UNESCO YARATICI ŞEHİRLER AĞI KAPSAMINDA GAZİANTEP: MEVCUT RAPORLAR BAĞLAMINDA BİR DEĞERLENDİRME

Öz

Çalışmanın amacı, Birleşmiş Milletler Eğitim, Bilim ve Kültür Kurumu (UNESCO) Yaratıcı Şehirler Ağı (UCCN) kapsamında hâlihazırda yayımlanmış öz değerlendirme ve üyelik izleme raporlarından yararlanarak, ağda bulunan 116 şehir içerisinde Türkiye’yi temsil eden tek şehir olma özelliğine sahip Gaziantep’in 30 Kasım 2019 tarihine kadar hazırlaması gereken üyelik izleme raporunu oluşturmasına imkân verecek politika önerileri geliştirmektir. Araştırma kapsamında, UCCN tarafından yayımlanmış 17 şehrin üyelik izleme raporu ile 1 şehrin öz değerlendirme raporu doküman inceleme yöntemi ile betimsel analize tabi tutulmuştur. Elde edilen bulgular, UCCN tarafından üyelik izleme raporu için oluşturulan format ve sınıflandırma temelinde, gastronomi kenti Gaziantep’in yaratıcı şehir konseptine uygun şekilde değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışma, gastronomi temasıyla yaratıcı şehir olarak Gaziantep’in küresel sahnede sergileyeceği kimliğini güçlendirmesi adına bir kılavuz oluşturmakla birlikte, UCCN üyelik izleme raporları bağlamında yol gösterici çalışmaların eksikliği göz önüne alındığında, bu alanda araştırma boşluğunu doldurmayı da hedeflemektedir. Çalışmanın sonuçlarının, kilit paydaşların, özellikle kentsel politika üreticilerinin, çağdaş kentsel politikaları yaratıcılık temelinde sürdürülebilir kalkınmaya dönüştürmeleri açısından da kıymetli değere sahip olduğu düşünülmektedir. Bununla birlikte, UNESCO’nun yaratıcılığın korunmasına sürekli katılımı ve yaratıcı endüstrilerin gelişimini garanti altına aldığı Yaratıcı Şehirler Ağı bağlamında yeni raporlar üretildikçe çalışmanın kapsamını genişletmek ve önerilerini çoğaltmak mümkün olabilecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Gastronomi
• Gaziantep
• Yaratıcı Şehirler
• UNESCO Yaratıcı Şehirler Ağı

GAZIANTEP AS PART OF THE UNESCO CREATIVE CITIES NETWORK: AN ASSESSMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF EXISTING REPORTS

Öz

The aim of the article is to develop a policy recommendation that will allow Gaziantep, which has the feature of being the only city to represent Turkey in 116 cities in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Creative Cities Network (UCCN), to formulate a required membership monitoring report by 30 November 2019, by using the self-evaluation and membership monitoring reports already published. Within the scope of the research, membership monitoring reports of 17 cities and self-evaluation report of 1 city published by UCCN were subjected to descriptive analysis by document examination method. The findings were evaluated according to the Gaziantep’ creative city concept on the basis of the format and classification of the membership monitoring report established by the UCCN. The study aims to provide a guide for strengthening the identity of Gaziantep will display on the global stage as the creative city with the theme of gastronomy, as well as filling the research gap in this area, given the lack of guiding work in the context of UCCN membership monitoring reports. The results of the study are also considered to have a precious value by key stakeholders, especially urban policy makers, in terms of transforming contemporary urban politics into sustainable development on the basis of creativity. However, it will be possible to broaden the scope of work and to multiply the proposals as new reports are produced in the context of the Creative Cities Network, where UNESCO guarantees continuous participation in the preservation of creativity and the development of creative industries.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Gastronomy
• Gaziantep
• Creative Cities
• UNESCO Creative Cities Network

