174
UDK 792.02(497.4)
DOI 10.51937/Amfiteater-2023-1/174-187
V pričujočem prispevku bomo obravnavali koncept bralnih uprizoritev. Ugotavljali bomo, 
da gre v polju mlade dramske pisave za prevladujoč uprizoritveni format, ki pa ga ne 
gre razumeti kot vmesno stopnjo med branjem in uprizarjanjem, temveč kot povsem 
samostojen in polnokrven umetniški žanr. Mnoge bralne uprizoritve so zato opustile 
funkcijo »prve informacije« o tekstu in njegovem avtorju ter namesto tega postale čisto 
prava uprizoritev teksta, s čimer se je odprlo široko polje za gledališki eksperiment. To 
bomo premišljevali na primeru konkretnih praks, za katere je značilno, da besedilo postane 
glavno ali celo edino, kar je za gledališki dogodek potrebno, branje (na vse mogoče načine 
in oblike) pa zato ključno gledališko sredstvo. 
Ključne besede: mlada generacija, bralna uprizoritev, eksperiment, generator, 
uprizarjanje, branje
Varja Hrvatin (1993), Maša Radi Buh (1998) in Jakob Ribič (1995) kot pisci sodelujemo že od 
leta 2018. Skupaj smo ustvarjali oddajo Teritorij teatra na Radiu Študent, pripravili kolektivno 
predavanje v okviru Maskinega seminarja sodobnih scenskih umetnosti, objavljamo pa 
tudi v revijah (Maska, Amfiteater) in gledaliških listih. V študijskem letu 2022/23 smo 
kot teoretsko-raziskovalni kolektiv postali štipendisti Sklada Jerneja Šugmana (ZDUS). 
Trenutno raziskujemo vidike nevidenega in kolektivnega dela v uprizoritvenih umetnostih 
ter ustvarjanje mlade generacije dramskih avtorjev in avtoric.
vid.jakob@gmail.com
175
GENERATOR:: za poljubno število  
bralnih uprizoritev
Varja Hrvatin, Maša Radi Buh, Jakob Ribič  
Akademija za gledališče, radio, film in televizijo, Univerza v Ljubljani
Uvod
1
V zadnjem desetletju so se bralne uprizoritve v polju mlade dramske pisave vzpostavile 
kot prevladujoč uprizoritveni format, hkrati pa je za večino avtorjev to pogosto postal 
tudi edini način, da se njihovo besedilo sploh lahko uprizori. Prav zato se je skupaj s 
tem pojavila potreba, da bralna uprizoritev ne bi bila več le nekakšna vmesna faza v 
razvoju besedila, preludij k nečemu potencialnemu, kar naj bi še prišlo, kar je torej 
zgolj odloženo v prihodnost, saj ta za mlade avtorje pogosto ni nič drugega kot le 
nedoločljiv ali neizvedljiv jutri. Mnoge takšne uprizoritve so zato opustile funkcijo 
»prve informacije« o tekstu in njegovem avtorju in namesto tega postale čisto prava 
uprizoritev teksta, s čimer se je odprlo široko polje za gledališki eksperiment.
2
 
Pojem gledališkega eksperimenta je tako širok, da ga na tem mestu skorajda ni 
mogoče pojasniti drugače kot s pomočjo velikega poenostavljanja, grobega zgoščanja 
množice divergentnih in razvejanih uprizoritvenih praks oziroma nenatančnega, 
skorajda že nasilnega poenotenja mnogih singularnosti pod le en skupni imenovalec. 
Toda kljub tej raznolikosti se zdi, da gledališka eksperimentalnost prejšnjega stoletja, 
vsaj v svojem prevladujočem delu, kaže na neko splošno naravnanost, na neko rdečo 
nit, namreč na poskus detronizacije gledališkega besedila, torej na odvzem primata, ki 
ga je v odnosu do odra vzdrževala gledališka literatura. Kot je mogoče razumeti Blaža 
Lukana: zavezniški odnos med tekstom in odrom, ki je pomenil predvsem dominacijo 
prvega nad drugim, se je, čeprav nikoli ni bil zares zgleden in neproblematičen, v 20. 
stoletju spremenil v konkurenčni odnos, kar je šlo skupaj s konstitucijo gledališke 
režije in avtonomizacijo gledaliških sredstev (prim. Lukan, Gledališka 185–87). Prav 
1 Avtorji članka so v letih 2022/2023 štipendisti Sklada Jerneja Šugmana, ki ga je ustanovilo Združenje dramskih 
umetnikov Slovenije (ZDUS). Jakob Ribič (šifra 54771) je poleg tega vključen v program »Mladi raziskovalci« in (so)
financiran s strani Javne agencije za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije iz državnega proračuna ter v raziskovalni 
program »Gledališke in medumetnostne raziskave« (P6–0376), (so)financiran s strani Javne agencije za raziskovalno 
dejavnost Republike Slovenije iz državnega proračuna.
2 To seveda ne pomeni, da se bralne uprizoritve niso pojavljale že prej in da niso (bile) prisotne tudi v drugih kulturnih 
prostorih. Vendar to presega predvideni obseg in okvir naše raziskave, zato se v nadaljevanju namenoma osredotočamo na 
preučevanje bralnih uprizoritev zgolj v kontekstu dramske pisave mlade generacije. 
176 zato v tem na novo vzpostavljenem odnosu morda ne bi smeli iskati ciljne usmerjenosti 
gledališke eksperimentalnosti, pač pa prej podlago, osnovo za to, da je lahko oder 
spregovoril s svojim lastnim jezikom oziroma z vsem, kar temu jeziku lahko pripada. 
S tem se je seveda odprla brezmejna kopica možnosti za raziskovanje uprizoritvenih 
potencialov, torej vsega tega, kar gledališče lahko je ali kar je z gledališčem mogoče 
početi, posledično pa se je temeljno spremenila tudi dramska pisava sama. Nemogoče 
je tu našteti vse pomembne spremembe, ki so se zgodile, a že če jih omenimo samo 
nekaj, ena od tendenc postane zelo očitna: dramski avtor je izgubil prevladujočo 
vlogo, vzpostavilo se je režisersko gledališče, pojavile so se številne nove prakse, 
mnoge med njimi so razširile pomen gledališča ali pa so se celo pojavile iz, strogo 
vzeto, negledaliških umetniških sfer, med njimi denimo hepening in performans, 
konec koncev pa se je spremenilo tudi dramsko pisanje, kar je kmalu terjalo nove 
terminološke rešitve, kakršni sta bili denimo »ne več drama« ali »postdrama«, ki 
vsaka na svoj način pričata o domnevnem koncu (klasične) dramske pisave. 
Pri plastenju tega, kaj vse je lahko gledališki eksperiment, bomo v nasprotju s pravkar 
zapisanim na sledi določenemu obratu. To ne pomeni, da bomo ponovno skušali 
utrditi primat dramskega pisanja in se od uprizoritve vrniti nazaj k tekstualnosti. Ne 
bo nam šlo za advokaturo gledališkega teksta, ki bi v gledališče ponovno vrnila avtorja 
in njegovo besedilo ter napravila nekakšen obrat od performativnega obrata. To 
namreč ne bi bilo nič drugega kot konservativno pozivanje k vrnitvi v domnevno stare 
dobre čase, ko naj bi bilo vse tako, kot mora biti. Nasprotno od tega nas bodo še vedno 
zanimali uprizoritveni potenciali odra, le da bomo o teh razmišljali v nekakšnem 
presenetljivem zglobu med branjem in uprizarjanjem. Na sledi bomo ustvarjalskim 
praksam, ki ohranjajo zanimanje za uprizoritev, vendar ne na račun dramskega 
besedila, pač pa prav znotraj njegovega lastnega okvira. Za to pa bo potreben določen 
premik v osnovni paradigmi. Gledališko besedilo za nas ne bo več samo nosilec ali 
vir pomena, pač pa polnokrvni in samostojni akter. Bralne uprizoritve bomo zato 
razumeli kot neke vrste performans gledališkega teksta; performans, ki namesto 
igralčevega telesa uporablja telo besedila in njegovo materialnost, na tem preseku pa 
raziskuje, kaj vse je z njim mogoče napraviti ter kakšne vse uprizoritvene potenciale 
ima lahko preprosto branje. 
Eksperiment bomo zato razumeli predvsem kot poskus in tveganje nekaj napraviti 
drugače. Če se eksperiment vzpostavlja kot odstopanje in alternativa že obstoječemu, 
predvsem pa tistemu, kar je v danem umetniškem, družbenem in političnem 
kontekstu prepoznano kot prevladujoče, potem se bomo v nadaljevanju spraševali, ali 
ni morda estetsko opolnomočenje in refunkcionaliziranje žanra bralnih uprizoritev 
prav takšno področje eksperimenta. Bralne uprizoritve se namreč kot alternativa 
obstoječemu stanju uveljavljajo vsaj na treh nivojih: v situaciji, v kateri večina besedil 
mladih avtorjev ostaja neuprizorjenih, najprej predstavljajo alternativno možnost, 
177 morda celo »zasilni izhod« za uprizoritev teh besedil, hkrati pa so vendarle precej 
več kot samo »zasilni izhod«, saj z drugačnimi uprizoritvenimi postopki predstavljajo 
tudi alternativo prevladujočim uprizoritvenim metodam (za bralno uprizoritev 
namreč kostumi, scenografija, rekviziti, oder ipd. niso več potrebni; zdi se, da sta 
dovolj že samo tekst in njegovo potencialno občinstvo); dalje, bralne uprizoritve, 
ki se razumejo na tak način, torej kot polne in celostne uprizoritve, nasprotujejo in 
predstavljajo alternativo prevladujočemu razumevanju tega formata kot nečesa, kar 
je le vmesna stopnja v razvoju besedila in zato samo nekakšna »poluprizoritvena 
forma«; navsezadnje pa bralne uprizoritve omogočajo tudi alternativo obstoječim 
dramaturgijam gledaliških tekstov in možnost drugačne besedilnosti, saj odpirajo 
vprašanje, kaj tekst vse lahko je in na kakšne vse načine nam lahko sporoča. Če je 
prevladujoč način uprizarjanja besedil takšen, da se tekst poskuša prevesti v odrske 
znake in s tem razpustiti v »jezik odra«, bralne uprizoritve radikalno vztrajajo pri tem, 
da je besedilo glavno, bistveno in celo edino, kar je za gledališki dogodek potrebno, 
branje pa zato ključno gledališko sredstvo. To seveda omogoča razvoj bistveno 
drugačnih dramskih pisav, saj je s tem dokončno suspendiran do neke mere še vedno 
prevladujoč, zagotovo pa nadvse omejujoč kriterij uprizorljivosti. 
