The Island

Farfara – in this room – right now – is simply a moment, a point of connection. Can it exist beyond the rules of geopolitical space, beyond the rules of ECoC?

It was suggested that we go through a process of writing Farfara’s constitution … but … do we need to define Farfara?
What purpose would a constitution have?
Would it lead to an outline of common values?

Perhaps what we need is simply a framework of shared values, rather than something as rigid as a constitution.
[This would safeguard to some extent against hijacking by those with very different values]. (But would it really?) 

Maybe what we’re thinking about is closer to a fluid heterotopia, rather than an unmoored utopia …

And a definition of Farfara is not that important after all … after all, it seems like Farfara is an island in fluxus, a shifting, changing thing …

An imaginary island allows for blurred borders … but ironically, the more we talk about it, the more it becomes a real place in our collective consciousness.

Somehow it’s free from the temporal, physical idea of islands.

Farfara could simply be a place where positive things can happen - it can be different for each one of us, complete with its contradictions and multiple meanings.

Instead of a perfect utopia, maybe it’s more creative to think about all the nitty-gritties that can exist – crime, prejudice, imperfections, unrests, lacks.

If Farfara had to be a liveable island, what would it look like?

The Process

We don’t want to waste time looking back at what was, what wasn’t or what might have been but there is a taste of revolution in this process. There’s an element of clearing out the old (tfarfar) and starting afresh. Strength may be found in smaller actions – if a group gets much bigger, bureaucracy kicks in and the whole process begins again (and eats itself).

We trust each other because we trust someone here – growing larger risks this bond of trust. But … who decides who’s in and who’s out? What about the people who simply couldn’t make it this evening?

Trust between us is essential. Through respect, we can allow friction to emerge, and we can address our differences, allowing space for difficult conversations.

The process could be seen as a design-thinking process … however this usually entails finding a solution to a problem, but we didn’t really identify a single ‘problem’ – what actually is our problem? A club that includes people, by definition also excludes others.

The Bid Book

Could the Bid Book take the form of something that allows other voices to speak, and avoids a trap of becoming self-referential?

The process so far has been quite word-based. Can it continue this methodology, with small actions and word-based processes, that are not necessarily recorded?

The Bid Book provides a broad framework within which to work, and ‘setting down’ along the road of ongoing research.

Does the Bid Book challenge the framework of the ECoC, and the cultural policy of the EU, or is it something much more experimental and notional? Or can it be both? 

There are parts of (our) identity and history that we deny or negate through this process.

There is a value in the subversion of an administrative process and the (camouflaged) infiltration of a bureaucratic framework.