The Story of A Road Trip Part 1: Participants and Platform

Posted: October 8, 2015 at 1:37 pm by

The 5th edition of the Invisible Borders Trans-African Road Trip project took place from the 2nd of June to 22nd of October 2014. This was about 10 days short of the time we had anticipated finishing the road trip. But nevertheless we made it from Lagos to Sarajevo amidst torrents of challenges. The Invisible Borders Trans-African Road Trip is a project that assembles up to 10 artists from different countries in Africa to make road trips across the borders of the continent while creating works inspired by the experiences and encounters during the road trip. For more about the project, see here.

The project is Organized by Invisible Borders Trans-African Photographers Organization, a not-for-profit art initiative registered in Nigeria. Since 2009, there have been 5 editions of the road trip project. The first four editions were road trips across Africa. For the 5th edition we decided to make a transcontinental Road Trip – from Africa to Europe – hence the chosen route, Lagos (Nigeria) to Sarajevo (Bosnia & Herzegovina). This time we did not only stretch our idea of the road trip beyond the confines of the African continent. It would also be the longest and most tedious road trip both in planning and execution. 9 artists were scheduled to travel from Lagos to Sarajevo within 151 days (5 months). We spent a considerable amount of time putting together the project from January 2013, to the commencement date in June 2014.

All efforts of the limited volunteers working for the Organization was channeled towards this project. Eventually all endeavors came down to 9 participants and 1 driver. These participants were as follows: Dawit L. Petros (Canada/Eritrea), Heba Amin (Egypt), Renee Mboya (Kenya), Tom Saater (Nigeria), Lindokuhle Nkosi (South Africa), Angus Mackinnon (South Africa), Breeze Yoko (South Africa), Emmanuel Iduma (Nigeria), and Emeka Okereke (Nigeria). Two participant-artists out of the 9 (Okereke and Iduma) were also key directors of the Organization and therefore coordinators of the the road trip.

To select the participants, the Organization put out an open call, followed by a 30-minute Skype interview where all shortlisted participants were made aware of the nature of the project as well as foreseen risks and challenges. On the 2nd of June 2014, all the participants (with the exception of Breeze Yoko and Lindokhule Nkosi who arrived a few days later) convened in Lagos to take off on the road trip. From then on, it was life on the road for another four months.

In Amsterdam, on the 25th of September (and 25 days to the end of the project), where we had a major exhibition of the Invisible Borders Project set up following the conferring of the 2014 Prince Claus Award, 6 participants – Dawit L. Petros, Heba Amin, Renee Mboya, Lindokuhle Nkosi, Angus Mackinnon and Breeze Yoko – discontinued their participation in the road trip, citing personal reasons saddled with accusations leveled on both the Organisation and myself, the Artistic Director. This took place during the opening days of The Prince Claus Award exhibition and the 10-day event scheduled for the Amsterdam stage of the road trip. This development struck a major blow to the progress of the project and undermined the hard work of the many months of planning, besides the actual four months on the road. Despite this, we forged on and completed the journey with just three participants (Emeka Okereke, Emmanuel Iduma and Tom Saater)  and the driver. The accusations leveled by the departing participants were carefully plotted and disseminated in a way that excluded the Organization’s side of the story. The 6 participants mentioned above wrote a joint withdrawal letter and sent it to almost every individual and institutional supporter of the project (many of which they got to know through the project’s platform). The letter, however, was not sent to the Organisation, as stipulated in the agreement of participation with regards to voluntary termination. Since then they have continued – through obscured means – to spread a version of the story which deliberately portray the Organisation and myself in a bad light while attempting to create a forced authenticity of their position. I have therefore decided to make the Organisation’s side of the story available to the public.

Preparation of the Road Trip, Invitation of participants and expectations

In preparing for a project of this magnitude, the greatest challenge was funding  to implement the ideas we had. We were looking to travel across 20 countries within a space 5 months, catering for the expenses (accommodation, transport and daily allowance) of 10 persons as well as keep a 14 seater v8 gas engine van moving for that long. It also meant that we had to find partners and collaborators in most of those countries. This came with more challenges than we anticipated especially given the fact that we had a small staff of unpaid volunteers.

