Liverpool beat Oxford to the title of European City of Culture 2008, not because it's more 'cultured' - which is a relative term anyway - but because it is in greater need of the economic investment that the award will bring. But can this thinking be extrapolated to be of relevance the global justice movement?
Congratulations to Liverpool for winning the title of European City of Culture 2008. Whether it’s more cultured than Oxford is not really important in deciding which city won the award. After all, culture is relative, and you can’t really compare the Beatles from Penny Lane with the fossilised variety in the Oxford University Science Museum.
But what you can compare with more certainty is the relative prosperity between the six contenders. Bristol, Cardiff and Birmingham are all simmering within the hinterland of the sizzling economic hothouse of southeast England, whilst Oxford is boiling over well within its borders. No doubt all would benefit from the extra investment, but do they really need it? Does Oxford really need more tourists? And how much would local Oxford people really have benefited from the award relative to its current prosperity? A local socialist councillor strongly criticised the bid on a BBC4 documentary about the contest, believing that his constituents in Oxford’s periphery - away from unversity and business interests - would see few of the benefits.
Newcastle-Gateshead was the bookies early favourite and perhaps would have won a year or two ago. But it peaked too early with impressive redevelopment on the banks of the Tyne, the Baltic Art Gallery, the Millennium Bridge and the much publicised Angel of the North. But according to a recent report in the Guardian, many local people still await the benefits. Read Can culture save us? for more information.
But what caught the judge’s eye about the eventual winners, Liverpool, was that they felt that the bid involved the people of the city to a greater extent than any other. And it’s this that underlies the idea behind European City of Culture. It’s not about culture at all, but about regenerating cities which due to chronic underinvestment in the past, currently have the greatest need for extra resources. Of course Liverpool - with a Tate Gallery, two cathedrals, two football teams and a bustling nightlife - already has plenty of cultural heritage. But the local people in its post-industrial peripheral estates also have much to gain from the inclusive nature of the bid.
The idea of using culture as a magical panacea to regenerate areas does not always work however. The Centre for Popular Music in Sheffield closed soon after opening because of lack of interest. And this idea of large capital intensive projects misguidedly dumped into a location with little thought given to the subtle and specific requirements of that place is also relevant in terms of global justice and international affairs.
Much of the debt currently owed by the impoverished states of the world was incurred via capital intensive projects such as dams and factories which were built during the last 40 years. The projects were highly beneficial to the banks and construction firms of rich countries (and a few corrupt politicians in the host countries) but did little to address the concerns of local people in promoting sustainable development.
Following the themes of economic rather than cultural analysis, and corporate concerns rather than local needs, goes some way in explaining why Beijing has been awarded 2008’s slightly more important cultural accolade: the Olympic Games. Multinational corporations view China as rich pickings - a virtually untapped market of more than a billion people. With many yet to buy even basic consumer goods, it’s a marketing manager’s utopia compared with the saturated markets of the richer western / northern segments of the globe. And the Olympics offer the perfect opportunity for the initial mass “penetration” of the Chinese market.
But will the local people of Beijing benefit in the same way the judges back in Britain hope Liverpudlians will? Or were the human rights abusers merely whipping faster, suspending higher and beating stronger their many torture victims, even as the IOC officials were pondering their choice? Or is it all part of a larger deal to bring China into the international fold with provisos on improving human rights?
The New York based group Human Rights in China has reported that in 2001 homeless people, beggars and other “disreputables” deemed unfit for the eyes of the visiting IOC delegation were forcibly removed from the streets of Beijing, with doubts arising as to their subsequent whereabouts. But this is dwarfed by other human rights issues including Tiananmen Square, Tibet and Falun Gong.
The decision to leave a flawed Oxford bid well alone and reward Merseyside some much needed regional economic boosterism deserves to be applauded. But can the same be said of Beijing? How many local people will “benefit” in the Global City of Culture 2008? For the Beijing Olympics to truly be a success, we must take our eyes away from the sporting contests and into the jails, hoping that the reward of hosting such a prestigious and lucrative event will bring pressure on the Chinese authorities to improve their dismal human rights record, and not merely allow multinationals easy access to one of the world’s largest and fastest growing markets.
But what you can compare with more certainty is the relative prosperity between the six contenders. Bristol, Cardiff and Birmingham are all simmering within the hinterland of the sizzling economic hothouse of southeast England, whilst Oxford is boiling over well within its borders. No doubt all would benefit from the extra investment, but do they really need it? Does Oxford really need more tourists? And how much would local Oxford people really have benefited from the award relative to its current prosperity? A local socialist councillor strongly criticised the bid on a BBC4 documentary about the contest, believing that his constituents in Oxford’s periphery - away from unversity and business interests - would see few of the benefits.
Newcastle-Gateshead was the bookies early favourite and perhaps would have won a year or two ago. But it peaked too early with impressive redevelopment on the banks of the Tyne, the Baltic Art Gallery, the Millennium Bridge and the much publicised Angel of the North. But according to a recent report in the Guardian, many local people still await the benefits. Read Can culture save us? for more information.