V pričujočem zapisu se bomo posvetili prav bralnim uprizoritvam in to povezali z 
vprašanjem, kako danes še generirati eksperiment, kdo ga generira in kje se tu nahaja 
mlada generacija. Preverili bomo, ali so danes generator njenega eksperimenta 
prav bralne uprizoritve, hkrati pa to navezali na vprašanje siceršnjega statusa in 
pozicioniranosti dramatike in njenih avtorjev. Tako bomo najprej skušali definirati, 
kaj sploh razumemo pod pojmom »bralne uprizoritve« in kaj pomeni, če uprizoritve 
te vrste vzpostavimo kot samostojen uprizoritveni format. V nadaljevanju se bomo 
spraševali, zakaj se med mladimi avtorji v nekem obdobju pojavi pravi val bralnih 
uprizoritev, pri tem pa ugotavljali, da je popularizacija tega formata verjetno tesno 
povezana s sodobnimi prekarnimi ekonomskimi razmerami, v katerih trenutno 
delujejo (ne nujno samo) mladi ustvarjalci. Ker so za bralne uprizoritve potrebna kar 
najmanjša sredstva, so pogosto namreč sploh edina možnost za uprizoritev, ki pa je 
lahko kljub minimumu produkcijskih pogojev vseeno estetsko polna in zanimiva. To 
bomo v zadnjem delu skušali prikazati na konkretnih primerih različnih praks mladih 
dramskih avtoric.
Branje kot uprizarjanje
Pojem »bralne uprizoritve« takoj vzbudi pozornost. Med seboj namreč združuje 
tisto, kar naj ne bi bilo združljivo. Branje povezuje z uprizarjanjem, a po klasičnem 
teatrološkem modelu branje ravno ni uprizoritev, je prav radikalno nasprotje 
uprizoritve – uprizoritev naj bi se domnevno začela šele tam, kjer se konča branje, 
178 torej s prevodom ali prenosom besed, zapisanih na papirju in namenjenih branju, v 
»jezik odra«, se pravi v mizanscenske premike, v režijo luči, koreografijo gibov in gest, 
v scenografske in kostumografske rešitve, tudi v glasbo ipd. Gledališke vaje – proces, 
ko dramsko besedilo svoj status literature zamenja za polnokrvno uprizoritev na 
odru – so zato običajno strukturirane prav po poti od branja do tistega, kar naj bi bilo 
pravo uprizarjanje. Tako se navadno začnejo z »branjem za mizo«, čez čas, v kasnejši 
in domnevno zrelejši fazi, pa »se gre v prostor«, najprej morda tako, da si igralci še 
pomagajo s tekstom v svojih rokah, nazadnje pa že popolnoma brez njega. Takrat je 
branja konec, s tem pa naj bi menda nastopil čas za pravi gledališki dogodek. 
Zdi se, da je prav s tem razcepom povezan tudi dvojni status dramskega pisanja, razpetega 
med literaturo in gledališčem. Takšno aporijo precej značilno vzpostavljata dve veliki 
in vplivni estetski teoriji, Aristotelova in Heglova. Čeprav obe do tako vzpostavljene 
opozicije pristopata z nasprotnega konca in zagovarjata povsem različni stališči, imata 
vendarle skupno to, da »uprizarjanje« in »branje« razumeta kot ekskluzivni možnosti, 
pri čemer je mogoče izbrati le eno ali drugo, ni pa ju mogoče misliti na isti estetski 
premici, torej prepleteni v medsebojni odnos, branje kot vrsto uprizoritve. Aristotel, 
denimo, zagovarja prepričanje, da je spektakel, opsis, najmanj pomemben od šestih 
elementov tragedije, saj da »lahko tragedija naredi vtis tudi brez gledališke uprizoritve 
in igralcev« (84), »že ob samem branju spoznamo njeno vrednost« (137);
3
 Hegel pa po 
drugi strani poudarja nujnost uprizoritve, češ da »nobene gledališke igre ne bi smeli 
natisniti, temveč bi moral biti rokopis [...] namenjen le odrskemu repertoarju« (44). 
Te njegove vrstice je morda treba brati v kontekstu časa, v katerem se je pojavila tako 
imenovana bralna drama (Lesedrama ali Buchdrama), ki je s tem, ko ni bila namenjena 
uprizoritvi, merila zgolj na bralce, ne pa tudi na gledalce. Toda v vsem tem se le ponavlja 
in utrjuje binarno razmerje med uprizoritvijo in branjem kot opozicijsko razmerje 
oziroma kot razmerje nasprotovanja in celo medsebojnega izključevanja. Čeprav med 
branjem in uprizarjanjem seveda obstaja razlika – tiho branje v samoti na primer še ne 
zadostuje za gledališki dogodek – in čeprav drži, da se pri »bralnih uprizoritvah« med 
njima vzpostavlja določeno razmerje, nas bo tu, med Heglom in Aristotelom, branjem 
in uprizarjanjem, literaturo in odrom zanimal spoj, nekakšna dialektika med obema 
poloma, poskus eno postaviti v drugo. 
Dihotomija med tekstom in odrom se nam v današnjem času namreč zdi presežena, 
morda celo nesmiselna in zastarela, zato bi jo bilo morda koristno zavrniti. V polju 
gledališke teorije se je to pravzaprav že zgodilo, in to na obeh koncih, torej tako na strani 
besedila, ki ga je Gerda Poschmann opredelila s pojmom gledališki tekst in mu pripisala 
»imanentno performativno, teatralno dimenzijo« (102), kot na strani odra, ki ga je po 
mnenju Bruna Tackelsa mogoče razumeti kot prazno stran, na katero se režija nanaša 
3 Kot poudarja Florence Dupont, že naslov Aristotelovega besedila, Poetika, »napeljuje na tehniko pisanja gledališke igre 
ali epske pesnitve« (17) in ne na ritualni odrski dogodek.
179 kot »nekakšno pisanje, odrska pisava ali pisava odra (fr. écriture de plateau)« (81). Tako 
kot je torej teatralnost inherentna kvaliteta besedila samega, je tudi režija neke vrste 
odrska pisava, ki ima »samosvojo slovnico, jezik, besedišče, slog in ritem« (prav tam) 
in zato predpostavlja obstoj gledalca kot »odrskega bralca« (88). Skratka, namesto da 
bi še naprej vztrajali v aporiji med tekstom in odrom, je oder sam že mogoče razumeti 
kot vrsto teksta, hkrati pa tudi tekst obravnavati v njemu imanentni teatralni dimenziji. 
Podobno tudi bralnih uprizoritev ne bomo obravnavali kot pojava, razpetega med ti 
skrajnosti. Kajti če med branjem in uprizarjanjem postavimo zarezo in ju ločimo na 
nasprotna si pola, potem bralna uprizoritev ne more biti zares ne eno ne drugo, lahko 
je samo nekaj vmesnega, nekakšna tretja pot, ki ni več samo branje (tu so vendar igralci 
oziroma performerji in njihovo občinstvo, branju pa je pogosto dodana interpretacija 
in nemalokrat tudi že kakšna režijska intervencija), niti še ne prava uprizoritev, saj je 
to navsezadnje še vedno pač »le« branje besedila. Bralna uprizoritev se tako v procesu 
od nastanka besedila, ki se običajno piše v samoti avtorjevega delovnega prostora, do 
njegove javne uprizoritve pred gledališkim občinstvom nahaja nekje na polovici in je 
tako pač le nekakšna vmesna faza v še nedokončanem delovnem procesu. Avtor svoj 
tekst sicer res že ponudi javnosti, a še ne tako, da bi šlo za čisto »pravo« uprizoritev, 
funkcija bralne uprizoritve pa je zato le informativna. Pisec dobi informacijo o svojem 
tekstu, ki ga preveri tako, da po eni strani svoje besede prvič položi v usta igralcev, po 
drugi pa tako, da zbere odzive občinstva in morda tudi že njihova kritična mnenja. Hkrati 
informacijo o tekstu in nemalokrat tudi o njegovem avtorju dobi tudi »zainteresirana« 
javnost, med njimi seveda predvsem tisti, ki bi tekst potencialno lahko uprizorili oziroma 
vsaj sprejeli odločitev o njegovi uprizoritvi ali tiskani objavi, torej režiserji, producenti, 
direktorji gledaliških hiš in uredniki. Bralna uprizoritev tako za avtorja pomeni zgolj 
razvojno stopnjo v pisanju, saj z njeno pomočjo dobi pomembne in nemalokrat sploh 
prve povratne odzive o napisanem, na tej podlagi pa lahko svoje besedilo nato dopolni, 
popravi, izboljša in spremeni, za potencialne »gledališke agente« pa je to prav tako le 
nekakšna vmesna faza pri odločitvi o uprizoritvi besedila in/ali angažmaju njegovega 
avtorja. To spomni na podobo gledališkega trga, na katerem avtorji potencialnim 
strankam ponujajo in prodajajo svoje blago, najsi bo to njihov tekst ali kar oni sami.
4
 
Stranski učinek tako razumljenega koncepta »bralnih uprizoritev« je, da ta umetniški 
žanr postane tako uprizoritveno kot teoretsko precej nezanimiv, saj je zreduciran le na 
funkcijo in namenjen zgolj temu, da gre besedilo skozi prvo (pre)izkušnjo odra, ki pa je le 
4 O tem je sicer obširno pisal že Blaž Lukan, ki v misel priklicuje tudi precej zgovorno podobo trga: »Problematičen je tako 
lahko, prvič, odnos samih, praviloma še neuveljavljenih avtorjev, ki z bralnimi uprizoritvami v resnici skoraj brez sredstev ali 
z minimalnim materialnim vložkom možnim ‘kupcem’ ponujajo potencialno ‘vrednost’, ki jo ta lahko pridobi na estetskem 
ali realnem trgu. Od nje torej pričakujejo ‘profit’, ki se lahko udejanji kot možni angažma, ‘odkup’ ali samo kot prepoznanje 
estetske vrednosti ponujenega kot naložba v prihodnost, v vsakem primeru pa gre za same negotove (ekonomske) kategorije. 
