European Capitals of CultureΠοιειν Και Πραττειν - create and do

You are here: Home » Institution of European Capitals of Culture » ECoC related networks » ECCM Network » Post-Script to the ECCM Network by Hatto Fischer

Post-Script to the ECCM Network by Hatto Fischer

Introduction

 

 

By way of extrapolation the ECCM Symposium 'Productivity of Culture' held in Athens 2007 was meant to reflect further upon the idea of networking Capitals of Culture at global level. This had become all the more necessary as European Capitals of Culture operate no longer just at local and European level but the idea has spread out to include Latin America, USA and Canada, Africa and the Arab countries. Hence the need for a 'network of networks' was largely a given.

Unfortunately the ECCM network could not benefit from the Symposium and advance with this idea of wishing to create a 'network of networks'. Developments since the last Symposium held also in Athens in 2005 had already weakened the network considerably. The failure of Patras 2006 accounts for this in many ways, and not only due to that European Capital of Culture having never gotten off the ground, but because of internal inconsistencies. As a result Luxembourg, the European Capital of Culture to be in 2007, left the network out of protest. By 2007 the ECCM was no longer in a position to convince others and especially the newly designated European Capitals of Culture to join and to support the network. The Symposium was so to speak at last effort to show signs of life.

As a matter of fact the ECCM Network had not yet resolved the problems which emerged after the last General Assembly held in Patras 2006 when coming together in Athens one year later. By that time the network operated only on the basis of an interim solution and mainly thanks to the personal initiative of Spyros Mercouris. But instead of being strengthened by such a substantial Symposium and personal efforts, the weakness of the network became even more self-evident at the Symposium.

One clear indication was that during this second Symposium in Athens its members could no longer convince others to join them. Above all they were unclear about wanting more an informal than a formal network – an absurd positioning given the fact that the ECCM was a formal network. As a matter of fact this kind of confusion reflected that the vision for the ECCM to continue somehow was all but gone. Some had come already to the conclusion that networking between the various European Capitals of Culture required another framework. They could not say exactly why, but it was felt that the ECCM existing since 1992 was in no position to renew itself - the exact opposite of what had brought about the Symposium, namely an understanding of culture as the capacity to renew itself and therefore to be called the 'productivity of culture'.

Thus when the post script letter arrived from the two interim coordinators to announce the official closing down of the ECCM network, this did not come as a surprise. Circumstances for networking European Capitals of Culture had changed and the ECCM had not the means to cope with all the new demands while still upholding its legacy as wished for by Spyros Mercouris.


The collapse of the ECCM Network (Part 1)

It seems always to be the case that when something like a network is about to collapse, then some or many of its members have already adopted a position of wait and see at the very minimum. This became clear at the Symposium through presentations, contributions to discussions and more so by the announcement that a Documentation Centre of European Capitals of Culture had been set up. It was not a part of the ECCM but had been put under the auspices of the City of Athens. The latter act was like saying after the ECCM folds the archive shall remain to serve the interests of European Capitals of Culture. At best such anticipation and moves can be called a self-fulfilling prophecy, at worst self-defeat.

Milestones of the collapse

Prior to going into further details, it might be best to just give an overview of what took place within the ECCM as of 2005 until its final ending in 2010. Some milestones can indicate already what contributed to such an outcome.

The ECCM Symposium of 2005 - the first warning

Jacqueline Pacaud of the EU Commission spoke at the ECCM Symposium 2005. When doing so she addressed in particular efforts made by the ECCM to widen the concept of the network to include other networks. Representative of that development were Cynthia White from the Creative Cities Network in Canada and Xavier Tudela from Catelonia. There was also present at the ECCM Symposium Sergei Kirienko from Russia to represent the Volga region. All of them had this in common: they were striving equally to institutionalise the idea of having every year one city become a Capital of Culture e.g. the Creative City Network in Canada.

In view of such an expansion on a world wide level, Jacqueline Pacaud's message was a clear warning not to inflate the title and thereby reduce its inherent value. Clearly she meant the risk for the ECCM Network to take on board not just representatives from Networks outside of Europe, but especially from inside, in particular from Catelonia. To her it would pose a definite dilemma if Barcelona was to be named the Cultural Capital of Catelonia, for what would that mean if Barcelona were to be European Capital of Culture?

Karin Fisher (Stockholm), Simone Beck (Luxembourg), Max Aufischer (Graz) at the Pynx for the Declaration by the ECCM Network

For further information about the ECCM Symposium in 2005 see

http://poieinkaiprattein.org/europe/european-cultural-capital-cities/eccm-network-1990---2009/eccm-symposium-2005/

The General Assembly in Patras 2006

A decisive turning point was the General Assembly held Patras 2006. Clearly some formal mistakes were made. Even worse was the subsequent failure of the ECCM to draw the right conclusions out of not only criticisms levelled but real objections raised above all by Luxembourg. Also the warnings of Jacqueline Pacaud were not heeded insofar as the ECCM decided in Patras to make Xavier Tudela not only a member of the network, but he was elected to sit on the Executive Board of the ECCM Network.

Guy Dockendorf from Luxembourg departed from the ECCM Network after the General Assembly in Patras 2006 failed to fulfil in his opinion any of the formal obligations as stipulated by the constitution. His contentions were as follows:

  1. No executive board can be released from its responsibility if not prior to that the budget for the previous year was accepted by the General Assembly.
  2. By the same token, it was not possible to elect a new Executive Board, but which was done in Patras.
  3. It was impossible to accept in particular Xavier Tudela as member of the ECCM since he was neither connected with any former, current or future European Capital of Culture nor in his political disposition inclined to support the institution of European Capital of Culture.
  4. Even less acceptable was that Xavier Tudela was voted to become a member of the Executive Board.
  5. After returning to Luxembourg and after consultation with his Prime Minister Guy Dunkendorf added a fifth point: the ECCM Network was operating on assumed premises which constitute its self understanding but these changes were never registered. Looking into the constitution of the ECCM he found out the last changes in the constitution were registered in 2002.

His demand was quite clear: reconstitute the legal base of the ECCM and call for another General Assembly so that the budget could be approved and the old Executive Board released from its responsibilities. Only then a new Executive Board could be elected. As it turned out the ECCM never succeeded in doing all these steps. Till its folding in 2010 it was run by Spyros Mercouris as honorary president and two interim coordinators, Ivonne Rego and Ingo Weber.

The resignation of the coordinator Rodolfos Maslias

To worsen the crisis, Rodolfos Maslias, till 2006 coordinator of the ECCM resigned even though like the ECCM Executive Board this is not possible until the financial report and budget has been delivered to the General Assembly and given clear approval. Rodolfos Maslias went on to become cultural advisor to the Mayor of Athens and in this capacity managed the set-up of the Documentation Centre under the auspices of the City of Athens.

Mediation attempt in Luxembourg

There were made attempts to mediate after Patras. Spyros Mercouris met with Guy Dockendorf in Luxembourg in order to find a way out of the crisis. In retrospect this meeting in Luxembourg was just a matter of postponing the need for clarification.

