 Um, everybody back to seagull talks here at the Martin, the seagull theater center at the greatest center CUNY in midtown Manhattan, where we having a few nice fall days, almost summer days, high summer days might be in Germany where our guests today is from from Proy on Melsocker and and again we are in the middle middle of things Corona numbers around the world are shooting up and this situation in the in the America also we all feel is heating up nobody really knows what will happen it's times of uncertainty at times where there seems to be possibilities of violence notes and suggestion that senators might be kidnapped that parliament would be strong by militias something unheard of could not even have been thought we think before but we will see where this all will be going there's the election soon and I think the smoke signs point towards change and there's just so much chaos also America can take and we hope this will be on the right side of history on the right side of the fight for freedom and liberties and free speech and this is what artists always have been they have been on this side they anticipated what is happening to future and also found ways to make us comfortable with this to think to help us imagine the present and the future in a way and that is liberating and also close to the truth and the truth is concept and for your mouth and one of his festivals of tooth is concrete after all so with us really is an important thinker I feel off contemporary theater Florian is an independent performing arts curator and I'm read a bit from his drama torque and I would also stress that word that is of significance of drama torque and curator and a writer and this can all be combined he was the artistic director of the impulse theater festival in Germany a co programmer of the significant stylish a haps in Austria and he curated numerous events the 170 hour marathon camp choose is concrete on artistic strategies in politics very early 2012 also I think in Moscow he did one on an artistic expression and freedom speech he also co edit books on really significant great companies we look up to forced entertainment remedy protocol and that's just came out this I think when we last saw each other for the nature of theater of Oklahoma the great New York company and assemble that also you know should be much much more in the center of talks than it is in the Americas at least here his publications are looking for a political theater of today empty stages crowded flats performativity as curatorial strategy and the new one which we're going to talk about now it just came out I think it was presented a couple of weeks ago a gazelle sharp spiel of games the games the idea of games and society put this in into a perspective what is political theater today so Florian really thank you for taking the time where where are you what time is it thanks for having me yeah well it's it's six o'clock in the evening in Berlin now so it's getting dark and it was not we didn't have a nice fall day it was raining all day so and it gets dark early right it gets late early as someone said about baseball there will be there are some innings so how is it in Berlin before we come to your book what's going on in theater performance well I mean theater reopened more or less just recently and now it's a bit uncertain what will happen in the next weeks so so of course we have you know if you go to theater it's very limited theater seats have to be free if it has if there's not a classical setup if you move around it's it's really very complicated just wasn't Vienna last week and they had a performance where which I didn't join but they told me like in the whole performance only 10 people could take part so the certain theaters I think a lot of the smaller I'm more interested in the smaller theaters of the smaller production houses and theaters that they will try to to keep going in a way sometimes almost in a symbolic in a symbolic level like just to stay open and to see what is possible or not and how long it will be possible we'll see and now it's like everywhere also inside Germany is very different but in Switzerland and Austria then even you know what are the rules you have to wear a mask inside or not to do how much distance do you have to have and so on but I must be to be honest I I've only been into theater space twice since March so and I'm planning to go tomorrow so I don't have too much inside of it so that's what I hear what did you see what did you see in a festival in Vienna that they did a small program in the short moment where they could do something recently and I saw new works by Boris Nikitin Swiss theater director who really does very interesting work and so I went there to see his show and talk to him this was one of the few so so it was possible to travel to Vienna and to Zurich which is now already not really possible anymore at least strongly advised not to do so it was a short moment we had a month or two months maybe where some things were possible and now we will see so your book I came out yet now in 2020 I mean you talk about theater up to 2019 is one of the most recent books I have seen that really talks about theater of the present of the moment in it you before corona I think everything was done but you made clear the sand is shifting the time is out of joint new rules and new games in a way or new ideas are needed so tell us a bit what was the idea to write this book you did one before also for the Alexander Palak was the publisher of it about theater and the political what made you write the book. Well I think one hand it was a kind of a personal personal thing that I mean I edited several books also on the topic of politics and art and politics and theater and activism and so on, but to actually sit down and write through it myself not just collecting and writing a little bit around it but like to really like, I mean maybe kind of not not really sum up but to see where we are after, I don't know almost 10 years of, I think a big change in terms of relations also of arts and politics and theater and politics, and also I the feeling and that. Yeah, I mean there are certain things that are that are kind of discussed but not on a broader level so I also wanted to write a book which is not not too academic I'm not an academic I'm a curator after all in the drama to also enable a bigger conversation in this case in German in Germany, because it's written in German, also with an interesting audience interested audience and what what can be political about theater today. And there's still, I had the feeling there's still prevailing a lot of ideas that are for me, not only a bit too old fashioned or but also actually not not really interesting for theater I think that theater as a medium has certain possibilities to to. Well, to try out society in certain ways. I think that that other mediums don't have and that often there's not enough focus on this and you have other things like storytelling and narrations and political analysis and whatever which is maybe nice to have but but that's not so unique to theater so I also wanted to have a look at it but I believe that this really in the core of the possibilities of theater. So, many artists as your witnesses talk a lot about this but it also is not just written out of the stomach out of the emotional moment of review but Julie I think you have almost like a theory, put together that after a post traumatic moment of in theater where this was the clearly handbook there is something forming I think also in in the nationally globally and I think your your work is part of a tell us a little bit what you say older ideas on theater and politics no longer work. What is working, what do you think what what should be pay attention to. Well, one thing is I think actually very simple and everybody knows it but still it's complicated to do I guess is that I believe that the political in theater cannot only be in the content I think it needs to be in the content, but it also needs to be in the form. I think historically, you can say I mean, ignoring a lot of exceptions, of course, you can say there was a strong focus for example on the content on the political content in the, let's say, directors theaters of the 70s and 80s. It was very much about presenting representing miseries in the world and political situations and so on. But