Inaugural Ford Fellows exhibition at MOCC
The First 9 Ford Fellows (notice how the 2 primarily conceptual artists Bruce Conkle and Heidi Schwegler are not doing something with their hands)
Three years ago the Ford Foundation did a wonderful thing and started giving out three $25,000 mid career fellowships to Oregon artists
. The nine fellows so far are; Daniel Duford, David Eckard, Heidi Schwegler, Sang-ah Choi, Bruce Conkle, Stephen Hayes, Ellen Lesperance, Michelle Ross and Akihiko Miyoshi. All will be featured in the inaugural exhibition: We Tell Ourselves Stories in Order to Live at the Museum of Contemporty Craft
, which opens tomorrow, January 24th 2013.
It was much needed as Portland's art scene has gone from a conservative backwater to very interesting contemporary art hotbed in the last decade+. In fact, Portland's best artists tend to work in installation, video or other difficult to categorize new media (much of it electronic and therefore little room for hand crafting... though more progressive design and craft discourse is completely at home with outsourced labor and the digital revolution).
Don't mistake my following criticism for antipathy though... I am excited about this show, in particular for the work of Eckard
(whom I reminded to apply via text just days before the deadline in 2011 when he was traveling).
In practice though the 9 artists chosen has been often somewhat conservative (except Heidi Schwegler and Bruce Conkle). The general criticism being that the awards appear to have been more concerned with academic careers and an old fashioned fetish of craftsmanship (the handmade and sweaty variety) over cutting edge content (counter to the decade + trends in the Portland art scene). The Ford Fellowship has also developed a valid grumble that some of the same artists awarded have already been given other awards like Betty Bowen, Bonnie Bronson, RACC Fellows and the CNAA's (this is because they often use the same jurors). Cumulatively this makes it seem like a regional awards circuit compared to the more national; Joan Mitchell, Guggenheim and Pollock Krasner Fellows who also call Portland home. To date nothing has come close to the Couture series of shows and stipends which ended in 2010.
Look there is nothing wrong with craft or giving longtime (aka rather broke) art profs an award... but it does highlight a schism between what Portland has become known for internationally and what it celebrates locally. Craft is important to art in Portland but its not the only thing going on here and we have to be careful not to go with easy stereotypes. There are 2 more years left in this project and they really should reconsider adding new media art practices like video, installation etc. That said it is Ford's money but it seems contrary to their mission to, "to make significant advancements and to improve Oregon's visual arts ecology. It intends to accomplish this by providing resources to Oregon's most promising practicing visual artists." That said I think 3 years is long enough to, "emphasize the more classic disciplines in the early years of this program, in keeping with Hallie Ford's interests and experience."
The show will travel to the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art, University of Oregon (Eugene, OR), Sheppard Contemporary, University of Nevada (Reno, NV), Mary Elizabeth Dee Shaw Gallery, Weber State University (Ogden, UT), Pendleton Center for the Arts (Pendleton, OR) as well. Those are all nice places but when Portland's true Top Artists are on display at much higher profile institutions it seems like the bar was lowered. For example, why not the very nice Nevada Art Museum in Reno rather than a University gallery? Nice, but honestly it could have been much better. Similar to the over-anxiousness of the Portland2012 biennial attempt it is clear that Portland's top artists are savvier than its institutions... I say this not to belittle or berate, but simply make more obvious the room for improvement. Right now the best awards given in the Pacific Northwest have been the Couture Series
, The Neddies, Stranger Genius Awards, Betty Bowen and The Brink.
That said, enjoy the show and talk about what you like and don't like. Share your comments on PORT if you have the stones, or chat with me in the coming weeks.
We Tell Ourselves Stories In Order To Live
January 24th through April 27th
Museum of Contemporary Craft
724 NW Davis Street
Posted by Jeff Jahn
on January 23, 2013 at 15:17
| Comments (14)
I'd have to agree with you Jeff, that these artists are not cutting edge ground-breakers, as seems to be the Ford foundation's mission. Furthermore, you're completely on point that these regional awards are little more than a local circuit (on repeat, no less). Rarely do we see new names on RACC and elsewhere, instead we're given these same folks over and over again. (To my surprise, M.K. Guth is not one of these nine fellows... not that I think she should have been; she's just one of those local repeaters I've grown so tired of hearing about.)
