The Slave Galleries Project attempts to facilitate discussion in several ways, evident in the stated objectives for the project. Objective one listed three priorities in stimulating facilitation - "to humanize the experience of the space, to raise difficult and enduring questions, and to incorporate multiple perspectives". I think all of these viewed together can be seen as an attempt to make The Slave Galleries Project relevant to as many people as possible on the deepest level. In a community as diverse as the The Lower East Side, it would be easy for many different ethnic groups to look at the slave galleries and go "so what? Why do I care?" By humanizing the experience and attempting to put names and stories to the "slave galleries ghosts'", the project attempts to look past race and reach individuals. Additionally, incorporating multiple perspectives is crucial for the project because it becomes the entire community's project, not just the African American community's project. By bringing community leaders from all background into the space and allowing them to draw connections to their heritage's own history, it connects different groups through their histories.
I felt I didn't receive enough information from the article to conclude if The Slave Project was successful in facilitating discussion. HAC explicitly explains all the actions they took in an attempt to facilitate discussion, for example the actions discussed above. When it came down to the section entitled "Impacts of Arts-based Civic Dialogue Work on Partners and the Neighborhood", I felt HAC didn't touch on real results. For example, the section in the article discussing "Impacts" says, "The project [The Slave Galleries Project] also trained almost half of the committee as dialogues facilitators. This ensured that the slave galleries would continue to generate effective dialogue". This was just repetition of what they had told readers earlier in the article. I knew already that extensive dialogue training was given, but what I didn't know, and still don't, is how this training translated into discussion. Also, the ending section entitled "Questions for the Future" voiced some concerns I had been thinking during the article about how effective is dialogue and what is it worth. While I am glad the article voiced them, I didn't think it did a great job in answering them.
Overall, I thought it was an interesting concept to use The Slave Galleries Project to stimulate current discussion. It was interesting that the creators objective from the beginning was to not only preserve and exhibit history, but apply that history to current events. In that regard, it sets it apart from the typical historical building which attempts to solely inform visitors of history. I also liked how "the committee agreed with Li's recommendation that the program should be conceived in a way that is open, flexible, and can readily reflect new discoveries and that the space should be presented to reflect the "process" of preservation, rather than as a static exhibit". This point goes back to something I earlier discussed on making the space relevant. This will allow the exhibit to change and apply to issues that have yet to come up, but will affect the community in the future.
I believe the Slave Galleries Project definitely has the potential to facilitate relevant and important discussion. In addition, the leaders of the community have been given the tools needed to lead this discussion. Unfortunately, I didn't feel there was much proof that it did or did not work in the article.
