This article was downloaded by: [Vienna University Library]On: 02 June 2012, At: 02:03Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UKInternational Journal of Cultural PolicyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcul20Re-thinking festivals: a comparativestudy of the integration/marginalization of arts festivals inthe urban regimes of Manchester,Copenhagen and ViennaCecilie Sachs Olsen aa UNICA Euromaster, Zurich University of the Arts, Zrich,SwitzerlandAvailable online: 14 Feb 2012To cite this article: Cecilie Sachs Olsen (2012): Re-thinking festivals: a comparative study of theintegration/marginalization of arts festivals in the urban regimes of Manchester, Copenhagen andVienna, International Journal of Cultural Policy, DOI:10.1080/10286632.2012.661420To link to this article:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2012.661420PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLEFull terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionsThis article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.Re-thinking festivals:a comparative study of the integration/marginalization of arts festivals in the urban regimes ofManchester, Copenhagen and ViennaCecilie Sachs Olsen*UNICA Euromaster, Zurich University of the Arts, Zrich, SwitzerlandArts festivalshave beenon the ascendant since the 1980s.However, whiletheseareproliferating, it remainsunclearastowhethertheyarealsoourishing. Thepresent narrowconstructionof festivals for marketingandeconomicpurposestends todisregard the festivals social andcultural potential, i.e. interms offunctioningasurbanlaboratorieswherenewandalternativeurbanandculturalstrategies canbe testedanddeveloped. Inorder toaddress these imbalancedconceptualizationsofartsfestivalswithinurbanpolicy frameworks,the articleisbased on a comparative case study of festivals that try to function as urban labo-ratories. Byexamininghowthesefestivalsareintegratedinormarginalizedbythe urban regime, and howthis inuences their operational conditions, theresearchelucidatestheneedtocreatenewandmoreholisticpolicyframeworksto chart an equitable path for the futuredevelopment of arts festivals.Keywords:artsfestivals;culturalpolicy;urbanregime;policyrationales;instru-mentalizationIntroductionSincethelate1980sartsfestivalshavebeenontheascendantandarenowamain-stayfor urbantourismandpolicymaking(Gotham2005, PrenticeandAndersen2003, Quinn2010). Thereiswell-establishedandsubstantial literatureattestingtothesignicant impacts andbenets generatedbythesefestivals across economic,political and sociocultural domains (Quinn 2010). Researchers have frequentlyarguedthat festivalsofferpossibilitiesforcrystallizing, galvanizingandarticulatinglocalidentitiesandhave historicallyrepresentedopportunities forlocalagentstoactand inuence their localised arenas (Bakhtin 1984, Turner 1982, Waade 2002).Todayfestivalscontinuetobesupportedfortheiridentity-enhancingroles, albeitintheincreasedterritorial competitionbetweencities andregions theyhaveincreas-ingly becomean instrumental toolfor urban revitalization,and for attractingvisitorsand locals into city spaces through place marketing (Fainstein and Judd 1999,Evans 2001, Pratt 2008, Quinn 2010).Thispaperarguesthatinthispoliticalenvironmentfestivalsareconceivedofintoonarrowaveinbytheurbanregimes(i.e. thosegroupsandinterestsrulingtheprocessesofcitymaking)andprevailingcultural policies. AsGeetz(2009)asserts,public policy with respect to festivals most often relates explicitly to tourism,*Email: cecilie.sachs_olsen@zhdk.chInternational Journal of Cultural Policy2012, 120, iFirst ArticleISSN 1028-6632 print/ISSN 1477-2833 online 2012 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2012.661420http://www.tandfonline.comDownloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 02:03 02 June 2012 place-marketing and economic development, with cultural considerations cominglater. Thus, one maysaythat arts festivals have become somewhat disconnectedfromtheir original policydomain, withtheir current highproleduenot somuchtotheirartisticmerit, butrathertotherelevancetheyholdforotherpolicyagendaslike tourism and city re-imaging.AsQuinn(2010)notes,thissituationishardlydesirableandpointstocontinuedfracturing between arts festivals and cultural policy domains that needs to bemended. This paper provides empirical research to support and illustrate the validityofthisrequestinaculturalcontext.Theresearchisbaseduponcasestudiesofartsfestivalsthat insteadofbeingconstruedsimplyasvehiclesforeconomicregenera-tionorquickxsolutionstocityimageproblems, activelyengageinthepresentdevelopmentoftheirlocalitiesinordertofunctionasurbanlaboratorieswherenewandalternative urbanandcultural strategies canbe testedanddeveloped. Thesecase studies are categorizedas heterotopic festivals inorder topositionthemasalternatives to the instrumentalized festivals.1Itismyhypothesisthatthecurrentfracturingbetweenartsfestivalsandculturalpolicymakes difcultthe operationalconditionsofheterotopic festivals.In turnthismay result in that the work put in heterotopic festivals is not yielding optimalreturns regardingtheir social andcultural potential andaims. This points totheinuenceofculturalandurbanpolicyonfestivalprogrammingandproduction,andhowthisisrelatedtothelevel of integrationor marginalizationof thefestival intheurbanregime.Byexamininghowtheseheterotopicfestivalsareintegratedinormarginalizedbytheurbanregime,andwhateffectsthishasgotontheiroperationalconditions, the research aims at elucidating the need to create new and more holisticpolicyframeworkstochart anequitablepathfor thefuturedevelopment of urbanarts festivals.Categorization of festivalsInstrumentalizedInthe 1980s, a risingawareness of a connectionbetweenculture andeconomicdevelopmentappeared,followingashifttoentrepreneurialisminurbanpolicies(seeHarvey 1989). Culturewasnowincreasingly instrumentalizedasan economic asset,a commodity with market value and producer of marketable city spaces (Kong2000, Garcia2004, MilesandPaddison2005). Thegrowthofinstrumentalizedfes-tivals represents oneaspect of thecities attempts toadvancelocal visibilityandgenerateaddedincome(Scott 2004). Thesefestivalsrisksufferingfromconsumer-orientedserial reproduction(RichardsandWilson2006), andmaybelinkedtotheuse of festivals in what Hall andHubbard(1996, p. 162) call a social controllogic. Theaimof thislogicistoforgeconsensusfromthelocalstoattract moreconsumers/investorstothecity, througheventsthat mayfostercivicprideandgal-vanize local support (Evans 2005, Quinn 2005).HeterotopicFromaculturalpointofview,theinstrumentalizationoffestivalshascontributedtotheideathat contemporaryfestivals areof littlecultural signicance, as theyaredominated by commercial and unauthentic logics (Sassatelli 2008). These2 C. Sachs OlsenDownloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 02:03 02 June 2012 dismissiveaccountsfail toconsidercontemporaryfestivalsasequallysignicant incultural terms as their forebears, beingtimeout of time (Bahktin1984) spaces,replete with possibilities for challenging social conventions, order and authority,andinvertingsocietysculturalnorms(Falassi1987).Theinstrumentalapproachbyurbanregimespermitslittlescopefor unlockingthispotential. Thus, I haveintro-duced the concept of heterotopic festivals.Thenotionof heterotopiawas introducedbyFoucault in1967, andhas beenextendedbyurbanists andsociologists since. For this purpose I will focus uponShaneandHetheringtonsuseof theconcept. ToHetherington(1997, p. 40) Het-erotopiasarespacesinwhichanalternativesocial orderingisperformed.Hereanewwayoforderingemergesthat standsincontrast tothetaken-for-grantedmun-daneideaof social order that existswithinsociety (Ibid.). ToShane(2005, p. 9)Urbanheterotopias arespecializedpatches, actingas test beds of change. Thus,heterotopiasareplacesinthecitywhereexistingnormsandrationalesmeetandarediscussed,mirroredandturnedupsidedowninsearchfornewpotentials(Foucault1997, Hetherington 1997, Shane 2005).Case studiesTheresearchfocusesuponexamplesoftheheterotopicapproachtofestivals: Futu-reEverything in Manchester, Metropolis in Copenhagen and Soho Ottakring, SOHO,in Vienna. Theselection of the case studies was based on certaincharacteristics thathavebeencommonforthemajorityoffestivalsbeforethecurrenttendencyofcon-structing festivals as merely economic generators (Quinn 2005):(1) Festivalsasbottom-upinitiativeswiththepre-occupationtomeet anartisticneed felt by a particular and place-based artistic community.