Essay: Defining Need in Connecticut

 I recently saw this Facebook posting that i found interesting.

"Art Access: New Britain

CALL FOR ART

[Link in bio]

One of the primary means emerging artists have to build their exhibition resume and gain the attention of curators is to participate in juried art shows. Not only is substantial time and effort involved in the process of creating art and applying for juried shows, but most require a fee for application. For many artists with extraordinary work, their opportunity for significant exposure is limited by their financial ability to apply for more publicized shows involving known jurors. An application fee can be a significant amount to artists with lower incomes and often many cannot take the chance that a juror may not even select their work for display.

Most juried shows charge these entry fees to support the organizations they are part of and those fees are often integral to their budgets and operations; however these fees are keeping out a subset of the artist population. With generous support from the Connecticut Office of the Arts, Art Access: New Britain is a juried art show focusing on artists living in households with income at or below the approximate state definition of “lower income” ($80,000). This juried show will collect no fee for application, involves a well established juror connected to a prominent museum, offers assistance to those who cannot afford to transport their artwork to the show, and involves juried prize awards.

This exhibition will be held at Gallery 66 in New Britain from August 12 to October 11, featuring an opening event and artist discussion, in addition to regularly held events at Gallery 66 such as monthly artist discussions and regular open mics."

What caught my eye here is the fact that that the Connecticut Office of the Arts has read the premise for this show and has decided its worth sponsoring. It's worth unpacking the assumptions being asserted here because nobody seems to have put an ounce of critical thinking into what problem this is going to solve or whether there are better ways of staging juried art shows.

Presumably the intent of constraining the household income of the artist to less than or equal to $80,000 will somehow limit participation to lower income artists. But this makes little sense. A single person and a married artist or an artist with kids or legal obligations makes hard capping an income profoundly unfair and could preclude true need and include individuals with no real hardship. In other words, its pointless.

And need isn't always an absolute condition. For the immediate few months I may be dead broke but in a few months that fiscal condition will change. Opportunity cost is often conditional.

The logical argument being made about juried shows is also flawed. Income has nothing to do with getting accepted or rejected from a juried art show. Ideally, the quality of the work is what gets a piece accepted or rejected. And the quality of the juror (e.g. de facto curator) is key. In either case, the artist's work IS "exposed" to the juror.

Any show that decides the identity of the artist is more compelling than the quality of that artist's work is playing with fire. The criteria of judging this show becomes the evaluation of the financial status of the individual rather than the work itself. Is the curation of the show intended to lower expectations based on something other than artistic merit? The point of juried shows to begin with is the assumption that your best work belongs in a show of selected best works.

And because the framing of shows like these emphasize identity politics, the chances of the work being taken seriously is eroded.  It's one thing for a patron or juror to find a diamond in the rough at any gallery show and its completely another to find that unique talent in a blizzard of artwork from an identified  class of "victims". Do the prizes go to the most needy, the most politically compelling or sympathetic, or to the identity artist of the month? Its unclear if participation will elevate or stigmatize the participating artists.

A far better way to help artists in need is for the CT Office on the Arts to support local Art Galleries all over the State by subsidizing gallery memberships for needy local artists - full stop. They all sponsor juried member shows. Such sponsorship might involve the basic membership fee and an additional group stipend for occasional transportation assistance.  This promotes fiscally sound galleries, community goodwill, and transparent artistic participation.  

My guide to gallery art show expenses and consideration are here.

Essay: The American Artist as Pariah

The character and identity of all artists, but more specifically American artists, has been culturally misappropriated by woke political forces. These include the hegemony of academic "studies" professionals who pose as curators or administrators, radical feminists whose "Smash the Patriarchy" initiative is all that matters, and the innumerable special interest groups who supplement their own program finances by openly redirecting arts funding for political social engineering campaigns.

And it is not only the definition of art and artists that has been conflated with a single woke political profile.  The idea of community is also being appropriated to promote racism and identity bigotry and resentment. in melting pot America, community used to refer to integrated urban neighborhoods or country towns and villages.  In both cases, the common denominators were shared social concerns and a dedication to making those interpersonal social units more prosperous for everybody. Working, civil communities countywide can be identified by "not in my backyard!" mantras. In other words, this community manages just fine on its own because its worked at it and has earned its peace - that doesn't qualify it as a candidate to save the world. In fact, Native Americans might argue that "not in my backyard" is their historical meme.  

