An Open Letter to the Tate Modern: on Art and Access

Tate Modern, Bankside, London, SE1 9TG

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE TATE MODERN: ON ART AND ACCESS

Jo Lawn Law16473842

DEAR TATE MODERN,

I am writing to challenge issues of accessibility in your institution, which have directly impacted me: within your building, curation and institution as a whole. I have an invisible disability, which means that my disability is not instantly noticeable; in many ways I have privileges that other people with disabilities, chronic illness or ill health do not. However, it also means that I often have to come out as disabled (Titchkosky, 2001), in order to receive the access adjustments that I need, which is just one of the ways I have experienced problems at Tate Modern. I’m writing to you as I want you to be aware of the impact your institution has on disabled people and the positive changes you could facilitate in the arts in regard to access, if you were willing to make changes. This open letter is particularly written to the Tate Modern because of your large budget, how much building and renovation has taken place in recent years and how unsuccessful the accessibility is in many of these areas.

I will also note that from here on out I will be referring to people who require access requirements as disabled. But not all identify this way as this is a loaded term, but I am using it for simplicity of speech (Atkinson, 2015). This is relevant to anyone neurotypical, with sensory impairments, with alternative mobility or who identifies as sick, chronically ill or crip.

ARCHITECTURE

In this part of the letter I’m going to break down what disability is, how this relates to the built environment, the current laws in place and how they don’t do enough, all in relation to your inaccessible designs in the Tate Modern.

According to the Equality Act 2010, disability is classified as having a “physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities”. (GOV.UK, n.d.) “Substantial” here is defined as “more than minor or trivial” and “long-term” as 12 months or more. This is rarely a label that will be given to you by doctors or those around you, but from my experience, ‘disabled’ is a word that you begin to use for yourself to access the support you need, whether financial or in regard to accessibility. Many have argued that “Disability is a profoundly socio-spatial issue”. (Gleeson, 1996) This fits within my understanding of disability, as your “ability to do normal daily activities” is dependant largely on the environment with which you are doing them, as it is harder to do “day to day activities” in an inaccessible environment.

The Social Model of Disability “frames disability as a social construct created by access barriers, rather than a medical ‘problem’”. This framing of disability (also referred to as dis/ableism) “provides a dynamic and positive model which … proposes constructive changes to remove barriers and increase access” whilst not making it the disabled person’s issue to resolve, but in this case it would be yours. (Shape Arts, 2019)

Authors of Spatial Agency: other ways of doing architecture calls for architects to consider that “… every line on an architectural drawing should be sensed as the anticipation of a future social relationship, and not merely as a harbinger of aesthetics or as an instruction to contractor”. (Awan, Schneider and Till, 2011, pg 18) This is a critique of the idea that architecture is primarily an artform; it’s a reality which greatly impacts those navigating a space. The slope in the Turbine Hall of Tate Modern is an example of inaccessible architecture because of its steepness and not having level sections.

“Many projects in the last twenty years … incorporate large ramps or sloping ground as an integral part of the architectural experience. In these cases, we might be tempted to argue that, because the bit of tilted ground is part of the architectural concept”. (Fitzsimons, 2016, pg 91) I find in the case of architecture as art and as experience, the argument of aesthetics means it doesn’t have to meet accessibility standards. Fitzsimons calls into question, “… what is being accessed and how is it ostensibly accessed?” (ibid.) Is the slope designed to help access the building, or is the slopes something to be accessed itself? In the case of the slope in the Turbine Hall in the Tate Modern, it is far too steep to comfortably go up in a wheelchair and going down it is more of a ramp than a slope. (Tate Modern AccessAble, 2019) However, there is very little commentary on this because to able- bodied people it is considered an architectural eccentricity, rather than being primarily about access. Although the ramp is arguably more accessible than stairs, it is dysfunctional to the people it intends to help and feels tokenistic.

Alt-Text: A view of the turbine Hall slope from the first floor. Image shows tall industrial style hall with the floor sloping upwards towards automatic doors. On the left- hand side there is an alternative to the slope: there are long short steps, which some people are sitting on, with an arm-rail against the wall. There are some groups of people in the hall standing on the slope.

Although it is not an easily navigated space in a wheelchair, it does offer a challenge. I once went down this slope in a self-propelled wheelchair with no assistance. Many people that I whizzed past showed looks of shock and concern, clearly thinking that I had a carer who had accidentally let the wheelchair go. While I was able to go as fast as I liked, my friends had to walk down at a slower pace behind me. In the this case I was able to go far faster in the wheelchair, while those walking were disabled by the architecture. Looking at the Turbine hall from this perspective we can see “alternative accounts of spatiality through the phenomenology of the disabled body [which] offers new perspectives on architecture itself: on its simultaneous limits and possibilities…” (ibid, pg 89) However, I would argue that this does not act as an excuse for lazy designing. Just because disabled people find alternative ways of moving about the space, does not mean they should have to.

Additionally, it’s important to remember that this slope is a problem for many other types of disabilities: those who can’t self-propel or if they can they may not have as much speed control, or those who are be fed via a g-tube and the steep/rapid decline could impact their stomach/digestion, those using walking sticks or crutches, or those who have balance issues (e.g. POTS/EDS) and may be made very dizzy by the rapid movement. Or even those with young carers/carers who are also disabled and may struggle to manoeuvre the wheelchair.

This inaccessible slope results in a lack of access for many people, who then have to go further to find other entrances to the building. This kind of separation in access Garland-Thompson calls “eugenic world building”, which “is the ideology and set of practices that control who enters and participates in the shared public spaces of a democratic order.” (Garland-Thomson, 2011, pg 52). She argues that “Restrictive environments that segregate people with disabilities from one another and from the nondisabled”, such as separate routes for step free access, are a form of “eugenic

4 world building”. (ibid) This is clearly something Tate Modern’s design is guilty of by forcing some people to use separate entrances or lifts to move about the space.

One way to combat the ableism in design is the alternative of “inclusive world building”. (ibid) This initiative “seeks to integrate people with disabilities into the public world by creating an accessible, barrier-free material environment” and by doing this, disability is framed as a “valued social diversity” (ibid). This perspective keeps disability in mind when beginning architectural designs from the very start, rather than as an afterthought. Here I am not just referring to architecture or spatial layout of an interior, but a fundamental design of the world, which doesn’t just affect how individuals can/can’t move through a space, but on a deeper level being welcoming to physical diversity. Designs that include us don’t just allow us access, but they show that disabled people are welcome and have been thought about, which is a feeling that Tate Modern is lacking in.

These ideas are essential to inclusive design but aren’t covered in legal requirements for accessibility and are likely why Hayes Davidson, Herzog and de Meuron didn’t make more accessible architectural choices in the designing of your building. The writers of Beyond Compliance? Museums, Disability and the law weigh up the strengths and weaknesses of “legislation as a driver for change and the additional strategies that might be pursued to create truly accessible, inclusive and welcoming cultural organisations.” (Smith, Ginley and Goodwin, 2012, pg. 60) They argue that although legislation “constitutes a powerful driver for change”, it can also put too much focus on “what (minimum) changes are deemed necessary to meet legal requirements, rather than … a genuine concern for (and commitment to archiving) full equity of rights…” (ibid.)

