The Cornerstone Series - Racial Justice with Wesley Taylor

Show Notes

This episode is the fourth installment of our Cornerstone Series, Racial Justice. The cornerstones are the pedagogy that guide the work we do.  The Cornerstones are Emergence, Popular Education, Design Justice and Racial Justice/Cultural Equity.

Artist, professor, curator and activist Wesley Taylor shares with us how to recognize when spaces are racist, the role of racialized capitalism in equity and how to navigate one's positionality and power to move towards justice.

What is TACtile?

TACtile is the podcast for Leveraging a Network for Equity (LANE) a program of the National Performance Network. This podcast discusses practical tools and concepts designed to transform the field of Arts and Culture towards equity and justice. This podcast is produced by LANE Cohort members, Sage Crump and is edited by Jazz Franklin.

Sage Crump: Thank you for tuning into TACtile, a practical guide to transforming art and culture. This is the podcast of Leveraging a Network for Equity--LANE, a program of the National Performance Network. LANE supports arts organizations of color and rural organizations with time and resources needed to grow their infrastructure in ways that are culturally authentic and moves the field towards justice. I'm your host, Sage Crump, programs specialist for LANE.

Music Introduction: (sung) Marching up to freedom land. Ain't gonna let no jailhouse turn me around.

SC: Welcome to this episode of TACtile. Thank you for tuning in. We're excited to have this fourth installment of our cornerstone series: racial justice and cultural equity, and in conversation with Wes Taylor. This episode of TACtile will round out our four cornerstones. The cornerstones are the guiding principles of Leveraging a Network for Equity. They guide our practice, and help us be sure that the ways in which we are moving inside the initiative that we call LANE reflects what we believe the world can be. We are practice. We are in practice. So, I wanna welcome someone that I enjoy talking to so incredibly much. And I wanna--. I'm so excited to introduce Wes Taylor. Wes, welcome to TACtile, and will you--. I always like to have people give their own bios. Like, what would you like folks to know before we begin this conversation, about who you are and how you think about the world and what you do.

Wes Taylor: Okay, this always jams me up, because I think I wear so many hats, but--. And I usually cut it short, but I'm definitely not gonna go long on explaining, like, who I am, what I do. First starting off, I think, with our connection. I'm an artist with Complex Movements along with you, Sage. (2:10)

SC: All transparency.

WT: In full transparency. But, I think--. I also highlight that because, you know, doing that work with you has been really enlightening. Has been really, you know, something, like, based on growth. And I think my, my journey through the arts as I go through some more of my resume, Sage, has been informed by you a lot. So I find myself holding Sage or, or thinking about Sage a lot as I go through the world, and usually if I'm transmitting you, and not to make this a love fest, but I do find that people really resonate with the things that have resonated with me, from you when I, when I pass those things on. So, as an artist, with Complex Movements, you know, I do animation, I do art direction, I feel like, I do design, I'm a designer. I think about arts and equity a lot through, through economics and economic models. I'm also a printmaker. I run a studio in Detroit called Talking Dolls. I split my time between Detroit and Richmond, Virginia, where I teach design and foundation arts at Virginia Commonwealth University. What else? I--I also just think about space. I'm a curator, so I think about the curation process as a way to provide opportunities, but I also think about the curation process as a way to create space for artists. I'm really using this practice of handing off keys to people. When I have, like, you know, access to resources or resources. Like, not necessarily being a gatekeeper, just giving the keys away. (4:12) And I think that's really important. I make music, you know, I've been part of hip hop scenes, the hip hop scene in Detroit, you know, in my, in my early teens to mid 20s. Still being involved in music. I run a label with Ill, Invincible. We've been doing that for a very long time, which has translated into, like, a media company. Huh. So, yeah, I'll, I'll, I'll stop there, but you know, as different hats come out, I'll speak to that based on this conversation.

SC: No, I-I appreciate you sharing all the hats, and not to make this a love fest, but I was really excited when you said you had time for this, and I think that the sharing of all the hats is important. You know, NPN is National Performance Network. It's nonprofit organizations, arts organizations, and artists, and support touring. And so, there's so many ways to think about how white supremacy is, is embedded in the way the sector functions. In the way we--. In the way art and culture moves through this country, or the world, really. I should even make it specific. And, I think, because you have so many hats, and because you're in so many places, and, and the depth to which you think about this, I think you have a perspective that comes from a lot of different angles. And most specifically, how to get--. How to work, not even just around it, but how to work differently. How to work differently in knowing it. So. I'm gonna start with the, the first question that I ask everybody. Because at its core, we're thinking about transformation. Right? And we spend a lot of time thinking about change, and so, I'm really curious. How do you believe change happens, Wes?

