I had always thought of disability arts, with the same kind of art therapy lens I think a lot of people did. Since then, I’ve kind of seen it, I’ve come into disability arts and I’ve really tried to reframe it, because I think, people always talk about how disability, or no, people always talk about how art is good for disability, but I think disability is actually really good for art, in the ways in which it creates new perspectives. There’s this UK activist and artist, Yinka Shonibare, who framed disability arts as a last avant garde, right? And I thought that was a great way of framing it, because there are parallels, I think, to serve the emergence of feminist art and black arts and the ways in which it’s trying to not just fit within the context of how the arts can, and is, forming, but rather, it’s questioning the entire arts canon as a whole, and it’s thinking about how to kind of dismantle those systems. And I thought, this was just such a great way of framing, not only disability arts as vital to the arts canon, but also I think it creates a sense of pride that art therapy wouldn’t. I think artists who are engaging professionally in the arts, they don’t wanna be told like, yeah, your art is therapeutic and so good for you. Like, no, the art is good for society, I think, as a whole. Obviously making art, I think is satiating for the aesthetics it creates, but it also has a, I think there’s this didacticism in disability arts that in an art setting, people are often saying, in our art school, like didactic art is probably not so good because you’re trying to let the viewers and the audiences consume art through their own message. But I think, and this is something Eliza [Chandler] says, that disability arts… part of that didacticism is opening up access. But it’s also framing this avant garde and kind of radical art in a way so that people don’t mistake it disability arts for art therapy, and they don’t approach it through that charitable model that historically it’s been approached from.