Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 197
Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity 8 Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices Support for information technology and creative practices (ITCP) comes from many sources and is difficult to measure. Several questions complicate a full understanding of ITCP funding: What are the boundaries for such work? (What is an “information technology and creative practice” expenditure? What is not?) Where—in market-based and non-market activities—does ITCP take place? How much of what is spent on ITCP work lies embedded within (and may be difficult to disentangle from) more conventional forms of information technology (IT), the arts, or design activities or programs? What commercial organizations support ITCP as part of the way they do business? What commercial organizations support ITCP in other ways and for other reasons? What governmental and other non-profit organizations support ITCP work? Where does one look for such support? All but the last of these questions are the focus of previous chapters, which provide the context for this one. Chapters 2 and 5 sketch the rise of commercial ITCP—and implicitly the rise of commercial funding for ITCP—through new approaches to design (e.g., industrial design, architecture), targeted corporate engagement of artists (e.g., artist-in-residence programs), and new kinds of products and processes in industries that produce creative content (e.g., video games, animated film, music).1 Because commercial activity spans only a 1 One can observe (relative to the overall state of the economy) healthy and even growing industrial bases for these activities, but existing data on revenues or even employment in these areas do not allow easy inferences as to how much was spent on developing and applying ITCP. Detailed economic analysis was beyond the scope of this project.
OCR for page 198
Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity portion of ITCP,2 commercial resources are not sufficient to sustain ITCP, to make the most of its potential, or to broaden access to its benefits. Further, commercial activity is not evenly distributed. For example, the market for computer music is much smaller than that for computer graphics, which itself is skewed toward entertainment products. As in other arenas, non-market resources can often be invaluable in exploring areas where a market has yet to be or cannot be established. Also, there are non-market, public policy reasons for supporting ITCP activity, or the infrastructure for such activity, as discussed in Chapter 1. This chapter focuses on non-commercial—government and philanthropic—funding for ITCP because (1) it is linked to the most exploratory and least mission-constrained activity;3 (2) in the context of academic institutions, in particular, it is linked to education and human capacity building, which benefits activity across sectors; (3) it is most likely to sustain the non- and pre-institutionalized activities that have been significant in early ITCP and are associated with a significant component of the arts; and (4) it is associated with a broader set of public-interest objectives than commercial funding (which tends to be linked to production and distribution of a product). Inasmuch as commercial activities are synergistic with those in non-profit contexts, spending on ITCP in any one arena may be leveraged elsewhere. Although government and philanthropic funding for ITCP has a broader scope than funding linked to creating and distributing commercial products, it comes with a range of conditions. Its effectiveness increases to the extent that funds-seekers can “see” ITCP through the strings on a given pool of funds and decreases to the extent that funds-seekers see those strings as constraints on their creativity.4 Committee member attitudes ranged from seeing no substitute for resources they could use at their discretion to accepting pragmatically the strings that would link activities in ITCP to funders’ interests as well as their own.5 The funding challenge lies in ensuring that practitioners and funders have enough common interests to nurture a vigorous spec 2 There are important differences between “art” and “craft,” and commercial funding generally applies to “craft.” 3 An analogy can be made to fundamental research for information technology: IT research and development overall is spread across commercial and educational (nonprofit) organizations. Almost all of the commercial activity supports development of products, while the most exploratory work—fundamental research—is associated with government-funded activity in universities. See Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National Research Council, 2000, Making IT Better: Expanding Information Technology Research to Meet Society’s Needs, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 4 Artists have their own vision and agenda, which often does not coincide with what someone else wants or needs to have made at a given point in time. These realities put artistic creativity at odds with conventional market forces. See Richard E. Caves, 2000, Creative Industries: Contracts Between Art and Commerce, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 5 Their positions varied with the degree to which they saw themselves as artists, and among the artists, the degree to which they favor a conception of art as self-expression, versus more collaborative or socially shaped conceptions of art.
OCR for page 199
Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity trum of ITCP activities via their combination of creative effort and wherewithal. The committee hopes that this report will encourage more funders to understand the value of ITCP and, given their starting point, either become more open to funding relevant activity (i.e., generation of ITCP work; its display, performance, or preservation; corresponding education, training, or physical infrastructure) or more informed in allocating the resources they can provide. FUNDING IN THE UNITED STATES The committee believes that the United States lags other countries (see the section “Funding in the International Context”) in financial support for ITCP. This is a judgment,6 based on member familiarity with initiatives and programs in different countries (which are often seen as the leading venues for producing or displaying ITCP—see, for example, descriptions of ZKM, Ars Electronica, and so on in Chapter 5); the existence of larger and more sustained public support programs for the arts abroad (notably in developed nations), which are comparatively open to ITCP; and the observation that information technology research programs have provided limited and largely incidental support to date. There are no consistent data that support a precise analysis of relevant funding in the United States, let alone across countries.7 Major foreign-based activities that focus on ITCP appear to be components of national or regional leadership strategies abroad (often seen as competitive responses to U.S. technical leadership).8 Against this backdrop, the United States can leverage early efforts worldwide—which have helped to demonstrate the ITCP potential and experimented with different approaches to nurturing ITCP—to foster new activities that can elicit and sustain ITCP. Those activities can draw from the substantial base of computer science research support in the United States, a differentiator of the U.S. potential in many respects, to support the hybrid character of ITCP through more stable, focused funding. This is likely to occur naturally through the evolution of funding patterns for both the advance of computer science and 6 A comprehensive quantitative analysis of spending trends was beyond the scope of the committee, and available data are not necessarily comparable across nations (a common problem in international comparisons that is aggravated in this instance by the role of tax-policy-induced private spending relative to direct public spending). 7 U.S. data, for example, tend to aggregate relevant activity together with other, more conventional kinds. This problem is typical of economic measurements when new activities arise, often at levels that are too small to measure using conventional survey mechanisms. 8 One illustration is Europrix, representing “selection and promotion of Europe’s best in multimedia” (see <http://www.europrix.org>); various national initiatives, such as the establishment of ZKM (see Chapter 5), also have this character. The committee believes that the United States lags other countries in financial support for ITCP.
