Access & Adaptations in Public Art Destinations
Let’s Get Started
Public arts organizations in the United States that display artwork and artifacts have a legal obligation to be physically accessible for people with disabilities to be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. However, how does that law apply to public art destinations, specifically those in natural settings? The purpose of this research is to determine how public art destinations in the United States can become more accessible to create an equal experience for people with disabilities while remaining specific to the general meaning and design of the artwork. This research will also discuss the attitudinal, financial, organizational, and architectural barriers in creating adaptations and becoming more accessible.
What’s the Problem?
How can public art destinations become more accessible while committing to the preservation of the natural setting and the meaning behind the artwork? A central concern of those in the arts and culture sphere is the preservation and longevity of significant art and historical pieces. For buildings and artifacts taken under the supervision of a museum or historical society, the solution is simple. However, how do matters like preservation and accessibility come into play when examining public art destinations in natural settings? For artistic concepts that play off their natural surroundings, how does one address accessibility? These predicaments pose the following research questions:
(1) What adaptations can be made to make public art destinations in natural settings more accessible?
(2) How can disability advocates overcome attitudinal barriers associated with compromising the natural and artistic aesthetic?
(3) Whose responsibility is it to make these destinations accessible?
Examples of Accommodations in Natural Settings
A study completed by the Department of Tourism of New Zealand addresses the problematic relationship between accessibility and preservation: “Remote and wilderness environments have been among the last to accommodate the needs of tourists with mobility-disabilities, partly because of the physical difficulties and expense of doing so, but also due to a wider desire to preserve the natural and wilderness character of such areas” (Lovelock 2010).
Trending AR VR Articles:
1. Designing for a modern 3D world: A UX design guide for VR
2. Scripting Javascript Promise In Spark AR For Beginners
3. Build your first HoloLens 2 Application with Unity and MRTK 2.3.0
4. Virtual Reality: Do We Live In Our Brain’s Simulation Of The World?
A wide variety of accommodations for creating access exist for people with disabilities that are also interested in outdoor activities, but cases are rare where these accommodations are implemented in public art destinations that are not accessible due to landscape, lack of funding, or attitudinal barriers. The following examples are innovations and accommodative equipment developed to create accessibility in natural settings.
- Beach Wheelchairs: Beaches in the San Francisco Bay Area offer beach accessible wheelchairs that are available to patrons free of charge (CBS 2015). Image: California Coastal Commission
- Mats: American company, AccessRec, has developed the two ADA compliant products AccessMat® and AccessDeck™ that are easily installed for temporary use in outdoor settings. The company states on their website, “…the AccessMat® [available in a] brown color perfectly blends into the landscape.” The company also produces blue colored mats for those who are visually impaired. (AccessMat® 2020).
- Raised viewing platforms: An example of an accessibility feature used in some locations is represented well as a universal design concept in Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone, famously known for its geysers and sulfur pools, features raised walkways through sections of the park as no visitor could safely walk among the sulfur pools.
Main Barriers for Embracing Accessibility in Public Art
A comprehensive document supplied by the Council of Ontario Universities titled, Understanding Barriers to Accessibility, outlines five main barriers to accessibility: (1) attitudinal, (2) organizational or systematic, (3) architectural or physical, (4) informational or communicative, and (5) technological (2013). As described in the Case Study section of this research, the Spiral Jetty located at Rozel Point on the Great Salt Lake is greatly lacking in accessibility accommodations due to its location, ownership, the pre-ADA period in which it was created, and the overall concept of the artwork. As is the case with the Spiral Jetty, the inspiration for the artwork is to maintain the beauty and purity of the natural landscape. In terms of public art, the work is often owned by the organization or individual that owns the land it is on. For example, the DIA Foundation has owned the Spiral Jetty since 1999 (Dia Art Foundation). Examples like this are what lead to the main barriers in accessible public art destinations in natural settings:
- Attitudinal: “The loss of integrity resulting from the implementation of an accessibility project represents a compromise to the goals of both equal access and preservation” (NPA Park Cultural Landscapes Program).
- Financial: In terms of funding, who is responsible for funding accessibility efforts for the artwork? Does that fall to the artist themselves, to local or state governments, or the owner of the land? “In practice, minimum design standards become maximum standards, and compliance with maximum standards is viewed as the goal rather than the means to achieving universal or equal access” (NPA Park Cultural Landscapes Program). Until accessibility is legally mandated in the design of all public places, funding responsibilities will remain an ambiguous barrier.
