Making Craft Competitive

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Research project by Andy McDonald, Centre for Advanced Textiles, Glasgow School of Art, Scotland

For more information, contact [email protected]



"The rapid advance of computing technology has brought about an explosion in competition across all industries. Faced with overwhelming choice, consumers are becoming increasingly informed and discerning yet more diverse - people yearn to be treated as individuals. How has the textile industry responded to this new landscape? In confusing this demand for control with a desire for choice, mass-production has actually been escalated by large retailers such as Primark and Zara. This has ultimately led to the emergence of a utilitarian perception of value, with price now the primary consideration. Frictions caused by this growing imbalance of power have further destabilised the textile supply chain – when will the ‘machine’ break? As design and manufacture succumb to this cost-cutting regime; what constitutes value in today’s climate? What is the nature of the experience? Has anything really changed?

As a PhD student within the Centre for Advanced Textiles at the Glasgow School of Art; my research explores how web-based interface technologies can be used in conjunction with existing/emerging digital design & production methods, to deliver a sustainable and scalable model for the textile industry which better reflects the changing dynamics of modern society. Through the application of object-oriented programming methodologies found in software & hardware design, the intention is to develop an alternative mode of enterprise which behaves like a computer rather than a machine. By examining the underlying design patterns central to the growth of the Internet, using examples from other industries now embracing the digital revolution (such as music); the primary outcome of my research will be the development of a community-driven ecosystem (web-based software & hardware systems) enabling the design, retail and manufacture of customised textile products through the development of an open-source digital format (similar to the .mp3) which describes their modular structure.

The Internet now represents the pinnacle of human evolution because it is based on the principles of evolution. Whilst my research focuses on the textiles sector (due to the relationship between computer and printer), I am acting on behalf of craft as a whole. Why? Because craft is the ultimate symbol of human evolution, serving as the reference by which we understand ourselves – both past and present - within the context of the physical world. With media taking its place within the virtual world, this paper will discuss the need for craft to connect with multimedia in order to make sense of our future.

Discussion: The Craft Movement

By Andy McDonald.

"By studying how the contemporary craft movement has developed over the last 150 years, we see that despite numerous theories and arguments being presented by leading figures within the field, no unified definition of craft has at any time, been universally accepted amongst practitioners and commentators.

In a broad sense, it is generally accepted that the craft movement was born out of a reaction to the spectre of industrialisation – it was just the strength of this reaction that divided opinions. In particular, the dispute centred on the role of the machine within the production process and its relationship to the traditional master craftsman. Although this debate manifested through the search for a meaningful and relevant aesthetic (to displace the Victorian affinity for nostalgic re-interpretations of past historical styles ), the issues raised were representative of wider social concerns - as summarised by the literature of John Ruskin whose books The Stones of Venice and Unto This Last identified creative output as a reference for cultural wellbeing. By surrendering responsibility to the machine, were craft practitioners also handing over collective control and ownership of their field?

Whilst all parties were united in opposition to the mechanical serfdom which industrialisation threatened to create; some practitioners such as William Morris, recognised the potential of machines to alleviate the tedium and inefficiency of craft production, thereby allowing the craftsman to become more prolific and influential. It was this attitude which saw Morris establish the Kelmscott Press in 1891. Far from being a slave to the printing press, Morris used the equipment to manufacture beautifully stylised books which celebrated traditional craft values, in increased numbers . For these people, it was not the use of machines but the division of labour which endangered the integrity of their discipline. The machine was simply viewed as an extension of the tools which they had previously learned to master.

By contrast, other leading figures including Henry van de Velde, wholly rejected the use of machines, seeing them as a threat to creative endeavor and cultural identity. They feared a world where local expression would give way to global standardisation. As a result, this group of craft fundamentalists resolved to focus exclusively on traditional hand-driven processes, choosing to emphasise the skill and creativity of their work.

With these divisions in place, the passage of time and the advance of technology have further distanced the two extremes leading to the crisis of identity that modern craft now faces. With so many disparate groups now practicing their own interpretations; what is meaning of craft? How do we recognise it? Should we preserve it or should we progress it?

