Part one:
Hello, you are listening to Opera Plus podcast about all the things that set the Czech dance scene in motion. Hana Polanská greets you from the microphone.”
“In today’s session we’ll be talking mainly about the most contemporary events surrounding Tanec Praha organization.”
“Recently, the artists and collaborators of Tanec Praha, which is (besides else) the organizer of the TANEC PRAHA festival and the operator of the PONEC theatre, received an e-mail with information about changes in the management and production of the PONEC theatre. The founder and director of Tanec Praha, Yvona Kreuzmannová, informed the recipients internally, yet her letter caused a stir. The first to post it on Facebook was director Petr Boháč, who also raised the first questions and requests for more transparent communication, especially regarding the announced abolition of the position of “artistic director of the theatre”. This position was handed over approximately two years ago to a long-time colleague and one of Yvona Kreuzmannová’s closest collaborators, Markéta Peroud. During Perroud’s tenure, she worked to improve communication and working conditions for the artists and members of the Tanec Praha team, and also had the opportunity to influence the dramaturgy of the theatre. As a response to these changes, the artistic community initiated the manifesto Za Tanec Praha where they demanded a comprehensive explanation of the ongoing changes. This manifesto has already been signed by more than 300 signatories. Yvona Kreuzmannová then sent a statement to the media, the original text of which, together with the manifesto, you can read on the Opera Plus website.”
Hana Polanská:
“Our invitation was accepted by people who have been active for a long time not only on the domestic contemporary dance scene who will try to frame the situation within a broader context. I welcome director, dancer, performer and choreographer, Miřenka Čechová (Good Evening), dancer, choreographer and teacher, Jaro Viňarský (Good Evening), performer and choreographer, Viktor Černický (Good Evening), dancer and choreographer, Zdeňka Svíteková (Good Evening), dancer, choreographer and teacher, Peter Šavel (Hello), dramaturge and former member of the jury of the Czech Dance Platform, Marta Ljubková (Good evening) and director of the registered institute Altart and Studio Alta, which open-up further opportunities for the development of Czech independent dance and performance in the Czech Republic, Lída Vacková. (Hello)” .
“I have a feeling that the dance art scene has unprecedentedly come together and started to reflect the state it finds itself in. Can you share with us why you think that what is happening around Tanec Praha is important at all? What are the values that we as artists and people around dance stand up for and why did we feel the need to speak into the situation?
Hana Polanská:
I will turn right away to Lída Vacková, who, as I mentioned, works at Studio Alta and is therefore familiar with the workings of an institution simillar to that of Tanec Praha. How do you view this situation?
Lída Vacková:
I belive that this problem has to do a lot with the opinions that are emerging around us about where the art and dance scene itself is going, where society is going, and also with the fact that some of the norms until a certain time were experienced as a normality of sorts whereas now the times are breaking down again in some ways. What is happening in Tanec Praha I see very much as a manifestation of us finding ourselves at some kind of a turning point, where, as an example, responsibility is being invoked much more pro-actively… I also think that contemporary dance is in some ways a litmus test (for this phenomenon) as it is very much based on personal connections, and that’s perhaps why the reception of emotions and of the state of affairs is in contemporary dance so intense.
HP
“What about Miřenka Čechová…?”
Miřenka Čechová:
I am especially pleased and even proud at how quickly the dance community has been able to unite on these very critical issues. I believe that they concern not only the existence of the Ponec Theatre but the overall climate of our dance community. Contemporary dance as a genre is a genre that is radical, innovative, bringing ideas that somehow provoke or disrupt old structures of thinking, which was basically confirmed in our collective response, which is also a response to certain “old structures” that we have come across in this moment.”
Hana Polanská:
Martha, you are one of the first signatories to the Za Tanec Praha manifesto. Can you tell us what are your attitudes about what is happening now in Tanec Praha?
Marta Ljubková:
Well, this situation around Tanec Praha seems to me analogous to various situations that take place in the Czech, rather theatrical, environment. By which I mean situations of accumulation of certain functions or of some impenetrable or even opaque autonomy of a certain person, any person, actually, who then acquires power that is uncontrollable, uncontrolled, absolute or very strong and dangerous. And this power problem is the biggest theme of this case for me. It is because we are in an art environment where there is very little money, where people are undervalued, and where we sometimes tend to underestimate positions of power. We say that it’s not a real power, it’s not a big deal. And that’s not accurate! Our (art and dance) scene is structured in such a way that when power is accumulated in the hands of a few people, those people, without being evil or unwilling, actually influence the face of the scene more than society today is willing to accept.
Hana Polanská:
“Jaro Viňarský is claiming the floor…”
Jaro Viňarský:
“Since there was a question about the importance of current events, let’s sketch a brief genesis. The organization Tanec Praha was founded or initiated by Yvona Kreuzmannová almost thirty years ago, if I am not mistaken. Yet, it must be acknowledged that the functioning of any such organization quite understandably never stands and falls on one head, quite the opposite. Even though Yvona Kreuzmannová started this, she became the statutory representative of the z. ú. Tanec Praha, she certainly needed people to work on it, a team of people who could build with her whatever prospects she might have started with at the very beginning. I perceive what Tanec Praha has achieved as a great continuous building of ideas. Ad this process has gotten to the stage where Tanec Praha has undoubtly become an important organization in terms of the development of dance in the Czech Republic. And I also perceive that from a certain point on this has necessarily been on the shoulders of many people, artists, internal team, writers, production people, managers, and so on, many of whom have been working in Tanec Praha for several years. (Zdeňka: decades maybe). Decades. For sure. And what happened now made us ask all sorts of questions. Because at one point after Yvonne Kreuzmannová’s announcement about intended changes members of the internal team started collectively leaving the organization. And since for us who cooperate with Tanec Praha those were reference point people – in day-to-day communication or in project communication, (much more than Yvona Kreuzmannová herself) we saw this as a signal that something inside the organization is falling apart. And it’s important because… (how should I put it)… what is breaking down is something that no longer is, and it cannot be, a one-person affair.”