From previous experiences, we had learnt that in choosing participants, it was important to place emphasis on the nature and dynamics of the project. The road trip is unique in the sense that it takes an unconventional approach to creation of art. We would be constantly on the move for a period of 151 days, while expected to create works in the process. No matter how inviting and exciting that sounds, the reality on ground is always different. We would face a lot of unforeseen circumstances that would change our plans and induce frustration. It is no picnic or a luxury travel. In previous road trips, we have been stuck in the mud for four days, slept at borders at night, ran into roadblocks set up by robbers. We did our best to make this clear during Skype interviews with the participants. We also encouraged the participants to research the project and become conversant with its mode of operation including its administrators. We expected artists who could stand the hardship and eventualities of the road trip, while harnessing that to a creative end. Artists who are willing to engage and blend with the realities of people and spaces encountered. We also expected that the works created would reflect and engage with these realities rather than stay aloft.  This is what sets the road trip apart from those by luxurious adventurers scouting for nature, wild animals, sun or the beach. We further emphasized that if selected, participants will have to contribute substantially to fundraising efforts as we were dealing with shortage of funds. We chose the participants based on how positively they responded to these concerns – at least in word.

However on the road trip certain occurrences led us to believe that for some participants, there was little room to consider the broader scope of the project or the sustenance of the platform beyond personal and immediate gains. We had expected artists who understood that to be relevant to the progress of a 21st Century Africa, selfless engagement is the most potent currency. This bipolarity in reading the significance of the project is truly the cause of the disparity between the Organization and the participants who eventually quit the project. We found ourselves struggling to defend and reiterate the position of the Organization, believing that all will go well on the long run as opposed to giving in to the feeling of sheer disillusion which hung heavily in the air every single day. We struggled for four months to live, work and hopefully transcend this most threatening border.

Budget and Management of funds

From the onset we made it clear to all the participants that our biggest challenge was raising adequate funding for the project. We told them months earlier during the interview session that if selected, they will have to help out in fund-raising (the likes of Heba, Dawit and Angus contributed to an extent on this end). Before the start of the journey from Lagos, we got reports that Breeze Yoko and Lindokuhle Nkosi insinuated that we had received unbelievable amounts of money from our funders. This was brought to our attention by Dawit L. Petros. This was not the case.

We took off on the road trip with only a 20% chance of succeeding given lack of funds. I called for a meeting and informed everyone that our funds as it stands can only take us from Lagos to Dakar, but we hoped to continue pressing for more funds while on the road. I also made attempts on several occasions to dispel the insinuations that we received huge amounts of money. We received the Prince Claus Funds Awards while on the road and every cent of the 25,000 Euros prize was thrown into the road trip in order to keep the project going.  Renee Mboya was in charge of handing out per diems. By our records, there was not a single day out of the four months that per diems were not paid, accommodation not provided and the vehicle not maintained and kept moving. The allegations that we mismanaged funds are outrightly false – we did not have enough funds to mismanage. I wholeheartedly commend our team of directors and volunteers for all the efforts we made at sourcing for funding for this project; keeping 10 participants on the road for a period of 116 days (and continuing with 3 participants for another 20 days), paying accommodation and per diems, flight tickets which included half the cost of their tickets to Lagos; full cost of ticket from Dakar to Madrid when we could not traverse Morocco; and eventually from Amsterdam back to their various returning destinations. We did everything to ensure good conditions during the road trip. We serviced the van at every 3000 miles and constantly fuelled it. In Dakar we stayed in the wealthiest district of the city (Ngor), just 10 minutes walk from the beach and most of the participants enjoyed that luxury – going out to the beach intermittently for surfing and swimming.

Some participants despite various briefings came with high expectations of a luxury road trip (complaining about trivial things such as not having enough air-conditioning inside the van). But nowhere in the documentation of the Invisible Borders project did we give the impression that the project thrives on that level of financing or mode of operation. Due to this high expectations, every effort we made to provide good conditions was met with the suspicion that we had more than we made available. This way of thinking contributed in no small way to the tension that existed between the Organization and the participants. Why did we set out on the project knowing that we did not have enough funds? Since the inception of Invisible Borders, the project has thrived on the will and determination of its organizers, participants and faithful supporters, and by that we have survived in a place like Africa where dreams are stifled by the constant excuse of lack of funds. We forged on with hopes that we would make it through. This was not a case of “suffering and smiling”, but we figured that money should not be the only currency by which we achieved our dreams. In working together and focusing on positivity (as there is never a shortage of negativity) we will prevail. We had expected the participants to deeply identify with this mindset, but for some of the them their disconnection from this mindset was rationalized by the assumption that we were hoarding funds, otherwise why would we have gone on the trip.

