SHAPE 2017 TateExchange Book FINAL Draft - Flipbook - Page 41
picture, where there is both sharpness and haze”. Though the process was
technical in nature in that it was concerned with making pictures with paint,
our language was not instructive as would be used by technical teachers, e.g.
for machine operation, driving or surgery. It was much more general, with
the emphasis being on exchanges that could tease out and build equivalents
of descriptions that resonated with us both. The exchange of similes I
mentioned earlier was not about the art object, or it’s making, but references
to elements that would combine to form the picture. There was not a
single voice describing things here but two voices, continually changing and
offering nuanced alternatives to mediate description.
As a result of making this work I have come to the view that audio description
does provide a useful service for those with low or no visual acuity. However,
such descriptions are often monolithic accounts, missing the opportunity
for alternative messages to be delivered and received. When we encounter
an artwork, we quickly flash through a host of referents in our mind’s eye
in order to make sense of it, and when we discuss artworks with others we
experience some aspects of their personal archives. As different mediums
generate different responses might this not enhance the case for an option of
a number of voices with different views, combining to generate descriptions?
Notes:
1
Kleege, G. (2013) Audio Description as a Pedagogical Tool. Disability
Studies Quarterly, Volume 35, Number 2. [Internet] Available from:
http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/4622/3945 [Accessed 24 January
2017]
37
