Transformative Exchange (BCP)

13 Feb

Written By Inez Bodur

In an era where corporate responsibility is under increasing scrutiny, the connection between brands and the public has never been more fragile. Take, for instance, Stormzy’s recent collaboration with McDonald's. While the brand aimed to use the partnership to counteract backlash over its controversial ties, Stormzy, an artist with a strong following among the British public, faced significant criticism for aligning himself with a corporation perceived to be immoral by many. Instead of enhancing McDonald's reputation, the collaboration backfired and negatively impacted Stormzy's image, as people believed he was profiting off a company with a tarnished reputation, all while staying silent on key issues.

This situation illustrates the challenge of navigating ethical boundaries when engaging with large corporations—particularly those that have made questionable decisions in the past. However, it also presents an opportunity for reimagining how brands can make amends and contribute to societal change. The Blank Canvas Project offers a way to turn these moments of controversy into a force for good by creating a model of exchange where art from those in need is sold to brands with troubled reputations.

In this context, the idea is to provide marginalised individuals—such as the homeless or survivors of hardship—with the opportunity to create meaningful art that speaks to their struggles and humanity. These works of art are not just products but reflections of deep personal experiences, making them invaluable both as an expression of resilience and as a statement of the untold stories within our communities.

Corporations with "dirty money," like McDonald's, can then step into a new narrative by financially supporting these artists. Rather than using the collaboration to merely boost their image through superficial gestures, brands would be encouraged to invest in genuine, proactive change. This exchange doesn’t seek to forgive or erase past misdeeds; instead, it challenges these corporations to back up their words with actions that truly contribute to social change. For instance, McDonald's could shift from a symbolic partnership with celebrities like Stormzy, to a more tangible and impactful model where financial support goes directly to marginalised creators and causes.

By purchasing art created by those who have been left behind, these brands cannot only help elevate those artists but also use their financial and visibility power to support real social change. The public-facing nature of these actions would provide a form of corporate accountability, showing that brands are willing to invest in more than just profit, but in human dignity and empowerment.

This framework, like the Blank Canvas Project, offers a path where marginalised individuals are uplifted, given an opportunity to thrive, and can contribute to the broader social dialogue. The art becomes a vehicle for change—offering people in need both financial compensation and a platform to tell their stories. Meanwhile, corporations have the chance to rehabilitate their reputations by aligning with something that is truly impactful.

This model also acknowledges the moral complexity of partnerships like Stormzy’s collaboration with McDonald’s. Rather than condemning these brands outright, it opens up the possibility of transforming their role in society by facilitating a positive exchange. If companies like McDonald's are willing to invest in art that tells the truth about hardship and struggle, they have an opportunity to make a real difference—one that goes beyond surface-level image repair, and into the realm of accountability and social change.

The Blank Canvas Project, then, creates a scenario where people in need can benefit from resources traditionally inaccessible to them—resources that could directly help them overcome their circumstances. The corporations involved are not absolved of past actions but are instead asked to participate in an ongoing process of change, one that brings them closer to the people and communities they’ve previously overlooked. It is through this exchange that both parties—marginalised individuals and corporations with damaged reputations—have the potential to move toward a future rooted in empathy, social responsibility, and real transformation.

STORE

“Our artists, those marginalised, divided, and struggling in need of ignored change, have the option to either sell their artwork directly and personally benefit from their creations or contribute their pieces to our collective community gallery. By joining the gallery, their work becomes part of a larger movement aimed at addressing the broader issue of societal inequality. These pieces will be offered to corporations, who can purchase them not only to help improve their public image but also to make a tangible, positive and direct impact on society.”

- Value Beyond the Art Itself: The price of the art reflects not just the creativity but the story and lived experience behind the piece. It becomes a testament to resilience and survival, giving the artist’s experiences the value and respect they deserve.

- Empowering Artists: By setting higher prices, you're ensuring that the artists are compensated fairly for their work, which reflects their true worth and potential. High prices can elevate the perception of their work and help raise awareness of their struggles, while also enabling them to transform their lives.

- Social Change Through Art: The money raised from these pieces can go beyond just helping the artists. It could also be directed toward support programs, housing initiatives, or mental health services that tackle the root causes of homelessness. This creates a multifaceted solution that is long-term and sustainable.

- Ethical Trade and Investment: You could emphasise that by paying a premium, you're creating a system of ethical trade—where art is valued for its cultural, emotional, and personal significance, not just for its commercial appeal. This shifts the power from a system that profits off exploitation to one that seeks to correct inequalities.

