eJournals Forum Modernes Theater 32/1

Forum Modernes Theater
0930-5874
2196-3517
Narr Verlag Tübingen
10.2357/FMTh-2021-0003
Es handelt sich um einen Open-Access-Artikel der unter den Bedingungen der Lizenz CC by 4.0 veröffentlicht wurde.http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
The independent performing arts in Berlin, counterpart to the established city and state theatre system, have undergone fundamental change over the last decades. As part of this change, the 100 Grad Festival, a crucial event for the scene for over twelve years, ended in 2015 and was replaced by the Performing Arts Festival (PAF), which addresses the city of Berlin as a whole. This paper will trace the institutional transition from 100 Grad to PAF by highlighting organizational continuity and differences, and by analyzing the discourse accompanying the shift in the field of Berlin’s independent performing arts. The point of departure for the paper are questions of curation, which both festivals reject, yet re-employ in different strategies, especially towards emergent artists. However, contextualizing the festivals within broader tendencies in city development – the governmentality of the ‘creative city’ – shows that opposing strategies may equally fall in line with aesthetic capitalism, leading to a paradoxical outcome.
2021
321 Balme

(Non)curating the Creative City: From 100 Grad to Performing Arts Festival Berlin

2021
Benjamin Hoesch
(Non)curating the Creative City: From 100 Grad to Performing Arts Festival Berlin 1 Benjamin Hoesch (Gießen) The independent performing arts in Berlin, counterpart to the established city and state theatre system, have undergone fundamental change over the last decades. As part of this change, the 100 Grad Festival, a crucial event for the scene for over twelve years, ended in 2015 and was replaced by the Performing Arts Festival (PAF), which addresses the city of Berlin as a whole. This paper will trace the institutional transition from 100 Grad to PAF by highlighting organizational continuity and differences, and by analyzing the discourse accompanying the shift in the field of Berlin ’ s independent performing arts. The point of departure for the paper are questions of curation, which both festivals reject, yet re-employ in different strategies, especially towards emergent artists. However, contextualizing the festivals within broader tendencies in city development - the governmentality of the ‘ creative city ’ - shows that opposing strategies may equally fall in line with aesthetic capitalism, leading to a paradoxical outcome. (Not) Curating a Festival “ [T]his festival is not curated and is presented by the independent performing arts community itself[.] ” 2 With this statement, the Performing Arts Festival Berlin (PAF) introduces itself in the “ About ” section of its website. What reads as just a descriptive characterization of the festival, is in fact an ambitious claim with far-reaching consequences: Curating a festival is usually understood as the selection and arrangement of artistic productions by the organizers or representatives, who are tasked as curators, aligning all individual contributions with overarching ideas and ensuring that the aesthetic quality matches institutional expectations. As Florian Malzacher explains, a curator “ not only sets the artworks into a given discourse ” , but “ creates that discourse himself for his own environment ” - a practice of exercising power: “ it ’ s about choice, about defining who is allowed to be a part of it, allowed to produce and present, allowed to earn money. ” 3 While the history of modern theatre festivals is closely connected with the practice of curation, its counter concept, non-curation, is less common, but just as deeply rooted: When the Edinburgh International Festival (EIF) was founded in 1947 as one of the first major festivals after World World II, the uncurated Edinburgh Festival Fringe emerged immediately as - in the words of performance theorist and author of Theatre & Festivals, Keren Zaiontz - “ a deliberate counterpoint to the tastemakers of the EIF ” 4 . The Edinburgh Fringe not only grew to far surpass the EIF, becoming the world ’ s largest art festival, but also set an example for the spread of uncurated fringe festivals all over the world. If a festival in this tradition declares that it is ‘ not curated ’ , it rejects the normative judgment that lies in every selective decision, lets art speak for itself and relinquishes quality control in order to allow for nonconformism: “ participation in fringes around the globe is, ideally, open to anyone seeking to throw their hat in the ring. ” 5 More than just Forum Modernes Theater, 32/ 1 (2021), 13 - 25. Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen DOI 10.2357/ FMTh-2021-0003 an organizing principle, the absence of curatorial authority indicates the absence of hierarchical power and becomes a prerequisite for self-representation: the performing arts and artists are supposed to be not the object displayed by the festival, but subjects presenting themselves as a community. Fringe festivals might see themselves as “ antidotes to the paternalistic (We know what art is good for you) programming choices of established festivals and repertory festival theatres ” 6 ; however, as Zaiontz illustrates regarding the Edinburgh Fringe, they willingly or unwillingly produce their own dynamics of exclusion with high economic barriers and the rationing of time and venues, resulting in “ a push-and-pull between the socially democratizing and homogenizing forces ” 7 . Seen in this light, the short introductory statement declaring a renunciation of curation and the self-representation of an independent community raises more questions than it answers: Is there really no selection mechanism at work, be it based on aesthetic, formal, economic, social or political criteria? And how does an independent community present itself? The claim made by the PAF must seem audacious, especially in its local context: After all, the field of independent artists in Berlin is estimated to comprise over 6,000 people and 500 groups in a wide range of disciplines, styles and institutional contexts. 8 In its selfunderstanding, PAF suggests that it represents this community as a clearly defined body with one identifiable collective will. But which of the many artistic voices wrote that sentence and how many would subscribe to it? The festival ’ s characterization of itself as “ not curated ” seems even more dubious in the light of its historical background. In fact, PAF was only established in 2016 and followed in the footsteps of another festival that had run for twelve years: 100 Grad (German for ‘ 100 degrees ’ ). Despite having a very different organizational structure, 100 Grad also claimed to be non-curated, thus allowing Berlin ’ s community of independent performing artists to present themselves on their own terms: “ Join in at 100 Grad Berlin - marathon, runway and party of Berlin ’ s independent scene! ” 9 As we will see, such statements by festival organizations do not reflect the actualities, but rather outline a utopian goal towards which organizations can work in very different ways. In the distinctive organizational models of 100 Grad and PAF - both, in fact, versions of the fringe festival - , different, sometimes opposing strategies are employed to achieve the same goal. These strategies, however, are not neutral, but rather involve different understandings of what curating is and can be - and, moreover, what the independent performing arts in Berlin are and strive to be. Both festival models do not target specific audiences, but claim to be festivals for the artists, celebrating the diversity of the artistic scene. 10 However, the different self-understandings, as this paper will show, are closely linked to the position of the independent performing arts in the city of Berlin, its relationships towards the nonartist broader public and models of the city that the art scene wants to follow or reject, to antagonize or help create. This paper will trace the institutional transition from 100 Grad to Performing Arts Festival Berlin by highlighting organizational continuity and differences, and by analyzing the discourse accompanying the shift in the field of independent performing arts in Berlin. As part of their cultural and political agenda, festivals refer to and distinguish themselves from each other ’ s strategies of (non-)curating; however, placing the festivals in the context of broader historic tendencies in city development shows that opposing strategies may equally fall in line with aesthetic capitalism, leading to a paradoxical outcome: expansion and apparent 14 Benjamin Hoesch achievements of performing arts in a city can turn against the community itself, making independent artistic practice even harder in the future. 100 Grad Berlin: Precarious Marketing Tool as Counterculture The festival 100 Grad was initiated in 2002 by two independent Berlin theatres - Sophiensæle and Hebbel am Ufer (HAU). Both venues had themselves only been founded a few years before, with the mission to house theatre productions and guest performances outside the established city and state theatre system. Under the direction of Amelie Deuflhard at Sopiensæle and Matthias Lilienthal at HAU, both gained recognition for programmes that transcended disciplinary and national boundaries, including festivals of contemporary dance or music as well as numerous international co-productions. 11 But as they relied heavily on the local scene for both their artists and their audience, they also aspired to become key institutions for Berlin ’ s independent performing arts. In this balancing act, the festival 100 Grad with its focus on the local instead of the international sphere, helped to maintain connections and familiarity with the scene, which embraced both HAU and Sophiensæle as centres of its community: Deuflhard called 100 Grad a “ simultaneous amusement park, trade fair, wedding and family meeting ” . 12 For 100 Grad, HAU and Sophiensaele - later joined by the smaller venues Ballhaus Ost and Theaterdiscounter - greeted artists with radical openness. Each year, they issued an open call for artistic contributions of all genres and production contexts - without any topical or formal guidelines; the first 120 entries submitted after the opening of registration were automatically accepted. Thus, the organizers had no control over what was shown on their stages. For performing artists, capacity was the only obstacle to appearing in their programme, which resulted in a self-proclaimed ‘ theatre marathon ’ of 120 shows - with five shows running simultaneously - over only four days. Such an open stage programme, of course, was only possible with strict structural limitations that all shows had to meet: without exception, they were allowed to last a maximum of 45 minutes and had to be set up and dismantled in half an hour. The festival offered basic technical support, but no funding for productions, artists ’ fees or travel and accommodation. Given these requirements, it is no surprise that the majority of participants were non-established, mostly young artists without prior institutional attachment: students or recent graduates from art and theatre schools, hopeful artists-in-the-making, semiand wannabe professionals. The organizers of 100 Grad promised them a chance to make an entrance into Berlin ’ s art scene, and they hoped to be ‘ discovered ’ or, at least, gain recognition. These aspirations were instigated by successful examples - and by promising statements by the organizers: “ 100 Grad has already prompted several tours in recent years. Especially smaller theatres [. . .] have issued invitations after their scouting at 100 Grad ” , Lilienthal told a newspaper in 2011. 