COMMENTS ON DAVID HOFFMAN PROPOSAL FOR LEONARDO 40TH ANNIVERSARY CONFERENCE AND FUNDRAISER

FROM DAVID ROSENBOOM:

Dear All,

Ok, I've finally studied all the emails. Here are a few thoughts.

First, I'm extremely skeptical about the Hoffman proposal. That said, I don't know Hoffman at all and this is not a comment on his ability to deliver, his professionalism, or track record. You all are much more familiar with the particulars of this and the circumstances surrounding it. My concern is that the absolute top priority is that every penny possible go into endowment. That is key to long-term survival. "Events" based fundraising like this do not have a good track record overall for non-profit organizations like Leonardo. I've seen them flop over and over again and they are very expensive. They can seem like a good way to jump-start a funding initiative, particularly when conditions are dire. But, in my opinion, a somewhat slower, steady approach almost always pays off better in the long run.

So, I wold put more weight behind doing a capital campaign. Yes, it is labor intensive and staff resources are limited. An advantage is that the up-front investment to get things going is entirely under the control of the organization and it can be started at whatever scale seems both prudent and entrepreneurial. The up-front risk is less. The long-term risk is that it can take longer.

Here's how we do a $125M campaign here. First, we know we have to spend money to raise money. But, we don't have free venture capital to begin the process. So, we use the bootstrap paradigm. We begin with a quiet, mini-campaign to raise what we call "quasi-endowment." Quasi-endowment is money from donations that is not legally or contractually restricted to remain invested as endowment principal, but we use it that way. We can spend it, but we invest it for a while, specifically for the purpose of funding what will eventually be a long-haul effort in a much larger campaign. The pitch to donors is that they are giving money to raise money. They can feel good that they are giving to an organization that is smart enough to know that every donation dollar must be regarded as having the potential to multiply itself. Their money begets more money, and they like that. They know it won't just disappear into the black hole of the organization's unanticipated annual operating costs. Once you reach a certain threshold, you go the next step. You begin a second-stage campaign, still "quiet", but accelerated, because you now have some mini- quasi-endowment that can generate a little income to fund this new stage. You continue like this for a while. Maybe there will be several "quiet" stages. Then, you design the "real" campaign with a stated goal. But, you still keep it "quiet" while you gather pledges, promises of future timed giving, or real donations in hand. When you get to at least about 60% of your goal in pledges or donations in hand, you go public in a very big way. You make the biggest news splash you can about the goal and show how successful you've been in gathering so much of it already. The momentum builds. Key also is that the stated campaign objectives, what you need the money for, are very specific, foundational and salable. Building the foundational support of the organization is salable, but you've also got to have a clear long-term development plan with identified needs, goals and objectives that can be digested easily in very short executive summaries. You don't quit until you get there.

This all may seem obvious and I don't mean to sound elementary. But, in my experience inside institutions, this is the way it works most reliably. (I've already been involved in two such campaigns at CalArts, both successful.) Other that this, growth in endowment happens in either "planned" or fortuitous ways. Someone dies and leave an unexpected huge chunk to your endowment. That's great, but entirely unpredictable. "Planned giving" is very big these days and growing. It involves building a relationship with a donor who establishes a trust on your behalf, which can enhance both their tax situation and eventual inheritance scenario. This is a big, very technical field with real specialists these days.

Annual giving is important, but regarded as more transitory support. It gets eaten up by inflation and relatively invisible operating expenses. It's less palpable for donors.

Finally, one needs a "Board" with monied people. Having a group of brilliant thinkers and advisors like us, but without ready cash, is great. But, a group of people with significant capacity to give —and let's be direct about that— hopefully with an ongoing participatory relationship is essential.

That's my two cents for today, for what it's worth. Hope it excites creative thinking.

Best wishes,
David


FROM PAM GRANT-RYAN:

Roger:

Wow, did my eyes bug out when I saw that Hoffman thinks our income from this will be several million dollars! This is waaay beyond anything imaginable. So it makes me skeptical, to say the least.

Agree, it seems highly unlikely that we could get 1,000 people to pay $600 for a conference, when we can't get 1,000 people to pay $77 for a subscription - not even close. Does he understand this?

That said, it was kind of exciting to imagine all of these big ideas coming true! Maybe he might be The One who can lay the world at our feet.