Since the ECCM had no old but also no new executive board, an effort was made to call all members to an extraordinary meeting in an effort to reconstitute a full General Assembly and thereby fulfill the prerequisites as demanded by Guy Dockendorf. The latter made clear he was supportive of such an effort but would not attend the meeting in Brussels. Also it was ruled out that the ECCM could meet in Luxembourg although it was during 2007 together with Sibiu the European Capital of Culture. He recommended a meeting to be held in Sibiu and then would appraise the outcome before deciding if Luxembourg could rejoin the ECCM network.

The inclusive meeting in Brussels, January 2007

At the meeting in Brussels, January 2007 no clarification was attained about the financial report. Also the updating of changes in the Constitution of the ECCM by registering them had not been done by that date. As to the various fractions and sub-groups within the ECCM, it prevented the network from reaching an overall consensus what could be the next step. Consequently no executive board was put in place. Instead two interim coordinators were confirmed.

Again some obvious formal mistakes were made e.g. the former coordinator although he had resigned but which was not put to discussion acted as if he had still this capacity. More so he undertook it to write the protocol although it should have been someone else.

At the meeting in Brussels strong criticism was forthcoming from all members. There were above all three contentions:

The meeting in Sibiu, September 2007 - the final straw

By the time the ECCM Symposium was to start in October 2007, Guy Dunkendorf from Luxembourg cancelled his trip to Athens after he had received the minutes of the informal meeting of the ECCM held in Sibiu. In those minutes private conversations in a hotel lobby were recorded as if a part of the official protocoll. Insofar as Luxembourg was squarely blamed for all the woes of the ECCM, it had a most negative impact upon Guy Dockendorf's willingness to give the ECCM a last chance.

To remind, Luxembourg was in 2007 besides Sibiu European Capital of Culture. Till Luxembourg left the ECCM Network, it had hosted the office of the ECCM Network in Luxembourg where the Network was also legally registered. All that was taken to be an absolute break especially after Guy Dockendorf had not merely notified his prime minister but also the European Commission about the decision of Luxembourg to leave the network.

If anything can be said in cultural terms, a written letter is taken often in the Greek context as so absolute that it seems to be more a total denial rather than still a pragmatic challenge to something still possible to be fixed. Whatever made the dispute absolute and therefore unresolvable is now a matter of how the story is told and interpreted by the different parties. Still, it is strange for comments made in the hotel lobby to enter an official protocol. This kind of mixing informal and formal levels was, however, a key factor in dissorting what the ECCM did and could still achieve if it got its act together.

The interim solution of the ECCM network was to work with two coordinators and a honorary president, namely Sypros Mercouris. The failure of the General Assembly held in Patras 2006 meant there was no legal base for the old Executive board to be replaced by a new one. In the long run such interim solution could not uphold all formalities of a network which was still registered in Luxembourg. The practical question was if the ECCM could muster sufficient old and new members to constitute another General Assembly, in order to clear the way for a much needed functioning of an Executive board along with a coordinator? As it turned out the meeting in Sibiu just prior to the Symposium in Athens was not sufficient to uphold the linkages between all existing and potential new members.

It was the intention of Spyros Mercouris to prove to everyone that the ECCM was still capable of achieving and of doing things. Thus he went ahead with the idea to hold a Symposium about 'Productivity of Culture' to be held in October 2007 at the Zappeion in Athens, Greece. He went ahead and asked everyone if they would find this to be a good idea and if yes then if they could help him and the network to realise this idea.

The ECCM Symposium 'Productivity of Culture' in October 2007

Spyros Mercouris chairing the ECCM Symposium 2007

When only a fragment of ECCM members (the rest were invited speakers along with coordinators of Kids' Guernica) gathered in Athens, it became evident that the network was very far from giving the cultural discourse a home.

The cancellation of especially Luxembourg was something like a death bell ringing over the ECCM Network. Its members never knew really how to articulate their ideas during the Symposium. Above all there was paid scant attention to the need to alter their mode of communication i.e. use of websites. As a matter of fact the members paid scant attention even to this website even though it is a way to get their ideas across.

Naturally it is understandable that those who have put that intensive one year behind them, they are not inclined to enter anew all the controversies and in-fight which go with the job of artistic director (someone described it as if sitting in an ejection seat). It would mean engaging oneself again for the sake of culture in Europe. Rather let others take up that fight and continue it on their own terms.

But precisely this mixture of past, present and future of the ECCM could have given the institution of European Capitals of Culture a much needed distance from demands of the present seeking only the new. As a functioning network the ECCM could have helped to resist some of the negative trends and substantiate the European discourse about culture. But the ECCM network was in no way close to developing such an aesthetics of resistance to further the discourse about culture in Europe.

However, if the practical discourse is to continue at a level accessible to everyone, then it must involve both artists and citizens. Such a discourse would allow some validation of the original idea of Melina Mercouri. It would further understanding as to what it means to become responsible for what is happening to culture if it includes criticism to make a difference as to how cultural programmes are shaped and implemented. If cultural sustainability is to be achieved, then this productivity of culture must come to fore in all works of institutions, but also acting out in the streets and in teaching children how to appreciate the arts. Basically it would uphold the belief a lot can be achieved by becoming creative as complementarity to this productivity. Such things are brought about not merely through personal and social relationships, but by taking on more extended forms through networks which open up people to new possibilities. It explains why networks are a part of modern communication strategies and why European Capitals of Culture have in that sense a special role in fostering this from a cultural side.

The need for a 'network of networks'

The need for the 'network of networks' did precipitate reflections within the ECCM Symposium. It brought to the fore two different schools of thought.

Many speakers at the ECCM Symposium, including Abeldazizi Kacem, Carin Fisher, Jad Salman, Iman Mourad, Asit Poddar spoke about their experiences made in various parts of the world, but they did not refer so much to globalization. Instead they spoke about the need for dialogue making possible contacts across such divides as the East-West one.

A. Kacem from Tunesia was most sceptical that this divide could be bridged. He said that over and again the Arab world was left out in European programmes and projects. Still he favoured preparing future generations of students for such a task. It would require a common stream of humanity. Hence to fulfil the necessity of dialogue, this stream needs to be fed by many tributes but they were drying out. What to do? Michael D. Higgins asked what would Said say to all of this if still alive today?

Most of these speakers seemed to follow the model for networking proposed by Takuya Kaneda. He outlined onhand of Kids' Guernica a network which could bring about actions at local level while remaining free of any hierarchy or central organisation running the network.

Quite distinct from that group were those engaged like Xavier Tudela already in networking of cultural capitals in Catelonia and in the USA while others iterated what had been done in the Volga Region. They wanted to connect with the ECCM and explore the possibility of creating a 'network of networks'. Always they had in mind political, that is official support. For cultural cooperation they had in mind official scantioned cultural actions and therefore their operational considerations for such a network to work meant staying within frameworks as determined by state politics.

Naturally it became a sort of practical joke at the Symposium when the representative from Russia Gleb Firsov spoke about the idea of creating a network of cities with nuclear power stations and nuclear research facilities as they too have cultural needs. Ingo Weber commented on this as being a 'radiant' idea.

