Future alternative grants process options
Currently, art/project grants at Nest are decided by a committee of leads, lead by the Grants Lead. The process includes scoring each project against a set of criteria, as well as discussion at a decision meeting, where the committee can look at each case in more detail and discuss them.
How could this process be improved, and to what goals? More fair? Transparent? Do we want to give more money to big projects or fund more projects but with less money each? Do we just want the community members to have more say in general? Do we want something more like The Borderland, where Nest members could vote on the projects they most want to see happen?
Link to current grants process (a link to this was included in the application forms and website this year):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14XWfW9-FJKniczkUf1QyVICPeFjlyX47KqI0eDjoS-s/edit
Please share your ideas for how the grants process could be improved next year..
Graeme McGregor Fri 12 Apr 2019 9:14AM
I agree with Simon on the voting idea. In addition, I don't think that interesting, challenging, meaningful art often gets made through populism or consensus. And the voting approach is also very reliant on people being engaged online and using platforms like Facebook etc. Bleurgh :)
Corinne Hitching Sat 13 Apr 2019 3:50AM
I agree too with Simon. I did art grants for Microburn, when the application author is anonymous for every applicant it puts them on a level playing field. If the community voted it would soon get out who’s project was who’s.
Amandasm Thu 18 Apr 2019 4:30PM
Anonymity might be a good idea.
Amandasm Thu 18 Apr 2019 4:31PM
I have to agree about the objections to doing it by voting. Anybody involved in the Borderland have any feedback about their system? Is it entirely based on voting or is it a combo of voting and committee? Curious.
Simon Fri 19 Apr 2019 12:24PM
The Borderland is completely based on voting. They still have an art grant committee, but their role is more towards supporting applicants in refining their proposals (making sure it fits within the funding guidelines and is legal). The idea behind their system is to enable each member to direct the art funding component of their ticket price goes towards something they actually want to support.
More details on how it works at: https://talk.theborderland.se/d/FkvulCaZ/dreams
I recommend reading their FAQ at the bottom of that link. I didn't have a strong view either way beforehand, and I still need to think about if further, but they make some very good points there.
Fran Ellis Thu 25 Apr 2019 3:16PM
Actually the dreams platform is a little different this year, in that the community reacts using 'monsters' to guide and give feedback on proposals.
The full process: https://talk.theborderland.se/d/Oo0aEGnd/new-process-for-dreams-2019-the-phantasmograph?fbclid=IwAR2wz6XgejA7PoxtqYD01aLg3SvMtfXDaTztD9hDKkFv2dNece72htToBRQ
They are also considering starting a committee alongside the main dreams platform to ensure more complicated and ambitious art is funded: https://talk.theborderland.se/d/ygJSfKok/art-committee-proposal?fbclid=IwAR2wz6XgejA7PoxtqYD01aLg3SvMtfXDaTztD9hDKkFv2dNece72htToBRQ
For the record, as an arts grants committee member I'm super supportive of moving to this kind of process, and happy to help initiate it if it's a route we decide to go down :)
Adrian Godwin Fri 19 Apr 2019 12:31PM
I like the 'expert committee' rather than open voting. I think if a proposal is rejected, the artist should be able to accept advice and / or add explanation to get it accepted. I don't think this works well with open votes and Simon's description of Borderline sounds more useful.
Open voting tends to be all about first impressions and presentation, which I think is less helpful for new artists and radical ideas.
Yon Fri 17 May 2019 1:22PM
I would prefer a committee to voting in regards to selecting grants. Voting too easily becomes a popularity contest, it's much harder for new members to wrangle votes and the challenge of rejection is just the same.
Deleted User Sun 19 May 2019 10:57AM
I believe that we need to be completely transparent so work on a criteria, e.g. reused materials, new artist etc. There is a load of things that I believe Amanda used in the vetting this year, but I would like it to be easier for the community to see the criteria and decisions. Looks like Borderland are trialling the public voting this year, so its worth waiting to see their results, but yeah in principle I agree with public voting, IF we can ensure no fixed voting.
Simon Edwards · Fri 12 Apr 2019 6:46AM
Please DON'T allow the community to vote on art grants. If you're not aware of the story, please ask or look into what happened when someone tried this at Burning Man in the 90's (I think) - it was a disaster. I know we're much smaller but the same things can go wrong. You can just rig the voting or have friends voting for friends. People don't vote for balance and variety. And ultimately, people don't have much of a clue as to the chances of something being a success, i.e. have they built/done it before, are they reliable, is the structure safe. Public voting just doesn't use the same, much more valid, set of criteria to judge. There's a big difference between liking a concept and being able to judge how much money should be spent on it, it's likelihood of success, etc.