welcometosync.com @synchq

5 THINGS

WE’VE LEARNT

ABOUT DIGITAL

& THE ARTS

4 · 5

WELCOME

This publication marks the close of the first two years of Sync and its activities exploring and curating new spaces where technology and the arts can meet and make.

As with all great adventures, we’ve seen and learnt many important things. In these pages we’ve distilled these down to five key points

— and we’ve asked some amazing people to share their own thoughts on these subjects, too.

What do we know now that two years ago we maybe didn’t? We need to recognise the difference between supporting the existing and encouraging the new; there are not enough safe and supported spaces and frameworks to take risks; the embedding of new ways of thinking and doing requires real leadership from policy to frontline practice; that we avoid the human element of innovation practice at our peril.

Underpinning all this, we have seen that the key to great digital work is a vibrant community of people making it possible

— and that it needs support.

Sync is incredibly grateful to those who have shown faith in our ideas and actions, especially Creative Scotland and of course the community of people and organisations we have worked with. We hope that you have found what we’ve done in our first two years to be different, valuable, provocative and playful.

CONTENTS

6 · 7

TALENT DEVELOPMENT // GILLIAN EASSON 8 · 9

FRAMING INNOVATION // BEATRICE PEMBROKE 10 · 11

SYNC SO FAR: A TIMELINE 12 · 13

LEADERSHIP & POLICY // DICK PENNY 14 · 15

RISK & FAILURE // JON ROGERS 16 · 17

DIGITAL IS A HUMAN ISSUE // HUGH WALLACE 18 · 19

CREDITS & THANKS 20 · 21

#1

Great digital work doesn’t appear from nowhere — it needs great digital people to make it happen. And for the arts in Scotland to be at the forefront of digital creativity there needs to be a robust framework of practical support, technological guidance, and space and time for idea generation.

In short, talent needs to be developed, and that applies as much to makers and creatives as it does the producers and facilitators who are working at the interface of arts and technology.

As part of this process of talent development we need to better understand and promote the work of emerging practitioners in the digital sphere, elevating their profile in the arts in Scotland.

We also need to identify and encourage the growth of digital producers — people who can work with and get the best out of creative talent

— generating opportunities for talented individuals who are often trapped in non- creative roles in the arts.

And if we don’t address this need? The inevitable result is a digital talent drain, as those most progressive people working in the arts look elsewhere for opportunities.

8 · 9

TALENT

DEVELOPMENT

We have exceptional talent

in Scotland but our talent

development support is pretty

patchy and traditional. In terms

of digital development, most

if not all support is geared to

start-up and high-growth areas

only. Within the arts, it’s all

around organisational and

audience development.

The most exciting digital/arts

projects in Scotland tend to

happen informally in small

pockets, often on the fringes

and led by individuals or small

groups. That’s an exciting place

to be, granted, but with no

overall vision, strategy or

support, it’s also pretty

disheartening and doesn’t

help drive Scotland to be

a leader in this field.

What needs to happen? More

doing and less talking; more

trialling and less fear. We

also need more visibility of

innovative digital/arts projects

— talking about what’s working

and why, but also what doesn’t

work.

All ecosystems need a number

of different conditions — the

soil needs to be nourished and

big trees need to be cut back.

From Amsterdam to Vancouver,

Bristol to Nottingham, arts

organisations are piloting

innovative ways of working

digitally — we need more

of that in Scotland too.

Often arts organisations

and digital companies/

independents are

understandably focused

on running the business,

so there’s not much time

to spend on developing

relationships with new people,

on new projects with new

audiences. Good solid

relationships and connections

to audiences are really key

to developing successful arts

/digital projects — we need

more people working across

these worlds, to blur and push

the boundaries. 

In Scotland the quality

of artistic production is

exceptional and there’s no

shortage of unstoppable digital

talent — young digital natives

are hungry to play and more

socially minded/less money

motivated than other

generations. It frightens me in

a good way to think what this

generation will be capable of

in a couple of years time. But

are we ready to support that

talent when it’s unleashed?