WT: I mean, I'm still thinking that through. (06:17) I think the work with Complex Movements really has me always thinking about change and how change happens. Especially, I would say, the work with, you know, I’m thinking about emergent strategies, emergence, the emblems that we use in complex movements as symbols for change making and being able to meditate on those things, those metaphors for change making. And so, I think early on with the work we're doing with complex movements, and using the metaphor--the larger metaphor for, like, the larger idea of Newtonian Physics versus quantum physics. And that really caught me a lot, and I, I still, you know, I think, ten years on, on meditating on those ideas, I still, like, I still think about that. And so, you know, like, just a quick explanation on, like, thinking about that, where the origins of how that's come to my conscious, or my consciousness or just come to, like, just into my ways of thinking is from, from Grace Lee Boggs and, and, and how Grace was wrestling with this idea of probably a lifetime of seeing the way movements worked and then, like, trying to, like, create an abrupt change to that. And I'm sure there's, like, a gradual aspect, but the thing that Grace proposed, I think, is an abrupt thing. Gong from Newtonian physics, which, you know, speaks to, you know, in science speaks to masses, equal masses and force, and, and it talks about numbers, you know, numbers of people, but in physics, you know, you're talking about a body in motion in space that won't change course or direction unless it's met with equal or more, you know, power, right? (8:26) And, and I think when Grace started thinking about quantum physics, where, at a quantum level, which is a hyper hyper hyper microscopic level, you know the level of atoms, quarks, there are different rules, and physicists haven't really found ways to merge those two worlds together, but it's still part of our world, and going into that level, thinking about how information doesn't meet--. Information can exist in multiple places simultaneously across vast distances, right? Not only information, information creates change at vast distances simultaneously when you start to talk about small scale. Small scale movements affecting large scale systems where I think the, you know, the previous idea, and the wisdom was before, it was like, Those things don't cross over; we don't understand how those things cross over. So, I very--. I very much value small scale interaction as far as change goes. And, and another thing that I've been thinking about once again, like--. One thing that I think--. I don't know if you were the origin of this quote, but I use this all the time. Talking about change on a spectrum, right?(10:00) So I think a lot of times, people get really caught up and consumed by this idea of binaries being able to convince or shift other binaries' thoughts or movements or whatever, right, so, you're on one polar opposite trying to convince somebody over here that what they're doing is wrong or they need to change or whatever. And usually, because, I think the--. The connotation of, like, preaching to the choir has such a bad connotation, right? And what really resonates with me is like, Well the choir needs to be spoken to, because choirs need to be directed. Choirs need to harmonize. Choirs always need attention and maintenance. Otherwise, you know, and, and, and, so the combination of, like, being steadfast and, like, preaching to the choir's actually not a bad thing, because choirs need to harmonize for their messages to resonate, really gives me an idea of, like, change where I'm not thinking about the polar opposites. So, that in combination with change being on a spectrum where, you know, you're always connected to somebody that always has a shift in ideas or is not necessarily matched with you perfectly on ideas and values and things like that, but if you're touching the people closest to you, then those things, like, reverberate and work in, like, concentric circles, you know, and so, I think about that as, as a way of change, and I think what--. and then going back to, like this idea of, like, spirals. So, once again, like, I think about these things all the time, right? And what is really-. I'll give an example. The--. Of all the things that I just brought up. And it is, in the wake of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, you know, Aubrey, like, all of these things that have happened, right, but within the sports world. So, four years ago, we had the Colin Kaepernick situation in the NFL, right? Where it was a very divisive situation where Colin Kaepernick was, you know, protesting police violence, right? In the wake of another wave of, like, tragic murders by the state, and, and police on, on, on Black bodies, right? (12:28) And, and so, Colin Kapernick was speaking out against that, and his message was very calculated, it was very well vetted, he was very intentional in what he was doing and how he was doing it. But that message was not allowed to be, like, confused by outside people that didn't agree with what he was doing, right? So, it became about a whole lot of different things that actually dominated the conversation. And that was four years ago. That conversation never went away, but now there's been, like, this total, almost 180 shift in the way people view these things. It spins back around in a cycle, in going to, like, this, to, you know, this spiral movement of justice and change within sports and the NFL, right? So, we naturally come back to Colin Kaepernick, who has lost his job in the last four years, right? Has been ostracized by NFL owners. And then you have NFL players bringing that issue back up, right? But this time around, because of the harmonizing, because, like, the message was able to be distorted, and and, and pretty much changed, you know, by the media, and, and, and whatever, I think because Colin Kaepernick kept preaching to the choir, the next time around, the message sunk that much more. So, the people that gave this information were shot down almost immediately. People were able to be lock step in the wave like, No cop. (14:11) People, people are saying, with like, you know, very confidently, No, this is not what Colin Kaepernick was doing. It was not about that. The people speaking on it this way are wrong and wrong for these reasons, and it was able to take off because those people that were wrong were shot down, like, because you had a choir of people that actually knew the message, understood the message, it sunk in, and so the conversation took a step forward, right? So now, there's, there's very little this side and that side, you know, you know, having some sort of justification. Colin Kaepernick has been seen as justified in his stance, and people that were, like, naysayers don't have the ground to stand on, because the choir is so much better. So, I'm, I'm, I'm also, you know, that's like a story thinking about change and, like, how it comes back and if you, if you're harmonizing a choir, those opportunities and moments will present themselves again with more force, more steadfastness. Steadfastness. And, and, and, and I think clarity in the way that it is approached. So that's one way I think change happens, so.

SC: No, I, I, I appreciate that so much, because you're making me think about just sticking with the sports analogies, hold on arts folks, we're gonna follow the sports train for a second, is that I'm watching sports figures now, like, they're--. Colin kneeling, there was a level of kind of ambiguity in that, like, folks are like, what are you doing? But now you just see people at press releases saying, Arrest the cops who killed Breonna Taylor. Arrest the police that murdered Breonna Taylor. Like, I'm gonna leave you no space. I'm gonna leave you no wiggle room, no interpretation, the words that are coming out of my mouth are, regardless of whatever question you ask, Arrest the officers that murdered Breonna Taylor. And so I--, I feel you on this, like, iteration and the deepening as time moves on. (16:24) I'm also really excited about what you said because LANE, Leveraging A Network for Equity, is an initiative that supports arts organizations of color and rural arts, and rural arts organizations. And there's a way in which sometimes folks think that we deal with racial justice simply because of the who is involved, right? And what we're really trying to do is, Even inside arts organizations of color, inside historically Black organizations, historically Chicano organizations, look at where white supremacy is impacting how we practice.

