1. Introduction
As the Lead Specialist Technician of the Fine Art Computational Arts (FACA) courses I occupy a unique position at the intersection of technology and Fine Art practice. My role involves the design and maintenance of FACA technical resources, ensuring their ability to inspire and enhance artistic expression. In this capacity I increasingly recognise how traditional studio configurations create invisible barriers for students. Here is my proposed intervention: the development of an accessible hybrid Fine Art studio space that challenges conventional assumptions about the development of studio practice through the use of technology.
My positionality as the Lead Technician in FACA holds advisory responsibilities that require me to critically examine my own assumptions about standard practice. The proposed intervention emerges from observations of students struggling with the limitations of the studio, for example disabled students unable to access physical spaces or equipment or low income students unable to access powerful computers.
The proposed hybrid studio, centred around server-based computer system that is both physically and remotely accessible, represents more than just a technical upgrade. It embodies a commitment to intersectional social justice by incorporating universal design principles. Rather than retrofitting accessibility into existing studio configurations, this intervention reimagines the fundamental relationship between space, technology and current day studio practices. By creating a studio that is simultaneously physical and virtual, individual and collaborative, it challenges binary thinking that has historically excluded non-traditional learners from Fine Art Education.
2. Context
The Fine Art department contains four pathways. These are FACA, Painting, Sculpture and Photography, each operating within traditional studio spaces that echo historical assumptions about Fine Art production. Whilst my core responsibilities lie within FACA, the proposed intervention addresses a range of technological and systemic barriers affecting students across all pathways. Current computational provisions rely heavily on physical presence, with either hi-spec computers tethered to specific locations or students required to rely on insufficient personal laptops. Whilst singular crits and tutorials can be conducted via personal laptops, group crits and workshops still require in-person attendance. Departments have invested in conferencing technologies, however these systems frequently fail due to poor maintenance, inadequate training, and a lack of meaningful integration with Fine Art studio practice.
Whilst the university’s broader student body includes disabled students, mature learners, and international students, these groups remain underrepresented within Fine Art and especially in FACA. Our current setup that includes fixed workstations, pre-planned schedules and limited remote access, may be signalling obvious incompatibilities to applicants. Potential students may be choosing programs elsewhere that appear more accessible, resulting in pre-enrolment exclusion.
Our existing accessibility provisions follow a deficit model, offering alternative arrangements as mere accommodations. My plan for a proposed hybrid studio challenges this retrofitted approach by embedding accessibility into the core architecture of the space.
The intervention’s utility could well extend beyond FACA. While server-based computing particularly suits digital Art practice, modular display systems, streaming capabilities, and remote access would benefit all pathways. A sculpture student recovering from an injury could participate in crits from home or even install work virtually in the space or international photography students could use translation tools during complex discussions. This contextuality would transform the studio from a static location to a responsive environment.
3. Reasoning
Historically Fine Art education has functioned as a gatekeeping mechanism, privileging those with cultural capital, linguistic dominance and physical ability. It has maintained exclusionary practices under the guise of tradition. Studio crits, mentorship models, and assumptions about “authentic” artistic experience create systematic barriers that exclude marginalized students from full participation.
Intersectionality theory (Crenshaw, 1989) is a crucial framework for understanding students’ experience of exclusion and traditional studio solutions fail to capture these complex issues. My hybrid studio intervention recognizes these intersecting barriers immediately, designing flexibility that serves excluded groups simultaneously rather than creating separate accommodations.
Universal Design for Learning principles (CAST, 2018) suggest that designing for the margins benefits everyone. Features supporting disabled students – such as adjustable workstation configurations and multiple access systems – also serve temporary injuries, different learning preferences, and various physical requirements. Remote access capabilities designed for mobility-impaired students equally benefit child-carers, workers’ commitments, and those facing transportation barriers.
Pedagogies of discomfort (Boler & Zembylas, 2003) challenge educators to examine any assumptions about “normal” learning environments. The privileging of synchronous, in-person interaction reflects specific cultural values rather than educational necessity. Academic ableism (Dolmage, 2017) operates as “the systemic exclusion of disabled bodies and minds,” fore fronting able-bodiedness whilst rendering disability invisible or problematic. This framework exposes how traditional studio spaces embody ableist assumptions surrounding legitimate artistic engagement.
4. Decision-Making
This intervention emerges from a critical self-examination of my own assumptions about technology and it’s role in the studio. Discussions with academic colleagues have revealed tensions between traditional studio culture and inclusion requirements. I initially shared concerns that remote access might diminish existing studio culture – a position I now recognize as reflecting ableist assumptions about otherwise legitimate forms of artistic engagement. Whilst fully embracing hybrid access as a mechanism of social justice, I remain conscious of the potential for institutional exploitation of remote provisions, to increase enrolment without a corresponding investment in physical resources.
A combination of student feedback and practical observation has proved crucial in shifting the lens of this intervention from that of technical capability to lived experience. Whilst the course enrols a significant number of students with learning differences, a notable absence of physically disabled students suggests barriers operating at recruitment or retention levels that warrant investigation. During technical workshops, I have also observed international students developing improvised methods for navigating complex software demonstrations without adequate language support.
