Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

ICT & Art Connect - Final results

More Related Content

Related Books

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all

Related Audiobooks

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all

ICT & Art Connect - Final results

  1. 1. Dr EU FP7 FET-Art Project / ICT & Art Connect: Connecting Communities – Final Outcomes Dr Camille Baker, Brunel University
  2. 2. It aimed to: • bring artists and technologists to work together; • foster development of new ideas and projects; • foster new understandings, innovations and directions for the future. About ICT & Art Connect
  3. 3. Sigma Orionis (Sophia Antipolis, France) Brunel University (London) Waag Society (Amsterdam) Stromatolite (London) Black Cube Collective (Edinburgh) ICT & Art Connect- who are we?
  4. 4. FET-Art project FP7 funded support action project, addressing the FET (Future Emerging Technologies) objective Aims were to connect the European ICT and Art communities, and foster productive dialogue and collaborative work between them, in order to identify new research avenues, associated challenges, and the potential impact of ICT and Art collaboration on science, technology, art, education and society in general. How did this evolve?
  5. 5. Where did ICT & Art Connect originate? Brussels 2012
  6. 6. Workshop, conference and exhibition on the subject of Art & ICT Outcome: there is a need for better facilitation of art & technology collaborations and synergies across Europe. How it all began- Brussels April 2012
  7. 7. Where did ICT & Art Connect originate? Brussels 2012 The 2012 event clearly confirmed that a great potential exists in fostering dialogue between ICT and Art practitioners, and now is the time to support deeper interactions and the emergence of novel projects, and to identify emerging areas for the EU’s H2020 in the ICT domain and beyond.
  8. 8. Key recommendations & questions from the ICT&Art Connect 2012 event report: “We need to study what problems art and ICT can solve together. What are the elements that work across both artistic and computational forms? Are there formulae (ie the golden mean, the three act structure, the Navier Stokes equations) that can be jointly applied? To what degree can craft wisdom be mathematised; what are the possibilities and limits of computational creativity? Can we establish neural-based computational models and multimodal automated measures of aesthetic experience? Does there first have to be a convergence process between art, ICT, brain science and psychology, whereby each discipline better understands the process and language of the other? What are the conditions of genuine cross-fertilisation between Art and ICT both in the academic and the commercial environments? Do we need to understand better the intradisciplinary benefits of art and ICT collaborations, before going on to understand the inter- and transdisciplinary ones? What are the policy implications around artistic/software IP on mass media platforms whose users often employ mash-ups, samples, hacks etc. (i.e. creative commons, antitrust actions, copyright law)? How can we create coherent policy that both generates innovation and protects rights holders? The element of the aesthetic in the ICT innovation process may also need more study.” What issues were revealed?
  9. 9. Connecting ICT & Art Communities • Online Community • Consultation and Matchmaking Events • Co-Creation Residencies Response: FET-Art/ICT & Art Connect
  10. 10. FET-Art approach Focus on the concerns of artists and technologies, such as addressing: • perceptual, disciplinary, ‘culture’ or ‘language’ differences between each discipline; • a poor understanding of how the other discipline works and thinks; • grievances regarding past interactions in collaborative projects in order to shape new processes and techniques to feed back to funders(EU), in order that they fund better collaborations for better outcomes. • start new initiatives to nurture new, healthier interactions and collaborations.
  11. 11. Art & Tech Social, Edinburgh, Sept 18, 2013 Promotional/Starting Activities (BCC)
  12. 12. ICT & Art Connect 2013, Brussels, Nov 9-11, 2013 Promotional/Starting Activities (EC, ArtShare, Waag)
  13. 13. European Parliament, Brussels, Nov 11, 2013 Promotional/Starting Activities (EC, ArtShare, Waag
  14. 14. Promotional/Starting Activities (Brunel) ICT & Art Connect Stand, ICT 2013, Vilnius
  15. 15. Promotional/Starting Activities (BCC) Art & ICT Briefing, Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh November 28, 2013
  16. 16. Economies of Art & Technology Collaboration Amsterdam March 28 & 29, 2014 Promotional/Starting Activities(Waag Society)
  17. 17. Media Buzz Neelie Kroes, Vice President of the EC, mentioned ICT & Art Connect as one of the "great ideas" she witnessed at ICT 2013 for the EU's ICT research and innovation programme – Horizon 2020 Robert Madelin, Director General of the EC called for” artists and technologists to help us make sense of/own our future”, as a result of seeing ICT & Art Connect presentations. Brussels event participants’ showcase at EC Parliament. Imperica’s article: an-futures-connecting-art-and-technology Award for stand with most buzz at EU’s own event ICT 2013 in Vilnius, November 6-8, 2013
  18. 18. Magazine Articles
  19. 19. Website, documentation and online community Each partner was actively promoting the community, inviting their own networks in Europe and worldwide to register on the website and on the social networks; the FET-ART/ICT & Art Connect social media activity includes: Facebook – with over 729 followers, and 71 friends. The project page had, on average, 201 people actively talking about the posts by the project partners, with a total reach. At one point the number of people who saw our page has been 2,731+ people. Twitter - with 544 followers, and during the project events the Twitter identity has achieved up to 9 followers a day and has had 664 tweets in total for the project duration ( as of June 29th, 2014. LinkedIn –with 134 active members. Outreach/ Online community Final Review Meeting| July 2014 | Brussels C Baker/Y Matskevich | Brunel University
