Day 1 – Session ‘Urban Laboratories’

As part of the first round of workshops of the conference, the Urban Laboratories session set out to explore questions of representation with regards to the new, new culture and experimentality. The three speakers, Marc Glaudemans, Pascal Gielen and Michelle Teran were introduced by Bas van Heur, post-doc at the Maastricht Virtual Knowledge Studio, Maastricht University. The three presentations were followed by short Q&A rounds.

The first speaker of the workshop, Mr. Marc Glaudemans, gave an extensive description of the School of Architecture in Tilburg, Netherlands, an institution which is rather professional than academic. Since 2006, one of the programmes of the university that he is involved in is Stadslab – the European Urban Design Laboratory. Stadslab is a consultancy organization that aims at being a knowledge centre supported by European experts. Cities can use Stadslab as an advisory tool for various urban problems they might encounter. The Stadslab team analyzes these problems in a laboratory or atelier environment with the goal of providing “strategies for the cities to develop,” Glaudemans explained. The end results are, therefore, conceptual frameworks that can be used for creative and sustainable urban development, as well as urban design scenarios and case studies. During the Q&A round, the issue of politics being intermingled with urban planning was raised, as well as the difficulty of integrating all the dimensions of an urban environment in the strategies developed by Stadslab. Nevertheless, Glaudemans acknowledged the fact that urban regeneration is not only a spatial problem, but also social, cultural and political.

The second presentation given by Pascal Gielen focused on the speaker’s research on visual artists in Flanders, Belgium. Mr. Gielen discussed how the art world is influenced by globalization. Supporting issues for that are numerous: acceleration of artistic careers, boom of creative cities, accumulation of artists, curators, etc., post-political ideology shifts and renegotiations of value regimes. The resulting global ‘meshwork’, as the speaker calls it, can be used to further analyze how the art world is currently differentiated. Two sets of oppositions were discussed in relation to each other: “high / low networked” art or artists and “development / product” – development seen as education, research, or academia, and product seen as market oriented art production. In the context of this four dimensional schemata, or the ‘Healthy art ecological system,’ Gielen sees smaller cities as weak passages in the global art world. Maastricht is one of these weak passages when it comes to art, and the speaker suggested that the city should take its spot on the graph in the high networked, development orientated corner. Furthermore, Maastricht should aim at being a “place to slow down, to reflect” Mr. Gielen said, going beyond the creative city idea.

The third and last speaker of the session was Michelle Teran, a practicing artist originally from Quebec, Canada, but active in urban art projects around the world. The artist gave the audience an insight into her work, which mostly consists of using media as guiding tools to explore a city and its narratives. Her works also contain a high level of performance, as she communicates with people on the streets in order to see how they create the meanings of their own city. In the first project described, Ms. Teran explored a city through two ways, a cartographic and a street dimension. She used different media to investigate the visual unity of a place, as well as spatial narratives that become part of the city’s fabric. The second project presented took place in Quebec, and it dealt with, as Ms. Teran put it “unofficial urban histories.“ The third and last work the speaker discussed was a project in Murcia, Spain, in which she used Google Earth to collect YouTube videos from a particular location, with the overall goal of creating a narrative.

In the concluding remarks of the workshop, the moderator emphasized the importance of experimental culture, and how hidden urban narratives are made visible through this experimenting process. However, the moderator said, we should be careful with “what we make visible and in relation to what.”

Text: Ana Maria Raus

Day 2 – Urban Laboratories & Cultural Capital and Institutional Change

Got Spaghetti, Waiting for the Sauce

In this session the intention was to cover the themes discussed the day before, practical ideas on possible projects and, finally, organizational structures necessary for successful implementation of the ideas. As an overarching theme of ‘Urban Laboratories’ discussion, Bas van Heur indicated that there was a need to acknowledge the ways in which cultural practices are not simply representative – i.e. belonging to particular groups (ethnic, national, gendered, etc.) – but also innovative and involved in the production of newness. This demands a sensitivity towards and promotion of spaces of experimentation.

Another prominent theme was the tension between official and unofficial narratives surrounding cultural events. According to Michelle Teran, there is often an official story presented by advertising campaigns and mass media covering up possibly very different picture as perceived by participants or other involved. The task of critical thinkers in this case would be questioning the official language.

