James Hemsley
EVA Converences

The development of "culture x technology" is a complex multi-sectoral issue in which players from not only the cultural sector but also universities, institutes, industry and government can all play major, and cooperative, roles.

European activities in the intersection between the cultural and technological worlds - "culture x technology" - have been developing strongly since the mid 1980s. In this regard Europe is of course not alone. However, in Europe it has been particularly dynamic due to the high concentration of cultural institutions such as museums, libraries and archives as well as the "live arts".

Europe as a whole is well recognised as having the largest cultural heritage sector in the world. Italy alone has reportedly been estimated by Unesco as having some 60% of the world's cultural heritage treasures. The other countries of southern Europe, especially Greece, are also extremely rich culturally - "culture is to Greece what industry is to Germany" (Vassou, 1996). The other regions of Europe also have substantial cultural treasures, in part as a result of the European colonial and imperial history. Although such estimates of European leadership in the field are likely to appear in future as somewhat generous, with for example the African, American, Arab and Asian "market shares" being more significant than is currently recognised, there can be little doubt that Europe is well endowed in this regard. Certainly as regards museums with their "organised cultural treasures", Europe is very well placed, with some 40-50% of the world's museums and a high proportion of the major ones, led by Le Grand Louvre.

Europe's libraries (strong IT users for many years), archives and other cultural heritage repositories such as castles, or those of the "now", e.g. theatres, form with museums and galleries what is becoming an increasingly convergent marketplace for technology suppliers. (I use the term technology essentially to refer to computers and telecommunications.)

There have been considerable hopes in Europe that, as this kind of technology continues to become even more pervasive in its impact, this strong cultural sector will lead to a significant supply sector, i.e. cultural technology and content industries with substantial jobs and worldwide market opportunities. In this chapter I address the issues involved in widening and deepening the contribution of the cultural sector to technological research and development.

I focus on the European Union (EU), but note that Russia has been making significant advances, as have countries such as Israel, Norway and Switzerland, outside the EU but inside the European Research Areas. The central and eastern European countries, e.g. Poland and Ukraine, may be regarded as "Cinderellas" with very high potential, thanks to their rich cultural heritage, strong scientific capabilities and low costs. With the enlargement of the EU to include the "New Associated States"' and build closer relationships with the "New Independent States'", they will be increasingly important in the European scene.

The Cultural Sector as a Partner for European Technology R&D: 1980-2002

The digital image and multimedia opportunities for the cultural sector were dramatically shown in 1986 at the opening of the Musee d'Orsay with its pioneering image-based Visitor Information System. Simultaneously, independent preparatory work by several groups across Europe was underway to try to obtain a role for the cultural sector in the European Commission Information Technology and Telecommunications R&D, although there was no "space" in the Commission's plans for such work at that time.

These efforts were successful and the late 1980s saw the first European Commission R&D support for three cultural heritage-based projects with cross-European membership:
* European Museum Network, led by Germany, on the high speed telecoms application;
* NARCISSE, led by France, for CD-ROM development and high quality imaging; and
* VASARI, led by the UK, for ultra-high quality imaging direct from paintings.

These three projects showed the way, both in Europe and internationally, for cultural heritage to be an accepted area for scientific and technological R&D funding, with prestigious cultural institutions such as the Central Laboratories of the French National Museums, the major Berlin and Munich museums, the National Archaeology Museum in Madrid and the National Gallery, London in partnerships with small and large companies and universities.

A second, much larger wave of EC-supported "Culture x Technology" R&D projects began in the early 1990s, building on the success of the three pioneering R&D projects. This also helped to promote increasing awareness across the European Union of the importance and potential of the cross-fertilisation of culture and technology.

For libraries, a special Technology Applications Programme was established, with some 100 projects being funded. Museums were able to have an even larger role, due to invitations to participate in R&D projects across a wide range of technology topics, from innovative digital imaging to high-speed telecoms. An increasing number of the most famous museums in Europe participated, such as the Uffizi and the Prado, as well as very innovative ones such as the Museum of Cycladic Arts in Athens and Museon in the Hague.

Several hundreds of technology R&D projects in cultural heritage were supported by the EC's Information Society Technology (IST) R&D programme through the 1990s in successive waves of initiatives. Many projects using existing technology were carried out in the RAPHAEL and CULTURE 2000 programmes of the EC's Directorate General for Culture (now combined with Education). This was facilitated by the Maastricht Treaty, which inter alia formally made culture a subject for EC action.

