'Urban cowboyism’and beyond: the boundary spanning potential of Brussels participatory arts practices

Hanne Dewinter; Joris  De Corte; Kris Rutten; Lieve Bradt

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103913

'Urban cowboyism’and beyond: the boundary spanning potential of Brussels participatory arts practices

Hanne Dewinter, Joris De Corte, Kris Rutten, Lieve Bradt

Educational Science

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

In the course of the last decades, the rise of participatory arts practices has been advocated on the basis of a series of possible answers to complex societal issues, especially in urban areas. This article focuses on Brussels, the capital of Europe, where ‘mixture and pluralism’ are valued as the main cultural features of the city and its international, young and strongly connected character creates a context in which participatory arts practices would thrive perfectly. Yet, the Brussels context is one of contradictions and paradoxes and the presence of participatory arts practices is not a matter to be taken for granted. Whereas the urban context is described in terms of a large potential for dynamism due to the extraordinary mixing of cultures, resulting from both previous and recent migratory flows, the institutional context continues to cling to its inherited two-community framework, established along Flemish and French-speaking community lines. Using the theoretical concept of ‘boundary spanning’, we analyse how, in spite of these institutional cleavages, many participatory arts practices succeed in finding their ground in this context. Based on semi-structured interviews with practitioners across different layers of the Brussels participatory arts scene, we aim to explore what these practices are actually doing in Brussels, as well as the strategies they use to deal with institutional barriers.

Original language	English
Article number	103913
Number of pages	9
Journal	CITIES
Volume	131
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103913
Publication status	Published - Dec 2022

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
Culture and matters linked to language fall within the jurisdiction of the communities. The French-speaking and Flemish Communities subsidise the majority of Brussels' cultural organisations. On the Flemish side, this is mainly regulated via the Arts Decree (2006, 2012) and the Heritage Decree (2012) of the Flemish Community, while the services and decrees of the General Administration of Culture constitute the main subsidy framework on the French-speaking side. Both community governments are furthermore endowed with a Minister for Brussels, who also supports cultural projects and organisations. Since Brussels is the only bilingual area of Belgium, community matters in the Brussels Capital Region are dealt with by the Community Commissions: the Flemish Community Commission (VGC) and the French Community Commission (COCOF). They are under the guardianship of the Community governments and are deemed to respect and apply the decrees in force. A joint and bilingual Community Commission (GGC/COCOM) is in charge of so-called bi-community matters, but has - for the time being - no cultural competences ( Van Wynsberghe, 2013 ). As an analysis conducted by the Brussels Arts Network ( BKO/RSA, 2019 ) reveals, most of the Dutch-speaking organisations that receive funding from the Flemish Community via the Arts Decree are also supported by the VGC Arts, albeit for a smaller amount. On the French-speaking side this is less similar.

Funding Information:
Even though the communities are responsible for culture, some Brussels institutions are still dependent on the Federal Government. De Munt/La Monnaie, Bozar and the National Orchestra, for example, are considered as ‘common heritage’ and fall under ‘the general interest’ of the country ( Federal Government, 2020 ). Moreover, the Federal Government has an impact on the financing of the cultural sector via labour legislation. The controversial tax shelter, for instance, is a federal matter. The region is not completely out of the game either. Since the state reform of 2014, the Brussels Capital Region has been in charge of bicultural matters of regional importance, but so far no policy framework has been developed. Of course, the nineteen Brussels municipalities also have their responsibilities. Each municipality boasts an Alderman of Culture, who develops a local cultural policy and can provide some limited support to cultural organisations within the municipality's boundaries ( Van Wynsberghe, 2013 ). Whereas the Decree on Cultural Centres allows French-speaking cultural centres to benefit from co-financing by the community and municipality, Dutch-speaking organisations can apply for extra Flemish support within the Local Cultural Policy – on the condition that they are provided with a cultural centre, a library, a cultural policy coordinator and at least one Dutch-speaking alderman ( BKO/RSA, 2019 ). Finally, there are European funding opportunities too, for example via The European Regional Development Fund (EFRO) or the European Social Fund (ESF).

