Over on Loadedog there’s a carefully considered piece on arts grants and what’s wrong with them.
Personally I love a process so transparent that photography is banned at so called “public” meetings,
Well I was at the evening meeting as well, and I think stan_bowles’ account of the photography issue is spot on. Ihe whole point of the meeting was to answer as many questions as possible within a time limit, and spending that time negotiating with the people who were uncomfortable about being photographed seemed like a bit of a waste of that time.
Loadedog writes in his piece,
“The other question was ‘why the fuck can’t you apply for more than one grant?’ Without the ‘fuck’ bit of course. More prattling ensued, basically to the effect that it saves them a lot of work. So, you know, I’ve got seven or so projects on right now that could be eligible for funding, but, at this rate, it’s going to be seven years before I find out.”
This overly simplified summary of the presenters’ response to his question leaves out what I took to be their main point, which was that they wanted artists to have to choose the project they were most passionate about, and focus on making that one project really excellent. I think that challenging artists to think hard about what they most want to create will greatly improve the quality of their eventual output, and I personally think it’s a great change to the application process.
Um yes. Asking to take a photo equates to hijacking a meeting. You ass. It was a public meeting in a public place. I was just being polite. I didn’t need to ask for permission and won’t do so in future.
I managed to get both arts grants I have ever applied for (both pretty small ones.) The time lag between putting the application in, and getting the grant is a problem though. By the time I got them, I had got full time work, and didn’t have as much time for the projects as I would have liked.
So in other words, the massive anti-media conspiracy turns out to just be not letting one bloke hijack a meeting. Fair enough…
I have to say that I found it pretty funny when a crackly voice piped up from the back of the room “Can I take a photo…uh for my blog”.
Some people didn’t mind, some people did, but its pretty hard to get a consensus from fifty people and with only a short time alloted for the meeting, I guess the organisers didn’t want to stuff around indulging some guy with a blog.
Personally I’m glad they spend the time answering questions than manuvering people around so some joker with an axe to grind could get some happy snaps for his unnamed “blog”.
As for transparency, it was a public meeting, so anyone could have gone along and listened.
Yeah, I’m all up for posting photos of all the public servants that frequent this site (and their pet fish).
Are you really this dumb?
A) I don’t work for the government, if i had a problem with public scrutiny I shouldn’t work for the Government.
B) I’m not conducting a public meeting.
C) Nowhere in this did intruding onto private property get mentioned.
precisely. Then I can assume that you would not have a problem with people taking random photos of you at work/ home then?
“Orwellian” is the administration having total information about the public.
The public having total information about the administration is the reverse of that you clown.
I find your orwellian concept of public administration curious JB…
The most transparent process would be to put all successful submissions online along with the council’s reasoning for choosing it. That way anyone could see what was making for a successful grant application, and the process would be much more open to scrutiny.
that’s a curious concept of transparency.
Two small things about photography. One, perhaps they just don’t like being photogrpahed? I am not a fan of it, but I deal with it differently than these folks.
Two, Part of a ‘transparent’ process might be to ensure that those who are in on the decisions, are kept anonomous until the decision (and therefore any disputes) are finalised. Photos of these folks could just open the flood gates for all sorts of unsolicitated and annoying chats with potential recipients, which would skew the process, making it the debarcle that loadeddog (and you) have unfairly fingered this program to be.
Is Canberra's signature dish: