Just went for a look/see. Before venturing into the gallery I was invited to watch some videos about the 'artists' and what the 'inspirations' were that informs their work. I decided that all works of art should be self explanatory and went in. Volunteers that had been trained to explain the works were at hand. The first gallery had crude woodcuts and a childish silkscreen print, I spoke to a volunteer that informed me that the box+ blue cloth we stood next to ( made by nuns) represented the virgin Mary!. The second gallery had a collection of old plates that had been overpainted with images relating to slavery and a centrepiece of cardboard cut-out figures with childish scraps of newspaper / fabric etc pasted on. The third gallery was a slightly tedious documentary video depicting life in Gaza with some nice footage of workhorses bathing in the sea. The fourth gallery had pictures done in acrylic that were fairly competent, especially if you like pictures in barber shops or leafy abstracts. How is it that these 'artists' can get away with poor technique just because they are supposedly expressing themselves and would like us to appreciate the sentiment their 'work' rather than give us something that is aesthetically pleasing to the eye or a tour-de-force of technical ability.