Wednesday, December 16, 2009

the under-valuation of art blogging

Sharon Butler has an interesting post about the recent writing grant recipients for New York's Creative Capital/Warhol Foundation. It seems art bloggers are not fairing well in requests for funding.

It turns out, however, that over 150 bloggers actually found the time to apply, but only one, Greg Cook (New England Journal of Aesthetic Research), was selected. In the LA Times blog, Christopher Knight wonders why.

In fact, in the four years that Creative Capital/Warhol Foundation Arts Writers Grants have been awarded, only three have gone to writers who produce blogs. Given a total of 87 grants since 2006, bloggers have racked up less than 4%.That's not a very good ratio.


CAP said...

And if you check out Greg’s blog, it’s hard to see what he was awarded for. The writing is hardly inventive or daring, the research is average, the interests frankly lame. An anonymous judge commenting on Sharon’s thread, claims they look for experimental or creative writing – but just what counts as ‘experimental’ or ‘creative’ criticism is far from clear. Joanne Matera rightly steers clear of the grants, claiming she likes to know who and what she’s dealing with. Who can blame her?

Also, worth pointing out Chris, that Sharon’s post is prompted by an article by Chris Knight in the LA Times where the assumption is that blogs really just continue standard (i.e. press) criticism by digital means. I disagree (as you’ll see on the thread there)

highlowbetween said...

Thanks CAP. Haven't read the Knight piece. I'm sure experimental is not to be rewarded in most of the grant processes. Then again, what do I know?