Quality of Offerings: 27

Project Concept sounds great, especially in the context of similar past projects.

-support material is well designed and interesting 

However:

-No artists are confirmed as of the application.

-5th grade public school collaborations sound great as a concept, but as an organization director who has attempted school outreach in the past, I know it’s a long & complex process requiring extensive permissions and collaborators. Without specific schools and collaborators in place, I have a hard time believing that will happen.

-Lists being a member at New inc at New Museum for 3 years

-lists Anita at DV as a collaborator

Impact: 25

-28 opportunities for public participation is impressive - but as a community organizer, most sound very difficult and hard to believe without proof of a track record doing this

-I’m confused that 0 K-12 students are listed in the outreach, but 5th graders in public schools were a target audience in 2 sections

-good collaborators were listed, but none were confirmed, no letters of support or commitment

Track Record: 23

-Board includes Guadalupe Maravilla, a stellar artist

-many globally recognized past collaborators listed 

-solid testimonials in PDF

-no CV

-I wanted to know more because the idea is interesting so I searched for a website - it was limited and more design directed than art. This combined with no CV and no clear profiles of past initiatives makes me unsure of the track record.

Strong artist statement. Project goals and objectives clearly communicated. Scope of project conveys as ambitious; would it be more realistic to carry out ideation sessions in smaller groups – coordinating 50 together sounds like a number of voices may go unheard.

Good that the applicant mentions partnerships already in place.

I’m interested in this concept h/o some important details seem to left out of the project description – in particular it is not clear how the public will access these once installed – if these details were addressed with more specificity, it would strengthen the application.

I see in the support materials there are previous projects listed as Floating City Archive projects, should this project have a different name? and is it seen as programming under Floating City Archive? That could help to clarify what you are proposing to use these funds for.

Budget could be strengthened by breaking down the line item “public activations” into more detail to demonstrate exactly how that 20,000 will be distributed.

I’m interested in this artist’s work, however, feel this proposal needs to be flushed out further. It would be helpful if the artist completed a proof of concept, applied for a smaller grant, and carried out 1/5 of the scale of what is communicated here, and used that as supporting documentation to apply for this larger grant.

I see in the support materials there are previous projects listed as Floating City Archive projects, should this project have a different name? and is it seen as programming under Floating City Archive? That could help to clarify what you are proposing to use these funds for.