• Share on Facebook
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by email
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by email

From Hannah Rudman, Rudman Consulting

Your arguments about the Arts Councils new focus on digital distribution (New technology new problems, AP issue 139, p2) have some flaws. As an adjective, the word distribution defines the action or process of supplying, so developing an (additional) digital channel through which to supply audiences with our product (art, objects) could be seen as an expensive undertaking. First, the product would need to be digitised, then it would have to be pushed out via digital channels. However, I think ACE uses the phrase digital distribution as a noun distribution as an act of sharing something out, implying joint effort and participation. ACEs new artform policies have participation and increasing access to more audiences at their core. Digital distribution might help achieve these aims by opening up a two-way relationship with audiences. Sharing art online can also prompt the making of virtual and terrestrial art together with and amidst online communities. So your comment that money spent on making art accessible online will not be spent on making art is not exact. Furthermore, there is much evidence to suggest that the commercial sector is keen for partnerships with the cultural sector, and is even investing in new ways to experience opera: the ENO Bayliss InsideOut project website being the most recently launched. There have been many successful cultural projects developed in partnership with PlayStation; Tate has a long-standing partnership with BT; and Watershed with HP. These partnerships have been entered into for research and development and audience sharing purposes, as much as for straight commercial benefit.