the form of it was was very conventional it was representative theater in a way, I mean a lot of the details aesthetics I mean there were great directors but but the in terms of political understanding it was a representational setup in a way. And then you can say like a post-traumatic forms and conceptual dance from the 90s and in the zeroes. We're then in kind of in reaction to that putting a big focus on form. So the post-traumatic theater is very much searched for theater for the political in the form. And which which was was great and I think an important step, but but now I think it's important to see that actually the most interesting political moments in theater can happen if you if you consider both aspects of it so also in this form I mean what is the relationship to the audience. What is the, you know, there's the famous Brecht sentence that when he writes about Stanislavski and others that he says, but the situation on stage is shown as not changeable by the people in the audience. So, and the audience of course representing the people and the stage then representing this the order of society. And this is a thing still not often not taking an account if you want to be political also in your artistic work you of course need to also think what is the relation you create in reality while you talk about it. And this is maybe one of the aspects that I wanted to stress. And this under the, again in a very specific medium which which I think what theater has this strange capability or you can say paradox that it really creates a situation that are true and fictional at the same moment that you can be inside and observe from the outside of the same moment. This is very unique to theater you have it even in, well in the most classic theater, somebody says I'm Hamlet and you know, okay, I'm willing to believe you but at the same time I know you're an actor and you represent this role and this shifting plays a role in theater. This is I think a strong political possibility also to really not only look at things that are represented, be part of it, understand that they're real also in the moment they are performed, but at the same time being able to step out and look at it and analyze it or see the utopian or fictional potential of it. So this is a bit abstract now but I think these are the two moments that I really think are very unique to theater and often not let's say not used enough in the works we see on stage. Yeah, yeah, I think that comes out very clear in your work. You say how you do it is of importance, not just what you do. Normally you would say well it's a play about you know, children at war in Africa or it's about capitalist exploration and in early industrialization in England or mistreatment of minorities when you have shame and guilt, fear, anger as a reaction from the audience. But if you look at it how it is produced, it is one genius director who's in the hierarchy there and actors are hired and fired. The theaters especially in the US often out privately owned, they are made to make money, they are part of the system. They actually represent the system. We show you the very best and that's why you have to pay prices of 150, 200, sometimes 300 dollars because they are the best actors. And if you as the worker, and Claire Bishop also wrote about this, you know that that model of the artist who has to struggle and it's not paid and has no insurance is even used in this neocapitalistic society for everybody who is struggling as a food delivery on a bicycle. This is what artists do. Maybe one day you will win also an Oscar because they made it these big liars Hannah Arendt said that American dream that is no longer there and I think to say how you do it and what does it represent as a system is something very, very, very significant and I think you really put your finger on that. I mean, when you polish the Berlin director writers as he distributes the text and people actors choose it with him. He said, if I write the main role and secondary role, I just represent everything what I'm against. You also quote him other things. So, so, what do you feel what are examples of theater where you say since after all it is concrete and as you said theater is real for that moment but it's also utopian or imaginary but it is real for the moment. What are artists where you feel this represents really clearly this kind of new way of, of presenting work. Well, first of all, I would say there's not one way so actually I think there's quite a huge variety of artistic practices that I tried to show so I think there's not one answer to it there. And there are works that go further into the idea really of creating assemblies of really creating political moments in terms of also negotiating the role of the audience and how we imagine society together so they are artists like the George actually visual artist you're not style with his new world summits kind of creates alternative parliaments in which people are speaking that are usually excluded from democratic discourse in a very radical way so they're usually people are speaking that are considered to be terrorists in some states and of course and others not and others they are freedom fighters so there's also this discrepancy, but basically you could say yes it's in a way it's a real parliament it feels like a real parliament but of course it doesn't have any power, but the people in there that are speaking are not actors it's really representatives of different organizations, and you as an audience have to negotiate all the time like how do you feel about this. And there's not one consensus presented it's often opinions that are quite contradictory to each other. Milo Rao also created some of these parliaments so there's a whole strand of people and artists that that work with the idea of assemblies, which I find a really very potent and very important aspect of what political theater can be today, but of course it's one, it's one direction. On the other hand, you can say, they're also artists that maybe in a way, use the stage in a more conventional way they still use the stage and an audience that watches it, but but shift something which shifts the whole imaginary. And there's a work which probably sounds a little bit remote or strange even from a from a US American perspective, which has a completely different discourse around it but in Munich, a young black theater maker and Antelina Recker took an existing play with a white ensemble, basically white German ensemble, and replace and took exactly the same play and replace the actors with black actors. So, so everything was changed all the timing all the set everything was done it wasn't exactly happening on exactly the same stage, just with black actors, which for German context was really created a huge discussion in the third and then quite quite strange discussions partly also. So it was a very conceptual idea, maybe a work of a creation art you could say to a degree. And but it but it produced really quite an important discussion in Germany that was not existing in this way so far. So this is a completely different way. Yeah, black copy right and they didn't of course had any black actors and as you're right in the book. The white body seems to be neutral carte blanche, you can into a black body on stage all of a sudden is loaded, you know, even so if I understand why every movement every gesture every detail of the set design of lighting was copied from something was done by white artists for the white audience with them in mind actually written for them because they don't know anything else. It's kind of a brilliant idea actually conceptual idea. It isn't it's on so many levels because of course it also raised the question of who's in the ensemble in this theater so so it actually the Dimitri Kammerspieler under the directorship of Matthias Liedenthal were quite diverse ensemble compared to others so so but still there there was a single black actor so it was all guests, everything performing there had to be a guest because there was no no one in the ensemble could be part of it. So it was also work of institutional critique you could say, but it of course tested also how we imagine German, I mean as Germans in this case, in front of a, I guess, very German audience, how we imagine German society, and all the actors were, were German born actors also