On a snowy Sunday morning in New York, I entered the Metropolitan Museum of Art expecting what any visitor expects from a public museum: access to culture, and a normal visit like anyone else.
I am blind. In a museum, touch is how I access art.
Shortly after entering the galleries, I attempted to explore an object tactually and was stopped by staff. I explained that I was blind. The answer did not change. What followed was more than an hour of redirection and escalation, without any clear answer about whether access actually existed that day. Eventually, we were taken to a small number of objects described as touch-accessible. One of them could not be located because it had been moved.
This was not a minor lapse in coordination. It revealed the absence of a functioning access system.
In a museum of the Met’s stature, tactile access should not depend on persistence, negotiation, or locating the right supervisor. A blind visitor should not need to spend an hour determining whether access exists at all. During that visit there was no independent way to identify which objects were available for tactile exploration, no reliable way to confirm their locations, and no visible mechanism allowing a blind visitor to participate under normal visiting conditions. Access appeared only after escalation.
That is not accessibility. It means access exists only if a visitor insists long enough and reaches the right person.
After the visit, I sent the museum several specific questions. How is a blind visitor expected to identify tactile objects independently during regular hours? How is the relocation of those objects tracked so access information remains accurate? What training do security staff receive when interacting with blind visitors exploring objects through touch?
Those questions received no answers, which made the situation harder to understand and harder to trust. Instead, I was advised to contact the accessibility office in advance of a future visit so arrangements could be made beforehand.
That response makes the issue clear.
Accessibility cannot depend on advance coordination. It cannot depend on escalation. It cannot depend on whether a particular office is operating that day.
Juan Pablo Culasso
Sighted visitors do not announce their visits in advance. They do not request permission to enter galleries. They do not coordinate their participation in public culture with weekday administrative schedules. Blind visitors should not be expected to do so either.
If access works only after prior coordination with an accessibility office that does not operate on weekends, then access does not exist under normal museum conditions.
Public museums are civic institutions. Their accessibility must function during ordinary visits, including weekends, without mediation and without negotiation.
This matters especially at the Met because the Met helps define operational expectations across the cultural sector. When access to tactile works depends on weekday coordination in an institution of this influence, the consequences extend beyond a single building. It quietly establishes a standard others may follow.
Accessibility is infrastructure. It is part of how a public institution operates.
A museum that is open to the public on Sunday must be accessible on Sunday. Not after correspondence. Not after escalation. Not only when the right office happens to be open.
Accessibility must function whenever the museum doors are open.
Opinions expressed are solely those of the writer(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Able News at The Viscardi Center and/or The Viscardi Center.