| HOME MICROGRANTING FOR THE ARTS LEARN MORE // GET UPDATES   
|
|
| HOME MICROGRANTING FOR THE ARTS LEARN MORE // GET UPDATES
|
|
Production of the tinygrants catalogue is underway! The above image is a detail from the cover (for now, anyway). The book will be 7″ x 7″, 64-pages, and mostly colour, and will include a curatorial essay, interviews with the artists, and details about the project logistics (such as how submissions were solicited and how the projects were selected). Don’t forget — you can get a copy of this catalogue as a thanks for donating $100 or more to the project.
It’s pretty exciting to start putting all of this together, even though it’s also an enormous challenge. How do I start thinking about tinygrants as a project that begins and ends? Last semester I was abuzz with a lot of administrative tasks for tinygrants. This semester, I have to shift gears to think about the social and political implications of a microfunding program for the arts. It’s not that these things weren’t on my mind throughout the submissions and selection processes, but now I have to commit to something!
If you have any ideas for what else should be included in the catalogue, please do let me know! I will be posting updates about how the book is coming together, including a working table of contents once that is a little closer to being set in stone.
This entry was written by , posted on February 15, 2010 at 12:14 PM, filed under News, Process and tagged catalogue. Leave a comment or view the discussion at the permalink.
I thought I would make the jury process as transparent as possible and as soon as I could. Here’s how it goes:
The jury is composed of four individuals, all of whom work in or are involved in the arts in some way. They are the first four people who volunteered to be on the jury, and their professional experience is relevant to the task at hand. Their bio information will be available after the grant recipients are announced. The jury members will work independently to ’score’ each application (more on this coming up); there will be no meeting or in-person deliberations. The scores will be tallied, and the strongest projects will emerge at the top, and the top three projects will be funded.
As for the scoring: there are six criteria (that I determined in consultation with others) that will be scored out of ten for each project. They are:
These criteria are weighted according to what I feel is most important to the tinygrants project. The jury knows that the criteria are weighted, but do not know what the weight scheme is. Once I receive the scoring packages on November 30th, the math will be worked out by a bonafide math whiz (i.e., not me,) and the top projects will be established.
This scoring method is effective should I receive enough donations to be able to fund more projects — I can continue to fund projects as they are ranked without having to reconvene a jury that has already generously donated their time and effort.
I feel that this is a fair–though perhaps unconventional–process. What do you think?
As it stands, the grant recipients will be notified on Monday, December 1, 2009, announcements will follow shortly. If you’d like to hear the news as it’s published, subscribe to email announcements (subscribers will be first to hear!), add tinygrants.ca to your RSS reader, join the Facebook group or follow tinygrants on Twitter. Or, stay tuned to the website, of course.
This entry was written by , posted on November 24, 2009 at 11:44 PM, filed under Process and tagged application, deliberations, grants, jury, Projects. Leave a comment or view the discussion at the permalink.
In the application guidelines, it states that projects should not exceed eight hours. I stipulated this at the time because I was imagining projects that were more event-based than installation-based, and I didn’t want anyone to have to put in more than a day’s work since a $300 grant clearly can’t stretch enough to cover that much labour. Since my understanding of the scope of projects has changed, the question of duration needs to be addressed (and thank you to the prospective applicant who got me thinking about it).
If your project includes you or others as active producers throughout the project, i.e., a performance event, it may not exceed eight hours. If your project includes installing something in a space and leaving it, the installation may not exceed eight hours, but the piece itself can stay up for however long you’d like.
Why have I put a cap on duration? It is mostly a matter of logistics. As a full-time student who works part-time, I need to be sure that I can attend all of the projects without neglecting my other academic and work responsibilities. I also need to ensure that the projects can be documented (photographs and video) within a reasonable cost, and anything beyond a day is more than I can afford. If you’re unsure as to how this question of duration applies to your project, ask yourself: Can the project in its entirety be documented in one day or less?
Thank you to everyone who has sent me useful comments, suggestions and ideas. If you have something you’d like to say about tinygrants, please email me.
This entry was written by , posted on November 19, 2009 at 2:44 PM, filed under Process and tagged clarification, duration, installation, intervention. Leave a comment or view the discussion at the permalink.
