NEW YORK

AM: Creativity and the Digital Palette

PART 1: INTRODUCTION & FRAMING

John Santos, Ford Foundation

I’d like to welcome you on behalf of the Ford Foundation. Our support for the Digital Independence conference is part of a larger initiative in media and culture, the “Digital Infrastructure” initiative. This effort includes groups as diverse as CPB and CPTV, Hartford; the Benton Foundation and OneWorld; WorldLink TV; Color TV; Center for Defense Information; and NAATA, Native American Public Telecommunications, Latino Public Broadcasting and NAMAC. This initiative is to help these and other groups throughout the country successfully make the transition to digital.

David Rosen, DI convener

I’d like personally to welcome you to this session on creativity and digital technology. This session is intended to surface some of the driving issues of technology development and what, for a lack of a more inclusive term, I’ll call the digital palette. I’m not a media maker or creator. I don’t put my hands into the “digital slime” – the growing body of 0's and 1's that is used for programming, coding, and content development. However, over the last ten-plus years I’ve worked with a multitude of film and video makers, engineers, programmers and designers who for their part have stuck their fingers way down deep in this “slime” and, as though it were the primordial slime itself, out of it created some wonderful (and also some awful) stuff.

This morning’s session is organized in three segments. The first part consists of a “framing exercise” in which James Canton, a leading technology futurist, provides what I see as a “big picture” overview of the cutting-edge technology developments now taking place; he is followed by Mark Napier, a programmer and digital artist, who discusses his experiences deep in that “digital slime.” The second part is a follow-up roundtable discussion that, I hope, pulls together the two extremes represented in the presentations – the top-down and the bottom-up approaches. Finally, I hope we will be able to identify the key drivers or factors of digital technology development and independent media creativity. My plan is to use these identified drivers in the framing of topics for the “DI-04” conference.

Jayme Canton, Institute for Global Futures

There are two issues that I would like to focus on today. The first has to do with what David has called the “technology drivers,” the second with the new business culture in which the current changes in technology take place.

"The four drivers for 21st century are computers and networks, and biotechnology and nanotechnology." JAYME CANTON

The four drivers for the twenty-first century are computers and networks, and biotechnology and nanotechnology. The first two are carryovers from the twentieth century, but with enormously enhanced performance capabilities in keeping with Moore’s laws of computer chip development. The second pair really foreshadow the new millennium. Advances in the biological sciences are grounded in the mapping of the genome – perhaps the most important development of our lifetime. Finally, I believe that nanotechnology will be the defining technology of the twenty-first century – it is the manipulation of matter at the atomic level. From food to energy, from construction materials to DNA, nanotech is an extraordinary fabrication process, a means by which an object – organic or non-organic, living or inert – can be replicated.

In a number of years – which could be five to ten or a whole generation depending on the rapidity of technical breakthroughs, investment levels and other factors - these technologies will become the next-generation tools of the creative process. A decade or more ago, few people (though perhaps a few of them are here today) were working with digital tools, let alone the Internet/Web. It’s imperative that you recognize and appreciate the current state of leading-edge innovations that will be reshaping the underlying scientific and technical landscape. This, I believe, is what David means by creative palette.

This brings me to the second issue I’d like to focus on. I can well appreciate that many of you around this table this morning are artists, independent media makers, academics and non-profit professionals who secure most if not all your income and funding for your work from a government agency, a foundation or other grant source – or, perhaps, from patrons. However, I’d like to challenge you all by pushing you to think that it might be possible to find the support you need at corporations and through investors. I know that this sounds very bold – or naïve, depending on how you look at it – but I think that there are many pioneering technology companies in the nanotech and biotech sectors that would benefit from a collaboration with cutting-edge artists and other creative folk in order to help them do two things: explore the limits of their technologies and make some of those technologies more understandable to the media and public. I know that art is not PR, but if a work of art is successful it does make an important public statement. This is where I think that independent creative makers can play an important role.

Mark Napier, artist

I’m an artist and a programmer and I work with what David calls the “digital slime” – the raw material of digital culture and creativity. Mostly out of personal necessity, I had to learn to get to the code level of digital media as one way to make a living and support my art-making. I trained myself as a programmer and web designer, and over the years I have worked for a wide variety of companies. I’d like to stress, speaking as a digital artist, that one needs to be a programmer to control one’s content.

