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

Day 1 – Session ‘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 this connection the various institutional settings play a significant role in shaping and structuring cultural practice. Moderated by Janicke Kernland (Studio Kernland), Kate Oakley (City University London) and Piet Menu (Het Huis van Bourgondië, Maastricht) discussed the politics and realities of cultural institutions.

Oakley talked about her experiences with the creative industries policies in London 2003-2012 addressing the question how to organize and deal with small cultural institutions and their funding within this system. London started with a “fast policy” (Jamie Peck) focussing on the cultural industry in terms of London’s economic development, taking a spatial strategy. However, in the course of time this approach transformed into a sectoral strategy. As Oakley emphasized, the smaller cultural businesses encounter difficulties to get a meaningful voice in this discussion because of London’s institutional history of established hubs and local politics. As such one should ask the question if those discussions are truly concerned with cultural issues or rather focussing on political or capitalizing strategies. Only if one is aware of this aspect, can one ensure genuine interaction between different parties, eventually bringing about a political strategy that is characterized by an open discussion with the creative industries.

In the second part of the session Piet Menu discussed the role and status of the performing arts in Maastricht. He started by describing an image of the artist as a kind of flexible worker who must engage in a great variety of different activities and areas in order to be able to earn a living. He identified three layers of institutional organizations in Maastricht: Firstly, international organizations; secondly, organizations on a national level; and thirdly, local organizations at a grass-roots level. In this respect Menu emphasized that the goal of the ECOC competition as formulated in Maastricht might be oriented too strongly towards the internal dimensions of the city. This is why Maastricht lacks lively and fruitful networking between organizations on a national and international level. Also, the funding mechanisms and allocation of subsidies in the Dutch context does not provide many incentives to cooperate with institutions outside of the Netherlands. Therefore, as Menu pointed out, the ‘import-export’ relation of cultural capital in the Euregion must be re-thought and balanced anew.

In the third part of the session Oakley and Menu engaged in a discussion with participants of the conference. Most people agreed that there already exists a great amount of cultural capital in Maastricht, but that there should be more cooperation and networking between those institutions. This may be realized by means of the establishment of a kind of reflexive institution bringing isolated organizations into contact, opening up their institutional structures and consequently making real dialogue and cooperation possible. In this people should think ‘outside the box’ and should develop innovative ideas. However, the crucial question in this respect will be if Maastricht’s institutions and people are flexible enough in order to realize these ideas. As Neil Peterson (Head of Liverpool Welcome for the Liverpool Culture Company) pointed out, this aspect of cooperation and networking among institutions definitively was essential for the Liverpool’s successful application. As he also pointed out, however, those dialogues should not be focused on finding definite answers, but rather should be a means of bringing contacts and new relationships into being.

Text: Aline Reichow