Access, kindness, and cooperation
The Golden Rule is always a good way to live our lives, but it is especially true when it comes to access issues. If we all did to others what we wanted others to do to us, the world would be a kinder place.
My point in spouting off about kindness and the Golden Rule, you ask? Well, I went to an once-in-a-lifetime exhibit today. The exhibit focused on one artist with a particular theme and had paintings on loan from museums and private collections all over the world. Audiotapes were available, but they were obviously useless to me. We asked about a printed transcript of the audiotape only to be told that someone had borrowed it and never brought it back, and that was their only copy. What a disappointment, because I will never again have the opportunity to see some of these paintings.
The transcript could be MIA for a variety of reasons, including thoughtlessness or it was a honest and unintentional mistake. We will probably never know why, but this highlights how important cooperation is in our small community. We don't want to be in the position of denying any of our own people access to anything, do we? We need to be sure to thank museums for providing transcripts. We need to be sure to return said transcripts so others can delight in the same exhibit. We need to do whatever we can to work cooperatively and to ensure that we are not blocking access for anyone else.
P.S.: The exhibit was amazing otherwise and I'm glad I had the chance to experience this artist's works up close and personal. Still woulda loved to have had the transcript, tho'.
My point in spouting off about kindness and the Golden Rule, you ask? Well, I went to an once-in-a-lifetime exhibit today. The exhibit focused on one artist with a particular theme and had paintings on loan from museums and private collections all over the world. Audiotapes were available, but they were obviously useless to me. We asked about a printed transcript of the audiotape only to be told that someone had borrowed it and never brought it back, and that was their only copy. What a disappointment, because I will never again have the opportunity to see some of these paintings.
The transcript could be MIA for a variety of reasons, including thoughtlessness or it was a honest and unintentional mistake. We will probably never know why, but this highlights how important cooperation is in our small community. We don't want to be in the position of denying any of our own people access to anything, do we? We need to be sure to thank museums for providing transcripts. We need to be sure to return said transcripts so others can delight in the same exhibit. We need to do whatever we can to work cooperatively and to ensure that we are not blocking access for anyone else.
P.S.: The exhibit was amazing otherwise and I'm glad I had the chance to experience this artist's works up close and personal. Still woulda loved to have had the transcript, tho'.
posted by moi @ 9/05/2006 09:19:00 PM
2 Comments:
At 02:45,
Mr. Sandman said…
Re-frame this. Why was the museum in possession of one (1) and *only* one copy??
While I agree with you that we all should be responsible (and polite!) enough to ensure that we return scripts/transcripts/etc., there should always be more than one copy.
What if, say, while you were in the middle of viewing the exhibit, *another* deaf person/group came in, and wanted a script? What would happen then? What if you had a group of, say, ten people, and they didn't want to have to pass around just the one copy that was available?
My suggestion? Write to the museum. Thank them for their obvious intent to try to provide access, but point out that such access should be consistent, and that by pegging their "access" one just one copy, they ran the risk of their exhibit having no access at all-- which is exactly what happened. Politeness is necessary, acknowledgement of their efforts helps, but call them on this.
At 14:40,
Anonyme said…
It is the responsibility of the museum to ensure that the accessibility be maintained at all times. They can't evade their legal responsibility due to the fact only one copy had been made and it was no longer available, blaming it on one patron. They are still required to make additional copies.
Personally, I find the fact that this flimsy excuse being used is an insult to our intelligence and the blame unfairly placed on a patron when it should be theirs. It is not unusual to see items go missing after a period of time. So they must be prepared for the possibility. Also, if there is a sole copy, how can the museum be accessible when there are more than one deaf/hoh patron frequenting it at the same time?
I would recommend that you notify the museum that regardless whatever happened to the copy, they are still required to make additional copies.
Mishkazena
Enregistrer un commentaire
<< Home