Contrast that conceptual model with the politically motivated woke narrative that claims that they *are* out to save the world.  But in order to do that saving,  segregation, suspicion, innuendo, reverse bigotry, political tribalism, decolonization, and a Pandora's box of psychological anger and fear needs to be utilized to achieve that goal.

In the context of art and craft, community no longer refers to the community of art and crafts practitioners, it refers to special interest groups who appropriate artistic roles and vernaculars to express their anger and bottomless greed for more funding to promote their holier-than-thou cause - "funding for mine, but not for thine".  Not for thine refers to any art practice that isn't loudly, obnoxiously selling some aspect of the woke identity agenda. This concept of community comes prepackaged with a word salad vernacular,  look-and-feel signaling ornamentation, a demographically tested narrative of need and historical abuse, and a plausibly digestible, socially redeemable intent.

While there is a cohort of woke-mind-virus inspired true believers, most artists just want to make art.  And making art or creating craft has nothing to do with politics, personal identity issues, or saving-the-world.

For highly successful artists, few of them need to care about any of this. But that is a tiny number of individuals. And this is why government funding dedicated to the arts is so critical to ensuring the autonomy of artists and new ideas.

The current Biden administration has allowed and empowered the National Endowment for the Arts to embezzle funding dedicated to the arts for identity politic and Democratic National Committee priority and promotion.  Significantly, union interests have as much or more representation in the NEA process than actual artists do.

Artists (conservatives, liberals, independents, and the indifferent) who would not pass the litmus tests involved must either hold their nose and fake interest, distort their art to fit a narrative, or otherwise hack their way through the process. The damage is external as well.

The funding of anti-Trump/anti-conservative, aesthetic hate speech through the National Endowment for the Arts and its subsidiaries is nothing short of criminal. Despite the presumption that all artists are woke and political, and unified in hating conservatives, the NEA suppresses and muzzles the truth.

Artists should never have to submit proposals for art funding through virtual gateways whose subliminal message is to conform or else and this is true nationally. The evidence is empirical when the administrators post identity politic profiles as their qualifications for the job.

The integrity of Arts funding has to be decolonized of politics and thoroughly regulated for these kinds of political subversion.  

  

NEFA's Common Ground - A Mass Grave for Artists

Creative Ground has become the defacto warehouse being designated by the New England Foundation for the Arts as a registration destination for an artist's profile of availability. The Connecticut Office of the Arts (COA) claims it "uses it to find artists for projects, including public art opportunities".

Creative Ground is a NEFA "project" which, as you can easily imagine, is a cluster-phuck of bad ideas shoehorned into a website that features a handy-dandy database of  [Norm Macdonald voice] "the world". 

By the "world", I'm euphemistically referring to every possible art related person, place, or thing in New England relating to art, humanities, education, health, child care, merchandise, or identity politic grift that they could identify. This is the short list, btw.

I was recently sent an email telling me to update my profile and I did. I already had one from years ago when I probably got a similar message to create a profile because it would ensure being seen by the state as an artist with work to sell.

You quickly find out that the completeness of your profile is used to rank your position in the sequence of search results that is returned to a user using the database.  I'm being kind in calling it a database.

As of May 20, 2024, the database contains approximately 32053 database results. 

Having spent my career working with developing and designing databases, I wanted to test the hypothesis that an architect from CT wanting to locate an artist who would qualify for the 1% arts money in a new construction. This, after all, is the pretense of the exercise.

Being a visual artist, I searched for "Painter". On the first page of 10 search results, there were 3 individual painters returned, 2 retail stores, and 5 professional associations. The next page returned 4 painters and 6 associations of painters. Subsequent pages devolve into community organizers and dancers who "work with painters", and dross.

To make a long story short, this database is worthless when it comes to locating, say, a fine arts painter whose work might satisfy decorating the walls of a University Humanities building.  An architect or arts associate would need to slog through pages of search results whose ranking is not based on relevance but on a misguided completeness metric. And although these search results yield a link to a fairly attractive looking profile page, the lack of uniformity of content is maddening.

The search problems are both in the database design and the parsing of search material. And root cause analysis goes even deeper to reveal that the problem is in the people creating the database specifications.

