Creative Industries and the Paper Industry --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Creative Industries approach to linking
visual artists and the paper industry: A Case Study of New Possibilities for Paper
Christine Ballinger BSc. Dip.Ed.
Creative Industries Research and Applications Centre Queensland University of Technology
Submitted for the award of Masters of Arts (Research)
December 2004
i
Keywords ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
artist-in-industry partnerships creative industries cultural industries intangibles intellectual property creative capital structural capital
ii
Abstract ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the knowledge economy, the 'creative industries' are recognised as a new
paradigm. They are industries which use creativity as an intangible asset to
generate wealth. The creative industries are described as 'evolving' and their
outcomes frequently categorised as ‘intangibles’. The thesis outlines what I term a
creative industries approach to the engagement of visual artists with industry.
The artist-in-industry program, a component of New Possibilities for Paper, was
established with an explicit brief to generate creative products and contained an
implicit agenda to breed intellectual capital. It was conceived as a means of cross-
fertilising hitherto siloed sectors — an arts environment with entrenched attitudes
towards the subsidy, proprietorship and authority of creativity and the traditionally
conservative paper industry.
Establishing creative industries characteristics and indicators to describe and
measure creative industries operation in this program required careful
consideration, with the characteristics and indicators selected able to recognise
trends or changes. The analysis of the seven partnerships confirmed that the artist-
in-industry program is a creative industries approach upon which future programs
between visual artists and the paper industry could be constructed.
The research found that the creative industries processes in most need of being
addressed, if visual artists are to maximise their benefits, included an understanding
and utilisation of intellectual property, knowledge of commercialisation processes
and a positive attitude towards commercialisation. For paper companies that invest
in R&D, there is recognition that potential tangible and intangible benefits can
result from engaging in such partnerships. Additionally, a partnership in which the
artist’s role (or service) is focused on the industry’s customers and contributes to
employee knowledge was seen as being of greatest value to the paper industry.
iii
Table of Contents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords ……………………………………………………….... i Abstract ………………………………………………………....... ii Table of Contents ……………………………………………........ iii List of Tables …………………………………………………….. v Acronyms and Abbreviations ……………………………………. v Declaration ……………………………………………………….. vi Acknowledgements ……………………………………………… vi
Chapter 1: New Possibilities for Paper and the Creative Industries ………. 1
Chapter 2: The Research, Policy and Industry Context …………………… 6
Chapter 3: Research Methodology ………………………………………….. 17
Chapter 4: New Possibilities for Paper and the artist–in-industry program
24
4.1 Overview …………………………………………………………..
24
4.2 Rationale …………………………………………………………..
25
4.3 Construction of New Possibilities for Paper……………………… 28
Chapter 5: New Possibilities for Paper – The Tangible and Intangible Outcomes ….…………………….
35
Intangible Outcomes ……………...……………………………….
36
5.1.1 Structural Capital ……………….
36
5.1.2 Creative and Human Capital ……...
60
5.1.3 Social Capital ……………………..
62
5.1.4 Environmental Capital ………….
63
5.1.5 Branding and Awareness ……….
63
5.1
5.1.6 Intellectual property …………........ 66
iv
5.2 Partnership demographics and economic investment …………...
71
5.3 R&D ……………………………………………………………..
72
5.4 Commercialisation ………………………………………………
75
5.5 Jobs and services ………………………………………………...
77
5.6 Tangible Outcomes ……………………………………………... 79
Chapter 6: Conclusion and New Possibilities …………………………….. 86 References ……………………………………………………… 88
Appendices Appendix 1: New Possibilities for Paper letterhead
Appendix 2: Interview Questions
Appendix 3: New Possibilities for Paper Node Tree
Appendix 4: Overview of Components for Media Release
Appendix 5: Prospectus for New Possibilities for Paper
Appendix 6: Artist-in-industry Guidelines
Appendix 7: Industry Description and Key Personnel
Appendix 8: Paper by Design prospectus
Appendix 9: Artist Details
Appendix 10: Industry/Artist Process Assessment
Appendix 11: Industry Details
Appendix 12: Partnership Preparedness and R&D
Appendix 13: Creative and Human Capital Generated
Appendix 14: Industry Attitude to IP
Appendix 15: Commercialisation Potential
Appendix 16: Images of Artwork
v
List of Tables ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1: Creative Industries Indicators employed 21
Table 2: Artist-in-industry Partnerships 29
Table 3: Other Key Personnel 31
Table 4: Artist Utilisation of IP 58
Table 5: Investment in the New Possibilities for Paper project 72
Table 6: Tangible Outcomes 80 Acronyms and Abbreviations ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AbaF Australian Business Arts Foundation
APPI The Australian Pulp and Paper Institute
APPITA The Australian and New Zealand Paper Industry Technical Association
aptec Australian Paper Technical Services
CDEP Community Development Employment Project
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CI Creative industries
CIRAC Creative Industries Research and applications Centre
CITF Creative Industries Task Force
CNC Computer numeric control
CRC Cooperative Research Centre
CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
DeMa Manufacturing Design
FOCI Forum on Creative Industries
ICT Information communication technology
IP Intellectual property
PARC Palo Alto Research Centre
QRS N6 Software program
QUT Queensland University of Technology
R&D Research and development
SET Science engineering technology
SME Small and medium sized enterprise
UK United Kingdom
vi
Declaration ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted for a degree or
diploma at any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and
belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by any other
person except where due reference is made.
Signature:……………………………………………………………………………
Date:………………………………………………………………………………… Acknowledgements ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During this research, there have been many people who have generously shared
their time, experiences and encouragement - the artists, industry representatives,
and the numerous individuals associated with the New Possibilities for Paper
program. As well, there were friends providing the right words at appropriate
times.
I would like to thank you all.
In particular, I would like to acknowledge Professor Stuart Cunningham, my
principle supervisor and Director, CIRAC, who strove to ‘push my thinking
further’ and was always incredibly patient.
To my father, mother, sisters and nephews, every word in this research has been
written with the knowledge of your support.
And to David, Benjamin and William, you are the best.
1
Chapter 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Possibilities for Paper and the Creative Industries
The focus of this research is the seven partnerships between artists and paper
industry sectors established in New Possibilities for Paper.
As I exposit in more detail in Chapter 4, the New Possibilities for Paper was a
program I established in 2000 with the aim of enabling the Australian paper
industry and visual artists to find common ground by developing innovative
processes which explore paper as a responsive medium in the digital era. The
project posed the questions 'what will paper become?’ and ‘what will become of
paper?’ (See Appendix 1: New Possibilities for Paper letterhead.)
The project was conceived and designed to explore a diversity of processes and
perspectives and extended over almost four years.
The program included developing and implementing a range of processes that
creatively explored the future of paper by utilising artist-in-industry partnerships
and by developing opportunities for the cross-fertilisation and hybridisation of
creative, technical and ideological practice and understanding.
Its major components were a conference, an artist-in-industry program, a major
national touring exhibition (2001 - 2004), exhibition education program, a
workshop/residency program and paper mill tour, a regional schools program, four
satellite exhibitions and a marketing strategy engaging cultural and paper industry
media.
The guidelines written for the partnerships articulated the desire for outcomes that
exhibited tangible and intangible attributes, far greater than those that could be
generated as siloed sectors i.e. the artists and the industry. Thus, in order to
2
generate beneficial outcomes for both partners, the industry was to be more than a
good corporate sponsor of cultural activity and the artist was to do more than add
another line to their CV. My governing proposition for developing New
Possibilities for Paper was…‘It is only when an artist understands the nature and
dynamics of tangibles and intangibles, when they apply their ideas and engage with
other sectors to conceive, develop, exhibit, promote and exchange knowledge and
then know how to manage and exploit outcomes, can they fully benefit from their
creativity’.
In making this statement, I recognise the intellectual capital gained by investigating
the research question: A Creative Industries approach to linking visual artists and
the paper industry: A Case Study of New Possibilities for Paper.
As a fulltime visual artist, educator, writer, curator, owner-manager of a specialist
art supply business, researcher and project manager, I am a micro business – a sole
trader. My last ‘real job’ was 25 years ago. I operate from home because it is cheap
and easy - it suits my lifestyle and I can go anywhere electronically or physically.
The creative industries exist because of people like myself and a myriad others
with similar lifestyles and who have passion, take risks and do not fit into
mainstream models of business. With the arrival of creative economy discourses,
goods and services with ‘meaning’ added or ‘content’ supplied through creative
application, creatives are reaping economic rewards and setting the pace and
trajectory for the knowledge economy. However, work practices make categorising
these industries difficult and require new ways to develop pathways to support
them.
The public sector is currently reviewing ‘how and why’ it opens its funding purse
in face of substantial increases in the number of artists pursuing subsidies and the
reality that many artists live on less than social welfare (Throsby and Hollister
2003). Arguments centre on a public subsidy model verus an entrepreneurial
mentality. Visual artists have been invited into the creative industries as ‘potential’
suppliers of creativity. ‘Potential’ recognises latency, but not actuality.
3
New Possibilities for Paper was established in the information economy against a
backdrop of the Internet, e-paper and e-inks. Thus, because of substantial changes
in paper consumption driven by ‘digitisation’, for example, decreases in paper-
based communication, increased demand for packaging, direct marketing,
knowledge management systems no longer relying on paper and ‘print on demand’
technologies, predicting a future for the industry is a complex issue. New
Possibilities for Paper was conceived with the ambitious aim of opening doors in
the paper industry — a global manufacturing industry quite removed from the
‘culture of paper’ — for collaborations with artists. The intentions of these
partnerships were to facilitate exchange of cultural and technical knowledge, and to
generate new knowledge.
The research involved interviews with the artists, their industry partners and
industry peers. It was conducted between April and November 2002. Other
artist/industry partnership models were also researched. Chapter 3 considers the
methodology and determination of creative industries indicators, the structure of
the New Possibilities for Paper project is outlined in Chapter 4 and the results and
analysis are presented congruently in Chapter 5.
Factors which helped and hindered the analysis of the program were complex and
interrelated — physical, eg, distance between the artist and their industry partner;
attitudinal, eg, industries perspective on possible outcomes; educational, eg, range
of formal art qualifications of artists; cultural, eg, Indigenous or of other cultural
background, and economic, eg, the size of the industry. The array of intangibles in
which ‘meaning’ and ‘knowledge’ reside were generated, albeit measured only as
trends or changes.
Creative industries are those which centre on the skill and talent of the individual,
applied creativity, the creation of jobs and services and the exploitation of
intellectual property. The potential of commercialisation is recognised. However,
commercialisation was not a consideration when New Possibilities for Paper was
established and, in review, while there is industry ambivalence about whether true
4
commercialisation could be realised, artists expressed enthusiasm for and
acknowledged the possibility of commercial application.
As I report at the beginning of Chapter 2, the ‘generation and exploitation of IP’
also describes creative industries transactions. While copyright as latent capital is
to be found in each artwork, few of the artists intuitively and experientially
understood how to utilise it. One artist, while not exploiting the copyright of the
artwork created in his partnership, generated new knowledge and only afterwards
strategically developed processes to capitalise from it.
A senior CSIRO research scientist with a proficiency at patent applications also
saw new knowledge being generated and, post-partnership, lodged a patent
application based on this new knowledge.
Success has many meanings and, in this program, success was measured many
ways. But the most successful tangible outcome from the partnerships, as judged
by all the artists, the industry sector, exhibition audiences and editors of magazines,
was where the ownership of the outcome resided with both the artist and the
industry partner. Neither could have made the work without the other. The resultant
artwork was artistically and technically acclaimed by creative and industry sectors.
It was also recognised as having the potential to undergo further R&D for
commercialisation.
Tertiary qualifications and the subsidisation of creative practice through other
income streams are not unusual for the visual arts sector. All the artists except the
Indigenous artists held tertiary qualifications and three are currently employed in
full or part time positions as lecturers. Considering the artists’ qualifications, one
would expect there to be a reasonable amount of knowledge regarding the
management of intellectual property with an intention to exploit it. This was not the
case. Therefore consideration must be given to whether the tertiary education
system fails to prepare students with the necessary skills to support the
establishment of a sustainable creative practice or whether they have deterred
students from doing so.
5
Many 'creatives' perceive no boundary between cultural paradigms. Some consider
that 'business is art and art is business', and any process that pays the bills (albeit at
a more satisfying rate than social welfare) and keeps you doing what you are
passionate about is all right. Comparing academic arguments to the operation and
outcomes of New Possibilities for Paper has, in itself, generated new understanding
for myself as ‘driver’ and researcher. I recognise my role was and is one of cultural
entrepreneur. The intention of the research was to inform my practice. This
knowledge will be used to construct more cross-sectorial partnerships that will
have IP exploitation methodologies and the potential of commercialisation.
Understanding the requirements and preparedness to consider commercialisation is
a major commitment by both the artist and industry.
The paper industry also gained new knowledge. Human, creative and social capital
and a new perspective about 'paper' were generated. Each industry that worked
closely with the artists recognised and appreciated the benefits that accrued from
the relationships. While this result can also be construed as outcomes achievable
from other cultural paradigms, the outcomes must also be considered in the context
of the entire New Possibilities for Paper process.
If New Possibilities for Paper is reviewed as an R&D process and the grants and
industry sponsorship are called ‘seed capital’; then there is potential for IP
exploitation within the new knowledge generated. Knowledge and products
generated by New Possibilities for Paper included one patent application and one
design right; structural, human, creative and social capital; over 100 artworks; a
publication; a CD-ROM; and an education kit.
Whilst sharing attributes with other models operating in the area of artist/industry
partnerships, New Possibilities for Paper was a successful creative industries
process and has the capacity to be adopted as a framework for further partnerships
between visual artists and the paper industry.
6
Chapter 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Research, Policy and Industry Context When the ideas for New Possibilities for Paper were being incubated in 1999, ICT
— Information, Communication and Technology — was considered to be the
driver of global economic change and was regarded as a key to the ‘information
economy’ (Catlin 1998; Papercom 1998). Prior to this, in 1997, the Blair
Government established the Creative Industries Task Force (CITF) and began
advancing the proposition that the most successful economies and societies in the
twenty-first century would be creative ones (Creative Industries Task Force 2001).
The paradigm shift has been recognised by economists such as Sveiby (1997),
Howkins (2001) and Browne (2002) who contend that knowledge and creative
production, and exchange and application are now moulding the global economy.
The Creative Industries
The creative economy is defined by Howkins as being ‘financial transactions in
creative products… whose raw material is human talent’ (Howkins 2001: xiv).
Like Howkins, Florida (2002) has recognised that diverse sectors have the capacity
to supply creativity. Within these sectors, the ‘human talent’ operate as micro
businesses that employ fewer tangible assets than traditional business (Banking on
Culture 2000: 9). The Creative Industries Task Force - CITF (2001), developed a
taxonomy of suppliers of creativity, which included visual artists and it was
adopted by Australian government departments and policy researchers and
strategists (Department of Communication Information Technology and Arts 2001;
Cunningham 2002; Department of State Development 2003).
Creative industries, as defined by CITF (2001) are ‘those industries which have
their origin in individual creativity, skill and talent and which have a potential for
wealth and job creation through the generation and exploitation of intellectual
property’. The definition combines and transforms existing policy models — the
creative arts ‘the subsidised or sponsored ‘public’ arts’ and the cultural industries
‘mass information and entertainment’ (Cunningham and Hartley 2000) — two
7
models critically described as being ‘elitist and requiring perpetual public subsidy’
(O'Connor 1999: 2) and ‘unable to take advantage of the social, technological and
cultural changes that have evolved’ (Cunningham and Hartley 2000: 5).
Economists have also entered the debate about how to define the creative
industries. Cave’s definition recognises it as ‘supplying goods and services that we
broadly associate with cultural, artistic or simply entertainment value’ (Caves
2000: 1), while Howkins employs a much broader, yet more insightful, definition
embracing the four major intellectual property sectors – copyright, patents,
trademarks and designs (Howkins 2001). Howkins considers that Britain and
Australia have restricted the term ‘creative industries’ by ‘excluding science and
the patent industries’ (Howkins 2001: xiii), whereas Cunningham and others
(Cunningham and Hartley 2000; Flew 2002; Cunningham 2003) argue that the
behaviour of the creative industries (i.e. their innovative nature, producing
prototypes under experimental-like conditions and their use of high tech solutions
at the cutting edge of contemporary consumption patterns) warrants their inclusion
in the R&D sector.
Concerns about the sustainability of the arts sector and coherent long-term artform
strategies need to be addressed (Ellyard 2000; Thorncroft 2002). Current statistics
show that visual arts and craft occupations have declining incomes while there is a
substantial increase in the number of Australians calling themselves ‘artists’
(Throsby and Hollister 2003). The need to change the status quo for the visual arts
was heralded years ago when ‘arts policy became cultural policy’ and a ‘whole of
government priority’ ushered in an ‘erosion of the high culture system’ (O'Regan
2002: 11) and arts funding agencies signalled their support for ‘original thinking,
inventive resourcefulness and creative industries as ideas whose time has come’
(Arts Queensland 2001: 45).
There is also argument over the positioning the creative industries as a services
industry is argued. O’Regan (2002: 19) states that ‘the creative industries model
configures culture as a service industry and creativity as an application’.
Cunningham and Hartley consider ‘the creative industries are ‘the service
8
industries of the new knowledge economy’ (Cunningham and Hartley 2000: 5).
Flew expands, ‘the relationship of creative industries to the knowledge economy,
cultural industries, and the service industries sector, is central to understanding the
dynamics of the new economy’ (Flew 2002: 8). While O’Connor adds that, as a
service, ‘applied creativity may have nothing to do with culture or symbolic
knowledge’ (O'Connor 1999: 10).
However, Gibson and Throsby have expressed their concern about creative
industries approaches. Gibson (2002: 27) considers that there is a problem in
coalescing ‘enterprise processes for cultural support while retaining public interest
rationales for cultural policy’, while Throsby (2001: 33) distances himself from the
adoption of creative industries policy, considering such policy, based solely on
fiscal objectives, as misdirected.
Roodhouse (2003), Myers (2002), Fleming (2003) and others discuss the difficulty
in measuring the economic scale and scope of creative industries. This was a major
issue when analysing the outcomes of New Possibilities for Paper artist-in-industry
program. These issues will be addressed in Chapter 3. The creative industries are
networked, organic, and flexible and their value resides within the generation and
trading of intangibles. Sveiby (2004), Kelly (1999), Mohamad (1999) and Lev and
Gu (2001) are economists who have developed measurement systems which try to
determine the value of intangibles. Within these measurement systems there is
agreement on the definition of intellectual property, but classifying intangibles is
problematic. Hill considers intangibles to include ‘the original artwork as the
archetypical immaterial good’ (Hill 1999). PricewaterhouseCoopers (2001) equate
intangible assets to intellectual capital. Intangible assets, according to Miller
(2002), ‘are attributes of people’. Ferrier (2000) and Sveiby (1997) on the other
hand group human or employee competence.
The government sector recognises the significance of the role the ‘creative arts’
play in the new economy. The Queensland Department of State Development
includes the visual arts and crafts in the Creative Industries Strategy (Department
of State Development 2003), while Arts Queensland considers ‘fostering creative
9
and artistic excellence as important in developing commercial potential’ (Arts
Queensland 2002: 20). However O’Connor expresses concerns ‘associated with the
increasingly centralised role of cultural value within economic production’
(O'Connor 1999: 5), and McNamara writes of reports from Britain that ‘the creative
industries tend to limit, rather than expand the range of what is permitted as
culture’ and that ‘the interest is in creativity as a set of vocational skills which
come with no baggage i.e. the autonomy of art’ (McNamara 2002: 68).
The visual arts and creative industries policy
In September 2002, the results of a major national inquiry were released — the
Report of the Contemporary Visual Arts and Craft Inquiry commissioned by the
Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (Myer
2002). The brief of the twelve-month Inquiry was to ‘scope the sector, examine its
cultural and economic contribution, and make recommendations on key issues
impacting on future sustainability, development and promotion of the sector as a
whole’ (Myer 2002: 5).
The Inquiry employed Cave’s definition of creative industries while additionally
describing them as ‘industries whose major output is intellectual property with
digital code being the ‘lingua franca’ and opportunities for collaboration with
different industries numerous’ (Myer 2002: 44). Comparing the Inquiry's adoption
of Cave’s definition with the CITF definition, three major differences are apparent
and relevant to this research.
First is the level of significance given to the role of the individual within the
operating system. Creative Clusters Ltd (a company, established in 2001, focused
on creating international networks and conferences for creative industries) employs
an ecological analogy in describing the creative industries … ‘there are a handful
of high-profile players e.g. whales, dependent on vast shoals of project-based
microenterprises’ (Evans 2002). As such, visual artists are content producers; they
employ different processes of creative thinking and action-based research, and
present alternative concept models which can significantly contribute to innovative
10
processes. According to Howkins, ‘they are risk takers and rule breakers’ (Howkins
2001: 13).
Craftsouth’s submission to the Inquiry reinforced the importance of recognising the
individual within the creative industries debate. ‘It is critical that definitions remain
flexible enough to accommodate the emergence of new types of practice to include
craftspeople, designer-makers and visual artists who specialise in ideas
development and project coordination not necessarily culminating in object making
or exhibition’ (Myer 2002: 31).
The second difference relates to ‘attitude’. The Report makes the following
statement: ‘it is very difficult to quantify the broader economic contribution of the
contemporary arts and craft sector, largely due to the myriad, and often intangible,
contributions it makes’ (Myer 2002: 45). Many would agree (O'Connor 1999,
Leadbeater 1999 and Sveiby 2004), but by employing Cave’s definition, the Report
aligns itself with views about cultural outputs from the sector as being ‘content’
and ‘service’. It fails to expand upon ‘how’ the visual arts can operate within
sustainable practice methodologies.
Finally, the language of the Report appears to position the visual arts outside the
creative industries — ‘contemporary visual arts and craft sector’s interaction with
the creative industries’ (Myer 2002: 44). The Report also recognises the importance
of intellectual property stating ‘it is a fundamental element of a well functioning
sector’ (Myer 2002: 44). Yet it does not make the connection between IP, the
creative industries and ‘a well functioning sector’.
Financing the visual arts sector
Banking on Culture point out that ‘grant based models can lead towards
unsustainable, subsidy-dependent development’ (Banking on Culture 2000: 9). The
Report of the Contemporary Visual Arts and Craft Inquiry on the other hand
recommends increasing funds to the contemporary visual arts and craft sector. This
is despite the fact that it recognises ‘a high degree of competition for access to
limited government funding, and as a result, the need for more flexible and varied
11
sources of support for the contemporary visual arts and craft sector is clear’ (Myer
2002: 10). After consideration of the Report, the Federal Government approved an
increased allocation to the sector of $15 million per annum for three years. Whilst
welcomed by the sector, it perpetuates the subsidy model.
The Government provides financial support to stimulate growth in other sectors,
but many of those sectors also have access to forms of capital eg venture capital
historically difficult to access for the visual arts. In other words, those sectors are
perhaps not as reliant. The other sources of support include the private sector,
where philanthropy and sponsorship are viewed as the principal source.
There is, however, an argument that making gifts from shareholders funds is
inappropriate (Patrick 2001). Research into corporate sponsorship has revealed the
perception among some companies that arts and culture are an exclusive preserve
and are hence acutely aware of criticism about social exclusion (Australian
Business Arts Foundation 2002). To complicate matters further research which
indicates that the costs associated with securing and maintaining such sources can
often erode over 40% of the funding received (Peppercorn 2002), warranting
consideration as to whether it is worthwhile.
Partnerships between art and industry
While a comprehensive adoption of the creative industries paradigm by statutory
bodies has not yet occurred, some creative industries partnerships have already
been formulated (Department of State Development 2003) and conceptual
components are to be found in many reports, ideas and issues papers. Arts
Queensland’s Cultural Policy ‘Creative Queensland’ is one such report. Arts
Queensland will invest in creative enterprise guided by key strategies including
increased employment and training opportunities in the cultural and creative
industries. Where a strong business case can be demonstrated, a business start-up
program is a proposed instrument of the strategy (Arts Queensland 2001).
However, O’Connor heralds a warning about strategies employed to ‘skill’ creative
industries in business. He notes that ‘cultural businesses operate in ways very
different from the standard models of business practice’ (O'Connor 1999: 12).
12
Others, eg Banking on Culture (2000), have concerns about relationships where
there is a commercial investment, as one condition of the investment is often the
loss of control over intellectual rights. Such is the case with Art Built-in and
government commissioned outcomes. While this may make for astute economic
management it signals a loss of long-term intellectual property.
Notwithstanding these caveats, there are a number of pre-existing policy and
relationship models for ‘partnering’ art and industry. Xerox partners artists and
scientists with similar ‘technological’ understandings in its PAIR at PARC (Palo
Alto Research Centre, California) program (Xerox 1999). The Australian Business
Arts Foundation (AbaF) advocates for business and the cultural sector to establish
partnerships to employ a ‘business case’ approach (Australian Business Arts
Foundation 2000). Australian Paper have ‘partnered’ the Victorian Centre for the
Arts in financially supporting the Australian Paper Awards for a number of years
(Australian Paper 2001). The Art Built-in Policy, established by the Queensland
Government and administered by the Public Art Agency, DeMa (Design
Manufacturing), involves the commissioning of artists and designers to develop
one-off artworks for selected capital works (Public Art Agency 2001). The agency,
in conjunction with the Queensland Department of State Development, has also
piloted a program which partnered furniture designers with manufacturers (Arts
Queensland 2000). All these models range from sponsorship to incubators to
commissions and to the more familiar (to the design and industry sector),
design/manufacturing relationships.
Sections of the visual arts have been operating within a number of these models
(Australian Business Arts Foundation 2000; Australian Paper 2001; Public Art
Agency 2001). Major institutions, flagship companies and nationally recognised
artists have engaged with business through the philanthropic and sponsorship
models. Indeed, the majority of the partnerships fall into an art and industry
sponsorship model (Australian Business Arts Foundation 2000; Victorian Arts
Centre 2000).
13
Visual artists and the creative industries
Recognition of the role creativity plays in cross-sector partnership is not new, eg, in
1984 the Royal Society of Queensland, the Australian and New Zealand Academy
of Arts and Sciences and the Queensland College of the Arts held a symposium
‘Integrating Art, Science and Technology’ (Royal Society of Queensland 1984).
However the global impact of digital technologies and the rapid creation of the
knowledge economy or, as John Birmingham describes it, ‘the increasingly frantic
process of continual paradigm shift’ (Birmingham 2001: 33) is here and it brings
with it an imperative that ‘must challenge us to mobilise the resources now’
(Forum on Creative Industries: xxxii).
Are the visual arts equipped with the tools and preparedness to engage within
cross-sector partnerships? Many think they have some of the tools. Stafford, in her
book Visual Analogy, argues that visual artists ‘develop a complex visual system in
the brain which not only respond to shifts in the lifeworld, but helps shape adaptive
learning’ (Stafford 1999: 138). Both Howkins (2001) and Sveiby (1997) take
Stafford’s analysis of these implicit qualities and consider them the foundation
stone for the source of ‘creativity’. Xerox recognised the latency of harnessing
these conceptual ‘visual systems’ when pairing visual artists with scientists in their
PARC Artist-in-Residence Program (Xerox 1999).
‘High risk’ is synonymous with innovation whether the outcomes are to be
artworks or gadgets. Artists constantly work with ‘uncertain demand’ (Caves 2000:
3). FOCI (Forum on Creative Industries) recognises the sector’s risk-taking
attributes which ‘as micro businesses must integrate within their activities if they
are to remain at the cutting edge’ (Forum on Creative Industries: 2) . The
submission to Myer, by 2000 Gertrude Street, a contemporary artspace in
Melbourne, considers ‘artists as early adopters as well as adaptors of new
technologies’ (Myer 2002: 87). ‘Disruptive innovation’ (Clayton, Raynor et al.
2003) or ‘churn’ (Kelly 1999) are terms which echo the dynamics (and uncertainty)
of the blurred boundaries and hybridisation increasingly apparent within the sector.
14
Gibson expresses concern about the establishment of a new set of boundaries…'a
new hierarchy could well be established in the arts whereby cultural forms which
have a commercial application are favoured above those which are useful for social
or cultural reasons and therefore seen as secondary to those with higher profit
potential’ (Gibson 2002: 33). O’Connor points to a more marginalised scenario of
the arts becoming ‘a special interest group only’ (O'Connor 1999: 13). Regardless
of such scenarios, Banking on Culture (2000), CITF (2001) and Howkins (2001)
are some of the many voices expressing the imperative for the visual arts to seek
sustainability and flexible investment systems.
