National Academies Press: OpenBook

Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity (2003)

Chapter: 8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices

« Previous: 7. Institutional Issues and Public Policy
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

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.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

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.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

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.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

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.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

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

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

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.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

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).

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

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[28] 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>.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

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.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

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.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

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.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

Emergent, small-scale, and experimental initiatives face a greater challenge in raising funds.

works that support artists and/or cultural organization” and engage local communities. A core program is AT&T: NEAT (New Experiments in Art & Technology), which provides support to regional science and children’s museums to showcase work by artists who use science and/or technology as their creative medium.48 The Rockefeller Foundation provides funding for a range of creative explorations in new media, including fellowships, conferences, publications, digital art exhibitions in museums and on the Web, and experimental laboratories that foster collaborations among artists, scientists, and technologists.49 Since 1994, the Rockefeller Foundation has awarded over 100 grants in the area of new media.

Private philanthropy is more likely to help to sustain individual artists than is government support, which seems more oriented toward institutions. This is particularly true of smaller foundations. For example, the Media Arts program of the Jerome Foundation, which supports artists in New York City and Minnesota, focuses on providing grants to risky projects by individual emerging artists.50 Many of the resources provided by private foundations for individual artists are channeled through non-profit intermediaries that are focused on a specific domain. Consider the Warhol Foundation as an example. It does not support individual artists directly, but rather gives to “cultural organizations that in turn, directly or indirectly, support artists and their work.”51 So, in 2002 the foundation provided a grant to Franklin Furnace Archive to support the production of live art over the Internet, indirectly funding the production of artwork by individual artists. Efforts of the Creative Capital Foundation are described in Box 8.1. In 1999, 3 percent (about $46 million) of larger arts grants from larger foundations supported professional development, which includes fellowships and residencies; internships; scholarships; and awards, prizes, and competitions. Some private support for individuals comes in the form of commissions, which have some similarities in practice to research grants because of their reflection of the character of the commissioning entity. Also, when museums do commission work, it appears to be driven by their interest in making new art forms accessible.52

48  

See a description of the program at <http://www.att.com/foundation/programs/arts.html#tech>.

49  

A number of the individuals, organizations, projects, and conferences discussed in this report received funding from the Creativity and Culture Program of the Rockefeller Foundation. For further information, see <http://www.rockfound.org/display.asp?Context=3&SectionTypeID=16&Preview=0&ARCurrent=1>.

50  

See the Jerome Foundation’s Web site at <http://www.jeromefdn.org/>.

51  

See the Warhol Foundation grant awards at <http://www.warholfoundation.org/FiscalYear2002F.htm>.

52  

For a discussion of commissioning practice, see Susan Morris, 2001, Museums and New Media Art, a research report commissioned by the Rockefeller Foundation (mimeo), October.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

BOX 8.1 Creative Capital Foundation

An unusual approach to funding new arts projects is used by the Creative Capital Foundation.1 Seen as an attempt to “fill the void left by the NEA [National Endowment for the Arts] when it stopped funding individual artists,”2 Creative Capital was founded in 1999 as a non-profit organization in the state of New York. In its own words, Creative Capital seeks to “support artists creating original work who are pursuing innovative, experimental approaches to form and/or content in the visual, performing, and media arts.”3 Creative Capital also hopes to distinguish itself from traditional arts grant programs by providing marketing and other “non-artistic” aid (e.g., helping artists develop audiences for their work). Also, unlike most traditional funding sources, Creative Capital shares a portion of the proceeds generated by its artists’ projects—if the projects indeed make money—to help replenish its funds and continue the cycle of support for future projects. One of the main areas where Creative Capital seeks to focus its attention and funds is emerging fields, which include, among other things, technology-based work. Indeed, early in 2000, Creative Capital was poised to deliver nearly $100,000 (or 16 percent of the foundation’s total grants) to support 12 digital arts projects.4 Other funding areas include new media, performing arts, and visual arts. By December 2001, Creative Capital had made grants to individual artists amounting to more than $1.5 million.5 For the period from 1999 to 2002, more than 40 other foundations and individual donors provided almost $7 million for Creative Capital’s programs and operations. Creative Capital’s funders include, to name only a few, the Andy Warhol Foundation, Jerome Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, Benton Foundation, and Home Box Office.

1  

See the Creative Capital Foundation’s home page at <http://www.creative-capital.org/>.

2  

Shayna Samuels, 1999, “New Foundation Seeks Provocative Artists for Grants,” Dance Magazine 73(8): 29.

3  

See <http://www.creative-capital.org/general/html/prospectus.html>.

4  

Matthew Mirapaul, 2000, “Digital Artists Draw Support from a New Foundation,” New York Times, January 1, p. F14.

5  

Creative Capital, 2001, Creative Capital: 2001 Year End Report, Creative Capital, New York. Available online at <http://www.creative-capital.org/news&events/html/rubys_reports/2001YearEndReport.pdf>.

But even though it helps to sustain artists, private philanthropy tends to be associated more with grants to institutions than to individuals. Foundations and individuals often give to established institutions, which have name recognition; emergent, small-scale, and experimental initiatives face a greater challenge in raising funds. The largest shares of foundation arts grants go to program and capital support, which tend to be associated with institutions. The smallest share goes to research—a condition that must be improved to foster ITCP in the long run.

Among larger foundations, there appears to be some recognition of the importance of promoting creativity and expanding the uses of IT, but such foundations are just beginning to embrace IT as a theme.53

53  

See Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National Research Council, 1998, Advancing the Public Interest Through Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence (KDI), White Paper, available online at <http://www.cstb.org>.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

Computer scientists often emerge from their education with a relatively positive view of corporations as employers and sources of support, whereas artists generally do not have comparable experiences as an integral part of their education.

They have been developing IT systems as part of their own infrastructure and as infrastructure for their grantees—but generally in programs other than those that support the arts, where infrastructure has not historically been a concern. This situation began to change in the late 1990s, when a number of the larger, most visible foundations began self-assessments and started new initiatives featuring some attention to IT. And, as the present project demonstrates, foundations have begun to contemplate the broad potential of ITCP.

For the most part, computer science research does not benefit from foundation support, unlike biomedical and some other forms of scientific research.54 However, individuals and, in particular, corporate philanthropy support some academic IT research (in the form of grants for research, donation of computer hardware and software, or endowment of faculty positions). Corporate support, both in-kind and financial, is considered critical for growing and sustaining the relatively high cost of operations of university computer science departments. Corporate interactions are an important element of how those departments do business (e.g., personnel interactions, consultancies, job placement for students and graduates, and so on).55 Hence computer scientists often emerge from their education with a relatively positive view of corporations as employers and sources of support, whereas artists will generally not have comparable experiences as an integral part of their education.

Prizes

One notable source of funding for the arts is prizes (see Chapters 5 and 7).56 Artists value prizes because they are expressly linked to

54  

To put this observation into context, foundation grants for science and technology overall amounted to 3 percent of total dollars awarded in 2000, while grants for arts and culture amounted to 12 percent. See “Highlights of the Foundation Center’s Foundation Giving Trends,” 2002, Foundation Center, New York. Available online at <http://fdncenter.org/research/trends_analysis/>.

55  

Corporate conduct of research falls under the broader heading of commercial activity excluded from the scope of this discussion. Corporate IT research tends to be applied; regardless of label, it may be more development than research. See Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National Research Council, 2000, Making IT Better.

56  

“Awards and prizes have proliferated throughout the arts, suggesting that numerous sponsors stand ready to fill the available ecological niches. The interests of these sponsors are evident enough. Associations of artists seek to advance professional standards and leverage their creative preferences against choices driven by the interests of humdrum participants and profit seekers. Independent philanthropists who sponsor and support prizes likely have the same objective. Prizes given by associations of critics serve to advertise and dignify the critics’ regular services. Commercial sponsors seek goodwill for their products among the honorees and the public with more than casual interest in the relevant art world. . . .” See Richard E. Caves, 2000, Creative Industries: Contracts Between Art and Commerce, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 198-199.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

critical appraisal and they provide visibility—a benefit to the entity awarding the prize as well as the recipient. As a Canadian arts council explains,

Most organizations that provide assistance for the arts and culture have established or manage awards for artistic excellence accompanied by cash prizes. This practice has the advantage of combining the recognition of artists and their art with their contribution to cultural activity. Moreover, it significantly enhances the prestige of the role of funding agencies and publicly indicates that they significantly support artistic creation.57

Against this backdrop, prizes have begun to emerge for ITCP (see the section “Validation and Recognition Structures” in Chapter 7), building on the foundation laid by traditional supporters of the arts and economic development (e.g., various state and local prizes, or certain foreign ones, such as Europriz). Unlike grants, which may be multiyear or renewable, prizes are one-time infusions of revenue, and they are awarded ex post facto, which implies that the beneficiary needs some other source of support to do the work that competes for the prize.

Federal Funding for Information Technology Research

It is well-known that the federal government has a long history of supporting IT research, which is largely computer science research (including computer engineering) plus some in sister fields such as electrical engineering. Indeed, it can be argued that federal support is at the very root of the information-technology world that Americans and others inhabit today.58 Research funding supports the advancement of a field and associated knowledge, often because that field is linked to economic well-being and to the broad base of scientific and technical knowledge; it is also tied more specifically to meeting a government mission, which varies among agencies. Public access to information generated or published by an agency, like education, is also a concern to varying degrees among agencies.

Funding for IT research comes primarily from the Department of Defense, notably the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and from the National Science Foundation (NSF). A variety of other agencies also support computer science research, both funda

57  

See Conseil des arts et des letters Québec, at <http://www.calq.gouv.qc.ca>.

58  

For more information on the history of federal support for computing research, as well as a history of the early Internet, see Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National Research Council, 1999, Funding a Revolution, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

BOX 8.2 Goals for the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program

  1. Ensure continued U.S. leadership in computing, information, and communications technologies to meet federal goals and to support U.S. 21st-century academic, industrial, and government interests.

  2. Accelerate deployment of advanced and experimental information technologies to maintain world leadership in science, engineering, and mathematics; improve the quality of life; promote long-term economic growth; increase lifelong learning; protect the environment; harness information technology; and enhance national security.

  3. Advance U.S. productivity and industrial competitiveness through long-term scientific and engineering research in computing, information, and communications technologies.

SOURCE: National Science and Technology Council, 2002, Strengthening National, Homeland, and Economic Security: Networking and Information Technology Research and Development, FY 2003 Supplement to the President’s Budget, July.

mental and especially applied.59 Computer science and related funding that is tracked in the aggregate as the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program amounted to about $1.8 billion in 2002 (see Box 8.2 for NITRD goals).60

The NSF, which funds research across science and engineering disciplines, issues grants that tend to be smaller in size (tens to hundreds of thousands compared to hundreds of thousands into the millions) and duration (a few months or 1 to 2 years compared to 3 or more years) than those awarded by DARPA, which supports the development of large, complex, and often comparatively capital-intensive systems.61 The NSF also supports research centers (for science

59  

The coordinated information technology research and development program suite tracked by the National Coordination Office is budgeted at between $1.5 billion and $2 billion. Other participating agencies besides NSF and various components of the Department of Defense include the Department of Energy (the Office of Science and the National Nuclear Security Administration), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services (the National Institutes of Health and the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality), the Department of Commerce (the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), and the Environmental Protection Agency.

60  

Derived from National Science and Technology Council, 2002, Strengthening National, Homeland, and Economic Security: Networking and Information Technology Research and Development, FY 2003 Supplement to the President’s Budget, July, the annual compendium of federally funded computer science research programs known informally as the “Blue Book.”

61  

NSF has begun to experiment with support for larger computer science research projects. The early 2000s have witnessed intensive reexamination of program emphases at DARPA, with significant changes in its support for computer science research beginning to unfold but uncertain as of this writing.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

and technology and for engineering research), which typically involve more than one discipline and sometimes multiple institutions. For example, the Integrated Media Systems Center at the University of Southern California62 has undertaken research on new types of user interfaces with applications from everyday communication to interaction with art forms.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, have increased attention to security across the government (and industry), which is expected to influence trends in computer science research funding.63 Projects and programs that can be linked to homeland security are expected to be favored, with uncertain implications for truly exploratory work for which no such linkage can be posited. Prior to September 11, the trend in the predecessor initiatives in what is now known as the NITRD program was a broadening in the scope of research, including more diverse, cross-disciplinary explorations that included the social sciences and humanities—an evolution toward greater attention to ITCP interests.

The evolution of federal funding programs for computer science has been associated with an erosion of flexibility. When computer science was a new field, in the late-middle 20th century, research successes were tied to a few talented individuals: program managers in government agencies, who selected researchers in universities and awarded money with considerable flexibility. That fabled pattern eroded considerably in the latter part of the century, as funding became tied more to specific government program objectives (which varied in their flexibility) and program management evolved to be more conservative overall, thanks to pressures on federal spending and increases in efforts to promote federal accountability. These circumstances militate against a program manager’s experimentation with activities that can seem or be seen as new and different, such as ITCP—unless the linkage to other kinds of research and national benefits can be established and communicated effectively.

FUNDING FOR INFRASTRUCTURE

Grants, regardless of source, fund both specific activities (e.g., research, development of new works of art) and the development of associated human resources, which can increase the likelihood of success and provide capacity for future work. Similar rationales drive support for relevant physical infrastructure, or tools, a critical aspect of work involving IT. Accordingly, ITCP work increases overall funding requirements on the arts side by introducing a need for hardware

62  

See <http://imsc.usc.edu/>.

63  

For example, the Blue Book sports the title Strengthening National, Homeland, and Economic Security: Networking and Information Technology Research and Development, FY 2003 Supplement to the President’s Budget for the edition published in mid-2002.

The evolution of federal funding programs for computer science has been associated with an erosion of flexibility.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

ITCP presents needs for infrastructure associated with archiving and preservation, without which too much of it may prove ephemeral.

and software infrastructure already provided for computer science.64 This can add significant costs to budgets.65 However, dramatic improvements in IT price/performance ratios—making this infrastructure less expensive than it was just a few years ago—have enabled smaller groups or individuals to do things that were prohibitively expensive for them in the past. Grant support may be particularly important in building the ITCP infrastructure inasmuch as IT firms are less likely to provide hardware and software for activities seen as part of the (non-profit) arts world, tending instead to donate such components for more conventional R&D.66 There are exceptions where marketing publicity may be gained; some artists have served as beta testers for IT products and have allowed the use of their names in marketing in return. As noted above, there is already a history of foundation support for capital projects, the category under which IT infrastructure is likely to fall.

One productive approach to infrastructure building, illustrated by the federal Digital Libraries Initiative (DLI) (see Box 8.3)—is the application testbed concept, which is familiar to experimental computer scientists. Another approach, illustrated by some DLI projects and a wide range of other computer science and humanities research projects, is the generation of databases and other information resources that are made available to the public and could be exploited for ITCP. There is already evidence of artists drawing on government repositories of imagery, for example.

Whereas a testbed is associated with developing something, ITCP also presents needs for infrastructure associated with archiving and preservation, without which too much of it may prove ephemeral. It is far too often the case that ITCP-based works disappear with the close of the specific, original project. Even ITCP work of distinction, which has been recognized and awarded prizes, often meets that fate when

64  

Computer scientists, in turn, tend to complain that research funding budgets, by aggregating support for research per se with support for infrastructure, which often benefits other kinds of scientists, overstates what is available to them.

65  

State and regional economic development that features local investment in networking infrastructure can help educational and cultural institutions. It can also benefit individuals through initiatives that promote deployment of residential broadband, for example (see Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National Research Council, 2002, Broadband: Bringing Home the Bits, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.). On a national scale, the Internet2 project seeks to connect a growing number of colleges and universities to comparatively high-bandwidth/capacity networking to support research and education and long-distance collaboration. The cyber infrastructure exploration at NSF, drawing on multiple initiatives, also links dispersed researchers with a range of networked resources. Depending on where practitioners are located, ITCP can benefit from—and provide added motivation for—such extended infrastructure investments.

66  

IT firms have long recognized that giving their products to educators and researchers helps to develop their customer base. The arts communities seem to lack that kind of appeal for firms, though there are exceptions (e.g., Apple Computer has seeded art, music, and architecture departments to be identified with creative users).

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

BOX 8.3 Awards Related to ITCP Under the Digital Libraries Initiative

A Live Performance Simulation System: Virtual Vaudeville ($900,000 over 3 years)

The Virtual Vaudeville project brings together a diverse array of scholars, including computer scientists, three-dimensional modelers and animators, theater practitioners, and theater and music historians. The objective is to use digital technology to address a problem fundamental to performance scholarship and pedagogy: How to represent and communicate the phenomenon of live performance using media. This problem becomes especially pressing when the objective is to represent a performance tradition from the past. Neither a written description nor a filmed re-creation can convey the experience of attending a live performance, an experience that encompasses not only the way the performance on stage looks and sounds from different parts of the theatre, but also spectators’ perceptions of, and interactions with, one another. The proposed solution to this problem is to re-create historical performances in a virtual reality environment. The central objective is to simulate a feeling of “liveness” in this environment: the sensation of being surrounded by human activity onstage, in the audience, and backstage, and the ability to choose where to look at any given time (onstage or off) and to move within the environment.

Capturing, Coordinating, and Remembering Human Experience ($200,000 over 4 years)

This work will develop algorithms and systems enabling people to query and communicate with a synthesized record of human experiences derived from individual perspectives captured during selected personal and group activities. For this research, an experience is defined through what you see, what you hear, and where you are, and associated sensor data and electronic communications. The research will transform this record into a meaningful, accessible information resource, available contemporaneously and retrospectively. This vision will be validated through two socially relevant applications: (1) providing memory aids as a personal prosthetic or behavioral monitor for the elderly, and (2) coordinating emergency response activity in disaster scenarios.

SOURCE: Adapted from <http://www.dli2.nsf.gov/itsprojects.html>.

the financial and/or institutional support dries up. The creators of such products are sometimes desperate to secure a further application for their work but have no means to carry this idea through to fruition (e.g., a multimedia kiosk presentation accompanying an exhibition could well be used for education purposes after the closure of the exhibition for which the presentation was created). Thus, works that are not seen as having commercial value will only be made available in digital form by the non-profit and government sectors that allocate resources to do so. Large-scale digital conversion is likely to incur significant financial costs, which most non-profits are not in a position to absorb.67

67  

See commissioned papers of the Art, Technology, and Intellectual Property project of the American Assembly, available online at <http://www.americanassembly.org/ac/atip_p_cp.htm>.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

Of greatest concern for ITCP as an emerging arena for research is risk aversion related to the selection of topics.

RISK PREFERENCES AND THE CHALLENGE OF SUPPORTING EMERGING AREAS

Grants are usually awarded in the context of formal programs (government and private), which define the parameters of activities suitable for funding. Depending on the source, there will be more or less discretion to support activity that does not fit easily within the stated parameters; sometimes there is an explicit intent to fund opportunistic new ideas, whereas other times there is strict adherence to guidelines, with no flexibility. Program emphases change at different rates and in different directions. In computer science, for example, funding for supercomputing, graphics, artificial intelligence, and other subdisciplines has waxed and waned over time with perceptions of need and opportunity.

The risk preferences of grant makers affect what gets funded; they also contribute to a greater flow of resources to institutions than to independent workers. The early DARPA, mentioned above, is an oftcited example of grant makers willing to fund risky endeavors; the Information Sciences Program of a mid-20th-century sister agency, the Office of Naval Research, just happened to be led by an individual with strong arts interests, which had some effect on funding directions. A tendency toward risk aversion among grant makers can militate against movement into new areas or new types of work processes. Risk aversion can arise for many reasons, chief among them the fear of failure and the need to carry out fiduciary responsibilities, because any award has an opportunity cost—money allocated to one recipient is not available to others. On the government side, risk aversion may arise in response to growing pressures for accountability in spending. For example, the Government Performance and Results Act (Public Law 103-62), although tricky to apply to research, requires agencies to link projects they support to the results achieved. This is easier to do for applied research than for more exploratory, fundamental research, where some degree of failure is to be expected, as is unanticipated and possibly delayed success. In addition to precluding some adventurous research, risk aversion among grant makers can lead to constraints on grantees, such as requirements for more frequent (and therefore disruptive) reporting or demonstration of work in progress.68

Of greatest concern for ITCP as an emerging arena for research is risk aversion related to the selection of topics. Some examples are obvious: In an environment with a new, major focus on homeland security and counterterrorism, projects that seem to involve interfering with or destroying a system might not be viewed favorably. Young researchers in computer science and engineering, who either served on or briefed the committee, reported a need to package ITCP work in more conventional terms to increase the likelihood of funding. Al

68  

This has been a growing complaint among computer science researchers.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

though it has always been true that grant seekers have to use care in presenting their ideas, this phenomenon can limit the exploration of a new arena such as ITCP by discouraging applications for funding or eliminating ideas that do not lend themselves to repackaging. Absent grant program definitions that specifically embrace ITCP, progress in ITCP will depend on grant seekers’ ingenuity in influencing program definitions and relating their ideas to an existing definition.69

The “culture wars” of the 1990s underscore that reactions to artistic endeavors can have political overtones and consequences. These external concerns can influence which arts projects are funded, whereas influences on funding in computer science research tend to depend on such criteria as relevance to the operational mission of an agency (NSF is an exception) or the objectives of a given program. Program definitions and scopes may be more or less inviting of the risk involved in new approaches, and so may the processes of evaluating competing proposals (although the nominal criteria, such as NSF’s “intellectual merit” and “broader impacts,” may not make the potential for variation obvious). On the arts side, there is anecdotal evidence that focus and selection processes can discourage innovation, especially at the point when new art forms emerge. At present, these tensions shape the ITCP arena of digital arts or new-media work, which may be treated as a separate category or recognized as a part of other fields, depending on the funding source. Funders are trying to understand what is emerging and the nature of its merits as a contender for their resources. The IT elements have engendered mixed reactions among traditional arts funders, just as arts elements have perplexed traditional computer science funders.

Risk aversion also arises among foundations. Whereas government agencies have some degree of public oversight and accountability, foundations are intrinsically idiosyncratic, shaped by the preferences of their founders and boards of directors. Those preferences may constrain the program staff’s solicitations of and reactions to proposals.

Recently, federal programs have sought to promote cross-disciplinary work related to IT—albeit in areas other than ITCP. This situation has put agency leadership, with grants as the proverbial motivational carrots, somewhat at odds with the research community: Grant seekers have not, on the whole, gravitated easily to cross-disci

69  

One speaker at a committee meeting suggested that there might be limited funding available for a proposal on “computer music” research, but much more funding available if the proposal were relabeled as “digital signal processing” or “digital audio signal” research. A Washington, D.C., briefing to the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board in September 2002 by Chuck Thorpe of Carnegie Mellon University presented some pragmatic contrasts: Research involving robotic soccer-playing dogs could be seen as illustrating dogs playing or as multiagent collaboration in a hostile situation. In other instances, principal investigators have skirted innovation by simply renaming old proposals to obtain funds.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

Investigating new areas and exerting leadership are risky, and grant makers need to develop a tolerance for some failures as the inevitable price of exploration.

plinary collaboration. Whether impelled by government programs or arising through a bottom-up process from the grant-seeking community, the relative paucity of cross-disciplinary work to date means that the researchers serving on the panels that review proposals may lack experience in this type of work and/or an appreciation for its merits and potential. Anecdotal reports from committee members and grant seekers and program managers who briefed the committee suggest that these panels are most comfortable with projects that come closest to core disciplinary work, or are unable to select for quality among competing proposals with differing approaches to cross-disciplinarity, especially where new or unfamiliar methodology may be involved. This situation is not unique to ITCP; in any context, selection panels may have difficulty addressing the reinterpretation of fields or emergence of new fields, inasmuch as it involves work and people diverging from panel members’ own experience. The problem is well-known among federal program managers.

The NSF (with some collaboration with other government organizations) has engaged in three notable experiments in supporting cross-disciplinary work with an IT component, some of which relates to ITCP. (See Box 8.4.) The first two, Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence (KDI) and the Digital Libraries Initiative (mentioned above), featured strong internal champions at NSF, who worked with the relevant research communities; the third, Information Technology Research (ITR), drew from a broad, cross-agency reconceptualization of federal programs for IT R&D, also with input from the research community. KDI’s difficulties reflected its attempt to achieve the broad involvement of multiple disciplines; the other two may have benefited in terms of program viability from their greater leaning toward computer science (i.e., a single discipline). The integration of social sciences with computer science is an element of all three, but DLI also moved to involve humanists, and some ITR components are defined in ways that are open to the involvement of humanists and artists. These and other cross-cutting research initiatives, through both substantive and procedural emphases, aim to advance the science and practice of collaboration as a means to achieving creativity in any context, another factor that makes them relevant to planning for the support of ITCP.

The committee emphasizes that investigating new areas and exerting leadership are risky, and therefore grant makers need to develop a tolerance for some failures as the inevitable price of exploration. Understandably, foundations prefer that all projects succeed, because they feel a responsibility to maintain trust both as a fiduciary body and as a legacy of a family, company, or community. There is a tendency to play it safe. A way to institutionalize risk into the grant-making process is to allocate a fixed amount or percentage of grants for risk-taking projects—initiatives with potentially large payoffs but also with a significant possibility of failure. This is grant making as portfolio investing: combining safe, slow-growth projects with some riskier choices, and expecting some failures as normal. For this

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

BOX 8.4 Cross-disciplinary Computer Science Initiatives Pointing Toward ITCP

Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence

Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence (KDI) was an experimental initiative carried out between 1997 and 1999 that cut across the National Science Foundation (NSF) directorates (defined by their emphases on research in the physical, natural, and social sciences, and education) and confederated multiple programs (such as the Digital Libraries Initiative discussed below, Learning and Intelligent Systems, Knowledge Networking, Universal Access, and Integrated Spatial Information Systems). The initiative revolved around the relationship between research on information technologies and efforts to meet societal needs, broadly defined.

Because of the initiative’s sweeping vision, program management featured not only coordination across units of NSF but also outreach to other agencies (those involved in specific component programs) and private foundations. Both program managers and the research community grappled with objectives and options through formative workshops and other interactions, but a lack of consensus about the initiative and skepticism among groups of researchers (generally defined along disciplinary boundaries) about each other’s roles and their integration weakened the experiment. KDI did not extend beyond its initial 3-year phase, although component programs have continued.

Digital Libraries Initiative

The Digital Libraries Initiative (DLI) has grown to embrace a widening set of federal agencies, research disciplines, and application contexts. Its first phase (launched in 1994) involved six universities funded by the NSF that developed testbeds and engaged a variety of partners in diverse applications domains. Its second phase, DLI2 (beginning in 1998), which has added relevance to ITCP, expanded to include as partners the National Endowment for the Humanities, Library of Congress, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, National Library of Medicine, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The DLI generates infrastructure in applications domains that provide a context for developing new computer science—hence the basing of the NSF participation in the Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) directorate. Collaboration between computer scientists and very different communities is intrinsic to DLI. Also see Box 8.3 and <http://www.dli2.nsf.gov>.

Information Technology Research

Information Technology Research (ITR) is an umbrella initiative for a wide range of computer science research projects, including core disciplinary investigations and research that engages other disciplines to varying degrees. Based at NSF, it reflects that organization’s approach to a larger reconceptualization of support for IT research across several agencies. Like that larger effort, ITR has been widening its scope from fundamental computer science to computational science and to interactions with multiple disciplines—the fiscal year 2002 funding was supposed to emphasize “emerging opportunities at the interfaces between information technology and other disciplines” that can “elucidate, expand and exploit IT.”1 ITR addresses social, economic, and workforce implications, involving social scientists to address how to design computer-based systems that work better for people, as well as the societal impacts of systems as currently designed (see, for example, NSF’s Digital Society and Technology program).2 The engagement of social scientists involves both the CISE and the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences directorates.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

approach to work, program managers must not be subject to sanctions for the inevitable failures. In general, tolerance for occasional failure may be higher in the private sector than in the public sector; hence, private foundations may have to take the leadership with respect to high-risk initiatives.

Federal funding agencies have special issues to consider. To begin with, the agency structures and approaches typical of the IT arena— science and engineering research—differ significantly from those used in the arts and humanities. The level and allocation of funding, nature of funding agencies, interactions among agencies, and so on, are generally different, although there are some commonalities. Experience suggests that the success of any new major programs within the U.S. government will be enhanced by the appointment of a champion. The structure of the federal government—in both the executive and congressional branches, the latter strongly influenced by the appropriations process—can often militate against cross-disciplinary programs cutting across jurisdictional and disciplinary lines. Without a champion, no one understands the potential benefits or who is accountable and whose budget is at stake.

When funding a major new program in ITCP, organizations may increase their chances for success by following general principles for fruitful research and “good work.” Funding should be made available to cross-disciplinary teams—perhaps a dozen teams or so are needed to attain critical mass, in the committee’s judgment—and the budget should be adequate to support two or more principal investigators. The program should be “owned” by several units within a foundation or government agency (or multiple foundations or agencies, or possibly even a combination thereof) to obtain real, committed participation by all. Commitments should be made for a sufficient period to enable programs to become established—on the order of 5 years—and allow for no (or very limited) provision for renewals, to avert intentional or accidental empire-building.70

REEXAMINING FUNDING POLICIES AND PRACTICES

Reliance on grant support (so-called “soft” money) shapes the modus operandi of academic researchers and artists, chiefly by building the search for grants into their activities. A characteristic of grant support is finite duration: Even longer-term grants build in the anticipation of an end to the support. Also, with the possible exception of support from a research center, individual grants tend to provide only partial support for a computer science researcher or an artist. As a result, professionals who depend on grant support work to develop

70  

Based on Norman Metzger and Richard Zare, 1999, “Interdisciplinary Research, “From Belief to Reality,” Science 283:642-643.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

and renew grants, a process with uncertain results that typically involves attempts to seek more grants than one is likely to receive. The awarding of longer-term grants allows the grant makers to get to know the grant seekers better. Inasmuch as grant seeking is a competitive process, participants may benefit from having a track record. But officials at federal funding agencies also understand that young researchers may need to be evaluated somewhat differently than are their senior counterparts.71 It is not clear whether foundations are comparably sensitive to that problem. Committee members seemed to regard foundations as conservative and therefore most likely to fund those with a track record. Some specific disciplines, such as architecture, are structured with the expectation that solo creativity can flower comparatively late in a career, and job opportunities are structured accordingly—but architecture operates within a market context.

The issue of whether to fund “research” or “content” also arises; these concepts, which never could be separated with complete clarity, are becoming more intertwined.72 Grants that foster ITCP are particularly likely to incorporate both content and IT in substantive ways. Ad hoc practices, such as pairing content producers with researchers to qualify them for research funding, can be awkward and inefficient— working through the challenges of collaborations (see Chapter 2), but only for economic reasons. Instead, granting agencies should review their policies for supporting content development, or consider cooperative projects among consortia of granting agencies in areas of special interest, to meet challenges that cannot otherwise be addressed. On the arts side, private philanthropic collaborations have already begun to nurture ITCP. For example, the Rockefeller Foundation has joined forces with the Ford Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trusts in exploring relevant issues.

One interesting experiment is a grant awarded to Leonardo/ISAST to study the feasibility of a hybrid art center and research lab structured to be financially sustainable. Called Arts Lab, the project is an attempt to build a bridge between the creative community exploring new technologies and the marketplace. Arts Lab is structured as a not-for-profit corporation that is intended to be managed with the discipline of a commercial enterprise. The goal is to be sustainable with little compromise of artistic or research values. This type of project can help in exploring the boundary between commercial and non-commercial spheres: Arts grants, in particular, have been assumed to support non-commercial activity, but given the nature of ITCP and the need to promote viability, this boundary bears reexamination.

Agencies and foundations should structure proposal-review processes that encourage the development of new practices as well as the evolution of existing ones. As has happened previously in various scientific and engineering disciplines, digital practices are proliferat

71  

NSF, for example, offers career awards to young investigators.

72  

This is one reason for the prominence of design in ITCP.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

Program managers will need more time and leeway to learn about, evaluate, and reach out to accommodate increased numbers of grantees.

ing within all existing categories of the arts, from filmmaking and theater to the fine arts, as well as in new categories. Should the digital arts be placed in their own category or recognized as a part of everything else? Both strategies should be pursued to expand existing definitions as well as recognize new and emerging forms. Accordingly, a wide range of representation is necessary on panels, and panelists will need to be familiar with multiple areas—a long-standing issue concerning appraisal panels and the peer-review process. As part of this effort to nurture innovation, panels should consider making, in lieu of only large grants, some modest grants to a larger number of groups or individuals. To avoid forcing individuals or small organizations to spend disproportionate amounts of time on grant-related paperwork, care may be needed in program design, or implementation strategies could be pursued that leverage intermediaries that can absorb some of the administrative burdens.73

Multiple approaches are important, because ITCP is evolving at a rate that seems to be outrunning the traditional feedback loop of criticism, and it is evolving in multiple directions—there is no consensus on how to appraise different ideas. How funders react will shape whether and how schools of thought or practice develop. To fund a diversity of projects, program managers will need more time and leeway to learn about, evaluate, and reach out to accommodate increased numbers of grantees. They need competence to reinterpret existing fields to accommodate the evolution associated with ITCP and to place priority on truly new forms of creative practice that exploit the power of digital information and networks. They may also need to convene different groups of evaluators who are peers to different kinds of grant seekers and also have an appreciation for how fields and creative practices are changing.

Funders are receiving feedback from their decision-making panels that indicates it is difficult to review the full spectrum of practice now offered within certain granting categories. For instance, a media panel might have to judge a documentary film alongside an interactive installation or Web site. Panelists often feel unable to judge both effectively. How can agencies structure a panel process that will encourage the development of new practices as well as the evolution of existing ones? In other words, how can agencies support development without defining it before it has emerged? One problem can be that people with experience and credentials in a field may feel threatened or discomfited by the onslaught of new media forms. Selection processes need to cover the breadth of evolving practices without balkanizing panels and without slanting choices to the particular expertise represented. It will be important to find ways to function as support for the incubators rather than as a prescriptive reinforcement of existing and familiar forms of work.

73  

The National Alliance of Media Arts and Culture (<http://www.namac.org>) might be an appropriate model for a national umbrella organization to distribute funding to local community media arts centers.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

Support for development of new practices also entails recasting what is regarded as research, to enable expanding activities in organizations (notably government technical research funders) with comparatively little history in funding artistic practices and activities in organizations (notably arts branches of foundations) with comparatively little history in funding IT research. Québec-based funding agencies, for example, have identified an entirely new realm of supportable activity defined by the term “research-creation,” defining a practice that straddles the artistic and the technical and does not carry some of the constraints of technical research. This approach helps to reduce the chances of projects falling through the cracks in a world where, for example, projects are not funded by the NEA because they are perceived as technical research, but also are not funded by the NSF because they are seen as cultural projects. As discussed in Chapter 3, there would be value in establishing a special granting category for tool building in both software and hardware. Additional support would be needed to make these tools available (i.e., distribution, documentation, and support) to both artists and industry and generally push forward creative production.

As noted above, archiving and preservation concerns also have to be addressed by funders. The instigators and funding bodies of ITCP work should feel responsible for the long-term preservation and use of this work whenever possible (see discussion of archiving in Chapter 7). The need for long-term archiving and/or preservation can be addressed both through infrastructure support and through augmentation of the creativity-oriented grant itself.

Getting at the IT-arts intersection involves attention to both the scope of work and the mechanisms of combining different disciplines, whether through the efforts of an individual or cross-disciplinary teams. By drawing on multiple sources of funds—within a complex organization like the NSF or across organizations—a program might reinforce the message that a cross-disciplinary effort is sought, although that raises its own practical problems at the program management end.74

Experimentation with different approaches to grant making would correspond to the novelty and dynamism of ITCP. One model of note is the Pew Charitable Trusts Venture Fund. Created during the mid-1990s to enable the Trusts to explore opportunities that fall outside its traditional program areas, the Venture Fund has no restrictions on the subject matter it can support. Key funding decisions include such questions as, Are we being innovative? Are we maximizing our return on investment? Answers to these questions are evaluated based on social returns, not financial ones. Other questions include the follow

74  

The challenges of combining funding among private foundations and between NSF and private foundations are outlined in the CSTB white paper Advancing the Public Interest Through Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence (KDI), 1998.

By drawing on multiple sources of funds, a program might reinforce the message that a cross-disciplinary effort is sought.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

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.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

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.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

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.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

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.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

“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>.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

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>.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

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/>.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

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>.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
  • 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>.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

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.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×

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.

Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 197
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 198
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 199
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 200
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 201
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 202
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 203
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 204
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 205
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 206
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 207
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 208
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 209
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 210
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 211
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 212
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 213
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 214
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 215
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 216
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 217
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 218
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 219
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 220
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 221
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 222
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 223
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 224
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 225
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 226
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 227
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 228
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 229
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 230
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 231
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 232
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 233
Suggested Citation:"8. Supporting Work in Information Technology and Creative Practices." National Research Council. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10671.
×
Page 234
Next: Appendix A: Biographies of Committee Members and Staff »
Beyond Productivity: Information Technology, Innovation, and Creativity Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $48.00 Buy Ebook | $38.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Computer science has drawn from and contributed to many disciplines and practices since it emerged as a field in the middle of the 20th century. Those interactions, in turn, have contributed to the evolution of information technology – new forms of computing and communications, and new applications – that continue to develop from the creative interactions between computer science and other fields.

Beyond Productivity argues that, at the beginning of the 21st century, information technology (IT) is forming a powerful alliance with creative practices in the arts and design to establish the exciting new, domain of information technology and creative practices—ITCP. There are major benefits to be gained from encouraging, supporting, and strategically investing in this domain.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!