MAYA: What drew you to becoming a reviewer? 

APARNA: Initially, it was about understanding how artists apply for grants and what that entails. That was something completely foreign to me. That first cycle was really illuminating. I saw a ton of applicants who have years of experience and have applied for grants in the past, and then there were others who were early in their artistic careers, and maybe this was one of their first grant applications. It’s evolved because I’ve done it twice now. I’ve found it enjoyable to read what other people are working on. As someone who’s not able to spend as much time in my art as I would like, because of my full time job, it’s a connection to a whole other world that I can still participate in.

MAYA: As you noted, we have a lot of first time applicants. I think of MAP as an organization that really wants to support the artists’ ideas, and not necessarily someone’s past achievements. As a reviewer, how did you see those two different sides?

APARNA: When reviewing, I constantly had the tab open of MAP’s values. I wanted to reinforce it with every application I was reading because part of the mission is to give people opportunities to grow. I felt really privileged to read applications for an organization whose values align with my own, because it felt like a pretty natural way to review. I found myself a little biased in favor of people who didn’t have those past achievements. I want people to have opportunities to access a grant, especially people who wouldn’t have that opportunity for another organization that has more stringent criteria.

MAYA: There are two ways that we talk about our mission potentially coming through. One is a deep inquiry or experimentation with content and form, and the other is care and intentionality around the creation and presentation process. How did you define each of those for yourself in the review process?

APARNA: My experience of my artistic practice has helped me in the process of reviewing. I have been a Bharatanatyam dancer (a form of Indian dance) since childhood and in the last few years, I have had a real reckoning with this art form. The violent history of it, the appropriation of it, what it means to be an Indian person in the diaspora practicing it. These political underpinnings behind it have only recently started to become a larger discourse. The question around content and form is something I’ve been thinking about a lot. Who is the body performing it? Are they able bodied? Are they light skinned? Dark skinned? Queer? Caste privileged or from a marginalized caste? I’ve been very critical of what it means to be a certain type of person holding a platform without questioning what it entails. As a performing artist especially, you’re inherently performing your body.  

BRANDON: How did you bring your own experience as an artist into this review process? These questions you’re engaging with in your practice – were there any that showed up or were amplified in this review process?

APARNA: It’s interesting, because I wouldn’t have said I was qualified to be a MAP reviewer even five years ago, because I wasn’t asking myself the same questions around dance. I think I’ve always been this person, but it felt separated from my art and my dance practice for a while. I’ve had a tumultuous relationship with my own art, and stepped away from it for a number of years. In having these questions for myself as an artist, it made it easier for me to come into a space like MAP and start to see the alignment in the values. I’ve been sitting at the intersection of a lot of these questions and my disillusionment with my own practice because of them. I’m trying to not be as prominent on certain stages or platforms; I want to cede space and give space to some people, especially some of these applications. There’s so many amazing people that deserve a platform that don’t have one and that came up in relation to my own experience trying to de-platform myself. That was an interesting thing coming up for me as I was reading – noticing when I would try to cede space to an artist. Not that it’s a scarcity mindset thing. 

MAYA: It’s a really interesting framework, what you brought up about the tension between not wanting to have a scarcity mindset and wanting to cede space. It feels like the take space/make space framework: saying we want as many people as possible to be in this practice with us, and also we invite you to be conscious of how you’re showing up there. If you show up, does that mean someone else is not welcome to be there? There are so many complicated communal questions. We’ve loved having you as a reviewer for the last two cycles, in part because you leave such insightful comments on the applications. Can you share what that process is like for you?

APARNA: Sometimes, I can just see the passion and care that goes into an application. There have been applications I remember reviewing that were missing some information, but it didn’t matter, because I could see the intentionality and who the person was behind the words and behind the work sample. It’s something more than saying “I’m an artist for the sake of being one” versus “I have a voice,” or “I have something that I want to add and share.” I end up finding myself drawn to applications like that. It’s so hard to articulate, because it’s so different from person to person, but I can see the care in an application, and that care can look different for every person. I felt like I kept trying to look at certain applications like a crystal ball, which could be the wrong way: Who am I to say what impact something is going to have on someone’s livelihood after a project? But given how generous these MAP grants are, and how big of a deal this is for so many people, I feel like you can get a sense of how impactful that’s going to be on a person or a community. I have no delusion about any sort of savior mentality either. I hope that’s clear when I talk about the impact that these funds have on people. I’m sure you all know from being part of this team, but these grants could change someone’s life in a really significant way. 