- Architectural or Physical: Architectural and physical barriers are problematic in natural settings. Creative solutions for adapting a natural setting to be more accessible are necessary.
Spiral Jetty & Petroglyphs, Washington County, Utah
In March 2020, I traveled to Salt Lake City, Utah to research two extremely unique demonstrations of what is considered a public art destination in a natural setting. The first was Robert Smithson’s Spiral Jetty, located in the remote Rovel Point of the Great Salt Lake in Utah. The second was the Petroglyphs of Washington County, Utah located in Nine Mile Canyon.
Due to a drought, the Spiral Jetty has been viewable (as opposed to being partially submerged in the lake) since 2002. Currently, one can maneuver down the rocks and stand-level to the jetty. Once level, one can walk among the rocks of the jetty; however, the land is sandy, water-laden, and rather uneven. In keeping with the design of the artwork, the area surrounding the jetty is barren with minimal man-made structures. The only signage for the artwork is located up a rocky hill that is inaccessible. Additionally, the Spiral Jetty can be seen from the parking lot; however, there is a viewpoint about 50 yards from the parking area that is also inaccessible due to an uneven pathway. Considerations that should be made for the Spiral Jetty: a raised platform or an evened pathway covered in an accessible landscape mat that is more physically accessible, a ramp leading the ground level with the jetty, accessible landscape mats on the surface of the jetty, access to beach wheelchairs for visitors, and tactile and braille signage for visually impaired patrons.
In the case of the Nine Mile Canyon Petroglyphs, the only public-owned land is the road that runs through the canyon. All surrounding areas of rock formations are technically private property. For this reason, visitors are discouraged from climbing rocks to petroglyphs and pictographs. For this reason, that makes this public art destination accessible to all who can drive or ride in a vehicle. However, this experience is prohibitive to those who are visually impaired. The main petroglyph in Nine Mile Canyon is known as “The Great Hunt.” This petroglyph is the only one with a designated walking area that leads to the petroglyph as well as its own sign where visitors can read a short blurb about the artwork. The pathway leading to the artwork is rocky and uneven. Two possible solutions for accommodations would be to (1) resurface the pathway to the petroglyph to make it more physically accessible and (2) create a tactile piece to represent the artwork as well as signage in braille for visitors who are visually impaired.
This research and engagement experience culminated in a 360˚ Virtual Tour developed with Google Tour Creator (link at the bottom of the article.) The tour outlines the accessibility challenges of both locations as well as recommendations for adaptations in each location. This tour also serves as an introductory model as a way to analyze the accessibility of arts and cultural destinations as well as natural locations and provide a resource to people with disabilities to view the access features of a destination before traveling there.
Research Process for Mapping Accessibility with Google Tour Creator
Location and Artwork Research
- Why was this location chosen?
- What is the artistic significance?
- What is the meaning behind this artwork and how does it connect to the landscape?
360˚ Photos and Still Photos
- What photo locations best represent the landscape?
- Do people/objects need to be included to represent scale?
Accommodation Research
- What is the potential audience for this artwork?
- What aspects are inaccessible and why?
- What additional accommodations are necessary for equal access?
Virtual Tour Documentation and Production
The Concept of Universal Design
Moving forward, a possible solution to easing these concerns is the concept of universal design. Universal design is the concept that any location, facility, or item is useable by all persons regardless of ability. An excellent example of universal design is represented in the office walkway, seen below, at the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site in Massachusetts. The office walkway of the building was redesigned with the historic site’s original historic stone to be accessible with an ADA compliant gradient entrance (NPA Park Cultural Landscapes Program).
It should be noted that the concept of accessibility is not always synonymous with the concept of universal design. Designing for the access of one disability risks the chance of excluding users with another disability (NPA Park Cultural Landscapes Program). However, universal design ensures that spaces are fit for use for people of all abilities.
Conclusion
While there are many barriers to accessibility, this research has revealed that the three main barriers are (1) attitudinal, (2) financial, and (3) physical/architectural. Adaptations and accommodations listed in this research are a starting point for identifying solutions for making public art destinations in natural settings more accessible; yet, there are more to consider as each destination is unique and will require more research and assessment As referenced in this research, universal design is a possible concept for maintaining accessibility for all. However, until disability advocates and arts administrators can overcome the assumption that implementing accessibility compromises natural and artistic aesthetic as well as preservation, advancements will not be made.
References and Links
NPA Park Cultural Landscapes Program
Ontario Human Rights Commission
Don’t forget to give us your 👏 !
