Charting the Future of Mass Cultural Council’s Support for Artists, Culture Bearers, and Creatives
Mass Cultural Council believes that the work of artists, culture bearers, and creative individuals is essential to a healthy and vibrant society.
This grant cycle (Fiscal Year 2023), we paused our Artist Fellowships program to reevaluate our funding opportunities for artists and creatives while simultaneously running the one-time Cultural Sector Recovery Grants for Individuals program. The reevaluation began as part of our Racial Equity Plan and is guided by the vision and values of our recently ratified three-year Strategic Plan.
The work will culminate in the development of a new grant program for artists and creatives. The goal is to launch this new program sometime during next fiscal year (FY24), which begins on July 1, 2023.
We expect some aspects of our decision-making will change with the new program. One likely change is a move away from the Artist Fellowships’ sole focus on strength of work or artistic excellence. We recognize that words like “excellence” and “merit” can be weighted – and sometimes unconsciously tied to Western European aesthetic traditions or biases. We envision a program that reflects the rich diversity of creative expression throughout the Commonwealth.
Many details are still under review, but here is our current thinking about the new program’s mission: to equitably advance creative expression throughout the Commonwealth with unrestricted grants to individuals who demonstrate creative vision and commitment to their artistic/cultural practice.
How do we plan to meet this mission? Some of the broad concepts we are exploring include:
More grant recipients
We want to increase the number of individuals funded by our grants in a fiscal year. (Previously, the most artists reached by our Artist Fellowships in one year was 150.) Increasing the number of grants may mean a lower individual grant amount than previous Artist Fellowships awards.
Unrestricted grants
Rather than limiting the funding to specific projects or uses, we think artists and creatives can best choose how our funds should advance their work and lives.
Greater reach in the sector
We will continue to welcome artists in disciplines previously funded by Artist Fellowships. We also wish to extend that welcome to artists and creatives in all disciplines, categories, and types of work. That includes performers, designers, DJs, drag artists, and many more. We want everyone who resides in Massachusetts and practices as an artist, creative, or culture bearer to see themselves in our program.
Rethinking anonymous review
An anonymous panel review process was a centerpiece of the Artist Fellowships for many years. But removing an applicant’s identity from the process limits the potential to prioritize equity. We are exploring ways to balance a focus on creative work (rather than on past accolades) while integrating an applicant’s identity and narrative in the application process.
Increased access
We want to enhance access to our programs. That means brief, simple application forms. It also means, where possible, allowing applicants to express themselves through other media like video or audio, where before we only accepted written responses. We remain committed to accessible design practices and availability in multiple languages.
Equitable review
We incorporated equitable grant practices in this year’s Cultural Sector Recovery Grants. This included implementing funding priorities to reach historically underfunded applicants and geographic distribution to ensure geographic diversity. We learned a great deal and are eager to continue that work, as we design a review process for our new program.
Going forward
We are deeply proud of our past funding history with the Artist Fellowships. However, as we enter this new chapter in our work, we plan to sunset the Fellows Notes featuring news from past grantees. We hope to announce our redesigned funding program for artists, culture bearers, and creative individuals (program name TBD) in Fiscal Year ’24. Sign up for our Artist News e-newsletter to receive updates about our support for artists, or follow the Agency on social media @MassCultural (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Instagram).
In the meantime, please share your perspective on the broad ideas shared above by completing this brief survey. Please submit your survey response by end of the day July 12, 2023.
Image: multimedia art by Bayda Asbridge of Worcester, a 2023 Cultural Sector Recovery Grantee. The artist is exhibiting in the 87th Regional Exhibition of Art and Craft at Fitchburg Art Museum through 8/27/23.
Richard Limber says
If I were in charge of the MCC funding, I would reward working class artists ( the lower 1/3 income bracket) that create high quality creative work..
If you only intend to reward subsets of the working class, that would punish the remaining lower third applicants…,,, not a good idea..
Also, if you “dummy down” your selection process by having not having a jurying process that makes the hard choice of selecting vibrant, prescient, meaningful work, you will be avoiding the making of hard decisions that are necessary for dedicated, talented artists to get a leg up on our various often destructive, arbitrary, arts industries that now dominate and restrain the flow of resources to the talented creatives that need it….
The MCC seems to make decisions that are easiest to back up, not truly transformative, difficult choices…..
ArtSake says
Your feedback is appreciated. We will include your comment among our survey responses.
Ellen Raquel LeBow says
There is one underserved sector across Massachusetts no matter the poverty or affluence of the towns and cities they live in and not based on the graduating colors of our skins. Or our genders..
The rampant agism in our society is probably our biggest, yet bizarrely invisible “ism” of all.
