QUESTION
What software applications do we need to make together as artists so that our aesthetics, practical needs and political agendas can be addressed by future technology? How do we make something more useful for us, improve our networking skills, databases & work together more constructively to make the tools we want. Defining Owe1, as those working as teams - performers, media makers, funding agencies; breaking down old notion (Model 1) of one scientist/one artist together where they might make something, to a 2nd model of real teams with less hierarchical structure.

REPORT
Social/political agendas must go beyond English speaking people; appropriate tech. must be inclusive of others. Visually based language systems will fall short in tools development. The word Oapplications1 implies completed programs but there is real need for much lower level software, libraries esp. reinvention of these for simple input/out devices to be shared. Simpler concepts easier than full applications within group format.

Mod.: Applications may be a sloppy word, phrased from Europe, from a context where they are customizing new media tools, where artists have had a major role in development of them. What kinds of skills do users need to inform the final kinds of programs? Before we get there, there is another raft of accessibility: database(ing) and networks. There are no known teams/programs addressing that.

Res.: Theirs is an informal group, no formal funding structure, beating on friends, spreading word. As they try to get it right, huge amount of practical experience that can be shared. Educators know 17yr-olds understand the technical but what1s the meaning? Education needs to reframe the issue - meaning as creators rather than consumers of these technologies. If they (youth) have those technical chops, need a broader understanding of society and culture and their place in the contribution. Different education model than current arts model. So it1s not necessarily what the tools should look like. But that we need for them to understand the context in which they live will let them develop the technology at the next level as opposed to masturbation, making play tools. They have a social responsibility; what is our educational fingerprint?

Mod.: In the Radical Initiative, this is a strong element in European network, concerned with the art and tech in the social/political/cultural. This is done do at the Ph.D. level at their center; artists with 20 yrs. of practice build a new theory of integrated media. The missing link, the cultural responsibility is taking work being made by those who address the many levels and being able to share it. Especially in a way, which might make the industry sponsors, funding the next wave of applications or tools, have them be informed by the creative impulse and a cultural context from which students know the what/why. It is another kind of educational aim, a field of Ohow1 that is not funded.

Resp: That1s the point. The focus needs to be less technological; this shouldn1t being an advanced concept, this is what every freshman should be introduced to. 10th, 11th, 12th graders should be challenged with these questions, so they come to them with the ability to format some of these questions in ways that have meaning before the tools are built in a vacuum. Very agreed upon. Future is a Ofused1 art student. Need art history to engage these participatory issues. Artist1s need get used to the idea that they are not going to be the only ones making the art if they are going to be technologically based.

Resp. questions: How do artists/educators respond to the idea that these technologies and new off the shelf imagined products would make it possible for the "untrained" to produce with unfettered creativity, something which may be truly unique? How do we now define art/aesthetics of what is created, and being overwhelmed by all this stuff that is being produced and where is the value? How does traditional artistic/educational approach, maintaining distinction in the creative disciplines, fit into this new model? A lot of stuff is not coming from any tradition; it1s just appearing on the scene. We1re creating a new self physically, not just in our heads but in matter, new bio-selves like Roy Ascot1s piece. Greek thinking in the 5th century was just as much virtual reality for them. Today1s youth don1t sense that people went through this several times, exactly what they1re facing and not something different, i.e. that sense of alchemy related to the computer screen. It was agreed that historically, it is very rich to look at this connection as a longer perspective grounding, as well as, the last 50 years.

Moderator asked to return to the question of what specific tools would we like to see developed:

Dr. Goodman: From performance as participatory perspective, she would like to enable people who can no longer walk with the ability to move robotic performers via screen avatars.

Resp.:
Access to expensive communication tools, allowing for integration of all interfaces (high software) - what they are using in their labs, forests, jungles (high methodology) and to bring that to the virtual environmental table. Avatars are ok but to have an object that all people are working at, moving or studying.

Something so that this information can be presented to you as an oral learner or kinesthetic learner.

Like to see a tool that would extend the micro scale level phenomena to the macro level.

To be able to use real light source as light source for artwork.

Not grand applications but smaller scale components that are open, modular and used in these large appls.

image capture/ analysis, compression, transmission, object recognition. These are parts of large appls. but not structured in a way that people can get at them in new and creative ways. What1s lacking is good design modularization in packaging, so people can use it without going back to the original research to develop these ideas into something they can use.

How do you find what is out there, whether it exists or not?

Conclusion:
That1s one of the functions of the Radical Project, Bridges and ASCI, to design working databases of needs and knowledge of applications and to put it all together and post it on the net. Go to the Radical website and fill out information.

Lizbeth Goodman, Ph.D. Director of the SMARTlab Centre for Site Specific Media, Performing and Digitial Arts at Central Saint Martin's College of Art and Design, the London Institute. She also directs the Practice-based PhD programme for CSM. She is the Principal Investigator of the SMARTshell Project (creating innovative tools for synchronous and asynchronous online/integrated performance and learning), and of the Virtual Interactive Puppetry Project, the British Council's Cultural and Media Studies development programmes in North Africa, and the European Commission's RADICAL project (Research Agendas Developed in Creative Arts Labs). She is also the UK Executive Producer of Sara Diamond's Code Zebra Project, working with international partners at the Banff New Media Institute, BBC Imagineering, V2, UCLA, UC Berkeley, et al.

Dr. Goodman was previously Director of the Institute for New Media Performance Research at the University of Surrey, following on from eight years leading the BBC Open University's multimedia research teams in Shakespeare, Drama, Gender Studies and Literature. She has worked extensively for the BBC as a researcher, writer and presenter of Learning and Arts/Media Programmes.

Lizbeth Goodman
Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design
The London Institute
Southampton Row
London WC1B 4AP
tel. 44 7900 691604
fax/ 0207 514 8379
email: l.goodman@csm.linst.ac.uk
lizbethln@aol.com