AMT Lab @ CMU: The grant economy is an enormous economic arena in which persuasion, data, and human judgment drive real economic impact. Institutional grant-makers hold a tremendous amount of capital and the associated power that comes with it. As of 2018, Harvard Kennedy School’s Global Philanthropy Report noted that there are more than 260,000 foundations across the globe which collectively hold over $1.5 trillion in assets. Annual expenditures for these foundations tops $150 billion, and over 90% of foundations are considered independent.
2 comments:
I found this article on grants very interesting. There is a phenomenon that happens when people apply for grants for the arts in that they have to not only justify why they specifically should be given the grant, but also just why they are there. Why art should exist. Why it is important. There is a part of me that wonders if this is a relatively new thing that stems from the commercialization of specifically performing art. From my understanding, historically and in cultures across the world, there has frequently been a base understanding that art is important, that art should exist. Dancers, singers, musicians, painters have been valued in society for their art without the need to justify why the art should exist, at least not to the same extent as with the modern concept of grants. I wonder when in history that change began and if it is a complete change or a cycle.
This article was incredibly informative for describing a holistic approach to writing grant applications for arts organizations and skillfully described the cat and mouse like game involved. Discussion of how funders values and their depiction of their values was insightful and surely is advice to keep in mind. What particularly interested me in this though is how this affects artistic direction for a particular arts organization in that throughout this article, the main implication is that regardless of how an arts organization frames itself in its grant applications, the art being performed there remains relatively the same. But, I wonder how often arts organizations make big shifts in what they decide to produce and if this has ever been mainly motivated by the funds that would be available to gain in doing so. For example, organizations that have a limited amount of funders who view the organization through a more romantic lens have a certain cap on what they are able to produce due to the financial constraints they are under. As a result, how often do organizations that are like this remain in that state and for how long? Do they typically carry on? Or do they typically seek to innovate in some way? Ultimately, this is highly characterized by the risk it carries though as attempts to curry favor of other funders may alienate current funders in some more meaningful way.
Post a Comment