But a pathway to sustainability for the visual arts, if they adopt creative industries
methods, is through ‘exploiting their intellectual property’ and this appears to be of
concern for many people. Visual artists historically have not explicitly traded on
their IP, normally manifested as copyright. Howkins points out, many artists
discourage the copying of their artwork and therefore do not benefit from this
potential income stream. In this case, he contends that copyright does not even
apply (Howkins 2001: 92). Caves (2000: 10-17) identifies logistical problems when
the artist contributes to a project and presents a number of contract theories to
enable the artist to be appropriately remunerated. These contract theories
acknowledge that artists are different from any other sector, there are varied styles
of creative artists, and there is a range of processes by which creative goods and
services are generated.
Howkins also draws our attention to the lack of standardised global intellectual
property law conventions causing problems associated with pursuing infringements
(Howkins 2001: 28-29). The Australia Council acknowledges that further problems
arise when the protection of copyright is beyond the financial capacity of the artist
(Ellyard 2000; Myer 2002). Specific help to access effective and expanded
protection for intellectual property rights is highlighted by Banking on Culture
(2000). And finally, Myer (Myer 2002: 7) stresses the ‘establishment and proper
administration and enforcement’ as crucial. Even the industry sector, e.g. Visy, has
expressed major concerns associated with IP protection…'in the 21st century, trying
15
to protect intellectual property rights is a waste of time and money. The only thing
you can do is run faster than the next guy and keep on innovating’(Pratt 2000).
The Australian paper industry and the creative economy
It is not only cultural policy agencies that are ‘struggling with the discursive shifts
that an industry-based entrepreneurial conception of cultural policy entails’
(Gibson 2002: 26). The industry sector must also address similar dilemmas,
(discussed further in Chapter 4) whereby they reevaluate their entire operations and
asset base in light of the knowledge economy. Sveiby refers to this as assessing the
‘new organisational wealth’ (Sveiby 1997). Papercom (1999), a strategic alliance
comprising the major global paper companies, national postal services and direct
mail organisations, was formed after the need for radically new attitudes and
perspectives was recognized. While ‘reassessment’ has been heralded, the question
remains as to whether this very conservative manufacturing industry can undertake
a paradigm shift by recognizing that ‘creativity’ sourced from the visual arts could
increase corporate profitability.
Cunningham (2003), as discussed previously, and Howkins (2001) create a link
between the creative industries and the R&D industries. In Chapter 5, the New
Possibilities for Paper research found a relationship between industries prepared to
participate in the artist-in-industry program, the management hierarchy that
approved of the partnership and the industry’s investment in R&D. This finding is
supported by research undertaken by PricewaterhouseCoopers (2001). They
established a link between R&D investment and significant business impact, and
that an important relationship exists between the level of CEO commitment to
R&D and an industry considering itself as a technological leader.
The link between R&D investment, management hierarchy supporting the
investment and ‘significance’ of the industry is apparent when considering
Australia’s two major paper manufacturing companies, Visy and Amcor, both of
whom were involved in New Possibilities for Paper. They both operate globally.
Between them, they own or have owned numerous subsidiaries including the
majority of Australia’s paper merchant houses. Richard Pratt, CEO and owner of
16
Visy, reflects on the paper industry…'for most of our history we have been price
takers’ (Pratt 2000). Pratt’s vision for growth in the knowledge economy includes:
'the effective use of new technology and equipping the organisation and its people
with the intellectual capital to understand how to transform knowledge into
business opportunities’ (Pratt 2000). Aptec — Australian Paper Technical Services
— is the R&D division of PaperlinX (a former subsidiary of Amcor and the largest
supplier of paper in Australia). Aptec considers that…‘a truly new idea that turns
into an innovation is a rarity’, and…‘ideas are fine, but execution is better’
(Australian Paper 2002:7) . The Australian Pulp and Paper Institute (APPI) is a
department within Chemical Engineering Monash University, Melbourne. In 2002,
a Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) between APPI, CSIRO and the Australian
National University established 'The National Printing Laboratory for Functional
Communication Surfaces' (Monash University 2004). Some of its industry partners
included the Reserve Bank of Australia, Australian Paper (a subsidiary of
PaperlinX), Visy, Amcor and SCA Australasia.
The Australian paper industry and the artist-in-industry partnerships
Previous investment made in the visual arts by paper industries in Australia include
the Australian Paper Awards (conceived when Amcor was the holding company of
Australian Paper), Visy’s, or more correctly the Pratt Foundation’s, sponsorship of
a cross section of artforms and CSIRO’s coordination of the Metis (exhibitions of
science and art) program (Scott 2001). The three relationships reflect philanthropic
and sponsorship processes even though some ‘collaboration’ occurred between
artists and scientists in the Metis program.
New Possibilities for Paper artist-in-industry program was developed and operated
in a climate where the global economy was changing from being based on
information to one on knowledge; the scrutiny and categorization of the creative
industries had commenced; industry was advised to grow their business through
disruptive innovative processes (Clayton, Raynor et al. 2003) and visual artists
were asked to consider that ‘a line between ‘art’ and ‘commerce’ is ideological and
not analytical’ (O'Connor 1999: 5). 'Art for art sake’ was definitely not one of the
criteria for New Possibilities for Paper.
17
Chapter 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Research Methodology
The Research Theory and Strategy When considering the research methodology for this study, two questions were
asked: what is the reason for the research and what is the nature of the research.
Their answers overlapped and fed one another.
My previous research (in the United States and Japan and prior to establishing New
Possibilities for Paper) into the traditions and processes of papermaking provided
insights into the commercial paper industry. New Possibilities for Paper was
visualised as a hybridised process between industry and artists as they explored
common questions about the future of paper in the digital era.
New Possibilities for Paper included an artist-in-industry program, a national
touring exhibition and a conference. It involved developing a prospectus and some
guidelines for various components of the project. These components included the
artist-in-industry program, establishing project funding, partnership brokering,
selecting artists, project management and documentation, writing essays, catalogue
and education kit, establishing peer review programs, and curating the touring
exhibition Paper as Object.
The unit of analysis and sources of data
The seven artist-in-industry partnerships were the focus of the research. Methods of
‘data’ collection included interviews that allowed the research to ‘enter the other
person’s perspective’ (Patton 1990: 278) and to generate post-partnership dialogue
and text. Archival documents in the form of artist and industry correspondence and
photographs and artwork, were also collected.
Although a clear distinction between data gathering and data analysis is commonly
made in quantitative research, such a distinction is problematic for qualitative
researchers. It is assumed that the researcher’s presuppositions affect the gathering
18
of the data – the questions posed to informants largely determine what you are
going to find out (Myers 1997). Denzin and Lincoln (2000: 9) note that care must
be taken when judging whether interpretations from data analysis are useful and
worthy of adoption. Further, when employing a ‘case study’ strategy involving the
interpretation and analysis of interview texts, attention must be paid to a ‘multi-
perspective’ to elicit other and/or fuller understandings. Denzin and Lincoln (2000:
121) adopt the phrase ‘circle of readings and interpretations’.
A variety of analysis techniques were applied to the seven partnerships. ‘Thick
descriptions’, and triangulation via different sources of data and methods of
analysis were expected to interrupt the process of developing empty generalisations
(Denzin and Lincoln 2000: 10).
The data generated during the research, and upon which the research analysis is
based, included three categories of interviews – those with the individual artist,
those with the industry partner and those with industry peers. Within the industry
interviews, two subsets were recognised (determined by the position description, its
adherent responsibilities and its employment hierarchy). They were management
and technical staff. Interviews were conducted between April and November 2002.
The other set of data that was to be analysed in the research was generated prior to
the commencement of research and included
• the Project prospectus
• Artist-in-industry guidelines
• artist’s CVs
• pre-partnership industry interviews and correspondence
• artist partnership review material
• media exposure in cultural and industry sectors
• exhibition catalogue
• exhibition education program
• critical writing
• post-partnership industry interviews and correspondence.
19
Sampling Frame and Sample Size
The seven artists (including ‘one’ which was a group of Indigenous women) from
the artist-in-industry partnerships were Mary Dorahy, Kevin Todd, the Euraba
Paper Company, Adele Outteridge, Wendy McGrath, Helen Sanderson and Helen
Mueller. All artists, except the Indigenous women of the Euraba Paper Company,
were interviewed. In the case of Euraba, the interview was conducted with the non-
Indigenous management staff.
The industry partners were Visy, the Australian Pulp and Paper Institute Monash
University, Cotton Australia, B&D Bookbinders, Gabriel Poole Designs, Edwards
Dunlop Paper and Spicers Paper. As already noted, different hierarchies within the
industry were involved in the project. Those industries in which more than one
level of hierarchy was involved resulted in subsets of interviews. To improve
understanding, interpretation, analysis and validity (through ‘triangulation’),
representatives of the industries that became involved during the project, but were
not involved in partnership programs, were also interviewed.
Collection and storage of data
All documents generated by the artist-in-industry program were collected and
collated, as were all the details of the case study participants.
A letter providing an overview of the research proposal and requesting an interview
was posted to all participants. The letter to the artists included a request for them to
list events related to their partnerships that have occurred since the partnership
concluded. This helped in deciding if the indicators selected to analyse the data
were present, and also informed the scale and scope of the analysis. It also had
input into the interview questions that explored the participant’s interpretation of
their partnership.
The interview questions were formulated to document the process of and outcomes
from the artist-in-industry partnership, to reveal the level of understanding about
creative industries and to indicate the preparedness for further partnerships.
20
Three sets of interview questions were constructed – artist, industry partners and
industry peers. The questions were provided beforehand if requested. (See
Appendix 2: Interview Questions.)
The interviews were taped and transcripts typed and stored using Microsoft Word.
Transcripts were reviewed and edited by interviewees before being signed and
returned. Alterations to the computer-stored transcripts were then made. The tapes
and transcripts of the interviews were archived by the researcher.
End-note software was used to code references.
Establishment of indicators
As QRS N6 analysing software was used to code blocks of text from each
transcript, indicators or nodes were established and placed in a hierarchy. QRS N6,
the 6th version of NUD*IST software, is designed for the management and flexible
analysis of text data. (See Appendix 3: New Possibilities for Paper Node Tree.)
Establishing the indicators (nodes) and their hierarchical ranking was difficult for
many reasons. The indicators were required to register operational processes,
participant details, outcomes of the artist-in-industry program and the scale, scope
and value-adding associated with the creative industries paradigm.
The majority of indicators are ‘intangibles’ and, as economists have pointed out,
old economics tools cannot be used, as they will not measure or perceive what is
new (Sveiby 1997: 155). Given this position, tangible and intangible indicators
were selected. The nature of the data, the constructed artist-in-industry program
and the responses by the case study participants, continually fine-tuned the
selection and form of the indicators. While nodes such as gender and location were
established to record demographic information, the majority of the nodes could be
classified as either tangible or intangible, eg professional status and corporate
attitude. The indicators selected are collated in Table 1.
21
Indicators
Cultural products Artwork
Publications
Tangible
Commercialisable
products
Structural capital
The means by which an organisation
acquires and organises human capital
Intellectual property Patents, copyright, design rights,
trademarks, proprietary information
Human capital Skills and competencies
Creative capital Creativity is a capital asset
Social capital Investment made in the community
Environmental capital Investment in environment
Intangibles
Note: The term
‘capital’ is used to
indicate that it has the
same essential quality
as traditional assets –
‘it results from
investment’ (Howkins
2001: 211). Branding and awareness Image and recognition
Investment by and
size of the industry
Investment in R&D
Commercialisation
Jobs and Services .
Table 1: Creative Industries Indicators employed
Coding of Data As previously mentioned, QRS N6 analysing software was used to code (as a
‘node’) blocks of text from each transcript. The software allows the researcher to
import and code textual data; edit the text affecting the coding; retrieve, review and
recode coded data; and search for combination words in the text or patterns in the
coding.
Each pre-determined CI indicator became a ‘node’, as did demographic material
relating to each artist, industry and partnership. The software enabled the building
of a node tree or hierarchy. Data, which did not ‘fit’ into any existing node within
the hierarchy, was coded as a ‘free’ node. As the data was progressively analysed
22
and patterns appeared, some of the free nodes were added to the hierarchy. This
process aptly reflects Sveiby’s observation that ‘once measures have been selected,
they colour what we see and how we act’ (Sveiby 1997: 155). As transcripts were
analysed and coded, the node tree became more complex. The software enabled
nodes to be cross-referenced to determine common themes and allowed the
‘drilling down’ from a general characteristic to specific data.
The audience for the research was artists, the paper industry, creative industries
researchers and policy makers. The purpose of the coding and analysis was, hence,
five-fold: to analyse and evaluate the structure of the artist-in-industry program, to
evaluate the participants in it, its performance as a creative industries process, the
scale and scope of its outcomes and how it informs further program development.
Frequency of occurrence is not a valid performance measure for most of the
indicators. While it was possible to measure the number of patent applications or
publications, the majority of the indicators were qualitative and laden with value
judgements. It is very difficult to measure the success of an artwork. While the
artist may only create one artwork, the artwork’s final selling price may be greater
than all the artworks created by another artist, if and when the work is sold.
Creative capital, perhaps, could have been measured if ‘benchmarking’ had
occurred first and then a ‘change in performance’ assessed later, thus allowing for
trends or changes of attitude to be recognised more easily.
An added difficulty was the attitudinal divide (and hence response to the program
and the interview questions) between the cultural and industry sectors. As
O’Connor points out when comparing attitudes by the sectors to what constitutes
business success, the cultural sector linked it to lifestyle and cutting edge change,
while the industry favoured profit, growth and marketshare (O'Connor 1999).
Collation of case study participant details, participant responses and indicator
presence was undertaken and the results are presented as appendices (3 – 15). The
collated material was used as an instrument to focus descriptive data. Interpretation
of the collated material and trends is conducted in Chapter 5.
23
Validity and Ethics
All participants were contacted via email and phone. The nature of the research was
described to them and their permission to be interviewed was requested. They were
informed that the interview questions could be forwarded to them prior to the
interview if they so desired. Some participants requested the questions prior to the
interview. After the interviews were taped, the typed transcripts were posted back
to the interviewees for their approval and signature to authorise it for analysis and
use in the research program.
A validity-check was performed via the use of peer analysis to confirm or isolate
interpretations. Because the empirical material resulted from two different sets of
questions being asked — the first being the artist-in-industry guidelines and the
second from the current research —loops of understanding and interpretation have
fed back from one set to the other. At the same time, each case study had a unique
interaction between the artist and their art practice, the industry partners and the
dynamics of the workplace, materials, technology, cultural and socio-economic
relationships.
It is explicit in the final interpretation/s of the case study data that I have been
responsible for the construction and management of New Possibilities for Paper.
24
Chapter 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Possibilities for Paper and the artist–in-industry program 4.1 Overview Before the coded data is analysed, the focus of the research must be contextualised
within the whole project, New Possibilities for Paper.
The vision of the project was to enable the Australian paper industry and the users
of paper within the visual arts sector to find common ground and develop
innovative processes and forms which explored and exposed paper as a medium
responsive to the drivers of the digitisation. Permutations of the vision drove the
initial research phase and posed the questions 'what will paper become?’ and ‘what
will become of paper?’
The aims were to be realised by exploring the future of paper in the digital era,
utilising artist-in-industry partnerships, constructing opportunities for artists and
industry, curating a national touring exhibition accompanied by a comprehensive
educational program, and submitting articles for publication in cultural and
industry journals. As New Possibilities for Paper was conceived and designed to
explore as many perspectives as possible through a diversity of processes, it
became multi-faceted and extended over almost four years.
The major components were a conference, an artist-in-industry program, a major
national touring exhibition (2001 - 2004), exhibition education program, a
workshop/residency program and paper mill tour, a regional schools program and
four satellite exhibitions. (See Appendix 4: Overview of Project for Media Release)
The project was conceived in 1999, the residencies occurred between November
2000 and April 2001, the conference in July 2001 and the exhibition toured until
the end of 2004.
25
4.2 Rationale for New Possibilities for Paper The construction of New Possibilities for Paper was shaped by two factors. Firstly,
my professional, educational and business interests in the visual arts and, secondly,
the challenges faced by the paper industry because of emergent digital
technologies.
Historical Perspective The tacit knowledge, which resulted in the New Possibilities for Paper project,
began over fifteen years ago. As a professional ‘hand’ papermaker, I had
previously given little thought to the possibility of engaging with the commercial
sector. The conceptional chasm was bridged during a conversation with a paper
engineer at the Amcor Mill, Petrie, Queensland. He described himself as a
'papermaker' and the paper machines were his tools of trade. The product was
'craft', yet the process of making the continuous web of paper an 'art'. The barriers
between sets of information, knowledges, processes, communities and visions
became arbitrary. So was born the germ of developing an interchange between the
users of paper within the visual arts sector and the Australian paper industry.
The initial relationship began with Murray Allen, then Technical Superintendent/
Manager, Australian Paper Mills (now known as Amcor) providing technical
advice and material resources to Flaxton Mill Studios a hand paper mill I
established in 1983 (Allen 1987). In 1993, Flaxton Mill Papermaking Supplies, the
first such business in Australia, came into operation following extensive research
into paper chemicals and fibre sources suitable for hand papermakers. Previously,
these supplies had only been available from one of three US companies. (There are
now well over 50 in the US and now another has been established in Australia.)
In 1995, another relationship was brokered between Amcor, the Queensland
Museum and the Papermakers of Queensland to develop a comprehensive
exhibition, marketing and education program, which was held at the Museum in
1997.
26
Undeniably, the benefits from these interchanges were biased towards the culture
of paper. The mindset of the majority of visual artists did not question that an
industry relationship could be any other way. Likewise, the industry sector
'expected' that its role in cultural activities was as a benefactor supporting cultural
activities that had nothing to do with its business activities other than that the
CEO's wife 'went to the opera'. (Australian Business Arts Foundation 2000)
At what point the realisation for greater possibilities manifested itself is unclear,
but three drivers for the change of attitude are recognised.
First of all, my formal scientific studies in genetics created an awareness of the
potency that lies within hybridisation, especially the recombination of gene sets
that have been isolated. Hybrids have the ability to adapt to rapid change and can
produce exceptional phenotypes. Secondly, my professional practice was not based
on an ‘art school education’ as how to use tools, techniques and aesthetics. I had no
exposure to the educative environment that, in some measure, is instrumental in
shaping an art student's attitude to their practice and their role in society. And
finally, my attitude to professional success is that it must operate with both creative
and economic imperatives.
Stevenson argues, with reason, that working with an economic imperative in an art
practice is an inhibitor to creativity (Stevenson 1999: 6-7). My experience shows
that this is not always correct. In fact, it has enabled me to have freedom from the
cultural support system of grant applications and, by maintaining a sustainable arts
practice, I have developed an understanding of the supply and demand of tangible
and intangible products.
My art/creative practice is a small business or microenterprise. The management of
such a business with its hierarchy of tangible outputs and its flow of intangibles
results in an intuitively built dynamic. The question “what could the future be if
'sharing of code' or knowledge with the paper industry was possible?” rises from
this situation. A pairing of the value-laden, value-adding, creative culture of paper
27
and the commodity-based, manufacturing mindset of the industry could produce
new ideas, products, experiences, values, understandings. The interchange of
knowledge between the stakeholders could best be described using a cellular
analogy where 'matter' is transferred from the resource and technology
concentrated industry to the value-laden culture of paper with intangible 'cultural
values' flowing back to industry. Hybridisation manifests its strength at times of
change or as Kevin Kelly describes it - 'churn' (Kelly 1999).
The Future of the Paper Industry The conservative industry of paper is global and multi-billion dollar in scale. It
manufactures cellulosic products as diverse as disposable nappies, the cardboard
box and corporate letterhead paper. Papercom a concerned group of diverse
companies and associations such as the global postal system, paper manufacturers
and converters, printers and publishers, and the direct mail industry, was
established in the US in the mid 1990’s. The following quote is from one of their
publications:
As screen-based on-line technologies have captured popular imagination,
traditional paper-based communications are being diverted to other
technologies, regardless of consequences financial, social, cultural and other
impacts. (Papercom 1998: 2)
During the interviews for this project, many members of the industry echoed
disquiet about the nature, structure and future for the industry in Australia and
globally. Nafty Vanderhoek, Senior Research Scientist, CSIRO Papermaking
Systems commented:
Well maybe I've been in the Australian pulp and paper industry too long
because I do not see a very rosy future for it. We are small scale, we have
slow machines, are not very efficient, high cost structure, it needs expanses of
water, and a has management concept that is loathe to take any risk. Amcor
will be in trouble, or will be unless they modernise their plant and equipment.
Australian Paper is in trouble unless they modernise their plant and
28
equipment. Norske Scog will have to start thinking about it. The only one
who is doing it is Visy. Visy is independent. They reinvest.
The digital is shaping the future for paper. Paul Broom, National Business
Manager, Envotec, stated:
With the electronic age, it's reducing the need for envelopes. The forecast in
the international postal services, the American UBS, that envelope billing will
increase in volume over the next couple of years and then it will start
declining and it could decline fairly quickly. The need to innovate has been
recognised within those industries that are involved in R&D as core business
anyway and by those industries most threatened.
Again, Paul Broom:
We have done things like whether we can encrypt paper so that from a track
and trace point of view, it can be tracked through the mail stream or through
the parcel stream or whatever stream the process is in.
Dr. Warwick Raverty, Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO, observed: ‘It depends
critically on whether people can innovate and whether they are prepared to embrace
innovation.’
4.3 The Construction of New Possibilities for Paper The prospectus for involvement in New Possibilities for Paper and, in particular,
the artist-in-industry program was the result of prior research into the paper
industry and the cultural users of paper. It focused on ‘matching’ participants from
the paper industry and the visual arts sector that had inherent similarities and could
work well together. The New Possibilities for Paper prospectus was presented to
industry and their involvement was established. (See Appendix 5: Prospectus for
New Possibilities for Paper.)
29
Selection of artists was undertaken and partnerships determined, and the artist-in-
industry guidelines were drafted and supplied to all members of the partnerships.
(See Appendix 6: Artist-in-industry Guidelines.) The partnerships are listed in
Table 2.
Industry Partners Artist
Visy Mary Dorahy
Spicers Paper Helen Mueller
Edwards Dunlop Paper Helen Sanderson
Australian Pulp and Paper Institute,
Monash University (APPI)
Kevin Todd
B&D Bookbinders Adele Outteridge
Gabriel Poole Designs Wendy McGrath
Cotton Australia Euraba Paper Company
Table 2: Artist-in-industry Partnerships Industry Participants – Details and Selection
In trying to achieve the project's aims, a range of industries was identified. The
selection criteria were primarily based on diversity of product output (and hence
how that product would be affected by technological changes) rather than size or
location.
Aside from the participant industries, other industries that were approached and/or
involved were Amcor, Australian Paper, Australian Envelopes, Platypus Graphics,
Fred Hoskings Pty Ltd, Paper Point, Podlick Enterprises, and Xerox. Appendix 7:
Industry Description and Key Personnel lists the industries approached, categorises
their core business, indicates size and lists the name and management level to
whom the prospectus was presented. The size of the industries involved ranged
from international (Visy, Spicers Paper) to owner-operator local businesses (B&D
Bookbinders and Gabriel Poole Designs).
30
The core business activities of those involved ranged from fibre suppliers to
manufacturers, merchants and converters to R&D and design, but as Gary Wilson,
Marketing Manager, Paper Point, described the industry:
The paper industry, paper merchants I am talking about now, is really a bib-
and-brace mentality. We haven't moved very much away from the fact that
you had to have tattoos and the boiler suit to work in this industry. It is a very
low-cost industry. To get into, you don't need a university degree. You don't
need anything apart from a bit of smart nous and be prepared to work. It is
also a mature industry. It has to make some dramatic changes because of the
low cost to get into. There is severe competition.
A process of presenting the prospectus to the recognised industries and sectors
began in early 2000. The initial interview process and the presentation of the
prospectus were not only instrumental in determining which businesses were
interested in becoming partners, but it also forecast some of the factors which made
the project unattractive to businesses such as Xerox, Fred Hoskings Pty Ltd
(envelope manufacturers) and Laminex. These factors have been confirmed by
aspects of the post-New Possibilities for Paper interviews analysis and
subsequently informed one of the tangible outcomes from the program, the
development of a new artist-in-industry program - Paper by Design. (See Appendix
8: Paper by Design prospectus.)
Table 3 introduces industry personnel who later became involved in the project.
This group either worked with the artists and/or became involved in the project as a
result of one of the components.
31
Industry Personnel Position Involvement
Visy Peter Allen
Jason Ross
Jheff Bailey
State Manager, Qld
Designer
Designer
Worked with Mary Dorahy
Worked with Mary Dorahy
Spicers Victor Del
Vecchio
Stock management Worked with Helen Mueller
CSIRO
Papermaking
Systems
Dr. Warwick
Raverty
Dr. Nafty
Vanderhoek
Principal Research
Scientist
Senior Research
Scientist
Conference Speaker, industry
peer and now provides
technical advice to Euraba
Paper Company
PaperlinX
aptec
Dr. Jim Bonham Research Manager Conference Speaker and
industry peer
Envotec Paul Broom National Business
Manager
Industry paper and
‘sponsored’ exhibition
David
Lancashire
Designs
David Lancashire Owner/designer Conference Speaker and
industry peer
Table 3: Other Key Personnel
Artists – Details and Selection
Inherent in any professional practice is the establishment of networks. The more
mature and diverse the professional career, the more complex and interrelated these
networks become. As the artistic discipline of paper and its associated permutations
is a very specialised field (unlike an artistic discipline such as ‘watercolours’), and
as the population of Australia is relatively small, the network of practitioners,
suppliers and agents is not boundless. Consequently, I know the majority of the
national artists who work in this discipline. Appendix 9 lists the artists, their
professional practice, career status, qualifications and industry partners.
The rationale for the selection of artists was multifaceted. It included a
demonstrated contemporary, hybrid and intellectual approach to their art practice
32
and an ability to effectively respond to the concept. It was important that they
expressed a personable approach to their art practice and audience and had the
capacity to dedicate/organise a significant block of time to the project.
Additionally, they were required to possess a financial ‘self-sufficiency' as a result
of their art practice, thus indicating effective management skills and an
understanding that investment in new ideas, which may not be initially profitable,
can result in financial returns being realised through later projects.
The artists were required to be articulate and hence able to successfully express
outcomes via media and workshop presentations. To this end, I was looking for
those who were 'educators' and had a propensity towards enabling ‘understanding’
in others.
And finally, the artist needed to have achieved a ‘mature’ level of recognition for
their creative practice (beyond ‘emergent’, but not ‘iconic’). Professionally
‘mature’ artists were chosen as it was considered that their ‘style’ would already
have been established, their ‘technique’ mastered and their ‘raw enthusiasm’
constrained. ‘Iconic’ artists were avoided because of the financial considerations
when employing high-profile artists and a perceived complication with the need to
nurture ‘ego’. As Doug Forbes, Amcor, summed up…‘We don't want a prima
donna. They wouldn't survive.’
Other artists were recognised as being suitable and compatible with the technical
processes of industry, but the industries in question declined to be involved.
Establishment of Partnerships
The prospectus (which included the partnership proposal) was presented to each
industry and a selection of artist’s portfolios were perused and discussed. The most
suitable ‘fit’ had already been determined by me prior to the presentation, however
the consultative process with the industry representative was still considered to be
very important, as it was more likely to foster a ‘partnership’ as opposed to a
‘sponsorship’ attitude.
33
Primarily, the artists were matched on their creative technique being applicable to
that of the industry and their ability to travel to work with their partner. There was
one exception to this process – the Euraba Paper Company and Cotton Australia.
Their selection was driven by a completely different set of criteria.
Brooke Lewis, Communications Manager, Cotton Australia, also saw the ‘fit’ in
terms of their corporate investment in regional communities:
I could see an immediate future because of Cotton Australia's interest in
rural communities and in community relations building - particularly the
indigenous aspect of it. You're building on other programs in the cotton
industry that we've been supporting in areas of employment and health for
many years, so I felt it was a natural extension of that. Art really wasn't
something that we've really done a lot of work into before, but we could see
those really strong community links, and this was what really attracted us to
the project.