- Contributing to Systemic Change: The high price also symbolises that homelessness and poverty are not issues to be overlooked or commodified in a shallow sense. It's a reminder that real change requires significant investment, both emotionally and financially.

### 2. Potential Costs to Solve Homelessness in the UK – Hypothetical Stats:

While it’s difficult to give an exact figure (since homelessness is a complex, multi-faceted issue), I can offer a general estimate of what it might cost to provide comprehensive support for homelessness in the UK. Here's an overview of some statistics and estimates:

- Homelessness in the UK: According to Shelter, in 2023, there were approximately 280,000 people in the UK who were homeless or living in temporary accommodation.

- Average Cost to House a Person: The cost of housing someone in temporary accommodation or providing permanent housing varies, but estimates suggest it could range from £10,000 to £30,000 per year per person. This depends on the type of accommodation and support services provided.

- Comprehensive Support (Housing + Services): A more holistic approach that includes mental health support, job training, and social services can increase costs. According to some estimates, providing full support services and permanent housing for someone could cost around £40,000 to £50,000 per person per year.

- Rough Calculation:

- If we were to assume £40,000 per person for comprehensive support, to house and support 280,000 homeless people for one year would cost approximately £11.2 billion.

- Long-Term Housing Solutions: Some organisations argue that investing in preventative measures (like affordable housing and support for at-risk individuals) would reduce the long-term costs significantly, but it’s still a huge financial commitment. The goal should be sustainable models that stop homelessness from happening in the first place.

You could present these numbers as a real-world challenge, showing that while the problem is huge, every effort counts—and that your project can be one small part of the broader solution. By creating a market for art from marginalised individuals, you're not only giving them a chance to thrive, but also encouraging society to invest in solutions to homelessness.

### 3. Taking a Percentage – How to Justify It Morally:

Taking a percentage of the earnings is a common practice in many social enterprises, but it’s important to do so transparently and ethically. Here’s how to approach it:

- Clear Transparency: Be open about the percentage you are taking, and explain why it is necessary for the functioning of the project. For example, this money could go towards:

- Operational costs (e.g., art supplies, gallery space, marketing).

- Fundraising and awareness-building (e.g., website upkeep, events to promote the art, partnerships with brands or corporations).

- Support for the artists (e.g., administrative help, training, or additional support programs that directly benefit the artists).

- Reinvestment into the Mission: Emphasise that any percentage you take is reinvested into the long-term sustainability of the project. This allows you to expand the reach of the initiative and help even more individuals.

- Fair Compensation for Your Work: You can also state that the percentage reflects the work and time you put into creating the platform, connecting the artists to buyers, and managing the logistics. Your role is crucial in providing the necessary infrastructure and expertise to bring these stories and artworks to a wider audience.

- Cap on Percentage: If possible, consider setting a capped percentage to show your commitment to the artists. This way, artists know they are receiving the bulk of the profits, while you are covering just enough to keep the project sustainable.

- Sharing Profits: If you want to make it even more morally compelling, consider a profit-sharing model where you take a percentage but also allocate a portion of your earnings to causes directly related to addressing homelessness, such as housing funds or advocacy work. This would show that the project is truly dedicated to social impact, not just financial gain.

By framing your percentage as necessary for growth, sustainability, and reinvestment in the artists and their work, it helps prevent the perception that you’re exploiting the individuals involved.

- Communication is Key: Be transparent in your messaging. Explain the dual mission of the project—empowering artists and making a broader impact on homelessness.

- Value Creation: Emphasise that the high prices reflect the true value of the art, the importance of the story behind it, and the need to reinvest in addressing homelessness.

- Long-Term Vision: Make it clear that while the project involves art, the true goal is a cultural shift where those who are struggling are given platforms to thrive, not just survive.

This approach should help you frame your project as not only a financial exchange but a moral and social movement aimed at bringing about real change.

Both approaches you’re considering have strong potential, and ultimately, the decision depends on what aligns best with your long-term vision for the project and the scale of impact you want to create. Here’s a breakdown of the pros and cons of each approach to help you think through it:

### 1. Selling Each Piece Individually and Directly to the Artist:

Pros:

- Direct Empowerment for Artists: Each artist receives immediate financial compensation for their work, which can make a tangible difference in their life right away.

- Personal Connection: By selling pieces individually, you maintain a personal connection between the artist and their buyer. This can also create an opportunity for storytelling—buyers might learn more about the artist's background, struggles, and journey, deepening their appreciation of the work.

