Productivity of Culture

You are here: Post-script to the ECCM Network and Symposium by Hatto Fischer » Further going analysis of the ECCM (Part 2)

Further going analysis of the ECCM (Part 2)

For a further going analysis as to the collapse of the ECCM Network and what might be learned from that, it has to be recognized that not one single factor but always a combination of internal and external problems brings about something like self defeat.They can be named as

After 2006 the ECCM Network was no longer capable of mustering enough strength and conviction that it could sustain that dialogue very much needed if the networking between former, current and future European Capitals of Culture was to continue. By 2007 it had become clear to everyone that things could not go on as had been the case in the past. As a post script to the ECCM can be taken the official announcement made by the two interim coordinators that the ECCM Network had ceased to exist as of 2010.

The internal problems of the ECCM

The internal problems of the ECCM can be explained by having come under the sway of certain personalities who created a sort of coalition within the network and therefore gave the impression that the Greek dominance was finally too much. Despite all seeing in Spyros Mercouris an outstanding personality with the capacity to move things and to get things done, there was a sense of favoritism with regards to certain persons.

As always these persons follow their own agenda and often played an ambivalent role in how they offered services and advice. A leading role in this sense played the former coordinator Rodolfos Maslias in conjunction with someone like Ingo Weber. It was never clear what was their personal agendas and what was done in the interest of keeping the network alive.

Naturally all went well as long as the current European Capital of Culture was willing to host the members of the ECCM Network. That is understandable when it comes to cover expenses but as the number of cities increased, so would the bill in terms of accommodation and travel expenses. Already some organisers of former European Capitals of Culture like Liverpool '08 refer to the European caravan which goes to city to city every year to hold their meetings there but with the expectation that they are hosted i.e. their accommodations at the very minimum paid for by the city during that year. On the other hand, the ECCM did have problems of finding the money to sustain itself. Here there were expressed at times expectations that the European Commission should have done more to help or at least facilitate sustaining the network.

But that was not the only reason for internal problems becoming ever greater. For if a current European Capital of Culture would host the ECCM members it was expected as guests not to be too critical, if at all as to what the host was doing with this one year. That became most explicit when at the Press conference in March 2006 with Patras as European Capital of Culture journalists asked the ECCM coordinator Rodolfos Maslias if he had any comments to make to the fact that the official programme was not yet printed despite the official year having started in January? No answer was given by the coordinator of the ECCM network but rather he preferred to take up a diplomatic stance. He did so to underscore that the self understanding of the ECCM was not to criticize and more so not to do any evaluation during the current year. He claimed that such an evaluation could only be made once the year was over. That meant no criticial distance was kept to the current European Capital of Culture while it left out the most important quality of cultural criticism, namely the ability to anticipate and to see what is happening to culture if only marketing logistics dominate and the institution of European Capital of Culture becomes one event after another with no other success criteria but the number of visitors.

Credibility of a network claiming to gather all the innovative personalities who have been involved in the realization of this one year within their respective city is a matter of what clear language is used to give advice and support to respective cities having received the designation and are set to make their own experience. It means also not to remain silent if things are going obviously wrong as was the case with Patras 2006.

Unfortunately that clear language was not forthcoming and too much remained in the hands of Spyros Mercouris who undertook many initiatives but then seemed at times to set on his own ideas and not so disposed to take into consideration the opinion of others. One clear example was how he organised the exhibition 'Twenty years of History' to be shown in Patras 2006. The ECCM Network had set up a working group which developed ideas and wanted to include such topics as to what literature and poetry was published by European Capitals of Culture. This proposal was never taken up by him. In the end, the ECCM members were completely dissatisfied with the exhibition and found in terms of things on display that the costs for it were much too high.

Spyros Mercouris has his own way of doing things and would only listen to other suggestions if of practical nature. He was, however, quick to appreciate really good contributions and found a way to entice people to follow his suggestions as he was one of the few to find the money to do all of these things. But to avoid further disputes about the concept for the exhibition, Rodolfos Maslias as coordinators gave to Spyros Mercouris the sole responsibility for the exhibition. Once Spyros Mercouris was given such a task, it was clear that the exhibition would reflect, so to speak, his hand writing on the wall. His exhibitions are famous for a certain way of working with images to tell the story e.g. blown up images on panels. Even the organisers of Patras 2006 attempted to make some corrections by insisting more 3 D exhibits should be included. In response to this demand Spyros Mercouris resorted to his usual equally pet idea, namely he had model ships constructed to symbolize a famous sea battle in which the Greeks beat the Turkish flotilla. What this had to do with the history of European Capitals of Culture or with a concept of culture meant to redeem rather than to glorify a national narrative, remained unanswered.

