Anexis Matos

A few weeks ago, I was invited to two different events revolving around art. The first was a discussion on art and audio description. Unfortunately, I couldn’t go. I had a prior commitment that I completely forgot about before I accepted. I had to cancel.

The second was an outing to the Museum of Modern Art in New York. I was very excited for the opportunity. I haven’t been in a museum since middle school. I remember enjoying the field trips because of the people that were around me, but, while I was interested when I was much younger, the museums themselves got pretty boring as I got older.

Four days before the trip, I got sick and, to my dismay, it got worse on Friday.

“I hate that I’m sick,” I told my mom. “I’m going out on Sunday.”

“Don’t worry,” she said. “By the time Sunday comes, it’ll be gone. We’re going to get rid of it.”

My tea drinking began the first day symptoms of the cold presented themselves. I started with mint and ginger tea, the only ones I had available that I could make. I bought these on Amazon from Celestial Seasonings.

Transportation arrangements were set up that Friday. At least I didn’t have to figure out paratransit to get to New York. That would not have been pleasant, especially with only two days before the trip.

My friend and I left my house on a sunny Sunday afternoon. I was still sick, so I wore a mask. The drive was full of conversation. It was a few months since we last saw each other. I enjoyed catching up with her, especially with the traffic that greeted us when we reached New York. We got to the museum on time, but the traffic was more than we expected.

When our small group got together minutes after we arrived, we went to explore. I didn’t go into the museum with anything in mind. I had no interest in a particular artist. I went with an open mind, but with the knowledge that this specific form of visual art hasn’t held my interest before. I have a general curiosity, but that’s it.

I went as a spectator more than anything else. I wasn’t exposed to art enough to be interested. I took art classes, but that was so long ago, so I barely remember it. I was more excited because I went out with very interesting people.

The moment I accepted the invitation to the museum, I planned to write about my experience. I thought it would make a great post. I planned to specifically focus on the audio description. Audio describing art is very different from TV shows and movies. There’s no need to worry about interrupting dialogue or commentary. It’s a description with no break. I’ll talk more about that later, but know that, in the audio description section, my critique will be more general.

While I planned to write about my experience, I didn’t foresee everything else that happened.

A Lack of Accessibility Training

When we were figuring out how to access audio description, we approached a staff member. We found out that there weren’t separate devices for audio description. Instead, visitors access the audio description through an app on their phone or the web site.

“Which would be easier for a blind person to use?” my professor asked.

“It’s personal choice,” he said.

When pressed, he gave the same answer. In the end, we ended up using the web site for the rest of our time in the museum.

I can understand the staff member’s answer here. Accessibility is different for everyone. For example, while not great, I prefer the Funimation app over their web site. Their app still needs a lot of improvement, but it’s easier to play the anime.

Accessibility is also different depending on the device being used. Very recently, I tried to sign a contract to produce my audiobook for my debut book, Daughter of Death and I couldn’t do it on my phone or my BrailleNote Touch. I had to do it on my computer.

To make sure a web site is accessible, I try it on all my devices. Sometimes, things are not accessible on all devices which isn’t great. It gets more complicated when it comes to screen readers. Sometimes, web sites are not accessible with all screen readers. Also, screen readers are not created equal.

I’ve had similar experiences with apps. For example, the Netflix app was designed differently on my Windows computer than on my iPhone and iPad in regards to accessibility. On my Windows computer, it behaved like a web site rather than an app.

Keep in mind that everything I’ve said relates to screen readers. These are also my experiences. Everyone has different accessibility needs, experiences, and standards. What works for me may not work for other people who are blind and visually impaired.

All this said, it’s good for employees to have some understanding of their app and web site. It should be enough for them to give visitors an idea of what may be better. This is not even just for accessibility reasons. This is about general knowledge.

As I mentioned previously, I recently had trouble signing a production contract for the Daughter of Death audiobook. I was going back and forth for days with customer service at Findaway Voices. Eventually, the person told me that their web site sometimes doesn’t behave well on mobile devices. I tried one last time on my computer and it worked. As of writing, the narrator submitted the audiobook and is waiting for my final approval.