  20. 20. What happened at our events? • Presentations by experts on collaboration methods; • Consultation with artists & technologists on past experiences on collaboration and how to make it more effective; Matchmaking activities to start new collaborations.
  21. 21. • ICT & Art Connect Hackathon October 28 &29, 2013 NEM Summit Nantes, France Hackathon Matchmaking (Stromatolite)
  22. 22. • ICT & Art Connect London West January 18 & 19th, 2014 Watermans Art Centre Consultation and Matchmaking (Brunel)
  23. 23. ICT & Art Connect Edinburgh College of Art January, 24th & 25th, 2014 Consultation and Matchmaking (BCC)
  24. 24. Consultation & Engagement (Waag Society) ICT & Art Connect: “Public Engagement in Science through Art” Amsterdam, January 31, 2014
  25. 25. ICT & Art Connect Barcelona, Feb 20/21, 2014 Consultation and Matchmaking (Sigma Orionis)
  26. 26. ICT & Art Connect London East: Ravernbourne, White Building & Bookclub February 22 & 23rd, 2014 Consultation and Matchmaking (Brunel)
  27. 27. Create accessible opportunities for artists. Art organisations and artists should collaborate with scientists and technologists for funding, involving artists from the start, for the whole journey and a deeper collaboration. This should be encouraged as part of future Horizon 2020 calls. An understanding is needed that the role of the artist is not simply outcome led, but that there should be equal focus on the process. Artists need to be valued and paid as experts and treated as equal members of projects. Accept that artists are catalysts, innovators, disruptors and transformers and that each role of is of equal benefit. Create training in collaboration for both artists and technologists. Provide appropriate mentoring for collaborative teams. Consultation Outcomes
  28. 28. Each partner organised their event differently and drew different types of participants: The Brunel audience in London for both events were composed primarily of the very active, knowledgeable, and often academic digital media community in London, they were very keen on the topics and wanted an active contribution to the EC recommendations, or were interested in the residency funding or were there for the speakers and performers; The participants for the BCC event in Edinburgh were generally younger or emerging artists, mainly using traditional art forms; based on the community the organisers were aimed at reaching and are a part of. They were new to many of the issues discussed, as well as many of the technologies. Consultation Outcomes
  29. 29. Each partner organised their event differently and drew different types of participants: Sigma’s Barcelona audience was more diverse and included artists, technologists, citizen science practitioners and activists. They were facing more funding issues, more fragmented communities of practice or less organisational or structural support and more language barriers; The Waag’s event in Amsterdam in January was a more informal consultation and their audience was made from their mailing list and regular community participants, who are already interested and engaged in many of the issues addressed here and are practicing artists, technologists or are hybrid practitioners. The facilitators were more focussed on art & science public engagement, and thus, the audience were interested in the wider topic of art/science. Consultation Outcomes
  30. 30. Emerging primarily from the 2 London events, the Edinburgh event and Barcelona event some common themes arose: 1. Need for Infrastructures to support ICT & Art collaboration; the suggestion were as following: Pan-European match-making facilities and distributed collaborative centres across Europe; Sustainable platforms to access open source tools; Virtual and physical incubators and hubs for collaboration; Need more local hubs or providers of technology for open collaboration. 2. Funding needs More diversified funding and more flexible application process; Funding for travel between collaborators; Funding across all levels from academia to industry; More funding for small organisations; More of follow-up funding (restricted time). Consultation Outcomes
  31. 31. Emerging common themes arose continued: 3. Open-ended projects as opposed to working towards particular outcome. 4. Need for access: To and guidance for application for funding - application for EU funding seems to be perceived as very complex and unattainable (not specific for Art/ICT communities); To information about what happening in ICT & Art domain - for example of relevant projects and their results; To relevant networks in ICT/Tech/Art domain; For artists to technologies: lack of information where to start and where to get access; although some artists can develop their own technologies. Consultation Outcomes
  32. 32. Emerging common themes arose continued: 5. Networking Match-making facilities (more accessible across Europe); Pan-EU network of national/local networks. 6. Sustainability and dissemination Post-project sustainability; Available database of projects and their results and recommendations. 7. Training Interdisciplinary courses for ICT professionals; Creative practices in education; Collaboration training. Consultation Outcomes