OCR for page 200
Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity Typical arts grants are in the low five figures; typical computer science grants are in the six figures. the advance of the arts and design, but it can also occur through the express initiation of focused programs and initiatives, which the committee believes it is time to forge. The latter is more direct, but it may be difficult to obtain government support at a time when research programs seem to be reorienting to respond to homeland security, while private philanthropy is constrained by smaller endowments, a consequence of the decline in the stock market in the 2000-2002 period. SOURCES OF FUNDS Absent detailed data specific to ITCP,9 the funding potential for ITCP can be appreciated by examining the historic bases of funding for work in the arts, computer science, and other elements of IT R&D.10 Arts funding is dwarfed by the funding for computer science and other IT-relevant research—as one committee member put it, there is “mysticism and longing on the part of artists when it comes to scientific funding.” Typical arts grants are in the low five figures (using data sets that begin at the $10,000 level); typical computer science grants are in the six figures. In the aggregate, federal appropriations to cultural agencies and organizations are comparable in magnitude to federal support for computer science research, but only a small fraction of the former supports the equivalent of research—the generation of new expression. Arts funding often focuses on display, performance, education, facilities, and other dimensions of public access— and accordingly is most likely to go to organizations rather than artists. By contrast, IT research funding is more often awarded to individuals (principal investigators) or groups of individuals. Relative funding potential also reflects this apparent rationale: Quality-of-life concerns such as widened access to cultural artifacts seem to motivate arts funding, whereas funding for technical research is motivated by a larger set of economic, social, and governmental concerns that together have resulted in higher levels of funding.11 Recent efforts to 9 The relative paucity of data on the humanities—funding or otherwise—is a wellknown phenomenon. See, for example, Robert M. Solow, 2002, “Let’s Quantify the Humanities,” Chronicle of Higher Education, April 19, p. B20. 10 Inasmuch as ITCP may embrace other forms of science and engineering (e.g., biology, mechanical engineering), other categories of research funding may also be relevant. 11 According to Heilbrun and Gray, “Most analysts who favor public subsidies for the arts place a very high value on the objective of improving access for all the people. Because it is rooted in the U.S. egalitarian ethic, that position also enjoys wide political support. . . . Survey evidence from Australia and Canada indicates that the general public does believe the arts produce external benefits and is willing to make substantial tax payments to support them.” See James Heilbrun and Charles M. Gray, 2001, The Economics of Art and Culture, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., p. 243 and p. 250. Funding a Revolution: Government Support for Computing Research, (Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National Research Council, 1999, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.) describes the rise of funding for computer science research and the co-evolution of government, industry, and academic interests and activities over the second half of the 20th century.
OCR for page 201
Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity strengthen the linkage of the arts to economic benefits may motivate greater funding12—but doing so causes unease among some artists who worry about the implications of suggesting that art must be instrumental. Much as in basic research in the sciences, the idea of experimentation and research in the arts as contributing to human understanding is often slighted when criteria are reduced to quantifiable return on economic investment. Of course, market support for ITCP—through design and other product-related activities—does nurture creativity in the context of some organizational objectives. State and local governments, given their different emphases, and greater focus on quality of life (extending to economic development as well as elements of culture) relative to the federal government, are significant funders of the arts,13 spending an order of magnitude more than the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).14 But they do not (with a few exceptions) fund computer science (or other) research. State arts agency spending varies considerably, ranging in 2002 from a high of $4.26 per capita (Hawaii) to a low of $0.28 per capita (Texas); eight states spent at least $15 million annually and nine less than $1 million.15 In 2000, “media arts” accounted for 3 percent of state spending; the largest shares went to music (18 percent) and theater (14 percent). About 0.03 percent of state arts agency grants went to individual artists in 2000 (48 percent of those dollars were for the visual arts). Individual activities supported included fellowships (which constituted about half of the activities), residencies, artwork creation (about one-eighth of the activities), apprenticeships, and performance.16 12 See, for example, National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, 2002, “The Arts in Public Policy: An Advocacy Agenda,” The NASAA Advocate: Strategies for Building Arts Support VI: 1. Available online at <http://www.nasaa-arts.org>. 13 By the mid-1970s, each state had an arts council. For an overview of the state of knowledge about state-level activities, pointing to ongoing research, see J. Mark Schuster, 2002, “Sub-National Cultural Policy—Where the Action Is? Mapping State Cultural Policy in the United States,” working paper of the Cultural Policy Center at the University of Chicago, January. Available online at <http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/workingpapers/Schuster9.pdf>. 14 See Schuster, 2002, “Sub-National Cultural Policy,” p. 9. Note that the aggregate state legislature arts appropriations have exceeded federal arts appropriations since 1985. See National Endowment for the Arts and National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, 2002, “State Arts Agency Funding and Grant Making,” National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, Washington, D.C., February. 15 National Endowment for the Arts and National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, 2002, “State Arts Agency Funding and Grant Making.” 16 In 1999, “state legislatures appropriated about $400 million in funding for the arts, while local governments spent in excess of $800 million.” See National Endowment for the Arts, Center for Arts and Culture, 2001, America’s Cultural Capital: Recommendations for Structuring the Federal Role, Art, Culture, and National Agenda series, Center for the Arts and Culture, Washington, D.C. Available online at <http://www.culturalpolicy.org/pdf/acc.pdf>. The National Assembly of State Arts Agencies has released statistical information on state spending for the arts that shows that “after nearly a decade of robust growth, legislative appropriations for state arts agencies (SSAs) contracted slightly
OCR for page 202
Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity Public arts support in the United States is quite decentralized. Private philanthropy also favors spending on the arts over computer science research. These conditions make public arts support in the United States quite decentralized, while also drawing a sharp contrast with public support for fundamental computer science research, in which the federal government plays a dominant role. Nevertheless, the rise of ITCP presents the prospect of including more arts-like activity as research, more research-like activity as art, and new mixes of funders for new portfolios of activity. Insight into ITCP may lead traditional arts funders to support it more and also may expand the availability of resources for technical research. Federal Funding for the Arts—The National Endowments Most of the federal government’s art spending—which exceeded $1.5 billion in 2001—supports major national organizations, which in turn award funding to other organizations and artists and cover their own operating costs. Major national organizations include the NEA (and its organizational sister, the National Endowment for the Humanities), the Commission on Fine Arts, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the National Gallery of Art, the Smithsonian Institution,17 and the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.18 Federal funding for the arts also comes from a range of programs distributed among a remarkable range of federal agencies.19 Federal arts funding emphasizes public presentation (e.g., performances and displays) and education; accordingly, funding for major federal arts institutions (e.g., the Smithsonian) dominates federal funding. in fiscal year 2002 as both the national economy and state budgets softened. In fiscal year 2002, appropriations dropped from $446.8 million to $419.7 million. This marks the first time in six years that aggregate appropriations fell. However, appropriation declines of $21 million in California and $5 million in New York account for half of nearly all of this decrease. When they are removed from total appropriations, the aggregate remains flat at zero percent change.” As discussed in Chapter 6, state programs (e.g., in New York and California) have provided some support for computer science research, including research with links to the arts and activities that fall under the ITCP umbrella. 17 In 2001, the Office of Management and Budget proposed transferring Smithsonian research funds to the National Science Foundation (NSF) as a means of consolidating science research. Under such an arrangement, Smithsonian staff would apply for NSF grants. Reports from the National Research Council and the National Academy of Public Administration opposed such a proposal. See <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/02/politics/02SMIT.html>. 18 State and local funding adds about 50 percent more to the federal contribution; see National Endowment for the Arts, Center for the Arts and Culture, 2001, America’s Cultural Capital. 19 The National Endowment for the Arts Web site provides links (<http://www.arts.gov:591/federal-opportunities02/b-federal.html>) to arts funding programs at widely diverse federal agencies ranging from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the Department of Agriculture, in addition to the agencies that one expects, such as the National Endowment for the Humanities.