Today, I’d like to profile two online sites that I’ve created, “Flag.net” & “The Waiting Room.” Each is an exploration of how users participate in online space, whether at public sites or at more restricted ones.

"I’d like to stress, speaking as a digital artist, that one needs to be a programmer to control one’s content." MARK NAPIER

“Flag.net” is more of a public site, one that invites people to create their own flags. It takes visual images appropriate to the web and allows for people to express the symbolic value of combination. People create their own flags, whether an actual flag from their homeland or a made-up flag of a fictional country. The colors and shapes on offer are changed every ten minutes, which demonstrates the real power of the web – enabling change in near real time. The lesson has been that when a site works, people come; when the site doesn’t work, no one shows up. Personally, I have to say that the site's changing so much makes me almost feel that it is not my own work anymore.

Second, “The Waiting Room,” is a more private site and – to follow-up on what Jayme said – it suggests a new business model for artists. “The Waiting Room” is built as a restricted space for, essentially, members only. It is conceived as a “coop” in which each participant buys, for one thoudsand dollars, buys a share of ownership. This entitles a member to access the private sections of the site. One of these sections is a chat-room with a palette of shapes and colors for users to choose from so they can add to the space.


PART II ROUNDTABLE

JC Herz, writer

I’d like to pick up on what Marc's talked about concerning the creation of an environment. The ethos of online games makers is: I don’t make the game, I make the space where the game happens. Game designers create environments! And in doing this, they – like Mark – are willing to abdicate their authorship. Or, let me put it another way, they are

"Game designers create environments! And in doing this, they are willing to abdicate their authorship." JC HERZ

willing to reconceive what authorship means. As with Mark’s flag.net, games developers have a different definition of authorship, one which is not the traditional notion of a product or work of art, but rather one more in keeping with what Mark has done in creating an environment that allows the users or players to make it their own. In a sense, these artists are more like traditional architects, allowing the individual user of a space or room to make it their own, albeit within a fixed context which they didn’t create but which they can move into and take over.

Addressing your point about technical skill, there seems to be a recurring pendulum swing as to the need for skill. A hundred years or so ago, to be an artist one had to schooled in the formal technical issues. Ten or twenty years ago, there was a rejection of skill by conceptual artists. Now the pendulum seems to swinging back, and the demand for technical skills is once more on the rise.

Clay Shirky, technologist

I’d like to frame this in a different way. There is a tension between the hugely increased leverage that anyone can create in a self-contained world all on their own and the lowered cost of collaboration across large numbers of people and wide geographic areas. It’s not a question of either/or, but rather that arts collectives can go much further than ever before. In addition, individual artists can bring more force to bear on solving problems. Both ends of the spectrum are opening up and artists will have a wide set of choices available to them.

I’ d like to remind everyone that the deepest advances in computing or digital technology involve its radicality on the demand side: consumption is not depletion! This is the first time in history that increased output or production does not lead to a decline in available resources. When we make an exact copy of a digital work, we don’t diminish the original work. This is one of the marvels of the 0's and 1's that make up the digital world.

Erika Dalya Muhammad, curator

I’m a curator and it’s my role to bridge the space between the artist who makes the work and the viewer who sees or experiences it. What impresses me is the way people, both artists and viewers, bring cultural experiences to technology. For me, it’s not so much about the technology itself, but rather about how cultural experience affects public interest. People have different responses to technology and we need to be sensitive to this.

Marc Weiss, WebLab

I’d like to pick up on what Jayme was saying about the role of technological innovation. I’m someone who has spent the last twenty

"As a culture, we need to look into possible outcomes as closely as possible before we rush in and - only after the fact - recognize all the unintended consequences." MARC WEISS

years as a TV producer and programmer, and only recently jumped into technology. Listening to Jayme, I found myself getting depressed and anxious. I think there’s a kind of logic that says that, since we can do it, we should rush in and do it! As a culture, we need to look into possible outcomes as closely as possible before we rush in and - only after the fact - recognize all the unintended consequences. Just as Jayme talked about technology being used for health and wellbeing, I can also see new ways for social control and other insidious uses.

The same tension exists on the artistic level, though it is not so scary. New technologies are being developed every day, but should artists necessarily use them? We still have painters who are using the same art forms that have been used for thousands of years, and still finding new ways to use those tools. On the other hand, that a technology is new does not mean that anything “good” will come of it. To take just one, pedestrian example: online discussion, which has been around for about twenty years, is still mostly junk. Most of the people who are interested in technology as an artistic tool need to simmer down and go deeper into the technology – maybe spend two or five or ten years of their life really working with the technology. It took filmmakers a generation and a half to really understand how to use the medium. For me, the question is: “Do we embrace everything because it’s there and abandon everything from the past?” I don’t think so. I think that deeper values need to be a part of the conference discussion.

JC Herz, writer

There’s another part of this discussion that takes Mark’s concerns and goes in a different direction. Instead of recoiling from technology, artists need to go deeper into it. They need to be part of the standards debates and committees so they can play a more responsible role in society and cast the debate in a more critical context. This goes to the deeper question of one’s social responsibility as an artist.

Larry Larson, musician

I’d like to look at this discussion from the side of the musician and the music business. The technological revolution we are in right now, the digital one, gives enormous power to musicians both creatively and financially. But we shouldn’t forget that nobody knows where things are going; everybody in the music field is literally sweating about what’s happening. Everyone is aware that the traditional definitions of who we are is radically changing and that nothing right now is fixed.

Regina Cornwell, writer

When David asked me to participate and I read through the materials he sent, I was struck by a couple of things. First, why use the term “digital,” which is all-pervasive? Second, what is this convergence we are talking about? I think we need to address these two issues if we are going to pull Jayme and Mark's very different presentations together, and if we are going to frame our discussion about art and technology, and indeed the conference itself, more effectively. In one sense, digital is redefining everything and requires artists to learn new skills – all the stuff that we’ve been talking about. But in another sense it’s just one more technique that can be used – part of what we’re calling the artistic palette.

Ken Jordan, writer

I’d like to follow up on what Regina asked: Why do we want to call it digital? I think it is useful to remind people what the underlying driver behind this wave of innovation is all about. We use computers to manipulate all forms of artistic and other work. The incredible power that computing delivers is just beginning to be grasped, so I think labeling the phenomenon helps us get a better handle on what is going on.

"In the 19th century, technological change was profound -- and unprecedented; today it’s a part of life that we take for granted." KEN JORDAN

I’m the co-editor of Multimedia: From Wagner to Virtual Reality, and this book, I believe, helps readers understand how computer-based information technologies emerged from the pre-computer environment. It also shows that far more technological changes took place in the nineteenth century than is commonly understood or appreciated today. Not that big changes are not occurring now too, but in the nineteenth century people were far more disoriented by what was happening to them than we are today. We forget that technology was adopted more slowly in those days, and took a long time to spread through society. Plus, the scale of change was greater. Then, technological change was profound--and unprecedented; today it’s a part of life that we take for granted.

What is interesting now is the level of access to information and how media operates as a unifying force in society. This is hard to absorb because we’re in the midst of it and don’t see it: we can't look back, say, from a hundred years in the future. The underlying constant of our current period of technological development is that information-based media is constantly being upgraded. This creates a powerful sense of churn. And it also enables the access to tools, code, etc., that we’ve been talking about.

John Johnson, Eyebeam

One of the things that I’ve been thin king about is the rapid democratization of technology and the impact that this is having on artists. In particular, I’m struck by how technological change impacts the oscillation between the modernist paradigm of artist as specialist and the more classic model of the artist as generalist. I am encouraged by the potential for a parallel development between these tendencies rather than an either/or pull between old school and new school. But this reframing of the role of the artist in a deeper sense goes beyond the technology issue and is really about society and the place of the artist in society.

I’d like to agree with Regina: The title of the conference, “Digital Independence,” seems funny to me. From an artist’s point of view, independence isn’t the issue anymore. The real issue for artists is the personal isolation associated with independence. Artists want to talk about sharing as part of creative autonomy. They are interested in support. Financial support, naturally, and the benefits of exposure - but also the support that flows from community among artists. This is the other side of the question that Erika raised from a curatorial perspective: How do artists share with audiences?