In the past, some well-meaning individuals have suggested that we involved the artists in sharing the burden of expenses in the way of catering personally for their  accommodation and daily allowance. We declined this approach as our aim is to create a platform where the artist have the least financial burden to bear. On this road trip, Dawit L. Petros had personal funding from the Art Council of Canada, enough for him to cater for his personal expenses and production cost for more than a year’s worth. I know this because Invisible Borders assisted him in securing this funding by writing a recommendation letter on his behalf even before he got selected as a participant. Yet, we still paid his accommodation, per diems and flight ticket from our modest funds.

Dawit had loaned about 5,300 USD to the Organisation during the trip. This was based on the fact that one of our partners delayed transfers of the money they have pledged. Today he likes to claim that without this money, the project would not have been successful. But given that the Organisation helped him to secure personal funding, we expected that, in fair reasoning, he should have seen his gesture as returning a favour. If every participant before him had gone on to splatter false accusations about the project as soon as he or she was good and done, our recommendation letter to The Arts Council of Canada would have been detrimental to him than complimentary. Let it be known that all monies owed to Dawit have been returned as at the publication of this report.

For further lucidity see below for a sample of the table that breaks down the actual source and total of funds we had for the entire road trip as opposed to the original budget published in our first crowdfunding campaign on Indiegogo.

 

Security, Safety and Conflict Zones During the selection process we tried as much as possible to make the participants understand that things do get hectic at some point. This is the nature of road travel in Africa. While on the road, our priority was security before anything else. This informed some of the decisions we made when things were not going according to plan. For example: Dawit did not secure his visa to Ivory Coast before coming on the trip. At the border he was not allowed to enter Ivory Coast. He would need to spend two nights at the border in order to apply for his visa on a weekday (we got there on a weekend). I decided to stay with him at the border, while Emmanuel Iduma and Robin Riskin lead the rest to Abidjan in the van. It was for security reasons. But eventually we seized the occasion to create amazing works at the border – this became one of the most productive times of the project. While on the road there was no incident where our lives were threatened in any way. Even in Ferkessedougou, a part of Ivory Coast where the civil war had been more pronounced a few years earlier. Our driver took care as he drove. From Lagos to Sarajevo there was no incident or accident on the way, even a flat tyre. The places we were lodged was arranged by trusted partners and there was no incident that called for danger. There was no time we had to run for our lives or sneak away from any town fearing danger. We only slept at the border once (due to Dawit’s visa issues), but that was it. We never had to sleep at the border nor spend the night throughout the duration of the projectoutside a bed in a secured environment. The night we spent at the border, all the participants slept in a modest hotel at the border – myself, Emmanuel and Dawit slept in the van (Dawit volunteered to do so). If the participants felt endangered, it was quite understandable given that this was their first time in a project where they had to travel by road. But this was not due to the coordination of the project. If anything, we have come a long way from the previous road trips were sometimes we were stuck in the mud for four days in pitch black forest (4th edition); encountering roadblocks set up by highway robbers (3rd edition), sleeping at the borders, in open air beside donkeys (2nd edition) or driving through Maidugiri into Tchad the seat of Boko Haram, the terrorist group in the North of Nigeria (3rd edition). This road trip was a smooth ride compared to any other. We did everything in our power to first prepare them for the tediousness of a road trip across Africa, but also during the road trip we took all precautionary measures evident in the fact that we all got to Amsterdam without any event. The only major conflict zone we would have encountered was Western Sahara. However we did not travel through this region eventually due to the fact that 6 out of 10 participants could not obtain a Moroccan visa, we decided that everyone would fly from Dakar to Madrid rather than have just four first-time participants travel alone through the zone. Subsequently we got a trusted friend and host (Mohamed Idoumou in Mauritania) to drive our van all the way to Tangiers in Morocco. This was another attempt to ensure safety of the participants. It was a much more expensive decision given our budget, but the safety and security of all was paramount.