OCR for page 203
Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity The NEA stands out as the largest single public funder of the nonprofit arts. Its FY 2002 appropriation from the U.S. Congress was slightly over $115 million, which represented an increase of more than $10 million from the year before.20 The NEA divides its grants into several broad categories, including grants to organizations, partnership agreements, leadership initiatives, and fellowships21 (which award grants to individual artists). Typically, grant amounts range from $5,000 to $100,000,22 with some requiring “at least a 1-to-1 match in non-federal funds.” Examples of funded projects within these categories include, among other things, dance and theatrical performances, exhibitions, workshops, festivals, apprenticeships, master classes, educational activities for children, and “innovative uses of technology that make the arts more widely available.”23 Despite the NEA’s important role in administering federal support for the non-profit arts and the significant impact that it has had on American cultural life since its creation in 1965, there are some limits on its usefulness with respect to promoting ITCP. For example, more than 40 percent of the NEA’s 2001 budget went to state and regional arts agencies24—organizations that tend to fund primarily traditional genres of art (e.g., dance, theater, visual arts, and so on) and to emphasize display, education, and performance. Continuing resource demands of traditional activities reinforce the absolute constraint of a limited budget. The same legislation that created the NEA also created the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).25 The NEH budget over the last few years has been slightly higher than that of the NEA at a 20 It had been slashed by more than 40 percent for FY 1996 in the wake of a great deal of political and cultural controversy. NEA’s budget exceeded $150 million per year in the early 1990s, until it was cut radically for FY 1996, remaining fairly static for the next few years. For specific appropriations data, see <http://www.nea.gov/learn/Facts/ApprHist.pdf>. 21 These are the NEA’s only programs that still award funds to individuals: Literature Fellowships, American Jazz Masters Fellowships, and National Heritage Fellowships. Grants range from $10,000 to $20,000 and are not open to applications; rather, these awards are based on nominations from the arts community and the public. In the aggregate, these programs represent approximately $1 million of NEA’s annual budget. 22 A listing of NEA grant awards since 1995 can be found online at <http://arts.endow.gov/learn/Facts/Contents.html>. 23 From <http://arts.endow.gov/learn/NEAGuide/GTO.html>. An example of the technology awards is the $62,000 grant awarded in 2001 to the Deaf West Theatre Company in California. The grant was awarded to support the design of a backstage communication system for deaf and hard-of-hearing technicians, to install a computerized control board for technical effects, and to develop lighting mechanisms that automatically focus on signing interpreters or actors. The project also hopes to train deaf technicians for jobs in the theater and to enhance the theater experience for deaf audiences. For more information, see <http://www.deafwest.org/>. 24 National Endowment for the Arts, [undated], “NEA Fact Sheet: NEA at a Glance— 2001.” Available online at <http://www.nea.gov/learn/Facts/NEA.html>. 25 The National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-209).
OCR for page 204
Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity little over $120 million,26 although the amount has remained fairly static. The NEH provides grants for humanities projects in four areas: preserving and providing access to cultural resources; education; research; and public programs. NEH grants typically go to cultural institutions such as museums, archives, libraries, colleges, universities, public television and radio stations, and (unlike those of the NEA) individual scholars who apply for funds. Thus, the NEH may support ITCP in the context of creative writing and literature, for example. Indirect Public Funding for the Arts According to Michael Kammen, the United States set the precedent for making charitable donations to arts organizations (as well as other non-profits) tax deductible:27 [In 1917, the United States] became the first nation to allow tax deductions for cultural gifts to museums and nonprofit cultural organizations. The pertinent legislation has been altered several times since, sometimes in ways that seem inconsistent to the point of being bizarre, but the operative principle has been an immense boon to cultural institutions. Moreover, the principle has become increasingly attractive to European countries during the past decade or so.29 The amount of support generated for the arts through tax incentives is generally not included in statistics on government funding for the arts, for, as a previously cited paper points out, “foregone revenues” are “notoriously difficult to measure precisely.”30 Nevertheless, that paper reports that according to “the best estimates, indi 26 National Endowment for the Humanities, 2002, “Summary of Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Request.” Available online at <http://www.neh.gov/whoweare/2003budget.html>. 27 “[W]hat happens under U.S. tax law is that the donor’s tax liability is reduced by an amount equal to the donation multiplied by the tax rate in that person’s marginal tax bracket. The higher the individual’s marginal tax rate, the greater the tax reduction per dollar given away, hence the less the cost of the gift to the donor . . . . The amount of tax saved by the individual is also the amount of revenue lost by the government on account of the charitable deduction. It is this lost revenue that constitutes the indirect support given by government to the nonprofit sector.” See Heilbrun and Gray, 2001, The Economics of Art and Culture, p. 257. 28 For example, the Revenue Act of 1917, the Estate Tax Law of 1921, the Gift Tax Act of 1932, and so on. Note that in recent years changes in estate taxes have been contemplated that could jeopardize the incentive for charitable giving of all kinds. 29 Michael Kammen, 1996, “Culture and the State in America,” The Journal of American History 83(3): 791-814. 30 Bruce A. Seaman, 2002, “National Investment in the Arts,” Art, Culture, and the National Agenda Issue Paper #6, Center for the Arts and Culture, Washington, D.C., p. 22. Available online at <http://www.culturalpolicy.org/pdf/investment.pdf>.
