A lot of the work is addressing certain known realities. It's not new information. In fact, it's old information. So with that information combined with my agency, where do I take it? I think it has a lot of potential for action.

I think one arena worth looking at is the language I see turning people off--this could be a starting point. Or at least the language that acts as the cue for my white peers to leave their bodies, meaning, the moment I see them begin to check out of the conversation. Some words that do this--in order from most severe resistance to least, top to bottom:

-White supremacy
-White supremacist ideology
-White privilege
-White skin privilege
-Racism
-Privilege
-Male privilege
-Race theory
-Elitism
-Class

So there's that. Does this mean this work is then for white people? Or at least most targeted at white people? And what use would it be for everyone who already understands the information? I worry there will be potential for ego to rear its ugly head. As in, there would be the potential for me to present myself as the "good" white, the anti-racist white. But that is very silly and missing the point completely. So I better get clear with my own intentions and hopes for the work.

For one: It's designed to acknowledge known facts about the white male experience, uniquely couched from the perspective of a member of that demographic.

Two: If it's already known content, what could I offer that would make it different and special? I would need an angle. How can I revitalize the content and spark real dialogue? How can I avoid making it exclusively (as usual in the grand tradition) about me, the white man (the center of the universe)?

So far, the work applies this acknowledgement of facts very cynically. I'm depicted on the top of the heap, on comical stilts, in the center of a universe supporting myself as two. It's vaguely satire. I think it's good and not too self-serious.

But the content is quite serious actually. The satire creates a safe zone for the content, which is dark. With this humor, I will need to anchor it with something down to earth and useful. Because I don't want it to appear I don't take the information seriously. The satire is necessary as a means to make obvious the theme of the work.

The audience shouldn't have to question whether I take the information seriously. And they will need proof that I do. In the targeted content of the work they will need to feel a challenge, a defensiveness within them, an anxiety, which renders the work unforgettable--the point being to activate thought, or hopefully, feed them in a pleasurable way. And I'm not just talking about my white audience members. Because I know that my friends who aren't white also do not really want to talk about these things. Well, at least the friends I have. They talk about it to a point, unlike my white friends.

The critical audience will get the message quickly. Then they will look for more dimension. Besides the physicality of the work they will need angles of thought, not just the flat dimension of a direct message (that's only one dimension). There is poetry in the textures of the materials. But what's most important is the avenues of thought the work can take the viewer. It should strike them on the head with bitter humor, then surprise them, then surprise them again. The message needs three modes.

Mode 1: What you think you see--the illusion that this is just a cynical postmodern acknowledgment of white male tropes and privileges, but doing nothing with this knowledge.

Mode 2: ?

Maybe the implication of the audience. How is the audience responsible for this shared knowledge, since it's common?

Mode 3: ?

More on this later.