Cultural Mobility Funding: Biases and Blind Spots

It was really a bad idea. Thank you for being here with us and thank you to John and Marina. Um, as um Johan said, I'm the executive director of an organization uh based in Portugal called Asessura, Access Culture. And uh we are an association of cultural professionals and cultural organizations. And we work on physical, social, and intellectual barriers to cultural participation. So we work both for what we call the audience but also for people like us who want to make a career in the cultural sector, artists, all the kinds of professions in the culture sector and what kind of barriers people like us find on the way to working in this sector. Um as you can imagine in our work well barriers, biases, stereotypes that keep coming up and one of our main roles is to make us all aware of them uh that first of all that they exist and how they express themselves or how we express them. Uh creating barriers and leaving people uh outside our family let's say for one reason or the other. Uh when I received the invitation uh to moderate this session, uh I had no idea what a wonderful world would come out of it. And thanks to everything Marina Jones shared with me in order to prepare this presentation, I realized that there's much more than what I had in mind to discuss uh regarding uh cultural mobility justice. Um our idea is that well this session will focus specifically on trustbased funding models and on randomized selection processes. Um and they didn't give us a long table but that's what we're going to make of it. Our idea is to uh perhaps in a first part first half uh we discuss some of the issues uh basic issues on which uh both John and Marina can uh give us their opinions bring their experience etc and then we have another half to discuss all together so we'll have our long table um probably you you've already uh consulted their bio notes. So I'm not me actually I think it's a very embarrassing moment always when we are present that somebody reads our bio. So just to remind you that John is head of artist support for acne an organization based in the UK and Marina is the chief operating officer of skin foundation in Italy. So um the title of this encounter of this meeting is biases and blind spots. when it comes to cultural mobility justice. So I would start by asking you what are the bias or the blind spots that you identify so that somehow we have a common ground here to understand what are the bar what are the biases and what are the blind spots who wants to go first. >> Thank you for the introduction and the question very happy to be here. Uh I'm very fond of this part of the word also for personal reasons. But anyways um I'll take a long uh route for the answer to this question if you allow me. Uh also to give a little bit of context on the work of um of the foundation I work for and to um yeah to connect to the biases which is I think at the very basics um of how I interpret the role of Moleski Foundation. Um I I I really like actually that this panel is focusing on biases because I think everybody everything starts with uh self-awareness um at both a more personal and institutional level. So I think the first bias to start with is um I would call it the positionality bias u meaning often funding institutions or institutions in general um lack in acknowledging their own positionality. um meaning how they are particularly positioned within a specific economic, social, cultural and political context and how dispositionality also evolves over time and how this um kind of affects or does affect um both the [clears throat] way institutions operate and how they're perceived um by others and the stakeholders, by the people and the organizations, the community they serve. Um and I think it's really important to give a little bit of a context to tell you what it's molestation positionality. Um beginning with a um yeah with a brand name. Uh I don't know how many of you are familiar with Moleskine company but it's basically a company producing these products. Um it's a long story. We're not a corporate foundation but we are obviously associated to a corporate brand. studies is already kind of a building block uh in in our um perception and and how we're positioning ourselves. Um it's a small foundation based in the north of the world with a [clears throat] long legacy uh in unconventional educational uh programs in the global majority. um but also an intrinsic DNA rooted in cultural um it's a cultural foundation first and foremost which happened to start grant making and funding other organizations. So I think this is really important also to uh situate also like the funding conversation for this panel and uh my perspective um and the perspective of the institution I represent because we do ground making we do funding but um the the the approach and the process deeply rooted in a cultural approach and everything we do is deeply embedded in this uh way of thinking about funding. So I think the first uh big issue when it comes to biases within these days it's acknowledging uh one's own positionality and where you are where you are at and um also kind of understanding what is your how you can do good um considering your position and your superpowers. Um I don't I know we're talking about funders but uh ironically our superpower is not money uh which is good and bad. Um but I think it's um it's through different kind of superpowers that we can leverage um a certain kind of work which is first creating spaces where uh ethicality and imagination can happen and I can explain more about that. So this is the first thing I wanted to uh mention. Um and this is kind of I think informing a lot of different biases that in the funding space I witness very often. Um the the first one being kind of connected to to uh this uh positionality element, but it's um a sort of structural misalignment between what the funders usually demand um to organizations especially cultural organizations and then the tools the processes and how things are designed that indeed ask for u quite the opposite. Um so um on one hand there's a sort of expectation of being brave be being very experimental but then all the metrics or the systems or the processes are designed in a way they uh demand for linearity they demand for specific kind of KPIs. Another big big discussion I think that is related to biases is what we would mean by scale. Um and I think this morning I attended a session that was a little bit touching upon some of these issues and I think scale um somehow was also one of those um whether you how you measure things but what do you what do you want to measure um and if it's what what you mean by skating um if it's about breath if it's about depth um what kind of impact and um yeah and then Again, I think this morning it was um mentioned very very uh often. Um I attended this session about fairness, building on fairness. Um and um I think we just need to acknowledge that a big biases about the intrinsic inequality in the power dynamics that are within who funds and who