In Western contexts it is surprising that collective or collaborative curating in the performing arts has received little attention to date, especially when the visual arts explicitly embraced the "collaborative turn" in the 2000s[1].

After all, it is a well-established truth that theater should be viewed as a collective and collaborative art form. Theater and dance studies have repeatedly reinforced this idea with well-founded arguments. To mention just two examples: The concept of “Immediate theater” (Peter Brook)[2]  reflects the necessary close connection between all those involved in the theatrical process, whereas more recent research on collectivity are focusing on collaboration processes of creation and reception that occur before, during, and after the performance.[3] Even the anthropologist Victor Turner integrated theater into his concept of the liminal/liminoid, which characterizes rituals in transitional phases during which communities come together and form new social bonds.[4]

Although the demand for collaborative working and management models has recently become very loud, in general, this discussion is still in its infancy with regard to curatorial programming at festivals or in theaters. So far, the topic has rarely been discussed centrally by performing art institutions. It is worth especially mentioning the one-day symposium Collective Curating[5], curated by Eva Neklyaeva, which took place in Tallinn in August 2023. As a result of this discussion, Marta Keil's revised keynote speech from the symposium is available online, offering valuable insights focused on questions of work ethics.[6]

In order to open up a broader discussion on collective or collaborative curating in the performing arts, this article—with a view to the interdisciplinary readership of this publication series and from a Western perspective[7]—would therefore like to set out rather basic thoughts and parameters for the discussion, which will then be differentiated and expanded in the issue itself, and hopefully also in future discussions. Since explicit literature on collective curating in the performative field is still very limited, it is often necessary to draw on personal, with almost forty years of curatorial observation of the field.

Use of Terms and Differences Between Disciplines

In theatrical practice, the terms “collaborative” and “collective” are used to describe different aspects of collaboration. Collaborative usually refers to the way in which different individuals or groups (e.g. directors, actors, dramaturges, set designers) work together. When it comes to the collective nature of theater, however, the focus is primarily on the shared experience and sense of community in the interaction of a group of people (e.g. actors and audience)––be it during a performance or in specific work contexts that are organized on the basis of equality and the principle of equal rights.

When applied to the curatorial field, both collaborative and collective curating involve shared responsibility for selecting, programming, and setting of the theme of an event. In collaborative curation, however, this is usually communicated through shared authorship, mentioning the names of all contributors. Whereas in collective curation it is articulated with a single unified voice, putting the community before the individual. The choice of a collective form of collaboration also signals a critical stance toward power dynamics and market influences.

In the context of oncurating.org, which is primarily aimed at a readership of the visual arts, differences between disciplines should at least be outlined briefly here for interdisciplinary understanding: The most significant difference, to put it bluntly, is that in theater the production process is inherently collaborative, whereas in the visual arts it is primarily the representation process that is organized in a collaborative way. Consequently, collaboration of whatever kind has a much more essential and comprehensive significance for artistic creation in the theater; whereas in the visual arts it tends to focus on secondary areas such as exhibitions or the art market (although clear artist collectives such as Gelitin or SUPERFLEX exist there, too).

The examination of the “institution” and appropriate working configurations is also much more focused on reform within the theater today, while in the visual arts, it often adopts a more subversive, market-critical stance that aligns with countercultural tendencies. For instance, despite the significant reform efforts initiated by the 1968 generation, the concept of institutional critique remained largely unknown to the performing arts until the 2010s.[8] Discussions surrounding authorship or "multiple authorship" (Boris Groys) also play a much lesser role overall, as these concepts are generally taken for granted in theater. In independent theater, collective forms of work are not so much counter-models as they are alternative approaches. They have become common as artist groups (e.g. She She Pop or Rimini Protokoll), but have so far hardly been able to establish themselves in the curatorial field.[9]

A         Focus of Discussion: Hierarchy in the Theater

Central to the theatrical discussion are above all aspects of a pronounced hierarchy in the theater sector, which stands in contrast to this essential necessity of collaboration in the theater, or representing its flip side. The debate around collective or collaborative work primarily addresses issues of power and its potential abuse, particularly in public theaters, but also extending to specific cases such as companies like Rosas (led by Anne Teresa de Keersmaeker) and Jan Fabre/Troubleyn, where instances of abuse have come to light.