WT: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

SC: So it's like, how do we push past that first level of, Oh, let's just throw money at people of color, let's just throw money at people of color and call it a day and say, you know, that's--. And I--. That, that we're doing equity work, but there's also a level of equity work, there's also a level of unpacking that we need to do as, as artists of color, as folks of color in the field because magical negro syndrome is real. I wanna say, just in case people aren't aware. These are two Black people talking. You're welcome. (laughs) So, we're gonna try and clarify our references for people who might not be. Yeah. People choosing a particular person of color and being like, You're amazing.

WT: Yeah.

SC: You're fabulous, is also a way to erase our humanity, and, and erase our dignity and our growth by trying to make us something that is other than human, like, superhuman.

WT: Right, right.

SC: So I appreciate what you're saying around the choir and small scale, cause I feel like that's really endemic in this, in this process that we're going through with LANE. (18:11) So, one of the things that we did early on is we began to tease out equity and justice, right, like. When we started, like, there still is a lot of conversation in the field, it's like, cultural equity, racial equity. I want to, to ask if you can kind of take the, the conversation around change and let's start to put, let's start to put race in it. Let's put race in it, and, and how do--. So, do phrases like racial justice, cultural equity, how do you think about equity, justice ,race, white supremacy, and the way these are all showing up?

WT: Yeah, I mean, I think, in regards to equity and justice, I don't think they're in opposition to each other. I think they are movements or, or, you know, paving stones towards justice, so it's like, equity is necessary to talk about, still when you're talking about justice, but I think ultimately you need to be talking about justice, not equity. For me, personally, right? And so, it's like, I, I never trying to land on the word equity when I'm talking these things. I don't think it's irrelevant. I think it's very relevant. And, and in order to have these paving stones, conversations around equity need to happen. Yeah, and it kind of--. I'm just, you know, I'm just trying to think about it, because as a designer, and going to one of my other connections with people, you know, part of this series and, and the work that I do with the design justice network with Una Lee, right, is really thinking about what is enough. (20:14) Right? You know, what, you know. And, and, and I think when we talk--. I'm gonna go on a couple tangents, cause I'm thinking, like things are popping up. but when we're talking about equity. Yeah, yeah, okay. When we're talking about equity. So, yeah, when we talk about equity, there's a background implication of resources, right? Right, because equity means a distribution of things.

SC: Mm.

WT: And, and, and depending--. And equity means actually how those things are being distributed. And, you know, we know the difference--. Not we know the difference, but there's a difference between equal and equity, right?

SC: Yeah.

WT: And so, like, those nuances need to come up, but it's all--, when you talk about resources, and we're talking within a capitalistic society then we're, we're talking about resources in a capitalistic frame, right? So, equity in within capitalism is, is a thing. And so, when you talk about justice within capitalism, then, then it becomes really murky to me. Right, because, I think, because when we're talking about the United States, especially in, in this context, we're talking about distribution, we're talking about race, we're talking about resources, and justice has actually never happened in this country, right? Has never been a thing that has been, like, dealt with. Equity has never been a thing that has happened in this country. (22:04) And, and--. So, you know, we talk about these things in, in an abstract way, but, you know--, and I'm going back to design--. But this country was designed in a way for those things never to happen. Right, so--. I talk about code and, like, a lot of times I think about, like, artificial intelligence, I think about algorithms, right? And, and when, when we go, when there's this conversation about like algorithmic bias that comes up, it's because there's bias that went into the code, right? That, that runs a program or an algorithm. And, and that bias is a reflection of human bias; it is always--, you can't get around it. They haven't figured out a way to get around that. They have--. Now they have algorithms that can check for bias, and, and, and, and try to correct the bias on top of bias, but I, I say all of this to say is, we're at a watershed moment with these technologies of how we will be governed in the future, right? One of the crucial moments in the past that we're living in in the imagination of what I would say the original code of this country, is the constitution, and all the amendments, and all the other, like, documents that go with our constitution. And so, the constitution is a racist document, right? And that is the code that governs us. So, in order to actually achieve, in my view, equity and justice, you actually need a page one rewrite on the constitution. It goes, it goes to that point, right? And, and because, I don't think those things ever can be achieved based on who's in the room. So, a lot of times, you have--. A lot of times you have, within algorithms and, and artificial intelligence, and, like, all the things that go with that, you have all of these weird instances of how these things perform on Black bodies, on Black faces. (24:27) Even gendered bodies, right? And then when we talk intersectionality, right, like, you talk about Black female bodies, Black trans bodies, they jam those systems all the way; it's because those bodies were not in the room when these things were being developed, right? These minds weren't being--, weren't in the room when these things were being developed. Same as the constitution, right? And, and so, it's easy to omit or have, like, very little consideration for a body that's not there. So therefore, so like, so make this analogy, right. So, eventually we got to three fourths or a person, right? Within these documents.

SC: Yeah.

WT: Right? But these bodies were never in the room. Right? So that's why they never show up whole within these documents, right? Same with like algorithms and things like that. They recognize these things if we're talking about computer vision on a fraction of a scale of accuracy as they do recognizing the bodies that were in the room that developed it, right?

SC: Yeah.

WT: So, once again, like, so these--. This is how I think about justice and equity on that level when we're at these watershed moments of, Who's there and, and the consciousness that goes into documents or code, and I--I make very little distinction between those two things.

