Every evening closed with a ritual Masha insisted upon: the Collective Reading. A circle formed, people brought excerpted texts and found passages they were ashamed or proud to claim. Her instruction was simple: read the paragraph that has been living inside you. Some read political essays with the solemnity of confession; some read recipes or grocery lists and wept anyway. On the third night, someone read aloud a piece of raw code and the room listened as if it were scripture. The code was an algorithm that predicted whether a relationship would survive a move. It was ugly and tender and wrong, and the audience loved it for that.
It was not all performative intelligence. Real projects were hatched and incubated in corners with bad Wi-Fi. An urbanist left with a prototype for a community fridge; two strangers decided to start a publication that published only letters to neighbors; a coder promised to build a mapping tool that would remember street-level oral histories. The hardware in the ideas was modest, the ambition enormous. People took away mail addresses, usernames, and a dizzy optimism — the kind that can exist for a bubble of time before the practicalities return. Chan Forum Masha Babko
People left the building in different phases: some glowing with the high lightness of newly minted ideologies, some tired and cross because their worldview had been dented slightly, and a few privately furious at having to feel seen. The river that ran by the printing house reflected faces in waves, and later that week, some of those faces would appear in op-eds, in grant applications, in spreadsheets. Others would become a story passed on in late-night conversations. The forum itself, like any good rumor, would grow teeth and tails as it traveled. Every evening closed with a ritual Masha insisted
There were performances too — not the polished, curated kind but experiments that felt dangerous precisely because they might go wrong. A performance artist attached a glass jar to the spout of the public fountain and invited people to return a handful of coins to the city, not as donation but as apology. A musician tuned a violin to the pitch of conversation and played, not notes, but the gaps between sentences; the piece sounded like a crowd breathing at once. Some read political essays with the solemnity of
Not all reactions were warm. A contingent of journalists hovered like falcons, hungry for quotable lines and scandal. They found a half-formed argument about urban surveillance and polished it into a headline about “privacy sabotage.” The forum bristled: people misunderstood the nuance of manufactured outrages, they loathed the flattening lens of public story-telling. Yet even the journalists left murmuring, not with definitive scoops, but with a stack of questions that would bleed into the week’s columns and podcasts.
The forum encouraged a peculiar intimacy between strangers: collaborators for a weekend, adversaries for a lunch. In one corner, two programmers argued about whether algorithms could have ethics; across the room, a curator insisted that ethics were not a property to be coded but a habit to be cultivated. The argument ended not in consensus but in exchange: the programmer left with a list of book titles, the curator with a line of Python she’d promised to try. That, more than the formal conclusions, was the point — small transactions of wonder, barter of knowledge.
The venue was an old printing house near the river: brick, tilted stairways, windows lacquered in papered posters from earlier affairs. At the center, a stage built from pallets and paintbins hosted jars of green tea and a single microphone, wrapped in chestnut twine as though to keep it sentimental. The chairs were mismatched, the lighting suspiciously flattering, and the projector flame-thin, as if it strained to make anything solid. People clustered in groups that oscillated between earnestness and irony. Everyone here wanted to be surprised; most feared what that surprise would think of them.