Lída Vacková:
At Alta, about a year ago, we started this working groups format called Artist to Artist, followed up by Artist to Venues. Both are platforms that were built for artists to get better acquinted with certain practical issues. What happened is that they got to know each other (as well as their respective needs) much better. They went through a lot of valuable encounters in an almost intimate setting. Well, virtually all of the people active on these platforms are taking part in the petition Za Tanec Praha. They build on things and ideas and work that they’ve been already doing together for three quarters of a year now. Among questions popular among them you would find transparency of selection, how people get into institutions when they leave school, or when they’re already more visible in the art scene, how they should approach promoters, directors of art venues, etc. These are their big topics – and now it’s actually all as if naturally clicking together (not only with the situation in Tanec Praha). That’s why I talked at the beginning about the break we feel almost anywhere.
Marta Ljubková:
To be more personal about why I am actively taking part in this “thing”: as someone in a very peripheral orbit of the dance scene – and as such I was also invited, as someone who can bring a bit of an outside perspective – I have recently felt a lot of frustration from within the scene and perhaps from people who move around Ponec, and so on. I see the resulting situation as a natural development or a natural expression of longer-standing frustrations. I don’t want to say that this is the last straw for the proverbial jug, no, it’s worn, isn’t it, something overflows and something bursts, but basically the point is that it’s always the last straw when someone’s soot has blown and it starts to pile up like a snowball, and I think that’s what’s been happening, or maybe is happening, here. Thus it was not surprising that I very soon found myself among people who perhaps needed help to formulate certain things and so on. It somehow fits into my personal situation as well: I am a person who has been out of institutions for a while, and I also know quite well what it is like to be inside of an institution for a long time…
Hana Polanská:
“We are touching perhaps the problem of institutions. How they should work. Who should they be there for? Institutions are set up out of desires of people, people build them because they have dreams.
“Victor, how do you see it?”
Viktor Černický:
A lot of people when they read the text of our petition said: you know, it’s obvious, this has been in Tanec Praha for a terribly long time, there’s nothing surprising about it – and that’s actually surprising! That a lot of people somehow already knew about the situation, somehow got used to it. For a few years there was actually quite a high turnover of people in Tanec Praha, e.g. we started to meet people who almost stopped working for Tanec Praha even before they really started working for Tanec Praha. Thus the fact that the reaction is so massive now is also caused by us all already knowing about this – and it has reached a point where a lot of people have finally decided to publicly comment on it and speak out against it.”
Miřenka Čechová:
“So it’s not an Eureka effect, or as it might seem, that people just connect to some energy. It’s really a long-term reflection of the whole community.”
Viktor Černický (continuing):
“I remember that two years, three years ago, we were having a conversation. It was a discussion about communication of Tanec Praha and Ponec Theatre towards the public. And it was about what actually makes up the institution, what makes up the theatre, what makes up Tanec Praha, whether it’s the skeleton of those structures and statutes and competences, or whether it’s those people, those technicians who just build it there every day, the artists who are basically performing there every day, the faithful who go to those workshops, the kids who go to those classes, the people from Dance Well who are working with them in one of the projects. And I feel that the topic we are duscissuing here today kind of touches on those questions in a broader way. What does an institution like Tanec Praha actually consist of? – however, there are many of such institutions not only in the Czech Republic but also in Europe.”
Miřenka Čechová:
“Perhaps it is important to state that for us, in contemporary dance, it is basically a key institution, absolutely crucial one. There is no other institution that allows us to do contemporary dance on such a professional level. There’s not even any other theatre that’s fully dedicated to contemporary dance. This is the only possibility, and the only kingdom, so to say, where contemporary dance can be done at a professional level in the Czech Republic.”
Peter Šavel’
“Including all those infrastructures that are available there…
I was thinking that for me, as I listen to you, Yvona Kreuzmannová actually has an incredible amount of merit. She has managed to build – mainly with her lobbying skills and her abilities in the political arena – something that brought many creative people together. And those people created a community and a space that is very strong. However suddenly something has tipped over, and for some reason the balance between her and those people seems to be no longer working. I have the feeling that this critical tipping point was connected with Yvona’s departure (almost two years ago) from the position she was in (when she let Markéta Perroud to take a more visible position with more competecies). As if Yvona Kreuzmannová at that moment had resigned herself to the fact that she no longer had all of it. Paradoxically, I really feel that now she is trying to fold all of the power much more tightly into her hands. And in doing so she is actually going against everything that she helped to build.
Hana Polanská:
“Miřenko, you have just worked with the philosopher Alice Koubová on a performative lecture directly related to the questions of power. Could you share with us why you are involved in the activity around Tanec Praha from this particular perspective?”