Simply said a common idea for a 'network of networks' was not clear at all to members of the ECCM network. The network itself was too frail to respond in a constructive, that is further going manner. Without an executive board in place nothing could be followed up even if good suggestions had been made throughout the Symposium.

Since this matter of wishing to create a 'network of networks' was discussed already at the First ECCM Symposium in 2005, it would have been important to continue from there. Instead those who spoke made no reference to this previous discussion. It seemed to have vanished from their memory. Equally looking into the future, they seemed to have only a vague notion as to what it would mean to transform the ECCM into a 'network of networks' or else to join with other networks such a network at global scale.

To understand this fraility of the ECCM network some further analysis is needed why no options seemed viable and realistic enough to let all members take together this step into the future.

Trends and four major factors

If there had been still chances to reconcile with Luxembourg and to draw lessons out of the ongoing crisis since the meeting in Patras 2006, they were wasted over and again. Some of the most crucial points can be simply iterated:

While a trend in favor of newly designated cities but away from a formal network affected the standing of the ECCM network in Europe, equally the handling by the ECCM of the history of European Capitals of Culture through an exhibition covering the entire time span of 20 years did not go over well.

Another factor which weakened the network were steps undertaken to create a Documentation Centre in Athens. Basically it was done without consulting the rest of the members and lacked full legitimacy as it occured during the final phase of the ECCM network.

a) the trend away from a formal to an informal network

One trend favoured by newly designated cities was underlined by ongoing meetings taking place between Essen, Pecs, Istanbul, that is the three cities designated for 2010. To these meetings came along Turku 2011 and some other cities, including Linz '09. These meetings took place at informal level and above all under the leadership of Liverpool ‘08. These meetings reinforced the rejection of the ECCM as being too formalistic. Only unclear in this rejection was what it is to be understood when declaring to be in favour of an informal network. In reality, it was about the replacement of an old through a new network.

There was something alientating in this trend. Basically these meetings took place at the exclusion of the former European Capitals of Culture and of those individuals who had been involved until then with European Capitals of Culture in some related capacity. Most of them were outstanding personalities with interest in furthering the ECOC as a concept both within Europe and world wide. The latter included Xavier Tudela from Catelonia but who posed a special challenge if not dilemma for the ECCM.

Once those newly designated cities got a taste of things through these informal meetings, they wished more and more to do away with the old network. It seemed as if all wanted to start with a clean slate. It is like those investments made on the 'green meadow' as it is called in former East Germany. Such investments were made on the outskirts of cities because then not constrained by all kinds of restrictions, including cultural heritage ones. The only problem with such a trend seeking only the new is as Adorno would say the development towards a kind of sickness due to seeking only the new while not realizing that sooner or later it too shall be forced to flee back into old structures.

Something else reinforced this trend. As Schmidt from the organisational body for Essen/Ruhr 2010 declared he has nothing to learn from past cities like Cork or Weimar. Automatically such an attitude goes against the ECCM network attempting to keep open and alive the dialogue between former, current and future cities by drawing lessons out of the past. For sure, Weimar with its concept SALVE dealt not only the past, but more specifically with the contradiction between classical culture identified with Goethe and Schiller and the existence of the concentration camp Buchenwald outside the gates of Weimar. By comparison, Linz '09 dealt with this past by having an exhibition on this subject matter of Hitler wishing Linz to have been a cultural metropole before the start of the one year as if the past could be dealt with in such a way. Exactly here ramifications set in by the new European Capitals of Culture having rejected the ECCM network.

As it turned out the European Commission gave very quickly to this informal network its recognition. This may have been due to the inherent linkage of the informal network to current and future European Capitals of Culture. By having appointed two cities for 2008 and 2009, three for 2010, and again two for the following years, they were already enough cities when coming together to become a critical mass, something the European Commission could hardly ignore.

The ECCM network was based by contrast much more on the old concept of having one city designated for each year. That changed already in 2000 when nine cities were selected all at the same time.

What was not seen in this drive to alter the networking between current and future European Capitals of Culture was the structural absence of an internal dialogue with former cities. This priority was dropped along with the rejection of the ECCM as legitimate network for all ECOCs.

To the informal meetings was added a kind of policy research group which obtained very quickly some funds to sustain their work. Primarily it was concerned with studying the impact of Liverpool '08 before, during and after this one decisive year. Research linked to an active policy implementation is a way to gain influence and have a voice at EU level in Brussels. Yet it was done completely at the expense of the old ECCM network but which had neglected doing precisely such impact studies.

In short, this trend posed a serious challenge to the ECCM network by 2007. For once the newly designated cities had adapted themselves to this new trend, the ECCM lost in legitimacy to bring and to keep together former, current and future European Capitals of Culture. At European level it meant, however, that changes in the concept of European Capitals of Culture could not longer be checked for their consistency. One key factor altered that disposition. Although things had started with Athens as the first European Capital of Culture in 1985, a much more conscious reference point had become the Palmer Report (2004). This was followed up by alterations in the selection of more than one city per year. Also the European Commission started to demand evaluation reports from the cities. Thus once designated to be European Capitals of Culture, these cities started to become active in their own specific way. In other words, they started to carrying things through which had been discussed within the ECCM merely as an idea or as a possibility but which was never taken up seriouslz as there was no time, money or the full intention to conduct empirical research to substantiate the reports handed in by the cities and to keep an independent record of how things would evolve with this title of European Capitals of Culture.

b) something amiss or a lack of knowledge of how to deal with the unknown

There was another trend which affected the ECCM network from within. Something was amiss. No one seemed able to articulate what it was. Especially after Patras 2006 at organisational level there was missing a decisive understanding of how to get out of this largely self made crisis. In addition, more and more members and individuals drew the conclusion that even the best intended criticism levelled against the ECCM network never seemed to be enough. One reason was for the failure of the proposals made is that they did not convince anyone that the suggestes changes would be carried through and made to work. Another experience was that old mistakes were repeated as if these warnings and criticisms were never articulated.

While there were personal convictions at stake, so was also the need to observe some formal rules. There are certain standards which any organisation or network must uphold in order to stay accountable and especially transparent in all its financial matters. The fact that the financial report for 2005-6 had not been presented at the General Assembly held in Patras 2006 hung, therefore, over the network like a heavy cloud. Even if unfounded, suspicions of irregularities can disturb greatly any flow of information and trust between members and the network. It makes the communication within the network nearly impossible.

Christian Denkmeier from Linz made a last ditch effort to uphold some kind of legitimacy by volunteering to stay on as Executive board member even though the rest was missing since Patras 2006, but even he felt by January 2007 that Spyros Mercouris was making lonely decisions he could no longer support.

Many felt that there was some obstinate force at work within the ECCM and which did not allow any effective adjustments. This prevented changes in need to be made. Others felt aside from the domination of such a strong personality as Spyros Mercouris along with those who collaborated regularly with him, including Ingo Weber and Rodolfos Maslias, there were structural reasons which prevented the ECCM from going forward. This had to do whether or not the ECCM network knew really how to respond to the needs of the newly designated cities.

As a representative from Antwerp would say at the ECCM meeting held in Brussels in January 2007 in an effort to save what could be saved, the ECCM network did not meet not only the needs of the newly designated cities but also of the former cities. By comparison a network like Eurocities was much more effective. Its various working groups gave each city member something to work on and which had relevance at the own municipal level.

