# Enceladus Within: a practical art-grant workshop

Prepared September 30, 2026. These are Codex's recommendations for Andrew's
project, informed by the [research library](grant-research-library.md). They are
not the Love Burn form, organizer instructions, a selected build scope or an
application ready to submit. The existing [grant draft](grant-draft.md) remains
the project-specific factual starting point.

## The proposal's central job

Help a reviewer understand what people will experience, why it matters, and why
this team can deliver the requested version. Lead with the relationship between
the human body, Earth's ocean and Enceladus. Put the projector, truck and camera
details in the delivery explanation. This follows [NYFA's advice to establish
fit and clarify the artistic idea](https://www.nyfa.org/knowledge-base/fundraising-applications/grant-writing-basics-how-to-put-your-best-foot-forward-with-funders/).

### A working pitch to revise

> Enceladus Within invites people to gather around a small ocean world. Across a
> luminous sphere, the suggestion of a human body gives way to ice, flowing water
> and imagined depths. The work connects something intimate—the water we carry
> in ourselves—with a distant moon whose hidden ocean stretches our sense of
> belonging. Our proposed first exhibition would stand on dry land and use an
> unoccupied sphere. A repeating visual sequence would provide a complete
> experience, with a simple optional participant input developed only if the
> prototype proves reliable. People could watch without being filmed or taking
> part. The occupied, over-water image remains a future ambition requiring its
> own design and approvals. The application will name the exact version,
> resources, team and operating commitments we can deliver.

This is proposed language, not a claim that the visual sequence, participant
input or dry-land support has been built. Andrew still chooses the artistic
voice and funded scope. “Imagined depths” must remain distinct from measured
scientific imagery or a claim about discovered life.

## Five decisions before polishing the prose

| Decision | A stronger answer for this project | Evidence still needed |
| --- | --- | --- |
| What is the artwork? | One sentence about the experience and meaning, followed by a sketch of its form. | Andrew's final artistic statement and selected name. |
| What does a visitor do? | Describe approaching, observing, choosing whether to interact, seeing a response and leaving. Also describe the experience with no operator/performer present. | One storyboard and a tested interaction or an explicitly passive first version. |
| Which version will be delivered? | One costed base scope and one clearly specified fallback; optional expansion is separate. | Selected layout, actual size/footprint and optical results. |
| Who will deliver it? | Named lead and confirmed people responsible for optics/media, fabrication, engineering coordination and event operations. | Relevant previous work, availability and written commitments. Do not invent a crew. |
| What support is requested? | Exact cash request plus separately itemized tickets, power, equipment and labor; name pending and committed resources. | Supplier quotations, matching-fund status and the official offer if awarded. |

## Make the scope tiers mean something

The [pricing study](pricing-alternatives.md) offers eight dry-land layouts. Use
it to choose a proposal, not to give a reviewer eight incompatible promises.
Every present estimate is an allowance and needs quote reconciliation.

| Proposed tier | Complete artistic offer | Clear scope boundary |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Base candidate: unoccupied dry-land sphere or hemisphere | A finished physical object and authored moon/ocean sequence, visible from an accessible viewing area. | No occupant, water placement or internal GoPros. Support and projection remain subject to actual design and testing. |
| Optional expansion | A tested external input alters a specific visual event; possibly broader image coverage. | Define the input, latency/response expectation and passive fallback. No promise of live full-body spherical reconstruction. |
| Future development | An occupied or over-water version following specialist review and distinct approvals. | Separate budget, enclosure, rescue and site decisions; not secretly included in the base grant deliverable. |

If the internally lit moon option replaces projection, describe the resulting
artwork honestly: changing the medium changes the visitor experience. A fallback
must still deliver an intentional piece. Any material awarded-scope change
requires the organizer's current approval process.

## Show an experience with a beginning, middle and end

Draft a single-page storyboard: the recognizable sphere from a distance;
the accessible approach and viewing area; the invitation to participate;
the visible response or authored transition; a satisfying return to the loop.
State what spectators experience while someone else participates. Choose
timing by testing; a suggested 30–90-second encounter is an internal exercise,
not a published event requirement.

Shrumen Lumen suggests a simple readable action. Pulse and Bloom suggests bodily
presence without a camera reconstruction system. Firmament suggests a place to
linger. These are artistic lessons, not instructions to duplicate those works
or claims that their mechanisms fit this design.

For optional live input, propose an experience that can be declined without
losing access to the art. Identify whether any identifiable images are captured,
displayed or retained. A no-recording default and a camera-free viewing path
are design recommendations; they are not already implemented privacy controls.