A distinctly pyramidal organizational structure in the theater business is consistently and often fundamentally questioned – be it by interest groups such as the Ensemble Network or, more recently, in a variety of guidelines and manuals[10]. This scrutiny particularly targets the traditional dominance of the artistic director (“Intendant”). Collective management models are not only seen as an effective antidote in this regard; in recent years, they have increasingly emerged as progressive alternatives in practice[11], with varying degrees of success (e.g. Gessnerallee and Theater am Neumarkt/Zurich, Kunstenfestivaldesarts/Brussels, NTGent).  Additionally, horizontal organizational structures are being explored, as exemplified in this volume by the Belgian model VIERNULVIER. The discourses of the visual and performing arts are also currently merging, with artistic practices being demanded for the structural transformation of this institution, even for the conventional municipal theater.[12]

B          Focus of Discussion: Selection Processes

Collective and collaborative approaches furthermore are propagated especially for any kind of curatorial selection process in the design of event programs in the dance and theater sectors. This concern is especially prominent among the younger generation of curators, as observed in our Salzburg degree program Curating in the Performing Arts. For Fiona McGovern, “selection” is a central and crucial aspect of the curatorial process: “The moment something is selected, something else is not selected. For me, ethical considerations start at this point. They should therefore be intrinsic to curatorial practice.”[13] Against this background, younger curators today are increasingly rejecting decision-making processes dominated by a single autonomous individual. Unlike previous generations[14], we can recognize today a rather natural inclination towards collaborative curation, both in the young visual and performance practitioners.

To democratize and open up selection processes––measures such as mandatory open calls, diverse juries or “first come, first save” policies and, above all, transparent communication of both the selection criteria and the results of any selection process are being specifically proposed and demanded. Additionally, it is noteworthy that the younger generation is drawing inspiration from the Freetekno movement that emerged in the 1990s. This movement consciously organizes its festivals and events as “Temporary Autonomous Zones”, operating in a decentralized and non-hierarchical manner based on principles of solidarity, hospitality, and free admission.[15]

C          Focus of Discussion: Diversification and Decolonization

Another key area of discussion for collective and collaborative approaches revolves around diversification and decolonization. In the organization, ensembles, and management structures, the demand for gender and culturally mixed teams that integrate different abilities has been increasingly enforced in discourse, but has so far been implemented to a limited extent in theater practice. Aside from notable exceptions like Eva Doumbia at Festival Afropéa, Kwame Kwei-Armah at Young Vic, or Julia Wissert at Theater Dortmund, management positions in the theater sector across Europe remain predominantly white and male. Particularly in the municipal theater system, it is noticeable that with a recent trend towards diverse ensembles, diversity “in front of the stage” is much more pronounced than “behind the stage”, which reveals certain tokenism tendencies within the theater sector.  It can also be observed that, in the realm of curation within the performing arts, there are not many transcultural teams to be found. Conceptual or political concerns of European festival directors about showing “the world” from an individual, Eurocentric perspective tend not to be verbalized. Thus, the artistic director or curator in theater on a global stage often still appears as a singular instance of meaning-making. Transcultural teams, such as those at the Biennial de la Danse Lyon 2025, or ongoing non-European guest curatorships at the Spielart Festival in Munich, remain exceptions. The discourse surrounding transcultural curating in the visual arts since the 1990s[16]—along with the problems, challenges and opportunities it presents—in general remains relatively unknown, thus underscoring the need for a broader curatorial debate within the performing arts.

