Strategic Planning: On the Future of Leonardo


Piero Scaruffi, 1/27/02, my notes
Rich Gold, 1/28/02, Possible New Direction for Leonardo
Rich Gold, 2/2/02, Possible New Direction for Leonardo
Pierro Scaruffi, 2/2/02, Possible New Direction for Leonardo
Pamela Grant-Ryan, 2/5/02, Thoughts on the Future of Leonardo
Mark Beam, 2/18/02, Thoughts on the Future of Leonardo
Mark Beam, 3/11/01, Thoughts on the Future of Leonardo
Mark Beam, 5/27/02, Report on Creative Disturbance
Mark Resch, 5/28/02, re: Leonardo Agenda
Mark Resch, 5/29/02, Strategic Planning Exercise
Strategic Planning notes from 5/28/02 Board meeting
Steve Wilson, 5/31/02, Leonardo Strategic Planning Clustering
Roger Malina, 6/2/02, re: Leonardo Working Groups
Roger Malina, 6/2/02, re: Leonardo collaborations/alliances
Annick Bureaud, 6/3/02, re: Leonardo Collaborations/Alliances
Annick Bureaud, 6/3/02, re: LEONARDO Working Groups
Sonya Rapoport, 6/4/02, Strategic Planning
Roger Malina, Towards a Cultural Connectionism: The search for organisational models for a post-web world
Joel Slayton, 6/4/02, Series agreement

___________________________________________


From: piero scaruffi <piero@scaruffi.com>
Sent: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 23:15:13 -0800
To: rmalina@alum.mit.edu
Subject: my notes

Dear Roger,
Here are some additional thoughts about the meeting. I apologize if anything sounds
naive or redundant (I am not yet familiar with all of Leonardo's activities). My
background is in the sciences and in the industry. I'm trying to look at things from
those perspectives.

First of all, I'd suggest we face the priorities. It sounds like the current priority is to
increase revenues (if possible, without sacrificing the quality of the service).
What follows are, ultimately, ideas on how to increase revenues.

Brand recognition
-----------------
An indirect (not so indirect) source of revenues is "brand recognition".

Corporations invests millions of dollars in advertising just to build
brand recognition. Once they are known, it is much easier for them to find
new streams of revenues (and partners). The Leonardo journal is, in my opinion,
essential to create brand name. Even in the Internet age, nothing works better
than the "fetish". There
are
countless webzines that are probably better (editorially speaking) than
print magazines, but they do not have the same brand value.
But the Leonardo journal alone has obvious limits. "Events" can also
be very effective in promoting Leonardo. I would definitely pursue any kind
of "sponsorship" in which an audience would be exposed to the name "Leonardo".
In fact, in addition to what has already been discussed, I would propose

- periodic multimedia events organized by Leonardo (Leonardo invites artists
 to perform and pays the organization with ticket sales) - periodic gatherings of
artists, "intellectuals" and the industry  (like the one that was held with Microsoft)
- periodic gatherings of artists, intellectuals and the general audience

 (organized through museums such as SFMOMA and Getty) - periodic gatherings of artists,
intellectualsand students  organized through the main universities (interactive events for
students  to hear lectures and engage in debates). Each of these would help promote Leonardo, help
sell merchandise and possibly generate revenues in the form of ticket sales.
Each of these would lend itself to a business model for (modest) revenues,
besides contributing to the main goal of promoting Leonardo.

Miscellaneous ideas
-------------------
Does Leonardo want to take on a "leadership" role, to become "the" reference
point, in its field? Needless to say, such a position would mean a quantum leap in brand
recognition and, as I said, this would facilitate new streams of revenues.
In order to become the reference point in its field, it probably takes more
than a number of discrete initiatives: it takes a central role of coordinating
labs and depts across the academia and coordinating cross-pollination of the
arts and the sciences. For example: - a database of which research is underway in
each lab/dept around the world - a column in the journal that periodically
updates on such research - a yearly conference on the subject - a web portal with links
to all labs/depts- ....
In order to play a "leadership" role, Leonardo has to become the "place" where
practitioners (worldwide) go to find information about (and meet) practitioners.

Increasing the customer base
----------------------------
Another way to increase revenues is, of course, to get the product out to
more people. There are, alas, limits to how many people can be reached
by an academic journal. Maybe what we need is a "Leonardo light" that
can reach a much broader audience.
Maybe this could happen through a joint venture with a publisher of
broad-circulation magazines.Instead of technical papers, this magazine
would focus on reviews of art shows, reviews of music recordings, reviews ofbooks,
reviews of films and reviews of technology and articles of popular science, with an emphasis
on the "avantgarde/hip/cult" element.
It could be packaged with a CD-ROM that contains both samples of music and samples
of art shows and demos of technology and interviews and, why not,advertisements. In addition
to the usual musical selections, the CD-ROM could offer a tour of a museum
exhibition (and paid advertisement from the museum itself) or a tour of a school
labs (and paid advertisement from the school itself). The audience would be the audience targeted
today by magazines such as Wire or Film Comment or Arts Magazine or Scientific American.
Those magazines have an international audience that is not only students and practitioners.
It includes thousands of people whose "hobby" is cinema, music, arts, etc. A magazine for
"intellectually curious" people, not necessarily practitioners.
Incidentally, I believe that this is historically a low point for the "alternative press": such a "thing" (halfway
between a magazine and a video) would probably fill a gap.
Needless to say, it could also be sold as a tv program.
As I said, it would require a joint venture with a publisher that can put it together and distribute it to
record stores,video stores, newstands, etc.

Leadership role
---------------
Leonardo stradles the border between the arts and the sciences. The sciences meet at conferences. The arts meet at festivals. Maybe Leonardo has to invent a new form of "meeting" that is both conference and festival, the "confestival", which is both a "scientific" conference where innovators meet and a music/film/art festival where artists perform and a place where enterpreneurs can pitch their products (whether tools or CDs or services or whatever). This could become a yearly event, just like film festivals and scientific conferences.

Continuing education
--------------------
Is there any chance that Leonardo could become the equivalent of UC Berkeley Exts for new-media art? Could Leonardo open a school and run classes for a generic audience willing to pay for continuing education?
Customer base
-------------
As I said at the meeting, I suspect that the Leonardo journal has an intended audience that does not read journals. The breakdown was 95% artists, 4% engineers, 1% scientists. Let's analyze these three segments.
* Scientists tend to have a mission in life that is to absorb knowledge.
* Engineers do it to the extent that it helps them build products and make  money. Furthermore, engineers can usually afford substantial budgets.
* Artists tend to have a mission  in life that is to paint the Sistine Chapel.
 Artists have little motivation to absorb knowledge.
 And (with few exceptions) they are not wealthy.
I know the historic reasons for Leonardo to target artists. If the priority is to increase revenues, I would consider targeting at least engineers, though. Which, of course, would require significant changes in the format and content of the journal.