Anyway: $225,000 for these nine "artists" to do what? What have these artists set out to accomplish with this fellowship? From an outside perspective (admittedly, an ignorant one), it seems like they're just doing more of the same. This is dime-a-dozen caliber work they're doing, it's no surprise they can't land higher than college gallery spaces.
I submit that these regional competitions should be double-blind (jurors don't know the artists' names), and then completely transparent after the fact. Let us see why they were chosen, let us see what they promised to do with the money.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward at January 24, 2013 02:03 PM
This local circuit seems more like a buddy system than a competition. Why are we surprised?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward at January 24, 2013 02:06 PM
Thanks coward... now you are making me appear brave (and/or stupid) by comparison. Possibly informed?
First of all... Im not surprised but I also do not disparage the Hallie Ford Foundation's efforts so far. It's so true that no good deed goes unpunished and previously the Couture series had all sorts of sour grapes detractors as well. In hind sight it provided a much needed boost at a crucial time to an area that still doesnt get much support (but has been steadily improving).
Historically, committee driven awards have had a hard time being cutting edge, especially when choosing increasingly conservative jurors (the first year for the HFF was the most daring for a reason). Yes clearly some of these artists have plateaued (Conkle and Schwegler have not) and at least one seems to be making weaker work with each award they get. That doesn't mean the awards aren't worthwhile and I submit that we shouldn't judge the awards just by this show.... that wont stop anyone from doing so though (and that is a good thing, the arts die through neglect and antipathy).
First of all the awards are for mid career artists... always a tricky group to engage. Let's just say that defining "mid career" is like herding cats. Yet these artists are particularly important because they have likely self funded their practice for a decade +, usually accruing large credit card debts. Those debts create a "double down" or "find a new career" moment in these artists lives. This precarious situation is crucial to address as all of the artists in the show do enhance the community because they have become pillars of persistent cultural activity and their persistence (or potential lack there of) becomes a kind litmus test for Portland's cultural health. If you think of artists as a forest you cant just have saplings and giants, yet the mid sized trees are the most attractive to weed out.
Think of the the arts are as a game of attrition, thus mid-career grants directly address artists at a very fragile part in their career, one made more brittle by all the debt and greater probabilities of some unforseen health crisis, as well as a general mid life crisis.
So...no, none of this has any bearing on artistic merit but it is important to make certain that this particular generation is supported in a significant way. 10K is good of course but 25K allows artists to develop completely new avenues in their career (especially if they have painted themselves into a corner). 10K pretty much just funds 1 good show and is good for such but I applaud how the Hallie Ford Fellowships has consciously taken a larger scope and longer view... one where perhaps 2/3rds of the funds wont have an immediate or visible effect. Thus, I don't expect this exhibition to be a true "what I did with my grant" moment. If anything the exhibition is too overcrowded already.
Looking at this show curatorially only one artist, Sang-ah Choi, comes out really well (In fact it is better installed than her comparatively more cluttered and less tight Apex show at PAM right now). Everyone else is cramped at best and severely compromised in the case of Duford. If we really wanted to celebrate these artists (and not just the sheer abundance of activity) the curator should have cut out at least half of the work.
Yes there is a local game and a more international one (for example artists like MK Guth and Storm Tharp systematically steered away from the local game 5+ years ago) but some of these 9 artists are definitely not regionalists (Schwegler and Conkle once again) but it bothers me that they are presented in a way that some might consider the Northwest "hoarder" way.
The arts are cozy because it is the only way to survive... I can't fault that but I think fetishing the handmade process over content (Even in the case of Myoshi's decent, very analog photos) is a major mistake. Some may attempt to talk their way out of that indictment but the fact is it does not reflect how Portland has grown up as an arts city since 1999. Over the past decade there have emerged perhaps 50-100 now mid-career artists who have been a persistent driving force in that re-imagining of what art in Portland is... and of them only Schwegler and Conkle are fellows). That's not a bad thing, just an area with room for improvement for all these mid career awards.
I dont think double-blind panels work... jurors who know what and whom they are deciding upon will make the best decisions but if they are conservative old-school area jurors you can't be surprised that they will pick conservative choices. Are they considering how the artists are received outside of the city as cultural ambassadors?
Also, must every award be mid-career centric? Highlighting only mid-career artists seems too "frumpy" and as we all know by now Portland is much edgier than that... how about something new that is truly focused on the cutting edge work I see on display around town (mid-career or not) and in prestigious venues far from Oregon?
