“Genius is the recovery of childhood at will.”
September 22, 2016 5:36 AM Subscribe
ARTS MacArthur Foundation Announces 2016 ‘Genius’ Grant Winners [The New York Times] This year’s winners of the MacArthur fellowships, awarded for exceptional “originality, insight and potential,” and publicly announced on Thursday, include writers, visual artists, scientists, nonprofit organization leaders and others, who are chosen at a moment when the recognition and money — a no-strings-attached grant of $625,000 distributed over five years — will make a difference.
Ahilan Arulanantham, 43, Los Angeles. As director of advocacy and legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, Arulanantham fights for due process rights for people threatened with deportation. He also works to broaden immigrants' ability to obtain legal representation in court.
Daryl Baldwin, 53, Oxford, Ohio. A cultural preservationist who is director of the Myaamia Center at Miami University of Ohio, Baldwin works to rejuvenate the language and culture of the Miami (Myaamia) nation. Though the last native speaker of the Miami language died roughly half a century ago, Baldwin has mastered the language and is teaching it to others.
Anne Basting, 51, Milwaukee. A professor of theater at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, Basting uses theatrical techniques to enrich the lives of those with cognitive challenges. This work has helped older individuals battle the intellectual losses associated with aging.
Vincent Fecteau, 47, San Francisco. The sculptor creates complex pieces from ordinary materials, such as cardboard and papier-mache, that invite close examination. Viewed from varying perspectives, Fecteau's works cast new light on the meaning of three-dimensionality.
Branden Jacobs-Jenkins, 31, New York. Playwright Jacobs-Jenkins addresses issues of race, identity, class and family head-on. Past and present collide in some of his works, provocatively showing how America's racial history impacts present-day life.
Kellie Jones, 57, New York. An associate professor in the department of art history and archaeology at Columbia University, art historian/curator Jones has shed light on contemporary art of African lineage. Through exhibitions and scholarly research, she has helped bring the work of Martin Puryear, David Hammons and others to the general public.
Subhash Khot, 38, New York. A professor of computer science at New York University, Khot works to understand the possible limitations of computing. His discoveries have both theoretical and practical implications, the latter concerning how election systems function.
Josh Kun, 45, Los Angeles. A professor of communication at the University of Southern California, Kun draws knowledge from the artifacts of popular culture. Album covers, menus, sheet music and other items have inspired his writings and exhibitions.
Maggie Nelson, 43, Valencia, Calif. Writer Nelson serves on the faculty of the California Institute of the Arts. Much of her work, articulated in five nonfiction books, has been inspired by feminist and queer theory and other schools of thought.
Dianne Newman, 44, Pasadena, Calif. The microbiologist, a professor of biology and geobiology at the California Institute of Technology, studies how bacteria influenced the course of life on Earth and continues to do so. Her work carries implications for treatment of cystic fibrosis and other diseases.
Victoria Orphan, 44, Pasadena, Calif. A professor of environmental science and geobiology at the California Institute of Technology, Orphan studies how micro-organisms at the seabed draw energy from methane gas. This work deepens our knowledge of how the planet's climate functions.
Manu Prakash, 36, Stanford, Calif. An assistant professor in the department of bioengineering at Stanford University, physical biologist Prakash researches how various life forms work. He also has invented devices that open up scientific investigation for those with limited funds, such as a lightweight microscope that costs less than a dollar to make.
Jose A. Quinonez, 45, San Francisco. The founder and CEO of Mission Asset Fund in San Francisco, Quinonez has created methods for those locked out of the financial system to build and obtain credit. This includes people from low-income, minority and immigrant families.
Claudia Rankine, 53, New Haven, Conn. A professor of poetry at Yale University, Rankine writes poems, essays and lectures confronting personal issues, as well as the racial angst of our times. Her innovative use of language drives much of this work.
Lauren Redniss, 42, New York. An assistant professor of illustration at the New School's Parsons School for Design, artist-writer Redniss creates unconventional books that interweave text, typeface, layout and design to tell their stories. Her subject matter ranges widely, from the tale of a Ziegfeld Follies performer in "Century Girl" to the tempestuousness of weather in "Thunder and Lightning."