13 As this proves, while the programming of 100 Grad avoided curation, the festival event itself was not void of curatorial power but rather aimed to attract decision makers from other theatres. Moreover, a competition was held as part of the festival: An independent jury of young journalists and curators from other festivals awarded the five best shows a prize without financial endowment, but with the promise of more prominent mentions in press reports plus an invitation to give a further guest performance at Best of 100 Grad, a mini-festival held a few months later. 15 (Non)curating the Creative City: From 100 Grad to Performing Arts Festival Berlin It is notable, however, that, in addition to these young emerging artists, established professionals also took part in the festival. Some of them had already toured nationally and internationally, but still lacked institutional ties to Berlin. For those planning to connect with the city ’ s independent performing arts scene, it seems to have been obligatory to first appear in the professionally less attractive environment of 100 Grad. Participating in the festival, thus, served as a marketing tool and an investment in expected future collaborations. Yet surprisingly, 100 Grad ’ s open calls did not just reach and resonate with the Berlin community, but - despite its precarious conditions - attracted more and more artists from other German cities and other European countries. Over time, the festival became less about Berlin ’ s artistic community, and instead a touring venue and transit station for an interregional and international scene. 100 Grad contributed significantly to the development of a touring market for low-budget and technically simple productions, often mainly fuelled by the artists ’ own time and resources, as well as their hope for more remunerative work in the future. The growth in the number of applications to more than 300 per year (the first 120 of which continued to be accepted) proves the attractiveness of the Berlin scene for such aspirations as well as the range of a pull-effect initiated by the open stage principle. 14 Discourse analysis around the 100 Grad Festival shows that competitive and strategic functions of the festival were downplayed in order to promote a collective spirit and a cult status of the festival in the artistic community. The organizing institutions HAU and Sophiensæle relativized their own power position during the festival. In retrospect, their representatives described the festival as “ chaos ” and “ excess ” , which as such eludes authoritarian control. 15 The organizers emphasized their own passionate overexertion and exhaustion, which they shared with artists and audience, calling their festival “ an insane, manic thing with magnificent colleagues ” . 16 This ironic ambiguity was mirrored by the critics: Even the most nostalgic reviews and commentaries on 100 Grad do not attribute a generally high aesthetic quality to the festival, but rather see it as a “ lovely mixture of discoveries, nonsense and whimsy ” - which they nevertheless value as the distinctive “ charm ” of 100 Grad. 17 The discourse matches Zaiontz ’ description of the fringe festival as “ one of those rare sites where audiences and critics expect, even accept, failure as part of the indiscriminate culture of the festival ” 18 . In this playful embracing of negativity, both the organizers and the audience mark the festival and its community - the independent performing arts in Berlin - as the city ’ s counterculture. The term ‘ counterculture ’ denotes a relatively isolated environment with a distinctive code, positioned by its members under the surface of a mainstream culture and imagined to be resistant to or at least decoupled from its major forces. As counterculture, the independent performing arts do not even aspire to address everyone in Berlin, but rather to evade or subvert the rules of the functional city by revaluing that which is mainly excluded from the mainstream and its norms of efficiency, productivity and conformity to the market. Institutional Delegitimization and Reinvention It is very obvious, however, that the countercultural self-conception of 100 Grad is paradoxical, given the immense productivity by a vast amount of serial, unpaid artistic labour which constituted the festival itself. This is why, in later years, critical voices emerged: 16 Benjamin Hoesch They accused the organizers of demanding and encouraging self-exploitation of the artists and questioned whether the celebration of precarious excess in institutions that could only offer a very short-term and fragile home really served the arts and artists. 19 This criticism became more valid with the overall changes in Berlin ’ s independent performing arts: The scene had developed a higher degree of self-organization and confidence, artists formed associations such as Landesverband freie darstellende Künste (LAFT) in 2007 and Koalition der Freien Szene in 2012. In the following years, these platforms successfully made demands for more public funding of the independent performing arts and a recognition of their contribution to the city ’ s cultural profile. Instead of being grateful for a volatile chance to appear on an open stage, artists and producers in such associations negotiated with cultural policy makers and lobbied for lasting improvements in their working conditions. Their attitude towards 100 Grad was, at the very least, ambivalent: The associations participated in the ancillary programme of the festival in order to reach out for new members, but also to advocate for non-precarious professionalism. 20 The minutes of the members ’ meetings of LAFT since 2013 document discussions about the idea of creating their own festival, coupled with harsh criticism of 100 Grad: There is currently no festival in Berlin of the whole independent scene. [. . .] The 100 Grad Berlin Festival has not covered all important independent venues. Diversity was not displayed. Therefore, the 100 Grad Berlin Festival should not be continued. 21 With its legitimacy questioned, the festival did not manage to achieve a durable institutional life independent of its original promoters: Only few years after the founders Deuflhard and Lilienthal left their respective theatres and the city, it was announced that the thirteenth edition of 100 Grad in 2015 would be the last. The new artistic directors of Sophiensæle and HAU sought a collaboration with LAFT in the development of a new festival format: “ The aim is to organize a Berlin-wide festival including all venues in 2016 and following years. ” 22 Thus, the Performing Arts Festival Berlin was born - and LAFT became its main organizer. PAF: Reflecting Change in Berlin ’ s Independent Performing Arts PAF officially describes the event as the “ successor ” to 100 Grad, which “ pays tribute to the new situation ” : Over the last twelve years, the city of Berlin as well as the independent performing arts community have changed and developed enormously. A vast number of new, international artists and groups have moved to the city and many existing groups have established and professionalized themselves. Numerous new performance venues and locations have opened and the quality as well as quantity of independent productions have increased. 23 These fundamental changes - which the organizers not only describe, but also support and performatively evoke - led to the drastic formal alterations of PAF compared to the 100 Grad festival. They are based on four major aspects: First, the professionalism of the independent performing arts - for LAFT both an aim of many of their consulting or advanced training activities and an important argument in the political struggle for improved working conditions or minimum wages. This crucial claim, however, seemed no longer compatible with the open stage principle. Apparently, organizers feared that independent performing arts could be too 17 (Non)curating the Creative City: From 100 Grad to Performing Arts Festival Berlin easily confused with amateur theatrics or hobby art enthusiasts if they risked admitting anyone defining themselves as artists to the highly sought after stages. 24 But how could they ensure the professionality of the participants without selecting and curating them? This became possible with the second aspect of change: the growth in independent performance venues and, with it, an institutional diversification of the scene, including private theatres, community centres, cooperative rehearsal spaces and restored or appropriated historical buildings. The organizers of PAF attempted to include this whole spectrum with a radical decentralization: They called upon all independent theatre organizations to participate as venues and to schedule and finance shows for the festival. In fact, from the beginning, between 50 and 60 locations all over Berlin responded to the call and submitted their contributions. 25 PAF organizers did not judge or select them, but compiled everything that was practically possible into the festival programme and advertised it with equal acknowledgment given to all institutions and artists. This is what they mean by characterizing themselves as an uncurated festival: The power of selection is spread among the many contributing parties, as each theatre location decides on its own terms which artists, genre or aesthetics will be co-produced. Thus, a stronger organizational commitment to the artists, who become figureheads for the coproducing venue, is required, as well as a much closer link between performance and location, also allowing for site-specific or public-space work. Compared to serial touring performances in a black box theatre, institution, location and artists strongly overlap in the PAF programme and shape each other ’ s public identities. This close connection is the reason for a new requirement in the festival regulations: PAF ’ s Open Call is explicitly limited to only “ Berlin-based groups and/ or artists ” . 26 In order to not misinterpret this return of the independent performing arts to the local sphere as a form of self-isolation from external influences, one has to take a third aspect of change into account: the increasing internationalization of Berlin ’ s independent performing arts scene. With more and more artists from a wide range of countries moving to the city and many others making it their base for international co-productions and worldwide touring, the categorical differentiation between the local and the international sphere collapses. PAF tries to enhance this development, by advertising internationally, by providing all information - also for contributing venues - in German and English, or by inviting professionals - including curators - from abroad to a special networking programme. As the local scene is understood to be constantly influenced by and influencing international markets, the new regulation - requiring all participating artists to have their “ working base ” in Berlin - does not limit cross-boundary exchange or cut the local scene off from international competition. “ Introducing . . . ” : The Curated Centre of an Uncurated Programme Nevertheless, one source of influx into the scene is now under selective control - a segment the former festival 100 Grad had mobilized, but never regulated: young, emerging artists, newcomers (or, to use the German term, ‘ Nachwuchs ’ ). At PAF, they are now able to apply to a special programme line, hosted by the same organizations as 100 Grad: Sophiensæle, HAU, Ballhaus Ost and Theaterdiscounter. With this prominent institutional backing, the newcomers ’ platform is not part of the ancillary programme, but rather at the centre of the whole festival - 18 Benjamin Hoesch while at the same time detached from the regular programme by the focus placed on it: In fact, the first PAF in 2016 started with three days of only newcomers ’ pieces to “ kick off the festival ” before three days of the regular programme. 