OCR for page 205
Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity vidual donors, foundations, and corporations gave more than $10 billion to arts, cultural, and humanities organizations in 1999,”31 approximately five times the level of direct federal support.32 This is a highly decentralized mechanism, extending to employer matching programs33 and private individual largesse. Organizations may benefit more than individuals, inasmuch as organizations may be better positioned to handle the administrative aspects associated with tax-exempt status—but some of those institutions, in turn, fund individual artists. Funding by Private Philanthropy Funding for artistic endeavors is available from individuals, foundations large and small, and corporations—in that order34 and all shaped by tax policy.35 In addition to conventional arts support from corporations, there is at least some corporate support specifically for ITCP in academia. For example, the Media Lab at MIT receives about 80 percent of its funding from corporations, which provide support as members of a consortium that shares interests in any intellectual property arising from the Media Lab’s activities. The Media Lab appears to be unique in its draw—and dependence—on corporate philanthropy to support ITCP;36 other academic programs (and individuals) associated with the arts receive targeted support from corporations, which is 31 Center for the Arts and Culture, 2001, America’s Cultural Capital, p. 4. 32 Another analysis, examining data through 1998, suggested that private giving provides about 40 percent of arts and culture organizations’ revenue. See Loren Renz, 2002, “The Foundation Center’s 2002 Arts Funding Update,” Foundation Center, New York, N.Y. Available online at <http://www.fdncenter.org>. 33 For example, Texas Instruments, through its foundation, encourages and matches tax-deductible gifts in support of the arts and culture: “The Texas Instruments Foundation Arts and Cultural Matching Gift Program was established in 1979 to encourage Texas Instruments employees, retirees, and directors to contribute to the arts. It provides an effective way of assisting you in contributing to the quality of community life. Dollars you contribute to qualified organizations you wish to support will be matched by the Foundation on a dollar-for-dollar basis. The Foundation will match, one for one, each eligible tax-deductible contribution of at least $50. The total maximum per individual donor that will be matched is $10,000 per calendar year (January 1 through December 31). . . . Our cultural organizations are a vital part of the quality of life in our communities. Such organizations depend on private support to flourish. We are pleased through this matching gift program to join you in helping to strengthen cultural life.” See <http://www.tialumni.org/tiaa/2000%20TI-26453%20Arts%20%20Culture%20MGP%20form.pdf>. 34 Renz, 2002, “The Foundation Center’s 2002 Arts Funding Update.” 35 See Heilbrun and Gray, 2001, The Economics of Art and Culture. 36 There is the question of whether the corporate support provided to the Media Lab is motivated primarily by intellectual property concerns, in which case the funding might be better construed as investments rather than as philanthropy, or is motivated by a larger rationale for support of academic research (which includes utilitarian motivations such as access to students and graduates), in which case philanthropy might be an appropriate characterization.
OCR for page 206
Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity The economic downturn of 2001-2002 appears to have constrained available resources, shrinking endowments and diminishing capacity for personal philanthropy. often linked to their interests in developing or exercising products. As another example, faculty at the California Institute of the Arts were involved for many years with Yamaha in the development of digital musical instruments, especially the piano, as a result of Yamaha’s expectation that meeting the artistic needs of those musicians would result in a better commercial product. University of California at Los Angeles artist Bill Seaman’s work on a “hybrid invention generator” is supported by a grant from the Intel Corporation. And as noted in Chapter 2, Ben Rubin at the Brooklyn Academy of Music benefited from Lucent Technologies and Rockefeller Foundation sponsorship for a collaborative project. Within private philanthropy, data are most readily available for foundation activities. Grant support in 2000 was on the order of $3.7 billion for the arts, culture, media, and the humanities, a doubling of funding since 1996.37 This growth was the result of a combination of factors, including a healthy economy, an increase in the number of new foundations, and significant increases in investments by major funders. Consequently, private foundations’ share of all private giving to the arts increased from less than 30 percent to about 35 percent.38 The economic downturn of 2001-2002, compounded by extraordinary demands for resources arising from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, appears to have constrained available resources, shrinking endowments and programs among established foundations and diminishing capacity for personal philanthropy.39 As one might guess, the allocation of grant dollars is concentrated in particular areas of the United States. In a 1998 study conducted by the Foundation Center, five states—New York, California, Texas, Minnesota, and Michigan—and the District of Columbia received about 54 percent of art dollars and 52 percent of grants.40 The same report showed a decrease in the share of grant dollars controlled by the top 50 recipients, which declined from 32.1 percent (or 7.9 percent of all arts grants) in 1992 to 28.5 percent (or 7.7 percent of all arts grants) in 37 “The nation’s nearly 56,600 grant-making foundations provided an estimated $3.69 billion for arts, culture, media, and the humanities in 2000, more than double the $1.83 billion estimated for 1996” (Renz, 2002, “The Foundation Center’s 2002 Arts Funding Update,” p. 1). Note that this $3.69 billion figure is compatible with the $10 billion figure cited earlier: The former represents grants awarded; the latter, total giving. 38 Renz, 2002, “The Foundation Center’s 2002 Arts Foundation Update,” p. 1. 39 For example, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation announced that it will no longer focus on arts and non-profit effectiveness, consolidating its activities in other areas after its endowment shrank from $13 billion in 1999 to $3.8 billion in mid-2002. See Jon Boudreau, “Packard Foundation Facing Cutbacks,” September 19, 2002, available online at <http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/4112039.htm>. 40 Loren Renz and Steven Lawrence, 1998, Arts Funding: An Update on Foundation Trends, Third Ed., Foundation Center, New York, in cooperation with Grantmakers in the Arts, Seattle, p. 22.
OCR for page 207
Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity 1996.41 The size of awards has also changed, with the number of smaller grants ($10,000 to $49,999) decreasing and mid-sized grants ($50,000 to $499,999) increasing, each by about 1 percent a year since 1996, with larger grants ($500,000+) remaining stable.42 The median size of arts grants in 1999 was $25,000, the same as in 1992 and 1996 but slightly lower than the median amount for all foundation grants, which was $25,361.43 Funding distribution by category in 2000 found the performing arts receiving 32.2 percent of arts-grants dollars, followed by museum activities (29.1 percent), media and communication (9.9 percent), and cross-disciplinary arts (8.8 percent).44 Foundations seem particularly interested in the role and expression of culture,45 which seems less explicit in many of the government programs and has become more complex as a result of globalization and multiculturalism. These trends have required foundations to develop a broader understanding of the needs of arts groups and artists through more proactive consultations, seeking advice from the key figures from artistic domains, and prompting an increased reliance on research.46 The resulting insights have led many foundations to experiment with new funding models, including venture capital; one-time endowments to start-up arts and cultural non-profits; and large, one-time grants. For example, the Ford Foundation’s Education, Media, Arts and Culture program recently initiated the New Directions/ New Donors for the Arts program, committing $42.5 million in challenge grants to 28 arts and cultural institutions and nearly quadrupling the foundation’s annual arts appropriations.47 Foundation grants seem to be a significant source of support for generating, as well as providing access to, works of art, often emphasizing the value of art and cultural activities in building and strengthening communities. The AT&T Foundation, for example, emphasizes support for projects that “promote artistic expression or create net 41 “The disproportionate concentration of support among a relatively few recipients characterizes foundation funding in many fields. In 1996, the top 25 health recipients accounted for 29.4 percent of all health grants dollars, while the top 25 education recipients benefited from 22.3 percent of foundations’ education dollars” (Renz and Lawrence, 1998, Arts Funding, p. 9). 42 A Snapshot: Foundation Grants to Arts and Culture, 1999, Grantmakers in the Arts, Seattle, Wash. 43 A Snapshot: Foundation Grants to Arts and Culture, 1999, Grantmakers in the Arts, Seattle, Wash., p. 4. 44 Renz, 2002, “The Foundation Center’s 2002 Arts Funding Update,” p. 2. 45 Arts and culture have been the fourth largest foundation funding priority since the mid-1980s; the first three are education, health, and human services. See Renz, 2002, “The Foundation Center’s 2002 Arts Funding Update.” 46 Loren Renz and Steven Lawrence, 1999, Arts Funding 2000, Foundation Center, New York, in cooperation with Grantmakers in the Arts, Seattle. 47 The program seeks to “link prosperity to creativity” by “offering opportunities for artists to work in new directions and play innovative roles in their communities.” Grantees are encouraged to share best practices with each other and the arts community at large.