The NEFA administrators are unqualified to design databases, they are infected with the woke mind virus , and they subscribe to institutional arts special interest kickbacks.

The largest group represented in Professional Discipline is Visual/Crafts a category that NEFA provides no grants or funding for individual artists. Yet fine art and crafts are not the same thing at all. Yes, a cohort of Contemporary Art individuals do their best to entangle the categories this adds no value to a database that is intended to be used by individuals to identify very specific requirements.

The 32053 search results number is a drop in the bucket. In the Visual Arts/Crafts category, over 49% of the individual profiles are tightly coupled to teaching.  Furthermore, of the 159 profiles, only 20% are men. In other words, NEFA's database is virtually devoid of any kind of regional visual arts representation at all.  And those who are represented are an ingrown cohort of educators who as a profession are largely women.

Why the gender bigotry? And why is this database, assuming it imported all of each New England's State's individual databases of artists, so sparsely populated?

As this database scales, if it ever does, the interface will become impossible to navigate or make sense of. imagine being an artist on page 30 of the ranked search result? Or page 130?  Today, the database is a fool's enterprise meant to distract artists from the misrepresentation NEFA inflicts on visual artists. It is an expensive graveyard of misguided arts administration.

Criminalization of CT Artists by Proxy

I ran into the administrator from a local arts organization and the issue of soliciting government funding came up. "All I want to do is put a coat of fresh paint on the walls and I'm forced to fill out applications requiring all this Woke shit about diversity, gender, and on and on.  The building just needs a fresh coat of paint!"

There's a particularly obscene set of grants given by the Connecticut Office of the Arts called Artists Respond because of the dysfunctional and functionally malicious application of the National Endowment for the Art's (NEA) organizational criteria for Artistic Merit and Artistic Excellence to the criteria for grant evaluation at the individual artist or fellowship level. Both Merit and Excellence are wholly bleached out of the equation in favor of "Community" (e.g. Woke social issue engagement) criteria.  The result is that artists requesting funding are pledged into laundering public arts money into progressive (Woke-Democrat-friendly) issue advocacy. 

On a statewide basis this violates ethical and legal conventions by misappropriating these funds for political advantage.

Let's unpack the scope of duplicity, incompetence, and outright disingenuous bad intent involved.

In Your Everyday Art World, Lane Relyea documents how by the mid 1990's capitalism transformed the product made by artists into  Projects (Operational Business Units). Reputational Networks of Art collaboratives began to supersede the ability of artists to self-promote or compete with the cost of legal representation required to establish a business footprint.

And this appears to be the origin of the NEA's usage of the term. And this is important for artists to understand.  The vernacular for describing art is no longer merely that you are creating a worthwhile piece of art or craft or performance.  The individuals evaluating these grant and fellowship applications think in terms of project-speak. The expectation of the star chamber judges is based as much on your good standing in an exclusive reputational network of fiscally incestuous relations.  For example having Yale on your CV even as a one-night-drive-by provides plausible credibility. 

When asked about the multitude of religions on earth, mythologist Joseph Campbell remarked, "There's a lot of ways to get it wrong." At the national level, the NEA establishes Artistic Merit and Artistic Excellence definitions that are primarily tailored for organizational requests for funding.  Tightly coupled to arts organizations are communities they may serve with specific requests.

The first way that the pretense of Merit and Excellence goes sideways is when the assumption is that all organizations are somehow community ambassadors for a cause. Many organizations just need to paint the walls.  There's no real political or social spin that is necessary except that it is coerced with increasing intolerance by the application expectations at every lower level. And at every lower  level of funding administration are ever more incompetent, cover-your-ass midwits.

Not only are organizational requests for funding nuanced yet treated with Kafkaesque indifference, these evaluation metrics are applied to individual artists who in no way shape or form are responsible for, representative of, or otherwise likely to engineer social change objectives for a vaguely-woke-ambiguous social cause, say, *climate*.

At the national regional level I have already documented how badly broken the New England Foundation for the arts is.

Let's look at how badly those NEA quality metrics get mangled in CT using the Artists Respond biyearly arts grants as an example.  If you open the FY23 (latest) Grant Recipients list, you'll see the damage.

There are 81 artists who got funded and all but one had to pick a social justice cause to frame their request for an art grant.  The claim made about these grants is that they serve a "community" interest but that's an obvious lie.  The vast majority of these pre-seeded categories are progressive social justice advocacies driven by Democrat special interests.

