6o Letnik / Volume am te at er Ars AcADEMICA Epoj 6, rogHHa V, CKonje - Ay6^aHa, 2018. Letnik / Volume Številka / Number Revija za teorijo scenskih umetnosti Journal of Performing Arts Theory sl( \ SLOVENSKI I XJ I GLEDALIŠKI I INŠTITUT Univerza v Ljubljani Akademija za gledališče, radio, film in televizijo m Ljubljana, 2018 6 o Letnik / Volume ^ am te at er Ars ACADEMICA Bpoj 6, rogHHa V, CKonje - Ay6^aHa, 2018. Letnik / Volume ^^ Številka / Number Revija za teorijo scenskih umetnosti Journal of Performing Arts Theory AMFITEATER Revija za teorijo scenskih umetnosti / Journal of Performing Arts Theory Letnik / Volume 6, Številka / Number 2 ISSN 1855-4539 (tiskana izdaja) 1855-850X (elektronska izdaja) Glavna in odgovorna urednica / Editor-in-Chief: Maja Šorli Uredniki tematskega bloka / Editors of the Thematic Block: Aldo Milahnic, Ana Stojanoska, Maja Šorli Uredniški odbor / Editorial Board: Bojana Kunst, Barbara Orel, Primož Jesenko, Blaž Lukan, Aldo Milohnic, Tomaž Toporišič, Gašper Troha Mednarodni uredniški odbor / International Editorial Board: Mark Amerika (University of Colorado, US), Marin Blaževic (Sveučilište u Zagrebu, HR), Ramsay Burt (De Montfort University, GB), Joshua Edelman (Manchester Metropolitan University, GB), Jure Gantar (Dalhousie University, CA), Janelle Reinelt (The University of Warwick, GB), Anneli Saro (Tartu Ulikool, EE), Miško Šuvakovic (Univerzitet Singidunum, RS), S. E. Wilmer (Trinity College Dublin, IE) Soizdajatelja: Slovenski gledališki inštitut (zanj Mojca Jan Zoran, direktorica) in Univerza v Ljubljani, Akademija za gledališče, radio, film in televizijo (zanjo Tomaž Gubenšek, dekan) Published by: Slovenian Theatre Institute (represented by Mojca Jan Zoran, Director) and University of Ljubljana, Academy of Theatre, Radio, Film and Television (represented by Tomaž Gubenšek, Dean) Prevod v slovenščino / Translation to Slovenian: Barbara Skubic Prevod v angleščino / Translation to English: Katja Kosi, Barbara Skubic Lektoriranje slovenskega besedila / Slovenian Language Editing: Andraž Polončič Ruparčič Lektoriranje angleškega besedila / English Language Editing: Jana Renée Wilcoxen Bibliotekarka / Librarian: Bojana Bajec (UL AGRFT) Korektura / Proofreading: Aldo Milohnic, Ana Stojanoska, Maja Šorli, Jana Renée Wilcoxen Oblikovanje / Graphic Design: Simona Jakovac, Nina Šturm Priprava za tisk / Typesetting: Nina Šturm Tisk / Print: CICERO, Begunje, d.o.o. Število natisnjenih izvodov / Copies: 250 Revija izhaja dvakrat letno. Cena posamezne številke: 10 €. Cena dvojne številke: 18 €. Letna naročnina: 16 € za posameznike, 13 € za študente, 18 € za institucije. Poštnina ni vključena. The journal is published twice annually. Price of a single issue: 10 €. Price of a double issue: 18 €. Annual subscription: 16 € for individuals, 13 € for students, 18 € for institutions. Postage and handling not included. Prispevke, naročila in recenzentske izvode knjig pošiljajte na naslov uredništva / Send manuscripts, orders and books for review to the Editorial Office address: Amfiteater, SLOGI, Mestni trg 17, Ljubljana, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija E-pošta / E-mail: amfiteater@slogi.si Ljubljana, december 2018 / Ljubljana, December 2018 Revijo za teorijo scenskih umetnosti Amfiteater je leta 2008 ustanovila Akademija za gledališče, radio, film in televizijo Univerze v Ljubljani. / Amfiteater - Journal of Performing Arts Theory was founded in 2008 by the University of Ljubljana, Academy of Theatre, Radio, Film and Television. Revija je vključena v / The journal is included in: MLA International Bibliography (Directory of Periodicals). Izdajo publikacije sta finančno podprla Agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije in Ministrstvo za kulturo Republike Slovenije. / The publishing of Amfiteater is supported by the Slovenian Research Agency and the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Slovenia. ARSACADEMICA MeryHapogHO HayqHO cmicamie 3a ii3Beg\BaqKH yMeTHOCTH/International scientific journal for performing arts Bpoj 6, rogima V/N.6, Year V UDK 78(05) 791(05) 792(5) ISSN 1857-9477 TnaBeH u ogroBopeH ypegHHK/Editor-in-Chief: AHa CTOjaHOCKa/Ana Stojanoska; Coma 3gpaBKoBa yenapocKa/Sonja Zdravkova Djeparoska ypeflHH^H Ha TeMaTCKHOT 6noK/Editors of the Thematic Block: Ango Mhhoxhhk, AHa CTojaHocKa, Maja nopnn/Aldo Milohnic, Ana Stojanoska, Maja Sorli. MeryHapogeH ypegHuqKH og6op/International Editorial Board: MnneHa AHeBa (Jyro3anageH yHHBep3HTeT „Heo^HT Phhckh", BnaroeBrpag, ByrapHja)/Milena Aneva (Southwest University "Neofit Rils-ki", Blagoevgrad, Bugaria), AHa Mapnja Boaa/Ana Maria Bolya (Hungarian Dance Akademy, Hungary), flejB Bhhcoh (BHKTopnja YHHBep3HTeT - BenHHiroH, Hob 3enaHg)/Dave Wilson (Victoria University of Wellington, New Zeland), ^aga flypaKoBHK (My3Hrna AKageMHja, nyna, XpBaTCKa)/Lada Durakovic (Academy of Music, Pula, Hrvatska), 3opaH Mhbkobhk (OnnonomKH ^aKynreT, Benrpag, Cp6nja)/Zoran Zivkovic (Faculty of Phylology, Belgrade, Serbia) Mnmen naBnoBCKH (MHCTHTyr 3a MaKegoHCKa nrnepaTypa, MaKegoHHja)/ Mishel Pavlovski (Institute for Macedonian Literature, Macedonia), AneKcaHgpa nopTMaH (YHHBep3HTeT BepH, nBaj^pHja)/Alexandra Portman (University of Bern, Switzerland), .fleoH Cre^aHHja (YHHBep3HTeT Ay6aaHa, CnoBeHHja)/Leon Stefanija (Ljubljana University, Slovenia), AHa CTojaHocKa (OaKynreT 3a gpaMCKH yMeTHocTH - CKonje, MaKegoHHja)/Ana Stojanoska (Faculty of Dramatic Arts - Skopje, Macedonia); Coma 3gpaBKoBa-yenapocKa (OaKynreT 3a My3Hrna yMeTHocT - CKonje, MaKegoHHja)/Sonja Zdravkova Djeparoska (Faculty of Music Art - Skopje, Macedonia) M3gaBaqn: YHHBep3HTeT „Cb.Khphh h MeTognj", CKonje, OaKynreT 3a gpaMCKH yMeTHocTH - CKonje, OaKynTeT 3a My3Hrna yMeTHocT - CKonje. Published by: University "Ss. Cyril and Methodius" University - Skopje, Macedonia, Faculty of Dramatic Arts - Skopje and Faculty of Music Art - Skopje 3a H3gaBaquTe: toap CeKynoBcKH (geKaH, OflY - CKonje) h Togop CBeTHeB (geKaH, OMY - CKonje) For publishers: Lazar Sekulovski (Dean, FDA, Skopje) and Todor Svetiev (Dean, FMA, Skopje) npeBog Ha cnoBeHeqKu: flapKo JaH CnacoB Translation to Slovenian: Darko Jan Spasov npeBog Ha aHrnucKu: AneKcaHgap 3a$HpoBcKH Translation to English: Aleksandar Zafirovski fleKTop: TogopKa BanoBa Macedonian Language Editor: Todorka Balova Contents / Cogp^HHa / Kazalo Preface 9 YBOflHHK 11 Uvodnik 13 Thematic Block / TeMaTCKH 6aok / Tematski blok Aldo Milohnič and Ana Stojanoska: An Introduction to Macedonian-Slovenian Theatre Relations (1990-2015) 17 BoBeg bo MaKegoHCKO-cnoBeHe^KHTe TeaTapcKH BpcKH (1990-2015) 23 Uvod v makedonsko-slovenske gledališke vezi (1990-2015) 31 Articles / CTaTiiii / Razprave 37 Zala Dobovšek and Sasho Dimoski: The Theatre Bridge between Macedonia and Slovenia: Theatre Festivals 39 TeaTapcKH moct Mery MaKegoHuja u CnoBeHuja: TeaTapcKHTe ^ecTHBanu 59 Gledališki most med Makedonijo in Slovenijo: gledališki festivali 61 Sasho Dimoski, Ana Stojanoska, Hristina Cvetanoska: The Influence of Slovenian Theatre in Macedonia (from 1990 until the Present) 65 BnujaHueTO Ha cnoBeHe^KHOT TeaTap bo MaKegoHuja (og 1990 go geHec) 79 Vpliv slovenskega gledališča v Makedoniji (od 1990 do danes) 83 Sonja Zdravkova Djeparoska and Aldo Milohnič: From Yugoslav Ballet to Post-Yugoslav Contemporary Dance: Permutations in Collaborative Practices between Macedonian and Slovenian Dance Scenes 87 Og jyrocnoBeHCKHOT 6aneT go nocTjyrocnoBeHCKHOT coBpeMeH TaH^ nepMyra^u bo Kona6opaTHBHHTe npaKTHKu Mery cnoBeHe^KaTa u MaKegoHCKaTa TaH^Ba c^Ha 105 Od jugoslovanskega baleta do postjugoslovanskega sodobnega plesa: premene sodelovalnih praks med makedonsko in slovensko plesno sceno 109 Hristina Cvetanoska and Gašper Troha: Polite Ignorance: The Exchange of Drama between Slovenia and Macedonia from 1990 till 2015 113 ^y6e3HO uraopupafte: Pa3MeHa Ha gpaMCKH TeKCTOBH Mery CnoBeHuja h MaKegoHuja bo nepuogoT og 1990 go 2015 roguHa 135 Vljudna brezbrižnost. Izmenjave slovenske in makedonske dramatike med letoma 1990 in 2015 139 Contributors 143 Interviews / HffrepBjya / Intervjuja 149 Dejan Srhoj: Dance is an Overlooked Potential of Intercultural Cooperation 151 flejaH Cpxoj: TaH^T e npeHe6perHaT noTeH^jan Ha MeryKynrypHaTa copa6oTKa 161 Dejan Srhoj: Ples je spregledan potencial medkulturnega sodelovanja 171 Slobodan Unkovski: Theatre as a Relationship 181 Cno6oflaH yhkobckh: TeaTapoT KaKO pena^ja 189 Slobodan Unkovski: Gledališče kot odnos 197 Razprave / Articles 205 Barbara Orel: Zametki postdramskega gledališča na Slovenskem: Eksperimentalno gledališče Balbine Battelino Baranovič (1955-1967) 207 The Origins of Postdramatic Theatre in Slovenia: Balbina Battelino Baranovič's Experimental Theatre (1955-1967) 221 Mateja Fajt: »Šiv ni šiv«. Vloga in pomen dela krojačic, šivilj, garderoberk, garderoberjev in čevljarjev v slovenskem institucionalnem gledališču 225 "A Seam is not a Seam": The Role and Meaning of the Work of Seamstresses, Tailors, Dressers and Shoemakers in Slovenian Institutional Theatre 261 Recenzija / Book Review 265 Tomaž Toporišič Teoretizirano zgodovinjenje avantgard Aleš Erjavec: (Heteronomija umetnosti in avantgard) 266 Navodila za avtorice_je 274 Submission Guidelines 276 Vabilo k razpravam 278 Call for papers 279 Preface 9 Maja Šorli, Editor-in-Chief of Amfiteater Ana Stojanoska, Editor-in-Chief of Ars Academica The present issue is a joint edition of two journals of performing arts, namely, the Slovenian journal Amfiteater and the Macedonian journal Ars Academica. The motive behind this decision was the bilateral research project Macedonian-Slovenian Theatre Relations (from 1990 until the Present), carried out during 2017 and 2018 by the Faculty of Dramatic Arts, Skopje and the Academy of Theatre, Radio, Film and Television, University of Ljubljana. The main goal of the project was to determine, record and evaluate the mutual cooperation of theatre artists from both countries in the period 1990-2015. The results of the project are presented in the special editorial, prepared by the heads of the Macedonian and Slovenian teams, Ana Stojanoska and Aldo Milohnic. The thematic block brings four articles examining Slovenian-Macedonian relations that have developed in theatre festivals and in the area of dance and drama, plus two interviews, one with choreographer, dancer and dance teacher Dejan Srhoj, and the other with theatre director Slobodan Unkovski, which provide further insights and shed more light on Slovenian-Macedonian relationships. In addition to the articles dedicated to international cooperation, this issue also includes three contributions delving into research themes particularly relevant for Slovenian theatre. Barbara Orel's article discusses the origins of postdramatic theatre in Slovenia, which she detects already in Balbina Battelino Baranovic's Experimental Theatre (1955-1967). Mateja Fajt provides the first in-depth investigation of the backstage work done by seamstresses, tailors, dressers and shoemakers in Slovenian institutional theatre, while Tomaž Toporišič reviews the book Heteronomija umetnosti in avantgard [The Heteronomy of Art and the Avant-gardes] by Aleš Erjavec, and finds that it is "a fresh and immensely readable book that brings comprehensive insights into the radical politicised avant-gardes". The team of the project Macedonian-Slovenian Theatre Relations and the editors of the journals Amfiteater and Ars Academica wish you a pleasant read and a happy 2019! Translated by Katja Kosi YBOflHHK 11 Maja fflopnu, rnaBHa u ogroBopHa ypegHu^Ka Ha cnucaHueTO Amfiteater AHa CTOjaHOcKa, raaBHa u ogroBopHa ypegHOTKa Ha cnucaHueTO Ars Académica npeg Hac e 3aegHmKuoT 6poj Ha gBeTe cnucaHuja 3a u3BegyBa^Ku yMeTHocTu, Ha cnoBeHe^KOTO cnucaHue Amfiteater u Ha MaKegoHcKOTO Ars Académica. npmuHaTa 3a TaKBaTa ognyKa 6eme 6unaTepanHuoT npoeKT MaKegoHcw-cnoseHmKU TeaTapcKU spcKU (og 1990 go geHec), mTO 3aegHu^Ku 6eme BogeH bo 2017 u 2018 roguHa, og crpaHa Ha OaKynreTOT 3a gpaMcKu yMeraocra bo CKonje u AKageMujaTa 3a TeaTap, paguo, $unM u TeneBu3uja bo ^y6aaHa. rnaBHaTa ^n Ha npoeKTOT 6eme ga ce ugeHTu^uKyBaaT, eBugeHTupaaT u u ga ce o^HaT y^ecreaTa Ha TeaTapcKuTe yMeTHu^u og gBeTe 3eMju 3a nepuogoT 1990-2015 roguHa, KaKO mTO e npeTcraBeHO bo noce6eH BOBegeH TeKcT, nogroTBeH og cTpaHa Ha BoguTenuTe Ha MeryHapogHuoT npoeKT AHa OrojaHocKa u Ango MunoxHuK. Bo TeMaTcKuoT 6noK bo Koj ce BKny^eHu ^erapu Hayrau TpygoBu bo kou aBTopuTe u aBTopKuTe ru ucrpa^yBaa cnoBeHe^Kure u MaKegoHcKuTe ogHocu, noTO^HO o6nacruTe Ha TeaTapcKuTe ^ecraBanu, TaH^T u gpaMaTa ce gogageHu ymTe gBe uHTepBjya. Bo pa3roBopuTe co Kopeorpa^T u TarnapoT flejaH Cpxoj u pe»ucepoT Cno6ogaH Yhkobcku, ce ocBeTnu MaKegoHcKO-cnoBeHe^KaTa copa6oTKa Ha ManKy nogeTaneH Ha^uH. OcBeH MeryHapoflHaTa copa6oTKa, uMaMe Tpu cnoBeHe^Ku npugoHecu. Eap6apa Open bo cBojaTa cTyguja ru BTeMenyBa no^eTO^Te Ha nocrgpaMcKuoT TeaTap bo CnoBeHuja, bo eKcnepuMeHTanHuoT TeaTap (1955-1967). MaTeja OajT ja npeTcraByBa npBaTa ceon^araa aHKeTa Ha 3aT^eHcKaTa pa6oTa Ha muBa^KuTe, Kpoja^uTe, rapgepo6aTa, u ^eBnapure bo cnoBeHe^KuoT uHcraTy^uoHaneH TeaTap, ToMa» TonopumuK, na bo pe^H3ujaTa Ha KHuraTa XewepoHOMuja Ha yMewHocwa u asamapgawa Ha Amw Epjaseu, npeno3HaBa geKa „Hocu cBe» u ucTOBpeMeHO ucKny^uTenHO go6po mutaub u 3ao6neH norneg Ha paguKanHaTa nonuTu3upaHa aBaHrapga!". Tumot Ha MaKeflOHcKO-cnoBeHe^KuTe TeaTapcKu BpcKu u ypegHumTBOTO Ha cnucaHujaTa Amfiteater u Ars Académica bu nocaKyBa