BY TIM HANNAH
Ever had an amazing idea for a project and applied for funding, only to be knocked back?
Hours, days, and sometimes weeks of work go into preparing the perfect grant application but, in a highly competitive field, sometimes it’s just not enough.
That was the case for composer Liam Flenady when he initially applied to the APRA AMCOS Art Music Fund. However, he returned to the fund with a new idea in 2019 and has been successful, allowing him to take time off work to compose a new 30-minute piece for double-bell trombone and percussion titled The Five Seasons, in collaboration with the Ossicle Duo (Benjamin Anderson and Hamish Upton).
The APRA AMCOS Art Music Fund exists to assist Australian and New Zealand composers in the creation of brave and lasting works. It’s run since 2016, with the support of the Australian Music Centre. It’s a big deal, too, with more than $400,000 awarded in the past three years, and another $100,000 up for grabs in 2019.
So, what changed in Liam’s experience? How do you brush off the dust and reapply for funding after setbacks?
We chat with Liam about resilience, the value of collaboration, and the importance of communication and sticking to your principles.
Let’s start with your projects. What was the original idea you presented to APRA AMCOS? What was your initial reaction to being turned down?
Last time I applied, I submitted a pretty wildly ambitious hour-long project with something like 12 musicians split into three interlocking spatialised ensembles, with electronics, free improvisation components, etc. It was to be called OIKEIOS TOPOS, a title I have since used for another piece, because it’s rad, and would deal – as many of this generation’s composers do – with themes of ecological breakdown.
I thought it was an exciting project. But knew it was an outside chance to get up, because it was a huge project and didn’t have a particularly vast dissemination plan – so I wasn’t too sad when it was rejected. Disappointed sure, but yeah, no existential crisis here!
Receiving criticism, especially on something so personal as your art, can be hard, though. What was it about the opportunity and process, or your attitude towards it, that encouraged you to reapply?
To be honest, I wasn’t going to reapply in this round. Not because I was butt-hurt about missing out last time, but just because I didn’t have the time to think about it. I was busy managing a hectic election campaign for the Greens.
Fortunately, Ben Anderson and Hamish Upton of Ossicle Duo insisted that we embark upon a collaboration [for an upcoming project], and they offered to do a fair bit of work on the application as well, so it became possible.
Having done a bunch of large-scale composing recently for no pay, I thought ‘screw it, I want to get paid so I can actually put the time in on a big piece and still pay the rent’. And the opportunity to work closely with Ben and Hamish was too good an opportunity to pass up.
How did your ideas evolve through the process of rejection and reapplication? Did you find this helped or strengthened your creative practice?
The new project is basically an entirely new work, not a rejigging of the previous application – though, with some similar conceptual reference points. I don’t think having an application rejected should have any influence whatsoever over your creative practice – positive or negative. It’s got everything to do with the politics of the panellists’ negotiations, and little to do with the inherent worth of a project. Though, obviously, it’s hard to not get a boost or hit to the ego when you see the results.
Having said that, another year to sit on the concepts of the previous project idea and be exposed to a bunch of other influences, and realise a few other projects, means this new project is much more coherent and singular than the previous application idea.
Also, Ben and Hamish’s contributions were a real step up from my last application. The scaling down of the ensemble and resources required meant that other groups around Europe and the United States could sign up to give overseas premieres – something my previous application couldn’t have included due to the nature of the ensemble. So that was also a step in the direction of fund-ability.
Now that you have been successful, what has this funding allowed you to achieve with your project that would have been impossible otherwise?
Well, writing the new work would just simply not be happening! We’re in a tricky environment in Australia at the moment for exploratory music. It seems like underground/DIY scenes are going okay but, on the institutionally ‘legitimate’ level, it’s hard to find the space and resources for something really bold and experimental.
The APRA AMCOS Art Music Fund is an excellent exception to this. It has not only allowed me the time to write the new work – 30 minutes of hopefully very strange and dank music for double-bell trombone and percussion – but lends the legitimacy to the project that will allow it to be taken up more readily in various contexts around Australia and internationally.
Some see unsuccessful grant applications as a failure. How has this experience led you to re-evaluate your attitude towards success and failure in your art, or in the arts in general?
I really don’t think unsuccessful grant applications should really have much bearing on your practice – it might simply mean you didn’t communicate your idea in the application as well as you could have, or that that particular panel was never going to choose something like your idea.
The only failure I can see in art, and maybe in life as well, is selling out your dreams for individual gain in an institutional or financial sense – but here, the failure is more society’s than any individual’s. Obviously, in a context where getting by as an artist is so tricky, it’s easy to see success at this level as the only validation around, and it means we all adopt perspectives – often unconsciously – that put artistic exploration below ‘being successful’.
What the arts community needs to move towards, I feel, is a political perspective that puts the needs of everyday artists first, and the high-profile stuff comes as a lower priority. Large-scale grants should be just the cherry on top of what is an already-delicious cake of economic and political freedom that allows ordinary people the time and security to take artistic risks – such as access to affordable and secure housing, better welfare or a universal basic income, a shorter working week, access to super cheap venues and rehearsal spaces and to cheap materials and equipment, addressing systemic racism, sexism and homophobia at the ground level, etc., etc….
If you had your time over, what would you have done differently? How can other artists get the most out of this experience?
On a really prosaic level, my advice would be to just keep applying to this stuff and try to make the application as exciting as possible, but also as coherent and expansive as possible in terms of the exploitation/dissemination plan.
But, you know, the bigger picture advice is to get out there and kick arse, and refuse to accept the neoliberal imperative to narrow the scope of your artistic and political dreams.
Congratulations to all those who succeeded in the 2019 APRA AMCOS Art Music Fund! You can read more about these projects on the website.
Good luck to those applying (or reapplying) for future funding rounds!
Shout the writer a coffee?
If you like, you can say thanks to Tim for volunteering his time for Australian arts journalism. No amount too much or little 🙂
[purchase_link id=”16471″ style=”button” color=”red” text=”Pay what you like”]