  33. 33. Emerging common themes arose continued: 8. Communication and support 9. Transparency of decision making and access to decision makers 10. Collaboration: Effort, task and engagement equal for each collaborator; Equal idea contribution and respect of ideas; Interpretation and understanding of collaborators’ needs are essential; Common motivators; Collaboration should also involve not only artists and technologists, but also the audience; Negative experience: too much pressure to create consensus, lack of honesty and transparency about each other skills, lack of communication, differences in expectations. Consultation Outcomes
  34. 34. Open to artists or ICT specialists to help find project partners; Pairs were formed during matchmaking events, OR in direct contact with project partners, OR using the matchmaking tool on online; Each pairing created a short project proposal, then submitted it for one of our 3 deadlines(end of Dec 2013, end of January, and early March), to start collaborations as late as April; An expert panel made selection ratings for each proposal, then the final decision was made by the consortium for the next phase, the collaborative “residencies”; Residencies were facilitated from 1 day (from the Hackathon) up to 3 months, on the premises of one of project partners or elsewhere (artist studio or ICT laboratory). Open Call & Matchmaking Activities
  35. 35. Round 1 • BioStrike • Data and Ethics Working Group • SenseShifting • Magic Drawing • AR Sign Battle Round 2 • Seeing Healthcare through a Data Lens • Interactivity features for a diasynchronic artwork • Hacking Choreography 2.0 • Guerilla Toy Hack Installation • Gamification of US Military • Silicasonisphere • Physical Representations of Time Round 3 • Dances with Drones • The Human Sensor Residencies Projects Chosen
  36. 36. Brochure or Residencies Projects Chosen
  37. 37. Residencies Projects Chosen Residents pilot projects exhibited and performed at the exhibition were the following: BioStrike – artists and DIY Biologists of MadLab, Biologigaragen and the Open Wetlab: Pieter van Boheemen, Martin Malthe Borch, Zack Denfeld, Cat Kramer & Asa Calow. Hear the City – programmer, Andrew Faraday, musician, Kate Halsall, video artist, Annalisa Terranova; Linguify – developer/ designer, Benedict Allen and educator/developer, Siobhan Ramsey; KrowdKontrol – musician Steve Lawson and programmer Liepa Kuraite; SenseShifting – participatory artist Joana Mollà Hinarejos and interface designer Giovanni Marco; Art of the Deep – musician/ artist, Thomas Flynn, coder, Daniel Lopez and educator/developer, Siobhan Ramsey; AR Sign Battle - artists and technologists from Nantes: Pierre Buffe, Mathias Mouchard, Arnaud Perrillat, Félix Raymond. Data and Ethics Working Group – artists, performers and designers: Elliott Burns, Susana Cámara Leret, Kevin Logan, Geoff Howse, Jack James, Tadeo Sendon and Dave Young, Mike Thompson, with physicist Josep Perello, and Open Data Institute statistician Ulrich Atz; WIKI-Art Comic Strip – interaction designers and mobile games developers collaboration: Marie Lamouret, Victor Pedraza, Sylvia Morgado and Richard Piron ; Dances with Drones - Choreographer, Nina Kov and physicist/ 3D programmer, Gábor Vásárhelyi;
  38. 38. Residencies Projects Chosen Residents pilot projects exhibited and performed at the exhibition continued: Seeing Healthcare through a Data Lens – artist/photographer Sujata Majumdar, software systems designer, Ruud de Boo, biologist and informatics specialist, Irene Nooren, and database developer, Barani Dakshinamoorthy ; Interactive Butterflies for a Diasynchronic artwork – video artist Bruno Mathez, visual and media artist Carol McGillvray, and artist/programmer Neil Mendoza; Hacking Choreography 2.0 – Choreographer, Kate Sicchio and Audio/Vsual artist/programmer, Nick Rothwell ; Guerilla Toy Hack Installation – community artist, David Allistone and programmer and digital artist, Louis d’Aboville; Death From Above - computer scientist, Jonathan Jouty, visual artist, Richard Phillips-Kerr, and filmmaker/sociologist, Igor Slepov ; Silicasonisphere – glass artist, Carrie Fertig, and sound/electronics artist, Dave Murray-Rust Not to be Reproduced: A Narrative Through Time – painter Mark Conolly and 3D printing technologist, Diego Zamora; Ministry of Measurement – performance artist group Thickear (Geoff Howse, Jack James, Kevin Logan and Tadeo Sendon) with Open Data Institute statistician Ulrich Atz; The Human Sensor – Digital Media Artist /Painter/Programmer, Kasia Molga, and electronics engineer, Adrian Godwin.
  39. 39. What happens during the residency?
  40. 40. Experts’ research and experience Literature review & other frameworks Surveys (start and end) Offbot (daily email asking participants about their activities) Face to face mentoring meetings One-2-one interview with individual participants Residencies data collected
  41. 41. To answer when analysing the data: Who is leading the work? How is that working for them? What methodologies, methods and processes are they using to work on the project? What cognitive, communication and knowledge style does each participant seem to exhibit, and how does that work with their partner? What is working what is not? Residencies analysis
  42. 42. To answer when analysing the data(continued): Is the way of working together collaborative or is it cooperative? How are the pairings handling interpersonal relations, problem-solving/conflict resolution, ego issues? Are there any noticeable cross-disciplinary culture/language/terminology/thinking differences? What is the effort, tasks and engagement by each collaborator? Residencies analysis
  43. 43. To answer when analysing the data(continued): What are the skills and experience/background/ approaches to work? What are the similarities and differences? What (if there is one) is the split in idea contribution and how are they respecting each others of ideas and IPR? Are the collaborators sharing skills, knowledge, expertise, space etc., equally? How are the collaborators using their time over the duration of the residency and what is the pacing of activities between them – is it equal? Residencies analysis