## A compact visual packet

Use these five jobs as a selection exercise; the actual form's file limits win.

1. **One hero image:** label the supplied generated board “historical concept
   art”; explain its 2026 caption and that the occupied water scene is not the
   proposed first exhibition. Prefer a new artist-approved view of the chosen
   base scope when available.
2. **One visitor storyboard:** communicate the participant and spectator journey,
   including participation without cameras and viewing from a seated position.
3. **One measured site drawing:** footprint, height, viewing/access routes,
   equipment boundaries, power route and installation access. Existing concept
   CAD is not measured site approval.
4. **One honest prototype clip:** record the actual optical bench once run. The
   supplied 12-second cinematic previs remains illustrative; it proves neither
   projection brightness nor real-time reconstruction.
5. **One delivery page:** relevant past work, named team, milestone dates,
   itemized request and remaining approvals, cross-referenced to the budget.

Burning Man's [current FAQ](https://burningman.org/black-rock-city/bring-your-art/art-grants-programs/brc-honoraria/)
requires an LOI image and disclosure of AI-generated images/video. Its allowance
for concept imagery does not turn the imagery into engineering evidence.
[Creative Capital's handbook](https://creative-capital.org/applicationhandbook)
illustrates the value of dated, contextual captions; use each program's actual
sample rules rather than recycling a promotional reel everywhere.

**Reviewer-access gate:** this project's `.com` requires tailnet access or an
authorized Authentik account.
Attach requested files directly to the application, or obtain approval for a
separate accessible review copy. A successful load on Andrew's tailnet is not
proof that an external committee can see it. Do not publish private documents
or relax site access to solve that without authorization.

## Build a budget that can be believed

Keep total production cost separate from the grant request. For each expense,
record quantity, unit, source/date, tax, freight and whether it is a quote or an
allowance. Include testing, transport, installation/strike, operations,
consumables, storage and contingency in the full project view. Then map each
line to the chosen funder's eligibility. Labor has a real cost even when a
particular grant does not fund it.

Use a funding ledger with **cash versus in-kind** and **committed versus pending**
as separate columns, following [NYFA's budgeting guidance](https://www.nyfa.org/news/archive/building-a-project-budget/).
Avoid double-counting donated equipment as both a cash receipt and an eliminated
expense. Record the quantity, dates, owner and replacement cost of in-kind help.
Show the unfunded gap and what happens if it remains open; do not invent matching
money to make the totals balance.

Love Burn's support requests remain unconfirmed until the applicable official
offer. Burning Man's and Lakes of Fire's cost rules differ materially; the
[library](grant-research-library.md) links the respective programs. A funder's
permitted amount, an artist's actual cost and an engineer's approved scope are
three separate facts.

## Turn the schedule into visible decisions

| Milestone | Evidence that permits the next step | Owner to name |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Scope and application | Selected version, truthful images, costed request and actual form completed. | Artist/project lead |
| Optical feasibility | Surface, lens, throw, coverage and useful brightness demonstrated on physical hardware. | Optics/media lead |
| Design and placement | Responsible reviewers accept the support and operating design; event confirms location and conditions. | Engineering coordinator and event liaison |
| Fabrication and rehearsal | Assembly, normal use, shutdown and removal are rehearsed; remaining faults are resolved. | Build and operations leads |
| Event and removal | Staffing/inspection records, shutdown decisions, complete strike and Leave No Trace sign-off as required. | Onsite lead |

Add calendar dates, procurement lead times and decision deadlines after the
scope and actual access windows are known. Do not substitute the date on a
historical gate-hours page. State the latest point at which the fallback must
be selected to remain achievable.

Accessibility belongs in the concept: approach surface, seated sightlines,
reach/strength demands, bypassing sensors, sound/light information and an
equivalent way to engage. Describe practical provision and remaining site
dependencies without claiming compliance that has not been assessed.

## A final editorial pass

1. Can a reader explain the artwork and its invitation after the first paragraph?
2. Do the image, budget and schedule describe the same version, with uncertain
   work visibly identified?
3. Are the people, quotations, commitments and approvals supported by evidence?
4. Can an external reviewer open every required attachment, and does each
   caption identify concept art, prior work or an actual test accurately?
5. Are submission, award, placement and permission kept distinct, with the
   relevant official receipt or Offer Notice saved when it exists?

This is an editorial checklist, not a scoring system or prediction of selection.
No application, outreach, purchase or new engineering approval was made while
preparing this guide.