Creation of Work and Expectations

The nature of the Invisible Borders project since its inception is that artists are required to create works on the go. These works are showcased online in real time and on a daily basis (if internet connection and other factors permit) . That much was clear to every participant before embarking on the journey. For this road trip we built an app for use on phones, tablets and desktop computers, with the expectation that our subscribers would be able read at least two post per day from different artists of the project. Each artist had his or her own channel. Every artist was responsible for posting on his or her own channel according to a bi-weekly schedule created to spread posting periods evenly (Emmanuel Iduma and Renee Mboya worked on the schedule). In Lagos we all agreed that the schedule takes care of the amount of work expected from each artist. What we expected was quantity according to the schedules agreed upon as well as quality that showed profound engagement. If any of the participants had problems with any of the two measures, then they were failing to meet with the standards of the project. No formal attempt was made to censor any of the artist’s personal work; everyone was encouraged to post on their “artists channel’ on the app and the official blog of the road trip. The process of reviewing works was done in the following manner. From the onset, we initiated a weekly “Crit Session” where up to three participants shared their works and thought processes with the rest of the group. In this platform, everyone had the freedom to comment on works presented, no one had more privileges than the other, not even the Artistic Director. This was the formal platform on which opinion were aired about people’s work. I presented my works on this platform and got feedback and comments from the participants as any other artist. At no time was any participant prevented from posting their works on the blog except for some occasions where we felt it was completely inappropriate. For example Breeze Yoko posted a photo, on Instagram of Marijuana he bought at the Shrine in Lagos and he tagged the Invisible Borders account on that post. We outrightly condemned this because this was not the image we would like to portray of the project. To his credit, he apologized for this incident. I only interfered when I noticed that a particular artist such as Lindokuhle, Tom or Heba, was not living up to the schedule created for posting works on the blog. If there were comments I passed as regards someone’s work, I did so within the framework of the Crit Session as an artist and a participant. Furthermore, as an Organization with goals, we work with an ideology to create works that reflect on the many encounters and experiences of the road trip as opposed to those that are disconnected from the realities and contexts of lives and places visited. When we invited the participants, we did so with this in mind. As the director of the project, it is my duty to continually remind everyone of that. And I did so especially with Heba Amin and Lindokuhle Nkosi. With Heba, I did not feel she was efficiently working as a video artist for which we invited her to the project. She produced too little videos but instead deviated into collecting materials and using the road trip as a research-oriented trip. We stressed particularly against this during the interview – that while the project embodies the function of research, it is however a research-in-practice and not an avenue to collect materials for a post-road trip creation. We had equally experienced a similar attitude, in 2012  from Christian Nyampeta who looked at every stage of the project through the insular prism of his PhD research at Gold Smith London.   Visa Challenges, Delays and Obstacles It is true that the Nigerians on the road trip did not secure a Moroccan Visas (and this is the only visa that the organizers did not have). The two South Africans, Breeze Yoko and Lindokuhle Nkosi, did not get Moroccan visas as well. Heba Amin was the only participant who had visas for all the countries scheduled for the project. For other participants they sometimes got their visas at the border (Ivory Coast: Dawit; Senegal: Renee, Angus, Lindokuhle, Breeze, Ghana: Breeze) and for every of these borders we spent extra hours to rectify the situation. Of course we absorbed this as part of the project and helped facilitate the process. Our inability to obtain Moroccan visa was due to diplomatic tensions. We did all we could to secure the Moroccan visa in Nigeria but received news from the Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the embassy of Spain that Moroccans have deliberately red-flagged our application because they noticed we had recognized Western Sahara as a country. In spite of that, we continued attempts in all the African countries we visited but to no avail. We absorbed the responsibility of getting visas for Breeze and Lindokuhle, although they could have gotten their Moroccan visa before coming. We later learned that they were facing the same situation as us, given that South Africa was a staunch supporter of Morocco’s non-membership in the Africa Union. We worked with our foreign affairs to no avail, and at one point requested help from an ex-president of Nigeria. After all attempts to obtain a Moroccan visa failed in every country from Nigeria to Senegal, Mauritania was our last bet. We went back and forth between Nouakchott and Nouadhibou pursuing the visa for a period of two weeks. Every of this obstacle presented real problems for the organizers of the road trip but not for the participants because we did not involve them in the administrative procedure of the visa hunt. It was an opportunity for them to keep exploring the city to produce work. In the Invisible Borders project we have always turned obstacles into opportunities, as this is the essence of the project. We however admit that in a place like Africa, there is a lot to learn in terms of dealing with border protocol. We do hope that our experiences will serve as a useful information for those who would make the journey in the future. Tension between participants / Tension between participants and the Organization No doubt, there was a tense atmosphere during the trip for everyone.  From the onset there was the question of distrust. We had reasons to believe that some artists were not thinking of the project beyond their personal gains. Their actions immediately showed that they weren’t  thinking of the platform knowing that after this road trip, it will sustain the next set of artists in the coming edition, just like it has done since 2009. Most of the time I found myself in a position where I had to defend and always reiterate the position of the Organization while attempting to steer the wheel of 9 opinionated persons, towards a communal goal. But to point fingers at one direction or at one person is an intentional manipulation of the account – a deliberate propagation of a single story.  The participants had tensions amongst themselves – sometimes forming camps within the project. For example, Dawit L. Petros and Lindokuhle Nkosi were at loggerheads with each other throughout the entirety of the road trip – they never had anything good to say of each other. In Barcelona we had a meeting where I attempted a reconciliation between both of them, which of course was to no avail.  