The most important opposition considered by the group ‘Cultural Capital and Institutional Change’ was between so called ‘official culture’ or institutions and community. Although ‘community culture’ is often deemed to be naturally good and liberating, this group agreed that both of the sides should be problematized. Other themes which deserved mentioning were internal and external rationales for becoming ECOC as well as the position of artists in such mega events. Finally, the importance of networking was stressed.

In any case, both groups seemed to have very hot topics, because the overview of themes brought them further into discussion. The most prominent one was about the narratives surrounding ECOC. One of the speakers very rightly noted that narratives are by definition exclusive: someone gets to decide who will be involved in the dialogue. According to Bas van Heur, the negative effects of this exclusionary moment can be minimized through reflection and awareness of this unavoidable exclusionary dimension of narratives. Janicke Kernland added to this that, on the one hand, exclusion can be seen as positive because it signals a choice or position and, on the other hand, exclusion can be easily unmasked by a counter narrative which, in turn, should be encouraged.

Unfortunately, it was more difficult to turn the discussion along more pragmatic lines than this. Although the task of people working on Maastricht ECOC is to set the base for those who will implement the project, inventing and adding institutions does not seem the best idea. According to Paul Lambrechts, Maastricht and surrounding cities already possess necessary institutional components to successfully implement such mega-events as ECOC. However, communication and cooperation of these separate bodies is of key importance. He compared the institutions to spaghetti, which without connecting material – sauce – are tasteless and therefore useless. We have the spaghetti, now let’s work on the sauce, suggested Paul.

Actually, my favorite idea came from the public (Ruth Benschop): in any narrative we talk about, the focus is on the future and the progress. Reflection on past and present is submerged in plans and dreams, if existent at all. Are we not losing something very precious in this way?

Text: Ruta Norvaisaite

Day 1 – Keynote Greg Richards

The conference is opened with key thoughts expressed by Greg Richards, a researcher for Tourist Research and Marketing, Barcelona (TRAM). Richards opens the discussion with a key thought: Lessons from the past can serve as indicators for the future. This thought is followed by a poem in the style of Roger McGough:

Wannabe ECOC
Why does every city
Wannabe
ECOC?

The poem serves as a platform for the following question: Why should cities want to become ECOC? Global drivers include: cultural economy, image enhancement, urban restructuring strategy and the One Hit Wonder phenomenon. These factors seem to thrive in the competitive environment that ECOC creates.

Cities have become believers in the One Hit Wonder phenomenon that ECOC seems to induce upon its winners. That’s not all that ECOC stands for. It’s first of all a cultural event, at least that’s how it is branded. It would seem that culture often competes against urban regeneration in the race for ECOC. There is a widening split between “the status, kudos and bureaucratic ambition.”

ECOC aims to raise the international profile of the city/region. Run a program of cultural activities and log-term cultural development art events. Maastricht already has these things. Furthermore, there is the question, can we afford it? Expenditure per head of the population is increasing with each ECOC; people spend without thinking. Another question that should be raised has to do with space. Does Maastricht have the capacity to host ECOC and all the visitors that tag along?
We need to ask ourselves why Maastricht wants ECOC and if this is feasible. There are the formal criteria Maastricht will have to live up to, as well as the informal concepts that play part. The EU is also starting to pay more attention to ECOC, asking for flags and an EU orchestra playing the EU anthem. The brand marketing value is being recognized, which is dangerous; it runs the risk of turning ECOC into a different type of event. Does Maastricht really want to get involved and is it really worth bidding? Maastricht needs to evaluate the impact and bidding process of ECOC versus the other things it can do.

By evaluating what it is we want, considering alternative ways of achieving the same things, why us and what the legacy of our actions will be, we can make the best informed choice. Considering running for ECOC must be part of a learning process and we should only bid if we are prepared to lose. The possibility of losing can be demotivating if it is not seen as a constructive learning process. We should embrace whatever choice we make as a way of learning what the city needs. In this way we can minimize the loss and maximize the profit, understanding profit in its fullest sense, from a social and economic viewpoint.

Text: Sophie Kromholz

First blog post on the conference

Click here for a first blog post reporting on the Maastricht: Lieu de Passages? event. Also includes a nice lo-fi video of the closing plenary on Friday 15 May.