receives the funding. And sometimes these the power imbalances come at a really subtle level. Um, yeah, I think this I can go on, but I think this is a good starting point. >> Marina, you could go on, of course, but I'm sure John will add to what you just shared with us. So, what are the main biases you think, John, or blind spots? I can talk about pros and cons later, but um at Acme we've been doing random selection to get from long list to short list for 2 years now and it's now an accepted part of what it is. I I think people expect it now. Um it's less new or um unusual. [clears throat] Um so I think it's familiarity as much as >> Thank you, Joe. Uh Marina, do you want to give us a definition first of all of trust based funding? I'll stay uh very much away from definitions if you [laughter] allow me. No, but I'll try to unpack it. Yes. >> Um I can I can I sit a little bit in in the word trust? Okay. because I think trust is an interesting word um in general but especially when it comes to funding and the philanthropic space and I find it very um useful to to show to shine a light on another important word that is control which I think is a big big uh issue uh especially within the contract space and um letting go control um it's a major challenge um and I say as person who is a little bit of a control freak. So personally I have an issue with that but institutionally speaking I mean it's um I think it's a constant challenge and uh task that a lot of funders should try to embrace. Um so I'll talk more about trustbased funding but I think what is important um to me is also that trust based approaches in general is something that are not just um I think it's important that trust is not just a value or a set of principles but it's uh truly like the operating system and kind of underpinning all the processes of an institution and the norm for organization um and this is what um we try to Um and it's important that it becomes a method and it's not just it doesn't just stay within the realm of of values. Um how to translate that into trustbased funding. Uh so getting closer to defining what it is. Um there are different ways. So I think the first one is to um to move away from project based funding uh and to start uh promoting more structural funding. This is this is I think the first form of uh trusting the fact that organizations know uh best how to spend the money. Um going into more technicalities, trustbased funding also is associated to very light reporting or no financial reporting. this is also something that we do. Um but also kind of due diligence mechanis mechanisms that are based on trust meaning that uh it's not heavy bureaucracy but it's um it's based on relationship building and relation and nurturing relationships. So much of the work I I do um and this is actually what I'm grateful of uh and for is um that I spend a lot of time in nurturing rel relationships with um people with organizations with institutions and this is the the basic um of what what allows for trustbased approaches. Uh so after I know you for a year or two years and we've been meeting each other, we know each other personally um I know your practice then I I as an institution I feel also less less risk in a way to give you a higher amount of money completely unrestricted because I I I trust you. Um so there's a deeply um there's a deep relations relational uh component into trustbased approaches that I think it's key >> but it takes time first you give it time yes it >> it takes time and it takes a certain dose of risk uh taking of course especially the very beginning there are ways to and tools to lower that risk or the perception of the risk [clears throat] just to give a practical example we start with a micro grant. This is a way to first of all lower the the risk, you know, because it's if you do unrestricted funding with half a million is one thing. If you do it with 5K, it's another. Um but I think micrograms has also um an interesting um benefit which is from the very beginning you start with different kind of clients because it's a fun you can give a big chunk of money to someone but it's kind of putting things already from the very beginning in a more horizontal way. Um so this has to be reflected by the kind of reporting of course and by the kind of um demands both sides but in our experience this micro brand thing is the first kickoff of the relationship was very helpful because it kind of set things in a different way from uh like more traditional philanthropic approaches or tools uh you know function. Um and then another thing that I want to highlight when it comes to trustbased funding especially is um and again sorry for referencing this morning session but I find a lot of connections um it's about decision- making um so how you embed your decision- making processes um are more um I don't know if participatory is the right word but yes eventually um so how uh you um lose your control by and largeing the decision enlarging the the panel of decision makers. Um this is something that we have been trying for a while. Um I'm happy to share more practical examples but uh at the end of the day is really about uh having a panel of peers who evaluate and decide together uh who's getting the money. Um and it's not just the funders who decide that and um this requires a little bit in coordination and has pros and cons we will tackle on that but yeah I was listening to you discussing trust and I don't know if we have anyone from Finland or from Helsinki here. Yeah. Uh I think it was the strategic plan of Helsinki for 2017 2020. Uh the main objective of the plan was that Helsinki would become the most functional city in the world and then when you go into the strategy and you say how are they planning to make this happen there was a lot about trust there. the functional city would be based on trust. Citizens or the inhabitants of the city trusting each other more and that is that is very interesting because we tend to be always very you know cannot trust anybody but ourselves it seems. Um so uh shall we discuss a bit the pros and cons of each method? Uh John you want to go first. What are well the pros I think the pros I think somehow you told us but uh would you discuss a bit the cons as well? I feel like the pros and cons are kind of mixed up actually because if I say any one of these things there are kind there's nuance around so I don't think it's totally um black and white but like any kind of process that you set up you need to do it with care and thinking about the consequences of what you're doing because any anything like this is quite a blunt tool unless you put in place the proper uh care consider things like um h how do you how do you sense the individual in the in in the process? Where where's the human side of it? Funding could be quite automated or very um hard to do. Um so the probes of uh random selection are it is totally equal and totally fair but then you get into questions like we were just discussing this morning. What is what is fairness? Fair to who equals to for who? Um so it's