The smallest bit of information is helpful. Yes, it’s personal choice what the consumer wants to use, but, as an employee, whatever information you give may help them choose. If the person is blind like me, it may help them understand specific elements that would normally not be considered. Web sites and apps are navigated differently, so, depending on what the consumer chooses to use, it will affect their experience.

While I believe the employee had good intentions, it’s important to consider that the person you’re helping may have never been in the museum. This was my first time, so I didn’t know what would be best to use. What could be the most accessible for someone who is blind. Whatever information the employee could have offered would have been useful.

My impression is that the employees we saw had no accessibility training. They seemed to know that audio description was available, but not sure how to help us. That lands on the museum, not them. The museum needs to do a better job at training all their employees on accessibility. Everyone has a right to accessible places and content. The museum has an obligation to provide both.

Audio Description

While my first impression wasn’t great, the audio description experience was the worse part. For those unaware, audio description is a separate track added to visual media that describes visual aspects. It’s mainly intended for blind and visually impaired audiences, but can be enjoyed by and benefit anyone.

After we figured out the audio description details, we went to see the recent Pinochio exhibition. It was in the museum temporarily, so a lot of people wanted to see it. I was curious since I didn’t know about the Pinochio movie.

This is where things went downhill. In order for me to access audio description, QR codes needed to be scanned. My nightmare.

QR codes are like PDF files. Most of the time, they’re inaccessible. The only difference is that PDF files can be made accessible. PDF files tend to be hit or miss.

The point of accessibility is to make something accessible for everyone. QR codes aren’t accessible to everyone. Not every person who is blind can use a camera proficiently, especially in this situation. To scan a QR code would require guidance and a good understanding of how to position the camera or an understanding of the QR code scanner.

If you’re scanning a QR code in a place where you can take your time, it’s technically fine. However, in this environment, that’s not viable. There are a lot of people. It’s not just you. It’s annoying because you want to access what you need, but you don’t want to take too long because others are there to see the art, too.

By using QR codes, the museum makes it harder than it should be to access audio description. When providing accessibility options, assume the person is visiting on their own. Don’t assume there will be someone with them. There may not be.

To access the audio description, my friend and professor scanned the QR codes for me. Moma, this is unacceptable. I should be able to access audio description without so much difficulty.

The Pinochio exhibition contained different art pieces that inspired director Guillermo Del Toro’s animations for the movie. There were 17 audio recordings, so I’m assuming there were 17 pieces. These recordings were very short.

This is not a bad thing. In my opinion, when it comes to audio description, less is more. I believe this to be the case when it comes to description in general.

Unfortunately, these recordings weren’t audio descriptions of the art pieces. It took me three recordings to realize this was the case. The audio recordings contained contextual information about the art pieces that I could find on Google or YouTube.

Why, Moma? Why did you not offer audio description for the Pinochio exhibition? Art is not just for sighted people. By not offering audio description, you effectively exclude a portion of your visitors.

If Moma wanted to exclude a portion of their visitors, congratulations! They did it! They disappointed at least one person. However, I don’t think that was their goal. At least two people mentioned to me that they proudly say they’re accessible. I’m not seeing that, but that’s what I was told.

It can be argued that they didn’t do the work to add audio description because it’s a temporary exhibition. However, the argument doesn’t hold up in consideration. This means that they only have audio description for their main collection. If the museum wants to be accessible, then they need to do the work and make their temporary exhibitions as accessible as their collection.

The cherry on top is that the audio recordings were not in order. So much work for nothing. Granted, the contextual information was interesting, but my experience was ruined when the recordings were not in order. It was so much work just to find the individual recordings. It makes the viewing less enjoyable.

When we finished viewing the Pinochio exhibition, we moved on to their collection.

“Is there anything in particular you’re interested in?” my professor asked. “Any particular artist?”

“No,” I said. “I’m okay with anything.”

I’m not sure how many art pieces we saw, but I had a similar experience with all of them. For each art piece, there are two audio recordings. The first is two minutes and provides contextual information about the piece. It mentions specific elements for the viewer to consider, but it assumes that the person viewing the piece is sighted. Essentially, it works like a guide.

