European Capitals of CultureΠοιειν Και Πραττειν - create and do

You are here: Home » EU Commission » Towards a new selection process » ECoC Public Consultation in Brussels 2.3.2011 » A proxy answer to the consultation questionnaire

A proxy answer to the consultation questionnaire

on the future of the European Capitals of Culture in 2011

Download PDF version

 

 

SECTION 1: ABOUT YOU

2.1 In the current rules for the ECoC, the objective of the action reads as follows: "to highlight the richness and diversity of European cultures and the features they share, as well as to promote greater mutual understanding between European citizens". After 25 years, is this objective: (compulsory)

While all agree cultural diversity is important, there is a need to go beyond merely highlighting it.

The EU policy with regards to cultural diversity has been a failure.

Here are some of the reasons:

  1. The tools are not able to relate to different discourses and dialogues e.g. the concept of intercultural dialogue is but an operation with half truths.

  2. There are as well regressive developments under way in Europe e.g. handling of the Roma question, growing xenophobic forces and chancellor Merkel declaring the multi-cultural model as being dead. This trend reinforces exclusion and uses culture linked to language as measure of exclusion.

  3. A clear mistake has been to force everyone into an either/or situation while leaving out the European dimension e.g. a foreign person in Germany having to learn the German language, an Arabic person in France the French culture but integration into Europe would have to mean something else e.g. learning the European languages.

  4. The effort of the bureaucrats is to make the European Union as political project ever more efficient when in fact its inefficiency – waste of resources and wrong allocation of them – is underlined by the inability to resolve the dominance of the member states at the expense of European integration.

 

Inspiration and future perspectives – the light of the EU and the possible role of European Capitals of Culture

To promote greater mutual understanding between European citizens, there is a need for such ‘cultural governance’ which can bridge as well the gap between citizens and EU institutions. While in one case specific experiences made are not reflected upon, on the other hand people have too few experiences of Europe. Thus it would be important to follow up Simon Mundy’s understanding of European history consisting of Southern and Northern influences to make it ‘home’. Therefore ‘coming home in Europe’ can also describe the vision for arriving after the journey through this special region of Denmark and Schleswig Holstein, Germany in a Europe capable of facing the challenges of the twenty-first century.

Sonderborg 2017 will reflect upon cultural diversity being lived on a practical and daily basis with people on both sides of the Danish-German border having developed thanks to cultural interactions friendships and lasting relationships beyond mere good neighbours. To go from practice to theory about cultural diversity will show that lasting relationships are based on an equal access to community. Once national identities no longer predominate new identities with linkages to the European level shall become possible. Decisions should be based on such a cultural consensus which allows taking into consideration each others’ differences.

 

Title: Beyond Either/Or – after Kierkegaard

Key word: cultural governance, participation, European citizenship

Category: Philosophy

Methodology: To step out of the shadow of borders is an art. Often people in the region think they do not count. Moreover borders can be drawn by all kinds of mechanisms. There are tangible ones like the Berlin wall, and there are intangible ones (the Polish German border or the difference between West and East Germans has remained as a most fluid one.) The experiences made in 'border regions' need to be reflected upon. They include as well a difference between just living in a city and in living in reference to a region with one or more major cities making up the overall infrastructure.

Task: This includes the question whether or not the influence of Hegel can be overcome. Hegel's system is based on the negation of one’s own differences and otherness. It requires assuming first an abstract identity linked to the state before becoming concrete, that is understandable for the other.

There shall be tried out whether a cultural identification process can follow through on the philosophical dictum that ‘identity is non-identity’ (Adorno).

 

One example: Sonderborg 2017

It shall mean starting a philosophical debate which departs from Kierkegaard. In the formal and informal discussions people will be encouraged to examine if it is possible to overcome the impossibility of love as postulated by Kierkegaard.

It will mean coming to terms with the many who have ended up after many disappointments and failures near or in a state of nihilism.

Poul Valdemar Nielsen also quotes Kierkegaard who said if we are all equal (in a superficial way), where will be still visible the differences? That is a difficult question to resolve but worthwhile thinking about. The answer by Adorno has been to perceive culture as a search for being unique, for doing something which is 'sui generis'.

