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 2 – Session ‘Destination Maastricht & Cultural DNA?’

The following workshop split into various discussions and issues expressed from the participants of the workshop. The workshop was opened with the idea that we should translate themes into storylines, and from there into projects, after which we can find institutions to manage these projects.

Pieter Calje started of the discussion stating that storylines are a brilliant idea and that we need to rethink a city/region which is in flux and needs a new identity. We need to discuss practices. A project would be to create identity not by living with the back to each other, but to plan together and create bottom-up projects and see what storylines we get out of them.

Jeroen Boomgaard jumps in here to say that he is allergic to the work storyline, at least in the way that it is so frequently used. Boomgaard states that we should open up discourse. The last thing anyone is waiting for is a storytale. We need to think about difference and work with them, thinking of culture in a layered fashion. If we start working with a storyline from the start, it will be a hopeless case.

Will Munsters throws in that we need to work with a process of co-creation. We need to deal with the inhabitants, visitors and entrepreneurs; these entrepreneurs being the (creative) industries.

So what about universities? Are they to be left out? Britta Riegel throws in. This question is followed by ideas from Susan Schaefer who states that the audience for whom this project is created must be looked at first. For whom are we creating what? Who are we doing this for and why? Petra Driessen goes further into this argument stating that there needs to be a compelling reason to change. We need to do research. We must talk to the people we are doing it for and find out what the underlying concept is that they are looking for.

Calje dives into the discussion saying that there is a crisis in Maastricht. Maastricht the beautiful is a façade, because there is a real socio-economic crisis going on and Maastricht is in dire need of reinventing itself. As Henk van de Voort explains, there is much crisis, there are many point of trouble, but this crisis is not totally visible.
If we really do need ECOC, how to go about it? Neil Peterson explains that we should not forget about competition and our strengths. By understanding where we have problems and where our strengths are, we can build on these to give things to Europe and ECOC. Other than just recognizing our strengths and weaknesses, Anne Lorentzen points out that we must also recognize for who we are doing it and what their needs and resources are. In order to get started, bottom-experts are needed. Calje fills in to say that, it is not just who I am doing it for, but also, who am I doing it with?

Jorijn Neyrinck adds a nice keyword to sum up a lot of the discussion: TRANSFER. In the making of Maastricht or for that matter in the making of Europe there is still a long way to go. We need to cross borders and open up minds. A difficult task awaits us.

Text: Sophie Kromholz