SC: Yeah. Yeah. Oh my gosh. Wow. I have so many notes. And this is why I love talking to you so much. (26:08) Because I think one of the things that I really appreciate is that you will go to the root of a thing. Before we started, like, you went straight to the, you went all the way back to, like, the beginning, and, and, you know--. I've talked about it with you and I talk about it a lot around the importance of history and understanding how we got here, so that we can--. if we're gonna create something, then we have to understand how we got here. And so even talking about the, the, the founding documents of this country, and I think one of the, the thing that you're making me start to, kind of, play with in, in a more intentional way or at least just rummage around in my mind is this idea of equity as, as connected to resources, and the redistribution of resources means equity can exist inside racialized capitalism. Justice, however, cannot live inside racial capitalism, right?

WT: Yeah. Yeah.

SC: So, there's a way in which by--. Because--. Justice requires us not to have a subjugated class.

WT: Mm-hmm.

SC: And racialized capitalism, in order to function as an economic system, requires a subjugated class.

WT: Yeah. Yeah.

SC: And so there, the, the, there's really something really interesting to me about how you're framing it as like paving stones. Not that we're gonna throw away equity, cause that's that's part of it, but paving stones, how they fit together on our way towards something that looks like justice, which means there's, there's a rustling and recognition of the way capitalism, and specifically racialized capitalism lives inside our--. Inside the, the practices of this country and, and the field of art and culture.

WT: Yeah.

SC: I wanna--. So, and you ended right sort of as a segue into my next question. YOu're so good at that. (both laugh). Cause my next question was--. Is about--. When it comes to racial justice and cultural equity, what should folks be looking at? And, and you left off with this beautiful reflection of, The reason folks can be 3/4 of a person is cause they're not in the room, right?

WT: Yeah.

SC: And I think about how many things get built for, like, so is that, that, and also you know, it's a design justice principle, right, like, how many things get built for someone--.

WT: Right.

SC: --but they're not in the room, and so they can never show up whole if--.

WT: Yeah.

SC: What are some of the other things in your mind that, that people in art and culture sector, or just in general, when they're talking about racial justice and, and cultural equity, what are the places that, that they should be thinking about? (28:57) Or, like, how. So there's, who's in the room. Like that's a point. What are some of the other pieces that people might find they need to look at about how they're practicing?

WT: I mean, like, not to like, paint the broadest stroke ever, but I would say that, if you're in a arts space, and somehow you find yourself in a arts space with--. I'm--. And I'm gonna speak to-- I'm gonna speak to Black people as of right now. But it, it, and if you find yourself in a room with no Black people in it, but I think the, the flip side is, only because I'm speaking toward Black people, but if you find yourself in a room with all white people in it, in an art space, I don't care what art space it is. (30:04) That space is racist. Straight up and down. And, and, and, and you have to, like, take that standpoint. Because the thing is, is, if I enter that room, and it's just me or somebody else, that is my thought, and not only is that my thought, it is my thought, like, before I might even give spaces the benefit of the doubt, right? I've never seen a situation that, where I'm the only person in the room of color, and there are no racist or racialized issues in that place.

SC: Mm.

WT: Right? And, and, and, and, and it never fails--. Like, in my 42 years of life, I think it has never failed, right? And, and so, so that's what I'm saying, like, me entering the room, that is my thought. That is my experience. And, and, and, and so, people working towards that actually really have to internalize that deeply. Like, I think these conversations have been happening. They are, they are circulating throughout society, people are really starting, starting to understand and know what these things mean, but yeah. It, it--. Those are non--. For me right now, those are non-starters, like. You gotta get more--. Like, like, we can't have this conversations; this is a racist situation. And, and, you know, and, and--. It, and this, and this is--. It becomes, I don't know, tricky and touchy in ways, cause I'm, I'm still that--. And then I, I think about history, right? So, at previous institutions I've been in, I've found myself, you know, say in Detroit, where I, I was teaching for a while before I came to Virginia. In the middle of Detroit, I would find myself the only Black person in the room that is a city that is over 80% Black, right?

SC: Mm-hmm.

WT: And these are institutions that have been around for a long time. (32:18) I don't care what people's, like, thoughts and intentions are, you had to work very, very, very, very, very hard to maintain that status quo.

SC: Mm-hmm.

WT: Inside a city that is 80% Black.

SC: Yeah.

WT: And, and, so, the, the, the work has to, the, the--. Go a--, go ahead.

SC: Yeah, I mean, I think you're speaking to something that, that we hear all the time, right? The, the, as if, like, I don't know anybody, I can't find anybody, like. The, the, the, the presence of people of color on stage, but not inside the organizations, right? Or even when, you know, you know, you are that hire, what kind of power do you have? You know. You sit on the equity committee, cause, you know, everyone's got one now.

WT: Yeah. Yeah.

SC: You know, the, or the DEI committee, you know. And there isn't the, the, the, the ability to actually shift an institution as a singular person of color, as a singular Black person in the space.

WT: Yeah. Yeah.

SC: First of all, it's hella unfair. It's just ridiculously unfair to expect or ask.

WT: Yeah.

SC: And most times it's just not possible, like, it's just not even the intention.

WT: Mm-mm. Mm-mm.

SC: So--.