Let me know if any of these topics can be useful.
It was nice seeing you again.
piero scaruffi
___________________________________________


Date: 1/28/02
To: The Board of Leonardo
From: Rich Gold
Re: Possible New Direction for Leonardo

Here is the url of McSweeney's. They have a bookline they publish themselves and as noted, they have a hardbound quarterly journal which they sell for $17 per issue and is widely distributed. They are located in the Bay Area and are one of the most forward thinking publishers working.
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/

It is the brainchild of Dave Eggars who wrote the highly successful (and good) novel called "A HeartBreaking Work of Staggering Genius". For all I know it is another effort in the below zero economy.

- Rich Gold

___________________________________________


Date: 2/2/2 (I always wanted to write that!)
To: The Board of Leonardo
From: Rich Gold
Re: Possible New Direction for Leonardo

After my little unexpected, impromptu talk at the last board meeting I have been thinking a lot about the future of Leonardo. I would like to make a proposal knowing that it is a radical change in direction and that it is unlikely to happen, particularly in the short run. But it might be interesting to contemplate a very different structure to that conglomerate of things we call, affectionately, Leonardo. It might open up a dialog, or somebody might, in reaction to this idea, come up with the even better idea.

It was helpful to listen to Roger at the last meeting about the motivations that set up Leonardo Journal thirty years ago. Here's my summary. Adjust your Gold-o-filters: First, at that time, art and technology/science were rarely thought about in the same breadth. It was unusual. Nobody, if you can remember back then, had a computer on their desktops let alone the mainframe equivalents we all now have. Second, the debate about aesthetics and technology was barely in existence. A few people spoke of it, Cage, McCluhan, but it was hardly the mainstream university mini-industry that it is today. Third, and this was interesting to me, thirty years ago artists did not talk about their work in an academic fashion. They were Left Brain (or is that Right Brain – I always forget?) but they worked intuitively and not from complex theory. That was the critic's job. The idea that they might actually have an intellectual journal seemed a radical idea. Lastly, the idea of a journal itself, with its fetishistic academic and "truth" power, was a novel idea in the avante garde arts.

Fast forward to today. First, art and technology is big business. Every campus of any size has a department devoted to it. Art and music students, if they are not involved directly in it, know all about it and consider it one of their options. Video, computer animation, computer drawing, robotics, music synthesis - these aren't radical things, they are simply choices one makes as an artist. The popular arts, lets just take Shrek, are even more a combination of aesthetics and technology than the edgy parts of the avante garde. (If the avante garde is supposed to presage the popular arts, then it has already won.) Second, the intellectual issues surrounding aesthetics and technology are, as we speak, a major intellectual force, a huge wave of thought that has swept through all departments of the university from philosophy to physics. There are whole sections in bookstores devoted to it; there are other journals on it; there are university departments devoted to it; and more importantly there are lots of websites. Third, all artists of any standing now talk in an intellectual lingo and framing as a matter of course. It could even be said that today the art work is simply a proof point for the intellectual thought behind them. Some of this intellectual work is terrible, some of it is obscure, some of it interesting, some of it profound, but it is certainly there, and in abundance. Lastly, the journal today, instead of representing the intellectual edge of media, is considered somewhat antiquated and old fashioned. Can we say dusty? Every journal I know of is today thinking about how to get on the web for a host of reasons: faster delivery, more debate and peer input, cost reduction, instant replies, community formation, you name it. The web, it must be remembered, we designed not for ads, newspapers or art sites, it was designed to precisely replace (or at least augment) intellectual journals! It was invented at CERN, after all. While there are still paper-based journals today, no one thinks there will be paper-based journals twenty years from now. It seems particularly odd to have a paper-based journal that is devoted to the cutting edge, avante garde arts.

One way to look at what Leonardo should be is to ask the question, if we were starting Leonardo from scratch today, what would it be like?

Another way to look at it is, what are the important ideals and resources that Leonardo represents and how can we best achieve them? I'd like to start there. I'll come to the complimentary set of issues around money later.

I like lists. Here is a list:

1. Leonardo is a thirty year old respected institution. It is very hard to create respected thirty year old institutions. For one thing, they take thirty years. It seems that this is an important resource we don't want to lose.

2. Leonardo is about an intellectual dialog around art and science/technology that is somewhat different, and unique from, than other such dialogs. It is, for instance artist-centric. It isn't about aesthetic perceptual psychology, to pick an example, though it might reference it.

3. Leonardo is positivistic about art using technology. It is not a critique of technology in society and does not take a post-modernistic, or negative view of technology in general. It is rarely ironic. This is different than much other art-technology discussion.

4. Leonardo does have a deep intellectual bent to it. It is unabashedly thoughtful.

5. Leonardo looks primarily at art that is almost outsider art to the mainstream gallery work, or even to most well known tech artists. I can't define them exactly, but I know a Leonardo artists when I meet them. There is a hard to define sub-culture of Leonardo artists and occasionally scientists. It is almost folk art. It is a technical art based on ideas drawn from science.

6. Leonardo wants to strengthen this community of artists/composers internally. Increase the dialog between the members and increase the number of members. It particularly wants to find artists who really are Leonardo artists but don't know it.

7. Leonardo would like to make the ideas, and art work, of these artists/composers known to a wider audience outside their circle (though not necessarily by bringing this wider circle into the discussion.) On the other hand, it would serve Leonardo well to be part of the larger discussions on art, technology, aesthetics and science.

8. Leonardo believes in history. After all, it is called Leonardo. One of the often mentioned reasons for maintaining the paper journal is that one hundred years from now scholars will be able to go back and see this work and the ideas of the artists that created it.

I'm sure that there are other things which can be added. It might be useful to make this list a community effort. I'm certain that people who have been with Leonardo longer than I have many other things to add or change.

OK, here's my proposal:

That to best achieve the above mentioned goals then I believe we should do the following:

1. Stop publishing the paper-based Journal.

2. Create a web-based Journal with multiple sections:

a. Highly juried articles (similar to the current Journal articles)

b. Lightly screened articles (more like our pile of submitted articles)

c. A heap of anybody-can-write-them articles (open forum)

d. A threaded chat room (perhaps similar to slashdot)

e. A meaningful links area - including to relevant artist's sites
f. An upcoming shows and events area

g. A commercial area (more on this later)

3. Make Leonardo Books the center piece of Leonardo with several brands:

a. Collected, "Best of Leonardo" series

b. Critical books, similar to the book current series

c. A light-weight area of artists/designer/techno books Ü manifestoes, monographs, arty things, fun things, cool ideas

4. Formalize our sponsorship of other projects with a separate Leonardo Foundation

Let me briefly show how this proposal flows from the base principles of Leonardo as outlined above. Again, money comes later:

1. It maintains the name, the organization and the principles of Leonardo. In fact, I contend, by moving into the modern era, web-base world it will strengthen, enhance and revitalize Leonardo. It will introduce Leonardo to generations of people who never heard of it or who only have a dusty memory of it. For most journal readers, it will probably be a relief.