Neil Sieling, DI co-convener

Since digital technologies facilitate interconnections between groups and individuals, it would be worth talking about “digital interdependence.” So I echo what John says about the social element in the creation of work and what Erika says about the connection to audiences.

Bob Holman, poet

For me it’s all about utility. I’m a poet and I'm involved in new media because we can reach people that way. Not everyone thinks this way. People, and especially artists, will always disagree on what to do – this is what it means to be an artist! When I was traveling around the country doing the ITVS/PBS series, “The U.S.A. of Poetry,” it became clear to me that technology or digital technology is a generational thing. Younger people embrace it as technology; older people use it as another tool. When we asked older poets how they wanted to see their words on TV, they said, “Hey, you’re the filmmakers.” Younger people had a totally different take. They not only saw their words on TV in very particular images, but also heard their words with music.

"I think we forget that the poetry we see in books is not the poem, not the words – the words are spoken and need to be heard." BOB HOLMAN

I think we forget that the poetry we see in books is not the poem, not the words – the words are spoken and need to be heard. Poetry reminds us of a still older tradition, the oral tradition that held sway before writing – which might be considered the first information technology, if you will, as well as still the most pervasive. With “The U.S.A. of Poetry,” we created a form where various artists began to collaborate without losing their individuality. We insisted that the poet was not to be considered “talent,” thus separate from the TV creative process. All had to contribute but in such a way as to strengthen, not undercut the integrity of the word.

Cynthia Pannucci, ASCI

I think we all know that the deeper, underlying issues we have been discussing today will not go away. As someone said earlier, there will always be painting. But for artists today, there is a real push/pull between analog and digital. Nevertheless, the question I think we need to address is: How can we nurture people in this world? How do we create a framework for collaboration and help the individual artist no matter which technology they choose to use?

One of the things I’m working on at ASCI is the notion of global collaboration, and this is something that digital technology, and especially the Internet, enables. This is really an altogether new moment for art and artists. The potential of this is revealed in what Mark showed earlier and what JC said about the games world.

Erika Dalya Muhammad, curator

This conversation has been funny in that we spend most of our time talking about artists, but we’ve done so without a real appreciation of the role of the audiences. I recently curated a show called “Race in the Digital Age,” and I have to say that the audience for this show had trouble with works that were shown. I’m not sure if this tells us that artists are way out ahead of their audiences, but it makes it clear to me that we need to find ways to broaden the communities that the new digital media speak to.

Another of my concerns is the need to find ways to bring people who have been historically excluded from the arts into the digital media arena. This is, in effect, the other side of the digital divide issue – considering the point of view not of the artist but of the audience. How do we translate digital ideas so that they speak to the larger world?

Ruby Lerner, Creative Capital

I’d like to follow up on what Erika has just said. How do we bring attention to the artist's work? I think the arts community today suffers from something I’ll call “stimulation paralysis” – a condition in which artists and audiences find it hard to make decisions. The digital

"What is the sustaining economic model for artists in the 21st century?" RUBY LERNER

transition that we are living through is tough to get a handle on. We don’t really have what you might call the “nodes” to create the critical mass of attention for the works being produced. What is vital, absent these nodes, is to ask the question: What is the sustaining economic model for artists in the twenty-first century?

Digital certainly do not seem to follow the classical model of acquisition – you can’t “buy” an online work like Mark’s “The Waiting Room” in the same way you buy a painting or sculpture. At Creative Capital, we fund a very wide assortment of new-media works. This is part of our efforts to create an environment that is respectful to all forms of creative endeavor. However, to be honest, new things can become seductive because art is about pushing the limits, experimenting with the new technologies.

I’d like to go back what started this very interesting conversation: What is the role of artist in this new era? I think that what Jayme was saying about the role of technology – or at least his four drivers – is important for creating this artistic environment. In many ways, this is very close to the old community arts tradition among animators. Artists need to stay close to the technology, because it helps reclaim something that has been central to art since the Stone Age.