BRANDON: Is there anything that surprised you about the review process? 

APARNA: Maybe this is a weird thing to say, but I was surprised by how good the administrative portion was. Having a Slack group, and being able to communicate with other reviewers, that’s really smart. I feel like you all thought of everything. It was really great. You made yourselves very accessible. It wasn’t just me having to review these applications and being on my own. I felt like it was actually this open forum to ask questions and acknowledge biases and bring things up that I was dealing with. I didn’t post very much in the Slack, but it was still a really helpful resource. 

MAYA: I’m curious if you could talk about what you took away from this process, either last year or this year. Where have you applied it? How have you seen your own art practice grow or change as a result?

APARNA: I’ve been in so much of a creative rut in the last couple of years. How do you define yourself as an artist if you’re not making art, if you’re not practicing constantly, if you’re getting bogged down with the reality of your day-to-day and paying rent? I feel stuck in my day-to-day life, but participating in the process as a reviewer has inspired me. There are so many working artists who are putting so much effort and labor and love into their practices, and getting opportunities to make their art, and finding people to collaborate with. I would love to do that for myself someday.

BRANDON: Did you find yourself in a certain place after the first cycle versus coming into this cycle? 

APARNA: Earlier this year, I had a very fruitful short period of my dance career that was really good for me. In no small part, that was thanks to participating in the MAP review process. It got me thinking about my art again, and I don’t get to think about it on a daily basis. We had deadlines to meet, and applications to review, and I would give myself time to spend shifting gears into my art brain to read these applications. It shifted things for me.

Aparna Kumar (she/they) is a video producer, director, and dancer currently living on Tongva/Chumash land, colonially known as Los Angeles, CA. She is passionate about storytelling, whether it’s through visual images or through the body, and is constantly seeking ways of bringing more equity and justice in the work they do.

MAYA: You’re a past grantee! Did that influence why you wanted to be a reviewer? 

CHACE: That was a big part of it. I loved our MAP grant experience and the application experience. The first time we [me and my partner Sherina Rodriguez Sharpe] applied, we didn’t get the grant, but it was still a very loving and affirming experience. We got the grant the second time, and I was so excited. It was a big deal. It catapulted stuff for us. We’re forever grateful for the MAP grant experience. That was a big influence on why I applied to be a reviewer. I was so excited to help someone else get funded in that way. I wanted to pay it forward. 

MAYA: How did you bring your experience as an artist into the review process? 

CHACE: Initially, I wanted to not be biased, and judge fairly and clinically, but you guys encourage us to be very human in the process. It allowed for a lot of humanity and vulnerability. I had to be careful of what they call “score creep” in slam. Late in a poetry slam, you start giving 30s because everything sounds great. But the other side of being an artist is being more discerning in the details. Throughout, I was saying, “this is great, this is great, yep, this should be out in the world.” These projects should all be out in the world. Every one of these projects. It’s just a matter of who is where in the process, if that makes sense.

BRANDON: I’m curious if you could be more specific about the vulnerability you’re describing. 

CHACE: There were some established companies or theaters who were leaping for a big idea. It’s still a big idea, still vulnerable, but they’ve been funded. They’ve done this before. Then there was a good deal of either independent artists or up-and-coming companies who were taking an even bigger swing. And I would like to give them a chance. It’s not about having a well-stylized work sample and everything being really ready and packaged. There’s a certain vulnerability when an applicant shows up and just says, “I wrote a paragraph that’s barely punctuated, just a concept I think should be in the world.” I would only hope that somebody would take a funding leap on me early on and be like, “Okay, maybe you don’t have the same repertoire as a professional company in New York City, but you have a great concept. I can see that your writing is passionate, even if it’s not perfect.” I think the other way this manifested for me was in ideas that I thought were crazy. Seeing some of the leaps that were taken in the proposals inspired me to take some leaps myself. 

MAYA: One of the other reviewers we talked with said that she was afraid of some of the project ideas. She was thinking, “Why would anyone put themselves through this?” But she felt she had to move projects like that forward, because whether or not she would do that didn’t matter. It was more about whether the applicant is articulating their big, exciting vision. We’re getting into MAP’s mission, which is to invest in performing artists and their work as the critical foundation of imagining and co-creating a more equitable and vibrant society. Within that, there are two ways that reviewers might see that mission show up in the proposals. The first one is experimentation or deep inquiry of form, discipline, or content. The other is the care and intentionality around process. Can you speak to how you defined MAP’s mission for yourself, and if you saw these two tenants coming up in the applications that you were reading?

CHACE: In my work, we’re dealing with big, evocative topics that take a good deal of vulnerability, like walking through people’s trauma, walking through people’s colonization. These stories open things up, but there’s also a responsibility to sew it up and make sure people can move back into the world. So I was definitely looking for that with the question presented. Not only how the form and content is stretched, but how they hold people that come in. What are the unique ways that they’re having those dialogues? Are they thinking about COVID safety? Are they thinking about ways in which they’re not only bringing people in and opening them up, but sewing them up? It’s not a new idea for a lot of practices, but I think more people are now becoming aware of how they care for the people coming in. I love seeing some projects being conscious of that.

BRANDON: Maya and I have talked about how arts administration for some folks is their art form. Some folks don’t have a working arts practice, but they show up artistically to administration. As a reviewer, in the ritual of reviewing, what did care for yourself and for holding these applicants look like? 

CHACE: Some of the care came from removing those patterns that push me to be efficient, be fast, be clinical, as opposed to being present and taking my time. I had to ask myself, “When do I want to do this? When would it feel best to do this?” The artists applying deserve that. I deserve that. It ended up being either first thing in the morning or late at night. I would not do them in the middle of the day because that’s when I’m doing my artistic practice, and I didn’t want my work to bleed into my judgment. I made sure I ate my soup and drank my soothing tea – that helped tremendously. It was already fun, but it became a really joyous thing. I felt like I was in a bit of a conversation with the artists I was reviewing (without them being there) just by showing up intentionally.

MAYA: I love what you said about the applicants deserving your best work. Our next question is about what you took away from the process, and I’m curious if anything changed for you, either in your own rituals around your art making and practice, or your own grant applications. 

CHACE: This was my first review process, so I was very honored. I felt very empowered. Reviewing gave me space to reorganize my day. I was able to sleep, wake up, have my coffee or my tea, do the reviewing, with a seamless transition into writing. Or, I would write and then review. Now, I’m still waking up in the morning like I was during the review process and have fresh eyes on the stuff that we’re doing. When applying for my own work, I’ve submitted a lot of text because I’m a writer. But during this process I learned how much I enjoy a visual work sample. And if I enjoy it, I’m pretty sure somebody reviewing something I submit would also enjoy it. 

MAYA: Many of MAP’s reviewers are doing this for the first time, which is because we’re trying to rearticulate or redefine who is “qualified” to review for a grant process. We’re asking who has sat in these gatekeeping seats historically, and how can we change that and make it more of a peer review process–What surprised you about the review process, especially as someone who’s doing a review process for the first time?

CHACE: How easy-going it was. I came in with the idea that I had to be super official. But it was very human. The reviewers were a wide swath of people, including a lot of other artists. There were a lot of applications, but the scoring, leaving notes, and then the ability to return to something all had an easy user interface. I thought I was gonna enjoy it, but I didn’t quite think I was gonna enjoy it that much. I don’t know what review processes are usually like. I imagine it’s a circle table, like 12 Angry Men–people throwing papers and yelling, “this project!” “No, this project!” This was nothing like that. This was very calm. I loved getting to write notes and ask you guys questions. I loved the Slack channel. I knew it was gonna be inspiring–I’m always inspired when I get to sit with other people’s work–but it was a really pleasant experience, top to bottom, beginning to end. You guys were amazing. The other reviewers asking questions were amazing. Everyone was using emojis in the little Zoom meetings we had, and I’m thinking, this is a community. Can we do this all the time? How do I get a permanent membership? I had a great time doing it. And I appreciated the poke when I was behind schedule. Thank you, Brandon. I almost got too lax, being like, “this is beautiful, man, everything’s love.” But I had Brandon to remind me that I gotta finish though, and then I locked in and was able to finish ahead of time. Even being poked, I knew that was a loving poke. 