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Elsevier Ltd

Keywords

Participatory arts
Boundary spanning
Brussels
Institutional complexity
Urban reality

Access to Document

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103913

Cite this

@article{161818e19c324aa8a39761d4a78c13ba,

title = "'Urban cowboyism{\textquoteright}and beyond: the boundary spanning potential of Brussels participatory arts practices",

abstract = "In the course of the last decades, the rise of participatory arts practices has been advocated on the basis of a series of possible answers to complex societal issues, especially in urban areas. This article focuses on Brussels, the capital of Europe, where {\textquoteleft}mixture and pluralism{\textquoteright} are valued as the main cultural features of the city and its international, young and strongly connected character creates a context in which participatory arts practices would thrive perfectly. Yet, the Brussels context is one of contradictions and paradoxes and the presence of participatory arts practices is not a matter to be taken for granted. Whereas the urban context is described in terms of a large potential for dynamism due to the extraordinary mixing of cultures, resulting from both previous and recent migratory flows, the institutional context continues to cling to its inherited two-community framework, established along Flemish and French-speaking community lines. Using the theoretical concept of {\textquoteleft}boundary spanning{\textquoteright}, we analyse how, in spite of these institutional cleavages, many participatory arts practices succeed in finding their ground in this context. Based on semi-structured interviews with practitioners across different layers of the Brussels participatory arts scene, we aim to explore what these practices are actually doing in Brussels, as well as the strategies they use to deal with institutional barriers.",

keywords = "Participatory arts, Boundary spanning, Brussels, Institutional complexity, Urban reality",

author = "Hanne Dewinter and {De Corte}, Joris and Kris Rutten and Lieve Bradt",

note = "Funding Information: Culture and matters linked to language fall within the jurisdiction of the communities. The French-speaking and Flemish Communities subsidise the majority of Brussels' cultural organisations. On the Flemish side, this is mainly regulated via the Arts Decree (2006, 2012) and the Heritage Decree (2012) of the Flemish Community, while the services and decrees of the General Administration of Culture constitute the main subsidy framework on the French-speaking side. Both community governments are furthermore endowed with a Minister for Brussels, who also supports cultural projects and organisations. Since Brussels is the only bilingual area of Belgium, community matters in the Brussels Capital Region are dealt with by the Community Commissions: the Flemish Community Commission (VGC) and the French Community Commission (COCOF). They are under the guardianship of the Community governments and are deemed to respect and apply the decrees in force. A joint and bilingual Community Commission (GGC/COCOM) is in charge of so-called bi-community matters, but has - for the time being - no cultural competences ( Van Wynsberghe, 2013 ). As an analysis conducted by the Brussels Arts Network ( BKO/RSA, 2019 ) reveals, most of the Dutch-speaking organisations that receive funding from the Flemish Community via the Arts Decree are also supported by the VGC Arts, albeit for a smaller amount. On the French-speaking side this is less similar. Funding Information: Even though the communities are responsible for culture, some Brussels institutions are still dependent on the Federal Government. De Munt/La Monnaie, Bozar and the National Orchestra, for example, are considered as {\textquoteleft}common heritage{\textquoteright} and fall under {\textquoteleft}the general interest{\textquoteright} of the country ( Federal Government, 2020 ). Moreover, the Federal Government has an impact on the financing of the cultural sector via labour legislation. The controversial tax shelter, for instance, is a federal matter. The region is not completely out of the game either. Since the state reform of 2014, the Brussels Capital Region has been in charge of bicultural matters of regional importance, but so far no policy framework has been developed. Of course, the nineteen Brussels municipalities also have their responsibilities. Each municipality boasts an Alderman of Culture, who develops a local cultural policy and can provide some limited support to cultural organisations within the municipality's boundaries ( Van Wynsberghe, 2013 ). Whereas the Decree on Cultural Centres allows French-speaking cultural centres to benefit from co-financing by the community and municipality, Dutch-speaking organisations can apply for extra Flemish support within the Local Cultural Policy – on the condition that they are provided with a cultural centre, a library, a cultural policy coordinator and at least one Dutch-speaking alderman ( BKO/RSA, 2019 ). Finally, there are European funding opportunities too, for example via The European Regional Development Fund (EFRO) or the European Social Fund (ESF). Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022 Elsevier Ltd",

year = "2022",

month = dec,

doi = "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103913",

language = "English",

volume = "131",

journal = "CITIES",

issn = "0264-2751",

publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - 'Urban cowboyism’and beyond: the boundary spanning potential of Brussels participatory arts practices