European Capital of Culture: A chance shall be to conceive the European Capital of Culture as making possible novel experiences of cultural participation. It can be done through diverse activities showing diversity as the best way to link local, regional, European and global levels. Since culture means giving to people the needed tools to cope with both changes and complexity, if it becomes a real practice to work out real differences while remaining in touch with the human stream of communication, then cultural innovation brought about by EcoC shall mean finding ways to close the gap between citizens and EU institutions.

 

 How? (optional)

 

 Please specify (optional)

 

2.2 To what extent do you believe that the ECOC generates the following long-term benefits for cities holding the title and for their citizens:

a) More vibrant cultural scene in the city

A more vibrant cultural scene in the city is always desirable but it cannot be planned as it depends on empty spaces which artists can use to develop projects. Certainly by introducing jazz and letting ongoing theatre (both inside and outside) take place, the cultural scene can contribute to innovative practices as here experiments are made and the character remains most of the time highly creative, but equally informal. Crucial is to distinguish this from formal culture within given institutions.

Given the special characteristics of Sonderborg, maritime related activities should also spill over from the port into the city. If interdisciplinary discussions happen at the same time everywhere in the city and region, then people will no longer be so reluctant to enliven the scene with their own informal contributions.

There is a matter of asking how people use public spaces: do they engage in discussions in market places, do they develop themselves different forms of participation and become active in terms of cultural articulation? One crucial problem is that values are set but hardly ever discussed.

Open life brings with it a different tone in the city. Not quiet to the point of being boring, but alive with people willing to discuss things.

For this to happen some key measures are needed to be applied if investment in culture is to have long term benefits.

Recognition of a cultural scene as something vibrant and able to add something to the life in the city means also to be able to evaluate the contribution culture is making to the city and the region.

Keyword: informal artistic and cultural activities being recognized as vital ingredients of a culture capable of enriching the lives of citizens.

b) Wider participation in/access to culture for citizens

It is declared goal of Sonderborg to strengthen and to ensure citizen’s participation not only in experiencing, but in planning and implementing the cultural program of Sonderborg 2017. This is done by letting the key concept of the bid be validated by citizen’s participation. It shall be extended and deepened through volunteers and ambassadors. By encouraging everyone to participate, it means tapping into the main resource of the region, namely the innovative capacity of people living in this city and region.

Link up with the European Platform for Access and its work while testing locally and regionally as well ways of improving participation e.g. minority groups should be represented in the staff of the cultural institutions while also artefacts in need of being interpreted a key to altering the stories being told. This might also explain what is meant by 'poverty of culture' if only official culture is represented in museums and not that of minorities living in society.

Often lack of clarity about cultural priorities needs to identify where cultural investments shall be needed.

Key term: creative intelligence, learning by doing, social innovation

c) Better awareness of European culture(s)

By bringing the local and regional culture into contact with European cultures, and this especially through new forms of cultural cooperation e.g. with Cyprus, an awareness amongst the citizens is enhanced. But more needs to be done in this direction. International understanding needs not only empathy for others but dialogue based on mutual recognition. This can be brought about by activating the imagination e.g. museums becoming spaces in which other parts of the world can be explored. It means also a new valorization as each culture can and does contribute to the European self-understanding. By entering new forms of communication with the others and this through participatory forms of cultural cooperation, misunderstandings are reduced especially if artistic expressions are not reduced to political opinions about the other.

Method: cultural calendar allowing people to follow different cultural events and holidays in other countries and ‘diary of the year’ (modelled after Uwe Johnson) which allows everyone to follow both the events in the European Capital of Culture but also at the same time what is being done in the other European Capital of Culture in Cyprus and what is happening all over Europe. For things can happen like the break out of a war and what then happens if the celebration continues as if nothing was happening in the world. There is a need to remain responsive to the needs of the others.

d) More likely to participate in European exchanges and networking

There is a reluctance to enter European projects due to their extensive bureaucracy and limited funds especially for cultural projects where the co-financing of 50/50% favours only large cultural institutes while small NGOs representing civil society have little chance. Also many bureaucratic interventions make the real work more burdensome or is even sidetracked. A sensitivity is there with regards to the typical Euro jargon and what many experience as a language not accessible i.e. easy to be understood.