But what caught the judge’s eye about the eventual winners, Liverpool, was that they felt that the bid involved the people of the city to a greater extent than any other. And it’s this that underlies the idea behind European City of Culture. It’s not about culture at all, but about regenerating cities which due to chronic underinvestment in the past, currently have the greatest need for extra resources. Of course Liverpool - with a Tate Gallery, two cathedrals, two football teams and a bustling nightlife - already has plenty of cultural heritage. But the local people in its post-industrial peripheral estates also have much to gain from the inclusive nature of the bid.
The idea of using culture as a magical panacea to regenerate areas does not always work however. The Centre for Popular Music in Sheffield closed soon after opening because of lack of interest. And this idea of large capital intensive projects misguidedly dumped into a location with little thought given to the subtle and specific requirements of that place is also relevant in terms of global justice and international affairs.
Much of the debt currently owed by the impoverished states of the world was incurred via capital intensive projects such as dams and factories which were built during the last 40 years. The projects were highly beneficial to the banks and construction firms of rich countries (and a few corrupt politicians in the host countries) but did little to address the concerns of local people in promoting sustainable development.
Following the themes of economic rather than cultural analysis, and corporate concerns rather than local needs, goes some way in explaining why Beijing has been awarded 2008’s slightly more important cultural accolade: the Olympic Games. Multinational corporations view China as rich pickings - a virtually untapped market of more than a billion people. With many yet to buy even basic consumer goods, it’s a marketing manager’s utopia compared with the saturated markets of the richer western / northern segments of the globe. And the Olympics offer the perfect opportunity for the initial mass “penetration” of the Chinese market.
But will the local people of Beijing benefit in the same way the judges back in Britain hope Liverpudlians will? Or were the human rights abusers merely whipping faster, suspending higher and beating stronger their many torture victims, even as the IOC officials were pondering their choice? Or is it all part of a larger deal to bring China into the international fold with provisos on improving human rights?
The New York based group Human Rights in China has reported that in 2001 homeless people, beggars and other “disreputables” deemed unfit for the eyes of the visiting IOC delegation were forcibly removed from the streets of Beijing, with doubts arising as to their subsequent whereabouts. But this is dwarfed by other human rights issues including Tiananmen Square, Tibet and Falun Gong.
The decision to leave a flawed Oxford bid well alone and reward Merseyside some much needed regional economic boosterism deserves to be applauded. But can the same be said of Beijing? How many local people will “benefit” in the Global City of Culture 2008? For the Beijing Olympics to truly be a success, we must take our eyes away from the sporting contests and into the jails, hoping that the reward of hosting such a prestigious and lucrative event will bring pressure on the Chinese authorities to improve their dismal human rights record, and not merely allow multinationals easy access to one of the world’s largest and fastest growing markets.
e-mail:
Comments
Hide the following comment
City of Culture / Graffiti
28.06.2003 14:31
(aint stonehenge just a peice of 3d sculpture graffiti to?)
The story has continued for time, people are still making their marks often incredibly beautifully, but thats just a matter of opinion, not all of us like opera or punk, but wow some of us love it! ... where would culture be wthout diversity?
Anyway, culture continues and always will
Styles, times, fashions and whims will change and pass us by, but culture in what ever form, will always be there . we have all evolved beyond a level of intelligence that wont allow us to stop! its an unexplainable need!
Anyway getting back to oxford and its proposal to become the european city of culture, I think its an absolute total phukin joke! the proposers of this went out of their way to scrub the city centre streets clean of all "graffiti" before the judges came round to have a look!its an absolute joke that britain thinks any of its cities have even got a cats chance in hell of becoming europes "city of culture". Go to barcellona , paris , amsterdam ! I aint travelled much but the freedom and active ENCOURAGMENT of art and beauty (most building sites are surrounded by temporary legal graffiti walls that are filled with a riot of the most amazing paintings!, and not just all spray can stuff, people are using paint brushes fingers and toes to put colour on the walls!, even nailing peices of wood or plastic toys, scrap metal and junk onto the walls to make them beautifull! Out there on the street, free for everyone, and you can do it in the day too! you can watch people painting!!
Art isnt boxed up and kept in its "right place" inside boxes with opening hours, where sometimes you even have to pay to get in!!!!!! (or if it is, theres so much amazing stuff on the street you havent got the desire to go look in a box anyway! When i was in barcellona there was sooo much sooo amazing street art that i couldnt get any where near the salvidor dali museum cos every time i tried to go there i just had to keep stopping and look all this amazing art work and drink it up and study it and wonder at it !)
...They havent got a clue!
In the local free paper that comes through the letter box this week was an article how the authorities want to get rid of unlicenced street traders and buskers! they're effectively trying to wipe out spontanaity, fun, freedom of expression and culture every where they can! Why? i spose cos their not making any money out of it, or maybe someone else is and they want their slice of the pie!- Tax the fuckers!! Muscling in and trying to take over with their money thug (better believe it, they have the truncheons an cell blocks to enforce it) culture.
that aint no art culture ,thats profit culture ,well hey ,if their going in for that bid ,then it aint a joke at all ,they might even stand a chance of winning!
Bod