Stepping Aside Without Stepping Away: Lessons from an Eight-Year Experiment Designing with Artists
Lauren Lawson, Peter Rockford Espiritu, Michèle Steinwald, and Haowen Wang
Across the nonprofit arts sector, national regranting programs are ending and institutional infrastructures are shrinking as philanthropy resets how it supports the field. In this moment of contraction and uncertainty, institutions can no longer afford to remain unprepared to work with artists on structural design. The Dance/USA Fellowships to Artists program (DFA) became one attempt to learn how.
In this episode, Haowen Wang of Dance/USA joins artists Laurel Lawson and Peter Rockford Espiritu (Tau), and curator Michèle Steinwald to reflect on eight years of responsive design through DFA. Together, they examine moments of rupture, redesign, and learning, and share lessons about what it takes for institutions to reposition themselves so artists can lead.
L to R: Laurel Lawson, Peter Rockford Espitu, Michèle Steinwald, and Haowen Wang.
Jaime Sharp:
Hello everyone and welcome to a podcast by Grant Makers in the Arts. My name is Jaime Sharp and I am the Senior Program Manager here at GIA. Across the nonprofit sector, national regranting programs are ending and institutional infrastructures are shrinking, as philanthropy resets how it supports the field.
In this moment of contraction and uncertainty, institutions can no longer afford to remain unprepared to work with artists on structural design. The Dance/USA Fellowships to Artists Program, also known as DFA, became one attempt to learn how.
In this episode, Haowen Wang of Dance/USA joins artists, Laura Lawson and Peter Rockford Espiritu, and curator Michelle Steinwald to reflect on eight years of responsive design through DFA.
Together, they examine moments of rupture, redesign and learning, and share lessons about what it takes for institutions to reposition themselves so that artists can lead. I hope you enjoy.
Haowen Wang:
Amazing. Hello podcast listeners. My name is Haowen Wang. I'm the Director of Regranting at Dance/USA, a national service organization for dance. I use he/him pronouns. I am a cisgender, non-disabled man originally from Taipei, Taiwan. I have short black hair, brown eyes, and oatmeal color skin tone.
In my photo that you'll see on the podcast page, I'm wearing a dark blue suit with a black and green T-shirt, sitting with an angle and smiling at the camera. I look relaxed.
Today, we are here to talk about the Dance/USA Fellowships to Artists Program, or as we call it, the DFA Program. DFA supports dance and movement-based artists who work at the intersection of embodied and social practices.
Each fellowship includes a 31,000 unrestricted award. There are no project or work requirement attached to this program. DFA is generously supported by the Doris Duke Foundation, and since 2018, DFA has run three rounds of three-year cycles supporting a total of 86 artists.
DFA will end after 2026 as part of a larger strategic shift to defund national service organizations and their programs from the private philanthropic sector. The heart of DFA is a commitment to center artists in shaping the program itself.
The fellowship is co-designed through ongoing collaboration with artists who bring lived experience to the questions of policy, language, and process. Today, I'm speaking with three of my colleagues who have worked on the core design work of DFA in the past five years, and I will now ask them to introduce themselves.
Michelle Steinwald:
Bonjour, my name is Michelle Steinwald. My pronouns are she/they. I'm a queer, able-bodied, post-menopausal white woman of Irish and French ancestry, assigned female at birth, with brown and gray mid-length hair wearing a classic vintage Levi's denim shirt in my photo.
I currently live near my family in the city of Tiohtia:ke, commonly referred to as Montreal, a land with lineage to the Haudenosaunee and Anishinaabe peoples. I've been a DFA program advisor and facilitator since 2021.
Peter Rockford Espiritu:
[foreign language 00:04:53]. My name is Peter Rockford Espiritu. My Ohana name is Tau. My pronouns are he/him. I have long, dark hair pulled back, light olive skin, and I'm rocking a smart goatee.
I'm wearing a black and gold geometric pattern shirt based on a traditional ohe kapala or bamboo tattoo tapa design, and a multicolored multi-strand lei made of golden shells.
I am a Kanaka Maoli of Hawaii, native Hawaiian with mixed Asian and European ethnicity, and I reside on the islands of my ancestors.