The Disability Discrimination Act (or the DDA) is a law created in the UK in 1995 where it became a legal requirement of a public space to be accessible to people with disabilities. (It is worth noting here that that was 5 years before Tate Modern even opened). This law was a massive turning point politically for people with disabilities, as if you cannot exist in the public sphere, it is difficult to be integrated into society. This law, to a large extent, was introduced at the time because of disabled activists putting it on the agenda. (ibid.) However, the law did not include specific information on precisely how premises should make themselves accessible for disabled people, unlike the similar law in the US, but merely required “reasonable adjustments” to be made. (ibid, pg 62) Not only does this leave what adjustments should be made up to interpretation, it also means that there is no quantifiable measure of premises’ adherence to the law and therefore there was less fear of repercussions. Because of the lack of specification on what makes a space accessible, the responsibility is put on the owners of the premises to do their own research, which many may not be interested to do or may source incorrect information. Although this law was repealed in 2010 by the Equality Act, it very much set the tone for what the legal expectations would be for institutions to be expected to do in terms of access. In the case of the Tate Modern, I believe that you have made what the architects/designers may deem to be “reasonable adjustments”, but not what many disabled people accessing the space would consider “reasonable”. (ibid) Tate are considered trailblazers in the art community and often work with marginalised artists and have a panel to consult on issues of inclusiveivity and yet you are still failing to do this.

This law of “reasonable adjustments” (ibid) resulting in the bare minimum alterations is obvious in the example of Tate Modern’s access between lower ground, ground and first floor. The primary access from the lower ground floor (Turbine Hall) and first floor is a flight of stairs. The escalators

5 bypass this floor, going directly from lower ground floor to the first floor. The step-free flat grounded visitor’s entrances are on the first floor, while the tickets desk is on the ground floor. The only option other than the stairs to get down is a small, badly sign posted lift, which requires a Radar Key to access and takes a full minute to go between the floors. Although Radar key does mean that people who don’t need to use the lift won’t be slowing down other’s passage, it does stop access for some people, for example parents with prams, who need it but have to take the stairs. This is confusing enough to have to describe but far harder to navigate if you are not able to stand or walk for long periods of time, or if you require step free access.

Alt-Text: A view of the stairs leading from first floor down to second floor, image taken from above. Image shows steps leading downwards with arm rails on each side down the middle. Two people are walking down the stairs and other groups of people are standing around talking or walking.

I would argue that the experience you have from the moment you leave your home to get to the gallery is part of your art experience. If you had to wait for multiple buses until one comes that has enough space for a wheelchair, had to get different tubes to get step free access and then when you arrive to the gallery not been able to easily get from the entrance to the ticket sales desk, I doubt that many would still be in the mood to see art. Indeed, “… access can concise of more than just functional ease of movement to a destination; rather it can be integral to our meaning-making around and experiences of material space.” (Fitzsimons, 2016, pg 88)

LIFTS

Alt-Text: Image shows the Alt Text: Image of a sign outside of a (Hendren, 2016) interior of an elevator, with lift that reads ‘Please give priority Alt Text: Wheelchair symbol from a new a railing going around the to’ followed by a wheelchair symbol wheelchair project ‘Accessable Icon’. walls and a map on the and a pram symbol. This sign is in Symbol is in white on a blue background. wall. white on the grey metal wall. The wheelchair user is leaning forwards,

as though they are moving.

Once you’ve made it past the obstacle of the first few floors and you reach a floor that has lifts, the issue of moving between floors is still not easy. Despite the sign next to the lifts asking people to give priority to people in wheelchairs/parents with prams, they are still not prioritised. It is left to able- bodied audiences to regulate themselves. This combined with the lift size means that, in my experience, you have to wait for multiple lifts to pass by before you are able to get in one. I understand that the ways visitors behave is not within Tate’s control, but there are more positive systems that you could be using that would have a positive impact.

Some of the things that could be done to encourage people to offer space would be increasing the size of the sign, having the sign in the lift already, or even having a voice over in the lift. A voice over would be helpful to visually impaired people, who may not have been able to see your white on grey sign. But ideally, when you were designing the building the lift sizes should have been considered and made far bigger than they are. Changes need to be made as your current system is not functioning as it should, resulting in disabled visitors having to ask for priority, putting the burden on them to get the access they need.

The signposting also needs some work. The sign uses symbols of a pram and a wheelchair instead of words, which could be helpful for people who can’t read English. However, using a wheelchair symbol to mean all disabled people means that non-wheelchair using disabled people are not being included, thus reinforcing the idea that disabled people have to perform their disability to gain access/be prioritised. Including symbols of people with walking sticks or crutches would potentially encourage a broader understanding of who to prioritise. A more positive symbol for the wheelchair user would be the ‘Accessible Icon’ (2009 -2011), which was designed by disabled activists and designers. (Hendren, 2016) Unlike the old International Symbol of Access, “in which the wheelchair user looks passive and ready to be pushed to a destination, the new one shows a person in forward motion— a “driver” in charge of his or her own fate.” (The Museum of Modern Art, n.d.) This symbol

7 is gradually replacing the old one in many institutions, helping create a more positive image of disability.

BRIDGES

Alt-Text: The interior of the Turbine Hall, the image showing the ceiling with a skylight and a bridge going from the left building (Blavatnik) to the right building (Natalie Bell).

One of the main issues I’ve heard discussed in regard to the Tate Modern’s lack of access are the bridges that connect the Natalie Bell building and the Blavatnik building. The Tate is divided in the middle by the Turbine hall, with the only access across this being on the first floor or the bridge on the fifth floor. This means that it’s very difficult to move from one half of the building to the other. Not just is this a hostile environment to anyone with mobility issues, I’ve also heard able-bodied people complain about this issue, because of the complicated navigation, the distance and bad signage. The Turbine Hall, which divides the space, has an incredibly high ceiling, spanning multiple floors and has ample space to add bridges across it on all the floors. Given all the renovations and new building work in recent years, it would have been a logical decision to improve the experience for all visitors (and staff).

Natalie Bell, who the building was named after is a community organiser, activist and volunteer in the area, whilst the other building was named after Blavatnik, a philanthropist and billionaire. It is symbolic that the buildings therefore have few ties between, them between community and commercialism. The institution feels divided between its want to build a community space (such as in the education department) and between its need to make money and commercialise the arts, which is symbolically shown in the divide between Natalie Bell and Blavatnik.

MAPS AND SIGNAGE

Alt-Text: Image shows a wall map of Alt Text: Image of a black stand that says ‘MAP’ on the side in white. Tate Modern, which goes up 10 floors There are stacks of A5 folded maps on the stand, with a Perspex on the one side. The Map is in grey on donation box built into the stand. a while wall, with the floor numbers in white and the text in black.

As you can tell from my previous descriptions of the design of Tate Modern, accessing this building as a disabled visitor is disorienting and frustrating. This is not made easier by the wall maps, which don’t contain all the information, such as where on the floor you can find the toilet or lift. Each wall map only shows one section of the building, separating the information out across the building. These incongruent maps are a further symptom of issues of separation and segregation within Tate Modern, never really thinking about the bigger picture. To access all the information, you need a paper copy map, which you are suggested to pay £1 for and can only be bought in some locations.

SHOPS (INTERIOR DESIGN)

Alt Text: Image shows Alt-Text: Image shows wheelchair user Alt Text: Image shows reception of interior of Tate shop, attempting to buy something at one of Wellcome Collection, where the front desk with multi-tiered stands The Tate Shops, in which the till is too is tiered, with lower sections on each end. displaying items. high for them to reach.

There are multiple Tate shops spread across the building to encourage as many sales as possible. The interior design of them can be seen to have tried to be accessible, using some low-down display cases so children, wheelchair users and people of different heights can access them. This is a positive design as it allows for easy access to all. This design is a form of curation, and this approach should be extended into the displaying of works in the gallery spaces. The design has also allowed for enough space for a wheelchair user to get between the displays, however when the shops are busy it becomes an obstacle course to navigate, which could have been solved by leaving a little extra room. It is symbolic that the most accessible curation in your institution is in your shops rather than in your gallery spaces, again showing this divide between whether the Tate should be community and education-driven or commercially-driven.

