Day 1 – Session ‘Between Centers and Peripheries’

The ‘Between Centers and Peripheries’ workshop, moderated by Matthias Pauwels, revolved around three papers. Three different speakers critically reflected on the topic of centres and peripheries, but each chose a different angle of approach. Discussions during this workshop were lively, but also very critical. The heat of the debate turned this workshop into a very interesting one.

Therese Kaufmann explained that the European Capital of Culture project originally was used to show the grandness of European capitals. The role of culture within the EU policy slowly became more important. The first time culture was mentioned was in the Maastricht treaty of 1992 according to Kaufmann. Then Kaufmann raised the question why smaller cities and their cultural actors want to be Capital of Culture. Arguments for this are tourism, city branding, city management, but also public money. The last reason stresses the relevance of the discussion. Is the public money spent in public interest? The downsides of the Capital of Culture project have been seen in cities like Istanbul and Patras. Here a so-called cultural hangover has been seen. A cultural hegemony turned into a potential counter-hegemony. Another critical argument is that the ECOC does not contribute to cultural policy, because culture is being politicized. By politicizing it, it will also be privatized.
When talking about peripheries, Kaufman talks about the periphery within the city. Here it is about those who are excluded. Then she elaborates on the post-colonial condition of Europe. This is Europe’s cultural heritage according to her. She sees the importance of cultural policies that reach beyond the European space. In this light events like the ECOC become laboratories. Furthermore her opinion is that Maastricht is a centre and not a periphery. Because there is great freedom for artists, which is not present in other parts of the world. There is a strong imbalance in the world, also on the area of culture. There were reactions about cultural policy, tourism and politics strengthening each other. The speaker however responded with the argument that culture cannot be measured in numbers. Furthermore the audience responds by saying that because of the ECOC project, connections are made and broad layers start moving. The speaker responds by saying that this will lead to disappointment in the end.

The second speaker is Olivier Kramsch. The main line in his story is about Walter Benjamin. He is a symbol of crossing a border at a wrong time. Kramsch’s opinion is that Euregions are a dream. They have no real borders and their reality lies in their logo. They are an example of what Eric Hobsbawm called invented tradition. They politicize space and exclude other regions. Another example of politicizing space is the former colonies. When a historical map of Holland is shown, the colonies are there too. Another remarkable observation is that the Euregions are on the map where all the migration camps in Northern Europe are. This is not a coincident according to Kramsch, because they are too in the periphery. The questions referred to the Maastricht region as patchwork, showing it is reality not just an invention. Also the issue of the colonial past showed up in the discussion. Arguing that “this is our common binding factor.” Some local Maastricht people however criticized this being not relevant to the topic. Others disagreed, because it is about who we are as Europeans. Paul Lambrechts concluded by saying this was about openness and what we want to become.

The third speaker was Angela Melitopoulos. She started talking about the periphery of Europe and that of Cyprus in particular. She talked about the green line in Cyprus and its attempts to become one again. Then she elaborated on migrants, which live along the borders in Cyprus. She openly questioned how the movement of migrants can be understood. This resulted in the autonomy of migration. The decision of the migrant on where to migrate is defining the power of the national state. She also explained that connecting to a certain space does not just mean living there. In an event like the Capital of Culture one should look for possibilities for locals and migrants. There should be itineraries which update the cartography archives. Reactions to this presentation talked about migrants being excluded in this project. Other people reacted to this by saying this is a different problem, not relevant to the topic.

So this workshop ended were it started – a division between locals and speakers. Speakers actively defending their standpoints. Locals not understanding the relevance of the issues the speakers talked about with respect to the Capital of Culture. Afterwards they reacted by saying: “They are hijacking the agenda for their own topics.”

Text: Ivo Poulissen

Day 2 – Keynote Hans Mommaas

Hans Mommaas (Tilburg University) started his keynote by remarking that he has an in-depth knowledge of this region which “makes it easy & difficult”. His presentation based on personal experience looked at the ECOC competition as a work in progress, a space and an opportunity. He advised not to “jump into solutions but to use it as a research project”. Reminding the audience of the fact that our world is enormously expanded, he stated that the increasing mobility (also in terms of communicative interaction has an impact on spaces that now become “globalized cultural spaces” leading to an increasing competition between cultural venues.

According to Mommaas, along with globalization, localizations are still going on. People are trying to define meaningful spaces they are living in, such as cities. The question with regard to the ECOC competition is, “what sort of space will that creative economy produce”? Mommaas sees the ECOC as a challenge that forces us to rethink our identity. Thereby, ECOC can be used to reinvent ourselves and our cities. In addition, he questioned the reason of Maastricht’s bid by asking “can Maastricht add something to the list of ECOCs”? Furthermore, Mommaas argued that especially the Ruhr 2010 project should be inspiring for Maastricht. He asked whether Maastricht will go for the title by itself or whether the Euroregion will present itself? In the case of the Ruhr (Essen), regional collaboration is essential to the whole project. Thereby, a new cultural map is created. Mommaas pointed out that our everyday mental map has increased due to increased mental mobility, we have to ask ourselves, “what does that mean for traditional ideas about space”?

