1. Culture Projects 2. Culture Mobility 3. Culture Events 4. Culture Translation 5. Culture Initiatives | 6. Culture Prizes 7. Culture Thinking 8. Culture Investment 9. Culture Digital 10. Culture Communicate |
1. Culture Projects
1.1. Culture Grande - large scale projects, 6+ partners (similar to the current 1.1)
1.2. Culture Piccolo - smaller projects, 3+ partners (similar to the current 1.2.1)
1.3. Culture Mundus - projects with partners in third countries (similar to the current 1.3.5)
This will be a new strand offering small mobility grants to individual artists and cultural workers. It's structure and focus would be influenced by the results of the current pilot mobility projects being supported by DG EAC.
2.1. Culture Solo - for creative activities, such as the guest artists, residencies, etc.
2.2. Culture Prepare - for preparatory visits, similar to the strand offered under programmes such as Grundtvig (in the Lifelong Learning programme), where individuals undertake visits to share or learn, and to develop partnerships for future full-scale applications.
3. Culture Events
3.1. Culture Festivals - building on the current 1.3.6, which provides support for European components of festival programmes
3.2. Culture Celebrate - support for collaborative projects which develop joint activities to celebrate an anniversary of a key European cultural figure, event or object
3.2. Culture Celebrate - support for collaborative projects which develop joint activities to celebrate an anniversary of a key European cultural figure, event or object
4. Culture Translation
4.1. Culture Translate (similar to the current 1.2.2) - covering literature and the humanities
4.2. Culture Titles - support for the provision of surtitles / subtitles for European performances and films, to help ensure greater access and dissemination throughout Europe
4.2. Culture Titles - support for the provision of surtitles / subtitles for European performances and films, to help ensure greater access and dissemination throughout Europe
5. Culture Initiatives
This will cover the major initiatives in the cultural area:
5.1. Culture Capitals - support for the successful European Capital of Culture programme
5.2. Culture Regions - a new strand that will replicate the success of the Capital of Culture programme, but focus on regions, especially rural regions, which are currently neglected due to the emphasis on cities within the Capital of Culture programme strand
5.2. Culture Regions - a new strand that will replicate the success of the Capital of Culture programme, but focus on regions, especially rural regions, which are currently neglected due to the emphasis on cities within the Capital of Culture programme strand
6. Culture Prizes
6.1. Architecture / perhaps retitled as something like "Building Europe"
6.2. Contemporary Music / "Border Breakers"
6.3. Heritage / perhaps retitled as something like "Inherit Europe"
6.4. Literature / perhaps retitled as something like "Changing Words"
6.2. Contemporary Music / "Border Breakers"
6.3. Heritage / perhaps retitled as something like "Inherit Europe"
6.4. Literature / perhaps retitled as something like "Changing Words"
7. Culture Thinking
This will cover a range of support to help the EC in its research and policy development:
7.1. Culture Policy - perhaps to be used internally by DG EAC to support research or events focusing on policy issues and developments
7.2. Culture Research - opportunities for both DG EAC to issue specific calls for tenders in areas where they need specific studies, and also to invite researchers to submit proposals for projects that they believe would be of benefit to the European Cultural Agenda
7.2. Culture Research - opportunities for both DG EAC to issue specific calls for tenders in areas where they need specific studies, and also to invite researchers to submit proposals for projects that they believe would be of benefit to the European Cultural Agenda
8. Culture Investment
8.1. Culture Invest - support for projects designed to help the creative industries, perhaps
including opportunities to share expertise and good practice between eligible countries, or to provide seed funding for initiatives such as incubation centres, etc.
8.2. Culture Marketing - support for initiatives designed to help the creative industries sell their products in new markets, including outside Europe - this may include support for groups of creative businesses from different countries to jointly take stands at international trade fairs and marketplaces, and to develop multilingual information
materials & websites.
including opportunities to share expertise and good practice between eligible countries, or to provide seed funding for initiatives such as incubation centres, etc.
8.2. Culture Marketing - support for initiatives designed to help the creative industries sell their products in new markets, including outside Europe - this may include support for groups of creative businesses from different countries to jointly take stands at international trade fairs and marketplaces, and to develop multilingual information
materials & websites.