BRANDON: That’s really great to hear. This was my first time doing the grant cycle. It felt really good to be in process with you all, and not be some person above the reviewers that has all the answers. I was discovering everything alongside you. 

MAYA: And all the reviewers got their stuff in on time, which was a first since I’ve been at MAP!

BRANDON: It was my gentle pokes.

CHACE: It was your gentle pokes! 

Chace Morris is a poet, emcee, & curator out of Detroit. His work walks in the footsteps of June Jordan, Yasiin Bey, Nina Simone & Saul Williams. blending Afro-futurism & Black myth into rebel music & kinfolk magic. He is a two-time Kresge Arts Fellow (2024, 2013), 2022 Radical Imagination Grant recipient, and has received the Alain Locke Award from the Detroit Institute of Arts. Chace is also the co-founder of the art & ritual project The Digital Underground Railroad, alongside his partner Sherina Rodriguez Sharpe. When not writing, Chace watches copious amounts of movies, laughs as a form of self-medication, and curates the illest playlists in the world.

MAYA: What drew you to becoming a reviewer in this year’s grant cycle?

GABI: As soon as I found out about MAP, I knew I had to find a way to get involved. If not by applying, then by doing something else. I really love that MAP covers a lot of expansive definitions of performance rather than just “theater.” When I heard that MAP is New York-based, I had a lot of assumptions, like I would have to be a New York resident, and that the stuff that MAP’s looking for is perhaps on the commercial end. But when I learned more, I realized MAP was really different from other funders, in that you could be from anywhere and come up with anything that you wanted to do live, whether it was a concert or opera or a ballet or a mix of all of those things. When I was reviewing, I loved seeing all of the avant garde works that were really trying new things. 

BRANDON: How did you bring your experience as an artist into the review process? 

GABI: I was coming from a place of always asking: what is the kind of story that they’re telling? Reviewing an opera application, for example, I asked who are the kind of singers that they’re working with? What kind of ensemble do they have? There were also a bunch of people who turned in scripts for straight plays. I’ve done tons of literary work, so I would come into that work reading people’s scripts and being like, “Okay, what’s new in here? What are you talking about that we can’t talk about easily?” It was very exciting to look through all of that work. I was endlessly surprised, sometimes horrified, and then sometimes delighted. Sometimes when I was scared of something, I was like, I have to give this a high score because of how I interpreted the rubric. I really appreciated the rubric system because I’ve read plays for festivals and other things before that try to have an objective rubric. That kind of rubric feels extremely prescriptive and really creates a vacuum on the work that is being put out there. 

MAYA: I love that you shared that there were some things that came up that were scary to you. At MAP, we often think about the ways in which traditional funding operates around a sort of risk aversion, in a way that excludes things that are more risky in terms of their form or in terms of what they’re bringing up. Can you share a little bit more about what that feeling was for you and what kind of things sparked it?

GABI: There was one application I remember where their project was about performing this difficult, durational, labor-intensive piece in public. That’s horrifying to me. I would not do that. But you know what? It isn’t wrong. They have a clear dramaturgical reason for what they’re doing, and it is a live performance piece, and that’s all it really needs to be. So who am I to say that it’s not legitimate? That could be a life-changing piece of art. 

BRANDON: This next question involves MAP’s core mission, which is to invest in performing artists and their work as the critical foundation of imagining and co-creating a more equitable and vibrant society. How did you define this statement for yourself, and how did the values that we’re looking for show up in the review process for you?

