|
A
memo sent to correspondents, friends and acquaintances of the Budapest Observatory (BO) in April
2005
BO
felt humiliated and utterly annoyed that the new security device kept removing
hyperlinks from our memo in March. We are treble-checking this time.
Success
in the EU?
There
are rather few EU initiatives that are really successful and popular. It is sad
to see that an idea that offers so much practical and symbolical value cannot be
brought home to people more convincingly -if the French say no to the EU
Constitution, the British will follow suit. The European Capital of Culture is a fine
exception, accepted and supported by most politicians, the cultural professions,
businesses, the press and the wide public. Given the low standing of cultural
affairs in the priorities of the Union, it is especially important that a top
achievement is linked to our sector.
Of
course the way capitals of culture are realised can raise criticism. We found a
similar vein in Robert Palmer's account about his team's
analysis of the cultural capitals in the past 20 years.
The
overall balance is positive. People look upon their own city differently after
they have gone through a year as European Capital of Culture. Also the world
treats these cities in a different way. In most cases this effect is lasting,
should we say permanent. This is what Manfred said about Graz and Laurent about Lille a
few hours ago at a
few corners from BO office.
Cities
Budapest
is host to the concluding conference
of
the Deutsches Vereinigung der Europäischen Kulturstiftung für kulturelle Zusammenarbeit in Europa, the German
committee of the European Cultural
Foundation. This project brought together German and Hungarian cities that
have been competing for the title in 2010, in order
to work out recommendations about the way European
Capitals of Culture are conceived, prepared and run.
The
example of these two countries (and the UK) shows how much energy can be
mobilised if the selection is done by way of open competition of a great many
cities - more than ten in all three cases.
BO
attends the meeting because we are involved in the bid of Budapest. It is often argued that a
city that is (in the country) best equipped with cultural infrastructure should
not compete. No-one can deny, however, the right and need of any city to
re-define and re-position itself culturally, for which contesting for the title
is an excellent opportunity.
Paris
This
is today. Tomorrow Paris.
The web site of the French culture
ministry guides you about what the organisers want to achieve by inviting the
crème of European culture for two days.
The
Paris conference is for BO also a station in the
Berlin -
Budapest
rally. The conference Inclusive Europe: Horizon
2020, prepared by BO (for and with partners) is supposed to
follow up these two events.
Circle
in Brussels
Circle
is truly a network, with several "centres" at the same time. The "office" moved
from Barcelona and got established now in
Brussels, given office space by courtesy of Lewiatan, a kind of
commercial chamber in Poland. For more, consult
the re-newed Circle web site. (Members, hating to be
reminded about paying membership fee, should prepare their souls before
clicking.)
Circle
in Zagreb
Among
others, the site presents the latest issue of Culturelink (the review
with the same name as the organisation). The volume contains the material of the
2003 Circle Round Table conference held in Zagreb on eCulture. How
cultural agents see the advances of the information society, what is greeted and
what is observed with anxiety.
Renewal
of Romanian fund
Delia
wrote the closing article in the Zagreb volume in
a different capacity than this spring, when - as re-established secretary
general of the culture ministry - she reported about a topic that is
highly relevant for BO: the renovation of the National
Cultural Fund
in Romania.
Circle
in Warsaw
Coming
back to Circle: we have the dates and place and theme of the 2005 Round Table:
cultural
life and mutual interactions for cultural diversity in European
cities,
to be discussed in Warsaw
on
the 23rd and 24th of September.
Mapping
cultural co-operation
With
the previous memo you could examine how Romanian cultural operations select
their partners in Culture 2000 and who selects them. The chart showed a fairly
even distribution. The eminent interest manifested by French and Italian bidders
to co-opt a Romanian partner, has more to do with these two dominating C2000
than with Latin solidarity (BO guesses).
Now
two more graphs are shown below. Lithuanian cultural groups have participated in
a greater number of projects than Latvian neighbours,
demonstrating particularly close co-operation with Polish partners. Both
countries have nourished northern (and Nordic) contacts, less to do with the
south - including the closer south of the Visegrad
countries. Similarly to the Romanian case, the many approaches from Italy
(towards Lithuanians, less to Latvia) is largely explained by the statistical
weight of Italians, who have won over 20% of all C2000 projects over the five
years.
This
analysis of C2000 results between 2000-2004 will be
edited in the form we did with the 2000-2003 period.
|