I fear this class may be turning me into a Kristen Warner stan account. This week, I am once again choosing Warner's piece to discuss. Upon reading Warner's piece, the first thing that stood out to me was the quote "finally, there were few calls for Rae’s series to be racially inclusive because, unlike Dunham’s series, inclusivity was built into the fabric of the show." It's curious that the show created by a person of color seems to lean more easily towards inclusion and diversity. Is this because they know what it is to not be represented, or are people of color simply more attuned to the existence of people outside of their sphere than white people? Or maybe, they know simply focusing on their own experiences and not ensuring relatability of their content drastically reduces their opportunities to showcase their work?
Warner highlights this saying “The labor of selling a series as fitting for “all” is expected from marginalized bodies — on press junkets and at promotional events — if they desire to reach a mainstream audience.” To simplify, “marginalized bodies” cannot afford to NOT be diverse. However, what then does this mean for their works? Can marginalized creators continue to create work authentic to their experiences when those experiences are not within the hegemony of society? As an aspiring creator myself, one who resides in many marginalized communities within both the American and Nigerian landscape, I can’t help but wonder what this means for me. In creating work true to me, am I limiting my own chances? In choosing to diversify, I am telling the story I really aimed to tell? Where do I find the balance between the two? Does such a balance even exist?
No comments:
Post a Comment