TIMES HAVE CHANGED
Architects and urbanists design new functions for old buildings (containers) and archi-cultural recycling. The European Capital of Culture flagship programme, launched in 1985, created a new European Project space. This space must now be re-imagined with other tasks, respecting the imagination with which the award was designed.
In 1985 a dream was born. 40 years later, the chain of cultural capital cities, even if many innovations and new cultural dimensions were initiated, feels more like a caravan of broken dreams.
POLITICAL INTERVENTION
As in all aspects of life – any ideological meddling with a cultural process is never a good idea. The origins of a “cultural capital” were participatory, celebrative, conceived as an essential tool in building the European Project.
The original concept – designating a city for its cultural ambitions and European diversity – has been slowly whittled down into a competition about complex criteria, sometimes conflicting with one another and surely raising the necessary budget to implement an awarded cultural capital. An example: branding and European tourism is prioritized and sustainability and a green strategy must be proven. It seems irresponsible to focus on flights, hotel nights and spectacular events. And yet that is one of the required criteria.
Who decides these complex criteria? There is an insecure balance of authority between the EC (founders and evaluators) and city/regional political structures (financers and implementers).
My experience comes from working with a number ECoC cities, both candidates and titlists, either as part of the artistic teams or intersecting with large-scale EU-financed projects. I have witnessed a slow degradation of the original concept. Politics enters through every door, budgets are exaggerated or miscalculated. Delegated to both judge and monitor the competitions, the EC Panel has limited, if any, tools to reform or negotiate, since the EU itself is not a co-financer. When the panel in their monitoring reports of Timisoara 2021/23 and Matera 2019 emphasized the urgency of fulfilling local and national economic promises, political interests simply ignored it. Suddenly it is not “up to the EU” to decide such things, although the same local/regional/national authorities had scrambled to promise anything to win. Both cultural capitals recovered thankfully, but with little of the impact imagined in the bid books and resources released far too late. The expected long-term and strategic contributions to the cultural strategies of Matera 2019, Timisoara 2021/23 (and numerous candidate cities) most often did not crystalize; dreams became broken promises.
PROCESS AND CONFLICT
As the ECoC responsibility became grander and more expensive, the cities got smaller and poorer. The local political structures, responsible for the investment, needed to justify themselves. And Europe no longer had the self-confidence or resources to support a grand vision of intercultural exchange. Instead – when Berlin, Paris, Amsterdam, Rome, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Brussels and other “major” cities had been highlighted during the first 20 years of the ECoC programme – the remit has remained substantially the same. Cultural investment and vision were expected to smoothly flow to regional capitals, even small towns. Less talk about investing in European “cultural development”. Focus was increasingly on branding, tourism and massive Openings.
How did the EC representatives juggle between the criterium to provide for minority communities and Hungary’s blatantly discriminatory LGBTQI+ and migration laws, when awarding the Melina Mercouri Prize to the Hungarian city of Vezprem? What happened to the “Roma thread”, so valued by the EC Panel in the Timisoara 2021 bid book, so invisible in the actual year?
Another serious psycho-political factor is that we are overloaded with numerous capitals: Youth, Green, Mediterranean, Design, Heritage, Book, etc. etc. All multiplied by the many European states that declare – like Italy – National Capitals of Culture, annually. How can citizens trust the value of a “title”?
The Italian version, in its legal call, refers to the criteria of the European programme. It was created as recognition for the work done for the European candidate cities 2019, which was finally proclaimed to be Matera. The other Italian shortlisted cities shared the national title that year. The process of evaluation became increasingly politicized in the following years. The criteria are unclear, the delegation of the judging Commission non-transparent. The competition is naturally separated from the European version, since the European Capital reaches Italy every 14 years.
EMOTIONAL IMPULSES
The first impulses to become a cultural capital are always rooted in a few dedicated individuals. Their inspiration is local pride. The community throws its support behind the idea because the effort is seen as non-partisan, beyond political fragmentation. It is imagined as a long-term project that cultivates common ground. The dream of being “chosen” as a city, gaining European or national attention, is promising. It is seen as a collective symbol of belonging.
EMOTIONAL PHASES
Inspired by Giuliana Ciancio “Dalle emozioni politiche alle politiche culturali” (https://www.agenziacult.it/letture-lente/politiche-per-la-cultura/dalle-emozioni-politiche-alle-politiche-culturali/)
In my experience, all cultural capital timelines face similar emotional phases and challenges, on the way to winning (or not) the title. Although the timing and order of these phases varies, the emotional map nearly always follows these curves:
- Expectations: first comes the collective excitement of doing something together, the possibility of investing resources and energy into something that’s “good for everyone”. The excitement is fostered by the promise of community co-creation and the active participation of groups who normally have a limited voice in the cultural life of a city. The shared desire is to be “seen by Europe”. Citizens are mobilized, workshops are organized and brainstorming is encouraged.
- Despair: at some point, usually connected to being chosen on a “shortlist” or among “finalists”, a few individuals begin to dominate the discussion, motivated by enthusiasm and with good intentions. They receive the “approval” of the political administration and are increasingly empowered, both in communication and resources. At the same time, other individuals feel left out or marginalized.
