This week I focused on actually translating the research I have done thus far into an organized art piece. During week 11, I began my second art piece which focused on depicting three different autism stakeholders. Since beginning this art piece, I researched how neurotypical and neurodiverse frameworks influence each of these stakeholders differently and inform their behavior and beliefs.
So far, this is what I have added to the piece. I have mostly focused on developing the clinician stakeholder component. The brain scans are based on PET scans and MRIs which are commonly used in neuroscientific brainwork to research mechanisms of cognition. Drawing them in multiple colors represents a tribute to neurodiversity. I highlighted the amygdala in pink to represent its key role in emotional regulation and connection to autism research (Markram and Markram, 2010)Above the brain scans, I wrote out the specific definition of autism provided by the DSM-6. This definition embodies the clinical outlook on how autism presents in an individual. Furthermore, this diagnostic tool represents a mechanism by which clinicians institutionalize autism and enforce neurotypicality.
Pictured above are additional detail elements I have added thus far. I wanted to highlight how any genetic research is based on the idea of structure-function relationships between DNA, chromosomes, proteins, and cell bodies. I plan to add based descriptions of these ideas next to the drawings to make these ideas more accessible for viewers without a background in biology or genetics. Furthermore, these drawings represent research attributing de novo mutations and copy-number variations as potential causes of autism (Levy et al., 2011). To the right of the cell body drawings, I recreated a figure from Markram and Markram (2010) which depicts their Intense World Theory. I wanted to represent this work because of its key connection to stimming and its relevance as a potential neurobiological mechanism for autism.
To the right of the bottom-most brain, I included a small rat skull and the date 1994. I have included these images as a tribute to the history of “scientific” research on autism affiliated with the eugenics movement. 1944 represents the year in which Dr. Hans Asperger published his thesis with a proposition of an autism diagnosis (Baker, 2017). Furthermore, the rat skull illustrates how most neurobiology research, especially related to the biological mechanisms of autism, is conducted using rat brains.
To the left of the clinician section, are the non-autistic parent and autistic self-advocate stakeholders. While I have begun creating speech bubbles to express their opinions, I want to do more research and critical analysis before committing to portraying their perspectives. Finalizing my ideas and portraying them in my project is my goal over the last week of this project.
References
Baker, J. P., & Lang, B. (2017). Eugenics and the origins of autism. Pediatrics, 140(2).
Levy D, Ronemus M, Yamrom B, Lee YH, Leotta A, Kendall J, Marks S, Lakshmi B, Pai D, Ye K, Buja A, Krieger A, Yoon S, Troge J, Rodgers L, Iossifov I, Wigler M. Rare de novo and transmitted copy-number variation in autistic spectrum disorders. Neuron. 2011 Jun 9;70(5):886-97. PubMed PMID: 21658582.
Markram, K., & Markram, H. (2010). The intense world theory–a unifying theory of the neurobiology of autism. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 224.