2. This will increase the debate and peer interaction within the Leonardo community about art and technology. It will certainly increase the number of interested readers. But because secondary and tertiary articles can be also published and accessed, other voices can be heard. We will be less elitist even while maintaining intellectual rigor. Then, by having chat and/or threaded conversational sections, real dialog can be set up Ü not just across disciplines, but across continents, classes and ages.

3. Leonardo remains positivistic about modern technology. In fact, IT BEGINS TO USE MODERN TECHNOLOGY itself. I think this is very important for a journal that claims to be about technology. If it, itself, can't use the technology around it Ü and the web is hardly a weird thing Ü than its actual commitment to technology gets called into question. Note that a web journal about art/music has a huge leg up over the print version in that it can have color photos and illustrations, movies, sounds, entire musical pieces, interactive works etc. all for NO EXTRA COST. It is as if the web was designed for artistic journals.

4. Leonardo is intellectual and thoughtful. What I didn't like about the LEA design, was that it was neither. I think Leonardo Journal Online, under our control (as it has to be) will be both. The web can be as thoughtful as needed. Furthermore, the enhanced book series, produced and edited primarily by ourselves, will be more thoughtful and expansive than the Journal itself can be. Books trump journals every time in today's world of ideas.

5. Leonardo is about a certain kind of tech artist. I doubt I could define it, but I know them when I meet them. They are scattered all over the world. Only some of them are in universities. The web version is MUCH MORE LIKELY to reach our real constituency. We really don't know how many people should be reading Leonardo because the Journal only reaches a small percentage of them. But the web, (and bookstores (plus Amazon Ü that thing in the middle)) is much more global in reach.

6. We want to extend our community Ü I also think we need to extend it intellectually. I think both are achieved by the web better than by the journal. As Roger pointed out, scientists use the web, not the journal, to move ideas around.

7. We need to move our ideas into the larger world, and conversely move the larger ideas into our world. Yes, there was a time when I would go to the library's journal stack and look through the different journals in the different fields, but who does that today? Today Ü I scan the web for new ideas. If it isn't on the web I'm actually pissed off! Who do they think they are not putting their stuff on the web? The web seems designed for the kinds of ideas we traffic in. (I guess I am also saying that we can't think of Leonardo abstracted from the content. What medium would Leonardo himself choose today? Betcha it would be the web.)

8. Lastly, Leonardo believes in history. I think that this is a fantastic thing and is what distinguishes fine art from popular art almost more than anything else. The Journal, in its time, was the best way to achieve the goal of having these ideas last. I doubt that's true any more. First, on the web, there are now archiving methods, such as Stanford's Highwire Press, whose technology is specifically designed to maintain web journals for indefinite periods of time (through a napster-like technology, oddly enough.) Second, books are really the best way to preserve ideas for 500 years or more, and Leonardo's enhanced book division would achieve that goal. A library is just as likely to purchased our book series (if not more) and books have a habit of being maintained for longer than journals. I doubt that in twenties years there will be paper-based journals except as scanned-in relics.

So here is the bottom line:

We stop publishing the Journal. It is simply the wrong medium and genre to be presenting the cutting edge ideas of contemporary art and technology.

We create a professional, serious, scholarly Leonardo Journal on the web. It would have the same juried articles (but now with full color illustrations and sound) as we currently have plus complimentary areas for dialog, chat and real outsider articles. It would encompass artist links, special events, etc. Ü but under our control.

We would vastly bump up the importance of the book series which is the best way to 1) preserve ideas for the ages and 2) enter the contemporary dialog about art and technology in a way that has impact and power. I see it as necessitating the moving much more of the editorial and production aspects into Leonardo itself (we in effect become the publisher/editor) with a wider selection of books: from article collections, to intellectual works on tech-art, to actual artist's books that are artistic and enjoyable to art-consuming society. There could also be a CD and DVD production arm.

We would create a Leonardo Foundation, separate from our publishing wing, that would support particular art works (such as the water works.) It would be separately funded and a well worked out method of choosing artists would be devised. It should be at arm's length from the publishing division.

OK, now for the financials. Oh Boy.

Here is my non-business person's view of Leonardo. Leonardo is a massively money losing organization. It exists only because one half of the budget is funded by the deep interest, and kindness, of the Malina family. As far as I can tell, they fund about one half of the organization. Even so, we severely underpay our employees and are running a deficit. Our attempts to get outside funding are small and are not working very well, and on top of this Roger is looking to step down and we need to hire – at some relatively large expense – a new executive director. My experience at the board meetings is that this elephant makes its appearance about once a meeting, everybody shakes their heads, and then ignores it. Is this what happened at Enron?

The one thing I could say about my proposal is that I don't think it would be any worse financially, but it would achieve our Leonardo goals much better. So how do we make money? As noted above, I am not a business person, but here are my thoughts:

1. I suspect that Leonardo will not work without the Molinas, at least in the short run. They are our spiritual advisors and creators. I think the important thing in this area is that it is our job to make Leonardo as really exciting, interesting, cool, forward looking and as cutting edge as any astronomy work.

2. To the degree which we really do begin to start serving a broader audience, from young artists to global artists, which the web (and books) makes possible; to the degree which we look like we are moving and shaking; that is the degree which we will be able to attract large outside grants. The current Leonardo might be hard to fund, but the new one might be easier. We may not have to be profit making, but we have to look like a worthy entity with an eye to the future. Funders can always be found for the exciting and the truly exciting.

3. Despite the recent collapse of the e-biz world, the web doesn't have to be money losing. Or as I noted at the meeting, we are already in an economy below zero, all we have to do to succeed is lose less. There are lots of models for journals to make money on the web. It would need some real study to figure out which one(s) is best for us. Here are some:

a. It could still be subscription based. Many web journals are. We could have a sliding scale for universities (lots of money) to tech-artists in third world countries (free.)

b. Parts could be subscription and parts free. Perhaps the recent issue costs money while archives are free -- or the reverse.

c. One way is to make making reading on-line free, but make it impossible to print-out (there is technology to do this.) We charge for reprints. We could also offer a journal version which is printed using Print-On-Demand technology and which is sold to libraries.

d. I think that there is a huge amount of money to be made on creating course books for all the art-tech college and university courses now being given. Leonardo has a database of articles. We could put together "suggested books" and then allow each professor to modify those books. Students then have to order them from us at a hefty profit.

e. Advertising, if done right, can both generate money and be positive.

f. Searching for donations and funding will be easier if we have a global platform that looks like it is happening.

g. Remember that there are economies of scale on the web. Production costs are more or less fixed and additional readers are free.

h. It could be a really good advertising platform for our greatly expanded book division. It becomes a way to sell books.

i. We could develop a speakers, consulting, artists bureau that Leonardo gets a piece of. Perhaps there is a model of Creative disturbance that would work here. The web serves as a portal into these services.

j. We could host pay-per-event web events (such as talks etc.) I heard that Nic Collins is real good friends with Eduardo Koch. People would pay money to hear his speak on the web I bet. :- )

k. We could provide a web site for art conferences, for instance ISEA. They would pay us to host the web part of their event. We could approach other conferences (World Economic Forum?) and see if they would pay us to put up related art sites.

l. I'm sure there are others (he says hopefully.)

