SOPA and PIPA - Fighting online piracy or stopping innovation? Open source alternatives to common utilities.

This Wednesday, 1/18/2012, Wikipedia, Reddit , and Boing Boing will go dark in protest of the Stop Online Piracy Act that is being considered in US House and the Protect Intellectual Property Act in the US Senate.  These protesters are asking for the US public to call or write to their elected officials regarding the proposed legislation.   Bloggers in this forum have taken a stance against limiting open source and net neutrality in the past and these two bills pose no less of a threat to the innovative culture that is open source.

Although there has been a healthy open source community for decades, legislation like SOPA or PIPA would exclude open source software opportunities to developers in the US if passed.  These bills would essentially lock down portions of the internet to users in the US by creating a federally kept blacklist of internet sites that internet service providers would in turn prevent from being served to their US customers.  This would prevent the US public from accessing the steady stream of free content from the open source community that has been continuously redefining the online world for decades.

Open source has been the frontier of technological innovation for decades and by passing this legislation the US Congress will simply ensure that the next Facebook, Google, or Amazon simply never get off the ground from US soil.  In celebration of Open Source a list has been compiled with some great open source alternatives to common commercial software packages that can be downloaded for free:

1)  OpenOffice:  Similar functionality to MS Suite with modules for word processing, spreadsheets, databases, presentation and drawing

2) Dia:  Produces charts and flowcharts like MS Visio.

3) WordPress and Joomla:  WYSIWYG web page builders that compare favorably with aspects of Adobe Dreamweaver.

4) paint.net:  An image editing program with much of the some of the same functionalityof Photoshop.

5) Pidgin:  A messaging aggregator, useful in communicating with all the disparate messaging programs out there.

*) Foxit:  A pdf reader that won't bog down your system and won't update every six hours like Adobe Acrobat does.

The Future of Cities, in Sculpture Form

As the resident policy nerd here at Tech in the Arts, few things excite me as much as infrastructure policy, especially as it relates to cities and how they will evolve and change in the years and decades to come. The “city of the future” concept has been around for as long as the republic itself, with the same questions often being asked: how will people live? What will our houses look like? And, perhaps most importantly, when will we get the flying car? Instead of futuristic fantasies that have little hope of implementation, I often favor the realistic side of things, and am drawn to concepts of future cities that incorporate existing technologies and the gradual improvements that we will no doubt see in our future metropolises. With mega cities becoming a larger part of the American psyche and gradually accounting for a higher and higher percentage of our nation’s population, the incentive to promote and showcase cities of the future has never been higher.

A new exhibit opened this past weekend in Los Angeles seeks to show what kind of city we may gradually evolve into. Metropolis II, by artist Chris Burden, currently on display Fridays and weekends at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, is a living, breathing, working model of a futuristic city designed around transportation and infrastructure. Instead of a computer model or video game, this exhibit is a handmade, painstakingly detailed work of art that shows a city in action.

The scale of the exhibit is quite impressive. In total it is about 500 square feet and is about ten feet tall at its highest point. While there are no flying cars, there are actual miniature cars included in the exhibit, and lots of them: over the span of an hour, over 100,000 tiny cars whiz through the exhibit, speeding between buildings and skyscrapers. There are eighteen roadways handling all of these cars, including a 6-lane freeway. Trains are included as well, with tracks that loop through the exhibit; taken together; all of these cars and trains speeding through the exhibit at such breakneck speed produce a visual and audio experience unlike any other, as the viewer is able to experience the sights and sounds of a futuristic and thriving metropolis.

Designed and built over a span of five years, the exhibit is absolutely worth a look. Here’s a short film looking at the design and production of the sculpture:

http://youtu.be/YqSkRgySAEg

While some may prefer the futuristic futures of films like ‘Blade Runner,’ I enjoy the works of art that look at how cities will evolve and change in the short term. Faster cars, more drivers, taller buildings, denser neighborhoods; these are all characteristics of future cities that seem to be realistic in the short term. The great thing about Burden’s exhibit is how he takes modest changes to our current city structures, like more cars and expanded expressways, and is able to depict the frenzied and bustling future of our cities in a simple and straightforward way.