For the time being, I would argue that the true meaning is largely irrelevant; when discussing craft in the present tense, I believe the only view that actually matters is the one seen through the lens of modern capitalism. As such, craft must be defined by the cycle of (direct and indirect) processes involved in the marketing of craft products – including research & development, procurement of materials, scheduling of resources, fabrication & assembly, storage & transportation, promotion, sales, etc. In essence, this represents the supply chain that drives the demand and consumption of these goods, thus creating a market.

Why is Craft Not Competitive?

Given the title of this paper, one can deduce that I believe craft to be no longer competitive. Pressed further, I would suggest that under the existing conditions, craft is only sustainable as a pastime rather than a livelihood because it is simply not profitable enough anymore. Whilst the craft community procrastinated over how best to respond to the industrial revolution, the capitalist agenda progress unabated - the machine has prevailed. In order to validate this premise, we must firstly understand the nature of the market in which craft is supposedly competing (or not).

Having framed the craft industry within the context of the capitalist ideology; it follows that as an economic activity, the overall aim of craft (and every practitioner and collective therein) must be to generate profit by way of sales - thereby fueling growth, leading to greater profit, increased market share and so on. In this sense, competence lies in the ability to maximise the monetary value added through the supply chain, by transforming raw materials into finished goods which can then be sold at a price higher than the cost of their production.

Using furniture as an example of a significant market for such products, we can see that any craftsperson currently making and selling furniture is in direct competition with all other furniture manufacturers and retailers vying for placement of their products within the homes of the population – the point being that this competition includes large corporations such as IKEA, Tesco, Next and Wal-Mart. As the mechanism which drives the capitalist regime transitions from industrialisation to globalisation, the competitive advantage of these organisations extends further. With their massive buying power, high-volume production facilities, worldwide distribution networks, multi-million pound advertising budgets and mega-sized retail outlets; these corporations are able to openly reproduce any piece of furniture in larger quantities, in less time and at a fraction of the cost / price. Compare this to the humble workshop / studio facilities of the typical craft worker. Without any discernable difference in the function, aesthetic or quality of these replicas; this equates to better value for the consumer and greater profit margins for the corporation. Needless to say, this scenario is mirrored across all markets (often with the same big brand retailers in control). The craft-based supply chain simply cannot match the economies of scale generated by its competitors through the cycle of mass production and mass consumption.

The fundamental problem I am alluding to is that within the capitalist system, markets are defined by products not processes. As such, demand is orgainised into product categories (eg: clothing, furniture, vessels, interiors, jewellry, etc) instead of process classifications derived from the traditional guild system (eg: weaving cloth, carving wood, sculpting clay, blowing glass, forming metal, etc). Unfortunately, as we have seen, the value of craft lies in the process of creation rather than the resulting product. For this reason, the term craft industry is an oxymoron – just as the craftsperson is in competition with the corporation; the craft community is in competition with capitalism.

To those of you who will dismiss this outlook as a brutally skeptical line of reasoning designed to undermine the cultural significance of craft… I completely agree. Craft is more than just an economic activity however, my argument is based on the reality of modern society. In truth, the word craft has lost its cachet. Such is the growing influence and inertia of the capitalist machine, western culture does not recognise the true value of craft and is therefore unwilling to pay a premium for it.

The Evolution of Craft

Having viewed craft from a purely commercial perspective and established the reasons why the craft community is losing its place within the modern consumerist landscape; let us return to the central issue: what is craft? I believe that the critical mistake made by the crafts profession has been to define itself by its relationship to industry. In doing so, craft has denied its own evolution and contribution to humanity; in the same way that many people define themselves by their relationship to religion. Craft existed long before the capitalist machine seized control of society and craft will continue long after it malfunctions. This is because craft is a fundamental human behaviour; one which the system must repress in order to maintain its position of control.

We only need to look at cultures in parts of the world which are yet to be corrupted by the forces of capitalism, to witness the true spirit of craft – Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, African tribes, etc. In this context, craft is an inherently local activity specific to the culture of its origin. That is not to say the craft of one culture cannot be appreciated by those of another, but that the globalisation of a single craft ideal threatens the very notion of cultural identity. Just as John Ruskin understood, it is through craft that we understand our own culture as well as that of others.

Before we can understand how to overcome the dominance of capitalism, we must firstly expand our definition of craft beyond the last 150 years of western culture. More importantly, we must address the apparent fear of technology which persists amongst the craft community.