Posted by: Double J at January 29, 2013 03:17 PM
Thanks JJ. I don't mean to make you appear any way, just commenting (hell, I'm an Anonymous Coward).
Your point is perhaps valid about these grants practically being need-based. But that's what grants like the Pollock-Krasner are for. Specifically in place for artists with financial need. I have to believe some consideration is taken for their work, not just their debt, but the grant specifically states its purpose as need-based. Ford is, to my knowledge, not described as such. So I really don't think that should be a consideration.
I like your stance on non mid-career awards. I think Portland would be very well served if such a program was in place. We see lots of younger artists creating some very interesting stuff around town. And they're not paid any attention because they're not funded (ironic) and because they don't have these various awards under their belt. It's that old 'we won't hire you because you don't have experience, but you can't get experience unless we hire you'.
I have to disagree with you about the double-blind panels. I have a hard time seeing any of these 9 as cultural ambassadors, let alone most artists for that matter. I think that's one of those fluffy titles that doesn't mean a whole lot. And I don't see how double-blind panels would do anything but help this process. The biggest risk we have here is that these awards are being given to people, rather than artists. I vote for X because he did this other thing, or is friends with this other person, etc. I say let their work buy its own time. If the work is strong and valid, fund it. If it's the same-old same-old, let them get real jobs to support their hobby, because obviously that's all it is to them.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward at January 30, 2013 11:17 AM
I just don't see how double blind can possibly work if the jurors are to make a decision based on images of the artist's work. Most artists who have made it to established mid-career levels have a signature look to their work and any juror with any familiarity would immediately recognize it.
I think you rightly point out there is a schism when trying to evaluate artists on the merit of work and their activity in the community (esp. education). Still, one needs to see the artist's career history to evaluate their propensity for growth in the future.
I suggest that questions like, "Is this artist someone whose work/career ingratiates itself in an incestuous regional way or are they standard bearers that hold up internationally?" should be asked. When the first 3 awardees; Schwegler, Eckard and Duford were announced there was a boldness in that decision that wasnt followed up on in the next 2 cycles. Eckard had just weeks before won a Bonnie Bronson but really hadn't received anything major before that (he did definitely feel some critical blowback afterwards). Before the award Schwegler and Duford were seen as more outliers and therefore a very good sign for future years... Schwegler in particular had not been showing in the area very much after being the standout in the 1999 Oregon Biennial and the award essentially brought her back into public view here. That is a very good thing. Her solo shows might be inconsistent but she usually produces some truly memorable even wicked smart work in each one.
The two later cycles in 2011 and 2012 really only produced one exciting name, Conkle. The guy has a mini manmade (open air) glacier on display at MOCC... it's tough to argue that that kind of work is common or expected (though I dislike the plywood box beneath it designed to keep people from bumping it... just paint it grey as the plywood detracts from the piece... MOCC fetishes woodgrain a tad much in its display choices... competing with the work).
As a city Portland needs to look after its strongest artists (who are often young because they started their exhibition careers after 2000... and perhaps only 30-40% of them would claim hand crafting as crucial to the work). Some of the very best craft in art is that way because it doesn't draw attention to itself. I'd say Schwegler and Conkle's pieces in the show fit that criteria. Conkle's Burls might even be mocking that very hand crafted wood fetish.
Overall, these sorts of awards take on an cumulative effect. The CNAA's were designed to be like the SECA awards but their aggregate has not been anything comparable. Similarly the HFF's had a somewhat schizoid personality from the outset. That isnt bad but it is better to figure out what you want to be then be it. If you really want to help the best mid career artists in the region then do it. If you want to be conservative and disinvite internationally recognized genres do so but don't think the results will make the award more prestigious. Ultimately, the arts thrive on taking risks... standing in the middle of the road just means you are going to be a distraction to the traffic.
Posted by: Double J at January 30, 2013 02:11 PM
Thanks JJ, sorry for my delayed response.
I still don't agree with you that double blind panels won't work. True, some recognition will be inevitable. Artists of a certain maturity are easy to identify if you're familiar with any of their work. But it should be the job of a juror or selection committee to make these decisions without prejudice, otherwise it's just a name game and has little to do with the actual work.
I'm an overly critical viewer, I admit, but I don't see validity in much of what is considered popular art. Especially locally. Look at that new Hawthorne bridge monstrosity, how much did they spend on that thing?
