Click to Start – Art and Technology Changes Things

Last week I was proud to deliver the Occasional Address to the graduating students from the arts and technology faculties at the University of Ballarat. In preparing my speech I spent some time pondering the intersection of arts and technology, and building the case supporting their critical role in our future world.

Returning home I realised that Arts Hub members might be interested in the sentiment, and so below is the text of my speech.

Deputy Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, Members of University Council, distinguished guests, ladies and gentleman. Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to be with you.

When I first received an invitation to speak to you today, I had visions of standing here uttering witty anecdotes of life as the owner of a business which has as its core the melding of the arts world with the technology world.

On reflection I discounted this idea. Firstly because as a stand up comedian I make a much better dishwasher, and secondly, and most importantly, because I realized there were some issues important to me which I wanted to address.

I’m particularly pleased to be speaking today because all of you here represent the people I believe are the chosen ones as our planet moves forward into the 21st century.

We live in a world dominated by political systems, and a media, that make much of economic circumstances. Which openly promotes the division between the haves and the have nots. We are deep in a global economic cycle which has led to unbelievable growth in personal wealth, often at the expense of many of the people who do the actual work which results in extraordinary prosperity for a select few.

Many people of this world live in countries whose political masters deliberately isolate a minority in order to promote an socio-economic agenda to the majority.

Their tactics are exclusionary, short sighted, and use fear of the new and unknown to encourage people to look backwards instead of forwards.

Why do I think this is important to you? Because I think you are the people who have the greatest chance of effecting change, of changing the world.

So today I’d like to touch on a couple of the issues close to my heart. For starters how art and technology are in fact two sides of the same coin; how the arts creates clever people; and then how the intellectual property created by arts and technology have the power to achieve incredible economic and social change.

Art and Technology Hand in Hand

Art and technology go hand in hand. There’s a magazine article from 10 years ago I refer back to once in a while. The author was commenting on the use of technology in the arts, and explained that sometimes technology was ahead of the artists, sometimes behind. Sometimes artists use technology in ways the technologists never envisaged. Sometimes the technologists equip the artists to achieve an artistic vision previously unattainable. The magazine article concludes that

“The relationship between the artist and the technologist needs to be seen less as a two side topology, rather, with a not so simple half twist we can turn it into a Moebius Strip, which only has one side.”

It’s how I see arts and technology – two sides of the same coin.

Arts Creates Clever People

A research project in the United States, which analysed a database of 25,000 school students, found that students with high levels of arts participation outperform “arts-poor” students by virtually every measure. Now if you think about it, that’s not particularly surprising. Children of wealthier families very often have greater opportunity to engage with the Arts. But the researchers were genuinely surprised when they crunched the numbers some more.

What they found was a statistical significance in comparisons of high and low arts participants in the lowest socioeconomic segments.

The research showed that high arts participation makes a more significant difference to students from low-income backgrounds than for high-income students.

They also found clear evidence that sustained involvement in particular art forms—music and theatre —are highly correlated with success in mathematics and reading.

Intellectual Property and Copyright

While I was researching some thoughts for today, I came across some both sobering and exciting information on the web site of the World Bank.

According to a recent World Bank report, the countries that became richer over the last 30 years were those that mostly export intellectual property. Their incomes grew faster. The incomes of poor countries that mostly export raw materials didn’t grow at all. It’s a stark contrast for an Australian economy that continues, to a large degree, to be underpinned by stuff dug out of the ground, instead of stuff dug out of our brains. An argument I know needs no explaining in this forum.

Intellectual property has helped the rich countries’ economies grow. An easy example is the insidious spread of Hollywood movies and television. I use the word insidious carefully, programs like Joe Millionaire, Survivor and Sex and the City have a lot to answer for. Yet my four year old son is entranced by Blues Clues. He watches Sesame Street with the same sense of excitement as I did when I was watching 30 years ago.