As the first Australian Indigenous paper mill, the inclusion of the Euraba Paper
Company in the program and the establishment of the partnership with Cotton
Australia, provided the opportunity for an ‘innovative’ artwork to be created.
Indigenous Australians had never developed a ‘paper-based’ communicative
process, therefore, ‘stories’ told using the medium of paper would hold their place
in the ‘future for paper in the digital era’. Euraba were the only ‘group’ of artists
selected. They were also the only artists where direct communication was restricted
for cultural and management reasons.
Artist-in-industry guidelines
New Possibilities for Paper employed many strategies to explore its vision and
aims and hence the case study of the seven artist-in-industry programs cannot
be isolated from the framework in which they were devised or operated. After
the artist and industry partnerships had been determined, a set of guidelines
was developed and provided to both artist and industry partner. (See Appendix
6: Artist-in-industry Guidelines.) They contextualised the concept:
34
As an artist, you are being asked to closely communicate with a paper
industry partner to research and explore their materials, technology, ethos and
vision for the future. From this relationship, you are to create artworks, which
will present ‘paper’ as a contemporary, versatile medium and as the ‘object’.
While the specified outputs for the artist-in-industry program was ‘artwork’, the
documentation requirements in the guidelines forecast…‘this information will be
used … for case study evaluation.’
35
Chapter 5 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Possibilities for Paper – the Tangible and Intangible Outcomes The New Possibilities for Paper artist-in-industry program was conceived as a
result of prior knowledge, research and personal intent. It seeks to explore the
proposition that the artist-in-industry program exemplifies a creative industries
approach. If the analysis points to the affirmative, then the structure has the
potential to be employed in future projects.
The interrelationship and qualitative nature of the indicators and the data collected
during the project precludes separation from one another. The ‘results’, therefore,
cannot be isolated and examined outside the context in which they were generated.
Hence, the results will be presented and analysed concurrently.
Historically, the bottom line of the balance sheet for the visual arts has been the
tangible outcome – the artwork. This and other traditional products which support
artwork eg exhibition catalogues were the explicitly prescribed outcomes for the
artist-in-industry program.
The foremost distinguishing characteristic of the creative industries is the
‘dematerialisation’ of product, and one of the most valuable assets of a business is
intangibles. Because of their importance as indicators, analysis of their presence,
scale and scope has been considered first. The results of other indicators such as
investment, the size of an industry, its investment in R&D, commercialisation
opportunities and the creation of jobs and services are analysed next. Data, coded
as tangible, is analysed last.
36
5.1 Intangibles
5.1.1 Structural Capital
Howkins (Howkins 2001: 203) employs the term ‘structural capital’ or
‘infrastructure capital’ describing it as ‘an organisation or a community of
relationships in which people can turn ideas into property and products’.
As aptec (Australian Paper 2002: 3) points out in its literature to clients…‘Good
ideas without structured processes to move them forward become lost
opportunities.’ Structural capital’s implicit relationship to intellectual property is
about ‘ideas’ and ‘processes’.
Structure and Process of the artist-in-industry program The artist-in-industry program is situated within a cultural/business environment
which has altered from the environment in which it was first conceived. New
perspectives on cultural/business relationships have evolved over time, yet they are
not exclusive of former models.
To analyse the process of the artist-in-industry program, the predominant models –
the Australian Business Arts Foundation, Art Built-in, DeMa, PAIR at PARC –
must be examined. This will indicate whether the program has operated as a
creative industries model or whether it points towards another model that might be
better ‘labelled’ as a cultural/business partnership model.
Therefore, recognition of influencing factors in preparedness, involvement,
operation and outcomes would contribute to structural ‘know-how’. This
understanding could lead to the construction of further programs i.e. new structural
capital.
The following factors will be scrutinised:
a. ‘process’ or model of operation in culture/corporate relationships b. factors determining involvement
c. time and quality of contact between artist and industry
37
d. ‘fit’
e. industry demographics industry commitment and
f. artist characteristics
a. Models of Culture/Corporate Relationships
To put how the artist-in-industry program operated into perspective one must
review a spectrum of arts/industry models.
Some ‘labelled’ models are essentially refinements of other models and therefore
the interpretation of outcomes can differ from organisation to organisation. For
instance, the returns for a corporate sponsor from ‘sponsorship’ are interpreted by
The Australian Business Arts Foundation as…‘logo placement and hospitality
networking’ (Australian Business Arts Foundation 2000: 12). On the other hand,
Anna Marsden, Development Officer for Sponsorship and Fundraising, Queensland
Art Gallery Foundation describes sponsorship as…‘a commercial transaction with
the exchange of goods or cash for an agreed market value’ (Marsden 2001).
The models range from philanthropic and donation (the industry partner gives
financial or in-kind support without the expectation of any return) to sponsorship
(there is a range of interpretations, but can be generally defined as business,
financial or in-kind support, with media recognition in return) and strategic
partnerships (which the Australian Business Arts Foundation (AbaF) has developed
as a ‘business case approach’). AbaF describes its model as:
Creative partnerships whereby both parties understand and value the need for
new and lateral approaches to the way their relationship are established and
developed, and they value creativity and innovation in the process.
(Australian Business Arts Foundation 2000: 12)
This AbaF ‘partnership’ approach provides multiple benefits: it is business strategy
driven; has fewer larger, longer-term innovative investments; there is a greater
range of benefits; it produces greater leveraging of benefits; and focuses on
employees as assets (Australian Business Arts Foundation 2000). It also focuses on
intangible assets like corporate relations, market advantage and employment
38
advantage. It does not specifically address strategic generation, exploitation of IP
or commercialisation. This form of corporate relationship has been more successful
for high profile, capital city based arts organisations that have traditionally done
well from federal and state government organisations and which mobilise the
‘national interest’ discourse as a reason for support (Stevenson 1999: 7).
Community Cultural Development processes vary enormously. Some current
models are placing creativity as a ‘service’ to produce an identifiable social benefit,
and declare ‘innovation’ to be not so much a possibility as almost mandatory (Pitts
and Watt 2001).
Art Built-in is Queensland’s public art policy in which the Government commits
2% of the building project costs towards the integration of art and design. Other
Australian government authorities operate permutations of this policy. It is a
program where artists work in a commercial environment, often in collaboration
with built environment and design professionals (Chadwick 2002). By integrating
art and design into public buildings and spaces, Art Built-in’s art/industry strategy
facilitates creativity as a service to industry.
Artists can bring to the building procurement and delivery process an
instinctive and extraordinary capacity that can extend the concept of
building function beyond its physical aspects (Public Art Agency 2001).
Ownership and assignment of copyright is an area needing case-by-case
clarification in Art Built-in projects (San Roque 2000), hence the benefits that can
be derived by trading on the copyright must be understood fully before it is
assigned away by the artist within their contract. In fact, without negotiation, the
copyright is transferred automatically to the Queensland State Government. Art
Built-in primarily focuses on the generation of one specific artwork. As Anderson
(2000) notes in his essay ‘Craft built-in?’:
39
Significantly, much of the craft and design work completed under the art
Built-in policy appears to be focussed on one-off art pieces rather than design
prototypes or hand-crafted elements (Anderson 2000: 9).
The Manufacturing Design project - DeMa was an Art Built-in project. It differs in
that the one-off approach contrasts with the objectives of the project i.e. to partner
designer-makers with the manufacturing sector to develop an integrated
commercial furniture range.
PAIR at PARC is an artist-in-residence program established by Xerox, a global
corporation recognised as an innovator in communication technologies. PAIR is
widely recognised as a benchmark for cultural, scientific and technological
collaboration. The residency program operates by establishing partnerships where
there is a common language of a particular technology (even though the technology
may be used in different ways). It brings artists into the work environment for the
mutual benefit of both the artists and the corporation (Xerox 1999).
Comparison of New Possibilities for Paper artist-in-industry process with other
models:
The prospectus for New Possibilities for Paper very clearly articulated a
‘sponsorship’ arrangement with the industry. (The shaded material is extracted
from the original prospectus.)
sponsorship support is sought for the following areas.
The ‘returns’ to the industry expressed as –
Benefits to sponsors 1. Major sponsor ($20,000 and over)
Naming rights for the conference and exhibition Letterhead for project designed with corporate logo All signage to prominently display corporate logo All media releases and Internet coverage will identify major sponsor Complementary attendance to all program events e.g. conference The invited speaker to open the conference/exhibition
40
At first perusal, the benefits can be described as falling into the intangibles
categories of ‘branding’ and ‘social capital’; comparable to those promised in the
models of corporate sponsorship or an AbaF ‘strategic partnership’. But the New
Possibilities for Paper artist-in-industry model places the artists ‘within’ the
industry – a process similar to Xerox’s PAIR program.
There are further similarities to PAIR at PARC when the structural process of
pairing artists with industries of 'similar processes' (or collaborative customisation)
is considered.
The artist-in-residence with industry program
WILL NOURISH A CREATIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AN ARTIST AND A COMPLEMENTARY INDUSTRY PARTNER
Artists break new ground, can act as 'sooth-sayers' and
have access to public thought and discussion in ways that industry cannot.
Artists and industry often use the same material/ medium and may share the common language for those materials, but then work in different ways. By bringing fine arts into the environment of industry, there can be mutual benefit for both the artist and the industry body.
The potential competitive advantage and the generation of intangible values such as
branding and social capital are recognised in other components of the prospectus.
An Industry partner in the artist-in-residence program by enabling and/or financing an a. artist to work for a limited time within the industry b. artist to have access to materials, some equipment or both c. artist to work with the industry's product concept
41
As an artist, you are asked to closely communicate with a paper industry partner to research and explore their materials, technology, ethos and vision for the future. From this relationship, you are to create artworks which will present paper as a contemporary, versatile medium and as the ‘object’.
This is an innovative program, the concepts of which are supported by a number Government bodies. Research has shown that such partnerships are beginning to develop internationally with many industries now recognizing the value of relationships with artists and arts organizations in their global positioning and marketing as well as community relations.
Within the artist-in-industry guidelines, the process was framed as an R&D
process.
The ability of artists to provide new insights and extend concepts was recognised,
and echoes the rhetoric of the Art Built-in model.
During interviews, artists and industry members were asked whether they
considered the structural process was donation, sponsorship or partnership. The
responses have been collated in Appendix 10.
Aside from Cotton Australia describing the relationship as…‘a sponsorship, I didn't
think we were involved enough to call it a partnership’, their partners the Euraba
Paper Company…‘It was really just a sponsorship. It was really just a commission
to create artwork for a touring exhibition’ and Brian Longmore…‘definitely not a
donation, more of a sponsorship. In the industry now when you use the work
'partnership', it means they want to 'screw you’, all program interviewees
considered the artist-in-industry process as some form of partnership. Brian
Longmore’s perspective was perhaps a result of a negative personal experience
rather than reflecting the thoughts of the paper industry in general or his
relationship with Helen Mueller.
42
b. Factors determining involvement
There was no analysis of the industries’ reasons for accepting or declining
involvement. However, during the interviews, such factors were articulated, and
may provide substantial insight into the ‘structural know-how’ in the development
of similar programs.
Level of initial contact
Achieving ‘contact’ with the appropriate person within the industry was a very
important factor in the success of partnerships and their outcomes. In an SME,
access to the Manager or CEO was not difficult. Access in medium to large
enterprises was more complicated due to greater differentiation of staffing roles
and responsibilities. Within this size industry, it was the Marketing and Promotions
Manager to whom the proposal was most frequently directed. The very large
industries had another degree of differentiation again and often had a pre-existing
‘cultural sponsorship’ policy in place. In this case, the proposal was directed and
assessed (within their policy framework) by ‘Group Public Affairs and Marketing
Manager’ (Visy), ‘Specialties Marketing’ (Australian Paper) and ‘Marketing
Services Executive’ (Amcor).
Phil Enright, Enright Hendy & Partners, has been very closely involved with the
Australian Paper Industry for over twenty years, in particular, the packaging sector.
His company undertook the conceptual development and management of the
Australian Recycled Cartonboard (ARC) School’s program. During the
development phase of the proposal, Enright (2001) stated in correspondence that:
The industry’s corporate affairs section is where a prospectus should be
pitched for partnership programs as they have the most comprehensive
overview of the current understanding that is likely to affect their future and
are the ‘stakeholders’ who are likely to leverage that understanding.
Enright also stated…‘It was only at the boardroom level that new ideas would be
considered.’ Comments by Dr. Warwick Raverty, CSIRO, support this:
43
What I'm trying to say is: it takes somebody who will champion an idea, and
is prepared to usually take a risk unless they've got a visionary CEO or
management team at the top.
Doug Forbes, Executive Marketing Manager, Amcor Cartonboard, noted…‘You
have to have the management buy into this sort of thing.’
Marketing Managers, again from Enright’s perspective and experience, are not the
people to whom a proposal is presented:
The Sales and Marketing people in most paper and packaging manufacturers
and merchants are a dead loss unless you’ve got a footie game, keg or stripper
organised or all three! They change every two years; their sole responsibility
is selling as much product as possible, they are unwilling to make any
decisions outside their area of knowledge.
Gary Wilson, Marketing Manager, Paper Point, also explained:
I don't mind admitting it. I was a bit confused with it because I have to tell
you that first and foremost I'm a salesman - that's my job. I am a salesman and
the support of a salesman where there are no clients or potential clients when
you are talking about their product that they work in, is a confusing issue.
You think that there may be a bit of self-education here, but what will my
company think?
In most partnerships - Spicers Paper, Edwards Dunlop Paper, Cotton Australia,
APPI, Gabriel Poole Designs to B&D Bookbinders, the industry individual who
collaborated in the formulation of the partnership also coordinated the operations of
the partnership. The only exception was Visy. In this partnership, the prospectus
was presented to Tony Grey, the Group Public Affairs and Marketing Manager at
Visy’s head office in Melbourne, and the subsequent partnership was established at
Visy Board in Brisbane. The State Manager of Visy Board, Peter Allen, was
notified of the company’s preparedness to be involved:
44
I first heard about it via communications first through Tony and then you. The
direct communications understanding that there was certainly some
commitment from our head office that if we, as in the Queensland operation,
were able and prepared to be involved, they certainly encouraged that we
would be and supported that.
The industry contact then became the partnership facilitator. The artist made
contact with them and discussed the possibilities and requirements for
collaboration. They introduced the artist to the area within which they were to
‘work’. In most cases, the ‘work area’ was with employees with specific technical
knowledge, as opposed to marketing or managerial knowledge.
For Edwards Dunlop Paper, Spicers Paper and Visy, there was not a great deal of
consultation with the staff about their preparedness to be involved with an artist.
Jason Ross, the senior designer from Visy, and who worked with Mary Dorahy,
explained:
I can't think of the exact moment, but it was more or less a case of I was told
there was going to be an artist coming here. Visy Board is participating and
you've been nominated to help. No one was actually asked.
As the State Manager of Edwards Dunlop Paper, Graham Smith described the
process of involving his staff succinctly…‘I just told everyone to give her what she
wanted and to work with her.’
Investment in R&D
In Australia investment in R&D is low, yet its relationship to success in the
knowledge economy is widely acknowledged (Department of Innovation and
Information Economy 2002; PricewaterhouseCoopers 2001). The paper industry, a
traditional manufacturing commodity-based industry with an enormous investment
in capital assets is ‘hard to motivate’ (David Lancashire), ‘conservative’ (Dr. Jim
45
Bonham), ‘doesn’t reinvest’ (Dr Warwick Raverty) and are ‘not risk-takers’ (Dr.
Nafty Vanderhoek). Selected comments are presented in Appendix 12.
R&D is high risk. Creativity is high risk. Therefore, industries that recognise that
the knowledge economy is based on the combination of risk and creativity are more
likely to see benefits from the artist-in-industry program. In making the following
statement…‘That is done here at aptec. This is the creative side of the business.’
Dr. Jim Bonham, Research Manager, aptec (the R&D division of PaperlinX)
supports the relationship between R&D and creativity and indicates that not only
management hierarchy is important, but also the division within the industry that
invest in R&D. High level of involvement by management in R&D is likely to
have had a significant impact on business growth over the past five years and
would be expected to continue to do so (PricewaterhouseCoopers 2001).
Kelly (1999) emphasises:
The new rules for economic restructuring are that wealth flows to innovation,
not optimisation and this occurs most successfully in environments where the
infrastructure is nimble such that innovation inevitably leads to abandoning
what is known.
Capacity to engage
In 1999, Brisbane’s largest bookbindery Podlick Enterprises, was facing a major
downturn in its operations and its management focus was on restructure and
refinancing. Other industries such as Australian Envelopes, now Envotec, were also
restructuring when approached. Paul Broom, National Marketing Manager,
explained…‘Concepts like yours - the partnerships with artists and industry
became lost in the restructure.’
Laminex Industries, who had been active in an art-in-industry project with one of
the New Possibilities for Paper artists, Mary Dorahy, a few years prior, declined to
be involved. Within the last six months the company had undertaken a major
merger with Formica Pty Ltd. and was still being restructured. Gary Wilson,
46
Marketing Manager, Paper Point, described the merger of three paper merchants
(one of whom was his employer) into two…‘It was a difficult climate to be talking
about money and people at that stage. We were psychologically marking time.’
Already committed
Craig Dunn, Specialties Marketing, Australian Paper, also declined an involvement
by the company in this component, although he did agree that Australian Paper
would be a partner in the conference. Australian Paper was keen to be involved.
Craig Dunn commenting his industry’s need to…‘investigate the cutting edge and
to be engaged in the debate about paper’s future’. In 1995, Australian Paper and the
Victorian Arts Centre Trust formed a partnership to create a series of awards to
‘celebrate art and paper’ (Australian Paper 2001). Hence, Craig felt that the
company was already proactive in aligning the commodity of paper with the culture
of paper.
Exclusivity
Although lack of ‘exclusivity’, sole naming rights or ownership was not given as a
reason for declining involvement, it was indicted that it could be. Dr. Jim Bonham,
aptec stated…‘We always like to have our name on it.’ Doug Forbes, Amcor,
commented…‘Unless you've got exclusive access to that, I can't see industry
wanting to share the stage with competitors. You would be lost.’
Multiple factors
Establishing contacts within Xerox was difficult, but a meeting was finally
achieved with the national Document Supply Manager. He was uninterested in the
project for a number of reasons. The PARC Program (an art-in-industry program
run by Xerox in California) was another arm of the company and was of no interest
to their area. If Xerox were to be involved, they would want to have sole naming
rights to the project (Amcor indicated that if any further project was initiated, it
would be placing this proviso on the project). The paper division had its own R&D
processes and were investing in the concept already, and their public program was
focused on engaging audiences in more substantial programs, eg, the Sydney
Olympics.
47
The factors recognised as enhancing the preparedness to be involved included that
the financial and in-kind commitment was within the operating budgets of the
marketing department, there was industry or personal resonance with the concept,
the artist-in-industry program could contribute to other industry programs, the
research and presentation was considered to be thorough, there was a common
language i.e. ‘paper’, the advocacy for the project was ‘passionate’ and the
management hierarchy had pre-empted the decision.
Credibility
Crucial to all partnership building was the capacity to speak the ‘language’ of
paper. My understanding of paper chemistry aided discussions on existing
processes. Dr. Jim Bonham, aptec commented:
In your case, you already have the credibility established and there would be
no problems. If someone else came strolling in here with a great idea, we
would have to look at the idea and what was behind it, what personnel,
resources...
Although initial communication was via phone and email, preparedness to travel to
present the prospectus in person was important. Within the partnerships this proved
to be invaluable for ‘understanding’ both the industry contact and the industry
itself, and facilitated some long-distance partnerships Although Gary Wilson,
Marketing Manager, Paper Point, and Paul Broom, National Business Manager,
Envotec, declined involvement, the ‘face-to-face’ presentations resulted in
continued communication and a preparedness to assist in future projects.
Prior to contacting the individual industries, inquiries were made to ascertain the
peak representative bodies for the sector. Two were specifically identified –
APPITA (the technical organisation) and The National Paper Council of Australia.
Contact had already been made with APPITA in 1993. Also, since 1998, I had
established a relationship with The National Paper Council by delivering lectures to
industry employees.
48
Thus, in 1999, I negotiated to present a paper on New Possibilities for Paper at the
National Paper Council’s Conference. The delegates were senior management and,
whilst gaining access to these executives later was not achieved, they later
supported the project within the internal procedural system. Brian Longmore,
National Marketing Manager, Spicers Paper, explained:
Peter Waterworth, CEO Spicers Paper, had heard you speak at the National
Paper Industry conference at Twin Waters. He indicated that he was interested
in your project, hence when you came to me we already had a level of interest
in what you wanted to do.
Another factor instrumental in gaining access to higher management levels was the
support demonstrated for the proposal by other members of the sector and/or
government instrumentalities. Doug Forbes, Amcor, observed:
Having the Queensland Government as a partner in the project gave you a lot
more credibility...it got you in the door. And what it does show, that, having
got that sponsorship you've already jumped through so many hoops, and I
guess you would have been outed before you got to that process. One - you
can deliver what you are saying you are going to deliver, and two, that there
is some sort of formal program. Because they don't just give away money -
and it gave you some sort of credibility.
Preparation
Before each presentation, portfolios of artists whose work had the technical and
intellectual capacity to interpret an industry’s processes had been prepared. During
the interview, curriculum vitae and portfolios were presented. The portfolios
assisted in eliciting understanding of the concepts and visualisation of possible
outcomes as for many of those interviewed, ’art’ and ‘artists’ were unfamiliar
territory; the only ‘artist’ with whom they usually worked was the graphic and
industrial artist. Peter Allen, State Manager, Visy Board, commented…‘I am not
the creative artistic type. I am an analytical chemist. I work with numbers and
49
specifics.’ While Gary Wilson, Paper Point, stated…’I haven't been raised in that
environment of being a patron of the arts.’
A pre-existing attitude towards artists was also apparent. Prof. Bob Johnston, APPI
thoughts…‘I don't see them as people who work so well. They have their own
ideas. I mean artists are by their very nature very individual.’ Dr. Warwick
Raverty, CSIRO whom, while not involved initially, was an industry peer and
made his own assessment of the program…‘When I first heard about it, I thought
what a waste of my time to be brutally honest. This is a lot of arty types.’
It is apparent that the time and effort in preparing portfolios and the pre-selection of
artists contributed to ‘credibility’ and personal commitment to the project.
Other problems
In all interviews, concern was expressed about the associated costs of the
partnership, aside from the financial commitment. These included the degree of
staff commitment, space that might need to be allocated, equipment that was to be
used and the volume of materials to be employed.
c. Time and quality of contact
The amount and quality of time that an artist and their industry partner could share
together had a strong influence on the nature of the outputs. It must be reiterated
that the primary output, as specified in the guidelines, was to be artwork. However,
the guidelines also recognised that other outcomes such as educational material and
professional development for artists and industry participants alike could also be
achieved. Consequently, the industry and artist’s measures of ‘success’ are both
tangible and intangible.
Brooke Lewis, Cotton Australia, who considered their relationship with the Euraba
Paper Company to be a ‘sponsorship’, would have liked to have been more
involved and felt that Euraba did not fulfil the brief…‘to interpret and to research
the industry partner and interpret their ethos’. Her evaluation was concise…‘Well
that didn't happen.’
50
.
But, the provenance and market value of Bagaay – a 10 panel cast cotton artwork
measuring 2.5 x 1.5 metres with each panel made by a different Indigenous artist,
possibly exceeds the market value for artwork created by any of the other artists
involved. To only use a quantitative measure, i.e. the price paid for the artwork,
does not reflect ‘success’ of the relationship.
The following qualitative measures of measuring ‘success’ were derived from the
industry and artist interviews and creative industries methods.
• the degree to which the artwork was truly a collaboration between industry
and artist
• industry and artist peer recognition of artworks that did surpass the
materiality of the medium
• the contribution to the artist’s and industry personnel’s intellectual, creative
and human capital
• branding and awareness of the material and industry
• social and environmental capital and
• the preparedness by the industry and artist to continue their relationship
and/or to engage in another collaborative exploration of new concepts.
Using the first two of these measures, clearly points to the partnership between
Mary Dorahy and Visy as the most ‘successful’. All interviewees, aside from the
Euraba Paper Company, Brooke Lewis and Gabriel Poole, referred to the artwork
by Mary and Visy as being a very significant artwork and outcome.
Mary Dorahy spent regular blocks of time at Visy working with Jason Ross, the
senior designer and Jheff Bailey, the senior screen printer. No other artist spent as
much time nor worked as consistently with their industry partners.
‘Time’, in the form of continuous industry commitment of personnel and technical
resources, was also rated as one of the biggest problems. Peter Allen, Visy,
explained…‘I tend to think that time is the issue. It is not a money type issue.’
51
Doug Forbes, Amcor, supported this…‘It must not dominate a resource or a
person's time. It would have to fit around a person's job or that piece of equipment.’
A number of other factors were identified as being influential on the extent and
quality of the partnership. These included the distance between the artist and
industry as Kevin Todd explained…‘The fact that they were in Melbourne and I
was in Queensland.’ For Euraba, socio-economic issues surfaced…‘We had some
difficult political and cultural issues.’ Availability of continuous time was a
concern for Prof. Bob Johnston, APPI…‘demand your attention all the time, that
wouldn't work.’ Wendy McGrath highlighted the size of the business as an
issue…‘Perhaps in a larger business a couple of people taking time out wouldn't
make such a difference.’ Brooke Lewis, Cotton Australia, singled out the attitude
towards the partnership…‘I felt if there had been a greater willingness from the
artists to find out more about the industry and who we were.’ Meanwhile Helen
Mueller was restrained in how she could work because of her technical/creative
discipline…‘the fact was that I couldn't work there because I needed to ink up,
print.’ Graham Smith had hoped to have the artist spend more time working ‘in-
house’…‘What I, and I think the staff would like to see, would be a bit more of the
work in progress to understand a little more of what she was doing.’ The quality of
the partnership is linked to management support according to Doug Forbes,
Amcor…‘One of the rules to apply is to have management support.’ Both Brian
Longmore, Spicers Paper and Euraba Paper Company voiced the reality of time
constrains a result of the demands in running a business…‘our major problem is
that we are so busy with the business of the everyday running of a business’ and ‘I
suppose it gets back to time. I have a lot of things to cover.’
d. Fit
Another factor recognised as being influential in the operation and ‘success’, of the
artist-in-industry program was ‘fit’. ‘Fit’ refers to three situations. The first refers
to how applicable to the core business of an industry the New Possibilities for
Paper prospectus was. Fred Hoskings Pty Ltd, manufacturers of envelopes, are
categorised as ‘converters’ within the industry. The Marketing Manager, Ian
MacKenzie, was uncertain as to the relevance of the project to his company’s
52
product and how it would benefit them. On the other hand, this could reflect his
perspective on ‘art’ which he described as…‘belonging to traditional aesthetics,
rather than contemporary investigation’.
The second is how closely the skills and style of the artist could be matched with
and were appropriate for the industry. Research undertaken for the Cultural
Ministers Council recognised that the partnership ‘reflects the values or identity of
the company’ as the most important factor (Australian Business Arts Foundation
2000). Concerns regarding ‘fit’ were expressed during the interviews. Helen
Mueller stated…‘I'm not too sure what I would have done with Visy. I'm not a
screen printer and I don't usually deal with digital images.’ While Doug Forbes,
Amcor, commented…‘You must match with someone who is enthusiastic about the
project and understands it - the potential.’
Finally, ‘fit’ also refers to whether the process and outputs were recognised as
important needs for the industry. Cotton Australia and Amcor interpreted it as the
program resonating with their needs at that time. Brooke Lewis pointed out:
I could see an immediate future because of Cotton Australia's interest in rural
communities and in community relation's building. We could see those really
strong community links, and this was what really attracted us to the project.
Doug Forbes explained:
It was attractive to me given the particular environment and culture that I
work. It fitted in the need for our particular business to be seen to be more
community minded or community spirited.... The paper industry that we're in
seemed to be regarded as fortress paper mill and to keep the community at
large at arm's length. This provided an opportunity and a structure that's safe.
An opportunity for us that would ultimately involve the wider community in a
softer kind of way.
53
David Lancashire, David Lancashire Designs, and Gary Wilson, Paper Point,
respectively, express it more bluntly. David Lancashire commented…‘They can
buy art, they can buy whatever they want, but if there is no need for it, they won't
buy it.’ While Gary Wilson stated…‘How is this going to help me sell more
paper?’
e. Industry Details
The industries involved varied in
• size
• location (with respect to the artist)
• outputs – creative, manufacturing, marketing, converting, public/private or
not-for-profit
• investment in R&D
These details are collated in Appendix 11.
The small scale of the industry negatively impacted the length and quality of time
available for the artist to work with their partner. The location of the industry with
respect to the artist also impacted negatively upon operational processes. Industry
outputs were not important to the operation of the partnerships, but the perceived
value of the artist-in-industry program appears to be closely aligned to the
industry’s investment in stimulating new ideas within its workforce and generating
new knowledge.
Appendix 12 presents those industries that expressed preparedness to engage in
further programs and their opinion on investment in new ideas and knowledge.
Investment in staff, recognition of creativity perhaps supplying a market advantage
and a time commitment to the creative investment were identified as rationale for
their preparedness to undertake further programs.
f. Industry Commitment - Degree and Management Hierarchy
Creating the vision, developing the policies and strategies, steering the ship and
keeping it afloat, and ensuring that shareholder’s interests are at heart, are the
54
functions of the board and executive management. Management hierarchies below
this level interpret their decisions. Meanwhile, on the ‘shop floor’, the technicians
give a focused, linear perspective to the industry within which they work. Helen
Mueller’s observations at Spicers Paper:
Victor’s job is just to run the sample room as efficiently as possible and that's
what he does. He didn't seem to be hugely interested in what I was doing. He
was interested in providing me with exactly what I wanted, cut exactly the
way I wanted it, and it was always ready when he said it was, and all nicely
packed up. His contribution was to be really efficient and give me what I
wanted as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Each hierarchy understands, interprets and responds to a proposal in light of their
part within their industry and, in turn, evaluates the artist-in-industry program the
same way. The artist, in five of the seven partnerships, did not actually work with
the industry figure who had approved of the partnership.
The extent to which the technicians were involved in the program also influenced
the outcomes. Their level of engagement was influenced by how they became
involved in the program, the management support and the capacity of both
themselves and the artist to collaborate. Victor Del Vecchio, Spicers Paper,
stated…‘No, there was no discussion. I think we had this booklet on what she'd
done previously - like what she does. Helen had won some award in Germany, or
something?’ Prof. Bob Johnston, APPI, commented…‘I think next time I would
try to get a general consensus so that it wasn't just my idea - it came from them so
they had a bit of ownership.’
Graham Smith, Edwards Dunlop Paper, pointed out…‘I didn't have a lot to do
with her personally. Joe on the guillotine was good when she wanted anything
cut, it wasn't a problem for him and he is a cranky old bastard.’ While Helen
Sanderson related:
55
Joe was an absolute delight to work with and it was a real partnership
because I had the ideas but I didn't have the vaguest idea how to do it and
he would have to solve the problems. He would talk them through with
me and we would work out ways to do it, but he really provided the
solution.
The relationship between the employment hierarchy and the success or
otherwise of being involved in the program has been discussed in Chapter 4.
The industry figures all indicated that the program had successful outcomes,
albeit for different reasons and all had different outcomes. But the degree of
industry commitment to a program influenced the nature and perceived value
of the outcomes. As Dr Jim Bonham, aptec, described:
You get a much bigger bang for your bucks if the program that you're running
is important to the company, has some impact on the company and the whole
company is aware of it. g. Artist Characteristics
As discussed in Chapter 4, the artists were chosen for attributes that I recognised as
being important in achieving the aims of the program. While these proved to be
significant, other attributes also influenced the outcomes. These were their attitude
towards their creative practice and corporate relationships, their knowledge and
management of IP, and the level of education and whether that education was a
result of attending an art school.
Attitude
The attitude of the artist towards their industry partner and the process of the
partnership proved to be very significant. Not only did it affect the ‘process’, but it
also affected the outcomes.
Five of the artists mentioned the role of art education as being an influential factor
in the ability of artists to engage with projects such as the New Possibilities for
56
Paper artist-in-industry program, or programs where a commercialisable outcome
was specified. Helen Sanderson stated:
Well, I think that it is all ‘attitude’ today. That is whatever their marketshare
is. I think that the art schools have a much greater control over the thinking of
their students. If your whole aim is to get in there and do some solid workout
on someone's thinking, then you are going to have a powerful impact on how
they think.
Helen Mueller also commented:
I think art school reinforces the ‘attitude’. And I think that artists feel that they
have a licence to be different from everybody else when it comes to working
and being creative. They teach professional practice at art school but it's a
joke, it's an absolute joke. They don't know what professional practice is at
all. We are breeding a lot of creative people to fail.
All but one of the industries involved acknowledged that they enjoyed being
involved with the artist. Only Cotton Australia indicated that they were dissatisfied
with their relationship, whilst acknowledging that working with regional
Indigenous communities is not easy. Brooke Lewis, Cotton Australia
explained…‘There was a lack of interest in involving us in the process. I did feel
they were quite happy to take the money and that was it - we didn't hear from them
again.’ While Andrea from Euraba Paper Company stated…‘Well, if they were
more interested they would have called. I don't know how they really can be
involved with us.’
As previously noted, the Indigenous women of the Euraba Paper Company were
not interviewed. The Euraba management are young, non-indigenous and non-
practicing women artists, although all had recently completed tertiary art courses.
Their attitude towards Cotton Australia did not promote a close relationship.
Whether this arose from the circumstances that surround managing a cultural
business in regional Australia or whether it was ‘the artist mind-set’ is conjecture,
57
but it did reduce their capacity to generate and exploit outcomes from their
‘sponsorship’.
Understanding and utilisation of IP
Intellectual property is a driver of the creative industries. To analyse the IP
generated from the artist-in-industry partnership, three issues must be considered.
Firstly, is the issue of the artist ‘knowing’ what IP is and how it can be utilised in
their art practice. The majority of artists understand IP as it pertains to copyright
yet most do not use it, consider it worthwhile, or know how to trade on it.
Primarily, they derive a financial return from their artwork once, and only if it is
sold. Howkins (2001) argues that, essentially, copyright does not apply to such
creative outputs because it is almost never utilised by the art market. As Helen
Mueller stated… ‘I'm not sure how all that stuff works.’ But there is an attitude in
some art sectors that even selling your artwork compromises your integrity as an
artist. Further observations by Helen Mueller…‘It's this kind of notion that artists
shouldn't have any regard to the commercial aspects of their work.’
Others resort to selling their work and services at below ‘real cost’, i.e. the total
cost of production including time employed at a basic rate of pay, materials and
overheads. This is common practice. Any return is better than none. Hence artists
are open to exploitation. Helen Mueller commented again…‘I’d rather be part of it
and be underpaid than not be part of it at all. I’d rather underprice my work. And
it's the same with my services. Artists are exploited because this is their attitude.’
And they are recognised as being able to be exploited. Graham Smith, Edwards
Dunlop Paper, pointed out…‘The artist has that problem of finding their
commercial value and if they are not commercially savvy they can undersell.
To be commercially savvy is another skill.’
Aside from the Euraba Paper Company, the majority of the artists had sustainable
professional art practices primarily financed through teaching, workshops, lectures,
residencies and commissions. Their creative practice primarily informed and
promoted their educative practice, which, in turn, financially supported their
58
creative practice. In other words, the artists (excluding Euraba) understood
intuitively how to utilise their intellectual and creative capital to benefit financially
through teaching. The artist’s utilisation of IP is listed in Table 4.
Table 4: Artist Utilisation of IP
The potential financial gain residing within exploitation of copyright was only
recognised and utilised by two of the seven artists – Mary Dorahy and Kevin Todd.
Kevin Todd explained…‘I use the intellectual property to generate more
Artist %
income
derived
from sale
of
artwork
Under-
sold
work
Utilise
copyright
Lectured/
workshops
Member
of
Viscopy
Commi
ssions
Euraba
Paper
Company
30% plus
CDEP
support
for wages
yes Not at
present, but
has been
recognised as
a marketing
strategy
no no yes
Mary
Dorahy
small no No, but
researched
opportunity
yes yes yes
Wendy
McGrath
small yes no yes no yes
Helen
Mueller
small yes no yes no yes
Adele
Outteridge
50% no no yes no yes
Helen
Sanderson
30-50% yes no yes no yes
Kevin
Todd
30-50% no yes yes no yes
59
intellectual property. So one project...you know, you build up a kind of experience,
and that makes other projects possible.’ Of the seven artists, only Kevin Todd had
undertaken licensing arrangements. The other artists under-utilised the possible
returns from copyright or pursued other IP strategies aside from
educational/commissioning processes.
The second issue is ‘understanding’ how to design a process in which they are to
engage creatively to maximise IP generation, manage IP and benefit from it.
Currently, there are few artists (beyond selling their artwork and benefiting once
only) who undertake this strategic process to effectively exploit their IP. Some of
those that do have experience gained it in the ‘commercial’ arts. David Lancashire
(referring to Ken Done) observed…‘Well, he was an art director at Thompsons for
years, so he knew. He has done it because he has straddled the two. And what's
wrong with that.’ If they do, they are often marginalised by the traditional arts
sector. David Lancashire’s thoughts again…‘Ken has been crucified by the art elite
because of what he has done. He has done the dreaded... he has made money from
his art. It is sour grapes really.’
Kevin Todd was the only one of the seven artists who demonstrated an
understanding of strategic IP management. He is a practicing artist, senior lecturer
in Computer-based Art and Design at the University of the Sunshine Coast, has a
professional portfolio consisting of several national and international collaborative
residencies, commissions and exhibitions and is currently undertaking the
establishment of a program in Scotland to link architectural processes with CNC
(computer numeric control) to generate new possibilities for designers. Does his
success reflect the quality of his creative work and/or a prodigious output, or is it a
result of understanding his intellectual property, and managing it well?
The third issue involves the preparedness or ability of artists to pursue copyright
infringement of their artwork. Wendy McGrath, Adele Outteridge, Helen
Sanderson and Helen Mueller all admitted that they would do nothing if their
copyright were infringed. Euraba Paper Company indicated that they had support
60
from others who would take action on their behalf if their copyright were infringed.
Only Kevin Todd said that he would pursue an IP infringement.
Mary Dorahy, a nationally acclaimed artist and Head of Art and Design, Dubbo
TAFE, has also undertaken collaborative and cross-disciplinary processes within
her creative practice. While the only one of the artists to belong to Viscopy, the
national copyright collection agency, her experience with Laminex Industries
heralds a genuine concern for the welfare of artist’s intellectual property while
working with industry.
Mary Dorahy invested considerable time and expense in the R&D associated with
creating papers for inclusion in Laminex. She was very unhappy with the fact that
the technical problems she resolved in her self-financed R&D ‘informed’ Laminex
such that they chose to work with facsimile ‘handmade paper’. Mary Dorahy
explained…‘Basically they used my work as research for their run and I was very
distressed about that. I had no protection.’
Art Education
The attitude of an artist to their industry partner and the artist-in-industry process
has been previously discussed in light of how this impacted upon the outcomes.
Aside from the Indigenous women, all the artists had attended some form of
tertiary art education. The three women responsible for the management of Euraba
were, as previously noted, recent art school graduates. Of the six other artists, all
had completed undergraduate degrees immediately after completing secondary
education. The five that had undertaken postgraduate studies completed these as
mature aged students. Three have permanent or part-time employment at tertiary
art institutions. These artists are highly educated, a characteristic of the ‘cultural
industries’ sector as noted by O’Connor (1999).
5.1.2 Creative Capital and Human Capital Howkins (2001: ix) considers ‘the raw material of the creative economy’ as ‘human
talent’. CIRAC recognises that the intellectual resources in the creative industries
61
sector are often the people themselves rather than a product or a service (CIRAC
2002). Meanwhile Sveiby (1997: 36-38) argues that it is investment in this human
talent to build employee or individual competence that can eventually turn into
economic capital.
Creative capital may be implicit within human capital, but it must be considered as
being more than ‘skills and competencies’. For this research, the generation of
human and creative capital, where the participants change or adapt in light of their
experiences will be analysed together.
These forms of capital are more potent when generated by tacit processes; hence a
close collaborative relationship is essential. Generation can be manifested as
altered positive perspectives, new competencies and knowledge (a capacity to act).
Responses and changes indicating the generation of human or creative capital have
been presented in Appendix 13.
There can be no doubt that creative and human capital was accrued. Kevin
Todd stated…‘You're working outside of your box and that's the real value of
it for me because it shifts where I'm working. I can learn from that and it feeds
back into the other work that I do.’ In referring to Jason Ross, Visy, Mary
Dorahy remarked…‘We were both aware of being extended.’ Wendy McGrath
described her revelation…‘Going through that process made me have certain
realisations about my own practice about how I represent the landscape.’
Brooke Lewis, Cotton Australia, commented about her staff…‘Our staff is
very highly trained and aware of all the uses of cotton, but I think it gave them
another element, another layer to that knowledge which was really good.’
Employees of Edwards Dunlop Paper spoke about Helen Sanderson…‘Do you
know when she first came here, we thought that we just worked with paper and
now we see all of this.’ Meanwhile for the very large industries involved, the
comments included those from Doug Forbes, Amcor…‘I think the industry reaction
was that they got more out of it than they had expected and it was a positive
experience for people involved’ and from Peter Allen, Visy…‘The people have
learnt something along the way and benefited personally as well.’
62
For both the artists and the industry, ‘new awareness’ of material, process or
possibilities and personal growth was acknowledged. Doug Forbes made the point
that from an industry perspective, new skills may not have been an outcome…‘I
don't think they are going to acquire a skill - they would probably become a more
rounded person.’ Yet some of the artists (Kevin Todd, Mary Dorahy, Helen
Sanderson and Adele Outteridge) did indicate that a new skill had been acquired.
The acquired ‘skills, competencies and understandings’ can be documented in their
CVs and traded upon, eg, new artwork, teaching or writing.
It should be noted that the Euraba Paper Company expressed no comment to
indicate as to whether either capital was generated. This could be a result of there
being no close physical contact between the partners during the making of the
work.
5.1.3 Social Capital Social capital or corporate investment in reputation and relations is one of the
cornerstones of the AbaF promotion of cultural/business partnerships, in particular
in regions where the business has operations and employees (Australian Business
Arts Foundation 2000).
Brooke Lewis, Cotton Australia, indicated that their primary reason for being
involved resided in the value of generating social capital. She commented:
Art really wasn't something that we've really done a lot of work into before, but
we could see those really strong community links, and this was what really
attracted us to the project. It enhanced our reputation for supporting indigenous
communities and we get a lot of good publicity out of that.
Peter Allen, Visy, acknowledged…‘We are always part of a community’ which
Doug Forbes, Amcor, echoed…‘This provided an opportunity for us to come up
with something that would ultimately involve the wider community in a softer
kind of way’ also acknowledges the value of social capital.
63
5.1.4 Environmental Capital Generally, the paper and cotton industry are not perceived within the community as
being ‘environmentally friendly'. Hence, one would expect that a program which
presents the industries in a ‘new light’ would be attractive to them. Environmental
capital, whilst not accrued through knowledge generated by processes associated
with their industry and its interaction with the environment, did present 'fibre' and
'paper' as a cultural relationship with the environment, eg, the B-fluted cardboard
employed by Mary Dorahy in her artwork is made from 99% recycled fibre.
While a number of the industries acknowledged that there was sensitivity about
environmental issues relating to their products and processes, none of the industries
commented that environmental capital was important or that this type of program
could be employed to generate it.
5.1.5 Branding and Awareness IP Australia considers that a brand is the identity of a product or service often
expressed as a trademark (IP Australia 2002). Howkins (2001) believes that the
growth of brands and trademarks is the most noticeable symptom of global
consumerism. For some corporations, as Lev and Gu (2001) point out the ‘brand’ is
‘an intangible asset (that) represents the majority of its market value’.
Consequently, processes, which promote the recognition or awareness of the
corporate brand, could be of value. The artist-in-industry program employed artists
to:
Research and explore their materials, technology, ethos and vision for the
future. From this relationship, you are to create artworks, which will present
‘paper’ as a contemporary, versatile medium and as the ‘object’.
Hence brand and product awareness were an expected outcome.
There was a mixed response by the industry sector as to whether this had been
achieved. Brian Longmore, Spicers Paper commented:
64
It might, but the amount of money that is required to market this would be
phenomenal. It takes a huge amount of money to get that brand 'up there'
even if it is a new process.
Brooke Lewis, Cotton Australia, added:
In the Cotton Stores, we ran education programs, so we got some sort of
cross-promotional educational benefit out of it in terms of the variety of uses
for cotton, cotton products and paper.
Prof. Johnston, APPI, was amazed by the interest from other areas of Monash
University:
The University Council didn't want to know anything about the CRC, They
wanted to know about this artist-in-residence. I was on the phone with one of
the Councillors the next day. “What's all this about paper? I'm on the board
of the Library of Victoria...” And things like this.
Graham Smith, Edwards Dunlop Paper, response to the idea of brand
awareness…‘I thought it was a great idea because it was a different way to look at
using paper.’ Peter Allen, Visy, was more subdued in his comment…‘Brand is
probably not really relevant for what we have done. Market exposure, yes. The
exposure has probably been very specific, but limited.’ Gabriel Poole recognises
the importance of the ‘right’ audience and stated…‘The main thing you've got to be
concerned about is whether you are getting to the people who you want to see it.’
On the other hand, Dr. Warwick Raverty, CSIRO, was not so enthusiastic:
I'd have to say I'm sceptical of that. A number of larger companies like
Amcor have promoted galleries and they've funded public spaces where
artwork can be shown and have a spin-off in that they can entertain guests
65
and hold functions. So that market exists. My view admittedly is based on
very limited experience in some conservative industries.
David Lancashire shared his opinion…‘New audiences, well that's always an
interesting one.’
Dr. Jim Bonham, aptec, was expansive in his comments:
For the people who have had contact with the project, it did a lot to create
awareness by one group of the other. It's made everybody realise that there
exists a side to the fibre industry that they didn't know much about. I'm not
sure how much exposure within the industry the program got outside of the
people who were directly involved. As a first time, maybe not, but trying to
do it again, if you're really trying to have some impact on the industry you
might need to think about ways in which you can publicise what's happening
more around the industry. In financial terms, if you want to have a financial
effect on the industry, it's got to be at the point where you're getting back to
customer service. The program has got to have an impact on customers,
which makes them in some way more appreciative of what the industry does,
what the specific company does. I'm sure there are some customers who
couldn't give a damn anyway, but there would be others who would be quite
interested, especially if you're offering them something where they might
leverage off in some way.
The responses ranged from scepticism to qualified support, but perhaps the most
relevant comments came from Dr. Jim Bonham. He recognised that from the paper
industry’s point of view, the benefits of the program had been the recognition that
there exists other ‘knowledge’ about paper; a program attractive to the industry
requires that it generate internal industry awareness and to be financially
successful, the program must be relevant to the industry’s customers.
On the other hand research undertaken by the Cultural Ministers Council
(Department of Communication Information Technology and Arts 2001), considers
66
brand exposure alone is useful to little known, new or growing brands and suitable
for mass marketers of consumer products, but of little value to marketers of
industrial products.
5.1.6 Intellectual Property The intellectual property applicable to the artist-in-industry program includes
copyright, design rights and patents.
Intellectual property as described by IP Australia (2002) represents the product of
your mind or intellect and is the intangible currency of the knowledge economy
and the creative industries. Through commercialisation processes, selected ideas
and IP are progressed to the marketplace where tangible outcomes are realised i.e.
‘wealth and jobs’.
The attitude of the industry towards IP must be determined prior to analysis of the
IP generated in the artist-in-industry program. Appendix 14 presents a cross-section
of industry perspectives. The understanding of IP by the artists has already been
documented in Table 4.
APPI, as the only university based research centre for the paper industry in
Australia and a partner in numerous CRCs, is inextricably involved in generation of
IP. Likewise CSIRO Forestry and Forest Products, the Federal government agency
are heavily engaged in paper research. Aptec, the research division for Australian
Paper has been active in auditing and developing strategic management processes
to trade on its IP. Dr. Jim Bonham Research Manager commented:
IP is an area we're just starting to become much, much more interested in than
we used to be. We are starting to realise the value of some of the intellectual
property around the place.
Visy has employed both design and patent IP mechanisms which are also used as a
process to exclude similar products appearing in the marketplace. Peter Allen, State
Manager, explained…‘There are some designs, which we have registered, and
67
some design and concepts which have been patented.’ Comments by Jason
Ross…‘Visy wouldn't really patent anything unless they thought they could corner
the market with it.’
The merchants were primarily concerned with protection of trademarks and
complexities of copyright contracts. Graham Smith, Edwards Dunlop Paper,
noted…‘With our different products, we have registered brand names. We are
really simple; we just bring it in and sell it.’
These companies represent the biggest paper industries in Australia and are
Australia’s three principal research institutions. Aside from aptec, they all
expressed concerns about IP i.e. the expenses associated with patenting and
protecting, the complexity of registration or the futility of protecting. On the
other hand, they all knew the important role IP played in their industries and
businesses and had developed mechanisms to still ‘trade’ on it. Remarks by
Peter Allen, Visy…‘If there is a large enough of an infringement and you are
in courts, it costs a lot of money. You weigh up what the losses are and what
the benefits are.’ Prof. Bob Johnston Director, APPI, commented on this
issue…‘A lot of people don't take out patents because of the complexities of it.
They opt to not disclose and try and keep a three or four year lead-time.’ Jason
Ross, Visy observed…‘At Visy Board, we don't actually patent very much
here because it is so expensive to do.’
Gabriel Poole explained his attitude to the protection of IP:
I don't care what they do with what I've done, because I've got another idea
up there which I'm going to be way in front of it anyway. Intellectual
property is something that I’ve left behind.
Copyright
All artwork created automatically acquires copyright. But, as previously discussed,
the knowledge of ‘how to use’ copyright and the artist’s intention to use it for
financial gain has been recognised as a problem.
68
A major difficulty for the creative industries process when it involves project-based
collaborative and cross-sectorial processes is ‘ownership’. In constructing the
artist-in-industry program, the assumption was made that the artist owned the final
artwork and its associated copyright. Yet, having acknowledged an implicit
intention to create hybrid products, the issue of ownership should have been
clarified through a prior contractual process. Peter Allen, Visy, explained…‘That
is always the case with IP issues and we always go through those ... mechanical
type things.’
In the majority of partnerships, the authorship and hence ownership was not
questioned. This could be construed that my vision of how the partnerships would
work was not realised. Only one partnership, that between Dorahy and Visy
demonstrated the vision. This illustrated the need for contractual arrangements for
the assignment of copyright. Mary Dorahy pointed out:
It's not clear for me. It's really not clear for audiences either. And that was
another thing. There was a man interested in buying it and that was one of the
his questions 'whose work is it?' My answer to that is really I wouldn't have
been able to make these work without Jason. But he wouldn't have made them
without me either.
But developing contracts governing the trading of IP for the creative industries
is not straightforward. Caves (2000) discusses the complexities of ownership
and developing contracts that enable maximum value to be generated from the
project as a whole. He further points out the problems for ventures governed by
a contract where there is an uncertain outcome and how decision rights are
allocated in complex creative projects.
At the time of the interviews, no trading of the copyright of artwork had
occurred, although one book publisher has approached the Euraba Paper
Company investigating the possibility of paying a royalty to use the artwork
‘Bagaay’ as the cover image for a non-fiction text.
69
Besides artwork, other tangible products which carry copyright were generated.
These included a CD-ROM documenting the making of ‘Bagaay’ filmed by
myself and edited by Expertise Productions, with the copyright being assigned
to the Noosa Regional Gallery and the Euraba Paper Company; an exhibition
catalogue designed and edited by myself with copyright assigned to the Noosa
Regional Gallery; and an Education Kit written by myself and, in this case, my
retaining the copyright
Patents and Design Rights
According to IP Australia ‘a patent can be granted to someone who has created
something that is inventive, new and useful’ (IP Australia 2002). Dr. Raverty,
CSIRO, has made a patent application for a technique conceived after meeting the
women from the Euraba Paper Company at the New Possibilities for Paper
conference where they were speakers. He subsequently visited their paper mill at
Boggabilla, NSW, and later arranged for three CSIRO paper research scientists to
visit Euraba to assess their paper making processes. Recently, he developed paper-
forming equipment over which he has taken out a design right. Dr Raverty
commented:
At the moment there is no patentable intellectual property attached to what
CSIRO is donating to Euraba. At this stage, it's really proprietary knowledge
which rests in my head because I know how to make sheets in this way.
He is the only person to recognise and follow through a patentable process, which
begs the question ‘why was it not recognised by others, as there were artists,
scientists, marketing and management, and academics amongst the audience for
components of the project?’ This was answered by one of his research peers. Prof
Johnston, APPI, explaining:
Warwick is actually the whiz-kid on this. It's his forte. He did that for
Amcor. He was their patent bloke, and he's got another friend who's very
strong in patent law.
70
Ability to generate new ideas, capacity to recognise the potential of new ideas,
preparedness to pursue formalisation of IP and then to be entrepreneurial in its use
is rare even at this research level. Dr. Raverty explained:
I've lodged a provisional patent which we'll have to make a decision on in the
next few months. I've talked to people in Australian Paper about the concept
and they said "Well come back with a fully developed business plan.” And I
said "Well it's a plan for making something that doesn't exist.”
Florida (2002) lists scientists along with artists as members of the class of ‘super-
creatives’ in the creative economy. Howkins (2001) would perhaps classify
Raverty as a ‘creative entrepreneur’. Dr. Raverty is also an acknowledged
accomplished watercolourist in his spare time. Does being a visual artist provide
other understandings? Stafford (1999: 3) argues that ‘the visual arts are singularly
suited to provide explanatory power for the nature and function of the analytical
procedure.’ It appears Dr. Raverty is a case study for such an argument.
David Lancashire nominated Ken Done as a model of a visual artist who has an
understanding of the paper industry, marketing and creative application. Dr.
Raverty also perceived Ken Done to have the capacity to ‘see’ the potential of his
provisionally patented idea and provide some venture capital for its
commercialisation. Lancashire commented…‘I know of his success and whether
he would be prepared...because he was an advertising and marketing guy…and he's
obviously got his design out there.’
The other potential source of venture capital Dr. Raverty nominated was Richard
Pratt, owner of Visy. Dr. Raverty was able to visualise the commercialisation
pathway from the conceptualisation of the idea to the point of raising capital from
two sources, both of whom could be described as 'cultural entrepreneurs'. Dr.
Raverty identified with venture capitalists who would 'understand' the 'culture' of
the idea.
71
5.2 Partnership details and economic investment
Roodhouse (2003) describes the creative industries sector as being dominated by
micro businesses, networks, contracting and sub contracting, projects and cross-
disciplinary interactions. Banking on Culture (2000) point out that sources of
capital from mainstream investment has not worked for cultural entrepreneurs and
that new approaches are needed to finance the cultural sector. Congruently, highly
specialised business, marketing, management development and innovation need to
be available. Banking on Culture Micro have proposed micro credit as a possible
investment instrument, but their report notes that it would not work in areas where
there are high levels of grant funding (Banking on Culture 2000).
The artist-in-residence program exhibited a number of creative industries methods
— creative application, cross-sectorial partnerships, new knowledge generated,
hybrid products and IP — with the potential to be traded upon. It is possible to also
examine the program as a micro-enterprise while acknowledging that a substantial
component of ‘investment’ was through public subsidy. Caves (2000) considers
that public subsidies can be justified in spreading the risk for creative production.
It must be noted that financing the artist-in-industry component without
consideration of the entire New Possibilities for Paper project is not feasible. The
relationship and funding flows between components enabling cohesiveness and
more opportunities when working with the entire budget. Industry investment in
New Possibilities for Paper, as proposed by the prospectus, could be, and was, both
an in-capital and in-kind variety. An overview of the financial investment in the
project is collated in Table 5. The table does not account for the in-kind
contribution of the staff of the industries involved in working with the artists or the
administration and management of the program.
72
Capital In-kind Sub-total
Arts
Queensland
$36,000 $36,000
Noosa
Regional
Gallery
$8,000 $10,000
Administrative support
$18,000
Sub-total $54,000
Industry $42,500 $15,000
Paper for all publications, envelopes (invitation),
air fares, exhibition packaging designed and
constructed, administrative support
$57,500
TOTAL $111,500
Table 5: Investment in the New Possibilities for Paper project.
The public and industry investment was almost equal. As project manager, the New
Possibilities for Paper project engaged me on a contractual basis for over 12
months. Likewise, contracts were developed for each artist. There were no
permanent jobs created. The project involved up to 20 people who were paid for
‘services’. Fourteen industry employees were directly involved in the program.
5.3 R&D
R&D is traditionally regarded as operating within SET — the science, engineering
and technology sectors — R&D investment is measured in several ways. The two
most commonly used are the amount expended on R&D and the number of patents
granted. Not all R&D leads to a patent, but Howkins (2001: 106) points out that
‘almost all patents grow out of R&D’. Whereas the artist-in-industry program has
one patent application lodged, the program (and its associated expenditure) could
still be framed as R&D.
If the creative industries are to be included in the R&D sector then the proposition
that visual artists invest in R&D must also be given consideration. Dr. Warwick
73
Raverty (2001), in email correspondence to the women of Euraba unambiguously
supports this understanding stating:
I am sure you realise that some of the activities in which the Goomeri
women are now involved is scientific research and development. Welcome
to the noble fellowship of science!
R&D could be considered as two separate processes: 'research' generating the
intellectual capital and 'development' generating the outcome. The UK Task Force
(Creative Industries Task Force 2001) stresses that both are required to connect
makers and markets. While visual artists undertake extensive research in their
creative practices, successful patent applications are rare. R&D is recognised as
being important for new work to be generated, however, its cost in terms of 'time
out from production' acknowledged as 'expensive'. While most industries would
relate to this statement, it must be remembered that artists already are working on
less than social welfare.
Kevin Todd articulated his understanding of intellectual capital accrued through
research…‘Knowledge is power.’ He reveals his perception of APPI’s relationship
to R&D and the economic value of knowledge:
That’s why scientists at the APPI get paid because of their particular
knowledge. And not only do they have knowledge but they have the ability to
generate new knowledge, and people pay them for that. To ask questions, do
research and come up with new things concerning technology. That's what
companies value enough to pay money for.
Todd, due to the budgetary considerations, could not employ a very expensive
technique, CNC – computer numeric control — to cut the forms he had developed
with APPI. He found an alternative:
With Paper as Object, the exhibition of the artwork outcomes, I was trying to
find a cheap solution to CNC. I found a plastics company who cut off files
74
from software packages that cost less than $1,000. So I got interested in how
an artist or - particularly a sculptor - might utilise this technology at a lower
end, because the higher end stuff was far too expensive. For the Paper as
Object work, I used CNC to try and negotiate the technology and see what
was involved with this cheaper level.
Subsequently, he has established a relationship with a regeneration project in
Greenham, UK. Todd described the project:
I'm going to survey the CNC resources that are available in their area and do
it at an industrial level but on a cheaper level as well. Do some workshops
with some sculptors to get them started. Then network the architects in the
region to let them know about the potential for interfacing art and architecture
using this technology. In the end, we're having a seminar or conference that's
going to bring the artists, the architects, the industry people together and we're
going to do a web site - a kind of basic web site on these resources in their
area. So we're using the project as an incubator to try and get this art centre
involved with this technology, and art-industry technology. It's the next wave
of computer-based technology because it's going to have a big influence on art
and design in particular.
Nothing has been patented, but Todd's problem solving process must be considered
as R&D. Todd also understands the value of placing the idea into a 'cluster' of
related industries.
The status of and attitude towards R&D within the paper industry has been
previously discussed. Dr. Raverty, referring to an Australian paper company, gave
other insights into how R&D was managed:
It's because they wouldn't invest, they wouldn't communicate between the
strategists and the marketers and with the R&D department. They didn't have
any 'fast followers'. They didn't have anything out there in the 'blue sky' area
taking risks.
75
The relatively small investment in R&D by the paper industry in Australia was
recognised as determining what R&D could be undertaken and, consequently, the
scale of global impact. Dr. Raverty explained:
The R&D you can do in CSIRO is not the sort of R&D that will resolve a new
workable paper machine on a commercial scale. They just haven't got the
resources for this. Companies like Metso, Mitsubishi - they've got thousands of
engineers, and they supply the whole world.
5.4 Commercialisation
‘Ideas are fine. Execution is better’ (Australian Paper 2002: 7). Aptec is quite
clear about commercialisation. But while innovation and subsequent
commercialisation are cornerstones of the creative industries the problems of
achieving it are recognised. Prof. Johnston, APPI commented…‘I know the
hassle and the time, the amount of effort, just to get to that stage.’ Dr. Jim
Bonham, aptec observed…‘Bringing ideas to market is a daunting prospect for
any organisation.’
The artists and the industry were asked if they thought commercialisable outcomes
could be possible from such artist-in-industry partnerships. These have been
recorded in Appendix 15.
Within the industry sector, the difficulties associated with commercialisation are
well known. Prof. Johnston, APPI, commented…‘I doubt it. We have enough
trouble with our scientific - our core business, let alone doing something which is a
bit off to the side.’ Peter Allen, Visy, saw potential…‘Yes, it could be.’, as did
Brooke Lewis, Cotton Australia… ‘That's definitely a possibility. I'm thinking of
the Cotton Store.’ Brian Longmore, Spicers Paper, remarked…‘There could
perhaps be closer collaboration and a commercialisable outcome if the needs from
the industry perspective were clearly articulated.’
76
Envotec, an industry that has been restructured in light of the changes to
communication patterns, saw the greatest potential in employing 'creative' thinking
to provide new innovations and competitive advantage. Paul Broom, Envotec,
explained:
I think sold to us the right way, my immediate response would be that it is a
fantastic opportunity. We are into value-add. We can sell ourselves as
innovators and as having creative ideas.
The artists' responses reflect a range of attitudes towards the role of their
'creativity'. Some interpreted the question as pertaining to their creative practice
and could not see commercialisation possibilities ... they make 'art'. Adele
Outteridge pointed out…‘Looking at what I do, I don't think it is very commercial
stuff. I haven't really thought about it actually.’
Other artists saw the role of their 'creativity' as being one that could be 'applied'.
Todd understood the capacity for 'applied creativity' leading to 'wealth and job
creation'. Kevin Todd observed:
Many artists don't see economics... they see economics as an impediment to
what they want to do rather than something that enables them to do what it is
they want to do. And the Americans very much see economics as an enabling
thing.
But, it must be remembered that these artists were chosen because of
intrinsic personal and professional characteristics and, as one of the
managers from Euraba pointed out, commercialisation is not necessarily the
pervading attitude:
I think it is very much up to the individual. I know people who have worked
that way and it fits in with their ethics. I know one friend who did all his
77
training in Europe and with industry. He doesn't mind the control. I know a
lot of other artists who couldn't do this.
5.5 Jobs and Services
‘Having a job’ is a phrase that now misrepresents employment within the
knowledge economy. Howkins (2001: 124) uses the terms ‘the just-in-time person,
the post-employment job and the temporary company’ as creative economy modes
of ‘employment’ and business structure. That is to say, creatives do not have jobs;
they can be employed and produce a tangible entity, but commonly, they provide
specialised services.
Aptec describe their function as service ’by delivering product development, R&D,
technical support, IP management and benchmarking initiatives, aptec’s role is
focussed on helping our customers prosper’ (Australian Paper 2002: 2). This
supports Hill’s argument that measurement of the outputs from service producers is
registered as a change to the consumer (Hill 1999).
Being asked to provide a ‘service’ or ‘gain employment’ and then to be paid for it,
is explicit recognition of the individual’s intellectual capital. For an artist,
intellectual capital is manifested in their ‘resume’ or ‘CV’. The quality of the CV is
a significant instrument in gaining employment, promotion, commissions,
exhibitions, lecturing positions, residencies, media exposure, and being published
in reputable journals.
Four of the artists were self-employed, which generally means they work across a
range of projects and have a ‘portfolio career’. Tertiary institutions employed two
artists full-time, while one of the four self-employed artists also held a part-time
lecturing position. The women of the Euraba Paper Company were employed by
the Company. Therefore ‘getting a job’ as a performance indicator or a measure of
the artist-in-industry program should be recorded as a change or a trend. The
change can be measured as the value the industry attributed to the services
provided and whether they resulted in a demand for further services.
78
The artist-in-industry program did generate a change to the industry. Human
and creative capital, and product awareness, was generated and valued. While
the capacity to produce content was seen as important by the industry, the post-
partnership change of attitude within staff was recognised as important. Helen
Mueller:
One of the salesmen was trained as a graphic designer a long time ago and
had worked with Spicers for ages. When I first started, I showed him images
of work I had made for other projects. He said, "That leaves me cold". He
was one of the people I asked to describe what paper meant to him and his
comment was one of the ones I used. He was quite thoughtful about it and he
said, "Paper is interesting, stimulating, exciting, and boring". At the end of
my time working with Spicers, he saw the final artwork together. He was
absolutely blown away and thought it was fantastic. And he said, and he
actually wrote in my book too: "Our product has become art".
This points to future program design being based on artists supplying a service.
Doug Forbes, Amcor, explained:
You could enter into it just for the experience itself and not necessarily end up
with a piece at the end, which is purely the process of engaging people to see
and understand things from another perspective. Just the whole process would
be good for both parties.
Demand for further services also indicates a change of attitude. When asked ‘if
they would be interested in being involved in such a program now?’ all the industry
partners plus CSIRO and Envotec expressed preparedness to be involved again.
Although CSIRO was not originally approached with a prospectus and Dr. Raverty
expressed his scepticism when initially hearing about the program…‘When I first
heard about it I thought what a waste of my time to be brutally honest. This is a lot
79
of arty types.’ Post artist-in-industry program, Dr. Raverty has been one of the
program’s greatest champions.
The artist also experienced change, which resulted in an enhanced capacity to
benefit from gaining further ‘jobs’. Wendy McGrath observed:
I think there has been a lot of kudos in being involved in that project. I think
professionally it's been great for me...depending on where you show and
who you show with - how you're perceived and certainly I've used it as a
stepping-stone.
All artists, when asked if they were prepared to be involved again, provided an
overwhelmingly positive response.
5.6 Tangible Outcomes
For a professional visual artist, the tangible outcome of their ‘applied creativity’ is
artwork. The artwork is most frequently submitted to a gallery or dealer for sale,
submitted to group exhibitions or it contributes to the body of work in a solo show.
When the result is an exhibition, the invitation, the catalogue and any critical
reviews supports the engagement. These are tangible outcomes of creativity. More
frequently, artists are now employing CD-ROMs and websites to promote their
work. Both are tangible outcomes,
The artist-in-industry program specified such an outcome. These tangibles were
generated, as well as others that had not been prescribed. Table 6 lists the form and
attempts to quantify the outcomes. It must be noted that the artists generated a great
deal more artwork than was selected for the touring exhibition.
80
Table 6: Tangible Outcomes
Tangible
outcomes
Description and number Value
Exhibitions 25 $2,500/venue
(This income was used to
appoint Regional Galleries
Association of Queensland
as national tour managers.)
Artist # Artworks
selected for
exhibition
# Artworks
generated
Euraba 1 2
Dorahy 2 5 with the
capacity to
produce a
limited edition
McGrath 2 5
Mueller 1 Capacity to
produce a
limited edition
Outteridge 20 40
Sanderson 20 45
Artworks
Todd 4 4
Insurance value of touring
works over $60,000
Catalogue 1000 produced, 132 pages
ISBN 0 9585342 1 7
$19.95/unit
Invitations 30,000 in total Distributed to each gallery
CD-ROM 1 master, multiples made $33.00/unit
Education
Kit
1 A component of the
exhibition
Critical
writing
11 articles
Website 1
New project
prospectus
1- Paper by Design
81
The ‘exhibition’ as an entirety (artwork, catalogue, invitations, education kit, CD-
ROM) has been included as a tangible outcome because the 25 public galleries or
galleries of tertiary institutions paid $2,500 each to the Regional Galleries
Association of Queensland (as tour managers) to hold the exhibition. The creative
products generated could be found as outcomes in virtually all models of
culture/business relationships from donation, sponsorship, and cultural industries to
the creative industries.
Artwork
Although the value of the outcomes (in particular the artworks) has been itemised,
the value listed is the ‘insurance value’. The table, while listing ‘quantities’ of
tangibles, is not a true indication of a ‘successful’ outcome. In the creative arts and
cultural industries models, the artwork, the exhibition and the catalogue are the
endpoint, even if the artwork does not sell.
As Howkins (2001: 91) points out ’the art market trades in goods that are valued
for their uniqueness or rarity; hence the direct economic value is achieved on the
sale of the artwork’. Some artists consider the resolution of a concept (being
manifested as artwork) the endpoint and have neither the imperative nor intention
of selling their work to sustain their practice. A submission by the Painters and
Sculptors Association to the Contemporary Visual Arts and Craft Inquiry
articulates one reason for this… ‘artists… are not prepared to compromise their art
in order to maximise their profits’ (Myer 2002: 60).
In analysing the artist-in-residence program as a creative industries model, the
processes of operation and future possibilities go beyond any defined tangible
endpoint. O’Regan (2002: 20) argues that ‘the new instruments’ such as the
creative industries ‘concentrate attention to processes, practices and production’
and ‘by implication…not on the quality of the ‘product’ itself.’
Howkins (2001) refers to those utilising a tangible property right — direct sales of
artwork and catalogues — or utilisation of an intangible property right — selling the
design rights for manufacture. In reality, it is very difficult to establish an
82
economic value relationship between a quantity of artwork created by an artist and
the subsequent selling price of the artwork. Deciding what constitutes successful
artwork is a debate that has no resolution. Measuring the ‘success’ of an artwork
requires a combination of criteria, but most appropriate for this program are the
degree of peer, audiences and media appreciation, the extent to which the
conceptual brief was fulfilled and the commercialisation potential of the product.
Over 100 separate artworks were created, and while many achieved critical
acclaim, only one fulfilled the three criteria and could, therefore, be considered the
‘most successful’ outcome. The artwork (see Appendix 16: edge) was the series of
silk-screened cardboard forms, a result of the partnership between Visy and Mary
Dorahy. In referring to the evaluation criteria
• the artwork (and the partnership) was referred to a significant number of
times by industry figures, other artists and was independently selected by
print media for publication
• the extent to which the ‘authorship’ was collectively attributed to both
individuals in the creative partnership and was recognised as such by both
and
• the perceived possibility of commercialisation of the ideas generated. Mary
Dorahy stated…‘The cardboard forms as porcelain lights… definitely.’
Peter Allen, Visy, explained:
The forms that came out of our efforts here with Mary ... Some I could
certainly see as being the sort of thing that you could design and sell and
would sit in half the lounge rooms around Australia.
Publications, education kit, CD-ROM website and invitation
At 135 pages, the catalogue included comprehensive essays from artists and
industry personnel and was sold at all exhibition venues. Australian Paper
purchased 400 to use as a promotional tool because the paper stock for the
catalogue was one of their signature papers.
83
The education kit was a component of the public program that each gallery
undertook when the exhibition was installed. Addressing primary school students
or secondary art students, the kit also provided information on the history and
chemistry of papermaking.
As previously discussed, the CD-ROM documented the making of the Euraba
artwork and generated revenue for Euraba, the Noosa Regional Gallery and the
host gallery via sales.
A web designer was commissioned to design and construct a dedicated website for
the duration of the project. Since the end of 2002, the website has been
incorporated into the Noosa Regional Galleries site. Each artist and their industry
partner were featured. Partnership rationales, information about the industry,
artwork images and links to industry and artists web sites were incorporated into
the content.
The conceptual development of the invitation for Paper as Object dictated that it
should itself ‘be an object’. In the final design, the invitation was an envelope – an
object. The title, exhibition information and industry partners were printed on the
outside of the envelope, thus enabling further printed material to be enclosed.
This design led to re-establishing dialogue with what had been Australian
Envelopes, now Envotec. Paul Broom, National Marketing Manager explained:
It's been two years of enormous change for us as a company within the
dynamics of the market. In the past two years, we have brought out other
companies, we have re-badged ourselves. We have also re-structured the
business. We used to be a sales division and a manufacturing division. We
now have a northern region and a southern region. We have also taken up a
joint venture project in Kuala Lumpur and we are looking at a joint venture
in American and another opportunity in China.
84
Broom was very enthusiastic about partnering New Possibilities for Paper in the
promotion of the exhibition. While design concepts were supplied to Envotec, the
company supplied artwork and film, and printed 30,000 envelopes– all bearing
Envotec’s logo. Broom thought the idea was so good, that the company used the
idea as a promotional tool stating…‘For that trade show, I picked up on your ideas
about the invitations going out as envelopes. They went to industry people - our
audience.’
Howkins (2001: 55) reminds us that ‘copyright does not protect the idea only the
work’. The tangible products, outcomes of intellectual capital, have become
generators of new possibilities.
Envotec traded on the ‘creative’ association with New Possibilities for Paper and
the artist-in-industry program. Broom was keen to be involved again. He also
alluded to the need for Envotec to invest in R&D:
My immediate response would be that it is a fantastic opportunity, especially
with the current direction of the company. We could get a lot out of this. I
think we could get a lot out of it by being prepared to put more into it.
The intent of New Possibilities for Paper was to bring the paper industry and
culture of paper together to share knowledge. This has been articulated through
articles and images in graphic design, architectural, technical, printer, merchant
industry and in-house industry publications. Visual arts publications included all
the majority of the national magazines – Eyeline, Artlink, Imprint, Craft Arts. A
Radio National featuring the program went to air in 2002.
New Model – Paper by Design
The entire project; from conception to analysis has generated extensive knowledge.
This knowledge, as intellectual capital and, in particular, structural capital, has
been employed to develop a new project with new content – Paper by Design. (See
Appendix 7: Paper by Design prospectus.) The prospectus is the tangible
85
embodiment of the accrued structural capital from the artist-in-industry program
and can be used as a creative industries model.
86
Chapter 6 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusions and New Possibilities The intent of the thesis has been to rigorously evaluate New Possibilities for Paper
artist-in-industry program from a creative industries approach. The program was
established with a backdrop of other artist-in-industry programs such as Xerox’s
PAIR at PARC, the AbaF Business Case model and the Queensland Government’s
Art Built-in policy.
New Possibilities for Paper has achieved its aims to generate creative hybrid
products. The most successful outcome came from a partnership where authorship
resided equally between the artist and industry personnel. It was also the most
admired aesthetically and the possibilities for commercialisation of the artwork was
acknowledged and recognised.
The program also achieved its aim to breed intellectual capital. Human, creative,
copyright, patent and design applications and structural capital were generated by
participants. The capacity to understand and exploit intellectual capital was
strongly influenced by the individual’s prior experience and qualifications, attitude
and industry sector. Those most able were Dr Jim Bonham (aptec), Dr Warwick
Raverty (CSIRO), Paul Broom (Envotec) and Kevin Todd (University of the
Sunshine Coast). All are associated with industries or institutions where R&D
investment was considered important to business growth and services to their
customers.
While the program reflected a range of characteristics from the spectrum of
art/industry partnership models currently operating, it strongly demonstrated
creative industries methods, and showed that it and could be employed as a model
for further visual art and paper industry partnerships.
Significant tailoring of the program is required for partnerships to generate the
desired outcomes. Fit, industry demographics, capacity to engage with the
87
appropriate management/decision making hierarchy, prior investment in R&D, and
the ability to understand new investment pathways are some of the factors which
effect industry engagement with the program.
There are two major benefits of such a program from the paper industry’s
perspective (and which would strongly influence their preparedness to engage it).
The first is the provision of a service that delivers to the industry’s customers and
audiences rather than the audience of art. This moves the generated outcomes out
of the galleries and into trade shows. The second is an industry investment in
human and creative capital whereby the industry employees benefit from product
awareness and appreciation, and new technical and design perceptions.
For visual artists there is the possibility of enhanced returns from their creativity.
However, a review of the role of public subsidy is required, and funding
instruments need to be developed as ‘seed or venture capital’ for creative business
opportunities.
On the other hand, tertiary institutions should ensure they deliver two vital sets of
understanding to the sector. One is courseware that considers ‘the business of
creativity’ and includes a thorough understanding of IP, how to manage and utilise
it. The other is a positive attitude towards ‘applying creativity’ in ways other than
through ‘artwork and the exhibition’.
The ‘cultural entrepreneur’ has been identified as having a pivotal role within the
creative industries paradigm. Creative industries methods resulting in structural
capital has the potential to deliver new programs. The New Possibilities for Paper
artist-in-industry program has succeeded in both respects and has led to a new
creative industries program – Paper by Design.
88
References ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allen, Murray (1987), (Australian Paper Mill, Petrie, Queensland) Re: Technical
and production data, letter to Christine Ballinger, 41 Flaxton Mill Road,
Flaxton, Queensland, 4560, 12 May.
Anderson, Peter (2000), 'Craft Built-in', Craftlink in the Built Environment, vol 13
no.1, Brisbane, Craft Queensland, pp. 8-9.
Arts Queensland (2000), DeMa - Manufacturing Design, Paper presented to the
Designing Minds Symposium, Craftsouth, Adelaide, July.
Arts Queensland (2001), Smart State - Creative Queensland: an ideas paper for the
development of a Queensland Government cultural policy, Brisbane,
Queensland Government.
Arts Queensland (2002), Creative Queensland: The Queensland Government
Cultural Policy, Brisbane, Arts Queensland. ISBN 0958182310.
Australian Business Arts Foundation (2000), Developing Business Arts
Partnerships: A Case Guide for the Cultural Sector, Melbourne, Australian
Business Arts Foundation (AbaF), ISBN: 0 642 70504 6.
Australian Business Arts Foundation (2002), 'The Strategic Direction in Corporate
Sponsorships: Practical Implications for the Arts', Cultural Ministers
Council, Department of Communications Technology and the Arts,
Canberra, retrieved 18 Aug 2003, from
http://dcita,gov.au/swg/publications/cultural_sponsorships.pdf
Australian Paper (2001), Australian Paper Art Awards, retrieved 15 April 2003,
from
http://www.news.workingpaper.com.au/netnews_print_view_item.cfm?Ne
wsKeyNo=1134
Australian Paper (2002), Refresh: aptec services, Melbourne, Australian Paper,
http://www.paperlinx.com.au
Banking on Culture (2000), 'New Financial Instruments for Expanding the Cultural
Sector in Europe, Final Report', retrieved 20 November 2004, from
http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/documents/publications/phpKKkKss.pdf
89
Birmingham, John (2001), 'It's All About Creation', Australian Financial Review,
BOSS, January, pp. 33-35.
Browne, Mairead (2002), 'The Knowledge Economy and You', WISENET Journal,
issue 61, retrieved May 21, 2003, from
http://www.wisenet-australia.org/issue61/contnt61.htm.
Caves, Richard E. (2000), Creative Industries: Contracts between Art and
Commerce, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press.
Catlin, Ivan (1998), (Executive Manager, Industry Development Unit, Arts
Queensland) Re: Art and Industry Partnership Initiatives, written
communication provided to the all delegates of the National Paper
Conference, Sunshine Coast, Queensland, 12-13 Dec.
Chadwick, Shannon (2002), Art Built-in, Information and Advice for Artists,
Brisbane, Public Art Agency, http://www.arts.qld.gov.au/publicartagency
Clayton, Christensen, Raynor, Michael et al. (2003), 'Six Keys to Creating New-
Growth Businesses', Harvard Business School Publishing, retrieved March
15, 2003, from
http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/b01/en/common/item_detail.
jhtml?id=u0301A
Creative Industries Task Force (2001), 'Creative Industries Mapping Document',
Department of Culture, Media and Sport, retrieved May 18, 2003, from
http://www.culture.gov.uk/creative/pdf/part1.pdf
Cunningham, Stuart (2002), 'Culture, Services, knowledge or Is content King, or
are we just drama Queens?', Paper presented to Communications Research
Forum, Department of Communication Technology and the Arts, Canberra,
2-3 Oct.
Cunningham, Stuart (2003), 'The Evolving Creative Industries: from original
assumptions to contemporary interpretations', retrieved September 9, 2003,
from
http://creativeindustries.qut.edu.au/researc/cirac/documents/THE_EVOLVI
NG_CREATIVE_INDUSTRIES.pdf
Cunningham, Stuart and Hartley, John (2001), 'Creative Industries - From Blue
Poles to Fat Pipes', Paper presented to the Australian Academy of the
90
Humanities, National Summit on the Humanities and Social Sciences,
National Museum of Australia, Canberra, 26-27 July.
Denzin, Norman K. and Lincoln Yvonna S. (eds.) (2000), The Discipline and
Practice of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks, California, Sage
Publications.
Department of Communication Information Technology and Arts (2001), 'Creative
Industries Clusters Study: Stage One Report', Canberra, retrieved March 17,
from
http://dcita.gov.au/_data/assets/file/12344/cluster_study_report_28may.pdf
Department of Communication Information Technology and the Arts (2000),
'Convergence Report', Department of Communications, Information,
Technology and the Arts, Canberra, retrieved 19 May 2003, from
http://www2.dcita.gov.au/ie/framework/convergence_review
Department of State Development (2003), 'Creative Industries Cluster Strategy
Visual & Performing Arts Segment Report', Queensland Government,
retrieved July 21, 2003, from
http://sd.qld.gov.au/dsdweb/htdocs/global/content_2.cfm?id=14643#reports
Ellyard, Peter (2001), 'Planning for the Future: Issues, Trends and Opportunities for
the Arts in Australia, Discussion Paper', Australia Council, retrieved March
22, 2003, from
http://www.ozco.gov.au/resources/publications/priorities/pff/plan
Enright, Phil ([email protected]) (2001, Feb 27), Re: New
Possibilities for Paper, (Email to Christine Ballinger
Evans, Simon (2002), 'Creativity and Regeneration', Creative Clusters, UK,
retrieved Jan 29, 2003, from http://www.creativeclusters.co.uk
Ferrier, Fran (2000), 'International Developments in Measuring and Reporting
Intellectual Capital', Monash University, retrieved April 17, 2003, from
www.education.monash.edu.au/ceet/does/conferencepapers
Fleming, Tom (2003), 'Supporting the Creative Cluster? - The Role of the Creative
Intermediary', Creative Clusters Conference, Sheffield, retrieved June 19,
2003, from
91
http://www.creativeclusters.co.uk/modules/eventsystem/?fct=eventmenus&
action=displaypage&id=53
Flew, Terry (2002), 'Beyond Ad Hocery: Defining Creative Industries', Paper
presented to Cultural Sites, Cultural Theory, Cultural Policy, Second
International Conference for Cultural Policy Research, Wellington, New
Zealand, 22-26 January.
Florida, Richard (2002), The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It's
Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life, New York,
Basic Books.
Florida, Richard (2002), 'The Rise of the Creative Class: Why cities without gays
and rock bands are losing the economic development race', Washington
Monthly, May 2002, retrieved Nov 18, 2003, from
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0205.florida
Forum on Creative Industries (2001), 'Cultural Production Sector: Research and
Strategy', Manchester Institute of Popular Culture, Manchester Metropolitan
University, retrieved November 12, 2002, from
http://www.mmu.ac.uk/h-ss/mipc/foci
Gibson, Lisanne (2002), 'Creative Industries and Cultural Development - Still a
Janus Face', Media International Australia incorporating Culture and
Policy (102), Feb, Griffith University, pp. 25-33.
Hill, Peter (1999), 'Tangibles, Intangibles and Services A New Taxonomy for the
Classification of Output', retrieved May 6, 2003, from
www.euintangibles.net/library/localfiles/Newtaxonomyofintangiblegoods-
CSLS.PDF
Howkins, J. (2001), The Creative Economy: How People Make Money From Ideas,
London, Penguin Press.
IP Australia (2002), 'IP Strategies for your Business', IP Australia, retrieved Nov
12, 2003, from http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/strategies.htm
IP Australia (2002), Smart Start: Patents, Trademarks, Designs, IP Australia,
Canberra, http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au
Kelly, K. (1999), 'New Rules for the New Economy: Twelve dependable principles
for thriving in a turbulent world', Wired, retrieved September 15, 2003,
from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.09/newrules_pr.html
92
Leadbeater, Charles (1999), Living on Thin Air: The New Economy, London,
Penguin.
Lev, Baruch and Gu, Feng (2001), 'Intangible Assets: Measurement, Drivers,
Usefulness', retrieved 21 March 2003, from
http://www.sternnyu.edu/˜blev/intangibles-assets.doc
Maroochy Shire Council (2002), Arts & Cultural Strategy Project: Creating a New
Vision for Maroochy's Arts and Culture, Nambour, Maroochy Shire
Council.
