Reflections on the 2021-2022 Arts’ Civic Impact Project
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18192/clg-cgl.v8i2.7371Keywords:
civic impact, accessibility, critical disability studies, impact framework, danceAbstract
In this article, Aaron Richmond develops the foundations for an evaluation framework that has the potential to impact how notions of embodied accessibility in creative performance will work in the near future. Richmond focuses on the specificity of discourse and decision-making that enables the inclusion of various audiences, choreographers, and performers in the field of dance. In the process, Richmond thinks through a series of questions grounded in a field of study that first emerged upon noticing several recent Montreal-based dance projects aimed at making dance accessible for blind and low-vision communities. These questions include: What does accessibility look like when it doesn’t look like anything? When, above all, it cannot be imagined as an interface of constraints neatly lifted and boxes suitably checked? What is an accessibility that accepts and defends the functional gains of earlier activists, while also setting new horizons for disability justice? Conducted between 2021-2023, this investigation enquires deeply into the discourses circulating around and through the actual production processes being observed. More specifically, the research brings critical disability studies into conversation with current forms of expression on the stage in more nuanced ways than have been previously investigated. What results is a framework that Richmond names Access in Counterpoint. The framework consists of five pairs of terms - each pair introducing a particular set of questions for those working in the field of accessible dance, and aiming to understand their own investment in impact, defined broadly. At first glance, these terms could be thought of as binaries or opposites, but as Richmond demonstrates in the concluding section of the article, these contrasting terms begin to trace out a spectrum of possibility: a way of thinking while doing in the field, in design, in development, in performance, and upon reflection.
References
Americans for the Arts. (2017). Continuum of Impact. Retrieved from http://animatingdemocracy.org/sites/default/files/pictures/continuum/Continuum%20Final_09.05.17.pdf. Accessed August 1, 2021.
Berne, P. (n.d.). Disability Justice: A Working Draft by Patty Berne. Retrieved from https://www.sinsinvalid.org/blog/disability-justice-a-working-draft-by-patty-berne
Bishop, C. (2023). Artificial hells: Participatory art and the politics of spectatorship. Verso Books.
Brown, A. (2006). An architecture of value. Grantmakers in the Arts Reader, 17(1), 18-25.
Bunch, M. (2021). Blind Visuality in Bruce Horak’s ‘through a Tired Eye.’ Studies in Social Justice, 15(2).
Corker, M. (2001). Sensing disability. Hypatia, 16(4), 34-52.
Crossick, G., & Kaszynska, P. (2016). Understanding the value of arts and culture: The AHRC Cultural Value Project. Retrieved from https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/AHRC-291121-UnderstandingTheValueOfArts-CulturalValueProjectReport.pdf
Devos, P. (2018). Dancing beyond sight: how blindness shakes up the senses of dance. Disability Studies Quarterly, 38(3). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v38i3.6473
Dokumaci, A. (2017). Vital affordances, occupying niches: an ecological approach to disability and performance. Research in Drama Education: the journal of applied theatre and performance, 22(3), 393-412.
Dokumacı, A. (2023). Activist Affordances: How Disabled People Improvise More Habitable Worlds. Durham: Duke University Press.
Healey, D. K. (2019). Blindness in V Acts Disability Studies as Critical Creative Inquiry. University of Toronto (Canada).
Holden, J. (2004). Capturing cultural value: How culture has become a tool of government policy. Demos.
Jimmy, E., Andreotti, V., & Stein, S. (2019). Towards braiding. Musagetes. Retrieved from https://musagetes.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Braiding_ReaderWeb.pdf
Kleege, G. (2018). More Than Meets the Eye: What Blindness Brings to Art. Oxford University Press.
Michalko, R. (2002). The Difference That Disability Makes. Temple University Press.
Mingus, M. (2011, May 5). Access Intimacy: The Missing Link. Leaving Evidence. Retrieved from https://leavingevidence.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/access-intimacy-the-missing-link/
Papalia, C. (2018, January 2). An Accessibility Manifesto for the Arts. Canadian Art.
Tembeck, T. (2015, March 13). In Conversation with Arseli Dokumaci. McGill Reporter. Retrieved from https://reporter.mcgill.ca/in-conversation-with-arseli-dokumaci-fqrsc-postdoctoral-researcher/
Throsby, D. (2001). Economics and culture. Cambridge University Press.
Tiller, C. (2014). The Participatory Performing Arts Literature Review. Lisbon: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation UK Branch.
Titchkosky, T., Healey, D., & Michalko, R. (2019). Blindness simulation and the culture of sight. Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies, 13(2), 123-139.
Thompson, H. (2022, January 21). Describing Diversity: Audio Description and The Ethics of Unmarked Normativity. Presentation for Practicing the Social Conference, University of Guelph. Retrieved from https://www.practicingthesocial.uoguelph.ca/presenters/
Thompson, H. (2017). Reviewing blindness in French fiction, 1789–2013. Springer.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Aaron Richmond
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b67b2/b67b296c4d3b028c918eaf7bf864d9ab589a7b44" alt="Creative Commons License"
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.