Ali pa se, drugič, kot problematičen izkaže odnos naslovnikov ali potencialnih ‘kupcev’, ki s pomočjo bralnih uprizoritev, 
ki jih ne pripravljajo sami, na dovolj preprost in lagoden način (torej brez posebnega lastnega vložka in truda, kakr šnega 
denimo predstavljajo poizvedbe, natečaji, štipendije, vlaganja v ‘talente’) pridejo do razloga in podlage za lastno investicijo (in 
invencijo), ki jim bo prinesla drugačen ‘profit’ kot samim ustvarjalcem.« (Lukan, Gledališka 176, 177)
180 eden od korakov na poti h končnemu cilju, torej k objavi ali uprizoritvi besedila. Takšne 
»poluprizoritve« so lahko zanimive za avtorje in za redko, predvsem pa pragmatično 
naravnano občinstvo, torej tisto, ki si obeta kakšno novo kvalitetno besedilo ali vsaj 
potencialno zanimivega gledališkega sodelavca, ter v najboljšem primeru še za nekaj 
gledaliških entuziastov, ki se iz nepojasnjenih razlogov radi seznanjajo s tekočo in novo 
produkcijo dramskih besedil. Ker pa so bralne uprizoritve za mnoge (pretežno mlade) 
avtorje edina možnost, da se njihovo besedilo sploh uprizori, se mnogi med njimi takšnemu 
funkcionalističnemu načinu razumevanja odrekajo in namesto tega vzpostavljajo estetsko 
avtonomijo tega umetniškega žanra. Le tako se namreč lahko izognejo temu, da bi bile 
bralne uprizoritve samo slaba tolažba, zasilni nadomestek za avtorje, ki težko upajo na 
tisto, kar naj bi bila domnevno prava dovršitev teksta, to je bodisi njegova uprizoritev na 
gledališkem odru bodisi njegova objava v kakšni od publikacij ali knjižnih izdaj. 
Namesto da bi branje in uprizarjanje postavljali v medsebojno nasprotje in namesto 
da bi vztrajali pri tem, da se med seboj nujno izključujeta, torej predlagamo, da ju 
postavimo v isti estetski kontinuum. Morda bi to razmerje najučinkoviteje ponazorila 
podoba Möbiusovega traku, pri katerem se pri postopnem napredovanju z izhodiščne 
točke prej ali slej znajdemo na nasprotni strani. Na tem traku nas bo zanimalo mesto 
intersekcije, tisti spoj, pri katerem ena ravnina preide v drugo, ko torej branje 
postane popolnoma avtonomna uprizoritev.
5
 To bi pomenilo, da bi lahko branje pod 
določenimi pogoji postalo čisto pravi gledališki dogodek. Ti pogoji so presenetljivo 
minimalni: Blaž Lukan je denimo že  v osemdesetih letih ob javnem branju Ivana 
Mraka ugotavljal, da se je razkrilo »gledališče v svojem izvornem pomenu«, čeprav 
je bilo za to potrebno tako malo, kot so denimo samo »stol in miza, odprta knjiga 
na njej, skromna razsvetljava ter oddaljena muzika« (Lukan, Dramaturške 23). To 
je v prekarnih razmerah, v katerih delujejo (mladi) dramski pisci, opogumljajoče, 
saj jim za uprizoritev svojega besedila pogosto ne preostane drugega, kot da delajo 
v komaj ustreznih produkcijskih pogojih. Honorarji so nizki, zato časa za vaje ni 
veliko, prav tako je lahko zelo skromen tudi nabor avtorskih sodelavcev. Poleg tega 
je premalo denarja tudi za razkošne (ali sploh kakršne koli) kostume, scenografijo 
in rekvizite, pogosto pa ni niti odra, saj si avtorji namesto institucij svoj prostor 
običajno izborijo le v kakšnih zelo obrobnih in alternativnih prostorih, kjer so 
tudi možnosti osvetlitve borne in minimalne. V takšnih pogojih je lastno besedilo 
nemogoče uprizoriti na način   »velikih« gledaliških produkcij. Ti poskusi se lahko 
končajo samo zelo klavrno, poleg tega pa so tudi ideološko problematični, saj so 
v popolnem sozvočju s prevladujočo logiko kapitala, ki si s čim manj vložka želi 
5 To je mogoče razumeti tudi povsem dobesedno, saj nekatere bralne uprizoritve ne vključujejo več glasnega 
interpretativnega branja ali pa se poigravajo s tem, kdo bere (prim. Lukan, Gledališka 174). Lukan izpostavi nekaj sodobnih 
primerov bralnih uprizoritev, ki se jim slovarska definicija ne prilega več (prim. 173, 174), kar ne odpira le potrebe po 
spremenjenem slovarskem geslu, temveč morda tudi vprašanje ustrezne terminologije. Morda bi nekateri primeri 
sodobnih bralnih uprizoritev, ki presegajo klasično definicijo tega pojava, potrebovali nov terminološki pojem ali pa bi bilo 
treba obstoječemu vsaj dodati kakšno predpono (npr. postbralna uprizoritev ali ne več bralna uprizoritev). To vprašanje 
na tem mestu ponujamo samo v premislek. 
181 čim več izkupička, to pa je prav zato tudi kontraproduktivno: če je mogoče s tako 
malo denarja ustvarjati predstave, potem pač ni potrebe, da bi ga bilo kadar koli več. 
Če pa v nasprotju s tem predpostavimo, da so lahko bralne uprizoritve popolnoma 
samostojen in polnovreden umetniški žanr, potem s tem izgubimo tudi potrebo, da 
se iz njih dela nekaj »več« od tega, kar je mogoče napraviti glede na dane (predvsem 
finančne) zmožnosti. Tako so lahko uprizoritve te vrste docela iskrene v tem, da 
nastajajo v prekarnih pogojih, da gre v nekem smislu celo za revno gledališče, a revno 
le glede produkcijskih pogojev in nikakor ne glede svoje estetske vrednosti. Spet pa 
je slednjo mogoče ustvariti le pod pogojem, da se bralni uprizoritvi kot umetniškemu 
žanru najprej sploh prizna, da ima kakršen koli uprizoritveni potencial. Prostor 
za raziskovanje se namreč odpre šele z opustitvijo ideje o tem, da gre pri bralnih 
uprizoritvah le za vmesno fazo med branjem in uprizarjanjem. Šele tako se lahko 
branje dojame kot potencialno zanimivo gledališko sredstvo, ki ga je vredno raziskati 
in ki obeta stvaritev povsem celostnega gledališkega dogodka.
6
 To torej pomeni, da 
se je treba vztrajno upirati kakršni koli pretenziji po tem, da bi bralne uprizoritve 
vzbujale vtis, da nastajajo v dobrih, morda celo  institucionaliziranih pogojih dela, 
hkrati pa se na račun skromnih pogojev tudi ne gre vnaprej resignirano odpovedati 
kakršnim koli uprizoritvenim ambicijam. Poanta je v tem, da so bralne uprizoritve, 
prav kolikor so zares bralne (in nič več kot to), tudi uprizoritveno zanimiv umetniški 
format, hkrati pa svojo estetsko dimenzijo podkrepijo tudi s politično, saj s tem, ko 
ne prikrivajo svojih produkcijskih pogojev nastanka, sporočajo nekaj v smislu: evo, 
to so pogoji, v katerih trenutno lahko delujemo. 
Generatorji eksperimenta
Kot eksperimentalna forma so se bralne uprizoritve pojavljale v različnih obdobjih, v 
nadaljevanju pa bomo premislili, kdaj se ustvarjalci k takšnemu formatu zatekajo in zakaj. 
Eksperimentalne in celo gverilske bralne uprizoritve so se pojavile že v času delovanja 
skupine PreGlej. Njeni takratni člani (dramski pisci, med katerimi so bili Simona 
Semenič, Simona Hamer, Peter Rezman idr.) so format bralnih uprizoritev razumeli 
predvsem kot odziv, komentar ali celo kritično gesto, s katero so problematizirali 
stanje slovenske sodobne dramatike, njenih piscev ter predvsem načinov in postopkov 
njihovega uprizarjanja. PreGlejevi ustvarjalci so si zaradi ekonomskih pogojev, še bolj 
pa zaradi okrnjenosti produkcijskih sredstev prisvojili format bralne uprizoritve, ki 
6 O tem je Blaž Lukan pisal in govoril na različnih mestih, med drugim tudi na okrogli mizi o neodvisnosti bralne uprizoritve, 
ki jo je KUD Krik leta 2019 organiziral na Novi pošti: »Bralna uprizoritev išče možnosti uprizoritve znotraj samega besedila 
in to na več ravneh. Ne samo na ravni interpretacije besedila, ampak tudi na ravni samega nosilca, grafičnega zapisa, 
načina podajanja besedila, projekcije, vzpostavljanja odnosa do besedila, vključitve občinstva v to nastajanje besedila pred 
nami. V bistvu smo priča rojstvu gledališča iz duha besedila, ampak prav v tej primarni obliki. Odpira se veliko polje, ki 
pa zahteva čas. Najhujša oblika bralne uprizoritve so bralke, ki so provizoriji, nadomestki, tolažilne mini predstave. To je 
degradacija bralke.« (Potočan 21)
182 je postal njihov zaščitni znak, iz avtorske svobode, ki jo je ponujal, pa so se sčasoma 
razvili nekateri najprezentnejši sodobni dramski pisci pri nas.
