He was asked to tell about one of the internal struggles the group had to deal with.
He told that one of the group members decided to join a political party, which made other members leave.
They saw it as an issue that the individual now associated with the party and their values, and they did not want their organization to be subjected to that association.
This seemed counterintuative, as their reason for the groups forming was bringing together the photographers and other artists, which were in need of sharing their knowledge and closing the distance between the individual artists. One of the members also described the group as a small reflection of society.
By these accounts the group had a shifting and fluid role, with the members influencing the group into different directions.
For me it became very difficult to understand how you can form a group on the incentive of bringing people together, but eventually excluding some because of their political opinion. In my mind the image of the group formed more towards a supportive structure, not necessarily investigating the situation of others, but rather bringing together people with common interests, generating a quite homogeneous group where individuals would comfort each others in their similar struggles.
I think we have quite many of these kind of groups, or groups taking this shape temporarily, in our academy. With multiple seminars becoming supportive, rather than critical sessions, courses, which rather than challenge, just encourage the working method of the students.
I think it is very important not to call these group reflections of society.
They are distorted and polished.
And often forget to teach us how to talk about subjects appropriately to the environment.
🐓🐔🐓🐓🐓🐓🐓🐓🐓🐔🐓🍌