a pro but also um yeah needs a bit of uh unpacking. Um it can be easy to access because the the application form can be really simple. You can remove a lot of bureaucracy from it. uh lots of the requirements around documenting your work practice promising to have certain outputs for the project or or such like you you can strip out all of that. So >> what's the minimum you ask for in order for somebody to be >> so for the workload studios that I mentioned we need to show that there's a right to rent to UK uh your practicing fine artists and um you took a box that you you say the um studio was affordable for you as well um but in that there's there's inherent bias because right in the UK for example requires a certain legal status in the UK or affordability means you have a certain income. Uh we keep rents as low as possible but there is still rent to pay for it. Um yeah so you can keep the criteria as minimal as possible but it is still still a criteria but it's still a barrier to entry. um they are administratively light to run as I tell you can run around selection for nine but then um you there's something about the relationship between the outcomes and and the the individual and the center that you lose because it is so administratively like touch to run like um uh the foundation I used to work with. We prided ourselves in the relationships that we built with our partners and with the artists we were working with. Then suddenly to uh run a random selection process that selected 42 pairs of artists, we had no prior connection with them. That that felt like we was going against a values in a certain way. We were delighted to run process and meet new artists, but it felt like we were catching up uh afterwards. um it can remove arbitrary bias decision making or it does do that. But then um the flip side of that the con that is um this goes backwards and forwards. I think feedback from artists to say I actually quite like the idea that my portfolio is being consumed by someone who might have a an impact to my career not just in this process but long term. So if for example you have you run an application process where you're putting your portfolio in front of a uh another established artist or curator or another person that might have some influence in their career in the future. They might not get that uh particular award that they're applying for. But um there's an idea that it might be useful for their career in future to be visible within uh these kind of opportunities when it's just a computerized system kind of saying yes or no you're not getting any kind of visibility. So it's easy but also it's there's minimal exposure through it. So we got feedback from artists that were very um disconcerted by the fact that it was a an automated process and they didn't like the idea that it was dehumanized. Um so this is this is why I think both the pros are cons. is a very nuanced thing and um I think like I'm doing now random selection would be part of the process but I I don't think it should be the whole process. Uh so I won't talk about pros and cons then what are the nuances [laughter] when it comes to trust based funding. Yeah, also because the cons are really few probably. Um, so I think it it's not really um I think the big aspect in my experience it's um not necessarily related to trustbased funding but more um criticalities around the selection processes. Um I need to be a little bit more concrete here. So um we run this collaborative fund that is called the creativity pioneers fund. It was launched in 2021. Um interesting interestingly actually accelerated by the pandemic. So um at that time mostly foundation kind of shifted its strategy and and started with this pilot which grew exponentially and now it's collision of over 30 partners mostly coming from the philanthropic space. And it's important to mention that and I'll get back to to that um in in in a bit. Um so this this platform basically uh supports economically and non-financially creative change makers worldwide. Um and it's really expansive in terms of sectors and creative disciplines. It's more about looking for organizations that champion a certain kind of approach in change making through creativity, culture and the arts um and a certain kind of features that we kind of identify through practice um and experience. And um so the first challenge already arise when it's not project based uh but it's about supporting an organization and it's uh whole um when it's global and it's so expansive when it comes to creative sectors and and and activities. So just to give you some examples of organizations are part of this network and this platform there's a skate park in Jordan uh a solar powered uh cinema network in South Africa uh a museum in the Bronx uh a theater uh company in Ukraine uh a circus in Zambia. So really really different kind of uh experiences and and practices. Um so it's really challenging to find a super specific criteria in selection and this is it's it doesn't matter whether there's a panel of super expert hiring this consultants or is participatory process like this case or we'd like actually creativity finders from previous cohorts to join um as evaluators. Um I think the challenge is in the fact that no matter how extended the decision-m process is um eventually it's uh about making a curatorial decision. Uh in this sense I would say it's quite the opposite. [laughter] It's deeply human and it's deeply biased. Um I think it's about um being honest uh about this and embracing that and being clear that there's not not such a thing is a neutral decision decision-m process. So selecting the new cohort of the Kitani is uh first of all I think it's it's fair and it's it's right that it's the members of the community that kind of decide or orient at least uh the decision making and then there is also an internal component uh that it's more like um a curatorial um decision that we we collectively take as as an institution as a coalition of partners to make sense of a balanced portfolio that can include very small grassroot organizations that that have no seniority but also larger institutions that can contribute to the coalition in a different way. Um so I think this is [clears throat] a critical aspect uh very nuanced um it comes in in other funding mechanisms that we have. Um the micro grant uh is connected to an open call but we have also structured grants. Um and in that case the decision-m is completely in the hands of fellow uh creativity pioneers. Um but it's so difficult for them when it comes to comparing uh these organizations because the context is different. Um again because the kind of do work they do is very different. So I think it's also about um championing a specific thing that you want to push at a specific moment. For example um also acknowledging a certain political situation or context. uh maybe one year you want to push for something because you you think that politically at the international level that's relevant. Um and I think it's just about uh making the choice and embracing it and