What would happen if State and Federal Governments reduce funding of the arts, including art's education, to a large extent? This scenario is increasingly likely with the current regimes.
Such a loss of funding could potentially create bourgeois practitioners and consumers. By making it harder on both financial and logistical levels for people to study and practice, only the wealthy will be able to afford the 'luxury' of a formal art's education. The reduction in subsidies will also increase ticket prices, excluding many from attending events or gaining access to cultural institutions.
On a positive note, an untrained generation of artists might develop, creating work potentially critical of any distortions in the industrial complex. This would essentially be a de-gentrification of the arts with the status quo being a likely target. It would drive innovation through a process of differentiation. While difficult, especially for artists outside the mainstream, it might prove more fruitful culturally.
This could potentially lead to a further division of creative communities with 'high' and 'low' art being more clearly separated.
On the opposite side of the coin, what would happen if State and Federal Governments dramatically increased funding to the arts, including something akin to a 'Arts for the Dole' scheme?
Having greater access to events through more affordable tickets and the presentation of high quality exhibitions that might otherwise be financially problematic would increase levels of aesthetic and cultural literacy.
Increased funding would allow artists to turn away from the distorting outcomes-based system, to experiment more, take greater risks and explore themes otherwise deemed too sensitive for funding bodies.
This system is more open to exploitation so some form of peer-reviewed qualification system would need to be established. Such a system could be problematic in that having a qualification from an institution does not necessarily equate to someone being a practicing artist.
Regional and otherwise challenged artists would also be unfairly disadvantaged by such systems.
To qualify for the French 'artists unemployment insurance system', an artist or technician must work for 507 hours in 10.5 months to gain benefits for the down-time periods between projects. This popular but politically problematic system is financed by employers and workers' contributions.
A time-based system is difficult in that how do independent artists quantify such things as non-paid studio time? Maintaining such things as log-books, already broadly accepted by the ATO as evidence of activity, might be a avenue.
** Just an open thread for thoughts. **
Showing posts with label grants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label grants. Show all posts
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Ethical Art's Funding
The Transfield/BoS saga raises interesting talking points about broader art's funding issues. How far should artists extend such ideas when it comes to funding their work? If you disagree with a local, state or federal government's policies, do you 'refuse' their funding processes and subsequent branding of your projects? If a much hated Politician is to pose gappy toothed to 'cut the ribbon' on your project, do you make a point of refusing their hand?
It's a difficult balancing act between professional ambition, any greater 'good' of the work and ethical problems that might come from funding.
In an interview with Nathan Gray on Tuesday's Triple J's 'Hack' program (mp3), the point was raised that making protest art within the context of the BoS - as supported by Transfield/BoS - might actually ultimately support the structure of the current funding by attracting audiences. ie. a boycott is far more likely to have an effect if audience numbers suffer for it.
A good model for ethical art's funding might be that from Australian Ethical Investments which is as follows. Point xi is particularly interesting when applied to the Federal Govt/OzCo:
Australian Ethical shall avoid any investment which is considered to unnecessarily:
i. pollute land, air or water
ii. destroy or waste non-recurring resources
iii. extract, create, produce, manufacture, or market materials, products, goods or services which have a harmful effect on humans, non-human animals or the environment
iv. market, promote or advertise, products or services in a misleading or deceitful manner
v. create markets by the promotion or advertising of unwanted products or services
vi. acquire land or commodities primarily for the purpose of speculative gain
vii. create, encourage or perpetuate militarism or engage in the manufacture of armaments
viii. entice people into financial over-commitment
ix. exploit people through the payment of low wages or the provision of poor working conditions
x. discriminate by way of race, religion or sex in employment, marketing, or advertising practices
xi. contribute to the inhibition of human rights generally
They also posit a 'positive' side of the ledger:
Australian Ethical shall seek out investments which provide for and support:
a. the development of workers' participation in the ownership and control of their work organisations and places
b. the production of high quality and properly presented products and services
c. the development of locally based ventures
d. the development of appropriate technological systems
e. the amelioration of wasteful or polluting practices
f. the development of sustainable land use and food production
g. the preservation of endangered eco-systems
h. activities which contribute to human happiness, dignity and education
i. the dignity and well being of non-human animals
j. the efficient use of human waste
k. the alleviation of poverty in all its forms
l. the development and preservation of appropriate human buildings and landscape
Source: http://www.australianethical.com.au/ethical-charter
Too often there is a 'beggars can't be choosers' mentality in art's funding with many looking over the heads of blood money to their own ambitions ... this is fundamentally flawed.