It is generally accepted within the scientific domain that the point at which modern humans (Homo Sapiens) distinguished themselves from their parent species (Homo Erectus), was about 130,000 years ago when we first began using tools to make objects (including more advanced tools) from natural materials . It is also understood that the definition of technology is the knowledge and use of tools to extend / enhance the (functional and expressive) capabilities of the human body and the human mind. In this sense, our grasp of technology is largely what defines us as human.

We do not use our hands to drink because our ancestors developed vessels which also allowed us to store and transport liquids. We no longer have fur because they developed clothing which enabled us to adapt to different environments. Even before language had been fully vocalised, jewelry and other wearable artifacts were used to express one’s status within a group.

As our understanding of nature improved, so too did our technology. The human body was never designed to fly; yet by observing the principles which keep birds airborne, we were able to develop aircraft. It is this ability to override our own evolution by mimicking the patterns and behaviours observed in the natural world, which has allowed humans to progress at a much faster rate than any other species on earth.

What was once the cutting edge of technology, is now known as craft therefore, craft must be considered the first form of technology. Indeed, the word technology is actually derived from the Greek word technologia meaning ‘craft saying’ . Whilst this translation may seem somewhat ambiguous, my own understanding is that craft can be thought of as colloquial technology which has been filtered down through science, engineering and design. It is more concerned with expression than strict definition. This kind of technological slang can be used by anyone but is interpreted differently by each culture. With this in mind, the significance and contribution that craft has made to human evolution should never be under-valued.

The Evolution of Media

In my brief explanation of human evolution, one significant factor was omitted – the role of language and communication as a means of supplementing genetic inheritance. Through the use of language, humans have been able to communicate information from one generation to the next, thus maintaining the continual progression of knowledge and understanding. It is important to note that language is not solely confined to the spoken word, but also includes other forms of audio or visual communication and expression. For this reason, my subsequent analysis shall use the word media - defined as a format for presenting information - when referring to this feature of human behaviour.

By its very nature, it is difficult to precisely chart the early origins of media however, it can be assumed as an ever-present characteristic of human behaviour given that all species exhibit some degree of communication through systems of sound and body language.

One important factor which sets us apart from animals, is that humans developed tools to not only create but also capture media, thus allowing it to be stored and transported by way of a medium. As such, media can also be considered a form of technology – although somewhat less tangible. Probably the best example of this unique capability being the system of symbols used to encode speech known as text. More specialised forms of media that have evolved include music, illustration, photography, poetry, animation, film and literature.

Despite certain fundamental differences, the underlying parallels between craft and media are extremely strong in that we can also use media to gain insight into a particular culture. In combination, I believe the two disciplines are lasting symbols of human evolution, with their outputs acting as the reference by which we understand all present and previous civilisations. As with craft, media is inherently localised and relative to the place and time of its creators. Both involve artistic processes requiring skilled use of often primitive tools in order to add creative expression beyond functional requirement. Perhaps the most significant commonality with respect to my argument, lies in the effect of industrialisation at the hands of capitalism – particularly in response to the mechanised reproduction for subsequent mass consumption of creative work which threatened many of the traditional roles of the media profession.

If we revisit my original case for asserting that craft is no longer competitive, we can see that much of this reasoning can also be applied to media. Using music instead of furniture, an individual or group of musicians would be analogous to the furniture craftsperson or collective in the previous example. When it comes to competition for sales, independent musicians simply cannot match the supply chain of the capitalist machine. Once again, the corporate giants have access to massive buying power, high-volume production facilities, worldwide distribution networks, multi-million pound advertising budgets and mega-sized retail outlets and once again, we see many of the same retailers in control. Case in point, Wal-Mart is the world’s largest music retailer – not bad for a supermarket chain. How can the independent musicians possibly compete enough to make it their livelihood? This is because music in western culture, is primarily an economic activity very much focused on the product rather than the creative process.

At the risk of repeating myself, I would suggest that this is not the case in cultures outwith the reach of capitalism. To these cultures, music is just as important to their heritage as the craft of their furniture, of their jewelry, their clothing, pottery, and so on. The thought of a global style of media is an affront to cultural identity in exactly the same way.

