Digital technology is no longer an option but an established fact throughout the world. It closed the gap between present and future, creating a conversation between today and tomorrow. So it is crucially important to be able to manage the latest technologies in order to predict and build the future. The “cloud” we inhabit as both consumers and producers of digital data – twenty-first century black gold – offers major economic and social opportunities. Ignoring futile arguments about whether digital technology is a good thing or a bad thing, this meeting examined the positive applications of the relationship between culture and the digital domain, with particular reference to tourism.
The first of the two sessions examined the implications for cultural assets and tourism. The debate proceeded from Oxford Economics’ November 2014 study, “The impact of Online Content on European Tourism”. The study has three messages: first, online searches for cultural content are increasingly important; second, wealthier tourists search for more of this content online; third, such content is becoming more sophisticated and reliable. So cultural interests are crucial to the choice of travel destinations, particularly in the case of people from wealthy countries. But the point is that Italy scores 29%, whereas the European average is 49%. Furthermore, 31% of tourists interested in Italy search for cultural content online, as against a European average of 22%.
So online cultural content is a crucial driver behind tourism, though not yet to a great extent in Italy. It can also boost the country’s economic growth. With its unique artistic assets, it is crucial for Italy to increase the presence of such cultural content online to allow tourism to grow by 1% of GDP. Of course this means attracting high value-added tourism, using technology to complement experience, rather than dominate it.
The message should be the following: in order for art works to be fully appreciated, they need to be experienced “live”. Sensing the local atmosphere is key. This protects both the location and the combined cultural and human experience.
Some say that this kind of project requires a single national steering mechanism to provide legislative consistency and policy choices, such as tax relief for investors in tourism.
One participant argued that there is no synergy between culture and tourism, that in fact they sometimes clash, and that all they have in common is their force of attraction. This depends on people, research, and funding, but also dreams and symbols. It depends on where these processes are managed and what balance is established between the public and private spheres. The digital domain is neutral and the crucial question is how we use it. In this respect, Italy provides the ideal test bench, on account of the country’s unique nature and its wealth of assets.
There are certainly some aspects on which political decisions need to be made. Though digital technology has – through the shared economy and tourism platforms – expanded the offer and made it possible to discover hitherto unknown locations, it has made it necessary to reconcile the differences between digital and traditional agents. The other recurrent issue in the digital domain is Big Data and its use. In tourism, too, users can be profiled on the basis of the websites they visit, the hotels and means of transport they use, and their spending capacity. Politicians must decide whether to rely on the ability of platforms to regulate themselves or to launch measures that will not hamper innovation or destroy or limit the benefits of the new technologies.
At the same time, we must keep in mind the role of digital technology in the field of culture and its preservation. For instance, in five years, the Google Cultural Institute has acquired 1,270 partners in 70 countries, having started with just 17. It provides a glimpse of locations and attracts visitors there. It allows even those unable to travel for various reasons to form an impression of archeological sites, artworks, and museums around the world. It creates copies to preserve artworks from the ravages of time and possible destruction by natural or human causes. It also provides an opportunity to experience art in different ways, complementary to the “real” experience.
The example was given of the conquest and destruction of parts of Palmyra and its remains. Though some of these remains were subsequently discovered in Switzerland (ready to be sold, probably to finance terrorists), the havoc wrought in Palmyra sparked worldwide condemnation, in some ways even greater than the outrage over the war’s human victims. Some say this is because artworks embody identity: their physical destruction corresponds to the elimination of much more than the artifact itself. So digitization makes it possible to reproduce a masterpiece and the historical and cultural values that it represents. It maintains the connection with the country of origin and the host country, offering an opportunity for integration. It is also a useful cataloguing tool, to which end greater synergy was recommended with municipal and parish authorities and volunteer organizations linked to national cultural bodies.
So digital is here to stay, and we must focus on studying the future, as do Sweden’s Ministry of the Future, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Rio de Janeiro’s Museum of Tomorrow (which opened in 2015), or the Museum of the Future opening in Abu Dhabi in March 2017. What about Italy? Italy should be a frontrunner, with the multidisciplinary skills of the Renaissance, its craftsmen, its creators, and its ability to build prototypes. Otherwise the 3-D printer will remain a dead letter.
By 2020, six billion people will be connected to the internet, most of them via portable devices (smartphones and tablets). Every minute, 400 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube alone, some by amateurs, but increasingly also by multimedia industry players. Such firms use the internet as an opportunity to maximize profits on their products and to boost the lesser well known.
The numbers are eloquent: in the G20 countries, the digital economy now accounts for 25-30% of growth in GDP. This is an important opportunity for Europe – Europe’s creators attract 25% of viewing time worldwide – and for Italy in particular. Italy’s goods are attracting more and more search engine hits. But to exploit these opportunities to the full there needs to be an effective struggle against piracy and adequate copyright protection.
Major results have been achieved on this front both by offering legal alternatives to those searching for digital content and by pursuing a follow-the-money strategy. Websites providing pirated content now operate as businesses, making their profits from advertising content. Tracking this revenue has made it possible to shut down many illegal websites. A great deal has been done to protect copyright through huge investments in new technological resources: the digital ID alone has absorbed $60 billion in investments.
As for legislation, the recent European directive on the subject has the difficult task of achieving a balance between protection and use of copyright, amid growing creativity and innovation. Many advocate talks involving creators, copyright owners, businesses, and institutions. The aim is to take a different approach to analyzing prevention and control by the various players and to facilitate the transition to electronic publishing. Otherwise, there is a danger of over-regulation and a system of subsidies that will favor some players but inhibit innovation and creativity. A harmonious European system that can exploit the potential of digital resources can also compete more effectively with the United States and China in the digital marketplace.
With regard to data protection, attention focused on the thorny issue of user profiling and the difficult alchemy between creators – including those active on YouTube, Netflix, and other platforms – copyrightt owners, manufacturers and various business, and the institutions. Last, it was stressed that over-regulation would give rise to digital blocs, which would restrict innovation and economic growth and therefore jobs. This would be most damaging to the young creators of the “C Generation” – “C” for connection, that is. Unlike their parents, for whom a smartphone is just a phone, these youngsters use those chunks of glass, metal and silicon as a two-way door onto the world. They use it together with TV to acquire content and as a television studio to broadcast their opinions, dreams and worries to the world.
Some pointed out that we are in a transitional phase in which, with 90% of users connected via portable devices, the content being disseminated was actually designed to be enjoyed via different media. The consequent fragmented and disorganized information is giving rise to a new language and impoverished culture among young people. Education could certainly play a part, by helping youngsters to use digital media appropriately. This is no easy task, though even schools are moving fast toward phase 2.0.
And yet those who have engaged openly with young people feel optimistic. Youngsters who started out using digital tools for entertainment have since mastered them and now use them professionally. Not only in the old sense of the term, but as a toolbox containing entertainment, challenges, and self-development opportunities. One example is the 21-year-od Italian whose YouTube channel has 100,000 followers. This person combines study and work, counterbalancing several different professions, without really specializing in any. The YouTuber’s activities span the whole spectrum from creation to distribution of digital content.