At the moment, I think not. :Gillian Easson

Independent

creative producer

Dundee

There are certain spaces and

collectives that have created

a very rich environment to try

things differently. These people

understand the power of the

network and collaboration and

are making work with the web

rather than just for it. They

have open processes, curiosity,

hybrid business models and

tend to be on the periphery

of mainstream arts discourse

and organisations.

Looking at digital innovation

in critical design and social

innovation practice is

interesting — people like

James Bridle and Superflux

are blurring the lines between

art, design and social change.

Also important are cross-

disciplinary networks or spaces

that wouldn’t necessarily

define themselves as ‘arts’

but have cultural innovation

at their core. Edgeryders is

a community practising real

change and using digital

intelligently; Makerversity

is another example and is

part of a bigger movement

at Somerset House that, while

not necessarily focused on

digital, represents a new way

of thinking about cultural

institutions.

Innovation is defined very

differently depending on your

experience and background

— groundbreaking for some

is a cliché for others. Aside

from hiring the best people

and giving them the resources

they need to make whole

system change (as in the

Government Digital Service),

it’s also important to nurture

digital confidence and

behaviour change. It may be

a slower, iterative process but

it will provide a more fertile

environment to sustain and

enjoy the big changes you

make with the radicals.

Encouraging senior and middle

leadership in the arts to

appreciate that this is not just

about websites is more tactical

than ignoring or despairing

of them.

There’s still a fear of failure

and hesitation to reveal how

we work behind the scenes.

We focus on the end product

but people are also interested

in process — we should see

this as part of what the arts

and innovation is about and

acknowledge the mistakes

we make along the way.

To really bring innovation in,

though, we need to get to the

heart of who makes up the arts

institutions — there’s still a

massive need for diversity.

Let’s celebrate the talent we

have but ensure we’re also

opening up and making new

connections and learning from

here and overseas. :

FRAMING

INNOVATION

Beatrice Pembroke

Director,

Creative & Cultural Economy,

British Council

London

#210 · 11

It’s the latest buzzword, but what really counts as innovation in the arts?

Often used to cover a wide spectrum of projects and ideas from the highly conservative to the genuinely progressive, the majority of so-called innovation funding available today is actually supporting organisational development. Rather than being truly innovative, it is enabling arts organisations to use digital to do what they’re already doing, just a little bit better. 

The result is hardly surprising — low levels of business model innovation, in part due to the vested interests of established arts organisations. Instead, we should be funding the kind of work, projects and people that have innovation in their blood. ‘Innovation’ should mean defining future systems, rather than just propping up old ways of doing things.

Let’s support digital ideas and actions that reflect the kind of pioneering spirit that will see the arts leading the way rather than following the pack. Let’s support people with vision who want to explore new frontiers, whether in their own creative practice or in new ways of organising.

Crucially, let’s recognise that sometimes the most innovative ideas disrupt, rather than prop up, the status quo.

First Culture Hack Scotland (CHS),

hosted by Edinburgh Festivals.

Sync starts as part of Creative Scotland’s Digital Development programme. Its brief

is to continue to develop the

approaches tested during the Edinburgh Festivals Innovation Lab but with a wider

remit across Scotland.The team is made up

of those involved in the first Culture

Hack Scotland.

First set of five Geeks-in-Residence

start.

Several projects that started as

CHS hacks are live during the summer

Edinburgh Festivals, including the mobile site of the Edinburgh

International Book Festival.

Culture Hack Scotland 2

(SyncHack) takes place over one day

at Citizen M, Glasgow.

Start of Edinburgh Festivals Innovation

Lab. Rohan Gunatillake and

first Geek-in-Residence Ben

Werdmuller initiate Festivals API project

— the biggest performing arts

open data project in the world.

October

2010

May

2011

August

2011April

2012

June

2012October

2012January

2013

December

2012 February

2013August

2012

March

2012

Sync curates day of CultureTech

programme in Derry.

Issue 1 of SyncTank magazine, bringing

together articles from the Sync

website, is published.

Sync Session event with senior

arts leaders.

SYNC SO FAR

October

2012January

2013June

2013 September

2013 December

2013March

2014

December

2012 February

2013July

2013 November

2013January

2014

Sync give presentation

at International Festivals & Events

Association Europe conference, Rotterdam.

