Currency: the price of prestige
Most grants for arts and culture offer too little money, too little time, and require too much administrative labor. Artists feel these gaps acutely, yet they continue to apply because alternative sources of support are limited. Grantmakers persist in offering programs that do not account for the actual conditions of independent artists and artist-led nonprofits. The result is a cycle in which inadequate opportunities circulate, drawing artists in while the system itself endures.
While artists do need money, there is another factor motivating them to jump through the hoops: prestige. Prestige shapes attention—it signals who is worth noticing, following, and supporting. For artists, attention is not optional. Their work is made to be encountered, circulated, and felt. As John Dewey and Jacques Rancière have emphasized, a work may be materially finished, but it is completed only in its reception. Without an audience, the work remains incomplete.
Prestige is produced and distributed through grants and awards, issued by philanthropic foundations and government bodies—institutions with wealth and public standing. These awards act as signals, indicating that an artist or project has been formally distinguished from peers. They rank, sort, and pre-qualify work in the eyes of others. For the recipient, the award produces a distinct internal effect: confidence, pride, and the sense that their work has been seen, considered, and discussed. In a field where material support is inconsistent, prestige functions as meaningful parallel currency.
Both within and beyond the arts and culture sphere, people tend to use prestige as a shortcut when direct assessment is slippery. This shortcut is especially tempting when evaluating art and artists. Art does not always ask to be converted into clear conceptual meaning. It may ask to be received through sensation, duration, association, disturbance, pleasure, or recognition. These things can be hard for panelists to align with decision-making rubrics.
The temptation for the prestige shortcut is made stronger by grant applications that only supply panelists with “work samples”—a few minutes of audio, video, or viewing slides—in order to judge the artwork. Panelists do not experience the work firsthand through the selection process. So a list of previous awards on the applicants’ CV will signal distinction, mastery, and cultural salience that may be hard to read in the work itself.
This dynamic contributes to the concentration of opportunity. Receiving one grant strengthens the likelihood of receiving another. Prestige accumulates, shaping reception and signaling value even to those with little direct knowledge of the work. Recognition does not merely reflect esteem; it helps produce it. As a result, funding and visibility tend to circulate within a relatively narrow cohort of artists.
What is troublesome is how prestige can reshape artists' relational drives. Artists do not make work simply to be selected—they want meaningful encounters, engagement, and impact. In the current system, this desire is redirected toward a desire to be selected, to receive institutional approval, and to feel the aura of specialness. What should be a pursuit of authentic encounter can become a pursuit of prestige. The artist feels positively singled out, excited, grateful. But they are also silently enduring a system that rarely, if ever, provides realistic support. Our current U.S. arts funding trains artists to absorb deprivation and celebrate symbolic elevation. Echoing our larger socio-cultural dysfunctions, the system redirects the artist’s desire for meaningful, communal contact into a desire for status.
Most U.S. artists opt out of grant-applying, and this choice has downstream effects. Because artists are already positioned at the margins of U.S. society, refusing the grant system can read as a counter–counter-cultural stance: a rejection of both dominant and subdominant status systems. Since prestige often mediates the flow of resources, opting out can mean reduced access to funding and institutional support. And because prestige helps stabilize and transmit reputation across distance, recognition is more likely to remain localized within subcultures and niches. For some artists, this is sufficient; for others, it can feel limiting. Without prestigious markers, an artist’s value is also less legible—less “machine-readable”—to funders, curators, and the press, a condition some accept, some enjoy, and others find frustrating.
This dynamic also reinforces the treatment of art as a hobby rather than a form of labor. When artists operate outside systems that confer prestige and distribute resources, their work is more easily interpreted as self-directed, elective, and privately sustained. The absence of external validation does not diminish the work itself, but it does shape how others view it: as something pursued alongside “real” work rather than as work in its own right. Over time, this framing can narrow expectations around compensation, making it more likely that artists are asked to produce without pay or to justify their need for material support at all. The cycle of underfunding becomes self-perpetuating.
Prestige is not incidental. It is a mechanism that allows weak support systems to persist without addressing material insufficiency. The central question is what an opportunity materially requires and provides. If it lacks money, time, stability, care, or administrative relief, prestige may make it feel important, but it does not make it sufficient.
#pouringwaterintoboxes