The exhibit is currently on display in Los Angeles, and if you are in the area, it is definitely worth a look. It may not appeal to futuristic film lovers, but for transportation and infrastructure policy nerds like myself, it is a reminder of why we are so interested in the futures of our wonderful and dynamic major cities.

(Photo credit: Los Angeles County Museum of Art)

Public Works of Art Face New Challenges

When looking at the great cities of America and the world, one of the things that give these places the kind of culture and character they are often known for is public works of art. These exhibits, often unique and memorable, provide a focal point for tourists and a sense of civic pride for residents. However, in these tough economic times, a new problem has emerged for cities everywhere: with cities struggling financially, these works of art are suffering from neglect, acts of vandalism and normal wear and tear, and often do not have the funds necessary to properly maintain them.

These kinds of problems are being felt in cities all across the country. In my hometown of Phoenix, a story last month in the Arizona Republic highlighted the struggle that cities are facing: public works of art are more popular than ever, but face neglect and lack of upkeep due to budget shortfalls and calls for budget austerity.

The problems associated with the upkeep of public works of art go beyond the usual wear and tear: vandalism, including graffiti, is common, along with the theft of metals and gems that are often a part of some displays. The cost to maintain and replace these works of art, especially older exhibits, can prove costly. In a citywide audit, the city of Phoenix found that dozens of public art pieces were in need of repairs, with the total renovation costs estimated to be over $1 million. While most projects were victims of vandalism or wear and tear, others experienced some unexpected problems: for example, an overpass exhibit needed almost $100,000 in repairs because of runoff water eroding parts of the project.

In November, I wrote about how public works of art were more important than ever in today’s climate of budget austerity, and the continued vandalism and destruction of these art displays adds another layer of difficulty when it comes to saving exhibits. While the upfront cost of public art displays often receive the lion’s share of attention and public outcry, the cost of vandalism and neglect often go unmentioned. The costs associated with restoration can ultimately have another impact as well: cities often have to cancel funding for new art projects to care for existing pieces badly in need of repair.

With cities facing decreased tax collections in recent years, the money to help maintain and preserve public works of art is severely lacking. Some cities, including those in the Phoenix metropolitan area, require a certain percentage of money from construction projects be devoted to public art, which in robust economic times provides a stable source of revenue for new art construction and upkeep. The problem, however, is that during tough economic times, less construction projects are taking place, which means that the funding for public art dries up. In a state like Arizona, which was devastated by the housing bubble, the impact can be quite substantial. As the Arizona Republic reported, the difference in funding levels can be quite severe: in the city of Phoenix, the budget for maintenance and restoration went from $63,000 in 2008-09 to just $29,000 in 2011-12. The problem was even more severe in Tempe, home to Arizona State University: the budget went from $90,000 in 2008-09 to just under $8,000 in 2011-12.

So with city funding for upkeep and restoration limited in these tough economic times, what kinds of solutions are available to save public works of art? One option is to raise money through increased taxes; while tax increases are often unpopular, they could be levied in such a way that the impact would be negligible on residents. Examples could include taxes on travel expenses, like car rentals and hotels, or on city services like utility bills. Another option is for cities to seek grants from non-profit and private sources; while most cities seek private funds to sponsor new works of art, efforts to help beautify existing works of art can help promote civic pride and improve areas already in use.

And while they certainly have access to more capital and resources, cities and local governments are not the only people that can have an impact. Residents and community groups are often getting involved as well; helping to “sponsor” an exhibit can often have just as much of an impact. By painting over graffiti, picking up waste or helping to raise money for upkeep, ordinary citizens can promote and protect their community’s works of art. As more and more pieces face neglect and vandalism, residents often feel the urge to protect the town they call home.

Public art projects often serve as a way to remind residents and visitors alike of the culture and history of that particular place. In these tough economic times, these exhibits and projects are in danger of being neglected entirely, damaging not only the art itself, but also the civic pride of residents all across the country.

