What are the main issues & challenges?
/ 09 October 2009 - 12:03 pm
/
13 Comments
What are the main strategic issues and challenges in the arts sector in the Auckland and / or Northland regions at the moment?
Advertisement
Submissions to the SoundOut conversation closed on 1 November 2009.
Comments
A key strategic issue for Auckland region is the approach to selecting which arts events or Festivals are actually regional come the new local government structure in 2010. The introduction of a bi partisan adjudication panel to set the impartial criteria which is used to assess such events and Festivals would be welcomed.
In particular around the funding of the same.
What is the process and when will it be confirmed?
15 October 2009 - 12:38 PM
At Diversityworks Trust we take a wider view of "creativity" than just arts and culture. For example we are interested in how creativity can be used for benefit across several sectors, including the arts, education, business and social/community sectors, and our work at any given time may span more than one. Our issue is that funding streams are usually so narrow that any hint of a project crossing streams is seen by funders as a reason to say no, because it doesn't fit one particular stream's criteria.
Another issue is the all-or-nothing approach to funding application processes. I like the Todd Foundation's process where they ask for an initial one-page expression of interest. They then come back to you and ask you to submit a full application, if they think your project fits their criteria, focus, priorities, etc at the time. This saves endless hours of needless effort on applications that may fall completely outside a funder's current gaze, for whatever reason.
A final issue, linked to the former, is the "lottery-style" approach to funding that exists, ie. you put in an app, sit back and wait for the draw and if you're lucky, your number comes up and you get your prize. Ok, slightly exaggerated but for organisational sustainability, having no idea what the outcome of an app will be over the 6-12 week period between the submission and result is virtually untenable. I think a dialogue-based, partnership approach to funding needs to evolve, where decisions are negotiated by both parties rather than made solely by the funder. Slightly more effort required by all, but I think such an approach would improve effectiveness and productivity in the long run.
Hope this is useful :-)
Three excellent points thanks Philip.
Firstly a good reminder that making funding policies too narrow and prescriptive can result in potentially missing out on helping innovative projects develop. We sometimes find this not only within a sector (such as Arts), but where projects are multifaceted and have broader outcomes (for example arts, health and education).
I agree that the Todd Foundation is an excellent funding model - particularly for a funder with limited funds making strategic funding decisions to deliver as well as they can. We use the expression of interest format for our Community Building Projects applications, but could definitely think about using it in other areas. The Myer Foundation in Melbourne (who are vastly oversubscribed) use a similar process for small grants (up to $30,000).
And finally the point of a relationship based-partnership approach is certainly an ideal. However as you note - more effort required by all. For example, I may receive up to 200 Arts and Culture applications in a year, so time wise it isn't feasible to spend a great deal of time with each applicant. I do try to spend time with those who are in a development phase, or seeking larger grants, and this is an issue we are looking into as part of our policy review....staff cloning perhaps?!
Great comments thanks :)
Yes we have find that all the time, around how to approach any application, and with which way to pitch your applications, some funders say we are too community focused, others say we are too arts focused. It's bit like being a rubber man, you kinda have to mould yourself around the relevant criteria project by project.
One way to think about relationship based approaches are that the people in the sector are the best deciders of who and what to invest in. Saves visiting 200 applicants! Radical concept but.....
For example one other funding model which was a real success in it's day, the mid 90's, was the NZ Film Commission short film fund. They took the view that the industry practitioners were the best assessors of who's scripts and careers were the best to invest in. i.e peer review and grant making. It worked by three independant producer's with funding track records and results being awarded the contracts to make the commissions for new short films. This worked really well as those in the creative know were able to offer grants where they saw a good script. These film professionals, who were already credited with short films, dramas and productions, were able to be tapped into for their knowledge and expertise. It kept the decisions within the arena of the film makers themselves.