Laurel Lawson:
Hi folks. My name is Laurel Lawson. My pronouns are flexible. In the photo you'll see attached to this podcast I am a white person with short-cropped hair, a pink lip, a blue shirt in shades of the ocean, and I'm looking slightly mischievously and thoughtfully up and to one side.
I'm a choreographer, a designer, and an artist engineer, and these days also a strategic consultant. And in transparency, I'm a round one fellow of this program and advisor to rounds two and three. My family hails from [foreign language 00:06:25] Woods or Southern Appalachia. Haowen?
Haowen Wang:
Thanks everyone. Let's make no mistake about it. The national nonprofit arts sector is in middle of a hard reset. A big part of this reset is directional and intentional. Long-established national regranting program are ending due to funding cuts.
And in addition to programmatic cuts, the sunsetting of general operating support means some of us national art service organizations might be closing our doors or facing significant structural contractions in the coming years.
And I want to be clear, this is not without good reason. Artists and creative workers have been sharing for years that the arts ecosystem is broken, and field wide efforts in equity, repair and sustainability have been slow at best. Nonprofit intermediaries and philanthropy itself have largely failed to deliver structural change that the field has been calling for for decades.
So, as traditional models of national artist support through intermediaries fade or contract, a coordinator strategy around this reset has yet to be ushered in. Funders seems to be redirecting funds in an uncoordinated way, while some who are staying the course are overwhelmed with demand.
We are starting to hear discourse around the need for the emergence of new infrastructures that carry our ecosystems, but none clearly point to what will be emerging or how this emergence will take place. And artists are sharing that they are exhausted in this time of constant social upheaval, if not beyond exhausted.
This means the nonprofit arts ecosystem is in an unguided transition, if not on the verge of a collapse. In other words, as flawed as it had been, the dismantling of the current nonprofit support structure for the arts is happening while the process, leadership and financing of the search for this new emerging are not accounted for, which means that the labor of this process will fall on the field itself.
And if we as a field must contend with the question of finding this new emergence, our collective deficit and capacity to work with artists, the primary labor force of our industry in a healthy and generative way, must be addressed.
DFA as a program went through eight years of process wrestling with this question around how to ethically and effectively engage artists in program design. As you will hear in this podcast, DFA went through its share of mistakes and challenges, and we want to use this podcast as a case study for our collective learning.
So we ask, what conditions must be present for artists to exercise agency and leadership without absorbing institutional labor? What institutional behaviors must shift for artist-centered design to be real? And also, what forms of continuity, relationship, and collective capacity are already functioning as infrastructure within artists' communities, and how do we learn from them as institutions?
So, with these guiding questions, I want to shift the attention to my colleagues. I want to start asking questions first to Laurel. Laurel, in our early conversations after the round one DFA program, you posed a question that became central to the design of round two and the round three program, which is how do we recognize the power of the artists in the room? And talk to us about what you meant by that as well.
Laurel Lawson:
So I think first, Haowen, I want to do something that's both very artsy and also very strategic, facilitatory, and break that apart in a couple ways. What do we mean when we say power? Here, I actually find it useful to use the models of power over, power with, and power from within. Some folks might be familiar with that, but we also need to talk about what's meant by leadership.
It's really trendy to say that artists lead, but what does that mean in execution? If you're asking artists to lead, are you willing to execute in service to that leadership wherever it may take you or are you going to run your preexisting plan regardless? Are you making assumptions that that leadership is going to point where you think it is?
Sometimes artistic leadership points in directions you're not only not expecting but the artists weren't expecting. Sometimes the answer comes to us in intuition before we understand why. We have to talk about who is centered. And I like personally to use a model of flexible and multiple centers, because different people, different communities need to be centered at different times.
It's worth pointing out here that centering is actually opposed to the idea of inclusion. Inclusion means maybe you have a representative. Inclusion often means tokenism. Inclusion doesn't talk about power. The person who's been included can be excluded again, and it doesn't address the fact that you haven't moved the power. You've just made everyone feel better by including someone. So not inclusion, but who is centered.
And then, of course, we have to talk about labor. Maybe labor is the key to unlocking this. What exactly are you asking us to do? What labor does that entail from the artist? What labor does that mean from the institution to reposition, rethink, reform?