- Transparency and Fairness: You can ensure a direct flow of funds to the artists, with a clear and transparent system for how much they earn per piece.

- Scalability in Terms of Number of Artists: You could potentially have a wide variety of artists creating pieces, each with a unique story, contributing to a broader diversity of works.

Cons:

- Limited Reach and Impact: While this approach is certainly meaningful, it might not have the global visibility or financial power that large corporations can provide. You may be restricted by smaller sales or a more niche market.

- Time-Intensive: Selling each piece individually could require more effort in terms of managing sales, logistics, and marketing on a per-artist basis.

This approach is ideal if:

- You want to give immediate relief to each individual artist.

- You value personal, human connections with each artist and buyer.

- You prefer a more hands-on, community-driven model.

### 2. Gathering a Collective of Artists to Sell to Big Corporations:

Pros:

- Massive Financial Potential: By selling to large corporations, you open the possibility of significant profits, which can be reinvested into the project or distributed among the artists. This model has the potential to generate far larger sums than individual sales.

- Platform for Collective Power: A collective of artists gives you the chance to build a larger, unified narrative—presenting a group of marginalised voices instead of isolated individuals, which can be more powerful in terms of advocacy and visibility.

- Publicity and Scale: Big corporations bring massive exposure, which can not only help raise awareness about homelessness and the project but can also draw attention from other organisations and potentially change the public discourse around the issue.

- Strategic Partnerships for Long-Term Impact: Selling to corporations opens up the opportunity for ongoing partnerships that fund larger social initiatives, provide long-term job opportunities for artists, and contribute to systemic change.

Cons:

- Risk of Commercialisation: There’s a risk that the project could be perceived as “selling out” or focusing too much on profit at the expense of the artists’ autonomy. You’d need to carefully navigate the ethics of working with corporations, ensuring the focus remains on helping the marginalized and not just using their art for commercial gain.

- Corporate Control: While corporations can provide funding and exposure, they may try to influence the artwork or message to suit their own interests. It’s important to ensure the artists retain control over the narrative and message.

- Not All Corporations Will Be Aligned with the Vision: Some brands, even with a tarnished reputation, may not align with your core mission or may see the project as a quick fix for their image, rather than a genuine social change initiative.

This approach is ideal if:

- You want to scale the project quickly and aim for massive financial impact to make a lasting difference.

- You have the ability to manage complex relationships with corporations and ensure the project’s mission stays intact.

- You want to build a collective, movement-like identity around the artwork and the artists.

### Potential Hybrid Model:

If you’re unsure, you could combine both approaches and create a more balanced model:

- Direct Sales: Sell some pieces directly to buyers (individuals, galleries, smaller corporations) at a higher price, ensuring the artists get fair compensation for their work.

- Corporate Partnerships: At the same time, build partnerships with corporations for larger campaigns or collections that could involve multiple artists and result in significant revenue for both the project and the artists collectively.

This hybrid model could allow for immediate individual empowerment (through direct sales) while also aiming for big breakthroughs through larger partnerships, creating a more sustainable, scalable project.

### Key Takeaways:

- If your primary goal is to empower the individual artist and provide immediate relief, then selling each piece directly to the artist would be a great route.

- If you want to attack it big and aim for transformative wealth and influence, selling to corporations could have far-reaching consequences, both financially and in terms of visibility.

- If you want a mix of both, a hybrid model allows you to build immediate impact through individual sales while also working toward long-term, large-scale change through corporate involvement.

Ultimately, the choice is ours. Would we prefer to make an immediate difference in the lives of our struggling artists, or would we like to scale the project for a broader societal shift that may take longer but potentially result in bigger systemic change?

Our artists decide whether they directly earn from a piece or add it to our gallery in hope of tackling the wider issue. Will those in hardship be selfless or or no better than those keeping them starved. Now’s the time to find out.

Math mathing?

To eradicate homelessness in the UK, a combination of affordable housing, comprehensive support services, and prevention strategies is key. Financially, estimates suggest at least £10-15 billion could be required to build enough social housing, provide emergency shelters, offer mental health and addiction treatment, and support job training. The capital would primarily go towards:

1. Building thousands of affordable homes.

2. Expanding mental health and addiction services.

3. Implementing preventative programs (e.g., rental assistance, eviction prevention).

4. Providing immediate shelter and support services.

This would require coordinated efforts between the government, private sector, and non-profits.