Mary Reid Kelley, 37, Olivebridge, N.Y. A multifaceted artist, Reid Kelley writes, designs and performs in her videos. Various storytelling techniques converge in her narratives, which draw upon mythology, history and imagination.
Rebecca Richards-Kortum, 52, Houston. A professor in the department of bioengineering at Rice University, Richards-Kortum has helped create low-cost medical technologies that aid societies in impoverished places around the world. These include methods for diagnosing cancers.
Joyce J. Scott, 67, Baltimore. From a distance, the pieces created by jewelry maker and sculptor Scott appear decorative. At close range, they carry messages about sexism, racism and violence.
Sarah Stillman, 32, New York. A staff writer at The New Yorker magazine, Stillman specializes in long-form journalism. Her extensive pieces have taken on subjects such as the poor conditions suffered by laborers serving the American military in foreign countries and the dangers that youthful police informants endure.
Bill Thies, 38, Bangalore, India. The computer scientist invents ways to render various technologies available to developing communities in India. These include methods for making social media available to those with limited tools and helping individuals monitor their consumption of medicine, thereby slowing the spread of disease.
Julia Wolfe, 57, New York. An associate professor of music composition at New York University, Wolfe creates musical works that draw on a vast range of idioms. Classical, folkloric, rock and other musical languages converge in her compositions.
Gene Luen Yang, 43, San Jose, Calif. The graphic novelist/cartoonist takes on a broad range of topics. He has told many stories from a Chinese-American perspective, creating, for instance, inspirational Asian superheroes.
Jin-Quan Yu, 50, La Jolla, Calif. A professor in the department of chemistry at Scripps Research Institute, Yu has done groundbreaking work in developing innovative chemical compounds. [via: Chicago Tribune]
Also worth reading, this interview with Claudia Rankine with what she intends to use that grant money for. Rankine told Time magazine that she intended to use the grant to set up a:
“Racial Imaginary Institute”, which would enable creative thinkers “to come together in a kind of laboratory environment to talk about the making of art and culture and … the dismantling of white dominance”. “What seemed, before the MacArthur, like this thing that we wanted to do but which seemed more abstract, suddenly has come more into focus,” she said. “What we know is that for many white people, black people are coupled with criminality in their imagination. That’s an equation for the white imagination. And they can’t get beyond it. And part of the reason I believe they can’t get beyond it is because they don’t see the construction of it. I think we are in need of an institute that does the work of investigating and bringing forward those things that have been made absent or erased inside the culture around white dominance.”posted by Fizz at 5:44 AM on September 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
Excited to see a UW-Milwaukee professor on the list.
posted by drezdn at 5:51 AM on September 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by drezdn at 5:51 AM on September 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
NO JON BOIS NO PEACE.
But actually, I am also excited to see Claudia Rankine on this list. Ditto Gene Luen Yang and Sarah Stillman. I look forward to exploring the new-to-me names.
posted by Etrigan at 6:02 AM on September 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
But actually, I am also excited to see Claudia Rankine on this list. Ditto Gene Luen Yang and Sarah Stillman. I look forward to exploring the new-to-me names.
posted by Etrigan at 6:02 AM on September 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
Wow, a lot of these people are young.
posted by jonmc at 6:06 AM on September 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by jonmc at 6:06 AM on September 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is quite cool, but I found the number of California grantees somewhat surprising. Of course it's a massive state and a vibrant one, but still....
Perhaps this is similar to the feeling the rest of the country gets when they see New York constantly over-represented.
Glad to see Rankine and Joyce Scott in the mix.
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:09 AM on September 22, 2016
Perhaps this is similar to the feeling the rest of the country gets when they see New York constantly over-represented.
Glad to see Rankine and Joyce Scott in the mix.
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:09 AM on September 22, 2016
Gene Luen Yang! I love his work. American Born Chinese is fabulous.
posted by cider at 6:14 AM on September 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by cider at 6:14 AM on September 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
Sarah Stillman's New Yorker piece on civil asset forfeiture from 2013 is one of the best pieces of long journalism I've read this decade.
posted by escabeche at 6:18 AM on September 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by escabeche at 6:18 AM on September 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
I had the absolute privilege to work with Branden several times in college; he ran the student playwrights' festival when I was an extremely nervous freshman and he was so helpful in the process of mounting my work. It was an even greater privilege to get to work on his thesis show (HEART!!!), which was so wonderfully inventive, constantly changing, magical (one character was a young girl's hair) and sometimes viscerally disturbing. I did it through a bout of pneumonia, we wound up ripping through the theatre's very expensive scrim (but that's another story) and it was worth every single minute.