Other ambitious schemes were launched in this period, for example G7 (8) projects for Libraries and Museums, but unfortunately funding was very limited. The Memorandum of Understanding, followed by Medici, was established by the European Commission to try to bring together the European museums and industry. In addition local and national government support grew, with for example the Italian National Programme, the largest in Europe and the 20 million Euro Scottish Cultural Resource Access Network, SCRAN, project (the genesis of which was in the National Museums of Scotland) with National Lottery funding support, as part of efforts to mark the new millennium.

At the end of the decade, as part of the Fifth EC Framework R&D Programme in the IST area, a special budget and corresponding unit in Luxembourg were established for Cultural and Scientific Heritage, fully recognising its role in acting as a scientific and technology driver and not merely a passive, lagging application sector.

Despite this success of the cultural heritage sector, relatively few of the hundreds of cultural technology R&D projects supported by the EC in the 90s dealt with the performing arts (see Duncan and Hemsley, 2000). (This observation does not include many small application projects using relatively mature technology supported by the Cultural Directorate General, now combined with Education.)

Comparison Between the Memory Sector and the Performing Arts

As indicated above, the so-called "memory" institutions (also referred to as ALM, for Archives, Libraries and Museums) had much greater success in the 1990s, in becoming involved in technology R&D by participating in pan-European consortia and attracting EC R&D support than the performing arts.

The following are some of the reasons, and the changing situation in this regard:

* The involvement of major iconic cultural institutions right from the start in the late 1980s was a crucial success factor, e.g. the National Museums of France, the National Gallery, London, and the Uffizi. These provided role models for many others, it being noticeable that there was a chain reaction from these pioneers, first to other top level cultural institutions such as the Prado and then eventually down to small museums. In contrast, despite efforts from the technology sector to involve top-level performing arts institutions at the beginning of the 1990s, this proved difficult (although the number of such institutions involved appears to be increasing now);

* The major museums have in-house scientific departments and/or strong connections with university electronic engineering and computer science departments. At first these proved to be key partnering elements. However, it is noteworthy that in the curatorial and educational areas there was considerable interest in experimenting with new IT and telecoms technologies, including archaeologists in a strong role, benefiting perhaps from wider exposure to the power and potential of these new technologies. Similarly the large libraries tend to have close relationships with university information sciences departments, especially of course university libraries;

* Two-dimensional "flat" art was a much more tractable subject for digital acquisition, storage, communication and representation in the 80s and 90s than the performing arts. Other objects, whether in book form or 3D, could also be captured in still digital image form. 3D object imaging and display in 3D form has been of increasing interest during this period and moving 3D digital images are now at the cutting edge of applied research, due in great part to the games field, not just an '"exotic" research area;

* Performing arts organisations tend to be smaller than museums and libraries and so less able to overcome the administrative hurdles in obtaining EC funding.

* Television, not information and communication technology, appeared to be seen as the "natural" technology field partner for the performing arts sector and moreover, was regarded as a mature industry with just small application-type grants from the European equivalent of the national ministries of culture, rather than major technology R&D support with budgets in the range of millions of euros. As of mid-2002 this perception is still affecting front-line, creative management people in at least one of the major broadcasting organisations. Moreover, the very costly HDTV venture in the early 1990s went into decline just as some of its leaders started to take an interest in cultural technology R&D work, although it was noticeable that they took more interest in museum objects than performances. The Japanese efforts, always somewhat different to those in Europe and North America, by contrast had an early emphasis on HDTV in the cultural field, including both 3D museum objects and "4D", i.e. 3D representations of cultural festivals with the Gifu Prefectural government for example, playing a key role in encouraging and facilitating major Japanese companies to take an interest in such efforts; and

* Sound was a Cinderella area in the 90s EC R&D work, and in multimedia generally, but it appears that this is also changing now, both for archival conservation and restoration. This is becoming an extremely exciting area, including virtual and augmented reality approaches (e.g. Ng , 2002).

The roles of industry, government, academia and research institutes

To understand the success of the cultural heritage sector in winning a role in European technology R&D, consider the cross-sectoral partnering involved. There was great interest from large technology companies in the 90s, including IBM, Microsoft, Telecom Italia, Telefonica, BT and France Telecom. The corresponding R&D challenges were more in line with the interests of the IT and telecoms industries, including often their front-line marketing functions as well as the R&D departments.