Above all the ECCM Network seemed to assume to know what was being referred to when speaking about culture in Europe, but if culture itself is very much an unknown, it would demand an open method of fact finding as to what went on in the cities which had been designated to be for one year a European Capital of Culture. Instead many distortions in the communication of the ECCM can be linked to the assumed position to know about culture, how it works and what it stands for.

The only person who seemed to realized that culture cannot be portrayed as being self evident was Eric Antonis who linked culture to 'doubt' when developing the programme for Antwerp '93. As such it signals an openness to the still unknown but which will be brought about by the certainty man attains once he becomes creative. By contrast the position taken by Spyros Mercouris was a reference to the past achievements of Ancient Greece so that the already known has only to be known or rather be acknowledged. In a similar way he would refer to Athens 1985 as having achieved a lot what other European Capitals of Culture were aspiring for e.g. art for urban renewal by way of a new distribution of venues to various parts of the city. The latter could be considered as being a kind of decentralization of culture to neglected urban areas and therefore an attempt to bring people into closer contact with culture.

c) the problematic exhibition

Moreover when the ECCM exhibition, shown first in Patras 2006, was criticized by some of the members present at that extraordinary meeting held in Brussels in January 2007, this matter was never resolved. It was a double criticism. Many felt it was far too expensive and the quality of the exhibition at best very doubtful. Spyros Mercouris felt personally attacked by this as he was the sole curator. He tried to explain how little cooperation he had received from many of the cities. Only few did send him materials which could be used. Most of the materials he used came from his own archive. He created this exhibition in the shortest possible time and under really hard conditions of uncertainty. No one knew it but there took place a most hurtful treatment of his person by the organisers of Patras '06. He had to travel at least 15 times to Patras before everything was settled per contract and even then it was not certain when the full amount of money as named in the contract would be paid.

Yet Spyros had not listened to the recommendation of a working group set up within the ECCM and which had gone diligently through the archives of many former European Capitals of Culture. As a matter of fact this working group tried to find thematic linkages between European Capitals of Cities and this in various fields of artistic expressions, including poetry and literature. Had their proposal been included in the exhibition, it would have been a much better recollection as to what cities had achieved through their programmes over the past 20 years. As it was meant to be conceived as a wandering exhibition, every city in the following years could add its own flavour to this way of telling the story. Unfortunately that was not brought about by the exhibition shown in Patras 2006. No wonder then that Luxembourg 2007 flatly refused to take on board the exhibition.

As it turned out the mistake of not consulting others has been continued even after the ECCM folded. The exhibition was taken over by the Documentation Centre of Athens and transformed into one covering 25 not 20 years of European Capitals of Culture. This was done in preperation of the 25 year celebration of European Capitals of Culture organised by the European Commission and held in Brussels March 23 - 24, 2010. The exhibition provoked some very strong, equally negative reactions. Persons like Gottfried Wagner went even public while sitting on a panel to state that he considered the exhibition to be not only a scandal but one which should be removed immediately. The other former and current cities never recognized themselves in that exhibition.

Those responsible in Athens for the exhibition have yet to realise what little legitimacy there is to the claim of Athens to be still representing all the European Capitals of Culture. Without consultation and mutual agreement with others it is impossible for Athens to mount such an exhibition by itself and still claim that this is the best way to show the history of European Capitals of Culture. Why the European Commission awarded the exhibition to the Documentation Centre in Athens after all the previous criticism is a mystery. Again political connections may have played a role but it is a worrying trend when something bad is still upheld as if 'good' or nothing wrong with it. Even more problematic is the illusions fostered by the Athenians that the exhibition was excellent since Ms. Androula Vassiliou from Cyprus, the Commissioner for Education and Culture congratulated them on it.

d) the creation of the documentation centre

Besides the problem with that exhibition something else went unrecognized by the ECCM network and by its follow-up, namely the Documentation Centre. For the exhibition in Patras was accompanied by an online exhibition. In so doing it created the first real basis for an archive. All that work was done by www.heritageradio.net. However records kept at the Documentation Centre fail to recognize this. Instead it says students of the Technical University did this online exhibition when in fact they volunteered to run what had been set up by heritageradio in the first place. Even more so the heritageradio network had made a formal proposal to the ECCM network to continue the collaboration in order to improve upon the online archive. Instead of answering this formal request, the reason for the silence silence became one year self-evident. The silence was broken once the set-up of such a Documentation Centre was a declared fact by the time the ECCM Symposium 'Productivity of Culture' was held in October 2007. Even then, there was no communication between those who (it included heritageradio coordinator Jan Brueggemeier, webmaster Mike Ritter and Hatto Fischer from Poiein kai Prattein along with photographers Kostas Kartelias and Maya Fischer for documentation) organised this website of the Symposium and those working at the Documentation Centre. Consequently many ECCM members made never use of or reference to the website of www.productivityofculture.org.

In other words, the City of Athens took over the archive of the ECCM and the materials of the exhibition without informing the rest of the members until it was a done deal. Officially the creation of such an archive and documentation centre was announced by Rodolfos Maslias, advisor to the Mayor of Athens, at the ECCM Symposium. The fact that Ingo Weber and Xavier Tudela find themselves included in this constellation is not surprising. They had become already besides Spyros Mercouris the internal group of the ECCM network. Needless to say the Mayor of Athens had been the personal doctor of Melina Mercouri and therefore it can be assumed that he knows what legacy is behind this title of European Capitals of Culture. But even the recognition by the European Commission of the Documentation Centre cannot sideline the fact that it was done without having the consent of all other European Capitals of Culture and therefore lacks the legitimacy needed to be the memory of all ECOCs.

Last ditched efforts

Efforts had been made within the ECCM Network since the General Assembly was held in Patras to avoid such a collapse. Still the departure of Luxembourg after that assembly made it clear to everyone that it was impossible to continue as before. Luxembourg protested against actions undertaken by the network which contradicted the constitution. Afterall any organisation, whether formal or informal, needs to uphold some basic rules.

All along it had been the internal practice of the ECCM to confuse formal with informal levels and vice versa. Some gossip in Brussels had already taken a hold as well. As a matter of fact the ECCM was perceived as an 'old men's club' to indicate that decisions were most likely made in the hotel lobby rather than during the formal sessions meant to give to the network credibility and transparency. Oddly enough this mistake became the last straw for Luxembourg which had been reconciled by efforts undertaken in the meantime to rectify the legal situation and thus its representative Guy Dunkendorf was prepared to come to the ECCM Symposium. But then something happened at the Sibiu meeting which became known through the official protocol. It was the last blow to a chance to deal with the internal problems without blaming anyone for the crisis.

Networking is an art to connect and to bring together people. But while it might be easy to have your own supporters present at a decisive meeting by paying, for instance, for their flight and hotel, these supporters may prove in some decisive moments not to be as reliable as hoped for. By the same token it is not good to ignore systematically those who came on their own means and did it out of dedication but then see everything being reduced to personal politics without regard for the overall need to sustain a network at formal level.

