack of respect instead of agreeing to disagree and that various opinions are valid in more ways than one. Sometimes the vindictiveness is at the fault in some circles of the culturally deaf community who tend to side on hyperboles and myths much like what happened in one blog I covered called, "F*ck you, Deaf community!" which serves an example of how such protestations by certain Deaf people can simply backfire instead of lending a helping and understanding hand.

We gave our daughter cochlear implants when she was an infant. We made this long and difficult decision based on the research that was available to us, based on the educational resources available in our area, based on the nature of her deafness, and, yes, based on our own biases and desires. She had her surgeries before she was old enough to make the choice for herself, because to wait so long means to give her hearing long after her developing brain can make the best use of it. It is a well-known and long-researched phenomenon that pre-lingual implantation leads to vastly improved speech and hearing skills. But you call it child abuse. You call it cosmetic surgery on an infant, and more than once you called me a monster for it. It is not child abuse, to make complicated decisions about your kids without their input - it's called parenting. Nor is it cosmetic to give my kid a developmental boost. So: f*ck you for heaping accusations of pre-lingual cosmetic surgery child abuse on me.

Our family is learning ASL, and have been since we learned our daughter was profoundly deaf. We will use sign as a second language, indefinitely. My wife is in school to become an interpreter. Nor do we believe in a purely oralist tradition; we acknowledge the importance of communication between deaf people without assistance. We get it, ok? We're committed. But because we gave our daughter cochlear implants, you automatically believe that we're out to destroy ASL, to destroy Deaf culture. You never listen to our reasoning, because what do we know? We're motivated by a desire to mingle in both worlds, and yet we're constantly scoffed at by the Deafies on principle. So: f*** you for your pernicious false dichotomies.

What a way to lose the support of that parent.

So, yeah, people do see certain surgeries as a "beautiful thing" because to them they see is liberation, access, and freedom. And, yes, parents who do the right thing and make an informed decision still get flack from certain inner circles of the culturally deaf community who run on hyperbolic emotions.

Did Daniel Winship's drawing help or hurt the culturally deaf community?

UPDATE: Check out "F*ck you, Deaf Community!: Part II"

Don't miss it!