There was already a core of small companies serving the ALM sector (although split between the various sectors), especially libraries and to a certain extent museums, thanks to their previous history in the use of computers, mainly for conventional data processing applications.

In consequence a considerable number of SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises), including technology enterprises new to the cultural sector, cooperated with cultural institutions in R&D consortia in the 90s despite administrative difficulties for very small companies (as experienced in the RADICAL project, Goodman, 2002). The Commission recognises the particular problems faced by micro-companies in participating and is reportedly devising measures to improve this in the Sixth Framework Programme, including, we hope, for talented "creative micro-entrepreneurs".

There was great interest in the 1990s from local and national governments in applying and developing ICT technology for cultural heritage, e.g. the Italian national programme "Safeguarding Cultural Heritage" (1997). This was displayed not just by direct project grants for multimedia work, but also support for existing facilitating organisations such as the ICCD in Rome, and the MDA in Cambridge, which extended their previous text-based work to include digital images. In addition newer organisations such as Videomuseum in Paris, SCRAN in Edinburgh, Center PIC in Moscow and the European Museum Information Institute (a distributed organisation with partners in many European countries) were supported and did valuable work. Moreover, the libraries and museum departments of many local governments, such as from Tuscany and Oxfordshire, participated directly in European and national technology R&D and application projects.

Synergy between projects funded by differing government levels can be useful, and Italy for instance has made efforts to encourage this with positive feedback mechanisms. Moreover, it is very important to recognise that the role of government is not just to provide financial support in projects and programmes. By actively assisting in promotion, dissemination and organisation of special projects and events, it plays an even more important role.

Universities and colleges have played a major role in many of the cultural technology R&D projects, for example computer science and electronic engineering projects such as those of the University of Florence and the Polytechnic University of Madrid, and sometimes with combined efforts from both technology and "user" departments (for instance, humanities departments and university libraries, archives and museums).
University museums are numerous in some European countries, such as Greece and the UK, and made important contributions, as shown by the "Glasgow Model" of the Hunterian Museum and the computer science department of the University of Glasgow, and the Dion projects in Greece. It is noteworthy that this appears also to be the case for a number of Fifth Framework projects, including the performing arts such as Theatron, Open Drama, Resolve and RADICAL.

Research institutes both within and outside universities form a crucial part of the role of academia. For example, the European Museum Network project, in the late 1980s was led by the Frauenhofer Gesellschaft, Germany's largest research institute, which was merged with GMD, a strong computer science institute, and is now in an even stronger position to participate in cultural technology research. Smaller ones such as GfaI of Berlin, the main organiser of EVA Berlin, also made significant R&D contributions in partnership with cultural institutions in Germany and elsewhere. In addition, user sector institutes were actively involved, such as the Institute of the History of Science in Florence, the Institute of Archaeology Kiev (but without EC funding), the RKD in Den Haag and the Courtauld Institute's Witt Library on the VAN EYCK project, and the Instituto Amattler de Arte Hispanica, Barcelona (Blanch, 2001).

Partnering between the cultural heritage, industrial, academic and government sectors thus grew vigorously in the 90s from its origins in the 80s as regards images, and with deeper roots in text and numerical computing (with Archaeology notable as regards the latter). Perhaps as many as a thousand different organisations from across Europe participated in the several hundred such R&D projects in the 90s, as shown in the Compendium of such projects between 1997 and 1999 (Duncan and Hemsley, 2000) and its predecessor report. Perhaps as many as 5,000 specialists and professionals participated: effectively a loose community of interest with greatly increased mutual cross-sectoral understanding and respect, and with significant "on-the-job" training.

The overall results were sufficiently encouraging for the EC to increase such efforts, with a dedicated unit established in the Technology R&D Programme in 1998 for Cultural and Scientific Heritage, as mentioned above. Over 100 more projects have been launched by this unit and numerous additional ones by other parts of the IST Programme.

Moreover, relationships and alliances have been built up across Europe in this research area, including many international connections, due to the EC switching from a "Europe only" policy in the 80s to an increasingly international one, although it is regrettable that such countries as the Ukraine are only now beginning to participate properly in European Union-led projects (Hemsley, 2002).