It seems to me (again, I may be ignorant here...) that these organizations have money to burn. And that's fine- let them fund whoever they wish, it's their money. But if we're posing these grants and fellowships as open competitions, not private sponsorships, the biased nature of their judging is really problematic.
I'd love to see an exhibition open to local artists of all calibers. Mandatory participation from the big names in PADA (...I know). Bring in somebody committed to equality and let them judge the work rather than the artists. I know this may be oversimplifying, and granted artists are creating a 'brand', in which the whole is as important as the individual works, but when the individual work is garbage, we need to reevaluate.
Do you realize how much snickering takes place at all of these exhibitions? People walking around with the "my kid could paint that" attitude, and these make up a large part of the art-going public. Obviously this is not Portland-specific, but what better way to invite the public's participation than to let them in on the process. Let them see why something is considered better than something else. Let them see how some of this "public funding" is being spent. For too long critics have decided what's good, and for too long have the viewers listened. Let them pass judgement because of the work, not because of the reputation.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward at February 12, 2013 08:53 AM
Oh the snickering is hardly news to anyone in the arts... and honestly in most cases their kids could not create; a tiny man made glacier in a shovel, conceive and edit video or weld much of anything. We do snicker right back and it's based on facts. have you ever noticed how some things that look extremely easy are very difficult to do at will or on command. Artists routinely develop incredible skill sets and employ numerous other tradesmen for the things they don't do themselves. The ridiculousness is part of the fun, but it is serious fun... life should be examined and artists do just that.
Second, most of these awards are open to everyone... it sounds like you might have a kid who can clean up! Good natured kidding aside, when the HFF's started they gave 3 awards to 3 artists who hadn't received much up to that point and did not (and still do not) have gallery representation. It was a good sign that wasn't continued as uniformly in succeeding years. We are in the midst of a cultural revolution and those most responsible for our newfound status as a creative center are not getting the awards, instead they mostly go to those who are far from the cutting edge. That is a mistake.
The Hawthorne bridge thing... well Im not thrilled with how it was executed but it is making a lot of people pause to think, "what is that?" That is a measure of success. We need to question our preconceived notions and art is the cultural fulcrum for leveraging that question.
Invited or not, art is a valuable exercise in examining our lives. It helps keep us our thinking sharp and supple as we get older. My only problem is when the the art itself is not fully examined. I push things and because Portland is in the midst of a major cultural renaissance I'm simply asking the various institutions to try and keep up ... they wont be able to because that's WHY we are in the midst of a special time. Still they need to be aware of where the need to try a little harder. Portland can be polite to a fault and I salute your willingness to buck that stereotype.
It just gives me another opportunity to reiterate that Portland is in the midst of a massive cultural renaissance, one which started around the turn of the century... that's plenty of time to expect our institutions and awards to reflect that ever growing sense of discovery. We have excellent artists here doing excellent things on a national and international stage. I've yet to see an award in Portland besides the Couture series that acknowledges that reality.
Posted by: Double J at February 12, 2013 06:21 PM
Thanks for your continued discussion JJ. And allow me to clarify; I did not really mean my kid could paint that. Believe me-- I've seen their paintings! (Don't let them read that!) But you saw that documentary years back, "My Kid Could Paint That", right? Just a joke really. I know more goes into most of these things than is sometimes apparent.
And I do hear your point about the Hawthorne bridge. I like your calling it a "thing," even if that was not an intentional slight (don't mean to get you in trouble... hehe). Yes, art can be more than a pretty thing. Any number of reactions can mark success to the artist. It all depends on the intention, and true enough, that's something the viewing public isn't always up to speed on. I've heard talk from a couple prominent NW collectors who said they bought something because it made them angry. I like that, it's an open mindedness which we need more of in the world today.
So... what can we do to broaden the scope of these local programs? How do we get the ball rolling for those unknown artists who are more than capable of great things, if only they had the backing that some of these chaps take for granted.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward at February 13, 2013 02:25 AM
I hope you don't mind my joining this discussion late. But I couldn't bite my tongue on this:
Mr. Jahn, did you really mean to say $10,000 is only enough to fund one good show?
I feel like this point merits further discussion.
I find it appalling. Forgive me if I'm reading too much into what may have been an innocent off-hand remark, but what the hell does a $10K show look like? Are we talking top tier spaces, tons of press and guest speakers at the opening? I really can't fathom justifying $10K on ONE show.
