School of Tomorrow

“This country has been too London-centric for far too long.” - David Cameron, 2 Oct 2013

Cryptocurrencies

• How do Bitcoin and other crypto currencies work?
• How does taxation on Bitcoin work? (taxation on private currencies)

All bitcoins you earn as 'income' are taxable. If you make a transaction with bitcoin (eg buying a coffee) you may be making a capital gain depending on the price of the bitcoin when you bought it and when you used it to buy something, therefore it is taxable. You are not taxed if you bought Bitcoins or any crypto-currencies with your own money.

Co-education / Co-evolution

Kevin Kelly's Out of Control:

"The dethronement of learning is one of the most exciting intellectual frontiers we are now crossing. In a virtual cyclotron, learning is being smashed into its primitives. Scientists are cataloguing the elemental components for adaptation, induction, intelligence, evolution, and coevolution into a periodic table of life. The particles for learning lie everywhere in all inert media, waiting to be assembled (and often self-assembled) into something that surges and quivers.

Coevolution is a variety of learning. Stewart Brand wrote in CoEvolution Quarterly: "Ecology is a whole system, alright, but coevolution is a whole system in time. The health of it is forward-systemic self-education which feeds on constant imperfection. Ecology maintains. Coevolution learns."

Colearning might be a better term for what coevolving creatures do. Coteaching also works, for the participants in coevolution are both learning and teaching each other at the same time. (We don't have a word for learning and teaching at the same time, but our schooling would improve if we did.)"

Radical Financial Transparency

• How would radical financial transparency affect the financial system if at all? If individuals were to publicly share their own expenditures and investments (like in QS), would this affect choices made by companies and individuals?

Public Art

• In Mexico, artists can pay tax through artworks - since 1957, artists can participate in a Pago en Especie (Payment in Kind) program. If an artist sells up to five pieces in one calendar year, the artist donates one of equal value to the state. If the artist sells six to eight pieces, the artist donates two. The sliding scale continues until an artist gives a maximum of six pieces. ‘Pay your taxes in artwork. Keep on painting.’ The art works are in government offices as well as public buildings.”A rotating committee of seven artists and curators evaluates proposed donations to see whether they fairly represent the body of work of a given artist. “More than evaluate the monetary value of a work, the experts decide if the work is representative of the artist’s oeuvre,” Lopez Beltran said.

• PERCENT FOR ART: Some governments actively encourage the creation of public art, for example, budgeting for artworks in new buildings by implementing a Percent for Art policy. 1% of the construction cost for art is a standard, but the amount varies widely from place to place.
• London spending on public arts 15 times higher than rest of UK - “Public spending on the arts is heavily skewed towards London, with people in the capital benefiting to the tune of £69 per head compared with £4.58 in other English regions, a new report suggests” - Source: http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2013/oct/31/public-arts-spending-london-15-times-greater
• The report proposes a new national investment programme of £600m – money made available by limiting London's access to lottery cash – that would, over the five years of a parliament, have responsibility for investment in new cultural production outside London. The authors suggest one problem is that most decisions taken on public funding of the arts are taken by the "centre" – as in the government and Arts Council England. That accounts for 75% of funding decisions, whereas the equivalent is 13% in Germany, 15% in Spain, 36% in Spain and 51% in France.
• Rebalacing our Cultural capital - "“We share a vision of a ‘polycentric’ and internationally networked Britain of many cultures with autonomously dispersed resources for artistic and cultural production supported by and celebrated in a capital city that ‘irrigates rather than drains’ in the arts as in other areas of national life.”
• Map of London's Outdoor Public Art

Tilted Arc (A case of public art and art law)

• Interesting story of Richard Serra's Tilted Arc, commissioned by the United States General Services Administration Arts-in-Architecture program for the Foley Federal Plaza in front of the Jacob Javits Federal Building in Manhattan, New York City. "The viewer becomes aware of himself and of his movement through the plaza. As he moves, the sculpture changes. Contraction and expansion of the sculpture result from the viewer's movement. Step by step the perception not only of the sculpture but of the entire environment changes." Those who worked in the area found the sculpture extremely disruptive to their daily routines, and within months the work had driven over 1300 bureaucratic employees in the greater metro area to sign a petition for its removal. The trial involving Tilted Arc is cited as the most notorious public sculpture controversy in the history of art law.
• It was argued in the trial that the work would "run the risk of deflecting explosions into government buildings opposite and impeded adequate surveillance of the area beyond." A public hearing was held on the subject of the sculpture in March 1985, with 122 people testifying in favor of keeping the piece, and a mere 58 in favor of removing it. Notable speakers arguing in favor of the sculpture included Philip Glass, Keith Haring, and Claes Oldenburg. Artists, art historians, and even a psychiatrist testified for the sculpture to remain in its location. Local workers argued for removal: one person stated: "Every time I pass this so-called sculpture I just can’t believe it ... The General Services Administration, or whoever approved this, this goes beyond the realm of stupidity. This goes into even worse than insanity. I think an insane person would say, ‘How crazy can you be to pay $175,000 for that rusted metal wall?' You would have to be insane-more than insane." A jury of five voted 4–1 to remove the sculpture. The decision was appealed by Serra, leading to several years of litigation in the courts, but the sculpture was dismantled and placed in storage by federal workers on the night of March 15, 1989.