go6po ^ura^e u MHory cpeKa bo 2019 roguHa! Uvodnik 13 Maja Šorli, glavna in odgovorna urednica revije Amfiteater Ana Stojanoska, glavna in odgovorna urednica revije Ars Academica Pred nami je skupna številka dveh revij za scenske umetnosti, in sicer slovenske revije Amfiteater ter makedonske revije Ars Academica. Povod za tako odločitev je bil bilateralni projekt Makedonsko-slovenske gledališke vezi (od leta 1990 do danes), ki sta ga med letoma 2017 in 2018 izvajali Fakulteta dramskih umetnosti iz Skopja in Akademija za gledališče, radio, film in televizijo iz Ljubljane. Glavni namen projekta je bil ugotoviti, zapisati in oceniti sodelovanje gledaliških umetnikov iz obeh držav v obdobju 1990-2015, predstavljen pa je v posebnem uvodniku, ki sta ga pripravila vodji tega mednarodnega sodelovanja Ana Stojanoska in Aldo Milohnic. V tematskem bloku smo štirim razpravam, v katerih avtorice in avtorji pregledajo slovensko-makedonske odnose, ki so se spletli na gledaliških festivalih ter na področjih plesa in dramatike, dodali še dva intervjuja. V pogovorih s koreografom, plesalcem in plesnim pedagogom Dejanom Srhojem ter z režiserjem Slobodanom Unkovskim tako še malo podrobneje osvetljujemo slovensko-makedonske razmere. Poleg prispevkov, posvečenih mednarodnemu sodelovanju, so še trije, ki obravnavajo domače teme. Barbara Orel v svoji razpravi utemeljuje zametke postdramskega gledališča na Slovenskem, ki jih razkriva že v Eksperimentalnem gledališču (19551967) Balbine Battelino Baranovič. Mateja Fajt predstavlja prvo temeljito raziskavo zaodrskega dela krojačic, šivilj, garderoberk, garderoberjev in čevljarjev v slovenskem institucionalnem gledališču, Tomaž Toporišič pa v recenziji knjige Heteronomija umetnosti in avantgard Aleša Erjavca ugotavlja, da ta »prinaša svež in hkrati izjemno dobro berljiv ter zaokrožen pogled na radikalne politizirane avantgarde«. Ekipa projekta Makedonsko-slovenske gledališke vezi in uredništvi revij Amfiteater ter Ars Academica vam želimo lepo branje in srečno v letu 2019! Thematic Block I TeMaTCKH 6aok I Tematski blok An Introduction to Macedonian-Slovenian Theatre Relations (1990-2015) Aldo Milohnic and Ana Stojanoska The articles published in this joint issue of Amfiteater (Ljubljana) and Ars Academica (Skopje) have been developed during the two-year (2017-18) bilateral research project Macedonian-Slovenian Theatre Relations (from 1990 until the Present) carried out by the Faculty of Dramatic Art, Skopje and the Academy of Theatre, Radio, Film and Television of the University of Ljubljana (UL AGRFT). It was generously supported by the Slovenian Research Agency and the Macedonian Ministry of Education and Science. The main goal of the project was to determine, record and valorise the mutual cooperation of theatre artists from both countries. The research comprised collaborative practices in all main fields of performing arts (drama, opera and ballet/dance theatre), including visits from individuals and whole ensembles. The reception, criticism and important artistic achievements accomplished by these artists and art institutions were also studied by the Macedonian and Slovenian researchers involved in this project.1 The final results of the project were presented at a conference organised by the Faculty of Dramatic Art in Skopje on 5 November 2018. It was the first academic conference focused entirely on Macedonian-Slovenian theatre relations in the last 25 years. It should be mentioned, however, that during that same period several other conferences devoted to bilateral (and partly also regional) cultural cooperation took place in Macedonia and Slovenia. If we mention only a few of them organised by the project partners of the research presented in this joint issue of Amfiteater and Ars Academica: the Faculty of Dramatic Arts, Skopje held several international theatre conferences (Balkan Theatre Sphere, 2003; Intercultural Theatre, 2005; Theatre and Identity, 2006; Theatre and Memory, 2007), where theatre scholars from Slovenia took part among other active participants while the most recent international conference organised by the UL AGRFT was Performing Arts, Migration, Politics: Slovenian Theatre as an Agent of Intercultural Exchange (in the frame of the Maribor Theatre Festival, 2015) where Ana Stojanoska presented a paper on the topic of Macedonian-Slovenian theatre relations.2 1 Members of the Macedonian team: Hristina Cvetanoska, Sasho Dimoski, Dragana Miloshevski Popova, Ana Stojanoska (head of the team), Sonja Zdravkova Djeparoska; members of the Slovenian team: Zala Dobovšek, Aldo Milohnič (head of the team), Maja Šorli, Gašper Troha. 2 Ana Stojanoska. "Makedonsko-slovenske gledališke povezave" [Macedonian-Slovenian Theatre Relations]. In Uprizorit-vene umetnosti, migracije, politika: slovensko gledališče kot sooblikovalec medkulturnih izmenjav, edited by Barbara Orel. UL FF and UL AGRFT, 2017, pp. 281-306. 18 Macedonia and Slovenia were a part of the same state for almost seventy years: firstly, in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (between WWI and WWII) and then in the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia (1945-91). Cultural collaborations and exchanges between Slovenia and Macedonia in the last 25 years have been generated from the relatively rich cultural connections established in the previous decades. Macedonian and Slovenian theatres have their own history of continuous relations; relations that are based on similar and close theatrical traditions and the permanent desire for cooperation. During the institutionalisation of national theatres within the same state apparatus, especially in the time before and after WWII, that meant deliberately linking theatre centres from all cities of the former common country. In the preceding period, however, these relations were kept alive thanks to the travelling theatre practices as well as the vision and dedication of some theatre enthusiasts. In the last decades of the previous century, the relationship between Macedonia and Slovenia on the theatre level was built mainly through mutual participation on different festivals and visits of respective artists from both countries. Because of various limitations (in terms of time, finances and human resources), our research could only be a pilot project aiming to provide a basis for further, more complex and more detailed research on the topic. One of the most useful tools developed within this project for future researchers of Macedonian-Slovenian theatre relations is a digital database containing information on theatre artists, performances and institutions that have participated in the bilateral cooperation in the last 25 years.3 Although we have collected relevant data from different sources (such as the Slovenian Theatre Annual published by the Slovenian Theatre Institute, an early version of the Macedonian theatre database maintained by Faculty of Dramatic Art, Skopje, the archives and documentation of theatres, reliable Internet sources, etc.) and we have done our best to create as complete picture of this bilateral cooperation as possible, we are completely aware that the database is still incomplete and needs improvement. Therefore, we would be grateful to any institution or individual who might contribute corrections and/or additional data. The data collected within the project was processed according to several methodological principles set up by our research group. The main division was between guest performances and visits (or collaborations) of individual artists. Guest performances were further divided into two subcategories: first, the performances from one country invited by theatres from other county as occasional guest practices, and second, the performances from one country taking part in the programmes of theatre festivals in the other country. Bilateral collaborations of individual artists were also divided into two subcategories: first, the artists on short (or occasional) visits, typically for taking part in respective theatre productions or for contributing plays, music, etc. (we call this group "guests" or "non-residents"), and 3 The database is accessible at the following link: www.fdu.ukim.edu.mk. second, the artists originally coming from one country and staying for a considerably long 19 period (many years) in the other country (we call them "residents"). These divisions into categories and subcategories were the most important methodological tools not only in the phase of data collecting but also in the phase of data analysis. Although it may be incomplete in the present state of the project, the database allows us to draft at least preliminary statistics. The most important finding of the quantitative part of our research is the fact that Macedonian-Slovenian theatre exchange is significantly asymmetric in all categories and subcategories. As in Bronislaw Malinowski's famous description of "Kula", a traditional form of exchange from Trobriand Islands, where two kinds of artefacts are constantly travelling in opposite directions,4 in Macedonian-Slovenian theatre exchange, performances are mainly travelling from Slovenia to Macedonia while theatre artists are predominantly travelling from Macedonia to Slovenia. It is quite obvious if we compare the data collected in our database: in the observed period (1990-2015), 69 Slovenian productions participated in the Macedonian theatre festivals and only 33 Macedonian productions in the Slovenian theatre festivals (in addition, 13 Macedonian productions were invited by Slovenian theatres to perform as guest performances at their stages). On the other hand, Macedonian artists accomplished 227 individual collaborations (105 as "guests" and 122 as "residents") or on average 8.4 collaborations per season, while their Slovenian colleagues participated in productions ofMacedonian theatres only 52 times (all of them as "guests") or on average 1.8 collaborations per season. The most common professions of Macedonian theatre artists regularly or occasionally working in Slovenian theatres are: among "guests", the first three professions are director, music designer and opera singer, while among "residents", the two most frequent professions are dancer and dramaturg. In the case of Slovenian theatre artists collaborating in Macedonian theatres, the three top professions among "guests" are playwright, director and dancer, while we could not detect any Slovenian "resident" in Macedonian theatres. Zala Dobovsek and Sasho Dimoski, authors of the text on Macedonian-Slovenian exchange in the context of theatre festivals, utilised the quantitative methodological approach in analysing the statistical data. On the one hand, the authors analyse the presence of the Slovenian theatre productions at the various theatre festivals in Macedonia, and on the other, the presence of the Macedonian theatre productions and theatre artists at different theatre festivals in Slovenia. In the conclusion of the paper, they present the cumulative results of the bilateral research, emphasising the most frequent exchange habits through Macedonian and Slovenian theatre festivals in the last 25 years. Two festivals deserve to be highlighted in terms of presenting Macedonian theatre productions in Slovenia and vice versa: the Slovenian festival Ex Ponto and the Macedonian festival MOT - Mlad otvoren teatar (Youth Open Theatre). During the 4 Necklaces of red shell in one direction, bracelets of white shell in the opposite direction; see Bronislaw Malinowski. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: Routledge, 1932, p. 81. 