If there were a way to structure the agreement with minimal risk to Leonardo, it might be worth a try. If we felt we were equal partners in the risks and benefits, maybe. He says that Leo and Varied Direx would split all income derived from any source (here's where the several millions come in) AFTER EXPENSES (my emphasis). That means that if they spend $100,000 to produce this conference and the conference bombs (either loses money or doesn't even materialize), we would still owe them (or would already have paid them) $100,000 (plus who knows what other expenses). We absolutely cannot afford that level of risk. If, however, he were willing to equally share in the risk, I would be more willing to consider it. As written it seems more like we assume all the risk and they have more than a fair share of the benefit.

If he's so confident - really - that Leonardo has this kind of potential and that he has the kind of know-how to pull it off, then we need a contract where he sticks his neck out too.

I do also note that the Leonardo board has officially gone on record as being against putting on conferences.

I feel basically the same about the Zimmerman proposal, and anyone else who wants to promise that they can drastically change our financial situation (we've been through this before, enough times): if they're so sure that they will succeed where others have failed, let them share equally in the risks and benefits. Maybe no one works that way unless it's someone already on the inside who really truly cares. But unless someone is coming from that kind of place, I am deeply skeptical and basically opposed to risking so much.

Pam


FROM LYNN HERSHMAN:

Why don't you have hoffman guarantee a certain % of anything he raises to go to the Endowment, like 10%. that is how distributors (some) get funds back to film makers.

Also can have a multi ranked set of possibilities depending upon what is raised, so that what ever is raised can support some sort of event (with some milestones, of course), but need not have to be a ted type conference, when ted already exists.

l.


FROM CHRISTINE MAXWELL:

HI there,

First let me say, that I think David Rosenboom's words here are very constructive. I certainly understand the skepticism around Hoffman's proposal - which does need to be looked at in the light of other experiences known of. Before there is a final vote on his proposal, I'd like to suggest that a couple of people meet with David in SF to discuss his proposal face to face. I think that even if the Committee does choose to reject his proposal as written, I believe that we should be a way to get him to help introduce Leonardo to possible people who might be both future board material and heavy financial 'hitters at the same time.

It would be most helpful, I think to try to see if we can capture David's genuine enthusiasm and wish to help Leonardo - so that we get his help - may be not in the 'big' way that he is presently suggesting, but in a more measured way..that will give us the opportunity to see what he can deliver . Perhaps Mark Resch, yourself David and or Lynn could be willing to make the time to meet with him -- -

Let me say again, that in my almost daily workings with David for this past year, he has 'delivered' on all his promises in terms of introductions to people in very high level positions who have been willing to commit both time and moneys to other projects that I am involved in. I have been very impressed with his track record and feel sure that if one or two committee members could meet with him -we would find some way to tap into his talents and access for the financial good of Leonardo in a short length of time.

My final comment is David,, your 'measured approach' description is very well said... and I think appropriate for Leonardo.

best regards, Christine.


FROM MICHAEL NAIMARK

As mentioned in our phone conversation, I really urge Leo to keep in mind the possibility of the Leonardo 40th being the next collaboration for the Zero1 Festival, 2008, after the first collaboration, ISEA 2006. ItÕs a natural on several fronts.

Best,

-M


FROM LOUISE POISSANT

Hi Roger,

I haven't follow all the file, but the idea to hold a conference sounds very good. It will make it possible to join together all the community involved in making Leonardo and which is interested in it. It seems to me that the central question should turn around the links between art and sciences, how the situation developed during 40 last years. From my point of view which covers only the 30 last years, the changes are radical. And we should also involve scientists who do themselves resort to art. With the last conference Art & biotech, the presentations of the scientists were highly appreciated.

Best regards,

Louise


FROM EDUARDO MIRANDA

Hello Roger,

I think the conference idea is fantastic. The proposal looks good. Although David Hoffman does not seem to have great experience with the organisation of such events, I trust your rationale for the choice.

If there is anything I can do to help, please do not hesitate to drop me a note.

Regards,

Eduardo


FROM ROBERT ROOT-BERNSTEIN

Dear Roger, et al.,

I might be of some use in making corporate contacts. I've been working with the Business Committee for the Arts (BCA), which is based in New York. Many of their members are Fortuen 500 companies that have learned the importance of the arts to their productivity either directly within their employees or indirectly through their communities. Pitching LEONARDO to them as a window on the future of innovation might really catch their attention, especially as I sense that BCA does not yet have a firm direction. Even if you only reach a few of the CEOs and they help endow LEONARDO, it might be worth the effort.