His justification was that the exhibition was indeed poor of 3D exhibits but that not many cities had sent him sufficient materials. And he would go on to justify the exhibition as not having been expensive at all, that he had paid a part out of his own pocket and that the Patras 2006 never paid him in full i.e. to date there are missing 20 000 Euros of the original agreed sum to be paid by the organisers of Patras 2006.

Moreover he claimed that the films about each city which had been a European Capital of Culture was something of importance. Furthermore, the collection of materials for the exhibition set the base for the archive. This has made possible the starting point of the Documentation Centre of Athens.

Whatever the pros and cons, the ill fated ECCM exhibition showed also another undercurrent not very conducive for furthering cultural development in Europe. Too often the ECCM Network was misused to further Greekness. That took on various forms of Patriotism but also an uncritical propagation of the glorious past as if it had all the answers to present problems and future challenges.

Given the criticism former ECCM members levelled against the exhibition shown first in Patras 2006, it was completely incomprehensible why the European Commission asked the Documentation Centre of Athens to organise on the basis of the old a new exhibition to mark now 'Twenty-five years of history'. As Gottfried Wagner put it when speaking as one of the panel speakers during the 25 year celebration, this exhibition was a scandal and should be taken down immediately.

Again confusion between networking and letting play out connections means at times certain developments are immune to any kind of criticism and indeed serious objections. As long as things are paid for by the Commission and no one else can intervene, things are done this way with a low quality and little if no integrity at all. It drives many into resignation or silence. As Bob Palmer would say any effort to alter this course is subject to failure since no one listens.

Naturally the growing number of European Capitals of Culture puts more and more pressure on everyone. It demands simply another concept on how to continue networking by including these new cities but equally of importance is not to loose touch with the former ones. These are two very different poles of interest. All of the newly designated cities face pressing needs and are the most active members in any network of this kind. By contrast those who have that crucial year behind them are no longer standing under such high pressure to perform and to make sure to get things right. And then there are the current ones in midst of a complex and comprehensive implementation process of a year's programme prepared often well in advance e.g. Liverpool received the designation in 2003 for 2008, thus a five year time span to get ready and then everything happens during that year so fast that it is often impossible to recollect the many details and still enjoy the participation in what is culture's key strength once free to unfold, namely to let people become enthusiastic about what they are doing and experiencing.

Another factor is that the disposition of the European Commission has changed since the beginning of the institution in 1985. This is mainly due to the evolving political situation in Europe and in the world. For instance, culture was increasingly recognized as factor of urban renewal especially after the experiences with Glasgow 1990. By 2007 The KEA Study on the economy of culture underlined the importance of this sector in terms of employment and contribution to the overall GDP of a country. As a matter of fact this text was used as key hypothesis when organising the ECCM Symposium in 2007 as reflected in the session 'economy and culture' but not only. Intended was to have each European Capital of Culture report about how this one year altered the relationship between culture and economy within the city.  But no one took up seriously this request by the European Commission that the European Capitals of Culture should undertake such a research and validate or not the key hypothesis laid out in that study. Only Liverpool '08 caught onto this spirit partially and set up the impact '08 research team.

Networking at European level has also been affected by what can be perceived as a change in personalities which enter the field of expertise involved in organising the yearly ECOC programmes. At the start there were visionary politicians like Melina Mercouri, but also creative personalities such as Jack Lang. But already with the entry of Bob Palmer with Glasgow 1990 it meant less of a political reflective approach about the role of culture as to what could further the debate about culture in Europe. Instead a pragmatic approach was adopted. It meant working with the support of the mayor while achieving results more in the direction of urban revival.

The experience of Glasgow 1990 and the subsequent references to that experience meant a shift in the debate about the role of ECOC. There was no longer a discussion about content in cultural terms or what culture should do e.g. hold open the tension to doubt as precondition for the ability to create something new. That had been the concept of Eric Antonis when artistic director of Antwerp '93 and in so believing he initiated the composition of twenty new operas, 19 of which had their premiere during that specific year. Instead the Glasgow paradigmatic shift, as it is called, meant more and more managerial qualities were demanded, in order to make this one year work for the city.

