A sort of consultation on what "Hands off our revolution" should do with the communities they managed to build over the projects that their contributors realised. The session began with their mission statement on the board and a consultation on the terminology and language currently used by the coalition. The mediator, Anne-Marie, promptly opened the topic up for discussion with the audience. 

​

The main preoccupations of the audience DID revolve around the language, some people thinking that the terms 'radical' gained a new and dangerous meaning which this project shouldn't be associated; others, very poignantly in my view, thought that it was a nuisance to have an elite talking about a revolution when the right wing just had one, and when true revolutions happened in other than western contexts, taking shape very differently: in such a way that revolution doesn't quite equate to the tame weight art plays on politics. Above all the word "our" was the most problematic. Others, including me, were more concerned with the effectiveness of the project in terms of real actions and questioned what were the actual aims of the project. 

​

I interjected, expressing understanding for their consultation and community building projects, but also concern for long-term and slow strategies, when the situation requires urgent action. I suggested that the creation of a political party should be considered, and some of the audience added that maybe art is not the right channel to go forward with such an interested community. 

 

I think as far as consultation goes, this was a successful workshop, however, I did feel that as a privileged audience, who hasn't yet felt the real impact of the problems anticipated, all the conversations that were occurring, are just that, and people are not prepared to go out of their comfort zones.

​