Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Robert Hughes, 'conceptual vulnerability' & harm reduction

In his punchy, eye-opening documentary, The Mona Lisa Curse, the venerable Robert Hughes laments over the state of contemporary art, where dollar value dictates status - in the place of genuine talent and a meaningful creative voice. One of the exhibits employed by Hughes to illustrate his point is an in-development gallery-cum-resort that has licensed the brand names of the Guggenheim and the Louvre. The resort plans to exhibit the 'Mona Lisa' to cement its intended 'high-brow' art reputation. Patrons will be able to work on their tan and soak in priceless works of art without leaving the island. This, for Hughes, is the equivalent of fine art blasphemy.

According to Hughes, developments such as the resort place works such as the 'Mona Lisa', and all that they stand for, in a "conceptually vulnerable" position. Not physically vulnerable; conceptually vulnerable. For Hughes, the 'Mona Lisa' might as well be 'butcher's paper' if its guardians lose sight of its real value. Is Hughes merely a jaded, art curmudgeon, or is he exposing an injustice that is too often overlooked due to its abstract and insidious nature? That is, a loss of meaning, and the ramifications, that we as humans pay too little attention to, lost in the self-absorbed world of the mortgaged, nine-to-five grind.

So is harm reduction also 'conceptually vulnerable'? In recent times the Australian sector has seen NGOs and research bodies align themselves with powerful pharmaceutical companies, a relationship that has stretched beyond the domain of conference sponsorship. And on the topic of conferences, the displays within them have become increasingly fronted by sales representatives. In Australia we cannot forget the massive sums of money that were held in the balance whilst an evaluation of retractable syringes was completed. Of course, the products produced by these companies are important for the reduction of drug-related harms, but where will these relationships eventually take the sector and philosophy of harm reduction?

Interestingly, in the media spots that followed the release of the latest 'Return on Investment' report for NSPs in Australia the 'dollars saved' bottom line was front-and-centre and one could be forgiven for thinking that NSPs should merely be transformed into a self-serve cupboard 'sector' to ensure that we maximise the 'bang for buck' factor.

I have the privilege of working directly alongside demand reduction clinicians and have become increasingly aware of two things:

a) Harm reduction is often the easy part. The real challenge lies in the response to the request from NSP clients (and yes they are genuine and yes, there are very many of them) who want to cease their problematic drug use and, more often than not, find some way of healing past trauma/ grief/ abuse/ shame.

b) The demand reduction/ treatment sector may not be able to quote billions of dollars in savings, but the value that is gained is often priceless. Whether that be group work, psychotherapy, welfare work or medical assistance.

Will harm reduction become all about the money?

I know these are not new revelations, but I feel compelled to raise these issues for discussion as harm reduction is an incredibly valuable philosophy and sector, and one that I am proud to have been involved with for over a decade. If it is conceptually vulnerable, then my passion would dictate that activists and practitioners need to actively address the problems at hand. It is a struggle I am willing to take up and I am interested to read other opinions.

Here are some relevant excerpts from the Mona Lisa Curse:

Part #07

Part #08

Part #11

No comments:

Post a Comment