27 Since the following year, newcomer shows have been mingled with all the other events - but still cover prime time slots and the very first pages in the printed programme. Why this central position for what could be justly considered a niche programme? Feeling indebted to non-established artists and taking pleasure in ‘ discovering new talent ’ could certainly be said to have been inherited from 100 Grad. But more than that, it seems crucial for the institutional legitimacy of PAF as its successor to not appear as a closed circle, but to enable and encourage innovation and the influx of interesting people, ideas and practices. Aware of these expectations, PAF organizers present themselves as sympathetic and supportive: In order to put your foot in the door, the door still has to be at least a crack open. Precisely because of the fact that it ’ s especially difficult for young artists and ensembles who are not yet established within Berlin ’ s independent performing arts community to find an open door in the right place for themselves and their audience, the festival is again dedicating a special focus this year to newcomers within Berlin ’ s theater landscape. The goal in all of this is not only to enchant the audiences, but also to ease access to the production houses for young artists. And, of course, the other way around. 28 Since 2017, the newcomers ’ platform has been called “ Introducing . . . ” and open to any artists, groups, and collectives whose work is based in Berlin or will be based in Berlin, who work professionally but who are not yet professionally established in Berlin ’ s independent performing arts community and who define themselves as “ newcomers ” in the broadest sense. 29 This very broad scope acknowledges that a wide range of artists of different ages, backgrounds and status face problems establishing and securing a professional career in Berlin ’ s independent performing arts and therefore may find “ Introducing . . . ” an attractive proposal. But as much as PAF emphasizes openness, solidarity and support, “ Introducing . . . ” differs from 100 Grad as well as from the overall festival in one key aspect - all acts are explicitly and meticulously selected and curated. In the four years of PAF until 2019, the number of applications to the newcomers ’ platform increased from 80 to 165 per year, while the number of invited acts decreased from 15 to only six. The few chosen ones, after all, are presented prominently, provided with performance fees and technical support, and invited to special mentoring and feedback talks. As for new faces in the scene, this programme values quality over quantity: access to Berlin ’ s independent performing arts becomes exclusive, but those who make it get a fair chance to endure on the professional market. Compared to 100 Grad, the relation between the community of independent performing arts and newcomers now seems reversed: For Amelie Deuflhard, 100 Grad “ presents the humus of theatre, which nourishes the scene. ” 30 Now it is the “ community opening itself ” , which shares its achievements and knowledge with the limited number of newcomers selected to help them sustain their artistic practice. While the influx and market dynamics of the scene seem to be under its own control, the city of Berlin is portrayed as completely open to innovative performing arts - as in this description of the “ Introducing . . . ” programme: 19 (Non)curating the Creative City: From 100 Grad to Performing Arts Festival Berlin artists introduce themselves to a local independent performing arts community, artists present themselves to a new audience, artists encounter the profiles and structure of Berlin ’ s production institutions and the artists mutually get to know each other. They also introduce themselves to the Berlin audience and get ready for their first date - with all of the accompanying butterflies in the stomach and exciting curiosity about the unknown. 31 Berlin: Towards the Creative City This imagined affectionate relationship between artists and the audience is also a new aspect in the discourse of the independent performing arts - especially, as the audience becomes a far more general public: From 100 Grad to PAF, attendance figures have risen from 3,500 to 11,000 - which shows not just an expansion of a community, but a radical transformation of the festival ’ s public sphere, which is now intended to reach “ throughout the entire city [. . . ,] both for a Berlin-based audience as well as interested parties and professionals throughout Germany and abroad ” . 32 The fourth, most momentous aspect of change, therefore, reframes the relationship of the independent performing arts towards the city and puts an end to their former countercultural self-understanding. Instead of taking pride in resisting or decoupling from mainstream culture, the changes for independent performing arts are now seen as identical with the development of Berlin in general. Arts are understood to be an integral and indispensable part of the city ’ s overall culture, and to contribute to shaping its future direction. But what kind of city are the independent performing arts in Berlin imagining, when they claim to represent and mobilize the city as a whole? There is one influential contemporary model in city development which ascribes a crucial position to the artist ’ s community: The “ creative city ” . The debate on the creative city - which has had an immense impact on both academia and policies of urban planning - was primarily initiated by economist Richard Florida. In his Rise of the Creative Class from 2002, Florida puts economic success in a post-industrial age down to the 3 T ’ s a city must bring together: technology, talent and tolerance. 