That the ECCM existed for such a long time despite such anachronistic structures has also a partial explanation. The very idea of the network had a strong and indeed personal endorsement from all who were involved. The network made possible in fact a meeting of outstanding and innovative personalities. All of them like Carin Fisher in Stockholm or Eric Antonis in Antwerp had made a difference in how the story of European Capitals of Culture evolved. They had put that one crucial year behind them without having tarnished their reputation. On the contrary they had proven to others and themselves that they could be at home in the world while heeding at the same time the need for being attentive to details. The latter matters most if the institution of being a European Capital of Culture for one year is to be realised at that specific locality. Linked to such care for details which makes a real difference in the end is the humanistic impulse behind such a concept of culture. Always Spyros Mercouris stands for this wish to follow up the vision of his sister Melina Mercouri and to sustain through such a network the bringing together of people for the sake of an exchange of ideas.

The General Assembly in Patras was the last high point of the ECCM Network. Due to the great number of members present it seemed as if the network was becoming more substantial. On top of it all the ECCM seemed poised to expand by taking in new members from not merely newly designated European Capitals of Culture but also from other continents and networks. Yet the story ended quite differently.

By not heeding the warning articulated by the European Commission already in 2005 and more so in failing to be a critical voice, the ECCM ended up in a mess. This is always the case when instead of clear decisions and clarification the internal argumentation gets entangled in its own contrived reasoning. A most serious mistake was to think that there was no need to observe formal rules.

Along with the ill conceived exhibition, that General Assembly proved to be a turning point in the history of the ECCM.

Further going analysis of the ECCM (Part 2)

For a further going analysis as to the collapse of the ECCM Network and what might be learned from that, it has to be recognized that not one single factor but always a combination of internal and external problems brings about something like self defeat.They can be named as

After 2006 the ECCM Network was no longer capable of mustering enough strength and conviction that it could sustain that dialogue very much needed if the networking between former, current and future European Capitals of Culture was to continue. By 2007 it had become clear to everyone that things could not go on as had been the case in the past. As a post script to the ECCM can be taken the official announcement made by the two interim coordinators that the ECCM Network had ceased to exist as of 2010.

The internal problems of the ECCM

The internal problems of the ECCM can be explained by having come under the sway of certain personalities who created a sort of coalition within the network and therefore gave the impression that the Greek dominance was finally too much. Despite all seeing in Spyros Mercouris an outstanding personality with the capacity to move things and to get things done, there was a sense of favoritism with regards to certain persons.

As always these persons follow their own agenda and often played an ambivalent role in how they offered services and advice. A leading role in this sense played the former coordinator Rodolfos Maslias in conjunction with someone like Ingo Weber. It was never clear what was their personal agendas and what was done in the interest of keeping the network alive.

Naturally all went well as long as the current European Capital of Culture was willing to host the members of the ECCM Network. That is understandable when it comes to cover expenses but as the number of cities increased, so would the bill in terms of accommodation and travel expenses. Already some organisers of former European Capitals of Culture like Liverpool '08 refer to the European caravan which goes to city to city every year to hold their meetings there but with the expectation that they are hosted i.e. their accommodations at the very minimum paid for by the city during that year. On the other hand, the ECCM did have problems of finding the money to sustain itself. Here there were expressed at times expectations that the European Commission should have done more to help or at least facilitate sustaining the network.

But that was not the only reason for internal problems becoming ever greater. For if a current European Capital of Culture would host the ECCM members it was expected as guests not to be too critical, if at all as to what the host was doing with this one year. That became most explicit when at the Press conference in March 2006 with Patras as European Capital of Culture journalists asked the ECCM coordinator Rodolfos Maslias if he had any comments to make to the fact that the official programme was not yet printed despite the official year having started in January? No answer was given by the coordinator of the ECCM network but rather he preferred to take up a diplomatic stance. He did so to underscore that the self understanding of the ECCM was not to criticize and more so not to do any evaluation during the current year. He claimed that such an evaluation could only be made once the year was over. That meant no criticial distance was kept to the current European Capital of Culture while it left out the most important quality of cultural criticism, namely the ability to anticipate and to see what is happening to culture if only marketing logistics dominate and the institution of European Capital of Culture becomes one event after another with no other success criteria but the number of visitors.

Credibility of a network claiming to gather all the innovative personalities who have been involved in the realization of this one year within their respective city is a matter of what clear language is used to give advice and support to respective cities having received the designation and are set to make their own experience. It means also not to remain silent if things are going obviously wrong as was the case with Patras 2006.

Unfortunately that clear language was not forthcoming and too much remained in the hands of Spyros Mercouris who undertook many initiatives but then seemed at times to set on his own ideas and not so disposed to take into consideration the opinion of others. One clear example was how he organised the exhibition 'Twenty years of History' to be shown in Patras 2006. The ECCM Network had set up a working group which developed ideas and wanted to include such topics as to what literature and poetry was published by European Capitals of Culture. This proposal was never taken up by him. In the end, the ECCM members were completely dissatisfied with the exhibition and found in terms of things on display that the costs for it were much too high.

Spyros Mercouris has his own way of doing things and would only listen to other suggestions if of practical nature. He was, however, quick to appreciate really good contributions and found a way to entice people to follow his suggestions as he was one of the few to find the money to do all of these things. But to avoid further disputes about the concept for the exhibition, Rodolfos Maslias as coordinators gave to Spyros Mercouris the sole responsibility for the exhibition. Once Spyros Mercouris was given such a task, it was clear that the exhibition would reflect, so to speak, his hand writing on the wall. His exhibitions are famous for a certain way of working with images to tell the story e.g. blown up images on panels. Even the organisers of Patras 2006 attempted to make some corrections by insisting more 3 D exhibits should be included. In response to this demand Spyros Mercouris resorted to his usual equally pet idea, namely he had model ships constructed to symbolize a famous sea battle in which the Greeks beat the Turkish flotilla. What this had to do with the history of European Capitals of Culture or with a concept of culture meant to redeem rather than to glorify a national narrative, remained unanswered.

His justification was that the exhibition was indeed poor of 3D exhibits but that not many cities had sent him sufficient materials. And he would go on to justify the exhibition as not having been expensive at all, that he had paid a part out of his own pocket and that the Patras 2006 never paid him in full i.e. to date there are missing 20 000 Euros of the original agreed sum to be paid by the organisers of Patras 2006.

Moreover he claimed that the films about each city which had been a European Capital of Culture was something of importance. Furthermore, the collection of materials for the exhibition set the base for the archive. This has made possible the starting point of the Documentation Centre of Athens.

Whatever the pros and cons, the ill fated ECCM exhibition showed also another undercurrent not very conducive for furthering cultural development in Europe. Too often the ECCM Network was misused to further Greekness. That took on various forms of Patriotism but also an uncritical propagation of the glorious past as if it had all the answers to present problems and future challenges.

Given the criticism former ECCM members levelled against the exhibition shown first in Patras 2006, it was completely incomprehensible why the European Commission asked the Documentation Centre of Athens to organise on the basis of the old a new exhibition to mark now 'Twenty-five years of history'. As Gottfried Wagner put it when speaking as one of the panel speakers during the 25 year celebration, this exhibition was a scandal and should be taken down immediately.

