Lauren Wetmore <████████████████████████████████ >
To: Josh Schwebel <privatejosh@gmail.com>
Hi Josh,
██████ ████ █████ ███ ████ ███████ ██ █████ ██ ███ ███ ███ ██████ █ █████████ ██████ really brought this concern home for me because a) yes, it is probably true that ███ █████████ ████ █ █████████ ██████ , and b) that is no doubt a symptom of the situation that The Employee is investigating, ███ ██████████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ . Of course, it is impossible to disambiguate the project and its immediate context, but I would suggest that this text should direct the readers attention only to the immediate context details that pertain to the larger context. If that makes sense.
I’ve just finished a read-through of the text. This time I wanted to consider it more structurally, so I have not gone in with line edits or text-specific comments. Instead this email gives reflections that we can delve deeper into in a meeting (later this week?).
Overall there is a huge amount of increased strength to this text. In reading it now, I feel its intension is become solid – as an account of the project, but also as your reflections and conclusion about the context that the project brought to light. I think that both of these are necessary components.
Specific new highlights for me were:
- The inclusion of Derrida and Widrich as points around which your argument unfolds. Both these moments create a real sense of concrete analysis for me. I also found the connection between Fluxus and the pandemic to be very strong.
- The further detail about the grant writing process. The added detail here performs the “oral history” function I think that you were going for with the 3-way conversation – documenting the labyrinthine futility of the system, and its clear contradictions. In a closer edit, I may suggest ways of slightly trimming these details for “run time", but the content is excellent.
- The inclusion of quotes from Teresa and Camille are a huge boon to the text. I am really happy with how this integration has worked.
Some suggestions:
- I think that this essay should make mention of the website, to bring it into conversation with the book and the performance and to expand on your point that “each application was also, and no less, a document of a performance."
- At this point, you could consider pointing the reader directly to arguments made by Mariane, Marina and Dana to bolster your own. Creating a link of discourse throughout the book.
To discuss:
- The “off-cuts”: I would like to understand in our meeting why you are considering not including these. It seems to me that there is a lot of really important analysis and conclusions that would be welcome in the text. There are points that you make in the text (for instance the conversation around project vs. structural funding) that are given some excellent context in the “off cuts”. But I need t to understand your concerns about including this material before making more specific suggestions.
- FCG-specificity: I think that we should strategise around how specifically this text delves into FCG and London details, specifically with regards to Teresa’s quote at the beginning of Part 2, and the anecdote about your LAC visit (which I know in a past edit I said that we should keep but am now rethinking).
I think that this text is where the book can be very clear that the project’s intention was not to drag FCG specifically, but to point out a larger systemic issue. And, because the project accomplished that aim so thoroughly, I do not want reception of that to become derailed by FCG-specific responses.
For instance, I understand how important it feels to shine a light on ███ ██████████ ██████████ ███████ ██ ████████ ███████ ██████████ ███ ███ ███████ ███ ██ █████ █████████ ██ ███ ████ ███ █████ ███ ████████ ███████ █ ███ ██ ██████████████ ████ █████ ██████ ████ █████████ ███ █████ ████████████ ████ ██████████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ███████ , who are certainly embedded in this context, but too much detail about them might be working to distract from the larger and more important point about a systemic structural flaw.
Ok, those are my thoughts for now, but I think that talking it through will be good.
Really well done on this new version, Josh!
xLauren