4. I think of the enhanced book publishing part of Leonardo as a real money making venture. People and libraries will pay money for books. There is a clear lack of books in the art-tech arena and yet there are lots of new art-tech artists and university departments looking for books to buy. There is also money in the CD, DVD and interactive art/music sales. We are already on the way! (Thanks Joel!) I think we should expand it in the three areas outlined (reprints and best-of, intellectual books, fun art-tech books) and I think that there is money to be made in all of these areas. I am very unhappy about the current set-up with MIT and I think that much of the editing has to come in house if this is going to work. (We might really have to become Leonardo Books with a website.)

5. Given these suggestions I think that instead of looking for an executive director from the art world, I think we should look for an executive director from the publishing world.

6. Lastly, I think we should move the sponsoring of other art pieces, organizations and events, to a Leonardo Foundation that is funded and operated separately. It is confusing and off-track to spend our board meeting time on side projects while the fate of Leonardo itself is in question. JMHO.

So. Yipes. That was longer than I expected. There was a lot to cover.

I want to reiterate, I am not wedded to any of this. I think a lot of serious thought has to be placed into each aspect and that there are lots of alternatives at every turn. I also want to re-state that my prime motivation in this suggestion is not our impending financial disaster, but that I think this proposal satisfies our goals better. But I also think that it could go a long way to helping on the financial side as well.

Maybe it will just open up the dialog a little. Leonardo is too important too lose.

___________________________________________


Date: 2/2/02
To: The Board of Leonardo
From: Pierro Scaruffi
Re: Possible New Direction for Leonardo

My two pence:

Re: 1.Stop publishing the paper-based Journal.

### In the long term, I agree. For the time being, a published journal is still an important marketing assett (if you care for brand recognition). Too many webzines/portals come and go, even those that were launched with grotesque fanfare. Paper magazines are more credible. (Long term, I'm obviously on your side, as you probably guessed at the meeting). The main reason for me to defend the paper-based journal is "brand recognition". That brings added value that is useful in looking for streams of revenues. Since Leonardo is currently in a financial crisis, streams of revenues are important, therefore brand recognition is important. (Eg, does it carry the same weight to say"we have yet another web portal" or "we have a journal published by MIT Press and read in the main art labs of the world"). The print and distribution of a magazine "quantifies" its importance. Unfortunately, there isn't a well established procedure to "quantify" the importance of a web portal.

Re: 3.Make Leonardo Books the center piece of Leonardo with several brands:

### I like this idea. But does this mean that Leonardo is evolving towards becoming the equivalent of a publisher in terms of internal processes. Costs/benefits? Small publishers have a very hard time breaking even. Again, I like the idea, but understanding the business model is important.

Re: c.A light-weight area of artists/designer/techno books
- manifestoes, monographs, arty things, fun things, cool ideas
I like this idea. I think a "light Leonardo" is a way to get out of the financial crisis.

Re: 4.Formalize our sponsorship of other projects with a separate Leonardo Foundation

### What's in it for us? For each of these points it would be important to highlight costs/benefits.I believe it is important to know what the goal is (eg, I am focusing on the financial aspect, because it seems to condition too many other things) and then evaluate to what extent an idea contributes towards that goal.

Re: increase the debate and peer interaction within the Leonardo community

Re: increase the number of interested readers.

### I extracted these two sentences because those were also in my notes as two of the key factors to analyze. I sent an email to Roger proposing a few other things, including a Leonardo conference. I totally agree these are two directions Leonardo should consider. Whether a specific proposal meets those two criteria (and is feasible) is beyond my skills to assess.

Re: Who do they think they are not putting their stuff on the web? The web seems designed for the kinds of ideas we traffic in.

### Absolutely, But you are omitting an important detail: six billion people have the same right that we have to create a website for the same identical purpose. And many of them will. Any serious organization that enters the web world is faced with the challenge of establishing its authority on a lawless territory. On the web you are one of the thousands. Eg. There are now literally thousands of websites devoted to studies of consciousness. The vast majority are run by people who never took a class on cognitive science. They read a few books (not exactly scientific ones), had a few "visions" and decided to tell the world about it. That becomes competition for the 3/4 serious labs in the world. No question Leonardo can easily beat the competition of amateurs who decide to devote their website to art and technology. The fact remains that there may eventually be hundreds of websites on the same topic. In fact, the success of a website is reason for other people to do the same. The web has lowered the threshold to get into "business". Leonardo had to go through a painful (I presume) process of finding alliances and sponsors, and a publisher. A website costs $14 a year for the domain and $10 a month for webhosting and you're up and running, live to the entire world. Here is a simple example. Almost every website on this planet was opened with the secret hope by the author to (one day) charge a fee to the visitors. To this day, only a handful do so. Why? Because if you ask me a penny to provide me information, I use a search engine and find that information elsewhere... for free. Why should I pay for it when the average search with google.com returns more than one million web pages on any given topic?

Without further digressions, I just wanted to say that this opens up a whole portfolio of challenges (that we can discuss them separately). I just wanted to add a footnote that this is not a minor detail. The dynamics of the web is different. Eventually we need to have a business model that works. Beware of adopting business models that have consistently resulted in failures and beware of pioneering new business models (we are not graduates from Harvard business school).

Re: a new executive director.

### I am sorry I missed previous meetings. Can somebody brief me on what this person's duties would be?

Re: So how do we make money?

### I think this should be the focus of the discussion.

Re: There was a lot to cover.

### A lot indeed. Thanks a lot. That was truly stimulating.

piero


___________________________________________

Date: 2/5/02
To: The Board of Leonardo
From: Pam Grant-Ryan
Re: Thoughts on the Future of Leonardo

The exchange between Rich and Piero has really been thought-provoking. Thank you both for giving serious thought to LEONARDO, its problems and possible paths for new directions.I think it's a great process that Mark Resch has set in motion.

Rich's ideas for a new configuration of LEONARDO that is web-centric I see as very challenging long-term goals. Piero's points are well taken about the difficulties of making a difference on the web, making oneself known on the web and especially making money on the web.It's hard to see how we could envision succeeding at the money-making aspect while so many others have failed, at least in the current web environment. The ideas for web-based forums/chat rooms and other community-building uses for the web are very exciting, but I'm not the best person to address these issues - maybe Pat Bentson and Steve Wilson have comments.

To dig ourselves out of our below-zero hole, we need to both raise money and earn money. Also, to become more vibrant and thus ultimately to stay alive we need to become more relevant. Whether and/or how to actually dismantle the print journal is a very complex discussion, since (a) LEONARDO print is in fact our only cash cow (our other main source of income being Roger, of course, who may not want or be able to continue his level of support indefinitely - and who almost certainly doesn't want to be considered a cow); and (b) changes at this level would involve major renegotiations with MIT Press.