Is that really what it cost when she hung up a bunch of braided hair full of keepsake notes? Was the price of the big tower and megaphone, or is that what he spent on that moronic pseudo-bullfighter countryside stroll? But I don't mean to point fingers.
Frugality should play a big part in these selections, in my opinion. Who can do the most with this money? Forget about their credit card debt, let them get a job.
To total $10K, I have to imagine these funds are going towards a workspace, outsourcing services, materials, tool/shop rental (etc). But we can do so much better than that. Most of these folks don't need 1000 square foot art studios. (I paint in the living-room of my 600 square foot one-bedroom apartment.) They need to get creative, not only with their product, but with their production.
Compromises have to be made when working within a limited budget, that's reality. I'm not renting a foundry or hiring assistants, but when I put on a show I do what I can with what I have. I work a day-job to afford the time and materials necessary to do what I do. Unfortunately that means things progress quite a bit more slowly.
To think these people are burning through these funds, sitting around pontificating about their 'process', that's just disgusting.
Anonymous Coward (hilarious handle btw) hit the nail on the head calling this "dime a dozen" work. $25K should do more than pay off some bills and fund one show.
Posted by: Thomas K. Conway at February 13, 2013 06:01 PM
Thomas, this is an old argument that apparently needs to be restated.
First, lets look at the #'s behind my 10k remark?
In my experience, most artists are incredibly frugal and fund most things out of pocket. Most who have been at the game for more than 5 years are almost all very hard working sorts who have day jobs and made sacrifices. In Portland this describes perhaps 9 out of every 10 artists. For a mid career artist that works for paltry adjunct or non tenured, art installer or foundry worker wages (with serious student loans) ...they can go for 10-20 years before getting those rather rare major fellowships. The truth is most professional mid career artists never get more than a 5k in grant in their lifetimes.
Furthermore, these artists need studios because environmentally, legally or logistically it isn't possible because of the requirements of the work. Sure, some can get by without a separate studio but that's because the work allows it. A serious artist lets the work have what it requires and often suffers for it. Think of a studio as a showroom you need to have ready when some curator, critic, gallerist or collector who just happens to drop into Portland for a day or two. Its a place where you can showcase your process and one's investment in that process does effect how it is received. The visual arts are small scale industrial efforts.
Also consider that most 500-1000 sq ft. studio spaces in Portland cost 500 about month and as a rule of thumb most artists with a fully developed career should only show once every year and a half in the city they are based in. Those 18 months = $9000 right there. Materials, crating, shipping, computers, cameras, websites etc. cost even more. So yeah 10K for an a artist with a long career = 1 nice show (if that if you factor in the true costs).
In my eyes a "major" fellowship that goes beyond just an "attaboy" and actually gives the artist a little financial respite or "time out" (as the HFF calls it) means something that really disrupts the self funding financial cycle and stops the financial pressure for a time. 10k isnt a time out when many artists spend 10k per year just for studio, materials and student loans per year.
Think of artists as small busineses that create culture as a charity endeavor that they pay forward for the public. True, not all art is good but it is equally true that what is good usually takes 20-50 years to gain acceptance. Instead think of grants like this as cultural R&D. Some of it does really pan out and it makes up for that which doesnt.
Ok to wrap this up... so 9 artists each got 25k for the HFF Fellowship but they each spent around 100k+ just to hang in the game long enough to get that award. Consider those realities and suddenly they dont seem like the spoiled babies you are painting them as.
Also, here's a little insider info... I actually advised one of the very astute people who set up the HFF's visual art fellowship. We discussed the amount and we both felt that the award needed to be over 20K to be a major career/life changing event for any artist. 25k is supposed to be a major event that gets others attention. 25k means maybe an artist can actually own a home without the help of a trust fund or a highly profitable collector base. 25k gives something back to a few people who historically dont see the true value of their work years later when they are dead.
Lastly this is not dime a dozen work. Perhaps only one or two of these artists is at worst only somewhat above average. Everyone else is notable to varying degrees. My only real problem is how conservative a lot of it is... which the HFF did say they were going to do. Still, all of these artists have ties to hundreds if not thousands in the community. By supporting these few it does have a collateral effect which supports the arts. My question isn't one which belittles any of these recipients, they all matter... Im simply questioning the aggregate message that coalesces around a certain conservative flavor that has crept in many of these regional awards.
Portland is now regularly producing international caliber artists who are cutting edge anywhere... I visit their shows in prestigious spaces elsewhere as well as at local venues all of the time. I feel these awards and others don't quite reflect that new reality... which I will address in my next comment to Anonymous Coward.