9. Culture Digital
9.1. Culture Access - support for innovative collaborative projects that stimulate
opportunities for citizens to use the new technologies to better access the arts and culture
9.2. Culture Preservation - support for collaborative projects that seek to help preserve items relevant to European culture which are in danger of dissappearing or disintegrating
opportunities for citizens to use the new technologies to better access the arts and culture
9.2. Culture Preservation - support for collaborative projects that seek to help preserve items relevant to European culture which are in danger of dissappearing or disintegrating
10. Culture Communicate
10.1. Culture Contact - support for a network of Contact Points to provide information and advice on all relevant strands, and also support to help the development of successful applications, and perhaps to include support in broader areas such as artists mobility
10.2. Culture Valorisation - support for initiatives to promote the programme, its strands, and examples of good practice
10.2. Culture Valorisation - support for initiatives to promote the programme, its strands, and examples of good practice
Leave a comment on this blog by clicking the red Comments link at the end of the blog item. Questions or problems regarding this website? Email solutions@firstinterval.com
ReplyDeleteDear Geoffrey, always good to read your inputs and now your suggestions. In view of your 10 point proposal my opinion these are functional-organizational categories and do not reflect really priorities which should be given in any cultural program. For example, the rise in xenophobic forces means that integration of people with another cultural background shall be much more difficult. We do have the Platform for Intercultural Europe, so why not derive from this the intention of strengthening the dialogue between civil society and its organisations and the European Commission. A dialogue is needed to live diversity. The same goes for the other platforms of access and creative industries. In view of what also the EU strategy for 2020 emphasizes, namely an economy of experience and smart growth, it would be crucial to have a priority in that domain. There has to be more work being done on cultural strategies, visions and sustainability to promote tools in how to handle culture properly. As Brendan Kennelly said, we need to learn how to use and not abuse culture. Any cultural program which does not name outstanding issues and problems is bound to fail because it does not set the tasks ahead. I agree with you that the regional and the rural aspects should be focused on more than what is possible under the current program. Finally one key demand should be to alter the co-financing from the current 50/50 to 75/25 because the current system favors big at the expense of small organisations and NGOs. The financial threshold to enter such a program is simply for many cultural and artistic organisations too high. Greetings from Athens Hatto
ReplyDeleteHatto is absolutely right in reminding us of the need for considered debate about the priorities of the programme and I hope to read other thoughts along these lines. I suspect that 11 years of being involved in the management and organisation of the programme as the UK CCP has meant I have become focused on clarifying the scope and mechanics of the future programme rather than on the bigger picture. Geoffrey
ReplyDeleteHi I am glad to see there is a re-evaluation going on as some of us at the 'bottom of the pond' do seem to be left out of this process.
ReplyDeleteBack in 1996 I set up an artist group, using the internet, to do exchanges with other artists in the EU. Two years ago I set up a TV Channel to do the same but working with moving image. Both these initiatives have been very succesful and have usually met the EU funding criteria, but we have never received any funding.
I have looked into applying on several occasions but the match funding criteria (see posting above) and the time spent on bureaucracy do not make the process worthwhile. It can also be pretty scary having to commit to the expenditure of 5 figure sums on what can often be tactical / exploratory projects.
Typically our exchange exhibitions cost 1000GBP each way and we can do screenings for 200GBP. The Channel cost 500GBP pa to run.
I can well imagine the Culture Programme really only wants to deal on a 'corporate to corporate' basis and on a sufficient scale that reflects its position within the funding environment. However it does leave those of us working on more modest projects what benefit these schemes are to us and our public. I also know of many other groups like ours that feel they are in the same position viz EU funding.
If I might suggest the addition of another stream - "Grassroots / Innovation" (?) with the following :
A lot simpler application and documentation process - i.e.no more than 2x A4 sheets.
Qualifying criteria 3x EU countries
Can be applied for by unconstituted bodies or individuals representing groups.
A cap of 1000Euros per project. Match funding at 25% including 'in-kind'.
Payment to be a-posteriori - i.e. by receipts
Each Grassroots project can be linked as a cell within an assembly of other Grassroots projects to a maximum of 4
Enough for now, but you get the idea?
Regards, Paul Malone, London
Despite i'm not EU based, but still relevant. I think you should cooperate closer with the museum institutions when it relates visual arts funding programming. Those institutions is ideal base for support and promotion of newest ideas in the field. That's economy - you must infuse new money to expand. Culture is such field where it is required - products of the past is never outdated or forgotten, influence and price just rise, if you wan't something new - new projects and new money required to exist and just expand entire field. Never forget informational support. World shouldn't turn into pure commerce, which is more profitable thing than art itself.
ReplyDeleteDear Geoffrey
ReplyDeleteA welcome idea to open a debate before we all put in our own formal comments. As with your comments a personal view..
We have a major problem. The EC budget will be cut from 2014 or at best standstill: the recent Council meeting showed that the major funding countries do not want an increase. Within that context what are the arguments which will preserve, let alone increase a culture budget? We are seeing gvts cutting their arts budgets more than other budgets and with a generally right wing set of govts the justifications for a cultural EC budget have to change.
The 10 tools you suggest are fine. Digital and Invest will fit the new era of jobs jobs jobs. The inevitable rise of ebooks totally transforms the business model for translated literature. No need to only support dead tree publishers but to support e-publishers. ECOC will continue with its regeneration focus. Mobility? compared to other employment sectors the arts leads the way, expect perhaps for senior business executives. But where are the programmes on curtailing racism against other EU citizens undermining the free movement principle; or aimed at those who are not taking part in the European project now. Culture at EU level is not going to be about the intrinsic value of culture nor to fill the hole left by national governments nor to support the cultural sector as a vested interest sector.
The proposal posted on 28 Oct is well constructed, logical and convincing. Also creative, especially in naming the strands. Although I fully agree with Steve's final sentence, ("culture at EU level is not going to be about the intrinsic value of culture nor to fill the hole left by national governments nor to support the cultural sector as a vested interest sector."), so even if volume shrinks and ambitions are curtailed, a clear coherent, all-inclusive stratagem is essential.
ReplyDeleteGeoffrey's scale keeps in mind that the Commission has limited mandate. The Culture programme is not meant to serve the first words of Article 151 in the Treaty ("contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States"). The main focus is on co-operation.
Supporting co-operation will necessarily become more selective. Growth in actors (35 countries at present) is not followed by growth of funds. I am afraid, dear Paul, the Commission will have a diminishing role in brokering collaboration of small and medium size operations. I suppose Strand 1 in Geoffrey’s classification, the classical C2000 projects, will leave space at the expense of the rest. By reckoning that, we should try to prevent grand wastages, expensive campaigns and rallies with doubtful impact, especially in Geoffrey’s Strand 3. The Commission should indeed finance focused components of festivals, never the event as such. I am glad Geoffrey omitted support to the European orchestras, those imperial relics.
Two minor remarks. Agains majority views, I disliked the expansion of the Capital of Culture title to entire regions. By celebrating cultural regions (G Strand 5.2.), the Capitals can reclaim their urban character. And I hope soon G Strand 6.5. will be constituted as European Translation Prize.
Hi Geoffrey
ReplyDeleteEnjoying the debate. I have sympathy with the view that your ten point plan is functional and organisational (maybe has a soupçon of the Soviet about it?!) and that tackling xenophobia and promoting diversity is of primary importance to the EU.
However I think it isimportant to take a moment to see where the thinking on culture is going across the Commission. Here is something I have written for a paper I am doing. It's more of an analysis than a proposal. But what it heralds is the embracing (or hijacking?) of culture and creative industries to serve an economic agenda.
'Today the EU has begun to turn its attention more seriously to the economic importance of the creative sector - as opposed to the role of Europe's culture and heritage. The recent Green Paper, Unlocking the potential of cultural and creative industries (Brussels, COM(2010) 183) is set within in the framework of the Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs. The new agenda for the sector is identified as entrepreneurship, skills, and intellectual property. A great deal of emphasis is placed on the technology which is driving change and global competitiveness.
An even more significant intervention into this arena, is that of Enterprise and Industry Directorate. In February 2010 an event, ‘Towards a Pan-European initiative in support of innovative creative industries in Europe’ led to the adoption of ‘The Amsterdam Declaration’, a series of recommendations addressed to regional, national and European policy-makers. (http://85.92.129.90/~workshop/)
The Declaration calls for Europe to take full advantage of the creative industries’ potential to combine arts and creativity with entrepreneurship and innovation and for the sector to become an asset to Europe in terms of competitive advantage and the creation of high-quality jobs. The Declaration goes on to highlight issues to be addressed which mirror those in the Green Paper, including protection of IP; skills; cooperation, networking and 'clusters at European level'; business and innovation services; and access to finance. The principal instrument for achieving this would be a new body, the European Creative Industries Alliance whose role would be to drive forward the initiatives with the Commission.
In June 2010, the Head of Unit, Support for Innovation in DG Enterprise and Industry announced at a conference in Brussels, that the contents of Amsterdam Declaration had been broadly accepted and the establishment of a platform for cooperation would be taken forward. The intention, as it stood then, was to invest €7.5 in to lever €100 million and for further announcements to be made ' later in the year'. (3rd European Cultural and Creative Industries Summit, Living the Creative Economy in Europe, https://www.eventsforce.net/civic/frontend/reg/thome.csp?pageID=10679&eventID=36)
While some of these issues have been around in the UK for some time, the intervention at European level-- and particularly involving not only Culture but Enterprise and Industry, gives a new impetus to the idea of the creative sector being a driver of innovation and economic growth.'
So, the choice is, either oppose this or see how it can be woven into the support cultural organisations would like to see. So maybe the theme of Culture Investment and Culture Digital - for example should be more of a joint initiative and not only come through
the Culture Programme and budget.
Specifically on your proposals, I like the idea of giving more to rural areas. There is some interesting stuff to be done rural and remote areas and the place of culture. However I think it is time to quietly bury the City/Capital of Culture but not sure that would be too popular! The idea of encouraging cooperation that is not all about big organisations is well made.
Came back to take a look. And realised I should have firmly insisted on what Christine carefully suggests: Culture Investment and Culture Digital, in fact any project connected to the "creative industries" should be co-financed with DG Enterprise (see http://www.budobs.org/pdf/BO_comments_Green_Paper.pdf).
ReplyDeleteI also should have seconded Hatto about changing the co-financing from 50/50 to 75/25. Not only in favour of small organisations but also for those in poorer member states.
My skepticism about ideologically driven programmes prevents me from agreeing with Hatto about identifying causes to serve in the next seven years.
Burying capitals of culture would indeed be unpopular. And silly: one of the very few things that folks like and associate with the Union - costing peanuts from the Commission. Trimming it back to size is my proposal, and invent good programmes for the countryside.
Dear Geoffrey !
ReplyDeleteBeing in Canada for the moment to contribute to the Canandian Symposium for Arts and Learning I've read your proposal. And I'm in favour of your very clear approche: not overloading a new programme with unreachable aims and wishes (social inclusion, employment, ...) but proposing clear categories, which can be filled with artistic and cultural content in very different ways by cultural operators. You leave the content question to be answered by the artistic and creative people, organisations and institutions of our European societies.
But one thing is missing in your proposal: working for better conditions and more possibilities for ACCESS TO CULTURE. To fill this gap I propose you to change the name of strand 9.1. "Digital Access" into "Digital Techno" and to introduce a 11th strand: "Access" with the purpose to fund only multinational projects, where experiences and strategies from all relevant sectors on local, regional and national level can be exchanged. Ideas giving and capacity building in stead of funding concrete Access-projects which are and have to stay in the responsibility of local, regional and national stake-holders.
I'm curious to read your final version and recommendation for the EC.
All the best from very cold and snowy CAN.
Rolf Witte, BKJ, Germany
Dear Geoffrey,
ReplyDeleteI think your 10 strand proposals are very sound and I support them all with a couple of caveats...
1). Bearing in mind that the Culture programme is unlikely to receive a significant - if any - increase in funding, are you suggesting that the budget be equally divided between all strands? I would not support this - my preference would be to focus (as now) the majority of resources in Cultural Projects to allow the maximum flexibilty for project design and content; and
2) Regarding strand 9.2 (Cultural Preservation) do you see this as physical preservation which can be very expensive, or as digital presevation? Does this strand relate to non-tangible heritage such as cultural traditions, stories etc?
Regards,
Phil.
The National Trust