Whilst I fully acknowledge certain fundamental differences between craft and media (derived from the fact that media is less tangible and not constrained by the limitations of its own physicality in the way that craft is); these disparities have always existed. My argument is that the intent of the capitalist agenda however, is identical in both cases.

When Will the Machine Break?

Before we examine my strategy for ‘making craft competitive’; we must firstly learn about the mechanics of capitalism. What are the features of capitalism which have allowed it to become so utterly dominant? Only once we have studied how the machine functions, can we understand its limitations.

Until this point, the word digital has not been mentioned. The word digital changes everything. In this section I shall draw heavily on the writings of Eben Moglen whose work repurposes the philosophical arguments presented by Karl Marx, and applies them within the context of the digital age. In particular, Moglen’s paper, The dotCommunist Manifesto (2003), which directly extends Marx’s highly influential, The Communist Manifesto (1848).

According to Moglen, the 21st Century will see the development of software replace the production of steel as the root process which underpins all subsequent social and economic activity . As the historian, software engineer and the lawyer who pioneered the General Public License (GPL) - a legal framework governing the development and distribution of open-source software - he predicts this transition will bring about the fall of capitalism by means of a revolution not even Marx could envisage – a revolution without violence or coercion.

Moglen frames his theory within the historical context of the class struggles which have been a defining feature of all previous civilisations and societies therein. Whilst the issues of contention and the parties involved may be unique, all are characterised by the roles of ‘the oppressors and the oppressed’. In the case of the industrial revolution, the struggle is one fought between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

As we have seen, prior to the industrial revolution, the means of production for all of society’s cultural wares (craft and media) was largely dispersed throughout the population by means of simple yet specialised tools and techniques. With the advent of the machine, production became more centralised in the hands of those who could afford this new technology. It was at this point when, behind closed doors, the forces capitalism drew up the contractual arrangement that was to define the relationship between bourgeoisie and proletariat for the foreseeable future.

Be it opportunistic or premeditated, the foundation of the capitalist doctrine lies in the ability to separate the creators from the consumers of culture, where there had previously been no such division. In positioning itself as mediator of all cultural output, the bourgeoisie secured control of society. This redistribution of power occurred largely without incident because the specific terms of the capitalist arrangement was to the benefit of both classes. Whilst the bourgeoisie held ownership of the machinery of production, the proletariat could exchange their labour in return for financial reward – the fuel of consumption:

…capitalism was enabled by technology to secure for itself a measure of consent. The modern laborer in the advanced societies rose with the progress of industry, rather than sinking deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. Pauperism did not develop more rapidly than population and wealth. Rationalized industry in the Fordist style turned industrial workers not into a pauperized proletariat, but rather into mass consumers of mass production. Civilizing the proletariat became part of the self-protective program of the bourgeoisie. (Moglen, 2003)

The bourgeoisie kept their end of the bargain by constantly advancing technology – both in the methods of production and consumption. As the falling price of goods forced traditional craft into decline; innovations in telephony, sound recording, radio and television heralded the age of media broadcasting funded by media advertising. In order to maintain the separation, the culture of celebrity could now be introduced as the carrot used to motivate the aspirations of the proletariat. Media was now both a commodity and a means of directing further consumption towards ends that were profitable to its new owners. With inevitable obsolescence now built into the cycle, capitalism had become a self-realising prophecy.

With these components now in place, capitalism could itself be commoditised as industrialisation gave way to globalisation:

The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt its culture and its principles of intellectual ownership; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image. But the very instruments of its communication and acculturation establish the modes of resistance which are turned against itself. (Moglen, 2003)

Perhaps the most significant enabler of capitalism’s technological progression was the rapidly growing field of electronics which underpinned many of the advances being made. As the previously detached industries of computing and communications began to converge, the emergence of digital technology marked yet another revolutionary achievement for bourgeois society. What began as a far more efficient system of transmitting and storing data soon gave birth to the ultimate media broadcasting and advertising system; a system that pushed the previous models of radio and television to a new level; a system which would produce the largest monopoly in the history of capitalism. Comprising a vast network of terminals all connected to a global distribution network, this was of course the combination of the home computer and the Internet. Although computers had been used in industry for a number of years, it would be the creation of the Windows operating system that brought the concept to the masses and with it, Microsoft instantly became the muse of bourgeois capitalism – with almost no marginal cost, the corporation was able to generate billions in revenue. Society was once again accepting of this breakthough technology in line with all previous groundbreaking advances.