20 almost two decades of its existence, Ex Ponto presented to the Slovenian audience a lot of different genres, artists, themes and formats of Macedonian theatre. Founded in 1975, MOT is the leading Macedonian festival profiled as a festival of experimental theatre forms and stage laboratories. A special phenomenon, analysed more in detail in Dobovšeks and Dimoski's article, is the constant presence of the Mladinsko Theatre (SMG - Slovensko mladinsko gledališče, meaning "Slovenian Youth Theatre") at MOT; in the observed period, MOT hosted 25 performances produced by the Mladinsko Theatre. This impressive number of guest performances by the Mladinsko Theatre at MOT is also part of a wider topic elaborated in the text written by Sasho Dimoski, Ana Stojanoska and Hristina Cvetanoska. It is a phenomenological study analysing the individual factors of influence of the Slovenian theatre on the Macedonian theatre production. The main focus of the authors is on the influence of the aesthetics of the Mladinsko (especially through its continuous presence at MOT) and the influence of several contemporary Slovenian theatre directors to the poetics and aesthetics of the Macedonian theatre. A close research of the influence of Slovenian theatre on the trends in Macedonian theatre in the last three decades led the authors to the conclusion that the influence of many guest Slovenian theatre productions as well as the work of Slovenian directors in different Macedonian theatres has left considerable traces in the Macedonian theatre scene and significantly influenced its aesthetics. In the period of its existence, the Yugoslav federation provided not only material support to professional theatre institutions, but also stimulated cultural collaboration among the federal republics. In their article on Macedonian-Slovenian relations in ballet and contemporary dance, Sonja Zdravkova Djeparoska and Aldo Milohnic explain that especially nonverbal forms of artistic expression, such as ballet and dance, were adequate communicators in a multinational and multilingual state as was the Socialist Yugoslavia. However, the processes of dissolution of the former Yugoslavia and the establishing of the independent states of Macedonia and Slovenia produced significant changes in the field of dance and opera theatre. The main characteristics of these changes were, on the one hand, a rapid diminishing of collaborations between national ballet and opera institutions, and on the other hand, a gradual increasing of cooperation between non-governmental organisations active in the creation, promotion and exchange of contemporary dance production. In the context of their article, Djeparoska and Milohnic also analyse the ratified agreements between Slovenia and Macedonia in the field of culture. The "Agreement on Cooperation in Education, Culture and Science between the Government of the Republic of Macedonia and the Government of the Republic of Slovenia," which was signed in 1993, provided an appropriate legal background for further normative acts that regulated concrete ways and forms of collaboration in culture. The main critique of the authors is that the level of intercultural exchange presupposed in these bilateral agreements is rather modest and unambitious, especially in the field of dance where 21 the exchange of folkloristic dance groups is explicitly stipulated while exchanges of ballet and contemporary dance performances are not mentioned at all. Hristina Cvetanoska and Gašper Troha have labelled the sporadic presence of texts by Macedonian playwrights in the repertoires of Slovenian theatres and vice versa as "polite ignorance". The exchange in the field of the dramatic text seems to be almost vanishing; in the period from 1990 till 2015, only six plays by Macedonian authors were staged in Slovenian theatres and eight plays by Slovenian ones in Macedonian theatres. Though at first sight it might seem to be a natural decline after the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia, the authors think that it can be only partly the case. In their article, they analyse the reasons for a reciprocal ignorance and detachment for the recent, contemporary dramaturgy between these two countries. In their opinion, the reasons for this indifference are neither the scarce translation nor unsuitable motives and themes. Their analysis of the dramatic texts staged in Macedonia and Slovenia shows some similarities in the motives that inspired the authors and motivated the directors to stage particular texts. Their conclusion is that the mutual "polite ignorance" is probably the result of a more general turn of Slovenian and Macedonian cultural policies characterised by the decreasing of interest in historically and geographically closer cultural environments and the increasing of interest in the EU, the USA, etc. These academic papers are complemented by interviews with two artists: the first, with Macedonian director Slobodan Unkovski who works frequently in Slovenian theatres, and the second, with Slovenian dancer and choreographer Dejan Srhoj who has a lot of experience in joint, collaborative choreographic projects and coproductions between Slovenian and Macedonian nongovernmental organisations, including regional dance platforms, such as the Nomad Dance Academy. The bilateral research project Macedonian-Slovenian Theatre Relations (from 1990 until the Present) gives us an opportunity to explore the theatre ties between Macedonia and Slovenia in the recent decades and the impact of social, economic and political circumstances on collaborative theatre practices. A number of renowned directors, choreographers, performers, composers, set and costume designers as well as entire ensembles from Macedonia visit Slovenia and vice versa. Our papers published in Amfiteater and Ars Academica are focused on a theoretical overview of their activities, on an analysis of the mutual reception, impact on repertoires, manners, poetics and aesthetics of theatre practices as well as on the potential collaborations that might follow in both directions. We hope that our research will contribute to a better understanding of the past processes of exchange and stimulate a more intensive collaboration between Slovenian and Macedonian theatre artists and institutions in the future. BoBeg bo MaKegoHCKo-cnoBeHeqKure TeaTapcKH bpckh (1990-2015) Ango MunoxHuK u AHa CrojaHocKa TeKCTOBHTe o6jaBeHu bo oBa 3aegHu^K0 u3gaHue Ha Amfiteater (^y6aaHa) u Ars Academica (CKonje), 6ea pa3BUBaHu 3a BpeMe Ha gBorogumHuoT (2017-2018) 6unaTepaneH ucTpa^yBa^Ku npoeKT MaKegoHCKo-crnseHemu TeaTapcKU spcKU (og 1990 go geHec), KojmTo 6eme u3pa6oTeH og CTpaHa Ha OaKynTeToT 3a gpaMCKu yMeTHocTu, CKonje u AKageMujaTa 3a TeaTap, paguo, $unM u TeneBU3Uja, ^y6aaHa. npoeKToT 6eme noggpmH og CTpaHa Ha CnoBeHe^KaTa areH^uja 3a ucrpa^yBafte u MaKegoHCKoTo MuHuCTepCTBo 3a o6pa3oBaHue u HayKa. rnaBHaTa ^n Ha npoeKToT 6eme ogpegyBa^e, 3anumyBa^e u npo^HyBa^e Ha 3aegHu^KaTa Copa6oTKa Mery TeaTapCKuTe yMeTHu^u og gBeTe 3eMju. Mcrpa^yBafteTo ru o6eguHu CuTe nonu^a Ha u3Beg6eHuTe yMeTHoCTu (gpaMa, onepa u 6aneT/TaH^TeaTap), BKny^yBajKu noCeTu og CTpaHa Ha uHguBugyan^u u aHCaM6nu. Pe^e^^ujaTa, KpuTuKaTa u Ba^HuTe yMeTHu^Ku gocTurayBaraa oCTBapeHu og oBue yMeTHu^u u yMerau^Ku uhctut^uu 6ea, ucto TaKa, npoy^eHu og CTpaHa Ha MaKegoHCKuTe u cnoBeHe^KuTe ucrpa^yBa^u BKny^eHu bo npoeKToT. MneHoBu Ha MaKegoHCKuoT tum 6ea: XpuCTuHa ^eTaHocKa, Camo ^umocku, flparaHa MunomeBCKu-nonoBa, AHa CrojaHoCKa (BoguTen Ha tumot) u Coraa 3gpaBK0Ba^enap0CKa; ^neH0Bu Ha cnoBeHe^KuoT tum 6ea: 3ana flo6oBmeK, Ango MunoxHuK (BoguTen Ha tumot), Maja fflopnu u ramnep Tpoxa. KoHe^HuTe pe3ynTaTu og npoeKToT 6ea npe3eHTupaHu Ha K0H$epeH^uja opraHu3upaHa og CTpaHa Ha OaKynTeToT 3a gpaMCKu yMeTHoCTu bo CKonje, Ha 5.11.2018 roguHa. Toa 6eme npBa aKageMCKa K0H$epeH^uja ^oKycupaHa ucKny^uBo Ha MaKegoHCKo-CnoBeHe^KuTe TeaTapCKu BpCKu bo noCnegHuTe 25 roguHu. Tpe6a ga Ce CnoMeHe geKa 3a BpeMe Ha Toj nepuog, HeKonKy gpyru K0H$epeH^uu 6ea noCBeTeHu Ha 6unaTepanHuTe (^ap^ujanH0 u peruoHanHu) KynTypHu Copa6oTKu mTo Ce ogp^aa bo MaKegoHuja u bo CnoBeHuja. Ako CnoMeHeMe CaMo HeKou og hub, opraHu3upaHu og napTHepuTe bo npoeKToT, npe3eHTupaHu bo oBa 3aegHu^K0 u3gaHue Ha Amfiteater u Ars Academica: OaKynTeToT 3a gpaMCKu yMeTHoCTu - CKonje ogp^a HeKonKy MeryHapogHu TeaTapCKu K0H^epeH^uu (Balkan Theatre Sphere, 2003; Intercultural Theatre, 2005; Theatre and Identity, 2006; Theatre and Memory, 2007), Kage mTo 3egoa y^ecrao TeaTpono3uTe og CnoBeHuja, Mery gpyruTe aKTuBHu y^ecHu^u, gogeKa, naK, Ha Hajpe^HTHaTa MeryHapogHa K0H$epeH^uja opraHu3upaHa og ArPOT HacnoBeHa KaKo Performing Arts, Migration, Politics: Slovenian Theatre as an Agent of Intercultural Exchange; bo paMKu Ha TeaTapcKuoT ^ecTuBan bo Mapu6op, 2015) Kage mTo aKTuBHo y^ecTBo 3ege 24 AHa CrojaHOCKa co npe3em^uja Ha TpygoT nocBeTeH Ha MaKegoHcKo-cnoBeHe^KuTe TeaTapcKu BpcKu.1 MaKegoHuja u CnoBeHuja pe^ucu cegyMgeceT roguHu 6ea gen og ucra gp^aBa: noarajKu og KpancreoTo JyrocnaBuja (Mery gBeTe CBeTCKH BojHu), na ce go Co^janucTmKa OegepaTuBHa Peny6nuKa JyrocnaBuja (1945-1991). Copa6oTKaTa bo o6nacra Ha KynTypaTa u KynTyponomKaTa pa3MeHa Mery CnoBeHuja u MaKegoHuja bo roMuHamre 25 roguHu u3rpageHa e og penaTuBHo 6oraTu KynTyponomKu BpcKu, BocnocraBeHu bo npeTxogHuTe geKagu. MaKegoHcKuTe u cnoBeHe^Kure TeaTpu uMaaT cBoja concTBeHa ucropuja Ha KoHTHHyupaHH BpcKu; BpcKu kou ce u3rpageHu Bp3 cnurauTe u 6nucKuTe TeaTapcKH Tpagu^u u nocTojaHaTa »en6a 3a copa6oTKa. 3a BpeMe Ha uHcraTy^uoHanroa^jaTa Ha Ha^oHanHuTe TeaTpu bo 3aegHu^KaTa gp^aBa, oco6eHo bo BpeMeTo npeg u no BTopaTa cBeTcKa BojHa, Toa nogpa36upame HaMeHcKo noBp3yBarae Mery TeaTapcKuTe ^mpu og cure rpagoBu og nopaHemHaTa 3aegHu^Ka gp^aBa. Bo noHaTaMomHuoT nepuog oBue BpcKH 6ea ogp^yBaHu 6narogapeHue Ha naTyBa^KHTe TeaTpu KaKo u Ha Bu3ujaTa u nocBeTeHocra Ha HeKonKy TeaTapcKH eHTy3ujacru. Bo nocnegHure ge^Huu Ha MHHaraoT BeK, BpcKaTa Mery MaKegoHuja u CnoBeHuja bo TeaTapcKa cMucna 6eme rpageHa rnaBHo HH3 3aeflHH^KH y^ecTBa Ha pa3nmHu ^ecraBanu u nocera og cTpaHa Ha pecneKTa6unHu yMera^H og gBeTe 3eMju. 3apagu pa3™^HHTe orpaHu^yBa^a (bo cMucna Ha BpeMe, ^uHaHcuu u ^oBe^Ku pecypcu) HameTo ucrpa^pafte Mo^e ga 6uge caMo nunoT-npoeKT mTo Ke nocraBu TeMen 3a ugHure, nocno^eHu u nogeTanHu ucrpa^pafta Ha TeMaTa. EgHa og HajynoTpe6nuBuTe anaTKu 3a uflHUTe ucTpa^yBa^u Ha MaKegoHcKo-cnoBeHe^Kure TeaTapcKu BpcKu, pa3BueHa bo paMKu Ha oBoj npoeKT, e guruTanHaTa 6a3a Ha nogaTo^ Koja cogp^u uH^opMa^u 3a TeaTapcKUTe yMerau^, u3BegyBa™ u uhctut^uu kou y^ecreyBane bo 6unaTepanHaTa copa6oTKa bo u3MuHaTuTe 25 roguHu. MaKo co6paBMe pa3nurau nogaTo^ og pa3nu^HuTe u3Bopu (KaKo mTo e CnoseHmmoT TeaTapcKu wguwHUK mTo ro u3gaBa CnoBeHe^KuoT TeaTapcKu uHcTuTyT, npBuTe Bep3uu og MaKegoHcKaTa TeaTapcKa 6a3a Ha nogaTo^ ogp^yBaHa og cTpaHa Ha OaKynTeToT 3a gpaMcKu yMeTHocTu, CKonje, apxuBu u TeaTapcKu goKyMeHTu, noBepnuBu uHTepHeT-u3Bopu uth.) gagoBMe ce og ce6e 3a ga ja u3rpaguMe ^nocHaTa cnuKa 3a oBaa 6unaTepanHa copa6oTKa u egHoBpeMeHo cMe cBecHu geKa oBaa 6a3a Ha nogaTo^ e ce ymTe He^nocHa u Tpe6a ga 6uge nogo6peHa. 3aToa, 6u 6une 6narogapHu 3a ucnpaBKuTe u/unu gogaBKure Ha nogaTo^ og cTpaHa Ha ceKoja og uHcraTy^uTe unu noeguH^Te kou Mo^aT ga npugoHecaT bo ucTpa^yBaaeTo. Co6paHuTe noga^u og npoeKToT 6ea o6pa6oTeHu cnopeg HeKonKy MeTogonomKu npuH^nu nocTaBeHu og cTpaHa Ha ucrpa^yBaMKuTe rpynu. rnaBHaTa no#en6a 6eme nocTaBeHa Mery rocTyBa^Ku u3Be#6u u noceTu/rocTyBaaa (unu copa6oTKu) Ha noe^uHe^Hu 1 Ana Stojanoska. "Makedonsko-slovenske gledališke povezave" [Macedonian-Slovenian Theatre Relations]. Bo Uprizoritvene umetnosti, migracije, politika: slovensko gledališče kot sooblikovalec medkulturnih izmenjav, ypegeHo og Barbara Orel. UL FF and UL AGRFT, 2017, pp. 281-306. yMera^H. rocTyBa^KHTe H3Beg6u, HaTaMy, 6ea nogeneHH bo gBe noTKaTeropuu: npBO, 25 H3Beg6u og egHaTa 3eMja noKaHera og CTpaHa Ha TeaTpu bo gpyraTa 3eMja KaKo ^ecTa npaKTHKa Ha rociyBafta, u BTopo - H3Beg6u og egHaTa 3eMja koh 6une bo paMKH Ha TeaTapcKH ^ecraBanu bo gpyraTa 3eMja. BunaTepanHaTa copa6oTKa Mery ^oegHH^H-yMeTHH^H, hcto TaKa, 6eme nogeneHa Ha gBe noTKaTeropuu: npBo, yMerau^ Ha KpaToK (unu HaMeHCKu) npecToj, Haj^ecio co ^n y^ecTBo bo pecneKTHBHH TeaTapcKH npogy^uu unu copa6orau^ Ha npeTcTaBaTa, My3HKaTa u cn. (oBaa rpyna ja HapeKyBaMe rocTH unu „Hepe3HgeHTH") u BTopo, yMerau^ koh goaraaT og egHaTa 3eMja bo gpyraTa u ocTaHyBaaT Ha ogpegeH nogonr nepuog (noBene roguHH, ru HapeKyBaMe pe3ugeHTu). OBue nogen6u no KaTeropuu u noTKaTeropuu 6ea Ba^HH MeTogonomKH anaTKH He caMo npu co6upafteio Ha nogaTo^Te, TyKy u npu aHanu3a Ha co6paHHTe nogaTo^. MaKo Mo»e6u e He^nocHa bo ceramHaTa cocToj6a bo Koja npoeKToT ce Haora, 6a3aTa Ha nogaTo^ hh oBo3Mo»yBa ga ja H3Bne^eMe 6apeM npenuMHHapHaTa cTaTucTHKa. HajBa^HoTo oTKpuTue npu KBaHTHTaTHBHHoT gen og ucTpa^yBaaeTo e $aKToT geKa MaKegoHcKo-cnoBeHe^KaTa TeaTapcKa pa3MeHa e 3Ha^HTenHo acuMeTpmHa bo cuTe KaTeropuu u noTKaTeropuu. KaKo mro e Toa bo no3HaTuoT onuc Ha BpoHucnaB ManuHoBcKH Ha „Kyna", Tpagu^oHanHa $opMa Ha pa3MeHa Mery Tpo6pujaHgcKHTe ocTpoBH, Kage mro gBa pa3nu^HH Buga apTe^aKTu, KoHcTaHTHo naTyBaaT bo cnpoTHBeH npaBe^. Bo MaKegoHcKo-cnoBeHe^KaTa TeaTapcKa pa3MeHa TeaTapcKaTa pa3MeHa Haj^ecro npeTcTaBHTe naTyBaaT og CnoBeHuja go MaKegoHuja, gogeKa noeguHerauTe TeaTapcKH yMerau^ npegoMHHaHTHo naTyBaaT og MaKegoHuja go CnoBeHuja. MomHe e o^urnegHo aKo ru cnopeguMe nogaTo^Te bo 6a3aTa Ha nogaTo^: bo nepuogoT Ha Koj ce ogHecyBa ucTpa^yBaaeTo (1990-2015), 69 cnoBeHe^Ka npogy^uja y^ecTByBana Ha pa3nu^HHTe TeaTapcKH ^ecraBanu bo MaKegoHuja, gogeKa caMo 33 MaKegoHcKH npogy^uu 3ene y^ecTBo Ha cnoBeHe^KHTe TeaTapcKH ^ecTHBanu (KaKo gogaBKa, 13 MaKegoHcKH npogy^uu 6une noKaHera og cipaHa Ha cnoBeHe^KHTe TeaTpu co ^n ga HacTanaT KaKo rocTH H3BegyBa^u Ha HHBHHTe c^hh). Og gpyra cipaHa, MaKegoHcKHTe yMerau^ ocTBapune 227 noeguHe^HH copa6oTKH (105 KaKo rocTH u 122 KaKo pe3ugeHTu) unu npoceK og 8,4 copa6oTKH no ce3oHa, gogeKa HHBHHTe cnoBeHe^KH Koneru yqecTByBane bo MaKegoHcKH npogy^uu caMo 52 naTH (cuTe KaKo rocTu) unu npoceK og 1,8 copa6oTKa no ce3oHa. Haj^ecra npo^ecuoHanHH rpynu Mery MaKegoHcKHTe TeaTapcKH yMeTHH^H koh pegoBHo unu noBpeMeHo pa6oiene bo cnoBeHe^KHTe TeaTapu ce: Mery rocTHTe, npBHTe Tpu npo^ecuu ce: aBTop Ha My3HKa, pe^ucep u onepcKH neja^, gogeKa Mery pe3ugeHTHTe, gBe Haj^ecra npo^ecuu ce 6aneTcKH urpa^/Tarnap u gpaMaTypr. Bo cny^ajoT Ha cnoBeHe^KH TeaTapcKH yMeTHH^H koh copa6oTyBane co MaKegoHcKHTe TeaTpu TpuTe Ton-npo^ecuu Mery rocTHTe ce gpaMcKH aBTop, pe^ucep u Tarnap, ho He Mo^eBMe ga geTeKTupaMe HHTy egeH cnoBeHe^KH pe3ugeHT bo MaKegoHuja. 2 fepgaH og ^BeHH mKonKH bo egeH npaBe^ 6pa3neTHH og 6enH mKonKH bo cnpoTHBHHoT npaBe^ BHgu bo: Bronislaw Ma-linowski. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: Routledge, 1932, p. 81. 