Older people, even our president, is subject to a kind of ridicule, rejection, condescension, stereotyping, annexation and diminishment we have long since banished from our other public prejudices.
Older artists, artists whose chosen a lifelong vocation of art making, suffer from the same income and opportunity insecurities as young artists, but I’m guessing are never brought into the Mass Cultural councils diversity and expansion plans for the underserved.
Even people who only began seriously working as artists in their retirements should be considered as so called “emerging” or “new” creatives and not be exempted as grant recipients .
If the assumption is that if an older artist is either established financially by now or else they’re not real artists that is a loss for all of us
Heidi zander says
I have never received a grant. I have applied many times. I founded a free group 9 years ago to promote and foster inclusive creative community and named the group that. It has reached youths to the elderly including nursing homes but I am a 63 year old white woman living in a town considered not within the realm of the current criteria. I do not think I ever fit criteria in the old system and won’t in the future I have been an artist my whole life and impacted thousands of students and feel people such as myself could also be acknowledged. I believe in equity Equity is balanced, inclusivity.
ArtSake says
We appreciate your feedback, and we will include your comment in our survey responses.
K. Struebing-Beazley says
I do not see any commitment to aging artists who may have struggled with
income/ exposure of their work to a viewing audience, multiple rejections
over many years within a star system. By this I mean that only a tiny group of
any performing , visual so called “creatives” ( a terrible word) make a real living
with global name recognition inside the critique system. The rest of us provide
the great and very necessary “ underbelly” to support this Star system. We are
the foundation who persist through decades of effort. How about an effort to
support the elders of the tribe? ( as your focus shifts to socio/political/moral
issues of the day over individual “ excellence”. ).
I believe that Art for Art’s Sake will continue to exist over time. ( as it should).
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS EST.
ArtSake says
Thank you for sharing your perspective. We will include it in our survey responses.
Janna Maria Fröhlich says
I agree with this one!
Seth says
I filled out the survey and would like to share my comments below too. Thank you for this opportunity.
Regarding the “goal to design a program that equitably advances creative expression throughout the Commonwealth with unrestricted grants to individuals who demonstrate creative vision and a commitment to their artistic/cultural practice”, I’m neutral since I need clarification. Why does the choice need to be between the Fellowship’s focus on “artistic excellence” and the new goal? Why not both? Just as “artistic excellence” is subjective, the same can be said for “creative vision and a commitment to their artistic/cultural practice”.
For question 2 I selected “neither aligned nor not aligned” since I need clarification and more details. The three core values are commendable, as is MCC’s commitment to racial equity. An equitable review must include socioeconomic status too. I’ve seen foundation applications that ask about income and assets and I hope the MCC will add this to the criteria.
Regarding anonymous review, I strongly believe this is one of the strength’s of the Fellowship program. I don’t understand why “past accolades” was stated as a reason to eliminate anonymous review. How does a jury know about past accolades if reviewing the work anonymously?
Finally, why are you ending the Fellows Notes? Over the years, I learned a great deal from reading about other artists, particularly from disciplines and traditions I was unfamiliar with, and attended many art shows that I wouldn’t have known about had it not been for the Fellows Notes. I don’t understand how ending Fellows Notes addresses the MCC’s laudable equity goals.
ArtSake says
We appreciate your thoughtful feedback. Just to respond to one point: you’re absolutely correct that “past accolades” were not part of the anonymous review process, and we don’t see a focus on past accolades as being part of the redesigned grant program, either.
Richard Limber says
We are largely in agreement—— what is the meaning of the MCC’s rhetoric? How does it translate? Who the hell knows…..
And why not raise the bar on who gets funded, especially if you are picking from “creatives” that are marginalized.
Could it be that the MCC doesn’t want to take responsibility for it’s choices?
Mark says
I am an older white cis-male who does not feel free to comment.
JB183 says
You did tho lol
Franklin Einspruch says
Excellence and merit are simply the recognition that a given pursuit can be accomplished in a better or worse manner. Every culture harbors that recognition. The possibility that those words are “weighted – and sometimes unconsciously tied to Western European aesthetic traditions or biases” is not relieved by a proposed switch to “creative vision and commitment to their artistic/cultural practice.” Said vision and commitment are going to have to be evaluated as better or worse. That too will be subject to biases, and it’s clear from your description that they will be the biases of so-called equity. The suggestion that you’re going to un-bias your application process by “integrating an applicant’s identity and narrative” into it is absurd on its face.