There thus appears to be considerable interest by the "technology communities" in working with the cultural sector, which so far has been mainly directed at cultural heritage projects, but which in my opinion represents also substantial latent support for the performing arts (and the creative communities in general, as discussed below).
In particular, scientists and engineers in universities and research institutes have played a major role in such projects, and this appears also to be the case for the performing arts. It is also noteworthy that many European universities and research institutes have, over the twenty years of EC-supported R&D projects, substantially strengthened their management capabilities for such cross-border, cross-sectoral projects, whereas during the first decade of these projects industry was regarded as having almost exclusive title to such capability. This appears to bode well for extending the range of range of cultural sector participation in such R&D, since performing arts organisations are even smaller on average than museums, libraries and archives, and need experienced project management to provide the project coordination as well as technological expertise.

At the beginning of the new millennium, the cultural sector itself is becoming increasingly confident and self-assertive with regard to new technologies. Additionally, the cultural sector is recognised as a significant job creator (an exception in Europe's problematic employment situation) as well as making key contributions to quality of life and inbound tourism - thus contributing to additional job creation (at least prior to the tragic events of September 11). The stage seems set for greater participation by the performing arts, as indicated by the increasing role of the performing arts in the EVA conferences (attended by some 2,000 professionals each year).

The relationship between museums and industry

The relationship between museums and technology companies is customarily seen as one or both of the traditional customer-supplier and sponsorship types. However, there are other forms of such relationships, such as the museum providing promotional facilities for new products and systems. Some museums are now acting as new system development partners by providing user analyses and requirements, experimental trial facilities and even inspiring basic research and development.

Moreover, the choice is not just restricted to one type; for example a museum could in theory buy, receive sponsorship, provide system demonstration facilities, act as development partners and inspire new research and development, all with the same company (as well as some actions with others), although such an approach could lead to conflicts of interest.

These types of relationships are of course not restricted just to museums. Other types of cultural institutions can have a similar variety of relationships with technology companies. There is growing support for the view that the human talent and inspirational sources in the performing arts and other parts of the creative community can and should also make a strong contribution to technology R&D as well as use its results. The need for increased creativity in science and engineering is a frequent concern in university and management circles and publications (Standler, 2002).

The European Commission's Sixth Framework Programme and the Role of Culture

The EC's Sixth Framework Research & Development Programme lasts from late 2002 until 2006. It has a total budget of over 13 billion euro and covers a wide range of scientific and technological areas. The largest single part is IST, that is, information technology and telecommunications, with a budget of over 3 billion euro. Substantial changes in approach from previous programmes are planned by the European Commission, especially by the inclusion of two new forms of providing R&D support: very large integrated projects (over (10 million budgets and perhaps much larger) and Networks of Excellence.

The second is of particular interest to the cultural sector, since it is hoped that it can play a significant role in future networks. Already within the Fifth Framework Programme one preparatory "roadmap" project, DIGICULT, has been carried out to research and analyse future perspectives seen particularly from cultural heritage viewpoints: archives, libraries and museums in particular http://www.salzburgresearch.at/fbi/digicult and a follow-up study project on selected technology issues has also been initiated.

Two further roadmap projects were launched by the EC in mid-2002:

* e-CultureNet - European Digital Culture Research & Education Network - which has two major objectives:

• To identify research institutions and their areas of expertise; and
• To explore how existing content of partners can be shared for a European Masters Programme.

This project is led by the Marshall McLuhan Institute of Maastricht University, with a consortium consisting of a wide range of cultural institutions and networks.

* ORION - Object Rich Information Network, which aims to establish an archaeology museum centred network of excellence including industrial university and research partners. There is a special focus on education and, regarding technological aspects, on 3D technologies. ORION is led by the National Museums of Scotland.

Both of these projects aim not only to be research and study focused, but also to build up momentum and produce concrete results to serve as foundation stones for subsequent work and possibly in Sixth Framework Networks of Excellence. It is hoped that there will be international participation in such future work, as well as from the New Associated and Newly Independent States of Europe.

The most important single initiative currently appears to be the MINERVA, project led by the Italian Ministry of Culture, which aims to have a network of excellence representing the national ministries of culture across Europe. This project consortium has great force and should be able to build on and benefit from the lessons of the 90s in such initiatives as the G7 (8) international efforts, the Memorandum of Understanding/MEDICI initiatives as well as national projects, especially Italy's own programme in cultural technology.