26 3ana flo6oBmeK u Camo aumocku, aBTopuTe Ha TeKCTOT 3a MaKegoHcKo-cnoBeHe^KaTa pa3MeHa BO KOHTeKCT Ha TeaTapCKHTe ^ecTOBanu, ro HCKOpHCTHja KBaHTuTaTuBHuOT MeTogonomKu npucran npu aHanu3upafte Ha cTaracTu^KuTe noga^u. Og egHa CTpaHa, aBTopuTe ro aHanu3upaa npucycTBOTo Ha cnoBeHe^KuTe TeaTapcKu npogy^uu bo pa3nu^Hu TeaTapcKu ^ecraBanu bo MaKegoHuja, a og gpyra naK, npucycTBOTo Ha MaKegoHCKHTe TeaTapcKu npogy^uu u TeaTapcKu yMeTH^H bo pa3nmHu TeaTapcKu ^ecraBanu bo CnoBeHuja. Bo 3aKnyMOKOT Ha TpygoT, Tue ru npe3eHTupaaT KyMynaraBHuTe pe3ynTara og 6unaTepanHOTo ucTpa^yBaae, HarnacyBajKu ru Haj^ecraTe HaBuKu Ha pa3MeHa Ha MaKegoHcKuTe u cnoBeHe^KuTe TeaTapcKu ^ecraBanu bo nocnegHuTe 25 roguHu. flBa ^ecraBanu kou 3acny^yBaaT ^OTeH^Hpafte bo cMucna Ha npeTcTaByBaae Ha MaKefloHCKaTa TeaTapcKa npogy^uja bo CnoBeHuja u o6paTHo: cnoBeHe^KuoT ^ecraBan Ex Ponto u MaKegoHcKuoT ^ecraBan MOT - Mrng OwsopeH TeaTap. Bo pe^ucu gBoge^HucKOTo nocToeae Ha Ex Ponto, npeg cnoBeHe^KaTa ny6nuKa 6une npeTcraBeHu pa3nu^Hu «aHpoBu, yMeTHH^H, TeMu u ^opMara og MaKegoHcKuoT TeaTap. OcHoBaH bo 1975 roguHa, MOT e Boge^Ku MaKegoHcKu ^ecraBan npo^unupaH koh eKcnepuMeHTanHuTe TeaTapcKu $opMu u c^hcku na6opaTopuu. C^e^H$H^eH ^eHoMeH, geTanHo aHanu3upaH bo TeKcToT Ha flo6oBmeK u aumocku e nocTojaHoTo npucycTBo Ha CMr (CnoBeHcKo MnaguHcKo rneganum^e) Ha MOT; bo Ha6^ygyBaHuoT nepuog, MOT 6un goMaKuH Ha 25 npogy^uu Ha CMr. OBoj uMnpecuBeH 6poj Ha rocTyBaaa e KBaHTuTaTuBeH uHguKaTop Ha 3Ha^ajHOTo BnujaHue Ha cnoBeHe^KuoT TeaTap bo MaKegoHcKaTa TeaTapcKa npogy^uja. MMnpecuBHaTa 6pojKa Ha rocTyBa^Ku npeTcraBu Ha CMr Ha MOT e ucto TaKa gen og nomupoKaTa TeMa ena6opupaHa bo TpygoT HanumaH og Camo aumocku, AHa CrojaHocKa u XpucTuHa ^eTaHocKa. Toa e ^eHOMeHonomKa cryguja Koja ru aHanu3upa uH^uBu^yanHuTe ^aKTopu Ha BnujaHue Ha cnoBeHe^KuoT TeaTap bo MaKegoHcKaTa TeaTapcKa npogy^uja. rnaBHuoT $oKyc Ha aBTopuTe e BnujaHueTo Ha ecTeTuKaTa Ha CMr (noce6Ho hu3 nocTojaHoTo npucycTBo Ha MOT) u BnujaHueTo Ha HeKonKy coBpeMeHu TeaTapcKu pe^ucepu Ha noeraKaTa u ecTeTuKaTa Ha MaKegoHcKuoT TeaTap. ^pe^H3HOTO ucTpa^yBaae Ha BnujaHueTo Ha cnoBeHe^KuoT TeaTap Ha TpeHgoBuTe Ha MaKegoHcKuoT TeaTap bo nocnegHuTe Tpu ge^Huu, ru Bogu aBTopuTe go 3aKnyMOKOT geKa BnujaHueTo Ha MHoryTe rocTyBa^Ku cnoBeHe^Ku TeaTapcKu npogy^uu, KaKo u pa6oTaTa Ha cnoBeHe^Kure pe^ucepu bo pa3nu^Hu MaKegoHcKu TeaTpu uMa ocTaBeHo 3Ha^uTenHa Tpara Ha MaKegoHcKaTa TeaTapcKa c^Ha u curHu^uKaHTHo BnujaHue bo HeroBaTa ecTeTuKa. Bo nepuogoT Ha cBoeTo nocroefte, JyrocnaBuja oBO3MOffiyBame He caMo MaTepujanHa noggpmKa 3a npo^ecuoHanHuTe TeaTapcKu uhctut^uu, TyKy u ja cTuMynupame KynTyponomKaTa copa6oTKa Mery peny6nuKuTe Ha ^egepa^jaTa. Bo hubhuot Tpyg 3a MaKefloHcKo-cnoBeHe^KuTe BpcKu bo 6aneToT u coBpeMeHuoT TaH^ Coaa 3gpaBKOBa-^napocKa u Ango MunoxHuK ro o6jacHyBaaT Toa geKa, oco6eHo HeBep6anHuTe $opMu Ha yMeramKoTo u3pa3yBafte, KaKo mTo ce 6aneToT u TaH^T, 6ea coogBerau KoMyHuKaTopu bo MynTHHa^HOHanHaTa u MynTunuHrBanHaTa gp^aBa, KaKBa mTo 6eme Co^janucra^Ka JyrocnaBuja. Ho, npo^coT Ha pacnaraaeTo Ha JyrocnaBuja u ^opMupaaeTo Ha H0BUTe 21 He3aBucHu flp^aBu, MaKegoHuja u CnoBeHuja, npegu3BUKa 3Ha^ajHu npoMeHu oco6eHo bo noneTo Ha TaH^T u onepaTa. rnaBHaTa ognuKa Ha 0Bue npoMeHu, og egHa cTpaHa, 6eme 6p30T0 ocna6yBaae Ha copa6oTKaTa Mery Ha^U0HanHUTe 6aneTcKu u onepcKu uhctut^uu, a og gpyraTa cTpaHa - nopacT Ha copa6oTKaTa Mery HeBnaguHUTe opraHU3a^u BKny^eHu bo co3gaBaaeTo, npoMo^jaTa u pa3MeHaTa Ha coBpeMeHUTe TaH^Bu npogy^uu. Bo KoHTeKcT Ha hubhuot Tpyg, ^napocKa u MunoxHuK, ucto TaKa ru aHanu3upaa paTU$u^upaHUTe goroBopu Mery CnoBeHuja u MaKegoHuja bo noneTo Ha KynTypaTa. floroBopoT 3a copa6oTKa bo 06pa30BaHueT0, KynTypaTa u HayKaTa Mery BnagaTa Ha Peny6nuKa MaKegoHuja u BnagaTa Ha Peny6nuKa CnoBeHuja, noTnumaH bo 1993 roguHa o6e36egu 3aK0HcKa no3aguHa 3a HaTaMomHu HopMaTUBHu aKTu 3a perynupaae Ha KoHKpeTHu Ha^uHu u $opMu Ha copa6oTKa bo KynTypaTa. rnaBHaTa KpuTUKa Ha aBTopuTe e geKa cTeneH0T Ha uHTeneKTyanHa copa6oTKa bo 0Bue 6unaTepanHu goroBopu e cKpoMeH u HeaM6u^uo3eH, oco6eHo bo noneTo Ha TaH^T Kage mT0 e 3arapaHTupaHa pa3MeHaTa Ha ^onKnopHUTe rpynu, gogeKa pa3MeHUTe bo 6aneT0T u coBpeMeHUTe TaH^Bu u3Beg6u BoonmTo He ce hu cnoMeHyBaaT. XpucTUHa ^BeTaH0CKa u Tamnep Tpoxa ro uMeHyBaaT peTK0T0 npucycTBo Ha TeKcT0Bu og MaKegoHcKu gpaMcKu nucaTenu Ha penepoTapuTe Ha cnoBeHe^KUTe TeaTpu, u o6paTHo, KaKo „^y6e3H0 uraopupaae". Pa3MeHaTa Ha gpaMcKu TeKcT0Bu pe^ucu uc^e3HyBa: bo nepuogoT og 1990 go 2015 r. caMo 6 TeKcT0Bu og MaKegoHcKu aBTopu 6une nocTaBeHu Ha c^Ha bo cnoBeHe^KUTe TeaTpu, gogeKa 8 cnoBeHe^Ku bo MaKegoHcKUTe. Ha npB norneg Toa nuMu geKa e npupogHa pea^uja no pacnagoT Ha nopaHemHaTa JyrocnaBuja, Ha mT0 aBTopuTe cyrepupaaT geKa genyMHo e tomho. Bo hubhuot TeKcT, Tue ja aHanu3upaaT npu^uHaTa 3a pe^np0^H0T0 uraopupaae u Henpu^aKaae Ha coBpeMeHUTe aKTyenHu gpaMaTUKu Mery gBeTe 3eMju. Cnopeg hubhoto Mucneae, npuMUHUTe 3a uHgu^epeHTHocTa He ce HUTy bo npeBoguTe HUTy bo Henpu^aTeHUTe motubu u TeMu. HuBHaTa aHanu3a Ha gpaMcKUTe TeKcToBu nocTaBeHu bo MaKegoHuja u bo CnoBeHuja noKa^yBa cnuraocra bo MoTUBUTe mTo ru uHcnupupane aBTopuTe u ru MoTUBupane pe^ucepuTe ga nocTaBaT Ha c^Ha ogpegeHu TeKcT0Bu. Hubhuot 3aKny^0K e geKa 3aegHUMK0T0 „^y6e3H0 uraopupaae" e HajBepojaTHo pe3ynTaT Ha npoMeHaTa KypcoT Ha KynTypanHUTe nonuTUKu Ha CnoBeHuja u Ha MaKegoHuja, BpTejKu ce og 6nucKuoT ucTopucKu u reorpa^cKu uHTepec K0H EY, CAfl UTH. TeKcT0Bu og MaKefloHcKu gpaMcKu nucaTenu peTKo ce nocTaByBaaT Ha penepToapuTe Ha cnoBeHe^KUTe TeaTpu, KaK0B mT0 e u o6paTHuoT cny^aj. OBue Hay^Hu TpygoBu ce 3aoKpy«eHu co uHTepBjya Ha gBaj^ yMerau^, npBo, co MaKegoHcKuoT TeaTapcKu pe^ucep Cno6ogaH Yhkobcku, Koj ^ecro pa6oTen bo cnoBeHe^KUTe TeaTpu, u noToa co cnoBeHe^KuoT Tarnap u Kopeorpa^ flejaH Cpxoj, Koj uMa roneMo ucKycTBo bo 3aeflHUMKUTe, copa6oTyBa^Ku Kopeorpa^cKu npoeKTu u Konpogy^uu Mery cnoBeHe^KUTe u MaKegoHcKUTe HeBnaguHu opraHU3a^u, BKny^yBajKu peruoHanHu TaH^Bu nnaT^opMu, KaKo mT0 e Nomad Dance Academy. 28 EunaTepanHuoT ucrpaffiyBa^Ku npoeKT MaKegoHcKo-cnoBeHe^Ku TeaTapcKu BpcKu (og 1990 go geHec) hu gaBa mo^hoct ga ru ucrpa^uMe TeaTapcKuTe ja3nu Mery MaKegoHuja u CnoBeHuja bo MuHarnre geKagu, KaKo u BnujaHueTo Bp3 ^ujanHuoT, eKOHOMCKH u nonuTu^Ku opueHTup Ha copa6oTKaTa Ha hubo Ha TeaTapcKu npaKTUKu. roneM 6poj peHOMupaHu pe^ucepu, Kopeorpa^u, u3BegyBa™, KoMno3uTopu, c^Horpa^u u KocraMorpa^u, KaKo u ^nu aHcaM6nu og MaKegoHuja ja noceTune CnoBeHuja u o6paTHo. HamuTe TeKCToBu, pa3BuBaHu hu3 6unaTepanHuoT ucTpa^yBa^Ku npoeKT u o6jaBeHu bo 3aeflHu^KoTo u3gaHue Ha Amfiteater u Ars Académica ce ^oKycupaHu Ha TeopucKoTo pa3rnegyBafte Ha oBue aKTuBHocTu, Ha aHanu3a Ha 3aegHu^KaTa pe^n^ja, BnujaHue Bp3 penepToapu, Ha^uHu Ha u3Beg6a, noeTuKu u ecreraKu Ha TeaTapcKuTe npaKTuKu, KaKo u ^0TeH^ujanHu copa6oTKu mTo Mo^aT ga cnegaT bo gBeTe HacoKu. Ce HageBaMe geKa HameTo ucrpa^yBafte Ke npugoHece koh nogo6po pa36upaae Ha npo^cuTe Ha pa3MeHa og MuHaToTo u Ke cTuMynupa nocunHa copa6oTKa Mery MaKegoHcKuTe u cnoBeHe^KuTe TeaTapcKu yMeTHu^u u uhctut^uu bo ugHuHaTa. Uvod v makedonsko-slovenske gledališke vezi (1990-2015) Aldo Milohnic in Ana Stojanoska Prispevki v pričujoči skupni številki revij Amfiteater in Ars Academica so nastali v okviru bilateralnega projekta Makedonsko-slovenske gledališke vezi (od leta 1990 do danes), ki je potekal dve leti (2017-2018) v sodelovanju med Fakulteto dramskih umetnosti iz Skopja in Akademijo za gledališče, radio, film in televizijo iz Ljubljane. Projekt sta podprla Agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije in Ministrstvo za izobraževanje in znanost Republike Makedonije. Glavni cilj projekta je bil ugotoviti, zapisati in oceniti sodelovanje gledaliških umetnikov iz obeh držav v obdobju 1990-2015. Raziskava je zajela vsa glavna področja scenskih umetnosti (dramo, opero in balet/ples), vključno z obiski posameznikov in celotnih ansamblov. Makedonski in slovenski raziskovalci, ki so bili vključeni v projekt, so proučevali tudi recepcijo, kritiko in pomembne umetniške dosežke teh umetnikov in institucij.1 Končni rezultati projekta so bili predstavljeni na konferenci, ki jo je 5. novembra 2018 organizirala Fakulteta dramskih umetnosti v Skopju. To je bila prva znanstvena konferenca, ki je bila v celoti posvečena makedonsko-slovenskim gledališkim povezavam v zadnjih 25 letih. V tem obdobju so se vendarle zgodila tudi nekatera druga znanstvena in strokovna srečanja v Makedoniji in Sloveniji, ki so se ukvarjala z bilateralnim (delno tudi regionalnim) sodelovanjem v kulturi. Če omenimo le nekaj konferenc, ki sta jih organizirali partnerski instituciji v raziskovalnem projektu, katerega izsledke predstavljamo v tej skupni številki revij Amfiteater in Ars Academica: Fakulteta dramskih umetnosti iz Skopja je organizirala več mednarodnih konferenc o gledališču (Balkanska gledališka sfera, 2003; Medkulturno gledališče, 2005; Gledališče in identiteta, 2006; Gledališče in spomin, 2007), na katerih so sodelovali tudi raziskovalci iz Slovenije, medtem ko je na nedavni mednarodni konferenci Uprizoritvene umetnosti, migracije, politika: slovensko gledališče kot sooblikovalec medkulturnih izmenjav (v okviru Festivala Borštnikovo srečanje, 2015), ki jo je organizirala Akademija za gledališče, radio, film in televizijo iz Ljubljane, Ana Stojanoska predstavila referat o makedonsko-slovenskih gledaliških povezavah.2 1 Članice in član makedonske raziskovalne skupine so bili Hristina Cvetanoska, Sašo Dimoski, Dragana Miloševski Popova, Ana Stojanoska (vodja tima) in Sonja Zdravkova Džeparoska; članici in člana slovenske raziskovalne skupine pa Zala Dobovšek, Aldo Milohnic (vodja tima), Maja Šorli in Gašper Troha. 2 Stojanoska, Ana. »Makedonsko-slovenske gledališke povezave.« Uprizoritvene umetnosti, migracije, politika: slovensko gledališče kot sooblikovalec medkulturnih izmenjav, ur. Barbara Orel, FF UL in UL AGRFT, 2017, str. 281-306. 32 Makedonija in Slovenija sta bili skoraj sedemdeset let del iste države: od Kraljevine Jugoslavije (med svetovnima vojnama) do Socialistične federativne republike Jugoslavije (1945-1991). Sodelovanje na področju kulture in kulturna izmenjava med Slovenijo in Makedonijo temeljita na sorazmerno bogatih kulturnih povezavah, vzpostavljenih v preteklih desetletjih. Makedonska in slovenska gledališča imajo lastno zgodovino nepretrganih povezav; povezav, zgrajenih na podobnih in sorodnih gledaliških tradicijah ter stalni želji po sodelovanju. V času institucionalizacije nacionalnih gledališč v skupni državi, zlasti v času pred drugo svetovno vojno in po njej, je to pomenilo namensko povezovanje gledaliških centrov iz mest nekdanje skupne države. V nekem drugem obdobju so te povezave vzdrževala potujoča gledališča ter vizija in posvečenost nekaj gledaliških navdušencev. V zadnjih desetletjih preteklega stoletja so se gledališke vezi med Makedonijo in Slovenijo večinoma gradile s skupno udeležbo na različnih festivalih in z obiski uglednih umetnikov iz obeh držav. Zaradi različnih omejitev (v smislu časa, financ in človeških virov) je lahko naša raziskava le pilotski projekt, ki bo kvečjemu zagotovil solidno podlago za prihodnje zahtevnejše in podrobnejše raziskave na to temo. Eno najuporabnejših orodij za prihodnje raziskovalce makedonsko-slovenskih gledaliških povezav, razvito v okviru tega projekta, je digitalna podatkovna baza z informacijami o gledaliških umetnikih, uprizoritvah in institucijah, ki so bilateralno sodelovali v preteklih 25 letih.3 Čeprav smo zbrali različne podatke iz različnih virov (kot so Slovenski gledališki letopis, ki ga izdaja Slovenski gledališki inštitut, prva različica makedonske gledališke podatkovne baze, ki jo je pripravila Fakulteta dramskih umetnosti v Skopju, arhivi in dokumentacije gledališč, izbrani spletni viri itn.) in smo si močno prizadevali, da bi ustvarili čim popolnejšo sliko bilateralnega sodelovanja, se zavedamo, da je podatkovna baza še pomanjkljiva in bi jo bilo treba dopolniti. Zato bi bili hvaležni institucijam ali posameznikom, ki lahko prispevajo morebitne popravke in/ali dodatne podatke. Podatke, ki smo jih zbrali v okviru projekta, smo obdelali v skladu z nekaj metodološkimi načeli, ki sta jih določili raziskovalni skupini. Glavna razdelitev je bila narejena med gostujočimi predstavami in gostovanji (ali sodelovanji) posameznih umetnikov. Gostujoče predstave so bile naprej razdeljene v dve podkategoriji, in sicer predstave iz ene države, ki so gostovale v drugi državi na povabilo posameznih gledališč iz te države, ter predstave iz ene države, ki so gostovale v drugi v okviru gledaliških festivalov. Bilateralno sodelovanje med posameznimi umetniki je bilo prav tako razdeljeno v dve podkategoriji, in sicer umetniki na kratkem (ali občasnem) obisku, najpogosteje z namenom sodelovanja v posameznih gledaliških produkcijah kot avtorji besedil, skladatelji ipd. (to skupino imenujemo gostje oziroma nerezidenti), ter umetniki, ki prihajajo iz ene v drugo državo in v njej bivajo več let (imenujemo jih rezidenti). Te razdelitve v kategorije in podkategorije so bile pomembna metodološka orodja tako pri zbiranju podatkov kot pri njihovi analizi. 