Let me know if you want me to use my contacts, and if so, when.

Best, Bob R-B


FROM MICHELE EMMER

Dear Roger,

I agree with the proposal of a first Leonardo conference. I think it is a good idea. I was thinking if in USA or Europe. As you know I organize every year my conference in venezia in the auditorium of the University Ca' Foscari. It is 10 years I organize this event with 250 people. I am also interested in the special issue (or a special book)?

So please let me know all news in the future.
Michele


FROM JACK OX

Dear Roger,

What a great idea! I could not be more in favor of it--and I have a suggestion of how and multi-where you might do this, so as to pull in as many people as possible. Now, I have not approached anybody about this yet, as we are not free to share these documents, but if there is interest on your part I know there will be interest here.

As you know I have recently arrived at the U. of New Mexico in Albuquerque. I am here in a collaborative academic research position. Since arriving they have opened the new ARTS Lab digital media Garage, built as part of High Performance Computing. For quite a few years they have also had the Arts Technology Center and have vigorously promoted the collaboration between scientists and all of the arts here on campus. Recently this state and university have come onto the National Lambda Rail.

UNM's new ARTS Lab is a key part of the Governor's Media Industries Strategic Project and received $3M of seed funding from the legislature. With this money they built the "Garage," a unique interdisciplinary space that is shared with the Center for High Performance Computing. Garage features include a black box experimental studio, rendering and animation hardware and software, a motion capture system, and an experimental multi-projector dome. More information can be found on their web site http://artslab.unm.edu .

There are many companies that are locating themselves here-or have been here. For example, Intel is here, with the Intel Rio Grande Innovation Centre. I met the Executive Director at the last conference here, "New Mexico Media Industries Strategy Project". In Santa Fe you have the Santa Fe Institute, Site Santa Fe, and what they call "Info Mesa". This place is a mecca for both art and science.

Now, about the National Lambda Rail: With this very new, very broad band optical network we could have the conference in multiple locations so that everyone would not need to come to the same place. The Netherlands is well connected on this network and is already actively working with cultural institutions. We could possibly have a second conference station in Rotterdam, and it would allow us to share presentations and dialogue.

As Hoffman writes- "Art is about communication." Yes-it is-and with our community of quite special artists spread over the entire world-isn't it a great opportunity to be able to unite them in time-and make space irrelevant? To do this 40th anniversary in an environment where we can really make our world a point (as described by Larry Smarr at recent iGRID (http://www.igrid2005.org/) conference on the NLR at CAL(IT)2)) instead of merely flat would be speaking to much that Leonardo has stood for.

Jack


FROM JACQUES MANDELBROJT

Hi Roger,

All this will be great!

Just a few preliminary comments

Reading again the Hoffman propositions I have the impression that the emphasis is more on art and technology than on art and science which is of course natural since it is indeed an essential trend of LEONARDO and is furthermore the subject where the interaction with industry is most natural and fruitful..

But as Louise Poissant points out the art and science issue is also important and has had interesting evolutions Maybe a way to have a good equilibrium would be to have some session based on the special projects and special issues of LEONARDO which give a fair sampling of the subjects the journal is interested in.

I am really looking forward to this 40th anniversary!

All the best,
Jacques Mandelbrojt


FROM JACQUES MANDELBROJT (#2)

Hi Roger,

When I say "special projects" I mean essentially "special sections" (I think that's how they are called, I don't have a LEONARDO issue with me).

All the best,
Jacques Mandelbrojt


FROM ROGER MALINA

Jacques

I share your interest in connecting more with current scientific work= all of us in this community ( hi Roy) have been trying to find ways of doing this- but it is very hard finding the scientists who are involved deeply and understand contemporary art

Jim Gimjewski in nano sci= is one recent new person on the network

i just came out of the neuro aesthetics symposium on taste and smell organised by Semir Zeki ( Plaisir) and its the first time i heard neurobiologists really talking about issues that connect strongly to the arts and culture= discussion for instance of neural reality arising from cultural constructs= Maturana and Varela would have been delighted.

Look at the first issue of Leonardo this year=there is an editorial by Tami Spector= a chemist= who is helping us build up the art-science end of things

Tami=maybe you could reply to this group about the next steps in your leonardo scientists working group

also= jack ox sent an input insisting on some kind of networked event =not sure whether this is realistic= but one could imagine using the kinds of techniques that Roy has been using in the planetary collegium

Roger Malina.