Unlike the accessible displays, the shop till is too tall to easily be able to use from the height of most wheelchairs. When buying something from the shop in a wheelchair the cashier has had to pass down the pin machine so I could use it, feeding down the cord as much as they could. An accessible alternative could be to have sections of the desk lower down, as is the case with The Wellcome Collections front reception desk. This allows for people of a lower height to still interact in a dignified and less patronising way.

TOILETS

Alt-Text: Image shows the bottom of a wall in one of the disabled toilets in Tate Modern. The wall has deep scrapes and gouges into the walls left by wheelchair users trying to turn their wheelchair in the too small bathroom.

Some of the toilets that I’ve been into in the Tate that were marked as disabled were not big enough for wheelchairs, leaving no space for moving the chair around, transitioning onto the toilet or a carer’s help. Commercial Washrooms Ltd recommend that the dimensions of a disabled bathroom should be at least 270cm deep x 250cm wide, of which I’d estimate that this bathroom was half of that size. (Commercialwashroomsltd.co.uk, 2018)

I was saddened to see, but not surprised that low down on the walls of this bathroom there were large scrapes left from where people had tried to move their wheelchair about the space. This is not good enough, especially as the Tate mis-advertises on its website that there are “fully accessible toilets are located on every floor”. (Tate, n.d.)

ACCESS EQUIPMENT

Alt-Text: Image shows corner surrounded by glass walls, Alt Text: Image of the same place in Tate Modern, with a collection of wheelchairs and electric mobility this time with only 4 electric mobility scooters and scooters that Tate Modern has to offer. There are 2 self-propelled wheelchairs. roughly 6 electric mobility scooters and 4 self-propelled .

I am glad to say that I have never experienced a lack of wheelchairs available at Tate Modern and that the self-propelled wheelchairs are usually in working order, even if they are not the best models. In the case of the electric mobility aids, you are only able to use these if you have had prior experience. This isn’t bad practice and I can understand why it is done, but there are more positive alternatives. For example: I know of someone who is now a full-time electric wheelchair user, who’s first experience of using one was visiting a National Trust site. They had someone on hand who was helpful and offered to teach him how to use it. I think this is more a positive approach, as it actively helping.

Regardless of the ample number of wheelchairs available, all of this is very much let down by the staff who are responsible for allocating and helping people get access equipment. Before I knew where to find the equipment, I had to ask at the ticket desk, and they did not know but suggested to ask security. When I asked security, they were not sure, and had to use walkie-talkies to find out. I’ve since learnt where they are kept and every single time that I have asked to borrow one, I have been asked “who is it for?”, forcing me to come out as disabled.

In the face of trying to make visible to others what does not appear to them, the typical set of practices pursued is the seeking and the offering of "proof." This holds true, as much if not more, in relation to those lived experiences glossed by the terms "invisible disabilities" and "learning disabilities." The social-political consequences of seeking, securing, and offering proof of these disabilities are certainly more messy and dramatic, life altering and death defying, than those involved in the proof of age... (Titchkosky, 2011)

Even if in the case of Tate Modern, I am not asked for “proof” overtly (such as asking for medical evidence) the security always look me up and down when I ask for a wheelchair, essentially asking

12 the same question: ‘What’s wrong with you?’ Not just is this an intimidating and hostile experience, I feel as though I am being forced to validate and justify myself.

STAFF TRAINING/ DISABILITY EQUALITY TRAINING

“Frontline staff training has also become a priority with recognition that policies and practices behind them are wholly undermined if someone is treated inappropriately at the front door.” (Smith, Ginley and Goodwin, 2012, pg 69) This quote rings so true in the case of Tate Modern: no matter what is done to the building, the signage, the bathrooms or the curation, the front-line staff do not respectfully demonstrate the sensitivity and diversity training that I know Tate supplies (from Work Force Diversity Profile 2018, and an email contact who works at the Tate who wishes to remain anonymous) which does not make me feel truly welcome in the space. During the Franz West exhibition (20 February – 2 June 2019), I went around the exhibition in one of Tate’s wheelchairs with two friends. I was excited for this exhibition in terms of access, as a majority of Tate Moderns exhibitions do not allow physical interaction with the work, which can be really beneficial to audiences with visual impairments, autism, learning difficulties, children, etc. ‘Smears’ (2010), a bright blue coloured aluminium sculpture shaped in a loop-de-loop, is used in the advertising by Tate with an image of people sitting, touching and lying on it. When I wheeled up to touch the work, I was told by a hostile invigilator not to go near the work as “the wheelchair may scratch it”, and my friends who were with me were also told “you’re not allowed to sit on it”. Not only was this staff member ill-informed about how visitors were allowed to interact with the work, the experience was aggressive, and I felt picked on specifically as I was in a wheelchair. I left the experience feel shaken and defensive, unsure about how I was going to be treated when interacting with the rest of the work.

Alt Text: Wheelchair user wheeling Tate.org, 2019.org, 2019 backwards, away from a large blue looping Alt Text: This image is Tate’s promotional image. sculpture, while looking towards a man It contains the same blue looping sculpture, with wearing all black and ‘TATE’ printed across 8 people around it: looking at it, touching it, his back. The man is walking past, looking sitting on it and reclining. The people are all down towards the wheelchair user. female presenting, and primarily white.

PRICING

Tate Modern’s disabled concession ticket price for exhibitions is £11, only £4 cheaper than the normal tickets, albeit with the addition of a complimentary ticket for a carer. I would argue that these tickets should still be far cheaper, given the number of additional costs disabled people have to face else-where in their lives.

According to James Moore, disabled people in Britain are estimated to face an additional £570 a month in expenses as a result of health care, additional transport, mobility aids, adapted cars, higher insurance costs etc. And one in five disabled people whose needs are more complex face over approximately £1,000 a month extra. (Moore, 2018) These additional costs act as a social tax for a minority who are statistically more likely to be unemployed or economically inactive (not in work and not looking for work). For these reasons people with disabilities are already at an economic disadvantage, only made worse by austerity and budget cuts. It is more important than ever to offer compensations, price adjustments and concessions to disabled people.

We also have to consider the intersection of class: if someone is a working class disabled person who is facing all these additional costs because of their disability, it is unlikely they will be spending their time and money visiting exhibitions that cost to enter? Particularly paying to see exhibitions in a gallery that has not accommodated for their disabilities: in the architecture, curation and in exhibitions that rarely represent/include them. What sort of implication does this have on disabled, working class, breadline families, who may believe that art isn’t for them? I can only imagine how this impacts who the audience are at Tate Modern. Although you are trying to have more inclusive pricing, the prices still need to really consider how it affects who is able to afford to visit your gallery.

COLLECTIONS AND EXHIBTIONS

Despite the increased awareness for accessibility since the Disability Discrimination Act (1995), many galleries and museums have not fully committed to be accessible to disabled people, for example in ways other than physical access. Marcus Weisen points out:

Billions have been spent in recent years on new museums, major extensions and refurbishments … with little or no regard paid to providing a shared experience of the collections for disabled people. The cumulative effect is discrimination on a grand scale against disabled people. (Smith, Ginley and Goodwin, 2012, pg 60)

Although the Tate Modern and Tate Britain in recent years have been making steps towards being more inclusive to marginalised communities, for example exhibitions “Queer British Art” and “Soul of a Nation”, it feels as though the nuance and diversity of disability has not been yet been explored. It is also worth noting that both of these exhibitions had issues white washing and distancing the audience from the issues, such as the “Soul of a Nation” exhibition showing mostly American artists. While it is important to have exhibitions that focus on a marginalised group, it is almost more important to have those exhibitions be intersectional (Crenshaw, 1989). For example, it is possible to be gay, disabled black and poor and these are the kind of artists that most desperately need

14 representation. It is also important not just to represent marginalised/disabled artists in shows centred around disability, but also in other exhibitions and in every opportunity. As Cachia states: their work deserves to be placed within a general field of art practice so as to integrate the emergent discourse of complex embodiment with critical art and disability studies discourse. (Cachia, 2015, pg 141)

It is important not to represent disabled artists just to tokenise them to get media attention, but to understand that this diversity of artists and their experiences enriches the artworld, encouraging important debates around topics such as identity, perception, margins and “complex embodiment” (term coined by Toby Siebers).

