Storytelling: Art Start Nonprofit

Storytelling: Art Start Nonprofit

Storytelling is a communication skill that allows a person or organization to genuinely connect with a community. The purpose can be to help a community understand or gain a perspective. It goes beyond fact sheets and data by putting emotion and human dimension to a conversation. Many organizations capitalize on this form of communication as part of their efforts. But Art Start, a New York-based nonprofit, actually revolves around storytelling.

Art Start is a nonprofit founded in 1991. The purpose of it is to use the power of creative arts to transform at-risk children. These at-risk children are usually defined as those who live in shelters, are homeless, or involved in court cases or living with abusive parents. The non-profit hosts art workshops throughout the less involved parts of NYC to guide and nurture the youth.

Because this nonprofit is involved with art and the youth, it has a perfect opportunity for storytelling. Already at first glance on Art-Start.org, there are pictures of happy children and pins titled, “Meet the Families from Art Start’s Family Portrait Project!’ Clicking on this directs you to a new page filled that explains the multimedia exhibition. It is clear this is storytelling because the nonprofit connects you to the families and children involved. The specific exhibition was stated as a “presents the powerful stories, hopeful voices, and loving images of NYC families experiencing homelessness.” Other projects include the Portrait Project, which centers around African American men having the chance to portray their complicated lives. So, in terms of the website format, Art Start does an excellent job putting the most interesting pieces as the forefront, primarily using pictures and videos of people, and providing a variety of stories that people can connect with.

Most of these stories are told through video. As for the narration style, the nonprofit explains the videos and projects in an intellectual way that isn’t targeted towards a specific audience. In other words, anyone reading the page can fully comprehend it. The videos themselves focus on those who benefit from the nonprofit and describe their perspective. They tell their personal stories and the way they feel when they make art, how they can express themselves and their struggles, and the gratitude and hope they feel from the community Art Start makes.

Overall, the nonprofit fully lets others speak for the organization. The call to actions are to donate, volunteer, or send an art box, but only a few of the videos mention these. While some organizations definitely take advantage of storytelling, Art Start relies primarily on this form of communication in order to get donations and volunteers for its cause. It is successful because of the way the website is formatted to showcase these people, how the nonprofit is explained, and the organization of the website itself.

Stolen Education: Parallels between new Orleans and Washington, DC - by Bria Justus

I attended an Alternative Break panel discussion, Stolen Education: Parallels between new Orleans and Washington, DC. The panel was put on by an Alternative Break that traveled to New Orleans for spring break to student the education system in New Orleans and how it has dramatically changed since Hurricane Katrina. The panel included professionals in the world of education along with a current student from New Orleans who has experience with charter schools. It was a lively panel discussion about the inequalities embedded in the education system, specifically how the current education is set up at a disadvantage to youth of color. There were four panelists, two with direct experience in education in New Orleans post Katrina, one teacher from a charter school in Washington, DC and an education professional who had experience in both DC and New Orleans.The moderator encouraged all the participants to speak to what they believed the parallels were between Washington, DC and New Orleans in terms of education and how it influences the success of students.

The most meaningful aspect of the panel was to hear from the student, Larry Brown, who was currently attending a charter school in New Orleans. He spoke to his experience navigating the school system after Hurricane Katrina and the difficulties he faced. Larry represented APEX Youth Center, a nonprofit which aims to provide after school services for youth in New Orleans who have been unfairly abused by the complication education system. Some of their services include mentoring, homework help or classes in creative fields that often are taught during the school day.

The panel discussion relates directly to the class as it was an advocacy event, encouraging college students to think more critically about educational policies and the role charter schools have to furthering or intervening in inequality. The panelists were all closely involved in the public school or charter school sector and spoke about their different experiences. While the panel did not have a call to action, it simply served as a means to encourage students to question their own education and begin to understand how inequitable education structures are.

The panel also served as an advocacy event for Alternative Break, an AU program that provides student-led service-learning programs during winter, spring and summer break. All Alternative Breaks focus on a social justice issue and travel to an area where that issue is present in order to further engage and understand the issue. The panel gave audience members a chance to understand what an Alternative Break may look like and encourage them to engage in an Alternative Break themselves.

For the class, here is a link to the Alternative Break website as it is a great way to continue what we are learning in class. It is also a great way to get involved on campus and gain real experience doing grassroots advocacy in communities.

Website: http://www.american.edu/ocl/volunteer/Alternative-Breaks-Homepage.cfm

Titans on Trial: Do internet giants have too much power? Should governments intervene? - by Adam Brown

This year at The Genesys Partners 2018 Annual Venture Dinner & Forum, hosted at the Union League Club New York, there featured a mock trial, called “Titans on Trial: Do internet giants have too much power? Should governments intervene?” The parties involved were former FTC Commissioner Terrell McSweeney, and Rob Atkinson, President of the Information Technology and Innovation. Interestingly, this event took place on McSweeney’s penultimate day as FTC Commissioner.

Regardless, the premise was simple; the two parties argued their opinions on internet regulation, and those in attendance would vote for the winner. McSweeney argued for an increase in governance on tech companies such as Facebook and Google, believing this situation to have problems similar to those related to monopolies in other industries. Atkinson on the other hand argued that these companies are perfectly fine as they are and that consumers would not benefit from regulation and possible “trust-busting” of internet giants. 

McSweeney argued that having so few companies own such a massive portion of the industry, along with their power regarding individual users’ data, is a detrimental issue for consumers. While she did not argue for a full-on bust of these companies, similar to early twentieth century trust-busts, she did call for nuanced legislation that protects users while also allowing for companies to make profit and continue their technological innovation. She also argued that these companies can also be considered advertising companies, along with being tech companies, and that regulation should be imparted on what sort of content they show.

Atkinson called for a complete libertarian approach, even though throughout the event he continuously claimed not to be one. His argument was that because these services are completely free to users, they are not subject to laws that protect paying customers. Furthermore, he argues that advertising is simply how they obtain revenue, and since people are voluntarily joining these networks for zero cost, they do not, in his philosophy warrant the same protections other consumers do.

Obviously this discussion is timely with the Mark Zuckerberg testimony, but also with everything we’ve learned in class. Today, to have a successful online advocacy campaign, there must be some form of social connectivity through the use of the internet, usually through the companies they argued about; Facebook, Twitter, and Google. They grant organizations the capabilities of easily creating narratives to tell stories, group identities, and to connect likeminded individuals. They also give advocacy groups an easier opportunity to have successful analytics departments that can strategically use those findings to their advantage.

Both McSweeney and Atkinson’s opinions, if put into legislation, would have great effects on consumers, and in turn activists. One, McSweeney’s would greatly diminish the external forces that influence e-activism, while also diversifying the market through possible growth, or size related regulations. While, Atkinson’s would just continue, if not incentivize fake news and data breaches. This is explicitly important to everything e-advocacy, and this class is built on.

If either of these ideas went into place the current landscape of digital mobilization would change. In today’s world, ideas we’ve learned in class like Polletta’s strategies of storytelling, would not be possible without a smoothly functioning social network. Peyrot’s vision of benchmarking success would change.

As for me, I stand with McSweeney on this issue, as did those who voted at the event. Nuanced legislation is key. Ensuring big business doesn’t become too big, along with ensuring best practices for consumers is integral to making sure the people do better than the companies.

https://www.mrss.com/lab/the-2017-social-media-directors-guide-to-benchmarks/

https://livestream.com/accounts/9197973/genesys