A student balancing work responsibilities described to me how they had been missing technical workshops due to inflexible scheduling. Their reflection on how missing the workshops had compromised their artistic development, revealed to me a series of interconnected access barriers. The acquisition of technical skills shouldn’t be dependant on computational access but on inclusive structures of participation. This student’s experience demonstrated how an innocuous scheduling decision had produced a class-based exclusion. These conversations reframed my initial focus on high-end computing, towards flexible participation.
The decision to implement server-based computers rather than traditional workstations, reflected multiple considerations. A centralized approach would offer superior processing power, simplified maintenance and adaptability. More importantly, this architecture would provide an adaptable environment for diverse physical needs. Students could connect from wheelchair-accessible positions, use personal adaptive devices, or participate remotely when necessary. Whilst the wall-port system emerged from the need for a fully modular room layout, it crucially recognises that fixed computer stations inherently exclude certain body types and mobility requirements.
Key challenges included institutional resistance to infrastructure investment and the persistent framing of technology through engineering paradigms that emphasize efficiency and technological novelty over the critical and conceptual characteristics of Fine Art practice.
Whilst the system would democratize access to high-spec machines, a further risk assessment revealed some new potential exclusions – whilst designed to enhance inclusion, this system could inadvertently create problems for students without reliable broadband or adequate home devices. This recognition demands further planning with regards to equipment lending, technical support infrastructure, and strategic partnerships with senior IT representatives to prevent reproducing existing technical barriers.
5. Implementation and Impact
The intervention is implemented through staged development, beginning with a volunteer cross-pathway student pilot scheme. The initial phase will establish a prototype local PC network, develop remote access protocols, and test streaming capabilities for workshops, crit sessions, and live events. Recent success in securing key equipment through an equipment bid has provided the foundation for system testing.
Via the proposed Intervention I am able to design infrastructure that pre-empts barriers, a shift that will require developing expertise in assistive technologies, collaborating with college disability services, and maintaining dialogues with accessibility networks. This moves my role further away from reactive technical support and closer towards proactive accessibility advocacy.
The Immediate benefits of this intervention include hybrid workshop delivery and enabling simultaneous in-person and remote participation. Remote students could participate in discussions using translation software, screen-share and engage meaningfully with collaborative projects. During shows, remote students would also have the option to present work virtually alongside physical works.
Long-term institutional impact would be dependant on policy change. The intervention provides a concrete demonstration of technological possibilities, pushing for broader conversations about accessibility across the universities infrastructure. Measurements for success would include increased retention rates among disabled and international students, improved participation in group sessions, and reduced requests for individual accommodations, as these provisions become a universal standard.
6. Process Evaluation
The intervention design process has challenged my understanding of technology’s role in education, shifting my focus from efficiency to accessibility. I’ve observed exclusions hidden within seemingly innocuous infrastructure decisions, whilst the design process revealed how my technical privilege could have obscured barriers perhaps obvious to affected students.
Most significantly, I discovered the failure of one-track solutions for intersectional spaces. Early designs focused primarily on physical accessibility whilst inadvertently reinforcing linguistic or economic exclusions. Student feedback demonstrated the intersection of various requirements, proving that students need individualised design responses.
Success requires qualitative measures of inclusion, artistic growth, and graduate achievement, over participation data. I propose a diverse focus group to monitor how increased access translates into meaningful engagement. Accessibility audits by external disability advocates could also be used to identify potential barriers invisible to non-disabled perspectives.
If the intervention was a success I would expect to see increased enrolment and sustained engagement as well as disabled students participating actively in crits, international students accessing translation support seamlessly, and reduced accommodation requests. The goal is that a universal design would eliminate individual negotiation needs altogether and that the intervention succeeds when accessibility becomes fully integrated and invisible.
7. Conclusion
The hybrid studio intervention represents more than technological upgrade – it embodies a commitment to reimagining Fine Art education through a lens of intersectional social justice principles. By designing accessibility into fundamental infrastructure rather than retrofitting accommodations, this approach challenges the space between inclusion and excellence that has historically excluded marginalized students from Fine Art education.
My positionality as someone with technical expertise and institutional access creates both opportunity and responsibility. The intervention leverages this privilege toward systemic change while recognizing the ongoing need to centre student voices in design decisions. Personal growth through this process involves understanding inclusion as continuous practice rather than fixed achievement.
The studio Intervention’s success will be measured not only through increased student participation but by the quality of belonging it creates. True accessibility would allow students to focus fully on their artistic development rather than navigating barriers that block their basic participation. This intervention also provides a foundation for wider institutional change, showing how the critical application of technology can advance social justice whilst maintaining pedagogical integrity.
References
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum.
Boler, M., & Zembylas, M. (2003). Discomforting truths: The emotional terrain of understanding difference. In Pedagogies of difference. Routledge.
CAST (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Full text and graphic organizer available at: https://udlguidelines.cast.org/more/downloads/
Leave a Reply