The second recording is five minutes. This is the audio description. Before this trip, I was exposed to some audio described art pieces. However, it was in class and, from what I remember, at least a few of them were described in different styles.

Audio description for TV and art are very different. On TV, it’s important to make sure that descriptions don’t interrupt dialogue or commentary. It should also allow viewers the chance to appreciate silence and music. While audio descriptions vary in detail, most of them have a balance or at least attempt to have one.

Because audio description for TV can’t interrupt dialogue or commentary and has to allow viewers to appreciate music and silence, viewers get a break. While descriptions are constant, they’re usually not overwhelming. There are other things happening and, if done right, descriptions are not distracting.

For art pieces, there’s nothing to interrupt. It’s straight description. There’s no break. No time to rest. It’s a very long five minutes of description that touches on very specific details and, if you’re anything like me, you may not remember any of it. You also may find yourself overwhelmed.

I’m a blind author. When I write, one of the things I consider is how I would want things described to me. I don’t enjoy very long descriptions. They tend to have a lot of detail and, at some point, they blur together and I can’t keep track of them.

A general rule that I follow is to make sure that descriptions aren’t overwhelming while being specific. I prefer straightforward descriptions for this reason. They’re easy to understand. Here’s an example of a description from my own writing.

He sighs, looking around his dimly lit study. With the exception of a credenza, there’s nothing here with a personal touch from the lord of death. Blank glass walls. A plain desk with four drawers that can fit an unlimited amount of things. The blue curtains on the high windows have been replaced several times by his staff. He only notices when a visitor to his court points it out to him, usually because it’s a different color since the last time they were there.

This is very short and to the point. I have some long descriptions before, but they’re exceptions. Usually, I only do it for places that have a story. Even then, not being overwhelmed is important to me.

My description style is modeled after screenplays, graphic novel scripts, and audio description. While it may not be poetic, it gets the point across. That’s all I need when I read, listen to audio description, or write.

Specificity in descriptions is important, but there is such thing as too specific. The audio description of the art pieces we saw are both too long and too specific. The length of the description affected my view of the piece. For most of them, I felt no emotion. The descriptions were so long that, at some point, I became overwhelmed and stopped focusing. After three pieces, I began to feel exhausted.

Note that I said I began to feel exhausted. I wasn’t completely exhausted. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that I’m a very avid reader and actively consume audio description frequently. I read more than I consume audio description, so I’m used to different styles of description. Listening to the art pieces being described was like reading several short books at once. Unfortunately, it wasn’t like ready short books I enjoyed. It was more like reading short books for class.

Throughout one week, I can read two to four books. Most of them are audiobooks and they vary in length. The majority of them are 10 hours, but I don’t listen to them at regular speed. I usually read books at around 2.5 speed. It makes it easier to consume a story and descriptions are easier to digest, especially if they’re heavily poetic and long.

I also think the inaccessible experience contributed to my exhaustion and lack of interest in the pieces. I already have enough inaccessible things in my life. I don’t need another one when I’m supposed to have fun.

The main takeaway I got from all the descriptions I listened to is that they’re not accessible to everyone. There may be people who enjoy the amount of detail in the descriptions while there are others who may find it to be too much. There are those who may enjoy how specific the descriptions are while others may gain nothing out of it.

All the descriptions begin with someone explaining what kind of art it is and the dimensions. For me, dimensions mean nothing. It doesn’t tell me how big something is. It’s easier to associate something with something else. The safe is the size of a book. The device is the size of a pen. The object is the size of an iPad. Things like this are easier to picture.

I’m blind from birth, so association is how I understand space and height. This is why tactile maps have never been helpful to learn a route. I was exposed to them growing up, but they fucked up my spacial awareness even more.

If you’re attempting to describe an art piece to a blind person from birth, maybe get rid of dimensions and associate the piece’s height to something else. Make comparisons to common, familiar objects like televisions. Radios. Books. Binders. Objects that anyone would have seen at some point in their lives.

