SHAPE 2017 TateExchange Book FINAL Draft - Flipbook - Page 39
7
Thoughts on Description and Art
Aaron McPeake
Georgina Kleege defined audio description as, “… the process of translating
visual information into words for people who are blind or have low vision.” 1
This access provision has become commonplace in recent years in cinemas,
television broadcasts, theatres and museums. However, there has been an
ongoing debate surrounding the nature of what description is, or should be.
In most museums the convention of description techniques is one where
the describer (writer) and narrator (speaker) attempt to deliver a measure of
objectivity, neutrality delivered with a self-effacing voice about an artwork or
production. 2 In the context of artworks the idea of objectivity and describing
‘what is observed’ is particularly problematic, as many artists and scholars
would argue that there could never be actual objectivity in such subjective
situations. 3
I have come to take the view that we might become better informed if we
were to consider the subject of description in light of what an artwork does,
rather what it is. Having been only an occasional user of description services
in museums and galleries, preferring to ask questions and discuss works
with friends who accompany me, my thinking about this issue has developed
over through a project that made artworks through the use of spoken and
gestured description.
Over the past few years I have been engaged in a collaborative painting
project with the notable painter, Stephen Farthing RA. Due to an
autoimmune illness I now have very low visual acuity, seeing in detail at two
metres what an averagely sighted person sees at 60 metres and stopped
painting over a decade ago as a result. With this is mind, Stephen asked me
35