Can the European Capital of Culture develop a scheme by which art projects are started and can continue after the one year in terms of sustainability on their own financial capacity. But if financial sustainability means driving a NGO into business even though that was not their purpose, then some other models need to be found.

It shall be the responsibility of the EcoC Sonderborg 2017 to enhance an improvement in funding of cultural activities and therefore shall link up with the European campaigns organised by Culture Action Europe.

Artists from the Sonderborg 2017 region will be send abroad and promoted, thereby ensuring that their capacities but also their entries into European networks shall be enhanced.

e) Better international profile and image for the city

Definitely an international profile depends upon CNN showing gulf courses which business travelers desire and when companies want to invest in that place because they think there labour and living quality go together. Ireland was such a place until the Celtic Tiger crumbled. The failed realization that not every international image matters sinks only lately. The question is what can be a true image and not a fake one, one dictated merely by the communication media but having nothing to do with how people live at the place.

 

Repeatedly experience of EcoC shows that branding of the city will mistake image with showing the identity of the place. Liverpool '09 attempted to leave behind the image of being a down graded harbor city and trade it in with the image of being a dynamic hub. However, the image orientation is superficial and the paint wears off as the years go by.

 

There may be a lesson to be drawn out of museum practice. It is not networking which helps to put the reputation of the museum forward. Rather if the contents can be communicated well by the museum's experts, then this is already communication if the content is the message. Quite a difference is set by the Biblaou Guggenheim museum building since that is the message and not the content.

f) Sustained increase in tourist visits

Experience shows that certainly in the year after visitors increase but what sustains tourist visits is that the improved image of the city means a clearer identification of its cultural resources allow for further going actions. That would mean going further and beyond simple and reduced profiles of visitors.

Some cities attempt to further conference tourism. Patras tried but failed while Liverpool seems to have succeeded in creating a potential for conference tourism. More important would be to secure the location of new cultural institutions in the city and region to ensure ongoing international contacts will attract more people.

A simple indication is that the people living in the city shall have a new map to show people around after the year of European Capital of Culture has passed by. That includes taxi drivers and others interacting first of all with visitors. Showing around can also mean everyone is interested in places which have made recent history. This is guaranteed by the city having become an important meeting place and therefore is on the map of Europeans and international travellers.

g) Economic benefits (e.g. new business investment, new jobs)

Every action in need to be undertaken for 2017 will create new jobs and have economic benefits. It begins with the realization by the taxi driver that there will be during that year more customers or at least this is always the hope that some economic benefits will lift up the dim prospects. But structurally speaking, if not other problems are resolved, then the long term perspective will not alter very much. People and especially the youth will leave for other parts of the world in the hope to find improved living conditions, better study possibilities and above all an opportunity to work but not so much that no time is left to live the money earned in due process.

h) Social inclusion through culture

By people making more direct and personal experiences, they will open up and therefore be more willing to let others into their lives. Culture is about telling true stories with the aim to share (Michael D. Higgins).

Cultural governance would mean in this case to transform cultural rights into access to the community and this means anyone can contribute to the making of a collective art work. By entering a collaborative learning process culture will be then the expression of not one single creative artist nor be determined by pre concepts like the notion of a nation, but by altering cultural heritage to become the task of true story telling it will be crucial that not merely a privileged selection of stories are heard, but importance is given to those stories not heard as of yet. There is a hidden mechanism by which many stories remain hidden. This silence including the silencing of the past is a problem for Europe as stories are continued on the basis of heritage which prevent people from changing the conditions and the practices. For instance, clinging to Royalty is clearly used to unify at a fake level the heterogenous society looked upon as dangerous even when everyone refers to cultural diversity as being positive. The practice of mendacity or the use of public lie in order not to inform in detail people about the true nature of policies favoring but privileged classes is a big problem in Europe and prevents the bringing about of social cohesion and equality.

i) More favourable view of Europe and the EU

A more favourable view of Europe and the EU can only be if the European Union becomes again a European community with everyone having an access. There is a need to resolve with countries like the UK their anti European policy while the Euro crisis provoked by state deficits indicates that the EU institutions could not prevent the irresponsible handling of money. The extra European value is negated if everyone only wishes to gain from the EU without putting anything into it. This national accounting distorts a view of European accounting in need to be linked to the true purchasing power. As one professor said without management of supply at regional level there is no future. The EU governance has to be thought through and be linked to a true EU constitutional treaty since the failure of ratifying the EU Constitutional Treaty in 2005 has led to a loss of moral legitimization of EU institutions, something the Lisbon Treaty has failed to address.