Our son is contributing, in his own small way, to a massive growth in the export of intellectual property by the United States. For example:

  • In 2002, the U.S. “total” copyright industries accounted for an estimated 12% of the U.S. gross domestic product ($1.25 trillion).
  • The “total” copyright industries employed 8.41% of U.S. workers in 2002 (11.47 million workers). This level approaches the total employment levels of the entire health care and social assistance sector (15.3 million) and the entire U.S. manufacturing sector (14.5 million workers in 21 manufacturing industries).
  • In 2002, the U.S. copyright industries achieved foreign sales and exports estimated at $89.26 billion. That’s more than the motor vehicle industry and the aviation industry

    Now, please don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying all of this is automatically good. Anyone who’s suffered through the 95th repeat of Frasier, or Everybody Loves Raymond, can easily point out that not all exported intellectual property is automatically a positive influence for the importing nation.

    The Global Marketplace

    Let’s look at the global marketplace America and the rest of us are playing in:

  • Music Composition and Production – Worth $56 billion globally in 2002.
  • Film market worth $14-$17 billion globally in 2002.
  • World market for games and ‘edutainment’/reference software expected to reach $49 billion in 2007.
  • Global television distribution market estimated at $215 billion in 2002.

    Add those four items up and you’ve got a global marketplace of $337 billion. And this list doesn’t include other sectors such as design, performing arts, or books and publishing.

    The creative and technology industries are the key contributors to these huge numbers.

    And when I talk about contributors, I mean you. You are the next generation of people who will take on the challenges of the world, who will build the next generation of artistic and technological endeavour.

    The creative and technology industries are the creators of intellectual property, of ideas and innovation – the greatest export assets Australia can possibly have. Bob Hawke called us the ‘Clever Country’, Kim Beazley gave us ‘Knowledge Nation’, Peter Beatty in Queensland has just announced the banana benders are no more, Queensland is now the ‘Smart State’.

    So how are we looking in Australia?

  • According to the Australia Council, Australia’s exports of cultural goods and services have grown steadily in recent years, to $1776 million. But, it should be pointed out our imports are twice that. Blame Sex in the City and Frasier again.
  • Creative industries add approximately $11 billion to the value of all goods and services in Australia (around 2% of GDP).
  • Only 25,000 Australian businesses export — just 4% of the firms in the country, a proportion slightly ahead of the United States, but below Canada, Spain and Norway.

    All of which tells us two things. Firstly we’re are trying to find a foothold in the global arena; and secondly, there is a quite ludicrous sized potential in the global marketplace for us to expand and grow our creative exports.

    Art and Technology Change Things

    In 1937 Pablo Picasso painted one of his most well known pictures. It’s called Guernica, and it’s named after a town in Spain which was terribly affected by the Spanish Civil War. Guernica is probably modern art’s strongest anti-war statement.

    It’s a very large picture, painted to decorate the Spanish stand at the 1937 Universal Exhibition in Paris – so it was seen by a vast number of people in a very short space of time. It’s been called ‘more of a cartoon than a picture’, because the text is writ so large in the image. It caused great controversy by bringing to the public conscience an important issue of the day.

    Skip forward 70 years, a few months ago bloggers on the Internet forced the resignation of one of America’s most prominent television news readers. CBS news anchor Dan Rather stepped down after bloggers revealed that a series of documents he had broadcast about President George Bush’s military record, were in fact fakes.

    A small group of individuals in their lounge rooms connected to the world via the Internet, did what apparently one of America’s largest media organisations could not – prove that Dan was wrong.

    The impact of technology on our world and society is truly pervasive; likewise the influence of the arts. From Web masters and graphic designers to architects and filmmakers, a new generation of techno-artists is very much in demand.

    There are big issues, and big challenges ahead for you. But you have been equipped with the tools and the knowledge and, I hope, the passion and commitment to employ them.

    If you don’t like something in our world or community, stand up and say so.

    The arts give rise to a myriad of forms of expression, to communicate your message. Technology can both assist to create the message, enables you to tell the whole world instantly.

    At the intersection of art and technology lies one of the most fertile grounds for creative expression, of creating economic prosperity, of redressing the imbalance between the haves and the have nots.

    Together art and technology truly can change the world.

    I wish you all the best as you make your way in the world. Very many congratulations on your graduation, and thank you for the invitation to speak to you today.

