European Capitals of CultureΠοιειν Και Πραττειν - create and do

You are here: Home » Institution of European Capitals of Culture » Debate about European Capitals of Culture » Hatto Fischer » Presentation of European Capitals of Culture - Hatto Fischer

Presentation of European Capitals of Culture - Hatto Fischer

 

The European Capital of Culture experience

Within the European Union, the approach to cities has undergone some critical changes as exemplified by the institution of European Capital of Culture. Initiated by Melina Mercouri Athens 1985 became the first city to host such an institution. To capture that spirit, it might suffice to remind before the European Union came about, Europeans looked upon Paris as cultural capital. This notion held despite two World Wars. By creating the institution of cultural capital designated on a rotational basis with changes in the selection process in store over the years since 1985, it has become within Europe a success story of its own kind.

Less noticed in the process is that when a city becomes cultural capital for one year, it alters cultural orientations in Europe by linking up with that concrete local level. Athens 1985 meant fore mostly bringing artists and cultural actors to not merely one central place, but followed the need to disseminate culture by including as venues local theatres, small municipalities and yet to be discovered ‘hidden’ places e.g. a quarry converted into a theatre stage for Peter Stein’s ‘Orestie’.

 

The three cities designated for 2010 as European Capitals of Culture (Essen / Ruhr in Germany, Pecs in Hungary and Istanbul in Turkey), are engaged already as part of preparations in cross-cultural dialogue. By doing so they are setting a measure for what lies ahead in an expanded European Union from six to 27 member states. Crucial is that this allows handling the question of Turkey’s entry in a more realistic, equally culturally reflected way. To this end Istanbul is giving already many interesting impulses for bridging Europe with what lies beyond the Bosporus. At the same time, Essen / Ruhr 2010 is using culture to convert an entire former industrial region into a new cultural space as explained by Bernd Fessel at the ECCM Symposium ‘Productivity of Culture’ held in Athens Oct. 18 – 19, 2007. [1]

Obviously culture plays a crucial role when cities are designated to become European Capitals of Culture. [2] Unfortunately culture was neglected at the beginning of the European Union. For one it was more of an economic union, on the other hand member states wanted to retain control the cultural identity formation process. Still today, citizens express a fear to lose their cultural identities in an anonymous European super state and the selection process ascribes to the national dimension. Cultural sovereignty was also one main reason for France and Holland to reject the EU Constitutional Treaty and why the follow-up, the Lisbon Treaty may be rejected by the only referendum to be held in Ireland in June 2008. For obvious reasons loss of cultural identity is cited most often by the press, but in reality the lack of citizen participation is reflected more definitely in their lack of knowledge why the Lisbon Treaty has been proposed by the Member States. If again not ratified by all member states, it shall deepen the legitimacy crisis of the European Union following the rejection of the EU Constitutional Treaty.

Melina Mercouri’s initiative intended to do just, namely to let people participate in Europe through culture. However, she did not give so much thought to culture of any specific city; rather she thought of the designation as a way to bring together and to show various European cultures. As pointed out by Juergen Mittag (2008) in his edition about the Idea of European Capitals of Culture, it had the consequence that the first cities to be selected were more or less well known capitals e.g. Paris, Madrid, Berlin etc. [3] All that changed once Glasgow became Capital of Culture. In that city culture was used to reuse traditional places by converting, for example, a church into a cultural centre and thereby bring back people into urban spaces long neglected by city sprawl. New was use of culture to inspire urban renewal. It was mainly the work of Bob Palmer who succeeded with the support of the mayor to bring about a practical linkage between what culture can do and where cities were lagging behind most, namely in letting people participate in a meaningful life. Critics of this alteration in the concept like Spyros Mercouris argued the original idea of culture as meeting of people to allow dialogue was betrayed by making functional use of culture. Yet it is clear that cities would use culture to the best of their advantage and try to revamp their image by transforming the Cultural Capital Year into a marketing strategy to attract in future more tourists and other interested people to venues either revamped or created especially for that one year.