3 Baza je dostopna na spletnem naslovu www.fdu.ukim.edu.mk. Ne glede na to, da je podatkovna baza v sedanji fazi projekta morda nepopolna, nam 33 omogoča pripravo vsaj začasne statistike. Najpomembnejša ugotovitev v okviru kvantitativnega dela raziskave je dejstvo, da je makedonsko-slovenska gledališka izmenjava dokaj asimetrična v vseh kategorijah in podkategorijah. Podobno kot v primeru tradicionalne menjave na Trobriandskih otokih (»kula«), ki jo je orisal antropolog Bronislaw Malinowski,4 ko dve zvrsti dobrin nenehno potujeta v nasprotnih smereh, predstave najpogosteje potujejo iz Slovenije v Makedonijo, medtem ko gledališki umetniki večinoma potujejo iz Makedonije v Slovenijo. Ta ugotovitev izhaja iz primerjave zbranih podatkov: v obdobju, ki ga je zajela naša raziskava (19902015), je 69 slovenskih produkcij sodelovalo na različnih gledaliških festivalih v Makedoniji, medtem ko je samo 33 makedonskih produkcij nastopilo na slovenskih gledaliških festivalih (poleg tega so slovenska gledališča povabila še 13 makedonskih predstav, ki so gostovale na njihovih odrih). Po drugi strani so makedonski umetniki izvedli 227 posamičnih sodelovanj (105 kot gostje in 122 kot rezidenti) ali v povprečju 8,4 sodelovanja na sezono, medtem ko so njihovi slovenski kolegi v makedonskih produkcijah sodelovali le 52-krat (vedno kot gostje) in tako opravili v povprečju 1,8 sodelovanja na sezono. Najpogostejše poklicne skupine med makedonskimi gledališkimi umetniki, ki so redno ali občasno delali v slovenskih gledališčih, so med gosti režiser, avtor glasbe in operni pevec, medtem ko sta najpogostejša poklica med rezidenti plesalec in dramaturg. V primeru slovenskih gledaliških umetnikov, ki so sodelovali z makedonskimi gledališči, so v kategoriji gostov vodilni poklici dramatik, režiser in plesalec (v makedonskih gledališčih nismo zaznali prav nobenega slovenskega gledališkega umetnika, ki bi ga uvrstili v našo kategorijo rezidentov). Pri pisanju prispevka o makedonsko-slovenskih izmenjavah v okviru gledaliških festivalov sta Zala Dobovšek in Sašo Dimoski izhajala iz zbranih kvantitativnih podatkov in njihove statistične obdelave. Avtorja analizirata prisotnost slovenskih predstav na gledaliških festivalih v Makedoniji in makedonskih na festivalih v Sloveniji, v sklepnem delu članka pa predstavita kumulativne rezultate bilateralne raziskave in izpostavita ključne značilnosti te oblike izmenjav v zadnjih 25 letih. Festivala, ki si zaslužita posebno omembo v smislu predstavitve makedonske gledališke produkcije v Sloveniji in obratno, sta slovenski festival Ex Ponto in makedonski festival MOT -Mlado odprto gledališče. V skoraj dveh desetletjih obstoja je festival Ex Ponto slovenski publiki predstavil različne umetnike ter zvrsti, teme in formate makedonskega gledališča. MOT, ki je bil ustanovljen leta 1975, je vodilni makedonski festival, naravnan k eksperimentalnim gledališkim oblikam in odrskim laboratorijem. Pojav, ki sta ga avtorja posebej izpostavila, je stalna prisotnost Slovenskega mladinskega gledališča (SMG) na MOT; v opazovanem obdobju je MOT gostil 25 produkcij SMG. 4 Ogrlice iz rdečih školjk v eno, zapestnice iz belih školjk pa v drugo smer; prim. Malinowski, Bronislaw. Argonavti zahodnega Pacifika. Aristej, 2018. 34 To impresivno število gostovanj SMG na festivalu MOT je hkrati del širše teme, ki so jo v posebnem članku obdelali Sašo Dimoski, Ana Stojanoska in Hristina Cvetanoska. V tej fenomenološki študiji avtorji analizirajo posamezne dejavnike vpliva slovenskega gledališča na makedonsko. Pri tem se osredotočajo na vplive estetike SMG (zlasti skozi njegovo kontinuirano prisotnost na festivalu MOT) in na vplive nekaterih sodobnih slovenskih gledaliških režiserjev na poetiko in estetiko makedonskega gledališča. Poglobljena raziskava vpliva slovenskega gledališča na gibanja v makedonskem gledališču v zadnjih treh desetletjih je avtorje pripeljala do sklepa, da so številna gostovanja slovenskih predstav pa tudi sodelovanja slovenskih režiserjev v različnih makedonskih gledališčih pustila opazne sledi na makedonski gledališki sceni in občutno vplivala na njeno estetiko. V času svojega obstoja je Jugoslavija poklicnim gledališkim institucijam nudila ne le materialno podporo, temveč je med republikami federacije spodbujala tudi kulturno sodelovanje. V njunem članku o makedonsko-slovenskih izmenjavah v baletu in sodobnem plesu Sonja Zdravkova Džeparoska in Aldo Milohnic razlagata, da so bile zlasti neverbalne oblike umetniškega izražanja, kot sta balet in ples, ustrezni komunikatorji v večnacionalni in večjezični državi, kakršna je bila socialistična Jugoslavija. Proces razpada Jugoslavije in oblikovanje novih neodvisnih držav, Makedonije in Slovenije, je povzročil pomembne spremembe zlasti na področju plesa in opere. Glavni značilnosti teh sprememb sta bili po eni strani hitro zmanjševanje sodelovanja med nacionalnimi baletnimi in opernimi institucijami ter po drugi strani krepitev sodelovanja med nevladnimi organizacijami, vključenimi v ustvarjanje, promocijo in izmenjavo sodobnih plesnih produkcij. Avtorja analizirata tudi bilateralni sporazum in poznejše programske dokumente o sodelovanju v kulturi, ki sta jih Makedonija in Slovenija ratificirali od svoje osamosvojitve do danes. Sporazum o sodelovanju v izobraževanju, kulturi in znanosti med Vlado Republike Makedonije in Vlado Republike Slovenije, podpisan leta 1993, je zagotovil zakonsko podlago za sprejem normativnih aktov za urejanje konkretnih načinov in oblik sodelovanja na področju kulture. Avtorja menita, da je raven medkulturnega sodelovanja, ki jo predvidevajo ti bilateralni sporazumi, žal preveč skromna in neambiciozna, zlasti na področju plesne umetnosti, kjer se izrecno ureja izmenjava folklornih plesnih skupin, medtem ko izmenjave na področju baleta in sodobnega plesa niso niti omenjene. Besedila makedonskih dramatikov se redko uvrščajo na repertoarje slovenskih gledališč, enako je z uprizarjanjem slovenske dramatike v Makedoniji. Hristina Cvetanoska in Gašper Troha ta pojav imenujeta »vljudna brezbrižnost«. Izmenjava dramskih besedil je tako rekoč zamrla: v obdobju med letoma 1990 in 2015 je bilo le šest besedil makedonskih avtorjev uprizorjenih na odrih slovenskih gledališč in osem besedil slovenskih avtorjev v makedonskih gledališčih. Čeprav je to na prvi pogled morda videti kot pričakovano zmanjšanje po razpadu nekdanje skupne države, avtorja menita, da to ne drži povsem. V članku analizirata možne razloge tega vzajemnega 35 ignoriranja in trganja vezi med državama na področju sodobne dramatike. Po njunem mnenju razlogi za to indiferentnost niso ne redki prevodi ne neprimerni motivi in teme dramskih besedil, saj njuna analiza besedil, ki so bila uprizorjena v Makedoniji in Sloveniji, kaže prav nasprotno. Avtorja skleneta, da je »vljudna brezbrižnost« najverjetneje posledica splošnih sprememb v usmeritvah kulturnih politik Slovenije in Makedonije, za katere je značilno upadanje zanimanja za geografsko in zgodovinsko bližja okolja ter obračanje k EU, ZDA itn. Znanstvene članke dopolnjujeta pogovora z makedonskim režiserjem Slobodanom Unkovskim, ki je pogosto delal v slovenskih gledališčih, ter s slovenskim plesalcem in koreografom Dejanom Srhojem, ki si je veliko izkušenj nabral s skupnimi koreografskimi projekti in koprodukcijami med slovenskimi in makedonskimi nevladnimi organizacijami, vključno s plesnimi platformami, kot je Nomadska plesna akademija (Nomad Dance Academy). Bilateralni projekt Makedonsko-slovenske gledališke vezi (od leta 1990 do danes) je omogočil pilotno raziskavo gledaliških vezi med Makedonijo in Slovenijo v preteklih desetletjih ter analizo vpliva družbenih, ekonomskih in političnih razmer na bilateralno sodelovanje gledaliških institucij in posameznikov. Veliko število uglednih režiserjev, koreografov, performerjev, skladateljev, scenografov in kostumografov ter celotnih ansamblov iz Makedonije je obiskalo Slovenijo in obratno. Članki, ki so nastali v okviru bilateralnega raziskovalnega projekta in so objavljeni v skupni številki slovenske revije Amfiteater in makedonske revije Ars Academica, so osredotočeni na teoretsko obravnavo teh izmenjav, analizo vzajemne recepcije, vpliv na repertoarje, način izvedbe, poetike in estetike gledaliških praks pa tudi na potencialna sodelovanja, ki bi lahko sledila v obeh smereh. Upamo, da bo naša raziskava prispevala k boljšemu razumevanju procesov izmenjave v preteklosti in spodbudila sodelovanje med makedonskimi in slovenskimi gledališkimi umetniki ter institucijami v prihodnosti. Articles I Oraran I Razprave 38 UDC 792,079(497,7+497,4] The paper offers two perspectives for analysing this specific cultural collaboration based on statistical analyses of the data collected during the bilateral research project between Macedonia and Slovenia in the field of the theatre, On the one hand, the authors analyse the presence of the Slovenian theatre productions at the various theatre festivals in Macedonia, and, on the other, the presence of the Macedonian theatre production and theatre artists at different theatre festivals in Slovenia, In the conclusion, they present the combined results of the bilateral research, emphasising the most frequent exchange habits found in the Macedonian and Slovenian theatre festivals during the last 25 years, The total sum reveals a discrepancy in the bilateral collaboration: 69 Slovenian productions participated in the Macedonian theatre festivals; 33 Macedonian productions in the Slovenian theatre festivals and 13 Macedonian productions in various theatres in Slovenia, The international festivals Ex Ponto [Slovenia] and MOT [Macedonia] played a crucial role in this relation, Keywords: theatre, festival, collaboration, production, Macedonia, Slovenia The Theatre Bridge between Macedonia and Slovenia: Theatre Festivals Zala Dobovšek and Sasho Dimoski Introduction: A post-Yugoslav theatre bridge Being part of the former Yugoslav federation for a long period of time, Macedonia and Slovenia have built a strong cultural collaboration, both bilaterally and with the other federal republics. Since 1991, the year when both countries became independent states, bilateral collaboration between Macedonia and Slovenia in the field of performing arts has continued with relatively high intensity through the exchange of theatre performances, work on co-productions, festival participations as well as the exchange of individual artists (actors, directors, costume and stage designers, composers, choreographers, etc.).1 In this article we focus on the theatrical crossroads that are most crowded and accessible to Macedonian and Slovenian spectators, that is, theatre festivals, which also offer a social context. As Willmar Sauter puts it in his text about festivals as theatrical events: 'A theatrical event is not only the encounter between a performance and its audience in a given place at a certain time, but includes also the complexities of the society in which it takes place. A theatrical event does not happen in a vacuum, but is closely related to such factors as aesthetics, the economy, education, attitudes, status, traditions, etc." ("Festivals" 18-19). He goes on to "extend these aspects of the theatrical event to the scale of an entire festival". According to statistical data collected within the bilateral research project Macedonian-Slovenian Theatre Relations (from 1990 until the Present), in the period 1990-2015 there were 46 Macedonian productions in Slovenia and 69 Slovenian performances in Macedonia. The article is thus structured in two parts. In the first part, we present all the different festivals and theatres that invited Macedonian theatre to Slovenia, that is, 33 productions at festivals and 13 guest performances at selected Slovenian cultural institutions. In the second part, we concentrate on Slovenian events in Macedonia, which were all organised within festivals. Again, we name all the festivals and list the theatres that toured to Macedonia since the independence of both states. In the conclusion, we expose the strongest connections between both states: the festivals Ex Ponto and MOT. In this article, the data has been arranged into tables to offer insight into the relational forms of the bilateral collaborations; especially to see the proportion 1 For more on Macedonian-Slovenian theatre relations since 1913, see Stojanoska ("Makedonsko-slovenske gledališke povezave"). 