Brașovul a candidat pentru titlu de Capitală Culturală Europeană 2021 dar a fost eliminat la preselecția din această toamnă. Un juriu fornat din 12 persoane (10 propuse de Parlamentul European, Consiliul European, Comisia Europeană și Comitetul Regiunilor) a analizt dosarul de candidatură și l-au respins pentru mai multe motive.
Brașovul a venit cu un concept, „Civilizația Muntelui”, care cuprindea două dimenisuni: locală și europeană. Juriul nu a fost impresionat de diviziune chiar dacă ideea de Civilizația a Muntelui li s-a părut interesantă. Cei din Brașov nu au înțeles că o prioritate a europenismului este de a integra diferite culturi din alte țări și nu de a merge separat. Separarea în local și internațional încalcă criteriile europene pentru Capitală Culturală.
Juriul a apreciat programele de integrare a copiilor romi în școli dar a constatat că alte comunități, germană și maghiară, nu a fost implicați în proiect. Cu alte cuvinte ne-am prezentat cu romii dar nu și cu germanii și maghiarii care au contribuit enorm la cultura brașoveană.
Juriul a constatat că cei din Brașov nu au capacitatea de a organiza un număr mare de evenimente, cum se întâmplă în alte localități.
Arta contemporană a fost slab reprezentată în dosarul de candidatură. Juriul a concluzionat că programul este o strategie de dezvoltare turistică și nu culturală a Brașovului.
Mai jos aveți varianta în engleză așa cum a apărut pe siteul europa.eu:
Braşov presented their bid under the banner of “Europa Corona”. The bid is a catalyst for a major change in the overall cultural development of the city; it challenges the culture of closed institutions. The programme is divided into two dimensions; The European Dimension “Among the Mountains” and the local dimension “Under the Mountain”. Each has three sub-themes. The projected operating budget is €37.261m of which €27.294m would be allocated to programme expenditure. The bid has the full support of the city and county councils.
The recent decision to recognise culture as a core element in the city’s development strategy is a positive step.
The panel considered the long term nature of the cultural strategy, in two phases, 2016-21 and 2022-30, to be sound as it enables a clear sense of stability for investment (in urban renovation) and cultural sector development. The panel appreciated the ambition for a radical deviation from the current offer.
The ECOC’s strategic objectives supported the first stage of the strategy and help lay the foundations for the second stage.
The panel was less convinced on the dual nature of the two programme strands even if the mountains idea could be an interesting concept. An aim of the European Dimension is to integrate different arts and culture (and their practitioners) from other countries.
The separation of the strands into local and international was not a reliable way of meeting the criterion. This duality of approach seemed to highlight the weakness of the overall artistic vision: a list of criteria for projects does not give enough strategic insight. Both strands contained interesting projects (which were not simply the continuation of existing activities) which deserve to be carried out.
The linking of Sports agenda for 2021 and the ECOC could be an interesting feature. The panel appreciated the outreach into developing arts in schools as part of audience development focusing on children as multipliers for the ECOC dissemination within their families and communities.
It felt the policies to integrate Roma citizens into the school system an area which needs encouragement and continuation. However the programme did not tackle adequately how to integrate other communities from the city, as Hungarian and German that have closed cultural productions.
The management of an ECOC is a considerable task and the panel was not convinced that there was the capacity to manage such a high volume of events compared to the current cultural offer of the city. Consequently, it lacked a plan 12 Selection of the European Capital of Culture 2021 in Romania to develop capacity and training for the sector, as it is one of the pillars of the long-term strategy. The management structure, notably the consultation and decision-making processes, presented in the bid-book were not very clear and the vision for artistic leadership could have been better presented.
Overall the panel felt that the presentation significantly improved its comprehension of the bid compared to the bidbook but the ambition of the strategy was not carried through to the proposed programme. There was a reliance on existing cultural activities and a less radical change than the strategy called for. Contemporary artistic production and development was noticeably weak in the proposed programme. The programme is eminently suited for the city to develop a touristic development whereas an ECOC seeks to significantly develop the cultural and creative sectors in a city with clear cultural, creative and social outcomes.