In other words, assuming that arts funds should ever be subsidizing the interests of political parties, why aren't there categories for safe borders, lower taxes, deregulation, right to life, and so on? All of these are equally legitimate and maybe even more so.

And as a fine artist my larger problem is why aren't these categories based on art and aesthetics? Why not Promote Abstract Art, Art for Art's Sake, PostModernism for Everyone, or a million other art related advocacies.  After all, Everything is not Art - if it were, nothing would be art and artists themselves become anybody with a social axe to grind.

The use of cognitive bias to coerce artists to distort their art to conform to politically expedient objectives is a criminal enterprise - extortion.  

A Grants Writing for Artists, April 2024 document contains another subliminal suggestion:

Step five on slide three is ominous. Artists who don't "look" (conform) to that above woke profile may as well pound sand.  This is an exclusive club and you're not in it.

There's a lot of ways to administer art funding wrong.  This is just a teaser.

The Uniparty Arts Money Pit - A Work in Progress

 The acronyms in this diagram refer are:

NEA - National Endowment (euphemistically) for the Arts

NEFA - New England Foundation (euphemistically) for the Arts

DECD - [CT} Department for Economic Community Development (e.g. a special interest group run by and for casino gambling)

COA - CT Office (Euphemistically) for the Arts 

DRSO - Designated Regional Services Organization (CT is divided into "service" regions)

This topology of organizations manages to mismanage multi-millions of Federal, State, and local taxes in addition to funds donated to promote the Arts community (e.g. actual, living, breathing artists). This investigative series that started by simply attempting to understand if there was a single source, uniformly administered way to apply for an arts grant or fund to -gasp- make some more art.

By the time money is awarded to actual, living, breathing local artists the grand total awarded to a cohort of artists is equivalent to less than one single State of Connecticut bureaucrat (about $100,000 per year) with no benefits. The awards to individual artists is $1000, $3000, or $5000 dollars, the quivalent of a week's to a few week's pay of that same sample CT State employee - don't spend it all in one place.

The deeper I dig, the more obvious it is that this money is illegally being funneled into a single political party's narrative. An apolitical fine artist not only doesn't stand an honest chance of  consideration but is doomed to witness money intended for arts to be squandered maliciously on the corrupt and unethical subversion of that funding for illiberal political gain. 

Use this link to follow my investigative series into all of these organizations, their malfeasance, and their brazen criminal practices.

 

  

Connecticut Humanities Grants

Yesterday, I had a great conversation with Scott Wands, the Director of Grants at Connecticut Humanities.  This was a follow on of research I've been conducting involving how Arts and Humanities grants work.  

My first question was why CT Humanities (CTH), unlike the National Endowment for the Arts framework, was administered the way it is.  That is, no regional equivalent of the New England Foundation for the Arts exists for the Humanities AND, oddly enough in Connecticut the CT Humanities is funneled through the Department of Economic and Community  Development (DECD) -> CT Office of Arts (COA).

Scott explained the in the 1960s the Humanities were administered exclusively from Washington, DC and later through State affiliates. In Connecticut this was implemented through the creation of a 501c Non-profit - the CTH.  It's primary function is to distribute as equitably as possible grants for organizations that promote the Humanities and for local Community programs doing the same (this all includes Digital content as well).

So where does the money come from for Humanities grants?

One Source is Federal funds. Some of this incoming money is used for staff expenses but the rest is used exclusively (by law) for Connecticut community programs and Digital cotent that are listed in detail on the CTH website. 

The Second money stream comes from the State of CT itself and is, of course, dependent on State budget considerations. Some of this incoming money is used for staff expenses but the rest is used exclusively (by law) for Connecticut institutional grants. 

I questioned why NO grants to individuals were available and the answer is that this is how the State of Connecticut constrains, through governance, the dissemination of these funds.

I was a bit perplexed here. One of the advertised responsibilities for CT Humanities is that funding for Art Criticism should be administered through CTH. What gives? Scott's response was that any such grants to individual Arts Criticism writing would be found downstream from an institution receiving CTH state funded grants.

In other words, someone looking for an Art Criticism project grant should not waste time soliciting CTH and instead research candidate institutions.

The third source of funding comes from outside contributions. These funds get dedicated to lobbying.