Does immigration hinder this plan’s effectiveness?

The negative outlook on welcoming migrants in economically struggling countries, despite the potential positive contributions of migrants, is often shaped by a complex set of factors. These include political, social, economic, and psychological dynamics, as well as the contrast with the lack of action from those who could bring about systemic change. Here are some key reasons:

### 1. Perceived Economic Strain:

Many people fear that migrants—especially those who are refugees, asylum seekers, or low-skilled workers—might place a strain on social services, healthcare, and housing, particularly in countries already struggling economically. The idea is that these services may be stretched thin and migrants might not contribute economically in the short term, especially if they require public assistance or have difficulties integrating into the workforce.

### 2. Cultural and Social Tensions:

Cultural and identity concerns also play a significant role. Some citizens may feel that a large influx of migrants could change the social fabric, traditions, or values of their communities. These anxieties are often amplified by media narratives and political rhetoric that focus on fear, leading to a perception that migrants pose a threat to national identity, rather than an opportunity for cultural enrichment.

### 3. Political Manipulation:

Politicians often exploit migration issues to galvanise voter bases, particularly in times of economic difficulty. By framing migrants as "outsiders" who might compete for jobs or resources, some politicians create scapegoats to deflect attention from deeper systemic problems. This may distract the public from addressing the role of wealthy elites or corporate interests that perpetuate inequality or fail to invest in broad societal solutions.

### 4. Lack of Public Understanding:

There can be a general lack of understanding about the economic and societal benefits of migration. Migrants often contribute significantly to the economy by filling labor shortages, starting businesses, and paying taxes. However, these contributions may not be well-publicised, and the public may only hear about challenges or negative experiences. The benefits of migration are often underappreciated or misrepresented.

### 5. Economic Elites' Responsibility:

The sense of frustration you mentioned about those capable of creating true positive change (i.e., the wealthy elites or corporate leaders) is understandable. Many critics argue that these elites have the financial means to drive change but often fail to use their influence to address structural problems like poverty, inequality, or the conditions that lead to migration. Instead, they may focus on short-term profits or policies that serve their interests, which creates a cycle of stagnation for the broader population.

The reality is that migration could be an important part of a solution, but it requires careful management, integration strategies, and investment in both migrant and host communities. When elites do not act responsibly—by improving systems or investing in social infrastructure—migration issues can appear as "problems" rather than solutions.

### 6. Psychological Factors:

Humans tend to have an "us vs. them" mentality, especially when facing uncertainty. Migrants can be seen as "outsiders," and this perception can lead to xenophobia or fear of change. Even when migrants bring positive contributions, they may be viewed through a lens of competition rather than cooperation.

### Conclusion:

The negative outlook on migration in struggling economies is often more about perception, fear, and political manipulation than about the actual economic or social impacts of migration. At the same time, it's true that many of the wealthiest individuals and corporations have the resources and capacity to make a far greater positive impact on society, including addressing issues like migration, inequality, and economic instability. Their failure to do so often exacerbates problems and makes migration, which could otherwise be a solution, more contentious.

Would migration be necessary should conflict hypothetically be eradicated completely?

If global conflict were hypothetically eradicated completely, migration patterns would likely change, but migration might not disappear entirely. People move for various reasons beyond conflict, such as:

1. Economic Opportunity: Many individuals migrate in search of better job prospects, higher wages, or improved quality of life, even in the absence of conflict. The search for economic advancement could still drive migration, especially from regions with fewer opportunities.

2. Climate Change and Environmental Factors: Even without conflict, environmental challenges like climate change, natural disasters, and resource depletion would continue to influence migration. People may be forced to relocate from areas with droughts, floods, or other environmental stresses.

3. Family Reunification and Personal Choice: People migrate to join family members or to pursue personal goals, such as education or career development. Even in a peaceful world, these motivations would continue to drive migration.

4. Cultural and Social Reasons: Cultural exchange, study abroad opportunities, and the desire to experience different societies may also continue to drive migration.

5. Aging Populations and Labor Demand: In many developed countries, aging populations could lead to a need for younger workers, thus encouraging migration as a way to fill labor gaps.

So, while conflict is a significant driver of migration, it is not the sole cause. Migration would still occur in a world without conflict, driven by economic, environmental, social, and demographic factors.

So should the wealthy hypothetically invest more into communities and people most in need globally if we’d live in a better world over time?