Above all it made a lot of difference if these personalities like Kaufmann in Weimar were hired to prepare and to see through this one special year and then disappeared again. By contrast someone like Eric Antonis, artistic director of Antwerp '93 is still identified today with the city and has continued to act in reference to the city's needs for culture.He is someone who has continued to build up the cultural infrastructures of the city and knows where are cultural resources when needed to be made available.

Bob Scott  Brussels March 2010

Still, it was curious to see then Bob Scott appear and putting his own stamp of understanding how things are done, namely with a typical British humour and straight forwardness with all the scepticism which prevails in the UK towards anything having to do with Europe. That contradiction becomes most apparent in the fact that he was an advocate of an informal network to replace the ECCM. The irony is that the ECCM was from its very origin a much preferred informal working together. This is how innovative personalities get together and through their friendships make progress. This can be proved as shown by the reasons for the downfall of the ECCM insofar as no one heeded sufficiently the need to uphold some formal rules.

The failure of the ECCM to be a critical voice

There is one serious failure of the ECCM, namely to be a critical voice to ensure that the implementation of the concept of European Capital of Culture is consistent with the original intentions and that culture is promoted within Europe. That aspect of being a critical voice is hardly observed in a world where carefully worded expressions make up most of the political discourse. But if a network of the European Capitals of Culture is to retain credibility, it has to be able to hold a honest talk with ECOC organisers whenever this is deemed as being necessary to uphold the reputation and value of the title.

At that ECCM Symposium in 2005 had been present the Mayor of Patras and the manager of Patras 2006. Someone who did not come was its artistic director who was at that time still Mikroutsikos. As development marked by conflicts turned from bad to worse, he resigned just when Patras 2006 was three days into starting to implement its programme for the entire year. Such a start could have been anticipated by the ECCM. (For a full coverage of Patras 2006: http://poieinkaiprattein.org/europe/european-cultural-capital-cities/patras-2006/ )

Members of the ECCM knew that Bob Palmer had after visiting Patras to evaluate the European Capital of Culture for 2006 returned to Brussels to recommend to the European Commission that the designation should be withdrawn. He believed Patras was not prepared and doubted if the city could achieve anything worth mentioning. He was above all aghast by politicians attempting to influence theatre directors to include their wives in the cast as if cultural performances do not have to meet any artistic standards. Palmer's recommendation was silenced at political level with the then Minister of Culture of Greece putting down his foot. That politics ignores repeatedly expertise advice is but one thing; however, the silence of the ECCM Network on this matter of Patras 2006 is quite another issue.

It proved to be a fatal mistake of the ECCM to stay silent. If such a network wishes to uphold its reputation as being able to pass on experiences made by previous European Capitals of Culture, then this transformation of knowledge must be authentic and valided by real experiences. No fictitious claims of success but a realistic description of the problems besetting any city when trying to implement a year's programme would be more convincing. For advise offered by the ECCM must be based not on a diplomatic stance but on a quality of independence i.e. Free from possible conflict of interests which is the case when too much intertwined with the very body organising this one year.

The ECCM would have been well advised to retain in this and all matters a critical stance to ensure a knowledge base which is independent from political influence. Instead it gave in to considerations of what may be of mutual interest e.g. being hosted by the European Capital of Culture in exchange for staying silent as to what was happening in reality. If a network does not speak out honestly a critical opinion as to what is acceptable, what not. Such a positioning will fail on every account. This applies especially to a network which claims to unite all European Capitals of Culture. It must at the very least indicate what standards it expects each city to uphold in order to safeguard the reputation of this institution.

In the case of Patras 2006 this critical opinion has to be upheld regardless whether or not another Greek city had become a critical case. For obvious reasons silence was preferred for reasons of Patriotism but since this was not the first time, it was clear that the rest of Europe and those with some knowledge would not let after Thessaloniki und now Patras happen for a fourth time. Athens 1985 may not be disputed as it was the first city but enough is enough with this huge discrepancy between claims and reality.