Marsden, Anna (2001), Promises, Promises, Promises, Paper presented to the
Funding for the Arts Conference, University of the Sunshine Coast,
Regional Galleries Association of Queensland, May 11.
McNamara, Andrew (2002), 'How 'Creative Industries' Evokes the Legacy of
Modernist Visual Art', Media International Australia incorporating Culture
and Policy (102), Feb, Griffith University, pp. 66-76.
Miller, Frank (2002), 'Just what do we mean by assets?', Fernstar Publications,
retrieved 14 May 2003, from http://www.fernstar.com.au/publications/one-
pagers/assets.html
Mohamad, Wan (1999), 'K-Economy Policy Paper 1', retrieved 12 March 2003
from
http://www.nitc.org.my/k-economy/KeconomyPaper1.pdf
Monash University (2004), National Printing Laboratory, retrieved 20 April 2003,
from http://www.npl.org.au
Myer, Rupert (2002), Report of the Contemporary Visual Arts and Craft Inquiry,
Canberra, Department of Communications, Information Technology and the
Arts, ISBN: 0 642 75095 5.
Myers, M. D. (ed.) (1997), 'Qualitative Research in Information Systems', Dept. of
Management Science and Information Systems, University of Auckland,
retrieved 10 Sept 2002 from
http://www.misq.org/discovery/MISQ_isworld,
O'Connor, Justin (1999), 'The Definition of the 'Cultural Industries', Manchester,
Manchester Institute for Popular Culture, retrieved June 11 2003, from
http://mmu.ac.uk/h-ss/mipc/reports/defin.pdf
93
O'Connor, Justin (1999), 'Popular Culture, Reflexivity and Urban Change', in J.
Verwignen and P. Lehtovoari. (eds.) Creative Cities: Cultural Industries,
Urban Development and the Information Society, Helsinki, University of
Art and Design.
O'Regan, Tom (2002), 'Too Much Culture, Too Little Culture: Trends and Issues
for Cultural Policy-making', Media International Australia incorporating
Culture and Policy (102), Feb, Griffith University, pp. 9-24.
Papercom (1998), Promoting the understanding of the value of paper-based
communications. Keith Golding & Associates Pty Ltd. Melbourne,
Papercom Asia-Pacific http://www.papercom.com
Papercom (1999), Offline, issue one, Melbourne, Papercom Asia Pacific,
http://www.papercom.com
Patrick, Antony (2001), 'Charity begins at home, not in the boardroom', Australian
Financial Review, April 4, p 3, retrieved May 11 2003, from
http://www.dcita.gov.au/file/12068/Report_Contemporary_Visual_Arts_an
d_Craft_Inquiry_Appendix_D.rtf
Patton, Michael Q. (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods,
Newbury Park, California, Sage Publications.
Peppercorn, Duncan (2004), The real cost of sponsorship, Paper delivered to the
Business Planning Seminar, Australia Council, Brisbane, 19 August.
Pitts, G. and D. Watt (2001), 'The Imaginary Conference', Artwork Magazine, (50),
pp. 7-14.
Pratt, Richard (2000), The Paper Industry in the 21st Century, Paper presented to
the Australian Pulp Paper and Technical Association Conference,
Melbourne, April.
PricewaterhouseCoopers (2001), 'R&D in Australian business - how serious are
we?', retrieved 16 July 2004, from
http://www.pwcglobal.com/Extweb/ncsurves.nsf/docid/43A1EB6A9
Public Art Agency (2001), 'Art Built-in: Information and Advice for Artists',
Queensland Government, retrieved May 20, 2003, from
http://www.arts.qld.gov.au/publicartagency.
Queensland University of Technology (2000, 17 July - 7 August), 'QUT receives
$15 m for creative industries', Inside QUT, retrieved 17 March 2003, from
94
http://www.corpcomm.qut.edu.au/corpcom/services_function/publications/i
qut/19_204_comp.pdf
Raverty, Warwick ([email protected]) (2001, July 17), Thank you,
(Email to Euraba Paper Company and cc'd to Christine Ballinger
(flaxtonmill@big,net.au)).
Roodhouse, Simon (2003), 'An Introduction to and rationales for the creative
industries in the United Kingdom and Australia - the new growth global
industry', Paper presented to the From Dream to Reality Conference,
Queensland Government, Boonah, 9-11 May.
Royal Society of Queensland (1984), Interlink: A Symposium, Integrating Art,
Science and Technology, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland,
Brisbane no. 95 71-117, 8 October.
San Roque, Mehera (2000), 'Negotiating New Terrain in Public Art
Commissioning', Craftlink in the Built Environment, vol 13 no.1, Brisbane,
Craft Queensland, pp. 10-12.
Scott, Rebecca, (ed.) (2001), Metis: 2001: Wasted - Exhibitions of Science and Art.
Canberra, CSIRO, ISBN: 0 643 067167.
Stafford, Barbara M. (1999), Visual Analogy: Consciousness as the Art of
Connecting, Cambridge, Massachusetts, The Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Press.
Stevenson, Deborah (1999), 'Collaboration, Partnerships and the Creative
Economy', Smarts, issue 18 June, Department of Communication
Information Technology and the Arts, Canberra, pp. 6-7.
Sveiby, Karl (2004), 'What are characteristics of intangible assets?', retrieved June
22, 2004, from http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net
Sveiby, Karl (2004), 'What is the importance of intangible assets?', retrieved June
22, 2004, from http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net
Sveiby, Karl. E. (1997), The New Organizational Wealth, San Francisco, Berrett-
Kochler.
Taylor, Charles (ed.) (1967), Hermeneutics and Politics, Critical Sociology,
Harmondsworth, Penguin Books Ltd.
95
Thorncroft, Tony (2002), 'The Arts: Spreading the arts message SPONSORSHIP',
Financial Times, London, 4 March, retrieved June 18, 2003 from
http://www.ballet.co.uk/cgi/theviews_db_search.search?names=acosta
Throsby, David (2001), Economics and Culture, Melbourne, Cambridge University
Press.
Throsby, David and Hollister, Virginia (2003), Don't give up your day job, Sydney,
Australia Council, ISBN 1 920784 11 X.
Victorian Arts Centre (2000), Australian Paper Art Awards, Melbourne, Victorian
Arts Centre, ISBN: 0 7311 5501 7.
Xerox (1999), 'PARC Artist in Residence Program, PARC Projects', retrieved July
12, 2003, from http://www.xerox.com
Appendices ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix 2: Interview Questions
A. Interview questions for Artists
1. What have you been doing professionally since you officially completed the
partnership?
2. Do you still have a ‘partnership’?
3. How much ‘collaboration’ or input occurred from your partner?
4. What do you think the benefits of the partnership were to them?
5. Have you sold any work from what was generated?
6. What about other outcomes
• commissions
• exhibitions new work
• workshops
• critical writing
• your development – technique, attitude, network/relationships
• anything else?
7. Could any of the outcomes from this partnership be commercialisable?
8. Do you think that you could work with your partner and create a
commercialisable outcome with them?
9. Do you think that visual artists could work in art in industry partnerships
with commercialisable outcomes?
10. How do you utilise and benefit from your intellectual property?
11. If someone infringed your IP, what would you do?
12. Was the size of the business important?
13. Is the personality of the artists important?
14. Would you consider joining Viscopy?
B. Interview Questions for industry
1. What did you think about the art in industry program when you first heard
about it?
2. Why were you interested and why did you decide to be a partner?
3. Do you think they were ‘partnerships’?
4. What are the problems from the industry perspective?
5. What could be the benefits?
6. How could they be improved?
7. Do you envisage an art in industry relationship that involved reciprocal
collaboration with outcomes other than artworks?
8. Do you perceive that a commercialisable outcome could be possible?
9. What about the benefits from
• brand exposure
• new audiences
• staff education
• other?
10. If your industry were to set up an art in industry partnership,
• Where/how would it be appropriate
• How would you structure it and
• What outcomes would you expect?
11. As also an industry peer to many of those industries that were involved,
what were your observations about their response to the partnerships?
12. Is the structure of artworks generated being exhibited in formal exhibition
processes with accompanying catalogues, openings, media releases the way
the industry would prefer the outcomes of partnerships to be?
13. Would you be interested in being involved in such a program now?
14. What would lend weight to gain your involvement? (eg. Qld Government a
partner)
15. Do you think that intellectual property was generated?
C: Interview Questions for Industry Peers
1. What did you think about the art in industry program when you first heard
about it?
2. Were you interested?
3. Do you think the art in industry program was successful?
4. What prevented you from being an industry partner?
5. What are the problems from the industry perspective?
6. What could be the benefits?
7. Do you envisage an art in industry relationship that involved reciprocal
collaboration with outcomes more than artworks?
8. Do you perceive that a commercialisable outcome could be possible?
9. What about the benefits from
a. brand exposure
b. new audiences
c. staff education
d. other?
10. If your industry were to set up an art in industry partnership,
• where would it be appropriate
• how would you structure it and
• what outcomes would you expect?
11. As an industry peer to many of those industries that were involved, what
were your observations about their response to the partnerships?
12. Is the structure of artworks generated being exhibited in formal exhibition
processes with accompanying catalogues, openings, media releases the way
the industry would prefer the outcomes of partnerships to be?
13. Would you be interested in being involved in such a program now?
14. What would attract you to become part of an art in industry program?
15. What would lend weight to gain your involvement? (eg Qld Government a
partner)
16. Do you think that any Intellectual Property was generated?
17. If an art in industry model was established, where/to whom would you
recommend that the first ‘approach’ be made?
New Possibilities for Paper project
Rationale
Operational
Outcomes
Personal role
Industry
Participants
Process
Problems
Benefits
New model
Future
Industry
Artists
Models
Employment hierarchy
Creative milieu
Credibility
Time
Tangible
Intangible
Structural capital
Environmental capital
Human capital
Management
Branding
Social capital
New audiences
Financial outcomes
Promotion
Business case
Structure
Stakeholders
Workplace H&S
Demographics
Corporate attitude
Industrial art attitude
IP
Image
R&D investment
Gender
Educator
Professional status
Cultural reference
Attitude
IP
Location
Traditional
Commercial outcome
Product outcome
Process Outcome
IP
Human capital
Creative capital
Structural capital
Social capital
Awareness
Branding
Environmental capital
IP exploitation
Product
Size
Product
Artwork
Media
Publication
Copyright
Moral rights
Patents
Tacit knowledge
Value quality
App
endi
x 3:
New
Pos
sibi
litie
s for
Pap
er N
ode
Tre
e
Code
12
4113
1
Code
1
Appendix 4: Overview of Components for Media Release
New Possibilities for Paper www.noosaregionalgallery.org/paper
COMPONENTS
1. Conference – New Possibilities for Paper “Exploring the future vision for Paper” 13 – 15th July Sunshine Coast University Sponsors – Arts Qld., Amcor Cartonboard, Australian Paper and Noosa Regional Gallery 2. Artists-in-residence with industry
a. Cotton Australia – Euraba Paper Company (Australia’s first indigenous hand paper mill)
b. Spicers paper – Helen Mueller c. VISY Industries – Mary Dorahy d. Edwards Dunlop Paper – Helen Sanderson e. Australian Pulp and Paper Institute – Kevin Todd f. B & D Bookbinders – Adele Outteridge g. Gabriel Poole Designs – Wendy McGrath
Time: Sept. 2000 – April 2001
3. All about Paper Workshops, residencies, lectures and paper mill tour.
a. Residencies, workshops and lecture – Winsome Jobling, Catherine K and Ruth Hadlow
b. Workshops – Wendy McGrath, Christine Ballinger, Adele Outteridge, Helen Sanderson and Corrie Wright
Some of these workshops will utilize the products of VISY and Amcor Cartonboard Sponsors – Arts Qld. and the Noosa Regional Gallery
4. School Program and National Schools Competition run by ARC (ARC = Australian Recycled Cartonboard) Culminating in a collaborative exhibition at the Cooroy Butter Factory opening 2nd May (judging is on the 18th May)
5. Exhibitions a. Paper as Object Noosa Regional Gallery 22nd June – 22nd July Major touring exhibition; 25 galleries from 2001 - 2004 16 artists (6 international artists) Curator – Christine Ballinger Major Sponsor – Cotton Australia
b. Interwoven Vision
Cooloola Regional Gallery 14 artists collaboratively exploring the creative disciplines that involve weaving, felting, knitting and other mechanical techniques to intertwine fibres
Curator – Christine Ballinger c. The Fabriano Collection
Ancient Watermarked Papers from the collection of the Paper Museum, Fabriano Italy University of the Sunshine Coast
d. Virtual/Surface Opening during the conference at the University of the Sunshine coast Gallery Curator – Lisa Chandler Emerging and regional artists whose practice incorporates digital media will investigate the interface between the virtual environment and physical space.
e. Selected works from the National Schools Competition Access Gallery, Noosa Regional Gallery 22nd June – 22nd July
Appendix 5: Prospectus for New Possibilities for Paper
Paper
from what it is made how it is made where it is made by whom it is made into what it is made where and how it is sold what is its use how do we care for it if at all and finally, to be recycled ?
new possibilities for paper An innovative international project looking at re-presenting
paper as a medium for the contemporary world
In a world driven by digital and frontier technologies, the term ‘paper’ takes on a new meaning.
Who would have thought the words electronic and paper
would ever sit together.
AS A SUBSTRATE FOR PRINT, DRAWING AND PAINTING AS A PACKAGING PRODUCT
CURRENCY A COMPONENT IN BUILDING MATERIALS
Together with the technologies which create these products,
the common uses for paper are changing dramatically.
Does this make our libraries into museums, where we go to ‘feel and smell’ special paper.
The works on paper become even more precious in our art galleries.
Environmental concerns assume an important aspect of our global culture. Sustainability and global warming are two significant issues for the paper industry.
Paper, this humble and tactile material, has evolved into countless new guises. The term ‘paperless world’ was a misguided call to recognize the changes about to occur
With digital technology, paper usage has increased and will continue, for
even Bill Gates prints the screen if it runs over three pages.
By involving the technology, industry, market, education, institutional and art/craft sectors for which paper is a common medium, this project sets out to examine these and other contemporary issues.
PAPER’S TRADITIONAL FUNCTION IS RAPIDLY CHANGING
HOW IS THIS TO BE DONE? By developing a 1. artist-in-residency with industry program a 2. national and international touring exhibition
3. conference
T h o r o u g h , p r o - a c t i v e d e b a t e c a n r e a c h a n d e d u c a t e a w i d e
a u d i e n c e . T h i s p r o j e c t h a s a l r e a d y c o m m e n c e d , w i l l b e d e v e l o p e d f u r t h e r o v e r t h e
n e x t 1 5 m o n t h s a n d c o m e t o f r u i t i o n i n J u n e / J u l y 2 0 0 1 . T h e e x h i b i t i o n p r o g r a m w i l l
c o n t i n u e t h r o u g h 2 0 0 1 / 2 0 0 2 . ' P a p e r ' w i l l n e v e r b e v i e w e d
t h e s a m e w a y a g a i n .
The artist-in-residence with industry program
WILL NOURISH A CREATIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AN ARTIST AND A COMPLEMENTARY INDUSTRY PARTNER
Artists break new ground, can act as 'sooth-sayers' and have access
to public thought and discussion in ways that industry cannot. Artists and industry often use the same material/ medium and may share the common language for those materials, but then work in different ways. By bringing fine arts into the environment of industry, there can be mutual benefit for both the artist and the industry body. This is an innovative program, the concepts of which are supported by a number Government bodies. Research has shown that such partnerships are beginning to develop internationally with many industries now recognizing the value of relationships with artists and arts organizations in their global positioning and marketing as well as community relations. The program may 1. involve the artist working for a limited period of time within that industry 2. the artist working with the materials and technologies of that industry 3. the artist developing works which reflect that industry's ethos and product outcomes. The industry partner may be an international, national or regional enterprise. The artists selected may be regional, national or international. Artists are selected by
- the quality of their work using paper and other related materials - their ability to work with an industry partner - their ability to respond to a contemporary vision for paper
The industry body will be able to select the artist. The industry body and the artist will have preliminary discussions before the final arrangements for the working relationship are established. The artist and the industry partner need not necessarily be positioned within the same area as materials of that industry may be transported to the artist involved or vise-a-versa, the artist transports work to that industry for a manufacturing process to be undertaken. There could be more than one industry partner for an artist, or an industry partner may work collaboratively with more than one artist.
HOW COULD AN ARTIST WORK WITH THE
PRODUCTS OF YOUR INDUSTRY?
THERE ARE MANY UNEXPECTED LONG TERM SPIN-OFFS FROM SUCH PROGRAMS.
Paper as Object - the exhibition THE EXHIBITION TAKES PAPER OUT OF ITS TRADITIONAL CONTEXT AS A SURFACE UPON WHICH PRINT AND PAINT ARE APPLIED. IT PRESENTS PAPER AS A ’MEDIUM’ ABLE TO RESPOND TO AND CREATE SIGNIFICANT ARTWORKS IN THE ERA OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY.
Paper as Object presents the results of an innovative program in which industry and artists collaborate to explore
the contemporary vision of paper. It is envisaged that
- architectural works - computer-based design where the hard copy is paper - contemporary book forms - explorations in print and digital print technologies - video/performance, - installations of interactive membranes of paper - sculpture involving the products of paper-converting technologies being utilized are just some of the areas that will be explored by the arts and industry relationship.
Both the substance and concept of paper will be contained in all the exhibited artworks. However, traditions, perceptions and complacency will be challenged as
the future of paper is exposed. The exhibition will open at the Noosa Regional Gallery, Queensland on the 22nd of June and run until the end of July 2001. It will be on exhibition during the conference (in July, 2001) and it is then intended for the exhibition to tour to a number of venues within Australia. The artists will be selected from regional, national and international arenas. International touring venues are being developed and it is hoped they will include the USA, Japan and Europe. A substantial catalogue reflecting the quality of the exhibition will be designed to support and promote the exhibition. Workshops involving contemporary craft/art practice will support the exhibition within Australia. An education package will be developed. The package will include information on artists, supporting industry bodies, the collaborative process and other relevant issues in pamphlet, photographic, didactic and electronic format.
The conference - new possibilities for paper will Discuss ‘The Psychology of Paper' Paper is more than just a web of cellulose. Explore Frontier Technologies associated with concepts such as electronic paper and will address the impact of digital technology on paper. Consider the Future of the Book, Printing and the Printed Word Consider the Use of Paper as a Substrate for other media and its suitability to respond to new aesthetic, technical and social demands. Explore 'Paper as Object' in its own right and whether there is a place for it in the new century. Discuss the Contemporary use of Paper within Architectural Practice Debate the use of non-wood fibres for paper environmental concerns of sustainability and paper production Kyoto Greenhouse Emissions legislation Carbon credits and the futures market. Discuss the paper market, Where to Now? Speakers will include - academics - paper manufacturers and merchants
- architects - technology concept developers - book publishers - paper chemists - alternative fibre growers - artists working with paper as a medium.
The venue for the conference will be the University of the Sunshine Coast.
Dates for the conference will be from the 13 – 15th July 2001.
A major exhibition will open at the Noosa Regional Gallery during the conference.
TThhee SSuunnsshhiinnee CCooaasstt iiss aa nnaattiioonnaall aanndd iinntteerrnnaattiioonnaallllyy
rreeccooggnniizzeedd ttoouurriisstt ddeessttiinnaattiioonn
Satellite programs will include
1. Exhibitions A number of specifically curated exhibitions where ‘paper’ is used as medium will be exhibited at galleries on the Sunshine Coast and in Brisbane.
- ‘Paper as Object’, the artwork created during the artist/industry program and works by other invited artists will open at the Noosa Regional Gallery during the conference
- ‘Virtual/Surface’, at the Sunshine Coast University Gallery will exhibit the work of graduate, post-graduate, regional and Indonesian artists who have collaborated to create the ‘real’ from the virtual using paper as the medium.
- ‘Making Marks’, an exhibition exploring the influence of culture when paper is used as the communicative vehicle, will feature the work of contemporary Japanese and Australian calligraphers and the paperwork of the Euraba Paper Company, Australia’s fist indigenous handmade paper artist.
- ‘Interwoven Visions’, also a collaborative exhibition of artisans who work with the processes of mechanically weaving and/or felting their fibres together to create their forms. Papermakers, weavers, basket makers, felters and dyers will partner their individual skills, design then create ‘interwoven visions’.
2. Workshops
These will include - contemporary oriental calligraphy - computer-generated image production printed onto various papers - engineering for sculptural paper - contemporary digital printing technologies - hand-bookbinding and machine bookbinding - Euraba Paper Company, indigenous papermakers - Contemporary Japanese papermaking
3. Field Trips
Include - Australian Paper Mill, Petrie - Queensland School of Printing and Graphic Arts - James Hardie Collection, State Library - and more
Accommodation will be either within the immediate vicinity of the University campus, within the local area or on the coast at Mooloolaba, Coolum or Noosa. Three to five star accommodation is available. Target audience includes Industry sectors associated with the growing, manufacture and paper merchandising areas. Paper converting industries Printers - digital, offset and others Industry sectors and institutions involved in new technologies Architects Libraries Galleries Book manufacturers Educational institutions were paper and new technologies are fundamental to their syllabus Art Schools Artists Calligraphers, bookbinders, papermakers etc
sponsorship support is sought for the following areas. 1. Major financial sponsorship of the total project 2. Minor financial sponsorship of part of the project 3. Industry partner in the artist-in-residence program by enabling and/or financing an a. artist to work for a limited time within the industry b. artist to have access to materials, some equipment or both c. artist to work with the industry's product concept 4. Sponsorship of a component of the project e.g. sponsorship of a speaker, exhibition catalogue, touring costs for exhibition 5. In-kind sponsorship e.g. printing costs, professional expertise 6. Advice on industry relevant topics for the conference Sponsorship funds will be put towards the costs of involved in speaker’s fees, travel and accommodation, conference venue costs, promotion, part-time staffing, project coordinator fees, legal costs, exhibition and artist-in-residency development and monitoring. These costs will be fully accountable. Benefits to sponsors 1. Major sponsor ($20,000 and over) Naming rights for the conference and exhibition Letterhead for project designed with corporate logo All signage to prominently display corporate logo All media releases and internet coverage will identify major sponsor Complementary attendance to all program events egg conference The invited speaker to open the conference/exhibition 2. Minor sponsors ($5,000) Satellite program naming rights Corporate logo present on the foot of project stationery Invitations, pamphlets etc will identity sponsor Discount for representatives at program events e.g. conference 3. Industry/artist-residence program a. working relationship with artist b. financial sponsorship i.e. artist works with the industry's product, concept, ethos. c. in-kind i.e. materials, equipment, processes and/or technical expertise sponsorship Media coverage of collaborative project. All catalogues and invitations for the exhibition will fully identify the industry involved in the partnership. 4. Sponsorship of another kind e.g. project component, in-kind, technical advice Acknowledgment in all printed material Signage will display corporate logo 5. Financial sponsorship of any amount will be acknowledged throughout the project All sponsors will be given activity statements during the program and asked to give feedback on pro-active development of the sponsorship program. A post-project report will be supplied to all sponsors.
Project Managers Christine Ballinger initiated ‘new possibilities for paper’ She is the researcher, project coordinator and curator for the initial project development. Her experience with paper - traditional, contemporary and artistic practice spans 20 years, while her academic training is in the areas of science, mathematics and education. Christine has studied traditional and contemporary papermaking and paper art in the USA and Japan. She has been the recipient of a number of Fellowships. Over the last 12 years, Christine has established strong and continuing links with Japan resulting in three solo exhibitions and nine works acquired by the Kitakyushu Museum of Contemporary Art. Christine’s latest solo exhibition titled ‘Antipodes’ was in Vienna, Austria, March 6th to the 3rd of April. Previous solo exhibitions include those at Beaver Galleries, Canberra; Noosa Regional Gallery and the Red Hill Gallery, Brisbane. In 1998, Christine curated ‘Correspondence’, a collaborative exhibition by 39 Queensland papermakers and which opened at the International paper Congress, Adelaide during the Festival. Her professional practice includes teaching for the National Paper Council of Australia, being a board member of Faculty of Arts, University of the Sunshine Coast and technical consultant for the Euraba Paper Company. Noosa Regional Gallery is the major project manager. Arts Queensland has provided the initial project funding. Christine Ballinger - major contact researcher/project coordinator 41 Flaxton Mill Road Flaxton 4560 ph 07 5445 7317 fax 07 4578 6109 [email protected] Noosa Regional Gallery Kevin Wilson, Director PO Box 141 Tewantin 4565 ph 07 5449 5340 fax 07 5447 1062 [email protected]
Please do not hesitate to contact either
Christine Ballinger or the Noosa Regional Gallery
to discuss this project.
register your sponsorship Name of company/institution/organization .................................................................................................................................... Name of contact within organization ................................................................................................................... Address ..................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................... .......................................................................................PC......................................... ph.............................................................fax................................................................ email............................................................................................................................. website.......................................................................................................................... Sponsorship outline (you may wish to present this in a letter bearing your corporate/organization’s logo) .................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................. ..................................................................................................................................
Appendix 6: Artist-in-industry Guidelines
New Possibilities for Paper
Artists-in-residence with Industry Program Guidelines For works to be created for the ‘Paper as Object’ touring exhibition As an artist, you are being asked to closely communicate with a paper industry partner to research and explore their materials, technology, ethos and vision for the future. From this relationship, you are to create artworks, which will present ‘paper’ as a contemporary, versatile medium and as the ‘object’.
September 2000 – February 2001
This is a new, innovative program for artist/industry collaborative
relationships. The following structures are to act as guidelines and may be added to as the program develops.
1. The Concepts
a. Huge changes are taking place in the paper industry due to a number of factors in particular digital technology. Paper mills, marketing, industries associated with ‘paper’ communication, printing, packaging, libraries etc. are all being affected. Cut-copy paper and packaging are the two growth areas in the paper industry, while specialty papers are disappearing.
b. Historically, paper as it is used in artistic practice, has been as the substrate for painting, photography and print. It is only in the last 30 years where ‘works with paper’ i.e. where the paper is integral to the total image, have been significantly created.
c. The paper industry and the communities who work with paper eg. artists, bookbinders, conservators, calligraphers, galleries, libraries have had to date limited dialogue or opportunity to share knowledge and resources even though ‘paper’ is common to both sectors.
d. The majority of the community would consider paper to a dispensable commodity. Recognition of paper’s versatility or use as a medium for creative expression is limited.
e. Digital technology is strongly influencing the technique and materiality of art practice. This technology is changing rapidly, yet concerns about permanence, whether it is the nature of the ink or the life of the computer required to generate the artwork, need to be considered.
f. Industry is resource rich (materially, technologically and financially). Artists interpret and have creative vision. Artists have access to public thought and discussion in ways that industry cannot.
2. The Process a. The artist and industry will be each sent these guidelines and
information about each other. b. The artist will be supplied with the contact details of the liaison
person within their industry. c. The artists will receive contracts from the Noosa Regional Gallery
outlining the terms of the artist-in-residence program with industry in which they are to create work for the exhibition ‘Paper as Object’.
d. Thorough documentation by the artist is important, as this information will be used.
to write articles for arts-based and trade journals. in the catalogue essay publicity for the website once established exhibition didactics case study evaluation
There will be an interim residency report to be submitted by artists at the end of November. e. Each artist/industry relationship is different. Some artists will only
work within their studios, while others will be working with the materials and equipment of the industry. Others will work with the industry’s technology or ethos. You will need to establish the nature of your working relationship by careful discussions with the contact person within that industry.
f. Research your industry. Establish effective and open communication. Likewise, the industry partner is encouraged to follow the development of your work and, where possible, assist in the promotion of your partnership.
g. It is highly likely that more work than is possible to be included in the exhibition will be created. There will need to be a selection process at the end of the residency if this situation arises. The curator, Christine Ballinger, the director of the Noosa Regional Gallery, Kevin Wilson and the artist will undertake the selection.
h. As this exhibition is being developed to tour nationally, professional photography of some of the work will be required to promote the exhibition for tour. This will occur at the end of November.
i. Clarify any details with Christine Ballinger j. Residency will be completed by the end of February 2001. A report
by the artist evaluating the residency program will be required in March.
k. The artist may not necessarily have completed the work for the exhibition. The artist/industry relationship may also continue past this time.
l. A dinner involving the industries and the artists will be arranged at the completion of the residencies. This will be an excellent opportunity for networking with the other artist and industry partners.