(Photo: CC by Mal Booth)

Public Policy Through the Eyes of Artists

In the world of public policy, ideas are a dime a dozen. From issues ranging from education to trade issues, everyone has their opinion about the best course of action the government should take. What’s often missing, however, are new and exciting ways to present these ideas, taking formally bland issues and finding new ways to solve them. This is where the arts community comes in.

While city planning and urban development may not be the most exciting issues to talk about, an exhibit in New York City is showcasing four artists who are attempting to use the power of artistic expression to bring attention to urban planning issues that are present in their communities. By offering a unique way of examining these often complicated public policy issues, the hope is that visitors will leave with a heightened sense of the issues that are affecting their community.

The exhibition, “Civic Action: A Vision for Long Island City,” opened on October 13th of this year and continues until April 22, 2012 at the Noguchi Museum and Socrates Sculpture Park in the Long Island City community of Queens, New York. The exhibit has received a fair amount of press attention, including a great write-up in The New York Times last week.

There have been similar art exhibits where policy ideas are presented by artists themselves, who often have no connection to the policy community or stakeholders. What’s unique about this project is that the four artists involved where all invited to partner with an urban planner or architect to imagine and conceive new developments in the Long Island City area, bringing a degree of realism and practicality to the individual projects. Instead of imagining idealistic public spaces or infrastructure improvements, the artists were advised to come up with ideas for spaces that would compliment already existing structures.

The ideas range from practical to the more unrealistic. The four artists featured in the exhibit are Natalie Jeremijenko, Mary Miss, Rirkrit Tiravanija and George Trakas.

Jeremijenko’s exhibit, titled “UP_2_U,” combines the worlds of art and technology (something we love!) and offers some unique ideas of her own. The exhibit includes robots, computer components and more simplistic things as do-it-yourself fixes to become more sustainable. The crux of the exhibit involves asking visitors to take more action to improve the communities around them; as a play off the title, she tells visitors it is “UP 2 U” to bring about the change you’d like to see.

Mary Miss’s exhibit includes a “City as a Laboratory,” where artists, policy makers and stakeholders come together to solve complicated policy problems. Another installation, titled “If Only the City Could Speak,” includes large visual thought bubbles containing ideas and policy ideas for the community. The larger tone of her exhibit invites a sense of participation engagement and encouragement for visitors to get involved in their community. One of the proposals in her exhibit concerns a local issue: four smokestacks that dominate the skyline of the Long Island City community. She proposes to turn the stacks into a kind of environmental sustainability center that creates long-lasting environmental improvements for the area.

My favorite area of the exhibit comes from Tiravanija, who among his proposals includes an idea for a section of Broadway: growing drivable grass. Yes, you read that right. Not all of his ideas are that outside-the-box, however; another favorite is more practical and involves building a community kitchen in the area.

Finally, Trakas’s work involves an area that urban planners and architects around the world have embraced more and more over the years: waterfront development. Naturally, as an artist, Trakas is less concerned with creating stores and condo complexes and stadiums on the waterfront; instead, he envisions a waterfront area as a place where residents can learn more about the community’s history through exhibits and public information. The idea is creating a public space that is less commercial and more about the community itself.

Throughout all four exhibits, the greater message seems to be that the intent is to start a conversation about the future development of the Long Island City area. What types of planning ideas should be implemented? What approaches should local government officials take to complicated public policy questions? While the artists and those involved in the exhibits may not have all the right answers, the exhibit itself is a refreshing reminder that sometimes the best policy ideas do not come from government offices or elected officials: sometimes, the best and most original ideas come from those who are active in their communities, aware of local issues and problems, and passionate enough to devote time to the issues. In this case, that category just so happens to include the arts community.

‘Tis the Season for Getting Those Millennials to Give

With the holidays upon us, Baby Boomers and Generation X'ers selflessly reach deep into their pockets, beyond the lint, to give what they can afford to not-for-profit organizations. But what about the Millennials? How do we get the generation classified in the media and not-for-profit circles as self-absorbed and self-interested to donate? The Case Foundation presents “Millennial Donors Report 2011,” a survey and summary of the motivations and preferences of the Millennials when it comes to making a donation.

