Reflect on our class visit to Krannert’s Crip* exhibition
I struggle to comment about the intersectionality of the exhibit because of the limited time we had in the museum. I didn’t have enough time to learn about or look at all the different artworks and the stories behind them. I could say that by focusing on crip theory, intersectionality is then built into the foundation of the exhibit because of the focus on intersectionality within crip theory and its ties to queerness. However, I’m not going to focus on that idea because as I said before I didn’t have a lot of time to explore the artwork and I don't think I can successfully reflect on it.
One thing I did notice was how, even in an exhibit focused on crip theory and accessibility, it was still somewhat inaccessible. One important takeaway from our time at the museum was how important independence is to accessibility and I think there were multiple cases throughout the exhibit where independence would not be easy for some people. The braille descriptions were all on the walls very close to the artwork and I would think that they would be hard to find for someone with visual impairments without them accidentally running into the art. Instead, maybe the braille could be on a pedestal or podium in front of the artwork that would be easier to find with a cane or other guide. The QR Code that links to the audio description should also be on the podium with a braille description or there could be headphones attached to the podium with a button that can play the audio descriptions. I think the violin/speaker display in the middle of the floor would also create some accessibility issues when people are using a cane. The topic of having to carry your own chair was brought up in class but I figured I would mention it again because it’s important. I think the idea of having chairs available for people in the museum is very good and I think it could be executed a bit better. Maybe the museum could have chair racks spread throughout the museum, one near each exhibit, so people don’t have to carry a chair for long distances. Or, even better, the museum could have more permanent seating available throughout all of the exhibits.
While I am being critical of the museum I do want to state that I’ve gone back and forth a lot about the topic because I know that I’m putting too many expectations of perfection on a single exhibit. The exhibit is starting to bring into reality the idea of more accessible museums and it shouldn’t be judged too harshly for the things it didn’t get right when so much of what it’s doing is important to acknowledge. The exhibit is making a difference even if it’s not perfect. I think I run into this issue a lot with representation in media as well. When there are representations of minorities in media, the conversation tends to focus on what the media did wrong in its representation, how they were the first to do something so they should have done it better, how they should have included more diverse characters, and how they should have had more intersectionality. The list of complaints could go on and on. I’m not saying these complaints are unfair but in reality, the issue is that people put too much pressure and expectations on a single character/tv show/movie/etc. because there are so few examples of representation. It becomes an end all be all situation, if one of the few examples of representation isn’t perfect or doesn’t include everyone’s varied experiences then it’s considered bad because there is nothing else for people to go to for representation so the single character, movie, or tv show, has to carry it all. To summarize that somewhat complicated description, when there’s not enough representation, too much pressure, understandably, gets put on the little bit there is because people don’t have anything else to feel acknowledged by or to put their expectations on.
If we had more examples of accessible museums then the little issues wouldn’t matter as much because we would know that the other examples can be learned from and that progress can and is being made.
I think it's important that we acknowledge that the exhibit was not perfect. It takes much larger strides than other exhibits might, but there were also certain issues with accessibility that were outside of the control of the exhibit creators. Limited changes could be made to the building itself in the time frame given, which is a reminder that accessibility is a systemic issue that needs to be addressed on all levels. I think the fact that the exhibit is not perfect also makes a statement and encourages us to think more critically on how to create more inclusive environments.
ReplyDeleteI agree that we didn't get to spend enough time at the exhibit. Unfortunately, the class period didn't allow us a lot of time to look in depth at all the amazing artwork they had. I also agree with you that, because the exhibit is probably one of the first to be made with the future of accessibility in mind, it could need some changes. I really like the adaptations you've suggested! It will be interesting to see how the accessibility of museums improves (or, at least, becomes a more common factor) over the next few years.
ReplyDelete