Warrington Hudlin, dvRepublic

We need to reexamine the assumptions on business models. The best way to succeed is to create communities first. If you get people invested in the community and the process, then the money will follow. A key problem with dot-coms was that they kept the old model. The dot-coms that succeeded had a strong community base.

PM: The Independent Media Community and the Promise of Digital Technologies

PART 1: INTRODUCTIONS

David Rosen, DI convenor

Thank you all for coming. This session is part of the planning activities for the Digital Independence conference. My goal in organizing this session is to get a better sense from you of the role played by the evolving array of digital technologies – audio, video, editing, graphics, web, etc. – within the independent media community. Not unlike the profound technology change that came a couple of decades ago when film gave way to analog video, the digital "revolution" promises to have an even greater impact. And, as with the advent of analog video, this transition is bound to be marked by much anticipation and hype as well as by unanticipated consequences – many of which will not be favorable to indie mediamakers.

PART II: ROUNDTABLE

In keeping with the "assignment" I gave you all in preparation for today, I'd like now to go round the table and ask each of you to take a minute or two and identify a couple of key issues that you see – for better or worse -- as significant with respect to the impact of digital technologies on the indie media field.

Warrington Hudlin, dvRepublic

Digital is about the leveling of the playing field. Let me say that at the other side of the Digital Divide, which is very real, there is also a "democratization" of production and distribution that this technology makes possible.

These technologies are challenging the gatekeepers – they now know that competition is possible.

Cheryl Head, CPB

With digital, we are witnessing a shift from a producer-centric to an audience-centric TV programming model – this gives the maker a better sense of who is receiving their work.

"With digital, we are witnessing a shift from a producer-centric to an audience-centric TV programming model." CHERYL HEAD

As a negative (and this I see a lot in public television), there is a peril of digital fostering a great deal of mediocrity – I see too many bad proposals and program ideas. What we need to remember is what we learned with analog: we need to use tools to inform the art and craft of moviemaking, not diminish it.

Elizabeth Peters, AIVF

The hype about the "digital revolution" is creating a misapprehension about what it takes to do good work.

A real negative that most of us don't really talk about is personal isolation – if a maker can do it all on their own, they will end up doing it all on their own.

Lillian Jimenez, activist/organizer

In follow-up to Elizabeth, the democratization of digital production and editing tools – the steep reduction in the costs – is leading to media centers becoming obsolete. The negative that comes with this is more than personal isolation, but the loss of any sense of community among makers.

This leads to what I think is a really important underlying question about technology change and the indie field: What are the most appropriate and efficient forms of organization in view of this change? We need to tie the change in technology to a redefinition of socially responsible entrepreneurship. In effect, the new technologies require us to come up with new models of how we work.

Jayme Canton, Institute for Global Futures

These technologies are changing the "supply chain" – that is, changing the way mediamakers move their products through the marketplace, through the infrastructure of creativity.

This change in the supply chain is fostering new business models and, with them, new models of sustainable, personal careers for creators. As a result a new and more vital dialogue is opening among and between artist/creators and the business/commercial world.

Ken Jordan, writer

The key question we need to address is: What are these new technologies enabling us to do? What actual changes will happen with the new digital technologies? I am particularly interested in how the new communications technologies are leading us to new paradigms for creativity.

Given this, we can anticipate that a lot of money will be made in this space, but little by independent makers. So, no one is talking about how we are going to support people in this space who want a job.

"How are we going to sustain ourselves as artists?" MARK NAPIER

Mark Napier, artist

Let me take Ken's point one step further. How about just a life - not necessrily a comfortable life, but a life? How are we going to sustain ourselves as artists?

To this end, I'd like to suggest that we need a "champion" from the independent sector – be it an artist, an arts administrator, whoever – to go out to business people and secure resources for the original, creative innovations that will drive popular adoption of these new technologies.

Mabel Haddock, NBPC

The question I came with is whether the paradigm of film/video making by non-studio makers is shifting from a gatekeeper/proposal-centered status quo to something new? I really don't know and this poses a real problem for those of us in the field who are funding and producing independent works.

Christine Giraud, Ford Foundation

I would like to suggest that with the transition to digital there is a real need for independent mediamakers to be aware of media policy in general. And, if you are going to consider starting a new advocacy organization, you should make sure a media policy person is part of such a group.