Don't hesitate to be mad. Put your hand over your cup, celebrate your madness and yell at all who offend with gusto!
It's a difficult balancing act between professional ambition, any greater 'good' of the work and ethical problems that might come from funding.
In an interview with Nathan Gray on Tuesday's Triple J's 'Hack' program (mp3), the point was raised that making protest art within the context of the BoS - as supported by Transfield/BoS - might actually ultimately support the structure of the current funding by attracting audiences. ie. a boycott is far more likely to have an effect if audience numbers suffer for it.
A good model for ethical art's funding might be that from Australian Ethical Investments which is as follows. Point xi is particularly interesting when applied to the Federal Govt/OzCo:
Australian Ethical shall avoid any investment which is considered to unnecessarily:
i. pollute land, air or water
ii. destroy or waste non-recurring resources
iii. extract, create, produce, manufacture, or market materials, products, goods or services which have a harmful effect on humans, non-human animals or the environment
iv. market, promote or advertise, products or services in a misleading or deceitful manner
v. create markets by the promotion or advertising of unwanted products or services
vi. acquire land or commodities primarily for the purpose of speculative gain
vii. create, encourage or perpetuate militarism or engage in the manufacture of armaments
viii. entice people into financial over-commitment
ix. exploit people through the payment of low wages or the provision of poor working conditions
x. discriminate by way of race, religion or sex in employment, marketing, or advertising practices
xi. contribute to the inhibition of human rights generally
They also posit a 'positive' side of the ledger:
Australian Ethical shall seek out investments which provide for and support:
a. the development of workers' participation in the ownership and control of their work organisations and places
b. the production of high quality and properly presented products and services
c. the development of locally based ventures
d. the development of appropriate technological systems
e. the amelioration of wasteful or polluting practices
f. the development of sustainable land use and food production
g. the preservation of endangered eco-systems
h. activities which contribute to human happiness, dignity and education
i. the dignity and well being of non-human animals
j. the efficient use of human waste
k. the alleviation of poverty in all its forms
l. the development and preservation of appropriate human buildings and landscape
Source: http://www.australianethical.com.au/ethical-charter
Too often there is a 'beggars can't be choosers' mentality in art's funding with many looking over the heads of blood money to their own ambitions ... this is fundamentally flawed.
Don't hesitate to be mad. Put your hand over your cup, celebrate your madness and yell at all who offend with gusto!
Sunday, July 28, 2013
Significance....
I have had the luxury - in the true sense of the word - of just 'knuckling down' and making for the last 8 months. I didn't have to stress about bills or other demands.... I simply got to make stuff ... and a lot of it.
At the same time, I wanted to acknowledge that freedom by working hard to make something 'special'... whatever that means. This especially as it's improbable that I will get another such opportunity for a while.
It has afforded opportunities. However, some of these are oddly uncomfortable. I am now struggling with the thought that I have to make something somehow 'significant' for an upcoming group exhibition.
The problem with this is that a (not particularly urgent) deadline looms and a series of shoots are now loaded with a tension that has been absent for a long time.
The resultant image also has to function on a scale - a per-requisite of the show - that is disquieting.
But ... the greatest stress comes from not wanting to disappoint those who afforded the opportunity.
I will try to just work the same but I find I'm looking differently around the frame, working even slower and being much more selective... perhaps the happy accident and any other spontaneous-ness will be lost?
At the same time, I wanted to acknowledge that freedom by working hard to make something 'special'... whatever that means. This especially as it's improbable that I will get another such opportunity for a while.
It has afforded opportunities. However, some of these are oddly uncomfortable. I am now struggling with the thought that I have to make something somehow 'significant' for an upcoming group exhibition.
The problem with this is that a (not particularly urgent) deadline looms and a series of shoots are now loaded with a tension that has been absent for a long time.
The resultant image also has to function on a scale - a per-requisite of the show - that is disquieting.
But ... the greatest stress comes from not wanting to disappoint those who afforded the opportunity.
I will try to just work the same but I find I'm looking differently around the frame, working even slower and being much more selective... perhaps the happy accident and any other spontaneous-ness will be lost?
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Cultural Manifesto
I'll prefix this by saying that this is written from the point of view of someone who doesn't fit into the existing model and that these thoughts are relatively fluid. There are surely many who are satisfied and may even thrive within that which is currently in favour.