Miřenka Čechová:
“It’s an incredible coincidence that what is happening now is as if a model case for our performance lecture. It is called “Fears”. And it is dealing with nothing else than power relations in art environment. Brief introduction: We all have a certain amount of power, as we live in relationships. We depend on each other. Sometimes more, sometimes less. It’s a question of quality of those relations. Are they supportive or manipulative? In the lecture we refer, besides else, to the drama theory of the American philosopher and psychiatrist Stephen Karpman, who explains how, to give an example, a manipulative relationship works. Within it all parties are complicit. They keep each other in check. For illustration he uses three characters: bully, victim and rescuer. I renamed them in my head as ruler, subject and savior. In the manipulative triangle you do not thrive to straighten your relations or to finding new ways of communication. You rather watch out over each other. At the same time, those characters can change their positions quite easily, e.g. ruler can easily switch to postion of a victim.
Hana Polanská:
“Victor, I noticed that you talked about the fact that institutions are ours and that we shouldn’t just run away from them. That we built them too and perhaps we shall take them back. Rethink them in a different way. Can you share with us something more about this idea ?”
Viktor Černický::
“I would just start by emphasizing that this is not a personal issue. The whole manifesto is called Za Tanec Praha. It’s not called against Yvona Kreuzmannová. And I would not want to put it that way. I think that Yvonna’s name just comes up most often and is sort of the most prominent because she is the one who is the director of the organisation and actually decides on many things. And from what we know, she’s actually making decisions at macro to micro levels. And as for the fact that we form these organizations, of course, in a sense it is actually a kind of repoliticization of our public space! In short: if we don’t want to take that space, if we don’t want to keep it alive, to revitalize it, to improve it, well, then it will actually remain empty and that vacuum can be occupied by people who have completely different interests. And we’re talking about Tanec Praha now. But we can elevate this whole issue to the political spectrum, to the public spectrum, to a much larger scale.”
Hana Polanská:
“Jaro, you also talk a lot about the broader context. About the change of values concerning the whole society. And that as artists we are perhaps more responsive, because we do put some principles into our work that are proving to be functional. To state an examle: a non-hierarchical control in choreography, etc. Could you speak on this subject, please?”
Jaro Viňarský:
“I already mentioned this in a reportage for Czech TV broadcast. It didn’t get through, ultimately, but I was talking about us as artitst reacting to all this, besides else, because it just comes from our nature as creators. We’re often called upon to be topical, to take ownership of current issues in society, and so on. And here we’ve got a topic right on the table. What is required of Yvona from our side: to engage in updating and considering the ways in which society is updating around us at large. I don’t believe that this is just our voice as I encounter the same kind of voice in different settings and at different levels. I’ll use the example of DAMU and the movement, Nemusíš to vydržet (You Don’t Have to Endure It), where people at different institutional levels are starting to question the healthiness of relationships and work/study settings, and so on. That’s what we’re after. And we try to approach it with a creativity that comes as natural to us.”
Hana Polanská:
“Miřenka would like to add something?”
Miřenka Čechová:
“I would like to clarify that it is not that we want to get rid of all the distribution of power. That we want to overthrow the hierarchy that is naturally set up. We can basically modulate these hierarchical relationships – give them a slightly different framework or character.
They do not need to be manipulative, they can turn into the empowering ones. How? The leader can trust that the process of change is subject to rhythm, for instance – instead of slipping to ”I know best”, “I have to handle it all by myself”. We all had probably hopes for Markéta Perroud because we appreciated the values she brought in. It was a big disappointment to us that those values that inspired some of us to take part in projects within Tanec Praha organization were suddenly no longer important. With all of that being said: We are not in the position of a victim. We are aware of our power. Our power is in the whole – without us, Tanec Praha would not exist. And we want to grow and do it in new ways. We want to rethink – when I said “old structures” at the beginning, it sounded terribly pejorative, but I really meant rethink the way power has been distributed in classical institutions up till now. And maybe that’s what we want to do. I can already see how Zdeňka here would like to complement me, so I’m done…”
Zdeňka Svíteková:
“I think that a lot of things were said. I wanted to clarify the themes of hierarchies and power. As for power, in English it’s both power and force. It would be good if we distinguish between them. What happened within our community is concerning force – it’s not about power. Also, there are efforts within global movements to have the force together, and not using it as a power over someone else. And I believe that we are searching for that kind of force. Except, how do you negotiate that with somebody who is operating, perhaps, with power? And in terms of those hierarchies, it reminded me of my own reflection from my own practice: where there is a call for non-hierarchical communication and non-hierarchical action, which is good, and at the same time the hierarchy in responsibilities within those structures is differentiated, and we don’t always make that explicit either. That’s maybe me questioning: how the co-responsibility was distributed within the organisation of Tanec Praha.”
Hana Polanská::
“Viktor.”
Viktor Černický:
“I was talking to Bush Hartshorn. He is a coach running workshops on feedbacks in communication. There was one at Tanec Praha recently. He was talking about inclusion in an interesting way. Tanec Praha is represeting the Czech dance scene and invites us to participate on that. That’s been going on for a long time like that. And I feel that at his moment we are perhaps saying that in order to really feel part of what is happening, we need our voice to be heard. And that kind of conversation necessarily has to change with each new participant because each of us simply brings a different theme, a different personality, a different – anything. Let’s put that in contrast to the situation where you open up a space for someone, but that person has to either adapt to what’s going on there – or walk away.”
Hana Polanská::
“Jaro.”