GABI: The thing I was thinking about the most when it came to the mission is the word “equitable.” There were a lot of projects that were socially aware, politically strong work that was being made by underrepresented voices that need to be heard. But many of those projects did not say how they would use the funds, or how equity is showing up in their process, or how they would pay their artists. They weren’t thinking about equity in a holistic sense. They were thinking of equity in a kind of aesthetic sense, like, here is our kind of work that has many people of many different races and sexualities, so we’re creating a more equitable and vibrant society. This is true, but are you creating an equitable work culture for your artists? To me, the mission of MAP is trying to create a new normal (that isn’t abusive) for the art world. We live in a capitalist world. Everybody has to pay their rent. How do we make a more equitable society if we’re not putting focus on every part of the art-making process? 

BRANDON: What I’m hearing is that you valued when people were being very intentional, when they named the assumption or acknowledged the assumptions and said, this is how we’re confronting those assumptions. It’s about knowing that there’s intention to do something differently. 

GABI: Absolutely.

MAYA: I’m curious if you could talk about if you’ve taken anything away from this grant process.

GABI: I feel like my process with MAP touched me quite a bit, which I did not expect. After MAP, I did a review process that was very old school. There was a sense of judgment of which work was “better written.” It put a focus on my opinion which, before I did MAP, I was really okay with. I felt like I had an objective sense of things being good or bad, but art is not objective. My interpretation of MAP’s mission is not about what you think the work is “good” or “bad.” It’s about whether or not it is a live performance piece that is equitable, and will ultimately serve a vibrant community of art-making. It unlocked something in my head when it came to these assumptions that we’re talking about. I was making the assumption that I understand everything that an artist is trying to do, but all theater is unfinished. All of the plays I read will change by the time they’re put up. It really helped me come to a more outside point of view. Instead of going internal and focusing on my aesthetic, loves, and wants, I went towards what it is that the artist is trying to say, and whether they accomplish that in what they’ve given us. They give us their project, their information, and then we have to carefully unwrap it. It’s getting to that place of genuine care for people’s work. I carry that with me everywhere now and I feel very grateful that I was able to be a part of MAP. It really did affect me quite a bit and changed my point of view in how I judge work.

MAYA: It’s great to hear that you know it impacted you so deeply. I think that’s exactly what we want from the process. I know we’re at the end of our time, but I’d love to hit you with like one final question, and you can respond in one word if you want. What surprised you about the review process?

GABI: I could do a word! Tenacity.

Gabi Girón-Vives (She/They) is a 26 year old, transfemme nonbinary, Texas and Los Angeles based writer, actor, director, teacher, and producer. Recent works include directing the premiere of “Let Me In” for the first SheDFW Theater Festival in 2024, her show “The Last Puerto Rican…,” at CalArts Latin Fest 2021, Dramaturgy for “Kubrick’s Aryan Papers,” at the REDCAT NOW Fest, and music for “Horse Play” at Coaxial Arts in LA. They have had previous work produced in Dallas at the historic Margo Jones Theatre, Booker T. Washington HSPVA, as well as at The Dallas Children’s Theatre. She has been seen acting on several stages across the US including CalArts, REDCAT, the Interlochen Center of the Arts, Winspear Opera House, The Dallas Theatre Center, Junior Players & Shakespeare Dallas, and Theater 3. She holds a BFA in Acting from the California Institute of the Arts and is currently a Michener Center for Writers MFA Playwriting Fellow at The University of Texas in Austin.

MAYA: Do you mind sharing a little bit more about your background in performance and how you brought your own experience as an artist? What is your practice and how did it influence how you saw the review process?

MICHAEL: I grew up in dance. I started in a preschool dance class when my grandfather enrolled me in a “dance traditions of the world” class; it was cute. I did tap dance in junior high and went to an arts high school for dance. In college I studied dance, and after, I worked for arts organizations— some that centered or engaged with dance, too. It’s been a little too on the nose. Eventually, I did a lot of transmutation in the arts work field, honing my skills in organizational practice, and went deeper into that, technically, administratively, and intellectually. I also made performances throughout the years as well. Sometimes the progressive funding for dance de-emphasizes traditional dance forms as a way of trying to overcorrect for what they think is an over-representation of it. I think a lot about the funding appetite for “new” or “experimental” works and am curious about the aesthetic perceptions of those words and what dance works get discounted by such qualifiers. There’s a lot of funding for postmodern forms, forms that are abstract, forms that look relevant and look good alongside contemporary art in a gallery space. But there’s also a lot of really brilliant developments happening in traditional forms of dance, not only with indigenous practices, but also with things that have inspired this overcorrection, like ballet. There’s really progressive, interesting stuff happening with people who choose to aspire to uphold a technique. All of those things percolated and influenced how I approached this process.

