 Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Aza, as I just said, I'm the Senior Arts Policy Advisor at Creative New Zealand. This image, as some of you will realise, is from Lisa Rahana's work, which was the 2017 New Zealand entry at the Venice Biennale. It's called In Pursuit of Venus Infected. Lisa, like many New Zealand artists, is using digital technologies to transform the creative process in the way that people engage with the work. Alongside digital art-making, digital technologies now permeate the art sector, with emails, smartphones, websites, social media, customer management software, and even online funding applications. The following is a personal overview of art's funder responses to the ways artists are creating work and some of the issues and lessons for a funding body like Creative New Zealand. At first, some stats. The first two points are from the Triennial Creative New Zealand Commission Research New Zealanders in the Arts. The current 2017 survey is in the field, and we fully expect the number of people viewing arts online to increase. The third point is from Research Commissioned by New Zealand on Air. It found that the single biggest media source for daily viewing by New Zealand children, 6 to 14 years, was YouTube. 35% of New Zealand children view YouTube daily, compared with 32% for TV2. NZ on Air was concerned that if the kids were online, then New Zealand content also needed to be accessible online. I understand that NZ on Air is working with TVNZ at the moment to develop a dedicated online platform for New Zealand content for New Zealand children. The Canada Council for the Arts in 2016 commissioned a literature review of the way artists and arts funders in Canada and internationally were adapting to the digital world. For the review, the Canada Council defined three categories of digital activity. Digital is a tool in the creation of art, as per Lisa's In Pursuit of Venus. Digital is a distribution and engagement tool, as per live streaming and social media. Digital is a business tool, for instance, customer management systems and online application systems. From this review, it was apparent that arts funders tend to respond in three ways. Sometimes one, mixing and matching using different ways, but always targeted funding, creating an art form category, or an open funding model. Targeted funding is used where specific funds are made available for an identified digital activity. In recent years, CNZ has been targeting resources through its capability-building initiatives to increase the digital capability of selected arts organisations. For example, to develop a digital strategy or organizing webinars about online marketing and the use of social media. Another example of targeted funding is from Create New South Wales, which is currently offering six grants of up to $20,000 each for professional artists and cultural practitioners to develop a virtual reality work. And for anyone from New South Wales, applications close on 1 December. Another example of targeted funding is the space, www.thespace.org, which is a collaboration between the BBC and the Arts Council England. The space commissions artists to develop work and supports the creation and production and distribution of digital artworks, including digitising existing works. On the space site, there are some interesting toolkits and handy hints for making and presenting digital artwork. The art form category is where a particular art form category is established, usually called digital arts. That sits alongside the traditional categories like dance, theatre, music, et cetera. The funder identifies the activities that are able to be supported and the applicant identifies their project as a digital artwork. But they usually have a specific budget attached to the art form category digital arts and they are assessed by a specially convened panel which has expertise and knowledge about digital arts. Creative Scotland has a digital arts category whereas the Australia Council has taken a slightly different approach and recognised an emerging and experimental arts category which includes digital activity. The third method is the open funding model. And this is where funding is available to digital arts as long as they meet the programme criteria. There's no specific category for digital arts. The applicant identifies which art form their practice is based in, music, theatre, dance, et cetera, and their projects are assessed alongside other applications in that art form. Digital projects may or may not be a funding priority. In recognition of the way all art forms are now using digital technologies, Creative New Zealand disestablished the former media arts category in 2011 and replaced it with an open funding model. We also at the same time introduced a funding priority for digital activity where projects and activities that make an innovative and cost effective use of the technology was prioritised for funding. Since that priority was introduced in 2012, perceptions of what innovative has changed innovation seems to be always in a state of flux and change. For example, five years ago a New Zealand publisher who wanted to publish an e-book was considered innovative. These days it's pretty much business as usual. At the same time, Creative New Zealand also has the inter-arts category which is about projects that combine or integrate work across art forms. The category provides a funding pathway for artists and arts projects making use of digital technologies in ways that don't readily fit into an existing art form practice. However, one of the things you have to watch here is that it doesn't become a means for art form assessors and art form advisers to avoid coming to grips with the way their art forms are evolving. These are some of the digital platforms and technologies that New Zealand artists have been requesting Creative New Zealand funding support for over the last five years. The GPS technology is an example with the binge culture production of The Woman Who Forgot at the New Zealand Festival in 2016 which used the smartphone audio together with GPS Locator to get the audience to go to particular sites around the city where different events occurred, performed in front of them in a sort of site-specific promenade theatre. Seeing said clients such as Rock West, Secondary Schools Choir, the Auckland Philharmonia and Taki Rua Productions have live-streamed work via websites or on social media. And if you care to, there are hundreds of CNZ-supported projects that can be viewed on YouTube. However, they can be hard to find. A recent review of Creative New Zealand's digital funding priority found that a broad funding priority probably is no longer required or effective. The digital activity is out there and people are doing it and using it all the time. Instead, Creative New Zealand may need to take initiatives to support artists to access experiment with and create work to increase the quality, quantity and reach of New Zealand arts online and to build the arts sector's digital capabilities. Our expectation is that artists will continue to need funding to experiment and to create and present work. But there remain many issues and challenges for artists and arts organisations using digital technologies. Three issues I wish to make particular mention of are discoverability, copyright and the immersive technologies. With thousands of hours of videos being uploaded to YouTube, millions of musicians uploading their music and authors self-publishing and using e-books, it can be very hard for the artist to be discovered in this crowded content world. Discoverability becomes a bit of an issue for the artists. There are also new distributors. The international technology giants and international retailers rather than the former local publisher or radio station. With global distributors, can come any number of copyright issues and IP issues, including such things as fair use and fair dealing. I expect that these issues will be canvassed in the anticipated 2018 review of the Copyright Act. The immersive technologies, augmented reality, virtual reality, et cetera, there's a potential there for a project to cross into or between the territory that is usually looked after by another funding agency. So you have Creative New Zealand, New Zealand on Air, New Zealand Film Commission, broadcasting, all different elements of government. But the artist is breaking the boundaries of the artist for funding support will fall between the stools. The assumptions of the different agencies, funding responsibilities, need to be reconsidered in light of the digital environment. There are three sort of quick lessons here. One, for the funder, expect the unexpected. Some digital projects won't fit into an existing art form category or conform to a recognised practice. And too rigid an approach by the funder is just unhelpful. Secondly, be agnostic. Don't try and lead arts practice to a specific technology, be it analogue or digital. Not all work will be suitable for the digital environment and the artist should not feel pressured to go digital. There is also this need to work through with other agencies that can all support the artists to do what they do best, which is to recall a past, to present the present and to audition the future. Thank you.