on stage so it's it's, and it represented a completely different approach. I mean it's it's a very simple idea but it was very powerful, especially in I think in a German speaking context, where certain certain discussions are maybe less advanced but also a bit less heated than than in the US for example. And it goes to that question also of identity politics you quote Akhil Bebe who said the real question is not what unites us, you know, normally was also part of political movement was feminism ecological movement. The real question is, how can we connect to what is not us you know, or include or be open and and understand understand it. What do you feel what is that new theater that you are noticing what you're writing about how is it dealing with these identity politics which is a very big question here in the States. I think I mean it's a big question here as well but of course the discourse is slightly different I guess and often it's also a problem that discusses, maybe sometimes taking too much one to one from an Anglo American context to to certain situations are different. But of course it's an important question and I, and a lot of works deal with it, and try to figure things out and it relates again to what we were talking before. Also when you were talking for example about Polish the questions like, what can we represent on stage also so who can represent whom so this discussion was allowed to represent whom who is not represented at all etc so this of course is a question. I mean, it's in the core of theater that, you know, like this is the one to one the questions that theater has to ask itself at the same time and post dramatic theater was discussing this for a long time under from from different from a different philosophical or theoretical angle, maybe, but the question, who can play whom and what do you do when you represent for example, certain certain role models was in in theater, always an important question and in the last 20 30 years, it was with post-traumatic theater discussed again and from a different angle I would say so when Polish for example says yeah but if you play, if you repeat playing Ophelia over centuries maybe this idea this model of a woman only exists because of this continuous representation in theater, even you might represent it in critical with a critical attitude but still you represent you reproduce it every time. And that of course goes into another questions of representation around identity politics etc so so I think that's it's a very important question and it's not it's not a question where there will be an easy or fast answer to it for theater because in the end you observed, you know, like the question of representation for theater means. So what, what can you then represent as a performer as an actor, can you represent it all somebody else, can you, can you basically only represent yourself on stage, which isn't discussion we had before but now it gets politically more loaded I think in the in recent years and especially again in recent months. Yeah, yeah, and I think you also very convincingly argue that it is time to take the how into consideration they said that often also easy participation is a placebo. You make people believe they participate meanwhile they really don't have anything to say how the plague goes now it's all pre thought, and that this is not really just about a formal inventions but there has to be a change you say you know going back to the middle time she say it was clear the king was the king that. And but he also was a buddy he was a representation of power. So you know he presented both the king is dead but long live the Kimi would be the internal representation of an existing society then perhaps with Louis Cartour's and the French 17th he was king and the person and God almost in one way, but the idea of democracy is it is not represented by one person it is not embodied it is not a Trump like figure. Actually it's a diversity it's a multi directional as you say representation and you cannot represent it it's impossible to represent you know that's, but you cannot not represent also that in that, in that, as you wrote in that kind of electricity that between these things you know is a there is a big chance and that as bright told us. It's just a symbolic representation on stage we should not and no longer represent. You know ways of thinking that perhaps are not reflecting the very basic idea of democracy. Yeah, Brecht in a way said it in his way that's always a gap. You have always to see the gap between the representation and what what is represented. And for me I mean not being a political theorist it's really quite astonishing how these questions of political theory are later as questions about representation and, and I think the answer is as you said yeah we have, we cannot and we cannot not represent and use representation is the same in politics and and this is a struggle, otherwise I think that yeah there there's, but we maybe are more aware now, then, then, then before or many of us are is that there's not a solution for it so it's always this this question about representation will never be solved. So, so, as other questions will never be solved so when Derrida talks about the, the, the coming democracy so democracy is always to come and never there. So, so, so there will never be the moment when it arrived in a way, and this goes. I think that there will never be one solution is is also something that where theater is a perfect place, perfect medium to to to deal with. Yeah. So, yeah, I write for me the the concept of shantanu for agonistic pluralism is is is for theater really very productive because you go in this. She is perhaps not as well known and this is, I think, a central argument and also something what you took for this theater can you talk about her idea in what it means for you that will is it's central I think to your book. Well, to simplify it a lot. She basically have time we have some time. No, no, but it's also okay to simplify I mean I'm not a theorist so I can simplify a lot to simplify, but what she basically says is that a lot of she and that's like like law would develop this theory that eventually a lot of also leftist theorists always believed that in the future there would be a moment where we could reach consensus. So in a way, Marx did with communism that would maybe arrive one day even Habermas and others roles or whatever have in a way an idea that they could be a consensus. So if we evolve enough if you learn enough if you come better human beings, better societies, we could we could agree. And what move basically says that that's, that's nice. I mean we all would love it, but it will never happen. It's just not in the human DNA if you wish. First of all, it's not in the human DNA, but also, there's not only one solution to things. There will be several solutions. So what happens when we kind of push the idea that there should be a consensus on everything. Like, also in Germany for many years, Angela Merkel was kind of representing this idea of that everything that there's a common sense there's no alternative to sentence that Maggie Thatcher already used this also send that Angela Merkel likes. So, so if there's no, no alternative, you basically just push other ideas outside, so they don't go away, people that build don't believe in it they make my tried up shut up but they don't go away. So what democracy in the end needs to be is, is, is to provide a place where differences can be acted out to where we're all the struggles can be acted out that's that's what democracy is. And what she basically says she uses these two terms of, she uses the term of agonism agonistic pluralism, which comes from from the Greek agon the competition of arguments and we tragedy is called an agon. So it comes out of theater vocabulary actually. Yeah, theater and sports vocabulary, which was close at that time, in a way. So, so we need to have in space where this competition of arguments can happen. If we don't have an agonistic space, we eventually will get an antagonistic space, a space where basically these opinions are so far apart, and so strongly divided that there's no way of even keeping them in one room not not agreeing that she doesn't want but not even being able to to have this exchange anymore. One could of course look at the US and think that