Zdi se, da je z uveljavitvijo omenjenih ustvarjalcev in s pogostejšim uprizarjanjem 
njihovih besedil v institucijah nastopilo obdobje zatišja, ko se bralne uprizoritve 
niso pojavljale tako pogosto. To se je spremenilo z vzpostavitvijo revije Adept in 
festivala dramske pisave Vzkrik, sčasoma pa tudi z drugimi pobudami, s katerimi se 
je nova generacija piscev uprla prevladujočemu stanju. Med letoma 2017 in 2021 
so se v okviru različnih festivalov in projektov bralne uprizoritve ponovno pričele 
množično pojavljati: prisotne so bile na Novih branjih v SNG Drama Ljubljana ter v 
drugih podpornih programih institucionalnih gledališč; med koronskim obdobjem 
so se v produkciji Prešernovega gledališča Kranj pod naslovom Monologi s kavča 
pojavili celo videoprenosi bralnih uprizoritev; tradicionalno so bralne uprizoritve 
potekale v okviru Tedna slovenske drame, svoje sta organizirala tudi revija Adept in 
Vzkrik, pojavljale so se platforme, kot je bila denimo Instant drama ipd. Kljub temu 
so bralne uprizoritve pogosto ostajale na nivoju klasičnega interpretativnega branja 
brez konceptualnih ali performativnih premislekov. Zapolnile so manko v podpornih 
programih, obenem pa vzbujale občutek, da se stanje sodobne slovenske dramatike 
in pozicija dramskih piscev bistveno izboljšuje. V resnici so takšne uprizoritve 
najpogosteje še vedno le nadomeščale domnevno »prave« uprizoritve besedil, zato so 
bile le nekakšno uprizarjanje v odlogu, samo potencial, ki se še mora zares realizirati. 
Podobno velja tudi za tekočo gledališko sezono, v kateri je sicer aktivno odprtih več 
kot pet natečajev za dramska besedila, kar je rekordno veliko, a le redki od njih poleg 
denarne nagrade omogočajo tudi uprizoritev izbranih besedil. Zdi se torej, da je 
pojavljanje bralnih uprizoritev povezano predvsem s tem, kako pogosto se besedila 
avtorjev objavljajo in uprizarjajo oziroma kakšne so sploh možnosti za kaj takega, 
vsaj deloma pa tudi z osebnimi ambicijami in voljo določenih posameznikov. Morda 
prav zato z menjavo generacije (Jernej Potočan, Nina Kuclar Stiković, Iza Strehar itn.), 
predvsem pa z njihovo postopno uveljavitvijo v bolj institucionaliziranih prostorih, 
potreba po takšnih eksperimentalnih gestah postopoma ponikne.
Pri tem sta posebej zanimiva primera Festival dramske pisave Vzkrik in akademijska 
revija Adept.
7
 Obe pobudi sta namreč nastali v času, ko se je začelo zanimanje za dramsko 
pisanje med mladimi avtorji vztrajno povečevati, hkrati pa je vse očitneje postalo, 
da manjka takšen prostor, kjer bi lahko svoja besedila nato tudi javno predstavili. Na 
neodvisni sceni avtorsko besedilo namreč skoraj v celoti nastaja tekom ustvarjalnega 
procesa, v institucionalnih gledališčih pa se avtorski projekti kombinirajo s starejšimi 
(pogosto kanoniziranimi) besedili ter vnaprej naročenimi teksti praviloma že 
uveljavljenih avtorjev. Prav zato se je izkazalo, da bi morala takšno platformo, ki bi 
7 Vzkrik je potekal od leta 2017 do 2021 in imel štiri festivalske edicije, v tem času pa je nastalo kar 28 novih dramskih 
besedil. Prva številka revije Adept je bila objavljena leta 2014, revija pa izhaja še danes.
183 skrbela za kontinuirano uprizarjanje besedil, vzpostaviti kar generacija sama. Festival 
Vzkrik je tako vrsto let nastajal pod zgovornim geslom »Če nas ne boste uprizarjali, se 
bomo pa sami!«, na podoben problem pa sta z naslovom »Ne samo berite, uporabite!« 
v uredniškem uvodniku inavguracijske številke Adepta opozorila tudi Nina Ramšak 
in Žan Žveplan. Revija, ki je bila zamišljena tako, da bi bila vsako leto ena od dveh 
številk namenjena prav objavi dramskih besedil avtorjev mlade generacije, se je že 
spočetka uprla temu, da bi bila namenjena samo »linearnemu branju od začetka do 
konca« (Ramšak, Žveplan 3), namesto tega pa je spodbujala branje v razmerju do 
potencialne uprizoritve. Prav zato je vsaki številki, v kateri so bila objavljena dramska 
besedila, sledila tudi njihova javna predstavitev v obliki bralnih uprizoritev, te pa 
so bile že od začetka zamišljene v širšem smislu, torej »ne le kot korak do končnega 
izdelka, ampak kot samostojn[a] form[a], vredn[a] raziskovanja« (prav tam). Prav to 
je bilo tudi temeljno izhodišče Vzkrika, v sklopu katerega so celo leto pod mentorskim 
vodstvom uveljavljenih dramskih avtorjev in avtoric potekale delavnice, na katerih 
so udeleženci pisali in izpopolnjevali svoja besedila, ob zaključku delavnic pa so bila 
nato tudi bralno uprizorjena. Da te uprizoritve niso bile namenjene le funkciji prve 
informacije, pač pa da je šlo za pravi in samostojni uprizoritveni dogodek, je bilo 
nakazano že s samoopredelitvijo projekta kot festivala dramske pisave, navsezadnje 
pa sta to ambicijo potrjevali tudi njegova siceršnja odmevnost in dobra obiskanost.
Geste in vzkriki
Takšnim bralnim uprizoritvam je skupno, da si branja niso vzele le kot interpretacije 
besedil, pač pa kot svoj glavni uprizoritveni koncept, s čimer je besedilo postalo 
najpomembnejše (ali celo edino) gledališko sredstvo. Takšnih primerov bralnih 
uprizoritev je seveda še več. Eden od njih je predstava bolgarskega dramatika 
Alexandra Manuiloffa Država, ki je na Novi pošti gostovala leta 2019. Publika je 
bila v dvorani posedena v krog, na sredi nje pa je bila postavljena škatla s pismi. 
Gledalci so kot skupnost ali država sami odločali o tempu, dramaturgiji in poteku 
izvedbe, sami so tudi brali besedilo in ga nazadnje tudi zaključili. Čeprav se je Država 
samoopredeljevala kot celovečerna gledališka predstava, je bilo v njej vseeno mogoče 
najti tudi glavne elemente tistega, kar sami razumemo pod pojmom eksperimentalne 
bralne uprizoritve, saj je bil tekst postavljen v ospredje in uporabljen kot edino 
gledališko orodje, zato sta bila na odru med seboj soočena le tekst in gledalec. 
Kar zadeva naš prostor, se eksperimentalnost, sploh v polju mlade dramske pisave, 
najočitneje pojavlja z vključevanjem avtobiografskih elementov ter vpletanjem 
avtorjeve prezence in telesnosti v akt javnega branja. Slednje s tem ni več le branje 
besedila, temveč tudi branje oziroma razbiranje avtorja in njegovega statusnega 
konteksta. Takšen je bil denimo bralnouprizoritveni cikel Ko se žgem na 57. Festivalu 
184 Borštnikovo srečanje, v okviru katerega so Nina Kuclar Stiković, Urša Majcen, Helena 
Šukljan in Manca Lipoglavšek predstavile svoje interpretacije in adaptacije znane 
Andersenove pravljice Deklica z vžigalicami, Šukljan in Lipoglavšek pa sta nekaj 
podobnega napravili tudi pri uprizoritvi njunega teksta Dramakurbija. Ker gre v 
omenjenih primerih predvsem za poskuse, ki so nastajali v študijskem okviru, je 
morda zanimivo omeniti tudi performativna branja avtorice Anje Novak, ki je že v 
svojo tiskano pesniško zbirko Ranerane na QR-kodah vstavila sočasna tekstovna, 
vizualna, zvočna, interaktivna in uprizoritvena branja drugih ustvarjalcev njenih 
pesmi. S tem je nadaljevala tudi v kontekstu javnih predstavitev in branj te zbirke, ko 
je v vlogi alterega Anjute kot nevesta s svojo poezijo intervenirala v javne dogodke in 
tako v branje ponudila sebe in svojo subjektiviteto. Novak se je zvočnosti in glasbe kot 
enega od glavnih principov branja besedil – nekakšnih koncertnih bralnih uprizoritev 
– poslužila tudi v delu Moje telo, moja kletka, v katerem je bilo besedilo izčiščeno na 
nekaj deset besed in stavkov, branje pa je bilo dopolnjeno z ozvočenim pokanjem 
njenih kosti in uporabo špagetov kot zvočnega orodja, s čimer je ustvarjalka podčrtala 
svoje notranje stanje anoreksije. Podoben primer koncertnega branja je bila tudi 
uprizoritev Nine Dragičević, ki je branju dodala spremljavo bas kitare in s tem svoje 
besedilo Ljubav reče greva zasnovala kot partituro ritma in atmosfer.
Vsi navedeni primeri so eksperimentalni po tem, da svojo domnevno primarno 
funkcijo bralnih vaj in interpretacij opustijo ter namesto tega zapopadejo celostno 
performativnost besedila. Hkrati pa so lahko bralne uprizoritve eksperimentalne tudi 
glede na to, kakšne družbene geste producirajo. Tu se njihov eksperiment nanaša 
predvsem na pozicijo dramskega besedila in njegovega avtorja. Eno od takšnih gest 
je z nizom participatornih bralnih uprizoritev besedila Delo in deklica I–V: Drame 
tlačank ustvarila Nika Švab. Avtorica se je namreč kot dramaturginja in književnica 
odločila kandidirati na razpisu Avtorski opus Ministrstva za kulturo, na katerega se 
sicer s svojimi idejami za celovečerne uprizoritve in performanse praviloma prijavljajo 
predvsem režiserji in performerji. Švab se je temu uprla tako, da se je prijavila z 
dramskim besedilom in s konceptom serije bralnih uprizoritev, s čimer se je zoperstavila 
prevladujočemu pojmovanju razpisnih izvedbenih produkcijskih enot, hkrati pa je s tem 
bralno uprizoritev vzpostavila tudi kot samostojni uprizoritveni format, ki se na razpisu 
enakovredno bori z ostalimi performativnimi in gledališkimi dogodki. 
