First Round Commentary
In 2024, we received over 2500 applications to our first open call. This spring we announced our first cohort of 83 supported artists and are looking forward to hearing from the UK creative community once again when we reopen our funds to applications in the near future.
At the start of the programme, in anticipation of the high levels of application, we made the difficult decision not to offer feedback for individual applications. We appreciate how frustrating this position can be, and do not underestimate how valuable feedback can be when you are developing new or evolving work.
In acknowledgement of this we have committed to offering something else. Something that we hope will be differently valuable. We have gathered and compiled comments from everyone involved in the first round assessment process, with the aim to share an honest view of feedback at all levels. Here, we are sharing the common and uncommon themes that reviewers noticed in the applications that they assessed. Giving feedback in as much detail as we can, whilst preserving the privacy of applicants and reviewers.
Feedback for everyone
In a nutshell, this is everyone’s feedback. We hope that it will be of benefit to those who applied to Immersive Arts in the first round, and those considering applying in the future.
The main questions we will seek to answer:
- Why were some applications deemed ineligible?
- What led to some applications being progressed for funding whilst others were not?
Why were some applications deemed ineligible?
For the purposes of this programme, we describe immersive arts as art that uses technology to actively involve the audience.
As well as explaining our position in relation to what counts as immersive art, this definition forms part of how we understand what is in scope for immersive arts funding, and what is not.
The main reasons for applications being ruled ineligible were:
- Proposal not clearly arts-focussed and artist-led
- No evidence of the role that immersive technologies would play in the proposal
- No explanation of how the work would actively involve an audience at some point in the lifespan of the project
To offer a little more detail:
Arts and artists-led
Some proposals were ruled out of scope if they did not have a clear arts and culture or creative sector focus. These were generally proposals without a named artist/arts organisation/creative technologist as the lead, and were primarily rooted in other sectors e.g. training, healthcare, tourism, manufacturing, etc. without a strong case made for how this was an arts-focussed and artist-led application.
Immersive technologies integral to proposal
Occasionally, applicants either did not make mention of specific technologies, or failed to explain why they were relevant to the proposed activity or referred to them in vague terms e.g. ‘if there is time, we may also look into whether immersive technologies could be applied to this project’.
With the limited resources, we have chosen to focus on supporting artists who are particularly interested in exploring the role of immersive technologies within their creative practice. We are delighted to be supporting work that explores the potential of immersive technologies as creative and expressive materials, alongside work that engages with the more challenging cultural, political and societal implications of working with these tools.
Actively involved audience
To meet the criteria, we asked how the intended audience would be actively involved in the artwork, and how that active involvement would be facilitated in some way by the technology.
For the Explore fund, this could be a hypothetical audience some way off in the future. For the Experiment fund, we asked applicants to tell us how they would test their early stage work with audiences. For Expand we expected artists to share a more formed sense of how completed work would connect with an actively engaged audience.
Active involvement of the audience can take a wide range of forms. In the guidelines, we list a number of technologies that we imagine will be ‘in scope’, due to the active way in which they involve audiences. We are also open to artists suggesting other technologies if they can explain how they meet the criteria of actively involving an audience.
Technologies frequently found to be out of scope included projections and projection mapping, light shows, artist films, concerts and performances that involved technology but not in a way that actively involved the audience.
Anything else?
We received a number of applications that seemed well shaped for other sources of public funding e.g. Innovate UK or UK Research and Innovation, but that did not meet the criteria for Immersive Arts funding. These generally took the following distinct forms:
- Business development – proposals to start up, scale up or pivot the business trajectory of the applicant. Whilst we hope that Immersive Arts funding will have a secondary benefit of supporting artists to evolve and develop their businesses, the focus for this specific funding is on the development of their creative projects and practice.
- Tools development – proposals to build a specific tool or platform that would facilitate arts (or other sector) practice, but not a specific artist-led project.
- Tech for marketing – proposals to use immersive technologies for the promotion of an artwork/experience e.g augmented reality posters, rather than as an integral part of the creative work itself.
- Funding to run another funding programme – proposals to design and deliver a festival or programme of support for multiple artists e.g. offering training, events, residencies or bursaries.
- Academic research – proposals including costs for academic research, such as an academic’s time or ‘full economic cost’ calculation within their budgets. In accordance with our guidelines, our funding can be used to access specific facilities or technical support within universities, colleges and independent research organisations but not for teaching or research. We remain more than happy for applicants to have active partnerships with research organisations e.g. universities, but expect that academic costs in such a partnership are met elsewhere.