being honest about what's your um uh subjective uh decision because this is what we're talking about. It's there's no scientific process behind this. Um it's possible like we just closed the open call. We see 2,00 2,900 applications from all over the world. um there's no machine, there's no process that can guarantee that we're going to do the perfect selection. We going to make 100% the perfect selection, but uh it's um it's perfect for the kind of things that we want to champion and because it's not just about I think sorry maybe this is also controversial, but it's not just about supporting specific organizations, it's also about championing a larger vision. Um and this is what this program is also about. So um the the selection you make for the organizations that be part are part part of this community is also connected to pushing a specific agenda um which is shaped in the perception of creativity and culture from something cute and nice to have into something relevant. So there's there are two levels here supporting directly organizations through different kind of tools which also include supporting financial support to mobility and exchanges. But on on another level, there's also this thing of looking at the coalition as a whole, the sector as a whole and trying to all collectively from our own positionality, from our own standpoint and resources and and and values and assets that we have uh push something bigger. Um so I think in the sense it counts uh um to to have a curatorial and and political um approach and decision making. Yeah. Do you think it is clear in terms of communication that [music] this is how you >> um this is a good question. I think it could be clear externally. Uh I think it's I hope and I think it's very clear within the community especially the way we engage with um organizations when they come in come as evaluators. This is very clear um in the way they we make the invitation for them to join as evaluators. Um it could be definitely clear to the external world uh because it's a more generic kind of communication that we uh we design externally. Yeah. Um before we make our long table uh maybe one more question for each one of you regarding the material you send me. Um John, would you like to uh elaborate a bit on match the methodology with the opportunity? What do you mean by that? >> Um yes, I think it's more of a strategic point about um what what is the fund of the foundation or the organization set up to do? What do you want to achieve with your resource? Who do you want to find out about that opportunity? usually want to apply. What barriers or needs might they have in terms of applying? How can you support them through that process? Is a curatorial approach best one or is a another approach uh the best one? I think it's it's about matching the the process is to serve the greater purpose of of the um the opportunity that you're trying to present or it's trying to it should reflect the values of the organization. So if the values of the organization are around promoting equity by prioritizing or promoting those that have not necessarily have opportunities due to the um a certain protective characteristic like ethnicity or [snorts] disability or caring responsibilities, then you would want to design a process that supports specifically those people to apply for that opportunity all the way through from application selection to um appointment through the project through evaluation to the end. It should be a joined up thing. Um, but if if something like random selection can just um get you past a a point where you need a fair way of um making things easier for applicants and easier for staff than it might have role within it. So it's a tool. It's not it shouldn't lead policy or practice or strategy. It it's a tool to employ at the right point. Thank you, John. And Marina, you talked about rethinking evaluation. Do you want to talk a bit more about that? >> It's my favorite subject. It's my least favorite. Um, what could change? What are the parameters we could be using instead of what we're doing currently? So I go back to the coalition thing uh because we kind of um find ourselves in a interesting position today. Someone talked about being a translator and this is a little bit the work we do. Um so the creativity binders fund is a coalition of 30 funding institutions. Um each come from different kind of mindset and institutional approaches. a lot of them come from very um traditional ways of funding and it's um very interesting that they join this more experimental space um and this this program I think and we briefly talked about it together but uh often um you find within very um rigid and and super like um yeah like stiff institutions you find also very visionary and courageous people uh or kind of stuck within the institution boundaries. So we tend to find allies internally we try to push from from within. Um but I'm saying this because often we find ourselves in a strange position of having to comply to what a co-founders demand and having to absorb the requests in terms of evaluation and monitoring and indicators to make it as light as possible uh towards the organizations we eventually support. Um this is not easy especially as the coalition and as network grows as the complexity in the world increases. Um I think this is an issue. When it comes to trustbased funding, um we more and more find ourselves in situations where we fund organizations in really complex context where we need to be a little bit creative uh also on how to get the money uh to them uh because it could be threatening because of the government is not accepting foreign funding. What are the reasons? It's a lot of countries it's difficult to register as a nonprofit organization because it's um it's kind of considered like a political threat for internal uh politics. Um so it's an interesting moment um in the growth of the graphic binary fund where we have to be a little bit more um risk aware uh and also try to put in place measures to kind of lower risk especially for those kind of situations that increase um but also um and the numbers of the organizations and the people you deal with daily increases. So these rel relational components I told you about um the risk is that it get eluded. uh so how to double down even though you get bigger in this human personal and deeply relational uh dimension and this is connected to evaluation and and measuring impact because um on one hand you kind of find yourselves in a situation where you need to yes provide KPIs and kind of metrics but on the other um it's a different kind of I think it's also a matter a matter of fact um I think The issue is that a lot of these organizations um try to simply answer different kind of questions. So this is why the metrics uh don't fit. Um it's not necessarily about how many youth you engaged into educational programs, how many hours of education you delivered or stuff like that. It's about different kind of questions such as I don't know how do you restore a self a self of sense um a sense of self sorry