After watching this documented special on The Roof is on Fire, I was moved by the simplistic power of shining light on an unfiltered dialogue. In 1994, the representation of teens of color in the news was almost exclusively negative (and still is today). In response, producing artists Suzanne Lacy, Chris Johnson, and Annice Jacoby wanted to give a media platform for Oakland teens, especially teens of color, to voice their thoughts and opinions. They facilitated this idea by recruiting Oakland high school students and teachers and developing media literacy classes and a performance piece, later known as The Roof is on Fire.
Rather than writing a piece about teenagers, the producing artists wanted actual teens to have control over the piece. Oakland high schoolers collaborated with the producers in creating a dialogue about media representation and developing controversial topics to be discussed in the performance piece. Creating art about a certain demographic, in this case, teenagers of color, can only be completely genuine if the ones helping to create said art are a part of that demographic. By utilizing the real community that is directly affected by the cycle of violence and poverty that is created and perpetuated by negative media portrayals, the project becomes more potent and urgent because it is grounded in unshakable reality.
It should also be noted that two out of the three producing artists shown in the film were caucasion (Lacy and Jacoby). They used their privilege as white artists to find resources to fund the project and gain a significant amount of mass media exposure so that the voices of Oakland teens could be heard. Additionally, rather than imposing themselves on the community and trying to represent Oakland teens through their own personal work, they let the community do it for themselves. Suzanne Lacy said that although she and the other producers had control over the way in which the “canvas” was painted and the way in which the spectators would “move through [the] space,” the teenagers decide what the piece actually becomes. In other words, Lacy, Johnson, and Jacoby provided the stage and circumstance,“but in terms of what [the teenagers] say, who the teenagers are, how they represent themselves, they have to say that.”
In summary, the producing artists of this project created this piece of dialogical art through direct engagement with a community whose voices needed to be heard. They collaborated with students and teachers of Oakland high schools in order to highlight controversial topics and poor media representation. They gave the high schoolers a publicized space to voice their unscripted and unfiltered opinions on controversial, urgent topics. I think that these strategies were effective. The teenagers seemed fully immersed in their conversations, as they passionately agreed or disagreed on a variety of issues. In addition, there was high attendance and media coverage at the performance. Lastly, the performance got people to, in the words of the documentary, “shut up and listen.” People leaving the performance were remarking about how they had never even considered many of the things that the teens were discussing in their cars and they seemed to be more empathetic. In the words of a teen performer, “Instead of watching the media, watching teens unite to do, you know, damage to our community or crimes and stuff, they are getting the chance to see teens unite and do something positive, and not too many times do you see adults listening to teenagers or adults even concerned with the problems that teenagers cope with.” Even though the problems that were discussed throughout the piece remain prevalent to this day, The Roof is on Fire was a way for Oakland teens to assert their presence, their unique identities, and most importantly, their voices.
All quotes sourced from the 1994 The Roof is on Fire documentary.
Comments
Post a Comment