2.3 Would you like to comment on the benefits that cities and their citizens enjoy? (optional)

Cities and citizens can enjoy the special year if they participate truly in the European debate as a result of attending cultural events. Thus theatre performances should not remain as such but invite the audiences to participate by gaining in certainty about their abilities to contribute. Most telling was the audience of Liverpool attending a theatre which was not funded during that year and still managed to bring everyone on stage.

 

2.4 To your mind, should the ECoC action continue after 2019? (optional)

Yes, for city and culture within Europe means seeking places to meet in order to discuss.

 

SECTION 3: CRITERIA TO BECOME A ECOC

In order to become a ECoC, a city has to propose a programme which fulfils a set of criteria. In the current rules for the ECoC, the criteria are subdivided into two categories:" the European Dimension" and "City and Citizens". We would like to know your views on these criteria.

 

 

3.1 Criterion 1 (European dimension): foster cooperation between cultural operators, artists and cities from the relevant Member States and other Member States in any cultural sector. To what extent is this criterion relevant? (compulsory)

This is done in such an exclusive manner that real cultural cooperation is not brought about. It leaves also the artistic NGOs of civil society outside the scope and vision of European Capitals of Culture even though they are in many cases the initiators and the ones who delivered the prime ideas. That contradiction between initiators and implementers means other powers take over once the designation has been given. That is but the best way to loose any form of authenticity.

3.1a Should future ECoC be required to place more emphasis on this criterion than have previous ECoC? (compulsory)

Criteria should be deduced out of the experiences made by previous cities so that the designation becomes a part of an ongoing learning process on how to facilitate EU institutions to implement EU cultural policy to promote the arts and artists. This would mean the European Capital of Culture with its different legal base could initiate things that differ from EU institutions as it is much closer connected to citizens and artists. The working out of cultural priorities for the sake of culture(s) in Europe has to do with progressing in cultural governance.

 

 How? (optional)

 

3.2 Criterion 2 (European dimension): highlight the richness of cultural diversity in Europe. To what extent is this criterion relevant? (compulsory)

As said at the outset highlighting is not enough to understand the problems linked with identity and diversity. The fake unity as invented by the nation state has remained the major obstacle in progressing towards a true European culture. Or as Habermas would put it up to now people could not make any real European experience as the structures are linked to the nation state e.g. voting but also funding through national contact points. Thus the negative experience of the EU standing for only superfluous bureaucratic work is said loosely without often justification since the progressive nature of EU programmes is often undermined by having to satisfy different kinds of reporting when in fact the most difficult to thing to evaluate is culture itself. This evaluation criterion should be in the foreground and not so much what is being done for culture, but what is happening to European culture and therefore to different cultures. A much more realistic language is needed than what is in place namely a managerial language used under the pretext to know how to organise cultural events when in fact there is a need for cultures to unfold and to bring different cultures together as the making of the European culture.

3.2a Should future ECoC be required to place more emphasis on this criterion than have previous ECoC? (compulsory)

See above

 How? (optional)

 

3.3 Criterion 3 (European dimension): bring the common aspects of European cultures to the fore. To what extent is this criterion relevant?

 No one seems to know what is a European dimension when in fact it is linked to dialogue as part of the method of democracy to come to decisions in an objective, transparent and accountable way. This is needed to be reinforced if European praxis will lead to making such experiences that governance at European level becomes both convincing and forward looking. Naturally the common elements of a European culture should be brought to the fore much more.

3.3a Should future ECoC be required to place more emphasis on this criterion than have previous ECoC? (compulsory)

yes

 How? (optional)

 

3.4 Criterion 4 (City and citizens): foster the participation of the citizens living in the city and its surroundings and raise their interest as well as the interest of citizens from abroad. To what extent is this criterion relevant?