Dramaturški strukturi besedila, razdeljenega na pet prizorov, je sledila tudi 
konceptualna zasnova bralnih uprizoritev. Teh je bilo namreč pet, tako da se je vsak 
dan med 15. in 19. novembrom 2022 prebral en prizor, vsak od večerov pa je potekal 
pred novo publiko in drugimi povabljenimi gledališkimi ustvarjalci, ki so, sedeč 
na tribuni v avditoriju, prebirali besedilo in ga skupaj z avtorico tudi komentirali. 
Dogodki so bili organizirani na Novi pošti, kjer razen velikega platna, na katerem se 
je projiciralo besedilo, ni bilo ničesar drugega. Edini gledališki element, ki je ostal na 
185 odru, je bilo tako prav besedilo, ki se ga je prebiralo prima vista, brez kakršnih koli 
interpretacij ali študijskih predpriprav. Potek branja ni bil določen vnaprej, pač pa 
so se bralci sami odločali, kdaj bodo branje zaustavili s svojimi vprašanji, premisleki 
in pomisleki o kvaliteti in razumljivosti besedila ter s predlogi o potencialnih 
načinih njegove uprizoritve. Tako branje kot pogovori, ki so se sprožali ob njem, so 
bili posneti in nato transkribirani v novo dokumentarno uprizoritveno besedilo z 
naslovom Nevarno razmerje dramatike in gledališča. To je torej nastalo in medias res, 
med bralnim uprizarjanjem in sočasnim analitičnim komentiranjem nekega drugega 
besedila. Dogodek sam – branje in analiza prebranega – sta tako postala material (in 
ne le osnova) za nastanek novega gledališkega teksta. Če torej Lukan pravi, da smo 
pri bralnih uprizoritvah, kadar te potekajo na več ravneh, ne le na ravni interpretacije 
besedila, »priča rojstvu gledališča iz duha besedila« (Potočan 21), potem smo bili v 
primeru te bralne uprizoritve priča ne le rojstvu gledališča, pač pa tudi rojstvu povsem 
novega besedila. Logika je torej tu zaobrnjena: kar naenkrat bralna uprizoritev ni 
več »zasilni izhod« za tekste, ki so sicer napisani, a neuprizorjeni, pač pa zdaj sama 
postane tako samostojen gledališki dogodek kot celo generator novega teksta. Ne le 
torej, da bralna uprizoritev lahko deluje kot polnokrven uprizoritveni format. Kot vse 
kaže, lahko deluje tudi kot povsem samostojen gledališki tekst.
 
Sklep
Skratka, očitno je, da se bralna uprizoritev kot mesto eksperimenta (in morda tudi 
kot gesta upora) vzpostavi takrat, ko se tisto, kar naj bi bilo polarizirano, preseže, a ne 
tako, da se oba domnevno nasprotujoča si pola opusti, pač pa da se ju radikalno spravi 
na isto mesto. Tako so najboljše bralne uprizoritve tiste, ki v razmerju med bralnim 
in uprizorjenim niso nekaj vmesnega, pač pa so hkrati tako eno kot drugo, a spet ne 
način, da bi preprosto združile en pol z drugim, pač pa tako, da en pol vzpostavijo 
znotraj drugega. To smo poskušali ponazoriti s podobo Möbiusovega traku. Ne gre 
torej za to, da se vključi malo branja in malo uprizarjanja, pač pa da se branje – pod 
določenimi pogoji, seveda – lahko vzpostavi kot samostojna oblika uprizarjanja in da 
se eksperiment lahko začne prav tu, pri raziskovanju, kakšne vse oblike uprizoritve 
branje lahko proizvede. Podobno velja tudi za opozicijo med literarnim in gledališkim, 
kajti kot smo videli na primeru projekta Nike Švab, je lahko gledališki dogodek 
– spet seveda pod določenimi pogoji – tudi generator novega literarnega besedila. 
Ne gre torej za to, da sta si gledališče in literatura povsem nasproti, da je med njima 
nepremostljivo brezno, pač pa, da se lahko v nekem hipu med seboj pokrijeta in da se 
nemara prav na tej točki odpira neskončno polje eksperimenta. 
Hkrati ima lahko vzpostavljanje bralnih uprizoritev kot povsem samozadostnega 
gledališkega dogodka tudi pomembne posledice za prekarno situacijo (mladih) 
186 ustvarjalcev. Kajti če bralne uprizoritve niso zgolj nekaj tranzitnega, vmesnega in 
začasnega, če je z njimi moč generirati eksperiment in če so lahko povsem celovit način 
uprizarjanja dramskih besedil, potem ne bi smele ostati odvisne le od partikularne 
volje posameznika, da se takšnega projekta loti, in še manj od žalostnega dejstva, da 
se besedila mladih avtorjev na »velikih odrih« praviloma ne uprizarjajo. Namesto tega 
bi morale postati ustrezno finančno podprte in s tem sistemsko spodbujene, saj je 
očitno, da so lahko generator novih in drugačnih pisav, morda pa tudi njihovih avtorjev. 
S tem bi se preprečilo, da bi se bralne uprizoritve pojavljale in presihale v bolj ali manj 
kontingentnih valovih, trajnostno pa bi se vzpostavilo polje za raziskovanje novih oblik 
dramskega pisanja. Ker pa se je paradoksalno izkazalo, da so bralne uprizoritve lahko 
pričele eksperimentirati ravno zaradi svoje samozadostnosti, saj ustvarjalci razen 
nase niso bili vezani na nikogar drugega, sistemska spodbuda, čeprav dobrodošla, 
nikakor ne bi smela iti na račun njihove avtonomije. Kajti šele v polju, ki lahko deluje 
avtonomno in neomejeno, se eksperiment zares lahko začne. 
187
Lliteratura
Aristoteles. Poetika. Študentska založba, 2012.
Dupont, Florence. Aristotel ali vampir zahodnega gledališča. Knjižnica MGL, 2019.
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. Predavanja o estetiki: dramska poezija. Društvo za 
teoretsko psihoanalizo, 2001.
Lukan, Blaž. Dramaturške replike. Knjižnica MGL, 1991. 
Lukan, Blaž. Gledališka sinteza: razprave o drami, gledališču in performansu. Založba 
Univerze v Ljubljani, 2022.
Poschmann, Gerda. »Gledališki tekst in drama: k uporabi pojmov.« Drama, tekst, 
pisava, ur. Petra Pogorevc in Tomaž Toporišič, Knjižnica MGL, 2008, str. 97–116.
Potočan, Jernej. »Vprašanje bralne uprizoritve.« Adept, letn. 6, št. 2, 2020, str. 16–22.
Ramšak, Nina, in Žan Žveplan. »Ne samo berite, uporabite!« Adept, letn. 1, št. 1, 2014, str. 3.  
Tackels, Bruno. »Desakralizacija teksta, vendarle.« Drama, tekst, pisava 2, ur. Petra 
Pogorevc in Tomaž Toporišič, Knjižnica MGL, 2021, str. 79–96.
188
UDK 792.02(497.4)  
DOI 10.51937/Amfiteater-2023-1/188-201
In the paper, the authors discuss the concept of staged readings, arguing that they are 
the predominant performance format for presentations of young playwriting. However, 
such presentations should not be understood as an intermediate stage between reading 
and performing but as a fully-fledged and independent artistic genre. Many staged 
readings thus lose the function of “first information” about the text and its author. 
Instead, they have become a proper way of performing a text, thus opening up a wider 
area for theatrical experimentation. Using concrete examples, the authors will reflect on 
practices characterised by the text becoming the main or even the only thing necessary 
for a theatrical event and reading (in all its possible ways and forms) becoming the key 
theatrical means.
Keywords: young generation, staged reading, experiment, generator, staging, reading
Varja Hrvatin (1993), Maša Radi Buh (1998) and Jakob Ribič (1995) have been collaborating 
as writers since 2018. Collectively, they have co-created the show Teritorij teatra (Theatre 
Territory) on Radio Študent, lectured for the Maska Seminar of Contemporary Performing 
Arts and published texts in journals (Maska, Amfiteater) and theatre programmes. As 
a theoretical-research collective, they received the Jernej Šugman Fund scholarship 
bestowed by the Slovenian Association of Dramatic Artists (SADA) for the academic year 
2022/23. Their current research focuses on perspectives on invisible and collective work in 
performing arts and the drama creation of authors of the young generation.
varja.hrvatin@gmail.com, masaradibuh@gmail.com, vid.jakob@gmail.com
189
THE GENERATOR:: for Any Number  
of Staged Readings
Varja Hrvatin, Maša Radi Buh, Jakob Ribič  
Academy of Theatre, Radio, Film and Television, University of Ljubljana
Introduction
1
During the last decade, staged readings have become the dominant performance for-
mat for presenting young playwriting. For most authors, however, this format has be-
come the only way for them to present their texts as a public performance. For this 
reason, it is necessary to stop considering staged readings as a kind of intermediate 
stage in the development of a text, a prelude to some potentiality that has yet to be 
realised, something that is thus postponed into the future since, for young authors, 
this often means nothing else but an indefinable tomorrow that never comes. Many 
such productions, therefore, no longer serve as the “first information” about the text 
and its author. Instead, they have become a true and proper staging of the text, thus 
opening up the space for theatrical experimentation.
2
The notion of the theatre experiment is so broad that it is almost impossible to explain 
it here without great simplification, roughly condensing a multitude of divergent and 
branching performative practices or by an imprecise, almost violent unification of nu-
merous singularities under a single common denominator. Nevertheless, despite this 
diversity, the theatrical experimentation of the last century, at least in its predominant 
part, seems to point in one general direction, a common thread, namely, the attempt to 
dethrone the theatre text, that is to say, to deprive it of its primacy preserved by the-
atre literature in comparison to the stage. Blaž Lukan notes that the alliance between 
the text and the stage, which primarily involved the domination of the former over the 
latter – although it was never exemplary or unproblematic – shifted into a competitive 
1 The authors of this article are the 2022/2023 fellows of the Jernej Šugman Fund, established by the Slovenian Association 
of Dramatic Artists (SADA). Jakob Ribič (54771) is included in the programme “Young researchers”, co-financed by the 
Slovenian Research Agency from the state budget, as well as in the research programme “Theatre and Interart Studies” 
(P6-0376), co-financed by the Slovenian Research Agency from the state budget.
2 Of course, this statement does not imply that staged readings have not been present before and do not appear in other 
cultural spaces. However, this goes beyond the intended scope and context of our research. That is why we deliberately 
focus below on the research of staged readings only in the context of the dramatic writing of the young generation.
190 relationship in the 20
th
 century. This shift coincided with the emergence of theatre 
direction and the autonomisation of theatrical approaches (Gledališka 185–87). For 
this very reason, we perhaps should not look for the goal orientation of theatrical 
experimentalism in this newly established relationship but rather for a foundation, 
a basis for the stage to be able to speak through its own language or through every-
thing that can be part of this language. This new relationship, of course, opened up 
an infinite number of possibilities for exploring the potential of performance, that is, 
of everything that theatre can be or do. As a consequence, dramatic writing itself was 
fundamentally changed. It is impossible to list all the significant changes that have 
taken place. To mention but a few, one trend becomes particularly obvious: as the di-
rector’s theatre has become more established, the playwright has lost their dominant 
role, and numerous new practices have emerged, many of them expanding the mean-
ing of theatre or even emerging from strictly speaking, non-theatrical artistic spheres, 
for example, happenings and performance art. Ultimately, however, playwriting itself 
also changed, which soon called for new terminological designations, such as “no lon-
ger dramatic texts” or “postdramatic texts”, each of which in its own way testifies to 
the supposed end of (classical) playwriting.
In contrast to what has just been written, we will follow a particular turn in exploring 
the layers of what a theatrical experiment can be. This approach does not mean that 
we will try to reassert the primacy of playwriting and return from performance back to 
textuality. We are not trying to advocate for a theatre text that would bring the author 
and their text back into the theatre and make a turn away from the performative turn. 
Doing so would be nothing but a conservative appeal for a return to the alleged good old 
days when everything was just like it should be. On the contrary, we are still interested 
in the performative potentials of the stage. However, we intend to consider them in a 
surprising conjunction between reading and staging. We will follow the creative prac-
tices that preserve the interest in the staging, not at the expense of the dramatic text but 
precisely within its own framework. This calls for a specific shift in the underlying par-
adigm. Thus, the theatre text for us no longer merely represents a vehicle or source of 
meaning but a full-blooded and independent agency. We thus understand staged read-
ings as a performance of a theatre text, a performance that uses the body of the text and 
its materiality instead of the actor’s body, exploring all that can be done with it at this 
intersection and what are all the performative potentials that a simple reading can have.
We, therefore, see experimentation primarily as an attempt and risk to do something 
differently. If experimentation is established as a deviation from and an alternative to 
the already existing and, above all, to what is recognised as dominant in a given artistic, 
social and political context, then we question whether the aesthetic empowerment and 
re-functionalisation of the genre of staged readings is not precisely one such area of 
experimentation. Staged readings are becoming an alternative to the status quo on at 
191 least three levels: Firstly, in a situation where the majority of texts by young authors are 
never actually performed, they represent an alternative option, perhaps even an “es-
cape route” for performing such texts. At the same time, however, they are much more 
than merely an “escape route” since they also represent an alternative to the prevailing 
performative methods (a staged reading, namely, no longer requires costumes, a set 
design, props, a stage, etc.; all that is necessary seems to be the text itself and its poten-
tial audience). Furthermore, when understood in this way, that is, as full and complete 
performances, staged readings contradict and present an alternative to the prevailing 
understanding of this format as merely an intermediate stage in the development of a 
text and, therefore, only a kind of a “semi-performative form”. Finally, staged readings 
also allow for an alternative to the existing dramaturgies of theatre texts and the possi-
bility of a different textuality since they raise the question of what a text can be and how 
it can communicate with us. While the dominant way of staging texts is to try to trans-
late them into stage signs and thus dissolve them into the “language of the stage”, staged 
readings radically insist that the text is the principal, essential and even the only thing 
necessary for a theatrical event and that reading is, therefore, a key theatrical means. 
This understanding, of course, allows for the development of fundamentally different 
dramatic scripts, as it finally suspends the criterion of performability that is to some 
extent still dominant to this day and is undoubtedly also very limiting,
In the paper, we focus on staged readings and relate this issue to the questions of how to 
still generate experiments today, who can generate them, and what is the young genera-
tion’s position in such experiments. We examine whether it is the case that it is precisely 
staged readings that generate the theatre experiment today and, at the same time, relate 
this to the question of the status and positioning of drama and its authors. Thus, we first 
try to define “staged readings” and what it means to establish this type of performance as 
an independent performative format. We will then ask where this surge of staged read-
ings emerging among young authors in a certain period comes from, noting that the pop-
ularisation of this format is most probably closely linked to today’s precarious economic 
situation in which (primarily but not exclusively) young artists are currently working. 
Since staged readings require minimal resources, they often represent the only chance for 
staging a given text, which, despite minimal production conditions, can still be aesthetical-
ly fulfilling and worthwhile. In the last part of the paper, we attempt to show this through 
concrete examples of different practices of young women playwrights.
Reading as Performance
The notion of “staged reading” immediately arouses interest. It meshes together 
what is supposed to be incompatible. It associates reading with staging, even 
though reading is precisely the radical opposite of staging, according to the classical 
192 theatre model. Staging supposedly begins only where reading ends, that is, with the 
translation or transposition of the words written on paper and intended for reading 
into “stage language”, for example, stage movements, light design, the choreography 
of movements and gestures, set and costume design, music, etc. Theatre rehearsals 
– the process by which a dramatic text transforms from its literary status into a full-
blooded stage performance – are usually structured along the path from reading 
to what is supposedly a real performance. Thus, the rehearsals usually start with 
“reading at the table”. After a while, in a later and presumably more mature phase, 
they “move into the space”, at first perhaps with the actors still holding the text in 
their hands as an aid, and finally without it altogether. At that point, the reading is 
over, and this is supposedly when the time is ripe for the real theatrical event.
It seems that the dual status of playwriting, torn between literature and theatre, is 
also linked to this split. This aporia is typically established by two great and influen-
tial aesthetic theories: Aristotle’s and Hegel’s. Although they approach the opposition 
thus established from opposite ends and advocate completely different positions, they 
nevertheless share the understanding of “performing” and “reading” as two mutually 
exclusive possibilities, of which only one or the other can be chosen. However, it is im-
possible to consider them along the same aesthetic line, that is, intertwined in a recip-
rocal relationship, into reading as a type of performance. Aristotle, for example, argues 
that the spectacle, the so-called opsis, is the least important of the six elements of trag-
edy since “the tragic effect is quite possible without a public performance and actors” 
(2321) and that “from the mere reading of a play its quality may be seen” (2340).
3
 
 Hegel, on the other hand, emphasises the necessity of performance, stating that “no 
play should really be printed but should remain [...] in manuscript for the theatre’s 
repertory” (1184). These words should perhaps be read in the context of Hegel’s time 
in which the so-called closet drama (Lesedrama or Buchdrama) emerged, aimed only 
at readers, not spectators, as it was not intended to be made into a performance. All 
of this, however, merely reiterates and reinforces the notion of a binary relationship 
between performance and reading as an oppositional relation, that is, a relation of op-
position and even mutual exclusion. Nevertheless, although there is, of course, clearly 
a difference between reading and staging – silent reading in solitude, for example, is 
not yet sufficient for a theatrical event – and although it is true that in “staged read-
ings”, a particular relationship is established between reading and staging, we are 
here principally interested in conjunction, a kind of dialectic between the two poles, 
Hegel and Aristotle, reading and staging, literature and the stage, that is, an attempt 
to position one within the other.
Today it seems that we have overcome the dichotomy between text and stage, per-
3 As Florence Dupont points out, the very title of Aristotle’s text, Poetics, “indicates a technique of writing a play or epic 
poem” (17), rather than a ritual stage event.
193 haps it even appears meaningless and outdated, and thus it might be useful to reject 
it. In the field of theatre theory, this has, in fact, already happened from both sides, 
that is, on the side of the text, which Gerda Poschmann defined by the notion of 
the theatre text and attributed to it “an immanent performative, theatrical dimen-
sion” (102), and on the side of the stage, which, according to Bruno Tackels, can be 
understood as a blank page to which directing is applied as “a kind of writing, a 
stage writing or a writing of the stage (Fr. écriture de plateau)” (81). Thus, just as 
theatricality is an intrinsic quality of the text itself, so too is directing a kind of stage 
writing, which contains “a grammar, language, vocabulary, style and rhythm of its 
own” (Tackels 81), and therefore presupposes the existence of the spectator as a 
“stage reader” (88). In short, instead of continuing to insist on the aporia between 
the text and the stage, the stage itself can already be understood as a kind of text. 
At the same time, the text can be considered in its inherent theatrical dimension.
Similarly, we will not consider staged reading as a phenomenon split between 
these two extremes. For if we put a notch between reading and performing and 
separate them into opposite poles, a staged reading cannot really be one or 
the other; it can only be something in between, a kind of third way that is no 
longer just a reading (since actors or performers are involved and an audience 
is present, the reading is often supplemented by interpretation and often also by 
some kind of directorial intervention). However, it is not yet a real performance 
since it is still “just” a reading of the text, after all. The staged reading is thus 
considered to reside somewhere in the middle of the process, from the creation of 
the text –usually written in the solitude of the author’s workspace – to its public 
performance in front of a theatre audience. It is thus only a kind of intermediate 
stage in a work-in-progress. While the author already offers his text to the public, 
this is not yet done in a way that would constitute a “proper” performance; the 
function of the staged reading is only informative. This way, the playwright can 
receive information about their text, which they verify by, on the one hand, putting 
their words in the actors’ mouths for the first time and, on the other hand, by 
collecting the reactions of the audience and perhaps also their critical opinions. 
At the same time, the audience also receives information about the text and often 
about its author as well, particularly the “interested” public, among them, of 
course, primarily those who could potentially perform the text or at least decide to 
perform it or publish it in printed form, for example, directors, producers, theatre 
company directors and editors. For the author, the staged reading thus represents 
only a developmental stage in the writing process; it gives them valuable and 
often even the first feedback on what they had written, based on which they can 
complete, correct, improve and modify their text. To the potential “theatre agents”, 
the staged reading also represents only an intermediate step in deciding to stage a 
text and/or engage its author. This point brings to mind the image of a theatrical 
194 marketplace where authors offer and sell their wares to potential clients, whether 
their text or themselves.