Jaro Viňarský:
“I would love to talk to Yvona Kreuzmannová about her first intention (or motivation) that led her to start addressing the status of dance in this country. In my opinion, that initial intention must have been wonderful: a dance, a contemporary dance in the Czech Republic needs to be supported, popularized, expanded, and so on. But now I am in doubt. Is this still there? Or the consolidation of one’s own acquired position has begun to prevail?
Miřenka Čechová:
For my part, I would not question Yvona’s good intention to do her best for the Czech dance. I think that she is trying to do that. I believe she even feels like a protector saving us against a government that doesn’t give us money and assigns us the status of a genre-poor, which receives the least money and has the most difficult conditions. But even this seemingly good stance can become manipulative: “without me, it would all collapse,” “I’m the one who holds everything up and has to carry it on my shoulders.” No hand over of competence. Keeping others passive and powerless by not giving them the space to act. Not giving us the opportunity to take action and to use our resources. Whether intellectual or experiential or human resources in general”
Hana Polanská:
“Peter”
Peter Šavel:
It seems to me that there’s a rough split in values. In the way we think.
It’s not overtly visible as Yvona Kreuzmannová is using language that she’s been listening to for years. Language that we’ve all been using for years.
In her statements she is talking about transparency and a move towards less hierarchical structures. After all, she wants to abolish the position of a single artistic director. So it’s as if she had paralell aspirations to ours.
And at the same time: we see Markéta Perroud, and with her whole lot of people, leaving.
We sense that values that Yvona Kreuzmannová stands for are in reality different than the ones we would like to Tanec Praha and Ponec stand on. By us I mean the artistic scene. And maybe also those who stood besides her.
Via her deeds she demonstrates that she would prefer the state of things where she’s the most important person in the structure, where she has all the hierarchical power in her hands. Yet at the same time she knows we don’t want that. That is why she’s trying to translate her intentions into our language. But isn’t her real intent just to reinforce her own position once-again? If that is so – do we agree with that, or not? Is that what this dialogue is somehow about…?”
Part two:
Hana Polanská:
“Hello, you are listening to Opera Plus podcast about what sets the Czech dance scene into motion. Hana Polanská greets you from the microphone.”
“In today’s session we’ll continue our dicusssion of the most contemporary events surrounding Tanec Praha organization.”
Here is a paragraph from the conference-talk of Bojana Kunst. She is a Slovenian dance and performance theorist, now based at the University of Giesen in Germany. She is involved in the analysis of production and the functioning of artistic work within institutions. And she claims that the conditions in which one works matter because they directly influence the outcome and production:
“We can observe this (i.e, the phenomenon of precarity) in contemporary artistic institutions. And also in educational insttutions, because I think this kind of analysis could easily be apllied to the institutions of education as there is kind of a simillar dynamic at work. These institutions were actually built by us. They were not established by themselves. We built them to imagine different ways of organizing ourselves around education or art production. These insitutions are in a continuous situation of precarity in the sense that they are governed through a kind of very powerful dynamic production of fear. Of fear that this insitutions will loose money in the next week or that they might not be allowed to function anymore in the upcoming year. There is this continuous pressure of vulnerability and insecurity which is very much influencing the way these institutions are operating and how the people are working in them. And there is a paradox in this dynamic. Whenever there is a political pressure on art institutions or educational institutions we know that we have to protect them as they are something that we have in common, that is public, that contains the values that we believe in, and so on. But those institutions themselves, in these precarious conditions which I have outlined, often “normalise” this state of things, e.g. they work with a very badly paid working force, there is a lot of voluntary work, there is a lot of exploitation (taking place), there is a lot of problems in the relation to gender, and so on. So, there we have very progressive institutions which are continuously endangered and insecure as for how they will operate, but at the same time they normalize a lot dynamics of precarity in their own structure. And that then gets very problematic and difficult to tackle.”
So that was Bojana Kunst. Wat do you say? What is the work of an artist? And how do precarious relationships shape ou relationships – not only professional but interpersonal as well?
Jaro would like to comment?
Jaro Viňarský:
“Well, this is precarious, what Bojana Kunst is saying. And very complex; actually, I believe that we could just dicuss this topic through and through and there would be no need for more questions. Yet, I will be short. I can think of two connected issues. One is the problem with the value of art and artistic work, of the understanding and perception that artistic work is a “real” work. Aat least in the country that I come from, the Slovak Republic. I often feel that people there in general perceive art and artistic creative work as something that is not even worth of being paid for. Because it is not perceived as a proper job. And that other issue: this kind of troubled perception of artistic work is related to political climate where politicians have little to no perception of the importance of art for society. By which I mean even at the level of developing some kind of receptivness to creativity, for example in schools…
Hana Polanská:
If I return to the question of organizations: What would you say should be the thought processes aiding in changing systems and institutions so that the aformentined “normalisation” of precarity, emphasised by Bojana Kunst, does not take place?
Lída Vacková:
When I started considering this issue from the other side, i.e. from the position of someone who runs this type of organization and who was given all the power, I actually found out that I was not comfortable getting everything but having zero support. When we discuss, for example, the issue of administrative boards, of supervisory bodies and of other structures of non-profit organizations, they were all developed in the period when everybody was actually learning on the go, e. g. they were learning how to even start a nonprofit, how to go into the field, how to get grants, and so on. Most of these organizations that we still encounter in the field of the independent dance were created after ’89. Or then there was another wave after 2000 (or 2005) and on. And I believe that current affairs we are witnessing are actually a consequence of these circumstances. These organizations were strustured in the simplest possible form. This form was quite sufficient to a certain stage of the development of the organization. However, what happens when nowadays there’s a lot more money involved, there’s a lot more people around – those who are on the inside, as well those who are influenced as if from the outside by it? Are those primitive old administrative structures still sufficient?
