What if Funders Applied to the People?

Yes, funding keeps many arts projects alive. But the whole set up of arts funding in the UK also creates a weird obstacle course where artists are forced to compete for tiny pots of money, write essays longer than the actual projects, and decode application forms that feel like they were designed by someone who has never met a human. And we’ve all just accepted that this is normal. ‘Describe your entire artistic practice, life story, all your trauma, and future impact on society in 100 words. Explain how your project will solve social inequality, boost the economy, and revitalise the local high street in 150 words.’ Then a group of strangers decide whether your work is innovative and meaningful enough. And after all that unpaid labour, you get an automated rejection email: Unfortunately, due to the high volume of applications.. You know the drill.

And then there’s also the middle-man problem. A huge chunk of arts funding doesn’t even go directly to artists or grassroots collectives. It goes to large institutions and charities who claim to represent communities they’ve never actually met. These organisations then take the majority of the funding, keep the infrastructure money, hire a producer, a coordinator, a consultant, and someone to design a logo. And finally offer artists a tiny fraction of the budget to deliver the work and use the trust they built to tap into their communities. It’s like someone being paid £50,000 to host a dinner party and then they call you and say 'Hey, do you mind bringing the food, cooking it, serving it and washing up? I'll give you a £100 + travel expenses and some exposure.' That is not a partnership, that is outsourcing disguised as opportunity. Especially since the money already comes from people’s labour, and then gets redistributed back to us through the funders. It’s basically money laundering.

So all of this made me question why are we doing all the work? Why are artists and creatives the ones doing the emotional labour of proving that we’re worthy? Funders get to decide who is most deserving. But…based on what? A vibe? A spreadsheet? Knowing a friend of a friend? They get to decide who gets support without ever having to prove their value to the people actually doing the work. What if, stay with me, the whole thing is backwards? What if the funders apply to us? Smells like justice. Funders sending us proposals like:

“Dear Artist, We humbly request the honour of supporting your work. Please find attached our diversity stats, our community track record, proof we don’t profit from war, and three references confirming we are actually who we say we are.”

We would then ask them: But do you align with our values? Do you actually understand my artform, or do you just like breakdancing in the Olympics? If we don’t like the answers, we could and should reject them. 

“Thank you for your interest. Unfortunately, your organisation does not meet our criteria at this time. We encourage you to reapply next year after doing some internal reflection.”

But imagine this shift, practically. Funders would submit their applications to artists, collectives, and communities. They would have to demonstrate:

• How well they understand the artform: Not in a “I once saw a contemporary dance piece and didn’t get it” way, but in a real way.

• Their track record: Have they supported diverse artists? Have they caused harm? Who did they apply to? Who did they not apply to?

• Their values: Do they truly support the communities they claim to serve?

• Their internal diversity: Who’s making decisions? Who’s in the room? 

• Their actual usefulness: Do they listen? Do they show up?

• Their money: Where does it come from? Are people harmed because of their funds?

• Their agenda: Who are you accountable to? Who do you listen to? Whose problems are you solving?

This isn’t just a thought experiment, It’s genuinely a better use of time and money. Right now, thousands of artists spend hundreds of unpaid hours applying for grants they statistically will never get. Funders, who get paid to do their job, spend thousands of hours reading applications that don’t align with their priorities. Everyone is exhausted. No one is happy and the arts still struggle. If funders applied to the people, artists and communities would only engage with funders who align with their work. Funders would have to be clearer, more transparent, and more accountable. Time would be saved on both sides. Money would be spent more effectively. Nobody would be doing unpaid labour. And the power dynamic would finally make sense.

The current funding trap only works because we’ve been told we need funders more than they need us. But without artists, funders are just people with spreadsheets and no one to give money to. Without creativity, there is no cultural sector. Without the work, the whole system collapses. Art and community is about abundance, not money abundance, but people abundance and creativity abundance. The funding system meanwhile, is like the grandma who gives you £5 for your birthday and says don’t spend it all at once, also call me every day. 

Artists have always created worlds out of scraps. But imagine what we could do with actual support, on our own terms, in our own language, and with our own values intact. A future where funders apply to the people is perhaps radical, but it acknowledges that artists and communities are not beggars, but the reason the sector exists. We are the engine, the labour, the imagination, the output, the impact, the community and the culture.