He's always been a genius, but it's fantastic to see him formally recognized as one. BRANDEN!!!
posted by ilana at 6:29 AM on September 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
He's always been a genius, but it's fantastic to see him formally recognized as one. BRANDEN!!!
posted by ilana at 6:29 AM on September 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's wonderful to see such a diverse range of people but... sometimes I wonder how much more good the MacArthur Grants could do if they selected people who actually needed the money, instead of people who are mostly famous and well-established already and who have lots of institutional support (like, what, three quarters of these people are professors at famous universities?).
I guess they shouldn't mess with a good thing, but so many of the artists, educators and activists I admire are people whose work is so experimental or who are so marginalized that they have access to basically no institutional support and as a result live in poverty or create their work in the space allowed by their unrelated day jobs. I wonder what they'd be able to accomplish with $125000 a year.
Basically I wish some other rich people would adopt the method of the MacArthur Grant, but devote it solely to people who have done very promising work but who have found it impossible to fund the continuation of that work.
I mean, was Lin-Manuel Miranda really the artist who could have most used $625000 last year?
posted by perplexion at 6:32 AM on September 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
I guess they shouldn't mess with a good thing, but so many of the artists, educators and activists I admire are people whose work is so experimental or who are so marginalized that they have access to basically no institutional support and as a result live in poverty or create their work in the space allowed by their unrelated day jobs. I wonder what they'd be able to accomplish with $125000 a year.
Basically I wish some other rich people would adopt the method of the MacArthur Grant, but devote it solely to people who have done very promising work but who have found it impossible to fund the continuation of that work.
I mean, was Lin-Manuel Miranda really the artist who could have most used $625000 last year?
posted by perplexion at 6:32 AM on September 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
number of California grantees
Right? This is my count:
CA 10
NY 7
OTH 6
...which makes me wonder about the total sample of applicants. It just seems like a pretty tight geography for nearly 3/4 of the grantees.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 6:36 AM on September 22, 2016
Right? This is my count:
CA 10
NY 7
OTH 6
...which makes me wonder about the total sample of applicants. It just seems like a pretty tight geography for nearly 3/4 of the grantees.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 6:36 AM on September 22, 2016
which makes me wonder about the total sample of applicants.
Just for the record, people don't apply for MacArthur Fellowships. The MacArthur Foundation staff selects them more or less out of thin air (not like randomly, just that the recipients don't have any idea it's coming).
posted by Etrigan at 6:39 AM on September 22, 2016 [7 favorites]
Just for the record, people don't apply for MacArthur Fellowships. The MacArthur Foundation staff selects them more or less out of thin air (not like randomly, just that the recipients don't have any idea it's coming).
posted by Etrigan at 6:39 AM on September 22, 2016 [7 favorites]
It just seems like a pretty tight geography for nearly 3/4 of the grantees.
A rough calculation suggests the populations of NY and CA amount to about 19% of the US, so that's a pretty significant overrepresentation.
The MacArthur foundation itself is based in Chicago, so I don't think it's explained by provincialism.
The grants have been around since 1981. I wonder if anyone has done a study of their effectiveness. Do poets produce much poetry during their grant years? Do scientists get many papers published? Are those papers cited more or less than the pre-grant work? What happens after the grant runs out?
posted by jedicus at 6:50 AM on September 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
A rough calculation suggests the populations of NY and CA amount to about 19% of the US, so that's a pretty significant overrepresentation.
The MacArthur foundation itself is based in Chicago, so I don't think it's explained by provincialism.
The grants have been around since 1981. I wonder if anyone has done a study of their effectiveness. Do poets produce much poetry during their grant years? Do scientists get many papers published? Are those papers cited more or less than the pre-grant work? What happens after the grant runs out?
posted by jedicus at 6:50 AM on September 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
Just for the record, people don't apply for MacArthur Fellowships. The MacArthur Foundation staff selects them more or less out of thin air (not like randomly, just that the recipients don't have any idea it's coming).