I would also like to suggest funding more works as instructional media. Independent mediamakers need to move beyond public television and theatrical releases and appreciate the education setting of schools, libraries, universities, etc., as significant venues. They shouldn't see these venues as merely "after markets"; they should appreciate them for the impact works can have there on people who really need to – and want to! -- know what indie makers have to say.

PART III: DISCUSSION

"It's the work and not the technology that really matters." BARBARA LONDON

Barbara London, MoMA

Many issues we are raising about indie makers and digital are comparable to issues confronting film/video makers of a generation or so ago. So, while technology is important to a creative field, I think it's the work and not the technology that really matters. It's the spirit of the creator that counts – it's what the makers want to say that helps move the field along.

Michelle Byrd, IFP

I'd like to follow up on Barbara's point. I'd like to question what we all mean by "independent" makers. I think we are talking about a variety of different types of people here. IFP members are really divided into two camps – in one are those who see themselves as truly independent, outside the system; in the other are those who are independent until they get a studio job and cash in. At the IFP – and I think at the conference, let alone the field in general – there is a wide variety of people. Some want big success, while others have different aims, more public/social in nature. We can't and shouldn't limit the definition of indie to just one group.

Regina Cornwell, writer

I'd like to second Michelle. During the boom dot-com years, I was an arts and technology editor at "Red Herring" and I have to tell you that I had trouble getting writers to think of anything but Hollywood. Everyone saw being independent as the best way to get into Hollywood and really make it.

Peter Hamilton, media consultant

I think things might be different now. The dot-bomb blew the bubble. We're in a recession, a difficult moment. I think this new environment might help remind mediamakers what it means to be independent.

Warrington Hudlin, dvRepublic

I'm worried about people having a problem with the glut of media. Having more media available can also be seen as being more democratic.

Ken Jordan, writer

There has been a huge shift of talent from people being on staff to mediamakers to being freelance. Most corporate media are made by people who actually see themselves as independent makers, and this could be an opportunity. Corporations are more slanted toward marketing and the maker's freelance work doesn't relate to their sense of being independent. Digital alters the patte rns and familiar tropes of production and consumption, and we need to think through our response to these changes and advance the cause of independents.

Jayme Canton, IGF

This is like talking TV in the 1940s The conference could help design a set of opportunities to affect where the new media will go. We need to reach for something higher.

Neil Sieling, DI/creative director

The field needs to do a better job of governing itself so as to maximize the possibilities of the new technology. For example, my research for the Rockefeller Foundation pointed to the great potential for an artist's peer-to-peer (p2p) network. But other people said that the system couldn't work because some artists would attack others' computers if they were allowed access. We need to work on the ethics and norms of operating in this area or we won't be able to move forward as fast as we want.

Marc Weiss, WebLab

There are lots of solid channels on the Web, but it is harder to find the good stuff. After five years of work on the Web, I don't really believe that good stuff will rise to the top.

Ruby Lerner, Creative Capital

OK. So, given this new environment, I would like to suggest that a new era of public activism in the arts is needed. This would involve subsidies to encourage public-minded work. These subsidies can function at either the public and/or the private level – as outright grants or as tax breaks.

"A new era of public activism in the arts is needed." RUBY LERNER

I think this is a policy issue and will help tie individual artists/makers back to the larger community. Too much of the last decade has been focused on self-sustaining efforts by individuals with no or a very limited sense of community of interest.

Marc Weiss, WebLab

Let me second Ruby on that. We keep coming back to the need for an organizational voice – the need for an organization to do advocacy, to help channel the collective will of the community reflected around this table. We need a mechanism to give voice to the field. I think this should be an explicit agenda item at DI-04.

Jayme Canton, IGF

I would like to add that if you are talking about an organizational voice, it needs to offer something that is missing elsewhere. On a more mundane level, I think it would be very useful if this organization – or people from different groups represented here today – provided a resource bank for the field, one which provides enabling tools to makers and others.

Neil Sieling, DI/creative director

Digital requires groups and individuals to reach out to others and to build broader communities of practice. With digital, everything falls under one big tent. This forces upon us all a need for greater sobriety and maturity as to what is possible – we can't get caught up in the hype that marked so much of the nineties. It requires us to leverage relationship capital, talents and resources that exist within the broad community of libraries, NGOs and other groups that make up the much larger space in which indie makers have their niche.