Earlier this fall, I posted on the best practices for engaging Millennials, the generation of 20 to 35 year olds that is dramatically affecting the way organizations market their brand and product. So in the true spirit of the holidays, let’s take a look at what may seem like an impossible task: getting the Millennials to donate.

The report surveyed about 3,000 Millennials ranging in age from 20-35 years old. Perhaps the most revealing find of the survey is the following: above all, Millennials value trust. A whopping 90% of Millennial donors surveyed reported they would stop giving to an organization if they had any reason not to trust it. What does this mean for not-for-profits? Build personal relationships with your donors and clearly define where and how the donation is used. Because the Millennials are young professionals, students and young adults with limited funds, they are most concerned their donation of any size will be utilized responsibly. Establishing trust with Millennials will encourage future giving and ensure a long-standing donor-organization relationship.

The report is divided into the categories: giving, giving motivators, special events, communication, volunteering, young professional groups and taking action, as they relate to Millennials. Here is a breakdown of the key findings and the implications for your organization

1. 93% of Millennials gave to not-for-profits in 2010

What this mean for you: Millennials tend to make small donations to multiple organizations, as opposed to the Baby Boomers or Generation X that are loyal to a single organization, gifting large sums of money. They ARE donating, which I am sure comes as a great surprise to the many who tag this generation as plugged-in and tuned-out to the rest of world.

2. An online search using an engine such as Google is the #1 way Millennials get information about a not-for-profit organization

What this means for you: How does your organization appear in a Google search? Millennials often base their decision to donate on the organizations appearance in an online search. Pay attention to your organization’s description on search engines.

3. 57% of Millennial donors gave in response to a personal ask

What this means for you: Though the Millennials seem to inhabit the online space more than their physical space, they are surprisingly more inclined to donate in response to a personal ask. However, that is not reflected in their preferred method of donating- 58% of Millennial donors reported they prefer to make that donation online. An unsuspected dichotomy…

The least preferred methods of the Millennial donors are via mobile applications (4%), the phone (5%) and text message (5%).

Reference the graphic “How donations were made vs preferences” in the report to be sure your organization is providing Millennials with the correct channel for giving that addresses their preferences (the most popular of which are online via your website, email, a donation site, or a personal request). Do not let a Millennial donor slip away by simply neglecting to provide the giving tool that best meets their preferences.

4. 79% of the Millennials surveyed reported having volunteered at least once in 2010

What this means for you: Just as expected of the Millennials, they are strapped for time as young adults and professionals. Thus the resounding reason for not volunteering is lack of time. Millennials are not interested in ongoing volunteer commitments. They prefer one-time, convenient volunteer activities. And obviously, they prefer to volunteer with friends than alone- the ultimate trademark of the Millennials. Of those surveyed, 61% reported they would prefer to volunteer with friends and family as compared to the 44% that indicated they prefer to volunteer on their own.

Get creative with the volunteer opportunities you present to the Millennials. They should be convenient, meaningful, group-friendly and perhaps provide an opportunity for professional development. As we saw when considering how donations are made, Millennials respond favorably to person-to-person contact and requests. Do not hesitate to simply ask Millennials to donate their time. As it turns out, 45% of the respondents reported their reason for not volunteering as never having been asked. So ask away!

5. 85% of Millennial donors are motivated to donate by a compelling and meaningful mission or cause, while only 2% of Millennial donors are motivated by a celebrity endorsement.

What this means for you: We already know Millennials crave meaningful content. They Tweet, re-Tweet and post moving videos, inspiring quotes and stirring news reports. Your website can be a perfect tool for tapping into the Millennials need for meaningful content. Share real-life, specific stories of how a donation supported your cause and not-for-profit. Invite the Millennials to be a part of meetings and discussions regarding the inner-workings of your organization and your strategic plan for the future. Millennials crave meaning, worth and inclusion. Invite them to collaborate with you and they will trust your organization.

