Alternatives to the current granting system

Our current methods for providing financial support to projects in the arts is problematic.

One of the avenues for receiving support, applying for grants, has benefits and downsides. My aim in this writing is to highlight some alternatives to traditional grants (which award lump sums to individuals or companies) that focus on a broad-reaching, egalitarian approach to supporting artists without there being “winners” or “losers”.

Here are a few loosely identified ideas that could provide alternative, equal-chance avenues to funding for artists. My aim is not to clearly outline in detail how these systems would work in the real world, rather it is to outline that there are other possibilities that we can and should think about, and that it would be well worth it to develop our own vision of how we want to create more equal opportunities for artists.

DIY work is VALUABLE:

What better way to address a lack of power given to artist than to tell artists they have all the power and influence they need? DIY work allows us to make art sustainably. However, an artist who continually operates in the DIY world often is not given the credibility and opportunities that artist who demonstrate a history of funding receive. Let’s redefine “Professional Artist”- since the word “professional” tends to exclude most of the practitioners- or replace it with concepts like “Resilient” or “Practicing Artist”. What can actually be done sustainably by artists with the resources that are on hand? How can we revalue how we see self-sufficiency? Can we give these types of innovative artists more professional opportunities as teachers in our universities for example?

City-subsidized tickets:

Can cities offer subsidies to audiences to help drive ticket sales and increase the artists revenue, thereby lessening the need for a formal grant for the next production? This would be most helpful for artist who produce at a “lower-budget”- i.e. tickets priced around $15-$20. The layout could look something like this:

For X number of shows per year, the city will subsidize X percent of your ticket (meaning the city will pay part and the customer will pay part) if your ticket is $15 or below. (There needs to be some sort of capping of how many shows this applies for so that people don’t abuse it.)

Portland OR, where I am currently writing from, already has an arts tax in place, however it goes towards the granting organizations. We can imagine that a similar program could be funded by instating an arts tax in a city which covers the costs of subsidizing the tickets. In the case of Portland it would mean redistributing how that arts tax is used.

Generalized Grant application process:

One of the most frustrating elements of the granting process is the amount of time and effort that go into each individual application. Most residencies and grants require specified information and documentation that (in my experience) creates an incredible amount of labor for the artist who is applying.

Could we make generalized grant process which streamlines the labor on behalf of the artist? Perhaps we ask for an artist to produce one application per quarter or per year or half a year. That single application would then go out many granting organizations. It would minimize the huge investment on the behalf of the artist, while allowing them to maximize their outreach. It would require that granting organizations be more flexible with their guidelines and be willing to make decisions from criteria that may not be specific to their needs.

Randomized Grants:

One of my favorite ideas is the randomized grant. A randomized grant picks, obviously at random, a few people who apply to receive funding toward their project. This idea is currently being trialed in the sciences.

Why randomize a grant? It does not take into consideration past history of funding, as many other opportunities do, and therefore creates an even playing field for those requesting the funding. Otherwise said, it allows “first-timers” or “amateurs” just as a good of a shot as anyone else in having some support behind their work. Also, once they have a grant under their belt, they may be given more credibility in future funding opportunities. (I don’t necessarily like this way of seeing it because it still says that an artist is more valuable/worth investing in if they have that cred, however I do have to point out that this would be a benefit, and especially a good one for people without any history of receiving support.)

What do you think?

This is a quick outline of just some of many ideas, and will continue to be updated. Please leave a comment below and let me know what you think. What do you think about the current granting system? What seems like it would and would not work about the ideas I’ve listed? What other ideas do you have?