How do you make an art museum accessible?
An Interview with Arielle Murphy
This week I’m excited to introduce the first of (hopefully) many more guest appearances on Runaway, because what do I really know about most things?
I talked to my friend Arielle Murphy, the Accessibility Lead at Seattle Art Museum, about exactly what accessibility is in a museum/gallery context and why it’s important. The views she shared with me are her own, and do not represent Seattle Art Museum. There is so much buzz around making museums more accessible and inclusive, and I wanted to hear from someone who is thinking about the nitty gritty details of how to make that happen everyday.
Eliza: Ok, so why is accessibility in an art museum or gallery space important? Can you define what “accessibility” means for you in your work?
Arielle: I really hold the philosophy "art is something that should be enjoyed by everyone" close to my heart. I've been writing about matters of accessibility basically since I was 19 years old - from manifestos about the ethics of cell phones and guided tours within a museum, to challenging the completely un-diverse historical canon of museum leadership and what that does to museum employment culture - but even more so today, since it is now my job to question practices of accessibility. I think accessibility is important because art, in itself, is created for others to experience. And if that excludes certain groups or people, then it really isn't art anymore.
In my current role, accessibility is about serving communities of individuals who have varying cognitive, social, physical, or sensory disabilities. But outside of my role, to me on a personal level, the root of accessibility is access. And that means making art accessible to all from the moment an individual thinks about going to a museum. Would this exhibition appeal to someone who has never been to an art museum before? Would they feel comfortable making the trip to the museum? What about once they get there? Are admissions fees reducing access to those from low-income backgrounds? (Yes). Are our programs considering a wide array of audiences, not just one? I'm also really trying to break down this idea that art is this "high brow" or "cultured" experience that people just have to do to impress themselves and/or others. I can't tell you how many times I've seen comments like these, or seen people go to art museums just to take photos for their Instagram page. And I think it really creates a negative stigma about who art is for and what art is about.
Eliza: When people think of accessibility, they might think of ramps to accommodate people with mobility challenges, or tools to help visually or hearing impaired people understand the art on display. What are some other kinds of accessibility considerations to take into account that might not be as obvious?
Arielle: That's a really good question. I've been working lately on matters of mask wearing - if the government says that it's okay not to wear a mask in indoor spaces, would a mask-less museum exclude individuals who are, say, immunocompromised and unable to get the vaccine? And children/families? I also feel strongly that we need to think about seating in museums/galleries, which doesn't necessarily feel like accessibility, but I think it is. I am pretty sure we all have memories of walking through a museum with an aching back or feet. And how many galleries have a place to sit? I can literally think of maybe one in the dozens of galleries I've been to over the years. More options for seating will help people with various mobility needs, but also people who are older or who have chronic illnesses where they fatigue easily. Also, everyone wants to sit down and have a break sometimes! That's something else that I think is worth mentioning too, that accessible programming frequently appeals indirectly to the greater visitor experience, not just those who may directly or obviously benefit from them.
Eliza: I think that’s such an interesting and great point, that we all benefit from more accessible spaces. I personally experience museum fatigue approximately 5 minutes into walking around a gallery, and I can never find a chair! Can you tell me about any especially interesting or surprising ways you have worked through accessibility challenges with an exhibition? Or about any art objects or installations that cannot be made fully accessible to everyone? How do you deal with these?
Arielle: I know it is challenging for all museums to work on installing Kusama exhibitions. I can also think of James Turrell installations. Their artistic visions, while incredible, sometimes don't lend themselves to individuals who are unable to fit into a small space, or to an individual who has low vision. So that's really the challenge for all people working on accessible exhibition design - how do you maintain artistic integrity while considering accessibility? Museums are now frequently turning to technology to offer AR/VR alternatives to immersive experiences, or providing transcripts or tactile experiences as other options. It isn't a perfect system, but I think as awareness grows around accessibility, so will our options regarding accessible art. Also thank you 21st century technology.
Eliza: This is so interesting from a more art historical/theoretical perspective, because I wonder how experiencing art virtually might change the way we think about originality and authenticity. In the Kusama example, is the VR experience “authentic”? Is it ableist to call the non-VR installation experience the “real” or “original” piece of art?
Arielle: That is such an interesting question, I haven’t really thought about it in this context, but I’m really interested in these kinds of questions about authorship. In other words, who is the artist? Kusama, or the creator of the VR experience? I’d argue that both are “authentic.” The Infinity Rooms are just experiences - the whole point is that it is ephemeral and fleeting as an installation, and the VR headset experience provides that same fleetingness.