an identity in a failed state or in a state that has been devastated by war by war uh for decades how do you measure that uh I think the kind of questions that these organizations ask themselves also orient the kind of answers that they're seeking and it it's kind of influencing also the way we try to monitor that. So it is in our case it's super complicated. We try on one hand to monitor the impact of the program we run on the uh organizations we support. Um we try to be as light as possible when it comes to monitoring their work uh within their communities. It's more about um stories. It's more about uh you know >> what I was getting. Yeah. That's what I was getting. Yeah. >> Trying to numbers. Yeah. Definitely. >> Yeah. Thank you both. As promised, we have another half of the session now to talk all together. Uh questions, comments, experiences you would like to share. >> Yes. Shall we sit there and not here? What you think? Is it okay with the microphone? >> Not that that's for the audience. >> Yes. >> But is it okay if we sit a bit more forward? Yeah. >> I don't know if we can take Maybe not. Uh f I have two question. Uh first first is for uh Mr. Yon OPI. what kind of uh absolute fairness you are talking about in selecting the best because uh more or less now we we are all living in hybrid societies not just uh in Eastern Europe unfortunately that this is my deepest impression and uh why do you think that you are always selecting the best candidates because As a professor of uh of economics, Shashana Zubak from the University of uh uh Harvard said um uh now decision making is u happening in three levels. Who decides? Who decides who decides? And who who knows who decides? And um how do you do how can you be sure? And did you ever have uh uh did you ever have any second thoughts about uh uh this um and are you very sure that you always select the right candidate in this kind of circumstances and the second one is for >> can we can we just keep it there just to go one at a time. Yeah. Thank you. >> Um I can't be sure at all. [laughter] Um and also um the idea is that applicants meet a basic criteria for for the opportunity. We're not I'm not saying that those that then get selected are the best candidates. They are just the ones that get selected. They're the ones that get resource. they want to get the opportunity to um to to live in the accommodation I'm giving or to receive uh for from the fund I used to work for. Um there is no value judgment around whether they are the best kind counselors the opportunity in the case of the studio they [snorts] get to live in it for three years. The idea is that they use it as a building block for uh their future career in practice. Um but asking them to predict what the future might be and selecting on potential full stop is really difficult to do. So really we're we're um that's why random selection comes into play. [clears throat] Yeah. >> But eligibility is as I say incredibly um fraught with bias and um [laughter] that that's where the the work of the administrator comes in in order to refine the eligibility in order to ensure that you have a diverse pool of candidates for an opportunity. So you you you do the work before the run and selection. You do the work in terms of the outreach that you do around the opportunity. You do it in terms of how how you think about the eligibility you do work in terms of how you're going to go in the process. >> Do do you feel sometimes surveiled because she says >> wait a bit for the microphone please. Do you ever feel surveiled? Because uh she says that uh now everything is surveiled and the quote that I just gave is from her book surveillance capitalism. So it is like an outcome of what was surveiled through this new technologies and media and it's not really like uh you cannot now show because everybody now thinks it's this is more reliable because like you know everybody's lying and if somebody's surveiled and you cannot find anything wrong about this person if the organization feels surveiled >> but I think that this how we are losing the best talents because talent cannot cannot be surveiled. It's inside the of the artists. And I think that's why for example composer music, pop music and some other areas of art are really falling in culture are really falling down because of this because uh those in the decision making are are too much um too much relying on surveillance not on uh you know analysis and uh you know who is who is um critical and who's not. >> Yeah. enough. >> Uh I I feel like you know more about this than me actually. Um but but of course it Yeah, it's a it's a tricky question about inviting information from people through an application process. You are inviting the act of um finding out more about their lives. And that could be a question of surveillance and judgment and subjectivity and bias and that's very complex and difficult. >> And the second question is for >> sorry Marina and I would like how do you know you are not investing in someone wrong like some hidden campaign? Do do you track do you track who is giving the money and is there any some hidden interest in it and how can you find the part reliable partners in this uh situation because usually uh somebody can be very close to you and he's working for somebody and you don't know you're like a chief but he he will prepare the materials and that and you will sign it and then maybe you will be >> you want to make us feel depressed. Thank you. So, >> how do you build the trust? >> I go more paranoid about [laughter] um an easy answer will be we don't know if it's based on trust we trust. Uh a more nuanced answer would be there are several mechanisms through which we make informed decisions. Um so it's about um doing a bit of research uh on the basis of the applications we receive. We ask to organizations we know in the region if they know these other organizations we're about to shortlist or eventually select uh we meet these people we a lot of the work we do is about convening and gathering these organizations. So this is also how the trust and the relationship gets you know nurtured. Um so there different ways for us to get to know um closer and better on a deeper level these organizations. But then if someone is hiding very good something and getting money from different kind of sources that are not ethical, not responding to uh our eaters, it's if it's I mean again we don't have a lot of strict due diligence and control mechanisms. So um if they're like the masters in recycling money or doing things that we can't control, it's difficult to get to that level. >> And has it ever happened to you? You don't need to say names, but has it ever happened that despite all the previous the preparatory work you did, >> it was Yeah. You placed money in the wrong >> sense of some was not honest in that sense. >> No, that never happened. >> That never happened. >> That never that I know. It never happened. Um it happened and I think this is something um I'm happy to talk about it because I think it's a big taboo in our society. um that