Whereas radio and television networks had previously been far too expensive for ordinary citizens to create their own stations / channels (due to the limitations of analogue signal bandwidths); it was now possible and affordable for anyone to create their own website.

Although the first phase of the Internet proved a damaging yet by no means life-threatening blow to the existing corporate league, as legions of smaller companies were able to respond far more effectively to the new possibilities of the digital society; it is now the current phase (known as Web 2.0) that represents a very real danger to the forces of capitalism. So caught up in all the new possibilities for generating wealth, capitalism has overlooked its own founding principle – the separation of creators and consumers. The Internet is no longer the passive medium that print, radio and television were. Isolation through competition has been replaced with collaboration by association and with it; society is reclaiming ownership and control of its media as new forms of direct social interaction emerge - instant messaging, blogging, podcasting, citizen-journalism, user-generated content, social networking, online dating:

Digital technology transforms the bourgeois economy. The dominant goods in the system of production - the articles of cultural consumption that are both commodities sold and instructions to the worker on what and how to buy - along with all other forms of culture and knowledge now have zero marginal cost. Anyone and everyone may have the benefit of all works of culture: music, art, literature, technical information, science, and every other form of knowledge. Barriers of social inequality and geographic isolation dissolve. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of people. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual people become common property. Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer’s apprentice, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. (Moglen, 2003)

Four years after The dotCommunist Manifesto was published, a number of Moglen’s forecasts are already being realised. We are no longer divided into creators and consumers, but are once again reunited as users of culture. As YouTube and MySpace have demonstrated, globalisation has led to localisation and Web 2.0 is all about communities. Does communism still seem such a dirty word?

The Second Evolution of Humanity

Having shown how the rise of the Internet can / will bring about the fall of capitalist domination, allow me to place this social movement within the wider context of human evolution by returning to the definition of technology I used earlier.

Given that technology can be thought of as the knowledge and use of tools to extend / enhance the natural capabilities of the human body and the human mind; it is my belief that humanity is on the cusp of an evolutionary phase equal in significance to that which took place 130,000 years ago. Whilst the first evolution of humanity saw the construction of the physical world we see around us; I propose that our second evolution will see the development of the virtual world - a world where the physical limitations of space and time do not exist. Having established that it is our grasp of tools and language that largely define us as human; we can see the same pattern emerging in the virtual domain through the use of software tools and programming languages based on the principles found within nature. For instance, one of the key principles in computer science is inheritance.

By examining how far the Internet has progressed over the last 30 years, we can see that media – by its traditional definition as a format for presenting information - has taken its place within the virtual world in the form of multimedia. Using software tools, we are able to create and capture media in digital format, thereby enabling storage, transportation and reproduction. For example, songs are converted to MP3s… photos are converted to JPEGs… films are converted to MPEGs. In the same way that I suggested media was used by various cultures / tribes in the past; multimedia is now being used by online communities. The technology used to encode media may have changed however, its contribution to cultural identity remains the same.

So what is the role of craft within the virtual world? If my analogy is to remain consistent then the development of web-based software (ie: websites) must be the craft of the virtual world. Remember: what was once the cutting edge of technology, will eventually filter down through science, engineering and design to become craft. Bearing in mind that we are still very early on in the evolution of the virtual world, I believe that the future of craft lies in what is currently known as object-oriented programming. Do not be scared, this is simply a term used to describe the practice of building the interactive objects within a piece of software like a website. A simple example of such an object would be a button or a menu on a web-page.

This will no doubt be a very difficult concept for many readers to comprehend because most websites are based on the metaphor of a book (hence the term web-page) however; in the future websites will become more like computer games whereby users will be able to create their own character and walk around a 3D environment just like in the physical world (hence the term virtual world). When this happens, users will no longer interact with simple 2D buttons but with 3D representations of objects in the physical world. As such, the virtual world needs craftspeople to craft these objects just as much as it needs architects to architect buildings. By using software to create these objects, craft products will be able to exist within the virtual world as well as the physical world, in the same way that humans can. For example, imagine that whenever you purchase an article of clothing, in addition to the physical product, you would also receive a digital version of the garment to be worn by your character in the virtual world.