40 between festivals and other guest performances in Slovenian theatres. The data referring to the Slovenian side of theatre production and festivals was collected from the Slovenian Theatre Annual published by the Slovenian Theatre Institute (SLOGI) which offers the best overview of the Macedonian and Slovenian collaborations. The data from Macedonia is based on an early version of the Macedonian theatre database maintained by Faculty of Dramatic Art, Skopje, archives and documentations of theatres, reliable internet sources, etc. First Driveway: From Macedonia to Slovenia The Macedonian theatre was presented to the Slovenian audience mostly within various international festivals. There were also a few "independent", one-off guest performances at Slovenian national and other theatres such as: Slovenian National Theatre Drama Ljubljana (SNG Drama Ljubljana), the Drama of the Slovene National Theatre Maribor (Drama SNG Maribor), Slovene National Theatre Nova Gorica (SNG Nova Gorica), Mladinsko Theatre (Slovensko mladinsko gledališče), Celje People's Theatre (Slovensko ljudsko gledališče Celje), Prešeren Theatre Kranj (Prešernovo gledališče Kranj), Cankarjev dom Cultural and Congress Centre (Cankarjev dom), most of the time based on a kind of bilateral "agreement". As we will see, the most important role in collaborating with Macedonian theatre productions was played by the International Festival Ex Ponto (based in Ljubljana), followed by the Primorska Summer Festival (Slovenski primorski poletni festival), then Ljubljana International Festival of Pantomime (Ljubljanski mednarodni festival pantomime) and then a few guest performances at Maribor Theatre Festival (Festival Borštnikovo srečanje), Festival Exodos and the Week of Slovenian Drama (Teden slovenske drame). In the observed period, Slovenian festivals and individual theatres hosted 46 guest performances (including co-productions) from Macedonia. Table 1. Slovenian festivals hosting Macedonian performances (1990-2015) Slovenian festivals hosting Macedonian performances Number of performances Ex Ponto Festival 17 International Mime Festival in Ljubljana 3 Primorska Summer Festival 3 Kluže Festival 2 Week of Slovenian Drama 2 Maribor Theatre Festival 1 Slovenian festivals hosting Macedonian performances Number of performances European Month of Culture Exodos International Festival Festival Ljubljana Mej(ni)fest - NETA Festival International Philosophical Symposium Miklavž Ocepek Total 33 Table 2. Slovenian theatres hosting Macedonian performances (1990-2015) Slovenian theatres hosting Macedonian performances Number of performances Prešeren Theatre Kranj 3 Mladinsko Theatre 2 Slovene National Theatre Nova Gorica 2 Celje People's Theatre 2 Slovenian National Theatre Drama Ljubljana 1 Drama of the Slovene National Theatre Maribor 1 Cankarjev dom Cultural and Congress Centre 1 Koper Theatre (Gledališče Koper) 1 Total: 13 Ex Ponto (1993-2016) The Ex Ponto International Festival was one of the most important theatre organisations which highly valued inter-cultural contacts between the countries of the former Yugoslavia. Ex Ponto was launched in 1993 (before other important international festivals in Slovenia such as Exodos (1995), City of Women (1995) and Young Lions (Mladi levi) (1998)) by the B-51 Cultural Society, whose work has been rooted from the outset in a solid humanistic, political and social foundation. At the beginning, Ex Ponto was a festival with minimal financial support but a huge amount of enthusiasm and strong belief. Focusing on maintaining connections with other parts of the former Yugoslavia and South-Eastern Europe, the annual Ex Ponto festival presented national and international contemporary theatre and performing arts works. Ex Ponto was also a member of the New European Theatre Action (NETA) and since November 2007 served as the seat of the NETA 41 42 Secretariat. "During its over 16 years of activity, Ex Ponto has succeeded to achieve its initial goal to stimulate communication and international cooperation and exchange between the Balkans and other East European countries, as well as with Western Europe, through presenting contemporary theatre and performing and visual arts productions to Slovene and international audiences" ("Depot: Ex Ponto", online). According to Ana Perne, the festival's name already announces its aim - to build a bridge between former republics of Yugoslavia. She points out the tendency of Ex Ponto to be a highly multimedia festival, at least during the first decade. Ex Ponto had two main programme components: first, to retain connections not only with but also between the republics of former Yugoslavia (which have been burdened with nationalism, ethnic conflicts and economic difficulties) and second, "to acquaint the Slovenian audience with their performing trends and wider social situation" ("Druzbenokriticni angazma" 195). The painful context of war gave Ex Ponto the impulse to give these kinds of political (and yet intimate) themes a place and time to be seen, articulated, interpreted. Especially at the very beginning, the festival always included all nations from former Yugoslavia, later, it also invited artists from other countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, etc.). In the second part of her article, however, Perne becomes more critical, saying that the programme of Ex Ponto was focused on new approaches in performing art - yet every year it became more and more disperse, sometimes giving the impression that its programme was made almost by chance. According to Perne, by trying to attract a wider audience, Ex Ponto put a greater emphasis on quantity instead on quality (199). The New European Theatre Action (NETA) was established in Nova Gorica, Slovenia, in 2005, with an aim to promote cultural co-operation between European countries (including Macedonia) by exchanging performances, artists and engage in publishing projects. NETA became a big and crucial part of the Ex Ponto programme and art politics. According to the portal Culture.si, "NETA seeks to remove the obstacles which stand in the way of creating a 'no-visa/no-border cultural space' for theatre and to enhance general cultural co-operation."2 2 The same portal describes NETA as follows: "In 2014 the NETA network comprises 69 theatres and festivals from 20 European countries. [...] The idea of setting up a professional European theatre network was first raised in November 2004 at the inaugural meeting of representatives of theatres and festivals from Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Montenegro, Croatia, Macedonia, Russia, Slovenia, Serbia, and Turkey, which was held in Bitola, Macedonia. Striving to overcome local, regional, and national interests in a sense of developing synergies on a European level, NETA members engage in international co-productions and exchange of performances, thus contributing to cultural diversity and intercultural exchange" ("New European Theatre Action"). Table 3: Macedonian theatre productions (excluding co-productions) at the Festival 43 Ex Ponto (1990-2015) THEATRE PERFORMANCE YEAR National Theatre Kumanovo V. Plavevski: Break up 2003 Turkish Drama Theatre Skopje W. Shakespeare: The Tempest 2005 National Theatre Vojdan Cherno-drinski, Prilep B. Brecht: Drums in the Night 2008 Skopje City Theatre S. Beckett: Krapp's Last Tape (performed at Festival Kluze)* 2009 Sofija Ristevska V. Andovski: Border 2009 Sofija Ristevska Dirty Stories 2009 Small Drama Theatre, Bitola D. Dukovski: Other Side (performed at Festival Mej(ni)fest - Neta Festival) 2009 National Theatre Vojdan Cherno-drinski, Prilep B. Brecht: The Caucasian Chalk Circle 2011 Small Drama Theatre, Bitola F. G. Lorca: The House of Bernarda Alba 2012 The Theater of an Actor, Skopje; Intercult, Stockholm Plato: The Apology by Socrates 2012 Small Drama Theatre, Bitola; Drama-Puppet Theater Vratza, Bulgaria E. Ionesco: The Chairs 2013 National Theatre Vojdan Cherno-drinski, Prilep B. Brecht: Schweik in the Second World War 2014 * The Kluze Festival was produced by the B-51 Cultural Society, which also founded the Ex Ponto International Festival. In Table 3, we see that during almost two decades of its existence, Ex Ponto presented not only many different genres, artists, themes and formats of Macedonian theatre but also its ideological and artistic shapes to the Slovenian audience, although the guest performances were mostly from national institutions (National Theater Kumanovo, Skopje City Theater, National Theater Vojdan Chernodrinski, Prilep, etc.) and based on some classical, well-known playwrights (Plato, Shakespeare, Lorca, Brecht, Beckett, Ionesco, among others). International Mime Festival in Ljubljana (2003-2006) The short-lived International Mime Festival in Ljubljana also played an important role in hosting Macedonian performance artists in Slovenia. The first edition of the festival happened in 2003, its aim was to establish pantomime as equivalent to other performing art practices and genres as well as to make a step in the wider popularisation of 44 pantomime as such. The festival collaborated with two Macedonian pantomime artists between the years 2004 and 2006. Vojo Cvetanovski (1981), who performed twice at the festival, graduated in 2003 from the National Academy of Theatre and Film Arts "Krsto Saratov" in Sofia. Trajce Gjorgiev (1967), who performed at the festival in 2006, graduated from the Faculty of Drama Arts in Skopje and since 1997 has been working in the Macedonian National Theatre (MNT). Working with deaf people for seven years in the field of mime, he has produced seven performances with this community. Table 4. Macedonian theatre productions at the International Mime Festival in Ljubljana (1990-2015) PANTOMIME ARTIST PERFORMANCE YEAR Vojo Cvetanovski Imagination 2004 Vojo Cvetanovski Love tales/stories 2005 Trajče Gjorgiev Human 2006 Maribor Theatre Festival In the period 1990-2015, the Maribor Theatre Festival first hosted a Macedonian guest performance in Slovenia in its accompanying programme in 1993, the performance by Akademski teatarski laboratorij, Skopje, which staged Žanina Mircevska's play Dream (Son). Since then, the Maribor Theatre Festival, the oldest and the most prominent theatre festival in Slovenia, has never hosted any performance from Macedonia -despite the fact that its focus has become strongly international in the last decade. The Week of Slovenian Drama (1971-) The Week of Slovenian Drama is the central festival for performances of Slovenian plays, organised annually by the Prešeren Theatre Kranj with the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Slovenia and the Municipality of Kranj. It encourages the staging of performances of national drama as well as its production, promotion and presentation abroad. To achieve that, the festival cooperates with Slovenian and international theatres and theatre institutes.3 The Week of Slovenian Drama also presents Slovenian playwrights' works staged abroad. 3 Important contributions to the encouragement of creating Slovenian drama are annual playwriting workshops, men-tored by renowned Slovenian and foreign playwrights, reading performances and presentations of the nominated plays and cooperation with the Academy of Theatre, Radio, Film and Television and the Faculty of Arts, both of the University of Ljubljana. The festival started in 1971. The Week of Slovenian Drama hosted the most recent Macedonian guest performance in 45 Slovenia till now. It was The Gorge (Žrelo) by Žanina Mirčevska, a Macedonian playwright and dramaturg who has been based in Slovenia for more than two decades. Mirčevska's play, subtitled as "drama-grotesque," was staged by Drama Theater Skopje in 2014. In Slovenia, the play was nominated for the annual Slavko Grum Award for the best new Slovenian play and had its first production at SNT Drama Ljubljana in 2009.4 It was described as "one of the most original Slovenian texts to appear in the past couple of years" and as "a humorous, original and bold comment on the globalised world" ("Žanina Mirčevska", online). In this play, we can find a certain subtext of the author's double identity position; she is an ethnic Macedonian, based in Slovenia who in this case describes some basic Slovenian national "archetypes" while the play is being staged in a Macedonian theatre in Skopje. Only one other author appears in this context - Dušan Jovanovic (also a theatre director and essayist), whose drama was staged at the National Theatre Kumanovo (1993) and was presented to Slovenian public in 1994. His Antigone (as part of his Balkan Trilogy) stands for one of the most important plays in the Slovenian history of drama because of its strong political and yet symbolical message and connotations. As the play is set in the middle of wartime, in the centre of a besieged town, the gesture of producing this performance in Macedonia and presenting it in Slovenia - during a period when the war in ex-Yugoslavia was at its most intense - was extremely important, both politically and artistically. Table 5. Macedonian theatre productions at the Week of Slovenian Drama (1990-2015) THEATRE PERFORMANCE YEAR National Theatre Kumanovo D. Jovanovic: Antigone 1993 Drama Theatre Skopje Ž. Mirčevska: The Gorge 2014 Exodos (1995-) In the next case, we see the rare occurrence of a dance performance from Macedonia to be hosted at a Slovenian festival. In 2011, Dance Studio Zodijak (Prilep) came to the Exodos Festival in Ljubljana with the performance Bug's, featuring the Macedonian artist Kire Miladinoski. In 1998, Miladinoski established Zodijak, a dance studio for research, production and education in contemporary dance. He received the Best Choreography Award at the state festival for modern dance Mak Dance, Kumanovo. In 2008, he 4 For further data and analysis of Macedonian-Slovenian plays see article by Gasper Troha and Hristina Cvetanoska in this issue. 