Warrington Hudlin, dvRepublic

An issue that no one has mentioned that I think is critical with digital technology is the future of intellectual property. I think that the current status of copyright is doomed and that the big media conglomerates are fighting a rear-guard action to hold onto old analog models in the digital (and global Internet) era.

Lillian Jimenez, activist/organizer

What is the outcome of all of this? I like what David is trying to do - linking technology development, media creativity and the social dimension of our work and lives. We really must find ways when thinking about art and technology to make sure that the "public" doesn't get leached out. This is one of the lessons we've learned from past struggles that we tend to forget or lose sight of. That the agency for change in society is people acting in their own self-interest for the greater good.

David Rosen, DI convener

Thanks, Lillian. I want to note for the record that the notion of "digital divide" hasn't been mentioned. The first DI conference held in 2001 focused a great deal on this issue. Should I take this to mean that we've overcome the divide?

Mabel Haddock, NBPC

I for one can tell you all that the digital divide still exists and is especially real among people of color, among many immigrant communities and on Native American reservations across the country.

Jon Alpert, DCTV

I want to second what Mabel said – I don't think we have to worry about the end of the digital divide in today's America.

I would like to suggest a very different model of how to use digital technologies effectively in ways that were never anticipated. We've put together a Cyber-Car that actually links communities. Its equipped with digital cameras, uplinks, Internet access, etc., and it can carry progressive messages all across the country. The big question we have is how to make it sustainable.

Marc Weiss, WebLab

It seems to me that at the heart of this conversation – as at the earlier one that some of you also participated in – is the need to develop new business models for non-profit or independent mediamakers. This is very hard. Its been very bad for the field to move from foundation or federal grant support to a more marketplace-driven model of sustainability. I think that we as a community of interest need to find better ways to share information.

In any case, let me suggest one exceptional model of success for a non-profit media arts organization, namely the Shakespeare Theatre, New York Public Theatre. They not only cultivated some great small works, they were also able to put on a hit show like "A Chorus Line" to underwrite long-term growth. The challenge isthis: How does a mission-driven organization find financial support?

Cheryl Head, CPB

To pick up on what Mark said, business models with a core in youth entrepreneurship can provide excellent examples of what can work.

Ruby Lerner, Creative Capital

Do-it-yourself movements also suggest useful models, as do the emerging micro-cinemas within the film community.

Warrington Hudlin, dvRepublic

My favorite within this sector has to be the hip-hop community. They took what Cheryl calls "youth entrepreneurship" and combined it with a

"Hip-hop was most vital, most creative to the extent that they were truly independent, before the big labels roped them in and promised them the world." WARRINGTON HUDLIN

use – or reuse -- of technology that no one had ever expected. And they did it selling out of suitcases and car trunks. What they showed is the ability to scale production costs to the size of the community. They were most vital, most creative to the extent that they were truly independent, before the big labels roped them in and promised them the world. What they teach us is that you need to start with your community and build from there.

Ken Jordan, writer

These digital technologies represent an extraordinary opportunity to get new works and new ideas to audiences. They also provide invaluable feedback mechanisms that help us understand better what people want. This can help us bypass various brokers who serve as middlemen in the cultural sphere. However, we need a concerted effort to say we want to make this happen and to make technology a public-interest issue, otherwise it will be appropriated by the conglomerates.

Jon Alpert, DCTV

Let me get back to what Lillian has said repeatedly today: to build community we need shared spaces and the ability to come together – without that, we're just individuals doing our own thing. Look, the DBS channels that we recently won – WorldLink and Free Speech -- could easily get whacked by changes at the FCC. We need to not forget that the ante can be easily raised. We should never forget that we don't control the playing field.

PART IV: KEY ISSUES

Models for interdependence: How can independents work together, share?

No boundaries: Blurring of boundaries – convergence of media types enabled by digital.

Distribution/exhibition: New models required for reaching an audience.

New business models: Mixing of non-profit (including subscription) and for-profit.

Need for community: Public policy and individual experience/survival tied together.