To those who might suggest that the transition from science-fiction is some time away, I would recommend a visit to where you will see that much of this is already happening.

Humans have not evolved to become the most successful species on earth due to the strength of our bodies, but by the strength of our minds - more specifically, through our ability to control the body using the mind. Throughout this paper, I have sought to link capitalism and the industrial revolution with the symbol of the machine. The analogy I wish to draw is that the machine is only an extension of the body whereas the computer - as the symbol of communism and the digital revolution - represents an extension of the mind. As such, my research is based on the belief that we should use the computer to control the machine, the virtual world to control the physical world. In this sense, the challenge I am responding to is the need to find an equilibrium between these, and many other, dialectic extremes.

Conclusion: Making Craft Competitive

Having presented my interpretation of the past, the present and the future of craft within the context of human evolution and identified the combination of craft and media as the reference by which we understand our own past, present and future. All that remains is for me to briefly describe the nature of my doctoral research project. How do I plan to help craft become competitive under the present circumstances? By connecting it with multimedia.

As has already been discussed, the problems of the craft community stem from the inefficiency of its supply chain when compared to that of its industrial counterparts. The remit of my research is simple – to develop a craft-based supply chain that nullifies capitalism’s greatest strength, the mass production and mass consumption of standardised products.

My research focuses on digitally printed textiles because in my view, it is the one discipline that straddles both media and craft. By examining the successful transition of multimedia into the virtual world we can see that it is based on the ability to encode media into a digital format which can be read by computer software. If we consider the PDF file format for example; with over 95% of internet-enabled computers being able to create, display and print PDF files, it has become the de facto standard for encoding paper-based documents. If you simply switch the metaphor from paper to textile then you have the basis for encoding printed textile products into a digital format. With this in mind, the intention of my research is to develop an open-source digital format for representing the modular structure of textile products based on the PDF specification.

As you may be aware, Adobe Systems sell a broad range of off-the-shelf software programs which allow users to interact with and manipulate the data held within a PDF file in various ways (eg: Acrobat, Photoshop, Flash, etc). By simply building on top of this existing platform, the software can be used to design textile products which can then be saved as an interactive PDF and uploaded to a server. Potential consumers can then visit a website where they can customise their own version of a particular product (based on the designs which have been uploaded). Once satisfied, the user can place an order and make payment. At this point, all of the design parameters which have been specified by the customer are automatically input into the PDF. The file now contains all the information required to manufacture the textile product (including assembly instructions) and is sent to a production facility near to where the customer lives. In much the same way that you would print out a standard PDF document at home, the resulting PDF is digitally printed onto textile. It is then cut and assembled before being delivered locally to the customer.

With all storage, transportation and processing being carried out digitally, the costs involved are almost negligible when compared with the equivalent supply chain of industrial mass production. Theoretically, with no difference in price, I am confident that most modern consumers would prefer customised products over standardised offerings. The greatest strength however, lies in the fact that the entire supply chain is based on open web standards such as the PDF format. As a result, the interface which allows customers to interact with the product can be seamlessly embedded into any website.

In truth, this is only a very superficial description of the system I am proposing – nevertheless, with PDFs now able to capture 3D information and the advances being made in 3D printing; the opportunity for craft to be competitive once again will soon be a reality. With creators and consumers once again working in collaboration, the value of the creative process can finally be restored.


(all links are accurate as of 8/4/08)

Moglen, E (2006) Software and the Community in the Early 21st Century. [seminar]

Moglen, E (2003) The dotCommunist Manifesto.

Barlow, J. P. (1992) The Economy of Ideas.

Muglan, G et al. (2005) Wide Open: Open-Source Methods and their Future Potential. Demos.

Lessig, L (2002) The Future of Ideas. Vintage

Lessig, L (2005) Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity. Penguin

Pine, J (1993) Mass Customisation: The New Frontier in Business Management. Harvard Press

Pine, J and Gilmore, J (1999) The Experience Economy: Work is Theatre & Every Business a Stage. Harvard Press

Various (nd) The Victorian Web.

Various (nd) Wikipedia.

More Information

Bio at: McDonald, Andy