Eliza: It makes me think about the Van Gogh experience exhibitions that have been traveling around, and the questions they also raised about an “authentic” experience of art. In those cases, is it really an exhibition of Van Gogh, or is it an exhibition of the work of animators who used Van Gogh’s work as inspiration or source material? Or is it a collaboration?
Arielle: Yes, I think it definitely is a collaboration, but it’s not viewed that way. From an accessibility standpoint, I think it’s really positive that we have exhibitions that break away from the traditional model, but it definitely raises questions.
Eliza: And I guess it also raises the question, does it really matter which one is authentic, or whether the author is a single artist or a team of animators?
Arielle: I’d maybe say no. Of course it matters in a commercial sense - we’re getting into the NFT world, we don’t have to go there. But if you were to purchase any of these things we are talking about, what would it look like in terms of authorship and authenticity? Would you get the VR too? The physical room itself? I don’t know, I don’t even know if they’re for sale. But this is a really interesting conversation that I think goes beyond just the world of accessibility.
Eliza: Definitely. One last question: what do you see as the main issues that art institutions generally have yet to resolve regarding making their spaces accessible to all visitors?
Arielle: Accessibility-wise, I think the museum sector is going to struggle collectively to prioritize accessible programming during the sector's financial recovery post-Covid. And I think that spans beyond accessibility practices, it really is all museum programming. As accessibility is similar to issues of racial equity - constant evolution requires constant change - there is always more work to be done. But I think the majority of arts institutions are finding it really challenging to just get by and are in economic strain.
Access-wise, and I will probably sound like a broken record, are admissions fees. I know museums need to make money, and most of them are non-profits who cannot afford to make their collections free - I really do get it. But to me, I much more align with the UK style of museum entry (admissions to the permanent collection is free at most museums in the country, you'd just pay for a special exhibition). I just think that these high admission fees (I'm pretty sure that the popular NYC museums cost close to $30?!) create the biggest barrier to both an accessible museum but also in providing a good arts education. If you're going to shell out $100 for a day with the family at a museum, then you're going to want to get your money's worth, and therefore basically force yourself to see every single piece of art in the collection, read every single wall didactic, or stay for 3+ hours. And that sounds painful to even people like us who studied and love art! Just visiting a museum for 30 minutes, taking a quick spin around one or two rooms can help build an individual's aesthetic taste. How many people do I know that can explain why they like certain pieces of art? It is shockingly very few. And I truly believe it's because we were never really taught about how to engage with art. We were just taught about its historical context and that's it. Instead, I think we should be leading conversations about color, style, line, light, medium...to lead to greater conversations about why we're drawn to pieces aesthetically, and then broaden it out to a greater discussion about cultural context and history. And I don't think we can get there unless we start to remove economic barriers to art.
Eliza: Is there anything that I haven’t asked about that you think is important to mention in this conversation?
Arielle: Nothing! This was great. If you want to talk about my feisty-20-year-old-me manifesto calling for a cell phone-less museum, let me know.
Eliza: I absolutely will.
Some Other Things I’m Thinking About
Continuing the conversation (with myself) I started in my last newsletter, Christian Lorentzen’s review of Sally Rooney’s Beautiful World, Where Are You? in the LRB was very on the nose for me.
I continue to be shocked by the levels of transphobia in the British media, even though I apparently shouldn’t be. This article is an excellent and well-researched overview of why anti-trans beliefs have become mainstream in the UK. It’s a little bit funny that Britain has spent so long creating “hostile environments” for people they don’t like (trans people, immigrants, etc.), but now it’s a hostile environment for everyone, because you can’t get gasoline, various prescription medicines, turkeys for Christmas, a basic blood test, affordable gas/electricity to keep your house warm…. A sceptered isle indeed.
I’m still feeling absolutely sick about the Sarah Everard case. I’m also exhausted by the new reality in which people no longer resign when they massively fuck up, they just hold on really tight to power and wait for people to forget what happened. Did you know that 52% of serving Met Police officers who were convicted of sexual offences continue to serve?
A very efficient description of why “centrist” is not necessarily equal to “reasonable,” both in general and specifically in the United States Senate.
The newsletter “Hot Take,” which is always full of relevant info about the climate emergency. This week, some important details about exactly why Biden’s big old bill is very important to prevent further climate catastrophe.
This nice article about how Humanities PhDs are not actually useless degrees and my choices are not just precarious temporary adjuncting or being a barista.
I accidentally got double milk deliveries for a week and have been making a lot of milk-based meals as a result, and I would like to recommend poaching fish in milk!! Delicious. If anyone has ever made cheese at home and has any tips, hit me up, because I still have like 4 pints of milk to use up.