October 28, 2011
Open source documentary bringing the web into cinemas
It's not always easy working in the interactive film space for lots of reasons but the idea of providing real-time two-way experiences around cinema remains compelling to a lot of us web folk.
Some of the most interesting developments in the space the last couple of years have come out of Canada largely due to the National Film Board of Canada's investment in projects documenting and incorporating open culture especially open design processes into film and televison.
On Nov 5, their new documentary One Millionth Tower directed by Kat Cizek as part of the Highrise Project. I caught a preview of the project at the Canadian Film Festival last year and thought it looked awesome.
This will be premiered at the Mozilla Festival (#mozfest) in London using a bunch of new open source technology including Popcorn.js from the Mozilla Foundation (the non-for-profit supporting the people creating open software like the Firefox browser) to bring real-time information from the web into cinemas.
You can RSVP for updates at Mozilla and see more information on One Millionth Tower on the Highrise website
To anyone considering the future of storytelling in 2011 I recommend checking this out.
October 14, 2011
Australia's Digital Culture #publicsphere
Last week I was invited to attend an event to discuss Australia's Digital Culture Public Sphere hosted by Senator Kate Lundy and Pia Waugh. Some observations and ideas from the day below.
Conference junkie that I am, I cut my holiday short to attend. The audience was invited to participate in roundtables broken down into Games, Film&Animation, Media & Music, Digital Arts, and Cultural Institutions. I joined the Digital Arts group which had an interesting mix of institutional arts people, curators, entrepreneurs and perhaps even a few artists. We had a good debate around a number of subjects and one of us then presented findings back to the entire group.
Listening to how our discussion was relayed, it struck me how you can have a group of people all communicating and then take away completely different recollections. According to our spokesperson, from one of the cultural institutions, there was a lot of disagreement in our group. This was interesting, as I couldn't remember there being any. I checked in with two other group members afterwards and they had the same feeling. It seemed this disagreement had been left unstated but then used to shape the group's recommendations. Admittedly the spokesperson, who I won't name to avoid any embarrassment, did say up front that digital culture wasn't her area. But it struck me that not one person spoke up in the auditorium to add additional points when invited to do so. So I'm writing up my recollection and two cents without any expectation that they will strike a chord or otherwise. As one of the loudest contributors no doubt, wearing my artist/entrepreneur hat, I may have missed something.
So what were these disagreements about? In a nutshell, free culture, the role of the state, and the role of the artist.
I think the biggest point of contention was the line we discussed that artists need to become more entrepreneurial in their thinking. This was driven by the entrepreneurs at the table, of which I was probably the least experienced. I enjoyed hearing Alan Noble, Engineering Director at Google Australia, putting in his two cents from outside the arts arena and concurred with his idea, from a recent Festival of Dangerous Ideas Talk "What's killing Australian innovation" that Australians could better embrace failure.
I don't expect to receive public funding to produce art and completely agreed with the idea that for those like myself who can sustain themselves in the private sector, there should be greater recognition and support. At the same time I probably didn't endear myself to anyone by proclaiming myself to have received more than my fair share of public funding (mainly for innovation) but it seemed important to speak from my own experience as an artist. Too often these public sphere debates are dominated by the interests of the institutions rather than the communities they profess to serve. No one is suggesting all artists have to (or can) become business people but the opportunities for a sustainable art practice are so much clearer when you don't rely on handouts from the public purse.
So I'm writing up the three ideas which I introduced at the table, subsequently left out of our summary by the spokesperson. If you think they're worth something, you can vote for them via the linked IdeaScale pages set up for the consultation and better still, then tweet me to continue the conversation.
1) Public funding for arts mentoring and apprentice schemes
2) Establish fair use provisions under copyright law
3) Open licensing of public funded art
Public funding for arts mentoring and apprentice schemes
I'm struck by this article by Arundhati Roy "Help that hinders".
If the government is going to invest in digital culture, why not invest directly as well as give money to institutions?
One of the ideas that the arts institution people at our table loved was the idea of a new institute for arts/science collaborations. As someone who would no doubt benefit from its existence, I had to shut up and deliberate on why the discussion was starting to leave a bad taste in my mouth. The discourse had to be framed in terms of funding for organisations. Where was the artist in all this?
I've long wanted to become an apprentice to an artist whose work I deeply admire. I've had a go several times in asking people. To date I've been unsuccessful, partly I feel because there is no fiscal reward for taking on apprentices in the arts today. Tradies have their government supported schemes but not artists. As I approach 40 I'd also like to be able to take on school leavers and put something back. But so far it's mentoring, regular employment or nothing. If you have had a successful experience as an artist apprentice or.. master?! sounds awful lofty I'd love to hear from you.
Cultural institutions of course have their place and it's understandable that their staff will fight for their patch. I would not for one moment question their right to exist and indeed flourish. We all have affiliations but institutions beget institutions. Institionalised is not a complementary reference for good reasons. You cannot help but be driven by different motives when you are beholden to a larger entity. Some more balance in support for both individuals and organisations would be fantastic.
Establish fair use provisions under copyright law
I threw this into the mix because I would love to see remix art practice decriminalised in Australia particularly for video artists using commercial video samples.
Australians do not have "fair use" provisions to protect them under copyright law the way Americans do. The Electronic Frontiers Foundation secured certain legal protection for US video artists in 2010 but there is nothing like that here.
Students of my Remixable Media course have to study the relevant provisions in US copyright and Australian copyright law to clarify where the line is today. As it stands you can provide work that is protected in the US but which could result in a hefty fine or worse in Australia. Remixers beware.
Open licensing of public funded art
Last but not least, another idea that's dear to my heart that went down like a sack of bricks with the arts institution crowd.
If the government commissions an artist to produce a work for public display, should that artist be entitled to block the public from sharing it? I don't think so, and that's the basis of this proposal. Not only would this provide greater incentive to distribute and promote Australian art but it would also raise awareness of open licensing itself. Licensing options remain a dark art to many creative people given that the arts industry has no incentive to reveal the existence of Creative Commons and Public Domain options.
The same could of course apply to all public funded content, including software, but that's a bigger issue for another day. I've been there...
In 2001 I was on a UK Cabinet Office committee making recommendations re. central government Open Source Software policy. We put forward the recommendation that open source licensing be made the default (or at least considered) for every government funded infrastructure project. This wasn't to stand in the way of tech companies growing their business but more to protect the value of government platforms against the hordes of sharks milking departments with overpriced services. Through my day job at the UK Department of Trade and Industry as a Technical Design Authority (sounds lofty heh?!) I felt I was in some position to comment. So it was interesting to read recently that the UK Government is still grappling with open source policies around procurement let alone new software licensing.
"Our procurement people are saying 'what is this stuff? You can't buy it, it's communist'"
Are Australian IT policies any better? Of course not. But surely our cultural practitioners can made headway in an area where the fiscal stakes are lower. You can keep your billion dollar defence contracts proprietary, but why not allow the kids from down the road reversion that painting you commissioned for the lobby.
Needless to say, the only support for this idea came from Google. Cheers Alan.