3. The Documentation a. Keep a journal. b. Photograph important aspects (to you) of your industry partner’ workplace,
materials, technology. Please ensure this does not violate any industrial security rule.
c. Photograph significant stages within the development of your artworks. d. Complete interim and final residency surveys.
4. The Timelines Sept 2000 commencement of program End November complete and return interim report Photography will be arranged for some artworks? End of February completion of concluding report March Dinner for artists and industry April Work selected for exhibition Professional photography 5. The Contacts Christine Ballinger Curator and Project Manager 41 Flaxton Mill Road Flaxton 4560 Ph 07 5445 7317 Fax 07 5478 6109 Email [email protected] Noosa Regional Gallery Kevin Wilson Director Ph 07 54495340 Fax 07 5474 3066 Email [email protected]
Indu
stry
Par
tner
s in
resi
denc
y C
ateg
ory
Si
ze
Proj
ect P
rese
ntat
ion
to
VIS
Y
Man
ufac
ture
r, co
nver
ter,
mer
chan
t, R
&D
La
rge/
glob
al
Tony
Gre
y, G
roup
Pub
lic A
ffai
rs M
arke
ting
Man
ager
Spic
ers P
aper
M
erch
ant/d
istri
butio
n La
rge/
glob
al
Bria
n Lo
ngm
ore,
Nat
iona
l Mar
ketin
g M
anag
er
Edw
ards
Dun
lop
Pape
r M
erch
ant
Larg
e/na
tiona
l G
raha
m S
mith
, Qld
Sta
te M
anag
er
Aus
tralia
n Pu
lp a
nd P
aper
Inst
itute
Mon
ash
Uni
vers
ity (A
PPI)
R&
D
SME
Prof
. Bob
John
ston
, Dire
ctor
B&
D B
ookb
inde
rs
Con
verte
r Sm
all/r
egio
nal
Dav
id S
mith
, Ow
ner a
nd m
anag
er
Gab
riel P
oole
Des
igns
A
rchi
tect
ure
and
desi
gn
Smal
l G
abrie
l Poo
le o
wne
r/arc
hite
ct
Cot
ton
Aus
tralia
N
ot-f
or-p
rofit
gro
wer
s org
anis
atio
n SM
E/na
tiona
l B
rook
e Le
wis
, Com
mun
icat
ions
Man
ager
Indu
stry
Par
tner
s in
conf
eren
ce/e
xhib
ition
Am
cor C
arto
nboa
rd
Man
ufac
ture
r, m
erch
ant,
R&
D
Larg
e/gl
obal
D
oug
Forb
es, M
arke
ting
Serv
ices
Exe
cutiv
e
Aus
tralia
n Pa
per
Man
ufac
ture
r, co
nver
ter,
mer
chan
t, R
&D
La
rge/
natio
nal
Cra
ig D
unn,
Mar
ketin
g M
anag
er S
peci
altie
s Pap
er
Aus
tralia
n En
velo
pes
(Env
otec
) M
anuf
actu
rer,
conv
erte
r, m
erch
ant
Larg
e/na
tiona
l Pa
ul B
room
, Nat
iona
l Mar
ketin
g M
anag
er
Plat
ypus
Gra
phic
s Pr
inte
r SM
E/na
tiona
l To
m L
usch
, Ow
ner/m
anag
er
Dec
lined
invo
lvem
ent
Fred
Hos
king
s Pty
Ltd
C
onve
rter
Larg
e/na
tiona
l Ia
n M
cKen
zie,
Nat
iona
l Mar
ketin
g
Pape
r Poi
nt
Mer
chan
t SM
E/st
ate
Gar
y W
ilson
, Nat
iona
l Man
ager
Podl
ick
Ente
rpris
es
Con
verte
r SM
E/na
tiona
l O
wne
r/man
ager
Xer
ox
Doc
umen
t man
agem
ent c
ompa
ny
Larg
e/gl
obal
Jo
hn S
park
s, B
usin
ess D
evel
opm
ent M
anag
er
App
endi
x 7:
Indu
stry
Des
crip
tion
and
Key
Per
sonn
el
BY D
ESIG
N d
evel
oped
by
Chr
istin
e B
allin
ger
BY D
ESIG
N
WH
AT?
……
……
……
……
……
……
. 2
WH
Y?
……
……
……
……
……
……
… 3
HO
W?
……
……
……
……
……
……
… 5
OU
TCO
ME
S?
……
……
……
……
…..
8
CO
ST?
……
……
……
……
……
……
..10
WH
O?
……
……
……
……
……
……
.. 11
1
BY D
ESIG
N
WH
AT
IS
……
……
. ?
Pape
r by
desi
gn
… is
an
ente
rpris
ew
hich
cre
ates
incu
bato
rs
that
con
nect
the
indu
stry
of p
aper
and
the
cultu
re o
f pap
er w
ith a
cha
lleng
e …
to e
xplo
re id
eas,
gen
erat
e pr
oduc
ts a
nd p
rese
nt p
aper
as
…
the
med
ium
of u
nive
rsal
com
mun
icat
ion
2
BY D
ESIG
N
WH
Y …
……
……
… ?
Pape
r by
desi
gn
… a
side
from
the
idea
and
pro
cess
cur
rent
ly n
ot b
eing
ex
plor
ed a
nd in
nova
tive
focu
sed
outp
uts
deve
lope
d …
The
fore
cast
of r
educ
ed p
aper
con
sum
ptio
n as
a re
sult
of th
e in
form
atio
n ec
onom
y pr
oved
to b
e in
corr
ect f
or
certa
in p
aper
s. In
con
trast
, the
dyn
amic
s of
the
know
l-ed
ge e
cono
my
curr
ently
ass
ures
the
futu
re o
f pac
kag-
ing
pape
rs, c
ut-c
opy
A4
and
sele
cted
spe
cial
ty g
rade
s.
Suc
h pa
pers
par
tner
IT a
nd p
rese
nt c
omm
unic
atio
n as
a
conv
erge
nt a
nd s
yner
gist
ic in
tera
ctio
n be
twee
n an
a-lo
gue
and
digi
tal.
Evo
lutio
n an
d ap
plic
atio
n is
be
ing
furth
er
purs
ued
thro
ugh
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f hyb
rid p
aper
-dig
ital f
orm
s w
here
the
boun
darie
s of
sub
stan
ce h
ave
diss
olve
d an
d on
ly fu
nctio
n i.e
. ‘co
mm
unic
atio
n’ d
eter
min
es h
ow it
can
be
cat
egor
ised
.
Cor
resp
ondi
ngly,
the
ultim
ate
in v
alue
-add
ing
to p
aper
(b
esid
es b
eing
the
sub
stan
ce o
f so
me
curr
ency
) is
pa
per’s
use
as
subs
trate
and
med
ium
in v
isua
l arts
pr
actic
e an
d its
cor
resp
ondi
ng u
niqu
enes
s.
Art
prac
tice
now
too
is
no l
onge
r co
nfin
ed w
ithin
bo
unda
ries
such
as
scul
ptur
e, p
erfo
rman
ce o
r ‘w
orks
on
pap
er’.
Alo
ng w
ith th
e m
anuf
actu
ring
indu
stry
, the
gl
obal
IT
dr
iver
ha
s en
com
pass
ed
and
been
em
brac
ed b
y m
any
in th
e cu
ltura
l ind
ustri
es re
sulti
ng
in th
e hy
brid
isat
ion
of tr
aditi
ons
and
tech
niqu
es.
With
in b
oth
indu
strie
s, t
here
is
reco
gniti
on t
hat
the
appl
icat
ion
of
the
crea
tive
proc
ess
to
expl
ore,
de
velo
p, in
cuba
te a
nd e
xplo
it ne
w id
eas
in a
rang
e of
m
arke
tpla
ces
is f
unda
men
tal
to g
row
th w
ithin
the
kn
owle
dge
econ
omy.
3
BY D
ESIG
N
……
……
……
?
As
Aus
tralia
’s la
rges
t m
anuf
actu
rer
of c
omm
unic
atio
n pa
pers
an
d hi
gh
perfo
rman
ce
pack
agin
g an
d w
ith
inte
ntio
ns
to
be
a m
ajor
in
tern
atio
nal
inde
pend
ent
pape
r m
erch
ant
and
dist
ribut
or,
Pap
erlin
X i
s in
the
un
ique
pos
ition
to
nurtu
re a
nd d
evel
op t
he P
aper
by
desi
gn i
dea.
Its
int
eres
ts e
mbr
ace
the
man
ufac
ture
, pa
ckag
ing,
ret
ail a
nd d
istri
butio
n an
d R
&D
of
pape
rs
cons
umed
by
the
know
ledg
e ec
onom
y.
Pap
erlin
X (
via
Aus
tralia
n P
aper
) ha
s sp
onso
red
the
bien
nial
A
ustra
lian
Pap
er
Awar
ds
whi
ch
show
case
‘w
orks
on
pape
r’ in
a fo
rmal
art
exhi
bitio
n pr
oces
s. T
his
spon
sors
hip
(the
only
one
of i
ts k
ind
in A
ustra
lia)
was
es
tabl
ishe
d to
pro
mot
e th
e cu
ltura
l val
ue o
f pap
er.
BUT
… w
hy a
re th
e cr
eativ
e an
d va
lue-
addi
ng p
roce
sses
of
Pap
erlin
X p
aper
not
sho
wca
sed?
… w
here
are
the
new
idea
s, p
ossi
bilit
ies,
pro
toty
pes
that
can
res
ult
from
an
incu
bativ
e pr
oces
s in
volv
ing
the
artis
t and
key
em
ploy
ees?
… h
ow in
this
form
al e
xhib
ition
pro
cess
are
the
clie
nts
and
cust
omer
s of
Pap
erlin
X e
ngag
ed?
… w
hat c
reat
ive
and
hum
an c
apita
l can
be
gene
rate
d w
ithin
Pap
erlin
X w
hen
the
crea
tive
proc
ess
is
colla
bora
tive?
… d
id P
aper
linX
ben
efit
from
the
IP th
at is
gen
erat
ed
with
the
awar
ds?
… w
hy d
oes
Pap
erlin
X p
urch
ase
artw
ork
whe
n an
ac
quis
ition
al p
roce
ss c
ould
be
an o
utco
me
from
Pap
er
by d
esig
n?
4
BY D
ESIG
N
HO
W …
……
……
…. ?
Pap
er is
a c
omm
odity
with
onl
y a
few
way
s to
incr
ease
re
turn
s
• Sel
l mor
e • I
ncre
ase
effic
ienc
ies
in m
anuf
actu
ring
and
mar
ketin
g• M
onop
olis
e th
e m
arke
tpla
ce
• Val
ue-a
dd…
and
pap
er a
s co
mm
odity
will
onl
y be
in
dem
and
whi
le i
t is
che
aper
and
doe
s a
bette
r jo
b th
an o
ther
pr
oduc
ts o
f sim
ilar f
unct
ion
…
And
how
do
we
valu
e-ad
d to
pap
er?
• Man
ufac
turin
g pa
per w
ith s
peci
fic in
here
nt q
ualit
ies
• Prin
ting,
pac
kagi
ng a
nd c
onve
rting
• Em
bedd
ing
smar
t tec
hnol
ogie
s•
Cha
ngin
g pa
per
from
com
mod
ity (
afte
r sa
le v
alue
de
crea
ses)
int
o a
cultu
ral
obje
ct w
here
by i
ts v
alue
ap
prec
iate
s ov
er ti
me.
• U
nder
stan
d th
e sy
stem
in
whi
ch p
aper
ope
rate
s,
tailo
ring
the
prod
uct t
o m
ake
it m
ore
effic
ient
and
effe
c-tiv
e
Pap
er
by
desi
gn
is
focu
sed
on
valu
e-ad
ding
by
co
nnec
ting
the
crea
tive
capi
tal o
f vis
ual a
rtist
s an
d th
e in
dust
ry o
f pap
er to
gen
erat
e cu
ltura
l, co
mm
erci
al a
nd
com
petit
ive
outc
omes
.
… a
nd w
hy v
isua
l arti
sts?
Why
not
gra
phic
des
igne
rs
and
indu
stria
l des
igne
rs?
Visu
al a
rtist
s th
ink
outs
ide
the
indu
stry
squ
are
and
are
thus
a v
ery
rich
sour
ce o
f new
cre
ativ
e ca
pita
l. P
aper
by
des
ign
sour
ces
that
cap
acity
, se
lect
s co
mpa
tible
ar
tists
and
est
ablis
hes
the
incu
bato
r w
ith t
he k
now
l-ed
ge w
orke
rs o
f Pap
erlin
X.
The
artis
t’s r
ole
in th
e in
cuba
tor
is to
gen
erat
e id
eas,
de
sign
s an
d ar
twor
k w
hich
will
con
tribu
te to
Pap
erlin
X
• IP
• Tan
gibl
e as
sets
• Bra
ndin
g an
d cl
ient
aw
aren
ess
• Hum
an a
nd s
truct
ural
cap
ital
.
5
BY D
ESIG
N
HO
W w
ill it
ope
rate
… ?
Five
inc
ubat
ors
will
be
esta
blis
hed
– on
e in
eac
h di
visi
on o
f P
aper
linX
- O
ffice
Pap
ers,
Spe
cial
ty a
nd
Prin
ting
Pap
ers,
Pac
kagi
ng P
aper
s, M
erch
antin
g an
d ap
tec
(Aus
tralia
n P
aper
Tec
hnic
al S
ervi
ces)
For e
ach
divi
sion
, the
re w
ill b
e a
mee
ting
betw
een
the
Gen
eral
M
anag
er,
Mar
ketin
g M
anag
er,
a te
chni
cal
repr
esen
tativ
e an
d th
e P
aper
by
desi
gn P
roje
ct M
an-
ager
to• s
elec
t the
arti
st• d
eter
min
e th
e br
ief d
etai
ling
the
desi
red
outc
omes
fro
m th
e pr
ojec
t’s c
once
pt
• det
erm
ine
incu
bato
r log
istic
s i.e
. the
hum
an a
nd
mat
eria
l res
ourc
es re
quire
d, d
urat
ion
of th
e ar
tist’s
inv
olve
men
t, w
orkp
lace
allo
catio
n, w
orkp
lace
hea
lth
and
saf
ety
and
insu
ranc
e, e
stab
lish
repo
rting
pro
ce
dur
es, p
roje
ct ti
mel
ines
and
inte
llect
ual p
rope
rty
man
agem
ent
and
appo
rtion
men
t.
A co
ntra
ct b
etw
een
the
artis
t, P
roje
ct M
anag
er a
nd
Pap
erlin
X is
dra
wn
up a
nd s
igne
d.
An
incu
bato
r te
am i
s es
tabl
ishe
d an
d in
clud
es t
he
mar
ketin
g m
anag
er w
ho w
ill a
ct a
s th
e pr
inci
ple
inte
r-fa
ce b
etw
een
the
artis
t and
the
othe
r mem
bers
of t
he
incu
bato
r tea
m a
nd th
e P
roje
ct M
anag
er.
The
sele
cted
arti
st b
riefs
the
incu
bato
r tea
m a
nd o
ther
st
aff e
xpla
inin
g th
eir c
reat
ive
prac
tice.
The
artis
t un
derta
kes
a fa
mili
aris
atio
n an
d re
sear
ch
prog
ram
to
gain
ins
ight
int
o th
e di
visi
on’s
pro
duct
s,
proc
ess
and
etho
s.
The
com
plet
e in
cuba
tor
team
will
col
labo
rate
to
find
inte
rsec
tions
of
id
eas,
de
term
ine
reso
urce
s an
d de
velo
p st
rate
gies
to
fulfi
l the
brie
f. (O
nly
the
pape
r, pa
per p
rodu
cts
or re
late
d te
chno
logi
es o
f tha
t div
isio
n ca
n be
use
d.)
. 6
BY D
ESIG
N
HO
W w
ill it
ope
rate
… ?
The
Pro
ject
Man
ager
of P
aper
by
desi
gn
resp
onsi
bilit
ies
incl
ude
…
• rec
ogni
tion
of s
uita
ble
artis
ts fo
r fin
al s
elec
tion
by
P
aper
linX
• pre
para
tion
of in
cuba
tor g
uide
lines
/ bu
dget
s an
d
tim
elin
es fo
r arti
sts
and
othe
r inc
ubat
or m
embe
rs• l
iais
e w
ith a
rtist
, mar
ketin
g m
anag
er a
nd o
ther
i
ncub
ator
mem
bers
of e
ach
Div
isio
n• c
oord
inat
ion
of th
e pr
oces
ses
of e
ach
incu
bato
r• c
onsu
lt w
ith M
arke
ting
Man
ager
s to
pro
mot
e Pa
per b
y
d
esig
n to
the
cultu
ral i
ndus
tries
med
ia• u
nder
take
crit
ical
doc
umen
tatio
n of
the
proc
ess
• coo
rdin
ate
exhi
bitio
n/sh
owca
sing
pro
gram
The
Mar
ketin
g M
anag
er f
or e
ach
Div
isio
n w
ill b
e re
spon
sibl
e fo
r the
in-h
ouse
pro
mot
ion
of th
e in
cuba
-to
r and
its
outc
omes
.
The
Pro
ject
Man
ager
and
the
five
mar
ketin
g M
anag
-er
s w
ill d
evel
op a
nat
iona
l st
rate
gy t
o en
gage
the
gr
aphi
c an
d in
dust
rial d
esig
n, p
acka
ging
, prin
t, te
chni
-ca
l, cr
eativ
e an
d cu
ltura
l ind
ustri
es.
The
Pro
ject
Man
ager
, Pap
erlin
X le
gal r
epre
sent
ativ
e an
d IP
rep
rese
ntat
ive
from
apt
ec w
ill d
evel
op a
nd
man
age
the
IP o
utco
mes
.
.
7
BY D
ESIG
N
OU
TCO
ME
S …
……
… ?
TAN
GIB
LE
• A s
erie
s of
artw
orks
that
are
gen
erat
ed fr
om th
e p
rodu
cts
and
tech
nica
l pro
cess
es a
ssoc
iate
d w
ith th
e
div
isio
n• D
ocum
enta
tion
in p
rint,
and
digi
tal v
ideo
and
aud
io o
f
the
incu
bativ
e pr
oces
s an
d ge
nera
ted
outc
omes
• A h
igh
qual
ity c
atal
ogue
• E
xhib
ition
pro
cess
es
a. C
ultu
ral i
ndus
trie
s
A fo
rmal
exh
ibiti
on w
ithin
a M
elbo
urne
Gal
lery
and
whi
ch in
clud
es o
peni
ng a
nd in
vita
tions
to
bo
th c
ultu
ral a
nd in
dust
ry s
ecto
rs.
b.
Pap
er in
dust
ry
i.e
. the
pac
kagi
ng, d
irect
mar
ket
ing,
prin
t and
desi
gn in
dust
ries
A tra
de e
xhib
ition
with
in a
disp
lay
boot
h at
eac
h of
thes
e sh
ows
• Spe
cific
Tan
gibl
e O
utco
me
for P
aper
linX
O
ne a
rtwor
k fro
m e
ach
artis
t bec
omes
the
pr
oper
ty o
f Pap
erlin
X (s
elec
ted
by th
e ar
tist)
INTA
NG
IBLE
Spe
cific
Inta
ngib
le O
utco
mes
for P
aper
linX
• dua
l use
of c
opyr
ight
for r
epro
duct
ion
of im
ages
of
artw
ork
and
the
proc
ess
of th
e P
aper
by
desi
gn
inc
ubat
or
• pos
sibi
lity
of n
ew p
rodu
ct o
r pro
duct
app
licat
ion
with
c
omm
erci
alis
able
out
com
es• p
ositi
onin
g of
Pap
erlin
X as
an
inno
vativ
e co
mpa
ny
inv
olve
d in
nur
turin
g in
cuba
tive
proc
esse
s th
at c
ross
d
isci
plin
es a
nd th
e in
dust
ry/c
ultu
ral d
ivid
e to
pla
ce
pap
er a
s th
e m
ediu
m o
f uni
vers
al c
omm
unic
atio
n.• e
xhib
ition
s a
vehi
cle
to ‘p
rodu
ct te
st’ a
nd g
ain
med
ia
atte
ntio
n• h
uman
, cre
ativ
e an
d st
ruct
ural
cap
ital i
nves
tmen
t in
the
em
ploy
ees
and
oper
atio
ns o
f Pap
erlin
X
.
8
BY D
ESIG
N
OU
TCO
ME
S …
……
… ?
The
outc
omes
for
Pap
erlin
X a
nd it
s fiv
e di
visi
ons
are
likel
y to
be
diffe
rent
.Th
e va
lue-
addi
ng a
chie
vabl
e w
ith th
e di
visi
ons’
out
put
and
func
tion
varie
s,
henc
e th
e fo
llow
ing
mat
rix
indi
cate
s th
e ac
tual
and
pos
sibl
e ou
tcom
es f
or e
ach
divi
sion
.
9
asse
t ret
urn
copy
right
bra
ndin
g &
pro
duct
aw
aren
ess
h
uman
cap
ital
new
idea
s, d
esig
ns?
new
kno
wle
dge?
-
Pap
erlin
X
Offi
ce P
aper
s
Spe
cial
ty &
Prin
ting
Pac
kagi
ng P
aper
s
Mer
chan
ting
apte
c
BY D
ESIG
N
CO
ST
……
……
……
?W
hen
Pap
erlin
X u
nder
take
s a
maj
or p
rom
otio
nal c
am-
paig
n, t
here
is a
larg
e in
vest
men
t in
mar
ket
rese
arch
an
d ad
verti
sing
. B
oth
Pap
erlin
X i
n-ho
use
reso
urce
s an
d ou
tsou
rcin
g w
ill h
ave
been
em
ploy
ed.
Pap
er b
y de
sign
will
ope
rate
in a
sim
ilar
way
. B
UT,
it
diffe
rs in
tha
t it
conn
ects
com
pone
nts
of t
he b
udge
ts
allo
cate
d to
cor
e D
ivis
iona
l m
arke
ting
prog
ram
s an
d th
e A
ustra
lian
Pap
er A
war
ds w
ith R
&D
, HR
, ass
et a
nd
IP re
turn
.
Pap
er b
y de
sign
out
sour
ced
cost
s w
ill in
clud
e • p
roje
ct a
dmin
istra
tion
and
trave
l• a
rtist
fees
• adv
ertis
ing
• a fo
rmal
exh
ibiti
on p
roce
ss a
nd a
hig
h qu
ality
cat
a l
ogue
.
Pap
erlin
X in
-hou
se c
osts
will
incl
ude
• sta
ff –
mar
ketin
g m
anag
er a
nd in
cuba
tor p
erso
nnel
• m
ater
ial a
nd te
chni
cal r
esou
rcin
g• a
n in
tern
al a
nd e
xter
nal a
dver
tisin
g co
mm
itmen
t
(incl
udin
g P
aper
by
desi
gn p
rese
nce
on w
ebsi
te)
• exh
ibiti
ons
at fo
cuse
d Tr
ade
Sho
ws
and
conf
eren
ces
.
10
BY D
ESIG
N
CO
NTA
CT
……
……
?C
hris
tine
Bal
linge
r & A
ssoc
iate
s
Chr
istin
e B
allin
ger
… c
once
ived
, dev
elop
ed a
nd m
anag
ed N
ew
Pos
sibi
litie
s fo
r Pap
er.
Com
men
cing
in 2
000,
New
Pos
sibi
litie
s fo
r Pap
er w
as
visu
al a
rt-pa
per
indu
stry
pro
gram
whi
ch e
xplo
red
the
futu
re o
f pap
er in
the
era
of d
igita
l tec
hnol
ogie
s.
Spi
cer
Pap
er,
Edw
ards
Dun
lop
Pap
er,
VIS
Y, t
he A
us-
tralia
n P
ulp
and
Pap
er I
nstit
ute,
B&
D B
ookb
inde
rs,
Cot
ton
Aus
tralia
and
Gab
riel P
oole
Des
ign
partn
ered
7
artis
ts t
o de
velo
p ar
twor
k fo
r a
maj
or n
atio
nal t
ourin
g ex
hibi
tion.
The
arti
sts
wer
e gi
ven
the
brie
f ‘to
cre
ativ
ely
expl
ore
the
prod
ucts
, te
chno
logi
es a
nd v
isio
n of
the
ir in
dust
ry p
artn
er.’
New
Pos
sibi
litie
s fo
r Pap
er a
lso
deve
lope
d a
conf
eren
ce i
n pa
rtner
ship
with
Am
cor
and
Aus
tralia
n P
aper
.
P: 0
7 54
45 7
317
M: 0
431
908
568
E: f
laxt
onm
ill@
big.
net.a
u41
Fla
xton
Mill
Roa
d,
Flax
ton
4560
A
ustra
lia
11
A
rtis
t D
isci
plin
e Pr
ofes
sion
al
care
er
stat
us
Ter
tiary
educ
atio
n
Edu
cato
r L
ocat
ion
Indu
stry
part
ner
Indu
stry
loca
tion
Eura
ba P
aper
Com
pany
Indi
geno
us p
aper
mak
ers
Emer
ging
B
ogga
billa
NSW
Cot
ton
Aus
tralia
Sydn
ey H
ead
Off
ice
Mar
y D
orah
y Pa
inte
r, pr
intm
aker
,
com
pute
r im
agin
g
Mat
ure/
natio
nal
MB
A
Hea
d of
Dep
t, TA
FE
Dub
bo,
NSW
VIS
Y
Hea
d O
ffic
e
Mel
bour
ne
Vis
y B
oard
Bris
bane
Wen
dy
McG
rath
Prin
tmak
er, p
aint
er
Mat
ure/
natio
nal
BA
W
orks
hops
Su
nshi
ne
Coa
st
Gab
riel P
oole
Des
igns
Suns
hine
Coa
st
Hel
en M
uelle
r Pr
intm
aker
M
atur
e/
inte
rnat
iona
l
BA
Hon
s Le
ctur
er C
anbe
rra
Sydn
ey C
olle
ges A
rt
Sydn
ey
Spic
ers P
aper
Hea
d O
ffic
e
Mel
bour
ne
Sydn
ey O
ffic
e
/war
ehou
se
Ade
le
Out
terid
ge
Con
tem
pora
ry
book
bind
er
Mat
ure/
natio
nal
BSc
W
orks
hops
/
resi
denc
ies
Bris
bane
B
&D
Boo
kbin
ders
Su
nshi
ne C
oast
Hel
en
Sand
erso
n
Pain
ter,
book
bind
er,
prin
tmak
er
Mat
ure
stat
e
Dip
VA
W
orks
hops
/
resi
denc
ies
Bris
bane
Ed
war
ds D
unlo
p
Pape
r
Qld
Div
isio
n of
Edw
ards
Dun
lop
Pape
r
Kev
in T
odd
Com
pute
r bas
ed d
esig
n
and
scul
ptur
e
Mat
ure/
inte
rnat
iona
l
MB
A
Hea
d of
Com
pute
r Bas
ed A
rt &
Des
ign,
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sun
shin
e
Coa
st
Suns
hine
Coa
st
Aus
tralia
n Pu
lp a
nd
Pape
r Ins
titut
e
(APP
I)
Mel
bour
ne
A
ppen
dix
9: A
rtis
t Det
ails
App
endi
x 10
: Ind
ustr
y/A
rtis
t Pro
cess
Ass
essm
ent p
roce
ss o
r ‘d
onat
ion,
spon
sors
hip
or p
artn
ersh
ip’
In
dust
ry
Art
ist
Cot
ton
Aus
tral
ia a
nd
Eur
aba
Pape
r
Bro
oke
Lew
is: A
spon
sors
hip.
I d
idn'
t thi
nk w
e w
ere
invo
lved
eno
ugh
to c
all i
t a p
artn
ersh
ip.
It w
as re
ally
just
a sp
onso
rshi
p. It
was
real
ly ju
st a
com
mis
sion
to c
reat
e
artw
ork
for a
tour
ing
exhi
bitio
n.
Aus
tral
ian
Pulp
and
Pape
r In
stitu
te a
nd
Kev
in T
odd
Prof
. Bob
John
ston
: It
was
a p
artn
ersh
ip.
