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 1 – Session ‘Mind the Gap!’

In her introduction of the workshop, the moderator, Nora Bieberstein stated that students in Maastricht experience and participate in the widespread student culture which offers e.g. music festivals, cinema, student theatre, organized parties and so on. However, as inhabitants of Maastricht it can also be observed that there is a local culture with its own traditions and cultural circles bearing cultural events like Carnival, Tefaf. These two different types of cultural offer and people who seem to make use of it seem to be separated from each other. The aim of this session was to discuss this potentially existent gap between student life and local Maastricht citizens in order to come to answers for questions like:

- Is it possible to define or characterize the University’s and its student’s relationship with Maastricht and its citizens in general terms?
- Can we argue that the integration of students to Maastricht’s cultural life is hindered by rather practical problems such as a lack of information and the rather pricy activities?
- Is Maastricht a special case or can we draw comparisons to other ‘college towns’?

After a short a video clip produced by students of Maastricht University, each of the four speakers was given time to give a general statement about his or her view on the cultural life in Maastricht regarding the gap between student body and local citizen culture.

Leo zum Vörde sive Vörding started the discussion by telling students to not bridge the gap. He said that a city like Maastricht cannot do without young urban professionals and students. Furthermore, there is always the controversy between a) the city should take care of us and b) these young urban people have to find there own way within the citylife. Therefore, he thinks that we need more commitment to each other and more public debate. According to him, the ECOC competition could be used as a framework that necessitates change in this aspect. Nevertheless, he repeatedly stated that the student body plays a very crucial role in the city since they think and feel ‘from the outside’. He concluded that we need more courageous students that speak out, act and dare to dream. He stated that this session is an excellent example that shows how crucial critical students are that produce interpretations. During the open discussion at the end of the session, he remarked that a city like Maastricht is a ‘public mental space’ with dynamics and movements and “if students adapt too soon, we lose the place for interpretation”.

According to Ruta Norvaisaite, student at Maastricht University, students come to Maastricht with one major goal – to study, or at least we should assume that. Therefore, we cannot expect from them more than minimum effort to find the cultural activities. No doubt, those who search – find it. However, those who would like to participate, but simply do not have time for searching (which includes not only Googling but learning Dutch, building up social networks, being part of various organizations and mailing lists) are left completely behind. Much of the information is either in Dutch or circulated through personal networks. Thus, she stated that the gap can be filled in by better and more thorough provision of information.

Rein de Wilde, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at Maastricht University pointed out that all university cities have experienced tensions between the student body and ”ordinary’” citizens. In small cities with a long university tradition, such as Oxford, Heidelberg or Leiden, it took centuries for students and citizens to realize that they really depend upon each other. Then, Maastricht is a small university city as Oxford and the like, but does not have this long history of cohabitation. Therefore quite some ‘locals’ still perceive the university as an alien element. Even the municipality does not quite know how to handle or approach the university. On the other hand, de Wilde said that most people studying in Maastricht or working in the university are not born in Maastricht or its region. They feel no incentive to integrate in what they perceive as a rather closed regional culture. “Yet there are signs of change” as is illustrated by the fact that the movie theater Lumière leads the way in taking students and foreigners serious by offering English subtitling on special evenings or that Studium Generale has become bilingual within just a few years. Concluding, de Wilde stressed that if Maastricht wants to welcome art projects and cultural initiatives of world class quality, its cultural (and economic) policies should be coordinated on the level of the (Eu)region.

Finally, Maike van Storch from ‘Weekin/Weekuit’, the weekly cultural agenda of Maastricht that is coupled to the website http://www.maastricht.net noted that she seems to be standing in the middle of the gap as a journalist with an informing role. She said that an English website is recently under construction and pointed to the existence of a magazine like ‘Crossroads’. She argued that they don’t get a lot of input from students who live in their own circle and that is why “it’s not easy to approach students” since they don’t easily react. Besides, she added that there is a new cultural initiative for new students at Maastricht University, the pimpas which gives students price reductions for cultural highlights in the region. Recognizing the enclosed character of Maastricht she affirmed that “you would have to marry a local to truly integrate yourself in the local culture”.

Summarizing the results of the discussion Nora Bieberstein argued that “there is a gap” and it has both its positive and negative aspects. Because, on the one hand, the gap leads to a greater cultural diversity that should not be changed but productively used, but, on the other hand, the gap produces separation and exclusion of students from Maastricht’s cultural life. Thus, integration and diversity are opposing each other and this is what constitutes the gap. Leo zum Vörde sive Vörding stated that self-organization is one part of the solution and Rein de Wilde introduced a new concept – an ‘urban campus’ that is a serious interest of the university. Evaluating the gap, de Wilde said that in the short-term the only solution seems to become bilingual.

