This is real. It’s located in Giulianova Lido, Italy. IIRC an arts project from a local school and it is meant as a way to “integrate” wheelchairs symbolically as well as practically.
This is worse than nothing, because (as a wheelchair user) there’s like 10 inches of clearance behind the chair (given wheel clearance). That back rail means you can’t back up to get yourself in line with your compatriots,so you’ll be in front of and misaligned with the people on either side, such that they’re literally talking behind your back.
If this design was in earnest, it’s godawful and just shows the designer had no idea what they were doing.
If it’s an art project, then I can appreciate it. If it was meant to be practical, it’s a major fail.
I can appreciate the thought, because as a part time wheelchair user, it does often wear me down when I feel like I’m perpetually perched on the periphery of any conversation.
However, like you say, this is just far too impractical for most people. I have a small, active wheelchair, and even that would probably put me in front of friends sitting on the bench beside me.
However, I can totally believe that this was made in earnest. I’ve seen some ridiculous “accommodations” that are ostensibly for disabled people that just show that the able bodied designer just didn’t involve any disabled people in the design process at all. And that’s why “nothing about us, without us” is a long used slogan used by disability rights campaigners.
If anyone wants to see an example of good accessibility design, I love how they designed the packaging for the Xbox Accessible Controller. They included lots of people with varied needs across multiple stages of the design process, and it really shows. And the end product is so elegantly functional. I like this quote from Solomon Romney, a “Microsoft Retail Stores retail learning specialist”:
"The whole thing sort of blossoms open in this really beautiful, fluid way. The package just sort of opens and hands you the controller. What’s wonderful about it is the effortlessness.”
It’s a single installation, AFAIK - and definitely an art project. Having some academic arts background, I dare to say the focus of the installation is the difference between “in the middle” and “aside”. So it’s highly symbolic. Practically two chairs with a reasonable gap inbetween would be far more practical but they, of course, don’t transmit any message.
But what this art says to me, as a wheelchair user, is something completely different because this design is the opposite of inclusive. Is that what is meant?
This design says I should be excluded – taking it as art, this design communicates everyone having conversations and leaving me out, because that back bar will exclude me by design.
If I’m to socialise, I should be on one end or the other, but that middle part means I’ll be artificially excluded by the environment.
What it’s meant to mean is “yay us! We’re doing inclusivity!”
What it actually means, to me, is “we will make a show of valuing disabled people, but we won’t go so far as to actually include them in the design process, thereby making this bench an artifact to our own self congratulation, as well as making wheelchair users feel excluded in a far more insidious way than they already did”.
And I feel like an asshole to say it like that, but it’s so annoying to see well intentioned people fall at literally the first hurdle. Like, if they truly do see us as people who have intrinsic value that means we are worth including, then they also need to see us in our full personhood and include us in the process. The alternative is that their enthusiasm will just cause more money to be pissed down the drain on symbolic gestures that don’t fulfill their intended purpose
I could see this meaning something more – and even something inclusive – if the environment is part of the design; for a moment I ignored the steep looking sand bank, but if that’s part of the art, that changes the meaning by a lot. That would make much more sense.
I’ve lived places where the landscape changes a lot throughout the year, though, so I sort of ignored the background and took the bench itself in isolation.
I think that in this imaginary scenario, the art student is being graced with the benefit of the doubt, and it’s assumed that they just have no clue how wheelchairs function in reality. I have a hard time assuming such malice if it is in fact an art project.
However, reality likes to make fools of optimists.
This is real. It’s located in Giulianova Lido, Italy. IIRC an arts project from a local school and it is meant as a way to “integrate” wheelchairs symbolically as well as practically.
X doubt.
This is worse than nothing, because (as a wheelchair user) there’s like 10 inches of clearance behind the chair (given wheel clearance). That back rail means you can’t back up to get yourself in line with your compatriots,so you’ll be in front of and misaligned with the people on either side, such that they’re literally talking behind your back.
If this design was in earnest, it’s godawful and just shows the designer had no idea what they were doing.
If it’s an art project, then I can appreciate it. If it was meant to be practical, it’s a major fail.
I can appreciate the thought, because as a part time wheelchair user, it does often wear me down when I feel like I’m perpetually perched on the periphery of any conversation.
However, like you say, this is just far too impractical for most people. I have a small, active wheelchair, and even that would probably put me in front of friends sitting on the bench beside me.
However, I can totally believe that this was made in earnest. I’ve seen some ridiculous “accommodations” that are ostensibly for disabled people that just show that the able bodied designer just didn’t involve any disabled people in the design process at all. And that’s why “nothing about us, without us” is a long used slogan used by disability rights campaigners.
If anyone wants to see an example of good accessibility design, I love how they designed the packaging for the Xbox Accessible Controller. They included lots of people with varied needs across multiple stages of the design process, and it really shows. And the end product is so elegantly functional. I like this quote from Solomon Romney, a “Microsoft Retail Stores retail learning specialist”:
It’s a single installation, AFAIK - and definitely an art project. Having some academic arts background, I dare to say the focus of the installation is the difference between “in the middle” and “aside”. So it’s highly symbolic. Practically two chairs with a reasonable gap inbetween would be far more practical but they, of course, don’t transmit any message.
But what this art says to me, as a wheelchair user, is something completely different because this design is the opposite of inclusive. Is that what is meant?
This design says I should be excluded – taking it as art, this design communicates everyone having conversations and leaving me out, because that back bar will exclude me by design.
If I’m to socialise, I should be on one end or the other, but that middle part means I’ll be artificially excluded by the environment.
Is that what it’s meant to mean?
What it’s meant to mean is “yay us! We’re doing inclusivity!”
What it actually means, to me, is “we will make a show of valuing disabled people, but we won’t go so far as to actually include them in the design process, thereby making this bench an artifact to our own self congratulation, as well as making wheelchair users feel excluded in a far more insidious way than they already did”.
And I feel like an asshole to say it like that, but it’s so annoying to see well intentioned people fall at literally the first hurdle. Like, if they truly do see us as people who have intrinsic value that means we are worth including, then they also need to see us in our full personhood and include us in the process. The alternative is that their enthusiasm will just cause more money to be pissed down the drain on symbolic gestures that don’t fulfill their intended purpose
I could see this meaning something more – and even something inclusive – if the environment is part of the design; for a moment I ignored the steep looking sand bank, but if that’s part of the art, that changes the meaning by a lot. That would make much more sense.
I’ve lived places where the landscape changes a lot throughout the year, though, so I sort of ignored the background and took the bench itself in isolation.
Maybe that’s where I fucked up.
I think that in this imaginary scenario, the art student is being graced with the benefit of the doubt, and it’s assumed that they just have no clue how wheelchairs function in reality. I have a hard time assuming such malice if it is in fact an art project.
However, reality likes to make fools of optimists.
I didn’t assume malice, but ignorance. And not malicious ignorance, either.
Given this is a public installation, though, I was giving my interpretation.
deleted by creator
I mean it is a product
Maybe it is now. The one,. I saw not that long ago was a single piece.
Ahhh, art students trying to be practical.