is obsessed about performance and making it an endurance. It happened a few times with organizations closed down um because of uh funding burnout whatever reason. So um uh the lifespan of some of the organizations we selected um since 2021 um I mean in some cases some some died. Um I think the beauty of it is a lot of the people that uh originally founded and created these organizations are still part of the community. So they engage on a personal level. Um it did happen once uh and I'm not going to make names that um we uh we found out after a few years that one of the organizations that you were supporting uh in Turkey um was also involved in a project that was a little bit awkward. um at least in our understanding it was associated to like a military culture and it was in collaboration with the Turkish government. It it felt kind of out of place. That was the only thing that was kind of um strange. Yeah. >> Any more qu Yes, please. related to the method you use. Is sustainability related to the method you might use to select? >> So I think this is an important question. Um in our case we don't do project based funding. Uh so we don't support projects. Um but this is not a way to for me to get away from your question. [laughter] Uh so we do core funding. Uh which means you can pay your bills, your utilities, your rent, whatever. Um but I think sust economic sustainability is one of the major discussions and issues that organizations we work with have um and it's often connected to well-being and burnout of the leaders of these organizations. So there is a uh there is a um a deep discussion around sustainable business models or funding models um with these organizations and um we're trying together with them with some of them to understand whether there can be alternative mechanisms. Um this is very early stage but there are some organizations um in the Middle East that together are trying to understand whether there is a model for kind of um a pool fund uh in in kind of a peer peer funding um to avoid pure dependency from institutional funders. This is a discussion that we're having. So cool resources, pool funds that come horizontally. I think this is an interesting way. In some cases, organizations do things that by definition by nature are not uh sustainable marketwise um and are dependent on funding. Um this is a really long conversation. We could spend hours talking about sustainable financial models. In our case, it doesn't really apply. Um also, there's no duration really. So once you get in the platform you can access different kind of opportunities for as long as the program exists or as long as the organization [snorts] exists. But I see your point and I think beyond projects um financial sustainability is the one of the major issues. >> Um we never know. >> Okay. Um so I don't currently do project funding so um I my colleagues on kind of whether it is possible to say projects beyond uh the original uh round. Um what I do is provide resources and formal space for [snorts] artists and there no kind of network or context for working. So inherent in providing that resource there is an idea of how it is and I'm talking about artists specifically here rather than arts organizations and project funding. So it's really about how we offer resource in order for artists to build sustainable careers long term. And my company Acne did some research a few years ago around the value of uh a studio space for working that went beyond um uh beyond just it's a space to work and yes it's a an economic side of production that is really important and to have that um for a long period of time is incredibly important for sustaining practice because it is a site for working. of societal convening people. So providing that resource is really important. But it also goes to the heart of an artist's identity of what it means to be an artist. So often I have a studio that's wrapped up with with the psychology of continuing maintain a practice long long term. Um so there is something about providing political space that speaks to government around that and beyond just um say immediate financial support for the buster or project funding for a few months or a year. I think it's also about professional development with that. So how are you providing resources for artists to develop a practice long term? How how do you uh provide training for financial planning? How are you thinking about documenting what to build a portfolio that be used to for funding in the future? Uh so we I I run a program that it's specifically for early career artists and it the the program is a year long and it is aesthetically just providing a studio space for an artist's work for a year but round up we build in um uh on that um and also we we have conversation about documenting work And really it's not about kind of the shortterm outcomes of what happens within that year. It's about building establishing a a studio practice that will run long long term beyond the program. So I think it's about program. Hi. Um I have a question actually for uh Miss Marina because for us I'm coming from western uh Balkans and working in this what we call independent cultural sector and uh we can easily say that we are project target as uh we are working on a project basis and this is from the experience of let's say 25 years and after working for 25 to 30 years uh with the exception of Croatia and Slovenia in this region of let's say Yugoslavia the rest of us do not have access to structural funds so this is uh one of the rare opportunities actually that someone can uh form some structural fund for years we are advocating for certain structural funds because they are those that can provide certain sustainability in an economic program or different cases let's say so my question is because I was very much turned to think of about the trust that you said and especially how you build your trust especially with the regions that you're not within and how you make your decisions of where the [snorts] trust uh will be developed with or with But region with which difficult question [laughter] so I I also want to be super honest since this is started with biases. Um I think the work we do um definitely has some biases of things that we like blind spots that we have. Um probably in difficulties in um engaging with all the organizations at the same level. Uh this also comes with um proximity issues. Um and by proximity I don't only mean physical or geographical proximity. um we work very closely um with kind of champions, organizations that sit very far from where we are located physically. Um I think sometimes it's a matter of um cultural biases or different language or a different um a different kind of way accessibility is perceived by each organization. This is just to say that I think the work we do in practice probably doesn't translate as an equal effort or as an equal result. Let's put it this way. Uh in terms of trust and engagement with all the 200 plus organizations that we support through this program. Um and it's um so it's it's far from being