A Europe in crisis needs talking about. A Europe in turmoil needs talking about.

Where else can we talk about Europe at city level, at street level, in schools and in migration centres and hospitals? A Europe in crisis needs talking about. A Europe in turmoil needs talking about. We simply need to talk about our futures together. Because with the EU or without the EU we will not alter our geography – we will be interconnected as neighbours and countries for as long as we exist. Economic trading blocs and the climate catastrophe and pandemics are not going away. They need European answers. So, we need to talk. We need to learn to talk with one another across seemingly impossible chasms and European Captial of Culture is this important opportunity.

We are bigger than our national stories. The uniqueness of the European Capital of Culture initiative is the European element.

An interview of EcocNews with Chris Baldwin dedicated to the future of the initiative after 35 years of its existence.

After 35 years, does the ECOC programme still have a future?
Yes, for sure. It’s only just begun. Where else can we talk about Europe at city level, at street level, in schools and in migration centres and hospitals? A Europe in crisis needs talking about. A Europe in turmoil needs talking about. We simply need to talk about our futures together. Because with the EU or without the EU we will not alter our geography – we will be interconnected as neighbours and countries for as long as we exist. Economic trading blocs and the climate catastrophe and pandemics are not going away. They need European answers. So, we need to talk. We need to learn to talk with one another across seemingly impossible chasms. We have major differences in languages, national histories and myths to contend with on a day-to-day basis. But we are bigger than those national stories. I am sorry if this sounds all too clarion. But as a father and grandfather who lived through an age of nuclear terror and a divided Europe it feels as if we are really struggling not to return to a Europe of 1932 where politicians and their enablers led Europe to a hell on earth.

What can the pandemic teach European capitals of culture?
I personally learned a lot from the way we responded to the pandemic. Of course, we all ‘migrated’ to the digital sphere. This happened in many sectors of our societies. Doctors met their patients online. Teachers met students online. And cultural organisations met their audiences online. I helped Piran (Slovenia) make a ECoC panel city visit online while the panel members were in multiple countries.

But from my own perspective as a director I now realise that I directed 95% of two or three major city productions from another country altogether - totally online. Meetings, sharing of design ideas and solutions, the hybridisation of large-scale performances, all these things became normalised realities. In Kaunas, I was unable to travel to Lithuania during the pandemic. And when I did get there I caught Covid and was confined for two weeks! Our orchestras and choirs could not meet to rehearse. I could not meet the composer of the music for the show I directed in Kaunas until after some months later as in-person meetings and travel were so limited. Even at the very late-stage rehearsal schedules had to be organised to reduce contact time between people. In Kaunas, audiences had to be registered and placed into controlled sectors – and even this solution was given the green light by health authorities only days before the show. So how does one spend public money, and manage strict PPP regulations, when the outcomes are so fluid, so contingent on uncontrollable decisions made by others? We tried to design events which were full-proof – in other words they could go ahead even if there was no live audience at the last moment or even if there were no live performers! Each performance had three or four variants built into it to try to ensure that something interesting and relevant could happen for whichever audience gained access to it via the street or the screen. But to do that you need to begin with this thinking from day one of the production process.

Why is all this worth the work for so many hundreds of people and teams? It comes back to the answer to the first question. We need to talk and listen and debate! As citizens and communities, we discovered that Covid was yet another issue which did not respect borders.

But to re-structure a famous phrase by Boris Johnson, we were not in this all together. Poorer citizens, those marginalised, those living without gardens or access to clean air or financial savings, those who were frightened about their lives needed access to others, and to other voices. No-wonder our politics are fracturing after such isolation. Our teenagers also suffered very much during those months. They needed to be with their cohorts. It was our professional duty to keep working to help people feel less isolated – and to keep talking!