33 The third factor is Florida ’ s boldest proposal: Tolerance - a general openness to diversity - attracts talent as human capital to the city, highly skilled creative workers, who find the environment for their preferred lifestyles, and subsequently bring high-paying jobs with them. The arts and artists seem to be both an indicator of and a propellant for the level of tolerance in a place: Florida advises measuring what he calls the ‘ Bohemian Index ’ , the concentration of artists, designers and entertainers in a city, to determine the degree of tolerance. 34 The idea of the creative city as a global trend in urbanism has clearly resonated with local politics in Berlin: In 2004, the city administration issued its first ‘ Cultural Economy Report ’ ; one year later, Berlin joined the UNESCO Creative Cities Network. 35 Seen in the context of Florida ’ s model, the strong presence of the independent performing arts in all their diversity at PAF indicates Berlin ’ s tolerance and fulfils a function in its cultural development towards an economically successful creative city. It is no coincidence that the festival received its main funding in the first three years from the European Fund for Regional Development within the scope of a programme called “ Promoting the Innovation Potential in Culture ” . The subsequent debate on urban planning has largely taken up the role of artists and the arts as a soft factor for the local economy. 36 Influential urbanist Charles 20 Benjamin Hoesch Landry describes the city as a “ creative ecology ” : A creative city is a place where people feel they can fulfil themselves, because there are opportunities. Things get done. It is a place where people can express their talents which are harnessed, exploited and promoted for the common good. These talents act as a catalyst and role model to develop and attract further talent in a self-reinforcing cycle. 37 For such a productive atmosphere to unfold, Landry recommends developing the ‘ cultural resources ’ of a city by identifying a certain local distinctiveness: “ The aim is to pull attention to the city, to create a richness of association and recognition and to grab profile. ” 38 This strategy has certainly been adopted by urban policymakers in Berlin, which has subsequently gained recognition in the discussion of creative cities, with Landry listing it among only four cities - together with London, New York and Amsterdam - which “ have been comprehensively creative over time ” . 39 The development of distinct cultural resources, though, can only be successful, when it is fuelled by cultural players on all levels. The organizers of PAF make considerable efforts to contribute to the distinct profile of Berlin; LAFT began its founding manifesto from 2007 with a claim to local distinctiveness: “ Berlin has developed more and more into a city of arts and culture. ” 40 Advertising PAF both internally and externally as a showcase of Berlin ’ s creative productivity, the independent performing arts lend themselves to creative city development as a component of a unique Berlin urban landscape, and they aspire to iconic status in the city ’ s cultural self-definition in order to strengthen their position. German sociologist Andreas Reckwitz cites the discourse and practice of the creative city as one dimension of a universal imperative to creativity in contemporary culture. 41 He notices that Florida and Landry - both working not only as scholars, but also as policy consultants - switch constantly from descriptive observations to normative instruction on how to achieve the ideal of the creative city. According to Reckwitz, this ideal mobilizes a self-conception of the city in terms of culture, an observation frame that the city applies to itself through its social actors. 42 Independent performing artists seem to have adopted this self-alienated perception. In announcements and advertising for the Performing Arts Festival, they describe their own community as a culture for the eyes of a foreign observer: “ The festival team looks forward to welcoming you along on a six-day journey through Berlin ’ s independent performing arts community. ” 43 Thus, showcasing the independent performing arts and self-observation of the scene as a distinctive urban culture become one - the creative city strategy is internalized and incorporated. For Reckwitz, this paradigm is a programme of ‘ cultural governmentality ’ of the city, drawing upon Michel Foucault ’ s concept of advanced liberal government as the control over self-control. 44 In contrast to classic urban planning as top-down implementation and stipulation of clear-cut models, the creative city paradigm as a secondorder control system harnesses the initiative and momentum of the community: No one forced the organizers of PAF to align the independent performing arts with the city ’ s strategy of development, but they see this alliance as their most promising means of organising and representing themselves in the city. And they pass the principle of governmentality on: Instead of taking on curatorial responsibility, PAF relies on the self-regulation of participating organizations and individuals in order to ensure artistic quality and fulfil expectations of creativity. Under this paradigm, the difference between curation and uncurated ad- 21 (Non)curating the Creative City: From 100 Grad to Performing Arts Festival Berlin mission dissolves - as both may become power mechanisms pushing towards conformity. Outlook: Arts in the Creative City With the growing realization of these power mechanisms, the ideal of the uncurated selfpresentation of the entire scene is becoming less and less a token of pride and worth preserving. That is why, in the future of the festival, an even stronger, more explicit shift is to be expected from the arts scene ’ s interests towards those of outside visitors: In her opening speech to the 2019 festival, PAF ’ s new