Are you willing to do the labor of overcoming inertia? Are you willing to do the labor of overcoming the idea that you already know the answer? Preexisting bias. Are you willing to do the labor of good design in research, in programming? And of course, then there's the labor of power dynamics. Who holds the power? How is it balanced? Is it balanced? Who are you asking to work? Who decides the outcome and who benefits from that outcome?
Haowen Wang:
Amazing. Now, let's try to get more specific with that. So, in DFA round one, we gathered an unprecedented group of artists from the program, many of whom are seasoned facilitators. But at the end of that cohort gathering, the artists tore up the agenda.
So you were there, Laurel. What was the misalignment between the artists and the institution there? And what is generally the misalignment between artists and institutions, between the idea and the outcome?
Laurel Lawson:
Wow. Yeah. That was a really powerful room. We're back in 2019. It was the beginning of a shift in grant making, but it was a really, really different place from today. That was a room that was gathered because of experience, demonstrated leadership, power within communities, and a calling to justice and to service.
And these were artists whose work, at least in this way, wasn't previously recognized because there was no recognition. There was previously no award for this kind of community organizing, cultural backbone, culture bearer, activist, facilitator, strategist work.
And I'm just going to say that I was one of the youngest people in the room, and beyond honored to be with these artists, so many of whom I respected very deeply. And there was an absolutely packed institutional agenda. Know the thing, there's a full day, someone's talking every minute, there's five minutes for a bathroom break every now and again.
And we're expected to sit quietly and listen and follow the plan. That's not the kind of group that you gather when you want people to do that, but it was a real surprise to the program staff when the cohort literally tore up the agenda and said, "No, we're going to decide how we spend our time together and self-organized in ways that were more interesting and felt much more useful to us."
Being part of that process shaped the ways that I work with institutions as a strategist, as a consultant, as a designer moving forward. We have to name existing dynamics. We have to address the tension between the institution and the artist, the organization and its inertia that wants to keep doing what it has done because that has gotten it to the place that it is and it has shaped the institution into that mold, and the artist who is searching for something.
And also, a tension between the idea of an award and rest, and that's particularly a thing for DFA, where rest was specifically named by some of the earliest organizers instigators of this program, names you would all recognize. Rest was imagined as a key possibility.
So to move DFA specifically forward, we focused on iterative design, small advancements every time, every point, every decision that added up to radical changes over time and together.
We took, as our guiding principle, centering the people who needed to be centered, equity, not fairness, not, "We're going to treat everybody in the same way," but equity and working in relationship, developing deep relationship and engagement with communities, focusing one at a time. Yeah.
Haowen Wang:
Yeah. And with just a little bit of time for this segment, want to drill in on this idea of labor. So paying the artist fairly for their time and labor, for their creative and intellectual contribution is undoubtedly important, but it's also not just about pay.
Laurel, so can you help us list a few specific conditions that institutions needs to consider to cultivate this centering, this equitable, this relation-based and healthy relation for artists to work with institutions when we talk about artist-based structural design?
Laurel Lawson:
Yeah. So, I think the power dynamics are a huge part of that in any relationship, but particularly between an institution, a programming, curatorial or grant making institution, we have to consider the safety of the artist. Will there be a price if they say something the institution doesn't like? One of the reasons I've been able to be effective in this program is that in relationship with Dance/USA, there is nothing held over me. There's no future grant, there's no future performance or exhibition that I've felt the need to even involuntarily safeguard. So power dynamics matter, working conditions matter accessibility, scope of work, what rooms, who is in what rooms, as well as authenticity and trust.
Is that contribution actually showing up in the outcomes? Is the artist trusted to execute? Is the artist trusted to lead, not identical, but both important. And I mentioned accessibility, but equitable accessibility, I have to point out, is one of my areas of both lived experience and technical expertise that must be artist-led, that has impacts not just on the working environment but on outreach, your application, your selection process, your programming. And accessibility, when you implement it, when you really get down to it, has the potential to transform the institution itself. I should stop there 'cause you know I could go on about this all day, Haowen.
Haowen Wang:
We all can, but let's talk a little bit about priorities and this idea of agency and repair. So Peter, thank you so much for grounding us at the beginning. You were part of the round two artist cohort when the in person gathering was still attached to Dance/USA's national conference. At the time, it was in Atlanta. So, take us back to that conference. What did it feel like to arrive as a fellow and realize how the gathering was structured? Can you talk us through that?