There is another big question that I’m dealing with: in established organizations (in contrast to non-profit organizations) there’s a term of office, their inside processes are much more methodical. Or they’re at least framed and they work somehow. (We can argue whether they’re good or bad, but at least they’re there.) In the non-profits, I don’t think they (these methodical processes) actually exist much. We’re just riding the wave and that’s been going on for twenty years like that. And I think that now – when the emphasis is being put on overproduction or on “de-growth” and all that – everything becomes fatally related to everything. The people who found those organisations are actually still there, and they’re always going to be there because of the legislation – as the listed founders they actually have their founding charters and quite a lot of pro-influence reserved for all the time. Even though they have supervisory board, even though they have an administrative board, these control mechanisms are often not set up at all, they are not doing what they should… As for me, I’m actually a member of the administrative board but I’m also appointed as the director of the biggest project of our organization, which is Studio Alta. I am actually grappling with setting the control tools and processes in the way that there would be a control for the outside, as well as for me. But this task is only “personal”. There’s no regulation or legislation dealing wit this issue. Thus anybody can use the dedicated power quite arbitrarily. I think that what follows is a sense of gratitude (to the founders), which I think is a theme that resonates a lot right now.
Marta Ljubková:
I just wanted to say that what Lída is outlining makes it clear that the intervention actually has to go much further, to legal norms or legal regulations. These organizations were created here aside from the interest of politicians. It was perfect that they didn’t ask for anything. At the same time they draw public money. Sometimes we have a tendency to say: but this person actually found it, it’s their property. It’s not quite so, it’s not true! The difference between this type of non-profit institution and a private company is significant. The money is simply taken out of the public budget. And politicians should have the tools to control them so that we can all control it together (sorry to be so blunt). The issue is not at all of “removing someone from some position.” Yes, someone was in a certain situation in the 1990s and was so sensational and energetic and creative and started to build something – however it still doesn’t mean it’s their private property. Because the fact that the organization still exists today, and is as good as it is, that’s (a product of) collaboration of a lot of people, that’s not some private ownership. But it’s definitely not just Tanec Praha, I think we have many more examples of those institutions in Prague.
Hana Polanská:
“I chose Bojana Kunst also because in her twork – as well as in Yvona Kreuzmannová’s letter to artists – the problem of burnout and of overwork is mentioned a lot. But what is burnout and overwork? Is there a way to avoid them? Can we set the working conditions in the way that the team members would not feel that kind of pressure? What is your opinion on these exploitative tactics, (not of Yvona), but actually of most of the systems that prevail in society today? We can see this pressure especially in art. Art has an incredible potential, and Bojana Kunst elswhere emphisizes the fact that art projects are evaluated by the government in such a way as if they must not fail, yet there are so many projects in other sectors that fail and nobody cares! Peter…
Peter Šavel:
“I have read somewhere that burnout occurs when workers stop being connected. When we are isolated, and when we feel like we have so many responsibilities for so much work that can’t be connected to someone else. That it’s all on my shoulders. And that’s usually an issue of hierarchical principles and structures in which somebody is macro- (and micro-) managing and, in turn, preventing people from finding strategies and ways to interact with each other by themselves.”
Viktor Černický:
“As for me, the question is different: who in this organisation is burnt out? And how do we use this “burnout” term at all. It is mentioned quite a lot in Yvona Kreuzmannová’s emails that we have received. And at the same time, already under the status of Petr Boháč and elsewhere, the former employees themselves say that they did not leave because they are burnt out. This is not the reason. The reason is incompetent management. Thus I want to mention this for this argument no longer being used. The genuine argument is that there is a dysfunctional management, a dysfunctional communication, that there is no evaluation, and either no feedback at all or a feedback that is not being taken into account. So, careful with the burnout term. I am rather inclined to believe that this particular part of Yvona Kreuzmannová’s statement, has been manipulated to suit the needs (no matter what the facts are). Simmillary with her claim that there is a vision of restructuring the organisation and that this is the reason why people are leaving. Only that (the fact is that) those people left first, and only then the argument about big change in the Tanec Praha team came. So I wanted to be factual about that.”
Peter Šavel:
Also, we’re talking about such a punitive, strict evaluation of art projects, and at the same time we’re operating with such incomparably small budgets, and what you, Jaro, mention about perception of the value of work of the artist: it’s always cultural budgets the first that are touched, because we can easily manipulate the public by saying: “oh, this is where some free-loaders steal our money”. There’s a lack of awareness of what the role of art in society really is. In a society that has such a strong spiritual crisis, as I believe we have nowadays. For me, that’s what the role of art is: to experience and transform something that can’t happen anywhere else. And when we have not that space, society has got a hard time to heal itself.
