Chapter 5: What could the world be like for artists?
Grants are one of the systems entrenched in our artworld culture. Artists need money and most can't rely on the instability and inadequacy of sales to support their life. What would it be like if art was a profession where economic stability was guaranteed? This question is constantly on my mind.
Many look to grants for both funds and validation. It's an imperfect system, but we have a few options:
1) We can disengage and not participate.
2) We can work with what we've got and participate.
3) We can change the system.
I support all these decisions. My advice to artists is to do some soul-searching and avoid anything that churns your stomach. I have chosen to plunge forward by participating and encouraging all artists in my network to do the same.
I am making my applications about more than just getting the grant. I am gathering data—stories, experience, statistics—to understand how artist grants function and if they are succeeding. Are they truly helping enough artists? Or is the grant model hurting artists by wasting their time and resources? Is it building resiliency, or is it crushing artists' spirits through rejection, over and over? Is the grant system corrupt by hiding the agendas that are guiding selection processes? Or is it a necessary plug in the hole that keeps artists from sinking?
The data you and other artists give me are informing my plans for #3—changing the system. I want to find alternatives to the existing methods and frameworks that are better for artists.
For example, could there be standards to which all granting organizations are held? In a survey I took this past year, less than 8% of artists thought that grantors are sufficiently transparent about their selection process. Artists aren't confident in the methods that award money (and validation, accolades, and access to future opportunities). Wouldn't it be nice if there was proof that conflicts of interest in their jurying process are eliminated? If there were clear outlines of the (actual) selection criteria? If instructions were given to their jurors about best practices?
Artists have told me other great ideas. Could all grants have a two-stage application process so that artists aren't required to do a huge amount of work unless they make it past the first round? The shortlisted artists could then be paid a small fee to provide a more involved submission. This would reduce the hours spent for the majority of applicants, and pay finalists for their time preparing their application.
These are just a few ideas that could make an imperfect system better. These ideas come from going through the process and being dissatisfied with the results. By clearly seeing the flaws, it's easier to see the solutions (at least for me: a perennial problem solver). I'm excited to gather more data through the quarterly Office Hours that I am offering to all Grant Deadlines Subscribers. I want to help artists create their strongest applications to boost their chances of getting a grant and I know that I'll hear what struggles artists are facing in the process.
As 2024 closes out, these are the things I'm thinking about. Of course it's not all up to me to solve this issue, but I'm in a unique position with quite a bit of knowledge around one very specific topic: Artist Grants. Recognizing this has made me more confident that I can help shape the world into a better place for artists. And so that's the hopeful thing I am taking into the new year.
Holding optimism for the future,
Virginia
P.S. Kittens also help.
Artists need funding and career boosting opportunities now more than ever.
I can help.