Of course there is value to provide a blind person access to art and a part of culture. Why should they be denied access just because they experience the art in a different way than you do?

$1

A GOOD verbal description would begin with the obvious visual elements. Some art can even be converted into tactile representations, but this isn't always needed or even preferred.

Descriptions of realistic or surrealist art are fairly straightforward. Descriptions of impressionist or other art which is more of a tone piece are possible, but more difficult, especially for congenitally blind people who have never had vision.

Starting off with I am totally blind and have been from birth. I like painting myself, even though they all turn out as more of blobs of paint, but hearing something described really means nothing to me. I would get more out of it if i could feel a representation of it. You can tell me about a painting all you want, but I will never really get it because I'll be too busy focusing on what the colors even are and trying to figure out how it can even look like it does. Just me though. Every blind person is different, and will get different things out of it.

Just because the experience will be different does not make it less valuable

I mean I think it's super valuable. I think it's similar to when your watching a movie and it's got subtitles on. Sure it may say "upbeat music" or "door slams" and if you can hear that is a bit odd for you it should still be there.

It allows people to experiance the aspects of life they are missing in the best way that they can. I mean sure it may not be the same if you suddenly went blind and can't look at that pretty picture but I'm sure you would still like on occasion to know what the content of the painting is.

Plus not eveyone is totally unable to see. Someone may need that description to tell them that the squiggle they are looking at is actually a moth, then they will realise and be able to see it. Others may need to have a specification on if it's just a misty setting or if someone steamed up their glasses (as an unrealistic example).

Really it's exactly like subtitles on movies or shows. It's something that people who don't even need to use it can get value from and that in itself is reason enough.

I can see but sometimes I miss things. Maybe I didn't notice that amazingly detailed bee in the lower corner because I was looking at the sunset. A description of the painting would draw my attention to it so I didn't miss it.

These kinds of aid provide value not only to those who have no other choice but to use them, they provide value to eveyone. Being blind, even totally unable to see should not in our strive for equality prevent someone from enjoying the arts.

I think it would have to be done by an art expert or at the very least someone who worked in the field. I would love a Braille guide book to art museums describing each art piece in detail. This is the extent of some of my art knowledge.

Salvador Dali made surreal paintings of melting clocks.

M. C. Esher made paintings of staircases just suspended.

I think one of the most descriptive and evocative pieces of art actually came from Dan Brown's descriptions of some of Leonardo Da Vinci's work in the Da Vinci Code.

People's imagination might go beyond what they see sometimes. I think it has priceless value in it. I would appreciate a lot for the efforts.

Thanks everyone for your comments. They were very helpful.

I think description is an artform in itself. Whether your friend is trying to be objective or its a professional with expertise in the genre would make a difference in the report you got for sure. There'd be times I'd prefer one or the other, I think.

I'd love to find out about the details I missed or hear an interpretation from someone with greater experience in a genre or with a particular artist than me.

Audio description of TV is a thing I haven't tried to listen to or do, yet but it is a viable means of inclusion. Why not art?

I've been thinking of the poor sucker who gets to describe a show like the haunting of hill house versus how I'd be doing it. Where do they find such cool heads? Lol

I can see. For me it goes like this:

Painting that looks like an incoherent mass of paint to me - Verbal description explains it's got deep references to another painter, part of a particular movement.

Painting that looks like something. It's pretty clear. I know what I'm looking at. - Verbal description ignores whatever is obviously in the picture, talks about more deep meaningful references, and claims to convey the painter's exact feelings about their neighbor at that moment. The neighbor isn't in the painting.

Keep in mind that I'm not an artist. But that's how it goes for me every time.