One starts a computer game by getting to know the place – exploring its qualities, geography, borders and the architecture of the virtual space. While the individual is immersed in the game and navigates the virtual landscape he or she is  simultaneously static and physically belongs to a specific place. These two kinds of space – the world of the game and the real world beyond it – are connected in memory and become points of entry and transition from one place and time to another. As a grown-up, Sarokin uses a favourite game from his childhood, Prince of Persia, to travel back in time to his parents’ house. In an attempt to rewrite his childhood, the artist transforms the game by voicing it with his grown-up voice, reversing the narrative and breaking the uniformity of the visuals. Sarokin applies  his method of working with sound and assembles the video materials from  the game in order to manipulate only that part of reality which is available for rewriting and only the facets of it which can be transformed. 

Sarokin comprehends why a feeling of comfort and security is created inside the virtual world. It demonstrates the transition from a universal experience to a unique and special intimate relationship between the game interface and the player that blurs the boundaries between the external and the internal. It is important that the difference between the nostalgic space of memories and the digital space of a computer game is removed by becoming a single structure that organizes memory. 

Sarokin comprehends, due to which a feeling of comfort and security within the virtual world is created. It is important that the difference between the nostalgic space of memories and the digital space of a computer game is removed, becoming a single structure that organizes memory. Sarokin redirects a nostalgic intention, which is very important for a post-Soviet person, into an active attitude to the digital space and demonstrates the ease with which such a seemingly unchanging structure as an interface is reformatted... The interface provides interaction between a person, a machine, a program, a game, etc. Reassembling an already seemingly unchanging game with an established narrative and rules, Sarokin demonstrates a revolutionary intention, which is shown not as a destructive tendency aimed at destroying the structure, but as a desire to search for individual comfort within an already formed reality.

Interviews with 3 musicians from Minsk: Pomidoroff, Rusia, Mikhal Anempadystau about Belarusian language in music. Russian was one language of the Belarusian modernisation from 1918 until the late 1980s. During the early years of Perestroika Belarusian became a form of resistance. In the new Law About Languages it was fixed as an official state language but already five years later the law was changed and both Belarusian and Russian have been indexed as state languages; using one or another language is often considered a statement.

In addition to the language, the country also faced the question of the country's future political development: should Belarus become part of the EU or remain in an alliance with Russia. It is known that the country's leader made a choice in favor of the latter. In turn, Belarusian intellectuals consider this choice “dramatic” and see in it the reason why the Belarusian language is not widespread even in a country with a population of 9.5 million people, of which more than 80% are “ethnic Belarusians”.

The Soviet project used language as a means of unification. That is why the issue of national identification in the post-Soviet space is directly related to the problem of language. In Belarus, passionate discussions are underway about old ideas about language as the basis of national identity and a closed and totalitarian system and more modern ideas about a construct and flexible constantly changing structure (discussions that are very timely due to the spread of the Internet and the associated project of globalization ). Language is a powerful tool for identification and socialization. In a situation where the authorities use language as an ideological tool, the invention of new ways of articulation and the study of new (or rethinking of old) linguistic possibilities become potential ways of protest. The work also raises the question of the role of language in the act of self-expression and the creative possibilities that exist within the act of speaking.

The work is documenting the movement of the protest rally on the bridge in the city center of Minsk. The camera is centered on the monumental high relief Solidarity, created in 1979 by Anatol Arcimovich and Anatol Jaskin. The sculpture pictures the citizens of the Soviet Union, Vietnam, China, India, Palestine, Chili, Cuba, Angola, who are marching for their rights and liberties. This work is based on a comparison of the solidarity of the now protesters of the citizens of Belarus and a monumental work of the Soviet period.

Who is an eyewitness in the conditions of free exchange of information and what political tools does he possess? Talstou uses the gesture of simple documentation as an artistic strategy that excludes the artist's personal and political interpretation of events and thus renounces idiologizing optics. The act of documentation is increasingly becoming a political and civil act. (For example, since 2012, the world-famous internet site witness.org has been launched, with the help of this website  an eyewitness can share documented events that violate civil human rights, which changes the political and legal value of the gesture of documentation). This raises questions when the optics of the observer becomes subjective and what role the artist can play in the act of simple documentation.

Talstou uses the position of the camera to build specific optics, comparing the immobilized solidarity of peoples, captured on a monumental Soviet bas-relief, and the act of solidarity of protesters during a march in Minsk. It combines with one visual row the current protests and the concept of solidarity used within the Soviet project, and thus unites them.

We do not support extremist activities and do not advise you.

In September a video, showing the work of an artificial intelligence algorithm that removes masks from Belarusian security forces, got on YouTube. The video was presented on behalf of Cyberpartisans, a hacker organization currently operating in Belarus, breaking into the state sites and ironically rewriting them.

What triggers and fears haunt the user of modern devices? Maximov uses the tendency to demonize artificial intelligence as a manipulative technique. This manipulative technique works due to the fact that artificial intelligence is positioned in the media as a technology capable of making a person very vulnerable in front of a power, since his / her personal sphere becomes transparent before the eye of Big Brother. The fear of personal information manipulation is one of the strongest triggers of the last decade, which has exposed the issue of the importance of the privacy sphere.

Maximov, in turn, demonstrates the opposite situation, where the tools of subordination and control pass from the hands of political leaders to the hands of IT developers. As a result, the power structure itself becomes more transparent in an environment where everyone can be identified. Cyber ​​partisans, together with the NEXTA telegram channel, published an information base with all the data of police officers, which provoked a different reaction among Belarusian citizens, mainly calling for respect for the private sphere of each citizen, regardless of his role in the political struggle.