The report provides cutting-edge research, insight and practical solutions for attracting and developing relationships Millennial donors. As researchers slowly uncover the hidden truths of these mysterious, influential Millennials and their relationship with the not-for-profit sector, we here at Technology in the Arts will continue to bring you the breaking news!

The Walker, venturing into online magazine style content

The Walker Center in Minneapolis has a new website that has broken the mold and is venturing into offering content in a way that could help define a new paradigm of online content for large arts organizations.  As the executive Director states in her press release:  "The intent of the new site is to make visible our role as a generative producer and purveyor of content and broadcast our voice in the landscape of contemporary culture."

By becoming broader purveyors of arts knowledge and information The Walker makes itself more relevant in the broader context of the arts across the country.  The expertise that was only available through a visit to a lecture, through a docent on a museum tour, or a talk-back during a performance is now available through the we interface as the Walkers experts are now the gatekeepers for the online content.  Thus the reach of the organization becomes multiplied by those people who share content and the organization.

This platform has the potential to lure entirely new audiences through the principle that traffic online follows quality of content.  Also by revealing the values of the artistic staff of the organization The Walker is potentially connecting with like minded individuals in the arts community across the world.  This in turn could make them into a destination city for arts tourists.   By using the multi-disciplinary focus of the institution they are harnessing the the trend but by putting it online they are making it about the global dialogue and making themselves a shining example of what is to come.

Crowdfunding for the Arts

Crowdfunding and the fund-raising miracles it can achieve is certainly a popular issue. It’s not a new topic for technology in the arts, but it is a constantly evolving topic and worth a revisit. If you’re familiar with the basics, we’ve got some more advanced tips for crowdfunding. This article is meant to aggregate some of the more popular tools out there and help beginners with the basics.

Crowdfunding is usually based on the idea that through micro-donations organizations can achieve goals or projects that they would normally struggle to fund. From that point, all bets are off, as different crowdfunding tools are for different goals. A lot of deciding which tool you will utilize will be based on your organization or its goals. Here are some of the major websites that focus on or include the arts in their projects.

Kickstarter:

• Basics: We’ve talked about Kickstarter before and it is one of the most popular crowdfunding tools. Users have two months to raise funds and provide rewards to their patrons. Kickstarter’s guidelines specifically state you cannot use Kickstarter to fund a charity - you can, however, use it to fund projects for a non-profit. For example, No-Space of Brooklyn used Kickstarter to fund the move to and costs associated with their forced relocation.
• Pros: Kickstarter has an “all or nothing” platform, if funds are not raised within the 60 day limit, all pledges are dropped. Kickstarter is well known and a fairly safe bet for those looking to fund their first project.
• Cons: The project-centric ideology limits what can be crowdfunded. Also, Kickstarter uses Amazon Payments. While Kickstarter itself does not require those creating projects to be US citizens, Amazon Payments does, which makes Kickstarter out of the reach of international organizations.
• Fees: Kickstarter charges a 5% fee to successful projects. There is also a 3-5% fee associated with credit card transactions on successful projects.

USA Projects:

• Basics: USA Projects is another crowdfunding source we’ve discussed before, and it is a project of USA Artists. Potential projects have three months to raise the funds or receive nothing. The Project sponsors “new creative efforts by accomplished artists across the country” and has raised over $1 million so far. All suggested projects are vetted by artistic experts in the related field.
• Pros: USA Projects has a strong institutional background with USA Artists, allowing it to have a gift-matching component, and the average donor gives more than Kickstarter users. All donations are tax-deductible, and artists offer perks for donating.
• Cons: USA Projects only accepts artist members who have previously received a grant or award from their partner and recognized organizations as an individual artist.
• Fees: 19% of all donations go to USA Projects “for use in furthering its general charitable and educational purposes.”

