Hi Richard, > Sometimes one feels one is only working on projects for the sake >of the funding. A healthier response is to decide what one feels >is really worthwhile and then argue the case to the funding bodies >to the utmost extent regardless of their "priorities".
I think you make a good point here. Arguing out our position is how we've 'somehow' managed to continue receiving funds. Although, the way things are going certainty is not an option. There is also a larger issue/context here, which is concerning the many different grass roots groups and related orgs going down, because of the austerity cuts. Once, art groups could find extra revenue to support their causes on top of 'core funding' (which of course was always limited anyway) for implementation of their projects by connecting to others with paid projects; which also created opportunities to get various artists into workshops to share their creative skills. But, so many groups who once set up these opportunities are now gone. A once dynamic network of skilled resources has now been broken up, thus creating the situation where particular individuals & groups who were (already) lucky enough to have a decent private income or strong connections with elite establishments are now thriving in a climate that supports their interests above the many. Wishing you well. marc > I have known people who offered grant writing services, though only as a sideline... > > I think a big issue is that many arts projects are by their nature not easily fundable. Some do not fall easily into the funding priorities of public bodies. Currently the Arts Council wants to fund participatory projects. In the past this policy was different. In the future it will be different again. Other projects are difficult to describe as sexy one-liners that people can instantly latch onto. In the past when I have served as a panel member the most successful applicants were those who had either very "writerly" projects or who were already established so funders knew what they were getting. > > The Arts Council's long-gone Film and Video Broadcast dept once had a method of peer reviewing you could opt for by which they looked at your work and you gave them a notion of the sort of film you wanted to make - "it's a bit like this and a little like that" (I am writing purely from memory here). I do not know any body that now operates this way. > > Sometimes one feels one is only working on projects for the sake of the funding. A healthier response is to decide what one feels is really worthwhile and then argue the case to the funding bodies to the utmost extent regardless of their "priorities". > > Richard > >> >> From: Simon Biggs <[email protected]> >> Date: 7 November 2011 16:49:17 GMT >> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Arts funding: why so many artists don't apply for the money. >> Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity <[email protected]> >> >> >> The fact there is nobody out there offering their services to write grants applications to the ACE suggests that there would be little profit in doing so. >> >> best >> >> Simon >> >> >> On 7 Nov 2011, at 16:17, dave miller wrote: >> >>> Or is there an opportunity here for "no Arts Council funding no fee" >>> services - following the idea of those insurance experts who advertise >>> on afternoon TV and specialise in victim compensation? I'm being >>> cynical I suppose ... >>> >>> dave >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7 November 2011 14:55, Simon Biggs <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Most times I've been successful in acquiring Arts Council funds it has been >>>> through indirect means - somebody applying on my behalf, usually through a >>>> commissioning body (gallery, producer, festival, etc). The people who hold >>>> responsible positions in such organisations are expert grant writers and >>>> have a much better hit-rate than 2.5%. If that is the likely success rate >>>> then I'd tend to feel it is not worthwhile applying. You need a better >>>> likelihood than that. Even 10% is marginal. 20% is about when it starts to >>>> get worthwhile, in terms of the odds. >>>> One of the main reasons I shifted from being a freelance artist to working >>>> in academia was due to issues around funding. During the 80's and 90's I'd >>>> been lucky with ACE, British Council and other funders. But in the late 90's >>>> the new government changed the focus of arts funding, which resulted in many >>>> of the key funding avenues being closed down (like the new film fund - which >>>> happily funded new media projects with reasonably serious amounts of money). >>>> The writing was on the wall and the research councils started to look like a >>>> better bet, with relatively generous fellowships available, as well as >>>> medium to large project funds being available to creative practice based >>>> projects, especially if technology was involved (eg: six or seven figures). >>>> Things are more competitive now, with less money available and more >>>> applicants than ever, but the hit-rate is still better than 10% and, for >>>> some funds, much better than that. Follow-on funding, for those who have >>>> already held research council funds, is better than 50/50. >>>> State funding of the arts is in a dire situation now and it is little >>>> surprise that many feel it is pointless to apply - but if you look at it >>>> another way, somebody has to apply and you can't win it if you aren't in >>>> it. I'd recommend you develop a relationship with one or more sponsoring >>>> organisations that can work with you on developing a relationship with the >>>> funders. They need to know you a bit, understand what you are doing and why >>>> and to develop a trust based relationship. In hard times they are even more >>>> risk averse than normal. >>>> best >>>> Simon >>>> >>>> On 7 Nov 2011, at 12:09, dave miller wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm guilty of this - have never applied for funding. I always assume I'd >>>> never get any and with the scale of the cuts going on, I've more or less >>>> forgotten that funding even exists! >>>> dave >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7 November 2011 11:45, marc garrett <[email protected]> >>>> 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
