European Capitals of CultureΠοιειν Και Πραττειν - create and do

You are here: Home » European Capitals of Culture » Thessaloniki 1997 » Thessaloniki 1997: a lost opportunity

Thessaloniki 1997: a lost opportunity

                                             

 

 

After that decisive year was over, one thing which was expressed over and again by hotel owners, cultural operators, tourist operators etc., was the wish to have a second chance. In retrospect they admitted a golden opportunity to do something outstanding had been missed. Unfortunately such a second chance does not come so easily, safe for a city like Luxembourg which has been twice ECoC or within Greece to another city. After Thessaloniki, there came Patras in 2006 and which turned out sadly to say another lost opportunity.

What was missed? It is said that a lot of money was spend on big performers and huge performances. It was spend way out of all proportions. In retrospect, some Greeks even admit that this was already the beginning of the financial crisis which came finally to the fore in 2009/2010. The squandering of funds is not only money not spend well. It reveals also a loss of measure due to not having a corresponding and transparent structure between concept, objectives, themes and priorities.

Over spending on things not really needed can also elicit the wrong kind of philosophy. If some interpretation thereof can be attempted, then it has certainly to do with cultural actions being guided more by those who enjoy a high reputation within the Greek society and who apply quite other measures as to what is to be gained out of organizing and hosting such an event. It means a kind of lavish display in terms of hotels, food, transport (e.g. business class when flying), while leaving those who do the real work under-paid if at all paid as it was taken often for granted by the cultural elite that the normal people should consider it as an honour to be working with someone having such a name in society. Such a view which privileges those who enjoy by family name and other means a high reputation leaves them virtually unchecked in how they spend the money. As such it can gave to those who spend a lot of money as long as it is available an illusionary power and more importantly an aura of greatness. This is linked to what Benedict Anderson would characterize in his book "Imagined Communities" the link between Greek culture and the Greek state as a 'nation', for in the case of Greece it is no longer how nations come into being, but a matter of celebrating its culture as being 'sui generis': unique. Practically it puts the handling of money above any criticism and would in effect silence anyone wishing to expose the fault lines as being but a sign of corruption.

To all of this has to be added the heavy and one sided intervention by the central government. In retrospect, all this is underscored by the fact that the mayor prior to Boutari who serves now a second term in office sits in jail due to charges of embezzlement. Boutari has done the right thing to restore trust in the Municipal Council by installing an external auditor. Transparency in financial matters is crucial. It is also a way to gain trust of the citizens by showing money is being spend wisely and not squandered. Boutari would underline this by stating that he understands something about management. So Thessalonik in 2015 has gained another reputation thanks to having learned some lessons out of this past nearly desaster even though Spyros Mercouris would claim this was not the case as a lot was done for and during that one year. Thus a debate rages on in retrospect and which affects as well the legacy of a city in many different ways.

Interestingly enough, the artist Markis Trochides made the observation over time there has developed in Thessaloniki an audience which can listen and thereby enhances performances. It is open and innovative, able to attract and to sustain the Greek film festival and the photography museum. One wonders, ponders Markis Trochides, if this does not have to do afterall with what changes in mentality were brought about by having been ECoC back then in 1997.

Evaluation of Thessaloniki 1997

Deffner and Labrianidis (ref. 1) made an analysis of the Thessaloniki ECoC programme especially in terms of participation. One crucial finding was that the best visitors turned out to be the professional mid-aged woman who has a wide open horizon and is, therefore, especially interested in cultural events. Naturally it may also have something to do with the fact that the Mount Athos exhibition attracted especially women since otherwise prohibited to go and see these religious items an icons on Mount Athos itself. That monastery enclave is reversed to men only.

At the same time, Deffner and Labrianidis revealed what negative consequences has bad planning. Labrianidis went one step further to claim that due to a lack of a homogeneic group, a kind of elite, the city's development was not enhanced. (See L. Labrianidis, Antipode, 2010) This finding was confirmed in the study of Thessaloniki '97: the regime approach by Anestis D. Mantatzis.

As shown in the case of Graz 2003, cultural mapping in combination with an event cycle is crucial for the cultural programme. For the time factor and the timing of certain events is crucial. In the case of Thessaloniki, it seems that the programme was not only over-crowded with countless events (the Palmer/ Richards report mentions a total of 10,257 performances so that they calculated this would amount to an average of 27.8 events per day, see reference 2, p. 32), but concentrated many more performances on the high tourist season rather than spread them throughout the year. The consequence was that the local audience was not enough to support every single event or performance.

Palmer and Richards established in their 2009 report three crucial elements:

HF 18.1.2015

References:

Deffner, A. And Labrianidis, L. (2005). Planning culture and time in mega-event: Thessaloniki as the European city of culture in 1997. International Planning Studies, Volume 10, Nrs. 3-4, pp. 241 - 264

L. Labrianidis, Antipode: Thessaloniki's arrested development - missed opportunities. 2010

Palmer, Robert and Greg Richards (2009) European Cultural Capital Report 2. Arnhem: Association for Tourism and Leisure Education

A thorough impact study was published later by

Lois Labrianidis,  Professor, Economic Geographer,
Regional Development and Policy Research Unit (RDPRU),
http://www.uom.gr/rdpru
Dept of Economics, University of Macedonia
156 Egnatia St. 540 06 Thessaloniki - Greece

His findings concentrated on visitors' experiences and noted that especially middle aged women were one of the most frequent visitors to these exhibitions.

^ Top

« Interview with Vassilios Papageorgopoulos, mayor of Thessaloniki 2010 | Thessaloniki 1997 Draft City Report »