 It is relevant to the extent that it would mean true participation. But participation is as of yet no guarantee for true artistic work being done and recognized. After all it should not be forgotten that culture works like a filter and allows the setting of priorities in accordance with the perception of cultural needs. Since in any given society there are contradictions between some having quite a different access to culture, culture must mean as well the working out of these contradictions. This cannot be done by resorting to such slogans as 'leveling the playing field' since the preforation of such terms reflects again the fake publicity game being played when in substance it is not about gaining experiences in cultural governance. Practically there is an identity crisis of cultural workers who are caught in between formal and informal ways of communicating information relevant to the unfolding of culture. A certain phase of modernisation has swept for instance museums but today they are confronted by other puzzles. In recognition of these difficulties to sustain cultural institutions especially in periods of tight money, there is a need for a general overhaul of how the EU can facilitate and help the financing of cultural institutions and work being done to link the informal with the formal levels of artistic articulation. The fact that culture does not appear in the vision of 2020 says it all about the neglect to bring forward the European agenda for culture.

 

3.4a Should future ECoC be required to place more emphasis on this criterion than have previous ECoC? (compulsory)

See above

 

 How? (optional)

 

3.5 Criterion 5 (city and citizens): be sustainable and be an integral part of the long-term cultural and social development of the city. To what extent is this criterion relevant? (compulsory)

If sustainability would mean also continuing to work for the city so that anyone approaching that organisation to be then speaking with the whole city, then the selection criteria would have to focus as well on the organisation put in place for the EcoC year. If done by typical cultural managers or professors who move on after the task is finished, then their connection with the city is not real but at best a fictional one. That would leave the cultural infrastructues build up for the one year without any sustainability. The closest model so far has not been Lille although praised for staying on but individuals like Eric Antonis or Spyros Mercouris who have continued to do something for the culture of their respective cities.

3.5a Should future ECoC be required to place more emphasis on this criterion than have previous ECoC? (compulsory)

Yes, there should be in place the highest possible artistic and aesthetical criteria for performances in all kinds of artistic expressions to ensure the working together of all cultural actors.

 How? (optional)

 

3.6 Are there any other criteria which should be prioritised by the ECoC? (optional)

Cultural governance as indication of being responsible as to what is happening to culture throughout Europe.

 

SECTION 4: SELECTION PROCEDURE

Currently, the rules for the ECoC include a chronological list of Member States indicating the order in which they are entitled to host the event up to 2019. Each year, two different Member States can participate in the selection procedure and one city in each Member State is ultimately selected (provided it fulfils the criteria).

 

wtorek, 16 listopada 2010

List do Komisarz Vasilliou - Ocena Łodzi w ESK2016

Commissioner Androulla Vassiliou
European Commission
200 rue de la Loi (BERL 10/110)
B-1049 Brussels

CC:
Mr Bogdan Zdrojewski
Minister of Culture and National
Heritage of Republic of Poland/

Mr Tomasz Sadzynski
Mayor of the City of Lodz

Mr Tomasz Kacprzak
Chairman of the City Council in Lodz

Mr Krzysztof Candrowicz
Director of the Lodz Art Center

Regarding: Enquiry about the equal chances and transparency rules involved in the process of selection of cities in the Poland’s bid for the European Capital of Culture 2016

Lodz, November 16th, 2010

Dear Madam Commissioner,
On October 12th 2010 I had a pleasure to be in the delegation from the city of Lodz, Poland,
presenting the project submitted for the bid for the European Capital of Culture 2016. I am a citizen of Lodz who was engaged in developing the application, among others the leader of a civic movement towards development of a Creative District in the Lodz’ Ksiezy Mlyn. Lodz was among 12 cities presenting their applications on 12-13th October, the verdict regarding which cities are going to the next stage of the was announced on 13th October. My city was not among the group of five selected for the shortlist, which caused disappointment but also a concern occurred to me:
I was very surprised that during the presentation the judging panel of the Polish experts included persons living and working in the cities running for the bid - namely Warsaw and Poznan.