Kaynakça

1. Bassett, K., Griffiths, R. ve Smith, I. (2002). “Cultural Industries, Cultural Clusters And The City: The Example Of Natural History Film-Making In Bristol”, Geoforum, 33(2), 165-177.
2. Cunningham, S. D. (2002). “From Cultural to Creative Industries: Theory, Industry, and Policy Implications”, Media International Australia Incorporating Culture and Policy: Quarterly Journal of Media Research and Resources, 102(1), 54-65.
3. DCMS (2001). Creative Industries Mapping Document. Department of Culture, Media and Sport, UK, London, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/creative-industries-mapping-documents-2001, (Erişim Tarihi: 15 Nisan 2017).
4. DCMS (1998). Creative Industries Mapping Document. Department of Culture, Media and Sport, UK, London, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/creative-industries-mapping-documents-1998, (Erişim Tarihi: 13 Nisan 2017). Flew, T. (2002). “Beyond Ad Hocercy: Defining Creative Industries”, The Second International Conference on Cultural Policy Research 2002, Conference Proceedings Weelington, New Zealand, January 23-26, https://eprints.qut.edu.au/256/1/Flew_beyond.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 23 Mayıs 2017).
5. Florida, R. (2012). The Rise of the Creative Class (Revitised Ed.), New York: Basic Books.
6. Florida, R. (2007). The Flight of the Creative Class: The New Global Competition for Talent, New York: Harper Collins Business.
7. Florida, R. (2005). Cities and the Creative Class, New York: Routledge.
8. Galloway, S. ve Dunlop, S. (2007). “A Critique of Definitions of the Cultural and Creative Industries in Public Policy”, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 13(1), 17-31.