Who gets lobbied? The State. I had examined their transparent spreadsheet of Tax Returns and had noticed the lobbying expense and it occurred to me that unless that expense was exceeded by the return it seemed like a waste.

Scott explained that the lobbying is necessary and of course cannot guarantee a return but ensures due diligence in soliciting for programs that benefit the State.

One such program, Summer at the Museum, offered free passes to CT museums during the summer months had been defunded post-Covid and remains and sorely missed program that continues to be lobbied for. 

In terms of my research into qualifying for Arts grants, CTH exercise its responsibilities on an institutional or Community Program scale.  The quality and metrics for determining the effectiveness or continued veracity of institutional grants is out of scope of my interests for the time being.

And the idea of cultivating arts and humanities patrons is a topic I'll return to.

A Penny for Your Artful Thoughts

 As I research government art funding, something (aside from the illicit use of taxpayer money) that is suspiciously curious is the difference in funding levels between different kinds of artists, writers, and so on.  This raises a true question of equitable funding - in other words, you're a writer, I'm a visual artist both seeking a grant to produce 'art' over the same period of time. Is the funding the same or different?  Let's take a look under the covers.

In the wake of the 9/11 victim death toll, the government had to determine a fair compensation to those whose loved ones were taken during that event.  A equitable fiscal calculation had to be made and it was.

Similarly, with recognizing that National Arts funding exists (and there is plenty to discuss about that fact), what is the value of a grant that will speculatively produce something of human societal value?  

The argument I will explore involves the difference between a visual artist and a fiction writer. Both artists need time to create their work and the first drafts or experimental prototypes may need refinement so an arts grant of, for example, $1000 just for subsidizing living expenses for a few weeks is equitable - a visual artist and a writer on a day to day basis have common expenses.

Where there is a difference however is in material expenses, visual artists (generally speaking) have expenses that writers (even digitally leaning) simply don't have. Browse the cost of paints, brushes, or home depot materials required to create something and this fact is obvious.  Yet there doesn't seem to be any recognition of this difference at any level of government arts funding at all. In other words, a request for arts funding should solicit the size of a requested grant AND an expenses stipend. 

In a previous essay, I commend the National Endowment for the Humanities for objectively soliciting, describing, and dispensing their funding.  But something else they do that is different from the operations of the Arts Funding apparatchiks is that their grants have a temporal duration.  In other words they fund humanities scholarship for months or even a year.  Its not the same as tossing a small lump sum at a writer and wiping the administrative dust off their hands.

The NEH can (if they desired) make an argument that NEH research writing is different from NEA fiction writing. Here I'm using NEH and NEA as a allegory for every ladder rung of administrative entity that funds their respective grants.

My counter argument (and I've been making art for over a half century) is that creating original work as opposed to curating, refining, and synthesizing existing research is every bit as time-consuming and exhaustive as research.  The NEH's grant framework makes perfect sense and the NEA has nothing comparable (at least in my survey).

To clarify the difference, an NEH researcher can solicit a $6k/month funding for whatever duration they choose within funding guidelines and NEA grants have no such funding option. To understand the insulting indignity of this difference compare and contrast the CT State artist grants of $5k, $3k, and $1k awarded here. Keep in mind that NEFA has NO visual artist options to even apply for a Regional grant at all. NEFA launders national arts funding to exclude everyone aside from special interests from accessing those funds. 

The State of CT's cluster muck of arts, humanities, "development", and "tourism" entanglement is an administrative masterpiece of wasted energy, money, and legitimacy. Somebody, somewhere/anywhere really needs to audit these mofos.

In previous essays I questioned how a dead artist, Sol  Lewitt somehow managed to become a statewide money sink for arts funding.

Then there's the evaporating wall mural on the Lewitt building in New Britain.

So imagine my surprise when I'm looking up the individuals responsible for handing out the funds.

Presumably, anyone with conflicts of interest recuse themselves from participation but I can't help but feeling that ensuring accountability in CT is as difficult to grab hold of as a greased pig. 

  

Tip-Toeing Through CT Arts Grants

 In researching *how to* apply for government arts grants (my art career plan B), I started with local grants and that exercise exploded in my face and escalated to Regional and Federal levels of interest. It is unavoidable. And it's circular.  I'm back to the CT State mosh pit of Arts funding.

