Photo Credit: Steve Rosenfield
In light of the press coverage the project has received in the last few days and the subsequent inquiries made by the What I Be audience, our team has resolved to express our current stance on things to prevent any possible misconceptions from developing further.
What is “What I Be?”
We inhabit a world that is often frigid and unforgiving. Much is dependent on the way other people judge our worth. We seek to conceal that which we consider our flaws. “What I Be” brings to many – both its active participants and its viewers – a sense of relief. It is the ultimate judgment-free zone: a platform on which people can finally shed the discomfort that withholding a given vulnerability imposes on them – and overpower it.
We realize, of course, that the images may cause many discomfort, but that is precisely our point. The following Eli Wiesel quote comes to mind: “I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”
Steve Rosenfield’s motto is “building security through insecurities.” We hope that this is precisely the message that we impart on our audience.
How is this project relevant to the Jewish community?
That is actually something that we understood fully only once the project was already launched in NY – the project had particular relevance for my—our—community. It seems already that many important issues such as, for example, acceptance of diversity are being now widely discussed by the community at large. We feel grateful to have enabled conversations that are essential in bringing about change.
To quote one of our participants, Esther Freeman: “I’m very Orthodox, but I feel like we live in such an emotionally closed world. Today, if anything, children need to be emotionally aware. There needs to be a lot more acceptance, especially in frum (observant) circles, and understanding.” This, in our opinion, goes to show that the younger Jewish community- orthodox or entirely unaffiliated -is prepared to be open about their vulnerabilities for the sake of “greater good”. Which is admittedly, a recent development.
You originally tried to run this project through YU, you even had all the funding lined up from tens of clubs. What happened?
YU never gave us the final confirmation but since they didn’t deny our proposal in its entirety either, a substantive amount of effort continued to be spent on the part of Art Club as well on Steve’s part for the course of 4 months. Throughout those months, the project was denied once and since time constraints were cited as the sole reason, we resolved to proceed only to eventually get another “no”. (This time, we requested more detailed feedback and w eventually told that the administration couldn’t figure out how to censor such a sensitive project.)
Our focus has always remained- the successful completion of the project and not the bureaucratic exchange we’d had with the school.
Dean of Students Chaim Nissel told Haaretz Newspaper “After close review and much discussion of this event with the student organizers, and taking the sensitivities of all of our students into consideration, we determined that a YU venue would not be able to showcase the project in its entirety.” Do you agree with YU’s censorship?
Having had much experience working with YU and the arts we can attest to the fact that YU doesn’t oppose the arts on principle. A number of exhibits and projects were supported by the office of student life in the past and for that, we are thankful. That very set of professional experiences granted us with relative familiarity with the sensibilities our institution holds. While on a personal level, our views may not coincide with that of the university, as part of this institution, we try to accommodate and accept them. We were aware that it was a real possibility that the project wasn’t going to be sanctioned and while we strongly believed in its objective, we were prepared for a potential “no”.
Our collective frustration thus stemmed mainly not from the divergence between our personal views and those of Yeshiva University but rather, from a lack of transparency demonstrated by the members of staff involved in the process. Namely, the feedback we continued to receive was that the impediments were merely logistical and not content-related. This assessment, essential for our proceedings, turned out eventually to be plainly inaccurate. Instead of making progress, our energies were being squandered carelessly on seemingly secondary bureaucratic affairs. Supposedly part of the same team, we were, in fact, often made to feel at odds with the office.
This lack of candor is, in our opinion, not only counter-productive but also is one of the reasons for the notorious ever-widening gap between the administration and the student body.
The fact that YU could not house the project, on the other hand, is not indicative of flaws that are unique to the university alone – it is part of a much larger issue. Whether it is generational or not, there still are people within our community that are not prepared to be open about people’s realities if the could potentially cause discomfort. We believe firmly that it is almost an evolutionary development: the fact that the project resonated with so many young members of our community only serves as proof. As a society, we are growing to be more accepting of one another and that’s an enormous step.
Why do you feel that writing insecurities on people’s bodies is a positive thing? Isn’t it a bit of an unhealthy way to deal with emotions?
We acknowledge that this project will not have a universal effect on everybody. People have different coping mechanisms and find different things helpful. The only thing that we can confirm on our end is that those who volunteered to participate for the most part found the process healing and ultimately beneficial; many of the photography subjects reported receiving numerous private messages of love and support, often from complete strangers. Even more can be said for those who follow and support the project: many admitted that the images had an empowering effect and felt very close to home.
The project is most certainly raising awareness for important issues in our community and human condition as a whole and on a more local plain, it is helping the participants find an important sense of resolve.