The disabled minority is so severely lacking in institutional representation that if you google ‘disability’ along with words such as ‘gallery’ or ‘exhibition’ all you can find is accessibility information for galleries, there is no sign of large-scale exhibitions of disabled artists or issues. Accessibility information is of course very important, but it should not be the only kind of inclusion for disabled people. In the Tate Modern’s current state, disabled people are expected as visitors to view other’s art but are not shown to be the creative and diverse artists and makers that they are.

An example of an exhibition that frames disability positively is Wellcome Collection’s ‘Being Human’ Exhibition. Richard Sandell said of the exhibition:

The exhibition’s accessible design was one thing, but its curatorial approach was most important, he said. Many disabled people hate museums of medicine because they are viewed as patients to be cured, he said. This she doesn’t … it puts their stories first. There is a case filled with prosthetics, for instance. Some medical museums display these as wonders of engineering … but “Being Human” focused on the people using them. (Marshall, 2019)

Although the Wellcome Collection is a museum rather than an art gallery, it’s framing and perspective of the objects is an important one, which makes all the difference in how this minority feels when visiting. Another example of a positive exhibition which centres disabled voices is the show Civic Duty at Cell Project Space in London (07/06/2019 – 28/07/2019), in which four artists from different generations exhibited alongside each other.

Although this is not foregrounded in the display, these artists all experienced some form of marginalisation in their lives, because of their sexuality, skin colour or health status (or all three combined). Much of their output can be placed at that delicate junction where the individual collides with the institution and opts to push back with a mixture of wit and carefully controlled rage. (Smith, 2019, pg 21)

This exhibition includes and centres not just disabled artists, but also the intersections between different marginalised groups. However, Smith also added that they “left Cell [Project Space] feeling that the display as a whole had the potential to grow into a much larger exhibition”, which of course is the primary issue with exhibiting in smaller galleries with limited resources. However, considering few large-scale galleries are willing to engage with these subjects or artists currently, there are very few options. Again, “Who will rise to this challenge?” (Smith, 2019, pg 22)

Not just is it important to financially back disabled artists by buying their work and including it in collections and archives, but also to show young disabled people that the arts is a possibility for them. This comes back to the importance of representation.

CURATION

Alt Text: Wheelchair user wheeling themselves through a Tate gallery space. On the left there are framed small works on the wall above their eye height, and a wall-mounted glass display case which has to be looked down into. Through an archway you can see further exhibited works, with sculptures and framed works displayed even higher.

Janice Majewski and Lonnie Bunch (1998) described three “distinct tiers of access” that museums would have to face to make themselves accessible to the disabled public: “access to the physical environment, access to content, and access to history and culture.” (Smith, Ginley and Goodwin, 2012, pg 63) It seems that Tate Modern, like many other museums/galleries focus only on this first tier of access, the physical environment. This is possible as it is a more quantifiable and visible box to tick, especially in terms of legislative box ticking. Additionally, physical barriers and the solutions developed to address them (such as ramps or handrails) are “more really visible and more widely understood than the other means of exclusion”. It is quite possible that this is more widely understood because physical access is something people can see, and takes very little empathy to understand, but access to content and to history and culture require more effort to understand and more creativity to come up with solutions to access. While removing physical barriers is incredibly important, it is not the only form of inclusion, and this is one of Tate Modern’s downfalls.

Alt Text: A person standing in front an exhibition display using two crutches for support. To their left is a TV on a plinth with two headphones hanging in front. In front of them is a display case with a glass top and above that are framed works.

It is important for accessibility to be correctly integrated into the exhibition, and not just “a mere practical conundrum” that is considered after, but a “a dynamic, critical and creative tool in art- making and curating” that should be considered throughout the process. (Amanda Cachia, 2017, pg 136)

I will not go into the details of all of the specific measurements and individual alterations that need to be considered in a space to have adapted the curation into one that is accessible for a disabled audience, as there are plenty of other (very accessible) recourses that do so already.

A few of these resources/organisations include: Shape Arts’ ‘How to Put on an Accessible Exhibition’ (Shape Arts, n.d.); ‘Accessibility in the Arts: A Promise and a Practice’ by Carolyn Lizard (Lazard, 2019) which is particularly geared towards small-scale non-profits; Disability Arts Online which is an organisation led by disabled people which is setup to “set up to advance disability arts and culture through the pages of our journal” (Disability Arts Online, n.d.); DASH, which is a disabled led visual arts charity, aiming to cultivate spaces and opportunities for disabled artists (Dasharts.org, n.d).

It is significant that despite these resources, big art institutions such as yourself don’t use/implement them. Additionally, the reason there are so many of these resources is because disabled artists/visitors are sick of having to talk about the same issues repeatedly and instead make the resources and organisations themselves.

HEIGHT OF DISPLAYS

Alt Text: A person in a wheelchair looking towards 3 Alt Text: A person in a wheelchair craning up to see a cameras mounted tripods which are in front of them display of hanging clothing. The clothes are displayed but angled just slightly to high above them. Further in a large section of a tall room, hung at what appears back is what the cameras are capturing, shown both to be random heights, but many of which would be projected onto the wall and on a TV (which sits on a above the height of an average standing person. white plinth). The image being captured shows only the top half of the persons head and their glasses.

Height of wall-based works is a major issue that I’ve noticed time and time again in Tate Modern’s curation of exhibitions. Some examples are Olafur Eliason’s windows through walls, Dora Marr’s small framed works and Nam June Paik’s hanging clothing and interactive pieces, which are all placed too high to properly experience from wheelchair height. Shape Arts, a disability-led arts organisation, recommends for wall-based works to hang at height of 135cm above the ground (centre of work) to be accessible. I know that this measurement is one that your curation team already know, since your institution have received Shape Arts disability training.

AUDIO ACCESS (CAPTIONING)

Alt Text: Two individuals watching a film work in a Tate gallery space. On the left a person is sitting on a bench directly in front of the screen with headphones on. The screen shows two people sitting and talking, with no captions. To the right of the bench is a wheelchair user, also with headphones on, looking at an angle to try and see the screen.