artistic director Sarah Israel announced that she was planning to curate the festival more strongly in the coming years. As representing the whole of Berlin ’ s independent performing arts scene is impossible in one festival, she argued, it would instead be a matter of selecting exemplary shows as paradigmatic representatives of the city. In this way, the festival programme would also become more worthwhile visiting for a general audience outside the scene. Subsequently, for the 2020 edition, six theme-based series of programming dedicated to current societal questions were decided on by a six-person selection committee. Applications had to align themselves with one of the programme lines and underwent an aesthetic, thematic and political evaluation process, after which only 40 productions were selected. However, restrictions in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic prevented the programme from taking place as planned and led to the cancellation of all live events. Instead, a Digital Showroom was established on PAF ’ s website, where all invited artists and participating venues were able to present themselves and their work in videos and trailers, in order to “ provide a virtual tour of Berlin ’ s independent performing arts community ” 45 . In times of unprecedented crisis, PAF resorts to what it apparently understands as its current main mission: presenting the independent performing arts as a productive part of a creative city to an outside observer. Only the coming years will reveal if these latest reforms and experiences have lasting ramifications for the festival. It seems, however, as if the concerns of the founders of 100 Grad and also PAF ’ s initial designers, who rejected curation, may prove valid: The peculiarity and wilfulness of the independent performing arts community are increasingly overruled in order to bring it in line with the city ’ s dominant trends - the development towards a creative city. In a case study on Berlin, Reckwitz characterizes the genesis of the creative city “ as a product of an interference and mutual enforcement of countercultural critique against the functional city and aesthetic capitalism ” . 46 While the different approaches of (non-) curating the creative city had success in making the independent performing arts more visible and bringing them into political discussion and consideration, these strategies are not without risks: According to the creative city paradigm, the strong presence of artists and their scene “ turns out to be an amazingly strong predictor of everything from a region ’ s high-technology base to its overall population and employment growth ” 47 - but the artists themselves do not necessarily benefit. Economic development may be accompanied by increased living costs - in Berlin especially with an exorbitant rise in rents. Exploding costs for accommodation, but also for rehearsal spaces outweigh the moderate increase in public funding and leave many artists with a precarious living. When the co-founder and speaker of Koalition der freien Szene, Christophe Knoch, resigned in 2018, he argued that the situation for the independent arts in Berlin has deteriorated despite higher fund- 22 Benjamin Hoesch ing. Artists used to be able to earn a month ’ s modest cost of living in a week with a side job and invest the rest of their time in artistic work; now, such an income would be consumed entirely by private rents. 48 Thus, securing a professional life may become even more difficult for the majority of independent artists in a creative city. In contrast to the many enthusiastic advocates of the creative city, Reckwitz understands it as a potentially conflicting constellation: A quadrangle of politics, economy, middle-class consumers and artistic communities fight out their diverging interests in self-preservation and expansion. 49 In their development from counterculture to forerunners of the creative city, as reflected in the transition from 100 Grad to PAF, Berlin ’ s independent performing arts gained much recognition as a cultural resource, but may have abandoned their singularity as arts and, paradoxically, lost some ground in this fight. Notes 1 An earlier version of this paper was presented at the International Federation for Theatre Research (IFTR) Conference: “ Theatre, Performance and Urbanism ” , at the Shanghai Theatre Academy, on July 10, 2019. Participation in the conference was made possible by the International Graduate Centre for the Study of Culture (GCSC) at the Justus Liebig Universität Gießen. All research was conducted in the nationwide research network “ Crisis and Institutional Transformation in Performing Arts ” , funded by the German Research Society (DFG). 2 “ Background & History. ” https: / / 2019.performingarts-festival.de/ en/ about/ festival [accessed on June 5, 2020]. 3 Florian Malzacher, “ Cause & Result: About a job with an unclear profile, aim and future ” , in: Frakcija 55: Curating Performing Arts (2010), pp. 10 - 19, here: p. 14. 4 Keren Zaiontz, Theatre & Festivals, London 2018, p. 69. 5 Zaiontz, Theatre & Festivals, p. 72. 6 Ibid., p. 73. 7 Ibid., p. 69. 8 As of 2018, according to the information brochure “ Independent Performing Arts Made in Berlin ” , published yearly by LAFT - also online: https: / / pap-berlin.de/ die-bereiche-des-performing-arts-programm/ distribution-und-marketing/ informationsbroschuere/ [accessed on July 31, 2019]. 9 “ Ausschreibung: 100° Berlin Festival 2015. ” http: / / www.ballhausost.de/ produktionen/ 100grad-2015-ausschreibung-de/ [my translation; accessed on July 31, 2019]. 10 Cf. “ Background & History. ” https: / / performingarts-festival.de/ index.php/ en/ about/ festival; “ Herzlich Willkommen zu 100° Berlin 2015! ” https: / / 100grad.wordpress.com/ festival-2/ festival/ [accessed on July 31, 2019]. 11 Cf. Amelie Deuflhard (ed.), Spielräume produzieren. Sophiensæle 1996 - 2006, Berlin 2007; Kirsten Hehmeyer/ Matthias Pees (eds.), Import Export. Arbeitsbuch zum HAU, Berlin 2012. 12 Amelie Deuflhard, “ Ideengenerator Freie Szene. Eine Zwischenbilanz für die Sophiensæle ” , in: Deuflhard (ed.), Spielräume, pp. 66 - 70, here: pp. 67 - 68. 13 Tom Mustroph, “ Theater-Zapping. Das Festival ‚ 100 Grad ‘ ging zuende ” , in: Neues Deutschland, March 2, 2011 [my translation]. 14 Cf. “ Howto: 100° Berlin. Interview mit der 100° Festivalleiterin des HAU, Silke zu Eschendorff. ” https: / / 100grad.wordpress.com/ 2011/ 02/ 25/ howto-100 %c2 %b0-berlin/ [accessed on July 31, 2019]. 15 Cf. Henni Kristin Wiedemann, “‘ Das Festival ist ziemlich einmalig ‘ - Interview mit Christiane Kretschmer. ” https: / / 100grad. wordpress.com/ 2013/ 02/ 22/ das-festival-istziemlich-einmalig-interview-mit-christianekretschmer/ #respond [my translation; accessed on July 31, 2019]. 16 Anna Lazarescu, “ Interview mit Kathrin Veser. ” https: / / 100grad.wordpress.com/ 2013/ 02/ 23 (Non)curating the Creative City: From 100 Grad to Performing Arts Festival Berlin 22/ interview-mit-kathrin-veser/ [my translation; accessed on July 31, 2019]. 17 Cf. Patrick Wildermann, “ Bühne frei! ” , in: Tagesspiegel, June 23, 2017; Patrick Wildermann, “ Requiem für ein Festival ” , in: Tagesspiegel, March 1, 2015 [my translation]. 18 Zaiontz, Theatre & Festivals, p. 72. 19 Cf. Mustroph, “ Theater-Zapping ” . 20 Cf. “ Protokoll der Mitgliedervollversammlung des LAFT Berlin, am 11. 2. 13 im Heimathafen Neukölln, Karl-Marx-Straße 14, 12043 Berlin. ” https: / / www.laft-berlin.de/ uploads/ media/ MitgliederversammlungProtokoll11. 02. 13.pdf [accessed on July 31, 2019]. 21 “ Protokoll der Mitgliedervollversammlung des LAFT Berlin, am 24. 03. 2015 in der Vierten Welt, Adalbertstr.4, Galerie, 10999 Berlin. ” https: / / www.laft-berlin.de/ fileadmin/ user_upload/ LAFT_Berlin_Mitgliederversammlung_Protokoll_24. 03. 2015_01.pdf [my translation; accessed on July 31, 2019]. 22 “ Bericht des Vorstands, September 2014 bis September 2015. ” https: / / www.laft-berlin. de/ berichte-des-vorstands/ bericht-september-2014-bis-november-2015.html? L=824 [my translation; accessed on July 31, 2019]. 23 https: / / performingarts-festival.de/ index.php/ en/ about/ festival [accessed on July 31, 2019]. 24 Cf. Wildermann, “ Requiem ” . 25 The existence of so many independent art and theatre venues as well as their (re)activation by the festival are a result of the radical changes in Berlin after the fall of the Iron Wall; vacancies and unclear issues of property in former industrial, administrative or representational buildings made way for experimental usage, some of which was able to be perpetuated or later resumed. Cf. Bastian Lange, Die Räume der Kreativszenen. Culturepreneurs und ihre Orte in Berlin. Bielefeld 2007, p. 20. 26 “ FAQs for Open Submissions Format of the 2019 Festival. ” https: / / archive.performingarts-festival.de/ en/ 2019/ about/ open-calls/ open-submissions/ faqs/ [accessed on July 31, 2019]. 27 Cf. “ Performing Arts Festival Berlin. 23. - 29. Mai 2016. ” https: / / archive.performingarts-festival.de/ en/ 2016/ [accessed on July 31, 2019]. 28 “ More about Introducing. ” https: / / archive. performingarts-festival.de/ en/ 2017/ extras/ introducing/ more-about-introducing/ [accessed on July 31, 2019]. 29 “ The 2019 Newcomers ’ Platform Introducing . . . ” https: / / archive.performingarts-festival.de/ en/ 2019/ about/ open-calls/ introducing/ [accessed on July 31, 2019]. 30 Deuflhard, “ Ideengenerator ” , p. 68 [my translation]. 31 “ Introducing . . . ” https: / / 2019.performingarts-festival.de/ en/ 2019/ program/ introducing [accessed on June 5, 2020]. 32 https: / / performingarts-festival.de/ en/ about/ festival [accessed on July 31, 2019]. PAF ’ s ‘ theatrical public sphere ’ is understood here in the sense Christopher Balme calls its ‘ institutional matrices ’ : “ Theatre ’ s very institutionalized status can engender a vigorous public sphere because it is part of the cultural body politic of a community ” ; clearly, institutional transformation also changes this theatrical public sphere. Christopher B. Balme: The theatrical public sphere. Cambridge 2014, p. 45. 33 Cf. Richard Florida, The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It ’ s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life, New York 2002, p. 249 - 266. 34 Cf. ibid., p. 260. 35 Cf. Andreas Reckwitz, “ Kreative Stadt Berlin? Zur Selbstkulturalisierung des Urbanen im ästhetischen Kapitalismus ” , in: Lettre International 86 (2009), pp. 181 - 185. 36 Cf. David Emanuel Andersson/ Åke E. Andersson/ Charlotta Mellander (eds.), Handbook of Creative Cities. Northampton 2011. 37 Charles Landry, “ A roadmap for the creative city ” , in: Andersson/ Andersson/ Mellander, Creative Cities, pp. 517 - 531, here: p. 521. 38 Ibid., p. 523. 39 Ibid., p. 517. 40 Landesverband Freie Theaterschaffende Berlin e. V., “ Manifest. ” https: / / www.laft-berlin. de/ uploads/ media/ Manifest_LAFT_Berlin_22. 11. 2008.pdf [my translation; accessed on July 31, 2019] 24 Benjamin Hoesch 41 Cf. Andreas Reckwitz, The Invention of Creativity: Modern Society and the Culture of the New. Malden, 2017. 42 Cf. Andreas Reckwitz, Kreativität und soziale Praxis: Studien zur Sozial- und Gesellschaftstheorie. Bielefeld 2016, p. 156. 43 “ Editorial ” , in: LAFT Berlin (ed.): Performing Arts Festival Berlin. Berlin 2019, p. 7. 44 Cf. Reckwitz, Kreativität und soziale Praxis, pp. 161 - 162. 45 https: / / performingarts-festival.de/ en/ digitalshowroom/ contributions-paf-2020 [accessed on June 5, 2020]. 46 Reckwitz, “ Kreative Stadt Berlin? ” , p. 184 [my translation]. 47 Florida, The Rise of the Creative Class, p. 260. 48 Cf. Daniel Stoecker, “ Wenn die Möglichkeit zu scheitern fehlt ” , in: taz, April 12, 2018. 49 Cf. Reckwitz, Kreativität und soziale Praxis, p. 182. 25 (Non)curating the Creative City: From 100 Grad to Performing Arts Festival Berlin