Are the Capitals of Culture, whether national or European, really good for anything? This was the question I asked myself after talking to some friends who went to Guimarães last week and took the opportunity to attend some of the activities planned under the European Capital of Culture 2012. But they didn't go there on purpose because of the Capital of Culture.
There are several questions that arise:
1 – Is the fact that a city is the Capital of Culture the recognition of the work done in this area over the years?
2 – Does the fact that a city is the Capital of Culture guarantee you more visitors in that particular year? And in the following ones?
3 – Does the fact that a city is the Capital of Culture bring more national and, above all, international notoriety to that city? In other words, will the seeds that were left during that year continue to bear fruit in the following years, attracting visitors to the city?
4 – And for the citizens of this Capital of Culture, will this statute bring benefits throughout the year and, above all, in the following years? Will this city really continue to be a hub of Culture? Or does everything die when the doors of the Capital of Culture close?
These are the questions I ask and they are not easy to answer. I take the examples of Portugal – Porto, which was European Capital in 2001, Faro, which was the National Capital of Culture in 2005 (and the experience went so badly that they ended up with the national capitals of Culture right there…) and Guimarães, European Capital throughout the current year of 2012.
The answer to the first question is yes, in the case of Porto, that is, in fact the city was chosen as European Capital, culminating years of great cultural renaissance, of a real move, created by citizens and artists, with some support from public authorities .
Paradoxically, in the case of Porto, after the Capital of Culture, perhaps because of the large expenses made in equipment and urban renovations that left a trail of debts, but above all because of the personality and practice of its mayor, Rui Rio, cultural activity plummeted.
Porto continues to be one of the most visited cities in the country, but it is certainly not because it is known nationally or internationally for being a city of Culture… And that is how all other questions are answered.
As an example of a city that is known as the Capital of Culture, even though it has never been formally, comes Madrid. Most visitors looking to Madrid do so because this fantastic city has some of the best museums in Europe, with the Prado and Reina Sofia Center at its head.
E Faro? Was it because it is a cultural hub that it was chosen to be the national capital in 2005? And what was left of 2005?
The answer to the first question is no: no, Faro it was not a well-known cultural center at the national level, although a lot of interesting things happened around here at that time. What was left? The building of the biggest theater in the Algarve, which has been managed with little money, but with a lot of imagination and creativity, especially recently. And little else.
The institutions of the so-called civil society that, before 2005, were the engine of Culture in the capital of the Algarve, are now moribund or with serious survival difficulties – the most flagrant cases are the Cineclube de Faro, the ACTA theater company, or the CAPA performing arts center. Therefore, very little remained, or what was left over from 2005 were debts and problems.
And Guimaraes? Well, Guimarães is perhaps a case apart. Because it's a young, university city that knows how to live well with its centuries-old history, which has a lively historic center full of people, who didn't let themselves get old in the shadow of vague past glories.
I really hope that Guimarães debunks this sad fate of our Capitals of Culture and that it continues to assert itself in the years to come.
This is my chronicle of last Thursday at Rádio Universitária do Algarve (RUA FM), which can also be heard here.
Comments