Peter Rockford Espiritu:
Sure, Haowen, thank you. Yeah, I was so excited to attend my first Dance/USA conference and being awarded this fellowship. But upon arriving, I was immediately surprised at how invisible and actually othered I felt as a fellow, as an artist, as a Pacific Islander, and as a native practitioner. It was very surprising to me.
Haowen Wang:
Yeah. And now you responded, Peter, by hosting a cohort showcase in a hotel room. So what moved you to do that? What did that space offer that we couldn't, at the time as institutions, containers, did not offer to you?
Peter Rockford Espiritu:
Thank you, Haowen. And as one of the 30 member cohort, time, space and acknowledgement was not our friend. I was not selected to be introduced as a fellow or share my story, as there was only time for 10 of us to present. I was not selected to speak on any panel, even though I submitted something.
Well, there was nothing performative-wise that the fellows were asked to present. I responded by thinking outside the box and proposed an after hours fringe gathering, and the fringe provided community of visibility, and a space for sharing with and from those who did not have an opportunity to share or to have a sense of inclusion.
With your support, a room was secured, and audio, visual, light snacks, beverages. The outcome shifted a negative and hurtful dynamic into a positive artist-led solution, not just for us fellows, but also for the greater community of conference attendees. We kind of just told people, "We're doing this girl style." And given the space, it allowed us that. I'm grateful for that. So thank you.
Haowen Wang:
Yeah. The idea of this parallel space that you as an artist created, in adjacent to the institutional space, was huge for us, and recognizing our mistake. When we invited you to redesign the round three gathering last October, what made you say yes, Peter?
Peter Rockford Espiritu:
Haowen, I'm always apprehensive, 'cause as I've learned many times that they ask you and they want something from you, but it's never reciprocal. It's always, "We need your help with this." But my decision to join the team was based on personal relationship and trust from direct interaction with you.
As an outsider looking into the program, leadership style and focus while being able to compare my past experiences with many other organizations, this gave me insight to real accountability, transparency, internal auditing, reevaluation, constant recentering of the program.
I was grateful for the opportunity to help redesign the round three gathering because it allowed us as a team to learn from past mistakes and take steps to make right the institutional shortcomings to the artists for the past two rounds.
This gave me hope and invested incentive to give to the round three cohort the benefit of an artist-led focused space. I was allowed to be myself and contribute as the artists that I am, and practitioner that I am.
Haowen Wang:
And when we built the round three gathering, it became what I called a zero institutional agenda. We did this retreat at Jacob's Pillow with no agenda from us, the institution, and it was based on something else. Can you walk us through that?
Peter Rockford Espiritu:
Sure. Learning firsthand as a fellow from the past DFA cohorts, listening and finding keys to unlocking institutional gatekeeping was paramount. An artist-focused space, which reimagined how to gather on land established for and by artists was a solid step towards clearing space and recentering focus.
The simple equation of providing a safe space with the highest level inclusivity and connectivity with administrative and technical support. Technical support allowed us then to get out of the way to allow the round three DFA fellows to do their thing. That was our goal and I feel like we accomplished that.
Haowen Wang:
And what does not having an agenda from us, Dance/USA, the institution actually mean? Why was that important? What institutional reflex had to be interrupted for that to work?
Peter Rockford Espiritu:
I believe that in order for authentic and invested trust to happen, there has to be an established freedom without institutional manipulation, projected or preconceived expected outcomes. If you start With an agenda, you have an agenda. Zero institution agenda is what I believe to be arts decolonization, which authentically clears space for an artist-led re-enginization focus gathering.
The biggest need for artists of this level of excellence and success is to find time to gather in safe spaces to connect, share and be inspired by the wealth of art. We deserve time to rest, recuperate, and digest what's being experienced. We need to be supported so that there is peace of mind, no worry of lost income or time by attending. Ultimately, our gathering at the Jacob's Pillow answered all of these needs.
Haowen Wang:
Thank you, Peter.
Peter Rockford Espiritu:
Thank you.
Haowen Wang:
All right. So, let's talk a little bit about structural translation and accountability. And Michelle, so when you and I began working together on this program, one of the first thing we address was the language, the program's language. What does program language matter so much to you as you recommended we do that in terms of shaping power? What do you think we were trying to undo?