I’ve never seen audio captioning or transcripts to be read alongside an artwork for people with audio impairment in the Tate Modern. For example, in the Franz West show many of the films had dialogue that was inaudible to me, even without a hearing impairment. This work would have been made greatly more accessible to visitors if there was captioning on screen or a printed transcript next to the work (like the large-sized text) to be able to pick up and read. It is possible in this case the art was in the film voices being in-audible, in which case having a transcription would be more complex. However, even a hand out that told you that the voices are inaudible and what the other sounds are like are important to know too. I imagine that some artists would have issues with their work being captioned, particularly if it was on screen, as people would understand it to be a part of the art. But maybe this needs to be done, so that it becomes normalised, so that it isn’t even questioned if the captions are the art. Or perhaps it would be part of the art, and that wouldn’t be a bad thing. As Amanda Cachia asks “Can an audio description or sequence of captioning accompanying a film also be a work of art? …” (Cachia, 2013, pg 137)

This issues of accommodation and art falling in conflict with each other is not a new issue, however, and needs to be one that is engaged with. Park McArthur, a disabled artist, had a solo exhibition ‘Poly’ in Chisenhale Gallery in 2016. There was much confusion over an unofficial aspect of the exhibition: “a series of welcoming red heaters that lay equally spaced out around the perimeter of 19 the … room” (Cachia, 2019, pg 83). These heaters acted as a subtle accommodation, which made it possible for the artist to be in the space daily to be able to install the show. McArther had made the decision to keep the heaters as a part of her installation “in order to leave this trace of her individuated existence in the space, but also to keep the space warm for the comfort of her visitors”. (ibid.) McArthur’s heaters were accommodations and not art, but with them being visible in the space, this was not clear for the audience. As Cachia says about this “McArthur provokes us to consider questions around the boundaries” between art and accommodation asking “when is accommodation an art, and can and is art accommodating?”

(Chisenhale.org.uk, 2016) Alt Text: This image shows a brightly lit gallery space with a high ceiling and a concrete floor. On the wall a piece of canvas is hung, with nothing visible on it from this distance. Spread out to either side of the wall-based work are two portable red space heaters pointing into the room.

In some cases of film work, the artist’s work may not be accommodating to some disabled audiences and may require some adaptations. It is the Tate’s job to work with artists on this, as of course not all artists are as happy with the blurred boundaries between accommodation and art. But it is important that all artwork is made accessible to disabled audience, not just some mediums of work. If you are not adapting all mediums to make them accessible, the message you are sending to disabled audiences is that there are mediums in which they are not welcome.

ACCESS TOURS

Alt Text: This image shows hands reaching out and touching a sculptured face, which is a of part of a Cara Walker’s sculpture. The most prominent hand is reaching out, fingers spread out over the face. This hand has someone holding it at the wrist, guiding them where to search to find the face.

Access tours for people with visual or hearing impairments happen monthly at Tate Modern, each event covering a different exhibition, work or installation. I’m glad that, from what I can tell, these events are positive, with a meeting time at the start for everyone to chat and for regulars to catch up, leading to a feeling of community. The audio description part of these events involves explaining the size, colour, material, shape and what the work is of, if it’s figurative and what themes the work is exploring.

However, these tours do take place during regular opening hours, meaning that the gallery space can be noisy and difficult to hear in. What’s more, I feel it has not been considered how the public may react to seeing these tours, in which disabled people become subjects of a performance. Galleries are spaces in which people expect for everything to be there for their viewing, meaning that people are not given privacy.

Additionally, while audio description is valuable in allowing access to the art for people with visual impairments, these visitors are reliant on the choices made by the sighted describers, leaving little space for their own autonomy of thought. (Griffith, 2017, pg 8) Lynn Cox adds to this idea by stating “more profound descriptions are created with the diversity of the people working together. Create it with us and not for us.” (Cox, 2017, pg 17) This is a really important message, helping avoid the ‘helper’ and ‘helped’ dichotomy by creating a healthy and rich learning environment. An alternative could also be to offer recordings of audio-descriptions on headsets, reducing this dynamic slightly. 21

Mel Griffith goes so far as to say she is uninteresting in visiting museums to receive audio descriptions in which she is a passive recipient. “Not having anything that can be touched for a blind person, is kin to having a room full of information without any exhibits for a sighted person.” (Griffith, 2017, pg 25) In this she highlights the importance of not just having descriptions, but also involving touch. Tate Modern’s audio descriptions do at times involve touch, allowing people to experience and enjoy the work first hand. I remember noticing during the Cara Walker audio description tour in December 2019 how people fully realised an idea when they were able to touch the work. When allowed to touch the work a person walked all around it, feeling it from every side and as high as they could reach to gain all the information they didn’t know to ask about before.

TOUCH – IF NOT POSSIBLE THEN HAPTIC ALTERNATIVES

Alt Text: A wheelchair user, stretching themselves as far out of the wheelchair as possible to interact with one of Nam June Paik’s works. On the wall to which the person is reaching there are multiple curved lines, which are made of cassette tape stuck to the wall. The person is holding some kind of electronic device which they are running over these lines.

Of course, this kind of touch experience that I have described is not always possible, particularly if the work is rented from a private collection or is particularly old and requires protection/conservation, such as was the case with some of Franz West’s work in his solo show in 2019 at Tate Modern. Regardless of these requirements, it is possible to have haptic alternatives to still allow touch access to visitors, such as casts, miniature versions, raised pictures, virtual reality, etc. Raised pictures, the most prevalently used form of haptic technology (but also least sophisticated), are reproduced images in which “the visual information about the images are encoded as raised bumps.” (Srinivasan, Zimmer and Jefferies, 2008, pg 154)

This basic form of translating information into a 3D image would allow visually impaired people to visualise an image, without being passive in the experience (as they would be if hearing a description).

Including touch does not just benefit access for people with visual impairments, but also for children, people with learning difficulties or autism. These kinds of touchable displays can “enhance the existing information for all visitors regardless of their background or needs”. (Onol, I. in Chatterjee, H. 2008, pg 93) Additionally, Bernadette Lynch suggests (2008, pg 161-169) that tactile exhibits are essential in including diaspora in museum/art displays. She explains that the current museum model centring on sight alone is a Western Model and “negates sensory experience and, in particular the tactile sense.” (ibid.) Lynch highlights the ethical importance and use of touch in developing and maintaining relations with diaspora communities.

Assuming that the default way to experience art, therefore, can exclude minorities. Amanda Cachia says that there:

can no longer be an assumed “average” or normative uniformity in how to engage or respond to a work of art when we remember all the variegated forms of knowing and being in a space; just as there can be no one universal design in architecture or single point perspective to buildings and public spaces. (Cachia, 2017, pg 253)

If the Tate Modern were to attempt to engage in touch tours, haptic alternatives and senses other than sight, children, people with learning difficulties or autism, and visually impaired people in particular would be able to access the work more directly. it is clear from that there would be far more diversity in the audience, and a richer engagement in the arts.

OLAFUR ELIASSON

Alt Text: People walking along a metal platform, Alt Text: This image shows a person in a through a tunnel of mirrors at different angles. Some wheelchair looking at a TV screen which is wall- people are taking photos, others looking up at the mounted at their height. The screen shows a kaleidoscope-like image. Left of the screen are mirrors. In the background, through the tunnel there is a wheelchair user looking into the passageway. the words ‘Inside Your Spiral View’.

I am writing about Olafur Elliasson’s solo exhibition at Tate Modern (11 July 2019 – 5 January 2020), not just because of how many issues there were in terms of access, but also how its inaccessibility made it into the media and news, creating public debate about art and access. It was an incredibly important moment to have these issues reaching the wider public, not just those who are disabled who are impacted on a daily basis by inaccessible designs.

This exhibition comprised of a series of installations that is intended to make you “aware of your senses, people around you and the world beyond”, which ironically made visitors more aware of their senses, but far less of the “people around” them, in particular disabled people. (Tate, 2019). The artwork that came under the most scrutiny was ‘Your Spiral View’ (2002), “an approximately eight-meter-long tunnel constructed from steel plates”, with two steps required to enter and again two steps down to leave at the other end. “Inside the work, visitors find themselves within a kaleidoscope, in which the space they have just left is reflected fragmentarily together with the view out the other side.” (Olafureliasson.net, n.d.) ‘Your Spiral View’ had issues with accessibility because of the steps, lack of hand railing, the mesh walkway and the width of the walkway. As a result, anyone who is unable to climb steps or requires arm rails, walking aids, a guide dog (as the mesh ground is too wide for dogs’ paws/sticks) were excluded from experiencing this work.