Therefore, I would like to kindly request you to look into the matter and provide me with the information regarding whether it was in agreement with the rules of equal chances and transparency that the European Commission promotes.

Also, today I have read the Report by the Selection Committee (Komisja Selekcyjna), and I am afraid the assessment presented seems based on impressions rather than clear qualitative and quantitative indicators. The word “impression” is even used in the assessment regarding the Lodz project.

I look forward for your reply, which I would like to share with other citizens of Lodz, regarding both the equal chances and transparency rules as well as a lack of indicators
in the comparison of cities.

Kind regards, Monika Dziegielewska-Geitz

---


Commissioner Androulla Vassiliou
European Commission
200 rue de la Loi (BERL 10/110)
B-1049 Brussels

CC:
Mr Bogdan Zdrojewski
Minister of Culture and National
Heritage of Republic of Poland/

Mr Tomasz Sadzynski
Mayor of the City of Lodz

Mr Tomasz Kacprzak
Chairman of the City Council in Lodz

Mr Krzysztof Candrowicz
Director of the Lodz Art Center

 

4.1 To your mind should the selection of ECoC after 2019: (compulsory)

Be based on a new chronological list of Member States in order to ensure equal opportunity for each Member State (without taking into account their potential in terms of number of cities with the capacity of hosting such an event)

Be based on an alternative solution

 

Be based on a competition which is open to cities in all EU Member States, in order to select only the very best candidates

Don't know

 

 

 How many Member States should be entitled to host the event every year? (compulsory)

 

 Please specify (optional)

 

 

Please specify

 (optional)

 

SECTION 5: DURATION OF THE EVENT

Currently, the rules of the ECoC specify that the programme of each capital shall last one year, except in duly justified cases. So far all the capitals have lasted one year, however the intensity and the rhythm over the 12 months have varied considerably.

 

5.1 Do you believe that the current duration of one year is:

Yes, is a good idea, but not two or more cities should be selected, but only one.

 

 Please specify (optional)

 

 Please specify (optional)

 

 

SECTION 6: TERRITORY COVERED

Currently, the ECoC title can be awarded exclusively to cities. These cities may however choose to involve their surrounding regions in their programmes (such as for example Luxembourg et Grande Région 2007, Essen für die Ruhr 2010 or Marseille – Provence 2013).

Involving the region is an admittance as if the city is weak and cannot sustain by itself cultural activities. In fact, the existing concept would but reinforce the negative development of rur-urb: semi rural, semi urban areas combine to do something in between culture and mere superficial cultural events activities. No attention is being given to develop further the arts. If culture is to be freed from the commercial pressure to be but a hotel bed filler, then quite another approach has to be taken to ensuring cultural and local development are linked to a true European dimension. The cultural spaces in need to be opened up are anyhow more imaginary ones and thus the build up of cultural infrastructures also the mentality of people and of audiences to participate in the making of culture rather than being mere passive visitors and really only tourists. That would mean no link between those who are coming to the city and those living in the city. It would be quite different if doing things together would put the level of cultural tasks there where people are in need of participation. The most crucial aspect is after all testing models of existence without neglect of culture as an anticipation of the future while doing memory work to ensure complexity can be handled without Reductionism and anti political attitudes exploited to simplify the situation. Thus cultural governance has to be the key to future developments.

 

6.1 To your mind, should the ECoC title after 2019:

 

 Under which conditions? (optional)

 

 Under which conditions? (optional)

  Yes, continue but with a different selection principle and only one city per year.

SECTION 7: PARTICIPATION OF EUROPEAN THIRD COUNTRIES

Up to the 2010 title, the ECoC action was open to the Member States of the EU, as well as to third countries in Europe. Following the enlargement of the EU and the increase from 15 to 27 Member States, it was decided to limit the participation in the action to the Member States only from 2011. The main reason was that with 27 Member States and the rotation system which has been put in place, each Member State had now to wait 14 years before hosting another Capital.

 

7.1 Should the ECoC title after 2019:

The title should be kept but to return to the original concept with only one city being European Capital of Culture. Also the city should not be made into a national representative of culture but have already a truly European dimension.