The rest of the descriptions would be as specific as telling the listener exactly where objects were located. There was a painting with a lot of watches that gave clock directions. A lot of them blurred together, so forgive the lack of examples here.

A lot of these descriptions felt very targeted to people who are into art, have enough vision, or had vision and lost it, people who can appreciate them more. I can’t appreciate these descriptions. I can appreciate the work done, but that’s it.

Here are two ways Moma can fix how inaccessible the descriptions are to blind people from birth. The first is to redo the descriptions and make them simpler. Much shorter. Three minutes max. The descriptions also need to be less specific. There’s no need to explain where every single object is. That’s too overwhelming.

I don’t necessarily think the museum needs to get rid of their original descriptions. A redo of the descriptions can simply mean recording another one and adding it as an option. That way, they can have a short description and the long one for those who might want the extra detail. It would work like an extended audio description.

The second thing is to make them easier to access. Get rid of QR codes and find something else. Having a separate device would make things easier. If the museum wants to continue using their web site and app, find another way that isn’t QR codes to access the audio descriptions.

I don’t know if this is a thing, but the museum can add a function to speed up the audio descriptions. It would allow listeners to control the speed of the descriptions. It gives them more freedom and it may be less overwhelming to listen to the original descriptions if they can control the speed.

Descriptions aside, the vocal performance is a bit jarring. The person describing the art pieces is different from the one that gives us the title of the piece, the artist information, the type of art it is, and the dimensions. I find that it’s much easier to focus when it’s one person saying everything.

Despite my bad experience with the audio described art pieces, I’m still interested in exploring it more. I believe there are different styles of audio description for art pieces the same way there are for movies and shows. Moma’s style of description doesn’t work for me, but I’m sure others will. I remember enjoying some of the pieces described in my audio description course last year, so all hope is not lost. Also, there was one piece at Moma that has encouraged me to continue exploring this in the future.

The One Piece I enjoyed

I can’t remember the name of the painting or artist, but it was an art studio. The description was in the form of a tour. It kind of felt like an O&M instructor describing landmarks, but with details I’ll eventually forget.

The description itself was mostly straightforward. In the beginning, anyway. It was as specific as every other one at Moma, but I think I got the important parts. It was an art studio. There was a grandfather clock and other objects that made the place personal. Interestingly enough, it has made me think of decorating my room. I’m still thinking about it, but I want to add texture. If I decorate my room, I’ll let you know how it goes.

Conclusion

After we experienced audio described art, we went to eat at my suggestion. I was hungry and am used to having dinner very early due to engaging in intermitant fasting to lose weight years ago for health reasons. I have continued the routine, though I’m no longer on a strict diet.

I didn’t realize how thirsty I was until I sat down and drank a glass of water. I had a water bottle in my backpack, but I was intrigued by everything, despite the critiques I gave.

Our server was great. I very much enjoyed the sandwich I had. After we finished, we left the museum and headed back home.

As I expected, the drive was full of conversation. Some of it was about the museum. The rest was about everything else.

About two days later, I started to type up this post. It’s taken me about two weeks to write and fully gather my thoughts. Now it’s available for you to read.

As I’ve been writing, I’ve been asking myself whether I would be willing to go to this museum again. Whether I would be willing to give it one more try. Despite my critiques, is it worth trying again in the future?

It was worth going. It’s great to try something new, especially something that I can enjoy to some degree. It was worth seeing what Moma had to offer, accessible or not. It was worth dipping my toes again into audio described art.

The way it is now, I’m not willing to return to Moma. It’s possible that the experience is different during weekdays. However, that’s not enough to convince me. It should be the same no matter the day.

If it improves, I’m willing to go again. It needs to be more accessible for me to even consider it. No QR codes to scan. Make audio description easier to access, either through a separate device or the visitor’s cell phone. Here’s an idea. Have both. I’m sure there are visitors who aren’t tech savvy.

Overall, the experience was worth having. As I said, I mainly enjoyed the museum because of the people I went with, not because of what it offered. I rate their general audio description one star. It’s not accessible to everyone and, while it seems like they have audio description for their permanent collection, it doesn’t seem like they do the work for temporary exhibitions. There’s room for improvement.