Mozilla and Doris Duke Fund 20 of 392 Performing Artists Building Technology. About 20 More $150,000 Grants Remain in the $11 Million Pool

Of 392 applications, 20 won. On October 28, 2026, at the Mozilla Festival in Barcelona, the Mozilla Foundation and the Doris Duke Foundation (DDF) announced the first cohort of Artists Make Technology (AMT). The three-year, $11 million initiative pays performing artists to build technology for their own fields rather than adapt tools built by others.

The first cohort shares $2.75 million, with individual grants of up to $150,000. The selection rate was 5.1%. That puts AMT among the most competitive arts funding programs in the country, comparable to a top-tier federal research program.

The more useful number for most artists is the second one. AMT plans up to 40 grants over three years. With 20 awarded, about half the program has yet to be awarded. Organizers have not announced dates for the next round. The 19 named finalists and the 353 other applicants who were declined are the obvious pool for it, but nothing in the announcement limits round two to them.

The program at a glance

How the program got here

AMT grew out of DDF's Performing Arts Technologies Lab (PATL), a 2024–2025 pilot that supported 20 individuals and organizations. PATL projects covered accessibility, production and pre-visualization, digital archiving, and performances built around technology.

In January 2026, DDF and Mozilla announced a $6.5 million joint commitment. Hewlett and Ford joined at launch, and MacArthur and Omidyar Network came in afterward. The goal is now $11 million, with $8 million raised. Individual funder contributions have not been disclosed.

The $3 million gap matters if you are planning for round two. The program's size depends on whether the rest is raised. "Up to 40" is a ceiling, not a commitment.

The round-one application ran through DDF's AMT Lab on Giving Data from February 2 to March 2, 2026. DDF held webinars on the program, on intellectual property and fiscal sponsorship, and on application FAQs. That the program held a dedicated IP and fiscal-sponsor workshop shows two things reviewers and applicants found difficult: who owns what gets built, and how individual artists receive institutional-sized grants.

Who won, and what that shows

The 20 grantees fall into three groups:

Individual artists (about half the cohort). Including alexa dexa, L. Jenna Riashi Varga, Ryat Yezbick, James Allister Sprang, Lars Jan, Leilehua Lanzilotti, Leslie Cuyjet, Stefon Harris and Nile Harris. Individuals competed head to head with institutions and won.

Arts organizations and collectives. Albany Park Theater Project, Center for Cultural Vibrancy, DeltaARTS, Extreme Lengths Productions, HowlRound Theatre Commons, STUDIO F.A.C.E., sweat variant, and Balletic Athletic (an artist collaborative of Wendy Yu, Whitney Schmanski and Alexis Copithorne).

University-based artists. EMPAC at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Thomas F. DeFrantz/SLIPPAGE at Northwestern; and Jill Marie Bradbury at the University of Maryland, College Park.

Several patterns in the funded projects are useful for anyone applying next time.

1. The artist is the user

Every project described solves a problem the artist's own field has. Examples include:

• A six-legged robot that works as a choreographic partner for disabled dancers
• Haptic technology that lets deaf and hard-of-hearing audiences feel music
• Open-source live captioning for theaters, combining AI with human editors
• Software that captures the microtones of Arab maqam
• A free digital instrument sampled from Queen Liliʻuokalani's piano, for Hawaiian musicians and the diaspora
• A tool for planning a venue's sound, lighting and staging before artists arrive

None of these is "an app about dance." Each is a tool a working artist or presenter would use. Mozilla's Ziyaad Bhorat described the intent as placing artists' work "inside technology development rather than downstream of it." Proposals that treat technology as a medium for a single show are a weaker fit than proposals that build infrastructure others can use.

2. Cultural specificity

The maqam microtone software, the Liliʻuokalani piano instrument, and LiDAR-captured "living ghosts" of blues elders forming a community-owned digital monument all serve a defined tradition and community. They don't target a generic "audience." DDF's Ashley Ferro-Murray said that when artists design technology, the result is "a more imaginative and inclusive technological future." Reviewers rewarded projects where the community that benefits is named and the artist has standing in it.

