hi james, another explanation is that grant application writing is a form of planning; it would be interesting to know how many of those unsuccessful applications are in fact still realised - in my case definitely more than half of my unsuccessful applications are for projects that go ahead in some shape or form regardless of the funding outcome, & the application process is an important part of the planning & development process.
that said, i'm sure i'd still be better off finanically if i gave up applications & worked part-time as a proofreader & part-time as a self-funded artist ... h : ) On 7/11/11 1:22 PM, James Wallbank wrote: > Hello Marc, > > Another way to interpret this statistic is this: > > If you're an averagely competent grant-writer, with a 2.5% success rate > each artist will have to apply 40 times for each success. > > How long does it take to prepare each grant application? (I'd suggest at > least 3 days to get together a credible, worked out plan - even for a > small grant.) 3 x 40 = 120 days of grant preparation work. > > How much money does each grant application pay out to the artist - as > distinct from for the direct costs associated with the proposition? (I'd > guess hundreds, not thousands of pounds.) Let's say £1000 for good measure. > > £1000 for 120 days of work? > > Ahhh! But the Arts Council does not count the cost of the time invested > by artists who they do NOT fund. This is called "Externalising Costs". > It defines that time as outside their frame of reference, and outside > their responsibility. It is, of course, a clever mechanism, but deeply > intellectually and morally flawed. > > So why do ANY individual artists bother, when temping as a cleaner (or > other minimum wage job) is a better economic proposition for raising > cash for their next arts project? > > * Perhaps artists are deluded gamblers, who all feel that they're > luckier or more skillful than average. > > * Perhaps artists feel that getting the seal of Arts Council approval > will increase their chances of drawing down other funding, or will > increase the perceived symbolic significance of their art. > > * Perhaps artists imagine that they're building up a stock of "symbolic > capital" - becoming more and more famous, and that at some future point > they'll be able to cash in their hard-won celebrity for actual cash. > > * Perhaps individual artists are only investing minutes in these > applications - which are REALLY generated by galleries or other > institutions, and they are just called upon for a signature. > > * Perhaps artists are, in general, just not very bright, with only > marginal understanding of "numbers, money and bread-head stuff". > > Are there other explanations? > > I direct you, and others, to the refreshingly frankly titled book "Why > are Artists Poor?" by Hans Abbing. Abbing is a professor of economics > (part time) and an artist (part time) and he wonders why it is that he > continues to do art even when it does not pay, while he wouldn't > consider commuting to Amsterdam University daily and teaching students > should that institution cease to provide him with a paycheck. > > Best Regards, > > James > ===== > > On 07/11/11 11:45, marc garrett wrote: >> Arts funding: why so many artists don't apply for the money. >> >> Dany Louise introduces a report she wrote on arts funding that reveals >> some surprising statistics. >> >> "The key finding is that surprisingly few individual artists apply for >> money in their own right and even fewer are successful. In England, less >> than 5% of artists apply in their own name every year and of those, less >> than 2.5% are successful. This means that there is little direct funding >> being given to artists to pursue and develop their own projects, under >> their own control: under 20% of available funding for the visual arts in >> England, 14% for Northern Ireland and around 18% for Scotland and Wales >> in 2009-2010." >> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture-professionals-network/culture-professionals-blog/2011/nov/04/arts-funding-artists-dont-apply >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NetBehaviour mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >> >> > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > -- ____________________________________________________________ helen varley jamieson: creative catalyst [email protected] http://www.creative-catalyst.com http://www.avatarbodycollision.org http://www.upstage.org.nz ____________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