Yes, hypothetically, if the wealthy were to invest more significantly into communities and people most in need, we could likely see significant improvements in society over time. Here's why:

### 1. Reducing Inequality:

Wealthy individuals and corporations have the financial means to make a substantial difference. If they invested in education, healthcare, housing, and social services, they could help reduce inequality and provide greater opportunities for marginalised communities. This would break cycles of poverty, improve quality of life, and lead to more social mobility. Over time, this would likely result in a more equitable society where more people can contribute meaningfully to the economy and social well-being.

### 2. Creating Sustainable Economic Growth:

Investing in communities can lead to long-term economic benefits. For example, funding education, job training, and skills development could help individuals secure better-paying jobs and become more productive members of the workforce. When people have access to good jobs, they contribute to the economy through taxes, spending, and innovation. This can create a virtuous cycle where a better-educated, healthier, and more skilled population drives sustained economic growth.

### 3. Improved Health and Well-being:

Wealthy investments in healthcare, mental health services, and affordable housing could dramatically improve the overall well-being of society. When people have access to basic needs like healthcare and safe living conditions, it reduces stress, improves productivity, and prevents societal issues like homelessness or chronic illness. This leads to healthier, happier communities with lower long-term healthcare costs.

### 4. Fostering Innovation and Entrepreneurship:

By investing in underserved communities, the wealthy can provide the resources and infrastructure necessary for innovation and entrepreneurship. When people from diverse backgrounds have access to education and capital, they can create businesses, solve problems, and bring fresh perspectives to industries. This can lead to innovation that benefits society as a whole.

### 5. Stronger Social Cohesion:

When the wealthy invest in improving the lives of those most in need, it can reduce social divisions and promote unity. People are more likely to feel invested in a society where they see tangible efforts being made to improve their well-being. This can lead to stronger social cohesion, greater trust in institutions, and less social unrest or polarisation.

### 6. Environmental Sustainability:

Investing in communities isn't limited to just economic development—wealthy individuals and corporations could also fund sustainable environmental practices that benefit both people and the planet. This could include investing in clean energy, sustainable agriculture, and environmental conservation efforts. Over time, such investments could help mitigate climate change, reduce environmental degradation, and promote a more sustainable future for everyone.

### 7. Addressing Global Challenges:

If the wealthy were to direct investments toward pressing global issues like climate change, education, and global health, their impact could be far-reaching. Philanthropy and social investments could help tackle challenges that require coordinated global responses, such as pandemics or environmental crises. With the right focus, these investments could create positive ripple effects on a global scale.

### The Bigger Picture:

While the wealthy alone can't solve all societal problems, their financial capacity positions them uniquely to make a significant difference. In an ideal scenario, they would work in tandem with governments, NGOs, and other organisations to drive systemic change. However, systemic issues—such as structural inequalities, government policies, and global economic systems—would also need to be addressed to ensure that the benefits of these investments reach those who need them most.

### Conclusion:

If the wealthy took a more active role in investing in the well-being of communities, people would likely experience better living conditions, more opportunities, and higher standards of living. Over time, this could create a more just, prosperous, and sustainable world. However, for this to happen, the wealthy must shift their focus from short-term profits to long-term societal benefits, and governments would need to create frameworks that ensure these investments are directed effectively to where they're most needed.

See yourself.

Inez Bodur

Transformative Exchange (BCP)

- **Value Beyond the Art Itself:** The price of the art reflects not just the creativity but the **story and lived experience** behind the piece. It becomes a **testament to resilience** and survival, giving the artist’s experiences the value and respect they deserve.

- **Contributing to Systemic Change:** The high price also symbolises that homelessness and poverty are not issues to be overlooked or commodified in a shallow sense. It's a reminder that **real change requires significant investment**, both emotionally and financially.

### 2. **Potential Costs to Solve Homelessness in the UK – Hypothetical Stats:**

While it’s difficult to give an exact figure (since homelessness is a complex, multi-faceted issue), I can offer a **general estimate** of what it might cost to provide comprehensive support for homelessness in the UK. Here's an overview of some statistics and estimates:

- **Homelessness in the UK:** According to Shelter, in 2023, there were approximately **280,000 people** in the UK who were homeless or living in temporary accommodation.

- **Average Cost to House a Person:** The cost of housing someone in temporary accommodation or providing permanent housing varies, but estimates suggest it could range from **£10,000 to £30,000 per year** per person. This depends on the type of accommodation and support services provided.

- **Rough Calculation:**

- If we were to assume £40,000 per person for comprehensive support, to house and support 280,000 homeless people for one year would cost approximately **£11.2 billion**.