The suggestions are utopian ideals that politically might not score as many points as a colourful, but ultimately hollow soundbite culture.
At the moment it would seem that a significant chunk of arts funding - both civil and corporate - is focused on two or three streams. Each of these has it's problems but equally provide an easy photo opportunity for those who are at the helm of the responsible ship. ie. 'I made THIS happen'.
The first - rather garish and glaring - example is public art. There are many arguments about how public art helps activate space, engages with the protagonists in that space or simply 'makes it prettier'. Unfortunately this is often not the case when public art projects are 'enforced' by something akin to Western Australia's 'Percent for Art' Scheme.
The artworks are often treated as flourish or - worse still - used as 'ersatz' elements. Basically an architect might be obligated to design in a way finding system but will instead kill two birds by combining the artwork with the signage. The artwork is potentially compromised by this.
Public art is very much defined by material choice, robustness and safety considerations. i.e. You can't offend anyone, it should be 'uplifting', everything must have a dull edge, be out of reach, etc, etc. It also must often pass committees. This can be stacked with people who are either ill-informed or tainted by an agenda. The art object can then be homogenized to the point of tastelessness.
The second is the art award circuit. We personally enter a limited number of such things (those with pre-selection processes) for the rare opportunity to get our work in front of what I term the 'Mysterious Few', something that would otherwise seem very difficult for outsiders in Perth.
Awards are easy fodder for councils. They then get to throw around large numbers (ie. $45,000 in prizes, 6,000+ people saw the show) and ultimately provide nice, round KPIs for reports as well as excellent photo opportunities.
Awards shows suffer from many flaws not least of which they are often held in horrendous venues with terrible lighting, ear-splitting white noise and an apathetic audience. Big numbers look good in reports but what when 80% of those simply throw a incidental quick glance between other activities. ie. in the brief walk from a fast food restaurant to a $2 shop?
They also vary wildly in quality, the ability of curators to resolve disparate work and installation style. Given the political aspect of such things, some councils take an all inclusive approach and some exhibitions are salon style to an extreme with massive variations in quality.
So... what are the solutions?
I have seen a few variations on what is loosely termed 'Percent for Space'. That is, rather than erecting political totems that have been funded by an active policy of setting aside a portion of project costs, that same money is allocated to subsidised leases to helps studios, ARIs and other such things get established.
This ultimately feeds back into the 'loop' as areas are often rejuvenated in their activation by creatives, they become more attractive to other businesses who then setup and draw in an audience, etc, etc.
There are a few problems with this model. The key one being how does someone 'qualify' for such things? You could potentially link it to educational outcomes - ie. someone holds a BFA/MFA so they are 'officially' an artist - but qualification doesn't necessarily equal an active artistic practice. This also exempts the multitude of artists who don't fit (willingly or otherwise) that institutional model.
You also can't necessarily link it to membership of particular organisations as these are often without qualified application processes. ie. you pay and you become a member irrelevant of active practice.
The other model that I have seen on a project-by-project scale is micro-philanthropy. Examples (and variations) of this include Kickstarter, Art Angels and Artsource's 'Patrons' fund. I've been thinking about how this same model might be applied to a broader funding pool.
An example would be that a company is specifically setup with not-for-profit status and registers to accept donations. Other companies and/or individuals could donate funds to that company (with associated tax benefits) and money would then be distributed to creatives via an independently qualified application process with some tangible result (edition prints, books, etc) being awarded to those who have originally donated.
That same not-for-profit might also actively purchase artworks rather than simply fund projects. These artworks could then form part of a greater 'cultural collection' that is more indicative of both time and environment.
Scale is important as it encourages others to participate and provides large numbers that are politically rewarding without too much compromise.
Lastly, the awards dilemma. As rewarding as art awards are for a limited number of individuals I think an active acquisitional policy or a series of curatorially robust 'survey' shows would be more sustainable.
The key problem with such things is the need for dedicated staff and space to manage such things and a program of engaging in a broader sense with both creatives and the audiences. This is 'harder' politically as it doesn't necessarily provide soundbites and is more culturally committed.
As mentioned at the start, this is rather fluid. I freely admit that I don't have 'solutions' but I do recognise that I am not the only one that doesn't fit.
It's not simply a matter of recutting the clothes, some times the mannequin is the one in need of a tweak!
