A reflection on accessibility after Peter Adjaye’s Mentor talk at Barbican Centre by Jessie Gao
Peter Adjaye is a contemporary conceptual sound artist, specialising in cross-disciplinary collaborations. He is a musicologist, composer, DJ-producer, musician with an academic background in mathematics and engineering. He publishes his music through a limited amount of vinyls. This physical and conventional form of music reproduction seems old-school to those of other modern formats such as digital formats uploaded on Spotify and Apple Music.
Tessa, one of our trainees, was particularly concerned about the accessibility of art as she grew up in an area without much exposure to art. When Peter was asked about if he would publish his music in a digital format, he answered with a definite “No”. It seemed that this response triggered some dissatisfaction from other trainees who cared about social causes and especially art education.
My question is, should artists be respected for their preferred medium or be critiqued on the art medium? The pandemic and recent social issues has raised awareness of 1) accessibility, 2) opportunity of artists who are POC (people of colour), and 3) sustainability. In this blog post I will address the first issue that was raised multiple times from this year’s trainees.
As the situation of the pandemic still changes day by day, is our concern safety or accessibility? If we simply define accessibility as something like - so more people can see the art - how would we be able to achieve it. Would it be the form of decreasing ticket prices, introducing free admissions, or producing a virtual reality gallery?
Some mediums are meant to be for real life observation. These mediums may include anything that is three-dimensional, which requires the audience to interact with it. Most common ones are sculptures and architectures. Of course you will be able to take a photograph or scan it into a virtual reality model, but it will always lack a certain depth. Humans are sensory creatures: we see, feel, and hear; the immersiveness of a physical experience is completely different from a two-dimensional presentation. Sometimes art cannot be made accessible and is not meant to be accessible. If we were critiquing Peter’s work for not being accessible enough, have we considered how his music worked?
During our visit at the Barbican Centre, we were able to listen to his work in the Curve Gallery that was exhibiting Toyin Ojih Odutola’s work. Peter had to compose the music according to the structure of the Curve Gallery as it did impact audio in real life. However, would it be appropriate to ask an artist to change its medium so it is more accessible when accessibility was not its priorities? Or must every artist be pressurised in doing so because he brings a greater social impact?
I’d like to bring in my background in Economics, which I think might bring in another point of view. The purpose of art nowadays is mostly related to some form of impact, but the real question is does accessibility bring more impact? I would like to bring in the concept of the Law Of Diminishing Marginal Utility. It states that all else equal as consumption (in this case, accessibility of art) increases the marginal utility derived from each additional unit declines. Marginal utility is derived as the change in utility as an additional unit is consumed. Utility is an economic term used to represent satisfaction or happiness. Marginal utility is the incremental increase in utility that results from consumption of one additional unit. For example, based on this law it means that if all forms of art were more accessible, the audience will be less satisfied per observation/exhibition as they become too available. I do believe this law works in real life to a certain degree if we consider the audience’s price elasticity (how sensitive they are to admission prices). This law is particularly relevant because one way of measuring impact is through audience satisfaction.
There were several free concerts and virtual events done during lockdown. However, how many people willingly attended? Will the same group of audience still attend these online events if there wasn’t a lockdown or a pandemic? Will the audience feel more satisfied to attend during a pandemic because they were made safe (another form of accessibility)? There are so many other elements involved when we want to measure if accessibility actually increases the amount of audience and impact.
The artists have chosen a medium that they think is suitable for the piece. Some art is created for the public and some are not. Must we force all artists to consider accessibility before creating art, or would that be restricting creativity? Will making art accessible actually bring more impact to the society? Will people appreciate art more if it were made free and public, or will it be the opposite? If the former were true why do we still purchase limited edition items, celebrity concert tickets, and luxury brands when there are similar substitute products at a lower cost? Does it mean if something is less accessible/available, it will bring more satisfaction when it is purchased? So does this mean if an exhibition was in a major city with an acceptable admission fee, will the experience be more memorable than if it was next door to your flat with a free entry? Do you have a stronger impression of something when it was less accessible? Chances are you have never tried your local restaurant just around the corner, because it is simply too accessible.
For me I believe not all art needs to be accessible, but it is always better if it can.
