Cultural Engineering Group

Services & Ressources en ingénierie culturelle

Art Basel lance Art Basel Cities

parcours-image-webiste

Art Basel est LA manifestation majeure d’art contemporain qui se tient annuellement à Bâle en Suisse, à Miami aux États-Unis et à Hong Kong en Chine. A chaque édition, la manifestation fait de sa ville d’accueil la destination préférée des amateurs d’art du monde entier, démontrant d’une recette et d’un modèle des plus efficaces qui en font aujourd’hui la plus prestigieuse et la plus renommée des expositions internationales d’art.

Au delà de son impact sur le marché de l’art, la manifestation a un impact territorial grandissant et incontestable puisqu’à chaque fois c’est le cœur de toute une ville qui bat à son rythme et qui se mobilise tout particulièrement pour créer une atmosphère unique, une véritable expérience du territoire.

A titre d’exemple, à Miami, où la manifestation est installée depuis 2002, Art Basel estime son impact économique à 500 millions de dollars, contribution non négligeable à l’augmentation du rayonnement et à l’attractivité de la ville.

Forts de ce bilan dont la valeur ajoutée dans tous les domaines se vérifie un peu plus à chaque édition, les organisateurs de Art Basel ont décidé de lancer une nouvelle initiative, faisant le pari que d’autres villes pourraient tirer parti de ses formidables retours d’expérience.

Nommée Art Basel Cities, cette initiative très orientée « business » propose une offre de conseil visant à connecter et relier des villes partenaires sélectionnées par le réseau Art Basel pour développer un contenu culturel destiné à valoriser et enrichir le profil de chaque ville dans le monde de l’art.

Le paysage culturel des villes clientes sera évalué par Art Basel en étroite collaboration avec le cabinet de conseil international fondé par Richard Florida, Creative Class Group, comme autant d’actifs que de chaque ville pourra mettre à profit et générer du développement.

Florida, un des principaux théoriciens de la classe créative et des villes créatives, fait aussi partie de conseil consultatif de l’initiative, aux côtés des collecteurs Dennis Scholl, Füsun Eczacıbaşı, Patrizia Sandretto Re Rebaudengo et Uli Sigg, des architectes David Adjaye, Jacques Herzog et William Lim, du directeur Fondation Baseler Sam Keller, du financier Simon Mordant AM, de l’ancien directeur fondateur de la Tate Modern de Londres désormais à Hong Kong Lars Nittve, de la directrice du Brooklyn Museum Anne Pasternak et d’un ancien diplomate de Singapour qui dirige la Fondation pour les arts et l’entreprise sociale, Michael Tay.

Filed under: Evénements, Expériences, Ingénieries, , , , , , ,

Managing Spontaneity : a conversation with the authors of Eventful Cities

An ART-idea* conversation with the authors of Eventful Cities, Greg Richards and Robert Palmer, took place in Barcelona on 17th April 2013. The event brought together a select group of experts and practitioners from across Europe to share and discuss ideas about the future of cities and events.

 Conversation-1-13

Eventful cities are constantly evolving in the face of emerging challenges, particularly the current economic crisis and major shifts in the social fabric of communities. The discussion identified a number of key issues, ranging from the understanding of multiple identities of cities, changing nature of city governance, increasing complexity of brokering relationships with increasingly diverse city stakeholders, and the need for new approaches when bidding for international events, to the limitations of current methodologies and the deliberate misrepresentation of results of event evaluations and impact studies.

A need was identified to move from economic based event indicators to a wider concept of public value. The value-led argument should no longer centre on economic benefits but rather incorporate a more sophisticated and multi-polar approach to assessing the value of the cultural events.

The final session of the conversation was dedicated to looking at the future challenges for cities and considered wider implications for events in cities. Several challenges were highlighted:

  • Increased demand by citizens to reclaim public space
  • Growing need amongst people to come together in mass events (what Greg Richards referred to as the “need for physical co-presence.”)
  • Rising disillusionment with mega events that exclude genuine citizen engagement
  • Proliferation of spontaneous events (that ignore rules of conventional event management as practiced traditionally by local authorities)
  • Growth in events that challenge the boundaries of authority and usual consumer behavior

Taken together, these trends point to significant challenges to the approach of cities when managing events. It will be increasingly complex to manage security by issuing permits –the flash mob disappears before the police arrive! The renewed demands from citizens for the right to utilize public space in “their” city will be increasingly difficult to ignore, persuading authorities to re-examine and embrace the demonstration of different expressions of public creativity. It may be that city authorities will need to find ways to allow citizens to design their own events, taking what Robert Palmer identified as a more “prosumptive” approach to participation that will require events facilitation rather thanmanagement. Managing spontaneity will demand a new set of skills.

The next Conversation will be held in September 2013 and will consider “the possible end to the approach to city cultural policy as we know it.” With redundant art forms, new forms of participation, the changing role of arts subsidy and a new ecology for culture, the debate will look at the feasibility of a needs/rights based policy approach that is no longer driven by economics.