The suggestions are utopian ideals that politically might not score as many points as a colourful, but ultimately hollow soundbite culture.
At the moment it would seem that a significant chunk of arts funding - both civil and corporate - is focused on two or three streams. Each of these has it's problems but equally provide an easy photo opportunity for those who are at the helm of the responsible ship. ie. 'I made THIS happen'.
The first - rather garish and glaring - example is public art. There are many arguments about how public art helps activate space, engages with the protagonists in that space or simply 'makes it prettier'. Unfortunately this is often not the case when public art projects are 'enforced' by something akin to Western Australia's 'Percent for Art' Scheme.
The artworks are often treated as flourish or - worse still - used as 'ersatz' elements. Basically an architect might be obligated to design in a way finding system but will instead kill two birds by combining the artwork with the signage. The artwork is potentially compromised by this.
Public art is very much defined by material choice, robustness and safety considerations. i.e. You can't offend anyone, it should be 'uplifting', everything must have a dull edge, be out of reach, etc, etc. It also must often pass committees. This can be stacked with people who are either ill-informed or tainted by an agenda. The art object can then be homogenized to the point of tastelessness.
The second is the art award circuit. We personally enter a limited number of such things (those with pre-selection processes) for the rare opportunity to get our work in front of what I term the 'Mysterious Few', something that would otherwise seem very difficult for outsiders in Perth.
Awards are easy fodder for councils. They then get to throw around large numbers (ie. $45,000 in prizes, 6,000+ people saw the show) and ultimately provide nice, round KPIs for reports as well as excellent photo opportunities.
Awards shows suffer from many flaws not least of which they are often held in horrendous venues with terrible lighting, ear-splitting white noise and an apathetic audience. Big numbers look good in reports but what when 80% of those simply throw a incidental quick glance between other activities. ie. in the brief walk from a fast food restaurant to a $2 shop?
They also vary wildly in quality, the ability of curators to resolve disparate work and installation style. Given the political aspect of such things, some councils take an all inclusive approach and some exhibitions are salon style to an extreme with massive variations in quality.
So... what are the solutions?
I have seen a few variations on what is loosely termed 'Percent for Space'. That is, rather than erecting political totems that have been funded by an active policy of setting aside a portion of project costs, that same money is allocated to subsidised leases to helps studios, ARIs and other such things get established.
This ultimately feeds back into the 'loop' as areas are often rejuvenated in their activation by creatives, they become more attractive to other businesses who then setup and draw in an audience, etc, etc.
There are a few problems with this model. The key one being how does someone 'qualify' for such things? You could potentially link it to educational outcomes - ie. someone holds a BFA/MFA so they are 'officially' an artist - but qualification doesn't necessarily equal an active artistic practice. This also exempts the multitude of artists who don't fit (willingly or otherwise) that institutional model.
You also can't necessarily link it to membership of particular organisations as these are often without qualified application processes. ie. you pay and you become a member irrelevant of active practice.
The other model that I have seen on a project-by-project scale is micro-philanthropy. Examples (and variations) of this include Kickstarter, Art Angels and Artsource's 'Patrons' fund. I've been thinking about how this same model might be applied to a broader funding pool.
An example would be that a company is specifically setup with not-for-profit status and registers to accept donations. Other companies and/or individuals could donate funds to that company (with associated tax benefits) and money would then be distributed to creatives via an independently qualified application process with some tangible result (edition prints, books, etc) being awarded to those who have originally donated.
That same not-for-profit might also actively purchase artworks rather than simply fund projects. These artworks could then form part of a greater 'cultural collection' that is more indicative of both time and environment.
Scale is important as it encourages others to participate and provides large numbers that are politically rewarding without too much compromise.
Lastly, the awards dilemma. As rewarding as art awards are for a limited number of individuals I think an active acquisitional policy or a series of curatorially robust 'survey' shows would be more sustainable.
The key problem with such things is the need for dedicated staff and space to manage such things and a program of engaging in a broader sense with both creatives and the audiences. This is 'harder' politically as it doesn't necessarily provide soundbites and is more culturally committed.
As mentioned at the start, this is rather fluid. I freely admit that I don't have 'solutions' but I do recognise that I am not the only one that doesn't fit.
It's not simply a matter of recutting the clothes, some times the mannequin is the one in need of a tweak!
