I feel like now might be a good time to post some of my reflections on my first set of research questions, which was: “Can an arts project - whether an exhibition, or event - ever be ‘fully’ accessible? If so, how? And if not, why not? How do we arrive at the best possible version of accessibility that compromises as little as possible?”

The place I’m currently at has primarily been informed by a wonderful three part podcast produced by Unlimited. Unlimited is a UK organisation that commissions “extraordinary work from disabled artists until the whole of the cultural sector does. This work will change and challenge the world.” The podcast, called “Making Art Accessible”, is hosted by Mandy Colleran, and features interviews with arts practitioners and sector leaders.

In the first episode, dancer and choreographer Krystal Lowe talks about how she makes her work accessible in different ways. She is exploring how different audiences can have the same quality of experience, rather than attempting to offer one identical experience. She recognised that the work can exist on multiple platforms, and that instead of ‘forcing’ different audiences to have the same experience, she accepts that blind and visually impaired audiences will have a different experience from a seeing audience, which is different again from a d/Deaf audience, and so on. Her aim is to ensure that different elements of the work support engagement for different audiences.

Above all I was struck by Krystal saying that, for her, the key is to identify the purpose of the work and what she wants to share.This frees her up from trying to ‘force’ the work to offer the same experience to everyone, or forcing audiences to have the same experience. Rather, if she knows what she wants to share and what is the work’s purpose, then different ways of accessing these can be developed that are of the same quality.

In episode 2 artist Jo Bannon spoke frankly about a work she made that deals in part with her lived experience of low vision. She described how she needed the piece to take place in darkness, which meant that BSL couldn’t be offered. This in turn meant that for some d/Deaf audiences the work could not be fully accessible. She described how this made her feel like a failure, or a ‘bad’ artist. Her conclusion was that there may well be occasions when the specificities of the piece don’t allow for complete accessibility. Like Krystal, she also talked about how the key was to identify what story you’re trying to tell and for whom. She also talked about how access needs can be in tension with each other.

In the same episode artist Vijay Patel spoke about how making your work more accessible is a constant journey. I found this observation about the ‘journey’ towards greater access both generous and nurturing.

Finally, the CEO of University of Atypical Damien Coyle suggested the need to learn and reflect from past experience where there have been access challenges or difficulties. He also observed that the idea of having ‘equal access’ to a cultural experience isn’t achievable. The fact is that every audience member is different, and will have different experiences of a cultural venue (whether they are disabled or not). Just as audience members have different access needs, they will inevitably have different experiences as a result.

I’m going to end with a quote from the report “Demystifying Access”, also produced by Unlimited, which feels like excellent advice for artists, producers, and cultural organisations alike:

“Be open and honest about access provision, and how it aligns with the artistic nature of the work. If you have little means and capacity to address the accessibility of your [work], don’t let yourself be overwhelmed by all the different elements “access” could require. Instead, focus on the few things that feel really aligned with the nature of the work, and deliver those well.”