D         Focus of Discussion: Institutional Mission Statements, Codes of Conduct or Voluntary Commitments

Recently, an increasing number of theaters and festivals have adopted specifically committed mission statements, codes of conduct, or voluntary commitments that address how their institutions engage with issues of diversity, anti-discrimination, solidarity, environmental sustainability, good governance, and commitments to democracy and social participation.[17] With regard to collaborative curating, the statements tend to emphasize, in general, the creation of a non-discriminatory working environment that safeguards employee well-being and promotes fair cooperation with all institutional partners. In some cases, specific forms of co-determination are defined (e.g. annual general assembly at the Theater am Neumarkt) or concrete methods of internal and external conflict resolution (e.g. confidential advisors and internal/external prevention advisors at the Kaaitheater) are outlined. Targeted de-hierarchization is discussed in specific instances, such as the efforts of VIERNULVIER or the establishment of an ensemble council at Theaterhaus Jena[18].

Curatorial (selection) principles are addressed in tendency only in isolated statements within mission statements. The Festival Theaterformen, for example, defines its program selection in a transparent and politically correct way: “A curatorial principle governs the selection of the invited productions, which is why the selection also implies the exclusion of other artists and productions.” In contrast, the Wiener Festwochen, which chose public debate, i.e. not discussion among employees, for the creation of its mission statement, are focusing on curatorial plurality: “A versatile programme needs versatile perspectives. Programme design must not be the privilege of a small group of curators. The Free Republic of Vienna will therefore introduce an alternating advisory committee for the programme with local and international expert members.” Overall, however, transparent statements on how exactly the content of the specific program is developed in the respective institution remain rare in the analysis of mission statements. Compared to mission statements from earlier decades that emphasized artistic orientation through terms like experimentation, innovation, interdisciplinarity, and artistic research, today’s mission statements primarily focus on ethics and have thus become more socio-political. However, curatorial questions about selection and the modus operandi of program design and knowledge production are still very often excluded from these discussions. Thus, significant political and curatorial aspects can be said to remain relatively unaddressed in the art processes.

Desiderata of the Debate

The curatorial discourse on collaboration and collectivity in the performing arts exhibits a number of desiderata, and it would be desirable if specific aspects of collaboration and collectivity were discussed more explicitly in the future. Some key points that warrant deeper investigation are listed here:

With Beatrice von Bismarck, the definition of curating as assembling, connecting or linking—especially objects, information, people and spaces—in the sense of a desired creation of meaning and knowledge production[19] has found widespread acceptance. While reflection on program design is generally underdeveloped in performative art, the visual arts have thus already potentially anchored the collaborative element in their basic definition of curating. An overall more in-depth curatorial discussion could broaden and substantiate the discussion in the theater sector, which is currently very one-sidedly focused on structural reforms. Above all, the widespread figure of the presenter/programmer in the field would need more scrutiny. This refers to the type of programmer who, on the basis of personally accumulated knowledge and experience as well as their own taste, creates artistic programs and conveys them to an audience under the best possible organizational, publicity and technical conditions.[20] His/her/their autonomous position and ultimately also the general criticism of curatorial approaches in the performative field seem to push important epistemic and content-related questions concerning collectivity and collaboration into the background.

This is probably why actor constellations in the programming and design of festivals or theatre programs are currently viewed almost exclusively from a power-critical perspective. Program design as a specific form of knowledge production, on the other hand, has not yet been discussed centrally in the performing arts.[21] Interdisciplinary teams are relatively rare in the theater sector[22] and when they do exist, they tend to be installed on a project-related basis. Advisory expert committees or advisory boards with interdisciplinary expertise—such as those set up by Bernd Scherer for the HKW in Berlin—are rarely found. In recent times, other forms of knowledge have been presented on stage or in discussion formats in a more representative form, but normally fail to fundamentally question existing orders of knowledge, for example through long-term collaborations or a specifically selected organizational working structure.[23]  As already mentioned above, diverse teams with different voices and experiences are currently appearing more frequently. However, they often still exhibit significant imbalances in their power dynamics.