Every European Capital of Culture has its own success story but generally fails to sustain the process after the year has been completed. But by going away from large to smaller cities like Weimar, these cities get a chance to restore the cultural heritage buildings and to pose anew the crucial question about their role in European culture. In Weimar it was a matter of not only how to step out of the shadow of the East German past having neglected for a long time the classical heritage, but also how could Germany have allowed during National Socialism concentration camps when there were not only Goethe and Schiller, but equally the Bauhaus tradition and many other cultural impetus linked to poetry and philosophy? Consequently Weimar brought with its motto ‘SALVE’ into public awareness not only Goethe and Schiller, but Buchenwald existing at its very doorstep. At the same time, care was taken when restoring the old cobble stones in the streets of Weimar, to have the names engrave in them of those who had died of AIDS. Equally of interest was from an urban renewal perspective that Weimar banned all advertisement from the streets and thereby made truly visible the restored architecture. [4]

Usually what happens when a city is Capital of Culture, various European organisations, networks and institutions hold their meetings there. This brings Europe to that city and lets the visitors take note of the potentialities of that city for future events e.g. Sibiu 2007 in Rumania restored its history of churches and put itself thereby on the map of future travellers. A more novel, equally qualitative step was undertaken by Cork 2005: being small, it activated the local population greatly to the extent that even the Irish Council of the Arts took note and has now a better appreciation of cultural resources there. Cork organised cultural actions in all sorts of places, including hospitals and jails. For poetry and translation they developed a special system: foreign poets were translated by local residents who spoke that respective language and could act as mediator. It underlines one fact about culture: it is about compassion. In order that a particular poet is translated, that requires a special love and which cannot be provided by superficial market orientated publishing house. Rather it is about someone falling crazily in love with a poet in Rumania and doing everything to make that poet become known in the own language and cultural context. Such compassion and passion has to be nurtured and promoted very carefully.

When Brussels became with eight other cities European Cultural Capital City in 2000, the city was a typical example of fragmentation. While streets around Place Sablon exhibited high life, urban areas just around the corner were steeped in horrific poverty. Fragmentation was intensified by having 18 municipalities all with their own agenda and not really able to work together. Above all there is still today the tension between the Flemish and French speaking populations with their respective institutions more at odds with one another than trying to learn how to get along with the other side. There is still another form of alienation leaving an imprint upon the city: while the local population commutes daily to work in Brussels but does not live there since too expensive, there are all the European institutions were a highly privileged group of people work. They enjoy salaries and other resources which are incomparable with what an average Belgium is paid. There has to be added to the city’s profile numerous other institutions, including NATO which creates the curiosity amongst diplomats insofar each country delegates three ambassadors to Brussels for representative purposes to Belgium, European Union and NATO. The high costs incurred to sustain all of this representation must pay off somehow. There are all the lobbies, but it can be equally reflected on hand of even German Laender like Baveria having a highly prestigious building right besides the European Parliament. The latter is erected on grounds where a former intricate, indeed red light district had existed. That story of eviction and destruction of local cultural fabrics as told by photographer Marin Kasimir (1998) remind very much of a similar fate of ‘Les Halles’ once Paris proceeded to expel the central market to the outskirts and thereby exported, as poet Bapiste Marray put it, life from the city. [5] These parts of the city are all hustle and bustle during working hours, but completely deserted at night and thus exposing anyone walking there alone at that late hour to all kinds of artificial existences.

Bob Palmer

When Bob Palmer became artistic director of Brussels 2000 he brought with him all the experiences he made when in a similar position in Glasgow 1990. The prospects to become cultural capital had improved greatly within these ten years since a huge budget was available to use art and cultural actions as a strategic way to go forward with urban renewal i.e. revitalization of areas till then abandoned. A great feat of Bob Palmer made it possible to find a consensus between the two major linguistic and culturally distinct communities which developed jointly ideas on how to use again the arts and culture in general for urban renewal projects. Youth centres were created in areas were till then only poverty and crime ruled. Above all Brussels became united around the idea of a special parade which has continued since then as a traditional event taking place every year at the same time. The parade draws out the ridiculous parts of everyone and in so doing makes daily life be more acceptable i.e. no longer something weird.

Although Brussels 2000 was not capable of overcoming the huge gap between the Eurocrats and the local population, the city learned how to come to terms with its different functions and still provide room for discussions and participation. Based on the basic notion that ‘you never know for whom else such openings are good for’ Brussels became an interesting process to watch. Above all it was most interesting to observe how individuals like Bob Palmer coming from Glasgow would provide orientation on how to use culture to resolve first of all conflicts and then still make space for everyone to express ideas so that the risk of obliteration of identities due to the Belgium past and European presence was reduced to an acceptable level. It made life in the city more into a challenge than a threat. Everyone felt life coming back and with it some notion of security. Naturally that solved only temporarily the political, indeed linguistic and cultural dispute in Belgium but showed that French and Flemish actors can work together.

