Seminar / Tutorial 01

Fall 2005 / Rueb

Writing Assignment #2 (Due: November 29)

Please select a work from your practice and elaborate it's presentation in three different contexts in the form of three mock proposals.  Your proposals should be drafted for each case as a single page, single-spaced project description that would be reviewed and evaluated by a curatorial review panel or funding agency as reflected in the contexts listed below. You may optionally attach a diagram or picture of the proposed work / installation.

1.) Curatorial Review Panel: 

ZKM (an art and technology museum in Karlsruhe, Germany)

http://on1.zkm.de/zkm/e/

2.) Conference Exhibition Review Panel:  

Siggraph, Art Exhibit or Emerging Technologies (your choice)

Art Exhibition:  http://www.siggraph.org/s2006/main.php?f=cfp&p=art

Emerging Technologies:  http://www.siggraph.org/s2006/main.php?f=cfp&p=etech

3.) Competitive Commission:

Harvestworks

http://www.harvestworks.org/artistopp/commissioned_project.php?submitid=3

Presentation of work at a location of your choice (significantly different from those listed above) that requires that you apply for project based funding from an organization in order to create the work. 

Further instructions:

Your proposals should each be one page, single-spaced and TIGHT - that is, well developed, clearly written and focused. Approach each as if your life depended on getting this opportunity.

The Project Description in each case should address the conceptual aspects of the work and clearly articulate the relationship between the work and the context in which it would be presented.

You should choose one piece and write about that same piece in each proposal, showing modifications / alterations to the project description as necessary in order to appropriately address the nature of the presentation context, the relationship between the audience and the work itself, and the nature of the funding organization or presentation venue.

Evaluation criteria:

1. Degree of depth and clarity in articulating the relationship between the work and the context for presentation.

2. Degree to which you demonstrate a clear comprehension of the audience you are addressing (both in terms of the review panel and the audience that will see and interact with the work itself).

3. Degree of craftsmanship and professionalism in preparation of proposal (this includes, but is not limited to, grammar, spelling, formatting, etc.).

Remember, this assignment is about the way in which you tailor your message to your review panel and to your audience across shifting contexts.