Bill of Rights in the Bathroom
I created an artistic project that focused loosely on the Bill of Rights. In addition to excerpts from the Bill, the project also included poems, pictures, quotes, stories, and questions. Initially, the project's content was divided between 12 sheets of standard printer paper. In addition, each sheet included a section requesting that its audience provide feedback. Each of the sheets included a sentence similar to this one: "If you want to share your thoughts or draw something, please do so here." Each sheet provided a space in which its audience could write or draw.
Initially, I posted the first three sheets in a men's restroom in an academic building at Moravian College. In that restroom, I posted each of the first three sheets inside a different bathroom stall. At that time, I didn't display any of the remaining sheets. After waiting for several days, I returned, and photographed the responses that my anonymous, bathroom-using audience had written or drawn on the sheets. With these photographs in hand, I returned home and created new, different sheets that incorporated and/or replied to the responses my audience had left. I returned to the bathroom and posted the new sheets next to the old ones or replaced sheets that had been torn out. I proceeded in a similar fashion, continuing to interact with my audience. Sometimes, I replaced the sheets that were displayed with more of the initial 12 sheets I had created. On several occasions, I modified those initial sheets in response to feedback left on others.
To read more about my project goals and background, you can click here. To return to my projects page, you can click here. To receive updates about my future projects, please join my Facebook Fan Page.
You can view the first sheet, and the responses to it, below. To look at any
of the other sheets, please follow these links:
Sheet 2 Sheet 3 Sheet 4 Sheet 5 Sheet 6 Sheet 7 Sheet 8 Sheet 9 Sheet 10 Sheet 11 Sheet 12
Here is my first sheet, prior to any feedback:
The short poem, at the right side of the sheet just pictured, reads:
Our words
Spoken or typed
(As here).
Likewise, your religion.
Our grievances
Are ours to share.
Article 1 (at left)
Seems to say:
"You can make sounds."
You aren't alone like a tree Falling in the forest.
Also -
The right to share our hearts
With our government.
Here are two photos of the first sheet, after its audience left feedback:
Here is the sheet I posted in response to the audience's feedback:
The text of this sheet reads:
Person one: "In the United States, you can say whatever you
want!"
Person two: "The communist social party is the best form of gov.
because people are mindless animals so they might as well have someone think
and decide for them."
Person one (again): "You can't say that! Speak for yourself or get the fuck out of this country!"
Here are two photos of this sheet, after its audience left feedback:
The text of the response reads: If people are "mindless animals" what's the point of education? Or government? At all? Who (a person) would be qualified to govern if persons are "mindless animals"? What makes the self proclaimed person different? What makes that person's choices more likely to be wise?
Here is the sheet I posted in response to the audience's feedback:
The text of this sheet reads:
Real Person #1 Writes: "The communist social party is the best form
of government because people are mindless animals so they might as well have
someone think and decide for them."
Real Person #2 Writes: "If people are 'mindless animals' what's the
point of education? Or government? At all? Who (a person) would be qualified to
govern if persons are 'mindless animals?' What makes the self proclaimed person
different? What makes that person's choices more likely to be wise?"
Fictional Character #3 Responds to #2 on #1's Behalf: "Although most people are mindless idiots who can't think or decide well, some people aren't. Some people, in fact, are qualified to govern. If you have the qualities of a governor, either you were born with them, or you acquired them through experience/education. Mindless idiots either lack the appropriate education or were born without the appropriate traits. If you have the qualities of a governor, perhaps many mindless idiots could recognize that you do, just as someone who isn't double jointed can recognize that others are. And why would some people be born with these qualities while others aren't? Perhaps you could answer this the same way you answer other questions about natural traits. Why are some naturally taller than others, or some initially better at learning math?"
Here are two photos of this sheet, after its audience left feedback:
The text of the response reads:
Here I sit
So broken hearted
I came to shit
But only farted
Education rules!
You can VIEW THE SECOND SHEET or you can read about this project's goal and background, below.
I wanted to create an artistic project that accomplished several goals.
(1) I wanted to address something political in a personal way, with stories, poetry, quotes, images, and questions. I hoped my audience might think about the Bill of Rights in a new way.
(2) Typically, if someone wants to see a piece of art, he needs to go somewhere he isn't. He might need to visit a theater, a website, or an art gallery, or he might need to acquire a book. I didn't want my intended audience to have to choose to go someplace or acquire anything. I wanted my project to already be wherever its intended audience was. I wanted to bring my project to my audience, rather than need to have my audience come to my art.
Recently, a friend suggested that only poets read poetry. I don't know if that's right, but I do know that I rarely see poems as I go through my day. There are very few poems in storefront windows, workplaces, etc. In general, in order to find a poem, I would have to actively look for one. But why does that need to be the case? Why does that need to be the case for any kind of art?
(3) I hoped that my project would interact with its audience. I wanted its audience to actively respond to it, and I wanted it to incorporate their responses as it progressed. I hoped for active dialogue. I wondered if an audience is more likely to be affected if it actively engages in a work than if it passively views it.
Project Background
I came up with the idea for this project after being involved in a related project created by M. Gomez. She created large, 8.5" by 11" stickers, each of which displayed the complete Bill of Rights. Unlike my sheets, they didn't include poetry/etc., and they didn't request that their audience leave feedback. Gomez spent a substantial time in public, New York City parks and on street corners, asking strangers to post these stickers in bathroom stalls. Gomez, herself, also posted some of these stickers, and when individuals did write or draw on the stickers she had posted, Gomez photographed their responses. At the end of the project, she staged two performances/talks, discussing people's experiences with the project and displaying the photographs.
As I understand it, Gomez, too, wanted to engage her audience. She wanted them to have to do something, to actively put up a sticker. Further, she was hoping that members of the anonymous audience in the bathroom stalls would write or leave responses. In a sense, she, too, was hoping for dialogue. Finally, she was hoping that, as a result of the project, people would learn about the Bill of Rights and what it had to say.
My own project takes these goals in a different direction. First, I wanted to engage my audience in a way that was personal to me. So the sheets I posted didn't include only excerpts from the Bill of Rights, but also poems, images, stories, questions and quotes. Further, I wanted to actively seek responses from my audience. I wanted to more aggressively pursue a form of dialogue. Just so, in addition to the personal content, each sheet requested that its audience write or draw on it in response. So, rather than asking individuals to actively post a sticker, I asked individuals to actively propose a response.