Policy-centric and transnational structures are found in European dance and theater almost exclusively in temporary EU network projects. Long-term, content-focused forms of organization such as Tranzit, a collectively operating curatorial structure of autonomous local cultural institutions that constantly navigate trans-locally between languages, mentalities and local and global cultural narratives in their joint activities, would also be desirable for the theater sector.[24] Especially in times of accelerated nationalism and cultural isolation, long-term transnational curatorial cooperation could have a much stronger political impact.[25]

Although participation is a major topic in our field, the involvement of the audience in curatorial processes and strategies could be discussed more strongly and systematically in the performing arts. Approaches such as audience advisory boards—see, for example, the above-mentioned initiative of the Wiener Festwochen—do exist, but there is a lack of exemplary projects such as Together We Curate in the visual arts, which were then also methodically evaluated.[26]

The aspect of infrastructure criticism (Marina Vishmidt) is also not yet a central topic within the theater sector. The often invisible or historical grown infrastructural conditions, such as architectural conventions or resource dependencies, that determine our specific institutions are still not given enough attention in the theatrical discussion. In relation to collaborative and collective work, for example, it could be examined in more detail how spatial design, forms of communication or technical equipment of theater institutions can shape, determine or support working relations or specific forms of work in theater.

Last but not least, it is also the vulnerability of the world that should prompt us to make a joint effort. Today more than ever, the fragility of the human and natural environment requires a collaborative or collective approach––what alternative models of corporate management such as the Economy for the Common Good (which by the way was developed by a dancer: Christian Felber) already take into account.[27] With reference to Mark Terkessidis, collaboration can be seen as a flexible adaptability to a constantly changing environment.[28]  In this regard, the theater discourse tends to focus strongly on concrete technical and administrative structural measures – an emphasis that is well-justified by initiatives like the Theater Green Book or programs such as Carbon Footprinting in Cultural Institutions of the German Bundeskulturstiftung.

However, from a curatorial perspective, these efforts could be expanded further. For example, considerations on post-humanity and poly-subjectivity (e.g. Rosi Braidotti, Nicolas Bourriaud, Bruno Latour), which actively involve non-human actors, are still rarely raised within the curatorial discourse of the performing arts. Additionally, alternative knowledge systems are yet not applied sufficiently into the ecological restructuring of both hardware (buildings) and software (mentalities) within the theater sector. Here the discussion in the visual arts seems to be more advanced: Drawing inspiration from Spain's Mar Menor, the largest saltwater lagoon in the EU that recently gained legal personhood, the workshop event titled Commoning Collective Care: Curating on the Move (organized by TBA21 Thyssen-Bornemisza Art Contemporary and OnCurating), for example, explored curatorial methods in Summer 2023, that also focus on the development of alternative practices and tools rooted in local knowledge, Indigenous viewpoints, and sustainability narratives.[29]

Future Evaluations

In light of this discussion, which is still in its early stages and supported by a very limited empirical database, conducting methodological evaluations of collaborative and collective curating in the performing arts sector is nearly impossible at present.  Current studies on institutional organizational forms in theater, such as the large-scale international research project Configurations of Crisis[30], primarily focus on methods for reducing hierarchy and preventing abuses of power, without specifically taking alternative models into analytical focus. Therefore, it would be beneficial to have a range of well-founded individual studies that explore collective or collaborative processes and institutional forms within theater.  And parallelly, it seems, even a need to get more speculative as a methodology to break through into new spaces.

In any case, however, the trend towards collaborative and collective working seems fortunately irreversible, at least for the near future. Collective and collaborative curating is likely to be more than just a passing trend. In a metaphorical sense, the negatively connoted English expression "A camel is a horse designed by a committee" encapsulates this idea: despite all the dangers and drawbacks, collaborative or collective working/curating is to be seen as the potential order of the day and the future. For it is the camel that survives where the horse has long since perished…

Sigrid Gareis is curator and social worker. She was co-director of the Salzburg Curation Course in the Performing Arts, founding director of Tanzquartier Wien, Akademie der Künste der Welt and involved in the founding of several European festivals.