SyncTank issue 2 is published.

Culture Hack Scotland 3 takes

place over two days at Whisky Bond,

Glasgow.

SyncTank issue 3 is published.

Policy-maker sharing events in London

& Edinburgh.

Chris Sharratt joins as SyncTank site and

magazine editor.

Geeks-in-Residence 2013 cohort announced.

Trilogy of Sync policy provocations

published by Guardian Culture

Professionals.Sync team sharing

event in Bristol.Close of this

phase of Sync.

SYNC SO FAR

#3

It is too much to expect the innovators and early adopters in the digital/arts space to also articulate the wider context — to be advocates and leaders when they don’t necessarily have an overview of the sector or even the remit.

Leadership and developing good policy is a job in itself, and at the moment the position is vacant.

At an organisational level we need people with a sectoral development brief who can make policy that is clear, ambitious, informed and measurable.

Crucial to this is the development of a more mature articulation of this space, rather than bucketing everything into

‘digital’ — a term that is becoming increasingly meaningless the more thinly it is spread.

‘Digital’ intelligence is a key part of this. In order to grow an arts sector that can lead on the digital innovation agenda, an understanding of this space is vital and should, therefore, be part of the recruitment requirements when organisations are hiring for senior positions.

14 · 15

Dick Penny

Managing Director,

Watershed

Bristol

Policy should be there to

support the innovators and risk

takers, not trying to lead them.

And if you have a great idea

and want collaborators to help

you develop and test it, then

come to Bristol and work with

us — it’s the best collaborative

risk and innovation culture in

the world. :

LEADERSHIP

& POLICY

Public policy-making agencies

in the arts are constantly torn

between supporting the

established arts and wanting

to promote innovation — there

is a tendency to stand back as

something new emerges, then

intervene heavily, redrawing

the rules of engagement to fit

the established processes. Of

course public policy is behind

the game, it always will be,

and frankly should be.

If you support the arts properly,

new technology will look after

itself — the arts are by nature

innovative and will use

whatever tools and resources

they can get their hands on

to explore new ideas and

experiences. Fetishising digital

is just another example of the

funders demonstrating that

they know what they are doing

and trying to lead the sector.

We should fund the people

pushing the innovation and

let them decide which tools

are most appropriate —

digital will feature heavily

but so will other technologies

and methodologies. It’s all

about the human interface

and experience, that’s where

the sustainable value lies.

We can’t expect digital

to always be a proxy for

innovation. Is the work

relevant? Is it engaging people?

Is it creating new value? These

are much more interesting

questions than is it digital?

If you are in the middle of

exciting stuff you are not too

bothered if it’s visual arts or

theatre or combined arts or

digital — just, is it good, is

it engaging? Am I excited?

Are other people excited?

RISK &

FAILURE

What other options to we

have but to embrace risk and

failure? The alternative is to

freeze our society and slowly

crumble into the dust of

certainty as we watch the rest

of the world grow and become

the future that we might only

silently dream of.

The only failure is not to do

something or not to talk about

something so that others can

learn from the insights that

you gained. I don’t think I’ve

had anything that didn’t fail

— eventually. I’m more worried

about not failing — that sense

of a lack of rigour that comes

from ‘didn’t that work well’.

Funders have an incredibly

difficult job to make decisions

based on risk and failure.

The safest thing would be to

fund nothing; the highest risk

they can take is to increase

administration. Supporting

projects with uncertain

outcomes is incredibly difficult

— openness and transparency

(which is absolutely the

right thing for funders) often

requires clearly defined criteria

of success and failure, with

measures in place to mitigate

against perceived failure.

The importance of failure isn’t

fully understood and this isn’t

about any particular research

funder — it’s something

inherent in our culture. Our

academic dissemination routes

are unchanged in 50 years;

our large institutions are

dying under the weight of

bureaucracy and lack of

speed and agility.

I love the body of work that

I’ve been involved with at the

National Insitute of Design in

India. There is no direct

funding for this work, we have

no written aims and objectives

and we have no end-date.

What we do have is a shared

passion and vision for our

research practices. We believe

in finding opportunities as they

arise and we believe that

people and the work we are

doing is far more important

than any funder. 