IndieGoGo:

• Basics: IndieGoGo touts itself as “the world’s leading international funding platform”, and is open to “anybody with a great idea”. Projects are not curated. Users have up to 120 days to reach their goal, but unrealized goals still receive the pledged funds.
• Pros: Donations to non-profit organizations on IndieGoGo are tax-deductible, different donor levels have perks related to the campaign. Analytics tools allow campaign managers to track where/who funds are coming from, as well as capture contact information from funders. Anyone can use IndieGoGo for anything, which is has unlimited possibilities. IndieGoGo also has partnerships with non-profit organizations that fiscally sponsor projects.
• Cons: No vetting process on campaigns means your next big, great idea may not carry as much weight for donors as a website where projects are curated. Also the website caters more to individual artists’ projects than arts organizations - arts campaigns are not listed under “Causes” unless they have an educational component.
• Fees: IndieGoGo takes 4% of the money your project manages to raise, if your goal is met. Should your project fall short, IndieGoGo takes a 9% cut of funds raised. International campaigns may have higher fees.

RocketHub:

• Basics: RocketHub is a crowdfunding platform for anyone who would like their creative work to be funded, developed or distributed. RocketHub has two levels of fundraising, one is a crowdfunding tool open to anyone. Campaigns have between 15 and 90 days to be funded, unrealized goals will still be funded, but met goals have rewards within RocketHub. The second is called a “LaunchPad Opportunity”, which is a reoccuring vetted submission process. Projects chosen receive an opportunity that will advance their business or campaign beyond simple fundraising (for example, the winner of the LaunchPad Opportunity will work with an expert publicist on generating buzz for their project).  A team of judges at RocketHub examines all submissions, and Facebook users vote to help decide which projects to put on the website to fund.
• Pros: Successfully funded campaigns on RocketHub allow the campaign creator to submit 5 entries to their LaunchPad Opportunities without a cost. RocketHub has partnerships with non-profit organizations that fiscally sponsor projects.
• Cons: RocketHub does not have a specific “Art” category, although individual projects could fit well into their other categories.
• Fees: For crowdfunded fees, RocketHub charges 4% of the money you raise if your goal is met. For unfunded projects, the fee is 8%. RocketHub also charges a 4% transaction fees for credit card charges. For first time submitters to a “LaunchPad Opportunity”, there is a submission fee of $8. Those who have a project successfully crowdfunded do not have this fee.

IndieGoGo and RocketHub work outside the states, but there are other crowdfunding tools internationally. There are also tools like Philanthroper, which is a daily deal crowdfunding site for non-profit organizations. There are resources for staying on top of crowdsourcing trends, too. Ultimately, an individual or organization has to consider what type of crowdfunding campaign will work for their needs before deciding on one. If there are any other crowdfunding topics or questions you’d like answered, leave a comment, and we’ll see how we can help.

If Facebook were a country, it would be the world’s 4th largest.

So here are a handful of hints, best practices and basic strategies, as compiled from Heather Mansfield’s blog Nonprofit Tech 2.0: A Social Media Guide for Nonprofits, to maximize the power of Facebook in order to connect with this entire population that is literally, just one click away.  Holiday bonus: if you are searching for a special holiday gift for that certain culture vulture or arts manager, consider Mansfield’s recently published how-to guide for not-for-profits titled, Social Media for Social Good. The perfect stocking-stuffer, this comprehensive guide details all the best practices, exemplar not-for-profits and step-by-step instructions (including handy checklists) for building your not-for-profit's online presence and brand- be it a website, an online newsletter, your "Twitter voice," a Flickr account, a YouTube channel, text-to-give technology, tablet applications, etc.  

1. Who is the face of your Facebook? Your Facebook page is as good as the social media manager behind it. Creating and maintaining a successful Facebook page (the rewards of which are plenty- Mansfield’s research highlights the direct correlation between the rise of online giving and the rise of social media) depends on the effort and efficiency of the person managing it. Read Mansfield’s blog entry on the 11 qualities of an effective social media manager to be sure your Facebook page is in the best hands possible.

2. Conquer the laggards. Still trying to convince certain skeptical colleagues that this “Facebook thing” is not just a fad? Collect, organize and present to these latecomers the statistics on social media usage (start with a digestible, easy and straight-forward approach, perhaps the video featured above), the trends with rising generations and the shift toward online giving. Still not buying it? Show them what other not-for-profits are doing on Facebook. If you do not join the Facebook community, you are doing your organization a great disservice by becoming less competitive and visible in the not-for-profits sector.

