| HOME MICROGRANTING FOR THE ARTS LEARN MORE // GET UPDATES   
|
|
| HOME MICROGRANTING FOR THE ARTS LEARN MORE // GET UPDATES
|
|
I am trying to unpack this term “creative intervention” in order to articulate the selection criteria for tinygrants. I have been reticent to do this because I worry that by over-defining it, I am unwittingly excluding ideas that would still fit within the tinygrants mandate. However, I do believe it is a necessary step so that the selection process is as fair and transparent as one can be. (By the way — there’s just over a week left to get your applications in. Deadline is November 22nd. Download the application here.)
I think I have broken it down into handful of criteria that describe what kinds of creative interventions tinygrants is looking for. Creative interventions are projects that:
Obviously not all projects will embody all of these criteria, but all projects should incorporate some selection of them.
I think it is also important to clarify that only new work should be proposed for tinygrants funding, and the project, from beginning to end, should be funded primarily by tinygrants, which is a maximum of $300. As noted in the FAQ, the grant recipient may supplement their grant with no more than 25% of the tinygrants amount awarded. That means that if you wanted to kick in some of your own cash, you couldn’t kick in more than $75 on a $300 grant.
Can you add anything else to the list of what constitutes a “creative intervention”? There’s a mind map waiting to be updated!
This entry was written by , posted on November 12, 2009 at 2:27 AM, filed under Process and tagged creative intervention, criteria, Research. Leave a comment or view the discussion at the permalink.
I’ve come to the conclusion (with the help of many kind souls who have generously offered advice) that I have been (embarrassingly) misusing the term “relational.” The term still applies to the types of projects that tinygrants will fund, but it also excludes many possibilities. I will start using the term “creative interventions” instead of “relational projects.” I think it’s easier to understand and is far more inclusive.
Tinkering with language and terminology has raised several other issues, namely about selection criteria. The application guidelines currently state that selection will be based on accordance to the tinygrants mission statement, creativity and ingenuity, and viability/logistics. I think over the coming weeks I will be including other criteria to more specifically address the common threads that run through the kinds of creative interventions I am looking for, such as activating a public, initiating dialogue (implicitly or explicitly), visibility in non-traditional spaces, education components, inventive use of funds, etc.
With these changes, the overarching principles behind tinygrants remain the same. The coming specifications will only be to name what has already been inferred.
This entry was written by , posted on November 2, 2009 at 12:42 PM, filed under Process, Research and tagged creative intervention, dialogue, education, public. Leave a comment or view the discussion at the permalink.
I’ve been trying to critically examine why it is that I envision a microgranting model to function particularly with relational practice. If this isn’t it, at least I’m getting closer:
1. Microgrants are for people who aren’t supported by grant-giving councils (either because of eligibility or cost requirements).
2. Students aren’t eligible for funding through grant-giving councils because it is assumed they have institutional advantages provided to them through their schools; non-artists aren’t eligible because it is assumed they don’t have the artistic expertise to deliver works according to established standards of “excellence.”
3. Art schools don’t typically have formal programs for students to develop relational practice; non-artists are sometimes engaged in relational practice.
In short, I think tinygrants will meet the needs of some individuals who aren’t being served by academic institutions and/or funding councils.
This entry was written by , posted on October 8, 2009 at 10:34 PM, filed under Process and tagged academic institutions, councils, non-artists, relational practice, students. Leave a comment or view the discussion at the permalink.