This naturally leads to special interest groups mobilizing, as supportive or critical voices. The focus shifts to personalities, power structures and money. The public debate shifts from content to packaging. The mass media – today primarily online – encourages this “scandal-hunting”. The original concept and emotional impulse to do something together loses its relevance. The collaborative energy that a cultural year promises becomes predictable and conflictual.
- Recovery: finally, whether the city wins or loses the title, a tacit agreement is reached. Some voices are silenced, others resign. But the process becomes manageable, within the existing political and cultural structures. Things can get done.
In this way, the poetic secrets of culture – surprise, mistakes, unexpected impacts – are eliminated. The city agrees (although not by consensus) to make the best of the situation.
This initiates a phase of last-minute inventiveness. Multiple projects, equally spread among the dominant interest groups, are put together, too hastily and therefore without sufficient planning. The citizens find satisfaction – and sometimes true innovation – in smaller, simpler actions, putting aside their disillusionment. And a few large-scale events bring large audiences together, moments of extasy and recognition. The task is completed. Deeper traces don’t remain. The “glory days” of the Cultural Capital are celebrated for years.
- Packaging: when the year itself is completed, the final emotional phase begins. The narrative is naturally simplified, and the memories of the Capital of Culture become reference points. Of course, the whole experience must be distilled into a “good story”, success despite any problems. This is the final political justification of the adventure. “It worked!”. “Let us be proud”. And rightfully – but maybe for the wrong reasons.
What then is the true value of the title, in its present form? Or will it – like so much well-intended in our world – become irrelevant and invisible? What conditions must exist for the ECoC and other Capitals of Culture programmes to flourish?
PROPOSALS FOR THE FUTURE: REVIVE THE CAPITAL OF CULTURE
I strongly support the original concept of the various Capitals of Culture, the emotional impulse and pride that ignited them. The process – the sharing of experiences and the development of long-term cultural strategies – has been fruitful. Its value is much greater than the cost. With a sincere desire to re-invent the concept, I make a few recommendations, distilled from in-depth, hands-on observation:
- Twinning cities (2-3 different countries, 2-3 different regions). Focusing on intercultural exchange and the border-crossing dimension, each city can be helped to feel less alone in confronting the challenges. This could transform into a Cultural Capital Bridging exercise, comparative and collaborative. Learning and experimenting with policy and cultural initiative between different parts of Europe.
Presently, each candidate must try to cooperate with all the other title cities in the years around them plus the so-called ECoC Family and multiple candidates. Too much.
- Financing: it must be confirmed and available early in the process (3-4 years before the title year), regardless of where the initial investments come from. The organization of a Capital of Culture is most fragile in the early stages. That is when support to capacity-building, European networking, early co-production work and long-term communication strategies are cultivated. It is in the 2-3 years after the title is awarded that the vision can be grounded.
The EU should most definitely be a co-financer of the total budget, 20-30% of the total budget. This would give the EC Panel insight into the actual state of affairs, the developing program and the undercurrents of the project. European resources should be granted in the earliest phase – before the local, regional and state are ready to shoulder the responsibility.
- Branding: It is necessary to change the focus from tourism (number of visitors/nights; number of media mentions) to community and regional participation. The European curiosity can be satisfied in other ways than long-distance travel, which is not environmentally sustainable. This would require that a more fundamental criteria for the candidacy process: a strategy for launching the ECoC concept, from early on to the actual year. Continuity. Growth. Increased citizen engagement. Long distance tourism cannot be a goal.
- Capacity-building must be a key element in every bid. It is central to making and maintaining the energy of a Capital of Culture. The professionalization of intercultural exchange. Project design. Self-management. There is a difference between hands-on learning and growing cadre of experts who “translate” and imagine the EC formulated criteria. Robust residency and job-shadowing programmes could be objects of EU financing.
- Define the Capitals of Cultures as laboratories, where future choices are made, challenging and re-inventing cultural policy, city by city. This is the primary reason for awarding cities a European title: giving space for transnational competence.
From my experience there is a need for a complete re-thinking of “cultural competition”. The flagship programme must transform into an exercise in collaboration and mutual learning. The European Project calls for cultural intimacy, not a smoke-screen of fireworks and illusions.
Leggi anche:
Cultural mobility flows. Mental Health, Well-being and International Cultural Mobility
Politiche culturali condivise. Intervista a Milena Dragićević Šešić, University of Arts in Belgrade
I beni comuni emergenti, le politiche culturali e il diritto alla città
La soggettivazione collettiva e la città
Coraggio, desiderio & fiducia (guts, lust & trust)
Dalle emozioni politiche alle politiche culturali
ABSTRACT
This essay interrogates the evolution of the European Capital of Culture (ECoC) programme, arguing that the flagship initiative has drifted from its founding vision of participatory celebration to a costly caravan of broken dreams. Drawing on first-hand work with multiple candidate and title-holding cities, Chris Torch describes how political interference, inflated budgets and unclear criteria have eroded the programme’s integrity, leaving smaller, poorer cities to shoulder grand responsibilities without timely resources. He maps the emotional trajectory that communities navigate — from collective excitement, through disillusionment, pragmatic recovery and post-hoc storytelling—and shows how proliferating “capital” labels dilute public trust. To restore relevance, Torch gives concrete proposals. The essay calls for collaborative, sustainable cultural intimacy in place of fireworks and superficial prestige for lasting impact.