3. You must give some to get some. "Like" other not-for-profit’s on Facebook and engage in activity on their page, with sincerity and moderation of course. Comment on status updates, "like" new posts and respond to news, questions, and comments posted. Not only will you benefit personally from interacting with another not-for-profit and its cause, but by engaging on its wall, you promote your own organization, brand and Facebook page, encouraging Facebook users to explore more about you.

4. Share the love. When updating your own statuses or posting news and comments, be sure to tag any organization you mention (if, and hopefully, they have a Facebook page). This way, your update or post is posted to that organization's wall. Just one more way to put yourself out there…

5. At the bottom of any mass e-mail or automated e-mail response, include a “Like us on Facebook” link to remind your supporters of your presence on Facebook and to give them the opportunity to stayed informed on your progress and activities.

6. Evaluate and adjust. If time after time your posts go “unliked” and your statuses “uncommented,” it is time to consider a different course of action. Facebook is not a newsletter; talk with your followers, not at them. If your Facebook community is not reacting or engaging with the content you publish, evaluate what you are sharing. Is it dead-end content? Does it encourage user feedback? Save the matter-of-fact news for your monthly newsletter and press-releases. Take advantage of Facebook as a community building tool and a platform for exchange.

7. No one likes a Chatty Cathy. Too many status updates and posts per day and that “Hide activity" option on the user's News Feed becomes increasingly attractive.

8. Register for one of Mansfield’s January webinars on successful usage of Facebook and Facebook applications (or check out the other webinars offered on hot topics such as utilizing Google+, YouTube, mobile fundraising, and Twitter).

9. Someone in the office or organization needs a smartphone and needs to be on the mobile web. It does not have to be an iPhone, but in today’s 24/7 streaming news world, it is all about being and staying connected. It is an investment, but one that will be returned as mobile and online giving become the predominant trend.

10. Stay informed. It seems as though Facebook is evolving daily. Do not miss out on the possibilities and potential of the newest features, formats, and most importantly, opportunities for your not-for-profit to expand its reach. Read blogs about the newest changes and innovations in the social media world- a great place to start is right here at Technology in the Arts.

Hope you all had a wonderful holiday!

In An Era of Budget Austerity, Public Art Projects Take on Increased Impact

One of the unfortunate realities of the current economic climate is that with so many Americans unemployed, and others saving money instead of using it to purchase goods and services, the states, counties and municipalities that rely so heavily on sales tax collections are faced with fewer tax collections and larger annual budget deficits. With most local governments required to balance their budgets every fiscal year, they are forced to cut spending, lay off workers and delay investment on previously planned projects. Since the 2007 recession, this trend has spread towards nearly every corner of America. As it relates to the arts community, investments in public works of art, like sculptures, statues and murals, have been shelved due to budget cuts. However, at the same time, a rise in grassroots public art projects, funded using online crowdfunding programs, have helped deliver quirky and imaginative works of art to cities nationwide, bringing a small sense of civic pride back to areas devastated by the economic downturn.

We here at Technology in the Arts have previously looked at the crowdfunding website Kickstarter, which serves as a simple way for artists to solicit and accept donations for arts projects from people online. The way the site works is simple: an artist has an idea, he/she sets a fundraising goal that they wish to achieve, and they have three months to reach that dollar amount. The artist will often design a list of rewards for donors to motivate them to donate, and if the project does not reach its fundraising goal by the end of the three month time period, no money is spent and all money is returned.

Kickstarter features projects from many different categories, including theater, music, games and fashion, but its most unique and inspiring pieces come from the world of art, and more specifically, the projects that don’t belong to a gallery or museum, but instead to the people of a particular city. Projects that serve as public goods, ones that all people, from residents to tourists, can enjoy, are the ones I find the most inspiring and important.

Last week, The Atlantic Cities (one of my favorite city/urban policy sites) took a look at six successful and wildly unique public arts projects that have cropped up around the country. These projects, along with the thousands of others featured on Kickstarter, offer a fascinating glimpse into how ordinary people are using the cities around them to express their artistic creativity.