The issue of the steps was eloquently called out by wheelchair user Ciara O’Connor on social media, after being told by a “cross and weirdly defensive” gallery attendant that there was no ramp and that this was “the curator’s choice”. (Shaw, 2019) O’Connor responded on twitter with:

“I want a fucking ramp. I want elevators. I want wide doorways. I want accessible toilets that aren’t storage cupboards. I want to get on a train and go to a place all by myself. I don’t want to ask permission. I don’t want to be grateful for every reasonable adjustment.” (idib.)

This last point of not wanting to have to ask and be grateful for every accommodation is something many disabled people experience daily and what is also known as “access fatigue”, which is “being plain sick of having to ask for access.” (Konrad, 2018)

O’Connor also commented on other issues, such as the height of wall-based works, saying that “A couple of the pieces were too high for me to play with, but whatever – that’s unavoidable” (Sharratt, 2019). This low expectation of what is acceptable in art galleries for disabled people is unacceptable and is a result of how exhausted we are of asking for accommodations.

Eliason responded to this on Twitter, apologising but also giving the excuse the sculpture was “old” and that they would explore solutions. This artwork was made in 2002; disabled people existed then and deserved access then just as much as they do now. Following this, the Tate said in their statement the work “cannot be made safely accessible for wheelchair users”, as the walkway inside of the work could not be widened because the outside part of the work is too narrow, it could not be made accessible unless entirely re-built. (Shaw, 2019) This is not an excuse for not fixing this issue, I’m just pointing out to what extent Eliason did not consider wheelchair users when making this work.

Tate Modern, knowing that the work was inaccessible had “decided to include Your Spiral View in the exhibition” anyway, as it’s “the only sculpture of its type in Olafur Eliasson’s body of work which can be loaned for exhibitions, and a more accessible alternative does not exist”. Here Tate subtly expose their priorities, thinking it was more important for the show to be representative of Eliasson’s work, rather than be accessible to the audience. Tate went on to said that they “recognise that this has caused an access issue for wheelchair users for which we are sorry and the comments we have received will be taken on board in future-decision making.” (Sharratt, 2019) I am curious as to what Tate has “taken on board” and what you will “do differently”? There is the potential for debate here about whether inaccessible artworks should not be shown in galleries. My main issue here is that if an artwork is inaccessible to an already marginalised group, who have to deal with inaccessible designs every day, then they are only being further ostracised from the art world, and the world in general. I feel that artwork shown by major galleries and institutions, such as Tate Modern, should all be accessible or not shown (if they cannot be adapted to be so).

The show itself raises several questions about interactivity, bodies, responsibility and agency of audiences. One of his texts on the wall reads: “In a museum, we all move as if we don’t have a body – or at least we don’t refer to bodily movement as a co-producing element when we’re looking at art…” (Sharratt, 2019.) O’Connor retorts to this wall text specifically saying “Fuck your over- intellectualising and big talk that obscures the fact that you only produce, curate, exhibit art for certain bodies. … I am always aware of my body, how it’s blocking people, how it’s taking up space, how it’s inconvenient and cumbersome.” (ibid.)

After the media attention on the exhibition for its inaccessibility, Tate did modify this work, by adding a monitor on the wall to display what the inside of the work looks like. The film is from static camera angled shots that are not from a natural human viewpoint, which disrupted the purpose, (or what I understand Eliason’s intentions to be) which is producing a kaleidoscopic view which changes as you move through the space. The film instead shows a disabled person a non-subjective view of

25 what it must feel like to move through the space. Disappointingly, the monitor is the only work in the whole exhibition that is displayed at wheelchair height, the only curation in the show that felt like it had considered disabled people’s point of view. A better alternative for this could have been a Virtual Reality (VR) head-set, allowing disabled people the choice to still move around the interior of the work themselves. However, neither alternatives (the film or a VR) are inclusive of blind/visually impaired audiences.

‘Your Blind Passenger’ (2010) Alt Text: A close up image of a wheelchair user in a room filled with dense yellow fog. Very little of them or their surroundings are visible.

‘Your Blind Passenger’ (2010), another instillation in Eliason’s solo show, is a 39m long corridor filled with dense coloured fog. Eliason said about this work “you realise that you are not completely blind, you have a lot of other senses which start to kick in”. (Gompertz, 2019) Firstly this statement assumes that all people going to his exhibition are fully sighted/able bodied, which will definitely not be the case, showing his own ignorance. Additionally, the artwork cannot be described as experiencing blindness, in the same way that childhood games with blindfolds cannot capture the experience of a disability. A few minutes in a passageway of fog comes to an end, you leave through double doors in the same way you arrived. Some may feel relieved and more grateful for their sight, but this says nothing of the experience of blindness. Disability is not a costume to be tried on and taken off. I don’t suffer from any visual impairments so I cannot speak on behalf of this group of people, but I doubt that many would take kindly to the title, ‘Your Blind Passenger’, or intention of being able to ‘try on’ their disability. To show this work that misappropriates blindness along with ‘Your Spiral View’ which has no arm-rails, and the mesh material of the walkway makes it impossible for use of a guide dog or white cane only makes it worse.

‘How Do We Live Together?’ (2019) Alt Text: A person sits in a self-propelled wheelchair in the corner of a room. They are sitting bellow a big curved metal beam.

‘How Do We Live Together?’ (2019) consists of a curved metal beam which spans from one corner of the ceiling to the other, arching across the floor, with a mirror ceiling that makes the arch look like a completed circle. Although the work spatially divides the room in two, the real division is in how people move through the space. People who can walk comfortably are able to simply step over the beam, whilst wheelchair and mobility aid users must go to the corners of the room in order to proceed under the artwork to maintaining flat footing. When I wheeled under the work, it felt as though I’d had to find my own way though the space because I wasn’t able to move in the ‘correct’ way. On busier days in the gallery, people would lie down on the floor, looking up at the mirror, obstructing any path. This only makes the space more hostile to navigate, particularly for anyone with balance issues. This work truly does show “how we live together” in a gallery context, ignoring issues of access and marginalised communities to prioritise aestheticization over all else.

Although many of the issues in this exhibition were with Eliason’s artworks rather than Tate’s curation of it, galleries have a responsibility when working with artists to make the work accessible to their audiences. This does not mean it is only the galleries responsibility however, as artists also have a responsibility when working with galleries/institutions to make their work accessible/adaptable. A more positive example of an artist taking the responsibility themselves would be Park McArther’s radiators or Carolyn Lazard, who makes work about disability and also considers access in her work, as well as afterwards in the arts publication. This is something that Eliason and many other artists need to consider.

CONCLUSION

As I have said throughout this letter: your current systems aren’t working. So what alternatives are there? Some of the answers are as straightforward as retrofitting/renovating the building or changing policy: creating disabled bathrooms that are bigger and on every floor, building larger elevators and on all floors, build bridges on every floor, the reception/cashier-desks need to be re-designed, change signage to be more co, making the maps less incongruous and more comprehensive, and reducing disabled ticket prices. But some issues need repeated action: security/invigilators/front-line staff in particular need to receive disability sensitivity training on an annual basis, so ideas of inclusivity are embedded into the system. Additionally, all of the curational teams, as well as guest curators, need training on curating for people with disabilities. When future exhibitions are being planned, decisions should be made considering if artists’ work is/can be made accessible for disabled audiences, and it should be reconsidered if the work could be shown, as well as including more diversity of artists in exhibitions/collections.