3. Openness is common

Mozilla noted that many grantees plan to release their tools, specifications or documentation openly. The announcement doesn't say whether open release is required, so check the RFP when round two opens. Given Mozilla's history, a credible open-source or open-documentation plan is close to a requirement in practice.

4. Hardware and sensing

The first cohort covers robotics, AI, spatial audio, haptics, mixed reality and motion capture. AI is one category among six. Several projects involve physical devices, such as a portable spatial-audio rig and a body-visualization tool for dancers. Hardware prototyping is expensive, which helps explain the $150,000 ceiling for six months of work.

Discipline priorities

A Northwestern research-office notice for round one said applicants with a strong body of work or a primary focus in contemporary dance, jazz, or theater would be prioritized. The cohort reflects that: dance and movement projects make up a large share, jazz is represented (Stefon Harris is a jazz vibraphonist), and theater organizations like Albany Park Theater Project and HowlRound won.

Whether those priorities carry into round two isn't known. If you work in opera, classical music, or circus, watch the next RFP's language closely before investing time.

What a 5.1% rate means for preparation

At about 1 in 20, the selection rate rewards preparation more than volume. Some practical points:

Plan the six months in detail. The grant pays for rapid prototyping. A proposal promising a finished, polished product in six months reads as unrealistic. A proposal promising a working prototype, a field test with real performers or audiences, and a documented next step reads as credible.

Budget near the ceiling only if hardware requires it. The average first-cohort grant was about $137,500, just below the ceiling. Don't fill the budget to $150,000. Itemize hardware, developer time, and artist fees so that reviewers can see what drives the cost.

Settle IP before you apply. If you are working with a university lab, freelance developer, or presenting organization, get agreement on who owns the code and designs. A university's standard IP policy may conflict with an open-source release plan, and the program held a whole workshop on this question.

Sort out fiscal sponsorship early. Individuals can win, but receiving $150,000 as an individual can raise tax and administrative issues. A fiscal sponsor that handles arts grants (Fractured Atlas and many regional arts service organizations do this) removes friction.

Document your existing practice. Round one favored applicants with "a strong body of work." Video of past work, especially anything already using technology, matters more than a polished concept statement.

The 19 finalists

AMT published the names of 19 finalists who weren't funded, including Casita Maria Center for Arts & Education, AXIS Dance Company, Arts Council of New Orleans, Brian Brooks Moving Company, Louisiana Museum Foundation, Prevision Labs and Yanira Castro. Publicly naming finalists is unusual, and it tells other funders that these projects were vetted. If you are one of them, you can cite it now. "Finalist, Artists Make Technology 2026 (top 39 of 392)" is a strong line for proposals to DDF's other programs, state arts councils, and university arts-technology centers.

Where else to look while you wait

The second AMT round has no date. Other funding with a similar orientation includes:

• Doris Duke Foundation's other performing-arts programs, which tend to reward artists already known to DDF staff
• Mozilla Foundation's other cohorts, including its democracy and AI cohort, for projects with a civic component
• State arts council technology and innovation grants, usually smaller ($5,000–$25,000) but faster
• University arts-technology residencies (EMPAC-style), which provide equipment and engineering access along with or instead of cash

Action plan

1. Write a one-paragraph problem statement now: the specific problem in your field, who has it, and why no existing tool solves it.
2. Build a small proof of concept. A video of a rough prototype is worth more than a description.
3. Secure your fiscal sponsor and IP agreements before the next RFP drops.
4. Watch both funders' sites. Round one opened about four weeks after the January announcement and ran for one month. Assume a short window next time.
5. If you were a finalist, ask program staff for feedback and whether resubmission is encouraged.
6. Track fundraising. If the initiative reaches its $11 million goal, about 20 more grants are likely. If it stays at $8 million, expect fewer.

To find arts-and-technology funding beyond AMT, including state arts councils, foundation open calls and residencies, search Granted's database or ask our AI assistant to match your practice to current opportunities.