WT: I mean--. I mean, so, even to answer your question more, like--. These are things I wrestle with, right? And I'm framing broad, and I think in some ways might sound extreme, but I don't--, I don't know if this is extreme, right? Cause I'm actually doing--, I'm trying to do this in practice myself. (34:05) Right? Cause I don't see another way for actual change to happen, especially racially, especially, you know, and, and, and I think racially, intersectionality, as well, I don't think these changes can happen. But really, you boil down to it, it's two things. Drastically changing these systems has to happen. Page one rewrites everywhere. But at the same time, it's straight up, like, ceding the power, like, people actually have to step up, step off, like, people have to, like, step off and step away. Literally. That is what is gonna have to happen. For this to happen. And if you can't internalize that, then there's--. I don't see change actually happening. And so, these are things that I try to practice in myself, cause I realize that's what's, what's needed. And, and, so, an example is, my--. Like, I have dreams and visions of a lot of things. Like I like to start things and whatever, right. But I also understand that other people have dreams and visions, right? And so we talk about on an intersectional level, me as a Black male, male, and, like, middle class. I'm gonna take all of those things where--. And my education and my education level. I'm gonna take all of those things into consideration. So I do know, me getting to this point, my Blackness, I feel like has prevented me from all kinds of opportunities. All up and down, all through every stage of my career, right? Whatever and those are things I can't dwell on. It's just something that I know, that my Blackness has kept me away. And, and I think, in some ways, like, it's twisted and messed up, and I'm also in a lot of ways thankful that I didn't achieve certain things that I set out for, because they were based on standards of achievement of success that were also racialized, you know what I mean? And, and, and, and so--. When we have these conversations, that's because I'm always turning these things through of what is success, and how is that racialized, and, and, and, and imposed on me. But the flip side of that is, being lucky enough to be an instructor, and a teacher at the university, I"ve developed relationships with people that've been in my classes. (36:51) And they have hopes and dreams, plus they are younger than me. And then, our, you know, and, and I don't care, are particularly, like, whiter (WORD UNCLEAR--MIGHT BE "WRITER" 37:12), more talented, and more capable than I am. Right, and so, I know I have a lot of capability to do things and to start new things that are necessary out there, and there's a whole generation of people that are seeing, that are seeing the same things. And I think at this moment, it has collapsed what a lot of people know and see, right? So what it's taken me ten years to understand about institutions, institutions, I'm seeing people that I've had in classes that are now my peers, seeing these things almost instantly right? And so I'm like, Okay, what took me ten years to figure this out, you're seeing this right now, you're seeing pathways to deal with it, I'm gonna figure out how to, like, channel resources and give you the keys to whatever I have for you to begin and start these things and address these issues. Because of, I think, youth and age, and the energy that comes with youth is really important. NOt to say that I'm not youthful or whatever, but I also--, you know what I'm saying, like, I think those things are important. (38:18) And the ability to fail youthfully is really important. So, like, I'm--, I've been bringing up liek this idea of tools, and, and new tools and models and instiutions come up, and Im' like, I could come up with a really dope tool. Like, I've had dreams and visions of that. And then I"m seeing, like, you know, the youth that I work with also having those visions and I'm like, I would rather you start fail, maybe in your, you say your late twenties, in doing this, right? in having, in supporting that. So that by the time, you know, you're 35, 40--. And I'm putting these weird arbitrary, like, ages and nubmers on things, right. But just to give some kinjd of context, right, but but but, by the time tha tyou're 40, you're a beast at whatever your'e doing. You know, instead of me, you know at the time when I’m--. Or maybe even at, once again, like, at 35 your'e a beast at doing these things, understanding institutions, how to reform and rreshape institutions, and how to run these reshaped and re--, you know what Im saying, institutions at 35, as opposed to where I would get there at 50. You know what I mean? And so that gives me acutlaly hope in the world, where, if I'm handing off keys and resources and seeding ceratin things. Cause I have enough outlets. I'm lucky enough with enough outlest that maybe in the course of all this, you'd be lucky enough to hire me or consult me in some way, yoiu know what i mean? And that woudl be great. You know what I mean? or, by seeing that, I can help build and be added to, instead of beinglike, No, you need to wait your turn; No, you need to, like, get some more knocks, like, you need more expereince. Naw, like, I'm like, that's--. The expereince is out the door righ tnow. And, and, and, being able to run institutions. Because we have, like, people of a certain age and generation making decisions about institutions, but also have been institutionalized by these institutions, and in a lot of ways been reinforcing these things, and even if they realize that change is needed, that change becomes a lot slower, I feel. And, and, and so, I think there's this combination of --. (40:45) And, and also, like, me as a Black male, like, I'm handing this over to Black females, you know, queer people. You know what I'm saying, that I think actually would do a bang up job that we've been, like, really asking for, and, and we know is, like, we know they're gonna do a great job, but there's been a lot of fear in ceding the keys and control over.

SC: Mm-hmm. No, I, I appreciate that. Like, there's--. There's this, like, relationship between experience and experiments. Right, and so when you're talking about the, like, time and youthfulness, and I appreciate that, like, the, the numbers are arbitrary, but this talking about having an opportunity to, to experiment, fail, and iterate into something next, feels really really resonant, and I think that's really important in this conversation, cause there can be this sense of, like, Got to get it right, right, like? And in order to get it right, you wanna draw on the lived--. Even the lived experience of so many who have been around for a while, but that also doesn't always give you the, the, the runway to try something, experiment--, experiment with what happened--. Where's the learning in the experiment itself? The learning from the people, but the learning in the experiment itself, and that pushes us past this hierarchy of experts, and--.

WT: Yeah. Yea, yea, yeah.

