Lublin European Capital of Culture 2016 candidate European Capitals of Culture Aspiration, Disappointments, Achievements a critical review of the program, Dr Dragan Klaic Permanent Fellow, Felix Meritis, Amsterdam Visiting Professor, Central European University, Budapest 28 January 2010 © D. Klaic 2010

Issues to be addressed Citizens only vaguely familiar with the program Political motivations, context, rationale The track of the record Procedural entanglements Main issues, common markers, structural problems Productive strategies, positive examples Future prospects Lublin's specific motivations & opportunities

Historic and political background 1980s: EU as a delayed and reluctant cultural player EU vs. Council of Europe 1983 Melina Mercouri's initiative: creating political impetus through a symbolic gesture Limited scale, a community of 12 member states 1989/90, the end of the Cold War, normalization of cultural communication, intensified cooperation 1992 Maastricht Treaty contains a culture paragraph Enlargement prospects and advanced European integration The raise of cities as ambitious cultural policy players

What they have achieved 1985 Athens 1986 Florence 1987 Amsterdam 1988 West Berlin 1989 Paris 1990 Glasgow 1991 Dublin 1992 Madrid 1993 Antwerp 1994 Lisbon 1995 Luxemburg 1996 Copenhagen Thessaloniki 1998 Stockholm 1999 Weimar 2000: Avignon Bologna, Brussels, Prague, Krakow Reykjavik Bergen Helsinki Santiago de Compostela 2001 Rotterdam & Porto 2002 Bruge Salamanca 2003 Graz 2004 Lille Genoa 2005 Cork 2006 Patras

Recent and future cities 07 region Luxemburg & Sibiu 08 Liverpool & Stavanger 09 Linz & Vilnius 10 Istanbul, Essen & Pecs 2011 Tallinn & Turku 2012 Maribor & Guimaraes 2013 Marseille Kosice 2014 Umea Riga 2015 Belgium Czech Republic 2016 Poland Spain 2017 DK (Arhus?) Cyprus 2018 Netherlands Malta 2019 Italia Bulgaria 2020 Romania Ireland Croatia 2021 Greece Iceland Switzerland 2022 UK Macedonia Turkey Procedural changes: international expert committees Increased competition & expectations More complex preparation of the application, more time to work out the program More ambitious budgets. A tiny EU contribution: 3%?

Palmer-Rae study 2004 Inflated expectations and extravagant promises Political conflicts slow down programming Emblematic buildings, infrastructural development Investment delays beyond the festive year More a political than a cultural project Difficulty to shape a cultural and civic coalition Disappointing results, short-term gains Continuity: mentality change, self-image, self-assurance Capital renewal: competences, networks, partnerships

Tensions and conflicts Delayed appointments and organization set up Problems with the executives and their boards Programmers and accountants at odd Over programming Concepts and practicalities Resentment of outsiders, disgruntled local communities Staff exhausted before the year starts Audience saturation in 3 months Making the rest of the world notice Keeping the impetus throughout the year and afterwards

Why do such mega-festivals matter? Artistic innovation and vitality Events and processes New audiences, new places, new partners Mobilisatory impact, increased participation, trust Quality of urban life, cultural democracy Intercultural dialogue, intercultural competence Local and European citizenship Regional impact Strengthen governance

Lublin chances The flow of EU structural funds requires a viable developmental strategy Geopolitical position at the edge of the EU: border crossing cooperation, regional impact Academic resources to be upgraded Cultural heritage deployed in a contemporary framework Unique contemporary culture organizations reinforced through international partnership Boost of professional competences and institutional sophistication Place culture in the focus of the city future