FROM DOUG SERY

Roger,

as you may have noticed from my auto-responder reply, I'm out of the office right now on a small vacation. However, I read through the attached documents quickly and had a couple of comments. First, if Leonardo doesn't have to commit any of their own money to the conference and few of its resources, then I think there's no reason not to give the green light. What could it hurt? As to the effectiveness of this actual campaign and the subsequent conference, while I appreciate Mr. Hoffman's enthusiasm, that seems to be the main component of his proposal. But, then again, his background is in marketing and that would seem to be their stock in trade. One of the reasons some of the conferences he mentioned did succeed was because they offered something very tangible. TED offered close access to a select group of movers and shakers via a filter of 1) very high conference attendence fees and 2) Richard Saul Wurman's previous (he no longer organizes the conference and it has reportedly suffered because of that) ability to use his connections to make sure the right people did indeed. Also, all of the attendees were invited, giving the conference a certain cache. Another thing: I'm not sure there more than 1,000 people invited to the TED conferences, which did allow some close contact. At 4,000+, what kind of real contact is someone going to have with any of movers and shakers at Leonardo40 for the $4,000-$6,000 attendance fee charged for those Mr. Hoffman is trying to attract?

Some of the high-profile tech conferences attracted high-paying attendees because of just that: they had money and the conferences were about technologies that made money. Off the top of my head, I don't know of any arts conference (even with science and technology included in the mix) that has a constituency that can afford some of the registration fees suggested by Mr. Hoffman nor offers the sort of real takeaway offered by more focused technological or "futures" conferences.

One other thing. If I'm correct, Leonardo has a subscription base of less than 1,500. A lot of people who might be considered its target audience don't even read the magazine, much less subscribe to it, because of reasons we've discussed for years. What's going to make them shell out $600-$6,000 now? I discussed the conference with a friend who practices in the area of art, science and technology, and she thought that if the conference were organized around a focused, relevant theme (and stuck to it), there might be the possibility for some interest, but was doubtful that Leonardo turning 40 would be much of an inducement for people to attend.

Sorry all of this sounds so negative. Perhaps I'm playing devil's advocate to Mr. Hoffman's relentless enthusuiasm. As I mentioned in the beginning, if there's no chance that Leonardo is going to get burned financially, I suppose there's nothing to lose and I may be proven entirely wrong (something I would welcome). Maybe this is what people mean by thinking outside of the box. If I can't think of anything else before Monday, I'll let you know. If not, I'll look forward to hearing back from you on how the meeting went.

Very best wishes,

Doug


FROM JACK OX

Not just any internet--If people did not read my input-let me say I am speaking of putting it on the new, extraordinarily broad-optical network, which is owned and operated by States and universities- and is international. There would be true real time interaction-and that is what is special.

Jack Ox


FROM JÜRGEN CLAUS

Dear Roger,

best wishes to your board of directors meeting tomorrow.

Your agenda of next steps sounds very reasonable to me. Just don_t make it to much an American agenda. Still (sometimes) sleeping Europe may wake up. In Germany the new government sponsores an initiative for _elite university programs_ and puts money into Research on different fields. There is much activitiy in the fields on Renewable Energy... In Space Research, as you do know better than I do, the European Community is getting stronger.

So: please Mark Resch as Coordinator should keep in Mind the Pluri-universel-multi-arts-and science-scene, Europe is still on the agenda and China is again _Das Reich der Mitte_ (The eminent Middle Empire) as it was for centuries.

As partner in Germany the ZKM (Peter Weibel will be there till 2010, if the Good Lord Will) is an excellent and potent partner for the LEONARDO activities. (If you want I can talk to Peter about this an Sunday, Febr. 12, when we will be together.)

I did a lot of new models for solar sculptures and among them many are inspired by solar space technology. Hope to show them to you this year.

My best regards to you. Frank will be proud on you looking from cyberneticineticolouredclouds to his son..

Jürgen


FROM SUNDAR SARRUKAI

dear roger and beverly,

i think the proposal sounds interesting and although i have limited understanding of the american market dynamics, i can see this is an attempt that organisations such as leonardo will have to consider. my basic response is a strong yes for this attempt and i thought it might be useful to consider the following two points, if relevant, in your board discussion.