4
A side effect of the concept of “staged readings”, understood in this way, is that 
this artistic genre becomes rather uninteresting, both performatively and theo-
retically, because it is reduced to a mere function and is intended only as a way 
for the text to pass the first test or experience of the stage, which is only the first 
step on the path to the final goal: the publication or performance of the text. Such 
“semi-performances” may be of interest to the authors and to a rare, but first and 
foremost pragmatically oriented, audience, that is, people who are hoping to find 
a new quality text or at least a potentially interesting theatre collaborator, and 
in the best case scenario, also to a few theatre enthusiasts who, for some unex -
plained reason, like to stay informed about the current production of dramatic 
texts. However, since staged readings are virtually the only possibility for many 
(mainly young) playwrights to have their text performed at all, many of them re-
nounce this functionalist understanding and instead attempt to establish the aes-
thetic autonomy of this artistic genre. Such reframing is the only way for them to 
be able to consider staged readings as anything else but a poor consolation prize, 
a makeshift substitute for authors who can hardly hope for what is supposedly a 
proper fulfilment of a text, which is either its performance on a theatre stage or its 
publication in a journal or book.
Rather than juxtaposing reading and staging as opposed to each other and 
insisting that they are necessarily mutually exclusive, we propose to position 
them both on an aesthetic continuum. Perhaps the most effective way to 
illustrate this relationship is the metaphor of the Möbius strip, where, as 
one gradually progresses from the starting point, one sooner or later finds 
oneself on the opposite side. On this (s)trip, we will be most interested 
in the point of intersection, the junction at which one plane passes into 
another, and reading itself thus becomes a fully autonomous performance.
5
 
4 Blaž Lukan has written extensively on this subject, which also brings to mind a rather telling image of a marketplace: 
“The first problem thus lies in the attitude adopted by the mostly unestablished authors themselves, as staged readings 
with zero budget or minimal material investment allow them to offer their potential ‘value’ to strong ‘buyers’ who might 
purchase it in the aesthetic or real market. This means that the authors expect to turn a ‘profit’ which can materialise in 
the form of potential employment, ‘commission’ or even mere recognition of the aesthetic value of the offered item as an 
investment into the future. In any case, we are talking about precarious (economic) categories. The second problem is 
the attitude of the addresses, i.e., the potential ‘buyers’ or ‘commissioners’, as staged readings (unless they organise them 
themselves) enable them to easily find potential candidates (with no particular investment or effort on their side, i.e., 
inquiries, competitions, grants or investment into ‘talent’) for their own investments (and invention), which to them can 
bring a completely different kind of ‘profit’ than to the authors” (Gledališka 176, 177).
5 This can also be taken quite literally, as some staged readings no longer involve interpretive reading aloud or play with 
who is reading (Lukan, Gledališka 174). Lukan points out some contemporary examples of staged readings that no longer 
fit the dictionary definition (173, 174), which not only raises the need for a revised dictionary entry but perhaps also 
the question of appropriate terminology. Perhaps some examples of contemporary staged readings that go beyond the 
classical definition of the phenomenon would need a new terminological term or at least a prefix to be added to the 
existing one (such as post-reading performance or no longer reading performance). This question is only offered for 
consideration at this point.
195 This idea would mean that, under certain conditions, a reading could become a 
very real theatrical event. These conditions are surprisingly minimal. As early as 
the 1980s, for example, Blaž Lukan noted at a public reading of Ivan Mrak’s work 
that it revealed “theatre in its original sense”, even though it required as little as, 
say, “a chair and a table, an open book on it, modest lighting and distant music” 
(Dramaturške 23). This confirmation is particularly encouraging for (young) 
playwrights operating in today’s precarious conditions, as they often have no choice 
but to work in barely adequate production to stage their texts. Fees are low, so there 
is little time for rehearsals, and the pool of potential co-workers can also be very 
shallow. There is also little money to invest into lavish costumes, sets and props 
(if any), and often no stage since authors usually find space only in marginal and 
 alternative venues, where lighting options are also poor and minimal, rather than 
in proper institutions. In such conditions, it is impossible to stage one’s text as a 
“spectacular” theatre production. Any such attempt could only fail miserably. It 
would also be ideologically somewhat problematic since it would be in perfect 
harmony with the prevailing logic of capital, which wants to make as much profit 
with as little input as possible. This is precisely why such an approach would be 
counterproductive: if it proved possible to produce performances with so little 
investment, there would be no need to invest more than that into performances. If, 
by contrast, we assume that staged readings can be a completely independent and 
fully-fledged artistic genre, then there is no need to make them into something 
“more” than what is possible, given the (mainly financial) limitations. Thus, this 
type of production can be quite honest about the fact that it is produced under 
precarious conditions, that this is a kind of poor theatre, in a sense, albeit poor 
only in terms of the conditions of production and certainly not in terms of their 
aesthetic value. Again, the latter can only be achieved if we first acknowledge 
staged readings as an artistic genre or as having any performance potential. The 
space for exploration only opens up by abandoning the idea that staged readings 
are merely an intermediate stage between reading and staging. Only in this way 
can reading be perceived as a potentially interesting theatrical means worth 
exploring and promising to create a fully integrated theatrical event.
6
 Thus, we 
should ultimately resist any ambition to make it appear that staged readings 
are being produced in good, perhaps even institutionalised, working conditions. 
However, we should not resignedly abandon all performative ambitions in advance 
on account of the modest conditions. The point is that staged readings, insofar 
6 Blaž Lukan has written and spoken about this on various occasions, including at the round table on the independence of 
staged reading, organised by the KUD Krik association at Nova pošta (The New Post Office) in 2019: “ A staged reading looks 
for the possibilities of staging within the text itself, on many different levels. Not only at the level of interpretation of the text 
but also at the level of the medium itself, the graphic notation, the way of presenting the text, its projection, the establishment 
of a relationship with the text, the involvement of the audience in the creation of the text live in front of us. In fact, what we see 
here is the birth of theatre out of the spirit of the text precisely in this primary form. This opens up a vast field of possibilities, 
but it also takes time. The worst form of staged reading is that which is considered to be merely provisional, substitutes, 
consolation mini-performances. This marks a degradation of the staged reading” (qtd. in Potočan 21).
196 as they truly remain readings (and no more than that), are also a performatively 
attractive artistic format while at the same time reinforcing their aesthetic 
dimension with a political one, since, by pointing out rather than concealing the 
conditions of their production, they communicate something along the lines of 
“Hey, these are the conditions in which we can work at the moment”.
Generators of Experimentation
As an experimental form, staged readings have emerged in different periods. Below 
we consider when artists have turned to this format and why.
Experimental and even guerrilla-style staged readings appeared during the time of 
the PreGlej group. Its members at the time (playwrights including Simona Semenič, 
Simona Hamer, Peter Rezman et al.) understood the format of staged readings pri-
marily as a response, a commentary or even a critical gesture to problematise the 
state of contemporary Slovenian drama, its writers and, above all, the methods and 
procedures of their performance. Due to economic conditions, and even more so 
due to the scarcity of production resources, PreGlej’s authors appropriated the for-
mat of the staged reading, which became their hallmark format, and the creative 
freedom offered by this approach eventually gave rise to some of the most promi-
nent contemporary playwrights in Slovenia.
It would seem that the establishment of these artists and more frequent stagings of 
their texts in institutions marked a quieter period when staged readings were not so 
frequently presented. This situation changed with the founding of the journal Adept 
and the Vzkrik Festival of Dramatic Writing – with other initiatives eventually fol-
lowing – by a new generation of writers to challenge the status quo. Between 2017 
and 2021, staged readings again started to appear in larger numbers in the context 
of various festivals and projects: for example, the New Readings programme at the 
Slovenian National Theatre Drama Ljubljana and other supporting programmes in 
institutional theatres; during the COVID-19 lockdowns, even video streamings of 
staged readings appeared in the production of the Prešeren Theatre Kranj under the 
title Couch Monologues; staged readings were traditionally organised by the Week of 
Slovenian Drama Festival, the Adept journal and the Vzkrik Festival; and platforms 
such as Instant Drama appeared, etc. Nevertheless, staged readings often remained 
at the level of classical interpretive readings without further conceptual or perfor-
mative considerations. They filled a gap in supportive programmes while at the same 
time giving the impression that the state of contemporary Slovenian drama and the 
position of playwrights was improving significantly. In reality, such productions were 
often mere substitutions for supposedly “proper” performances of texts, making them 
197 a kind of staging in deferment. This potential had yet to be fully and truly realised. 
The same goes for this year’s 2022/23 theatre season, in which more than five com-
petitions for plays are actively open, a record number. Just a few, however, also offer 
the staging of selected texts in addition to the prize money. Therefore, the frequen-
cy of staged readings seems to directly correlate to the frequency of publishing and 
staging the authors’ texts, or even to the possibilities for this happening at all, and at 
least partly to specific individuals’ personal ambitions and enthusiasm. Perhaps this 
is why the need for such experimental gestures is gradually disappearing when the 
generation changes (Jernej Potočan, Nina Kuclar Stiković, Iza Strehar, etc.), and even 
more with the gradual establishment of the authors in more institutionalised spaces.
Particularly interesting are the cases of the Vzkrik Festival of Dramatic Writing and 
the journal Adept of the University of Ljubljana, Academy of Theatre, Radio, Film and 
Television.
7
 Both initiatives were launched at a time when interest in playwriting 
among younger authors was surging, while it was also becoming increasingly clear 
that there was a lack of space in which they could present their texts publicly. In the 
independent scene, the text is usually created during the creative process. In contrast, 
in institutional theatres, devised projects are usually combined with older (often ca-
nonic) texts and commissioned texts, usually by established authors. This is why it 
became clear that the young generation had to establish its own platform for contin-
uously staging new texts. It is also why the Vzkrik Festival ran for several years with 
the eloquent slogan, “If you refuse to stage us, we will stage ourselves!” Nina Ramšak 
and Žan Žveplan pointed out a similar problem in the editorial “Don’t just read it, 
use it!” of the inaugural issue of Adept. The journal was conceived to dedicate one of 
its two annual issues to the publication of plays by authors of the young generation. 