Brussels 2000 meant culture stands first of all for a way to bring together people who otherwise would not otherwise speak to each other. As a strategy it means to create and to give space without occupying it oneself – something Michel Foucault said is the prerequisite for any philosophical discourse and in terms of culture a way to overcome structural dispositions towards negative outlooks if a city does not provide such spaces. Translated into culture and cultural actions, Bob Palmer was of the opinion that projects to be selected for Brussels 2000 should work across borders and energize people. In the combination of the two, namely giving space but also working across borders, new energies made Brussels into a vibrant city and all municipalities able to agree on a common working program for the benefit of the city as a whole. [6]

There was one special feat which eight of the nine European Capitals of Culture brought about in 2000: café 9 (originally all nine wanted to participate but then one opted not to). For two months all modern means of communication, video displays, voice conferencing etc. were used to bring the eight cities to talk about their various projects. In the end that amounted to 80 projects e.g. ‘fear in the city’, ‘your favourite tramway route’ etc. When discussing the projects, one person coordinated it and gave if not Brussels, then Helsinki or Prague etc. the right to speak. People gathered in conference forums equipped with computers and video screens so that everyone could view the project’s visual and acoustic content while following the general discussion. One constraint was in place all the time: no one was to use the communication channels for personal messages. Café 9 demonstrated the possibility of cities to enter a horizontal discussion organized simultaneously across the board and therefore gave an idea how citizens could in future shape their respective urban agendas with prospect of having some of the points being adopted as part of the European agenda. It was an exercise in civil liberty and in discursive practice. At the same time, it tested the technical limits since artistic and cultural contents were often too complex to be transported and processed by available state of the arts. Since then many more technical innovations have enhanced that possibility but without the social and political dimension the technical availability by itself will do nothing to enhance the participation of citizens in shaping the European agenda.

The type of cultural planning involved when a city receives the designation by the European Union to be the European Cultural Capital City for a specific year can be exemplified on hand of Linz 2009 which involved citizens, artists, cultural experts, political forums and Municipal council to draft over a two year period the so-called ‘Cultural Development Plan’ (2000). [7] Conceived as an open ended learning process, it mapped for the city a strategy to qualify itself for the designation and once received to appoint by the criteria set in the development plan first of all the artistic director. For without securing his position, European Capitals of Culture end up as a failure e.g. Patras 2006 saw its artistic director resign three days after the opening of the cultural year due to much political fights and conflict of interest perpetuating incompetence and loss of time in preparations. There are several phases to be gone through from drafting the proposal to entering the competition with other cities to actually preparing the ground for the one year, and then after one year of implementation, what will happen afterwards.

As to the question of sustainability, Bob Palmer has written a comprehensive report for the European Commission to evaluate whether or not the concept proves to be sustainable. [8] Moreover the philosopher Bart Verschaffel, after he made some experiences as coordinator for literature when Antwerp was Europe’s Cultural Capital City in 1993, pointed out while every city wants clearly to receive such designation very few of them have in fact the managerial capacity to cope with the sudden cultural demand made of the city once it is European Capital of Culture. This is in itself an important point: culture as a complexity by itself and therefore not so simply handled. Success cannot be measured only in terms of visitors, amount of money spend in relation to earning made etc. for cultural impact of a good story told to a child may fruit only years later when that child now grown up follows quite a different narrative to make its way through the world.

Hatto Fischer

 

[1] http://productivityofculture.org/symposium/a-z/bernd-fesel/#cv

[2] See official website of the EU: http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-programmes-and-actions/doc413_en.htm

[3] Juergen Mittag (ed. (2008) Die Idee der Kulturhauptstadt Europas. Essen: Klartext (no English translation yet)

[4] This was something Antwerp neglected to do when cultural capital in 1993. The restored houses in the main streets were immediately hidden by advertisements which prevented the visitors from looking above ground level to see the upper parts of the buildings.

[5] For a very interesting photo documentation of this transformation of place see Marin Kasimir, (1998) “From Here to There”, Kunstverein Grafschaft Bentheim, Leuven: Exhibitions International.

[6] Text by Bob Palmer for the ECCM exhibition “Twenty years of History – a Journey through the world” done by curator Spyros Mercouris for the ECCM Network in Patras 2006 from March 27th until May 17th 2006.

[7] Linz, (2000) Cultural Development Plan, Resolution of the Linz City Council on 2nd March 2000, Provincial Capital of Linz see www.linz.at/kultur/kep

[8] Bob Palmer and Associates, (2004) European Cities and Capitals of Culture - Study Prepared for the European Commission, August 2004

^ Top

« Reflections about ECoC in 2010 - Hatto Fischer | An overview 25 years later in Brussels 2010 by Hatto Fischer »