https://www.kulturstiftung.de/wp-content/upl…publication.pdf
Dresden presented its bid under the theme of “Neue Heimat”. The city has a well- developed cultural scene but acknowledges a need for innovation and a shift from a traditional cultural approach into a more transdisciplinary and decentralised cultural landscape.
A first cultural development document was produced in 2008 and an updated plan was drafted, after consulting citizens and specialists. The document was still in the making at the time of pre-selection and was planned to be presented to the city council. The plan includes measures to further support the development of the cultural sector in Dresden. It intends to adhere to the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, which is a positive element. The city is also willing to develop an alternative image as a tourist destination. However, those plans are not yet concrete. The programme for the ECoC year in 2025 is expected to add cultural value to the entire region, as an urban-rural cooperation can further help to mitigate asymmetric developments between the city and its surrounding areas. The level of regional involvement in those plans is unclear, though. It is therefore difficult to see in what way and to what extent the ECoC project would add value to the cultural development of Dresden and its region. The application hardly envisages capacity building measures to ensure the efficient delivery of a project of the size and scale of the ECoC. The evaluation prospects are technically promising. However, it is not clear what Dresden will evaluate, as indicators referring to two focal points of Dresden’s X-culture (a key element of its bid) are not clearly formulated.
Dresden believes that focusing on its urban society will allow for developing exemplary and scalable future-oriented possibilities for a free and peaceful European coexistence, Europe as Heimat. Yet a plan to establish a prototypical cultural landscape of X-culture in Dresden was not convincingly presented. Even though contacts with other European Capitals of Culture have been established and some other interesting partners from afar are mentioned, the panel considers that the European dimension is underdeveloped. The international partners and projects mentioned, e.g. regarding the opening event, are interesting. However, the application does not explain how they are rooted in the “heimat” concept and how they connect to the diverse cultural communities living in the city. Finally, according to the panel, the connections between local and European issues are not sufficiently articulated, even for the pre-selection phase.
The cultural and artistic programme consists of four strands: Heimat – Common Ground (how different generations of Dresden’s people understand their Heimat – and how they want to redesign it), East and West (European integration with St. Petersburg and Coventry in the core of the programme), Power of Strangeness (burgeoning multiculturalism within the city and a look at Dresden’s colonial past) and Neue Heimat X-Culture (depicting current transformations in European society). The projects dedicated to the Elbe river, water and sustainability are considered highly relevant and worth being pursued. Participation is identified as a core artistic concept, but it is not clear if - and how - the curated and non-curated parts of the programme will be linked together and transformed into a coherent and attractive proposition of European relevance and interest. A coherent artistic vision is also missing. Additionally, the team could not explain clearly how the topic of democracy (that the panel found very important) would be addressed from a cultural and artistic content point of view. The panel was surprised that the city was not building on, or re-examining, its significant and world-known tangible and intangible heritage as part of its ECoC project. Regardless of the technical and legal fact that such heritage is prominently not the City’s, but the State’s property, it is a significant missed opportunity to develop a project of the magnitude of an ECoC without including all the city’s (and the region's) major cultural assets. Finally, the panel also misses reflection upon or reference to the city’s loss of the UNESCO World Heritage title.
The application was unanimously approved by the city council on 4 July 2019. The city has an excellent infrastructure to host big cultural events. Yet the capital investment plans (especially as far as the establishment of so-called “third places” is concerned) are not sufficiently clear. The Robotron canteen is an interesting investment and is worth being further developed.
The panel noticed good initial conditions in terms of outreach as the city already features a large number of accessible barrier-free cultural spaces and venues. The bid book includes good additional ideas, for example, the establishment of a youth curatorium and a showroom for projects presentation. However, the distinction between plans related to the general cultural development of the city and the ones that are ECoC-specific is hardly visible in the bid book.
The operational budget amounts to € 70,600,000, which provides for a solid financial base for the ECoC preparation and implementation. The split between the suggested contributions from the various levels of territorial governance seems quite realistic. The ECoC organisation – as presented in the bid book – would be under the exclusive responsibility of the city council, which may suggest a top-down approach to the whole process. The management and funding of the non-curated part of the programme was not convincingly presented as it failed to include mechanisms ensuring artistic quality and relevance for the overall ECoC project. The marketing plans, even if supported by other institutions’ budgets, are too modest to implement the city’s aim to develop an alternative image as a cultural destination. The bid failed to address convincingly the challenge - recognised by the bidding team - to ensure the visibility of the ECoC in the already very active artistic life of Dresden.
Conclusion
The panel does not recommend that the bid of Dresden proceeds to the final selection phase.
The panel recognised the city’s capacity to create and implement significant artistic programmes. However, it considered overall that the bid was under-developed. The local and European dimensions were not well balanced, as - according to the panel - features of local cultural development prevailed. The need for the ECoC title and its legacy was not clearly articulated. The panel would like to encourage Dresden to capitalise on the ECoC preparations and continue to invest in non-institutional culture as an important element of the city’s territorial and social development. The panel hopes that the endeavours to finalise and then implement a comprehensive cultural strategy will continue. The process would benefit from involving in a sustainable manner a wider range of stakeholders and the population of the whole territory as well as from broadening the perspective through European expertise and an enriching international cooperation.
