Embedded Files
Original In-Person Presentation Plan
Original In-Person Presentation Plan
Modified Digital Presentation Plan
Modified Digital Presentation Plan
Feedback on Written Presentation
Feedback on Written Presentation
From Jacob Watson (theatre artist, researcher, and educator; Ed.M. in Arts in Education, Harvard University):
Jacob Watson
Thu, Mar 19, 1:16 PM Jacob Watson
I probably wrote too much. Take what's useful, leave the rest. I used "wows and wonders" as a protocol, just to help me focus my thoughts. Warning: I responded to your original document so it might be different in the digital space. I added some edits based on looking at your revision. Let me know if you have follow-up thoughts or questions --
WOWSThe introduction and disruption of theatrical convention in the opening monologue is very effective: presenting yourself first as expert, then disclaiming responsibility, then further disclaiming the reliability of the entire act of performance. It sets up a question in my mind, as audience: how am I to know what/who is to be believed?
The juxtaposition of history and popular culture is nice, and helps me think about the long-reaching impact of something like the declaration.Unsurprisingly, this seems well-scaffolded. The questions are open-ended enough to invite a wide variety of responses. My one question here is whether you want to define the purpose or frame the scope of the event a bit more explicitly at top? - EDIT: your digital version addresses this
I really like that there is time to look at the data you’ve already gotten, and I like that this happens after you’ve invited you current audience to respond to the document and the project as a whole. EDIT: your digital version flips this order. Thoughts?
I appreciate the emphasis on collectivity; it’s a strong thread throughout your proposal.
WONDERSI wonder… how are you situating this project in different academic traditions? I think I have a sense of your epistemology from the way your questions are framed and you do mention queer/feminist/critical race theory, but there’s a lot of variation within each of those traditions. I’m wondering if you could be more explicit: which scholars are you drawing on, specifically? How are their ideas about what “freedom” or “oppression” or “justice” are shaping your approach? For instance, I wonder about power, as a concept: does your project assume that power is inherently not to be held? Or is it about redistributing power? (Likely some of these answers are inherent enough to your approach as an artist that they aren’t immediately visible as distinct ideas — but academically, we want to know.)
Some terms I wonder about: could you explain more explicitly what you mean by… “Community tools” and “Social direct action” ?Since you are working across performance theory, sociology, and history, I also wonder about the historical frameworks and particularly approaches to understanding U.S. history: who/what is guiding your thinking here? It feels like you are assuming a kind of popular approach to history (which is fine) but it would be useful to hear you distinguish that at some point from other, more traditional modes of meaning-making (e.g., historical records and document analysis, which you are also making use of here).
I suppose I also wonder what kind of output you hope for? I know you say it could be a document or something else, so I’m asking less about format and more about purpose. What do you hope the final product does? Is it about creating a statement of freedom or justice that works for everyone? Is such a thing even possible, in your view?
I wonder… will you explore or grapple at some point with the context or process that led to the declaration’s final iteration? As you likely know, there were people asking some of the same questions you’re asking now at the time when the declaration was being conceived, and the decision to omit some of these more critical points was a contentious one. What of those histories and peoples?
I wonder… about the process of negotiation and deliberation. It makes sense to me that we can propose visions of justice fairly readily in the context of a short workshop; but what about the ongoing process of committing to such practices in our daily lives, and of revising our commitments along the way, as a community? How do you see a new document or artifact coming into being and surviving usefully over time?Here’s a somewhat cheeky question: why take up the declaration at all? Why not just throw it away and start over? Screw that? Another way of asking this might be: why is it important to you to consider this document from the past? How do you imagine it will help or inspire your current/future efforts?
Finally, I appreciate the way you talk about your own personal history in the performance. I wonder if you could include a bit more about your academic/artistic background: what makes you uniquely qualified to lead this investigation? What past experiences have led you to this inquiry and prepared you to investigate it deeply? - EDIT: your new digital intro does this beautifully.
Incorporating Feedback
Incorporating Feedback
Watson provided feedback on both the original and modified presentation plans, which I appreciated because he was able to compare and note what was missing from the original in the updated version. Because of his feedback, I revised the order somewhat, giving the project data after the audience had sometime to experience the idea of the project while trying to keep the participatory moments minimal since we would be engaging in them over a virtual atmosphere. I also put the playing the Image of Justice video back in because of his reflections on how it helped to set up some of the contradictions the project seems to explore.
Watson asked about academic traditions and theoretical frameworks as they were absent from both proposals. I struggled with this because I saw the audience as artists and not necessarily artists-academics, or artists-researchers. I didn't quite see how to fit it in without making it feel "too academic", or less artful. I realize that this is a bias I am uncovering and something I will have to navigate as I continue this journey that is full of, and rooted in, both traditions. They do not have to cancel each other out, and I shouldn't hide one for the sake of the other.
Some of Watson's "wonders" I did not address in in revising the plan because I felt like they were questions of the project as a whole and could not necessarily be addressed through this event. For instance, his questions about context around the declaration's "final iteration" are something I hope to investigate further as I continue to research and reference in the play itself. His notes about historical frameworks and traditions are useful to explore in the next phase of the project. While I am taking a popular education approach through the process, I don't know what approach to history I am or should be taking.
On the issue of "negotiating and deliberating" justice, this is the very thing I think the project will, with others, grapple with in real time. Thus far, these are the same questions and thoughts that have come up through the sample research project, both in the survey and in workshops. In response to the question "If you were re-writing the Declaration of Independence today, what would you put in it?" one survey respondent said, "I would write a Declaration for today's world, rather than rewrite the original document. Like I would want to create a Declaration that rebels against the tyrannies we currently live under". And another, "I don't know if I would be bothered with all that. It would be more interested in a radicalizing manifesto focused on womanist ideals and preparedness for revolution. Not really worried about white mens words in general" (Re-Writing the Declaration Survey, November 12, 2019). These responses reflect Watson's inquiries, and based on the research conducted thus far, I have a sense that many others may feel the same. My proposal for a re-writing isn't to mandate that we need a revised version of something that isn't working, but rather a starting point for investigating all of the possibilities on the spectrum of revision to abolition.
Below is an updated digital plan, reflecting changes based on Watson's feedback. The responses that were not incorporated will continue to be explored in the next phases of the project and research.
Page updated
Report abuse