The aspiration behind the ECCM Symposium is summed up best by the title: ‘Productivity of Culture’. The Symposium was organised to give everyone a chance to renew and to revitalise the ECCM network. However, the way this challenge was approached turned out to be ill fated due to a lack of understanding as to the true nature of the crisis or rather petty politics got in the way of a very much needed analysis as to the reasons why. The combination of the two prevented an open discussion about the nature of the problems and thus absent was a clear language. Networking had been reduced to let certain connections play out but without making sure the reputation of the network was safeguarded at all times. Corruption includes as well the mind and therefore looking in the other direction when clearly things are amiss and in need to be challenged.

Michael D. Higgins reminded everyone at the ECCM Symposium that there was something missing in the European discourse, namely a basic honesty or rather the courage to name things. He cited on hand of the example of Israel that it is not possible to refer solely to the national sovereignty of a country if that meant staying silent at the same time about all the Human Rights violations in the shadow of its border. Equally he felt the European discourse failed to name the hidden sources of violence and subsequently many good efforts faltered due to such back stabbing.

If the ECCM tried to uphold the legacy of Melina Mercouri, then it failed to counter tendencies within the ECOC towards an over commercilization of culture. Yet everyone knows that culture cannot be reduced to mere advertisement strategies in the interest of selling something as if a successful product. To this criticism Michael D. Higgins would add that culture has to do after all with telling the truth. This the philosopher Bart Verschaffel extends into the notion if there is to be any cultural development worthwhile to speak about, then by substantiating the possibility in the context of public spaces to question these cultural truths. That has to be based on the Right to speak as much as on the Right to be silent while cities redesign constantly the relationships between private and public spaces. Within such a context creativity can be brought about by letting exactly this process of questioning cultural truths continue.

The ECCM network could have gone much further if it had facilitated such questioning of truths. Instead the network was at risk to succumb to the same kind of language which prevails at the European level and at the level of the newer European Capitals of Culture. This development has prompted Bob Palmer to comment official reports given by European Capitals of Culture as being products of 'spin doctors'. Therefore, networking of these cities would have to find a delicate balance between outer and inner criticism. There is a point where critical advice can fruit in positive results provided the political authority of the city is not exposed. At the same time, it is to be expected from those who know better what it means to bring about such a year that they do not hide in public the truth of the matter as to what is happening or will happen or took place within these European Capitals of Culture. Clearly such criticism must be linked to an ongoing learning process the prerequisite for this being not merely a thorough evaluation but also an insistence that cities do retain the contact with their local population as they enjoyed when making the bid and before having received the designation. In other words, some clear consequences have to be drawn before it is too late and the original concept is abandoned for what works in practice i.e. to the convenience of those not only put in charge but who hold public offices during that year.

In retrospect it can be said that this cover up of real problems or the refusal to name the issues and raise the level of debate about the problems besetting Patras as European Capital of Culture was but a pre-taste of the crisis to hit Greece in 2009. By 2010 this has become a full scale not merely financial, but more so moral crisis. It reflects a combination of inefficiency and corruption. Both can be linked to ways how the money questions and the commitments which go with that have been handled over the years, namely with high neglect and no regard for the real work done. Many a times EU money was endlessly spend without clear accountability while the only interest governing Greek relationships to the EU was what Europe could do for Greece.

Lack of consistency in naming and responding to real cultural problems

If consistency would have prevailed within the ECCM, then there would have been taken into account as well ramifications for culture after what has been happening around the world since 911. Due to the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also other developments linked primarily to the 'war against terrorism', it was no longer self-understood what peace times stood for, culturally speaking. At risk was to end up in a kind of schizophrenic world with here the European Capitals of Culture celebrating sparkling events ending in huge fire works while elsewhere human tragedies unfolded due to millions of people having to flee Afghanistan or else innocent civilians dying after yet another ill guided missile. There was indeed a strange silence about what European Capitals of Culture could do for peace in times of such international wars called at times 'peace missions' to suit the jargon of the day.

For instance, even though someone like Karl Eric Norrman denounced at the Symposium the entry into war in Iraq as a most tragic mistake, it was never made clear whether culture promotes peace or can be used instead to provoke a new war. This confusion about the use of such a term as culture reflects in a certain way what was happening to cultures within the global context but also that it would not be easy for European Capitals of Culture to take a stand on this issue. In the absence of any recommendation from a network like the ECCM it could be expected that no general guidelines could offer suggestions to those who were conceiving the programme for the year in which it was their cities' turn to be European Capital of Culture.