### 3. **Taking a Percentage – How to Justify It Morally:**

Taking a percentage of the earnings is a common practice in many social enterprises, but it’s important to do so transparently and ethically. Here’s how to approach it:

- **Clear Transparency:** Be open about the percentage you are taking, and explain why it is necessary for the functioning of the project. For example, this money could go towards:

- **Operational costs** (e.g., art supplies, gallery space, marketing).

- **Fundraising and awareness-building** (e.g., website upkeep, events to promote the art, partnerships with brands or corporations).

- **Support for the artists** (e.g., administrative help, training, or additional support programs that directly benefit the artists).

- **Reinvestment into the Mission:** Emphasise that any percentage you take is reinvested into the **long-term sustainability** of the project. This allows you to **expand the reach** of the initiative and help even more individuals.

- **Cap on Percentage:** If possible, consider setting a **capped percentage** to show your commitment to the artists. This way, artists know they are receiving the bulk of the profits, while you are covering just enough to keep the project sustainable.

By framing your percentage as **necessary for growth, sustainability, and reinvestment** in the artists and their work, it helps prevent the perception that you’re exploiting the individuals involved.

- **Communication is Key:** Be transparent in your messaging. Explain the **dual mission** of the project—empowering artists and making a broader impact on homelessness.

- **Value Creation:** Emphasise that the high prices reflect the **true value** of the art, the importance of the story behind it, and the need to reinvest in addressing homelessness.

- **Long-Term Vision:** Make it clear that while the project involves art, the true goal is a **cultural shift** where those who are struggling are given platforms to thrive, not just survive.

This approach should help you frame your project as not only a financial exchange but a **moral and social movement** aimed at bringing about real change.

Both approaches you’re considering have strong potential, and ultimately, the decision depends on what aligns best with your long-term vision for the project and the scale of impact you want to create. Here’s a breakdown of the pros and cons of each approach to help you think through it:

### 1. **Selling Each Piece Individually and Directly to the Artist:**

**Pros:**

- **Direct Empowerment for Artists:** Each artist receives immediate financial compensation for their work, which can make a tangible difference in their life right away.

- **Transparency and Fairness:** You can ensure a direct flow of funds to the artists, with a clear and transparent system for how much they earn per piece.

- **Scalability in Terms of Number of Artists:** You could potentially have a wide variety of artists creating pieces, each with a unique story, contributing to a broader diversity of works.

**Cons:**

- **Limited Reach and Impact:** While this approach is certainly meaningful, it might not have the **global visibility or financial power** that large corporations can provide. You may be restricted by smaller sales or a more niche market.

- **Time-Intensive:** Selling each piece individually could require more effort in terms of managing sales, logistics, and marketing on a per-artist basis.

**This approach is ideal if:**

- You want to give **immediate relief** to each individual artist.

- You value **personal, human connections** with each artist and buyer.

- You prefer a **more hands-on, community-driven** model.

### 2. **Gathering a Collective of Artists to Sell to Big Corporations:**

**Pros:**

- **Massive Financial Potential:** By selling to large corporations, you open the possibility of significant profits, which can be reinvested into the project or distributed among the artists. This model has the potential to generate **far larger sums** than individual sales.

- **Platform for Collective Power:** A collective of artists gives you the chance to build a **larger, unified narrative**—presenting a group of marginalised voices instead of isolated individuals, which can be more powerful in terms of advocacy and visibility.

- **Publicity and Scale:** Big corporations bring massive exposure, which can not only help raise awareness about homelessness and the project but can also draw attention from **other organisations** and potentially change the public discourse around the issue.

- **Strategic Partnerships for Long-Term Impact:** Selling to corporations opens up the opportunity for **ongoing partnerships** that fund larger social initiatives, provide long-term job opportunities for artists, and contribute to systemic change.

**Cons:**

- **Corporate Control:** While corporations can provide funding and exposure, they may try to influence the **artwork or message** to suit their own interests. It’s important to ensure the artists retain control over the narrative and message.

- **Not All Corporations Will Be Aligned with the Vision:** Some brands, even with a tarnished reputation, may not align with your core mission or may see the project as a quick fix for their image, rather than a genuine social change initiative.

**This approach is ideal if:**

- You want to **scale** the project quickly and aim for **massive financial impact** to make a lasting difference.

- You have the ability to **manage complex relationships** with corporations and ensure the project’s mission stays intact.