Text: Ali Konyali

Day 1 – Session ‘Cultural DNA?’

The ‘Cultural DNA?’ workshop examined whether cities have a distinct cultural identity and if so, how it could be employed within the European Capital of Culture (ECOC) programme. Therefore Jorijn Neyrinck (tapis plein, Bruges) and Neil Peterson (Liverpool Culture Company) were invited as speakers. The moderator of the discussion was Sjaak Koenis from Maastricht University.

After introducing the topic and the speakers, Koenis stated that it is quite difficult to come up with a clear cut definition of a city’s identity. In her presentation, Jorijn Neyrinck briefly traced Bruges’ identity construction before, while and after being the European Capital of Culture in 2002. She reflected on the effects of Bruges 2002 in order to prognosticate what this could mean for Maastricht 2018.

Neyrinck pointed out that Bruges has not got the contemporary dynamics of the modern European city. The idea of bidding for the ECOC title was based on a strive for sustainable long-term consequences, as a new chance for Bruges to digest its identity. Inspired by the competition, the aim was to (re)think the rather medieval city of Bruges in terms of durableness. In contrast, Neyrinck claimed that Maastricht is dynamic already, that it is a city with layered identities. And therefore, according to her before setting out to become ECOC, Maastricht should be clear about the purpose of its bid – the crucial question therefore is: “what do you want to be tomorrow”? In Bruges they had to make the choice between presenting a programme for citizens and a programme for visitors. Neyrinck said that in the end “it was a programme for all”. The crucial dialogue between city officials and the public was kept up by conferences and a public call for proposals. More than 150 projects were chosen and realized “without forgetting to think about the day after”. Responding to a question from the audience about the changes on the cultural level, Neyrinck put forward that culture in Bruges is more institutionalised than before with a lot of new organisations and the emergence of contemporary architecture.

Then, Sjaak Koenis handed the word over to Neil Peterson from the Liverpool Culture Company who presented a case study on the European Capital of Culture programme in 2008 in Liverpool. According to him, Liverpool did not expect to win the UK competition; the actual purpose of bidding was “just to be on the map”. “Things were improving anyway”, Peterson argued. Thus, the ECOC title was employed by Liverpool to present itself with a sustainable strategy that went beyond the popular conception of having ‘merely’ football and the Beatles. Peterson claimed that the ECOC “is like a big experiment to use culture for different things”. Furthermore, he stated that unlike the successful process of regeneration of a working-class town, economically the whole project “was not very attractive”. Six big strands of organization made Liverpool to become one of the most successful ECOCs in history:

- 1) Liverpool Commissions
- 2) Cultural Partner Enhancement
- 3) Festivals and Events
- 4) Creative Communities
- 5) Talks, Conferences, Lectures
- 6) Intercultural Dialogue

Peterson illustrated his presentation with a lot of examples of how to use a city’s DNA as an inspiration for cultural innovation such as the ‘Tall Ships’ reminiscent of Liverpool’s history of slave trade. “Don’t be afraid to do different things” was his argument justifying the extraordinarily expensive ‘Giant Spider’ or the spread of 120 ‘Superlambanas’ that were afterwards sold for charity. Furthermore, he pointed out that it was the title as a major event that raised the international profile, so that underlying cultural events put it together. Liverpool developed and promoted the programme through ‘themed years’ since 2003. In his presentation, Peterson stressed the importance of public engagement and dialogue that should encourage citizens to “create, participate, debate and state” without regard to ethnicity or cultural background. Peterson remarked that as a result of the event, Liverpool became the third popular city of the UK after London & Edinburgh. He concluded by saying that Maastricht should build on its cultural strengths without limiting its ambitions.

During the open discussion after the presentations, Pieter Caljé from Maastricht University noticed that unlike Bruges and Liverpool, Maastricht enjoys the status of having an image that is already attractive at first glance. However, he added that it is an enclosed city that should look across the national borders of the ‘Euroregion’ as one way of repositioning regardless of the actual bid for becoming ECOC. Moreover, although Peterson said that a city like Maastricht does not necessarily have to have a number of problems to solve in order to profile itself, the discussion made clear that the project of Maastricht 2018 needs a compelling reason besides its ambition to become the European Capital of Culture. Until then, ‘knowledge transfer’ as it happened during this session has to be used in order to critically assess its bid even though it is clear that “you never gonna convince everybody” as Peterson noted.

Text: Ali Konyali

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