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
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:
