Recent — Hannah Wallis

Thoughts on accessibility to speech-based performance from the point of view of a hearing impaired artist.

(NB. What is written below is intended for the purposes of opening up debate and discussion on the subject titled and not as any definitive artistic or socio-political statement)

How far should we think about accessibility without impeding creative process and product?

I have shied away from talking about this subject, as I do not want this to seem like a letter of complaint, for I am adamant that it is not. There is no resentment towards the situations of inaccessibility presented to me in my interaction with live work as a person who is hard of hearing. However I do ask the question above each time I see a piece of live art, or a play, or a gig, or a comedy show in which the fundamental concept is communicated through speech. In a way it is a question I have to ask myself if I want to understand what I am being presented with, if I want to understand what I want from watching/seeing/hearing the work on display. This is not a question of ethics (although a very important aspect to this subject), but rather these thoughts are concerned with ideas of consideration from artists about how accessibility might be engendered and even useful in the production of their work.

Language, as in spoken language is a key form of communication and a predominant tool within many strands of artistic and literary production, not least within live work. From the song lyrics of musicians to the scripts of theatre plays, from the explanation of an interactive performance piece to the punch line of a comedy sketch I wonder at the possibility of providing more ways than one to access the content of any such live production. In watching a comedian deliver the punch line under their breath or in an impersonation of another I wonder at the possibility of visual representations of the words. In the crackle of a performer explaining the act they are about to deliver through a microphone that covers their mouth, I wonder at the possibility of delivering the information directly to me, directly to each individual. In the midst of a poetry slam I wonder at the possibility of some kind of interpreter…

It is often that I bite my tongue at this point and ask, why should they?

On the one hand as an artist you follow a train of thought that leads to an idea that sows a seed that grows a product that you show to the world. Nothing should get in the way of this process.

On the other hand, as someone who has trouble hearing, live work is not always accessible for me, a fact that hinders my desire to understand. This can be frustrating because I am interested and I seek to comprehend the whole work, not just glimpses.

I have no expectation of any such works changing for this sake as such, but I cannot help but be disheartened when there is nothing to aid my experience to hand. There are many ways in which a person might find a piece of live work inaccessible and my take on this is merely one out of those many but it begs the question; how much should we think about the audiences interpretation of what we are presenting to them.

I wonder at the possibility of more widespread consideration of the different barriers that might exist in response to the work an artist wants to present. This doesn’t necessarily have to happen in the process of making or developing of an idea, but once it is ready to show/display/present then perhaps more thought could be put into the different ways in which it might be viewed from one audience member to another. A hearing loss is just one out of thousands of borders across which creative stimulus is experienced differently. When you plan a walk do you find the solution around rather than up the stairs if walking up is not an option, in painting a picture do you create the opportunity for touch and tactile discovery if it cannot be seen, in the taking of a photograph do you consider the explanation of what your eye sought to capture with the click of a button, in the development of a piece of sound art do you consider how you might explain the difference in the tones, in the emotions you attach to each sound.

In terms of performance art, I look to understand performances from what I can see, gauging body language, and finding signals beyond the words being spoken. I see a different performance and therefore derive a different interpretation. As a performance artist myself this is not something that I would mind if this were to happen in response to my own work, however I would not want any person to feel isolated from what it is I intend to show/portray/say.

But perhaps the very act of misinterpretation is underrated; perhaps there is a certain beauty in it that relays the discordant but colourful nature of our varying responses to the world, to life, to art. Perhaps there is scope for wider discourse on what the experience provides. Perhaps it is a question of the artists encouraging these different interpretations in order that they might grow from the ideas supplanted by them. Perhaps it is in an artist’s interest to understand the difference in experience of one audience member to another, whatever the reason may be.

Spirit of 2012 Leadership Programme

BERLIN 2018

Das Institut Residency with Dyad Creative.

Thoughts on accessibility to speech-based performance from the point of view of a hearing impaired artist.