If y
ou e
nter
into
a re
latio
nshi
p w
ith so
meo
ne li
ke A
PPI,
you
do it
bec
ause
you
wan
t to
have
a re
latio
nshi
p - w
here
you
're w
orki
ng o
utsi
de o
f you
r box
and
that
's th
e re
al v
alue
of i
t for
me
beca
use
it sh
ifts w
here
I'm
wor
king
. I c
an le
arn
from
that
and
it fe
eds b
ack
into
the
othe
r wor
k th
at I
do. A
nd m
aybe
for t
he
scie
ntis
t it s
hifts
wha
t the
y ar
e try
ing
to d
o an
d it
feed
s bac
k in
to th
eir w
ork.
Spic
ers P
aper
and
Hel
en M
uelle
r
Bria
n Lo
ngm
ore:
Def
inite
ly n
ot a
don
atio
n, m
ore
of a
spon
sors
hip.
In
the
indu
stry
now
whe
n yo
u us
e th
e w
ork
'par
tner
ship
', it
mea
ns th
ey
wan
t to
'scre
w y
ou'.
I thi
nk it
pro
babl
y w
as a
par
tner
ship
, but
it w
as a
par
tner
ship
driv
en b
y m
e in
the
sens
e th
at I
desi
gned
the
proj
ect a
nd I
kind
of g
ot p
eopl
e to
co-
oper
ate
with
me,
got
them
invo
lved
.
Edw
ards
Dun
lop
and
Hel
en S
ande
rson
Gra
ham
Sm
ith: H
elen
was
just
like
one
of t
he st
aff.
In te
rms o
f ED
as a
who
le, t
hey
wer
e ve
ry h
appy
for m
e to
do
wha
teve
r I
wan
ted
to d
o.
VIS
Y a
nd M
ary
Dor
ahy
Pete
r Alle
n: P
roba
bly
the
initi
al st
art w
ould
be
as a
spon
sors
hip
type
appr
oach
. It w
ent f
urth
er th
en o
nce
we
star
ted
into
pro
babl
y m
ore
of a
partn
ersh
ip, c
erta
inly
with
the
invo
lvem
ent o
f the
peo
ple
here
and
your
ow
n ar
tists
as w
ell.
Jaso
n R
oss:
We
both
ver
y m
uch
mad
e th
e
deci
sion
s on
how
it w
as g
oing
to lo
ok li
ke w
hen
we
finis
hed.
Wel
l, I w
ould
n't h
ave
been
abl
e to
mak
e th
ose
curv
ed fo
rms w
ithou
t Jas
on.
And
Jaso
n w
ould
n't h
ave
mad
e th
ose
form
s with
out m
e.
Gab
riel
Poo
le D
esig
n
and
Wen
dy M
cGra
th
Gab
riel P
oole
: Wel
l I th
ink
if th
ese
thin
gs a
re g
oing
to w
ork,
they
nee
d
to b
e pa
rtner
ship
s. Y
ou'v
e go
t to
have
peo
ple
wor
king
toge
ther
not
follo
win
g of
f int
o tw
o di
ffer
ent d
irect
ions
, and
unl
ess y
ou g
et th
at, y
ou
can
forg
et a
bout
the
who
le th
ing.
It w
as v
ery
muc
h th
at w
e w
ould
hav
e a
mee
ting
and
talk
abo
ut d
iffer
ent
conc
epts
, the
n I w
ould
go
back
to m
y st
udio
and
dev
elop
my
conc
epts
, and
then
I w
ould
go
back
to th
em a
nd th
ey w
ould
feed
off
my
conc
epts
into
thei
r
proj
ects
.
B&
D B
ookb
inde
rs
and
Ade
le O
utte
ridg
e
Not
inte
rvie
wed
It
is li
ke o
ne o
f tho
se sy
mbi
otic
rela
tions
hips
whe
re y
ou'v
e go
t to
have
you
r
host
and
you
r sym
bion
ts to
geth
er. E
ach
one
cont
ribut
es a
nd e
ach
one
bene
fits.
App
endi
x 11
: Ind
ustr
y D
etai
ls
Indu
stry
par
tner
s in
resi
denc
ies
Cat
egor
y
Size
R
&D
VIS
Y
Man
ufac
turin
g, c
onve
rting
, mer
chan
ting
larg
e/in
tern
atio
nal
divi
sion
and
out
sour
ced
to A
PPI
Spic
ers P
aper
M
erch
antin
g/di
strib
utio
n la
rge/
inte
rnat
iona
l
Edw
ards
Dun
lop
Pape
r M
erch
antin
g la
rge/
natio
nal
Aus
tralia
n Pu
lp a
nd P
aper
Inst
itute
, (A
PPI)
R&
D
SME
core
bus
ines
s & p
artn
er in
CR
C
B&
D B
ookb
inde
rs
Con
verte
r sm
all
Gab
riel P
oole
Des
igns
A
rchi
tect
ure
and
desi
gn
smal
l cr
eativ
e ba
sed
ente
rpris
e
Cot
ton
Aus
tralia
N
ot-f
or-p
rofit
gro
wer
s org
anis
atio
n SM
E di
visi
on a
nd o
utso
urce
d
Indu
stry
par
tner
s in
conf
eren
ce/e
xhib
ition
AM
CO
R C
arto
nboa
rd
Man
ufac
turin
g, m
erch
antin
g, R
&D
la
rge/
inte
rnat
iona
l di
visi
on a
nd o
utso
urce
d to
apt
ec
Aus
tralia
n Pa
per
Man
ufac
turin
g, c
onve
rting
, mer
chan
ting,
R&
D
larg
e/na
tiona
l di
visi
on a
nd o
utso
urce
d (p
artn
er in
a C
RC
)
Aus
tralia
n En
velo
pes (
Envo
tec)
M
anuf
actu
re, c
onve
rting
, mer
chan
ting
larg
e/na
tiona
l ou
tsou
rced
to a
ptec
Invo
lvem
ent a
fter
con
fere
nce
CSI
RO
R
&D
la
rge/
natio
nal
core
bus
ines
s and
par
tner
in C
RC
Dec
lined
invo
lvem
ent
Plat
ypus
Gra
phic
s D
esig
n an
d pr
intin
g SM
E cr
eativ
e ba
sed
ent
erpr
ise
Fred
Hos
king
s Pty
Ltd
C
onve
rter
larg
e/na
tiona
l ou
tsou
rced
Pape
r Poi
nt
Mer
chan
ting
SME
Podl
ick
Ente
rpris
es
Con
verte
r SM
E
Appendix 12: Partnership Preparedness and R&D Industry Investment in new ideas and knowledge Preparedness to undertake
further programs
VISY Peter Allen: It is an investment for some of
the people we employ and the people we
expect to be creative.
Yes
Spicers Paper Dr. Jim Bonham: Merchants - their business
model is to deliver standard products
efficiently and with excellent service, but
merchants don't do product development,
they don't do the creative side of the
business.
Yes, if PaperlinX, the parent
company, approves
Edwards
Dunlop Paper
Graham Smith: We are all here 8 or 10 or 12
hours a day, basically doing the same thing
every day. It is good to have something else
with someone using our paper.
Yes
Australian Pulp
and Paper
Institute,
Monash
University
(APPI)
Prof. Bob Johnston: We're an academic
institution. We weren't looking for a product
connection within an existing process. We
weren't looking for a marketing edge. We
were really looking for a scientific edge.
Yes
Gabriel Poole
Designs
Gabriel Poole: I see this that these young
people are really where our whole future lies
and if we don't look after them…
Yes
Cotton
Australia
Brooke Lewis: The industry is really
innovative. They invest huge amounts into
research and development.
Yes
Australian
Paper - aptec
Dr. Jim Bonham: This is the creative side of
the business.
Yes, if PaperlinX approves
CSIRO Dr. Nafty Vanderhoek: Our R&D is for
longer-term requirements and not just
another means of solving day-to-day
problems.
Yes, if the Head of Division
approves
Envotec Paul Broom: We have done things like
encrypt paper.
Yes
Prof
.
John
ston
APP
I
Oh
yes.
I'd lo
ok a
t ano
ther
pro
posa
l. I t
hink
I'd
mak
e su
re th
at I'
ve g
ot a
bro
ader
rang
e of
invo
lvem
ent f
rom
our
peo
ple,
mak
e su
re th
at th
e ar
tist i
s
avai
labl
e to
do
som
e w
ork
with
in th
e la
b w
ith e
very
one.
Kev
in T
odd
You
do
it be
caus
e yo
u w
ant t
o ha
ve a
rela
tions
hip
- whe
re y
ou're
wor
king
out
side
of y
our b
ox a
nd th
at's
the
real
val
ue o
f it f
or m
e be
caus
e it
shift
s whe
re
I'm w
orki
ng. I
can
lear
n fr
om th
at a
nd it
feed
s bac
k in
to th
e ot
her w
ork
that
I do
. A
nd m
aybe
for t
he sc
ient
ist i
t shi
fts w
hat t
hey
are
tryin
g to
do
and
it
feed
s bac
k in
to th
eir w
ork.
Pete
r Alle
n
VIS
Y
It w
as c
erta
inly
goo
d th
e se
ssio
ns w
e ha
d in
Noo
sa a
nd y
ou g
ot to
talk
with
diff
eren
t bus
ines
s, pe
ople
that
I w
ould
not
nor
mal
ly m
ix w
ith b
ecau
se th
ey
wer
e ou
tsid
e th
e co
rrug
ated
fiel
d. It
suite
d so
me
of th
e pe
ople
we
expe
ct to
be
crea
tive.
I ce
rtain
ly th
ink
it ha
s don
e so
met
hing
for J
ason
for t
he
invo
lvem
ent t
hat h
e ha
d pe
rson
ally
with
his
con
fiden
ce. T
hat c
erta
inly
is a
gre
at b
enef
it. W
e ha
ve b
een
invo
lved
and
cer
tain
ly th
e ou
tcom
e w
as
succ
essf
ul. T
he p
eopl
e ha
ve le
arnt
som
ethi
ng a
long
the
way
and
ben
efite
d pe
rson
ally
as w
ell.
Jaso
n R
oss
VIS
Y
At f
irst I
thou
ght i
t was
just
a c
ase
of b
eing
supp
lied
with
dra
win
gs a
nd ju
st m
ake
this
. W
here
as, e
vent
ually
I w
as m
ore
awar
e of
the
fact
that
it w
as m
e
also
put
ting
in m
y in
put,
doin
g w
hat I
cou
ld to
act
ually
mak
e it
bette
r. So
it g
ot m
ore
fun.
Mar
y
Dor
ahy
We
wer
e bo
th a
war
e of
bot
h be
ing
exte
nded
.
Bro
oke
Lew
is
Cot
ton
Aus
.
Our
staf
f is v
ery
high
ly tr
aine
d an
d aw
are
of a
ll th
e us
es o
f cot
ton,
but
I th
ink
it ga
ve th
em a
noth
er e
lem
ent,
anot
her l
ayer
to th
at k
now
ledg
e w
hich
was
real
ly g
ood.
I di
d fe
el th
at th
e re
alne
ss o
f the
rela
tions
hip
was
mis
sing
.
Hel
en
Mue
ller
I thi
nk it
had
a sh
ort-t
erm
eff
ect o
n th
e st
aff.
Afte
r I'd
bee
n th
ere
once
, a w
oman
cam
e up
to m
e ne
xt ti
me
and
said
"We
wer
e ta
lkin
g in
the
lunc
h ro
om
abou
t ...a
nd sh
e sa
id, I
've
been
in th
e in
dust
ry fo
r fou
rteen
yea
rs a
nd w
e al
l tho
ught
that
may
be p
aper
real
ly is
som
ethi
ng th
at w
e lik
e. I
mea
n w
e co
uld
be
selli
ng a
nyth
ing,
but
we'r
e se
lling
pap
er."
And
bec
ause
I w
as a
skin
g th
em h
ow d
o yo
u fe
el a
bout
pap
er, a
nd th
ey h
adn'
t act
ually
thou
ght a
bout
it.
And
they
star
ted
to th
ink
abou
t wha
t it i
s the
y ar
e se
lling
bec
ause
they
are
sale
s peo
ple.
I th
ink
it ki
nd o
f gal
vani
sed
the
grou
p fo
r a w
hile
.
Vic
tor d
e
Vec
chio
Whe
n yo
u're
dea
ling
with
pap
er fi
ve d
ays a
wee
k an
d I'm
rattl
ing
off t
his a
nd th
at, I
'm g
ivin
g he
r a g
reat
dea
l of i
nfor
mat
ion
and
she's
get
ting
a gr
eat d
eal
of b
enef
it fr
om it
, whe
reas
I th
ink
I'm n
ot d
oing
any
thin
g. M
aybe
that
's w
hat h
appe
ns.
Hel
en
Sand
erso
n
I cam
e to
a p
oint
whe
n I r
ealis
ed th
at th
ey w
ere
star
ting
to se
e th
eir p
aper
s in
a di
ffer
ent c
onte
xt a
nd I
thin
k if
it w
as a
nyth
ing
that
I di
d fo
r the
m th
at w
as
it. W
hile
I ab
solu
tely
shoc
ked
the
sock
s off
mys
elf a
s to
wha
t you
cou
ld d
o w
ith th
eir p
aper
s, I t
hink
I sh
ocke
d th
em to
o. I
open
ed th
eir e
yes t
o re
alis
ing
that
ther
e w
ere
som
e ju
st fa
bulo
us th
ings
her
e. It
was
n't j
ust p
aper
to b
e ch
oppe
d up
and
put
into
shrin
k-w
rapp
ing
and
ship
ped
off,
ther
e w
as a
lot o
f
crea
tive
pote
ntia
l the
re. O
ne o
f the
com
men
ts m
ade
to th
e la
dies
from
the
Jam
es H
ardy
Lib
rary
by
the
back
room
boy
s was
'Do
you
know
whe
n sh
e fir
st
cam
e he
re, w
e th
ough
t tha
t we
just
wor
ked
with
pap
er a
nd n
ow w
e se
e al
l of t
his'.
Hel
en
Sand
erso
n
Lean
ne w
as w
onde
rful
in e
xpla
inin
g th
e di
ffer
ent p
aper
s and
giv
ing
me
acce
ss to
the
diff
eren
t thi
ngs t
o try
. I h
ad n
ot re
alis
ed I
was
a p
aper
snob
unt
il I
got t
here
. I th
ough
t the
pap
er w
ould
be
fine
but I
did
n't t
hink
that
I w
ould
get
so e
xcite
d ab
out t
he p
aper
. I d
idn'
t rea
lise
that
ther
e w
ould
be
such
won
derf
ul p
aper
s and
such
a h
uge
varie
ty. T
he m
ore
you
play
ed w
ith it
the
mor
e op
portu
nity
pre
sent
ed it
s sel
f. Th
e pa
per w
as e
norm
ousl
y ro
bust
. I h
ad
belie
ved
that
you
cou
ld o
nly
do th
ese
thin
gs w
ith g
ood
qual
ity a
rt pa
pers
- st
uff t
hat y
ou p
aid
big
mon
ey fo
r in
an a
rt sh
op. I
t had
nev
er o
ccur
red
to m
e to
look
in a
stat
ione
ry su
pplie
r to
use
thei
r pap
ers i
n an
art
cont
ext.
Gab
riel
Pool
e
I tho
ught
it w
as a
goo
d ed
ucat
ion
for t
he k
ids t
o ge
t the
m d
eepl
y in
volv
ed. I
t gav
e th
em c
onfid
ence
in w
hat t
hey'
re d
oing
. Th
ey d
id so
met
hing
and
they
did
it ve
ry, v
ery
wel
l.
Wen
dy
McG
rath
Goi
ng th
roug
h th
at p
roce
ss m
ade
me
have
cer
tain
real
isat
ions
abo
ut m
y ow
n pr
actic
e ab
out h
ow I
repr
esen
t the
land
scap
e. I
have
alw
ays d
one
it th
at w
ay
but n
ever
act
ually
reco
gnis
ed it
.
Ade
le
Out
terid
ge
Kar
en re
ally
app
reci
ated
a lo
t of w
hat I
did
. Sh
e w
as a
maz
ed a
t wha
t cam
e ou
t of i
t. Th
ey b
oth
gain
ed in
sigh
t int
o so
met
hing
that
was
com
plet
ely
unfa
mili
ar to
them
. The
kno
wle
dge
I've
gain
ed in
a so
rt of
phi
loso
phic
al se
nse
may
hel
p m
e in
any
futu
re p
roce
ss.
Dou
g Fo
rbes
Am
cor
I don
't th
ink
they
are
goi
ng to
acq
uire
a sk
ill -
they
wou
ld p
roba
bly
beco
me
a m
ore
roun
ded
pers
on.
I thi
nk th
e in
dust
ry re
actio
n w
as th
at th
ey g
ot m
ore
out o
f it t
han
they
had
exp
ecte
d an
d it
was
a p
ositi
ve e
xper
ienc
e fo
r peo
ple
invo
lved
- on
a c
oalfa
ce re
latio
nshi
p. I
t gav
e bo
th o
f the
m a
cre
ativ
e ou
tlet
that
they
may
not
hav
e in
thei
r day
-to-d
ay w
orki
ng li
fe.
Gar
y W
ilson
Pape
r Poi
nt
They
wer
e so
pas
sion
ate
abou
t it t
hat i
t mad
e m
e re
thin
k ab
out t
he in
dust
ry. I
t mad
e m
e re
focu
s on
wha
t I w
as d
oing
.
App
endi
x 13
: Cre
ativ
e an
d H
uman
Cap
ital G
ener
ated
Indu
stry
rep
rese
ntat
ive
In
dust
ry
Att
itude
tow
ards
IP
Prof
. Bob
John
ston
Dire
ctor
APP
I
(Mon
ash
Uni
vers
ity)
APP
I fun
ds th
e pr
ovis
iona
l pat
ent,
and
then
if th
ere
if th
ere
is n
o on
e in
tere
sted
in ta
king
out
the
full
pate
nt, n
o co
mm
erci
al p
artn
er, t
hen
it's l
et g
o. I
t's n
ot w
orth
the
Uni
vers
ity p
ayin
g th
ousa
nds t
o ta
ke o
ut th
e fu
ll pa
tent
. It'
s not
che
ap.
Ther
e's n
o gu
aran
tee
you'
re g
oing
to
get a
ny o
f tha
t mon
ey b
ack.
A lo
t of p
eopl
e do
n't t
ake
out p
aten
ts b
ecau
se o
f the
com
plex
ities
of i
t. T
hey
opt t
o no
t dis
clos
e an
d try
and
keep
a th
ree
or fo
ur y
ear l
ead-
time.
Dr.
War
wic
k R
aver
ty
Prin
c. R
esea
rch
Scie
ntis
t
CSI
RO
Th
ere
was
cer
tain
ly a
vie
w in
the
plac
e w
here
I us
ed to
wor
k th
at w
e'd n
ever
be
first
, we'd
alw
ays b
e se
cond
, bec
ause
we
let t
he p
erso
n
who
is fi
rst m
ake
the
mis
take
s and
then
you
com
e in
with
tech
nolo
gy m
ore
or le
ss o
ff th
e sh
elf w
here
the
bugs
hav
e be
en w
orke
d ou
t.
Dr.
Naf
ty V
ande
rhoe
k
Res
earc
h sc
ient
ist
CSI
RO
W
ithin
two
year
s som
eone
is o
n yo
ur ta
il an
yway
, but
you
can
't su
ccee
d as
a fa
st fo
llow
er. I
f you
wan
t to
get a
head
, you
've
got t
o be
the
first
one
.
Dr.
Jim
Bon
ham
Res
earc
h M
anag
er
apte
c
IP is
an
area
we'r
e ju
st st
artin
g to
bec
ome
muc
h, m
uch
mor
e in
tere
sted
in th
an w
e us
ed to
be.
We
are
star
ting
to re
alis
e th
e va
lue
of so
me
of th
e in
telle
ctua
l pro
perty
aro
und
the
plac
e.
Bria
n Lo
ngm
ore
Nat
iona
l Mar
ketin
g
Man
ager
Spic
ers
Pape
r
The
awar
enes
s of i
ntel
lect
ual p
rope
rty is
ver
y ne
w fo
r Aus
tralia
. If p
aym
ent h
as b
een
mad
e fo
r a d
esig
n ju
st fo
r use
in A
ustra
lia, b
ut th
en
we
wan
t to
use
it ov
erse
as, i
t mea
ns th
at th
ere
is a
noth
er p
aym
ent o
r pric
e. If
it is
to b
e us
ed a
num
ber o
f tim
es, t
hen
it's a
noth
er se
t of
paym
ents
. Or d
o w
e ju
st b
uy it
out
righ
t?
Gab
riel P
oole
Arc
hite
ct/o
wne
r
Gab
riel
Pool
e
Des
igns
We
put c
opyr
ight
on
all o
ur d
raw
ings
. But
if a
nyon
e so
rt of
bre
ache
s it,
wha
t do
I do?
Do
I tak
e th
em to
cou
rt? Y
ou e
nd u
p sp
endi
ng h
alf
a m
illio
n do
llars
, whi
ch y
ou h
aven
't go
t any
way
. If y
ou ti
e th
ings
up
as in
telle
ctua
l pro
perty
then
you
lose
thos
e ad
vant
ages
bec
ause
nobo
dy h
as a
use
of t
hem
unl
ess t
hey
com
e to
you
and
pay
for i
t. I d
on't
care
wha
t the
y do
with
wha
t I'v
e do
ne, b
ecau
se I'
ve g
ot a
noth
er
idea
up
ther
e w
hich
I'm
goi
ng to
be
way
in fr
ont o
f it a
nyw
ay. I
ntel
lect
ual p
rope
rty is
som
ethi
ng th
at I'
ve le
ft be
hind
.
Gra
ham
Sm
ith
Stat
e M
anag
er
Edw
ards
Dun
lop
With
our
diff
eren
t pro
duct
s, w
e ha
ve re
gist
ered
bra
nd n
ames
. We
are
real
ly si
mpl
e; w
e ju
st b
ring
it in
and
sell
it
Pete
r Alle
n
Stat
e M
anag
er
VIS
Y
Ther
e ar
e so
me
desi
gns,
whi
ch w
e ha
ve re
gist
ered
, and
som
e de
sign
and
con
cept
whi
ch h
ave
pate
nted
. If t
here
is a
larg
e en
ough
of a
n
infr
inge
men
t and
you
are
in c
ourts
, it c
osts
a lo
t of m
oney
. You
wei
gh u
p w
hat t
he lo
sses
are
and
wha
t the
ben
efits
are
.
Jaso
n R
oss
Prin
cipa
l des
igne
r
VIS
Y
VIS
Y w
ould
n't r
eally
pat
ent a
nyth
ing
unle
ss th
ey th
ough
t the
y co
uld
corn
er th
e m
arke
t with
it. A
t Vis
y B
oard
, we
don'
t act
ually
pat
ent
very
muc
h he
re b
ecau
se it
is so
exp
ensi
ve to
do.
App
endi
x 14
: In
dust
ry A
ttitu
de to
IP
Inte
rvie
wee
Q
: Do
you
see
a co
mm
erci
alis
able
out
com
e w
ould
be
poss
ible
? Pr
of. J
ohns
ton,
APP
I I d
oubt
it.
We
have
eno
ugh
troub
le w
ith o
ur sc
ient
ific
- our
cor
e bu
sine
ss, l
et a
lone
doi
ng so
met
hing
whi
ch is
a b
it of
f to
the
side
. Th
at is
n't t
o
say
that
ther
e m
ight
not
be
an a
rtist
who
mig
ht d
o so
met
hing
real
ly o
ut o
f lef
t fie
ld w
ith th
e in
ks.
Kev
in T
odd
Man
y ar
tists
don
't se
e ec
onom
ics..
. the
y se
e ec
onom
ics a
s an
impe
dim
ent t
o w
hat t
hey
wan
t to
do ra
ther
than
som
ethi
ng th
at e
nabl
es th
em to
do
wha
t it i
s the
y w
ant t
o do
. A
nd th
e A
mer
ican
s ver
y m
uch
see
econ
omic
s as a
n en
ablin
g th
ing.
Pete
r Alle
n, V
ISY
Y
es, i
t cou
ld b
e.
Mar
y D
orah
y I t
hink
it's
quite
pos
sibl
e an
d ce
rtain
ly e
xciti
ng.
Bro
oke
Lew
is, C
otto
n A
ustra
lia
That
's de
finite
ly a
pos
sibi
lity.
I'm
thin
king
of t
he C
otto
n St
ore.
We'r
e al
read
y ca
rryi
ng th
eir p
rodu
cts,
thei
r car
ds, t
heir
gift
tags
and
stuf
f.
Eura
ba P
aper
W
e al
read
y ha
ve p
rodu
cts i
n th
eir s
tore
.
Bria
n Lo
ngm
ore,
Spi
cers
Pap
er
Ther
e co
uld
perh
aps b
e cl
oser
col
labo
ratio
n an
d a
com
mer
cial
isab
le o
utco
me
if th
e ne
eds f
rom
the
indu
stry
per
spec
tive
wer
e cl
early
arti
cula
ted.
Hel
en M
uelle
r If
I ha
d th
e sk
ills a
nd k
now
ledg
e to
con
tribu
te in
that
way
, I'd
love
to d
o th
at.
Gra
ham
Sm
ith, E
dwar
ds D
unlo
p
Ther
e is
def
inite
ly so
me
poss
ibili
ty. I
t is a
lway
s 'ho
w m
uch
retu
rn w
ill y
ou g
et'.
Hel
en S
ande
rson
Y
es. I
do
belie
ve th
ey w
ould
ver
y se
rious
ly c
onsi
der i
t at a
noth
er ti
me
beca
use
I thi
nk th
ey w
ould
hav
e se
en th
at th
ere
is a
pot
entia
l her
e.
Gab
riel P
oole
O
h ye
s, ve
ry m
uch
so.
Wen
dy M
cGra
th
I thi
nk a
rtist
s cou
ld w
ork
with
in in
dust
ry a
nd c
ontri
bute
a lo
t but
may
be n
ot in
a c
omm
erci
al se
nse
dire
ctly
.
Ade
le O
utte
ridge
Lo
okin
g at
wha
t I d
o, I
don'
t thi
nk it
is v
ery
com
mer
cial
stuf
f. I
have
n't r
eally
thou
ght a
bout
it a
ctua
lly.
Dr.
War
wic
k R
aver
ty, C
SIR
O
I'm n
ot su
re.
I thi
nk in
a c
erta
in se
ctor
of t
he m
arke
t the
re c
ould
be
- or e
nter
pris
es b
ased
on
good
des
ign
and
good
kno
wle
dge.
Dou
g Fo
rbes
, Am
cor
Not
in a
larg
er b
usin
ess,
may
be a
smal
l bus
ines
s. I
can'
t thi
nk a
nyth
ing
prop
rieta
ry b
eing
dev
elop
ed th
at y
ou c
ould
take
a p
aten
t out
on.
A
rela
tions
hip
coul
d co
me
up w
ith a
num
ber o
f pie
ces o
f artw
ork,
the
indu
stry
mig
ht b
e ab
le to
com
mer
cial
ise
by d
oing
a c
alen
dar t
hat c
an b
e
give
n ou
t to
cust
omer
s.
Dr.
Jim
Bon
ham
, apt
ec
If y
ou w
ante
d to
do
that
, we
wou
ld ta
ke th
at o
n as
a p
rodu
ct d
evel
opm
ent p
roje
ct, a
nd it
wou
ld g
et ro
uted
thro
ugh
our g
roup
firs
t. W
e no
w h
ave
a
fairl
y fo
rmal
pro
cess
for c
ontro
lling
pro
duct
dev
elop
men
t whi
ch m
eans
that
for I
P th
ere
wou
ld b
e a
dire
ct c
ontro
l of t
he p
rodu
ctio
n.
Paul
Bro
om, E
nvot
ec
I thi
nk so
ld to
us t
he ri
ght w
ay, m
y im
med
iate
resp
onse
wou
ld b
e th
at it
is a
fant
astic
opp
ortu
nity
. We
are
into
val
ue-a
dd. W
e ca
n se
ll ou
rsel
ves
as in
nova
tors
and
as h
avin
g cr
eativ
e id
eas.
Whe
ther
the
prod
uct b
ecom
es c
omm
erci
ally
via
ble
or p
urel
y an
artf
orm
whi
ch w
e ca
n pr
omot
e.
App
endi
x 15
: Com
mer
cial
isat
ion
Pote
ntia
l
Appendix 16: edge
Mary Dorahy – ‘edge’ (industry partner VISY), screen printed corrugated Visy Board