  • Click to Start – The Market Stall Arts Economy

    The release of Richard Florida’s book The Rise of the Creative Class has sparked a new wave of public and government awareness of the value of creatives to the broader economy. Florida’s argument is pretty simple: cities which encourage and promote a positive and nurturing atmosphere for creative industries workers reap economic rewards. His latest book, The Flight of the Creative Class, takes America to task for not doing enough, and warns that the creatives will seek a home elsewhere in the world instead, thereby depriving the United States even further.

    I don’t disagree with the fundamental propositions offered by Florida. I enjoy living in Melbourne. I enjoy walking down Acland Street, near my home in St Kilda with my children exclaiming in delight at the massive artworks perched atop the hairdresser. I always encourage the kids to give money to the buskers. On Sundays we browse along the  St Kilda Sunday Market stalls, tasting and testing all manner of home produced goods and artworks.

    And it’s when I’m wandering the markets I realise what I’m seeing – an arts business economy hard at work. Last time I looked, the Australia Council doesn’t hand out grants to run an arts market stall. Or offer a free download on their web site of publications to help an artist research, plan and operate a market stall. Yet the markets are a microcosm of a massive arts economy.

    I’m not going to bother to quote the statistics. We can elocute to the fact Australia’s cultural economy is worth billions of dollars. That it employs hundreds of thousands of people. And that it exports all over the world – even if our imports of cultural product outstrip the exports by two to one.

    The market stalls remind me that an economy which cannot stand on its own two feet is not an economy. No-one in their right mind is going to take the trouble to book and pay for their stall; muster up stock; set the alarm for an ungodly hour on a Sunday morning; and stand in the winter chill on a cold pavement all day while hordes of only sometimes interested people tramp past, touching, prodding and poking the stall holder’s wares – unless it makes economic sense. This isn’t a government funded art-fest. It isn’t art for arts sake. It’s business. It’s a way for the stall holder to earn money to help feed themselves and often their families.

    You cannot bypass business fundamentals. A market stall costs x amount to rent. The goods you sell on the stall cost y in materials to produce. The customers hand over z to purchase the goods. If z is greater than x plus y, then you made a profit. If less, you made a loss. And what on earth would possess someone to continue if it made a loss? Richard Pratt, the cardboard box making, showbiz supporting billionaire was once asked his secret to successful business. His response: earn more than you spend.

    Back in the early 1980s when I finished school I had no idea in the world what I wanted to do. I enrolled in a Bachelor of Arts at Monash University, majoring in English, English, English, oh and more English. Which means I can spell. I got kicked out after first year – probably something to do with a complete lack of work in the last part of the year. Albeit following a promising start, with plenty of distinctions and credits in the first couple of terms.

    Problem is, I was bored shitless. I was in a holding pattern. I was completely uninformed about the world, and uninformed about my choices in the world. I became involved in student theatre, wound up with a job in the campus theatre, and that led to a 12 year career in technical and operations management in theatre and entertainment facilities around the country.

    If I could have my university application all over again, I would apply for an economics course. In retrospect, it’s quite clear to me I would have been a far better arts manager had I completed an economics degree, rather than one in arts management. Today, with nearly ten years under my belt running my own company, it frightens me to look back, and realise how naïve, uninformed and generally ignorant of business I was in my arts management days. Clearly I stumbled through and didn’t fall completely on my face but, I suspect, there are plenty of arts managers out there stumbling along today.

    If I had had an economics degree under my belt, I might have started to ask the questions 20 years ago that I ponder today. Because despite my acceptance of the general Florida mantra, I’m now coming to the conclusion that government grants for the arts – grants given to arts companies and individuals, are a bad thing.

    Grants breed a welfare mentality, of living with the expectation of funding. Long term unemployed, those who have been the recipients of government handouts, are considered amongst the most disadvantaged in our community. Great amounts of time and money is deployed in the quest to return them to the workplace and employment. Yet arts companies, and some artists, have been effectively living on government welfare for decades. Oh, sure, from time to time there are murmurs of ‘reducing their reliance on recurrent funding’, but nobody takes it really seriously. There is a presumption inherent in arts managers that whatever the ebb and flow of trendy management theory amongst government arts agencies, at the end of the day the triennial funding agreement will still come through.

    Grant funding is a vicious, non- productive circle – just like long term reliance on the dole. It ties people into a pre-determined model, instead of exploring alternatives. It’s a bureaucratic, unimaginative way to do business. Each year the Australia Council and sundry state government arts ministries publish their glossy grant round booklets. Each year arts managers and artists pore over the colourful pages, considering how they can manipulate and massage their current visions into the frameworks compiled by a bunch of government employees sitting in their ergonomically designed cubicles.

    Grants cost the applicant time and money. You take time to apply, to wait for a response, to report and acquit. Yet you can’t claim that time and labour as part of the grant application. In many cases, if you perform an ROI (Return on Investment), the cost to service the grant could be larger than the grant itself. It’s a poor economic decision.

    It’s easy to blame a lack of artistic output on a lack of funding support. Yet the funding levels will never substantially change. The arts has been arguing it is under-funded for decades. Apparently the first Australian arts grant was given in the early 1880s – a poet named Michael Robinson was given a couple of government cows for his services as Poet Laureate. Inevitably one can presume two things: Robinson didn’t think two cows was enough, and all his fellow poets thought he had compromised his artistic integrity for taking the cows in the first place. 

    Grants avoid ruthless feedback. Yet acceptance of feedback is a critical skill to survive in life and business. And to improve an artist’s work. Instead the feedback is couched in jargon and comfort words aimed at avoiding confrontation.

    I want to be clear here – I’m talking specifically about application based grant funding. For example, conversely to grants, I believe sponsorship and philanthropic support are outstandingly positive elements. They promote business and community interaction, they are, generally speaking, based on realistic business objectives and ideals, whether it be a major telecommunications company sponsoring the Australian Opera, or the local printer supporting a local theatre company by printing the show’s posters for free.

    Every election, every budget, the arts makes yet more submissions to government. Occasionally incremental increases are found. Some major arts sectors have been on the bust boom cycle for years – the latest are the symphony orchestras, before that the visual arts, before that performing arts companies. Of course it requires an expensive public enquiry conducted by a high profile person (notice how the enquiry heads are invariably high profile BUSINESS people: Helen Nugent, Rupert Myer, James Strong) to find that the enquired-upon arts sector is economically unviable in its present shape/form/composition/funding level/audience size.

    In my more extreme moments I conceive of dumping arts grants altogether. Maybe arts organisations should be made to endure the same economic realities as the Sunday Market stall holders. Perhaps we’re giving the money to the wrong people? Lets instead give it to the audiences – the general public – in the form of rebates for attendance. Instead of ‘Medicare’, why not have ‘Artscare’? Each time a person pays to go to an arts event, they tootle down to the ‘Artscare’ office, fill out a form, and receive a portion of their attendance cost back. We can even have bulk billing for children and seniors.

    A long time ago a well respected arts manager told me mine would be the last generation of arts administrators without university degrees. She was quite right. My problem is whether the training institutions of today are pumping out bright-eyed graduates with the right skills sets? 

    I’ve had reason of late to delve into the world of Cooperative Research Centres, a major Federal government program to support centres of research excellence in conjunction with universities and industry. The quick summary of the CRCs is:

    “The programme emphasises the importance of collaborative arrangements to maximise the benefits of research through an enhanced process of utilisation, commercialisation and technology transfer. It also has a strong education component with a focus on producing graduates with skills relevant to industry needs.

    The CRC Programme was established in 1990 to improve the effectiveness of Australia’s research and development effort. It links researchers with industry to focus R&D efforts on progress towards utilisation and commercialisation. The close interaction between researchers and the users of research is a key feature of the programme. Another feature is industry contribution to CRC education programmes to produce industry-ready graduates.”

    If I had my way, this would be a pretty good philosophy for the universities when turning out arts graduates – of all flavours and disciplines. The tertiary institutions are seen as centres of excellence, producing industry-ready graduates. The institutions’ efforts are focussed on projects and activities which have commercialisation potential, and thus economic potential – entirely consistent with the Florida thesis of using cultural activity to stimulate a community’s economic vitality with creative endeavours and personnel.

    The graduates are encouraged to take the lead, to do it for themselves, to act independently and in a way which is productive to themselves and others through making a cultural contribution to their local economy. Just like a Sunday Market stall holder. Instead of waiting around for a grant application to be approved.

    Click to Start

    Click to Start was a column I wrote for a while on artshub.com.au a few years ago.

     

       

          

          

       

       

          

          

       

       

          

          

       

       

          

          

       

       

          

          

       

       

          

          

       

       

          

          

       

       

          

          

       

       

          

          

       

       

          

          

       

       

          

          

       

       

          

          

       

       

          

          

       

       

          

          

       

       

          

          

       

       

          

          

       

       

          

          

       

       

          

          

       

       
     

     
     

     

     

    > The Need for Speed 20/06/2002
    > The Gift Which Keeps On Giving 4/07/2002
    > How would you like to pay for that? 19/07/2002
    > Lights, Camera, Action 1/08/2002
    > The currency of content 20/02/2003
    > Define or be defined 18/06/2003
    > Tinkering Around With New Technology 7/07/2003
    > Arts Outcomes for Non-Arts Projects 10/08/2003
    > Twenty Years of Shooting Ourselves in the Foot 26/08/2003
    > Slow Thinking Music Dinosaur 30/01/2004
    > Do You Berry? 15/06/2004
    > A Tourniquet on Cultural Endeavour 21/06/2004
    > Campaigning Online 5/07/2004
    > Eventually disaster befalls everyone 13/10/2004
    > Written by the Readers 19/11/2004
    > Never Change Your Phone Number Again 7/03/2005
    > Art and Technology Changes Things 18/05/2005
    > The Market Stall Arts Economy 1/07/2005

    Fragile Technology Chapter Outline

    1. To Err is Human

    2. How it got this way

    3. Reformat That Hard Drive

    4. Not The End of the World – The
    Scary Effects

    5. Going Cheap – The Silly Effects

    6. Upgrades Doomed to Failure

    7. Pushing the Wrong Button –
    Human Error

    8. I Failed Maths at School

    9. Code Crunchers Take a Lunch
    Break

    10. The Stupid and Strange

    11. Try Hard Government

    12. Great Business Blunders

    13. Crashing Satellites – Science and Space

    14. Virtual Money – the world of Finance

    15. Fragile Technology

    Introduction to Fragile Technology

    Fragile Technology is a book about how
    technology, and particularly computerised systems, is made fragile by humans.
    It is not an academic dissertation, but takes a mostly light-hearted look at
    the ways in ways in which technology pervades our lives, our dependency on
    technology, and catalogues some of the consequent susceptibility of our world
    to its failure.

    Fragile Technology takes a somewhat
    fatalistic approach, in part suggesting the pursuit of technological utopia is
    pointless, because the technology was created by a 24 year old computer science
    graduate who had a fight with his girlfriend on the weekend and is nursing a
    hangover from the resulting consoling drinks with his mates.

    Fragile Technology includes many examples
    ranging from the sublime to the frightening. From prisoners in Florida jail
    mistakenly paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, to the quick thinking Russian
    military officer who is credited with averting a nuclear war after identifying
    an incoming American missile attack as being caused by a software glitch.

    Fragile Technology does not set out to
    provide a definitive solution to the woes of our technologically-enhanced
    world. But it does highlight the areas of failure and most common causes.

    Is it any wonder:

    “A startling 52 per cent of us admit to
    having committed a Digital Blunder in our lives, with email the most common
    cause of tech-related embarrassment.”

     

    Or in more formal terms:

    The systems humans create are like nature — they’re complex, unstable and
    unpredictable. Add to that the fact that they’re susceptible to human error and
    malicious actions.”

    “The brittleness of increasingly complex, interconnected systems, leading
    some to question their near-total dependence on them.”

