Essi Aittamaa

Trans Europe Halles (TEH) interviewed 16 of 18 TEH members from cities that have been or plan to be European Capitals of Culture (ECOC). The results from these interviews (presented by Essi Aittamaa, Marketing and Communication Manager of Trans Europe Halles) and the LabforCulture mapping were brought together at a panel discussion on 20 September 2008 at Tou Scene in Stavanger, Norway.

Who was interviewed?

The aim of the interviews was to map TEH centres’ experiences of the ECOC programme. From July to September 2008, TEH interviewed most of its members that had some kind of involvement in the programme: 18 TEH members and 1 partner organisation, as follows:

• 9 members in cities that have been the ECOC from 1987-2007
• 1 member in a city with current ECOC status
• 1 member in a city that lost the bid
• 3 members in a city that won the bid and are preparing for the year
• 6 members in a city that was in a bid process during the interviews
• 1 had a Capital of Culture month (currently also in the bid process for ECOC)

What questions were asked?

The questions to all interviewees were related to the influence of the centre on the ECOC year and the effects of the ECOC programme on the centre, on the independent sector and/or on the community. In the timeframe 1987-2014, the ECOC programme has changed significantly and the experiences vary according to different periods of time. Therefore, comparisons and general conclusions were not drawn, but several important issues arose as a result of the interviews.

Among the centres interviewed, there was only one centre that made a conscious decision not to take part in the ECOC programme. This was because they had a very clear policy and they did not see matching aims and goals with the Capital of Culture year in their city. Also, the resources of the ECOC year were limited and they were directed to more classical culture. Organisations like this centre were expected to participate without financial compensation for their efforts. All the other centres took part in the ECOC year to some extent. For some the collaboration was deep and they were very involved in the planning process. Others’ involvement was sending in project proposals or hosting an event or two.

In some cases, the city approached a TEH member that had a role in shaping the bid or the process. Quite often there had just been a general call for proposals and the centres reacted with project proposals. In other cases, the centres were only venues for the events of the ECOC programme. There have also been cases where the reconstruction of centres’ buildings were in the ECOC agenda. In a few cases, the engagement was much more profound and included an overall planning role or active participation in the evaluation process (like the case of Stavanger).

Having an influence

Most of the centres in ECOC cities responded that some of their suggestions were taken into account and others were not. There were as many centres that thought their suggestions were taken into account as those that felt their suggestions were not taken into account. Those involved in the bid process most felt that their voice had been heard.

The organisations in charge of the ECOC year were very different and TEH members’ relations to them varied a great deal. On the one hand, there were descriptions of closed organisations with no transparency. On the other hand, there were organisations open to feedback and with whom working relations were fruitful. It seems that TEH members in the bid process described more positive relations than those that had already participated in the year.

Bringing know-how

Only one TEH member that had taken part in the ECOC year said that it had no influence at all on their organisation. For others there was some kind of influence, either positive or negative. Most of the comments were positive; the year brought know-how to the organisations, including, for example, production, administration and international contacts. Sometimes taking part in the ECOC year helped the organisations to generate bigger audiences and more publicity.

The members could see the impact of ECOC on the local independent sector. The year brought know-how to the independent sector and in some cases the independent sector received recognition as a serious player in their region. Also, concrete activities were mentioned, such as starting new festivals during the ECOC year and their continuation after the year. However, it is important to note that the long-term influence of the year was doubted by some of the interviewees.

On some occasions, TEH members saw some influence on the audiences, or on the communities in their region. However, in general, they could not identify very important effects of the ECOC year to the local communities and audiences.

Most members were aware of the evaluations on the effects of ECOC. There were also critical voices about these outcomes. Most TEH members were also part of the ECOC evaluations for specific cities where they operate. They were interviewed or gave feedback in one form or another.

Image credits:
Map of Candidate Cities www.candidatecities.com

Download PDF version of the entire article