The city of Grand Rapids, Michigan, no stranger to the economic downturn, saw one of the more unique projects I came across: a slew of metal monkeys hanging from a pedestrian bridge near the city’s downtown. The project, titled “Metal Monkey Mania,” successfully completed funding last month.

Across the country, in West Berkeley, California, a set of large ceramic tiles by artist Juana Alicia, designed for a low-income housing complex, were finished, but sitting in boxes because she did not having the funding necessary to install them. Enter Kickstarter, and last week, she reached her goal of raising over $5,000 to finish the project. The beautiful tiles will be hung in the near future.

While not a physical piece of art, one of my favorite public art projects featured on Kickstarter puts everyone who comes across it in the position of artist extraordinaire. Artist Katie O’Beirne has left disposable cameras in New York City and other cities around the world for a few hours at a time, letting regular people who come across the cameras to take pictures of whatever their hearts desire. Taking a look through the images offers a fascinating look into what people choose to show in their contributions. Katie is compiling the pictures and hoping to turn them into an art show in the near future (as of the time of this writing, there is still time to donate to the project and make her dream a reality).

South of the border, in Puebla, Mexico, a group of independent artists have been painting beautiful murals across their city in an effort to celebrate the town’s rich heritage. The group has plans for over two dozen more murals, and has their own Kickstarter page dedicated to bringing more artists to the area that is currently very close to its target of over $29,000.

Nobody will mistake any of these projects as a perfect substitute for a large scale government or privately funded works of art. However, many of the projects featured serve as an inexpensive, quirky way to bring a sense of culture and artistic expression to cities large and small across the country that are grappling with severe budget cuts and austerity measures. And while the economic downturn has forced cities and states to cut back on the kind of 21st century arts projects that many of us in the arts community would love to see, the rise of crowdfunding sites such as Kickstarter and the entrepreneurial spirit of artists everywhere have shown that technology can help bridge the gap until the economy gets back on the right track.

(Photo credit: Colectivo Tomate)

Is it time to adopt 3D?

Today 3D cameras that deliver a professional grade product can now be bought for as low as $1,500. Most new TVs sold today are 3D ready. Game consoles and playback devices are also 3D enabled.  Is 3D a fad or is it a trend?  We can only speculate, but the fact of the matter is that this technology is now becoming affordable for individual artists and arts organizations.  So is it time for you to start recording in 3D?  Here are some advantages and issues to consider before taking the leap.

Pros:

1)  Market penetration is reaching a critical mass.  3D enabled devices now dominate the market and are poised to become a standard feature of home entertainment. 2)  The cost of buying 3D enabled devices has gone down.  TVs, playback devices (game consoles, dvr devices, etc), and cameras are more affordable than ever. 3)  3D Tech is now making strides into mobile devices with Nintendo, Google, and Motorola notably making devices and content for 3D mobile. 4)  The tech offers solutions to art forms that heretofor were previously poorly served by older 2D imaging technology (aka dance and opera)

Cons:

1)  3D on film has been linked to nausea and headaches and even in video there have been questions about eye strain although these problems only seem to afflict a small portion of audience members.  Evidently the trick is to not focus on out of focus images on the screen if you suffer from these problems. 2)  It will be a couple more years before the majority of TV’s and Mobile devices can run 3D  content.  As with any technology there is only a point to which it will grow as people are reluctant to buy a 3D enabled HD TV (or playback device) a year after they shelled out for a new HD TV set. 3)  There is the possibility that another breakthrough will be made in imaging that will make current imaging technology obsolete.  For now, however, the long-term outlook seems to be favoring the current technology’s dominance for the next 6-8 years. 4) You still need those pesky glasses (for now at least).

One could argue that 3D still has a ways to go.  The cutting edge of the field however offers the potential for much much more spectacular devices.  Now that it is becoming fiscally accessible some artists and organizations have waded in and started experimenting but the potential remains largely untapped. Whatever happens, it will pay to keep a watch on this technology