This, I think, is a sustainable

approach — to know what

you are doing and why you

are doing something, to

collaborate with people

that you have shared values

with. And to work in an

environment where risk and

failure are celebrated as part

of being human. :

Professor Jon Rogers

Chair of Creative Technology,

Duncan of Jordanstone

College of Art & Design

Dundee

16 · 17

#4

RISK &

FAILURE

Real innovation, like anything that is truly creative and groundbreaking, is a risky business — outcomes are often unclear, processes are untested, timelines and budgets are difficult to predict.

For this reason, new and progressive work often requires different metrics to allow it to have a fair chance to succeed. Failure is a real possibility — a possibility that needs to be actively embraced if we are to allow ideas to grow and projects to prosper.

We need to be more open about the risks and uncertainties associated with testing new ideas, and more willing to provide safe and supported spaces to make and test new work and develop new ways of working.

There needs to be a dialogue about all of this, too. Frank, open and inclusive, questions around what constitutes success and how to learn from failure need to be part of an ongoing R&D conversation between funders, makers and producers.

#5

Digital technologies have changed the way we experience, understand and navigate the world around us. What is most important about this change, however, is not the technology itself but the people who are affected by it.

While that may seem an obvious point, it hasn’t stopped many in the arts being fixated on products and technology, with a corresponding lack of attention being paid to the human issues that come with rapid and dramatic change.

In reality, a lot of the barriers to innovation practice are in fact human rather than technological — ‘digital fear’, often brought on by a lack of understanding, is a real and tangible issue within many arts organisations. The most commonly reported organisational issues of lack of time and lack of money are a proxy for these human barriers and the inability of arts leaders to prioritise innovation work.

As digital tools and digital thinking change society and impact our behaviour, an understanding of these human issues becomes all the more important. The danger for the arts sector is that if it does not properly address the cultural, human significance of digital it risks fading in relevance. 

18 · 19

Hugh Wallace

Head of Digital,

National Museums Scotland

Edinburgh

DIGITAL IS A

HUMAN ISSUE

Speaking from my experience

— and good fortune — of

working with lots of people

in the arts, I think the ‘human

factor’ is something we all

strive to bring to our projects.

But it’s a thing that can be

easy to pay lip service to and

difficult to realise. 

Generally, everyone wants

what they do to be consumed

and enjoyed by real human

beings. We’ve all got so much

better at involving people in

our processes, designing our

stuff iteratively, and sharpening

our outputs as a result —

but on tight budgets and

timeframes it’s often the

precious human element that

gets squeezed out in favour

of just getting something

delivered.

But it’s too important to be

sidelined, and those funding

digital R&D need to insist on

a people-focused approach

being part of the process.

They should overly emphasise

it, reward those who get people

involved even if it results

in a ham-fisted end product.

It would also help to bring

in consumer/market research

specialists to complement

academia (‘research’ in our

sector can be too narrowly

seen through educationalists’

eyes). 

As part of this process we need

to encourage debate amongst

the decision makers as well as

the digital folk, to help reframe

what’s valuable and worth

striving for — we need to

position digital as a mindset

rather than just a medium.

Digital has always been a

really good connector. I think

we can underplay some of the

simple things that help bring

people closer to institutions:

smooth transactional

processes, relevant and timely

communications, well-placed

calls to action, all of which can

build a nice gateway to further

engagement.

Rushing in with all of the

objects, ideas and people

stuff doesn’t always meet

people where they are and can

be quite assumption-driven.

Unfortunately, silo thinking and

organisation structures get in

the way — there’s an inherent

danger in seeing technology/

systems as the fix for cultural

issues. :

Sync is supported by the National Lottery through Creative Scotland

Sync team

Rohan Gunatillake Erin Maguire Devon Walshe Suzy Glass Emmie McKay Chris Sharratt

Thanks to

Gillian Easson Beatrice Pembroke Dick Penny Jon Rogers Hugh Wallace

Designed by Rydo Edited by Chris Sharratt Published by Sync September 2014

www.welcometosync.com

20 · 21

GOODBYE

FOR NOW…