- Unclear proposal – some applicants spent large parts of their application sharing details about their personal background and context. While we really welcome this insight where relevant to the proposal, there were applications which focussed on this without going on to give a clear articulation of what they would do with the funding. In these cases the reviewers did not have enough information to assess the proposal.
What led to some applications being progressed for funding?
We know that everyone says this but…the standard of applications was incredible. We were absolutely bowled over by the creativity, criticality, innovation and ambition shared by applicants, as well as the breadth of artforms, stories, concepts and ideas proposed. Suffice to say, a very high percentage of the works that were not progressed for funding were excellent, and in a less competitive field, would have been more than eligible for funding.
So what made the difference?
As the questions and criteria were different for each of the three types of funding on offer, we have clustered the feedback around each of these tiers.
Explore grants £5,000
Things that scored well:
A clear sense of what funding will enable
Explore is designed to support artists at early stages of their development with immersive tech. Applications that did well often gave a good sense of what they wanted to do, or what their starting point would be.
This could be a clear set of questions or ideas to explore, starting to work with a potential collaborator, running a mini-activity to get familiar with a particular technology, participating in specific events etc.
Things that scored less well:
Overly vague or underscoped proposals
For the Explore strand it’s fine not to know where the journey will take you – that’s kind of the point! However applications scored less when there was little or no sense of what the applicant would actually do with the funds if successful.
In a number of instances people echoed the language of the call back to us saying that they will use the funding to support ‘early stage exploration of immersive technologies’ but not taking this a step further to say what they personally would do with the funding.
Made the case for why it would be valuable to the artist
A clear sense of how this would move enhance, transform or add to the applicant’s creative practice
Applications that did well often gave a window into why this mattered to them, and why now was the right time for them to do the thing they are proposing.
It was very helpful for reviewers to be able to understand what the resource at this time could enable for the applicant and their practice, and to get a sense of whether it would prove valuable to them in the longer term.
Unclear value and/or shaping to the call
No clear sense of what this would bring to the applicant’s creative practice. We completely understand that funding is scarce, and that sometimes a call doesn’t really fit what you want to do but you apply anyway because funding is funding.
Some proposals shared a fantastic passion for what the applicant already does, but the energy and clarity would drop away when they begin to explain the use of immersive technology, in some cases this read like a ‘bolt on’ or an afterthought..
Some applicants to the Explore fund are already highly experienced in Immersive arts. These proposals tended to be for production/delivery, or ‘business as usual’ rather than exploration and development as intended at this level.
Budgets clear and appropriate
Applications that clearly outlined how they will spend their time and the funds did well. Not a lot of detail was needed or expected, but strong applications gave enough detail to demonstrate how the proposal outlined would be feasible within the stated time frame, that the budget is realistic, and that all of the costs that relate to the proposal were included.
Budgets with problems
Sometimes people missed important things out of their budgets, such as their own time or that of collaborators, suggesting that they were not allocating enough resources to remunerate people in line with our guidance around fair pay.
Experiment grants £20,000
Things that scored well:
Specific ideas
Well developed concepts that were ready to undertake a process of R&D scored very well.
In strong applications there would still be lots of scope for experimentation, discovery and learning, but a clear enough sense of intention/purpose for the individual or team to get going straight away.
Things that scored less well:
Overly general areas of enquiry
Ideas that felt vague, general, generic or derivative were unlikely to get through, as were those that just echoed back the language of the call document.
The right thing at the right time
A clear sense of why this, and why now in terms of how the proposal would enable the applicant to experiment with immersive technology within their creative practice in a new and /or positive way.
The wrong time
Proposals that felt very early in their development, with little of a sense of what the experimentation process would involve, or what value it would bring to the applicant’s practice.
In a number of instances reviewers felt that applicants would have benefitted from more understanding of the potential of immersive technology before applying to the Experiment strand.
Team in place or a plan of how to get there
Clarity on who would need to be involved for the project to get underway. Either the team would be in place, or there would be a plan about how the applicant would bring a team together to meet the needs of the project once funded.
Team not in place or expectation that Immersive Arts would put together a team
Little or no sense of who would be involved in the project, or what types of skills/collaborators/partnerships might be needed.
Over-reliance on Immersive Arts team to become, find or rapidly upskill project team members.