46 was a Nomad Dance Academy5 student and the following year, he participated in the scholarship programme DanceWEB as part of Impulstanz in Vienna. Bug's, named after the famous Las Vegas Drag Queen bar, is a performance inspired by marginalised groups in the heterosexist societies, representing the imagery through which imagination, concentration and outward appearance develops. The Exodos International Festival of Contemporary Performing Arts was established in 1995 and was always directed to give a mixture of practical, theoretical and educational aspects. As the main programme was always rounded out with other festival formats such as discussions, round tables, workshops or interventions into the public space, non-drama performing practices were consistently included (performances, lecture performances, contemporary dance, physical theatre, etc.). From 1999 till 2011, Exodos Institute organised the festival annually; the following editions have been biennial, following sudden financial cuts from Ministry of Culture (it lost about 2/3 of its previous budget), which threatened its existence. Anyway, it has made many connections and connected international projects and until now has presented more than 600 artists from all continents, including Macedonia. The Primorska Summer Festival (1993-) In the years 1997-99 Macedonian theatre production frequently attended the Primorska Summer Festival, launched in 1993 as a co-production with the Koper Theatre. The main goal of the festival is to present performances in the specific natural ambient of the Slovenian coast and local city architecture. The summer period gives an opportunity to perform outdoors, in the wider public sphere, not only to get away from the black box format, but also and mostly to discover and redefine some interesting historical spots in different towns - infiltrating them with performances. We could say that a strong purpose of the festival is to re-create towns by spreading out different performative spaces. Table 6. Macedonian theatre productions at the Primorska Summer Festival (1990-2015) THEATRE PERFORMANCE YEAR Youth Cultural Center Skopje MKC, Skopje G. Stefanovski: Bacchanalia 1997 Youth Cultural Center Skopje MKC, Skopje; Eurokaz, Zagreb Caesar 1998 National Theatre Bitola Alexander Morfov: Decameron, or Blood and Passion after Boccaccio 1999 5 See an interview with Dejan Srhoj in this issue. He is a freelance performer who works in the field of contemporary dance and is actively involved in developing programmes for the Nomad Dance Academy network which he co-founded. Two of the three performances came from the Youth Cultural Center (Mladinski kulturen 47 centar MKC), based in Skopje. Opened in 1972, in the recent years, MKC has become an alternative venue for numerous events: concerts, exhibitions, performances, festivals ... MKC offers a wide range of events for all age groups and interests, supporting the nonmainstream scene and especially the young artists from Macedonia. Guest performances in theatres Although the vast majority of guest performances from Macedonia were presented at festivals, some of them were hosted by Slovenian theatres as well. Evidently, there was a huge lack of Macedonian presence in Slovenia during the period 1995-2002, when there was no guest performance at all. Most of the events involved national theatres from Macedonia which were hosted by various institutional theatres in Slovenia (Slovene National Theatre Nova Gorica, the Drama of the SNT Maribor, SNT Drama Ljubljana, Celje People's Theatre, Prešeren Theatre Kranj, etc.). Table 7. Macedonian theatre productions at various Slovenian theatre institutions (1990-2015) THEATRE PERFORMANCE HOSTING THEATRE YEAR Academia Stage Laboratory, Skopje Z. Mircevska: Dream SNT Drama Ljubljana 1993 Albanian Drama, Skopje B. Brecht: Baal Cankarjev dom Cultural and Congress Centre 1994 National Theatre Bitola R. Krle: Money Kills SNT Nova Gorica 2003 National Theatre Bitola R. Krle: Money Kills Mladinsko Theatre 2003 Macedonian National Theatre, Skopje D. Dukovski: Balkan Is not Dead Drama of the SNT Maribor 2003 Tanec, Skopje Tanec Prešeren Theatre Kranj 2003 Macedonian National Theatre, Skopje H. Pinter: The Caretaker Celje City Theatre 2004 National Theatre Bitola A. P. Chekhov: Three Sisters SNT Nova Gorica 2004 National Theatre, Ku-manovo; Global Theatre, Ljubljana S. Stanescu: Balkan Blues Mladinsko Theatre 2004 National Theatre Shtip T. Kosi: Metamorphoses Celje City Theatre 2005 Tanec, Skopje Tanec Prešeren Theatre Kranj 2006 48 THEATRE PERFORMANCE HOSTING THEATRE YEAR Theatre 57, Skopje I. Čulakovski: Blood Wedding Prešeren Theatre Kranj 2006 Ljupčo Todorovski - Upa N. Simon: Anniversary Koper Theatre 2008 Second driveway: from Slovenia to Macedonia The theatre collaboration between Macedonia and Slovenia in terms of Slovenian theatre participation at the theatre festivals in Macedonia can be divided into three general segments: 1. Participation of the Mladinsko Theatre at the Youth Open Theatre (MOT); 2. Participation of different Slovenian theatres at Ohrid Summer Festival; 3. Participation of different Slovenian theatres at other festivals in Macedonia. These three topics sketch the influence that the Slovenian theatre production has on the Macedonian theatre production, emphasising the influence of the new theatre methods presented by the Slovenian theatres at the Macedonian festivals. On the other hand, the participation of the various Slovenian theatres at the Macedonian festivals is the most important cultural cohesion accomplished by the two countries. Strong ties developed through the constant presence of Slovenian theatres at Macedonian festivals, especially the Mladinsko at MOT, can help us to shed light on the Mladinsko's influence on the way theatre is both produced and interpreted in Macedonia in the last two decades. Mladinsko Theatre and Youth Open Theatre (MOT) The Mladinsko Theatre was established in 1955 as the first professional theatre for children and youth in Slovenia. The main switch of the theatre's profile happened around 1980 when the innovative performative procedures started to attract different age audiences which made the Mladinsko one of the leading stage laboratories in this part of Europe.6 Having this laboratory profile as a trademark of the repertoire, the Mladinsko's stage productions have been determined as the most attractive in the region in the sense of the development of the experimental stage language. The directors who have marked the Mladinsko's profile as innovative as shown in the recent history of the theatre are all unique postdramatic directors with an authentic approach to building their own stage semantics; this trait has been one of the channels of influence of the Slovenian theatre 6 More about the history of the Mladinsko Theatre in Toporišič et al. production on the Macedonian one. The Mladinsko's performances shown at MOT have 49 pointed to the importance of finding a new way of thinking about theatre's contemporary meaning, as shown in the article about the Mladinsko's influence on the Macedonian stage productions in this issue. A main characteristic that has been continuously displayed in the structure of the theatre performances is the importance of the actor's approach to the body as a linguistic instrument on the one hand, and the poly-semantics of the audiovisual design of the productions on the other. These stage laboratories have brought to audiences new and fresh focalisations of the theatre's components: the importance of the intellectual method (multilingual) in the director's approach to the chronotope on which the performance is based on (emphasising the case of Tomaž Pandur's presence at the different theatre festivals in Macedonia, beginning from MOT); the innovative approach to the body in all the linguistic possibilities and all the other reasons for the Mladinsko's self-definition of being "Not just a theatre". Founded in 1975, MOT is the leading Macedonian festival profiled as festival of experimental theatre forms and stage laboratories; logically, it becomes the spot where the Mladinsko feels at home.7 In its history, MOT has been presenting the work of many important European stage directors, including ones from Slovenia: Tomaž Pandur, Diego de Brea, Tomi Janežič, Vito Taufer and others who have strongly influenced the Macedonian stage production over various periods. Having MOT as a display of the stage laboratories and a way on which the European stage production heads to, Slovenian stage directors have directly created part of the contemporary Macedonian theatre productions: de Brea at the National Theatre in Bitola and at the Turk Theatre in Skopje, Janežič at the Macedonian National Theatre, and Pandur at the Macedonian National Theatre, although his King Lear unfortunately never premiered due to his death. Since 1983, with the first participation of the Mladinsko at MOT with Class Enemy, all further participations of the Mladinsko at MOT became one of the most expected events for the audience. Table 8: The Mladinsko Theatre at MOT (1990-2015) PERFORMANCE YEAR (staged at MOT) B.-M. Koltès: Roberto Zucco 1995 I. Buljan, Z. Klavdija: Butterendfly 1995 E. Filipcic: The Puzzle Home 1996 Z. Mircevska: A Place I've Never Been 1996 V. Taufer: Silence Silence Silence 1996 7 More about the history of MOT in Nikodinovski Bish. 50 PERFORMANCE YEAR (staged at MOT) Strindberg: Miss Julie 1997 E. Hrvatin: Male Fantasies 1997 B.-M. Koltès: In the Solitude of Cotton Fields 1998 D. Zlatar Frey: Tirza 1998 Who's Afraid of Tennessee Williams? (talk show) 1999 V. Yerofeyev/M. Oblak: Moskovsk 1999 Shakespeare: A Midsummer Night's Dream 2000 A. Jarry: Ubu 2002 P. Weiss: Marat/Sade 2003 A. Chekhov: Three Sisters 2004 P Handke: Kaspar 2005 B. Strauss: The One and the Other 2006 T. Stivicic: Fragile! 2009 O. Frljic: Damned Be the Traitor of His Homeland! 2010 P P. Pasolini: Amado Mio 2010 Dostoevsky: Crime and Punishment 2011 N. Alen: Nijinsky's Last Dance 2011 K. Mann: Mephisto 2012 Visconti, D'Amico, Medioli: L'Innocente 2013 A. E. Skubic: Pavla Above the Precipice 2014 The importance of the Mladinsko Theatre's presence at MOT is seen in the aesthetic innovation for which the Mladinsko is very well-known in Europe. In this way, the Mladinsko's impact on the Macedonian theatre production is reflected in the new directorial approaches and methods seen on the different Macedonian stages, as well as in the possibility for co-production between the Mladinsko Theatre and the Macedonian theatres. However, the first co-production happened only recently, the one between Theatre Dzinot (Veles) and the Mladinsko in 2016.8 It premiered at the Impact Festival in Veles and in the same year participated in the Festival of Antique drama Stobi and MOT, but unfortunately it did not appear at any Slovenian festival or theatre. Beside the participation of the Mladinsko in MOT, in the period 1990-2015 there are 15 other productions of Slovenian theatres that appeared at MOT: 8 It was Phaedra by Sasho Dimoski, directed by Aleksandar Ivanovski, with Maruša Oblak from the Mladinsko Theatre in the leading role. Table 9. Slovenian theatres at MOT (1990-2015) 51 THEATRE PERFORMANCE YEAR SNT Drama Ljubljana D. Jovanovic: Antigone 1993 Glej Theatre, Ljubljana Every Word a Gold Coin's Worth 1995 Glej Theatre, Ljubljana M. Klec: Xanax 1996 Glej Theatre, Ljubljana Hamlets 'n'Roses 1996 Glej Theatre, Ljubljana Grapefruit: Elvis de luxe 1997 Cankarjev Dom, Ljubljana Melancholic Thoughts 1998 Glej Theatre, Ljubljana Jezus F. 1998 Mladinsko Theatre, MKC and Eurokaz Zagreb Shakespeare, Brecht, Krum, Georgievski, Garvanlieva: Caesar 1998 Cultural Association B-51 (Ex Ponto), Ljubljana; Intercity Festival, Florence; Théâtre Saint Gervais, Genève R. Garcia: In a certain moment of life you should definitely stop the nonsense 2007 Via Negativa Viva Verdi 2008 EnKnapGroup In Between (Earth and Sky] 2008/09 Glej Theatre, Ljubljana D. Avdic: Bridge over Blood 2010 Maska, Ljubljana All Together Now! 2014 Maska, Ljubljana J. Rusjan: Skrip Inc. 2014 Prešeren Theatre Kranj, Ptuj City Theatre Dead Man Comes for his Sweetheart 2016 To summarise the data, in the period 1990-2015, MOT hosted 40 Slovenian theatre productions which indeed is an important number of theatre performances structured in the methods of theatre laboratories and stage experiments. This makes MOT the most important platform for presentation of the Slovenian theatre production in Macedonia. Ohrid Summer Festival as host of Slovenian theatre productions Ohrid Summer Festival, founded in 1961, is the most important Macedonian international festival.9 Organised in two main programmes (drama and music), Ohrid Summer Festival has hosted renowned contemporary stage artists, composers and instrumentalists from all over the world. In the period 1990-2015 the festival hosted the following Slovenian productions: 9 More about Ohrid Summer Festival at www.ohridskoleto.com.mk. 52 Table 10. Slovenian productions at Ohrid Summer Festival (1990-2015) THEATRE PERFORMANCE YEAR Academy of Theatre, Radio, Film and Television Aeschylus: Darius at the Tomb 1993 Mladinsko Theatre E. Filipcic: Home Joys 1996 SNT Nova Gorica E. Ionesco: The Bald Soprano 1997 Mladinsko Theatre Bernard Marie Koltès: In the Solitude of Cotton Fields 1998 SNT Nova Gorica C. Goldoni: Fishermen's Fights 2003 SNT Drama Ljubljana E. Ionesco: Waiting for Godot SNT Maribor (Ballet Ensemble) Romeo and Juliet ballet 2006 Pandur Theaters, Ulyssis Theatre and Festival Mittelfest L. Pandur: Tesla Electric Company 2007 SNT Drama Ljubljana Molière: Tartuffe 2008 SNT Drama Ljubljana E. Lubitch: When I was Dead 2013 SNT Drama Ljubljana G. Stefanovski: Figurae Veneris Histo-riae 2015 SNT Drama Ljubljana S. I. Witkiewicz: The Crazy Locomotive 2016 The twelve Slovenian productions that have participated in the official selections of the festival's editions prove that the collaboration between Macedonia and Slovenia has been very important for sustaining the international profile and meaning of this festival. Other participations of Slovenian theatre productions at Macedonian theatre festivals In the period 1990-2015, several festivals hosted a total of seventeen Slovenian theatre productions. Four Slovenian performances, all of them from SNT Drama Ljubljana, were guests at the Spring Festival in Skopje: Table 11. Slovenian Theatres at the Spring Festival (1990-2015) THEATRE PERFORMANCE YEAR SNT Drama Ljubljana L. Tolstoy: Ana Karenina 2006 SNT Drama Ljubljana V. Bartol, D. Jovanovic: Alamut 2006 SNT Drama Ljubljana Dostoyevsky: The Brothers Karamazov 2006 SNT Drama Ljubljana Christopher Marlowe: Edward II 2006 In the same period, four Slovenian productions were part of the official selection of 53 the Festival Risto Shishkov in Strumica. The festival, founded in 1992 as memorial festival to the great Macedonian actor Risto Shishkov and profiled in the chamber stage festival model, marks four Slovenian productions in the observed period: Table 12. Slovenian theatre productions at the Festival Risto Shishkov (1990-2015) THEATRE PERFORMANCE YEAR Mini Teater Ljubljana L. Jankovic: Like me 2008 Muzeum, Ljubljana B. Novakovic: Source Image 2012 Mini Teater Ljubljana E. Ionesco: The Chairs 2013 Slovenian Theatre Institute (SLOGI) M. Knez: Irena! No, I can't anymore! 