Public art shapes our shared spaces—the murals that transform blank walls, the sculptures that anchor civic plazas, the monuments that tell stories of who we are and who we aspire to be. Yet for too long, public art has reflected a narrow vision of community, created by a limited range of artists, and often inaccessible to people with disabilities. Across Canada, conversations about accessibility and inclusivity in public art are challenging communities to reimagine both the process of creating public art and the works themselves.
Understanding Accessibility in Public Art
Accessibility in public art operates on multiple levels. Physical accessibility concerns whether people with disabilities can approach, perceive, and engage with artworks. A sculpture placed on an elevated platform with stairs may exclude wheelchair users. A purely visual artwork offers nothing to visitors who are blind. An interactive piece requiring fine motor control may be inaccessible to people with certain disabilities.
Sensory accessibility asks whether artworks can be experienced by people with different sensory abilities. Audio descriptions, tactile elements, high-contrast signage, and thoughtful placement can make visual artworks more accessible to people with low vision or blindness. Captioning and visual elements can make sound-based works accessible to deaf and hard-of-hearing audiences.
Cognitive accessibility considers whether interpretive materials and wayfinding information are available in plain language and accessible formats. A complex conceptual artwork with dense academic interpretation may be inaccessible to people with intellectual disabilities, non-native English or French speakers, or simply community members without art history backgrounds.
Inclusivity: Whose Stories, Whose Art?
Beyond physical and sensory access lies the question of representation. Whose stories are told in our public spaces? Whose artistic vision shapes our shared environment? Historically, public art commissions have favoured a narrow range of artists—predominantly white, predominantly male, predominantly able-bodied—resulting in public art landscapes that fail to reflect the diversity of Canadian communities.
This pattern is shifting. Indigenous artists are increasingly creating works that challenge colonial narratives and assert Indigenous presence in public spaces. Artists from racialized communities are exploring themes of migration, belonging, and identity. Women artists are gaining overdue recognition. Artists with disabilities are creating works that speak to disability experience and challenge ableist assumptions.
Yet barriers persist. Application processes may disadvantage artists without formal training or established reputations. Budgets may not account for access needs of disabled artists. Timelines may not accommodate artists with caregiving responsibilities or chronic health conditions. Well-intentioned diversity initiatives sometimes tokenize rather than meaningfully include marginalized artists.
The Case for Accessible and Inclusive Public Art
Rights and Obligations
Canada has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which recognizes cultural participation as a right. The Accessible Canada Act establishes a framework for identifying and removing barriers. Provincial accessibility legislation in Ontario, Manitoba, and Nova Scotia includes provisions affecting public spaces. While enforcement and scope vary, the legal trajectory is clear: accessibility is increasingly mandatory, not optional.
Human rights frameworks also inform arguments for inclusive representation. When public art consistently excludes certain communities, it sends a message about belonging—about who is seen as part of the public that public art serves.
Artistic Excellence
Some resist accessibility requirements as constraints on artistic freedom. Yet many artists and curators argue that accessibility challenges produce better, more thoughtful work. Designing for diverse bodies and senses requires creativity and pushes artists beyond default assumptions. Some of the most compelling public artworks in recent years have emerged from commissions that prioritized accessibility from the outset.
Similarly, inclusive selection processes may surface artists whose work has been overlooked by conventional channels—artists whose perspectives and techniques enrich the public art landscape precisely because they differ from established norms.
Community Building
Public art at its best creates opportunities for shared experience and dialogue across difference. When public art is inaccessible—physically, sensorily, or in terms of representation—it fails this community-building potential. An accessible, inclusive approach to public art invites all community members into shared cultural spaces.
Approaches and Innovations
Universal Design Principles
Universal design—designing environments and products usable by all people to the greatest extent possible, without adaptation—offers guidance for accessible public art. This means considering access from the earliest stages of planning rather than retrofitting accommodations afterward. Accessible design benefits many beyond those with disabilities: parents with strollers, elderly visitors, tourists unfamiliar with the area.
Meaningful Consultation
Creating genuinely accessible and inclusive public art requires consulting with affected communities throughout the process—not just seeking feedback on finished proposals but involving diverse voices in defining priorities, selecting artists, and developing works. This is not tokenism but recognition that communities know their own needs best.
Disability arts organizations and accessibility consultants can provide expertise, but community members with lived experience—including people with disabilities, Indigenous peoples, and racialized communities—should be centred in decision-making, not just consulted as stakeholders.
Equity in Selection
Making public art commissions more equitable may require rethinking conventional processes. Some jurisdictions have established equity targets for public art programs. Others have redesigned application processes to reduce barriers for artists without formal training or established portfolios. Jury composition matters: diverse selection panels are more likely to recognize excellence that conventional panels might overlook.
Multi-Sensory and Interactive Design
Some recent public artworks embrace multi-sensory design as core to their conception. Sculptures with distinctive textures invite touch. Sound installations create auditory landscapes. Interactive works engage visitors' participation. These approaches can benefit all visitors while ensuring that people with specific sensory disabilities are not excluded.
Challenges and Tensions
Budget Constraints
Municipalities and other public art commissioners often work within tight budgets. Accessibility features may add costs—audio description systems, tactile maps, accessible pathways. Inclusive selection processes require staff time and expertise. Some argue that accessibility should be prioritized even if it means fewer artworks; others worry about reduced public art presence in under-resourced communities.
Conservation and Historic Works
Existing public artworks may present accessibility challenges that cannot be easily resolved without altering the original work. Historic monuments and sculptures were not designed with accessibility in mind. Balancing preservation with accessibility requires nuanced approaches—perhaps supplementary interpretive materials, alternative accessible routes, or contextualizing signage.
Contested Representations
Inclusivity in public art sometimes means confronting contested histories. Monuments celebrating colonial figures have become sites of protest. Artworks intended to honour Indigenous peoples or other communities may miss the mark or cause offense. The process of making public art more inclusive requires ongoing dialogue and willingness to reconsider even well-intentioned works.
Defining Community
Public art serves "the public," but publics are not monolithic. Different community members may have different and sometimes conflicting priorities for accessibility and representation. Engaging diverse voices means navigating disagreement and complexity rather than assuming consensus.
Examples from Across Canada
Canadian communities are pioneering accessible and inclusive approaches to public art. Vancouver's public art program has emphasized accessibility in recent major commissions. Toronto's percent-for-art program has worked to diversify commissioned artists. Indigenous-led public art projects in cities across the country are reshaping urban landscapes. Disability arts organizations are advocating for—and creating—public art that centres disabled experience.
These efforts remain uneven, and much work remains. But the direction of change is toward public art that truly serves all members of the public.
Questions for Further Discussion
- How should communities balance accessibility requirements with artistic freedom and creative expression?
- What processes best ensure that public art selection includes diverse voices without tokenizing marginalized communities?
- How should existing public artworks that are inaccessible or represent contested histories be addressed?
- What resources and training do artists need to create accessible work, and whose responsibility is it to provide them?
- How can smaller municipalities with limited budgets prioritize accessibility in public art programs?