Proactive approach to access, diversity and inclusion
Successful applications explained how they would proactively work to lower or remove barriers to engagement within their conception, design, workflow and/or their intended project outcome for a range of people.
Applications scored particularly well when they discussed specific provisions to practically or creatively embed access into the design, development and showing of the work, with clear outlines of who their intended audiences are.
Vague or tokenistic approach to access, diversity and inclusion
For this fund we ask that applicants ‘consider access, diversity and inclusion relevant to their project’, and the application form had a question that asked for information about what this meant in the context of the proposal.
Applications that scored less well tended to respond by echoing the language of the question, saying ‘we will consider access, diversity and inclusion’ rather than giving detail on what aspects would likely be important given the idea being proposed, and what plans the applicant(s) had to address barriers.
A coherent approach to audience and testing
Proposals described an approach to testing with audiences that made sense for their project. They outlined a process and ambition for testing that was feasible and likely to be valuable to the team.
Little or no consideration of audience or testing
Testing was either not considered or referenced in the abstract, with no clear process, sense of how it would provide learning opportunities for the applicant(s), or support the development of the proof-of-concept work.
Realistic approach to budgets and timelines
Everyone contributing to the project had their time factored into the budget at an appropriate rate.
Timelines were realistic, implying that applicants had a sense of what could be done with the time and resources available, and that no one would be exploited in order to meet the stated aims of the project.
Unrealistic approach to budgets and timelines
Contributors time under-resourced or absent in the budget despite being written into the proposed activity.
Lack of understanding or optimistic approach to what would be needed in terms of skills, time or resources.
Expand grants £50,000
Things that scored well:
A clear sense of what has already happened and what is coming next
Expand grants are designed to support work that has already undergone some level of research and development. Strong applications showed exactly what had been achieved so far, sharing challenges and learnings gathered along the way. Links to documentation of earlier stages e.g. photography, walk-through videos, .apk files etc were particularly helpful in allowing reviewers to understand the current stage of the work.
Successful applicants tended to provide a clear and informed vision of what needs to happen next for their work to progress, and what ambitions or expectations they have for what they will be able to achieve if awarded funding.
Things that scored less well:
Lack of evidence of prior activity and/or clarity of next stage
A brand new project (not in scope for this tier of funding).
Ambiguity about what has been developed so far. A lack of clarity in whether the project described is still at the ideas stage or whether some level of experimentation/development has taken place.
Work that appears to already have been completed, with little information about what additionality this funding would bring.
Work that is already completed – proposing to use the funding to ‘bolt on’ or retro-fit immersive technology without a clear sense of why or what value that might bring to the work.
Strong plan to connect with audiences
Proposals included a stated intention for their artwork to reach, and actively involve audiences using immersive technology. Successful applications tended to give a clear and realistic outline of;
- the audience experience that they wish to create and why
- whether there was a main/target audience
- how they plan to reach that audience
- potential audience reach / numbers
On the last point, it was helpful to know what applicants were expecting or shaping towards, however no preference was given to applications with higher or lower expected audience numbers.
Minimal consideration of audience
Focus solely on the creative and/or technical considerations of the proposal, with little consideration of audience and audience experience.
Little consideration of how, where, or in what context the work will eventually connect with audiences.
Little consideration of who the piece is for, and what they might need in order to connect with the work.
Consideration of access, diversity and inclusion
Proposals considered how to proactively remove barriers to engagement within their conception, design, workflow and/or their intended project outcome for a range of people.
Minimal consideration of access, diversity and inclusion
Little or no consideration of barriers to engagement or plans to actively address this within the proposed activity.
Team in place
Proposals demonstrated that a team was in place, or could be brought together within the time frame of the proposed activity.
Team members had all of the skills necessary to undertake the work as scoped, and in some cases a plan for what contingencies they had in place if key team members needed to step away for any reason.
Team not in line with planned activity
Team incomplete with no realistic plan to recruit within the timeline. An absence or under-resourcing of key skill sets that will be required to meet the aims of the project.
Selected Projects
To get a feel for proposals that were successful in this first round of Immersive Arts funding, visit our Projects.
Your Feedback?
Immersive Arts is a new grant awarding programme and we are learning a lot from this process, including where we can be clearer with our guidance.
If you have any feedback for us on your experience of applying to Immersive Arts, we would be delighted to hear from you – please send your feedback to info@immersivearts.uk