(2) Festivals that developed organically crystallizing around a small group ofhighly committed artists and/or arts enthusiasts.(3) Festivalsphysicallyexpressingandtangiblyreinforcingalternativeidealsinthe use of unconventional spaces for artistic performances.ByfocusingonthesecriteriaI wishtounderlinethat theraisondtreof thecase studies represents an alternative to instrumentalized festivals as they build upontheideaof thecityasalaboratoryfor cultural andsocial experience(inlinewithJacobs 1961).FutureEverythingwas foundedin1995bypresent director DrewHemment inorder tosupport thedevelopment of thedigital sector andelectronicmusicintheUK. Art anddigital innovationincreasinglybecamethefocusof thefestival, asitaimed at exploring mobile and locative art and to take the digital arts out of the gal-leriesandoffthescreenintothecity. Today, theoutcomeisafestival that focusesoncreativepractices whichengageinnetworktechnologies inlivedcityspaces,and howthey suggest alternative possibilities or critical perspectives (Hemment2008).Metropoliswasfoundedin2007bypresentdirectorTrevorDaviesasareactionto what he perceived as a lack of understanding for the development of publicspaceinCopenhagen, andespeciallytheuseof art inthisregard(Gareld2010).According to Davies there was a need to give more roomto the congurationInternational Journal of Cultural Policy 3Downloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 02:03 02 June 2012 processes of public space, as opposed to everything being imposed top-down(Ibid.). Thus, Metropolis was launched in order to create platformwhere artistscouldworkwithartinpublic space,createdebateandinuencethedevelopment ofmore temporary and interactive approaches to projects in public/urban space.SOHOwasfoundedin1999bypresent director UlaSchneider, anartist livingandworkingintheBrunnenmarkt, amulti ethniccommunityinthesixteenthdis-trict ofVienna. Schneiderhadexperiencedalackofinvestment andinterest intheareabythecityinthe1990s, andgot theideaofusingthevacantspotsastempo-raryexhibitions possibilities andartist studios. The event quicklyturnedintoanannual festival that wasincreasinglyconcernedwiththeroleofart inurbanspace.It focusedonart projectsthat criticallydealt withlegiblethemeswithintheneigh-bourhood, and also addressed the physical interventions of city planners in theBrunnenmarkt, and their effects (Schneider 2008).Theaspect ofheterotopiaisreectedintheaimsofthecasestudiestoexperi-ment withalternative urbanandcultural strategies. These canbe linkedtowhatSwyngedouw(2008)callsthepracticeofgenuinedemocracythroughdissent, con-trarytothecontemporarypre-dominant topolicy-makingwheredisagreement anddebate only operate within an overall model of elite consensus and agreement.AccordingtoWaterman(1998)heterotopicfestivalsmaythusenablethepoliticallymarginal, in this case local artists and artistic community, to express discontentthroughritual,therebyrestrictingtheirrevolutionaryimpulsestoa symbolicforminwhich the festival acts as a medium of resistance towards the established order.The case studies have got similar aims, but their level of integration in the urbanregimesdifferswidely. Byanalyzingthedifferent levelsofintegrationofthefesti-valsintheurbanregimesIwill beabletouncoverhowthecollaborationbetweenthefestivalsandtheurbanregimeworks, what policyrationalesareat stake, andhow this inuences the operational conditions for the festivals.MethodologyAs the analysis is oriented towards specic festival cases, I have applied a compara-tivecasestudyresearchdesign, whichentailsstudyingcontrastingcasesusingthesameresearchmethods(Bryman2008). Thisdesignimpliesthat theintegrationormarginalizationof heterotopicfestivalsisbetter understoodinrelationtotwocon-trastingcasesorsituations. Theresearchseekspatternsforunanticipatedaswell asexpectedrelationships, e.g. betweenthefestivals andtheurbanregimes, andthusrelyoninterpretiveobservationandaqualitativeresearchstrategyforthecollectionand analysis of data (Stake 1995).Thedatausedfortheanalysisareofcial documentsfromthestateandprivatesources (online and on paper), as well as 33 qualitative (semi-structured)interviews.The sample of interviewees can be divided into three groups representing:(1) the festival (organizers, artists, and partners),(2) the city (cultural- and planning representatives), and(3) theobservers (researchers and cultural critics/commentators).I strategically sampled participants by conducting a purposive sampling (Bryman2008). Furthermore, I used initial contacts, such as festival leaders, to establish4 C. Sachs OlsenDownloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 02:03 02 June 2012 contactswithothers(snowball sampling), suchasartistsandpartners. Themixofthesetwosamplingapproaches ensuredavarietyintheresultingsample, sothatsamplemembersdifferedfromeachotherintermsofkeycharacteristicsandposi-tions.InordertoanalysethedataIhaveusedgroundedtheory,whichimpliesaniter-ative approachwhere data collectionandanalysis proceedintandem, repeatedlyreferringbacktoeachother (Bryman2008). For exampledidI focus onmakingthe analyses of my interviews an ongoing activity, so that I could be aware of emer-gent themesand/or contradictionsthat I might want toaskmoredirectlyabout inlater interviews. Codinghelpedmeinthisprocess, asit reducesdataintocompo-nents, for example by synthesizing the interviews in thematic schemes.Samples of thiscodingareincorporatedinthispaper inorder toillustratetheinternalvalidityofmyresearch,aswellasthematchbetweenmyobservationsandthetheoretical ideasIdevelop. Iwant tostressthat thecodingIhaveincorporatedis to be seen in relation to the theoretical ideas presented, and not as an independentanalysis.Inorder tooutlinetheconnectionsbetweenthemoregeneral theoretical ideasanddiscussions andthe data, I have developeda frameworkmodel. This modelenables me to situate the case studies in an overall framework of cultural policies.Framework modelInlinewithMcGuigan(2004), I denecultural policyasdeliberateactionintheculturaleldundertakenbygovernmentsbutalsoincludingbusinessoperationsandcivilsocietycampaigns aroundthe conditionsandconsequences ofculture. Byde-nitionpolicyalwayscomeswitharationale,onehastogiveareasonfordoingthisrather thanthat. Theframeworkmodel providesatool for examiningtheculturalpolicyrationales of thefestivals host cities. It is basedonSkot-Hansens (2005)Figure 1. Four Es model for cultural policy rationales.AQ11International Journal of Cultural Policy 5Downloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 02:03 02 June 2012 model of the Four Es: Enlightenment, Economic impact, Entertainment andEmpowerment (Figure 1).However, this model leaves out considerations regardingthestate/culturerela-tionsandtherelationsbetweenexplicit andimplicit cultural policies. Therefore, Ihave merged it with Raymond Williams (1984 cited in McGuigan 2004) distinctionbetweencultural policyproper andcultural policyas display. For brevityI willdenote cultural policy proper as C1 and cultural policy as display as C2 (Figure 2).C2 is characterized by using culture as aggrandizing national and metropolitan dis-play, andrationalizingpubliccultural investment throughbusinesspropositionsandeconomic reductionism. These policies are most likely rationalized implicitly, and arereectedthroughtheinvestment incultural agshipsandmega-eventsbycitiesallover theworldduringthelast 30years (Evans 2003). Examples