 

SECTION 8: IMPLEMENTING MEASURES

Since 1999, the ECoC action is managed by the European Commission. Besides assisting the Member States and the European Panel of independent experts in the selection procedure, the European Commission has also gradually introduced supporting measures aiming at helping the selected cities to organise a successful event. We would like to know your views on these accompanying measures.

8.1 In the six years between the selection of city and the actual year of the title, two monitoring meetings are organised in order to enable the European panel of independent experts to follow the progress of the preparation and if needed to issue recommendations to the city. To your mind, is this monitoring procedure:

Monitoring and evaluation should continue but unnecessary reporting avoided as it absorbs the energy and time needed to develop the program.

 

 Should the monitoring procedure be reinforced? (compulsory)

 

How?

 (optional)

 

8.2 A guide to candidate cities has been published which describes the various steps of the selection procedure, explains the selection criteria and offers a list of good practices taken from past capitals. To your mind are this type of publications: 

Should be complemented by references to documentation as to what the various cities have achieved in the field of culture and of the arts. Also cultural planning and cultural impact studies should be explained more and the linkage to EU policy makers for culture established.

 

 Should this type of publications be further developed? (compulsory)

 

 Please specify (optional)

 

8.3 Since 2009, the European Commission has organised several meetings enabling the exchange of experiences between past, present and future capitals, as well as with candidate cities. To your mind are such meetings: (compulsory)

Right now the ECCM network which did link past, current and future cities no longer exists. The new situation is completely different especially after Liverpool '08 and Ruhr 2010. In the one case you have the break with the past in order to create an informal network of only present and future while Ruhr 2010 represents 54 cities and thus no longer allows a linkage from city to city. The growing importance of the regional aspect also distorts the perception of cultural needs of people living in cities. There is no awareness for the need of continuity. Thus a new network created already by Ruhr 2010 under the title 'International Capital of Culture' means to follow in the footpath of what British Council does for the UK business, namely to use culture to enhance export chances. The tendency to link culture to business and therefore to non cultural priorities leaves the problem of over commercialization of the arts and the business agenda dominating before anything else unanswered. The only pivot point in all of this can be the Documentation Centre housed by the City of Athens. This can become a base for future coordination of activities aiming to link former, current and future cities.

 

 Should these meetings be further developed? (compulsory)

 

 How? (optional)

 

8.4 If the preparation of a designated city progresses well and if all the recommendations of the European panel of independent experts have been implemented, the European Commission awards a money prize to the concerned city three months before the start of the year.  The prize ("Melina Mercouri prize") is currently worth 1.5 million Euro for each city hosting the ECoC. In your opinion, how much EU funding should each ECoC receive?

At the very minimum 3 million but 1,5 mill for an innovative programme, and the other 1,5 to enable the financing of European activities, including the hosting of the European caravan since every organisation or network wishes to hold its meeting in the European Capital of Culture. This means some EU institution should be created to house on a permanent basis for future coordination activities in the respective city.

 Please explain (optional)

 Please explain (optional)

8.5 Are there any other measures the European Commission should develop in order to support cities applying for or holding the ECoC title? 

Make the meeting of the Cultural Committee of the European Parliament and of the Council into a joint compulsory one to underline that each designated city is also responsible for what happens to culture in Europe.

 

SECTION 9: VISIBILITY

The ECoC are often quoted as one of the most visible and prestigious initiatives of the European Union and one of the most appreciated by the European citizens.

 

9.1 Do you agree with this quotation? (compulsory)

Yes

9.2 To what extent are the ECoC (in general) visible across Europe? (compulsory)

Through their programs being picked up by Google and other means of communication as this encourages visits to these cities. Literally said, the ECoC title puts the city on the map and alters in turn the consciousness for Europe as a whole.

9.3 How could the visibility of the ECoC be improved? (optional)

Upgrading of the archive in Athens (Documentation Centre) and improved publications including a Journal of European Capitals of Culture (can be sponsored by airlines and other travel agencies since they benefit the most from enhanced traffic into areas and regions often neglected in an overall sense.

 

SECTION 10: OTHER COMMENTS

10.1 Do you have any other comments? (optional)

Bottom of Form

 

^ Top

« ECoC Public Consultation in Brussels 2.3.2011 | Selection of cities 2020 - 2033 »