In an effort to demystify and help further articulate Artist Trust’s Grants for Artist Projects (GAP) selection process, Artist Trust staff got feedback from some of our 2003 selection panelists regarding their experience serving on our panel in May.  Between then and Artist Trust’s announcement of the 2003 GAP Awards in June, panelists were able to reflect on their experience and offer up some great insights into the process.

CRITERION ONE:
ARTISTIC EXCELLENCE

As the GAP application and guidelines make explicit, the artist projects that receive funding are chosen based on three criteria: the first and foremost criterion is “the artistic excellence of the work represented in the support materials.”  What does this mean?  Well, at the beginning of the panel process, artistic excellence is described as the primary criterion under consideration and panelists are asked to judge a work’s merit based solely on the materials included in the application.  In short, Artist Trust has always embraced rewarding artistic excellence through peer review and panelists are asked to keep this in the forefront of their considerations.  The assumption at work is that by selecting panelists that are working in their respective fields at a high level, a degree of professionalism and breadth of experience informs each panelist’s understanding of what constitutes “artistic excellence”.  Peer selection, as a core value of Artist Trust, is based upon the belief that practicing artists are the best judges of the quality of fellow artists’ work.

As visual artist and 2003 panelist Kim Kopp (Port Townsend Resident) commented, “the quality of the work samples themselves drove the selections.  Ultimately, I went for the best of the work samples and hoped that it was a good choice, trusting that the applicant would put the grant money to good use.”  Similarly, panelist Brad Skubbina (Spokane visual artist) reiterated his support for rewarding excellence.  “I was glad that it was stressed that the artistic merits of each applicant were by far the most important criteria.  I strongly believe this is the best paradigm available.”  At the beginning of each GAP panel, it is stressed that roughly 80% of the decision is based upon excellence as determined by the work sample.

CRITERION TWO:
PROPOSED PROJECT

Which bring us to the GAP panel’s second criterion, the “subjective response to the applicant’s project in comparison with the other projects submitted.”  In other words, beyond the quality of the work samples, panelists are asked to consider how each written project description and the examples of the work compare when considered next to other applicants.  “While the process is inherently subjective, I believe that we did as good a job as we could,” offered interdisciplinary artist and panelist Amos Latteier (Portland resident).  Indeed, while any selection process is human and therefore subject to taste, fellow panelist Doug Ramsey (music critic, writer from Yakima) concurred Latteier’s sentiment: “The system developed for the GAP panel was logical, fair and efficient, and applicants were assessed as fairly as we mere humans could manage.”

An important distinction to be made regarding work samples (as detailed in the GAP application) is that they don’t need to be related to the project for which an applicant is applying to receive funding.  When fielding inquiries regarding the GAP program, Artist Trust staff try to always highlight the importance of using your “best work sample(s)” regardless of whether it’s related to the project or not. In 2003 we received a record 772 applications and, as a result, the importance of choosing your best work has never been more pronounced.  Of course, many people ask ‘what constitutes your best work?’  A fair enough question and, not unlike the issue of excellence, somewhat subjective.  However, the clarity of an artist’s project and its merits in comparison with the rest of the applicant pool led Kopp (a previous GAP recipient herself) to underscore the importance of professionalism as it relates to work samples.  “If there is anything I have gleaned from sitting on both sides of the “GAP Grant Fence” it’s how important it is to professionally present a single, unified body of work with concise writing and consistency throughout.”  When speaking with potential applicants, I further recommend that they always have a trusted colleague review their work samples before submitting their application.  Of course, applicants are also encouraged to call our offices with questions regarding work samples and other aspects of the application process (206/467-8734 or 866-21TRUST toll free).

CRITERION THREE:
FEASIBILITY OF THE PROJECT

The third and final criterion outlined in the GAP program guidelines is that of feasibility, “the reasonable likelihood that the project can be realized with GAP support based on the applicant’s budget and other sources of support.”  This seems to be, at first, perhaps the easiest criterion to assess.  Nevertheless, it takes deliberation and attention as well.  “I took the time to read all applications twice, making notes and selecting those that I felt had the most chance of success.  I was surprised how some applicants wrote a great project, but the work just fell short, and conversely there were videos or slides that I could clearly see talent, commitment and focus yet the proposal left me wanting,” offered Kopp.

As you can see, though relatively straightforward, the GAP panel process is a somewhat complicated affair.  Artists from all disciplines are encouraged to apply each year and, as a result, we have an increasingly large number of applicants each year.  Each panel is comprised of artists and arts professionals working in different disciplines but making joint decisions about applicants from different disciplines.  For instance, a panel might be comprised of a choreographer, composer, filmmaker, poet and interdisciplinary artist, and together they would be asked to make decisions on a portion of the Performing Arts, Literary Arts, Media Arts and Interdisciplinary Arts applications.  Not an easy task by any stretch.  Yet, as panelist Bob Glatzer (film critic/producer and Spokane resident) noted, “you could have literary submissions evaluated only by other writers, film proposals only by other filmmakers, etc., but the diversity of panelists made it possible for each of us to question the others about work in their field.  As a result, I thought our panel was very fair.”

Similarly, Artist Trust seeks regional diversity in each of its panels by assembling them with representatives from communities in western, central and eastern Washington.  Though challenging, panelists have repeatedly commended the diverse quality of Artist Trust panels.  As Skubbina put it, “your effort at getting panelists from across the State is the best thing you can do.”  We’re always looking for qualified panelists.  If you think you’d be interested in serving as an Artist Trust panelist, please contact heatherjoy@artisttrust.org.