Michelle Steinwald:
Thanks, Haowen. This is Michelle. It was critical because language signals intention and accountability. When we started together at the beginning of round two, we were pressed to push out the call for applicants right away, and had no time to host info sessions to introduce a new way of working. So all the language we used to announce the program needed to be precise.
We had inherited language that upheld institutional oppression, language that treated artists as other, and assumed artists were all operating within a company structure. Plus, it was packed with white saviorism. In order to build trust with artists, we had to develop clear intentional language that stated our positions and actions in order to be held responsible and treat artists supplying for round two with respect and dignity.
Internally, we used reciprocity, humility and accuracy as our guiding values, which helped us replace old language with language that honored the practice of artists working towards social justice, and acknowledge joy and healing in artistic processes. We removed any code switching and spoke directly to the artists and the intentions of the program. We also used language that created responsiveness in the evolving structure of the program as it was being redesigned in real time.
Haowen Wang:
Yeah. And part of that language work, which in and of itself is massive, was that we took a stab at defining what dance and social change meant. And not from a sort of a institutional doctrine, but from how artists described their own practices, and how artists and reviewers recognize that work as well. So talk to us about that. Why does that matter?
Michelle Steinwald:
It was an important part of the accountability piece necessary for the program to define art for change within dance and movement context. Previously, Animating Democracy and Leeway Foundation had created a framework for Art for Change in general, but DFA needed to define it for dance and movement specifically.
So, by reading the LOIs for recurring patterns and elements, and asking the selection panelists, who were artists themselves in social change, that they keep in mind what patterns they were noticing as they read the applications, and while they deliberated, too. So, our definition was shaped by practitioners and artists processes, not from institutional assumptions and biased gatekeeping.
During the panel meetings, my role as a facilitator was to make us aware of those patterns as they were forming so the panelists could help us with digesting emergent concepts building towards the definition that we published. And another point in the panel process, we had multiple interventions embedded in that work together.
The panelists were artists, and so we held space to weave open discussions throughout the panel deliberations, honoring their experiences, which built trust and transparency, and informed the program in real time. Plus, we integrated debiasing rituals so the panelists were honest and direct throughout the review and selection process.
It was incredibly moving to partner with artists in this way. As program staff, we didn't make excuses. We really treated feedback as gifts full of generosity, and welcomed any kind of critical feedback. And the panel process was actually really transformative and revolutionary, really.
Haowen Wang:
Another structural intervention, Michelle, was how we approached artist data, not as institutional proof of impact, but as a part of accountability practice. So, we publicly documented our data practices and accountability frameworks, and you led that work, Michelle. So, how do we rethink data collection and why? Could you walk us through that part as well?
Michelle Steinwald:
I strongly felt, just as with the evolving definition of dance and art for change, that we needed to learn from the pool of applicants, and not make any generalizations on their behalf. So the data we collected was all self-identified information gathered from their applications, which created a ton of specific and unique terms and positions. And because we didn't have tiny buckets of identities to quantify, we commissioned the visual artist, Gene Pendon, to chart out the information.
And these charts are now published on the Dance/USA website, and they blow apart any binaries, any hierarchies, and instead raise up the communities represented in the artist's work. And the charts reorganized how we treated percentages, as we could visualize the diversity and richness of who the program was attracting, and that richness influenced our decision-making process.
Haowen Wang:
Awesome. All right. Well, thank you all. So, let's do a lightning round of questions about things we feel funders need to hear from artists. Let's start with you, Michelle, this time. So, if we as institutional representatives and funders say we want artists-led futures, what are we underestimating about what that requires?
Michelle Steinwald:
Time, time, more time, lots, lots, lots of time. It takes a lot of time to be in right relation. And so, time is a big factor, plus personally showing up with emotional maturity, humility, and honesty.
Haowen Wang:
Great. And for you, Peter, if an institution wants to build artist-centered spaces, what makes you want to engage with one process but not with the other?
Peter Rockford Espiritu:
Thank you, Haowen, this is Peter. My go to indicators that always dictate my decision on whether to engage is based on my own observation on the leadership track record, integrity, focus on reciprocity, real support without expectation of outcome, Indigenous inclusivity, and of course, the artists that are involved.