As a software engineer there's a conceptual framework that ought to apply to the awarding of Fellowship grants or institutional funding is "As above, so below". For sports enthusiasts this translates to "The goalposts shouldn't be moving." In CT anything can happen.  Let's dive in.

The CT Artist Fellowship Program 2023 Recipient List is here. The accuracy of the information appears to be approximate on closer inspection. My interest as a visual artist was to attempt to identify some kind of pattern of award and what I found was a rich, superficial diversity of identity politic types. Any discrimination in that regard appears co-incidental - I poked through a number of years. I had no real ability to speak to viewpoint diversity.

What I did find are a few backdoor things that imply that the rules for Fellowship qualification are not rigorously enforced.  One problem was actual residency (being a New England artist isn't someone necessarily paying CT State taxes) and the second problem is the greased pig identity problem of whether or not such a person really exists.  Later.

Of the 69 Fellowships awarded, I teased out that 31 of the 69 artists listed had something to do with the Visual Arts - my particular special interest. So I really took a close look at those and sampled a few others to confirm the problem I found.

And that problem involves the fact that 15 of the 31 Fellowships went to instructors or employees in Higher Education institutions. Six of those 15 are associated with Yale and 9 in other higher ed schools.

I think a similar ratio of Fellowship particulars will play out with the rest of the non-Visual artists listed.

As feedback that could and should alert the DECD that the system is broken. If a quarter or more of the Fellowships being awarded are going to the graduates of the world's richest University and another quarter to graduates of exclusive institutions, then Federal and State money intended to promote equity is in fact being money laundered back into the pockets of the rich.

What my research has helped me to do is conclusively define who the "underserved" CT artists actually are.  The underserved community consists of anyone who did not graduate with an MFA from Yale or other exclusive institution.  This is worth unpacking.  It is not patriarchy, racism, systemic government breakdown or any other popular victim narrative that suppresses a livelier arts culture in CT (and maybe New England), it is social class education.

The total amount of money at the end of the spigot for actual artists struggling to create a maker budget is half of that more or less $200K yearly payout. ALL the rest of the arts funding is administrative overhead - we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.

But we can't be done yet,  What about institutional funding?

"The pandemic and COVID-related restrictions have hit these organizations hard. Theaters and other performing arts venues were recently given the go-ahead to open to the public as part of the state’s Phase 3 reopening plan but only at 50% capacity, further undermining their ability to turn a decent profit.

In a news release, Connecticut’s Flagship Producing Theaters, a consortium of theaters that includes Eugene O’Neill Theater Center, Goodspeed Musicals, Hartford Stage, Long Wharf Theatre, Westport Country Playhouse and Yale Repertory Theatre called the grant program “a welcome step toward helping theaters recover.”"

So what the hell is the Yale Repertory Theater doing in this mix? Make this make sense. Was there ever some doubt that F'n YALE was in danger of going under?  And the State put some qualifications on this funding that YALE, of all places, would have absolutely no problem maxing out should they so choose.

Google:

And about 5% of that is spent funding Yale:

So what condition is Yale Rep in these days?

"“I think her legacy is already operating out there in the field,” said James Bundy, who as dean of the Yale School of Drama and artistic director of Yale Rep has worked alongside of Nolan for 17 years. “It’s in all the leaders that she’s had such an important role in training.” Nolan, who announced her decision back in October and is succeeded by Florie Seery, has seen the theatrical landscape evolve first-hand from her multifaceted position at Yale. As a shrewd managing director and innovative educator, Nolan is as responsible as any one person for how theaters operate across the commercial and nonprofit spectrum countrywide.

Naturally, her influence started in New Haven.

“We were a $16 million operation then,” said Nolan of Yale Rep’s operating budget, “and $40 million now."

DECD funds Yale Rep approx. $43325 per year (2018 - today, likely long before 2018 as well). These Directed Local Funds got even funkier in 2022 and 2023 when some kind of 2 year state carry forward windfalls were added $129,975 and $86,000 were added to the funding. SWEET. Go Yale.

Compare and contrast.

Friends of mine compare applying for arts funding as a crab bucket exercise.    There's no such intention here.  This process is highly flawed and needs fixing. I hope these essays clarify some solutions.

My first recommendation is that if funding is going to involve residency then that residency have a threshold of three continuous years in the State. Residency less than that limits the grant to its lowest possible award.  This rewards long term resident artists and limits academic drive-bys.