Miřenka Čechová:
“There are other claims in letters of Yvona Kreuzmannova that are disturbing and so confusing that they seem to be purposely constructed. For example, the assertion that position of artistic director has been removed by the aministrative board. This is probably the first time we’ve all heard of this board – even though they, of course, founded Tanec Praha organization. Now they’re referred to as to the professional authority that has the power (and the authority) to decide what is right and wrong. This makes our request to meet its members quite reasonable. But this request is being just skipped over. Also, considering the changes that were announced: How can anyone prepare the next season if it is not clear who will take on the dramaturgical leadership of the theatre? Who is going to create the season? Who is giving the expert commentary? In fact, it was stated repeatedly that a consultative body would be formed. Yet it has turned out – based on the statement of its supposed future members – that they would not take part in it. That is yet another false assertion. (And also a manipulation of their stance.) We are only asking in what context are we going to present our works? Who is the expert guarantor of the whole institution? An art institution needs to have, in the first place, an artistic leadership.
Also, when the term “fear” was mentioned, I actually thought of all the young students saying: “we don’t really want to get involved in this initiative because we are “afraid” that we would never play in Ponec again.” “Because we are afraid to say anything.” I think that in this climate you can’t really create. “I’m afraid to say anything. Because I wouldn’t get the opportunity.” Loyalty is one thing, but ability to be able to self-reflect or even to exist in some sort of truthfulness, especially for artists, I think is another one, and I think that’s one of the key principles.
Hana Polanská:
I’m noticing that especially in the artists’ work, the values or the shift in values are recently seeping through, and then the artists are being confronted with the fact that the management “
(or the organization) doesn’t behave that way. Do you think that that’s something that’s also caused the fuse? That it’s actually the disconnect between how the artists think and create and the management of the institution, which may not be able react quickly to changes?
Lída Vacková:
Well, I think that the reaction has to do with untruthfulness, it has to do with the values. We don’t usually name or enumerate them. But I think we all live them, I think we all have them stored as a kind of code that makes us move in an artistic environment. And I think there’s a great appeal now: (some) people thought that what was being said was inside and it was true. And now they feel cheated by certain behavior or attitude because they can feel that they’re not that important, that it doesn’t matter if they go and play somewhere else, or if they don’t play at all or what they say or don’t say, how they feel. When the whole art scene across the board, especially the indie scene, has been around the theme of well-being for the last year, year and a half, for example, this whole – we say well-being, not growing, overproduction, not wanting, but actually, are we living it? It’s actually questions directed back to the individuals themselves. But I think there’s the value of the truth that’s either inside or not, and now in some situations you can transparently see that the experience is not there. It’s not something that both sides thought of the same same way.
Marta Ljubková:
That’s interesting, I see it through the process of my own aging or awareness of things. Say, the theme of dehierarchization is of course very strong – but I know, from my own artistic experience, that no matter how dehierarchical the work is, you have to take some responsibility, and so on. But I have a feeling, and when I look at the age structure of those first signatories, or of those people who were actually formulating the manifesto, we’re more like 35 plus or 40 plus-minus and on. (And in this phase of your life and career) you suddenly find that you’re not knee-deep but waist-deep in that system. To what extent do we become just hostages within the system? Then we have to defend our professional positions. Why are we where we are? How did we get there? Is there room left in the system for someone else? That was one of the debates we had. All of a sudden we’re wondering who gets to be among the chosen ones? On what basis? Is there some kind of exchange somewhere – I don’t think it’s all going to be solved by open-calls, but some kind of transparency is needed. Even if it’s just in the form of a named artistic figure leading something and saying: “That’s my dramaturgy. I want the dramaturgy to be like this, and for a certain period of time it will be like this, because I got to that position for a reason.” I would say that it’s more about transparency and willingness to put my name to something that maybe isn’t quite transparent. Or, in this case, maybe reluctance to do so.
Hana Polanská:
Zdeňka, you run courses in non-violent communication…
Zdeňka Svíteková:
“I would put it right. I’m interested in this topic… and at the same time, yes, I happened to share the information that I have… “
Hana Polanská:
“How would you, for example, handle this crisis in terms of communication that would be non-violent?”
Zdeňka Svíteková:
“The language that does not contain “should” and “this is how it is done”. The language that does not… how should I say it… the language that evokes guilt, or feeling of guilt in the other. Not telling the other what to do, rather asking them. Not jumping in at moments when the other looks like they just need time to think, (a tendecy to act like a saviour) which we all do, quickly and very happily, putting thoughts into people’s mouths that they themselves – maybe they would say it, but maybe they would say it differently. And another dangerous thing can be the labeling that hides behind a simple word, “being” – “you are.“
Hana Polanská:
I’’d be interested in concrete examples of interaction with the Ponec theatre and its management, its leadership…
“Viktor”
Viktor Černický:
“My experience is that when we were working on our European project, I really felt that Yvona was behind us, behind the whole team, behind the whole project. The premiere was firmly planned for Tanec Praha festival. We didn’t feel any pressure on how it should or shouldn’t turn out. That is how we felt during joint calls with Yvona (Kruezmannová) and Markéta (Perroud) and Zuzana Bednárčiková. I was very grateful for all that, because I myself, as an artist, felt very fragile in the whole process.
Now I’ll add the B to what I just have said. And this B has to do with the fact that for those European projects, as I see it, there is not enough open, transparent tenders. After all, even my project – I was approached for it directly. During my cooperation with Ponec Theatre and Tanec Praha, I saw that once a project goes to one company or an artist, then again to someone else and – what I want to underline – actually nobody knows what the selection criteria are. Thus we’re kept in this grey area. And I think that by not having enough information about how these things work, it breeds the sense of gratitude that we’re going to be given an opportunity.
What goes along with this is a growing sense in me that my work doesn’t quite belong to me.
