Picasso (1907) Source: Wikipedia

Richard Ogle described how Picasso came to paint ‘the first real masterpiece of the 20th Centrury’, the Les Demoiselles d’Avignon. In his book ‘Smart World‘ Ogle argues that there is no such thing than the lonesome Genius who came up with the idea overnight.

Regardless of profession or calling, Ogle argues, that humankind has a collective consciousness in which trailblazers like Picasso delve to retrieve their ground breaking ideas. Picasso is quoted in referring to African art for the inspiration of this painting.

By thinking outside the brain and tapping into the extended History and wealth of experience of the extended Mind (Ogle 2007, 10) we see how all great inventions actually came to be. Think of the internet itself- Wikipedia is just one example of such an extended external brain in action.

It is interesting to look at intangible assets in firms that way. Perhaps intangible assets (Intellectual Property, Trademarks and Patents) and their nature of ’suddenly leaping onto stage’, thus ‘disrupting the status quo’ are just an expression of where we are going as a human society. Look closely and we can see how the collective conscious is opening up individual creativity, for example with the ‘Open Source’ concept.

Not one company can claim to ‘own the ideas’ since everything is connected through history, material, memory. This is a scary thought for economists and accountants alike. Yet, this disruptive idea space (Ogle) was first named by Schumpeter as prerequisite to entrepreneurship.

The intangible is quickly becoming a new stage of consciousness, a way forward to the next new thing. It is true that our current Western business models  can’t put a price tag on it- which I assume means ‘making the intangible tangible’ in current economic thinking. If the summary of collective social networks are actually creating the new value in our economies than it is time to investigate the consistency of this mix instead of denying its contribution to firm assets as not quantifiable.

We strive to match Plato’s world view when we describe the intangible as follows: we interpret the world in terms of archetypes (good-bad, beauty-ugly, single-multi, intangible-tangible, asset-non-asset…).We strive to define it by using changeless absolutes and look for the essence of universal truth and structure about ‘intangible assets’.

We ask what is the precise relation between the pattern of ‘intangible asset’ and the empirical world of everyday reality. Why is this important to the way we do business 2000 years later?

In scholarly debate, intangible assets (IA) are often defined as…

…including those factors that are nonphysical sources of economical benefit and are rarely, if at all included in the firm’s financial statements… Intangible resources include intellectual property, culture, reputation and know-how. The researchers found that investment in these asset groups are indeed of competitive advantage to firms (Galvin & Galbreath 2006,152).

By ascertaining the underlying patterns of things we are researching the meaning of IA. We are actually chasing Plato’s archetype of IA, the ‘veiled essence of things‘ by looking at its embodiment in non-physical sources of intellectual property, culture, reputation and know-how.

Rational philosophy forms insights but it remains an example and representation and leads further down the track to classification and compartmentalization that is cutting off what businesses in the 21st century need the most- creativity and ideas.

Since 2001, where Daley found that Australia is not utilising intangible assets (IA) to its full advantage, and therefore falling behind in R&D, something interesting has happened.

The economy boomed on the back of the mining and resource demand despite study findings that the IA driven economy is the sustainable future direction for developed nations.

The advocates of social capital and the creative class seem pretty silent after the dot com crash and amongst the gold rush mentality of the current mining boom in Western Australia.

Perth, Western Australia is a prime example of a state in an identity struggle for the quest to please existing and new citizens.

Although there is a movement to revitalise the city and a call to continue with the IA paradigm to ‘build a state of creativity’ , we are a far cry from amalgamating the operational with the mundane concept of ‘culture and the arts’ in this city.

The money flow that is currently pouring down on the employees and stakeholders of the resource boom, manifests itself also in the State Governments announcements such as:

“Our scientists deserve our support…

“And so too do those employed in our creative industries.
Our local music and fashion scenes are setting the pace.
Again we have so many examples of individual brilliance
and talent in WA. So much potential. All it needed was a spark.

“Two months ago we announced the “Ignite Package” – the
single biggest ever funding boost to Western Australian
cultural and creative industries.

The $73 million injection, over and above the $160 million
already budgeted, will provide unprecedented support for
our most creative people. Support in so many ways.

• Better facilities.
• Greater reward and recognition.
• More and better performances and productions.

“So many different components – different parts of this
package – that will amaze you.

“It will also be used to lever matching donations from the
corporate sector to purchase new art. That fund should be
$25-30million….” Premier Carpenter, 13 Feb 2008 – Speech to the Committee for Economic Development Australia (CEDA)

However, increasing skills and entertainment of residing citizens does not exponentially increase IA. Should we look to IA business models for the state? Quo Vadis, creative state of mind?