Second, add aliases. The gaming of identity masks the number of applications, awards, and residences that craftier agents use to obfuscate their history.

Encrypt all personal characteristics of the applicant. Let the quality of the art speak to the virtue of the application and the individuals involved.  Nobody wants their awarded funding to be diminished by the innuendo that they "didn't earn it" (DEI).

 

Federal Art Funding Done Right

 In the 1960's Major League Baseball expanded and added back another New York team, the New York Mets.  Needless to say as an expansion team the talent was razor thin and their colorful and entertaining coach Casey Stengel quipped, "Doesn't anybody here know how to play this game?"

That sense of humor is not lost on any artist attempting to locate and apply for a arts grant or other funding opportunity from the State of CT, the New England Foundation for the Arts (NEFA), and to some degree the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).

Aside from the clusterMuck of confusing and misleading website and - cough- "portal" interface problems, it is a full time chore for anyone who is not already associated with a mainstream arts organization, a University, or otherwise inside track to simply navigate, recipe-wise, 'how do I apply for the damned thing and how can I be sure my application will be treated fairly'?

I'm chipping away at making sense of this stuff in a series of essays and inquiries that I hope will concise road map that any artist can follow.

What has caught my attention and has answered the question of "Can the Federal government do a good and truly honest job of creating opportunities for creatives whose instructions are reasonable, whose solicitations are free of cognitive and political bias, and who advocate and practice an even handed evaluation process?"

The improbable answer is YES.

In researching arts funding you will inevitably encounter cross references to the National Endowment for the Humanities. Sometimes that cross-reference is misguided.  In a couple of cases, an arts administrator or political advocate for funding wants to co-opt or deflect responsibility for funding something having to do with writing or related matter for funding as a Humanities project. NEA and NEH serve two autonomous and unique cohorts that only co-incidentally share some of the same creative juices that applicants are looking to exercise.

On the NEH website there's a webinar that's been recorded with tons of very useful, specifics about who the Humanities serve and what the scope of that stuff is as this slide shows;

Taken at face value, artists such as myself can claim some of that territory as our own but what NEH makes clear throughout their material is that the generation of art is out of scope - that stuff belonging to the responsibility of the NEA, NGOs, and private parties

Again, as an artist, I find comfort in this kind of clarity. This means that funding opportunities for stuff I do or hope to do is in the scope of the NEA and not here.  HOWEVER, my expectation as an artist is that everything that applies to the Humanities in terms of an expected field of neutrality WILL apply at the NEA.

Let's compare and contrast what i found in the NEA budget and performance plan:

Wait, WHAT?

I'm going to analyze the NEA's malfeasance in this regard in a separate essay. Obviously, every single form of psychological intimidation appears to be "the plan" at the NEA.

But this post is about doing it right and for the sake providing how its done right let me provide additional references and links from NEH that conclusively prove that government can work responsibly and fiscally soundly.

The NEH grants webpage is a breath of fresh air - lots of truly well-developed recipes for successfully submitting an application for the funding you hope will be chosen.

The YouTube channel for NEHgov is rich with additional videos that make life easier for funding applicants.

see: Connecticut Humanities Grants

Why Do Bad Things Happen to Art in Connecticut

Jon Lender of the Courant recently ran the following news piece under the auspices of consumer protection but its something altogether different, IMO.

Jon Lender: $480K For Blocks Of Color On UConn Lobby's Wall

Jon explains:

The late Connecticut artist Sol LeWitt's "Wall Drawing #867" blares its bright blocks of color at passersby from the glass lobby of UConn's new Innovation Partnership Building.

-snip- 

Moreover, the $480,000 artwork was installed amid the flames of the state government’s final descent into budget hell last year. Great timing, right?
Why an expense like this at a time like that?
The explanation dates back 40 years to 1978 when the state legislature passed a law creating Connecticut’s Art In Public Spaces (AIPS) program — with a requirement that at least 1 percent of the state-bonded cost for construction or renovation of a publicly accessible state building be spent on artwork to be located there.
That requirement — intended “to provide the citizens of Connecticut with an improved public environment by investing in creative works of high quality” — applied to this project “because funding for construction … was approved by the State Bond Commission,” university spokeswoman Stephanie Reitz told Government Watch.
But is this the kind of thing you can afford when you’re in hell?

