Does any of the emotion of visual art actually come across through image ids? All of the ids I see are so objectively clinical, leaving out everything I love about visual art. Like describing an electric guitar solo as just existing. Is there a way to describe art subjectively? Perhaps through poetry or a journal entry? Are these things not desired among people who have low vision?
Unless you are the original artist, I don’t suggest adding things like poetry or journal entries. These may be more subjective and not align with the artist’s intent.
Image descriptions allow us to experience an image rather than hearing our screen-reader say ‘image’ without context. Image descriptions let blind people in on the art. Therefore, the image description often portrays the visual art in a way that may come across as objective.
To get around that, I still believe the best image description is one written by the artist who created the piece, as they know what needs to be communicated most. If they want to include supplemental material to convey mood, they can do so as long as it is included after the image description.
I’m going to tag @accessibleaesthetics here.
Image descriptions are meant allow blind people to experience images. They can also benefit people with visual processing disorders or allow for internet use during a migraine.
This means that image descriptions might come across as objective and clinical. One way around this is for the artist to write the description, as they know what they wanted to convey.
The poetry and journal entry you suggest could be posted as supplementary material as long as they don’t interfere with the image description. They should be included after the description, not before. This is extra material, not part of the description.
If anyone else has any thoughts, please share.
