Evaluation of the audio description event

Aims Were these met?  Improvements / actions
To “have a go” at audio description Experimental approach – inviting writers Involve more visually impaired writers
To be creative and have fun Creative writers

Participants and writers said it was “enjoyable”, “fun”, “brilliant” etc

Several descriptions the same artworks to give different viewpoints
To improve access to works in the gallery “They made the paintings come alive and it was a great way to describe the art to the visually impaired.” BSL interpretation for further layers of accessibility
To bring visually impaired and sighted people together Yes. Good balance, with only slightly more sighted people

 

Informal, friendly atmosphere

 

“I could feel a real sense of community among us all, writers and audience. Like we were on a bit of an adventure…”

Ensure sighted people don’t dominate discussions through facilitation.

Manage numbers through invitations or through timetabling the event differently (fewer descriptions / longer event / drop-in / descriptions running concurrently etc).

To show that creative audio description is of interest and engages a broad audience Yes – responses and engagement of visually impaired and sighted people Consider making it a public event
(but aim for balance as above)
To get people talking about art and about accessibility Yes – as above

“There is a curious tension between writing about art and writing/performing for access which has got me thinking”

Use social media to amplify discussion
To produce guidelines for audio describing artworks

 

Writers found these useful and had clearly referred to them https://sortitout24.wordpress.com/
2018/05/30/guidelines-for-creative-audio-description/
To pilot a low-cost approach that could be easily replicated Yes – focus was on delivering live event, as research participants valued presence of people in the gallery more than technology An exercise for local writers’ groups e.g. libraries’ writing groups.

Low cost meant that high quality recordings were out of scope

(290 words)

 

See also my report of the event: An adventure in audio description report (pdf 1.22MB), which appears on an earlier blog post.

 

And a Presentation Gill Crawshaw gc269357 LAUMACUP705 (pdf 1.07 MB) given to the MA Curation Practices cohort at our end of year symposium at Tate Liverpool.

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s