MAYA: I really appreciate your point about culture bearing. The emphasis is so often on experimentation and newness, but we haven’t thought as much about how that isn’t necessarily the best way to talk about these forms. Whether in postmodern or ballet, there is still a way to be intentional and thoughtful and push things. 

MICHAEL: “Newness” and “experimental” is not the specific way that I would like to describe something that feels relevant and about culture bearing. What is the way to honor that an experimental dance piece can be a piece that’s not using experimental forms? In my experience, I have seen a lot of work that is forward-thinking, working in the tightness of their discipline, and experimental and new. These artists know their form and their material so well, they’re able to stretch the discipline. That’s the word I would love to see: “Stretch.” We hear “new” and “experimental” and think that means if it looks weird, somehow it’s better, and that’s not always true. 

MAYA: “Experimentation” can connote a white/European avant garde aesthetic, versus a kind of practice or methodology that can be available to all disciplines and aesthetics. “Stretching” is a great word to use.

MICHAEL: I’m also curious about the word “exploratory” as a way of thinking. What does it mean to “explore” discipline? What exactly are you exploring within a discipline, within a form, and does that live up to MAP’s vision and values? Does it ultimately align? In the depth of that exploration, what are you uncovering? It could look like anything, right? 

MAYA: I love “uncovering” as a word to describe a practice. We give reviewers two different ways to consider how MAP’s mission can appear in an application. First, we encourage them to look at content and form, which we’ve already talked a little bit about. The second is about care and intentionality within the creation process itself. I’m curious how that came up for you in the review process, and ways in which you find that for yourself? 

MICHAEL: What I was looking for is a type of care: specificity. Works that were articulating their projects with a big swing, heal-everything approach–where everyone’s going to come to the performance, leave, and feel better–felt like they were retrofitting their work into MAP’s prompt. On the other hand, I remember a good example where it was a project that was thinking about a longer term process and the relationship between performance and childcare. The level of specificity that they were articulating their idea with– that specificity to me feels really caring, and to me is representative of that value. There were applications that had no expectation of what the audience will do or how they will leave, but could tell you exactly what the work is exploring, and exactly the limited scope of it. That also feels like a practice of care, because they’re being really honest. 

BRANDON: What did you take away from this process, and how have you applied it? Did anything surprise you about the review process? 

MICHAEL: There is a real thoroughness in the process as it relates to how you both (and the entire MAP team that I’ve interacted with) were really rigorous in how you wanted to onboard. I think you have an excellent onboarding process for the reviewers, and I want to shout that out! You straddle this ambiguity and this level of wanting to trust people’s subjective evaluative perception, while also helping people understand both the technical as well as the value-based ins and outs. There were some real seasoned people, people that I have seen move through grant processes before, who are pros. Then there were some people whose work I knew of, and I got to see how they talked about their work. There’s no standard, but I think the diversity was actually really useful to see. Another thing that I appreciated about the review process was that I could change my vote up until the final review deadline. Not every process has that. Sometimes I could move through ten projects, and then I realize the tenth feels like a MAP project. And I finally would get it, and then I’m thinking about the last nine projects a little differently, and now I’ve seen it, I can re-imagine what I’m going for. 

An artist, researcher, and art administrator by practice, Michael Vincent Pusey primarily focuses on professional well-being. They believe one’s internal culture must be as thoughtfully considered as one’s external ambitions, and creating nimble economies of care is central to Michael’s practice as an organizational leader and consultant. Experienced in leading, building, and cultivating ambitious teams and managing equally ambitious projects with a demonstrated track record of care for both teams and projects. Michael’s work is centered on people and organizational clarity. Michael contributes to the cultural sector through their podcast and media project called On The Precipice, as a volunteer on various initiatives, and as a consultant. They can be found at theprecipice.substack.com.