on rejection

so, here i am in japan, waiting to meet with my dad and bro to go to my mother`s memorial ceremony, and i got my feedback from MAP on my rejected proposal. it's generally encouraging. sigh. i realize that the creative capital app i just sent in will prolly get the same critique. but, ah well. i won't have a more recent performance example until late august...

here it is:

Technically, the proposal was well put together. The project description was both personal and lucid in its thinking. It painted a clear picture of the proposed work (with the exception of how artist will work with collaborators — see below). The budget was sound, and you made nice use of the Artist Statement section (often overlooked, but can be a really important piece of the proposal). Evaluators were intrigued by the idea and impressed with the thoughtfulness of the concept. They felt the samples were uneven — showing a lot of promise, but not yet “landing.” One suggested that submitting a more recent work as a sample might have strengthened the overall proposal. Evaluators felt that the musical element was particularly strong.Based on evaluators response, the proposal moved on to the panel. Panelists loved the idea of this artist working within allgo, and remarked on the organization’s general success at combining art practices with its mission. Panel felt this project would push this artist, perhaps even taking her into a new and exciting direction. Strong enthusiasm for the Latin Mass aspect of the concept. Panel felt more could have been said about how the collaborators will work together. Since the driving artist is so strong, it would have strengthened the proposal to hear how she will integrate the ideas of the other artists involved. And, more important, why she is choosing to work with these collaborators in particular. If the collaborators are not co-conceivers of the work, but rather supporting the Ms. Shorb’s vision, it might have been stronger to leave them off the proposal as lead artists.