Someone I know was invited to be one of their recommenders -- apparently each year they first select a bunch of people who make recommendations, and then the grant selection is made from that pool. It was all super secret and hush hush because of the attention the grants get.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:58 AM on September 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Someone I know was invited to be one of their recommenders -- apparently each year they first select a bunch of people who make recommendations, and then the grant selection is made from that pool. It was all super secret and hush hush because of the attention the grants get.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:58 AM on September 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yay for Subhash Khot! I took his computational complexity course when he visited the University of Chicago, and I'm glad to see him get this award.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 7:51 AM on September 22, 2016
posted by J.K. Seazer at 7:51 AM on September 22, 2016
Gene Luen Yang, nice!
posted by LobsterMitten at 8:00 AM on September 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by LobsterMitten at 8:00 AM on September 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Gene Yang is so good. If you haven't read ABC Or Boxers/Saints, you really really should.
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:01 AM on September 22, 2016
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:01 AM on September 22, 2016
just that the recipients don't have any idea it's coming).
My friend knew he had been nominated.
posted by bq at 8:26 AM on September 22, 2016
My friend knew he had been nominated.
posted by bq at 8:26 AM on September 22, 2016
I'm delighted to see two microbial ecologists/geobiologists, both women, both pretty young by big science standards (and, yes, both at Cal Tech). In our field, $625,000 is still a lot of money, especially with no strings attached (NSF money has sooooo many strings attached). I'm talking about things like purchasing and maintaining vehicles and boats, buying service contracts on analytic equipment, paying for student travel, and buying computers. Yes, one can beg and plead and negotiate and get things paid for. Or one can whip out ones MacArthur checkbook and just pay for stuff. I think that may be every scientist's fantasy: to just be able to buy the things you need to get the work done without arguing with anyone about it.
I'm constantly telling my students that microbial ecology is the next big thing (for people who have the right mix of bench, lab, and computer skills). Glad to see the MacArthur folks agree.
posted by hydropsyche at 8:39 AM on September 22, 2016 [10 favorites]
I'm constantly telling my students that microbial ecology is the next big thing (for people who have the right mix of bench, lab, and computer skills). Glad to see the MacArthur folks agree.
posted by hydropsyche at 8:39 AM on September 22, 2016 [10 favorites]
Hell yeah Claudia Rankine.
posted by Bob Regular at 8:57 AM on September 22, 2016
posted by Bob Regular at 8:57 AM on September 22, 2016
That's a stupid definition of genius, in that it downplays the huge amount of hard work that it takes to cultivate a kernel of inborn talent.
That said, I may just be bitter because I spent part of my morning dealing with the aftermath of my 3 and 5 year old "geniuses" opening a bag of art plaster while I was trying to take a shower.
Anyhow, congratulations all around.
posted by ryanshepard at 9:03 AM on September 22, 2016
That said, I may just be bitter because I spent part of my morning dealing with the aftermath of my 3 and 5 year old "geniuses" opening a bag of art plaster while I was trying to take a shower.
Anyhow, congratulations all around.
posted by ryanshepard at 9:03 AM on September 22, 2016
That's a stupid definition of genius
Has anyone hauled the entire concept of "genius" out behind the woodshed yet? It seems like a Romantic holdover, the vision of the unique seer towering above mere mortals. There are probably thousands of artists or scientists in the country as deserving of "genius" grants as those who receive them.
checks mailbox
posted by thelonius at 9:06 AM on September 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
Has anyone hauled the entire concept of "genius" out behind the woodshed yet? It seems like a Romantic holdover, the vision of the unique seer towering above mere mortals. There are probably thousands of artists or scientists in the country as deserving of "genius" grants as those who receive them.
checks mailbox
posted by thelonius at 9:06 AM on September 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
You can argue about the meaning of genius, but it's almost always a list of pretty fascinating people doing interesting work. So it's nice to have them called out so you can take a look at their work.
posted by tavella at 9:12 AM on September 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by tavella at 9:12 AM on September 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
For the record, I don't have an actual problem with the foundation giving the awards to whomever they want to support. I'm sure it is hard for them to decide.
posted by thelonius at 9:14 AM on September 22, 2016
posted by thelonius at 9:14 AM on September 22, 2016
Let us all bear in mind that the MacArthur Foundation is not the one calling them "genius grants".
posted by Etrigan at 9:17 AM on September 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 9:17 AM on September 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
Ah, yes – another year in which I am reminded of my inadequacy.