9. Garnham, N. (2005). “From Cultural to Creative Industries: An analysis of the Implications of the “Creative Industries” Approach to Arts and Media Policy Making in the United Kingdom”, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 11(1), 15-29.
10. Horkheimer, M. ve Adorno, T.W. (2002). Dialectic of Enlightment: Philosophical Fragments, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
11. Landry, C. (2008). The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators (Second Ed.), London: Earthscan.
12. Leng, K. S. ve Badarulzaman (2014). “Branding George Town World Heritage Site as City of Gastronomy: Prospects of Creative Cities Strategy in Penang”, International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 8(3), 322-332.
13. Musterd, S., ve Kovács, Z. (2013). Place-Making and Policies for Competitive Cities, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
14. Musterd, S. ve Murie, A. (2010). Making Competitive Cities, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
15. Pearson, D. ve Pearson, T. (2016). “Branding Food Culture: UNESCO Creative Cities of Gastronomy”, Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 28(2), 164-176.
16. Pratt, A. (2005). “Cultural Industries and Cultural Policy: An Oxymoron?”, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 11(1), 31–44.
17. Rosi, M. (2014). “Branding or Sharing? The Dialectics of Labeling and Cooperation in the UNESCO Creative Cities Network”, City, Culture and Society, 5, 107-110.
18. Smith, R. ve Warfield, K. (2008). “The Creative City: A Matter of Values”, P. Cooke ve L. Lazzeretti (Ed.), Creative Cities, Cultural Clusters and Local Economic Development, içinde (287-312), Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
19. UNESCO (2012). Chengdu Öz Değerlendirme Raporu, http://en.unesco.org/creative-cities/sites/creative-cities/files/EvaluationReport_Chengdu.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 11 Haziran 2017).
20. UNESCO (2014). The Creative Cities Network: A Global Platform for Local Endeavour, http://www.unesco.org/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/Creative_cities_brochure_en.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 14 Haziran 2017).
21. UNESCO (2016). UCCN Booklet: Creative Cities for Sustainable Development, https://fr.unesco.org/creative-cities/sites/creative-cities/files/creative%20cities%20for%20web.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 12 Mayıs 2017).
22. UNESCO (2016a). Seville Üyelik İzleme Raporu, https://en.unesco.org/creative-cities/sites/creative-cities/files/UCCMusic%20Seville%20Monitoring%20Report%202016.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 23 Mart 2017).
23. UNESCO (2016b). Montreal Üyelik İzleme Raporu, https://en.unesco.org/creative-cities/sites/creative-cities/files/RAPP_1215_MTL_Unesco_Design_en_siteunesco.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 23 Mart 2017). UNESCO (2016c). Bologna Üyelik İzleme Raporu, https://en.unesco.org/creative-cities/sites/creative -cities/files/BOLOGNA%20Monitoring%20Report%20Feb%202016.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 23 Mart 2017).
24. UNESCO (2016d). Santa Fe Üyelik İzleme Raporu, Erişim adresi: https://en.unesco.org/creative-cities/sites/creative-cities/files/Santa%20Fe_UNESCO%20Report%2003%2001%2016.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 23 Mart 2017).
25. UNESCO (2016e). Buenos Aires Üyelik İzleme Raporu, https://en.unesco.org/creative-cities/sites/creative-cities/files/Buenos%20Aires%20City%20of%20Design.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 23 Mart 2017).
26. UNESCO (2016f). Berlin Üyelik İzleme Raporu, https://en.unesco.org/creative-cities/sites/creative-cities/files/Report_Berlin_UNESCOCREATIVECITIES%20Network_final.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 23 Mart 2017).
27. UNESCO (2016g). Aswan Üyelik İzleme Raporu, https://en.unesco.org/creative-cities/sites/creative-cities/files/Aswan%20the%20creative%20City.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 23 Mart 2017).
28. UNESCO (2016h). Edinburg Üyelik İzleme Raporu, https://en.unesco.org/creative-cities/sites/creative-cities/files/2017%20-%20UNESCO%20Monitoring%20Report%20-%20EDINBURGH.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 23 Mart 2017).
29. UNESCO (2016i). Shenzhen Üyelik İzleme Raporu, https://en.unesco.org/creative-cities/sites/creative-cities/files/Shenzhen%20City%20of%20Design%20Report.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 23 Mart 2017).
30. UNESCO (2016j). Nagoya Üyelik İzleme Raporu, https://en.unesco.org/creative-cities/sites/creative-cities/files/Nagoya_unesco_report_20161130_link.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 23 Mart 2017).
31. UNESCO (2016k). Melbourne Üyelik İzleme Raporu, https://en.unesco.org/creative-cities/sites/creative-cities/files/UCCN%20Monitoring%20Report%20Melbourne%20City%20of%20Literature%20301116.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 23 Mart 2017).
32. UNESCO (2016l). Kobe Üyelik İzleme Raporu, https://en.unesco.org/creative-cities/sites/creative-cities/files/KOBE_Membership_Monitoring_Report.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 23 Mart 2017).
33. UNESCO (2016m). Kanazawa Üyelik İzleme Raporu, https://en.unesco.org/creative-cities/sites/creative-cities/files/KANAZAWA%202013-2016%20REPORT_0.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 23 Mart 2017).
34. UNESCO (2016n). Iowa City Üyelik İzleme Raporu, https://en.unesco.org/creative-cities/sites/creative-cities/files/CCN%20report%202016-final.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 23 Mart 2017).
35. UNESCO (2016o). Glasgow Üyelik İzleme Raporu, https://en.unesco.org/creative-cities/sites/creative-cities/files/Glasgow%20Membership%20Monitoring%20Report.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 23 Mart 2017).
36. UNESCO (2016p). Ghent Üyelik İzleme Raporu, https://en.unesco.org/creative-cities/sites/creative-cities/files/Monitoring%20Report%20UCCN%20-%20Ghent%20UNESCO%20Creative%20City%20of%20Music%20since%202009.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 23 Mart 2017).
37. UNESCO (2016r). Bradford Üyelik İzleme Raporu, https://en.unesco.org/creative-cities/sites/creative-cities/files/UNESCO%20Bradford%20City%20of%20Film%20Report%202016%20%281%29.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 23 Mart 2017).
38. UNESCO (2017). Membership Monitoring Guidelines 2017, https://en.unesco.org/creative-cities/sites/creative-cities/files/Membership%20Monitoring%20Guidelines%202017.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 21 Mart 2017).
39. UNESCO (t.y.). UNESCO Creative Cities Network: Reporting and Monitoring, http://en.unesco.org/creative-cities/content/reporting-monitoring, (Erişim Tarihi: 21 Mart 2017).
40. Xiaomin, C. (2017). “City of Gastronomy” of UNESCO Creative Cities Network: From International Criteria to Local Practice, Social Systems Studies, 55-67, http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/acd/re/ssrc/result/memoirs/tokusyuugou201707/tokusyuugou201707-08.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 18 Haziran 2017).