As my performnece Pli goes, it got recognized on the Dance Platform, got into Eurowaves and then toured. I’m – again – happy for all that.
On the other hand, the longer I performed it, the less I felt like I owned the performance. That the credit for it was mine. It’s difficult to pinpoint, but there are a lot of moments where I feel like instead of presenting my work, I’m representing decisions that weren’t made in my presence. When someone tells me: that’s great that you’re playing so much, I suddenly felt like: well, yeah, but it’s not because I’ve done an interesting performance! It’s because it’s solo and it can travel and it’s easy to pack and I’m there by myself and I’m spending two nights in a hotel and then I leave again and it’s much easier than other projects. And because I’m young, and because I’m cheap… And all this stuff just kind of swelled up, and as for the self-consciousness of having done something well, it’s actually completely gone.
Throughout that time I could also realise that the dance infrastructure is made up of different theatres, different festivals, different institutions. Some of them operate very business-politically, pretending on having a private business, but at the same time dealing with public resources, and with those I felt like some item in the supermarket that they could tick off. And elsewhere I felt that there was a modest interest in topics and values that dance or art brings.
I decided then to make my following project in direct response to all that experience. It is a performance which actually requires commitment, both from the audience, from us, our team, as well as from the festival or venue. Because it’s a bigger team, it’s more days, it doesn’t sell easily. But the engagement is really – it’s giving me back my value and the value of my work.
Thus even though I felt supported, somewhere between the lines I knew that I was some kind of a tool. I started to lose some of the respect for myself, as an artist. And that was also a situation for me where I said to myself: okay, I have to take a year off. I don’t know if I’m actually going to do something. And (it also follows that) if I’m actually going to do something – I’m probably going to have to leave this theatre for a while, or look for other places, and other partnerships. Because I don’t know myself how much of all that is about that I’m young, I’ve developed a lot of energy, and it’s natural that now there’s a time of reflection, and it’s okay that I feel like that, and to what extent it’s actually caused by living in this ecosystem that’s created around dance in general and partucularly around Tanec Praha.”
Hana Polanská:
“Do you think that Markéta Peroud – who only had the opportunity to be there for a year and a half – was trying to improve these conditions for the artists? To straighten them out? That it was something that might have conflicted with Yvona Kreuzmannová’s leadership? With her political strategy of how she wanted to run the Ponec Theatre?”
Viktor Černický (continuing):
“She perceived Ponec theatre and dramaturgy of that theatre not only as that “house”, and that “stage” where there it is performed, but as some kind of “thought space” or some kind of “dramaturgical space” which can be also active elsewhere than in that theatre. And I was very much in favour of this approach. I see some kind of a complementary model in The Place in London, for example, which is very involved in European projects and is actually quite gobal, and at the same time it’s a school, and at the same time there’s a lot of projects that take place just in their neighborhood. I visited The place – also thanks to Tanec Praha – and it was a very strong experience for me. A recharging one. I had the feeling that this is the type of activity and the type of space that Markéta was interested in framing Ponec in.“
Peter Šavel:
“The transformation of values takes time. On the European stage I often witness that a person leaves the position of artistic director or curator – and it is taking a year and a half (or two years) to complete what was prepared by the previous person. Because the program is prepared a long time in advance. With Markéta I was starting to feel that some changes were happening, that there was some proactive effort on Markéta’s part to transform the project, to transform the values that are primary, and maybe to define them somehow better. And, especially, I feel that Markéta had some efforts to do it together with the artists. That felt like… our whole community perceived that as a positive thing, a new hope. And that’s maybe why we were so surprised that from Yvonna’s side, even though she had decided a year and a half ago to recede her activities, there was suddenly such a strong new activity coming, moreover so (in our eyes) contradictory to the direction that Ponec was taking.”
Viktor Černický:
“And now, in the the email message sent by Yvona it says that the dramaturgy will not be interfered with, at least for this season. That these competences will wait for the new council. And that Markéta was dismissed on the basis that … that the administrative board had abolished her position as too many competences had accumulated in the hands of one… (Miřenka: “The accumulation of functions”) Yes, the accumulation of functions, exactly. Well now, Markéta is not there, there is not a new advisory body either and yet decisions are already being made about how and what performances will or will not be in Ponec. Well, who is doing it temporarily? Yvona herself, of course. And so I wonder if the administrative board doesn’t mind cumulating the functions in Yvona’s hands? Knowing that at least two new productions are actually ending in Ponec, they won’t get any more space. And it is she who makes that decision.
I don’t want to talk about those productions, let involved people talk about them, but one of those productions is from our company.”
Peter Šavel:
This brings to my mind a question: Where is some real effort to listen when 300 people sign a letter? Yvona’s response is – in reality she just absolutely ignores what it says. Wat she does is that she sets some rather inconvenient date. It seems that it’s just a skin gesture. So that she can reassure herself of her position, to reassure her partners in the ministry of culture and in the city that she’s doing the right thing.
Zdenka Svíteková:
When we were formulating the answer to her second statement, the question came to my mind that this statement does not answer to us. To whom is it speaking and at the same time answering? I don’t see it as addressed directly in the way: I’m responding to a text that was signed by-I think there were some 340 people when I looked yesterday?
Miřenka Čechová:
“Sounds like a press release for a different kind of partnership.”
Zdenka Svíteková:
Who is Yvona Kreuzmannová actually communicating with then…?
Hana Polanská:
Yes, who is she actually communicating with?