 Here let me simply interject a few thoughts.  First, the State is not "in hell" because of its arts community.  Along this line of thought, it also occurs to me that true investments in arts in fact are exactly what the State needs more of.

Also timing is irrelevant.  This is both law and a legitimate business practice (assuming its legitimately exercised).

Secondly, I want to revisit the quality of the acquisition as we further explore the story points.


Lender goes on to point out that:

It turns out that the General Assembly has recently decided the answer is no — at least for two years. In the throes of their protracted deliberations of 2017, lawmakers put language in their budget bill saying that the bond commission “shall not allocate any percentage” of funds that it approves for such projects “commenced on or after Jan. 1, 2018, until Jan. 1, 2020” for works of art.

Wait.  WHAT!

The General Assembly did what!

Yeah.  They did.  They cut out one of the Arts funds in the State  WOW!  That must have upset the CT Arts community!

You're not going to believe what Lender reports next.

The need for the Innovation Partnership Building to still comply with the AIPS program has caused mixed feelings at UConn, Reitz said.
“UConn is a -snip blah, blah, blah - "
“At the same time,” Reitz said, “the university is relieved that this provision was removed from state law, as it arbitrarily mandated that substantial funds had to be diverted from projects such as this one to satisfy the requirement. Whether it was this specific [LeWitt] work, another individual piece, or a dozen smaller works, spending 1 percent of the overall construction cost on public art … was a mandate, rather than a choice."

A few more thoughts come to mind here.

UConn does not speak for the Arts community. Why UCONN administrators ever had control over this money or its proper award is a very big question given their seedy history.

It also occurs to me that positions such as Reitz's ARE THE FIRST PLACE TO CUT FUNDS.  In an institution that - let's pretend - values knowledge cannot possibly seriously complain that Art is a MANDATE.

I cannot begin to tell you how angry this rhetoric makes me.  There are no words for this moronic response.

And it just doesn't end...  they claim there's an upside!  No not what you think, just spending it on anything other than art...

With the requirement now gone, UConn and other state agencies can save money or devote part of projects' costs to “other aspects of the facilities,” Reitz said. For example, she said, the new UConn building “is a major research facility that is home to important partnerships between UConn and the private sector. In this case, a portion of these funds could have been used to fund laboratory space and research equipment, in addition to public art.”Under the AIPS program, the choice of an artist is made by a committee including the project architect, building users and arts professionals. In this case, Reitz said, “the specific piece was selected both because of its creator’s Connecticut roots, and because it was in keeping with the design of the [building] and its prominent location as one of the first features that many see on campus as they enter on Discovery Drive.”

SO.  You're telling me that they spent 98% of the money on space that ISN"T laboratory space? Furthermore, building funds would get used like a pizza party stash to buy esoteric "research" equipment.  Gee, fuck art.

Where Lender's article also fails is in pointing out that the committee that authorized the Lewitt buy should not only be named but held accountable to Connecticut artists.  Lender's article goes on to explain Lewitt the artist.
IMO, Lewitt's work is not representative of 21st century Contemporary Art and, in fact, is antithetical to the expressed purpose of the buildings program.  Lewitt's wall drawings that amount to spirograph-like drawing specifications are both an artifact of the 1960s AND their shelf-life has expired.  These drawings have been way over-exposed and there's an artistic fatigue that sets in with museums that over-expose his work (think MASS MOCA).

A space dedicated to Innovation Partnerships should have had art that IS innovative and not was innovative say 70 years ago.  This purchase has the smell of money laundering and insider trading.  The money is not supporting CT artists (who need both the money and the exposure), it is going to NY gallerists, holding companies, lawyers, and likely special interests having to do with the building in the first place.

Misappropriated funds cannot be an excuse to extinguish an arts funding stream in CT. Rather it needs to be restored and its administration given to an independent body outside of UCONN and outside of the current, miserable State administration.

Fundamental, to its distribution must be that practicing CT resident artists - who pay taxes, who suffer under this worthless State government, and who contribute far more to the economy than superfluous administrators should be nurtured, NOT IGNORED.

Ironic Note:  UCONN just held a STEAM forum in April:

Building Up STEAM 

Looks more like they are not only losing STEAM but pissing on the 'A' as they go.