Proposer

Proposer (name, handle, etc.):

@shannon @kris

Proposer’s role

Shannon is an anthropologist and artist. Kris makes computer systems, and has contributed to the Borderland dreams platform.

The advice process

• Advice Process ending date: Approximately three months after Kiez Burn 2023.

We aren’t interested in reaching a conclusion before the next event, we’re busy doing “art”, but the discussions have been so prevalent. It’s good to get something on paper while it’s fresh in everyone's memory.

Information gathered before posting

This proposal comes out of discussions recurring during the art granting process with dream leads, guides, artists, and proposal writers leading up to Kiez Burn 2023.

People/roles most affected by this proposal

Artists working to make Kiez Burn happen.

People/roles with the most knowledge and experience relevant to this proposal:

Mel, Juliana, Kathleen, Alex, Diarmaid, Bri, …

The proposal

Background

The current system is copied from Borderland, using a platform developed by Borderland. It’s tweaked change it from a crowdfunding style system (a portion of every ticket is allocated to projects) to a proportional voting scheme (making the value of the ticket price opaque).

As far as we know, this is unique to Borderland and Kiez Burn.

The criticisms of this system are many, and we’re not particularly interested in detailing every single one here.

We will quickly list some major things we’d like to improve upon.

It’s a significant waste of time

For several years in a row, close to every project has received funding, rendering the crowd participation element moot.

The system asks for a lot of attention and time, not only for artists and guides, but for every ticket holder. Ticket holders are assigned responsibility for “reviewing” proposals using the rules set out by the art granting leads (and mostly copied from Borderland?), but engagement is low and most of the actual work is done by volunteer “dream guides”. The rules are not addressing the desirability of the art, just technicalities.

Alongside difficult to communicate, esoteric and technical process, this review period constitutes a significant stress to the whole organisation.

It’s not possible to hold it accountable

If it were the case that the system wasn’t a waste of time, that is, if there were significant curation happening through ranking proposals, there's no guarantee of a quality outcome.

The system is designed specifically to be unaccountable. It places the responsibility of the choices of what to fund on everyone, but nobody is given the tools to evaluate the artistic merit of a proposal, where a real curatorial need to emerge.

Voting does not, in our opinion, drive transformative, challenging, or interesting art. Instead, we’d be likely to see a haphazard selection, with large camps driving their well-known recurring projects.

The current ranking mechanism discourages voting for anything except “your” dreams, as every vote to anything else increases the risk of your own project gets pushed below the cut off. Borderland “solves” this problem by not doing ranking but direct granting of money. This ends up leading to several rounds of granting, as projects drop out by failing to reach their minimum.

To our knowledge, the current system has never actually been put to the test, since there’s been very little contention for grant money. That is, very few proposals come in under the cut-off. In that sense we have no evidence as to how it would perform if more ambitious projects come in, but in our opinion there’s no indication it would begin to look optimal.

It discourages ambitious projects

By fracturing responsibility and leaving most artists with only a volunteer “dream guide” as the interface to the organisation, no relationship is built between artists and the organisation. Dream guides are not empowered to solve artists problems, in turn the organisation isn’t able to maintain a year-over-year view into the artists’ practice.

This year, “dreamers” were told to reduce their budgets to “get everyone in”. There might have been a distinction made between art and “in camp” projects made there, but it seems indicative of a system striving to avoid having to make judgements on the value of works.

The proposal

We suggest taking up a more traditional art granting process. One great example is Burning Man's Honoraria Programme.

Soliciting Proposals

From the time a budget becomes clear for the event, up until a few months before the event, Kiez Burn will accept Letters of Intent.

Letters of Intent (LOI) are not dissimilar to the application submitted to the "Dreams platform", outlining the ideas, implementation details, site requirements, and a budget estimate.

Based on the LOI, Kiez Burn will invite artists to create funded art at the event. Most invitations are likely to be sent after the submissions details, but we suggest opening up to invite projects that are clearly suitable and high quality earlier.

Entering an agreement

Once accepted, artists will enter a contract with Kiez Burn where Kiez Burn commissions the artwork. A contract will make it clear what expectations exist between Kiez Burn and the artist.

The contract will need to stipulate, among other things:

• What happens on non-delivery (e.g. repayment, full or partial refunding of costs)

• Who owns the resulting work. Where does profits go when it's sold on?

• Who owns reusable components like expensive electronics

• Who's responsible for disposing of the artwork responsible in the end

• Liability during build, strike, event, and so on

We believe a contract will make life easier for all participants. It would enable us to solve many problems for artists, for instance, we can pay money up front to artists who aren't able to essentially loan out money to Kiez Burn e.V. for months.

Refining and doing the work

Kiez Burn will have volunteers liaising with artists and help out with knowledge sharing, and help make available resources at the event (e.g. power, volunteers), and outside the event (e.g. finding space in Berlin, people who've done similar things).

We should expect perhaps monthly check-ins on progress from artists, and generally try and manage expectations and keep things on track.

During the event

...

After the event

...

How would the proposal be implemented

Prework to complete the implementation of this is to:

• Rewrite the criteria to fit the new system (e.g. what is "art", in camps or outside)

• Figure out the financial process and contractual agreements

• Create new documentation for the new process

Who would implement this proposal

In order of preference:

1. The board picks someone to lead

2. The GA picks someone to lead

3. Someone competent steps up and leads

4. The authors of this proposal does it

Lead would need to assemble a team of volunteers.

When would this proposal be implemented

Before next Kiez Burn.

What would be the cost (time, money, effort, etc.) of this proposal

It'll cost less of people's time overall.

What are the advantages of this proposal (relative to the current situation and/or counter-proposals)

• It is more democratic as it's accountable to the membership

• It encourages ambitious art

• It builds relationships

• It retains competence and knowledge

What are the disadvantages of this proposal (relative to the current situation and/or counter-proposals)

• Someone is given power and influence

• Possible loss of visibility for projects due to the lack of push towards the platform

• Loss of synergy with Borderland

• Committees can get entrenched and power and process hungry (and so can computer systems!)

Decision

After Kiez Burn 2023.

---

When a decision was reached, write on top of the thread:

A decision has been made

• Who made the decision: Your name

• When was the decision made: Date

• Decision Summary: Short version of what you have decided