OCR for page 224
Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity ing: Does the proposed project have a particular urgency? Is it addressing an important need? Can it produce concrete results in a reasonable time frame? Will it enable us to explore new partnerships with other foundations or with public or private funders? If it carries a significant risk of failure, is there also the possibility of unusually high social return if it succeeds? During 2001 the fund issued more than $34 million to cover 20 grants. Since its inception, the fund has provided several grants to organizations associated with information technology and creativity. For example, it joined the Rockefeller Foundation in providing support to the American Assembly’s Art, Technology and Intellectual Property (ATIP) project addressing the impacts, challenges, and opportunities resulting from technological advances that are confronting the arts.75 Informed analysis of the related issues will require increased evidence gathering and analytical resources for the arts and humanities.76 Relatively few economists, social scientists, or policy analysts engage in policy research related to the arts and humanities (as compared to other domains), in part because of ambivalence in the United States about the public role in this space.77 The empirical base for supporting policy analysis is weak, and the academic and practitioner wings of the community are largely strangers. Interaction among policy makers, practitioners, and policy scholars is much richer in other fields of public policy.78 In addition to building a knowledge base in this area, public policy analysts could build relationships and understanding with key intermediaries, such as journalists, commentators, think tank researchers, and political party representatives. Policy attention to these issues is consistent with the long-run shift of the economy toward services, some of which focus on cultural products and content generally, and enduring concern about the quality of life and creativity in general. Finally, and complementary to developing better data, a digital art and culture history project would provide valuable context 75 See <http://www.pewtrusts.com> and <http://www.americanassembly.org/ac>. 76 See Ruth Ann Stewart and Catherine C. Galley, 2002, “The Research and Information Infrastructure for Cultural Policy: A Consideration of Models for the United States,” appendix in J. Mark Schuster, Informing Cultural Policy: The Research and Information Infrastructure, Rutgers Center for Urban Policy Research, Center for Urban Policy Research Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey. 77 A consortium of foundations moved to address this practical problem by under-writing the Center for Art and Culture (see <http://www.culturalpolicy.org/issuepages/infotemplate.cfm?page=History>). The Pew Charitable Trusts made news by voicing concerns about “cultural policy,” which is more controversial in the United States than in many other countries. Its initiative “Optimizing America’s Cultural Policies” announced in 1999 was renamed “Optimizing America’s Cultural Resources” in response to the ensuing controversy over the appropriateness of this kind of policy. See Schuster, 2002, Informing Cultural Policy. 78 See Margaret Jane Wyszomirski, 1995, “Policy Communities and Policy Influence: Securing a Government Role in Cultural Policy for the Twenty-First Century,” Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 25(3): 192-205. Relatively few economists, social scientists, or policy analysts engage in policy research related to the arts and humanities. The empirical base for supporting policy analysis is weak.
OCR for page 225
Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity and serve as an educational tool for policy makers, educational institutions, and people interested in engaging in ITCP.79 FUNDING IN THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT Internationally, a variety of ITCP funding models have evolved. Examples are presented here both to illustrate the diversity of approaches and to draw contrasts between the United States and other countries. As noted earlier, a nation’s cultural policies influence funding for art and design activities. A case could be made that a stronger central intervention (e.g., the creation of a ministry of culture, as in France) can have positive effects, either to get new ITCP initiatives going, or at least jump started, and/or to help establish an infrastructure. (Funding sources may be reluctant to pay for an infrastructure until there is a demonstrated need for it; but the need may not materialize until the infrastructure is in place.) However, a case could equally be made that decentralized funding fosters initiatives that rise from the bottom up and thus are more likely to lead to the development of ideas and projects that reflect leading-edge work in ITCP. PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR THE ARTS Worldwide, funding for the arts has a long history80 that has been far from uniform across time or space. Indeed, looking primarily at European countries, one is likely to form the opinion that direct government support for the arts is a long-standing and widespread practice. Looking at other countries such as the United States or Japan, however, one might just as easily conclude that national governments leave support for the arts primarily to private (commercial or non-profit) or local organizations. Kevin Mulcahy81 provides a succinct 79 For further discussion, see Kevin F. McCarthy and Elizabeth Heneghan Ondaatje, 2002, From Celluloid to Cyberspace: The Media Arts and the Changing Arts World, RAND, Santa Monica, Calif. 80 Public support for the arts among the nations of the world is almost as old as civilization itself. Indeed, examples of such support in even the distant past are fairly easy to find; one need only consult an art history or world history text to find numerous instances. Pisistratus (605?–527 B.C.), for instance, although known as the “tyrant of Athens,” is also remembered as a patron of the arts. He arranged city-state support for a range of artistic activities, including building projects, poetry, sculpture, dance, and music. He is also credited with starting public arts festivals that were open to all citizens in an effort to enhance the cultural prestige of Athens. 81 See Kevin V. Mulcahy, 1998, “Cultural Patronage in Comparative Perspective: Public Support for the Arts in France, Germany, Norway, and Canada,” Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society 27(4): 247-264.
OCR for page 226
Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity description of the perceived differences in how Europe and the United States, in particular, have dealt with public arts support historically: The conventional wisdom of much discourse about public support of the arts is that European national governments are long-time, generous, and uncritical benefactors of culture, whereas the U.S. government, by invidious comparison, has been a reluctant supporter, of decreasing generosity and with increasingly dispiriting criticism. But broad generalizations about comparative public policies often disguise substantial exceptions.82 The developing nations present another, much more resource-constrained picture, but as with economically stronger nations they, too, support—or receive support from such non-governmental organizations as foundations for—the arts in the context of cultural heritage and competitive advantage. In developing nations, the traditions of art and aesthetics have developed high degrees of sophistication whose potential for interaction with IT has barely been explored. Information technology, when combined with the arts and crafts in these countries, can accelerate economic and human development. This can take simple forms, such as the use of IT to create markets for the creative output of the populations in these nations. It can also take the form of inspiration for new designs rooted in the aesthetics and traditions of the local culture.83 Both could leverage financial support, to the extent it is available. See Box 8.5. France has a long and rich tradition of public support for arts and culture, dating back at least to the Capet monarchy (c. 987). The French government is among the world’s largest funders of art and culture, administered primarily through the Ministry of Culture and Communication.84 Created in 1959, the ministry seeks to make art and culture available to as much of the French public as possible, with an annual budget of nearly 1 percent of the entire national budget.85 A specific division of the ministry of culture and communications in France finances research and development. A major item included in this 82 The substantial exceptions derive primarily from the indirect public support provided by donors motivated or rewarded (at least in part) by U.S. income tax incentives, as described in the previous section. However, though constrained by available data sources, a comparison of direct government arts funding suggests a huge variation per capita, ranging from $6 in the United States to $46 in Canada and $85 in Germany. Data derived from National Endowment for the Arts, 2000, International Data on Government Spending on the Arts, Research Division Note #74, available online at <http://arts.endow.gov/pub/Notes/74.pdf>. 83 Ranjit Makkuni’s work is an example; see <http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2001/04/23/stories/13230074.htm>. 84 See the ministry’s home page at <http://www.culture.fr>. 85 One percent of the U.S. federal executive branch budget for FY 2002 is approximately $13 billion.
OCR for page 227
Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity BOX 8.5 Four Models for Public Arts Funding The facilitator state supports the arts through foregone taxes, which is to say that donors’ contributions are made tax deductible. The objective of this model is to promote diversity of activity in the non-profit amateur and fine arts, although “no specific standards of art are supported” by the state. Rather, the focus is on “the preferences and tastes of the corporate, foundation, and individual donors.” The United States is a good example of a facilitator state. The patron state provides support for the arts through arm’s-length arts councils. In this model, the state decides on an overall level of support, leaving the actual decisions regarding which projects to support to the arts councils. The arts councils, in turn, rely on the advice of professional artists working through a system of peer evaluation. The objective of this model is as much to promote “standards of professional artistic excellence” as it is to support “the process of creativity.” The United Kingdom is an example of a patron state. The architect state provides funds for the arts through government institutions created solely for that purpose (e.g., ministries or departments of culture or the arts). In this model, the state tends to support the arts as part of its national objectives, which can have distinctively different emphases; for example, historically, France has leaned toward professional standards of artistic excellence, whereas the emphasis in the Netherlands is much less elitist. The engineer state “owns all the means of artistic production.” In this model, the state supports only art that meets certain “political standards,” and decisions about funding and support are left up to “political commissars.” One example of an engineer state was the Soviet Union. SOURCE: Adapted from Harry Hillman-Chartrand and Claire McCaughey, 1989, “The Arm’s Length Principle and the Arts: An International Perspective—Past, Present and Future,” Who’s to Pay for the Arts? The International Search for Models of Support, M.C. Cummings, Jr. and J. Mark Davidson Schuster, eds., American Council for the Arts, New York. Available online at <http://www.culturaleconomics.atfreeweb.com/arm’s.htm>. budget is the Institut de Recherche et Coordination en Acoustique et Musique (IRCAM), a permanent state-funded institute for computer music research. This office also offers “State Commissions” to French artists, and on occasion these commissions have been opportunities for international co-production (e.g., the virtual Tunnel under the Atlantic, “constructed” between Paris and Montréal in September 1995). Major institutes such as IRCAM and Germany’s Zentrum für Kunst und Medien (ZKM) described below (and in Chapter 5) derived the basis for political support of major public expenditures in part to respond to U.S. high-technology leadership.86 The German method for directing public funds to the arts is much more decentralized. Indeed, the German federal government has been described as “effectively barred” from cultural activities, a response to earlier times when government-supported cultural activities were used 86 IRCAM’s efforts to combine high modernist musical experimentalism with technology transfer to the French IT sector were fraught with contradictions and confusion, according to one ethnographic study. See Georgina Born, 1995, Rationalizing Culture: IRCAM, Boulez, and the Institutionalization of the Musical Avant-garde, University of California Press, Berkeley.
OCR for page 228
Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity “for purposes of national glorification,” or even “abused . . . for propaganda purposes.”87 Accordingly, Germany has no central agency to oversee cultural funding; rather, individual länder (or states) and local authorities bear this responsibility. For example, although many of ZKM’s constituencies are outside Germany, much of its funding is derived from regional public funds and small-scale industrial sponsorship. Such a unique environment comes with a high price tag, and to contribute to the institution’s discretionary funds, the research institutes also secure contracts for ITCP research within European Union (EU) research projects, which has caused tension between the institutes’ mission to develop artwork and the need to generate funding through research projects that generally do not directly fund art as such. Local governments account for 47 to 58 percent of public spending on the arts, the states for 40 percent, and the federal government for only 2 to 13 percent; despite tax incentives, private support for the arts accounts for “no more than 1 percent” of the total revenue for German art institutions.88 Various networks of research institutes (e.g., the Fraunhofer institutes) may have entities whose work relates to ITCP. The Fraunhofer, for example, even has an outpost in Rhode Island (near Brown University and the Rhode Island School of Design) to support its interests in computer graphics. Government programs established to support the arts have histories measured in decades rather than centuries in many countries. For example, the Canadian government’s main means of supporting the work of individual artists and arts organizations is the Canada Council for the Arts, which was created by an act of Parliament in 1957 and was funded initially by a $50 million endowment to “ensure the Council’s complete independence of the government.”89 Currently, however, in addition to support from various endowments, donations, and bequests, the council receives the majority of its funding from Parliament in the form of an annual appropriation. In 2000-2001, the Canada Council made awards and grants amounting to $117 million;90 in April 2002, the council and the National Research Council (NRC) of Canada launched a collaborative program of research grants to bring leading artists into Canadian NRC laboratories across the country as researchers.91 This agreement will also create a forum to facilitate the development of partnerships among other arts, science, and technology organizations in Canada. In addition, the Canada Council will soon complete its first round of awards to joint proposals 87 Annette Zimmer and Stefan Toepler, 1996, “Cultural Policies and the Welfare State: The Cases of Sweden, Germany, and the United States,” Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 26(3): 167-195. 88 See Zimmer and Toepler, 1996, “Cultural Policies and the Welfare State.” 89 See John Meisel and Jean Van Loon, 1987, “Cultivating the Bushgarden: Cultural Policy in Canada,” in Milton C. Cummings, Jr., and Richard S. Katz, eds., The Patron State: Government and the Arts in Europe, North America, and Japan, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 289. 90 From <http://www.canadacouncil.ca/council/about-e.asp>. 91 See <http://www.canadacouncil.ca/news/pressreleases/co0215-e.asp>.
OCR for page 229
Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity by groups of artists, engineers, or scientists, which will be reviewed for the first time by a mixed panel cooperatively managed by the arts council and its two sister science councils (the Natural Science and Engineering Council and the Social Science and Humanities Council). The government of Canada also underwrites the National Film Board, an innovative force in computer graphics (see Box 6.3 in Chapter 6), and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and offers subsidies, tax incentives, and marketing support to creative industries (publishing, music, museums, multimedia, computer games). The Japanese experience with public arts support bears only a vague resemblance to that of Europe, Canada, or the United States. Currently, most art genres in Japan—including traditional Japanese arts, modern arts derived from Europe, and popular arts—are “thoroughly commercial,” surviving through a mixture of income from, among other sources, ticket sales, advertising, and the sale of related products or services.92 The flurry of Japanese corporate sponsorship for art and technology that began in the late 1980s was typically justified as a sophisticated kind of symbiotic corporate philanthropy (which has suffered in the difficult economic climate in Japan; see Chapter 5). However, the Japanese government has built museums and libraries and preserved important cultural monuments ever since the Meiji state (a stronger, more centralized government) was established in 1868.93 Indeed, the Tokyo Academy of Music was founded in 1879, and the Academy of Art was formed in 1887; these two organizations merged following World War II to form the Tokyo University of Fine Arts, an institution considered to be the center of art and music research and education in Japan. In 1968 the Agency for Cultural Affairs (ACA), devoted to public support for the arts, was formed and began with an initial budget of around $14 million, but over the next 10 years the ACA budget swelled, as authorities discovered that the promotion of culture was in the public’s interest at home “as well as the national interest abroad.”94 In 1972, the Japan Foundation was created by a legislative act to be an autonomous non-profit public corporation whose primary concern is cultural relations abroad. It promotes a variety of cultural exchange programs each year, with its overall focus being on personal exchange. In 2002, the Association for Corporate Support of the Arts (Mecenat) broadened its definition of an arts event—in the context of authorizing tax-deductible contributions—to include media arts.95 92 Meisel and Van Loon, 1987, “Cultivating the Bushgarden,” p. 333. 93 Thomas R.H. Havens, 1987, “Government and the Arts in Contemporary Japan,” in Cummings and Katz, eds., The Patron State: Government and the Arts in Europe, North America, and Japan, p. 334. 94 Havens, 1987, “Government and the Arts in Comtemporary Japan,” p. 333. During the period from 1968 to 1978, the ACA budget grew some 574 percent, while the overall national budget increased by 489 percent. 95 Dramatic Online, “Broadening the Definition of Arts Events in Japan,” available online at <http://www.dramaticonline.com/ifacca/web/news/detail.asp?Id=24073&from=Arts_Council_News>.
OCR for page 230
Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH Information technology research is supported by a number of national governments around the world. As in the case of the arts, the policies and practices of only a few countries are reviewed in this report, to provide a broader perspective on, and contrast to, policies and practices in the United States. Canada uses a model that combines tax and funding incentives while also supporting collaboration and information sharing among geographically dispersed federal research labs, private R&D facilities, and research universities. A large part of this model is made possible as a result of the Canadian Network for the Advancement of Research, Industry and Education (CANARIE),96 which is Canada’s advanced Internet development organization. This non-profit organization, which receives its core funding from the Canadian government, has established the world’s largest and fastest national R&D network. A collaboration involving more than 120 universities and industry partners, CANARIE has helped to fund more than $600 million in research projects related to the Internet, including those associated with content distribution.97 In addition to the tax incentives open to all forms of industrial R&D (in contrast to the United States98), the Canadian government funds a series of research organizations whose focus is promoting innovation in IT. The Canadian NRC operates the Institute for Information Technology (IIT),99 which, through cost-sharing collaborative projects, assists other organizations with the development of market-driven technologies. These collaborations can be one-on-one with a single company or multiparty, with several participating organizations combining resources to share costs and risks. A similar program, the Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE),100 promotes partner 96 See <http://www.canarie.ca>. Also mentioned in Chapter 5. 97 As of this writing the CANARIE project, e-content, is soliciting requests for projects that emphasize “cultural research, development and applications in areas such as architecture and design, film and video, 3D graphics, net and web art, digital music, digital photography, game design, graphic design, human/computer interface, and copyright/rights management tools; and feasibility studies, including consumer research/ testing of broadband cultural products and the monetization of content.” See <http://www.canarie.ca>. 98 See Canada’s Leadership in Information and Communications Technologies, available online at <http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/it04270e.html>. 99 See <http://www.iit.nrc.ca/>. 100 Three Canadian federal granting agencies, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, along with Industry Canada, have combined their efforts to support and oversee the NCE. See <http://www.nce.gc.ca/>.
OCR for page 231
Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity ships among industry, universities, and government. The program, which is intellectually diverse and geographically dispersed, consists of 22 centers, 8 of which conduct research in information and communication technology (usually, networks are funded for 7 years and can be renewed).101 Since 1997, several proposals were made to the NCE program for hybrid research networks (grouping university-based researchers in IT, the arts and humanities, and cultural organizations (like the Banff Centre and the National Film Board)). Although none of these proposals passed the stringent NCE competition, they formed the basis for an alternative program with a regional basis (i.e., supporting geographic clusters) and support for new-media industrial activity. Canadian Heritage, the branch of the Canadian government responsible for cultural affairs, launched a new grant program in the fall of 2002 as part of its Canadian Culture Online program. Called New Media Research Networks, it was planned to support multiyear collaborative networks on a pilot basis through March 2004, with funding for up to five networks for 3 years for about one million Canadian dollars per year. Its goals include “development of an environment that is conducive to Canada becoming a world leader in digital context creation and production” through “research at the intersection of technologies and culture.”102 Following a model similar to the NCE program is Precarn Incorporated,103 a national consortium of corporations, research institutes, and government partners that supports innovation in intelligent systems. Precarn helps to promote collaboration among Canadian companies, universities, and government researchers by providing funding on a case-by-case basis for projects that include the participation of at least two companies and one university. Japan is known for a strong national, coordinated policy with respect to technology, and the situation with IT is no different. The policy strategy for IT that the Prime Minister, Council on Science and Technology Policy (CSTP), and the ministries currently support is the Basic Law on the Formation of an Advanced Information and Telecommunications Network Society, or e-Japan for short. The primary goal of e-Japan is to “establish an environment where the private sector, based on market forces, can exert its full potential and make Japan the world’s most advanced IT nation within five years.”104 E-Japan is an integrated strategy that emphasizes four points: 101 For example, the Centre of Information Technology and Complex Systems involves more than 50 university researchers supported by 379 graduate students, and carries out research in seven Canadian provinces. The network supporting this center includes 28 universities, 62 industrial partners, and 27 government departments and agencies. See Canada’s Leadership in Information and Communications Technologies, available online at <http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/it04270e.html>. 102 See <http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/pcce-ccop/progs/mednet_e.cfm> and <http://www.pch.cg.ca/progs/pcce-ccop/pubs/mednetguide_e.cfm>. 103 See <http://www.precarn.ca/>. 104 See e-Japan Strategy at <http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/it/network/0122full_e.html>.