    Or in short:

    “Any technology indistinguishable from
    magic is insufficiently advanced”

     

    Fragile Technology is about the inherent
    weaknesses in today’s technology – and the technology of tomorrow. Our society,
    and our world, rely on a complex environment of inter-connecting systems, the
    chaos theory to the ultimate degree. A action in one country, leads to failure
    in another otherwise unrelated location. One person’s screw-up can bring down a
    company or a government. And presiding over the decisions which crucially
    affect how technology works is inevitably someone who has absolutely no idea
    how it works, or understanding of how their choices will impact the future.

    Self-interest, ignorance, corruption and
    incompetence dominate decisions; and systems fail and people die as a result. A
    programmer takes a lunchbreak and half the

    United States

    is without
    electricity. A computer glitch freezes trading on one of the busiest days for
    the London Stock Exchange. A Philipino woman wins a million dollars on a television
    game show because a technician plugs the wrong cable into the wrong computer
    screen.

    An electricity
    supply dip to a pharmacutical company’s datacentre results in 4,700 patients
    being given either the wrong medicine or incorrect dosage instructions. A
    ambulance dispatch management system which ‘appeared
    to ignore the basic tenets for software
    ’ fails for 36 hours and is blamed
    for ten to twenty deaths.

    From the sublime, to the ridiculous, to
    the gut wrenchingly terrifying calamity of accidental nuclear annihilation, our
    entire lives are controlled, managed, serviced and supplied by technology which
    99.999% of the population has absolutely no understanding of. We blindly
    subvert ourselves to electronic systems, which, literally in some cases, keep
    us alive. Yet how many people know how to turn on call waiting? The old joke of
    asking an eight year old to program the video recorder has worn thin – because
    we were making it 30 years ago, and still are today.

    Our collective community comprehension of
    the technology which governs our lives has not advanced one iota. Yet the
    technology has become more pervasive, more endemic – and more in control.

    Alright, I’m a slacker

    Clearly I fall into the category of a complete slacker. I blogged for a year or two, then lost the plot and gave it away.

    I’ve re-invigorated the blog as a starting point for a broader web
    site covering a number of areas of interest to me, including Fragile
    Technology, some of my more geeky programming work, and as a place in
    general for ideas, writing, bits and pieces. We’ll see how long it
    lasts.

    Fragile Technology

    Fragile Technology was an idea of mine a year or two ago, mostly around a book proposal I worked up one holidays. I wrote a sample chapter and a chapter outline, and talked to a couple of publishers who expressed interest – but with re-writes. And that’s when everything ground to a halt because as is so often the case a) I was incredibly busy and had no time; b) I probably had moved on to some other pet project.

    > Introduction to the Fragile Technology Idea

    > Chapter Outline

    > Sample Chapter

    Copyright Holders Cash In

    Oh boy, yay for the land of the free – or not so free. A couple of online newsletter publishers, not unlike Arts Hub, have won mega million $ settlements against companies who were copying and redistributing newsletters without paying the subscription fees.


    http://www.fortune.com/fortune/articles/0,15114,1088090,00.html?promoid=rss


    “The suits are the progeny of a shocking verdict that a Baltimore federal jury handed down in October 2003, ordering its hometown brokerage firm, Legg Mason, to fork over $19.7 million for willful copyright infringement in a suit brought by a six-employee, Florida-based stock market newsletter called Lowry’s Reports. (Subscription price: $700 per year.) Legg Mason appealed, but settled the case in June 2005, paying Lowry’s between $11 million and $12 million according to its SEC filings.”

    Occasional cool moments online

    There are occasional moments when something online seems extra cool.
    You may have noticed NASA has launched a space shuttle for the first
    time in a couple of years, since the last shuttle flight ended in
    catastrophe. NASA’s making a big deal of this mission – and part of it
    includes a 24/7 live feed, with audio and video, from the space shuttle.

    http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html.
    They must have a web cam mounted on the shuttle, aimed at the earth,
    because you can watch the earth moving past below as the shuttle orbits
    around the world. The budget seems not to have run as far as a colour
    web cam, but even in black and white it’s still a remarkable sight.

    And you can listen to the shuttle crew and mission control back on
    the ground going about their business, along with occasional voiceovers
    from the official NASA mission spokesperson, who tells you about what’s
    going on (which basically means translating a pile of acronyms into
    plain English!).