Moments of tensions between participants were common and created a very tense atmosphere, but we all had to live with and work with that. Reading all of this, one might be tempted to think that we never had good times despite all the challenges. I have a lot of good memories. During Dawit’s birthday, we all went out to celebrate like family. These were moments that, for me, remain precious and should not be downplayed. For this reason I regard all of these unfortunate occurrences as the limitations that come in the way of our inherent conviviality. I have never concealed the fact that I am no “gentleman” (in Fela Kuti’s sense of the word). I admit that at times I could be forthright with my opinions and quick to react harshly to unfavorable conditions. My passion could come off as aggressive. This could translate to open confrontations and miscommunication especially when dealing with people of almost similar temperaments. Being in my position, I am often faced with making unpopular decisions which don’t go well with others, but which I am unwilling to take back on that account. However, on several occasions I made attempts directly or through my other colleagues to find ways to reason and understand everyone, to move us all along. Coordinating a 5-months road trip with nine other participants while trying to produce work as any of the participants comes with its fair share of challenges. Caution Fee, Refunds, and Undermining  Invisible Borders For the first time in the history of the road trip, we asked participants to pay an amount as caution fee. This decision stemmed from unfortunate experiences in the past where some participants exhibited lack of accountability to the project and the Organization mostly due to the fact that beyond personal ambitions, they had nothing else to lose. We have seen situations where some participants was so unprofessional as to abandon the road trip without prior notification (Mario Macilau and  Christain Nyampeta in the 2012 edition), leaving equipment and materials from the Organisation lying across their rooms while they head back to their respective countries.  However, we came to realize that placing a caution fee of 1,500 euros was not a solution, but rather generated another kind of problem, namely that this only attracted participants whose participation depended on their ability to pay this amount, and who saw their participation as a monetary investment rather than a cause. This of course instilled in some of the participants an overblown sense of entitlement even though this fee was refundable. What was sad however was that despite the fallout in Amsterdam  – one of the high points of the project, given that we had just received the Prince Claus Fund award, with a major exhibition of works from the 5 editions of the road trip – the participants took their complaints to our European partner, making a case for their caution fee of 1500 euros which by the contract signed is only refundable if the trip was completed. They negotiated that their caution fee be returned to them despite the fact that they were planning to drop out. The only way they could justify such a destructive act was to highlight and embellish their personal grievances, indulging in mud-slinging of the most demeaning kind . But since the project was never about the caution fee (if it was, we would have from the onset, put in place conditions that required the artists to pay for their personal expenses and we would have still had a lot of applicants), and since their participation has been reduced to the worth of a caution fee, we decided to return the fee to them while the those who are willing to continue the project go ahead. There was much more at stake than caution fee. At the end of it all, and after all the money spent and partners at stake, with the project almost in jeopardy 26 days to the end of a 142- days journey, we were left to the mess. So far we have returned all caution fee as well as money owed as promised, to the tune of about 16,000 euros. We have done this despite the fact that all but Tom Saater failed in keeping to the agreement (as stated in the application procedure and contract of participation) of concluding the Road Trip if the caution fee must be returned. Our position is that these participants terminated their participation in the road trip in a way that jeopardized everything the Organization and past well-meaning participants and members have worked for until then. We argue that no matter what the differences were, we could have found a way to resolve it without resorting to the shameful display at the Prince Claus Exhibition. This further consolidates our suspicion that the efforts and achievements of a thriving Organization as ours and the bigger picture we strive for is of little importance to the participants in comparison to personal gains and grievances. It is unfair to undermine 5 years of work; an exceptional idea shared by lots of Africans and artists; a concept that has the potential for upbuilding in account of personal gains and grievances of a few. This painfully brings back the old question of the 19th Century, which continues to occupy the Western World: whether Africans can be of any good to themselves. Though the project suffered enormous losses especially in the way of all the good things that would have come with the Amsterdam outing and other outlets (we also lost money in the damage control related to withdrawal of the participants), we are fortunate that we still have partners who stood by us, overlooking our shortcomings for the sake of the goal at hand. They understood that a project of this magnitude aims for something that transcends but also incorporates human limitations. Finally, given that we have achieved something that could have remained a wishful thinking, we accept the unfortunate event as collateral damage. These participants (most especially Christian Nyampeta, Lindokuhle Nkosi and Dawit L. Petros)  continue to spread these embellished accusations, writing our partners and media houses. We want to make it explicitly clear that they do not speak on behalf of the Organisation or the project, nor do they embody its ideals. They speak from a place of vindictiveness and personal grievances and as such are blind to the notion of progress through constructive means. They are few compared to artists and individuals who have allowed themselves be positively affected by this project in the past 5 years. The greatest setback of the Invisible Borders project is not the presence of conflict between members and participants, but how few of the participants have chosen to go about it. We welcome conflicts – the road to harmony and coherence is often fraught with thistles of inconsistencies. However, the greater goal is to build a platform that would sustain collaborations and exchange of knowledge between artists and peoples of different tribes and countries, extending beyond the geographical confines of Africa. We can only achieve this by improving upon what has been built, not tearing down. We are far from being weary of this journey. However, we cannot allow a few aggrieved participants to undermine, the hard work, sacrifices and legacies (in this case I think of the late Ray Daniels Okeugo, a founding member of Invisible Borders) preserved by this project. Invisible Borders Trans-African Project is one of the few platforms founded in Africa, by Africans at the beginning of the 21st Century which aims to engage the arduous task of negotiating the processes and mechanisms within the notion of African Unity. Hold your peace if you have nothing positive to contribute.   Conclusion Having said the above, we believe that this project was successful. We cannot say it was perfect, but what is now left to reflect on is how to improve on what has already been made possible. It is a journey – the process makes the destination feasible. We encourage the artists to exploit the experiences of the road trip in their personal work in order to encourage myriad forms by which this idea evolve. We spent at least four months as a group on the project. This is the longest we have been on any road trip.  It is no coincidence that the artists who completed the road trip were those who have experienced the road trip in previous editions. As first timers, it is understandable that the enthusiasm of the artists who dropped off dwindled at some point. Since the 2nd edition of the project, artists have dropped out at every point in time. But concurrently, there were more artists who completed the road trip. The road trip could have been better for all of us, our audience and partners. For that I assume all responsibilities for its shortcomings as its Director. I have only made these point so as to present a more rounded version of the story in circulation.   Success of Invisible Borders thus far Over the course of 5 years, Invisible Borders have succeeded in sustaining discourses around Trans-African exchange.