- You want to **build a collective, movement-like identity** around the artwork and the artists.

### Potential Hybrid Model:

If you’re unsure, you could **combine both approaches** and create a more balanced model:

- **Direct Sales**: Sell some pieces directly to buyers (individuals, galleries, smaller corporations) at a higher price, ensuring the artists get fair compensation for their work.

- **Corporate Partnerships**: At the same time, build partnerships with corporations for **larger campaigns** or collections that could involve multiple artists and result in **significant revenue** for both the project and the artists collectively.

This hybrid model could allow for immediate individual empowerment (through direct sales) while also aiming for big breakthroughs through larger partnerships, creating a more sustainable, scalable project.

### Key Takeaways:

- If your primary goal is to **empower the individual artist** and provide immediate relief, then selling each piece directly to the artist would be a great route.

- If you want to **attack it big** and aim for **transformative wealth and influence**, selling to corporations could have far-reaching consequences, both financially and in terms of visibility.

- If you want a mix of both, a **hybrid model** allows you to build immediate impact through individual sales while also working toward long-term, large-scale change through corporate involvement.

Ultimately, the choice is ours. Would we prefer to make an immediate difference in the lives of our struggling artists, or would we like to scale the project for a broader societal shift that may take longer but potentially result in **bigger systemic change**?

Our artists decide whether they directly earn from a piece or add it to our gallery in hope of tackling the wider issue. Will those in hardship be selfless or or no better than those keeping them starved. Now’s the time to find out.

Math mathing?

1. Building thousands of affordable homes.

2. Expanding mental health and addiction services.

3. Implementing preventative programs (e.g., rental assistance, eviction prevention).

4. Providing immediate shelter and support services.

This would require coordinated efforts between the government, private sector, and non-profits.

Does immigration hinder this plan’s effectiveness?

### 1. **Perceived Economic Strain**:

### 2. **Cultural and Social Tensions**:

### 3. **Political Manipulation**:

### 4. **Lack of Public Understanding**:

### 5. **Economic Elites' Responsibility**:

### 6. **Psychological Factors**:

### Conclusion:

Would migration be necessary should conflict hypothetically be eradicated completely?

If global conflict were hypothetically eradicated completely, migration patterns would likely change, but migration might not disappear entirely. People move for various reasons beyond conflict, such as:

1. **Economic Opportunity**: Many individuals migrate in search of better job prospects, higher wages, or improved quality of life, even in the absence of conflict. The search for economic advancement could still drive migration, especially from regions with fewer opportunities.

- Value Beyond the Art Itself: The price of the art reflects not just the creativity but the story and lived experience behind the piece. It becomes a testament to resilience and survival, giving the artist’s experiences the value and respect they deserve.

- Contributing to Systemic Change: The high price also symbolises that homelessness and poverty are not issues to be overlooked or commodified in a shallow sense. It's a reminder that real change requires significant investment, both emotionally and financially.

### 2. Potential Costs to Solve Homelessness in the UK – Hypothetical Stats:

While it’s difficult to give an exact figure (since homelessness is a complex, multi-faceted issue), I can offer a general estimate of what it might cost to provide comprehensive support for homelessness in the UK. Here's an overview of some statistics and estimates:

- Homelessness in the UK: According to Shelter, in 2023, there were approximately 280,000 people in the UK who were homeless or living in temporary accommodation.

- Average Cost to House a Person: The cost of housing someone in temporary accommodation or providing permanent housing varies, but estimates suggest it could range from £10,000 to £30,000 per year per person. This depends on the type of accommodation and support services provided.

- Rough Calculation:

- If we were to assume £40,000 per person for comprehensive support, to house and support 280,000 homeless people for one year would cost approximately £11.2 billion.

### 3. Taking a Percentage – How to Justify It Morally:

- Clear Transparency: Be open about the percentage you are taking, and explain why it is necessary for the functioning of the project. For example, this money could go towards:

- Operational costs (e.g., art supplies, gallery space, marketing).

- Fundraising and awareness-building (e.g., website upkeep, events to promote the art, partnerships with brands or corporations).

- Support for the artists (e.g., administrative help, training, or additional support programs that directly benefit the artists).

- Reinvestment into the Mission: Emphasise that any percentage you take is reinvested into the long-term sustainability of the project. This allows you to expand the reach of the initiative and help even more individuals.

- Cap on Percentage: If possible, consider setting a capped percentage to show your commitment to the artists. This way, artists know they are receiving the bulk of the profits, while you are covering just enough to keep the project sustainable.