looks like maybe a little bit like what what she meant. So she says, yeah, eventually there's civil war is the only thing coming out of it so democracy needs to provide an agonistic space and we need to accept that there are other opinions, which doesn't mean anything goes so there's also negotiation of the limits of these other opinions, but we if we only believe in the consensus. This will not work. And theater, I guess, for me, was always a medium where the conflict are represented from the Greek tragedy to Shakespeare, even in psychological drama you could say the conflict is maybe within one person or within one body or one mind but still it's about it's about representing conflicts are enabling conflicts in the theatrical space. So it's very much in the, in the concept of theater. And this is something where I think some example showed it that in theater still it was possible for example to have an agonistic space where outside maybe it was already impossible. Milo routed an interesting work several years ago, the Moscow trials, where he we not re-enacted but he re-repeated in a way three important trials against art in Moscow. Trials that never happened. They should have happened but they were went sent to jail. He said we need. Yeah, so, yeah, so they were, yeah, they were not there was never a fair trial to those. So, so to where like, send that exhibitions where artists went to prison and the third one is the famous pussy riot trial after their performance in the in the church. And he kind of on in three days invited very different members of society of the Russian society, really from from power right wing TV moderators, Cossacks, etc. Religious activists, orthodox activists, two artists curators, human right activists and so on in in one space and the rules of the game what were the ones of a trial. So there was a judge, there was lawyers, there was an attorney general, etc. And in three days, a discussion about Russia and the freedom of art and religion was happening in Sakharov center in Moscow, which outside of this space, I think, at that time already wouldn't have been possible anymore in Moscow so so this was maybe a good example for where art really can provide the space to to maybe have the utopia or the nostalgia of that it's still possible to at least have these opinion in one space. Yeah. No, I think it is, it is quite quite a convincing thought idea or contribution to what what we should be doing now what we should be thinking about that this idea of being in a way of a competition but a fair one and that it does not just happen in sports even so it comes out I think of the Olympic spirit I think this argon was a daemon or a spirit who manifested it to in the Olympic games you know he was the right the brother of Nike you know the victory so he was it was essential and it was more important perhaps to lose in an agonistic conflict to a great opponent, you know then to cheat or to to, as you said, you know to demonize and not taking seriously arguments of the others and I think the radicalization in the US where Republicans and Democrats are almost like the Yankees fan and Red Sox had in baseball you know by a Munich and how to I don't know so what will you say people who do not doesn't really matter. You want to win you can use every dirty trick you just have this is not the idea it's not something that is convincing and that this agonistic idea that also if I remember right from your book that term of the antagonists in a play you know where you have the one says that in one wins you know like there's the battle that kill is in Hector one wins. And that this is not the idea you know that in agonistic is there is a plurality of voices, perhaps with the normally it will never be over the fight but for a moment. Maybe someone has the better cards or the better arguments and also what is necessary. At the moment you write. It is no longer important. Instead of to show what's wrong with the world. It is important to show what could work and what works. It's a radical difference. So radical difference. I think this is really important politically but also for art. As you say, I mean, I'm speaking mainly from a from a Western European context. So, so of course it's different in different contexts but but often I the feeling like, I mean, yeah, as you described, they are different opinions they are different positions in this but it's a it's a fight. So it's not cozy it's not saying let's stay in a room and everybody has right and whatever it's it's about fighting, fighting to win knowing that there will never be. You will never win, at least not forever but you have to fight for your, your, for your ideas, and very often it's a bit like, yes, we, we, you know, it's a bit within the bubble so we know we are right but why don't the. We are busy with criticizing the others are showing what they do wrong and sometimes forget maybe to to rather formulate what is our project in it and channel move very much draws from from from Gramsci, who described this culture as heteronomies like that that it's a hedonistic, it's, it's, it's about fighting for cultural hedonism and for this you need to want to win. So you need to argue why why not only say the other is is wrong but what what is actually what you have to offer. We all have our own political examples I guess for that and also in the in the US in the potential presidential election so which were the candidates that offered something else, or which are the ones are just saying like the others are bad. So, so we need to, we cannot just say we are on the right side we need to to fight this fight. And that's what that means isn't every, every context very different so also that's maybe also important to say what works in Berlin now probably doesn't work in New York and definitely probably doesn't work in, in, I don't know in Congo or in, in, in Argentina or whatever so so every, every context needs different, different tools or adjustments of the strategies there's not one possibility also not artistically, where you can say like oh no we have a model of theater that's perfect. That will work for the next 10 years in every city in the world it won't know it might not work next month anymore. I think we just noticed in our own lives, and it also might already not work 100 kilometers from where we are. So, so it's also about specific what this this agonistic field can be or should be in a specific context. But you have created festivals, of course, you go as a professional, the many, many others. Well, how is the audience reaction is, is it often is the audience wasn't ready yet here in avant-garde which is also true. The audience won't understand or would be, or they like it, what is, how do you feel, what are, what are the in Europe at least what are the reactions of audiences to this different or truly just radically different approaches to theater. I think it is like it was in the last 20, 30 years with with a lot of post-traumatic theater that I often think it's less about, I mean, there are things that are complicated and there are situations where an audience also has to work for something which is totally fine. But I think very often it's the bigger problem is, is not that it's complicated but that you have a wrong perception of what you will enter it. So if you enter play and wait for the king, and no king comes you will be disappointed. You can get, if you come and just see, and that's maybe the other in terms of the analogy of the, of the games. If you, if you come and see, okay, what are the rules of this game, where am I, what are the rules that are proposed, how they are, are they played, and are they played well. I mean, you can also, do I agree with the rules? I don't have to agree with them. But to understand what are the rules of the specific game that is proposed is, I think, a good, good way to enter art or theater, maybe especially. And then you can still say, okay, that's not my game. I think it's stupid or I ate it or whatever. Or it's very badly played, which happens. But, but, but you have, I guess, with a lot of work, if there's an openness towards it, it's not that complicated, usually, you know, like also the example I brought when you're in there, it's not complicated to figure out what's going on. You might not want it, which is also fine, but it's not complicated. It's important to shape the expectation that it's very clear you're not going to see, you know, you're not going to see a rock concert and all that, it's a classical chamber ensemble or the other way around. You know, so you know what you come in and Lehman always says, we have said many times theater is a house, and it has many, many rooms. I think definitely this is the new edition in a way to the participatory one. The idea of the documentary in a way also what Milo Rao did in a way, you know, it's kind of a documentary theater of the real with a twist what Carol Martin and talks about. And, and I think there is something to that idea of the game or Agon, if I understand right also means assembly. It has the idea of competition, a little bit of a game like competition, but still, you know, you prove your forces your arguments. But it's also assembly. It also means, as you said, in the very beginning of the coming together, which is part of theater, you know, it's just the fact that you say, meet up as friends and we go that and you talk about what you what you saw and then you have dinner and you understand a little bit more perhaps about the life or like, you know, they didn't like it like a game you go like a soccer game or football game you might not like all the games they're not all great games, but you're still watch it. And so your idea I would like to hear more and maybe also it's something to to to look at further on in your writing I think the idea of game that you look at theater as a as a if I understand right as a game so you talk about rules of the games and understanding so tell a bit more what you what you feel could be different if it made clear that it's a game do you do you think there are played games. What we see on stage. No, it's my I think more the game is the situation we enter not not on stage but the whole situation the coming together the temporary community. We are what are the rules of this game where we enter as an audience even when the lights go out and we have to shut up and watch the stage. So what what what is. Yeah, what what rules are proposed, and if it's. And how do they, what possibilities do they offer. I mean, Nora Sternfeld, the Austrian curator she likes to say like but it becomes interesting when it's not only played with the rules but it's but the rules themselves I'd like you can you can you can play with the rules or maybe also so which is a daring concept for theater I don't know you know like do we want, for example, how much freedom do we want when we propose a democratic space is it democratic enough that the evening could go completely somewhere else, or do we say, which I don't say I'm not saying that's necessarily good. It's something we need to also negotiate so what what what are the rules we create for the evening and and what is the, what is the audience or the participants or the guests or whatever they might be, what are they invited to participate in. And it relates to to when you, when you mentioned Hansi Sleeman with the post-traumatic theater which he of course already mentioned we cannot forget the real situation we're in. So there might be a fictional situation, or they I guess they are to a degree they always isn't theater even in the, if it's sometimes a very thin or very fragile fiction. But we can never forget the real situation we are also in yes so for a certain time together with other human beings we are, we are supposed to behave in a certain way. And this needs to be part of when we are invited to play to play along in a way or to take part in it. Which it doesn't mean that I think that it's always necessary that everybody's allowed to do everything. It's about negotiating these roles and totally can be totally fine to shut up and sit in your seats and watch something on stage. If that if that makes sense in the context of the proposed game. I think it's, I think it's truly something to to think about a given definition of it that in competitive representation of ideas on stage. I think Michael Frayn, the British great British playwright once was at the Seatles that he said in a great play, everybody is right. Everybody says, you know, you don't weaken. Otherwise, every people have their own opinion and then the audience member also you know makes up their minds and and change the idea that it is actually clear to everybody it's a game but you are part of it. And there are rules of the game, but they're also visible if I understand right or they're on the line as you say they're at stake and this is something truly new and I feel with this theater of a Romani protocol or Susanne Kennedy, or the the Latour, Friederike Aytui and works what they do. You feel the rule, they are putting the rules out there and say what's going on is uncertainty or uneasiness also as you talk about. I think Fassbinder at the end of his work, he didn't want to be called director anymore. He said Spielleiter like it, which was is an old word in German theater that direct like like a leader of a game. And that is maybe something of a of to think about that that could be the artists or leaders of games in a society that needs games and they are not just commercial Yankees football bio Munich winning one two with sponsors. No games that also complete their ideas out there and audiences are asked to make up their minds it's something radically different and better. There's an example of work and that I quite like I mean it's very specific and I don't say all theater should be like this but the as an as a setup to really figure figure this out I found it really challenging and inspiring it's by a the Dutch theater make a lot of funding back and she had this project called building conversation and what she basically did over the last years is she said okay for her if you I mean her definition if you would strip everything away from theater that is not essential. It's nice to have or great or whatever but it's not essential. At the end, there would be a conversation between people following certain rules. So that's basically her definition in a nutshell, and she said like okay let's, let's try this. And what she did she took conversations from different conversation models from from different parts of the world and different concepts behind it like the Jesuits have a certain way of conversing. When they debate something that she took model from new sport quantum physicists quantum physicists to want to develop a model for creative collective creative intelligence and so on so she took very different models and took more and more in and what you would do basically would arrive in the meeting you buy for one of these these shows or whatever it is you buy a ticket so you buy for example the conversation without words. And then you go there, you have your ticket and then you're brought to a certain place you're, I don't know 15 people or something 1520 people and and somebody might, depending on what conversation you have somebody might moderated, maybe not. So you explain the rules of this conversation, and then you're left alone there's no performer. There's just the audience which then becomes the performer. So basically, and sometimes you discuss what topic you want to discuss sometimes there is a topic. Sometimes there's maybe a timeframe. Sometimes maybe in the beginning discuss how long it should last. And then you're there. So then you're supposed to have a conversation. And it's quite an interesting situation because you think like, first of all you think also about your own responsibility maybe you think it's stupid. I really didn't pay for this I don't like it so maybe I want to leave, but they're only 15 people in the room. They're like, if I leave, you know, it's maybe not fair should I stay or let's let's wait for a moment. Then who starts a conversation who says something you might not want but then you feel like I'm maybe I'm also responsible for this evening to function so there's a, there's a negotiation also about the responsibility of it. And then you have this double moment which I mentioned before that you really have a situation where you're inside and outside of a situation so so because it's called called theater and you bought this ticket, you probably also will think like, Oh, how does it work. Why are certain people speaking more than others why do I speak this way what how do people argue or whatever you kind of like a part of, of the performance, but you at the same time, you look at it and try to understand it. So I think as an experiment or as a model, really very interesting work and actually, because you asked like how does audience react to the ones I saw. Some people were in there that really thought I think in the beginning they would buy a ticket for a real real show. And, but they were actually the ones that went into it, often were the most enthusiastic afterwards because they had a completely different experience and also a way of feeling of being part of it than others others of course thought that's bullshit and maybe try to get out or stay there but but you're betrept in this you cannot easily get out which is not always a nice situation that theater needs to produce but I find it really in a very productive example. You're brilliant brilliant and so but and I think I don't know if you mentioned in your book or the silent conversation isn't innovative right tradition. And so they're very different ways you know, I mean there is in America also audience feedback rules, you know, developed you know by dancers who felt it was so wrong how audience often makes so they are rules of conversations and as you say the shakers or the others my everybody has different ways to put it out and it's a democratic art in that sense it is something where the audience members are in charge in a way they are the director they are the writer they are participating in it. And this is one of significance and what we have lost is the idea that democracy is a participatory in one could say in your idea game participatory enterprise in that theater has to also try to get back to that truth and maybe that's the most important thing that engage do something and and the activism and then later also comes in and I think this is something we have a responsibility perhaps you know to get people out of the idea to be a consumer. Yes, what did he like in a supermarket you have 20 felt pens which one should I take which play do I go to which candidate do I what did he or she say yesterday what be participate in democracy take time. Yeah, sorry I interrupted you know no no no I totally agree but also it's at the same time. It's of course like in this work but also democracy not complete freedom so their rules so their rules proposed and you can, you can, I mean, you can decide not to obey them but maybe the others want to obey them and you have to negotiate why you would change the rules but the rules are very tangible. And I think maybe that's one of the most important things it's not. Everything should be possible or everybody needs to have all rights in the performance all the time. It's about being able to, to, to understand the rules and to accept them and deal with them. So, so it's not about, it's not about manipulation. I think I'm not a big fan of manipulation in theater. So it's a, because I think it's a, it's obscuring. It's obscuring the rules and it's at least in political theater I'm not the fan of manipulation that say which I might enjoy when I watch a Hollywood movie. I'm, I don't enjoy it if it's about, if it's supposed to be a political situation that is created that there's that's a contradiction for me that is, that is often not very clearly understood. Yeah, it's true. I think even when these first Europeans arrived at the Mayflower on that ship they had a little moment of revolt and didn't know what to do and before they left the ship they agree to rules in that new world, you know, and some say that was actually the predecessor to the American constitution very interesting ones, you know, also to listen to respect because now they went to a territory that perhaps was no longer protected because they landed much more East than they had, but they landed in Plymouth, they were no longer English or some territory was not, you know, granted as a right, and they had to come up with something and I think this idea of responsible participatory communication and that theater and performance is a space and this is something significant and one could argue that great directors like the Peter Steins of the Patrice Chirots, the Jerome Robbins maybe still they were like the Prince, you know, they were the Louis Catoros who when they were directing they had the seat where normally the Prince would watch and see everything perfect they are now, you know, and they had the geniuses and they have antagonistic conflicts on stage where something wins at the end or even if it loses and so you really do still represent models, you know, they are no longer contemporary in that big idea of democracy where it is hard to do, it has to be renegotiated, reinvented as theater does but it has to be participatory and I think this is a fantastic new perhaps also a way to look at it the way you apply Chantal Mouffel's ideas Do you, do you yourself create work, have you done games, you created games, or do you see your festival, is that a big game? Well, I mean as a curator I created situations together with artists where I think certain rules apply for example but I think in normal festivals they are a bit less, I mean there are rules as we know you have to come at time and you buy your tickets and so on but these are the new rules but to play with this game is sometimes it's possible I guess also in a curatorial concept so the one project you mentioned through this concrete that we did together with the curatorial team at Starrischer Herbst eight years ago but now pretty much exactly now eight years ago which was a big gathering of really hundreds of people from all over the world, artists, activists, theorists on the question on the relationship between art and politics at that time it was it was the time when the all the square movements had started actually when we started conceiving this project it was still before Occupy Wall Street would happen when we finally did it Occupy Wall Street was already over at least at the at Sacroty Park so this time of course changed quite fast but the idea was to bring everything together in a certain context and with certain rules so we wanted to capture also this moment of intensity so it was really a marathon of 170 hours where there was always programs so there was no break one thing stopped and the other was happening so it was also during night and so it had a very rigid like the rules were also that it was very rigid if something was supposed to stop at one o'clock it stopped at one o'clock and then the next thing would happen so there was not much freedom in it and parallely to there was a space with completely different rules where we tried and where it was possible to continue things for hours to do that things that we didn't create or organize where people could just could take the space like a so it was like both like a vertical machine running and horizontal very open space and and two different ways of negotiating rules for example so so so this would be an example where I think also in a curatorial concept and the idea of rules came in and also obviously not necessarily nice rule so it was also about making the rules for example we as curators that are an artistic organization like stylish apps that there's of course also hierarchies involved so we didn't try to hide them in a way we kind of like rather try to make them very visible and discussable in a way. Yeah. So, yeah. So, so I think that would be one so of course also in curatorial concept that can be can be rules and games dealing with time and space and how you organize people and so on that can be developed together with artists so so there's also space in the curatorial that goes in the same and I think your toy concept also can can or should to a degree provide agonistics is free as an agonist space is so so I wouldn't so I wouldn't confuse the role of a curator program with the one of an artist but I would say they are they can touch overlap at moments or create something together in certain in certain situations. In the idea of a Joseph boys and this enlarged idea you know of an artist I think certainly I think in my view is this is not his state you know uttering you know your festival your ideas what you what you put out a one question I had I didn't see that this theater denougas digression from the tour and Frederick I treat we did you see it. No, I also decided also didn't see now. This is interesting project and my French unfortunately is very bad so what did you hear what did you hear about and tell us that I was talking with them about it and and so I heard a lot of material of it but I think that the general idea of course was Well, they created to say that this was created as an as an alternative model to the climate conference of the UN that was happening in Paris at that time. So it was not supposed to to to explain it or to to represent it to a degree as many protocol did on the same climate conference, but rather to to create a utopian version of it. And of course it was based also on on Latour's idea of a parliament of things that other entities than humans should be should have a voice in there but how do you represent a river in a legal or a parliamentary conversation how do you represent an animal or a whole landscape. So it was more it was basically, it was less about the theatrical setup, then about taking different models of talking to each other maybe in the way a little bit like Lord upon and back to find different ways of of really representing interest trying to represent very different interests also of entities that could not represent their interests for themselves in there. And so it was inviting experts and and a lot of students and activists from from from different parts of the world to create a charter so it also had a goal it was really about putting something out at the end a different kind of charter for against the climate catastrophe or to prevent the climate catastrophe. And so it was really very much about creating, yeah, utopian version maybe or at least the optimistic version of how this conversation should should function. Yeah, yeah, and I think also their idea of the kind of the non human actor that normally even on stages, they use it as a political idea but also use the metaphor of theater performance that a non human actors like the virus right now or plants animals, the critical sphere like 15 meters above the earth and below the earth and it allows life. And so we have to think of it and think that humans are no longer at the center, like that king like idea, but we also have that we think we are Louis cut horse we are the king of the world because we are humans, you know, especially white or white males like we are the you know so that this is decentralized you know there's a variety of forces around us and we have to be aware if we want to survive if we want to leave the world is better place always the chance to become a better place things and really have to to change. I also liked I think you quoted Tanya Bruguera who also was here in the program not in this book but in some other work you said where she said the French Revolution was a great gesture of democratizing the arts and life and we haven't had anything this significant since she says why do we still go to the palaces why do we go you know to the Louvre where you also you know you kind of a door that's the relics of these time how we go to palaces she says no we should go to the houses of people we should go inside the lives of people you know how and represent that in a way that is reflecting also our society and in also it like in whatever the documentaries that are the real often these are the quiet stories you know they are not the spectacular reality TV shows with you know extremes that you know the quietness that quiet theater movement of Japan in a way that even though it's written but comes out of that in the everyday is something very powerful and significant in the life of the people and not the exceptional one but the everyday the normal ones and what we experience and and I think all these points we talked about together truly a point to a new engagement or to a different engagement with you wrote about the nature feed of Oklahoma to change a little bit as the mounting pysons that to something completely different but still it's connected where do they fit in this idea of yours but yeah just to say maybe say a few words about them so people might not know well yeah yeah nature here of Oklahoma is I think one of the most interesting theater companies for me since a couple of years and they I would say they a New York based company that very much challenged I think a lot of aesthetic conventions in their work and even so I would say the audience usually sits in the room and shuts up in their work I think the way how they are challenged by the by the work by the by the on stage creates quite an active participation at least with the ones that are interested in it so I think in terms of the theater as itself the theater space as a site specific space and working with that they are very good example I don't have them in the book because I also don't I don't in a way I'm also fighting in terms of what I'm fighting but I I think it would be helpful to to to aim for a strong notion of the political when we talk about political art so there has been the tendency of saying well everything is political and all theater is political and so on I understand the arguments I just don't think they're very productive so for me it's bad so so in this book I really focus on works that also explicitly also their contact content want to be political and deal with political issues while nature theater Oklahoma in many ways takes a more poetic approach to that and also I think creates political situation and also raises political questions in that but that's not there not their main goal so so I rather would separate these fears a little bit for it's a bit forced to separate them but for the for understanding what what is happening it was helpful for me so actually they they are not even mentioned in the book of political theater even so they are very important company from for me but they are there you see that they are they are formal idea of theater and the participatory of site aspect of their work, you know, the need below and others you know it's it's clearly another one I say it's important I think to also get a shot out to them because it's so hard for them to get produced in New York nobody really doesn't they're like dogs you know they're in the way that's complicated meanwhile there is theater like this that we that has what I think also clear bishop talks about and you mentioned the situation of this is a they create a situation that points beyond what you just see points to the larger picture so your book I think does that it points this way I like it to a larger larger themes we all are wrestling with especially also in America where we have to think what are forms we use and I always like to quote man Ray the great American artist I have seen an exhibition of his early work and there were paintings. They were landscape paintings he grew up in richwood I think in you just and they are so blind I would say I was so I couldn't believe my eyes they were beautiful. Beautiful work of an artist about men Ray said, I cannot be an artist who paints landscapes it's not of our time. It is not the message we have to move it is not contemporary. It is wrong as Joseph boys said you know you want to be an artist and you go in an art store and you buy canvas and a frame. Maybe that's already the first mistake. You know and so the question really is it's not can you do that of course people can write plays or direct and they can direct like a Peter Stein but perhaps work together ensembles as you also point out to teams of doers three years of directors companies that are no longer from one country. They are you know international it's hard to say are their friends or German or often people are chosen by nationality that that also has changed and and should change so I think it is of of importance to say this is also next to doing that you have to also choose what form what you said earlier. You know, how do you do that is also significant next to what is also how you choose the form you represent something that is already of significance before you have the first day of rehearsal and I think we need to be aware of that. And I think your your your your book points out towards that coming closer to the end so a question would be the time of Corona perhaps also the black lives matter movement but especially also time of Corona. You quote Hannah Muller and it was a quote I think that also fits he Hannah Muller said what makes theater