perfect in this in a sense. Um what we have been trying to do is decentralizing um the um the architecture um for example trying to gather these organizations in different part of the world not just in Italy where we have our annual global gathering we try to distribute also geographically in in regions that can be maybe more accessible to other organizations because there since we're talking about mobility barriers to mobility um simple and practical things such as visa uh and the inequalities around visa it is an issue um and uh so this is also coming from observation and conversations that we have been having with some of these organizations for some of them it's tricky to engage at a certain level because of also these barriers these these barriers to access and and connection so um I think the way to go forward in in building this trust is to build as as much as we kind of more decentralized ecosystem to u make sure that some of these organizations and specific regions of the world can act as kind of local hubs um catalyzing people and peers uh but also catalyzing resources and opportunities and making creating programs and events um and this is has to do with the fair sorry I'm doing my job because I'd like to see you but I can't the light against me um so yeah I I think this is part of the design uh component of trying to designing a decentralized ecosystem kind of u helps building this trust and it helps overcome some of the intrinsic barriers that we have in the level of engagement and then it's really up to also it's a bilateral thing uh so I would say that I think that the trust is higher where also the initiative that come from these organizations higher um so there's not a lot of expectations organizations can get the money and do whatever and never engage in the opportunities and in the spaces we build. I think it's a missed opportunity uh especially because much of the nature of this program is not about money but it's all about the rest of the things that are not financial necessarily. Um so um I think the trust is higher where we we find um a mutual um well in engaging um and and this is something that you can't really plan. This is something that comes with capacity, interest, time and resources that the organizations uh have. Um so within this network of 200 organizations we've been supporting since 2021 the level of trust engagement and proximity and maturity of the relationship and depth of the relationship is probably really different. Um and again I think it's part of being honest about it and acknowledging it and just trying to put in place tools that uh increase more and more opportunities for them to engage um considering the the internship values that they might have. Um it's a constant um work in progress. I don't know if this answered your question. >> So so >> any more questions or comments? >> I don't know if I understood correctly. uh is the question whether organizations like John's and Marinas can help create those networks is that no I didn't understand why >> if there is any discussion about it >> if there's a discussion about the situation oh man yes um of course there is um I mean George and I know each other so I think you know a little bit uh how we think and work within the organization there's a constant discussion about this also because daily lately we get to hear from organizations that are affected um in different countries in different regions. Um so it's something that is um it's painful um to hear um because it has immediate repercussions in the work of these organizations and we are in in contact with them also on a personal level. So um this has triggered a lot of conversations internally on how to platform these um to give voices to these stories when not to give voices to this story because it can be threatening um um in a less public way. We facilitated conversations with organizations with people from different organizations. They were um finding themselves in threatening and um threatening and complex challenges um Nepal and in Lebanon and they had a a discussion together on how to um react as an organization with the risk measures and and safety emergency measures for the community that we're working with. Um so we try to facilitate these connections where we know that some organizations maybe have a little bit of experience in dealing with emerging situations and we can connect them with organizations that have a less um senior experience in dealing with those circumstances. Um we try to activate emergency funding. Uh this comes with the fundraising opportunities we have. So it's a little bit limited but we did it in the past. Um and we're trying to do it also now. Um but I think it's mostly um on the narrative part of the work we do. So the editorial production when we go around in public spaces we try to champion the stories to make them visible to give opportunities on stage for these stories to be heard and connecting um people that might be might be facing similar challenges. Yeah. I feel like um possibly the least best person in the room to talk about this actually. Um I mean I I know that it's a wealth of experience in these situations. Um yeah, I'm not sure that much more time as well about a quarter of an hour. Anything else you would like to share or ask? I mean I can play if I'm allowed to play because I know of course very well both your projects but also also can see a lot of people in the room and I'm very inspired by the all the experimentation around randomized selection processes and I think as many resiliency centers in the room but also many funders in the room we don't dare to go in that direction also because the we are afraid of the feedback of artists or project holders that suddenly would be selected not because of the merits and all the narrative or the dream and the mythology around merits but just because they're lucky and the fact of acknowledging that we have in our cultural sector very few funding opportunities and a lot of excellent project that would deserve to be funded is also a very tricky conversation to have like to say we have um 20 grants, 200 application and probably 170 deserve that money. So let's randomly select who gets it and I guess we will meet probably a lot of resistance from you know all the artistic and cultural community and I can also sense my own resistance because in this conversation I don't want to say let's apply this to the artists but not you know face the same kind of conditions as a project order we do a lot of EU applications you know and there is a massive competition at European level for which is why we experimented with random selection to begin with. It's this idea that the 13 that get selected why are they any more um deserving of that resource than the other 200 that applied. Um but I was wondering if I could suggest a couple of easy ways of trying it out um to see whether it is something that you are comfortable with. So, we might run events where there's limited places for uh to attend, like a free event that has 40 places, but you have overwhelming interest