Quality of Offerings: 30

-aesthetically pleasing 

-Support material was a pdf of images and reference to IG. works well in a decorative niche, for a grant with this level of funding I’d like to see more context.

-proposal is to do podcast interviews, not make art

-artist wants to travel to do this with curator recommendations to do this - but no confirmed advisors are listed

-no artists or cities are listed 

-clicking through to IG linked in the application shows 6K followerers and 443 posts - it looks active and has a lot of engagement 

Impact: 25

-anticipated audience numbers are low. But based on the likes per post on IG, I think the engagement would actually be much higher that accounted for in the application.

-This project is a nice idea, I like that artists not in main cities will be included.

However:

-I’m concerned about engaging so many artists for interviews without an artist fee. 

-I advise looking at WAGE (Working Artists in the Greater Economy) to familiarize yourself with standard practice for artist fees within a project. 

-It’s hard to justify so much funding going to the lead artist (17K), without a single dollar budgeted to pay artists. 

-Participating artists' in-kind labor is being used to match this grant, ultimately using the free labor of interviewed artists is being used to match the lead artists administrative salary.

Track Record: 26

-cv reflects regional reviews in Orlando and Sarasota areas 

-cv reflects 2 group shows a year since 2018. No solo shows.

-IG shows a growing and engaged following. 

The application could be strengthened if it were more clear as to why this has to be carried out in person, rather than completed virtually. Including a live presentation that the public could attend and even ask questions of the artists, could reinforce a need for it to be carried out in person. Also, the budget strikes me as problematic, are the curators and 50 participating artists expected to freely donate their time and expertise?