areMitterrandsexpensivegrandprojetsinParissuchastheLouvrePyramid, andthehugeinvest-ments by cities like London, Bilbao, Berlin and Vienna in new museum quarters andcultural facilities aiming to attract tourists and the consumer dollar (Harvey 1989, p.9) by being Shopping Mall[s] for Culture (http://www.museumsquartier.at).WhileC2canbeseenasindicativeofbroadereconomic,ideologicalandpoliti-calissues,C1isconstitutinganarrowlydelimitedandspecialisteldofadministra-tion, representing governmental agendas that are rationalized explicitly. C1 isconductedandrationalizedonnation-stategroundsandischaracterizedbynationalart councilswiththeaimofsubsidizingandprotectingtheartsfrommarket failure(McGuigan2004). Inademocraticsociety, C1shouldnot interferewiththeaes-theticorideological content oftheartsratherit shouldoptimizetheconditionsforartistic and cultural freedom and sustain a national cultural identity (Duelund 1994).C1canbesaidtoemergefromtheenlightenmentrationale,whichbuildsontheideaofinformedandeducatedcitizensasmeanstostrengthenthedemocraticpro-cess(Skot-Hansen2005). Thisrationalemanifestsitself inthepublicpatronageofthe artsand mediaregulation,asmeans to facilitatethe mediation of andabsorptionFigure 2. Framework model based on Williams stateculture relations and Skot-HansensFour Es model.6 C. Sachs OlsenDownloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 02:03 02 June 2012 intoculturethroughartisticproductionanddissemination,whichintheendleadstonew cognition.Upuntilthe1970sand1980sculturalpolicyinEuropeneglectedtheeconomicpotentialof culturalresources,anddenedcultureas a separaterealmfrommaterialproductionandeconomicactivityinlinewiththeenlightenment rationale(Garcia2004). Followingthisrationalefestivalsfromthenineteenthcenturyupwardswereconcernedwithhigharts andtendedtopresent high-qualityclassical works inorder toreafrmthecivilizingandeducational valuesof high culture, likethoseat Salzburg and Bayreuth (Quinn 2005).Thedenitionof culturebecamebroader andmorepoliticallyimportant inthe1970s, as grassroots gainedautonomyandcultural policywas seenas a tool toenhancecommunitybuilding(Kong2000, p. 386). This development is intercon-nectedwiththeempowerment rationalemanifestingitself inthepromotionof spe-cialsub-culturesinordertoconrmtheiridentity (Skot-Hansen2005.)Atthistime,festivalsstartedtograpplewiththedenitionsofculture,challengingacceptedde-nitionsofhighandlowarts,and wantedtheir audienceto be participantsinsteadof spectators.Asmentioned, theshift towardsneo-liberal entrepreneurialisminthe1980sledtoastrategicshiftinculturalpoliciesfromsocialtoeconomicobjectives(Bianchini1993). Thus, there was a shift of emphasis fromC1toC2where the economicimpact and entertainment rationales became dominant. Cultural policy was nowconsidereda tool for urbaneconomic andphysical regenerationcharacterizedbythe focus on instrumentalized festivals, agship arts developments, high proleevents inthe innercity,revival ofurban publicspaces, andgrowthinpublic-privatepartnerships(Kong2000, Garcia2004). Thishasresultedinasituationwhere, asMcGuigan(2004,p.135)observes, [p]ublicinvestmentintheartsisadvocatedonthebasisofwhat areexpectedtobeconcreteandmeasurableeconomicandsocialimpacts. This mayleadtoproblems for heterotopicfestivals operatingwithinanalternative approach where the impacts are less immediately tangible than theinstrumental visionof culture, where the latter is reducedtoexchange value byapplying market principles to it.National contexts of cultural policyFollowingtheshiftofemphasisfromC1toC2,acrucialdevelopmenthasbeentheideological de-legitimizationof stateinterventionandpublicsector arts(MilesandPaddison 2005). They both persist,but with an uncertain and poorly defended ratio-nale, astheiroperationsareincreasinglyreconguredbymarket reasoning. Weareheretalkingabout are-regulationmovingfromthepreserveof thestatetomarketforces, frommanifestlypolitical toeconomical regulation(McGuigan2004). Onemaysaythat C1has beenmergedwithC2. As aresult cultural policies maybeguidedbycompetingpolicyobjectivessuchasolderlocalandnationaltraditionsintheformof C1, as well as global marketingtrendsintheformof C2(Bianchini1993, de Frantz 2005).This development points to changing governmental attitudes in the way inwhichstatesinterveneincultural policiesandusescultureandartswithinsociety.AsGray(2007)pointsout, thereisanincreasingdeterminationofgovernmentstodemandparticularformsofjusticationforcontinuingtospendmoneyonartsandcultural policies. Moreoftenthannot, pursuingeconomicand/or social objectivesInternational Journal of Cultural Policy 7Downloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 02:03 02 June 2012 are positionedas the only way of achieving otheroutcomes (Stevenson 2004). Gray(2007, p. 206) calls this policyattachment strategies, wherebyfundingfor onesectorcanbegainedbydemonstratingtherolethat it canplayinthefullment ofthegoalsofotherpolicysectors. Heidentiesthisasaconsciousstrategypursuedbypolicymakers togeneratethesupport that is neededfor themtopursuetheirownobjectives. AccordingtoStevenson(2004), the outcomes of these strategiesrelates to a conception of culture as a civilizing process that is not dynamic, exibleand situational, but linear and linked to a set of clearly dened political and govern-mental objectives; the dominant rationales being rstly economic, and secondlysocial in orientation (Gray 2007).InthissectionI will givebrief examplesonhowthisre-regulationaffectsthecultural policiesof Britain, AustriaandDenmarkinorder touncover national andregional stateculturerelationsinwhichthefestivals, andtheirhost-cities, operate.Toreviewandassess thefull rangeof cultural policyandpracticeis beyondthescopeofthispaper. Instead, Iwillfocusonre-regulationsthatareparticularlyrele-vant regardingtheintegrationof thecasestudiesintheurbanregimes. Therehasbeen a long-standing tradition of justifying cultural policy on the social instrumentalgrounds of the transformative powers of arts (Belore and Bennett 2007).This tendency was present in British C1, alongside a focus on an elitist and con-servative enlightenment rationale that was concernedwithdevelopingthe qualityandprofessional level ofthearts(Grifthset al. 2003, McGuigan2004). Theshiftinthepoliticalenvironmentandculturalpolicyduringthe80sresultedinthatBrit-ishC1was mergedwithtechniques of business promotion(i.e. strategic partner-shipsandmarket principles), inordertoprovetheeconomicutilityofinvestinginthearts(Grifthset al. 2003, McGuigan2004). Withtheshift totheNewLabourgovernment in1997, objectives of social regenerationbecameincreasinglyimpor-tant along the focus upon economic regeneration. Thus, a complex interactionbetweeneconomicandsocial objectivesoccurred(seeStevensonet al. 2010). Thehallmark of the New Labour government, was to be an age of achievement, exem-pliedbytheinnovativequalityof thearts, cultural industriesandcreativetalent.Hence,the ArtCouncilandlocalauthoritieswereencouraged tobecomeeven morestrategic (Selwood 2006).DanishandAustrianC1hadthetraditional cultural institutionsat itscore, andwerebasedontheideathat cultureandtheartsareapublicresponsibility. There-fore, C1wastobemostlypubliclyfundedthrougharedistributivecultural policy,accordingtotheprincipleofsocial cohesion, understoodintermsofaset ofstruc-tural relationshipsthat constraintheabilityofsomesocial groupstoaccesssocial,economic and cultural resources (Stevenson 2004, Wimmer 2006).InAustria, theriseof newpartiesintheearly80sandthereplacement of thelong-standingsocial democraticgrandcoalitionbyright-winggovernment in2000,lead to a turn in federal politics from consociationalism to aggressive party competi-tion(deFrantz2005). Withthisshift theprinciplesoflifequalityandsocial cohe-sionof C1as advocatedbythesocial democrats werenowassociatedwithnewimagesofprivate enterpriseandinnovation characteristicof C2(Ibid.).Socialcohe-sionwasreplacedbysocial inclusion, whichreferstothedesireof individualstoparticipate in society