„I think we traditionally conceive of access as a thing that has to do with transparency, like having to make things clear or to elucidate things in other idioms or modalities as acts of translation and clarification. I think I'm not interested in that. That might be the way that institutions relate to access but I think a lot, and it's not just me, I would say a lot of disabled folks, a lot of people in the disability arts community, are thinking about this deeply, which is: What is access? How can we recuperate it from institutional appropriation? I think one of the ways is to actually think about access in a collective way, as a way we come together and then also as a tool of fugitivity inside of institutions. So that access becomes like the work upstairs is a work that I think is perceivable by a wider audience than what is traditionally framed inside of museums. But I don't know if that means the work is any clearer if that makes sense. Something I've said in the past is that I think all museum goers, all spectators, all audiences, are entitled to the incoherence of art. Art should be incoherent for everybody including disabled people. The processes of access, the processes of translation—they don't need to be clear, they can be muddied, they can be complex.“
– Carolyn Lazard in conversation with Meg Onli about Lazard's exhibition The Long Take.