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 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

Cultural Capital and Institutional Change

The ambition to become European Capital of Culture raises the question how the city can develop its various kinds of cultural capital (in a Bourdieuan sense). In particular, attention needs to be paid to the institutional dimensions of cultural capital and the ways in which cultural and educational institutions selectively in- and exclude particular forms of knowledge, skills and attitudes. How do the various performing and visual arts institutions in Maastricht shape our very understanding of what constitutes artistic practice? To what extent do institutional credentials determine access to publicly funded and/or commercially viable cultural networks? What are the actual and latent relations between the various amateur theatre groups, the professional orchestras, small-scale production companies and institutions of arts education? In what ways could one rethink these relationships and, by doing so, democratize cultural production?

Speakers:
Janicke Kernland (Moderator – Studio Kernland, Maastricht, Netherlands)
Kate Oakley (City University London, United Kingdom)
Piet Menu (Het Huis van Bourgondië, Maastricht, Netherlands)

A cultural DNA?

Is a city merely a “halteplaats in het process van mondialisering” (stop-over in the process of globalization), as Abram de Swaan once expressed it? Or does Maastricht really have an inalienable and durable cultural identity, as many local actors seem to believe? Maybe we should instead talk about a city as formed of layered identities, which are constantly transformed through processes of exchange and consolidation, inclusion and exclusion? This theme investigates the various rituals and routines that constitute the supposed cultural essence of Maastricht.

Speakers:
Sjaak Koenis (Moderator – Maastricht University, Netherlands)
Jorijn Neyrinck (Tapis Plein, Brugge, Belgium)
Neil Peterson (Liverpool Culture Company, United Kingdom)