special is not that you have a live audience that you have happens live. He said what actually is of significance that potentially the audience member could die or can die, you know, that are potentially dying, you know they saw the last things he she sees in her life and now we have Corona, which is, you know, appropriate quote. So, um, so in your thinking and your research and I'm sure you did a lot of reading in this time. So is something changing in your mind or in things you read do you detect something. I think it's a bit too early to say when we talk about theater I think for me it's rather like that it may maybe brings out more clearly what theater can and what it can't do. So I think in the end theater is a medium. I mean, not very original but it is a medium that needs and life life encounter of people that needs people coming together. If it becomes digital or streamed online etc. It changes becomes another art form might be just as great or whatever but but it loses this so I think this the the scale of theater is human is human size even so we might want to bring in other entities as we said, but I think it's a it's a it's it's it's it's limited in the scale it's limited in the possibilities can negotiate society in this scale that became for me with a lot of experiments even more clear and then I think there's it. So also what what is the political potential of it became more clear in it so that's so in a way I would say for me my view in theater or the possibilities or theater didn't change but maybe became more even more more clear in that and and well stepping bit out of theater I think what what is maybe you know like in the beginning of the lockdowns there was a lot of talk that capitalism comes to an end now and so on I mean this unfortunately was probably not very realistic at any moment but what it maybe did is also and which is also important for the theater that opens some moments of of showing that things could be different. So there is an alternative. Suddenly when health system gets nationalized in some country suddenly where everybody says it's impossible suddenly it's possible from one day to the other. When certain subsidies are suddenly even in New York I just had a talk with a friend from New York said like for the first time in their lives they got they got subsidies and money money from the government to support that so suddenly I mean these are pragmatic examples but I think also in terms of also in terms of communalizing certain structures and things and infrastructures we saw that maybe something else is possible and this I think we should we should probably keep and and and try to to make to use theater also to to let this not go and let this moment not go saying no but we just saw that things could be different actually it's possible even so so you know it was interesting to see that even some I would say in Germany even some liberal neoliberal politicians seem to be quite happy that for a moment and political politics seem to be a player towards all these big companies and the market and so on again where they usually are told you don't have anything to say anyway it's regulated by the market and by the big corporations and companies suddenly there was a moment. No actually there can be something else and this we should probably try not to let go other than when you think about theater. Yeah, yeah, so for a moment at least lives matter and we say we rather shut down all businesses and bars and and offices in New York City so we save lives of people from especially elderly people I think it is it quite something is that matters that it does matter and this is what also was with a black lives matter that one life lost it did matter it did matter and it created something I think this is hopeful and it is important and yeah so really really thank you and I think they are an ongoing contest what is discussed in theater but theater itself also you know is part of that that competition what it is about Peter Sondi the great German German writer who said you know what in his theory of theater it's like a prometiosis for a while it's chained on the rocks you know and it's a slave to politics or socialist realism or as a slave to capitalism or a slave to the kings and queens and it it yarns to be liberated in this that you know eagle come and eats his liver but he ultimately will be in a new form and there will be a reincarnation till again he will be suffering but I think this is a moment perhaps there is a liberation of this promethean idea of that promise of theater that as a representative imaginary symbolic way you know shows what is great about mankind and and I think what you all wrote about you know the new forms of coexisting what do we really want what world do we want in the theater and how can theater be part of the reflection of the world we want to see and without preaching you said without lecturing and how can we find self answers we are confident that yes you know something something can be different about the big questions you know what forms do we need and what actions politically can we take without having just an attitude without just pretending to participate and I think this is a really really important also for every artist and audience members to participate and so thank you really for for taking the time and I know it's not enough to go in all of it what you talked about the immersions or activism the non-human or as you also call the post-human theater what we see but at least gives us an idea for the idea and thanks for howl around to to have us again I think this is a great forum and I hope people were listening in today and to talk about this tomorrow we again have Milo Rao with us the one you Florian talked about Katja de Geist and Carmen Hornbostel and Milo put together a book on what theater why is theater why is it important now they talked also asked for written answers and they will come and I think he's just a day before opening the Berlin Schauspieler Berlin the Berlin Schausbühne again so it's a big honor we feel that he took time out and then he goes back to Congo for one of her Congo trials about the same Swiss I think a steel mining company where he feels that is great creating such a great inhuman and unjust actions there and he they got in his symbolic trial of course accused for good reasons and and so Milo will be with us and also I think build on what you say and I think this is also something if you have time to listen in tomorrow as for today this is an important will be an important thoughts to listen to so thank you all for being with us today and again Florian thank you for doing this for writing that book for letting us participate in your research and your thoughts of what you have done like a painter or paints for six months or a year and then you see the pictures you wrote something and put it down and now we can participate in your journey so in this autistic practice and I think this is what we can learn for us in our lives we have to art act like them and listen to them and and also follow the rules which might not be was on of course but great conversation really really thank you and to all listeners thanks for taking the time to listen in this was about a book today perhaps a bit more complex but I think it's really significant what Florian talks about and and the festivals around you know I'm sure he has an email he's approachable you know to curate to do things and I hope to also maybe join us in New York we are trying to create a festival in the summer of 2022 also to really do it in all five boroughs with all the CUNY theaters was New York organization but all the work that's happening already in the park is in the very beginning but I think what you do there is at the very center what we also like to do and so maybe you can can join us and help us and advise us and connect us so this is a great contribution thank you and I hope you will be able all of you to listen in tomorrow and and I hope that for also the people who listen that there's something in there that touched them that resonated for their own lives or for their own communities how to reach out how to create these assemblies these discussions and this is really transferable to the world we live in and that's why I think this is so important Florian what what you have to say so stay safe stay tuned and goodbye