The challenge of the European Capitals of Culture

An event jointly organised by Chemnitz 2025 and Nova Gorica 2025, this year's two European Capitals of Culture, will be held in the European Parliament today at 7 pm. It is an extremely important event, because its aim is to take stock of the future of the entire European Capitals programme. The title is awarded on the basis of a national competition that follows a set calendar involving two member states each year, occasionally joined by a third non-EU country. In 2025 it is the turn of Germany and Slovenia, next year it will be the turn of Finland and Slovakia, with the cities of Oulu and Trenčin. To date, the calendar of Capitals is set until 2033, when it will be Italy's turn for a new capital after Matera 2019. The fact that our Gorizia this year shares part of its cultural programme with Nova Gorica is not due to the fact that Italy has 'its own' European Capital of Culture, but that it is the Slovenian capital that has extended the programme to its Italian counterpart, centring the entire project on the very topical idea of crossing borders. The Capitals are decided well in advance, and right now, for example, we are approaching the decision on the 2030 Capitals, which will be selected from the Belgian and Cypriot candidates.

Over time, the meaning of the programme has undergone profound evolutions. Born in 1985, with the symbolic choice of Athens as the first capital also as a tribute to Melina Mercouri, the great actress and later Greek Minister of Culture who in fact devised and created the political conditions for the launch of the initiative, the European Cities of Culture (this was the initial name) have gradually become not just a simple celebration of European identity and culture but transformative projects whose objective has progressively focused on the revival or discovery of European cities whose cultural potential had not yet been fully expressed. Emblematic in this sense is the case of Glasgow 1990, which set the standard in its ability to 'reinvent' a city with a great cultural tradition but in deep economic and social crisis as one of the emerging poles of cultural innovation on a European scale, triggering a cycle of urban renaissance of extraordinary impact. Many other cities that have followed since then have achieved significant results: for example, Lille 2004 (the same year our city of Genoa was capital), Liverpool 2008, Linz 2009, Essen and the Ruhr in 2010...

In the meantime, however, while until 2007 the recipient city of the title was decided by the government of the country to which the calendar assigned this power, as of 2008 the designation became competitive, with the possibility for all cities to compete in the selection process governed by a mixed jury, made up of European and national nominated experts in predetermined quotas. This change produced an important, additional innovative thrust that led the candidate cities to develop increasingly ingenious and complex projects, which often tackled the dark sides and unresolved problems of an area with courage and intelligence rather than simply shining the spotlight on the family's cultural jewels. It was in this climate that projects such as Košice 2013, Umeå 2014, Leeuwarden 2018, and even our own Matera 2019 emerged, redrawing the European cultural map by giving new centrality to places that were once peripheral or completely unrecognised.

But what will happen then after 2033? Will the programme continue? In the light of what we are saying, there would seem to be no doubt: given the many successes, and the resonance that the initiative has assumed even beyond the continental borders (so much so that today Capital of Culture titles proliferate everywhere, thanks above all to the success of the European example), there should be no reason not to start a new cycle. Instead, the uncertainties are considerable. The global picture has changed, and European priorities are shifting towards security issues and economic and political uncertainties linked to the reorganisation of the geopolitical order. Faced with these new challenges, many feel that culture does not play a particularly significant role and that we should focus on the essentials.

But going along with this line of reasoning would be a serious mistake. Never before, in the new multipolar global order, can culture play a very important soft power role, as demonstrated by the ambitious cultural programmes of emerging powers such as Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Egypt or Mexico. To dissipate the extraordinary symbolic capital accumulated by Europe with this programme would be suicidal, but to prevent this from happening requires a lucid explanation of how and why culture can make a difference today. This is what is at stake in the meeting at the European Parliament, and guiding the discussion will be a dossier of 40 proposals for the future of the European Capitals promoted by Chemnitz and Nova Gorica and elaborated by a working group composed mainly of young Italian experts. A profound rethink is certainly called for, and an alignment with the priorities of the new scenarios. But at a time of traumatic fragmentation of Western culture that has shaped global imagery and lifestyles for generations, Europe can reinvent itself as a pole of social and cultural innovation, and the European Capitals of Culture can be the ideal platform to convey this message. And it would be nice if our country were to take the lead in political initiative on such an important issue for the future of Europe.