  44. 44. To answer when analysing the data (continued): Are there any facilities, equipment, space and environment issues? What is the post-collaboration legacy in terms of sustainability, dissemination and future contact plan? How did the mentoring process affect the residency? How did the project timescale affect the residency? Did the team feel the collaboration was a success? What did they get out of it? What would they have changed about it with the benefit of hindsight? Residencies analysis
  45. 45. • ICT & Art Connect Final Exhibition at Fo.Am Studios Final Event: Brussels, May 11 & 12, 2014
  46. 46. • ICT & Art Connect Final Presentation in European Parliament Final Event: Brussels, May 11 & 12, 2014
  47. 47. Summary of significant outreach results Outreach activities: online community and dissemination activities have been very significant and on-going past the project end; FET-Art reached a larger European community and excited the artists and technologists, to see the on-going activities and support; Existing and new approaches for ICT /Art collaboration within ICT/technology communities, organisations and industry have been demonstrated by artists and technologists; The project activities, conversations, and on-going activities of the ICT & Art Connect initiative will encourage the European Commission to develop additional initiatives to nudge the ICT industry to involve artists in their future undertakings, research and development. Conclusions
  48. 48. ● Pan-European matchmaking facilities and distributed collaborative centres across Europe should be built; ● Sustainable platforms are needed to access open source tools; ● Virtual and physical incubators and hubs (needed in general and to ensure a sustainable legacy beyond lifetime of FET-Art project of ICT & Art Connect website); ● More diversified funding streams and funding across all levels from academia to industry (technology sector should be encouraged to co-fund public/private partnerships; public procurement…); ● Creation of Engineering, Computer Sciences and Visual Arts research hubs coupling state and private funding, in graduate level institutions (example is a model found at Concordia, Montreal (Canada) Policy Recommendations: Infrastructure
  49. 49. 1) Create Embedded Artists Residencies: The artists should be deeply embedded within long term research projects across the European Union’s research portfolio 2) Create a New Art/Technology Awards Programme: Create an awards programme for new, innovative ideas in art/technology collaboration. Artists/Designers pitch ideas and selected ideas are paired with a research project/team. => Innovation Both models offers the potential for highly innovative outcomes, in art, technology and in citizen engagement which will to Europe to be known globally as leaders in innovation, inclusivity, and creative forward thinking. Policy Recommendations: Models of integration of artists as experts
  50. 50. ● Programs to integrate technologists as advisors for artists in residence. ● Awards for technologists tackling technological challenges with interdisciplinary collaborations. ● Longer term relationship building to bring technologists on board to understand the value of working with artists as catalysers, not just to make artwork but to ask differnt questions. Policy Recommendations: Models of integration of technologists
  51. 51. ● Projects should take place across more of Europe, to represent the diverse cultures and communities, rather than mainly in north western, more financially stable countries; ● Programs and the ICT & Art discourse is heavily modeled on the UK and Northern Europe, thus, future support should take into account Southern and Eastern Europe to support as well; ● The idea of connecting ICT & Artis not new, but those currently engaged in it are already working collaboratively and supporting such initiatives; thus, there is STILL a need reach those not currently engaged, both in ICT and Art…  it may be in these ‘hard to reach’ sections of the ICT & Art communities that real innovation lies. Policy Recommendations: Diversity & Innovation
  52. 52. ● Better access to existing projects across Europe with a widely accessible database of artists and technologists; ● Wider, better promoted dissemination of project results; ● Funding for exhibiting prototypes, enaging with audiences and getting feedback – which has been developed during ICT & Art CONNECT residencies (e.g. fellowships or prizes to exhibit at major ICT & ART CONNECT events). Policy Recommendations: Dissemination
  53. 53. ● More time is needed, so that collaborators’ logistical situations can be assessed in advance, and sufficient budget is allocated to facilitate implementing collaborative methodologies that best suit the teams – paying each ICT industry wages (esp. artists); ● Mentoring and project management is vital. Project needs must be assessed initially, to enable best results, and that if required, additional resources should be allocated; ● Greater examination of the personality matches of collaborators and working style is essential to gain further knowledge of best models and process for communication and collaboration; ● Time tracking is essential to plan against teams overworking. Policy Recommendations: Residencies
  54. 54. More time to develop projects and relationships overall; Funding for art/tech collaboration within tech companies – public/private partnerships in ICT& Art; More open events like initial event ICT & Art Connect in Brussels 2012 – with rotating participants to steer the EU art/ICT activities and funding directions; Develop funding for art/tech specialists to work within academic environments to support the industry projects – 1M a call for 5 projects per round per year was suggested. Other Policy Recommendations
  55. 55. web twitter: #ICTArt