Again confusion between networking and letting play out connections means at times certain developments are immune to any kind of criticism and indeed serious objections. As long as things are paid for by the Commission and no one else can intervene, things are done this way with a low quality and little if no integrity at all. It drives many into resignation or silence. As Bob Palmer would say any effort to alter this course is subject to failure since no one listens.

Naturally the growing number of European Capitals of Culture puts more and more pressure on everyone. It demands simply another concept on how to continue networking by including these new cities but equally of importance is not to loose touch with the former ones. These are two very different poles of interest. All of the newly designated cities face pressing needs and are the most active members in any network of this kind. By contrast those who have that crucial year behind them are no longer standing under such high pressure to perform and to make sure to get things right. And then there are the current ones in midst of a complex and comprehensive implementation process of a year's programme prepared often well in advance e.g. Liverpool received the designation in 2003 for 2008, thus a five year time span to get ready and then everything happens during that year so fast that it is often impossible to recollect the many details and still enjoy the participation in what is culture's key strength once free to unfold, namely to let people become enthusiastic about what they are doing and experiencing.

Another factor is that the disposition of the European Commission has changed since the beginning of the institution in 1985. This is mainly due to the evolving political situation in Europe and in the world. For instance, culture was increasingly recognized as factor of urban renewal especially after the experiences with Glasgow 1990. By 2007 The KEA Study on the economy of culture underlined the importance of this sector in terms of employment and contribution to the overall GDP of a country. As a matter of fact this text was used as key hypothesis when organising the ECCM Symposium in 2007 as reflected in the session 'economy and culture' but not only. Intended was to have each European Capital of Culture report about how this one year altered the relationship between culture and economy within the city.  But no one took up seriously this request by the European Commission that the European Capitals of Culture should undertake such a research and validate or not the key hypothesis laid out in that study. Only Liverpool '08 caught onto this spirit partially and set up the impact '08 research team.

Networking at European level has also been affected by what can be perceived as a change in personalities which enter the field of expertise involved in organising the yearly ECOC programmes. At the start there were visionary politicians like Melina Mercouri, but also creative personalities such as Jack Lang. But already with the entry of Bob Palmer with Glasgow 1990 it meant less of a political reflective approach about the role of culture as to what could further the debate about culture in Europe. Instead a pragmatic approach was adopted. It meant working with the support of the mayor while achieving results more in the direction of urban revival.

The experience of Glasgow 1990 and the subsequent references to that experience meant a shift in the debate about the role of ECOC. There was no longer a discussion about content in cultural terms or what culture should do e.g. hold open the tension to doubt as precondition for the ability to create something new. That had been the concept of Eric Antonis when artistic director of Antwerp '93 and in so believing he initiated the composition of twenty new operas, 19 of which had their premiere during that specific year. Instead the Glasgow paradigmatic shift, as it is called, meant more and more managerial qualities were demanded, in order to make this one year work for the city.

Above all it made a lot of difference if these personalities like Kaufmann in Weimar were hired to prepare and to see through this one special year and then disappeared again. By contrast someone like Eric Antonis, artistic director of Antwerp '93 is still identified today with the city and has continued to act in reference to the city's needs for culture.He is someone who has continued to build up the cultural infrastructures of the city and knows where are cultural resources when needed to be made available.

Still, it was curious to see then Bob Scott appear and putting his own stamp of understanding how things are done, namely with a typical British humour and straight forwardness with all the scepticism which prevails in the UK towards anything having to do with Europe. That contradiction becomes most apparent in the fact that he was an advocate of an informal network to replace the ECCM. The irony is that the ECCM was from its very origin a much preferred informal working together. This is how innovative personalities get together and through their friendships make progress. This can be proved as shown by the reasons for the downfall of the ECCM insofar as no one heeded sufficiently the need to uphold some formal rules.

The failure of the ECCM to be a critical voice

There is one serious failure of the ECCM, namely to be a critical voice to ensure that the implementation of the concept of European Capital of Culture is consistent with the original intentions and that culture is promoted within Europe. That aspect of being a critical voice is hardly observed in a world where carefully worded expressions make up most of the political discourse. But if a network of the European Capitals of Culture is to retain credibility, it has to be able to hold a honest talk with ECOC organisers whenever this is deemed as being necessary to uphold the reputation and value of the title.

At that ECCM Symposium in 2005 had been present the Mayor of Patras and the manager of Patras 2006. Someone who did not come was its artistic director who was at that time still Mikroutsikos. As development marked by conflicts turned from bad to worse, he resigned just when Patras 2006 was three days into starting to implement its programme for the entire year. Such a start could have been anticipated by the ECCM. (For a full coverage of Patras 2006: http://poieinkaiprattein.org/europe/european-cultural-capital-cities/patras-2006/ )

Members of the ECCM knew that Bob Palmer had after visiting Patras to evaluate the European Capital of Culture for 2006 returned to Brussels to recommend to the European Commission that the designation should be withdrawn. He believed Patras was not prepared and doubted if the city could achieve anything worth mentioning. He was above all aghast by politicians attempting to influence theatre directors to include their wives in the cast as if cultural performances do not have to meet any artistic standards. Palmer's recommendation was silenced at political level with the then Minister of Culture of Greece putting down his foot. That politics ignores repeatedly expertise advice is but one thing; however, the silence of the ECCM Network on this matter of Patras 2006 is quite another issue.

It proved to be a fatal mistake of the ECCM to stay silent. If such a network wishes to uphold its reputation as being able to pass on experiences made by previous European Capitals of Culture, then this transformation of knowledge must be authentic and valided by real experiences. No fictitious claims of success but a realistic description of the problems besetting any city when trying to implement a year's programme would be more convincing. For advise offered by the ECCM must be based not on a diplomatic stance but on a quality of independence i.e. Free from possible conflict of interests which is the case when too much intertwined with the very body organising this one year.

The ECCM would have been well advised to retain in this and all matters a critical stance to ensure a knowledge base which is independent from political influence. Instead it gave in to considerations of what may be of mutual interest e.g. being hosted by the European Capital of Culture in exchange for staying silent as to what was happening in reality. If a network does not speak out honestly a critical opinion as to what is acceptable, what not. Such a positioning will fail on every account. This applies especially to a network which claims to unite all European Capitals of Culture. It must at the very least indicate what standards it expects each city to uphold in order to safeguard the reputation of this institution.

In the case of Patras 2006 this critical opinion has to be upheld regardless whether or not another Greek city had become a critical case. For obvious reasons silence was preferred for reasons of Patriotism but since this was not the first time, it was clear that the rest of Europe and those with some knowledge would not let after Thessaloniki und now Patras happen for a fourth time. Athens 1985 may not be disputed as it was the first city but enough is enough with this huge discrepancy between claims and reality.

The aspiration behind the ECCM Symposium is summed up best by the title: ‘Productivity of Culture’. The Symposium was organised to give everyone a chance to renew and to revitalise the ECCM network. However, the way this challenge was approached turned out to be ill fated due to a lack of understanding as to the true nature of the crisis or rather petty politics got in the way of a very much needed analysis as to the reasons why. The combination of the two prevented an open discussion about the nature of the problems and thus absent was a clear language. Networking had been reduced to let certain connections play out but without making sure the reputation of the network was safeguarded at all times. Corruption includes as well the mind and therefore looking in the other direction when clearly things are amiss and in need to be challenged.

Michael D. Higgins reminded everyone at the ECCM Symposium that there was something missing in the European discourse, namely a basic honesty or rather the courage to name things. He cited on hand of the example of Israel that it is not possible to refer solely to the national sovereignty of a country if that meant staying silent at the same time about all the Human Rights violations in the shadow of its border. Equally he felt the European discourse failed to name the hidden sources of violence and subsequently many good efforts faltered due to such back stabbing.

If the ECCM tried to uphold the legacy of Melina Mercouri, then it failed to counter tendencies within the ECOC towards an over commercilization of culture. Yet everyone knows that culture cannot be reduced to mere advertisement strategies in the interest of selling something as if a successful product. To this criticism Michael D. Higgins would add that culture has to do after all with telling the truth. This the philosopher Bart Verschaffel extends into the notion if there is to be any cultural development worthwhile to speak about, then by substantiating the possibility in the context of public spaces to question these cultural truths. That has to be based on the Right to speak as much as on the Right to be silent while cities redesign constantly the relationships between private and public spaces. Within such a context creativity can be brought about by letting exactly this process of questioning cultural truths continue.

The ECCM network could have gone much further if it had facilitated such questioning of truths. Instead the network was at risk to succumb to the same kind of language which prevails at the European level and at the level of the newer European Capitals of Culture. This development has prompted Bob Palmer to comment official reports given by European Capitals of Culture as being products of 'spin doctors'. Therefore, networking of these cities would have to find a delicate balance between outer and inner criticism. There is a point where critical advice can fruit in positive results provided the political authority of the city is not exposed. At the same time, it is to be expected from those who know better what it means to bring about such a year that they do not hide in public the truth of the matter as to what is happening or will happen or took place within these European Capitals of Culture. Clearly such criticism must be linked to an ongoing learning process the prerequisite for this being not merely a thorough evaluation but also an insistence that cities do retain the contact with their local population as they enjoyed when making the bid and before having received the designation. In other words, some clear consequences have to be drawn before it is too late and the original concept is abandoned for what works in practice i.e. to the convenience of those not only put in charge but who hold public offices during that year.

In retrospect it can be said that this cover up of real problems or the refusal to name the issues and raise the level of debate about the problems besetting Patras as European Capital of Culture was but a pre-taste of the crisis to hit Greece in 2009. By 2010 this has become a full scale not merely financial, but more so moral crisis. It reflects a combination of inefficiency and corruption. Both can be linked to ways how the money questions and the commitments which go with that have been handled over the years, namely with high neglect and no regard for the real work done. Many a times EU money was endlessly spend without clear accountability while the only interest governing Greek relationships to the EU was what Europe could do for Greece.

Lack of consistency in naming and responding to real cultural problems

If consistency would have prevailed within the ECCM, then there would have been taken into account as well ramifications for culture after what has been happening around the world since 911. Due to the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also other developments linked primarily to the 'war against terrorism', it was no longer self-understood what peace times stood for, culturally speaking. At risk was to end up in a kind of schizophrenic world with here the European Capitals of Culture celebrating sparkling events ending in huge fire works while elsewhere human tragedies unfolded due to millions of people having to flee Afghanistan or else innocent civilians dying after yet another ill guided missile. There was indeed a strange silence about what European Capitals of Culture could do for peace in times of such international wars called at times 'peace missions' to suit the jargon of the day.

For instance, even though someone like Karl Eric Norrman denounced at the Symposium the entry into war in Iraq as a most tragic mistake, it was never made clear whether culture promotes peace or can be used instead to provoke a new war. This confusion about the use of such a term as culture reflects in a certain way what was happening to cultures within the global context but also that it would not be easy for European Capitals of Culture to take a stand on this issue. In the absence of any recommendation from a network like the ECCM it could be expected that no general guidelines could offer suggestions to those who were conceiving the programme for the year in which it was their cities' turn to be European Capital of Culture.

As the bombings in London in 2005 revealed ‘street fear’ had become a world wide phenomenon as Western cities were no longer excluded. That meant in turn the concept of carrying the war against terrorism back to where it was assumed to come from, then targeting first Afghanistan and then Iraq was at best a faulty displacement strategy. In its wake globalization has ravaged the resources of the earth while over demanding the financial capacities of not merely developing but equally of developed countries. The huge state deficits require a kind of debt management which continues very much like the unresolved question of nuclear waste to dispose all costs upon future generations.

If not only the bombings but also all the new kinds of xenophobic forces can be interpreted as a break down in integration and communication, then this has to be dealt with not by means of more surveillance and police methods but with cultural means. For sure street fear underlines the fact that bombs can go off anywhere, at any time. Their deadly message is all the more chilling because innocent civilians are killed in the most arbitrary way.

Nevertheless it is important to note that those who justify such actions claim that the world is no longer listening to the needs of others. A part of that need was addressed by the ECCM Symposium insofar as one session dealt with 'dialogue between cultures'. It showed how cognitive development is just as important as to heed the East-West divide only to be overcome if future generations do not shrink from this responsibility to uphold the European-Mediterranean dialogue. An encouraging sign in this direction is the concept of Marseilles 2013 and therefore a potential positive contribution as the city itself knows how vital are multi-cultural tolerances and practices to bridge some obvious gaps created by all kinds of nationalistic and racist ideas.

As to the role of culture, this was dealt with in another session at the Symposium. It can be linked to a report about museums in the UK which was published just two weeks after the London bombing. The report stated that most of the cultural institutions in the UK, including its museums, lacked staff members from these diverse cultural communities. Also in their collections were hardly any artefacts which had been created within these communities. And if they had any to show what contributions they were making to the cultural life within these communities, then these institutions had no experts who could interpret these artefacts.

How cities should come to terms with their diverse communities, this would be something the ECCM could have picked up as a common theme for all European Capitals of Culture. Max Aufischer addressed this matter at the 2007 Symposium in the session dedicated to networking. His recommendation would be to practice something similar to what the Eastern European city network is doing. To promote artistic exchanges between the cities different models for financing and hosting were applied. If handled well it can open up the cities to diverse languages and different artistic expressions. All this can enhance at multiple levels an exchange of ideas and the open ended communication between different cultures.

Changes in the disposition of European Capitals of Culture

Moreover changes in the disposition of European Capitals of Culture should have been taken into account by the ECCM. Following key factors can be named to explain this need to adapt and to respond to the needs of the newly designated cities:

  1. Alone the change in budgets of European Capitals of Culture when compared to the original one Athens had at its disposal in 1985 says already a lot about the changed conditions under which the institution of European Capitals of Culture could be realised.
  2. Especially after the first Palmer Report (2004), the European Commission started to insist on evaluation and sustainability to ensure a continuation of what everyone had come to believe as being one of Europe's most successful projects.
  3. Concerning membership in the ECCM not every city could after this one year was over justify to its own council membership fees to be paid on an annual basis to the ECCM, especially if as consequence of debt incurred during that one year budgetary cuts were in store at community level e.g. why Weimar did not join the ECCM network.

