After watching the video about “The Roof is on Fire,” there were some key community engagement strategies that were visibly used. The project touched on many different meanings if the word community and many different communities within those definitions. The first community was the teenagers, the voices who wanted to be heard outside of the stereotype and outside of the media influence. The second community was the school and production team, inclusive of the teachers and event managers and producers as well as the cast of teenagers involved. The third community was made up of the resource-providers who helped with car-rentals, sponsorships, publicity, etc. The fourth community was the audience who attended in the form of adults as well as the media that came and was invited to come to listen to the dialogue.
The idea of using cars and a rooftop for people to witness the teenagers’ conversations was a strategy of community engagement, having the adults, as one of the kids had said, come up to the teenagers’ level, a level that they are not thought to be on. It was a site-specific piece in which the location was tied to their experiences and how it was viewed. The idea of inviting people to witness this dialogue and respond at the end to the media was an effective way in that it followed through with the project’s motto to “Shut Up and Listen,” allowing the teens to discuss the issues that they face and their views on them without the bias of an adulterated lens but also allowing the adults to engage with them after the show was done. It seemed to be a successful turnout as well, and many of the attendees left with a slightly deeper understanding of what the teens of the time were going through.
There were some concerns that I had about effectiveness, a few of which were shared by some of the teens involved prior to the opening of the show. First, how much input, influence, and decision-making power did the adults on the team have versus the teenagers in a project meant to be for the teens and by the teens? Second, how effective was it in having a white person leading the group of teens that were predominantly people of color? Lastly, did the audience leave with an actual realization of the problems through the eyes of the teens or simply a pity/sympathy that was created in and propagates stereotypes further?
The idea of using cars and a rooftop for people to witness the teenagers’ conversations was a strategy of community engagement, having the adults, as one of the kids had said, come up to the teenagers’ level, a level that they are not thought to be on. It was a site-specific piece in which the location was tied to their experiences and how it was viewed. The idea of inviting people to witness this dialogue and respond at the end to the media was an effective way in that it followed through with the project’s motto to “Shut Up and Listen,” allowing the teens to discuss the issues that they face and their views on them without the bias of an adulterated lens but also allowing the adults to engage with them after the show was done. It seemed to be a successful turnout as well, and many of the attendees left with a slightly deeper understanding of what the teens of the time were going through.
There were some concerns that I had about effectiveness, a few of which were shared by some of the teens involved prior to the opening of the show. First, how much input, influence, and decision-making power did the adults on the team have versus the teenagers in a project meant to be for the teens and by the teens? Second, how effective was it in having a white person leading the group of teens that were predominantly people of color? Lastly, did the audience leave with an actual realization of the problems through the eyes of the teens or simply a pity/sympathy that was created in and propagates stereotypes further?
Comments
Post a Comment