As the bombings in London in 2005 revealed ‘street fear’ had become a world wide phenomenon as Western cities were no longer excluded. That meant in turn the concept of carrying the war against terrorism back to where it was assumed to come from, then targeting first Afghanistan and then Iraq was at best a faulty displacement strategy. In its wake globalization has ravaged the resources of the earth while over demanding the financial capacities of not merely developing but equally of developed countries. The huge state deficits require a kind of debt management which continues very much like the unresolved question of nuclear waste to dispose all costs upon future generations.

If not only the bombings but also all the new kinds of xenophobic forces can be interpreted as a break down in integration and communication, then this has to be dealt with not by means of more surveillance and police methods but with cultural means. For sure street fear underlines the fact that bombs can go off anywhere, at any time. Their deadly message is all the more chilling because innocent civilians are killed in the most arbitrary way.

Nevertheless it is important to note that those who justify such actions claim that the world is no longer listening to the needs of others. A part of that need was addressed by the ECCM Symposium insofar as one session dealt with 'dialogue between cultures'. It showed how cognitive development is just as important as to heed the East-West divide only to be overcome if future generations do not shrink from this responsibility to uphold the European-Mediterranean dialogue. An encouraging sign in this direction is the concept of Marseilles 2013 and therefore a potential positive contribution as the city itself knows how vital are multi-cultural tolerances and practices to bridge some obvious gaps created by all kinds of nationalistic and racist ideas.

As to the role of culture, this was dealt with in another session at the Symposium. It can be linked to a report about museums in the UK which was published just two weeks after the London bombing. The report stated that most of the cultural institutions in the UK, including its museums, lacked staff members from these diverse cultural communities. Also in their collections were hardly any artefacts which had been created within these communities. And if they had any to show what contributions they were making to the cultural life within these communities, then these institutions had no experts who could interpret these artefacts.

How cities should come to terms with their diverse communities, this would be something the ECCM could have picked up as a common theme for all European Capitals of Culture. Max Aufischer addressed this matter at the 2007 Symposium in the session dedicated to networking. His recommendation would be to practice something similar to what the Eastern European city network is doing. To promote artistic exchanges between the cities different models for financing and hosting were applied. If handled well it can open up the cities to diverse languages and different artistic expressions. All this can enhance at multiple levels an exchange of ideas and the open ended communication between different cultures.

Changes in the disposition of European Capitals of Culture

Moreover changes in the disposition of European Capitals of Culture should have been taken into account by the ECCM. Following key factors can be named to explain this need to adapt and to respond to the needs of the newly designated cities:

  1. Alone the change in budgets of European Capitals of Culture when compared to the original one Athens had at its disposal in 1985 says already a lot about the changed conditions under which the institution of European Capitals of Culture could be realised.
  2. Especially after the first Palmer Report (2004), the European Commission started to insist on evaluation and sustainability to ensure a continuation of what everyone had come to believe as being one of Europe's most successful projects.
  3. Concerning membership in the ECCM not every city could after this one year was over justify to its own council membership fees to be paid on an annual basis to the ECCM, especially if as consequence of debt incurred during that one year budgetary cuts were in store at community level e.g. why Weimar did not join the ECCM network.

For both cities and culture the tasks to be faced had changed since the beginning. As Max Aufischer would point out at the ECCM Symposium of 2007 everything had become faster, more colourful, if not easier to access by way of the Internet but also due to such concepts as Intercity trains. These improvements were acclaimed as success even though it meant a loss of quality in the way of life. Max Aufischer lamented above all the fact that the language used was indeed very sloppy. Vague concepts like 'intercultural dialogue' could not capture the real need for a dialogue between cultures. To this can be added the adverse impact of a commercial language used to advertise this one year. In no way could that uphold and promote cultural life in the city and in Europe. This will only become clear once the real cultural losses shall show what the European Union has done in reality to diversity in Europe.

Bob Palmer

Bob Palmer attested to this fact during his speech at the 25 year celebration of European Capitals of Culture held in Brussels, March 23 -24 2010. He pointed out that European Capitals of Culture were at risk to become solely cultural industries. As such they would depend increasingly upon public relation firms to sell their image. Alone Linz '09 spend nearly 20% of its budget on communication. That is more than what is usually set aside in European Projects for management, coordination and overhead costs.