Posted by: Double J at February 13, 2013 09:22 PM
Thank you Jeff for the prompt reply.
I should clarify: I don't meet the age requirement for the HFF fellowship; My criticism is not born from an embittered rejection. Obviously this also means I don't have those 10 or 20 years art-world experience either. So I can admit to a certain amount of naivete here, but I'm also not a complete stranger to these things.
You make several good points, and I thank you again for taking the time with your reply, but I think you're overstating it a little. I get all of your justifications for costs, but you're approaching it as if starting from scratch. These people don't walk in off the street naked, take that grant check to the bank and lease a studio with it. They're not buying a new computer and a new camera and hosting a new website with every show. They don't walk into the supply store and start from scratch with every new project. A lot of these costs are null because they've been previously incurred. (True that debt was made up somewhere, but c'mon.)
I can't help but shake my head at a lot of this stuff.
And I don't want to get carried away. I admit I'm biased against a lot of this work, but I'm not blind to it. I just think we should be holding a higher standard for these things. Take the hawthorne bridge example you mentioned. I didn't know what the hell that thing was until I looked it up online one day. I remember driving past it numerous times thinking it was some kind of bridge modification in progress. Then suddenly "wait... that's it?"
I dunno... maybe I just don't get it. I'm a traditional painter. It's hard for me to wrap my head around a lot of that "this is art because I call it art" stuff.
Posted by: Thomas K. Conway at February 13, 2013 11:28 PM
Thomas. the scope of a Fellowship's support is not restricted to new work... it supports the artist's practice... and awards are definitely given for previous work to date, thus the incurred costs I describe are absolutely relevant to this discussion of the HFF's. Fellowships are inherently wide ranging.
Project grants are another thing all together... they focus purely on future costs and the HFF's are not project grants.
Anonymous Coward, dont worry... you can't possibly get me in more trouble than my own words. There is a price for being honest, even for a critic, but you are already aware of this since you are an Anonymous Coward.
The Hawthorne Bridge piece? It wasn't really a slight.. more of a stall. I've only seen the Led Pencil Studio piece at the Hawthorne bridge by car and I want to give it real good look on foot before I form my official critical position. I rather like some of their work, at other times it looks like the kind of art that architects tend to create (they are architects btw... so that's a bit like complaining that milk tastes like milk). I do suspect it is neither the best thing nor the worst thing they have done.
At far as how to invigorate these awards in a way that leverages and further catalyses the cutting edge reputation of art in Portland, it's as simple as asking what are the relevant questions to the world today? Then ask the jurors (with experience and good eyes not just a title) to consider the overall relevance, perspectives, strategies and potential international appeal of the work. Many of these awards pay lip service to art as an international ambassador but in practice they fetish values that do not even challenge local audiences, much less international ones. Overall, the work that challenges us most should be receiving awards, not that which we are most comfortable with. The strongest art places profound demands on viewers and institutions, it does not pander to received stereotypes, genres or strategies. It's actually easy to sort out if you are curious and persistent about being challenged.
Then when the work is selected please install it sensitively!
Posted by: Double J at February 13, 2013 11:42 PM
Thanks for taking the time Jeff, that's another good point. I neglected to realize the distinction between project grant and fellowship.
Your earlier point about looking at these things as R&D is a better way to look at it. I admit to perhaps shortsightedness; I wasn't looking at the big picture considering how this might impact their work 20 years from now. Instead, I was seeing their work pre-fellowship and comparing it to their work today. I see now that comparison is not completely relevant.
Are all fellowships considered this way? I hadn't really considered the categorical differences between grants, project grants, fellowships, and so forth. When I see these things, I tend to lump all of those together and separate need-based awards. Perhaps foolishness on my part, I thought financial need only applied to those awards which specifically stated it.
I still find $10K per show hard to swallow. But I'm also taking for granted the fact that a lot of this work doesn't make money. Performances aren't for sale, etc.
My performances tend to be painting followed by a foot in the mouth, as seen here.
Posted by: Thomas K. Conway at February 14, 2013 08:58 AM
Dont feel bad Tomas I didn't know there was a difference between those grants either. Cheers to JJ for explaining.
JJ are you talking about that lighting error at PAM? I read about that here too. Surprising those things happen.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward at February 14, 2013 01:42 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in,
. Now you can comment. (sign
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by
the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear
on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)