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Straws and Camels
Much more than funding for projects, grants are tools of legitimacy. That is, your practice is 'good' enough to warrant support, your thinking clear and those in the machine formally state as much. We are often told that grants are springboards to bigger things. They should expose you to new 'stuff', make new opportunities available and give you a degree of freedom you mightn't otherwise have.
That said, they - both the application process and any success - also involve huge commitments on multiple levels. The application process can be very detailed, requiring a lot of research, favour-calling and emotional investment.
Recently we got knocked back for a grant the 9th time from 9 attempts in recent years. Add to this the obscene number of exhibition proposals that have been rejected (or ignored in one case), the black hole that we've experienced when approaching galleries here and 'you have not been selected' letters then it does start to get very draining.
Emotionally it's getting too hard. We work up ideas for projects we otherwise couldn't do, fall in love with them then look at them - slowly a collection of 'them' - cowering in the corner every other week.
I have no idea what the solution is but I do know my limits. It is perhaps better that I surrender that delusion and just make work for the cupboard.
"Multiple-award entering artist with extensive grant/exhibition proposal history announces his retirement from..."? From what?
That said, they - both the application process and any success - also involve huge commitments on multiple levels. The application process can be very detailed, requiring a lot of research, favour-calling and emotional investment.
Recently we got knocked back for a grant the 9th time from 9 attempts in recent years. Add to this the obscene number of exhibition proposals that have been rejected (or ignored in one case), the black hole that we've experienced when approaching galleries here and 'you have not been selected' letters then it does start to get very draining.
Emotionally it's getting too hard. We work up ideas for projects we otherwise couldn't do, fall in love with them then look at them - slowly a collection of 'them' - cowering in the corner every other week.
I have no idea what the solution is but I do know my limits. It is perhaps better that I surrender that delusion and just make work for the cupboard.
"Multiple-award entering artist with extensive grant/exhibition proposal history announces his retirement from..."? From what?
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Reticence, Respect, Recognition and Rancidness
I've been thinking a lot lately about goals and what we would like to achieve in the next few years. I've more recently consciously avoided such things as I'm inevitably disappointed. As an example, I set myself a suite of ideals around the end of 2007, only two* of which have eventuated in the last four years and all the others (some grandiose, others 'simple') are significantly missing from my 'calculations'. This does have the effect of irritating almost all self-doubts.
It could be that my expectations are too high and/or I'm (often wildly) mistaken in my assumptions about (other) human behavior. Either which way I've been gauging the various 'sorts' of achievements and have tried to balance them against the logistical practicalities of simply 'getting on with it'.
A simple example is 'awards' vs 'funding'. An award is - supposedly at least - given out to celebrate the merits of a particular artwork whereas a grant is an acknowledgement of an artist's general ability and professional aptitude to bring a project to fruition within certain parameters.
That last point is key. Almost all grants are very much outcomes-driven. In some forms, practices are also skewed to accommodate certain 'KPIs' - community engagement, cultural sensitivity, etc - that might not be integral to a 'source' practice.
Equally awards can distort a practice as work is often produced that is larger and more bombastic to garner attention or to fit - for want of a better word - a venue's quirks. ie. high ceilings, big open spaces, conditions placed on entries, etc.
At the moment, I'm considering opting out of both these cycles as they are expensive on multiple levels.
In a similar vein, all sales - should they eventuate - aren't created equally. A piece going into a collection (and potentially into storage) is inevitably valued more than a 'civilian' purchase. The later is very much about intimacy and engagement where the former is very much about respect or that dreaded term: 'importance'.
I can count on one hand - with room to move - the number of 'civilians' who have purchased my work in 17 years of 'practicing'. I've been lucky enough to sell a bit of work to various collections and their ilk but oddly enough find the lack of a personal audience vexing.
How work is shown is also an interesting balancing act. ie. personally being curated into a show is valued more than a commercial show which is in turn valued more than an ARI or civil/community space with 'pay-to-play' venues tailing the field.
Lately the 2nd and 3rd spots are getting blurred, in my mind at least. Whilst it almost certainly is jadedness, I'm finding myself less and less interested in seeking some form of commercial 'success'.
Ultimately - perhaps jadedness speaking again - even sales in general aren't that important.
So... what then IS important to me?
There is inevitably an ego component in the seeking of recognition which, by it's very nature, involves getting on the various carousels.
The best term I have managed to find - even if it's loaded in all sorts of wrong ways - is 'respect'.