By framing your percentage as necessary for growth, sustainability, and reinvestment in the artists and their work, it helps prevent the perception that you’re exploiting the individuals involved.

- Communication is Key: Be transparent in your messaging. Explain the dual mission of the project—empowering artists and making a broader impact on homelessness.

- Value Creation: Emphasise that the high prices reflect the true value of the art, the importance of the story behind it, and the need to reinvest in addressing homelessness.

- Long-Term Vision: Make it clear that while the project involves art, the true goal is a cultural shift where those who are struggling are given platforms to thrive, not just survive.

This approach should help you frame your project as not only a financial exchange but a moral and social movement aimed at bringing about real change.

### 1. Selling Each Piece Individually and Directly to the Artist:

Pros:

- Direct Empowerment for Artists: Each artist receives immediate financial compensation for their work, which can make a tangible difference in their life right away.

- Transparency and Fairness: You can ensure a direct flow of funds to the artists, with a clear and transparent system for how much they earn per piece.

- Scalability in Terms of Number of Artists: You could potentially have a wide variety of artists creating pieces, each with a unique story, contributing to a broader diversity of works.

Cons:

- Limited Reach and Impact: While this approach is certainly meaningful, it might not have the global visibility or financial power that large corporations can provide. You may be restricted by smaller sales or a more niche market.

- Time-Intensive: Selling each piece individually could require more effort in terms of managing sales, logistics, and marketing on a per-artist basis.

This approach is ideal if:

- You want to give immediate relief to each individual artist.

- You value personal, human connections with each artist and buyer.

- You prefer a more hands-on, community-driven model.

### 2. Gathering a Collective of Artists to Sell to Big Corporations:

Pros:

- Massive Financial Potential: By selling to large corporations, you open the possibility of significant profits, which can be reinvested into the project or distributed among the artists. This model has the potential to generate far larger sums than individual sales.

- Platform for Collective Power: A collective of artists gives you the chance to build a larger, unified narrative—presenting a group of marginalised voices instead of isolated individuals, which can be more powerful in terms of advocacy and visibility.

- Publicity and Scale: Big corporations bring massive exposure, which can not only help raise awareness about homelessness and the project but can also draw attention from other organisations and potentially change the public discourse around the issue.

- Strategic Partnerships for Long-Term Impact: Selling to corporations opens up the opportunity for ongoing partnerships that fund larger social initiatives, provide long-term job opportunities for artists, and contribute to systemic change.

Cons:

- Corporate Control: While corporations can provide funding and exposure, they may try to influence the artwork or message to suit their own interests. It’s important to ensure the artists retain control over the narrative and message.

- Not All Corporations Will Be Aligned with the Vision: Some brands, even with a tarnished reputation, may not align with your core mission or may see the project as a quick fix for their image, rather than a genuine social change initiative.

This approach is ideal if:

- You want to scale the project quickly and aim for massive financial impact to make a lasting difference.

- You have the ability to manage complex relationships with corporations and ensure the project’s mission stays intact.

- You want to build a collective, movement-like identity around the artwork and the artists.

If you’re unsure, you could combine both approaches and create a more balanced model:

- Direct Sales: Sell some pieces directly to buyers (individuals, galleries, smaller corporations) at a higher price, ensuring the artists get fair compensation for their work.

- Corporate Partnerships: At the same time, build partnerships with corporations for larger campaigns or collections that could involve multiple artists and result in significant revenue for both the project and the artists collectively.

- If your primary goal is to empower the individual artist and provide immediate relief, then selling each piece directly to the artist would be a great route.

- If you want to attack it big and aim for transformative wealth and influence, selling to corporations could have far-reaching consequences, both financially and in terms of visibility.

- If you want a mix of both, a hybrid model allows you to build immediate impact through individual sales while also working toward long-term, large-scale change through corporate involvement.

Ultimately, the choice is ours. Would we prefer to make an immediate difference in the lives of our struggling artists, or would we like to scale the project for a broader societal shift that may take longer but potentially result in bigger systemic change?

### 1. Perceived Economic Strain:

### 2. Cultural and Social Tensions:

### 3. Political Manipulation:

### 4. Lack of Public Understanding:

### 5. Economic Elites' Responsibility:

### 6. Psychological Factors:

1. Economic Opportunity: Many individuals migrate in search of better job prospects, higher wages, or improved quality of life, even in the absence of conflict. The search for economic advancement could still drive migration, especially from regions with fewer opportunities.