I remind the MCC that civil rights laws apply equally to all citizens of the state of Massachusetts and note that courts usually deem the allocation of public funds by race as illegal. It would be a shame if artists wronged by your new process had no remedy except to sue the MCC, but that’s where circumstances are headed as organizations like yours embrace the noxious idea of remedial discrimination.
ArtSake says
Thank you for sharing your perspective. We will include your comments among our survey responses.
Richard Limber says
I wouldn’t call it “noxious”—- I would refer to it as “neoliberal group think”. A well intended policy that ignores a large segment of the population that needs a leg up to break into a fad driven arts industry.
Franklin Einspruch says
It’s not neoliberal in any sense I know of that term. It is, rather, postliberal: a rejection of the liberal order of tolerance, equality, and individual consideration in favor of remedial discrimination, equity, and collective obligations. Postliberal progressivism is patently anti-Western, as is stated in so many words overhead. I’ve linked the germane essay to my name in this post.
Richard Limber says
I used the word “neoliberal” in a loose sense to refer to the MCC’s recent policy of disbursing small amounts of $ to a large amount of individuals , and letting the “free market” (arts) decide what work gets some sort of economic boost.
I see this as a vacuous policy.
Also, pushing the MCC to support high quality work from the totality of the working class is necessary to be truly “inclusive”, and in a small way blunt the trend of anti institutional alienation that may bring us another Trump presidency….
Richard Limber says
The MCC will be acting in a neoliberal or paternalistic manner if it plans on handing out relatively small amounts of money to creatives that it deems “worthy”, with no standards for elevating the actual art it funds. Isn’t that the definition of paternalism —— ?—-top down, vague, meaningless, limited bones thrown out to the populace…
I’m in favor of bottom up socialism….
JB183- @jbeasly183 says
How about streamlining how things are done before attempting to award more “creatives”..Any plans I originally had for the grant money is now altered completely due to the amount of time it’s taking to actually receive the grant..Also I see a whole bunch of older artist talking about opportunities they missing out on or not receiving how about the younger artist who don’t even know these opportunities exist? Or how to even write a grant..Also focusing on strength of work and artistic excellence are things I feel should’ve always been a factor..Not every artist is ready to level up and that shouldn’t get in the way of artist who are ready for to step up who have been waiting and ready to level up..This city has tons of quality Artist but the opportunities usually go to those willing to play the games and look the part which is corny and why the scene has had the same “winners” for so long
ArtSake says
We appreciate your thoughtful perspective and will add this to our survey results.
Sally B. Moore says
Is there an invisible structure that continues to benefit white straight cis gender people in this country? Absolutely. Do we need to consciously examine how to dismantle it? Yes, we do.
Does a jury deciding what artists get funding need to be composed of a diverse set of professionals? I believe it does. Does that mean we need to stop considering how engaging and powerful works of art are and instead adopt the criteria of awarding people based on their race or gender identity? Not in my opinion.
We have become very good at dividing humanity into the many complex and nuanced ways that show how we are different, and seemingly therefore at odds with one another. But we all share the same sensory systems, the same fight or flight mechanism, the ability to dream, and grieve, and laugh, and celebrate. I believe that art is the only way we cross all of those differences. Yes, different cultures may have different ideas of what is beautiful or what matters most. But when someone practices creating for decades, they can find ways to viscerally engage a viewer before that person even knows what they are responding to. That is what a skilled artist does.
I remember going to a Japanese Noh Drama at the Showa Boston Institute and being deeply moved by the performance though the actors performed in the opposite way from my own culture and the way I would normally judge the performance. Rather than expressing raw emotions with both voice and face, the actors withheld emotions, spoke and moved in a stylized form, and worked behind a mask. But in terms of telling a moving story and affecting my emotions, that culture’s different definition of “good art” did not matter. It was done by professional actors who had honed their craft, and that broke all cultural barriers to reach our common humanity.
I believe that getting rid of the anonymity of the artist being juried and considering the artist’s background as the reason for an award demeans the process for all. It seems condescending to assume that bipoc artists, trans or non-binary artists need be awarded for their color or gender rather than what they are able to do. Being an artist has to do with years of experimentation, working through sometimes humiliating and idiotic failures, being rejected again and again until you reach a point where something clicks, where something actually soothes the raw place that gives you the drive to keep working. Sure, life experience matters; art is all about giving form to experience. But the experience of honing one’s craft also matters. Art is something that takes a huge amount of practice and dedication whether it is ballet, hip hop, Shakespeare, Chinese brush painting, or an amazing drag performance.