The EVA Networking (EVAN) project itself facilitated planning inputs into the Framework Programme:

* The main EC EVA2001 conferences were used to produce the Florence Agenda, the Glasgow Response and the Berlin Conclusions, under the coordination of Friso Visser

* In 2001 and 2002 there has been increasing concern by the European Commission to have a greater role for creative communities in the Sixth Framework Programme. An initial technology-based Workshop on Technology Platforms was held in 2001 in Darmstadt and a more broadly based PISTOIA Workshop in March 2001, following EVA2002 Florence organised with support from the EVAN project.

There are also additional aspects that should help to generate significantly improved results, such as the attention planned for human resources development, including staff transfers for periods of up to a year. Such activities were included as ancillary parts of previous EC R&D programmes but will be given a more central position in the future.

The Creative Communities In The Sixth Framework Programme
At the time of writing (summer 2002) this programme is in its final stages and there could be further amendments to its eventual detailed aims, nature and shape: in any case it will doubtless evolve over its five-year lifetime. In particular it is not clear that the new instruments, that is networks of excellence and integrated projects, will have the dominating role that seemed to have been originally envisaged. Instead R&D projects will continue to receive support, presumably until the new approaches have been successfully tried and tested. It is therefore still relevant to consider the lessons of over a decade's European R&D projects' experience and their implications, to help enable the creative communities as regards raising their role in the Sixth Framework Programme and beyond. We take it as given that the creative communities can inject extra creativity into technology R&D - however, the best way to prove or disprove this hypothesis is to experiment in a scientific manner.

What do we mean by the term 'creative communities?
The Chambers Dictionary definition of "creative" is: "having power to create: that creates: showing, pertaining to, imagination, originality".

The corresponding definition of "create" is: "to bring into being or form out of nothing; to bring into being by force of imagination to make, produce or form; to design: to invest with a new form, office, or character: to institute: to be the first to act (a part)".

As can be seen this dictionary definition is quite wide-ranging, with only a partial fit with general usage of the adjective in such expressions as the "creative industries", which tends to be used at least in English as an umbrella term for an eclectic combination of companies involved in such business areas as design, fashion, dance, advertising, music, theatre, film, games, television, and "new media".

For example, in the UK a special government unit has been established to help the "creative industries" and the Financial Times has a weekly special supplement on "Creative Business". It is also appropriate to mention that in some business sectors the term "creative" is a pejorative term, when used to describe an accountant for example, especially with the Enron case still casting a shadow over the American and world economies.

There is a very extensive body of literature on creativity, but of particular note is Sternberg's Theory of Creativity (see Standler, 2002 for highlights).

I shall use the expression "creative communities" to refer to both the people and organisations of the type usually associated with the term, as well as of course the non-profit sector, ranging from individual artists and artistes ("public performers"), including architects, writers, etc, to performing arts organisations and contemporary art galleries - the "creators of tomorrow's cultural heritage'", as pointed out by a French delegate to a European "culture x technology" policy discussion meeting in the early 90s. This usage is deliberately "fuzzy", as inevitably appears to be the case at the moment, especially since it may be argued that great chefs, hairdressers and leaders from many other areas of the arts and design world, as well as from the sciences, engineering, mathematics and other areas of knowledge, exercise significant creativity.

Europe's position as regards the creative communities and the opportunity for them to contribute to technology R&D is indicated by the following SWOT analysis from the PISTOIA, Tuscany, 2002 workshop.

Europe's Creative Communities, a 'SWOT' Analysis for Technology R&D

STRENGTHS / WEAKNESSES
a. World-class creative communities, including art, music, design, film, TV, theatre and advertising.
b. Cultural and linguistic richness, diversity and closeness, and creative conflict.
c. Strong technological capabilities, for instance in industrial laboratories and universities.
d. Museums, galleries, archives and libraries are seen as both memory institutions and sources of artistic and scientific creativity.
e. Excellent links with other countries

1. Very small size of almost all arts-oriented organisation and relatively (compared to Hollywood) weak film and TV industries.
2. Difficulties in facilitating the best/most interesting technology transfer in creative/cultural technology across Europe.
3. No adequate pan-European structure to bring many existing creative communities and technology networks together.
4. Multilingual, multicultural difficulties in cooperation (although English is emerging as a lingua franca).
5. Most insidiously, even in the same language, differing discourse languages between the different communities (arts, EC, scientists, heritage etc).