Thus the degree to which cultural content has been lost over the years is quite significant. Hence the programmes being implemented by current and future European Capitals of Culture are quite different from had Melina Mercouri in mind when she proposed the idea of having every year a European Capital of Culture with Athens becoming the first such city in 1985. The task of the ECCM would have been to stem against this trend and evoke as attempted by the Symposium in 2007 another understanding of culture. This has been at the core of interest of Spyros Mercouris, namely to uphold the legacy of Melina Mercouri who took culture to mean the meeting of people and artists to exchange ideas.

The international dimension or the idea of creating a 'network of networks'

Already the programmes being implemented by ECOC cities reflect the growing importance of EU foreign policy and the need to reflect what cultural dimensions should govern the EU relationship to the rest of the world.

At the same time, the multiplicity of languages and cultures being expressed by a variety of people living together in cities, as denoted by Max Aufischer at the ECCM Symposium, demands a new approach to culture in cities. Terms like 'intercultural dialogue' are simply inadequate to bring about adequate models. Another, less sloppy language has to be found if these and other issues are to be dealt with within that one year. Thus it cannot be the tasks of European Capitals of Culture of being but the sole representative of the national culture linked to the member state in which that city happens to be located in. Nor cannot the year's programme be geared solely to build up and to promote the image of the city. Such a branding of culture in order to attract tourists has little or nothing to do with the identity question people face when living in multi-cultural environments. The identity question is much more complex than image makers or PR firms make out to be the case. If culture is about communication which resonates with people because it addresses their needs as thez seek new ways of living and doing things, then 'productivity of culture' is a serious concept in need to be taken further.

However, this is exactly where tendencies within the European Union are contradicting efforts of the ECCM network as articulated at the ECCM Symposium 'Productivity of Culture'. Among the many other reasons attitudes and policy measures have altered over the years. For instance, the current selection committee for the designation of future ECOC cities is under the chairmanship of Bob Scott from the UK and linked as well to Liverpool' 08. That is of importance as the latter city had managed to make its influence felt once it had been designated to be the European Capital of Culture besides Stravanger in 2008. In the run up to that decisive year all current and designated cities are eager to exchange experiences, know how and interact on various levels as they start to build up resources for the implementation of their one year programme. In the process Liverpool '08 in consortium with other cities like Essen / Ruhr 2010 managed to up-end already to a large extent the ECCM Network. They did so by creating besides the older and formal network an informal one. The latter links current and future designated cities with only former cities of the past two years.

It means the ECCM Symposium came at a time of many changes being afoot and most to the detriment of this specific network wishing to link former, current and future European Capitals of Culture. Thus the Symposium 'Productivity of Culture' turned out to be the last thing the ECCM Network did prior to dissolving completely in 2010.

Rather than showing strength, the positions taken by its member at the gathering in Athens revealed all the inherent weaknesses of the network. They had become apparent already at the First Symposium held in Athens in 2005 and where reinforced by what took place after the ECCM held its last official General Assembly in Patras 2006.

Conclusion

Even though the ECCM Symposium 'Productivity of Culture' offered a perspective for further reflection as to how internal and external cultural matters of Europe could be linked with one another through the idea of a 'network of networks', this was never taken up thereafter. One reason might have been that after meeting in Athens in October 2007 no strong signal was send out. Also the publication of the procedures was very much delayed while what was available on the website largely ignored as someone like Spyros Mercouris would not work at such a level of communication. Consequently the ECCM network failed to convince even its own members that this idea of networking European Capitals of Culture within a global context was both a viable and a very practical idea.

Needless to say the ECCM Symposium did not succeed with regards to this objective even though the presentations made and the subsequent discussions indicated that a certain potentiality was there. But that is clearly not enough if there is absent a certain credibility and if the thoughts expressed are not convincing enough to secure further going support. They may have been if not too idealistic, perhaps very much holistic and thus did not allow the going into details. But a prime reason for this failure was that the ECCM had members who preferred either to stay away or if in Athens then silent. They did not offer any practical solution for the internal problems besetting the network, including a lack of recognition of who made things still work, nor did they reach out enough to include those who had become critical of the ECCM Network or did not know what potential the ECCM network had to continue the dialogue between former, current and future European Capitals of Culture.

Hatto Fischer Athens 30.8.2010

^ Top

« The collapse of the ECCM Network (Part 1) | 25 years of ECOCs by Spyros Mercouris »