through participation in the economy (Stevenson 2004).InDanishcultural policiesequalitywastherulingprincipleuntil largeareasofpreviously national cultural policies were turned over to counties and municipalities.This was a result of the regionalizationthat followeda neo-liberal turn, shifting8 C. Sachs OlsenDownloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 02:03 02 June 2012 focus frominterregional inequalities toboost the contributionof everyregiontonational economic competitiveness (Brenner 2004). The regionalizationledtoanemphasis onthedifferences betweenregions andinvestment incultural activitiesforeconomicreasons(Duelund2008),andthusafocusonC2rationales.However,the thought of a national monoculture was kept alive bya renewedsupport fornational cultural institutions at the state level.While British cultural policies encouraged innovation and experimentationwithin the eld of arts (Selwood 2006), the Danishcultural policy was subordinatedto strictresultcontrol, focusing upon rigid economy andgreater demand for incomeandnon-riskefciencybythenewLiberal/Conservativegovernmentin2001(Him-melstrup2004). Thiscanbeseeninconnectionwiththedivergingcultural policyrationalesonanational andregional level, whichdidnot leavemuchpriorityforinnovativeandexperimental art. Accordingtotheactionplanof theArtsCouncil(Statens Kunstrd):aconsiderableamount ofthegrantsgivenbythecouncil islicensedtospecicends,this, together with the reduced budget of the council, may cause difculties in support-ing whatis current, new or unpredictable.2(Kunstrdet2008, p. 4, authorstranslation)Festivals and the urban regimeIwill nowmoveontotheregional andlocal context ofcultural policiesinwhichthecasestudyfestivalsaresituated,inordertoplacethemintheframeworkmodeland establish their level of integration in the urban regime. The research emphasizesthe competing policy objectives present in the cities and discusses what conse-quences these have for the festivals.Manchester and FutureEverythingConsideringtheinstrumental approachtocultureandartsinBritain, itmaybesur-prisingthat FutureEverythingshows thehighest level of integration. This canbeexplained by the encouragement of innovation and experimentation that wasenhancedbytheincreasedfocusonthestrategicsignicanceof art andcultureinBritish and Mancunian cultural policy, and FutureEverythings ability to take advan-tage of the openings this provided for the festival.Manchesterhasalong-establishedroleasacityofinnovations(PeckandWard2002) frombeing the worlds rst city of the industrial revolution to currentattemptstorepositionitselfinbothaninternational worldandapost-industrial era(Williams 1996). Amongtheurbanvisions embracedbyleadingpoliticians, weretheaimsofcreatingaconsumerbasetothecityandencouragementofahigh-techbase recognizing the role of the local universities (Robson 2002).In2002, Manchester KnowledgeCapital wasestablishedasastrategicpartner-ship between the universities, local and regional government and businesses ofManchester.Itsmissionstatementreads:GreaterManchesterisproudofitshistoryasacityofrsts,butneverrestsonitslaurels. By2015, Manchesterwantstoberecognized as a global leader in innovation (www.manchesterknowledge.com).Similar visionsarereectedinManchesterscultural strategy(Manchester CityCouncil 2010)that focusesonmakingManchesterknownasadistinctiveculturalInternational Journal of Cultural Policy 9Downloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 02:03 02 June 2012 citywithinnovationatitsheart(p. 14). Thestrategyencouragesnewrelationshipsbetweenthe culture andbusiness sectors, as well as expandinginternational net-worksandexposuretonewideasandperspectives(p.16).Theconnectionbetweenartsand businessis notnew,as seen throughmany yearsof sponsorship of thearts,butwhatisnewisthestrategytoembedtheartsmoredeeplyintoindividualbusi-nesses, and the evolution of new partnerships as an integral part of business culture;It isnot onlywhat businesscandoforthearts, but alsowhat theartscandoforbusiness (Skot-Hansen 2005, p. 36).Thestrategicsignicanceof cultureandthehigh priorityof theinnovativequal-ityoftheartsappearedasarecurrentthemeinallthesamplegroupsinthecodingof my interviews:City (culture) City (planning) Festival ObserversEvents and festivalsare recognized aseconomic drivers.We look favourableon events that bringin a good amount ofinvestment and pro-mote the city.We want high proleand innovativeevents that link toartistic innovationand talent.We do not want tocontrol festivals andevents because theygenerate tourism andeconomy.We tryto have highquality and we likeinnovative architec-ture. Were talkingabout art in its broad-est sense.The cultural strategyis interestedin howculture can increasetourism,retail, andbusiness spends.The city wants inno-vative events becauseit helps them lookgood. They want tobe associatedwith afuture-facingattitude.The cultural strategyis all about risingManchesters proleinternationallyandnationally. Its a verymoney-oriented city.The council isalways interested inrising land prices.Manchester tries tomake innovation net-works. It has alwaysbeen pushing newknowledge models.AccordingtoSkot-Hansen(2005) thefocus uponarts andbusiness is situatedinbetween the economic impact and enlightenment rationale in the four Es model.FutureEverything took advantage of the openings this focus provided for itsworkintermsofconnectingartsandbusinessbydevelopingstrategicpartnershipsandyear-roundlabsbasedontechnologicalandartisticinnovation. Withthiswork,FutureEverything blended right in to the cultural strategy of Manchester, whichcallsforaprogrammeoffestivalsthatencouragesahighlyinnovativeculturalsec-tor(ManchesterCityCouncil2010,p.14).AccordingtoManchesterCityCouncil,FutureEverythingprovedthat it wasgoodat generatingincomeandinvestment tothe city and was thus considered a success story. As McGuigan (2004, p. 45)observes, [m]uch public subsidy today has been tagged to the willingness andcapacity ofarts andculturalorganizationsgenerallytoattract privatefundingandtohaving a properly worked-out business plan.Central tothebusiness model of FutureEverythingwerestrategic partnershipswherejoint projectswerebuilt together withlocal, national andinternational part-ners(Hemment 2010). Thepotential of theartstobeacentral element of digitalinnovationthat provides a newand different perspective made FutureEverythingattractivefor organizationsliketheArtsCouncil, aswell asother partners/fundersand businesses. The report Evolution of Partnerships Impact of technology on cul-10 C. Sachs OlsenDownloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 02:03 02 June 2012 tural partnerships, for example, advocatesacollaborativebusinessmodel that cancreate a productive research and development environment that brings togetherverydifferent waysof thinkingtocreatesomethingnewthat canbetakentothemarket (Arts&Business2009, p. 5). Inthereport FutureEverythingispresentedasanexampleof oneof theorganizationsthat scorehighest onarankmeasuringlevelofcollaborationandinnovation. ThefestivalwasnominatedfortheArtsandBusiness cultural branding award 2010, which is awarded to a partnership thatreinforcesthebrandingandmarketingactivityofabusinessthroughtheuseofcul-ture. The same year it won the prestigious Lever Prize for world-class arts organiza-tions in the North West.Thus, byconvincingtheurbanregimeofManchesterofthecitysandfestivalscorrespondingculturalaimsandvisions,thefestivaldevelopedahighlevelofinte-grationintheurbanregime. Theproducerofthefestival underlinestheimportanceof talkingthelanguageof thepoliticiansandexplainingthemthat thefestival tstheir aims. In correspondence with Manchesters preoccupation with being theworlds rst intechnological innovation(Manchester CityCouncil 2010, p. 22),thefestival brandsitselfwiththestatement that it haspresentedaseriesofworldrsts, suchasinmobileandlocativemedia(Hemment 2010) andthat it pushesManchester to the fore of digital innovation (http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/our-work/futureeverything/). Furthermore, this approach also implies nding quantitymarks to justify the festival, for example by proving the festivals impact on culturaltourism.In2010FutureEverythingappearedinanarticleonculturaltourismbytheArtsCouncilEngland(2010)afrmingthefestivalshugedrawasakeydestinationforallthingsdigital. AsoneoftheprojectmanagersatFutureEverythingobserves,ManchesterworkedcloserandcloserwithFutureEverythingtoimplement thestra-tegic agenda, as the strategies of the city and the festival increasingly corresponded.In2008FutureEverythingwasawardedPillarEvent statusbytheManchesterCity Council and received funding for a three-year period. Besides verifying the rec-ognitionofthefestival bytheCityCouncil, thestatusopenedupforleverageintoadditional funding, such as receiving a Regularly Funded Organisation status by theArts Council, and a three-year funding award by the Paul Hamlyn Foundation.Copenhagen and MetropolisMetropolis represents the festival with the lowest level of integration. This can be seeninconnectionwiththeregionalizationandincreasedterritorial competitioninDen-mark, putting a focus on the elite art forms on a national level, and more popular artforms on a regional level, leaving little or no space for experimental art initiatives likeMetropolis. Moreover, Metropolis was at odds with the cultural policy of Copenhagenby challenging its aim of branding the city as the leading metropolis of Northern-Eur-ope, and rather wanted to emphasize the intimate qualities of the city.In 2002the Ministry of Tradeand Industry and Ministry of Culturelaunched thejoint report Denmarks creative potential, calling for a greater degree of coordinationbetweencultural andbusinesspolicystatingthat cultureandartsisanincreasinglyimportant tool in the regional competition to attract workers, tourists and investmentsgiving regions and towns a stronger external prole (Kulturministeriet 2002).InCopenhagentheseideas arereectedininitiatives likeGangi Kbenhavn,gettingCopenhagengoing (2006), aimingtostrengthentherelationshipbetweenbusiness andculture inthe spirit of Florida (2002), andBegivenhedsstrategi forInternational Journal of Cultural Policy 11Downloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 02:03 02 June 2012 hovedstadsregionen(VkstforumHovedstaden2008), anevent strategyformakingthe capital regionone of Europesleading regions inattractingand organizing inter-national cultural events. Thisstrategyisbasedontheassumptionthat cultural andcreativeactivitiesarethemostimportantfactorsforthebrandingofCopenhagen.Itunderlines that it will onlysupport events appealingtoaninternational audienceand that can be motivated to engage in the development of the region.Thisfocusoneconomicdevelopment andcompetitivenesswasreectedinthecodingof myinterviews, andpoints toamergingof theempowerment rationalewith the rationale of entertainment:City (culture) City (planning) Festival ObserversFestivals are used tomark Copenhagen asa diverse culturalcity, both locally andinternationally.We wantto makeCopenhagen a moreopen city towardsbusiness and culture.Branding isimportant, the touristorganization invests alot of money inattractingevents tothe city. But thecultural sectoris verylimitedbenettedfrom this.The city focuses onfestivalsfor brandingpurposes, and oftenin connection withthe touristorganization.They want projectsthat will make thecity more visible.We prioritizefestivals of highquality that takeplace in centralpublic spaces andreach a broadaudience.We chose to workwith clear-cut,spectacular projects ata certain sizethatstages the moderncity.Cities are attracted tocelebratorythings, assoon as you questionsomething theybecomesceptic. It isa result-orientedcultural policy thatwants events toprole and celebrate.Culture and sport areviewed as leisureactivities, it issupposed to be funand ow andpopular, creating animage of a healthycity.AsSkot-Hansen(2005)asserts,theentertainmentrationaleisrelatedtothecapitali-zationofourneedsofplayingandrelaxingbythemarket. Thisresultsinchangingaudienceexpectations towards lookingfor blockbuster shows, rather thanseriousand meticulous appropriation of cultural knowledge (Huyssen 1995 cited Skot-Han-sen2005, p. 35). Skot-HansenlocatesthecreativeindustriesbetweentheeconomicimpactandtheentertainmentrationaleinthefourEsmodel.Shepointsoutthatanimportant issue to discuss whenever public funding is allocated to the creative indus-tries is whether creativity is seen as a parameter of economic success, rather than aninherent qualityof arts andculture. InKulturpolitiskredegrelse, Cultural PolicyReport (2006), the creative city discourse is legitimized by the former:For Copenhagentodevelopintoaninternational cultural metropolis, it hastoattractandfacilitatecreativeindustries insharpcompetitionwithcities all over theworld.Thepresenceofcreativeindustrieshasgotaspill-overeffectonculturallifeandviceversa. (Kbenhavns Kommune 2006, p. 38)Theclaimedspill-overeffectontoculturallifebearswitnessofa supply-sidepol-icy(Brenner2004)where, insteadofinvestmentgoingdirectlytothedemandside,i.e. cultural production, this is considereda side-effect of investment increativeindustries and does not necessarily inuence cultural production:12 C. Sachs OlsenDownloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 02:03 02 June 2012 Copenhagenis investingalot of moneyinattractingcultural events. () But howmuchit locksintothecultural institutionsIquestionthat, becausewehavenot feltthat at all. (Trevor Davies)AsDaviespointsout, Metropolishasnot benettedsignicantlyfromtheculturalpolicyofCopenhagen. Thissituationmayberelatedtothefact that thefestival ispositionedoutside the prevailingcultural policyrationales. First of all the diver-gencebetweenthecultural policiesonregional andnational level createsproblemsfor the festival. These policies leave little space for innovative and experimental artsfestivals as they are either treated as theatre institutions by the Arts Council(Kunstrdet), or are, by the city, placed into a vast amorphous areaof other eventsusuallylumpedtogetherwithconferences, festsandeducational open-airprograms.ThisisexempliedbytheeventstrategyofCopenhagenwherefestivalsareside-linedwithevents liketheIOC-congress, CopenhagenBikeCityandCopenhagenFashion Week.AccordingtoDavies, thisdivisionbetweenthecitywantingtosupport popularfestivalsandthestatewantingtosupporthighart,limitsthefestival.Thefestivalislockedinoneofthetwocategoriesinordertoget funding, andcannotexpandtheconcept of the festival. Hence, Metropolis only gets support topresent concreteresultsintermsofwhat thecitydenesasperformanceworks, andnot toprojectsthat aremorerelatedtofor examplearchitecture andurbanplanning. Thus, it ishardfor thefestival toworkwiththecityindifferent andhybridformatsthroughdevelopingprojects across disciplines byfocusingonartists, architects andurbandevelopers. WhiletheBritishArts Council supports festivals onanindividual artformbasis, placingfestivalsinacategoryof combinedarts that encompassesarange of organisations that workacross multiple art forms toachievetheir aims,includingfestivals()(http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/artforms/combined-arts/), theDanishArt council isholdingontotherigiddenitionofafestival aspart oftheperformance art, not leaving much space for experimental festivalslike Metropolis.Furthermore, Metropolis marginalizes themselves bytakingdistance fromthecityofCopenhagenandnotsharingtheirvisions.DaviespointsoutthatMetropolisisnot seenasastrategicpartner of Copenhagenasit isnot generatedbythecityitself,butcamefromtheoutsidequestioningtheirwaysofdoingthings.Metropolisisdeliberatelyat oddswiththefocusuponbranding Copenhagenasaninterna-tional cultural metropolis (Kbenhavns Kommune 2006, p. 38) through spectacular,visibleandpopular eventsreachingout toabroadinternational andnational audi-ence.Itratherpresentsanonymousperformancesandhappeningsintheoutskirtsofthecity(Jensenetal. 