OPPORTUNITIES / THREATS

a. To help create critical mass on a global scale in the European creative communities and industries.
b. Use of touring arts exhibition help in cross-border technology transfer.
c. To help create more jobs, including in conjunction with overlapping/related areas such as tourism and entertainment.

1. A single, bland European (or Euro-American) creative community and culture.
2. Continued alienation of the many citizens who do not visit cultural institutions _ especially the ethnic minorities and other disadvantaged groups.
3. Continued fragmentation of the European cultural communities and industries.
Source: PISTOA Workshop 2002

Some Strategic Options

It appears, as of mid-2002, that there are various options for the creative communities to participate in the Sixth Framework Programme. To indicate them, I discuss here three basic alternatives as regards the type of consortium, beginning with classic R&D projects before considering the new instruments of networks of excellence and integrated projects. Of course there are other dimensions of the choice, especially specific technology and application areas, and this will also be discussed, but more briefly, since these are subject to evolving views.

The first and most obvious choice is to develop an approach to problems generated by a specific creative area such as dance, music, fashion or theatre, with several such institutions providing the user drive. Such an approach has various advantages, including a reasonably common understanding of user requirements and an initial core critical mass for subsequent exploitation. For technology inputs, university computer science and other relevant departments can play a key role, especially when, as in the case of the University of Leeds (Ng, 2002), they can show a track record of innovative work in the field. In addition companies are needed who will have the capability for subsequent potential commercial follow-through - perhaps the most difficult issue.

A second broad approach is to take a promising innovative technology topic, or set of topics, and try to develop further results, which appear to be of potential interest to several distinct cultural areas with the fusion of differing technologies, user requirements and situations. This has been the basis of efforts combining the ALM sub-sectors with the expectation of convergence of both technologies and user fields. This approach has been used for instance in developing mobile guides (in museum, historical city and archaeological site tours).

A clear implication is that partnering between performing arts institutions in particular and the creative communities in general with suitably qualified and EC experienced cultural heritage institutions (such as the Victoria and Albert Museum, with its remarkable fashion collections and its Theatre Museum and similar institutions across Europe and internationally) can bring not only relevant content and creativity inputs but also relevant EC project experience. In particular, contemporary art galleries and museums may be regarded as being in both camps and the view is emerging that they need to look at the dramatic arts to improve their own operations (Seal, 2002).

A third approach is to select a particular user segment and develop new technology-based approaches to address corresponding problems and opportunities. Currently, for example, there is considerable interest in school children, arguably the most creative" sector of society; see for instance the CHIMER project (Krizova, 2002). In previous EC programmes disabled communities have been given very substantial attention, but there is certainly scope for further work, as well as for the senior or "silver" generations, a growing but inadequately considered part of society.

Less common approaches, but certainly also valid, are to take disparate user sectors, including from outside the creative communities, and together inspire, drive, test and demonstrate or showcase new technological developments. In the ACOHIR project (involving high quality colour and 3D imaging), for example, ceramics and furniture bodies were involved along with museums. In the Sixth Framework Programme such multi-domain projects may well be more common, in particular culture, entertainment and tourism, since the EC is combining these with culture in one unit in the IST Programme. For example, with the Olympics in 2004 in Athens and 2008 in Beijing, it is reasonable to expect some very exciting such R&D projects, as at the Sydney Olympics. The combination of games and cultural heritage, as another example, has already received support in the EC's RENAISSANCE project, and more such projects may be expected.

As regards specific technologies to be included, the European Commission has carried out, commissioned and publicised various studies and consultation exercises, such as DIGICULT, the Florence Agenda, Glasgow Responses and Berlin Conclusions and currently also the e-Culturenet and ORION projects. These include consideration of technologies as diverse as personalisation methods, language technologies, ontology based approaches, massive database management, grid computing, knowledge management 3D and multi-sensorial systems, including haptics (touch) and smell. Veltman provides an excellent overview of many of the opportunities in his forthcoming book as well as providing the context and rationale for such work. Opportunities also arise for a much greater contribution from the social sciences, such as anthropology, psychology and sociology, with Russian interest in such topics being especially strong.

Of special importance in the Sixth Framework Programme (running from 2002-2006) will undoubtedly be the enlargement of the European Union to include another ten countries, the New Associated States, mainly from central and eastern Europe, as well as many new languages (including minority ones).

