The Employee by joshua schwebel
About this project
arrow-left

On Dana's text

Lauren Wetmore <████████████████████████████████ > To: Josh Schwebel <privatejosh@gmail.com>

Hi Josh!

So happy to have this text from Dana. I will be looking at it closely nearer to the end of this week, and I would love to have your notes on it too. Would you like to do the same google-doc format?

xL

Josh Schwebel <privatejosh@gmail.com>

good morning Lauren,
I have set up a google doc for Dana's text, which you can find here:
Dana is such a clean and direct writer. I love how she approaches things, and how she can just say things without pulling punches. Her writing is really a pleasure to read.
I made one major comment on the text, which you might want to ameliorate, concur, or discard in your reading, since it suggests some amount of reworking / rebalancing of the text.
other than that,
I am almost ready to share my text with you again.
looking forward to what comes next.
x


Lauren Wetmore <████████████████████████████████ >

Oh my god! 
I JUST THIS SECOND shared a doc with you.
But I will use yours so please ignore mine.
Ha!
L


Josh Schwebel <privatejosh@gmail.com>

hahahaha ... well... good that we are in sync!
thanks / jinx

Lauren Wetmore <████████████████████████████████ >

Hi again Josh,

I've finished my run-through and I am so happy with Dana's text. Your description of her clean style and brave voice is spot on. This text is in such a nice relationship with Marina and Mariane's because succinctly lays out many of the relationships and points that they extrapolate upon and complicate in their texts. I also appreciate that she articulates the organizing landscape around The Employee, both in and outside the arts, as this feels like such an essential perspective that needed picking up.

On a related note, now that we have this, I am glad that we will also receive the text from ███ given that Dana doesn't spend time with artistic precedents.

One thing that I wanted to flag to you is how many quotes she uses from your text. As you are re-working it, I want to make sure that the lines she cites will remain and if not are there similar lines that we can substitute?

You mentioned one major comment for me to look at, but I see two that I wanted to tease out further with you: 

1. “I think that this gets a bit muddy because the project is a microcosm and imprecise mirror for the artist-run structure in which it is embedded. I think a lot of these questions should more accurately be oriented around Teresa's employment than around the Employee's, but I don't know exactly how to resolve this without unpicking the core of the text…”

Your note about the implication of Teresa's role here is well taken, but I don't think that Camille's position sits outside of the argument Dana is making ­– what might be needed is to maintain the argument as it stands, but to suggest that Dana also note how Teresa's role plays in. This could happen when, as you note, she quotes you talking directly about Teresa.

If you agree, I can rework our comments to reflect this advice.

2. "This is a really good point that I would love to see expanded a bit more in the body of the text."

I feel like she does expand this point in the following three sentences, but I may be missing the expansion that you are looking for. Can you tell me more about what you feel is missing?


Take a look at my edits and let me know if there is anything you want to expand on, disagree with or discuss!

 

xL

 



Josh Schwebel <privatejosh@gmail.com>

Dear Lauren,
Thanks for being so quick to go through Dana’s text. I am also really happy with how it connects to both Mariane and Marina’s text, clarifying and expanding some of the issues they each touch on.
I agree that the connection to the larger issue with contract labour is essential.
Also agree that █████ text will round out the volume, given Dana’s content.
I am also cognizant of the relation to my text, and a bit wary because my text has shifted somewhat. In the voice messages I sent you, I mentioned that I think it is a good idea for you to read my text now, and that we should discuss it soon, and in relation to Dana’s text, because I made some rather deep cuts, and actually think that my text is better for them, however, the quotes that Dana uses are no longer in my text. That said, they can be cited as from a conversation with me, if you think that is ok.
I agree with your comments on my comments in Dana’s text.
To expand, I think that in Dana’s text, her conclusion — to strike against the state — is more effective as a solution for ARC employees who have a direct line to government funding than for contract workers. But I think her argument around the perniciousness of contract work undermining solidarity and being used to shirk employer responsibility also stands. I just think that there is a structural shift from contract worker to employee that needs to be more clearly connected. I think you are right that she could address this by more clearly focusing on Teresa’s role behind Camille’s.
Regarding my second comment, I think Dana’s insight that govt funding is pushing a capitalist agenda is so clear and on the nose, and something I have been sensing but not able to just say straight forwardly. I, personally, am so inspired to see it written down in Dana’s text because it makes things so clear. I think I wanted to see it expanded more because it makes her conclusion so apt, but maybe it doesn’t need greater emphasis.

So. What I propose now is for you, when you have a chance, to read over my text. As I said in the voice messages, the large chunk I cut out is at the bottom of the text in a section marked offcut. I want to know if you think that the text is better with or without this chunk. I think that as a text introducing the project it is better without the chunk, but I am also a bit sad to jettison the work that went into it, it feels a bit like stabbing in the dark while the target remains too diffuse.

I am sure you will tell me what you think, and maybe we can speak about it to work out what stays and what goes and how relevant it is to Dana’s text.

Warmly,
Josh



On Tue 18. Oct 2022 at 15:00, Lauren Wetmore <> wrote:

Lauren Wetmore <████████████████████████████████ >

Hi Josh,
Responses below. 
xL

YES! It feels like we are building a really dynamic book!

I agree that we can work around the citation issue and don’t need to worry about Dana re-working or removing those quotes. (Now that we have flagged it between us, I will remove those flags from the document so that it doesn’t look alarmist).

I would be happy to read your text now! Please feel free to share it!

Ok. I will clarify this in email I send to Dana.


I think when you put it like this it is a nice note to include - that you are so excited by the content that you want to see more of it. Perhaps you could add some of what you say above the the existing comment?

Of course! Looking forward to reading it!


Josh Schwebel <privatejosh@gmail.com>

Hi Lauren,
Great.
Here is the link to my text.

Re my first large comment on Dana’s text, to clarify again, as I read and re-read her text, there is something in the paragraph that situates the “who is the boss” questions / the line “As a freelancer, an independent contractor, Valcourt Synnott internalizes the responsibility for her own management, but her dependence on fickle funding bodies signals the hollowness of the imperative to be your own boss”
I need this to be disambiguated more. I think that what is needed is a greater clarity around the nesting of Camille as a performer who is supplementing the isolated working conditions of Teresa. It is Teresa and anyone who is working for less than minimum wage directing an artist-run centre who is largely self-exploiting under the mandate to be your own boss. Camille’s working conditions within the project were relatively stable, and her payment was comparable to that of other employees within arcs at the time. While I appreciate Dana’s critique of Camille’s status as a contract worker, there is a slippage between Camille (as performer) and Teresa (an underpaid worker) that needs to be made more clear in this text.

Thanks again, Lauren, and I hope all of this makes sense,
x
 

Lauren Wetmore <████████████████████████████████ >

Thanks Josh,

I am going to take a look at your text first thing Monday morning - I want to come to it fresh!

Regarding the first comment, I decided to leave it as it is in the doc but forefront it in my email to Dana. I think that will allow for a lot more clarity, but also emphasis, on this point (which I agree needs to be disambiguated).

And thank you for updating your comment later on - this reads great!

Ok, sending to Dana shortly.

Have a lovely weekend,

Lauren


arrow-left Previous Next arrow-right