(No, they're great. They're really great!)
posted by St. Hubbins at 9:22 AM on September 22, 2016
(No, they're great. They're really great!)
posted by St. Hubbins at 9:22 AM on September 22, 2016
I wonder if anyone has done a study of their effectiveness.
God, I hope not. I am so sick of this "outcomes" based funding model. Sometimes things do not work and that has to be OK. Progress is not just a straight line forward. This is the same logic that leads to the inability to publish negative results in science. The entire point of these grants is to give money to people who have demonstrated that they will do something great with the funds, whether or not it is "more papers published" or "more citations" or "more more more more more" whatever. Sometimes less is more. I frankly do not care if these individuals just go on a damn vacation (I promise they need it) and do absolutely nothing in the way of "progress" as it is defined in their fields with this money. That is literally the entire point of the grant. To give money to people who work hard and who will almost certainly continue to work hard so that they can do their work without worrying about "positive outcomes" or "meeting the ridiculous paperwork requirements of the NSF/NIH" or whatever.
posted by sockermom at 9:45 AM on September 22, 2016 [26 favorites]
God, I hope not. I am so sick of this "outcomes" based funding model. Sometimes things do not work and that has to be OK. Progress is not just a straight line forward. This is the same logic that leads to the inability to publish negative results in science. The entire point of these grants is to give money to people who have demonstrated that they will do something great with the funds, whether or not it is "more papers published" or "more citations" or "more more more more more" whatever. Sometimes less is more. I frankly do not care if these individuals just go on a damn vacation (I promise they need it) and do absolutely nothing in the way of "progress" as it is defined in their fields with this money. That is literally the entire point of the grant. To give money to people who work hard and who will almost certainly continue to work hard so that they can do their work without worrying about "positive outcomes" or "meeting the ridiculous paperwork requirements of the NSF/NIH" or whatever.
posted by sockermom at 9:45 AM on September 22, 2016 [26 favorites]
I'm less concerned with geography than with the university connections. Lot of folk out there hustling without that cushion to sooth the ass.
My advice to the committee- look harder next time.
posted by IndigoJones at 10:14 AM on September 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
My advice to the committee- look harder next time.
posted by IndigoJones at 10:14 AM on September 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
I read Thunder and Lightning by Lauren Redniss earlier this year and it's bloody marvellous and really beautiful.
posted by dng at 10:26 AM on September 22, 2016
posted by dng at 10:26 AM on September 22, 2016
I think people are greatly overestimating the amount of support one gets when they are tenure-track or tenured faculty at a university in this day and age.
posted by sockermom at 11:21 AM on September 22, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by sockermom at 11:21 AM on September 22, 2016 [8 favorites]
I am a tenured faculty member and I'd say that the support full professors at NYU, Stanford, and Caltech get is one thing, the support Basting gets from UW-Milwaukee very much another. For better or for worse, MacArthur has never had "how much will it change the work this person is able to do" as a criterion.
posted by escabeche at 12:18 PM on September 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by escabeche at 12:18 PM on September 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
Because you can get too serious about almost everything: The Cat Poets on Not Being Awarded a 2016 MacArthur Foundation Genius Grant
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:22 PM on September 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:22 PM on September 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
> It's wonderful to see such a diverse range of people but... sometimes I wonder how much more good the MacArthur Grants could do if they selected people who actually needed the money, instead of people who are mostly famous and well-established already and who have lots of institutional support (like, what, three quarters of these people are professors at famous universities?).
These things don't all add up perhaps the way you are assuming? Being famous in certain circles doesn't make you famous in a general sense. Being well-established in your field doesn't necessarily get you wealthy. Working for a big university doesn't mean you, yourself, are making a lot of money or getting a lot of institutional support.
posted by desuetude at 1:07 PM on September 22, 2016
These things don't all add up perhaps the way you are assuming? Being famous in certain circles doesn't make you famous in a general sense. Being well-established in your field doesn't necessarily get you wealthy. Working for a big university doesn't mean you, yourself, are making a lot of money or getting a lot of institutional support.
posted by desuetude at 1:07 PM on September 22, 2016
Eh, I don't think I phrased that very well. Let me try again.