For both cities and culture the tasks to be faced had changed since the beginning. As Max Aufischer would point out at the ECCM Symposium of 2007 everything had become faster, more colourful, if not easier to access by way of the Internet but also due to such concepts as Intercity trains. These improvements were acclaimed as success even though it meant a loss of quality in the way of life. Max Aufischer lamented above all the fact that the language used was indeed very sloppy. Vague concepts like 'intercultural dialogue' could not capture the real need for a dialogue between cultures. To this can be added the adverse impact of a commercial language used to advertise this one year. In no way could that uphold and promote cultural life in the city and in Europe. This will only become clear once the real cultural losses shall show what the European Union has done in reality to diversity in Europe.

Bob Palmer attested to this fact during his speech at the 25 year celebration of European Capitals of Culture held in Brussels, March 23 -24 2010. He pointed out that European Capitals of Culture were at risk to become solely cultural industries. As such they would depend increasingly upon public relation firms to sell their image. Alone Linz '09 spend nearly 20% of its budget on communication. That is more than what is usually set aside in European Projects for management, coordination and overhead costs.

Thus the degree to which cultural content has been lost over the years is quite significant. Hence the programmes being implemented by current and future European Capitals of Culture are quite different from had Melina Mercouri in mind when she proposed the idea of having every year a European Capital of Culture with Athens becoming the first such city in 1985. The task of the ECCM would have been to stem against this trend and evoke as attempted by the Symposium in 2007 another understanding of culture. This has been at the core of interest of Spyros Mercouris, namely to uphold the legacy of Melina Mercouri who took culture to mean the meeting of people and artists to exchange ideas.

The international dimension or the idea of creating a 'network of networks'

Already the programmes being implemented by ECOC cities reflect the growing importance of EU foreign policy and the need to reflect what cultural dimensions should govern the EU relationship to the rest of the world.

At the same time, the multiplicity of languages and cultures being expressed by a variety of people living together in cities, as denoted by Max Aufischer at the ECCM Symposium, demands a new approach to culture in cities. Terms like 'intercultural dialogue' are simply inadequate to bring about adequate models. Another, less sloppy language has to be found if these and other issues are to be dealt with within that one year. Thus it cannot be the tasks of European Capitals of Culture of being but the sole representative of the national culture linked to the member state in which that city happens to be located in. Nor cannot the year's programme be geared solely to build up and to promote the image of the city. Such a branding of culture in order to attract tourists has little or nothing to do with the identity question people face when living in multi-cultural environments. The identity question is much more complex than image makers or PR firms make out to be the case. If culture is about communication which resonates with people because it addresses their needs as thez seek new ways of living and doing things, then 'productivity of culture' is a serious concept in need to be taken further.

However, this is exactly where tendencies within the European Union are contradicting efforts of the ECCM network as articulated at the ECCM Symposium 'Productivity of Culture'. Among the many other reasons attitudes and policy measures have altered over the years. For instance, the current selection committee for the designation of future ECOC cities is under the chairmanship of Bob Scott from the UK and linked as well to Liverpool' 08. That is of importance as the latter city had managed to make its influence felt once it had been designated to be the European Capital of Culture besides Stravanger in 2008. In the run up to that decisive year all current and designated cities are eager to exchange experiences, know how and interact on various levels as they start to build up resources for the implementation of their one year programme. In the process Liverpool '08 in consortium with other cities like Essen / Ruhr 2010 managed to up-end already to a large extent the ECCM Network. They did so by creating besides the older and formal network an informal one. The latter links current and future designated cities with only former cities of the past two years.

It means the ECCM Symposium came at a time of many changes being afoot and most to the detriment of this specific network wishing to link former, current and future European Capitals of Culture. Thus the Symposium 'Productivity of Culture' turned out to be the last thing the ECCM Network did prior to dissolving completely in 2010.

Rather than showing strength, the positions taken by its member at the gathering in Athens revealed all the inherent weaknesses of the network. They had become apparent already at the First Symposium held in Athens in 2005 and where reinforced by what took place after the ECCM held its last official General Assembly in Patras 2006.

Conclusion

Even though the ECCM Symposium 'Productivity of Culture' offered a perspective for further reflection as to how internal and external cultural matters of Europe could be linked with one another through the idea of a 'network of networks', this was never taken up thereafter. One reason might have been that after meeting in Athens in October 2007 no strong signal was send out. Also the publication of the procedures was very much delayed while what was available on the website largely ignored as someone like Spyros Mercouris would not work at such a level of communication. Consequently the ECCM network failed to convince even its own members that this idea of networking European Capitals of Culture within a global context was both a viable and a very practical idea.

Needless to say the ECCM Symposium did not succeed with regards to this objective even though the presentations made and the subsequent discussions indicated that a certain potentiality was there. But that is clearly not enough if there is absent a certain credibility and if the thoughts expressed are not convincing enough to secure further going support. They may have been if not too idealistic, perhaps very much holistic and thus did not allow the going into details. But a prime reason for this failure was that the ECCM had members who preferred either to stay away or if in Athens then silent. They did not offer any practical solution for the internal problems besetting the network, including a lack of recognition of who made things still work, nor did they reach out enough to include those who had become critical of the ECCM Network or did not know what potential the ECCM network had to continue the dialogue between former, current and future European Capitals of Culture.

Hatto Fischer Athens 30.8.2010

 

Post-script: the folding of the ECCM Network in 2010

From: Ivonne Cunha Rego [mailto:ifcrego(at)yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 10:51 PM

Subject: ECCM – Network of the European Capitals of Culture and Cultural Months - Final Communication

Dear colleagues, dear friends,

Acting within our task as coordinators ad interim of the Network we want to inform you that ECCM has ceased to exist with the cessation in the “Registre de Commerce et des Sociétés”, Luxembourg, siege social of our Network, as  of June 11, 2010. This cessation was based on the consent expressed by the members to our proposal to bring ECCM to an end.

We want to thank all member cities, organizations and individual persons who have supported the work of the Network. Thanks to ECCM the ideas of disseminating culture in Europe, fostering trans-European cultural cooperation, making culture an important factor of public life and serving sustainability of cultural actions and structures were promoted.

Other initiatives have emerged meanwhile so  we can be convinced that the ideas of ECCM will prevail in the future.

We invite all interested friends and colleagues to continue serving these ideas by supporting the Documentation Center on European Capitals of Culture, http://www.ecoc-doc-athens.eu. This Center has been established in Athens recently and it will be inaugurated officially on October 2010 upon invitation of the Mayor of Athens and in the presence of the EU-Commissioner for Culture and personalities from various cities and countries in Europe.

You can simply express your interest by emailing: info@ecoc-doc-athens.eu

With our kind regards,

Luxemburg, June 11, 2010

Ivonne Felman da Cunha Rego                           Jörg-Ingo Weber

Note: The Documentation Centre closed its door in late 2009 just prior to municipal elections.

^ Top

« Declaration of Delphi 3rd July 1999 | Informal network - Ruhr 2010 and Liverpool '08 »