in them. You could take the 80 people that want to attend and randomly select 40 people to get the ticket. And that's one event that feels very low cost to it. And if you're up front that's how the tickets are going to be allocated then you can you can um you can perhaps try that out as an experiment see how you feel about it as the organizers of it um I think also in um researching random selection as a possibility myself and my colleagues were very concerned about an extreme selection so if you had a 100 people I don't know. Uh 20 um 20 were white male and the other 80 were a a very diverse kind of group of people. But in selecting the 20 awards, the 20 white men got the awards. How would that reflect the organization as a result? and speaking with uh statisticians they said that these kind of extreme um results from random selection are technically possible but also very unlikely but also it goes down back to the how you position the opportunity and how you do the marketing for it. So it's leg work in terms of making sure that it is um seen by as many people as possible and as many people as possible are encouraged and to apply. So you ensure that you have a very diverse pool to begin with which increases the chance that you still end up with a result that you can be comfortable with as an organization. But having done that, you can also publicly say what you've done and why you've done that. >> Very quick answer. I hear you. I mean, I in this year the discomfort um this year out of 2,900 applications we going to select 15. So it doesn't make me feel good of course knowing that uh so many applicants are I mean we were speaking about competition earlier. Um I think this is this definitely something that doesn't make me feel good about it. Uh because it's highly competitive eventually. Um I think I don't have an answer to how to solve that. I think partially what John said about experimenting with different tools and trying out different methodologies. Um I don't exclude that in the future the open call will stop to exist and maybe we change radically the way we operate at the moment. Uh this is the main let's say scouting tool that we have. Um but it reveals a lot of uh complexities and difficulties in taking decisions when you get so many applications and each year we don't know what to wish for. um because of course on one hand uh it's uh gratifying to see that the numbers increase because the program is growing and and so on and so on but um it's so difficult then to take decisions and narrow down to 50. The last word can say >> the organization in Italy you say parula I don't know how to translate that for who who does you stay with me um again I I think it plays back to your positionality uh you said you represent one of your institutions in in your country so I think there are some things that you can do and some things you cannot too. Um or yeah, okay, stay with me. [laughter] I'm not saying that you should never change what you do. I'm just saying that um it's also acknowledging what you represent and what you stand for and what kind of institutions you work with. Um and uh I think I think it's important to do the best [clears throat] that you can do within within those boundaries and understanding what you what you can do within your positionality. Um I I don't I don't mean that you would never have to improve things or get better of course of change with him. I'm just saying that this is important. >> Those kind of question as well. >> Of course. Of course. >> Yes. There's one more question. >> Yeah. >> It is ultimately giving up control. We've been talking about systems of power being oppressive and the act of decision making is a form of that. But by giving it up all together, are we as cultural workers um giving up the the little the little bit of responsibility or control we do have in order to make to make a difference in the world. And um that can be a hard thing to do. I I guess it's it's your it's this debate between kind of wanting to be fair and transparent, but whether completely giving up power and control is a way of doing that or whether you need to keep enough power control um in order to achieve the results that you want to and that that's a strategic decision. So that that's why I'm not saying that my method is it's not even my method. It's it's widely debated in that circles. I'm just someone who has picked up a few tips and tried them. Um but it's not for everyone and it's not for every situation. And I think it's best placed where there is such a curatorial agreement within an organization. Obviously, if you care who is platformed, who has the right to speak on the stage that you are creating, then um that is a curatorial choice and um it might be quite an uncom both radical thing to completely give up that control platform anyone that comes through. But also, you might want to attend control to a bit of um decision making. But that that's not say that you couldn't um randomly select a short list and then start process from there where you're working with a smaller group to understand what they might say in a certain context and then make a decision based on values that you've set out for the opportunity. >> There's ways to do it. Well, it's the world is full full of nuance and biases and uh yeah, the first thing is to acknowledge it and then it's very good to know that people organizations are exploring are restless. They're looking for other possibilities and that's what we're supposed to be doing. I think uh if I may uh add something that has nothing to do directly with the subject of this session. Uh this morning uh we realized how many of us don't know what's happening in Serbia and listening to Gorgi I'm wondering how many of us know what's happening in Georgia today. Um and because we talked about solidarity and care and these are very important uh things I think that the least we can do is know about it and it's not easy to find this kind of information because I was commenting with Lara usually the war makes the news nonviolent resistance doesn't make the news so we need to look for it and uh there is an amazing platform that gives me energy once a week when I receive their their newsletter It's called waging nonviolence. They bring news from nonviolent resistance movements in different contexts mainly from the US but not only. So that's my energy shot every week. So look for it if you want. Thank you Marina John. Thank all of you. Thank you all of you who were here and participated in this session and thank you on the move for inviting me to moderate this session. I love the preparation of it and I love Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Thank you. [applause] We're going to have some fresh air. We're going to have some sun and we're going to enjoy a little bit. Have some water or coffee or whatever you need to to stay alive after the next few hours. So we have a half hour break and then we will come back here all together all the three groups and we'll hear from some hotel very much looking forward. Okay, thank you very much.