I really like the idea of a foundation unaffiliated with any particular field giving no-strings-attached money to people who have done good work so that they can do even more good work.
But if a foundation unaffiliated with any particular field is going to be giving away money, wouldn't it be best for that foundation to be giving money to fields that are too new or too marginalized to have their own sources of funding? I get it, the NSF has strings attached, arts funding is scare, etc, but at least that funding exists.
But the MacArthur Foundation is pretty staid, so that's probably expecting too much. But within those fields, there's a difference between people who "aren't wealthy" (which I concede nearly none of them are) and people who literally have been unable to fund their work. None of those people seem to really need the money. Or to clarify: some of these people may now be able to work on projects that they otherwise would not have. But none of them were going to drop out of their fields and switch careers for lack of support.
And I just can't applaud it when someone like LMM, who is probably a millionaire many times over by now, receives 625k from a tax-exempt foundation. I know he's exceptional in his field. I know he donated most (all?) of that money. But still. Enough of the winners have dropped the money on fancy cars or vacation homes that I can't really consider it effective philanthropy.
But with the exception of (what I consider to be) poor judgement like that, I concede that most of the money is probably ultimately being used in good ways.
I just think that the idea of giving no-strings-attached money to promising people is an idea with so much unused potential. It could fund people who don't already have their best work behind them. It could give us so many amazing and useful and innovative new projects and ideas that would otherwise have died for lack of funding. That's not the Foundation's goal: they're trying to reward the exceptional. It's their money; that's fine. (Whether taxpayers should subsidize that goal is a different matter.) But I wish some other billionaire would take the idea and think a little more broadly about who could benefit from it.
posted by perplexion at 4:28 PM on September 22, 2016
I really like the idea of a foundation unaffiliated with any particular field giving no-strings-attached money to people who have done good work so that they can do even more good work.
But if a foundation unaffiliated with any particular field is going to be giving away money, wouldn't it be best for that foundation to be giving money to fields that are too new or too marginalized to have their own sources of funding? I get it, the NSF has strings attached, arts funding is scare, etc, but at least that funding exists.
But the MacArthur Foundation is pretty staid, so that's probably expecting too much. But within those fields, there's a difference between people who "aren't wealthy" (which I concede nearly none of them are) and people who literally have been unable to fund their work. None of those people seem to really need the money. Or to clarify: some of these people may now be able to work on projects that they otherwise would not have. But none of them were going to drop out of their fields and switch careers for lack of support.
And I just can't applaud it when someone like LMM, who is probably a millionaire many times over by now, receives 625k from a tax-exempt foundation. I know he's exceptional in his field. I know he donated most (all?) of that money. But still. Enough of the winners have dropped the money on fancy cars or vacation homes that I can't really consider it effective philanthropy.
But with the exception of (what I consider to be) poor judgement like that, I concede that most of the money is probably ultimately being used in good ways.
I just think that the idea of giving no-strings-attached money to promising people is an idea with so much unused potential. It could fund people who don't already have their best work behind them. It could give us so many amazing and useful and innovative new projects and ideas that would otherwise have died for lack of funding. That's not the Foundation's goal: they're trying to reward the exceptional. It's their money; that's fine. (Whether taxpayers should subsidize that goal is a different matter.) But I wish some other billionaire would take the idea and think a little more broadly about who could benefit from it.
posted by perplexion at 4:28 PM on September 22, 2016
I've just listened to Carol Off of CBC interview Joyce J. Scott, who is outrageous and very funny to listen to. Her work is provocative and worth a look.
posted by ovvl at 4:44 PM on September 22, 2016
posted by ovvl at 4:44 PM on September 22, 2016
Hears to my 선배, Claudia Rankine!
posted by Joseph Gurl at 5:05 PM on September 22, 2016
posted by Joseph Gurl at 5:05 PM on September 22, 2016
« Older Changes For Addy | Because Everything Thrives in the Free Market! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Fizz at 5:40 AM on September 22, 2016 [7 favorites]