THE BLANK CANVAS PORTRAIT GALLERY

Our artists, those marginalised, divided, and struggling in need of ignored change, either sell their piece and earn half of the earnings on the price they choose or contribute a portrait to our collective community gallery. By joining the gallery, their story becomes part of a larger movement aimed at addressing the broader issue of societal inequality.

For each community starting with the homeless I want to create a gallery filled with stories and art pieces where 50% percent of the earnings go towards homeless charities.

I wanna document this journey with a camera and make episodes to be shown at art galleries.

Have portraits of see yourself masked homeless people holding their art pieces on art gallery walls.

The paintings themselves on display at art galleries.

And that gives me my fulfilment as the one who came up with the idea. My number 1 priority is being fair and charitable but I also want my flowers as an artist haha.

Art gallery earnings = 50% to charity. 50% to SEE YOURSELF.

Sold pieces = 50% to artist. 30% to charity. 20% to SEE YOURSELF.

I’ve done 3 pieces so far.

Chris wanted his piece sold for £1000. £500 going to him. £500 going to a homeless charity when sold. For future pieces sold 50% will go to the artist. 30% will go to a suitable charity and 20% will go to SEE YOURSELF. I just rushed this agreement at the time because it was my first episode and I was only a boy figuring all this out lol. A replica will be shown in the gallery even if sold because I find his piece really cool.

Anders wanted no money from his piece so it has been added to the gallery.

Ian wanted no money from his piece but has a passion for true progress when it comes to bettering homelessness. His piece has been added to the gallery.

SEE YOURSELF

In a recent conversation with a former homeless person and charity volunteer, we both acknowledged that the most practical and immediate solution to homelessness is, quite simply, housing—one person at a time. Even on the smallest scale, the idea is clear: purchase five properties, house five individuals. These could be old factories, unused army bases, or affordable housing. What matters is giving someone an address—a base from which they can apply for jobs, claim housing benefits, and begin rebuilding their life.

Once this method is proven effective, it becomes repeatable. As individuals move on and become self-sufficient, their place can be offered to someone new. With more funds, more properties can be purchased, keeping the momentum going and building a model of sustainable transition. What struck us was how quickly we, as regular people with no power beyond our intent and care, could arrive at such a simple and actionable solution. If we can figure it out, why can’t the government? The answer, it seems, is that they can—but they don’t.

This raises a deeper question about intention and integrity. If those in power truly had our best interests at heart, would we still be seeing the same cyclical failures? It’s not just incompetence—it begins to look like neglect. This is where the risk lies: even if a large sum of money were made available, how do we know it wouldn’t be wasted, as so much has been before?

That’s why I’ve come to see the importance of keeping money on our platform not as profit, but as a necessary and justified reserve. At first, I questioned the morality of taking anything at all—but I now recognise it as essential. This is not money earned through greed, but through purpose. It's a bank of earned trust, built through real work and real outcomes.

This project was never born from a desire for wealth—but that doesn’t mean money isn’t a powerful tool for change. Just because something hasn’t been done before doesn’t mean it’s wrong. If anything, it’s the lack of innovation that has failed people time and again. What if, in time, we became the very force we’ve been calling out for—an entity with real power and genuine empathy, committed to helping those in need when governments and charities fall short?

A moral responsibility—a vehicle for change, earned through passionate work and guided by a vision of justice and action.

The topic of migration and asylum seekers is undeniably relevant when discussing concerns around overpopulation and its potential contribution to homelessness. Regardless of whether one sees this as good or bad, right or wrong, the reality is that it's happening—and it has a measurable impact on our systems.

What I find deeply frustrating is the contradictory stance taken by both the government and much of the public. On one hand, it's often stated—loudly—that British people should be the priority. Yet at the same time, we’re using taxpayer money to fund wars and conflicts in other countries—actions that may directly contribute to the very displacement driving more migrants and asylum seekers toward our borders.

To me, true leadership would mean opposing tyranny, division, and conflict at every level. Only then can we justifiably take a moral stance on protecting our borders. There *is* a world in which a nation can responsibly care for those already within its borders—providing support, stability, and opportunity—while simultaneously limiting further migration, *if* it also ceases to fuel the global crises that force people to flee in the first place.

What doesn’t make sense is the disconnect: ignoring the global issues we actively contribute to, while making hollow promises to a frustrated public left to deal with the consequences. It’s disingenuous and irresponsible.

The focus must shift toward truly caring for those already here, while also taking a firm and ethical stand against all forms of global tyranny. That dual approach—internal accountability paired with global responsibility—would allow us to act effectively at home while maintaining moral credibility in the eyes of the world..