Since my skills and experience are based mostly in print media, I would like to address Rich's comments for some print-based products that might be more relevant than the current LEONARDO animal and also earn us some money. I'm working with a mix or practicality and brainstorming here.

I see the most practical and do-able, at least in the short term, are print-on-demand collections of articles targeted for university classroom use and/or an expanded/redesigned book series.

Re the print-on-demand educators' collections: Regular digital archiving of current LEONARDO issues has been in place for several years, and I believe that MIT Press already handles specific requests from academics for article collections.(I'm not sure what quality of reprints they provide.)We could investigate formalizing this process with MIT Press -either as on-demand article collections or actual course books (which would feed into expanding the book series, below).Maybe Joel and Steve (and anyone else on the board) could design a few suggested course collections. We could advertise them through our networks and publications and have MIT produce them on demand. Obtain a list of educators and/or new media programs that we could pitch the material to (maybe send out samples).I don't think this would take a large effort and it might yield some results. We tried a similar project about 10 years ago - the LEONARDO theme packs - and we were surprised at how good the response was with almost no marketing. Basically we were just packaging up bad photocopies of articles on a theme. With the technology now I imagine MIT could provide something decent - of course MIT needs to be willing to take this on with us.

Expanding/changing the book series: First step could be to change LMJ from a journal to a book, period. Nic Collins has wanted LMJ to be a book for a long time. We've taken some steps toward creating a sort-of hybrid journal/book, but it's a bit of a strange creature. We've had talks with Doug Sery at MIT about an LMJ book. Let's pursue this seriously. The earliest it could happen would be 2003 - and to make that date we'd have to start preparations now.(This could also be a test case or a step toward eventual dismantling of LEONARDO as a print journal.)

SOME CONCLUSIONS:

I would propose any of these three possibilities to put on our list of achievable Goals for 2002:

1. Investigate with MIT Press the possibility of creating and marketing collections for educators. This could be pursued through both the journals division (print-on demand collections) and the books division (course books).If MIT is interested, begin to structure and then produce this product line.

2. Pursue in earnest turning LMJ into a book (possibly with a beefed-up web site including sound samples, musical pieces).

3. Investigate first with MIT, then with other publishers (if MIT not interested) expanding the book series. I wonder what Joel's ideas are on this? The book series is expanding rapidly on its own. Joel, do you think there is enough quality material coming in (or to be had) to support expanding the series exponentially? What are your thoughts about working with another publisher if MIT exercises its right of first refusal on works we might want to continue to pursue, or about doing really different types of books?

I also would suggest as a way to partly fund one of these goals that we scrap - or at least put on hold - our efforts at individual fundraising. Targeting small donors and using direct mail seems to cost way more than we ever bring in from it - am I correct in this perception? I think going after the larger grants from the big foundations (as we are starting to do with some success with Rockefeller and Ford) is the way to go on the raising-money end. I am no expert in raising money, but I think we should instead use these resources toward trying to produce some new product lines.

LAST THOUGHTS:

"LEONARDO Light": This idea comes up every few years and everybody thinks it's a great idea but nobody can figure out how to do it. I think LEA is our best hope of doing this within our current structure, but how to make this a money-earning rather than -losing venture is beyond me.

Where might a new executive director fit into any of this? Should this person, as Rich suggests, be more of a publisher than a nonprofit administrator and fundraiser?

- Pam


___________________________________________

Date: 2/18/02
To: The Board of Leonardo
From: Mark Beam
Re: Thoughts on the Future of Leonardo

i agree with pam's comments on rich's and piero's thoughts. Particularly with regard to

1) publishing on demand targeting universities, ( this would attenuate the demand for a unified, searchable and comprehensive leonardo archive accessible from one place),
2) expanded book publications including lmj as book - also how about an annual critical review (book) that contextualizes recent developments in art/science/tech world and their historical lineage with a contemporary perspective of the current time.

rich's call for a web-centric leonardo echoes the conclusions i reached in the Leonardo Lives document which integrated sentiments expressed in interviews with board members in 1999. it also defines university faculty, students and researchers as a core audience and print on demand as a natural progression. from leonardo lives:

Professors should be able to easily fashion their own teaching modules from a combination of Leonardo resources- i.e. a series of articles from the journal archive printed on demand, books, lectures on tape, recommended bibliographies, etc.. This is also a way to extend the Leonardo brand into the University audience in a way that supports rather than competes with their own efforts. i though it is useful to note leonardo's mission and audience... again this was my read from interviews with leonardo community, board members and others...

from Leonardo Lives exec summary:

Leonardo's mission is:

+ to make visible and intelligible the work of artists involved with science and technology for a broad international audience
+ to foster collaboration between artists, scientists, and technologists by creating and supporting venues for exchange, demonstration and practical application of their work.
+ to become the premier collaborative filter and aesthetic guide to the art and technology universe

While Leonardo will strive to present its products and services in a way that is intelligible to a broad universe of people, the core constituency to whom it will direct its services are:

+ the international body of artists, scientists, technologists who use science and technology in creative ways,
+ the funders and shapers of culture- business and cultural organizations
+ the university body of faculty, students and researchers focused on the creative application of science and technology.

The primary vehicle for reaching these audiences will be the Web.

i hope we can continue this discussion, continue the momentum, and ultimately conclude with some definitive course of action.

mark


___________________________________________

Date: 3/11/02
To: The Board of Leonardo
From: Mark Beam
Re: Thoughts on the Future of Leonardo

for the digital publishing file:
http://www.zinio.com/main


___________________________________________

On 5/27/02 4:25 PM,
Mark Beam infinite@beaming.com wrote:

Mark Resch & Board,
I will not be able to attend Tuesday. I will be in LA on a last minute business trip that I could not change. First meeting I've missed in a couple of years. I'm happy you are leading the charge here.

A few comments:

Rich has some really good ideas. If I woke up a year from now and saw his vision as reality, I could live with it. Books are great instruments now, especially if you can get them out quickly (not like MIT). Books might be the perfect thing to catch the waves of change ahead. They provide both mental and physical artifacts. If this is indeed our path, then we need to pursue another publisher. Hard to live without the security of a name like MIT. Even if we did not decide to move, knowing where else we could go would be both informative and comforting. On the other hand if we can get MIT to say no more quickly to book proposals, we could take a hot list of books to another more time sensitive publisher. The college market is a good one for us. In that regard, online accessible material and print on demand (if it really works) is great way to leverage the incredible archive of articles. No discussion of this sort can lead to change without agreement on a future intellectual mission, as Roger calls it, nor without a executable strategy for sustainability.

Stephen Ruppenthal at BEA Systems, (also musician/friend of Alan Strange) would like to join the board. I think Stephen could bring more business acumen to the group. At the same time, my recommendation is to find a board member under age 30. I don't care what discipline, age, sex etc. We need youth on our board. Who's going to carry the torch if everyone over 43 fell off the planet? Perhaps we can call it the the Eminent Barbara Williams Seat. Personally I could use the constant reminder of Barbara's dedication.