OCR for page 232
Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity Enable every citizen to enjoy the benefits of IT. Reform the economic structure and strengthen industrial competitiveness. Realize affluent national life and creative community with vitality. Contribute to the formation of an advanced information and telecommunication networked society on a global scale. Under the CSTP, a Cabinet-level office sets science and technology (S&T) policy direction and funding levels. The CSTP uses a comprehensive overview strategy in its decision making that has resulted in a significant increase in the involvement of the humanities and social science in the discussion. Increasingly, this strategy is forcing policies into a direction that emphasizes the relationship between society and human beings.105 The CSTP immediately identified the support of IT as one of four strategic fields that the government must emphasize when formulating S&T policy and funding R&D. However, while the CSTP decides on policy direction and funding levels, it does not fund individual projects directly; this is left to the ministries. Government funding for IT R&D comes primarily from three ministries: the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI);106 the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT);107 and the Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts, and Telecommunications.108 Specifically for IT R&D, the government has developed an approach whereby it will promote market competition, facilitate commercialization, and promote international cooperation and collaboration among industry, academia, and government agencies.109 A strong, coordinated position has also been taken in Europe. Most recently, as part of its Fifth Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (FP5) (1999– 2002), the European Commission identified seven thematic research programs intended to promote industrial competitiveness and quality of life in Europe. One of these, the Information Society Technologies (IST) Programme, is designed to support R&D in information and communication technologies. The IST Programme had a working budget of 3.6 billion euros (1998–2002) to achieve its goal of supporting IT research “within a single and integrated programme that reflects the convergence of information processing, communication, and media 105 See A New System for Promoting Science and Technology in Japan, available online at <http://www.nsftokyo.org/rm01-15.html>. 106 Formerly known as the Ministry of International Trade and Industry. METI oversees about 15 percent of the R&D budget. 107 The former Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture and the Science and Technology Agency have been combined to form MEXT, which oversees about 63 percent of the S&T budget. 108 Formerly two separate ministries. 109 See “Overview of Action Plan” at <http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/it/990519overview.html>.
OCR for page 233
Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity technologies.”110 The European Commission manages the program with the assistance of the IST Committee, consisting of representatives of each EU member and associated states. A key feature of the program is its emphasis on supporting cross-program (CP) themes. The objective of CP projects is to allow grant seekers the flexibility to address cross-disciplinary research and ensure that topics associated with more than one area are addressed. For example, one CP project, Technology Platforms for Cultural & Arts Creative Expressions, is concerned with “developing future generic platforms and tools for improving creative expression and facilitating access to inspirational material for artistic and cultural content creation.”111 To achieve this goal, the IST seeks to support medium- and long-term exploratory work with an emphasis on digital expression by providing funding to collaborative projects. As the European Commission continues to develop its next framework (6), the IST Programme remains one of the main themes and a significant part of the anticipated S&T needs. Specifically, within the Sixth Framework, information and communication technologies are being looked at to “stimulate the development in Europe of technologies and applications at the heart of the creation of the Information Society in order to increase the competitiveness of European industry and allow European citizens in all EU regions the possibility of benefiting fully from the development of the knowledge-based economy.”112 To achieve this goal, the research supported by the IST Programme will focus on “the future generations of technologies in which computers and networks will be integrated into the everyday environment . . . that places the user, the individual, at the center of the future developments for an inclusive knowledge-based society for all.”113 Some concerns have arisen, however, about the adequacy of support to be provided for ITCP research and development. The RADICAL consortium—three European media arts and cultural organizations engaged in a 2-year project—issued a manifesto in July 2002 urging non-market support for transdisciplinary ITCP activity. Its recommendation that “specific support mechanisms be implemented to promote cross-disciplinary research platforms which explicitly include media arts and cultural organisations and creative practitioner-researchers,” in the context of the rest of the document, raises questions about the depth and durability of official support for ITCP in Europe.114 110 See “Background” at <http:europa.eu.int/information_society/programmes/research/index_en.htm>. 111 See “Objectives” at <http://www.cordis.lu/ist/cpt/2002cpa15.htm>. 112 See “IST in FP6, Priority” at <http://www.cordis.lu/ist/fp6/fp6.htm>. 113 See “IST in FP6, Priority” at <http://www.cordis.lu/ist/fp6/fp6.htm>. 114 See “The RADICAL Manifesto” at <http://www.e-c-b.net/ecb/internal/1027149839>. The RADICAL consortium includes the SMARTlab at Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design in the United Kingdom, the Ecole supérieure de l’image in Angoulême-Poitiers in France, and the Society for Old and New Media in the Netherlands, together with a network of artists, creative professionals, and small and large businesses participating in the RADICAL program of events and symposia.
OCR for page 234
Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity PRIVATE PHILANTHROPY Outside the United States, private philanthropy seems to play an important, although relatively less prominent, role as a source of funding for the arts and IT. Although the committee did not attempt a comprehensive survey of relevant programs, one initiative did come to its attention that deserves mention. The Daniel Langlois Foundation has established the Program for Organizations from Emerging Regions,115 through which it financially supports projects that allow artists or scholars who are not European or North American to immerse themselves in technological contexts that are non-existent or difficult to access in their own country. The aim of the program is to promote the integration of knowledge and practices specific to different cultures, and grants may also support research projects that combine traditional artistic practices with advanced technology or that explore methods and processes based on the unique aesthetic principles of certain cultures. Each year the foundation selects two different priority regions. Examples of projects funded through the program include the following: Lima, Peru: Alta Technologia Andina (ATA), Media Laboratory for Education, Research and Creation in Video and New Media. Funding was used to help integrate electronic elements into local artistic practices and to set up a shared space for cross-disciplinary education and the creation and distribution of experimental artwork. Delhi, India: Center for the Study of Developing Societies: Interface Zone. Funding was used to create a physical meeting place in Delhi to act as a dynamic node for fostering the exhibition, online dissemination, and pedagogy of new-media culture. Sofia, Bulgaria: InterSpace Media Arts Center. Funding was used to support new-media projects and to showcase projects generated by the media lab in an effort to foster sustainable growth in the independent artistic scene in Bulgaria and to encourage artistic experimentation with new media. Riga, Latvia: The Center for New Media Culture: Acoustic Space Research Lab and Program. Funds were used to establish two media labs and to develop the Acoustic Space Research Program to investigate the field of streaming media; to coordinate projects in sound art, audio, radio, and streaming media; and to organize international events on sound and acoustics. 115 The primary source of information for this overview was the Daniel Langlois Foundation Web site at <http://www.fondation-langlois.org>. For 2002, the foundation gave priority to West Africa and South America.
Representative terms from entire chapter: