It should be noted here that in an earlier interview Alisa said that she has no interest in the standard operating scheme, whereby the artist goes to a residence, studies the local context and puts on an exhibition about it. She is interested in studying a place, and then putting on an exhibition in a different location, at the next stop, taking what she has seen further on. This time everything changed, however, and it became clear that it is a matter of these specific people with a fire burning in their eyes, people for whom it is important that they are being depicted, be it alongside the head of an ancient boy on a display screen or alongside a map of Taman Bay and a model of a sunken ship. And here we must return to the discussion of the art residency system and how it works. Today, there's a host of different formats, but nevertheless the most widespread is as follows: a residency is created in order to interact with a territory, to become part of the local community or to form a community around itself, establishing friendly relations with other cultural organizations in the region, particularly if they themselves don't maintain links with one another. These are all genuinely laudable goals, but right now, as this text is being written, an intense discussion is underway in the Russian art community, with such goals of cultural institutions being criticized, first and foremost because the artist and his work, within this system, rather than being seen as valuable in their own right are seen, instead, as being a means of promotion for the institutions themselves and a way to win the loyalty of the local community. In turn, the locals aren't the ultimate objective, they are the means by which the territory can be conquered and mastered. These questions can't be avoided, they are currently pressing and they face all organizations administering culture, and in particular the culture of the regions. It is unlikely, however, that there is a solution to this problem: You want to support the local archaeological museum because the people that work there are enthusiasts, good girls and boys, and you like them? Or by doing so you are laying claim to the territory? And to whom does all this have to be explained and proven? In this situation, it really does seem to be the case that the safest option would be to do a project that isn't site-specific, and then to take the material accumulated to the next gallery-residency-country. This is especially true as Alisa Yoffe is Golubitsky's first resident, and any way you cut it the entire weight of responsibility lies on her shoulders. In fact, her decision is also based on the fact that there is no time period long enough to truly understand the proverbial local context. If the problem can't be removed, then attention should be focused on it, and through her work the role of the artist at a residency should be examined: "he will take part in the politics of the institution, even if he isn't conscious of his participation, but I would like to be conscious of it… Instead of just being spun in the roulette wheel, I myself can spin it." It is at this point that the artist-tool turns into an artist who is an active agent, who decides that he likes these archaeologists, tour guides, academics, these museums, these digs and the site of the ancient settlement, and the project won't just be about the geo-political plight of the Taman Peninsula, it will also be about the fact that black and white pictures at the exhibition are a way of demarcating cultural routes, of making contact with organizations, with people, with a place; a way to developing, as from a negative, these links, making one's role visible and doing something for the place.