In addition, as already mentioned, there are the Newly Independent States, such as the Ukraine. A notable characteristic of most if not all of these NAS/NIS countries is their past high emigration rates with correspondingly large Diaspora, especially in the Americas. Thus, for example, multi-domain applications such as cultural heritage, tourism and genealogy (as already highlighted in the first DIGICULT study report) could be fertile areas for the creative communities to be involved. Similarly, other major societal challenges such as multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-lingual and social inclusion issues appear to be likely candidates for creative technology driving, application and trialling projects.

The "networks of excellence" approach appears to be a very interesting and innovative new instrument for EC funding and could play a decisive role. Certainly there appears to be no shortage of interest, with a reported 18,000 expressions of Interest submitted in 2002 in answer to a preliminary call from the EC. Of these, several hundred were from the cultural sector, thus showing very substantial interest (and also very strong competition). Although there are only expected to be few such funded networks for each sector, they should have space to include new partners and possibly also sub-networks each year. It will be very interesting to see how this concept develops, but in the meanwhile the previous project funding approach is expected to play a key role at least for the first half of the Sixth Framework Programme.

The other new instrument, integrated projects, harnessing major R&D capabilities across the EU with funding in the tens of millions of euros for selected sectors, will require very strong organisational competencies. At first sight it appears very difficult for the cultural sector to get its act together in view of, in particular, the extreme fragmentation of the sector. However, an Italian industrially led consortium submitted an expression of interest in the cultural sector for such an initiative and it will be interesting to see how this develops.

Finally it is necessary to point out the international dimension to such European R&D activities. In increasingly sharp contrast to the "Europe-only" policy of the late 80s and early 90s, EC project funding has become increasingly international, with Canada in the lead in the mid-90s as regards EC cooperation with other countries. This appears likely to continue, with countries such as China and India expected to play a particularly important role as well as neighbour countries, which as the European Union expands will include even more strongly the rest of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. Other regions such as Latin America are also being encouraged to participate.

RADICAL as a Base Point

The RADICAL project described elsewhere in this book has made a major contribution towards raising the profile of the role of creative communities in stimulating and contributing to technological progress and application. Perhaps, however, one of its most valuable contributions has been to show not only the positive aspects but also the limitations of this work, such as the difficulties in involving creative entrepreneurs and micro-companies, so that improved efforts can be made and mechanisms included in the future network of excellence schemes and whatever other new funding approaches the EC introduces.

RADICAL has also shown the benefits of cooperation between creative arts inside and outside the EU. The strong trans-Atlantic cooperation in RADICAL provides a good basis for interconnecting the New Associated and Newly Independent States with their Diaspora in the Americas and elsewhere. Moreover, it has also shown dramatically how women can take a leading role in what has generally been the male-dominated field of technological development. Another key contribution has been its contribution to facilitating networking in the field, providing a good basis for a (sub) network of excellence.

Conclusions

The main conclusion of this paper is that the creative communities can help to drive technology forward and that Europe, in international partnerships, can make a major contribution. In Japan, entertainment has been a prime driver of technological development for many years and the examples of creative clusters in southern California and New York support this view, although in the US, as in history in general, defence has been and still appears to be the main driver technology.

The cultural sector, including the performing arts in particular, should grasp the opportunities presented in the Sixth Framework Programme in particular to work together with technology partners in academia and industry, with government involvement and support. The RADICAL project has pointed the way for the creative communities to participate in a much more significant manner than has yet happened.
Universities are clear strong natural partners for such R&D work, although it will be necessary for more corresponding interdisciplinary work to be undertaken across departmental boundaries, as appears to be increasingly the case at even some of the more traditional ones, and in special interdisciplinary units. Also, very importantly, they can now supply the critical project management skills. Large creative companies may be expected to participate, especially if iconic performing arts institutions are involved.

The main challenge, however, is likely to be the difficulty of involving creative micro-companies and entrepreneurs in such R&D work, due to administrative barriers.

If the efforts of activists to encourage the creative communities to play a larger role in technological R&D succeed in the early 2000s, the corresponding prospects in the expected Seventh, Eighth and Ninth EC Framework Programmes appear very promising. At the moment, due in part to the sector's relative fragmentation and inexhaustible supply of creative prima donnas, it is difficult (but not impossible!) to envisage a massive international endeavour involving thousands of scientists, engineers and creative engaged in a common project.

Corrections were made to the references and text on 29th June 2005

- continue to Bibliography: Bibliography

- return to the table of contents