It's suitably abstract - ie. how should that manifest? - but it has become more and more evident in a few situations over the years when I couldn't describe someone's behaviour as anything else than 'disrespectful'. ie. ideally I would wish them to behave the diametric opposite of how they did.
I don't think my - as other's - expectations are that high when it comes to professional practice from ALL segments of the industry.
Anyway... banging my head against a wall for no particular reason, not least of which some magical, tangible outcome. Frustrated and really need to get away from this computer.
* Exhibit interstate and sell work into a 'major' collection.
It could be that my expectations are too high and/or I'm (often wildly) mistaken in my assumptions about (other) human behavior. Either which way I've been gauging the various 'sorts' of achievements and have tried to balance them against the logistical practicalities of simply 'getting on with it'.
A simple example is 'awards' vs 'funding'. An award is - supposedly at least - given out to celebrate the merits of a particular artwork whereas a grant is an acknowledgement of an artist's general ability and professional aptitude to bring a project to fruition within certain parameters.
That last point is key. Almost all grants are very much outcomes-driven. In some forms, practices are also skewed to accommodate certain 'KPIs' - community engagement, cultural sensitivity, etc - that might not be integral to a 'source' practice.
Equally awards can distort a practice as work is often produced that is larger and more bombastic to garner attention or to fit - for want of a better word - a venue's quirks. ie. high ceilings, big open spaces, conditions placed on entries, etc.
At the moment, I'm considering opting out of both these cycles as they are expensive on multiple levels.
In a similar vein, all sales - should they eventuate - aren't created equally. A piece going into a collection (and potentially into storage) is inevitably valued more than a 'civilian' purchase. The later is very much about intimacy and engagement where the former is very much about respect or that dreaded term: 'importance'.
I can count on one hand - with room to move - the number of 'civilians' who have purchased my work in 17 years of 'practicing'. I've been lucky enough to sell a bit of work to various collections and their ilk but oddly enough find the lack of a personal audience vexing.
How work is shown is also an interesting balancing act. ie. personally being curated into a show is valued more than a commercial show which is in turn valued more than an ARI or civil/community space with 'pay-to-play' venues tailing the field.
Lately the 2nd and 3rd spots are getting blurred, in my mind at least. Whilst it almost certainly is jadedness, I'm finding myself less and less interested in seeking some form of commercial 'success'.
Ultimately - perhaps jadedness speaking again - even sales in general aren't that important.
So... what then IS important to me?
There is inevitably an ego component in the seeking of recognition which, by it's very nature, involves getting on the various carousels.
The best term I have managed to find - even if it's loaded in all sorts of wrong ways - is 'respect'.
It's suitably abstract - ie. how should that manifest? - but it has become more and more evident in a few situations over the years when I couldn't describe someone's behaviour as anything else than 'disrespectful'. ie. ideally I would wish them to behave the diametric opposite of how they did.
I don't think my - as other's - expectations are that high when it comes to professional practice from ALL segments of the industry.
Anyway... banging my head against a wall for no particular reason, not least of which some magical, tangible outcome. Frustrated and really need to get away from this computer.
* Exhibit interstate and sell work into a 'major' collection.
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
How to be a grumpy artist...
There really should be a clause built into art-related tendering processes that is akin to 'Employees and their immediate families of xyz and their associated agencies and companies (including sub-contractors) are not eligible to enter. Immediate family means any of the following: spouse, ex-spouse, de-facto spouse, child or step-child (whether by natural or by adoption), parent, step-parent, grandparent, step-grandparent, uncle, aunt, niece, nephew, brother, sister, step-brother, step-sister or first cousin.'
I've seen it a few times in Perth that a project's 'coordinator' also ends up being a 'selected artist' after an open call has been circulated. Whilst the coordinator is not necessarily the 'selection committee', it still - to me at least - seems to be a conflict of interest that their hats should even be in the ring.
Whilst they ultimately might be the best qualified artists for the gig and it surely is 'innocent', I still think the role they wish to play should be very clear to avoid any slapped faces.
I've seen it a few times in Perth that a project's 'coordinator' also ends up being a 'selected artist' after an open call has been circulated. Whilst the coordinator is not necessarily the 'selection committee', it still - to me at least - seems to be a conflict of interest that their hats should even be in the ring.
Whilst they ultimately might be the best qualified artists for the gig and it surely is 'innocent', I still think the role they wish to play should be very clear to avoid any slapped faces.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