  • Working with over 65 artists and many partners in several projects such as the road trip, workshops, exhibitions and presentations.
  • We have visited and directly worked with artists and partners in about 30 countries in the past 5 years thereby being proactive in confronting the impediments of borders.
  • The Invisible Borders platform has equally encouraged a lot of budding African artists, paving the way for a career in photography and in the arts. We have worked with various partners in countries such as Nigeria, Tchad, Sudan, and Ghana to support the emergence of photography and visual art.
  • We have equally gathered a commendable archive of photographs, writings and videos of artists’ reflections on differences and similarities within the African continent and most recently beyond it.
  • The 5th edition of the road trip is arguably the 1st of it’s kind. We have extended the concept of Invisible Borders beyond the continent, employing it in the remapping of the relationship between Africa and Europe.
  • We have coined important terms such as “Trans-Africanism”, as an attempt to articulate the condition of being in a perpetual state of flux, always escaping predefinitions – which we believe is of today’s temperament in Africa.
  • This project is an on-going conversation to understand the various forms Trans-Africanism can manifest and as such is also a function of its own limitations.

The next edition of the road trip will take place in 2016. It will be a chance to improve on the project drawing from lessons of past experiences. This year, the Organization will focus on developing new projects which continues to extrapolate the concept of Invisible Borders. Post Script: In December 2014, we got an email from a journalist Charl Blignaut of City Press South Africa bringing our attention to specific accusations by the 6 participants including Christian Nyampeta. My response with him was not fully published in his final report. But you can read my correspondence with him here

������ apple watch
np.com.ua/
magazinpoliva.kiev.ua/
защита авторских прав