The aim of the conversation is for you to have an input and use the opportunity to ask burning questions or test your own theories and analysis. The conversation takes place in a combination of formal and informal settings -and is moderated to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to participate.

 ____

*ARTidea is a non-profit association dedicated to exploring creative and artistic solutions for local and regional development.

About Eventful cities on CEG :

Filed under: Analyses, Evénements, Gouvernances, Ingénieries, Politiques culturelles, Ressources, , , , , , , ,

Pier Luigi Sacco: Culture 3.0 (pt. I) A new perspective for the EU 2014-2020 structural funds programming

In his study the Milan professor Pier Luigi Sacco shows the historical development of what we know as « Culture ». By analogy with the fast development of the internet and its incarnations, Sacco sets out that there was a pre-industrial Culture 1.0 that evolved over a long period of time and reigned for several centuries. The industrial revolution turned it step by step into Culture 2.0. With the digital revolution and the invention of the internet it gradually grew into Culture 3.0 by now.

What does that mean for Culture today? How does the policy framework of an integrating Europe react to this?

LABKULTUR.TV features Sacco’s study in a small series each Friday.  

Preliminary remarks

In spite of the multiplication of successful examples of culture-led local and regional development across Europe and elsewhere (e.g. Sacco et al., 2008, 2009), there is a widespread perception that the role and potential of culture in the overall European long-term competitiveness strategy is still seriously under-recognized (CSES, 2010). This reflects in the difficulty to bring cultural policy issues at the top ranks of the broader policy agenda, and consequently explains why the share of structural funds devoted to culture badly fails to match the share of cultural and creative sectors in total EU value added.

Knowledge based economy

 

Region of Lombardy building, Milan

Region of Lombardy building, Milan

This situation is mainly the consequence of a persisting gap in the conceptualization of the role of culture in an advanced, knowledge based economy as it is the European one nowadays. For many decision makers and policy officers operating outside the cultural realm, the cultural sectors are at best a minor, low-productivity branch of the economy, largely living on external subsidies, and which is therefore absorbing economic resources more than actually generating them. Not surprisingly, as a coherent consequence of this wrong conceptualization, cultural activities are one of the first and easiest targets of public funding cuts during phases of economic crisis.

 

Culture led development

There has been in fact a long record of cases of successful culture-led development policies of cities and regions (and sometimes even countries) from the late 80s and early 90s onwards, which however have mainly been regarded as exceptional (or even exotic) by the common sense of policy making. The impressive figures that have emerged from first attempts at measuring the economic size of cultural and creative sectors in Europe (KEA, 2006), which are by the way likely to be underestimated (CSES, 2010), have certainly made a cases and have attracted much attention. Consequently, more and more administrations at all levels, including ones that never paid real interest to these issues, have henceforth begun to devote more energy and resources to culture focused development policies, but the overall awareness at the European level remains scarce and scattered, so that much is left to be done. In particular, awareness and policy activism at regional and city levels is at the moment far superior than that at the country level, and thus there is the possibility that in the close future uneven culture-related development patterns may be found across the EU, and that some countries are at risk of lagging behind.

Rush Hour in Brera, Milan

Rush Hour in Brera, Milan

In order to prevent this from happening, in view of the next 2014-2020 round of structural funds programming, a more appropriate formulation of background principles and target objectives for cultural and creative sectors in the wider context of EU’s competitiveness and cohesion policies is badly needed. The aim of this short paper is to provide some fresh inputs in this direction.

 

Background concepts: from Culture 1.0 to Culture 3.0

 

Milan everyday business

Milan everyday business

The misconceptions about the role of culture in the contemporary economic framework can be traced back to the persistence of obsolete conceptualizations of the relationship between cultural activity and the generation of economic (and social) value added. To illustrate this point, it is necessary to pin down a very basic narrative of the evolution of the relationship between the two spheres, of course keeping in mind that it is by necessity very sketchy and omits many aspects that would have primary relevance in a more comprehensive account (such as for instance the role of popular and grassroots culture, regional differences in public policies, and so on), which would however largely exceed the space limitations and scope of the present paper.

Culture 1.0 was a patronizing culture

For a very long time (centuries, indeed), such relationship has been structured according to what we could call the Culture 1.0 model, which basically revolves around the concept of patronage. The Culture 1.0 model is typical of a pre-industrial economy. In this context, culture is neither a proper economic sector of the economy nor it is accessible to the majority of potential audiences. The actual provision of culture is secured by the individual initiative of patrons, namely, people with large financial possibilities and high social status, who derived their wealth and status from sources other than cultural commissioning in itself, but decided to employ some of their resources to ensure that cultural producers could make a living, thereby getting the possibility to enjoy the outcome of creative production and to share it with their acquaintances.