But when it comes to trying to make these changes, whose responsibility is it? The artists? Curators? Gallerist? Art critics? Whose responsibility is it to educate these groups on how best to be more accessible? Is it the job of these people to educate themselves? “Can or should access fall into the hands of the curators and/or artists who haven’t been exposed to the practicalities of access first and foremost?” (Cachia, 2015) There is no easy answer to this, but if no one is being held responsible it falls onto the disabled people, who may not have access in the first place, to explain and educate others.

“Black and Third World people are expected to educate white people as to our humanity. Women are expected to educate men. Lesbians and gay men are expected to educate the heterosexual world. The oppressors maintain their position and evade responsibility for their own actions. There is a constant drain of energy...” (Lorde, 2019)

This is an issue of emotional labour and educating oppressors is not just an issue for disabled people, but all marginalised groups. This is a debate has been raised before in so many different contexts, and yet one that Tate Modern still fails to recognise. Institutions are far more focused on inclusion and diversity nowadays, that Tate falling short when it comes to inclusion around disability is made far worse.

Thinking more about Lorde’s words though, it is not fair for disabled people to have to be the answer to the issue of the Tate not including us, but if us disabled people are not involved in trying to fix this marginalisation of disabled bodies, then the same issues will arise again and again. That is why I am writing this open letter: it is essential to have our voices hear on this debate, but not our responsibility to fix the problem. Nothing should be done for us without us. Disabled people aren’t the sole answer to fixing these issues, but (paid) consultation is key.

Your inaccessible designs, that I have outlined above, when put together create a hostile environment for disabled audiences. This sends us a clear message: you are not welcome here, you have not been thought about, this space is not for you. This is part of a wider problem in the artworld, in which marginalised groups are not prioritised, which Tate Modern in particular need to address, as one of the largest museums of modern and contemporarily art.

Hoping to see changes soon, Jo Lawn

References

Access to museums and galleries for people with disabilities. (1997). London: Museums & Galleries Commission.

Atkinson, R. (2015). Viewpoint: Is it time to stop using the word "disability"?. [online] BBC News. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-ouch-34385738 [Accessed 3 Jan. 2020].

Awan, N., Schneider, T. and Till, J. (2011). Spatial agency. 1st ed. Abingdon, Oxon [England]: Routledge.

Bourriaud, N. (2002). Relational aesthetics. 2nd ed. [Dijon]: Les Presses du Réel.

Boys, J. (2017). Disability, space, architecture. Oxon: Routledge.

Brett, G. (2019). Truth, Dare, Double-Dare. [online] Ikon Gallery. Available at: https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=XZeKuN7ZX97pidpFQQQ8oO6NxbTz c8wldmlX [Accessed 22 Oct. 2019]. Cachia, A. (2013). ‘Disabling’ the Museum: Curator as Infrastructural Activist. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, [online] 2(4), p.1. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/rampup/articles/2013/09/06/3842744.htm [Accessed 21 Sep. 2019].

Cachia, A. (2015). ‘Disabling’ the Museum: Curator as Infrastructural Activist. Group Therapy: Mental Distress in a Digital Age [A User Guide], [online] pp.134-143. Available at: http://www.amandacachia.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/05/group20therapy2027011520proof20for20feedback20s preads-1.pdf [Accessed 27 Mar. 2019].

Cachia, A. (2016). The Alterpodium: A Performative Design and Disability Intervention. [online] Amandacachia.com. Available at: http://www.amandacachia.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/08/The-Alterpodium-A-Performative-Design-and- Disability-Intervention.pdf [Accessed 21 Sep. 2019].

Cachia, A. (2016). Unlimited: From Limited to Limitless. [online] Unlimited. Available at: http://weareunlimited.org.uk/unlimited-from-limited-to-limitless-by-amandacachia/ [Accessed 21 Sep. 2019].

Cachia, A. (2017). The Flesh of the World: An Empirical Turn toward Complex Embodiment. [online] Taylor & Francis. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00043249.2017.1418488 [Accessed 21 Sep. 2019].

Cachia, A. (2019). Along Disabled Lines: Claiming Spatial Agency through Installation Art. [online] Amandacachia.com. Available at: 29

http://www.amandacachia.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/01/24CHAPTER21CACHIA1.pdf [Accessed 21 Sep. 2019].

Cachia, A. (2019). Beautiful Progress to Somewhere?. [online] Amandacachia.com. Available at: http://www.amandacachia.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/11/joined_document_12.pdf [Accessed 27 Mar. 2019].

Chatterjee, H. (2008). Touch in Museums: Policy and Practice in Object Handling. Oxford, New York: BERG.

Chisenhale.org.uk. (2016). Park McArthur – Chisenhale Gallery. [online] Available at: https://chisenhale.org.uk/exhibition/park-mcarthur/#1 [Accessed 3 Jan. 2020]. Citizensadvice.org.uk. (2019). Duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people. [online] Available at: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and- courts/discrimination/what-are-the-different-types-of-discrimination/duty-to- make-reasonable-adjustments-for-disabled-people/ [Accessed 6 Oct. 2019].

Clements, L., Hattrick, A. and Rose, L. (2018). Access Docs for Artists. [online] Access Docs for Artists. Available at: https://www.accessdocsforartists.com [Accessed 6 Oct. 2019].

Commercialwashroomsltd.co.uk. (2018). What are the Dimensions of a Disabled Bathroom?. [online] Available at: https://www.commercialwashroomsltd.co.uk/blog/what-are-the-dimensions-of-a- disabled-bathroom.html [Accessed 1 Jan. 2020].

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. [online] Chicago Unbound. Available at: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8?utm_source=chicagounbo und.uchicago.edu%2Fuclf%2Fvol1989%2Fiss1%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campai gn=PDFCoverPages [Accessed 5 Jan. 2020].

Designing for Accessibility an essential guide for public buildings. (1999). London: Centre for Accessible Environments.

Disability Arts Online. (n.d.). Disability Arts Online - Sharing Disability Arts & Culture. [online] Available at: https://disabilityarts.online [Accessed 3 Jan. 2020].

Dpac.uk.net. (n.d.). DPAC – Disabled People Against Cuts. [online] Available at: https://dpac.uk.net [Accessed 6 Oct. 2019].

DUTY, C. (2019). Civic Duty | Cell Project Space. [online] Cellprojects.org. Available at: https://www.cellprojects.org/exhibitions/civic-duty [Accessed 6 Oct. 2019].

Field, S. (2003). In sight: a guide to design with low vision in mind. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

Fitzsimons, J. (2016). More Than Access. In: J. Boys, ed., Disability, Space, Architecture: A Reader, 1st ed. Routledge.

Franz West. (2019). [Exhibition]. Tate Modern, 20 February – 2 June

Garland-Thomson, R. (2011). Building a World with Disability in It. Culture - Theory - Disability. Encounters between disability studies and cultral studies. [online] Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1xxs3r.8?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents [Accessed 7 Apr. 2019].

Garland-Thompson, R. (2012). The Ceasefire Conserving Disability. Bioethics, Sexuality, and Gender Identity., 9.3, pp.229-55.

Gleeson, B. (1996). A Geography for Disabled People?. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, [online] 21(2), p.387. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/622488?seq=1 [Accessed 6 Jan. 2020].

Gompertz, W. (2019). Olafur Eliasson: Will Gompertz reviews the Danish-Icelandic artist's show at Tate Modern. [online] BBC News. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48965313 [Accessed 11 Jan. 2020].

GOV.UK. (n.d.). Definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/definition-of-disability-under-equality-act-2010 [Accessed 7 Apr. 2019].

GOV.UK. (2014). Disability facts and figures. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/disability-facts-and- figures/disability-facts-and-figures [Accessed 12 Apr. 2019].