In addition to the European dimension and the relationship between cities and citizens, what should the cultural programmes of the ECOC focus on?
We are talking here about European Capitals of Culture. Not Capitals of Culture. So the uniqueness of this initiative is the European element. When I told my mother I was going to work in Wroclaw she did not know the city or to which country it belonged. I said, “Breslau mum, before the war it was Breslau!”. Her answer told us much about her generation of English people: “Oh, does it still exist? I thought it had been destroyed and disappeared”. For her generation living through the war and then bringing up kids one side of the Iron Curtain that was her reality. My Spanish family, educated in Franco’s Spain, were never taught about the Holocaust. And I speak to plenty of young people who know nothing of the reality of the Berlin Wall. So the European dimension, our shared histories, our troublesome myths, and collective memories are a deep source of artistic and cultural inspiration. How could Brexit have happened if myth had not been as powerful, if not more so, than common historical understandings? The European dimension is not the addition – it is the reason in my opinion. The same for the relationship between cities and citizens. We live in cities. We depend on their clean air, water, and climates, their public and private services. Culture brings us together in unique ways where our experience of close proximity with others can both be emotional and rational. We can tell stories about our city to one another and to the nation, and to Europe. And I see we are gradually even thinking about people and audiences beyond our walls. So all elements of a wide cultural programme should be woven together upon a European loom.

The European Commission, from our point of view, is quite weak on the communication front of the Ecoc. What could it do to disseminate the programme among European citizens?
I agree. But this is not unique to the ECoC initiative. The EU is often perceived as bloodless and simply imposing framework of rules and regulations. National politicians, those who carry the national narratives between the EU and their countries, tell their populations that the EU are imposing one thing or another upon us. Politicians often conveniently use the EU as “the other”. If you are forever under attack, I can see why even the EU feels uncertain and defensive about initiating bold communication strategies. Despite this, clearer communication is needed. Secondly, there is the issue of finance. The ECoC brand belongs to the EU. The initiative, as we all know, is largely funded by national or city sources. If the EU invented financial mechanisms to further support ECoC’s they would feel more emboldened to communicate this story!

Many nations have invented national cities of culture, isn't there a risk of overlapping with the Ecoc?
There is some chance this could happen. I use the word ‘chance’ rather than ‘risk’ because more culture and more audiences are to be welcomed. But if there is a risk it is in the tendency not to place the European dimension at the centre of the ECoC. I have seen this happening. Local politicians often believe there to be advantage in ‘downplaying’ the ‘European thing’ once the title is won. Where there are weak governance mechanisms, ineffective monitoring, non-independent creative leaders, too much emphasis on ‘local glory’, then an ECoC can swiftly become a CoC or even a year-long chain of events simply supporting a tourism strategy.  

Is there a need to change the rules of the European Capital of Culture competition after 2033 and what needs to be improved?
There is a need. But before the rules are written the financial settlement needs attention. That will determine the rules. Perhaps a bidding city and country could pledge 30%+30% of the funding against 40% coming directly from EU sources. Perhaps in return all stakeholders have a seat on the board. Artistic directors and Creative teams need to be guaranteed freedom of expression as a manifestation of EU values. Political leaderships of candidate cities wanting to become ECoC’s should be obliged to participate in awareness and briefing sessions designed to heighten the awareness of culture as democracy…not just culture as city promotion, an aid to tourism and in offering a competitive edge against other cities.

As I write these words the temperature outside my office is 42 degrees and forests are burning in the distance. Outside of my door, which is next to a large outdoor music venue, 50 huge industial sacks of plastic rubbish are waiting for collection, dumped in the vicinity as a result of last night’s concert. More of this kind of culture will only kill us.

 choir singing outdoors for the opening of Elefsina European capital of culture

Photo: Eleusis 2023, Opening ceremony; Photo by John Kouskoutis | LDSPRO

The full article and conversations with the other powerful minds, such as Bob Scott, Steve Green, Beatriz Garcia, Chris Torch, Rossella Tarantino, Franco Bianchini, Shuji-Kogi and Sylvain Pasqua, you can be found on the EcocNews website.