Editor's Notes

  • Hello I’m Camille Baker
  • Where did ICT & Art Connect originate?

    The actual origin of the workshop was an encounter between Brunel European research manager Yulia Matskevich and DG Connect Director General Robert Madelin at the European Culture Forum 2011, then Ralph Dum from was brought on board to actualise the event under the aegis of the FET Unit.

    I was invited in by Yulia Matskevich to facilitate the activities of the event.

    What happened?

    We had presentations from EU Funded project participants on their project outcome;

    We facilitated discussions on both days on the concerns of artists and technologists, and ways to collaborate;

    Groups were formed to discuss and come up with possible project ideas

    There was also an exciting evening art exhibition of technology-based and collaborative artworks.
  • A report was written on the outcomes of the workshop and recommendations for future directions that the EU should take on Art and ICT co-creation were made, including:

    A plea to the EU and Europe to think harder about art and ICT as complementary ways of thinking; whereby both computational and creative thinking include making models and metaphors of the world/experience that involve choosing between a range of narrative options.

    To recognise that Art is generally accepted as a good vehicle for public engagement with an understanding of science and technology, and that Art often provides a holistic view of the social conflicts of science’s embodiment in technology. Art helps to convert knowledge into meaning.

    To understand that Artists don’t like environments in which they are an afterthought, getting a pat on the back for making technology or science look pretty,; and technologists don’t appreciate being brought into creative projects just as technicians. So we must think about how the revelation processes of Art making can be integrated into scientific/policy methodologies; and what the right conditions are for true co-innovation.

    Together, Art & ICT can help the wider public to engage in the ethical issues around policy; and through ICT-enabled communication channels, involving participatory democracy around different artistic interpretations of choice, the public can participate and affect decision-making.

    But first collective tools for community management, sustainable management and broad exposure across Art & ICT need to be established.
  • What happens during the residency?

    We offered art and technology pairings resulting from the match making activities at our events and online – offering 1 day to 3 months for pairs/groups to work together intensely, either in one of the project partners premises or within the work space of either of the collaborators, in order to get started on new project ideas

    These pairings were monitored and facilitated by each project partner, and the results of their collaborative processes and overall interaction will be analysed and fed back to the EU

    Then each became a case study toward on Art-Tech inter-disciplinarity and toward creating new funding opportunities and policy on collaboration pairing, methods and facilitation for the future – the ultimate goal was to blur disciplinary boundaries or merge them for a more exciting future.