Helm of the Artist

Did you know the EAC now awards project grants of up to $25,000 to visual artists?
Did you know the deadline for applications is July 1?
Do they know that’s a holiday?

Whatever the answers to those questions… better send off an application.

You’ve got to be in it to win it.

Projects Visual Arts Grant Program – Art Production
February 15, 2008

Detailed description of the project:
ReconFiguration of my studio practice will entail for me a return to sculpting directly from the figure. For six years I have kept my studio explorations focused upon the materials at hand, allowing sculptures to evolve as my imagination dictated. With hindsight, I can now discern that my work nonetheless demonstrates consistent development of faintly figural forms. The three most recent sculptures to emerge from the welding studio are overtly figurative.

Ferrous Erato, 2007, Rob Willms

This is in all likelihood a direct result of 2007 trips to San Francisco and New York City where notable, memorable exhibits included a Matisse sculpture show at the SFMoMA, Rodin exhibits at both the Legion of Honor (SF) and the Metropolitan Museum (NYC), and permanent exhibits of ancient Cyprian, Persian, Greek, Indian, and Chinese earthen sculptures.

I am keen to pursue this renewed interest in that deep-seated tradition of sculpting the human form. This will entail a return to the live-model studio for extensive studies of the figure on paper and in clay/plaster, which will be carried out within the facilities of the North Edmonton Sculpture Workshop where I have been an active contributing artist for four years. Transposition of this research into constructed steel figures holds the promise of breaking new ground in sculpture.

Smithology, 2007, Rob Willms

Outline of the objectives:
From March through December 2008:
- To concentrate my studio energies on creating figurative sculpture that is both intriguing to look at and compelling to consider.
- To arrange weekly live model sessions at the N.E.S.W. model studio for the purposes of studying the human figure on paper and in clay/plaster/wax.
- To transpose the resulting studies into a series of ten welded steel sculptures, ranging from 10 inches to 10 feet at the N.E.S.W. welding studio.
- To install and promote a solo exhibit of steel figurative sculpture and preliminary sketches for the same at the N.E.S.W. Common Sense gallery.

Planned activities:
- I will purchase drawing materials and sculpting materials suitable for use in a live-model session.
- I will hire a model for weekly model sessions.
- I will sketch directly from a live model on paper, in clay, plaster and/or wax.
- I will kiln-fire the clay sketches.
- I will develop a number of figural motifs that can be transposed into welded steel.
- I will purchase steel suitable for sculpting the figure.
- I will complete a series of ten steel sculptures based upon the observed human form.
- I will select suitable preparatory sketches and finished steel sculptures for exhibit.
- I will install and promote the exhibit, Recon Figuration, at Common Sense.
- I will augment these activities by regularly corresponding and collaborating with other artists, in the studio, at exhibits, and online.

Expected results and benefits:
By keeping my artistic production in the public eye with exhibitions of newly wrought artworks, I am directly engaging in contemporary dialogues that center around the cultural value and relevance of a studio discipline.

Ultimately, the efforts described above are towards the development of a sustainable career as an exhibiting studio artist. I have already demonstrated a persistent commitment to the development of this sort of art practice; and, in spite of those imposing financial hurdles threatening to impede my studio activities, I am determined to continue to make and exhibit new art.

May 15, 2008
Dear Mr. Willms:
Thank you for…. I regret to… application was unsuccessful….
Yours sincerely,
AFA Director of Arts Development

Comments made by the Jury during its assessment of the applications submitted to the February 15, 2008 Visual Arts Project Grant program include:
1. The overall quality of the submissions was good, and the ones that were clear and concise communicated the artist’s intention most clearly to the jury.
2. A level of consistency in the visual examples was seen as a positive attribute.
3. The area most commonly absent in the proposals was detailed information about the relevancy of the project.
- What are the expected outcomes?
- What criteria is used to gauge success?
- How does this proposed work enrich the community?
4. Say what you mean, mean what you say. Make sure what you say about your work is reflected in the visual examples.
5. Ensure your proposal is clear and concise. Keep it to the point.
6. Students applying for support for their education must make a case for why their project should be supported. Students should not just rely on the reputation of the institution as an indicator of quality.
7. Applicants who sought support from other sources, made personal contributions and conducted background research to support their proposal were looked upon favourably by the jury.
8. Applicants who had secured a venue for dissemination or had linked their project to residencies, workshops, etc. were looked upon favourably.
9. Living expenses should be associated directly with the project and cannot be expenses that were previously incurred or peripheral to the project.

I sincerely and respectfully thank you, Stephen Williams, for being keen and kind enough to search me out and offer your assistance. I surely did not expect to hear from a governmental arts administrator in these outer reaches of art blogging. I would only request a copy of the jurors’ comments in order to publish them here anyhow, so I invite you, Stephen Williams, to post their feedback in the comments below.

And yet I wonder why I must request the jurors’ feedback at all? Would it not be an even more transparent process if such information was included in the PFO package? I don’t take seriously anyone’s suggestion that there’s a better way to scratch the lottery ticket, and when the granting process is just one more gamble… to say I am not enamoured with the granting process would be a grave understatement.

So then, why have I continued to fill forms for fabled government funding? – I apply to myself for feedback. This last time I’m sure it’s because I got a tad over-excited about the possibility of getting my forklift running. So atingle, in fact, that I lamely propped my application upon the fact that I am an amputee for whom a forklift would be an invaluable aid to the creation of monumental artworks ala diSuvero or Close.

I suppose I also thought to test the hypothesis that only artists with relevant socio-political issues driving their work receive federal monies.

P.S. I won’t be pleased to hear from the jurors that I should be applying for a studio grant through AADL or AISH.
P.S.S. Cartoonist’s name withheld by request.

CANADA COUNCIL FOR THE ARTS

13 March 2008
….
PURPOSE: Repair of forklift to facilitate further exploration of sculpture production

Dear Mr. Willms:
The peer assessment committee for the Alberta Creative Development Initiative: Grants to individuals with a deadline date of 1 December 2007, has recently completed its deliberations. We are writing to inform you that your application was not successful. Committee members were asked to evaluate each application and to make funding recommendations based on the assessment criteria published in the program information sheet and application guidelines

This decision is a result of a comparative analysis process, the number of requests submitted to the competition and the budget available for this program. This round had in excess of 400 eligible applications from individuals and organizations, with a success rate of about 30%. Please consider applying again to a future competition, as this result ill not impact on your assessment by another jury.

The ACDI program is a three-year partnership initiative between the Canada Council and the Alberta Foundation for the Arts, with collaboration from the Edmonton Arts Council and Calgary Arts Development Authority.

Guidelines and deadlines may change, and that information will be posted at www.canadacouncil.ca, where you can also find informations about other Canada Council programs you may be eligible for. A list of the names of the peer assessors and successful candidates will be available on the Canada Council website within the next 30 days.

Sincerely,
….
Program Officer/Agent de programme
….
THE CANADA COUNCIL FOR THE ARTS IS 50

The above cartoon was received the same day as this PFO. The cartoonist can out, I mean credit, him/herself in the comments should he/she wish it.

Not long ago, I wrote a brace of grant applications; one to the Lee Fund for the Arts, and one to the Cultural Capital Project Edmonton Explorations Grant; on behalf of the NESW.

The former, for $15,000, was to support a “continued year of research, experimentation, creation, and exhibition of new sculptures by the artists of the North Edmonton Sculpture Workshop…. This financial support (representing 50% of our annual studio expenses) will be directed towards facility rental, utilities, insurance, equipment, materials, maintenance and technical costs from September 1st 2007 to August 31st 2008.”

The latter, for $30,000, was to go towards expanding the NESW to support more artists, with a new, improved, larger studio space, and a new professional quality, downtown art gallery venue, all to begin operations before the end of the year, climaxing, if you will, in a grand re-opening reception and public open house. “This will only be the first of many, in a series of future exhibitions in our city’s newest visual art venue.”

Today, I received word in the mail that both Lee Fund and Edmonton Explorations juries elected not to support the NESW with any funds.
Guess that means we’re on our own…

7 April 2006

Dear Mr. McCourt:

The peer assessment committee for the Assistance to Visual Artists – Project grants program, with a deadline of 1 December 2005, has recently completed its deliberations. We are writing to inform you that your application was not successful.

Committee members were asked to review and evaluate each application and to make grant recommendations based on the assessment criteria published in the program application guidelinges. The peer assessment committee’s decisions had to be made in an extremely competitive context. All committee decisions are final.

We hope that you will nonetheless find the means to pursue your artistic endeavors, and would like to remind you that the next application closing date is 1 December 2006.

A list of names and peer assessors and successful candidates is available upon written request.

Sincerely,
Pao Quang Yeh
Program Officer
Visual Arts Secion
Canada Council for the Arts

Encl. We are returning your support material.

Although my hopes were disappointed, my expectations were not.

I did find it a little odd though, that one must make a “written request” to find out who the jurors and successful applicants are.

Shouldn’t the Canada Council be bursting with pride about these individuals?

Hell, why not publicize the names of these undoubtedly distinguished assessors beforehand, or, short of that, simply include a list of assessors and sucessful applicants with the above-cited P.F.O. letter?

I’m sure that wouldn’t have cost them any more than it did for the postage to send my CD of support materials back to me (what the hell do they think I’m gonna do with it now? It was specific to this application, so, um.. should I use it as a commemorative coaster?).

Since they don’t include an email address to write to, I assume that this “written request” must be sent via pony express. (A friend suggested that this strategy was perhaps devised to allow your average disappointed artist time to “cool down”, so that when they finally received the list of names, their to-be-expected murderous rage will have subsided).
Due to my aversion to the taste of pureed horse-hoof, I’ve decided I can wait until they eventually post the info on their web site. (I’ve been having some trouble accessing some of their web pages as of late, so perhaps they’re busy updating such info even now…).

In their statement on “Peer Assessment at the Canada Council for the Arts: How the Council Makes its Grant Decisions”, the Canada Council lists criteria for selecting assessors: the main keywords being “diversity” (of ‘professional specialization’, ‘artistic practice’, ‘age’, and ‘culture’), and “fair representation” (of both official languages, genders, and all regions of Canada).

So, let’s look at the ‘peer assessors’ from the previous 5 years (which, helpfully, the Canada Council does list on their site), to get a better understanding of how the selection process works, and specifically, how Edmonton has been represented on the assessment committees for awards in the Visual Arts:

Edmonton Visual Arts Peer Assessors: 2000 – 2001

Catherine Crowston – Independent Critics and Curators-Creation/Production Grants (five-member committee)
Toshiyuki Chiba – Creation/Production Grants to Professional Artists (twenty-five-member committee)

Edmonton Visual Arts Peer Assessors: 2001 – 2002

Darci Mallon - Creation/Production Grants to Professional Artists (twenty-nine-member committee)

Edmonton Visual Arts Peer Assessors: 2002 – 2003

Toshiyuki Chiba – Creation/Production Grants to Professional Artists (Victor Martyn Lynch-Staunton Awards) (five-member committee)

Edmonton Visual Arts Peer Assessors: 2003 – 2004

Cherie Moses – Creation/Production Grants to Professional Artists (fifty-member committee)

Edmonton Visual Arts Peer Assessors: 2004 – 2005

Cherie Moses - Support for National Visual Arts Service Organizations (three-member committee)
Shafraaz Kaba – Assistance to Practitioners, Critics, and Curators in Architecture (five-member committee)

As we can see, Edmonton was fortunate in 2000-01 and 2004-05 to have been represented on TWO of these committees in one year. Or, to look at it another way, in 5 years, Edmonton has had a grand total of 7 representatives on Canada Council Visual Arts award committees.
Oh, wait… make that 5 individuals, since two of these assessors, Chiba and Moses, have been tapped for the gig twice.

To sum up, that’s an average of one peer assessor from Edmonton per year, throughout all of the many Canada Council Visual Art Grant program committees.
So, what was that about “diversity” and “fair representation” again?…

(Image: Dancing Ganesha, Ryan McCourt)