Artists are not really valued in our culture, and I hope that the MCC continues to value perseverance, hard earned skill, and imagination in all of their diverse forms without adding a self-conscious layer of social distribution. A diverse jury of established, talented, and committed artists know what to look for without that. Otherwise, I think we run the risk of teaching young artists who are just starting out, in whatever genre, that prose is poetry if it contains the right buzzwords. It isn’t. Developing one’s voice, whether through word, or paint, or movement, or song is an arduous search and a committed process.
ArtSake says
Thank you for sharing this insightful perspective. We will include it in our considerations.
Richard Limber says
I hope the MCC wakes up and pays attention to the well written essay above..
Some sort of standards need to be in place for rewarding artistry, otherwise, you will giving artists a vacuous, meaningless award.
My question to Sally B. is: are you sure picking jurors entirely from a pool of “professional and established” artists will reward the broadest spectrum of unusual, dynamic creativity?
It has been my contention for decades that the MCC should open up it’s jury process. Having the prerequisite that all jurors should be “professional “ is a problem because the idea that the arts are built on the idea that the art scene is built largely on the concept of being a meritocracy, is in my opinion a bit naive, There are many artists who have worked for decades who are still part of the working class (including myself) and may never be rewarded by the “arts industry” (check out my work at: richardlimber..com if you want). I think actual working class artists should be allowed to be jurors. “Working class artists” being individuals that do not make the majority of their income from their work. I also think it would be beneficial to tamp down “confirmation biases” when it comes to whom jurors reward. I see a consistent pattern of MCC jurors awarding artists work that often looks like a watered down version of their own work. I think this can can happen because of “professionals” sometimes curious combination of egotism and insecurity.
We need to reward the best creation out there, and need to have a dialog on how jurors are selected, not eliminated…..
Sally B. Moore says
Hi Richard-
I don’t think I actually know any artists who truly make their living off of their art, or even most of it. I certainly don’t! I teach full time, which makes it hard to produce art during the year, but I am lucky to have the summer. I have also been a window display artist, a dog walker, and a home health aid. “Professional” is a slippery word in the arts. By professional, I just mean a person who has had some formal training, who puts art at the forefront of their life, and defines themselves by their art. We usually do have day jobs, but those jobs keep us alive to make art. And by “established,” I just mean that a person has stuck with it, year and year, rejection after rejection, until they have gotten their work out there and become somewhat known in the field. As in any field, that is a difficult process, as it should be. Or, it could be someone who is trained in the business of art (arts management, gallery ownership) which involves a long study of art appreciation in all of its various and diverse forms.
I think the MCC does make an effort to include artists on the jury panel who make work that is different from one anothers’. Any juror who only looks at work that looks like their own is not a good juror, I agree. The juries change each year, and I have never known who was on a jury as it is kept anonymous as far as I know. Like you, I am often baffled about who gets into various shows and competitions in the art world and who doesn’t. It’s all a bit of a crapshoot really. Agreed, it is not a meritocracy, but it needs to keep trying.
Anyway, I like your portraits a lot! So much gestural energy and character! Good luck to you.
Sally
sallybmoore.com
I have never gotten a cent from MCC in the 20 or so years I’ve applied, though I was a finalist 3 times (that was before they started giving the finalists money! dang) But still, it was an honor to be named.
Richard Limber says
Sally, I enjoyed checking out your work, especially your “A Lump of Clay” video. If you are ever on the Vineyard come by my studio if you feel so inclined…
From my point of view the MCC has always picked jurors from a pool of “creatives” that almost inevitably have some sort of higher education arts degree.
Being an artist that was kicked out of an art school for supposedly being among other things “unreachable” (my mother thought that designation was a degree unto itself)——. I believe the MCC should pick some jurors from the actual working class——no degrees/workers…..
This would open up who would get funded, and what would get funded.
I see the MCC as being divorced from the working class.
I hope the MCC is listening to all the people who see it’s recent policy changes as blunt, selective thinking…
Long live the memory of Stalin (just kidding),
Richard
Monica Raymond says
Disappointed to learn you are discontinuing Fellows Notes. Such a great way to learn what other folks in the Massachusetts arts community are doing and to share my own (minor) triumphs. Money long gone for necessities, the opportunity to share one’s work through MCC was one reliable continuing benefit of having been selected as a fellow. And it could have been a continuing benefit for new folks going forward as well. It feels like you’re saying “We want to erase everything in the past–it was all no good.” I don’t agree. You don’t have to erase the good and substantial work you did in the past to move forward.
Mark says
I think the description of the New Criteria is vague and coded. How could this take a year of your time? It’s obvious what is intended. But you fail to see that excellence and merit are terms that can equally apply to minorities of all kinds including Bipoc, LGBTQ, Genders, older folks. This is insulting. You control who is on the jury. Take another year and get it right for everyone.