Haowen Wang:
And for Laurel, what institutional reflexes are in tension when striving for equitable grant making and programming?
Laurel Lawson:
If it's a reflex, it's probably in tension. We talked about inertia, that organizations keep doing what they're doing, the thing that's gotten them to the point they're at. The thing you've been doing won't take you to the next level. Administrative disconnect from the artists, bad design. If you've ever thought, "Oh, it won't hurt to add one more question to the application." Yes, it hurts. A reluctance to rock the boat, unwillingness to push back against what are perceived as requirements from your upstream funders or what is perceived as conventional. We pushed and pushed hard on a lot of things.
Honesty, really taking a good look at your program and your grantees, and figuring out how to get real, honest feedback that you're not hearing what they think you want to hear, outdated impact measures. Lack of specific expertise. So institutions have to be willing to change. Above all, you have to be willing to open to the process, to invest in research process, that is an area of expertise, to rely on data, to actually look at the data when it contradicts what you think you know, to iterate and evolve, and to hire experts, hire artists, hire research designers, hire facilitators, hire accessibility experts, hire event and program design experts.
Michelle Steinwald:
This is Michelle. Now, the three of us want to ask Haowen a few questions. So my question to how when is what are the tensions you felt from status quo grant making versus how the DFA program evolved over time?
Haowen Wang:
Thanks, Michelle. This is Haowen. Okay. So I think the tension of holding the space between institutional leadership, whom naturally gravitate toward containment, risk aversion and hierarchy, as opposed to radical designing with artists, while not letting the two sides totally combust. That tension is very real.
I often joke with Laurel, Peter, and Michelle that 50% of my energy is actually spent on reconciling the different energies of institutional space and the space of artist care and design. I think that's one of the bigger tension in this work that sometimes go unseen.
Peter Rockford Espiritu:
Thank you, Haowen. This is Peter. My question is, how important do you feel native and Indigenous representation is to this program and to the greater arts field, and where do you think that our kupuna, or our elders, fit into the equation?
Haowen Wang:
Yeah, thank you for asking about Indigenous representation and our elders, Peter, I remember when we put together the two working groups of native dance artists to offer feedback around DFA policy and guidelines. One of the points that the artists made was that the real people who need to receive this fellowship are the elders from the native communities, but there are very little chance that they will look at this application and say to themselves that they want to apply.
So yeah, we created a small fund to support people in communities who volunteer time to support people with writing their applications, but it didn't come close to filling the gap at all. The working group also recommended an in person interview-based application process. That makes a lot of sense, but we didn't have the capacity to implement. So I think this goes to say that there's still a lot of work left to do for DFA in terms of filling those gaps.
Laurel Lawson:
Okay. My turn, this is Laurel. Here's the big one, Haowen. What can and what will institutions, organizations, program makers, grant makers, what will we commit to?
Haowen Wang:
Yeah. Okay. So, I'm going to answer it this way. As I shared in the beginning of this conversation, right now we are in a moment where many of the structures that have held the nonprofit arts field together are being dismantled. Programs are ending. Institutions are shrinking, philanthropy is resetting the landscape. We know this. If institutions want to engage artists in shaping the future of this field, we have to stop asking artists to solve the problem for us.
Listening tours, panel discussions and advisory groups are not enough. Our work is to create the conditions where artists can actually design and to carry our share of labor that makes that possible. So that means, as Michelle said, resourcing time, resourcing process, and being willing to change the structure we inhabit when artists show us that this needs to change. Laurel and Peter covered that. DFA has been one small experiment in what that might look like.
And if there's one thing I hope funders and institutions take from this conversation, it's this. Working with artists on structural design isn't about inviting artists into our institutional processes. It's about institutions learning how to reposition themselves with humility, with accountability, and with the patience to build something together that none of us can design alone. That's the commitment I'm trying to carry forward, and I invite others to do the same.
Jaime Sharp:
Thank you for listening to this podcast episode. To learn more about resources from today's conversations or listen to other GIA podcast episodes, please visit giarts.reader.org. Thanks for tuning in.