As all short film grants were made under a legal contract for public funding they were safe in using this mechanism (approx $70,000 each). It's possibly similar to having the assessment committees at CNZ but this goes several steps further as the overall grants budget was split and paid to the 3 companies who then managed and administered it.
Quite a brave way to fund arts and culture. A very hands on approach by the industry leaders. From memory the 3 companies/independants were selected through an expression of interest process and subsequent due diligence. As it was tax payer money clearly the processes were rigorous and by legal contracts.
Not sure if any of this could be morphed into a similar idea now. Obviuosly as it's radical, it's a totally new way to do it and requires a complete overhaul of the idea of funding within the sector.
Regarding the relationship/dialogue approach - perhaps this is only required when there is doubt over an application's likelihood to be funded. So, for example, if an application of $50k is doubtful, maybe it's then that an approach is made to the applicant to see what the options may be. Sometimes a lesser amount for a lesser outcome may be appropriate and sometimes the best option may be to can a project altogether.
Making these difficult decisions in dialogue make them more easily swallowed by a funding seeker than a definitive No from a funder.
My sense is, too, that there may be some interesting solutions that may emerge from these conversations - for example, a funding adviser may see an opportunity and broker a partnership for collaboration between two organisations who may be unaware of each other.
(Philip Patston again, signed in as Creative Momentum!)
20 October 2009 - 16:45 PM
I think Philip poses an interesting proposition - that of brokering relationships between applicants. I can imagine that it would raise some challenging issues but could mean that similar projects or projects with similar outcomes could get more leverage
Margaret Lewis
The Big Idea
margaret.lewis@thebigidea.co.nz
Kathryn - very interested in your point of view! Issues regarding funding in the arts seem pretty universal, and we are using a lot of national and international comment during this process. I'd love to hear about things that are working (or aren't!) in other regions in New Zealand!
Any and all comments accepted - relevance not a criteria!
Catherine :-)
For us in start-up mode it's just a case of finding talented well connected people sit on the board of directors, working out legal issues and then finding the funding/sponsorship for our big idea.
OK, so maybe not so simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jade Wood http://www.xerxesatlas.com
Jade - firstly, your point is really relevant to many organisations. At start up time, many organisations struggle with the enormity of finding people and training for boards, access to legal information and development funding. And it is often a case of not knowing what you don't know!
One interesting resource that is being developed is http://creativepeoplescentre.co.nz/
I am hearing a lot around the need for arts "hubs" for sharing resources, and would be interested in hearing about any great examples.
And secondly, what an exciting project, an open source musical! I'll definitely be keeping an eye on Xerxes Atlas!
Catherine
Richard Howard TICKETUS info.ticketus@gmail.com Sensible affordable ticketing solutions for shows and events
A significant obstacle and challenge has to be the lack of skilled and knowledgeable arts and cultural sector commentators, educators and writers.
When you compare the profile and brand awareness and benefits of sport (or almost any other sector) against the superficial level of understanding around how creativity, innovation and cultural influences shape every aspect of our day lives and our society, you can see that the creative sector woefully under performs in the media and in education.
We just don't work hard enough to opene access to what we know and what we contribute.
Secondly, creative people do not tend to prepare sufficiently for careers or realise the need for good basic business skills. It is if in fact we are not part of the realities of the broader world around us. A creative career tends to be played out as a rather loose improvisation and a gamble.
I also note that both psychological and physical isolation in work practices errodes the practitioners capacity to work and function effectively. Lack of recognition of work and personal value equally errode capacity.
Being talented and skilled and full of ideas and having the will to contribute creative based value is nothing but a heart ache and a true personal burden if the means to realise ideas and innovations is not readily available. The level of investment in the plethora of talented people, and in innovation is woefully and wasteful.
Those who hold the purse strings and the capacity to support development very often simply do not have the experience or knowledge or belief (let alone the courage) to make inspiring investment decisions that will unleash the creative potential of the country.
Just some general thoughts.
Richard Howard
Mancreating@gmail.com