Report on Creative Disturbance

Nothing has changed since my last update. Regarding renewal of Leonardo contract. I am comfortable letting all agreements lapse. I would like to keep the Leonardo presence on the Website because I want to continue to advertise the Leonardo brand. However I am happy to take the logos off if the board agrees it is in Leonardo's best interest. Would prefer CD stay on the Leonardo site, but will understand completely if they are removed. Sincere thanks to all board members for supporting our experiment. It should be known that Leonardo does own 61,332 shares in the company (the fourth largest shareholder in the company. We will continue to have modest expectations for short term growth and long term hope for the art of business.

Pat put the entire Leonardo Lives document online with other important documents. I think its worth skimming, if nothing more than recognizing our previous work and our collective expression of vision.

http://mitpress2.mit.edu/e-journals/Leonardo/isast/monograph1/isastboard/leonardolives/LeonardoLives72099.html

these board materials are linked to a title page that can be found at

http://mitpress2.mit.edu/e-journals/Leonardo/isast/monograph1/isastboard/forboard.html

which in turn is linked to the "Board Discussions" line on the

http://mitpress2.mit.edu/e-journals/Leonardo/isast/isastboard.html

Thanks for leading the charge,
Mark

___________________________________________


-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Resch [mark@archeon.com]
Sent: Tue 5/28/2002 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: Leonardo Agenda

Mark,

Thank you for your supportive comments. I am looking forward to today's meeting to nail down some concrete next steps with the board. I hope to meet with you personally to enroll your active participation when you get back in town.

Best,
Mark

___________________________________________


Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 08:06:04 -0700
Subject: Strategic Planning Exercise
From: Mark Resch mark@archeon.com

As agreed at last night's board meeting, I am sending the entire board the results of our brainstorming session. I ask that each of you do the following exercise:

Attached please find a word document containing three lists.

1. Please use the first list as a starting point to develop your list of what you are sure will definitely be an important part of Leonardo's future. You might want to cluster similar items from the list, eliminate some, or add others that were not included.
2. Please use the second list to identify three main environmental trends that we will need to consider as we design Leonardo's future. Again, you might want to cluster similar items from the list, or add others that we did not include.
3. Please use the third list to articulate the questions that we need to answer in order to guide Leonardo forward. There is really no limit here. I would like to get our uncertainties on the table - so that we can address them through our planning efforts.

I know that it's short notice, but we agreed to have responses due by Sunday evening. We have a sub group meeting on Wednesday, and I would like some time to collate your input.

Please contact me with any questions.

Best,
Mark



___________________________________________



Strategic Planning notes from Board meeting, 5/28/02

What we know to be true about Leonardo:

International reputation
We have published the works of 3500 people
Nearly all artists
High intell.standards
Cross-disciplinary
Finanancially shaky
Important to careers of some people
Cross disciplinary
Cross continental -- people from around the world
Book series only place to publish
Have been ahead of work on some topics
Objective evaluation
Lengthy process for publication
Resource for art historians
Connection to MIT press
Leonardo is one of the few points of consensus in the electronic arts world
Consensual reliability
Meeting point
Collaborated w/50 orgs
Mediocre design...old fashioned...stuffy
Competing with many other orgs
Mostly b/w
Rarely PUBLISHED WORK OF PEOPLE UNDER 30
Subscriptions to UNIVERSITY...600 LIBRARIES
SMALL AUDIENCE
SMALL, DEDICATED STAFF
Predominantly English
Primarily publish or gives voice to new faces
Web site difficult to navigate
Not in electronic forefront
Focus 60% visual, 20% music, 10% performing arts 5% literary
Strong review section
Editors from the age 30 to 80
Meaningful AND GROWING ACTIVITIES IN FRENCH LANGUAGE
Leonardo brand belongs to community


What we know about the ENVIRONMENT Leonardo exists in:

We are in the interstices of institutions
Art world is in foment: economic political education
Birth pains of a global culture made possible through Internet and digital
Artists don't make a living like they use to
Leo gets the attention of major foundations...integrity
Reexamine of intellectual property
Stability
Numerous opportunities
Collaborations "Linked model" rising
University programs institutionalizing digital arts
Important support for endorsements by Leonardo
Esoteric
Distrust elders
Fractious environment
Yet stability shouldn't be disconcedented
Greater separation between wealth and poverty
U.S Hollywood happy
Hollywood Global media environment


We are uncertain about?

We don't know who reads
We don't know what young artists want/need
We need to re-frame art-science-tech
But uncertain about new battle
Influences of critical theory
SARAI -- out of Delhi, maybe an example
How do we make Leo. More dynamic
Arts Catalyst, Rhizome, Banff What is going on in the Science world, AAA, National Academy of Science, ANAT, AAAS,
Assume art/science difference is meaningful
Increase knowledge
Archive as well as publish the cutting edge stuff
Look at what info is coming your way..
Where we come back to? Form, content, debate... continues
Book model is surviving, print on demand model discussed
Relationship with Science world
Assume Art/science/technology difference is meaningful
Form we publish in
Content topics we cover
How to bring in dynamism?


___________________________________________




TO: Leonardo Board
From: Steve Wilson
Subject: Leonardo Strategic Planning Clustering
Date: May 31, 2002

Here is my take on clustering the strategic planning ideas from the board's brainstorming session. I realized that some of our reluctance to act in the past may have come from the fact that many of ideas circulating around move in different, sometimes contradictory directions. Also, I think we may fear taking a major irrevocable step. I suggest we pick 2 or 3 initiatives, put a major effort into testing them for 2 years and then re-evaluate. Maintain our traditional patterns at the same time. Perhaps we agree to cut from 4 to 3 issues for those years and use the resources/time to do major tests of the new initiatives and to enlist the staff in the explorations?

Here are my clusters separated for analysis but obviously interrelated to other clusters:

----------1. Content

1.1 Cutting Edge: Changing definitions of the art world. Art and Technology now widely diffused. Comptuers and Internet are part of commercial life. Pick two new areas that we think will be important in the future. Concentrate on them. Commission papers/artworks? Solicit reports from scientists/technologists. Dare to be bold and out there in definition.

1.2 Science: We don't reach scientists. Less work done on integration of art/science. Develop an initiative to get scientists contributing. Solicit work. Commission reviewers to comb the academic journals and meetings.

1.3 Influence of Theory: Many young artists/analysts in our field don't think any art work makes sense that doesn't address critical theory analysis of contemporary culture. They are not excited by much of the work reported in Leonardo. Work not infused with critical attitudes toward dominant commercial and scientific power structures is seen as shallow. Explore the intersection of experimental tech art and critical theory.

1..4 Globalization: Leonardo has always had a global undercurrent. The developed world is starting to get more interested in other cultures. Perhaps do major efforts in particular areas of the world.

----------2. Audience

2.1 Art World Change - Commercial: The art and technology world is much more interpenetrated with the commercial and entertainment world than it once was - for example, game development or web based flash sites. Many young artists do not think about supporting themselves as artists in the historical ways or in showing their work in historical venues. Develop a way to serve this audience?

2.2 Tech innovation: Tech innovators and tech artists often work in similar ways. Promote the involvement of artists in the research world. Focus on reporting on this innovation.

2.3 Young artists: Most of the editors and people published are over 30. Investigate the interests of younger audiences. Does this extend down to high school?

2.4 Tech art university programs: There are more and more university based programs. Develop specific efforts targeted at them - develop future audiences.

2.5 Scientists: specific efforts to reach scientists. Perhaps science graduate students a possible focus.

----------3. Form of Delivery

3.1 Dynamic processes: New knowledge is developed in a dynamic give and take. Perhaps the process can be shared as well as the results? Develop some effort to promote dynamic interchange on some cutting edge issues and new form of publishing to expose it. Perhaps distributed internet forms. Integrated research/development/publishing.

3.2 Networked/linked processes: Experimental work with the web and Internet. Readers as participants. Use of features such as semantic webs, agents to mine the information.

3.3 Publish on demand: Explore publishing on demand in some specific focus areas.

3.4 Expand the book series: Add other publishers. Identify areas of interest and promote/solicit books in those areas. Become more agressive in marketing

3.5 Experimental journal design: For some audiences Leonardo is seen as stodgy, b&w, visually conservative, verbose, mediocre design. Develop initiative to create experimental versions with radical new visual design, more reliance on images, color.

3.6 Experimental web design: On the web experiment with flash/multimedia/streaming.

---------4. Filtering/Financial viability/collaboration

4.1 Filtering: Leonardo is judged as reliable, trusted filter. Will that be important in the future when things are changing rapidly? How do we need to revise editing/peer review in new forms of publishing?

4.2 Financial viability: Some of the intiatives will generate income. It is less clear with some of the others. Explore possiblities - more commercial version of journal? subscription web services? consultation with universities?

4.3 Collaboration: Should we inititate major collaboration efforts? With whom? for what purposes?


___________________________________________

Subject: FW: Leonardo Page Allocation
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 10:55:54 -0700
Thread-Topic: Leonardo Page Allocation
Thread-Index: AcIJa6QGh/dNBnTnEdaBdgCgyYK1vQAKVr5M
From: "Roger Malina" <rmalina@ssl.berkeley.edu>
To: <mresch@archeon.com>, <isast@well.com>, <pbentson@sfsu.edu>
Cc: <beverly@idiom.com>

to mark resch, beverly reiser
from roger malina

i think that as part of the strategic planning activity you need
to contact the people and organisations we have existing
collaborations with

does this make sense ?

one of the people that needs to be talked to is Bruce Wands
at the School for Visual Arts in NY

he is responsible for the Digital Salon- and for 7 years now
we have published an issue of leonardo in collaboration with
them

one of the things the strategic plan needs to do is to identify
the strategic partners we should work with over the next 5
years

so my question= is School for Visual Arts one such collaboration
that is strategic ? or is it time to end
the collaboration

andrea= can you maintain a list of people that need to be talked to
as part of the strategic planning and have pat bentson put it
on the web site as a list of people /collaborators that need to be talked
to

mark, beverly= i dont know how you want to organise this
but the ISAST advisory board that berverly chairs is the right body to help us
on this

roger

___________________________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Malina
Sent: Sun 6/2/2002 4:25 PM
Subject: re LEONARDO Working Groups

Web technologies are enabling /facilitating a number of on line working methods which I think Leonardo is already beginning to use with success and can help place Leonardo at the center of some leading discussions.

A science community benchmark; THE GALEX satellite project. I am most familiar with this in my scientific work where on a large multi institution satellite project a number , 6, working groups have been set up on specific topics. Each group has one or at most two coordinators, each group has 6-8 scientists (in several -sometimes 6 institutions).

Work alternates between a discussion list closed to the group, and periodic telecons to refocus the work of the group.

Periodically progress reports are prepared and diseminated to all the working group members.

There is a working group consisting of the coordinators of the working groups.

There is a web site where all the groups working papers and visuals are accessible by everyone and can be called up during telecons..

Once a year all members of all groups are invited to a science team meeting for physical face to face work.

2. Some Leonardo Examples

We already have beginnings of this methodology in the Leonardo network.

a) Annick Bureaud runs the Leonardo Art History Working Group (Frieda Ackerman Group). It consists of about twelve art historians or researchers working on documenting the work of Pionneers in art and technology. There is a discussion list. There is a web site where the collective work is displayed. Several of the working group members are faculty (Louise Poissant, Marc Battier) who have students working on the project. This group is the area of art and technology history is well placed to be very influential in the development of historical discourse. A number of members of the group are involved in Leonardo books. A call for papers attracts papers into the Journal.

b) Julien Knebuch is leading a working group on the Cultural Roots of Globalisation. There are 6 theoreticians and others in the discussion list; there is a strategy of adding one new person to the discussion list each month. A web site has bet set up for shared documentation and texts. This working group has fed into the Leonardo proposal to Ford for a conference around the topic of artists work in technologies that underlie globalisation phenomena.

c) I have led a Leonardo Space Arts Working group with 6 members. There is on line discussion but the main product has been the holding of an annual workshop. The project has led to a formal consortium between Leonardo, Arts Catalalyst and V2 for Micro gravity Interdsiciplinary Research (MIR. This consortium recently obtained funding from the European commission to fund a flight to take up artists on the Russian zero gravity training plane. The working group has established a collaboration with the SETI Institute. Papers and reports of the workshops are being published in our publications.

There are a number of Leonardo projects which involve some of, not all of the elements. I think this is a very powerful way in the post-web world to work. It is very powerful in inter-disciplinary topics, that bridge people in different institutions and locations.

What is missing to really make Leonardo capitalise on this is:

a) Some kind of long range plan on which topics are susceptible to this mode of work and which topics are timely (see Steve Wilson's recent input)

b) A paid staff person to manage/coordinate the work--(executive director). As anyone in the strategic alliances business will tell you, you need someone whose job it is to make the collaborations work.

c) Project budgets for telecons and for an annual meeting of the working groups.

d) Web technology to make it really easy for all to manage the working groups, discussion groups, shared web environment.

e) A clear implementation plan on how the output of the working group translated into texts published in leonardo journals, books, web sites etc.

Roger



___________________________________________


Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 17:51:06 -0700
Subject: re: leonardo collaborations/alliances
From: "Roger Malina" rmalina@ssl.berkeley.edu

I think that looking back two of Leonardo's real strengths have beenour publishing activities and our ethos of working by collaborating with others.

I stongly feel that this ethos of collaboration is one that we should contine todevelop and is one that is particularly appropriate when trying to work in an international and inter-disciplinary context. it is also very appropriate toan organisation that has no "bricks' just "clicks" and physical publications.

Our main weakness I feel is that we have not had paid staff (Executive Director) whosejob it was to establish and nurture those collaborations. We suffer from poor follow through in a number of areas.

