Art Words. How Justifications in Grant Proposals of Visual Artists Affect their Chances of Getting Government Support

This article investigates whether the discursive justifications visual artists use in grant proposals influence their likelihood of receiving government support. Drawing on a sample of 494 proposals submitted between 1965 and 2015 in Flanders (Belgium), we combine qualitative content analysis with logistic regression to assess the impact of six types of legitimations – reputational, aesthetic, romantic, social, academic and entrepreneurial – while controlling for artist reputation and demographic factors. Our findings reveal that discursive strategies exert minimal influence on funding outcomes. Only romantic justifications, which emphasize emotional hardship and personal sacrifice, significantly reduce the chance of success. Reputation, measured through exhibition history and prior grant success, remains the strongest predictor of funding allocation. These results suggest that expert panels rely primarily on symbolic capital rather than discursive persuasion, reinforcing existing hierarchies in the artistic field. The study highlights the limited role of narrative framing in institutional decision-making and the enduring power of reputation in artistic consecration.