SC: --it really gets into the, like, the, the, the massaging of, of, of multiple folks coming together to learn together, to learn together inside an experiment. So that, that--. You really are teeing up these balls so beautifully, cause I--. My next question was like, A`re there inventions, interventions, or disruptions either in artistic practice or in institutions that you're seeing there like, Oh that, that feels really important for folks to think about, or, This is where I think the inventions, interventions and disruptions can, can exist and where I feel like they could be taking place. (42:52)

WT: I mean, I think there are tons of 'em. There are tons of 'em happening. I mean, I'm not an active participant in, like, social media. But it's happening in social media all day every day. You know, the, the, the constant back and forth about, in this conversation, about cancel culture, I think, is, is, is actually an example of these interventions. And without getting into a full conversation about cancel culture, cause I actually think it's a misnomer. I don't think--. It's not canceling, nor is it a culture whatsoever. And, and, and--. Also, I think the conversation becomes really misguided because, you will always have what is being claimed "cancel culture" if we're living in the world of Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerburg, and the owners of, say, Instagram, whatever they're are called, and, and, and, and Google, right? That won't go away. You can't intellectualize that. You can't write enough op ed pieces about it. You can't write enough petitions about trying to cancel cancel culture. As long as we live in this world of Facebook. We didn't--. Like, this is not our world. This is the only way that people have power and perceive power within it. (44:23) So, whether it's being expressed, whether it's being wielded in, in, in some people's eyes misguided ways, in destructive ways, right, I'm actually not advocating for it as a thing, but I also don't think it ever goes away as long as we have Instagram. As long as we have a Mark Zuckerburg being the arbiters of free speech. Right? So, that's the world that we actually live in. We didn't set up the conditions for that. Mark Zuckerburg needs to go away. Instagram needs to go away in order for cancel culture to go away. Nobody really has that conversation though.

SC: Mm-hmm. Ooh-hoo-ooh. You trying take away folks' social media, Wes.

WT: I'm not trying--. But I'm not saying that. But what I'm --. So, this is not even-. This is not even an indictment of social media. I'm saying, these are not our platforms.

SC: Platforms. Hmm. See, that's, that's it, right? You're getting to--. I wrote down as you were talking, like, you've mentioned a couple of times this question of, like, power.

WT: Yeah.

SC: Even in your own, in your own practice of, like, recognizing yourself as a gatekeeper in, in ways in like how you give away the keys and like, can you talk a little bit more about power. Cause I think that when you're talking about justice and equity, power is so much at the core of that. Mm-hmm.

WT: Yeah, I mean, I think power is always at the core. And I think power and dynamics of power, and how they're wielded always need to be checked. They need to be acknowledged. You know, in a, in a lot of different ways. They need to be exposed. You need to be vulnerable about power (46:05). And you have to be willing, like I said--. This doesn't happen--. I mean, none of this happens unless power is ceded. And, and what I'm saying is, is like, that's the nice way. That is really the nice way, right? There's enough out there--. There are enough bags out there, and there is an abundance out there. Where ceding does not have to be seen as a bad--. Even, when--. Cause you know, there's this fear--. There's definitely this fear now, of like, the COVID world, economic downturns, all of this, right? But the, the, the approach has to be counterintuitive. We can't hold onto, like, like, grasping onto these things like our life depended on these things, because really other lives depend on these things as well. But also, if you let go, there's the chance that something will run better, resources will flow more freely. That, there's the potential there. So you will see the benefit of letting go, because somebody is doing a job better than you potentially. And, and, and, and I'm thinking about it--, I'm thinking about jobs in a, in a, in a very specific sense, but then, I think, in a conceptual sense, too. And, and the reason why I feel good about this is because, like, I've been an instructor for a decade, right? If I was doing my job right, then me handing over the keys was me not --, means I was doing my job right. Like, my hope is just when I have people in my classroom, that they are smarter, better, and whatever than me, and that is what I'm trying to enhance and, and, and bring out. Like, I think the future is bleak if, one, I'm, like, I'm gonna show you so much, but not so much that you can better than me. That means w're gonna have diminishing returns, right? (48:21) On everything if, if my job is to give you just enough, but not to surpass me.

SC: Mm. Well that's a word for every institution whether you're a professor, whether you're an executive director, whether you're an artistic director of a company, like, that is a word. That's a word right now. Thank you.

WT: But yeah, but I think these interventions are happening in, like, for instance, like, in, in schools, I'm seeing students using their voices, right, on, on, on social media. And they're, and they're doing a lot. It's like, I'm--. I'm not a big--. even though, you know, talk--. I'm not a big proponent of social media, for the reasons that I think they are not our platforms, for the reason that I think they make us do labor for them and they actually benefit from my engagement with these things more than I benefit from, from them. And so, like, I take stances, but also, like, against that, but, you know, the intervention is also, that I think is effective, is also, I think, tied in with, like, this fed up-ness. Or, seeing previous generations and being, like--. Cause I really do think, like, you know, whatever they call this generation, I don't know, I don't even wanna mislabel it.

SC: I don't know either.