Challenging our “old mental images”, Mommaas spoke in favor of creating new images while debating on urbanization processes “is very much a debate on taste”. Borrowing from Sassen, Mommaas defined space in terms of territory, authority and legal rights. He warned about the administrative discourse which “has its own, destructive, dynamism – the administrative jungle”. He said one should be careful that the project is not hijacked by administrative storylines but rather be used as an innovative transformational device. The challenge for Maastricht is ‘can we use ECOC to create new storylines’? Since there is an abundance of storylines, “the challenge for the region is to find a storyline that really matters”. Therefore, one should think about a new relationship between Maastricht, the region and its surrounding. Finally, Mommaas concluded by saying that “good storylines develop themselves from the grassroots” and “these sorts of processes take their time”.

Text: Ali Konyali

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

Day 2 – Closing Plenary

In the closing plenary a number of key actors in Maastricht were asked to respond to the outcomes of the conference and to give their perspective on the direction Maastricht should take in the ECOC 2018 competition. The plenary speakers were: Lene ter Haar (Schunck Glaspaleis, Heerlen, Netherlands), Guido Wevers (artistic leader of Maastricht Culturele Hoofdstad 2018 for the period 2009-10 and director of the Theater aan het Vrijthof, Maastricht), Rein de Wilde (dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Maastricht University), Koen Brams (director of the Jan van Eyck Akademie, Maastricht) and Leo Swinkels (director of the Toneelacademie, Maastricht). In summary, their main comments revolved around the following:

- Rein de Wilde emphasized that it would be the right approach to focus on the strengths of the Euregion in the process of application for ECOC 2018. The application should be regarded as a process of social learning by means of which meaningful interaction between various cities and its
institutions is created. Therefore it finally is not significant whether Maastricht does or not does get the bid.

- Lene ter Haar: The communication flows between subcultures and established institutions must be increased.

- Guido Wevers: The competition for ECOC 2018 should be regarded as a remarkable instrument to now start new actions and initiatives. Within the competition there should be made use of the existing potential of the Euregion.

- Koen Brams: The concept of ECOC is based on the primacy of competition – in particular competition between cities in the Netherlands – that obstruct instead of enable a spirit of cooperation between cultural actors.

- Leo Swinkels: One has to ask ‘why are we going to bid at all?’ The region is dying in that young, creative people leave the city. Therefore the competition for ECOC 2018 should be understood as a way to go beyond the limited framework of Maastricht and to make new friends and enemies. By doing so, one can create a new energetic vibe in the city.

- De Wilde rejected Swinkels blanket argument that the region is dying. Instead, the bid for ECOC 2018 should rather be seen as one potential driving force that enables to rethink institutions and cooperations. As such, the Maastricht University can contribute a lot to the international climate in Maastricht and the city should make use of this energy by creating an ‘urban campus’ as a link between those two rather separated spaces.

- Ter Haar reacted in stating that this would be the wrong approach as it would mean instrumentalizing culture. Moreover, the problem with this idea is that it underestimates that Maastricht with its institutions and people is a rather fixed entity that is not open to this kind of dialogue with the university. However, she admitted that the idea of mental mobility standing behind the concept of the ‘urban campus’ would be of crucial importance for any future discussions around the bid for ECOC 2018.

- Wevers agreed with the importance of mental mobility. Moreover, in realizing new ideas competition would be a positive, driving force.

- Brams in contrast questioned this generalization of competition as a positive force. But he agreed with Ter Haar in emphasizing that the city is characterized by a lack of openness, illustrating this – followed by applause from the audience – by directly asking Wevers how he was selected as artistic leader of Maastricht ECOC 2018. There would be needed more transparency in institutional decisions in order to be able to to realize a greater degree of openness within Maastricht.

- Wevers reacted by mentioning that he asked for this position and that the decision was indeed authoritarian, but that transparency would now be ensured by him in that he wanted to open up discussions on what Maastricht ECOC should be to everyone.

- Ter Haar emphasized that one must make sure that the process of organization is characterized by open structures. This will be the real challenge for the future.

- According to Swinkels, the main problem would not be the lack of openness, but instead the necessary budget to realize all those visions. Wevers responded, however, by emphasizing that will be sufficient budget and that he is making a lot of effort in order to invest the budget not in process management but in actual cultural projects on the ground.

The closing plenary ended without a general consent about what kinds of concrete activities should be realized in Maastricht’s competition for ECOC 2018. However, all parties agreed that the Lieu de Passages? conference was a very productive starting point for further discussion in that it has allowed a critical engagement with the topic European Capital of Culture.

Text: Aline Reichow