For those of you that have read the "Small World" literature, or the book "Linked"by Barabosi that just came out, there is a large body of experience out there that we need to tap into.

There are a number of analytic tools that allow one to analyse effective networks.

A) The hubs, the back bone.

1) We currently have two functional "hubs" namely the Leonardo ISAST in San Francisco andthe Leonardo/OLATS in Paris. We need to analyse and strengthen this backbone but already we are reaping muliple benefits from these two functioning nodes.

ISAST focuses on publishing and awards and prizes, with lesser other kinds of activity. Should this evolve ?

OLATS focuses in the french language, on topical working projects or working groups and workshops. material for publication is fed to ISAST. Should this evolve ?

I think we have an opportunity to develop a South East asian by the beginnings of our collaborationwith Nisar Keshvani in Singapore. I would make a strong recommendation that we design in to our backbone three hubs- in san francisco, paris and singapore. I think that this give us a very powerful lever for developing our international mission. I think we need to strengthen the collaboration between the hubs so that we maximise contributions from each to projects.

2) Very naturally each of these hubs has developed strong collaborations with people an institutions that have a short geographic distance. We re inforced this by deciding that all the members of the ISAST board of directors would be in driving range of San Francisco.

We have collaborations with SFSU, CADRE at SFSJ, UC Davis through individuals. Do we want to formalise these. Are there other bay area collaborations or alliances that we should seek ? This would play into nominations for the board of directors.

OLATS has strong collaborations with Arts Catalyst in London and V2 in Amsterdam andMIM in Marseille. These need to be designed and strengthened. Are there others ? Anew one on the horizon is UNESCO. Is this the right partner ?

B) Relational links

Historically Leonardo has collaborated very concretly with a number of major playersin the art and technology fiield= with specific publication products or conferences. These have included ISEA, SIGGRAPH, SVA in NY, Art Institute in Chicago- there are many others.

We have had numerous ( 20 ?) collaborative projects involving publication byappointing Guest Editors for a three year period ( Synaesthaesia with Jack Ox and Jacques Mandlebrojt, A Life with Christa Sommerer and Ken Reynaldo etc)

Which ones do we want to maintain ? which new ones should we seek?

A glaring omission is the lack of collaboration with science or engineering organisations. This would seem to be a desirable thing if we want to increase our work in the art/science field. Mina Bissell has proposed a number of initiatives that we have failed to follow through on.

Suggestions:

i) As part of our strategic planning I stongly feel that we should confirm our do by collaborating ethos, and identify clearly which collaborations are key for the next five years=which existing ones should lapse and which new ones should be put in place.

ii) A major impediment for this is lack of the Executive Director to manage this implementation activity.

iii) I think we should strengthen the ISAST-OLATS- Nisar Keshvani back bone.

iv) I think we should strengthen the "local' collaborations around each of these hubs,

v) I think we should identify which "relational' links to other organisations we should invest in to implement our new plan. Are there one or two science or engineering organisations that would be natural partners ?

vI) It would be useful to have the perspective of our collaborators inputs in our strategic planning. It would be helpful to have an inventory of all our collaborations over the last ten years. Maybe this is something Beverly can take on.

I am sorry I will miss this weeks meeting- have fun.

roger



___________________________________________



-----Original Message-----
From: Annick Bureaud [annickb@altern.org]
Sent: Mon 6/3/2002 12:33 AM
To: Roger Malina
Subject: Re: re leonardo collaborations/alliances

Roger

This is a very good sum up. My only concern for Olats and the collaboration strengthen around the "hubs" is .... that in France, Olats has been built upon projects, ie content, and we have no one to do the administrative work, work on the follow up, on strengthening the hubs, on PR and marketing. I have been doing it "by default". But I am not interested that much in increasing this part in my work load (on the opposite, I would like to decrease it). I am more interested in producing content (my own and in partnership with others according to the projects, like Space Arts Database). How do we solve this ?

Annick


___________________________________________



-----Original Message-----
From: Annick Bureaud [annickb@altern.org]
Sent: Mon 6/3/2002 12:37 AM
Subject: Re: re LEONARDO Working Groups

Roger,

Another issue : the bilingual one. With the development of Olats, we are facing a new problem : we work in 2 languages and we have no one to do the translation (mainly from French to English), so, the project managers are left with : doing the job (content), stimulating the working group, doing the PR and ... translating. This slows down every project, the communication is not really well done because no one is a professional (or "real" ) translator, we are not capitalizing well on the synergy between our differents hubs and nodes.

Annick


___________________________________________




-----Original Message-----
From: sonya [sonyarap@lmi.net]
Sent: Tue 6/4/2002 10:57 AM
To: Mark Resch
Cc: rmalina@alum.mit.edu
Subject: Strategic Planning

Mark,

Please excuse my disparate e-notes but after much Strategic Planning incubation I would like to emphasize where I believe Leonardo could forge ahead uniquely with its present leads...in collaborations and science.

Sonya

Roger, Mark,

Much of what you describe is already articulated and anticipated in the LBS Mission and Goals
Statement. Although not written as a five year plan, this document does describe the
categorical subject areas of interest to the series, the objective of publishing 4+ books a
year and for developing enterprises to support special project books.

I can use this as a base to draft a 5 year plan and to seek LBS Committee input. It is much
more efficient to seek input from the committee this way than to just have an open ended
discussion.

joel

Roger Malina wrote:

> Joel (cc mark)
>
> re the strategic planning- in addition to contributing to the activity
> being led by mark resch- its clear that the book series will emerge as a key
> goal for development over the next 5 years- i think it would be good if
> you could activate the book series committee to put together
> a 5 year plan for the book series itself
> say the goal is to publish 4 books a year over 5 years-
> thats 20 years- how do we make sure we do this and have
> the maximum impact:
>
> within the book series we need to identify the "topical threads'
> and what books have and are being published in each, and in each identify
> potential authors to attract-and whether we see these existing threads continuing
> over the next 5 years
>
> ie the art history thread
>
> = L Henderson, F Popper....
>
> art and mathematics
>
> emmer, but also henderson (some books will be in two threads at once )
>
> the music thread...
>
> art and biology ( kac.. Thacker ? ....
>
> new media= manovich, lunenfeld
>
> but also: single book opportunities eg Vakoch that probably dont represent an
> area that will become several book thread
> then secondly identify either topical areas that we think are sufficiently new and
> interseting to warrant several books
>
> eg- the area of software art ( art/science of networks, but also artist driven computing )
> the galloway book...
>
> are there other art/science areas that are ripe for a topical thread ?
> we need to talk through any books needed for the unversity
> teaching market
>
>
> I think this needs some "theoretical "discussion on the 'structure" of the
> book series- i have suggested here that we have a strategy of having anumber
> of topical threads at a given time that we are trying to publish several books
> in- but what is the right theoretical breakdown ?
> - and also of course are there books that are not a good fit to MIT press
> that we want to actively pursue..
>
> roger