An enquiry into passive and active exclusion from unreachable artworks in the museum: Two case studies of final-year students at California School for the Blind studying artworks through galleries and on the web
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online January, 2014
An enquiry into passive and active exclusion from unreachable artworks in the museum: Two case studies of final-year students at California School for the Blind studying artworks through galleries and on the web
Two case studies of students from California School for the Blind studying artworks in museums and on the Web are discussed. The analysis focuses on the traditional understanding that unreachable artworks in the museum are deciphered by non-intellectual elites primarily from the perspective of visual perception and museums are simple vessels of art, as contended by Ernst Gombrich and Pierre Bourdieu, and that exclusion is either passive or active. It is also argued that there is a bridge between sensing an object and understanding it that is beyond perceptions. The article concludes that the two students featured in the case studies were more likely to be passively rather than actively excluded from unreachable and two-dimensional artworks, and that they could still develop a symbolic intellectual and emotional connection with these artworks and the museum through verbal descriptions and being in their presence.
BerremanG. D. (1968). Ethnography: Method and product. In CliftonJ. A. (Ed.), Introduction to cultural anthropology. London, England: Houghton Mifflin, pp. 337–373.
BraddockD. L.ParishS. L. (2001). An institutional history of disability. In AlbrechtG. L.SeelmanK. D.BuryM. (Eds.), Handbook of disability studies. London, England: SAGE.
5.
CandlinF. (2003). Blindness, art and exclusion in museums and galleries. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 22(1), 100–110.
6.
DarkeP. (2003). Now I know why disability art is drowning in the River Lethe (thanks to Pierre Bourdieu). In RiddellS.WatsonN. (Eds.), Disability, culture and identity. London, England: Pearson, pp. 131–142.
7.
DiderotD. (2001). Letter on the blind for the use of those who see. In JourdainM. (Ed. & Trans.), Thoughts on the interpretation of nature and other philosophical works. Manchester, UK: Clinamen Press, pp. 149–200.
8.
GlaserB. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press.
9.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.
10.
GombrichE. H. (1977). The museum: Past, present and future. Critical Inquiry, 3, 449–470.
11.
GombrichE. H. (1984). The sense of order: Studies in the psychology of decorative art. London, England: Phaidon Press.
12.
GriffinC. (1985). Qualitative methods and cultural analysis: Young women and the transition from school to un/employment. In BurgessR. (Ed.), Field methods in the study of education. London, England: Falmer Press, pp. 97–113.
13.
HammersleyM. (1984). The researcher exposed: A natural history. In BurgessR. (Ed.), The research process in educational settings: Ten case studies. London, England: The Falmer Press, pp. 39–67.
14.
HayhoeS. (2000). The effects of late arts education on adults with early visual disabilities. Educational Research and Evaluation, 6, 229–249.
15.
HayhoeS. (2003). The development of the research in the psychology of visual impairment in the visual arts. In AxelE.LeventN. (Eds.), Art beyond sight. New York: AFB Press, pp. 84–95.
16.
HayhoeS. (2008a). Arts, culture and blindness: Studies of blind students in the visual arts. Youngstown, NY: Teneo Press.
17.
HayhoeS. (2008b). God, money & politics: English attitudes to blindness and touch, from enlightenment to integration. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
18.
HayhoeS. (2011a). Computing, cognition, culture and blindness. In BhattacharyaMMachNMoallemM (Eds.), Emerging technologies for learning: Impacts on culture and cognition. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
19.
HayhoeS. (2011b). Non-visual programming, perceptual culture and MulSeMedia: Case studies of five blind computer programmers. In GhineaG.AndresF.GulliverS. (Eds.), Multiple sensorial media advances and applications: New developments in MulSeMedia. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 80–99.
20.
HayhoeS. (2012a). Disability studies and grounded theory: Researching legacies of blindness. Amherst, NY: Cambria Press.
21.
HayhoeS. (2012b, July). Viewing paintings through the lens of cultural habitus: A study of blind students’ experiences at California School for the Blind and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Presented at the international conference on space, place and social justice, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
22.
HayhoeS. (2013). Expanding our vision of museum education & perception: An analysis of three case studies of independent, blind, arts learners. Harvard Educational Review, 83(1), 67–86.
HoweS. G. (1837). Discourse on the social relations of man. Lecture to the Boston Phrenological Society. Boston, MA: Marsh. Capen & Lyon.
25.
JayM. (1993). Downcast eyes: The denigration of vision in twentieth-century French thought. Berkeley: University of California Press.
26.
LincolnY. S.DenzinN. K. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
27.
LowenfeldB. (1981). Effects of blindness on the cognitive functioning of children. In LowenfeldB. (Ed.), Berthold Lowenfeld on blindness and blind people: Selected papers. New York, NY: AFB Press, pp 67–78.
28.
MannH. (1839). Report of the secretary of the board of education on the subject of school houses, supplementary to his first annual report. Common School Journal, 1, 289–304.
29.
MillsC. W. (1970). The sociological imagination. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
30.
OliverM. (2001). Disability issues in the postmodern world. In BartonL. (Ed.), Disability, politics & the struggle for change. London, England: David Fulton Publishers, pp. 149–159.
31.
PaulsonW. R. (1987). Enlightenment, romanticism and the blind in France. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
SandellR.DoddsJ. (Eds.). (2010). Re-presenting disability: Activism and agency in the museum. London, England: Routledge.
35.
SmithG. (2001, July). Backtalk: The brother in the wheelchair. Essence, 162.
36.
US Department of Justice. (2009). Maintaining accessibility in museums. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section.
37.
US Department of Social Security (2012) If you are blind or have low vision – How we can help. Baltimore: Social Security Administration.
38.
ValeoA. (2009). Education’s enduring prejudices: Disability at the door. Learning Inquiry, 3, 97–109.
39.
WarrenD. H. (1994). Blindness and children: An individual differences approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