WT: Yeah, but whatever this generation is, I think they're just looking at my parents' generation, you know, the generation before me, however, and then, like, even, like, my generation, like, I feel implicated. It's like, especially, like, my generation's like, y'all put up with this? (50:01) It's like, Nah, we can't. It's like, you guys put up with this. You realize, like, this is gonna be perpetual unless somebody actually does something. And I feel like the intervention is, like, they, they looked and saw and realized, like, we are under those same conditions, and, and--, as our parents and our grandparents. And they were like, Nah, I'm not--, you know what I'm saying? I'm not gonna subject myself to, to this, you know what I mean? Potentially because it's like, I don't think they see power within our generation. You know what I mean? Or power that is worth, like, aspiring to, right? And, and, and, and I can see that. Like, and--. And I feel like i coasted on this idea of Black history month. I coasted on this idea of Martin Luther King's dream, like, coming to fruition. I coasted on these ideas of, like, affirmative action. Which I'm not necessarily--. Like, that's a whole different thing, but I thought these were the tools for equity, right? This is what was sold to me by the time, like, I would be an adult, these things would be figured out, right? And I coasted on that. And I think the intervention is now is, they have less--, fewer tools, right? Cause those tools were stripped from us, whether you agree with them or not, they were in our bag to use. And they're like, well we have less tools. You didn't gain more stuff, so, like, we gotta intervene in any way that we can, on the streets, social media, and whatever tools that we see available. And so I'm, I'm, I'm speaking towards this as, like, it's a generational thing, and I don't think it's ultimately a separation of generations, but I think--. I think there was a non starter and the buck stops here. We can't move forward, and I think that was ultimately decided by the youth. (52:02)

SC: Oh yeah. And, and I think one of the things that I'm, I'm, I'm listening to you thinking about is, is the, that you are--. In order to engage the complexity of the moment, like, what, what I'm hearing from you is an invitation to also engage your own complicity.

WT: No doubt. No doubt.

SC: Right, like, don't, don't play with it. And I love this--, I've said this quote by Kiese Laymon, published you know, put up on his facebook, I don't know if it lives anywhere else, but I grabbed it from there. And it says, "There might be rigorous, honest work to be done by grounding our critiques at least partially in our complicity.

WT: No doubt.

SC: Kiese Laymon, a brilliant Mississippi writer. And I think that that is part of the--, back even to the, circling us back even to the question of the choir, right? Like, there is a need to think about whatever your positionality is, what is your complicity in this? So that you have an opportunity to figure out how you support the inventions, interventions and disruptions with whatever you have around, right?

WT: Yup. Yup, Yup. Cause I don't think there's enough getting out of the way. You know what I mean? I feel like there's all these critiques being lobbed unfairly to the people doing the work, whether it be imperfect or not. You know what I mean? It's just like, sometimes--. It's just like, just get out the way or support, you know what I mean? I think critiques are necessary, but it's--it's--, I don't think we should be holding up whatever people are figuring out right now. I think there's a lot of wisdom that can be imparted. There's a lot of things that can be built upon. And I'm not saying that. But I also think there's, like, a lot of obstruction, and, and, and that will ultimately benefit everybody. And, and, and, and it's very important. but it's always gonna be messy. You know, it's always--. There's always gonna be missteps, you know what I mean? And it's always gonna be the way that--. It's always gonna be the way--, not the way that you did it, you know what I mean. And being able to revel in that. And so I'm thinking about these interventions in a more general sense. (54:10) But I'm, I'm, I'm just seeing how, like, a lot of these things are playing out. And, and, I think, you know, based on the movement work that I'm exposed to from, from Detroit and, and the people that I engage with, like, in our, like, localized ways, there is a valuing and a trusting of youth, and intergenerational things, right? That becomes core to the way a movement and change happens.

SC: Mm. Yeah. And I love this idea, like, valuing and trusting of youth, and that could--. That, that speaks to any relationship, right? I'm thinking about presenter to artist. I'm thinking about grantor to grantee, like, how do--. How do you--. Where, where do we place the value in these relationships, speaks to the, the seeding and the shifting of power. And then how--, this question of trust you know, we--. The emergent strategy, move at the speed of trust, you know, what does, what does trust mean? And I often have a conversation with folks of like, do we actually know how to trust?

WT: Right, right.

SC: Like, is that, you know. That's a question we don't ask ourselves enough, like, do our institutions--. Do--. Because we, we are set up in systems that are so concretized that trust is something else.

WT: Mm-hmm.

SC: Right, that they don't even engage trust in order to run. You do as I say, you get the resources. It's so--. The transactional nature of the field, of how folks engage, makes it, makes trust an unnecessary tool, but in, if we're going to shift and change, if we're going to be the world that actually honors the humanity and dignity, if we're going to get, work these paving stones of equity to justice, then we have to reintroduce trust.

WT: Yeah.

SC: And there's some brilliant work--, I wanna shout out the Whitman Institute, and their trust based philanthropy, and we're seeing more and more presenters being in relationships. We've had that experience in Complex Movements, being in relationship with our presenters, and trying to, to, to figure that out, I think. Ignite Arts in Dallas is a perfect example of the relationships between artists and presenters that is really grounded in trust and building together. I wanna ask--. (56:37) In, in, so I wanna ask you a little bit about--. As our sort of almost closing question--, you move in institutions, you move through as an artist, you run, you know, different initiatives. What are some of the things that, that are important to you while you move through these things that, that you feel like move racial justice forward. Right, like, what are some of the things you do, think about, access how you do what you do.