1. the international character of this meeting is a must. i am saying this not only because i am part of the international face of the advisory board but also because of the important role that both computer technology and art are beginning to play in places outside the united states and particularly in asia. in this context, this meet should make an extra attempt to get people from other countries, particularly from asia and perhaps africa. by doing this, you get the goodwill of people in these regions which will help leonardo in the coming decades when these regions are going to become much stronger.

one way of doing this is to get sponsorship from leading technology concerns for the meet. these companies with headquarters in various countries will not pay for the conduct of the meet but instead sponsor leading artists and scientists interested in this meet from their respective countries. for example, in india, we have giant technology companies such as infosys, wipro, tatas and so on. each of these companies could be asked to sponsor one or two candidates, including their travel and registration. this way the meet will not only generate the registration fees but also manage to get the best people from all over the world. like india, you can target big companies in china, south korea, japan etc., and get such sponsorship.

2. the one problem that i see in getting real 'big shots' in the conference is that there is a great possibility that intellectual standards will be somewhat diluted. but this is just a periphery concern and i thought i should voice it especially since i have been to a few of such meetings where the glitter takes over the substance. but i am sure that you will be able to find a proper balance!

i wish you the very best for a very successful meeting of the leonardo 40!

Sundar


FROM ISTVAN HARGITTAI

Roger:

Thanks. It's a great idea to celebrate because it gives further exposure to LEONARDO and everything it has been trying to do. The sooner we know about logistics the better chance we have to get to the meeting. The paper on art in science education will soon be submitted.

Kind regards,
Istvan


FROM KEN GOLDBERG

Hi Roger,

Great! Here's an idea: I'd really like to put together a survey of the past 10 years of ATC events, including images, abstracts, updates, invited articles, and new perspectives from ATC speakers. Would it be possible to publish this as a special issue of Leonardo in Spring 07?

The ATC could then coordinate a public party in SF in S07 to celebrate the joint publication and our mutual anniversaries with special guests and performances....

I'm hoping that would be of interest, as the Leonardo publication would be a great honor for us and would free up some funding for us to apply toward the party...

Best,
Ken


MORE GENERAL IDEAS FOR 40TH ANNIV

FROM MICHAEL PUNT:

Dear Roger

Thanks for this and I am in rather a complaining mood for no real reason except I notice the last copy of Leonardo I got was 38/1.

I think that the idea of celebrating 40 years is great of course and it is an opportunity to increase the visibility and impact of leonardo etc. But in the UK there are ads running which say old customers first so perhaps as well as new initiatives we might want to think about what to do for those who have stuck it out for forty years or so eg asking long time subscribers for brief statements/reflections.

I also think that something radical like celebrating 50 years of leonardo ten years early - ie a future copy would be a challenge with a call to artists/designers and authors speculating on what we might be celebrating in 2016. Almost to run the 40th issue as a retro from the future.

Too much sun I guess

best
Mike


FROM KEN GOLDBERG:

Dear Roger,

Congratulations on Leonardo's 40th Anniversary! I was just speaking with Greg. Next year is the 10th Anniversary of the ATC series.Would you be interested in some kind of mutual celebration? One idea is a special lecture in the series with a big party for Leonardo afterward. (We are hoping to get Brian Eno next year...)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Best,
Ken


FROM GREG NIEMEYER:

Thanks, Roger.

I was thinking perhaps we could invite Ken to write a review of the 100 or so art and technology talks that he organized, with some highlights and abstracts?

Also, I wanted to thank you again for supporting Pamela's working on the Pacific Rim grant, which was submitted complete and in time. She wrote a very fine proposal, and coordinated the efforts of several artists, (which is by far the bigger task) and I hope it goes well.

Greetings, Greg


FROM HARRY RAND:

Roger, et al.

First idea for LEONARDO 40th anniversary: at beginning of the anniversary issue print 3 columns with 40 rows each, one for each year:

entries in columns 1 & 3 decided by survey of OLATS/Leonardo types, then the space in column #2 to be assigned to writers or volunteer contributors (see below for content and what the assignment will be)

column 1
(most) significant scientific achievement of the year

column 3
(most) significant artistic achievement of the year

column 2
article discussing relationship or lack of relationship in the worldview, assumptions, or the technology responsible for entries in columns #1&2. Rationale: after all, in 2,000 years, this is exactly the kind of thing a historian/archaeologist will have to do, make sense of the remains of our civilization [? sic] from a cross-section of remnants. (Find two items in a tomb or strata and make some statement about what they have in common & what we learn about the time of their creation)

project could also (easily) be expanded with multiple short entries (in all 3 columns) from VIPs, into a significanty book: The Life & Times of NeoLeonardo

best
h