RECONSTRUCTION is a conversation that shifts between analyzing and locating the artist’s position in their society. Especially the power of the majority in the society over the individual. Reconstruction is a way of resistance, or the only way of resistance, at least for me.  In these pages I will talk about reconstruction as a tool in my art, and find connections between my experience and others, people who share one or several of the identities that I have, as an artist, asylum seeker, or queer. Illustrating the different use of the concept of reconstruction that I’m working on, I will introduce the artist Leileh Babirye, a Ugandan artist, living in New York. She works in a multidisciplinary practice that transforms everyday materials into objects that address issues surrounding identity, sexuality and human rights. I will also discuss the work of Miriam Cahn, through the book “I as Human'', proposing new perspectives on her writing, and her paintings based on her personal experiences, from other writers like Poul Preciado, a Spanish writer, with a long history of writing about trans struggle and rights through his own experience.  In this essay I want to try to explore and discuss the relationship between the artwork (with it’s why, when, what etcetera), the artist and the audience. For me, they are connected, and I want them to be so. My ideal, or at least what engages and interests me, is when we let art be a communication. When the work is facilitating a conversation. I see the art piece as a connecting point, with different points outside it, that exchange their reflections and communicate. I want to make this connection clear and obvious. It’s a multiple way conversation, everyone both receiving and reaching for the other. I see the artwork as a communication channel, which should have a shape that conveys the concept to make the conversation possible. That means that the artwork is a material.  That was one of the things that I tried to research in the past two years in my master studies at Konstfack. I did an experiment around this at my solo exhibition. I didn't include an art statement to explain about the work, instead I was in the space to make a conversation with the audience and tried to listen first to what my artwork was telling them. I saw how my concept was perceived, got their reflections and reflected back. And through the conversations arose the issues I’m trying to talk about through the installation. At the same time I didn’t try to “correct” anyone, didn’t try to remove the abstract, or the dramatic stories people told about the piece. The balance, the sides, the unequal power dynamics: all this I got the opportunity to discuss with my audience. In person.  I also address a number of questions connected to my work. Like: When is art private? is art always political? Does my existence in this field have to be a political statement? Making art as a minority: how the position as artist makes the art political, and how the audience makes the context political. I’m questioning how we read and engage with the artwork, the visual output and the concept of the work, how they work together to convey the artist's conclusion of a process, is it convenient to address the environment that surrounds the artwork. This is a process of discovering and digging and revealing whether it is just about the work itself or also the way it is read depending upon its context. Everything that comes spontaneously and makes it a statement.