The following workshop split into various discussions and issues expressed from the participants of the workshop. The workshop was opened with the idea that we should translate themes into storylines, and from there into projects, after which we can find institutions to manage these projects.
Pieter Calje started of the discussion stating that storylines are a brilliant idea and that we need to rethink a city/region which is in flux and needs a new identity. We need to discuss practices. A project would be to create identity not by living with the back to each other, but to plan together and create bottom-up projects and see what storylines we get out of them.
Jeroen Boomgaard jumps in here to say that he is allergic to the work storyline, at least in the way that it is so frequently used. Boomgaard states that we should open up discourse. The last thing anyone is waiting for is a storytale. We need to think about difference and work with them, thinking of culture in a layered fashion. If we start working with a storyline from the start, it will be a hopeless case.
Will Munsters throws in that we need to work with a process of co-creation. We need to deal with the inhabitants, visitors and entrepreneurs; these entrepreneurs being the (creative) industries.
So what about universities? Are they to be left out? Britta Riegel throws in. This question is followed by ideas from Susan Schaefer who states that the audience for whom this project is created must be looked at first. For whom are we creating what? Who are we doing this for and why? Petra Driessen goes further into this argument stating that there needs to be a compelling reason to change. We need to do research. We must talk to the people we are doing it for and find out what the underlying concept is that they are looking for.
Calje dives into the discussion saying that there is a crisis in Maastricht. Maastricht the beautiful is a façade, because there is a real socio-economic crisis going on and Maastricht is in dire need of reinventing itself. As Henk van de Voort explains, there is much crisis, there are many point of trouble, but this crisis is not totally visible.
If we really do need ECOC, how to go about it? Neil Peterson explains that we should not forget about competition and our strengths. By understanding where we have problems and where our strengths are, we can build on these to give things to Europe and ECOC. Other than just recognizing our strengths and weaknesses, Anne Lorentzen points out that we must also recognize for who we are doing it and what their needs and resources are. In order to get started, bottom-experts are needed. Calje fills in to say that, it is not just who I am doing it for, but also, who am I doing it with?
Jorijn Neyrinck adds a nice keyword to sum up a lot of the discussion: TRANSFER. In the making of Maastricht or for that matter in the making of Europe there is still a long way to go. We need to cross borders and open up minds. A difficult task awaits us.
Text: Sophie Kromholz