2009).Asaresult, thefestivalwascriticizedbyculturalcrit-icsfor beinginvisibleandsimplyunnoticedbythecitizensof Copenhagen(Dith-mer 2007), and the festival was primarily dened as elitist.AsMcGuigan(2004)observescultural debateisoftenconstructedaccordingtothebinaryoppositionof elitismandpopulism. It isnowmoreacceptabletobeacultural populist thanelitist astheformer isinlinewiththeconsumptionorientedmarketization of culture, andis linkedtotheassumptionthat symbolicexperi-encesandpracticesof ordinarypeoplearemoreimportant analyticallyandpoliti-callythanCulturewithacapital C (McGuigan2004, p. 114). Thus, populismislinkedtotheentertainment rationale, whichcanbeseenasafocusof theculturalpolicyofCopenhagen,aspointedoutbytheformerculturalmayorofCopenhagen:It iseasier togofor what issafe, what wearesurewill attract audienceandsellInternational Journal of Cultural Policy 13Downloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 02:03 02 June 2012 tickets.Nevertheless, theorganizersofMetropolisdefenditselitist positionclaim-ingthat beingmainstreamandentertainingisnot inlinewiththeirfocusonurbandevelopment.Davies admits that Metropolis is positioningitself ina marginal situationbyquestioningandchallengingthecultural policyrationalesofCopenhagen. Asresultthefestivalissolelylookeduponasanevent, andnotasastrategicpartnerforthecity to develop long-term urban strategies.ThemarginalizationofMetropolisisexempliedbythelackofsufcient fund-ingofthefestival. ForexampledidthecityofCopenhagenmakeafestival pot of5millionDKKin2006. Thepot wouldgive4-yearssupport tofestivalsstemmingfrom initiatives outside the city authorities, but Metropolis was not supported.Vienna and SOHOSOHOrepresentsamixedlevel ofintegrationintheurbanregime. Thelattertriedtotakeovertheaimsandvisionsofthefestival andreplacethemwiththeirsocialinclusionandeconomicdevelopment objectivesastheyregardedthefestival asaneffectivetoolforaneconomicupgradeofanareasufferingfromalackofinvest-ment.These objectives can be seen in relation to the concept of creative industries thatwasimportedtoAustriainthelate90s. Theconcept focusedupontheeconomicpotentialoftheartsandculture, andwasfollowedbystudiesprovingtheexcellentconditionsforcreativeindustriesespeciallyinVienna,likeforexampleAnanalysisof theeconomicpotential of thecreativeindustriesinViennainitiatedbytheCityof Vienna in 2004 (Kulturdokumentation 2004, p. 3).Thedevelopment ofcreativeindustryandinfrastructurecanbeseeninconnec-tionwithastrategyofsocialinclusionfocusinguponthedevelopmentasimaginedways of nurturing participation in society and developing citizens. This strategypointstoanentanglementoftheeconomicimpact,entertainmentandempowermentrationaleinthecultural policyof Vienna. This entanglement was reectedinthecoding of my interviews:City (culture) City (planning) Festival ObserversOur work is based onthe socialist idea withmore equality anddistribution ofcultural goods foreverybody, and tobring people from thestreet to culture.We want to improvethe identity of thecity. This isverylinked to urban andpublic space.We have becomemore integratedinthe cultural policiesbecause we involvepeople with migrantbackground. Thechamber ofcommerce wanted tocollaborate andsupport the basis ofthe festival.Ofcourse theiraim wasto change the imageof the area to attractinvestment.It changed in the80s: in the 70s it wasall about bringing thearts to the audience,now it was moreabout bringingaudience to the arts.The art is perceivedas a representativething, rather thandealing withconictsand problems.There has been agrowing interest tosupport festival-structuresbecausethe urban renewalofce isinterested inthe upgrading of thearea.14 C. Sachs OlsenDownloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 02:03 02 June 2012 Onecanseethat thepresenceoftheempowerment rationaleismorelinkedtotheuseofcultural strategiesbylocal politiciansandpolicymakerstoachievepoliticaland economic objectives than the promotion of sub-cultures (Skot-Hansen 2005).Withinthiscultural policycontext that associatesurbanlifequalityandsocialcohesionwithnewimagesof privateenterpriseandinnovation, it proveddifcultfor SOHOtokeepitsidentityasacritical andexperimental festival. Eventhoughthe festivaldidnotwanttotakepartinthecompetition between money-mindedartundertakings(Zobl andSchneider2008, p. 101), it wasquicklyrecognizedbythecity of Vienna for its potential of an economic upgrade of the Brunnenviertel area.Theconceptofusingtheresidualspacesofindustrialismforthecreativeindus-trieswasbecomingawell-establishedstate-supportedstrategyofurbanre-develop-ment in Vienna at the end of the 90s (Evans 2001), and soon after theestablishmentofSOHO,aclosecollaborationwiththeDistrictManagementOfceofUrbanRenewal inOttakring(GebietsbetreuungStadterneuerung)developed. AsSchneider (2008) observes, art wasawelcomeattendant measuretoimprovethemoodandatmosphere, andtodrawayoung, dynamicaudience, whichwouldide-allysettlethere, intotheneighbourhood. This canbeseenas anexampleof thesocial inclusion logic where upgrading measures go hand-in-hand with socialdynamics,withoutartbecomingaconcretemanifestationwithinthepracticeofcityplanning(Miles 2005). Rather, theart festival has beendegradedtoaself-orga-nizedsideeffectaccompanyingthebeauticationandstructuralimprovementofthemarket area (Schneider 2008, p. 16).Theinterest fromthecityof Viennaandthefestivalssearchfor sponsorsalsoledtoacollaborationbetweenSOHOandViennaChamberofCommerce, therstyearsofthefestivalsexistence. Thesupport fromtheChamberofCommercewasfoundedontheirinterest inincreasedactivityandnewtenantsforthemanyvacantcommercial spacesinthearea(Zobl andSchneider 2008, Rodeet al. 2010). Theincreasedcommercialactivityintheareaonlyhappenedtoamodestextent,buttheChamberofCommerce,whofundedallpress-relatedworkofthefestival,neverthe-less releasedglowingbulletins about therevaluationof theneighbourhoodat theSOHOopeningeveryyear. AsMcGuigan(2004, p. 45)pointsout: Sponsorshipisnever innocent or disinterested: it is donefor purposes of advertisingandpublicrelations.EventhoughMcGuiganherereferredtoprivatesponsors, thisisanexampleofhowtheoperationsof publicsubsidyareincreasinglyreconguredbymarket rea-soning, sothat publiclyfundedoperationsmust behavelikeprivatebusinessesandtherebyundercut their ownlegitimacy. This was what happenedfor SOHO. TheChamberofCommercewasinmoreorlesscompletecontrol ofthepublicpercep-tionofthefestivalandpromoteditasasuccessstory. Thisleadpoliticians, specialinterest groups, businessmen, companiesandconsultantsseekingtobecreditedasco-authorsof the festival(Schneider 2008). According to the co-director of SOHOthis is anunpleasant issue as patronage is changedintoa business relation, andsponsors and/or patrons wanttobe creditedas a co-author of something they madepossiblebut certainlydidnot initiate, conceiveorcooperateon(Zobl andSchnei-der 2008, p. 103).As a result, Schneider had struggles ghting and articulating against otherinterests inorder tokeepher visionclear (Schneider 2008). In2003she endedthe cooperationwiththe Vienna Chamber of Commerce because of the conict-inginterest andas animportant prerequisite for animage correction (Zobl andInternational Journal of Cultural Policy 15Downloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 02:03 02 June 2012 Schneider 2008, p. 103). The festival was re-launchedthesame year incollabo-ration with the artist Beatrix Zobl. Instead of displaying an agenda concernedwith social inclusion implying economic development and place management,the festival emphasized social cohesion and the empowerment of marginalizedcommunities.However,SOHOisstillastrategicpartoflocalauthoritiesinVienna;ithasgota lot of attentionbecause of its perceivedsuccess, and collaborates withmany dif-ferent partners suchas artists, architects, tradesmen, youthandlocal institutions.Apart fromthe City of Vienna, the festivalreceives public funding from the