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 (mb25140c@webcentral.com.au) (2001, Feb 27), Re: New

Possibilities for Paper, (Email to Christine Ballinger

(flaxtonmill@big.net.au)).

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 (Warwick.Raverty@ffp.csiro.au) (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 flaxtonmill@sun.big.net.au Noosa Regional Gallery Kevin Wilson, Director PO Box 141 Tewantin 4565 ph 07 5449 5340 fax 07 5447 1062 agd@noosa.qld.gov.au

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 flaxtonmill@sun.big.net.au Noosa Regional Gallery Kevin Wilson Director Ph 07 54495340 Fax 07 5474 3066 Email agd@noosa.qld.gov.au

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