WT: I think doing and organizing is, is a thing that is necessary. Amplifying voices is really important thing as, as like a practice. But I think what it comes down to, and this is like, a passion of in, in a lot of things is just like always thinking, where are the fringes, what is the alternative? You know what I mean? Like, I feel like I--. Like, as a lifelong practice, I've been doing this. And, and, and this has been an internalized thing before I think it became a buzzword amongst things and, and, and was spoken in the way that Fred Moten speaks in it, but like, I'm a believer in the undercommons as, as a way that things happen. And this is the way that I've practiced always, and I've never--, I didn't know what that was, but you know it's like, it goes back to, you know, my grandfathers running barbershops, right? And that was the way that they made moves and transitions and were able to set up and set up shop in new places, right? They only knew how to do that--. They didn't go to school or whatever, they had to set up a barbershop. (58:28). My other grandfather having a diner, you know, in a, in a rural southern community, right? In Hickory, North Carolina. Those are all the undercommons, right? But those are the things that, you know, employ, you know, my mother and my aunts, you know what I mean? And how many experiences they learn on how to move through institutions as they became, you know, got educations and things like that. And they draw from their experiences within the undercommons. And, and so, like, I, I draw from those things as being the counterweight, the counterargument, the, the--, in some ways so it reflects back to institutions, but also just being the alternate because these institutions will never get there far enough or fast enough for me to experience the types of freedoms that I have within these other less formalized institutions, right? And, and so, waiting for those things to happen is whatever, like, you know, I'm not even, I'm not even banking on that, but I--, being in practice of, like, having these other spaces that are one in very different ways, and I'm always checking myself to see what is internalized, what am I carrying over, and how do I get rid and discard of and make really obsolete those things that I felt the weight and oppression of being in these other places. And I'm saying they're still imperfect, right? But I'm always calling into question the things that I've internalized and trying to shed those things, and not trying to replicate and pass those onto people--. So, I--, even like, I called into the question this idea of efficiency in all of those things, right? When I'm thinking about my own institutions and, and the time scales that these things operate on are things that I'm doing. I'm always trying to, you know, get people in tune with, if you want change to happen, if you want this thing to be different, you actually need a different time scale for that to happen. And a different set of expectations. In order for that to happen. And, and so now, what I'm coming to it as I teach--you know I'm teaching design. (1:00:50) As a side note, even the--you know what I'm saying, if we're coming into like a closing, but, like, to spark off, like, another idea, or a, a new code opening, right, is, even this idea of professionalism I'm calling into question. And how professionalism gets wielded against Black bodies. Professionalism gets totally wielded against trans bodies, right? Because professionalism actually in some ways implicates bodies and how bodies are presented. And, and, and how and when they show up. Along with a whole lotta other things. And, and, and so, so, I'm gonna leave that, but I'm--. In this fight for justice, one thing that i'm setting in a very tangible way is this idea and concept of professionalism. In order to create very creative, generative spaces.

SC: Mmm.

WT: And generous spaces.

SC: Thank you so much. I'm gonna leave it right there, cause I think that's a beautiful phrase, generous spaces. (1:02:03) Generative and generous spaces is a great way for us to sort of close this conversation. I wanna really appreciate your, your conver--, our conversation, because the--, you're a systems thinker, right? You know, and it's not like--. And I don't know if folks, you know, it's like, Oh, it's a conversation on race. let's talk about, you know, how people treat each other poorly. Like, and there's that, but the way this conversation has shaped between you and I is about like, here are the systems that are at play. Here's the interruptions, and we have to stop thinking about, like, just simply people, right, like, it's just simply people, but how people are shaped by the conditions around them. How people are shaped by what they're using, what they're--, it's not a--, it's not--. We're so past, hopefully, but you know, not everybody, which is why we have these conversations, you know, past, I like, who I like, who I know, who I have dinner with, you know. I've never said a bad word against. We are in a moment where we recognize the systems, the very foundations--, we've talked about the constitution of the United States, the very foundations of the systems that we engage in are what will continue to make white supremacy and racialized capitalism the, the arbiter of success and, and, until we are interrogating those things, about how we even move through them individually, and how they live inside the institutions and the work we do, what we accept, what we don't accept. Moving towards the world, transforming the world towards one where people have the abundance that have access to all the abundance that actually is already there. Their humanity, their dignity, their value is reenforced, not just by the people who know them, but because they are human beings. (1:04:00)

WT: Yeah.

SC: And because they live in the world. Like, I'm so grateful for this conversation, and, and its, and its depth.

WT: Cool, well, thank you, thank you Sage.

SC: Yeah.

WT: Well, thank you, Sage.

SC: Yeah. Is there anything I haven't asked that you, you're just like, huh. I would love to make sure to, to say this. I know I often get off calls or things, I'm like, Uhhh. Why didn't I say this?

WT: Yeah, I mean, I'm trying to think, but it's just like--. I mean, I think we, we, we covered a lot of ground. I think if, if this conversation was, you know, rooted or, or, or like, you know, steered in a different way, there might've been a slightly different conversation, but I think this conversation is what it is because of how it was set up, and I feel like I was able to cover a lot of ground, I think, as a continuation. You know. Cause you know, like, it dawns on me as like, you know, you reflecting back when we're talking about systems, and then, not so much about people, and I was like, well, what does that say about me? So I'm like, thinking about being real self conscious at a certain point, but also like I would love to rethink that conversation on a person lev--, like on a scale of people, you know what I mean? Not now, but you know, that's just the thing, like, closing if we were to think about it.

SC: Mm. Alright. I hear a part two coming folks. We'll see it happens. Wes, thank you so much for your time, and I appreciate you so much. I appreciate this almost decade that we've had an opportunity to know each other and be in work together, and I'm really excited there is a--, folks get to hear what I get to hear sitting and looking at a kitchen table.

WT: Okay, good.

SC: Have a great day.

SC: This has been a recording of TACtile, a practical guide to transforming art and culture. The podcast of Leveraging A Network for Equity, LANE. LANE is a program of the National Performance Network. LANE is sponsored by the Andrew W Mellon Foundation. If you would like more information on LANE, our cohort members, or the National Performance Network, please visit www.npnweb.org. Thank you for listening, and please, share TACtile with your friends and colleagues. (1:06:27)