ABOUT THE SPEAKERS
Laurel Lawson (flexible pronouns) is a choreographic collaborator, dancer, designer, and engineer with Kinetic Light. She is the primary costume and makeup designer, contributes technical and production design, and designs the wheelchairs that she and Alice Sheppard use in performance. She also leads access and technology initiatives, including Audimance, the company's approach to audio description, and Access ALLways, a holistic approach to disabled-led equitable access. Lawson began her professional dance career with Atlanta’s Full Radius Dance. In her independent and transdisciplinary practice, housed at Rose Tree Productions, her work includes both traditional choreography and novel ways of creating art through technology and design; in the creation of worlds and products experienced, installed, embodied, or virtual. Her work has been recognized with a Dance/USA Artist Fellowship, funded by the Doris Duke Foundation, and with a 2023 Creative Capital Award. Lawson is also CTO and co-founder of CyCore Systems, a boutique engineering consultancy. A noted public speaker and teacher, she speaks on a range of technical topics as well as on leadership practice, accessibility, culture and equity, cultivating creativity and driving innovation.
Peter Rockford Espiritu is the Executive & Artistic Director of Tau Dance Theater, the only professional dance company based in Honolulu founded by a native Hawaiian, marking its 30th anniversary in 2026. Mr. Espiritu choreographed the stage production of Disney’s ‘The Tale of MOANA’ which ‘World Premiered’ on the inaugural voyage of the Disney TREASURE. Mr. Espiritu is a round two recipient of the ‘Dance USA Fellowship to Artist’; Western Arts Alliance Performing Arts Discovery Fellow; WESTAF BIPOC Fellow; Advancing Indigenous Performances Native Launchpad Fellow; and in 2022 was awarded the prestigious Intercultural International Choreographer’s Creation Lab residency at Banff Center for the Creative Arts in Canada. The company presented five sold out performances at the Lincoln Center in New York City for the Festival of Firsts in 2022 and continues to be a driving force throughout of artistic realm of the greater Pacific.
Michèle Steinwald has managed performing arts projects and professional development programs for On the Boards (Seattle), National Dance Project (Boston), DanceUSA (DC), and Deborah Hay Dance Company (Austin). She joined Walker Art Center (Minneapolis) in 2006 as Assistant Curator for the Performing Arts and remained in that role until summer 2013. She has served on American arts funding panels for NEA, MANCC, NPN, McKnight Foundation, USA Fellows, Pew Foundation, Herb Alpert Award, MAP Fund and been an artist mentor for Creative Capital and Arts Midwest. She holds an MA from the Institute for Curatorial Practice in Performance at Wesleyan University and was published in Curating Live Arts (Berghahn Books) and Shifting Cultural Power (NCCAkron Series in Dance). Committed to institutional change, she has researched and facilitated timely conversations addressing decolonizing curatorial practices, accountability during #MeToo, disability justice in arts funding at conferences such as Atlantic Dance Gathering, Grantmakers in the Arts, Association of Performing Arts Professionals, American Realness, Interrarium at Banff Centre, and others. Half Québécoise and half Irish-American, Steinwald is currently living in Tiohtià:ke (so-called Montréal) as an independent curator, cultural organizer, dance dramaturg, and writer committed to social justice. She wholeheartedly believes that by making environments hospitable to bodies in movement, dance becomes an antidote to patriarchy and capitalism.
Haowen Wang is a cultural strategist who works at the intersection of equity, program design, and organizational strategy. As Director of Regranting at Dance/USA, Haowen directs the Dance/USA Fellowships to Artists with an emphasis on artist-led decision making, iterative and responsive design, cultural integrity, and equitable access. Before Dance/USA, Haowen spent over a decade leading grantmaking programs in New York City and regionally. At Mid Atlantic Arts, Haowen served as Program Officer for Performing Arts, managing regional presenting grants and curating rosters of US and international touring artists. Earlier roles included redesigning public regranting programs at Lower Manhattan Cultural Council and supporting traditional cultural groups at Asian American Arts Alliance. Haowen also held leadership positions at Ping Chong & Company and Yangtze Repertory Theatre, and currently serves on the board of the National Performance Network, contributing to organizational and financial stewardship. Born and raised in Taiwan, Haowen holds an MA from NYU and a Certificate from Wesleyan University’s Institute for Curatorial Practices in Performance.