AU - Dewinter, Hanne

AU - De Corte, Joris

AU - Rutten, Kris

AU - Bradt, Lieve

N1 - Funding Information: Culture and matters linked to language fall within the jurisdiction of the communities. The French-speaking and Flemish Communities subsidise the majority of Brussels' cultural organisations. On the Flemish side, this is mainly regulated via the Arts Decree (2006, 2012) and the Heritage Decree (2012) of the Flemish Community, while the services and decrees of the General Administration of Culture constitute the main subsidy framework on the French-speaking side. Both community governments are furthermore endowed with a Minister for Brussels, who also supports cultural projects and organisations. Since Brussels is the only bilingual area of Belgium, community matters in the Brussels Capital Region are dealt with by the Community Commissions: the Flemish Community Commission (VGC) and the French Community Commission (COCOF). They are under the guardianship of the Community governments and are deemed to respect and apply the decrees in force. A joint and bilingual Community Commission (GGC/COCOM) is in charge of so-called bi-community matters, but has - for the time being - no cultural competences ( Van Wynsberghe, 2013 ). As an analysis conducted by the Brussels Arts Network ( BKO/RSA, 2019 ) reveals, most of the Dutch-speaking organisations that receive funding from the Flemish Community via the Arts Decree are also supported by the VGC Arts, albeit for a smaller amount. On the French-speaking side this is less similar. Funding Information: Even though the communities are responsible for culture, some Brussels institutions are still dependent on the Federal Government. De Munt/La Monnaie, Bozar and the National Orchestra, for example, are considered as ‘common heritage’ and fall under ‘the general interest’ of the country ( Federal Government, 2020 ). Moreover, the Federal Government has an impact on the financing of the cultural sector via labour legislation. The controversial tax shelter, for instance, is a federal matter. The region is not completely out of the game either. Since the state reform of 2014, the Brussels Capital Region has been in charge of bicultural matters of regional importance, but so far no policy framework has been developed. Of course, the nineteen Brussels municipalities also have their responsibilities. Each municipality boasts an Alderman of Culture, who develops a local cultural policy and can provide some limited support to cultural organisations within the municipality's boundaries ( Van Wynsberghe, 2013 ). Whereas the Decree on Cultural Centres allows French-speaking cultural centres to benefit from co-financing by the community and municipality, Dutch-speaking organisations can apply for extra Flemish support within the Local Cultural Policy – on the condition that they are provided with a cultural centre, a library, a cultural policy coordinator and at least one Dutch-speaking alderman ( BKO/RSA, 2019 ). Finally, there are European funding opportunities too, for example via The European Regional Development Fund (EFRO) or the European Social Fund (ESF). Publisher Copyright: © 2022 Elsevier Ltd

PY - 2022/12

Y1 - 2022/12

N2 - In the course of the last decades, the rise of participatory arts practices has been advocated on the basis of a series of possible answers to complex societal issues, especially in urban areas. This article focuses on Brussels, the capital of Europe, where ‘mixture and pluralism’ are valued as the main cultural features of the city and its international, young and strongly connected character creates a context in which participatory arts practices would thrive perfectly. Yet, the Brussels context is one of contradictions and paradoxes and the presence of participatory arts practices is not a matter to be taken for granted. Whereas the urban context is described in terms of a large potential for dynamism due to the extraordinary mixing of cultures, resulting from both previous and recent migratory flows, the institutional context continues to cling to its inherited two-community framework, established along Flemish and French-speaking community lines. Using the theoretical concept of ‘boundary spanning’, we analyse how, in spite of these institutional cleavages, many participatory arts practices succeed in finding their ground in this context. Based on semi-structured interviews with practitioners across different layers of the Brussels participatory arts scene, we aim to explore what these practices are actually doing in Brussels, as well as the strategies they use to deal with institutional barriers.

AB - In the course of the last decades, the rise of participatory arts practices has been advocated on the basis of a series of possible answers to complex societal issues, especially in urban areas. This article focuses on Brussels, the capital of Europe, where ‘mixture and pluralism’ are valued as the main cultural features of the city and its international, young and strongly connected character creates a context in which participatory arts practices would thrive perfectly. Yet, the Brussels context is one of contradictions and paradoxes and the presence of participatory arts practices is not a matter to be taken for granted. Whereas the urban context is described in terms of a large potential for dynamism due to the extraordinary mixing of cultures, resulting from both previous and recent migratory flows, the institutional context continues to cling to its inherited two-community framework, established along Flemish and French-speaking community lines. Using the theoretical concept of ‘boundary spanning’, we analyse how, in spite of these institutional cleavages, many participatory arts practices succeed in finding their ground in this context. Based on semi-structured interviews with practitioners across different layers of the Brussels participatory arts scene, we aim to explore what these practices are actually doing in Brussels, as well as the strategies they use to deal with institutional barriers.

KW - Participatory arts

KW - Boundary spanning

KW - Brussels

KW - Institutional complexity

KW - Urban reality

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85135938008&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103913

DO - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103913

M3 - Article

VL - 131

JO - CITIES

JF - CITIES

SN - 0264-2751

M1 - 103913

ER -

'Urban cowboyism’and beyond: the boundary spanning potential of Brussels participatory arts practices

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this