What if Funders Applied to the People? Pt2

The other week, I posted a proposal; What if funders applied to the people? Some loved it, some said that it would never work. Some people said if funders applied to the people, many artists would be missed. But the current system does not work. Artists are being overlooked right now with the efficiency of a well‑oiled machine. The system is broken now. The majority of funding doesn’t go to grassroots user-led collectives, black or brown people, unhoused people, refugees, people with disabilities, people who don’t speak English fluently or people who don’t have access to a laptop. And on the off chance it does, it’s often a tickbox exercise tor o extract stories of trauma and lived experience. The idea that a new model might also overlook people isn’t an argument against the need for change, it’s an argument for implementing change constantly. If we only introduce new systems or ideas once they solve every single problem perfectly, we will never introduce anything at all. We’ll just keep polishing the same broken machine.

The current funding system is built on unpaid labour. Artists create essays, budgets, partnerships, theories of change, community impact statements, safeguarding plans, climate strategies, all before a single penny is confirmed. Funders, meanwhile, are paid salaries to read these unpaid essays and decide who is worthy. The power imbalance is built in. The current system places all the blame and responsibility on the artists for either not applying, or not applying well enough. And we don’t challenge it. Someone said we should all boycott writing funding applications, and maybe we should..

But, let’s cook. What could it look like? If funders applied to artists, their job would change completely. They wouldn’t sit behind their desks waiting for submissions to arrive. They would have to go out into the world. They would need to attend rehearsals, community sessions, open mics, exhibitions, youth clubs, town halls, living rooms, street corners, car parks, squat parties and protests. Some funders might think they already do this, but it would take more than attending panels, conferences and learning days they get invited to. They’d have to get their hands dirty, and it would immediately expose which spaces they’re not in. They would need to meet people and learn and listen and understand the work in context, not in a 250‑word box. Their role would shift from gatekeeping to community connecting. Not ’prove to me that you deserve this money,’ but ‘I’ve seen your work, I see what you give to your community, and I want to support you, here’s why I think we’re a good fit.’ The work would fall on the people who have salaried jobs. The artists would work on creating, and being community leaders, the same as they do now minus the added stress of filling in funding bids and competing.

Capitalism thrives on individualising our struggles, on making us believe that people don’t function without rigid rules, punishment and profit. On making us forget that most people want to help each other and that people thrive in community. I actually believe this system shift would lead to a more collectivist mindset among artists, where we work together, pool labour and share resources. That it would result in an increase of community spaces and activities and a real collective commitment to on the ground impact, not collecting statistics and quotes.

And the middle‑man problem I spoke about? Gone. If funders applied directly to artists there would be no need for large institutions to act as intermediaries, siphoning off the majority of the budget for their organisations infrastructure while offering artists crumbs. The money would go where it was meant to go.. to the people doing the work.

This maybe isn’t a perfect solution, but it’s not meant to be. It’s a provocation, a dream. A reminder that the current system is not inevitable and it’s not sacred. It was designed by people, and so it can and should be redesigned by people. We can create systems that honour artists work instead of exhausting it, and move away from models that worship scarcity. Some people have said that this would never work, that its too radical. But would this really be more radical than our current system? Artists should not be the applicants, they should be artists. And it’s important to remind ourselves that if the whole funding model collapsed tomorrow, if every arts&culture space closed instantly, there would still be an abundance of art. In holy spaces, in parks, in train stations, on street corners, in living rooms.

So instead of asking whether a new system would be perfect, the better question is: what can we do right now to move power back into the hands of the people who actually create culture? We have to stop waiting for a perfect future, we have to make change now, through wild experiments and ‘now, hear me out’s..’ And if funders truly believe in creativity, innovation and risk‑taking, then surely they can handle a little of their own medicine..?