FederalgovernmentaswellasfromtheCultureProgrammeoftheEuropeanUnionandtheproject Migration in Europe and Local Tradition (MELT).3Nevertheless, SOHOis constantlylackingmoney. AccordingtoSchneider thelackofsufcientsupportisbecauseSOHOisanartistinitiativeandnotaninstitu-tion. It is a grass-rootproject that works bottomup, while the municipalitywants toimplement somethingtopdown. One maysaythat the festival has marginalizeditself nancially by keeping a distance to economic development interests.Thus, SOHOissituatedinthecrossingbetweenintegrationandmarginalizationin the urban regime as the festival ts withthe social inclusion strategies of the cul-tural policyofVienna, butsimultaneouslywantstodistanceitselffromandcriti-cize the economic imperatives of this approach.ConclusionAs this paper shows, thelevel of integrationof heterotopicfestivals intheurbanregimedependsonthefestivalscorrespondencewiththecultural policyofthecit-ies.Thisbecomesclearwhensituatingtheculturalpolicyrationalesofthecitiesvs.the festivals in the framework model (Figure 3).AsSkot-Hansen(2005)observesnetworks, cooperationandpartnershipsappearlessdifcultwhenthepotentialcollaborativepartnersinthiscasetheurbanregimeFigure 3. Placement of case studies in the framework model.16 C. Sachs OlsenDownloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 02:03 02 June 2012 andthefestivals, sharethesamerationales. Themodel abovereectsthisobserva-tion: The rationales of the cultural policy of Copenhagen and the rationales ofMetropolisaresituatedfarapart, withnorationalesincommon, reectingthemar-ginalizedpositioningofthefestivalwithintheurbanregime. TheculturalpolicyofViennaandSOHOshareaspectsoftheentertainmentrationaleintermsofvisibilityandtheopportunitiesfor imageshift of thearea, whiletheydivergeregardingtheimportanceof theempowerment andeconomicimpact rationales, whichreectsSOHOspositioningbetweenintegrationandmarginalization. Therationalesofthecultural policy of Manchester and FutureEverything are corresponding, and thusreect the high level of integration of the festival in the urban regime.As seeninthemodel, theprevailingcultural policyrationales of Manchester,CopenhagenandViennabelongtoC2, andpointstoanapproachtoculturaldevel-opment that, as Garcia (2004, p. 317) asserts, tends to be biased towards the instru-mental ends of those in charge. In this process certain activities are privilegedwhileothers arediscouragedandmarginalized(Ibid.) Giventhat theserationales,suchas economicdevelopment, brandingandsocial inclusion, generallyhavethestructural strengthsthat theartsandcultural policysectorsnormallylack, particu-larlyintermsofpoliticalsalienceandsupport,itisnotsurprisingtondtheminadominant positioninpolicyterms, whileC1adoptsasecondary, contributoryposi-tionincomparison(Gray2007). However, asSkot-Hansen(2005)suggests, theC1rationales canbeseenasequallyinstrumental astherationales of C2, as all fourrationalesserveasmeansrather thangoalsinthemselves (Skot-Hansen2005, p.37).Herpointmaybeseenasacritiqueofaculturalpolicythatisguidedbycom-petingpolicyobjectives, ratherthanrealizingthat thepotential liesinthedialecticbetweentherationales. AsseeninthecaseofDenmarkandCopenhagen,thecom-petingobjectivesbetweentheconcernwitheliteart formsonanational level, andmorepopularartformsonaregionallevellimitsthedevelopmentandexistenceofnew, experimental andalternativeart initiativeslikeMetropolis. InVienna, thelossof dialecticbetweentherationales is illustratedbythefocus of theurbanregimeuponthesocial inclusionandeconomicdevelopment objective, leavinglittleornospaceforthefestivalsownobjectivesofsocialcohesionandempowerment. Thesecasesillustratewhat Garcia(2004, p. 324) pointstoassomeunsolvedcontradic-tions andanunbalancedrelationshipbetweeneconomicandcultural prioritiesinurbanpolicy, andhowthis makes difcult theoperational conditions for hetero-topic festivals that are not sharingthe same rationales as their host-cities. Thus,Garciacallsfor amoreholisticandexibleunderstandingof cultural policythatinforms both the current notion of an arts sphere, and the economic, political,social, education and environmental spheres of cities (Ibid.).Inotherwords, thereisaneedfor acultural policymodel withroomfor boththecompetingrationalesanddialecticsinbetweenthem. Thus, insteadof thecul-tural policiesofthecitiesbeingsituatedwithincertainrationalesthat maycompetewithother rationales, thereis aneedfor ajoint startingpoint that mayplacethecultural policies of the cities so that they may incorporate all rationales.Skot-Hansen(2005)suggeststhatthismightbeasuperiorexpressiveaestheticexperiencerationalethat sees art as experienceandnot as animpact that canbemeasured(see Jensen2003). AccordingtoSkot-Hansen, the experience rationalesupportsanever-enlargingarenaof cultural forms (2005, p. 38) andprovidesanapproachtocultural policythat has roomfor competingrationales as well as thedialectics between them.International Journal of Cultural Policy 17Downloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 02:03 02 June 2012 Myhopeisthatthepresentresearchhashelpedproposingare-thinkingof festi-valsasheterotopiaswiththepotential toexperiment withcityspaces. AsFoucault(1997, p. 356) concludes: incivilizations where [heterotopia] is lacking, dreamsdry up, espionage takes the place of adventure, and privateers by the police.AcknowledgementsSpecial thankstoProf. Dr. MathieuvanCriekingenfor helpful feedbacksandconstructivecritiques that helped clarify my thoughts and structure my research.Thanksalso to thefestivalleadersDrewHemment,Ula Schneiderand TrevorDavies forgiving me useful insights into their festivals.Finally, I want tothankDorteSkot-Hansenfor givingmepermissiontoreproduceherFour Es model for cultural policy rationales in this paper.Notes1. It is important tonote that the dichotomybetweeninstrumentalizedandheterotopicfestivalsdoesnot represent aclearpictureofrealityasfestivalsarediverseandoftensituated in the cross eld between the two.2. Originalquote:enbetydeligdelafrdetsbevillingererremrkettilspecikkeform-l. dette, sammenmedrdetsreduceredebudget, kangredet vanskeligt at stttedetaktuelle, helt nye eller uforudsete (Kunstrdet 2008).3. MELT isaEuropeanprojectthatstrivesto discoverandcelebratethe diversityoflocalcommunities, to give visibility to their inherent creative potential, and to foster transna-tional exchangeandmobilityof cultural playersaswell asintercultural dialogueandinternational collaboration (http://www.melt-europe.eu/about.html).ReferencesArts&Business, 2009. Evolutionof partnershipsimpact of technologyoncultural part-nerships. England: Arts & Business.Arts Council England(ACE), 2010. Cultural tourismboosts northwest economy[online].ACE. Available from: http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/news/cultural-toursim-boosts-north-west-economy/ [Accessed29 August 2010].Bakhtin, M., 1984. Rabelais and his world. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Belore, E. andBennett, O., 2007. Rethinkingthesocial impactsof thearts. Internationaljournal of cultural policy, 13 (2), 135151.Bianchini, F., 1993. RemakingEuropeancities:theroleofculturalpolicies. In:F. BianchiniandM. Parkinson, eds. Cultural policy andurbanregenerationthe West Europeanexperience. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 119.Brenner, N., 2004. Newstatespaces urbangovernanceandtherescalingof statehood.New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Bryman, A., 2008. Social research methods. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.deFrantz, M., 2005. Fromcultural regenerationtodiscursivegovernance: constructingtheagshipof theMuseumsquartier Vienna as aplural symbol of change. Internationaljournal of urban and regional research, 29 (1), 5066.Dithmer, M., 2007. Denusynligefestival [Theinvisiblefestival]. PolitikenKultur, August28.Duelund, P., 1994. Kunstensvilkromdekulturpolitisketendenseri DanmarkogEuropa[Conditionsofthearts-regardingthetendencies ofculturalpolicy inDenmarkandEur-ope]. Kbenhavn: Akademisk forlag.Duelund, P., 2008. Nordiccultural policy: acritical view. International journal of culturalpolicy, 14 (1), 724.Evans, G., 2001. Cultural planning an urban renaissance? London: Routledge.Evans, G., 2003. Hardbrandingthecultural cityfromPradotoPrada. International jour-nal for urban and regional research, 27 (2), 417440.18 C. Sachs OlsenDownloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 02:03 02 June 2012 Evans, G., 2005. Measurefor measure: evaluatingtheevidenceof culturescontributiontoregeneration. Urban studies, 40 (5/6), 959983.Fainstein, S. and Judd, D.R., eds., 1999. The tourist city. London: Yale University Press.Falassi, A., 1987. Festival: denitionandmorphology. In: A. Falassi, ed. Timeout of time:essays on the festival. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 110.Florida, R., 2002. Theriseof thecreativeclassandhowitstransformingwork, leisure,community, and everyday life. New York,NY: BasicBooks.Foucault, M., 1997. Ofotherspaces: utopiasandheterotopias. In: N. Leach, ed. Rethinkingarchitecture a reader in cultural theory. New York, NY: Routledge, 350367.Garcia,B.,2004.CulturalpolicyandurbanregenerationinWesternEuropeancities:lessonsfrom experience, prospects for the future. Local economy, 19 (4), 312326.Gareld, M., 2010. Den scenograske by, Kunsten.nu [online] 14 June. Available from: http://www.kunsten.nu/artikler/artikel.php?metropolislaboratory [Accessed 17 October 2011].Geetz, D., 2009. Policyforsustainableandresponsiblefestivalsandevents: institutionaliza-tionofanewparadigm. Journalofpolicyresearchintourism,leisureandevents,1(1),6178.Gotham, K.F., 2005. Tourismfromabove andbelow: globalization, localizationandNewOrleanss Mardi Gras. International journal of urban and regional research, 29 (2),309326.Gray, C., 2007. Commodication and instrumentalityin cultural policy. Internationaljournalof cultural policy, 13 (2), 203215.Grifths, R., Bassett, K., and Smith, I., 2003. Capitalising on culture: cities and the changinglandscape of cultural policy. Policy and politics, 31 (2), 153169.Hall, T. andHubbard, P., 1996. The entrepreneurial city: newurbanpolitics, newurbangeographies. Progress in human geography, 20 (2), 153174.Harvey, D., 1989. Frommanagerialismtoentrepreneurialism: the transformationinurbangovernance in late capitalism. Geograska annaler series B, 71 (1), 317.Hemment, D., 2008. Symposiumpresentation. 21.09.2008 at ZAIM, Yokohama, Japan.Available from: http://dislocations.wordpress.com/[Accessed5 January 2011].Hemment, D., 2010. TheFuture Everythingmodel prototypingthefuture, blogpost, 9September [online]. Availablefrom: www.futureeverything.org[Accessed23September2010].Hetherington, K., 1997. Badlands of modernity. London: Routledge.Himmelstrup,K.,2004.Kulturensformer oginstitutioner[Theformsandinstitutionsofcul-ture]. Kbenhavn: Hans Retizels Forlag.Jacobs, J., 1961. The death and life of great American cities. NewYork, NY: VintageBooks.Jensen,J.,2003.Expressivelogic:anewpremiseinartsadvocacy.Thejournalofartsman-agement, 33 (1), 6580.Jensen, O.B., et al., 2009. Experience city.dk. Aalborg: Aalborg Universitetsforlag.Kong, L., 2000. Culture, economy, policy: trends and developments. Geoforum, 31, 385390.Kbenhavns Kommune, 2006. Kulturpolitisk Redegrelse [Cultural policy report]. Kbenhavn:Kbenhavns Kommune.Kulturdokumentation, 2004. Ananalysisof theeconomicpotential of thecreativeindustriesin Vienna [Cultural policy report]. Vienna: Kulturdokumentation.Kulturministeriet, 2002. Danmarks Kreative Potentiale Kultur og erhverspolitiskredegrelse [Denmarks creative potential - Cultural and business policy statement].Kbenhavn: Kulturministeriet.Kunstrdet, 2008. KunstrdetsHandlingsplan20072011[ActionplanfortheArtsCouncil2007 2011]. Kbenhavn: Kunststyrelsen.Manchester CityCouncil, 2010. Manchesters cultural ambitionreframingManchesterscultural strategy. Manchester: Manchester City Council.McGuigan, J., 2004. Rethinking cultural policy. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Miles, M., 2005. Interruptions: testing the rethorics of culturally led urban development.Urban studies, 42 (5/6), 889911.Miles, S. and Paddison, R., 2005. Introduction: the rise and rise of culture-led urban regener-ation. Urban studies, 42 (5/6),833839.International Journal of Cultural Policy 19Downloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 02:03 02 June 2012 Peck, J. and Ward, K., 2002. Placing Manchester. In: J. Peck and K. Ward, eds. City of revo-lution: reconstructing Manchester. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 117.Pratt, A.C., 2008. Creativecities, thecultural industriesandthecreativeclass. Geograskaannaler series B, human geography, 90 (2), 107117.Prentice, R. andAndersen, V., 2003. Festivals as creative destination. Annals of tourismresearch, 30 (1), 730.Quinn, B., 2005. Arts festivals and the city. Urban studies, 42 (5/6),927943.Quinn,B.,2010. Artsfestivals,urbantourismandculturalpolicy. Journalof policyresearchin tourism, 2 (3), 264279.Richards,G.andWilson,J.,2006.Developingcreativityintouristexperiences:asolutiontothe serial reproductionof culture? Tourism management, 27, 12091223.Robson, B.,2002. Mancunian ways.In:J.Peck and K.Ward,eds.Cityof revolution:recon-structing Manchester. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 3449.Rode, P., Wanschura, B., andKubesch, C., 2010. Kunst macht Stadt VierFallstudienzurInteraktion von Kunst und Stadtquartier [Art makes City - Four case-studies on the inter-actionbetweenart andurbandistricts]. 2nded. Germany: VerlagfrSozialwissenschaf-ten/Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH.Sassatelli, M., 2008. Festivals andEuropeanpublic culture: theoryandresearch. EURO-FESTIVAL integrated report.EURO-FESTIVAL, University of Sussex.Schneider, U., 2008. SOHOinOttakringart project inurbanspace: apractical view. In:U. Schneider andB. Zobl, eds. SOHOinOttakringwhats up?Was ist hier los?.Wien: Springer, 1323.Scott, A.J., 2004. Cultural-products industries andurbaneconomicdevelopment: prospectsforgrowthandmarketcontestationinglobalcontext.Urbanaffairsreview,39(4),461490.Selwood, S., 2006. A part to play? International journal of cultural policy, 12 (1), 3553.Shane, D.G., 2005. Recombinant urbanism. Great Britain: Wiley-Academy.Skot-Hansen, D., 2005. Whyurbancultural policies?InEUROCULT21integratedreport.Helsinki: EUROCULT21.Stake, R.E., 1995. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Stevenson, D., 2004. Civicgoldrush. International journal of cultural policy, 10(1), 119131.Stevenson, D., McKay, K., andRowe, D., 2010. TracingBritishcultural policydomains:contexts, collaborations andconstituencies. International journal of cultural policy, 16(2), 159172.Swyngedouw, E., 2008. Whereisthepolitical?[online] Availablefrom: http://www.social-sciences.manchester.ac.uk/disciplines/politics/research/hmrg/activities/documents/Swynge-douw.pdf [Accessed 24 June 2010].Turner, V., 1982. Celebration: studiesinfestivityandritual. Washington, DC: SmithsonianInstitution Press.VkstforumHovedstaden,2008.Begivenhedsstrategifor hovedstadsregionen[Eventstrategyfor the capital region]. Kbenhavn: Vkstforum Hovedstaden.Waade, A.M., 2002. Kulturfestivalen. Scenekunstensmarkedsplass. Workingpaper, no. 112-02, Centre for Cultural Research,University of Aarhus.Waterman, S., 1998. Carnivalsfor elites?Thecultural politicsof artsfestivals. Progressinhuman geography, 22 (1), 5574.Williams, G., 1996. City prole Manchester. Cities, 13 (3), 203216.Wimmer, M., 2006. Reections ona special case: what makes cultural policytrulyAus-trian?. The journal of arts management, 35 (4), 265276.Zobl, B. andSchneider, W., 2008. Dkunntat jajedakummanSOHOinOttakringinelds of art andculture[Soyouthink, youcanshowupandsimplydothat]. In: U.Schneider andB. Zobl, eds. SOHOinOttakringwhatsup?Wasist hierlos?Wien:Springer, 100107.20 C. Sachs OlsenDownloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 02:03 02 June 2012