Grigely, J. (n.d.). Parallel Lines | Beautiful Progress to Nowhere. [online] Parallellinesjournal.com. Available at: http://www.parallellinesjournal.com/article-beautiful-progress-nowhere.html [Accessed 15 Apr. 2019].

Hendren, S. (2016). An Icon is Verb: About the Project. [online] The Accessible Icon Project. Available at: http://accessibleicon.org [Accessed 1 Jan. 2020]. How to Put On an Accessible Exhibition. (n.d.). [ebook] Shape Arts. Available at: https://www.shapearts.org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=7033c77d-4aae- 4e70-8dc6-2070cdaa9edd [Accessed 22 Sep. 2019].

Ica.art. (2018). ICA | Disability and Interdependence (BSL interpreted). [online] Available at: https://www.ica.art/learning/disability-and-interdependence [Accessed 22 Oct. 2019]. Ica.art. (2018). ICA | On Cripping (BSL interpreted). [online] Available at: https://www.ica.art/learning/cripping [Accessed 22 Oct. 2019].

Ica.art. (2019). ICA | On Allyship (BSL Interpreted). [online] Available at: https://www.ica.art/live/on-allyship-bsl-interpreted [Accessed 22 Oct. 2019]. Lazard, C. (2019). ACCESSIBILITY IN THE ARTS: A PROMISE AND A PRACTICE / Common Field. [online] Commonfield.org. Available at: https://www.commonfield.org/projects/2879/accessibility-in-the-arts-a-promise- and-a-practice [Accessed 14 Oct. 2019].

Lorde, A. (2019). Sister outsider. 1st ed. Penguin Classics.

Lynch, B. (2008). The Amendable Object: Working with Diaspora Communities through a Psychoanalysis of Touch. In: H. Chatterjee, ed., Touch in Museums: Policy and Practice in Object Handling, 1st ed. New York: Berg, pp.261 - 185.

Marshall, A. (2019). Is This the World’s Most Accessible Museum?. [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/arts/design/disabled-access-wellcome- collection.html [Accessed 14 Jan. 2020].

Millett-Gallant, A. and Howie, E. (2017). Disability and art history. Abingdon: Oxon.

Moore, J. (2018). The cost of being disabled in the UK is huge – but the Government couldn’t care less. [online] The Independent. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/disabled-charges-cost-dwp-pip-benefits- transport-nightmare-debt-vulnerable-a8219146.html [Accessed 2 Jan. 2020].

Partington, Z., Fryer, L., Cox, L., Porter, L., Griffiths, M., Boden, S. and McPeake, A. (2017). Ways of Seeing Art: Exploring the Link Between Art and Audio Description. [Online] Available at: https://www.shapearts.org.uk/news/ways-of-seeing-art- booklet [Accessed 22 Sep. 2019].

Partington, Z., Fryer, L., Cox, L., Porter, L., Griffiths, M., Boden, S. and McPeake, A.(2017). https://issuu.com/shapearts/docs/shape_2017_tateexchange_book_fi nal_

Plant, A. and Raa, T. (2017). The incorrigibles. Perspectives on disability visual arts in the 20th and 21st century. Birmingham: Mac Birmingham.

Powell, A. (2020). People with disabilities in employment. [online] Researchbriefings.parliament.uk. Available at: https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7540 [Accessed 6 Jan. 2020].

Sandell, R., Rodd, J. and Gardland-Thomson, R. (2010). Re-representing disability- Activism and Agency in the museum. Oxon: Routledge.

Sandell, R. and Nightingale, E. (2012). Museums, equality, and social justice. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Shape Arts. (2019). An Accessible Arts Marketing Guide. [online] Available at: https://www.shapearts.org.uk/news/accessible-marketing-guide [Accessed 6 Oct. 2019].

Shape Arts. (n.d.). Social Model of Disability. [online] Available at: https://www.shapearts.org.uk/News/social-model-of-disability [Accessed 22 Sep. 2019].

Sharratt, C. (2019). Does the Art World Have a Problem with Disabled People?. Frieze. [online] Available at: https://frieze.com/article/does-art-world-have-problem- disabled-people [Accessed 22 Sep. 2019].

Shaw, A. (2019). Wheelchair user blasts Olafur Eliasson show at Tate Modern over rampless work. The Art Newspaper. [online] Available at: https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/wheelchair-user-blasts-olafureliasson-show-at-tate-modern-over-rampless-work [Accessed 22 Sep. 2019].

Smith, G. (2019). Civic Duty Cell Project Space. Art Monthly, (428), pp.21 - 22.

Smith, H., Ginley, B. and Goodwin, H. (2012). Beyond Compliance? Museums, Disability and the Law. In: R. Sandell and E. Nightingale, ed., Museums, Equality and Social Justice. Routledge, pp.59 - 70.

Srinivasan, M., Zimmer, R. and Jefferies, J. (2008). Tactual explorations: A tactile interpretation of a museum exhibit through tactile artworks and augmented reality. In: H. Chatterjee, ed., Touch in Museums: Policy and Practice in Object Handling, 1st ed. New York: Berg, pp.152 - 157.

Tate. (n.d.). Tate Modern | Tate. [online] Available at: https://www.tate.org.uk/visit/tate-modern#accessibility [Accessed 1 Jan. 2020].

Tate. (2019). Franz West – Exhibition at Tate Modern. [online] Available at: https://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/exhibition/franz-west [Accessed 7 Apr. 2019].

Tate. (2019). Olafur Eliasson: In real life – Exhibition at Tate Modern | Tate. [online] Available at: https://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/exhibition/olafureliasson [Accessed 22 Sep. 2019]. Tate Modern | AccessAble. (n.d.). Tate Modern | AccessAble. [online] Available at: https://www.accessable.co.uk/venues/tate-modern#b0be7211-e858-4acd-980c- a7bb0875582e [Accessed 4 Nov. 2019].

Tate. (n.d.). Design | Tate. [online] Available at: https://www.tate.org.uk/about- us/projects/tate-modern-project/design [Accessed 4 Nov. 2019]. Tate. (n.d.). Learning spaces | Tate. [online] Available at: https://www.tate.org.uk/about-us/projects/tate-modern-project/learning-spaces [Accessed 4 Nov. 2019]. The Museum of Modern Art. (n.d.). Tim Ferguson Sauder, Brian Glenney, Sara Hendren. Accessible Icon. 2009-2011 | MoMA. [Online] Available at: https://www.moma.org/collection/works/174871?locale=en [Accessed 1 Jan. 2010)

The New Museum Community: Audiences, Challenges, Benifits. (2010). Edinburgh: MuseumsEtc. Titchkosky, T. (2001). From the Field -- Coming Out Disabled: The Politics of Understanding. [online] Dsq-sds.org. Available at: http://dsq- sds.org/article/view/325/398 [Accessed 28 Nov. 2019].

Waldschmidt, A., Berressem, H. and Ingwersen, M. (2017). Culture - Theory - Disability. Verlag, Bielefeld: Transcript.

WITHERSAJ (2013). Disablism or Ableism?. [online] stillmyrevolution. Available at: https://stillmyrevolution.org/2013/01/01/disablism-or-ableism/ [Accessed 6 Oct. 2019].

Olafureliasson.net. (n.d.). Your spiral view. [online] Available at: https://olafureliasson.net/archive/artwork/WEK101093/your-spiral-view [Accessed 3 Jan. 2020].

YouTube. (2019). Curated Conversation: Interrogating the (in)visibility of disabled artists. [online] Available at: https://youtu.be/g7kZKKiTIxI [Accessed 7 Apr. 2019].