Patronizing culture, of course, may be an effective means for further building the patron’s social status and reputation. But it is clear that this is made possible by the availability of resources that are gathered outside the cultural sphere, and that cultural production here entirely lives on subsidies and could not survive otherwise. In the patronage relationship, the wage of cultural producers tends to be regarded not as part of a market transaction, but rather as a sort of symbolic, mutual exchange of gifts between the patron and the artist – a practice that still survives in some cultural realms (e.g. Velthuis, 2005), and finds intriguing applications in new, culturally-mediated social platforms (Bergquist and Ljungberg, 2001). Clearly, this model can support only a very limited number of cultural producers, who entirely live upon the discretional power of the patron, and very limited audiences. Both the production of, and the access to, culture are therefore severely limited by economic and social barriers.

to the references

Source : Labkultur

Teaser Photo Tangled mind © olly – Fotolia.com

Filed under: Analyses, Expériences, Gouvernances, Ingénieries, Politiques culturelles, , , , , , ,

Indicators of Istanbul

“It’s no surprise that artists–always reliable indicators of a neighborhood beginning its transition—are leading the charge.” Is a quote from video journalist Gabriel Leigh in a recent short piece about the gentrification of the commercial neighborhood of Karaköy in Istanbul. 

In the piece, Leigh described the artist space, Caravansarai as, “A residency and studios for circus-style performance lessons.”  Aside from the not making any sense semantically, that statement is also not true.  Caravansarai is a creative production space and meeting point which houses a collective of two. Adding to the gentrification pedigree–we are also foreigners.

Not much longer in this incarnation. Not to be confused with the entities responsible for gentrification (corporations, government) we are the unfortunate indicators. I say ‘we’ because I am one half of Caravansarai.  We moved into the Perşembe Pazarı section of Karaköy two years ago after a long period of fetishizing it.    Full of wire and tubing and winches and gears and rubber stoppers,  Karaköy was inspirational ever since the first time I strolled through it nine years ago.  At that time I was a tightwire walker and the ease at which I could find materials with which to erect an entire circus excited me.  The neighborhood has existed like this for the past 30 or so years, but it does not have much longer in this incarnation.

Passing Patterns of Perşembe Pazarı. As a tribute and a nod to the transitional nature of the area, we have begun documenting it in non-standard ways:  When we moved in, we invited artists to take their cues from the 1,000 odd years of history of this port district and design pieces to be built into the space.  My associate, Julie Upmeyer’s personal visual work concentrates on the signage of Perşembe Pazarı.  And now, we add to this commemorative mission, a choreography project which will highlight the already existing movement of people, goods, and vehicles around the area—the Passing Patterns of Perşembe Pazarı (PPPP.)

While our love affair with Karaköy and Perşembe Pazarı is ongoing, we find ourselves at scale compared to the larger cultural institutions that are opening up around us.  SALT Galata, bankrolled by, well . . . a bank . . . has ample resources to conduct whatever project they conceive of, while we struggle to maintain our independence as artists while still trying to fund our projects.

Large insitutions are the real gentrifiers of Karaköy. PPPP has no financial backing except what we can gather from other people who get excited about the neighborhood, our ideas, Istanbul in general—especially those who want to sustain the work of individual artists and people as opposed to large institutions—the real gentrifiers of Karaköy.

Source : 2010LABtv.

The Passing Patterns of Perşembe Pazarı can be visited on Kickstarter.com where you can support it either financially or through social media ‘praise’.

Filed under: Analyses, Expériences, Gouvernances, , , , , , , ,

Audience stats (year nine)

  • 398 245 page views

Network map today : 3020 experts members and contributors

Rejoignez 3 775 autres abonnés

Themes

Action artistique et culturelle Aménagement du territoire Architecture Art dans la ville Art et espace public Arts sciences et technologies Billets réflexifs Capitales européennes de la culture Coopération culturelle Coopération internationale Creative cities Création contemporaine Création numérique Cultural Engineering Group Culture et développement territorial Culture et innovation Dialogue interculturel Diversité culturelle Démocratisation de la culture Développement culturel Développement des territoires Développement durable Développement soutenable Economie créative Economie de la culture Equipements publics Ethique Europe Evaluation des politiques culturelles Financement de la culture Finances publiques Gouvernance culturelle Industries créatives Industries créatives et design Industries culturelles Ingénierie culturelle Ingénierie de la connaissance Ingénierie touristique Innovation Innovation sociale Interculturel Marché de l'art Marketing culturel Marketing des territoires Musées Musées et nouvelles technologies Mécénat Métropoles créatives Nouveaux médias Nouvelles gouvernances Nouvelles technologies Patrimoine Patrimoine numérique Politique culturelle Politique des territoires Politique européenne Politiques culturelles Politiques de l'innovation Politiques des territoires Politiques européennes Politiques publiques Politiques publiques et PPP Polémiques Prospective RGPP Réforme de l'Etat Réforme des collectivités territoriales Réformes Soft power Soutenabilité Tourisme Tourisme culturel Tourisme culturel et nouvelles technologies UNESCO Urban planning

Member of The Internet Defense League