From the outset, it resisted the idea that it would be intended merely for “linear read-
ing from beginning to end” (Ramšak and Žveplan 3). Instead, it encouraged reading 
in relation to a potential staging. For this reason, each issue in which the plays were 
published was followed by a public presentation in the form of staged readings, which 
were conceived from the very outset in a broader sense, that is, “not merely as a step 
on the way to the final product, but rather as an autonomous form worthy of explo-
ration” (3). This was also the fundamental starting point of the Vzkrik Festival, which 
organised workshops under the mentorship of established playwrights throughout 
the year, where participants wrote and refined their texts. When the workshops end-
ed, these texts were also presented as staged readings. These stagings were not con-
ceived to serve only the function of presenting the first information about the text, 
however, but rather as a proper and independent performative event, which was in-
dicated already by the initial definition of the project as a festival of dramatic writing, 
and this ambition was ultimately confirmed by good attendance and media coverage.
7 The Vzkrik (Eng. shout) Festival ran from 2017 to 2021 and had four festival editions, during which 28 new plays were 
produced. The first issue of Adept journal was published in 2014, and the journal is still being published to this day.
198
Gestures and Shouts
8
What these staged readings have in common is that they do not consider reading only 
as an interpretation of texts but rather as their main staging concept, making the text 
the most important (if not the only) theatrical element. There are, of course, many 
similar cases of staged readings. One is also the performance by the Bulgarian play-
wright Alexander Manuiloff, The State, presented at Nova pošta (The New Post Office) 
in 2019. The audience was seated in a circle in the auditorium, with a box of letters 
placed in the middle of the circle. The audience determined the performance’s pace, 
dramaturgy and course, like as a community or a state. They also read the text by 
themselves and finally finished it. Although The State was labelled as a full-length 
theatre performance, it was still possible to discern the main elements of what we 
ourselves understand by the notion of an experimental staged reading, as the text was 
placed in the foreground and used as the only theatrical tool, which meant that it was 
only the text and the spectator who were confronted with each other on stage.
As far as our theatre space is concerned, experimentation, especially in young play-
writing, is most evident in the inclusion of autobiographical elements and the involve-
ment of the author’s presence and corporeality in the act of public reading. The latter 
is thus no longer merely a reading of a text but also a reading or decyphering of the au-
thor and their status context. Such was the case, for example, with the staged reading 
cycle Ko se žgem [When I Burn (Myself)] at the 57
th
 Maribor Theatre Festival, in which 
Nina Kuclar Stiković, Urša Majcen, Helena Šukljan and Manca Lipoglavšek presented 
their interpretations and adaptations of Hans Christian Andersen’s famous fairy tale 
The Little Match Girl. Šukljan and Lipoglavšek did something similar in staging their 
text Dramakurbija (Dramawhoring). Since the abovementioned cases are mainly ex-
periments created in the context of study courses, it is perhaps interesting to mention 
also the staged readings of the author Anja Novak, who inserted simultaneous textual, 
visual, audio, interactive and staged readings of her poems by other artists on QR 
codes in her book of poetry entitled Rane rane (Wounds Wounds). She also continued 
this practice in the context of public presentations and readings of her poetry, inter-
vening in public events with her poetry in the role of her alter ego Anjuta, a bride, of-
fering herself and her subjectivity to be read. Novak used sonority and music as one of 
the main principles for reading her texts – a kind of concert staged readings – also in 
her work My Body, My Cage, in which the text was reduced to a few dozen words and 
sentences. The reading was supplemented with the sound of her bones cracking and 
the use of spaghetti as a sound source, thus underlining her inner state of anorexia. A 
similar example of a concert reading was also Nina Dragičević’s performance, which 
supplemented the reading with bass guitar accompaniment, thus conceptualising her 
text ljubav reče greva (Love Says Let’s Go) as a score of rhythm and atmospheres.
8 Cp. the footnote no. 7.
199 All of the examples mentioned above are experimental in that they abandon their 
supposedly primary function of reading rehearsals and interpretations and instead 
engage with the overall performativity of the text. At the same time, staged readings 
can also be experimental regarding the social gestures they produce. Here, their ex-
perimentation refers primarily to the position of the dramatic text and its author. Nika 
Švab created one such gesture in a series of participatory staged readings of the text 
Delo in deklica I–V: Drame tlačank (Work and the Girl I–V: Drama of the Oppressed). As 
a dramaturg and writer, the author applied for funding at the Ministry of Culture’s 
Authors’ Opus call for proposals, usually intended for directors and performers with 
their ideas for full-length productions and performances. Švab resisted this by apply-
ing a dramatic text and a concept for a series of staged readings, thus challenging the 
prevailing notion of performance production units while at the same time establish-
ing staged readings as an autonomous performative format, competing on an equal 
footing with other performative and theatrical events in the call for proposals.
The dramaturgical structure of the text, divided into five scenes, was followed by the 
conceptual design of the staged readings. There were five of them, so each day be-
tween 15 and 19 November 2022, one scene was read, and each evening a new au-
dience and other invited theatre-makers, seated on a grandstand in the auditorium, 
read the text and commented on it with the author herself. The events were organ-
ised at The New Post Office, with no additional elements but a large screen on which 
the text was projected. The only theatrical element on stage was thus the text itself, 
which was read prima vista without any interpretation or preparation. The course 
of the reading was not predetermined; the readers themselves decided when they 
wanted to stop it with their questions, reflections and doubts about the quality and 
intelligibility of the text, and with suggestions for potential approaches to staging it. 
The reading and the conversations it sparked were recorded and later transcribed 
into a new documentary performance text entitled Nevarno razmerje dramatike in 
gledališča (The Dangerous Liason between Drama and Theatre). This text was created 
in medias res during the staged reading and the accompanying analytical commen-
tary on another text. The event itself – the reading and the analysis of what was read 
– thus became the material (and not just the basis) for creating a new theatre text. 
Lukan says that when staged readings take place on several levels, not merely on the 
level of interpretation of the text, “what we see here is the birth of theatre out of the 
spirit of the text” (qtd. in Potočan 21). In the case of this particular staged reading, 
however, we saw not only the birth of theatre but also the birth of an entirely new text. 
The logic was thus reversed: suddenly, the staged reading was no longer an “escape 
route” for texts that, while written, are not performed but rather become a theatrical 
event in their own right and even the generator of new texts. Not only can a staged 
reading function as a full-fledged performative format, but it can also even function, 
so it seems, as a fully autonomous theatre text.
200
Conclusion
To summarise, it is obvious that the staged reading is established as a space of exper-
imentation (and perhaps also a gesture of resistance) when that which is supposed 
to be polarised is overcome, not by abandoning the two supposedly opposing poles, 
but by radically reconciling them in the same place. Thus, the best cases of staged 
readings are those that do not appear as something in-between in the relationship 
between reading and staging but instead function both as the one and the other at the 
same time, however, not in a way that simply merges one pole with the other, but so 
that it establishes one pole within the other. We have tried to illustrate this concept 
with the metaphor of the Möbius strip. It does not mean including both a little bit of 
reading and a little bit of staging, but rather that reading – under certain conditions, of 
course – can be established as an autonomous form of performance, and this is where 
the experimentation can start: in exploring all the potential forms of performance that 
can be produced by reading. Something similar could be argued about the opposition 
between the literary and the theatrical, as seen in the case of Nika Švab’s project. A 
theatrical event can – again, of course, under certain conditions – also be the genera-
tor of a new literary text. It is not the case that theatre and literature are completely 
opposed to each other, that there is an unsurmountable gap between them; at some 
point, they can overlap, and perhaps it is precisely at this point that an infinite space 
for experimentation opens up.
At the same time, establishing staged readings as fully autonomous theatre events can 
also have substantial consequences for the precarious situation of (young) authors. 
If staged readings were no longer perceived merely as something transitory, inter-
mediate and temporary, if they could generate experimentation, and if they could be 
acknowledged as a comprehensive way of staging dramatic texts, then it should not be 
left to the particular will of individuals to undertake such a project, let alone depend 
on the sad fact that texts by young authors usually do not get to be presented on “big 
theatre stages”. Instead, staged readings should be adequately funded and thus sys-
tematically encouraged, as it is obvious that they can be a generator of new and differ-
ent writings and perhaps even new authors. Adequate funding and systemic support 
would prevent staged readings from emerging and disappearing in more or less con-
tingent waves and create a sustainable space for exploring new forms of playwriting. 
Paradoxically, however, it turned out that staged readings could begin to experiment 
precisely because of their self-sufficiency, as their creators were not bound to anyone 
else except themselves. Although systemic support is welcome, it should not come at 
the expense of artistic autonomy. True experimentation can only begin in a field that 
operates autonomously and without limitations.
201
Literature
Aristotle. The Complete Works of Aristotle: Volume Two. Princeton University Press, 
1984.
Dupont, Florence. Aristotel ali vampir zahodnega gledališča. Knjižnica MGL, 2019. 
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art. Oxford University 
Press, 1975.  
Lukan, Blaž. Dramaturške replike. Knjižnica MGL, 1991.  
—. Gledališka sinteza: razprave o drami, gledališču in performansu. Založba Univerze 
v Ljubljani, 2022. 
Poschmann, Gerda. “Gledališki tekst in drama. K uporabi pojmov.” Drama, tekst, pisa-
va, edited by Petra Pogorevc and Tomaž Toporišič, Knjižnica MGL, 2008, pp. 97–116.  
Potočan, Jernej. “Vprašanje bralne uprizoritve.” Adept, vol. 6, no. 2, 2020, pp. 16–22.  
Ramšak, Nina, and Žan Žveplan. “Ne samo berite, uporabite!” Adept, vol. 1, no. 1, 2014, 
p. 3.  
Tackels, Bruno. “Desakralizacija teksta, vendarle.” Drama, tekst, pisava 2, edited by 
Petra Pogorevc and Tomaž Toporišič, Knjižnica MGL, 2021, pp. 79–96.