Peter Šavel:
“For me, if Yvona decides that she wants to act as… (Zdenka: “To be the only person who decides?”) Yes, thanks. So for me it’s totally kosher and fair. At the end of the day, this organization is something that she initiated herself. And invested a lot of her time into it. And we actually keep repeating that there’s a lot of things that we, as community, are very grateful to her for. But, please, let’s just come out and say it openly. And then we can take a stand on whether or not we agree or disagree – as artists who work here, have worked here for years, who helped to create this space. There’s a sense that the team is leaving on a similar principle. But then there are infrastructures not quite comparable to others in Prague (and maybe even the whole Czech Republic), infrastructures that exist and are coming from public resources. So is it okay that it stays like this which means without the artists who need these infrastructures? Who an integral part of those strucutures?”
Hana Polanská:
“I would like to add that these artists are providing a service to the public. It’s not an institution for them. It’s actually a public institution that cultivates and improves the conditions of living for society.”
Viktor Černický:
“I just wanted to add that at the conference on Leaving, I heard Yvona say that she likes to be inspired in the business environment. It is an interesting information for me. Because at another conference where there were representatives from Germany, from the German ministry of culture (though they don’t call it that way) is giving money and is interested in the non-established art scene because they see in those structures some kind of model that could work in the future for the whole society. Whereas in the Czech Republic, the non-established culture is inspired by business.”
HP
“Is that not what has come across now? A model from the 90’s where Yvona Kreuzmannová
built a very strong position and institution but based on a political ethics that was cool in the 90’s? However, recently there has been a huge change in how we see ethics and how we want to straighten some of the relationships within our societies…”
Jaro Viňarský:
“There is an emphasis on all the steps being “legally in order”, and so on. And this is where we stop? Yeah, in this model you can stop there. And that’s exactly the problem! It’s obvious we don’t know everything about all the ways of doing things in this field. Of which we’re a bit accused of here and there, that we don’t actually understand it. But that’s not the point. What the manifesto is coming down to is actually, just as it’s been mentioned here, an ethical issue. So, when we touch on these ethical questions: is the model of institutions working like this still possible in the 21st century? Or does it have to change? We are as if entering a paradigmatic debate – perhaps we are hitting some central axis of the functioning of institutions, organizations, smaller, larger, and so on in a society. And there lies this conflict somewhere. There is this misunderstanding. Misunderstanding about what is actually happening, what we are doing, what we are trying to do.”
Which is also quite interesting for me to watch and listen to. Because I don’t think it’s that incomprehensible. There are are some people among signatories of our manifesto who have nothing to do with Ponec Theatre except that they are our supporters, fans of our shows, and they go to workshops, and so on to whom I…
Miřenka Čechová:
“Sorry to interrupt your line of thought. I would just like to set the record straight that I don’t think… It sounds now like those who signed the manifesto are our fans and supporters. It’s very important to mention there that… I feel like that I know basically 95 percent of the names. They’re all either dancers, choreographers or theatre people, people in the cultural field or are themselves somehow leaders of similar types of organizations. These are people who have quite a bit of insight into what’s going on in the current scene, even if they may not be following this case specifically. That means that these are really people who are relevant, and that’s why these voices are relevant to me. Go on, Jaro..”
Jaro Viňarský (cont’d)
“That is true… I just wanted to say that when I asked those people why they signed it, some of them told me that they don’t really understand the concrete matter either, but what they read between the lines is that there is an expression of dissatisfaction with the running of an organization or an institution where it seems that there is an abuse of a leadership position. And that, after all, this is in some ways such a universal problem of our time that they agree that this is not okay anywhere, actually.”
Miřenka Čechová:
One of the first questions from Hana was about our performative lecture “Fears”, which works with power relations, so I thought we could conclude with that – and in a performative way. After all we are people around theatre. There are couple of points in our performance that I find quite inspiring where manipulative relationships are being transformed into empowering ones. At the very end of our joint performance we project several of these points on the screen:
- A premise for change is to become aware of one’s own involvement in these relationships.
- The second premis is to understand that we probably won’t achieve the change the first time we try.
(Zdeňka Svíteková: Our colleagues who had a chance to observe our scene for a longer time are sayint that “the first time has already happened”. It sounds hopeful to me.)
- Third premise: self-respect, self-respect, self-respect. Against mistakes, stress, despair. Kindness.
- Fourth premise: Everyone chooses their functional strategy. There is no universal guide.
And now some examples of how it is possible to function differently in those relationships:
- An artistic director doesn’t feel emasculated when someone else comes up with a good idea and applies it.
- A producer feels successful when his team acquires new competencies.
- An educator feels successful when sooner or later he or she produces a creator who surpasses him or her in talent and ability.
- A person in a position of power motivates and takes responsibility for his or her decisions. Instead of providing unsolicited advises to a person, we empower the other to make his own decisions.
- It is more profitable for theatres to unite in resistance in the context of unjust cultural politics than to fight over a small morsel in a fratricidal war.
- Those in positions of leadership in cultural institutions are regularly replaced because they understand that to hold power in a mature society is to be a laughing stock to others.
Viktor Černický:
This is a very important point for me.
Hana Polanská:
I’d like to thank all the participants for coming to our first session of the Opera Plus podcast. We will continue to bring to the fore topics that move the Czech dance scene. There will be a space for reflection and analysis of contexts that are important for the people around art to become more involved in society. Thank you very much.