2016 The Impact Festival, founded in 2011 in Veles and designed as a stage laboratory platform for experimental theatre, presented in its very short history four theatre productions from Slovenia. Table 13. Slovenian productions at the Impact Festival (1990-2015) THEATRE PERFORMANCE YEAR Mladinsko Theatre M. Oblak: Diva, Saint, Mother, Bitch 2011 Glej Theatre N. La Bute: Reasons to be Happy 2011 Mladinsko Theatre M. Tompkins: Wind of Foolery 2014 Mladinsko Theatre U. Kaurin, V. Weis: Hero 1.0 2014 The Monodrama Festival in Bitola, founded in 2001 and determined in its title, hosted one Slovenian production in 2013: SKUC Theatre's The Case of Inge M. by Heiner Müller. In addition, two dance festivals (LocoMotion and Tanc Fest) hosted four Slovenian dance productions.10 Marking the theatre bridge: a general picture In the period 1990-2015, 69 stage productions were part of the official selections in various theatre festivals in Macedonia, most of them at MOT. The fact that Mladinsko's productions, labelled as forms of experimental theatre and stage laboratories are most frequent participants at theatre festivals in Macedonia speaks about the impact 10 For a more detailed elaboration see article by Sonja Zdravkova Djeparoska and Aldo Milohnic in this issue. 54 they have on the Macedonian theatre productions, especially those oriented towards experimenting with direction and acting, as well as audio-visual stage design. Conclusion: Defining the festival theatre bridge To summarise the facts of the research, the theatre bridge between Macedonia and Slovenia and vice versa, in the frame of bilateral festival participation, we see that 69 Slovenian productions have participated in the Macedonian theatre festivals, and 33 Macedonian productions have been part of the selection of the Slovenian theatre festivals (plus 13 as individual guest performances staged at various Slovenian theatres). These numbers show that the Slovenian presence at the Macedonian theatre festivals is quite stronger than the Macedonian one at the Slovenian festivals. This disproportion opens the question of lack of proportion in the bilateral cooperation, which guides us to finding different models of equalisation and invigoration of the Macedonian presence at the Slovenian theatre festivals. On the other hand, the strong connection between the Mladinsko and MOT points to an important theatre bridge which has made a serious impact on the Macedonian authors/productions through the history of the collaboration. Through the importance of the laboratory approach to the stage production, the Macedonian theatre has gained several strong partners, authors/directors that have shaped the contemporary Macedonian theatre production, especially through placing the postdramatic techniques on different Macedonian theatre stages. Emphasising the method of textual reduction (Lehmann 78) in the case of de Brea, as well as the so-called perfume distillation method (Lukic) in the case of Pandur, the appearances of these directors at the various theatre festivals has influenced new paths for exploring the contemporary theatre possibilities and stage innovations in the wide approach to the theatre. The participation of the Slovenian theatre productions in the Macedonian theatre festivals marks an important bridge through which the Macedonian theatre production develops into more open, experimental performances that can be marked as postdramatic. The Ex Ponto Festival played a key role in presenting Macedonian theatre to the Slovenian audience; 17 Macedonian theatre performances were part of its programme. This number is half of all Macedonian performances hosted at Slovenian theatre festivals. The international festival Ex Ponto was one of the most important theatre organisations which highly valued inter-cultural contacts between the countries of the former Yugoslavia. Without this festival, the Slovenian audience would have been strongly deprived of seeing former and contemporary tendencies in Macedonian performing arts. On the other hand, it remains an open question if the Macedonian performances shown at Ex Ponto were really representative ones; as the festival's policy in general did not always emerge from the intent to show the "best of". Sadly, the selection of festival performances depended mostly on the financial (dis) 55 ability and sometimes also on "friendly" (reciprocated) agreements. As elaborated in the first part of this article, Macedonian performances were presented only sporadically at other Slovenian theatre festivals, so we can hardly say that Slovenian theatre was influenced by Macedonian theatre as strongly as we can notice in the case of the impact of Slovenian theatre on the trends in Macedonian theatre in the last 25 years. 56 Bibliography "Depot: Ex Ponto International Festival." Culture.si, 24 February 2017, www.culture. si/en/Depot:Ex_PontoJnternational_Festival. Accessed 26 June 2018. Lehmann, Hans-Thies. Postdramatic Theatre. Routledge, 2006. Lukic, Darko. "Mapping Pandur Theater." www.pandurtheaters.com. Accessed 26 June 2018. "New European Theatre Action." Culture.si, 10 August 2016, www.culture.si/en/New_ European_Theatre_Action_(NETA). Accessed 26 June 2018. Nikodinovski Bish, Ljubisha. The Power of the Theatre 40years of MOT. MKC, 2015. Orel, Barbara. "Festival Ex Ponto: pobudnik medkulturnih izmenjav." Uprizoritvene umetnosti, migracije, politika: slovensko gledališče kot sooblikovalec medkulturnih izmenjav, edited by Barbara Orel, UL FF and UL AGRFT, 2017, pp. 429-440. Perne, Ana. "Družbenokritični angažma ali (zgolj) demonstrativno mreženje? Primer Ex ponto." Amfiteater, vol. 1, no. 1, 2008, pp. 194-206. Sauter, Willmar. "Festivals as theatrical events: building theories." Festivalising!: theatrical events, politics and culture, edited by Temple Hauptfleisch et al. Rodopi, 2007. Stojanoska, Ana. "Makedonsko-slovenske gledališke povezave" (Macedonian-Slovenian Theatre Relations). In Uprizoritvene umetnosti, migracije, politika: slovensko gledališče kot sooblikovalec mekulturnih izmenjav, edited by Barbara Orel. UL FF and UL AGRFT, Ljubljana 2017, pp. 281-306. Toporišič, Tomaž, Barbara Skubic, Tina Malič, Mateja Dermelj, editors. Has the Future Already Arrived?: Fifty Years of Slovensko mladinsko gledališče. Slovensko mladinsko gledališče, 2007. "Žanina Mirčevska: The Gorge." SNG Drama Ljubljana, 14 February 2009, www. en.drama.si/repertoar/delo?id=1575. Accessed 26 June 2018. TeaTapcKH moct Mery MaKegoHuja h CnoBeHuja: TeaTapcKHTe ^ecruBanu K^yqHH 36opoBH: TeaTap, npogy^uja, copa6oTKa, 6unaTepana, ^ecraBanu, CnoBeHuja, MaKegoHuja, MOT, Ex Ponto, craracraKa BuBajKu gen og nopaHemHaTa JyrocnoBeHcKa $egepa^uja bo gonr nepuog, MaKegoHuja u CnoBeHuja u3rpagune cunHa Meryce6Ha KynTypHa copa6oTKa og egHa cTpaHa, 6unaTepanHa, a og gpyra - co ocraHaraTe ^egeparaBHu peny6nuKu. Og 1991 r., Kora gBeTe gp^aBu craHane He3aBucHu, 6unaTepanHaTa copa6oTKa Mery MaKegoHuja u CnoBeHuja bo noneTo Ha u3BegyBa^KuTe yMeTHocTu npogon^una co penaTuBHo bucok uHTeH3UTeT npeKy pa3MeHaTa Ha TeaTapcKu npeTcTaBu, copa6oTKa Ha hubo Ha Konpogy^uu, y^ecrea Ha ^ecTUBanu, KaKo u pa3MeHa Ha yMerau^-noeguH^ (aKTepu, pe^ucepu, KocraMorpa^u, c^Horpa^u, KoMno3uTopu, Kopeorpa^u uth). Bo oBoj TeKcT, ^oKycoT ce cTaBa Ha TeaTapcKuTe BpcKu KaKo uHTeH3uBHu copa6oTKu mTo ru noBp3yBaaT u MaKegoHcKuTe u cnoBeHe^KuTe mega™, ogHocHo ^ecraBanure cTaBeHu bo onmTecTBeH KoHTeKcT. Cnopeg cTaTucTu^KaTa o^epa^uoHanu3a^uja co co6paHuTe noga^u bo 6unaTepanHuoT npoeKT MaKefloHcKo-cnoBeHe^Ku TeaTapcKu BpcKu (og 1990 go geHec), bo nepuogoT Mery 1990 u 2015 r. ce HoTupaaT 46 MaKegoHcKu npogy^uu kou 6une npeTcTaBeHu bo CnoBeHuja u 69 cnoBeHe^Ka npogy^uja npeTcTaBeHa bo MaKegoHuja. OBaa nojgoBHa To^Ka ro opraHu3upa TeKcToT bo gBa gena. Bo npBuoT gen ru npeTcTaByBaMe pa3nurauTe TeaTapcKu ^ecraBanu u TeaTapcKu uhctut^uu kou noKaHune MaKegoHcKu npogy^uu bo CnoBeHuja, 33 ^ecraBancKu y^ecTBa u 13 rocryBa^Ku u3Beg6u bo cnoBeHe^Ku uhctut^uu og o6nacTa Ha KynTypaTa. Bo BTopuoT gen, ^oKycoT ce cTaBa Bp3 npeTcraByBafteTo Ha cnoBeHe^KuTe npeTcTaBu bo MaKegoHuja, ogHocHo hubhoto y^ecreo Ha ^ecraBanuTe, 6ugejKu He nocrou uHcraTy^uja Koja yrocTuna cnoBeHe^Ka npogy^uja co ^n ga ocTBapu BaKoB Tun copa6oTKa. Bo TeKcToT ce uMeHyBaaT cuTe ^ecraBanu u TeaTpu kou rocTyBane bo MaKegoHuja og He3aBucHocra Ha gBeTe gp^aBu. Bo 3aKny^oKoT, ru noTeH^paMe Haj3Ha^ajHuTe BpcKu Mery gBeTe gp^aBu: ^ecraBanuTe Ex Ponto u MOT. Bo TeKcToT, co6paHuTe nogaTo^ ce o6ene»aHu bo pa3nurau Ta6enu kou HygaT norneg bo BugoBuTe BpcKu co kou oBaa 6unaTepanHa copa6oTKa ce ocTBapyBa, co mTo ce cornegyBa nponop^jaTa Mery ^ecraBancKuTe pa3MeHu u npeTcraByBafteTo Ha cnoBeHe^Kure npogy^uu bo MaKegoHcKuTe TeaTpu. flen og nogaTo^Te kou ce ogHecyBaaT Ha cnoBeHe^KaTa cTpaHa og copa6oTKaTa: TeaTapcKa npogy^uja u ^ecraBanu 6eme co6paH og CnoBeHe^KuoT 60 TeaTapcKu rogumHuK mTO ro u3gaBa CnoBeHe^KuoT TeaTapcKu uHcrmyr (C^OrM), Koj ja Hygu Hajgo6paTa 6a3a og Koja Mo»e ga ce ucnuryBaaT acneKTure Ha 6unaTepanaTa, gogeKa MaKegoHcKaTa cTpaHa o6e36egyBame nogaTo^ og npBure Bep3uu Ha MaKegoHcKaTa TeaTapcKa 6a3a Ha nogaTo^ Koja ja ogp»yBa OaKynreToT 3a gpaMcKu yMeraocra, KaKo u og apxuBu u goKyMem^uja og TeaTpu, goBepnuBu uHTepHeT-u3Bopu uth. Co ^en ga ce cyMupaaT taKTure Ha ucTpa^yBafteTo 3a TeaTapcKuoT moct Mery MaKegoHuja u CnoBeHuja u o6paTHo bo paMKaTa Ha 6unaTepanHuTe tecruBancKu yqecrea, noga^ure noKa^yBaaT 69 cnoBeHe^Ka npogy^uja mTo yqecreyBana Ha MaKegoHcKuTe TeaTapcKu tecruBanu og egHaTa CTpaHa u 33 MaKegoHcKu npogy^uu mTo 6une gen og cene^uure Ha cnoBeHe^KuTe TeaTapcKu tecruBanu (KaKo u 13 uHguBugyanHu rocryBa^Ku u3Beg6u Ha MaKegoHcKu npogy^uu Ha c^Hure Ha pa3nurau cnoBeHe^Ku TeaTpu). OBue 6pojKu noKa^yBaaT geKa cnoBeHe^KoTo npucycTBo Ha MaKegoHcKuTe TeaTapcKu tecruBanu e MHory nocunHo oTKonKy yqecreoTo Ha MaKegoHcKuTe npogy^uu Ha cnoBeHe^Kure tecruBanu. OBaa gucnponop^ja ro oTBopa npama^eTo 3a HegocraToK og y^ecreo bo 6unaTepanaTa, mTo Bogu koh u3Haoraae pa3nurau Mogenu 3a ropaMHyBa^e - npeKy 3acunyBaae Ha MaKegoHcKoTo npucycTBo Ha cnoBeHe^Kure TeaTapcKu tecruBanu. Og gpyra cTpaHa, cunHaTa BpcKa Mery CMr u MOT yKa»yBa Ha Ba»HuoT TeaTapcKu moct npeKy Koj ce Bpmu BnujaHue Bp3 MaKegoHcKuTe aBTopu/npogy^uu kou ja ocreapune ucTopujaTa Ha oBaa copa6oTKa. Y^ecTBoTo Ha cnoBeHe^Kure TeaTapcKu npogy^uu Ha MaKegoHcKuTe TeaTapcKu tecruBanu 6ene»u Ba»eH moct npeKy Koj MaKegoHcKuTe npogy^uu ce pa3Bune koh oTBopeHu u eKcnepuMeHTanHu u3Beg6u kou Mo»aT ga 6ugaT MapKupaHu KaKo nocTgpaMcKu. OecruBanoT Ex Ponto ogurpan rnaBHa ynora bo npeTcraByBafteTo Ha MaKegoHcKuoT TeaTap npeg cnoBeHe^KaTa ny6nuKa; 17 MaKegoHcKu TeaTapcKu u3Beg6u 6une gen og HeroBaTa cene^uja. OBa e nonoBuHa og BKynHuoT 6poj Ha MaKegoHcKu npogy^uu npuKa»aHu Ha cnoBeHe^KuTe tecruBanu. MeryHapogHuoT tecruBan Ex Ponto 6eme egeH og HajBa^HuTe TeaTapcKu opraHroa^u mTo bucoko ro ^Hea uHTepKynTypHuoT KoHTaKT Mery 3eMjuTe og nopaHemHaTa tegepa^ja. Ee3 oBoj tecruBan, cnoBeHe^KaTa ny6nuKa Ke 6eme oHeBo3Mo»eHa ga ru Bugu nopaHemHuTe u coBpeMeHu TeHgeH^u bo MaKegoHcKuTe u3BegyBa^Ku yMeTHocTu. Og gpyra cTpaHa, ocTaHyBa oTBopeHo npamaaeTo ganu MaKegoHcKuTe npogy^uu npuKa»aHu Ha Ex Ponto 6une HaBucTuHa penpe3eHTaTuBHu, uMajKu ja npegBug nonuTuKaTa Ha tecTuBanoT Koja He ceKoram ro Hygena „Hajgo6poTo". 3a »an, cene^ujaTa Ha tecTuBancKu u3Beg6u Haj^ecro 3aBucena og tuHaHcucKaTa (He)Mo^HocT u ^ecro „npujaTencKuTe" (pe^u^po^Hu) goroBopu. KaKo mTo e ena6opupaHo bo npBuoT gen og TeKcToT, MaKegoHcKuTe npogy^uu 6une cnopagu^Ho npeTcTaBeHu Ha gpyrure cnoBeHe^Ku TeaTapcKu tecTuBanu, TaKa mTo egBaj Mo»e ga ce 3aKny^u geKa MaKegoHcKuoT TeaTap Bnujaen Bp3 cnoBeHe^KuoT TonKy cunHo KaKo mTo Bnujaene cnoBeHe^Kure npogy^uu Bp3 TpeHgoBure bo MaKegoHcKuTe TeaTpu bo u3MuHaTuTe 25 roguHu. Gledališki most med Makedonijo in Slovenijo: gledališki festivali 61 Ključne besede: gledališče, festival, sodelovanje, produkcija, Makedonija, Slovenija Članek Gledališki most med Makedonijo in Slovenijo: gledališki festivali se osredotoča na obojestransko razmerje med gostovanji gledaliških uprizoritev v Makedoniji in Sloveniji, ki so v največji meri potekala pod okriljem njunih različnih festivalov. Državi, ki sta bili dolgo del nekdanje Jugoslavije, sta med seboj vzpostavili močne kulturne povezave, ki sta jih v obdobju med letoma 1990 in 2015 ves čas ohranjali in krepili. Veliko vlogo pri njunih gledaliških izmenjavah so imeli različni festivali v obeh državah, saj so predstavljali kontinuiteto gostovanj in prostor za uresničevanje koprodukcij ter tudi individualnih izmenjav. Članek se osredotoča na festivale kot tista (kulturna) stičišča, kjer se vzpostavi visoka frekvenca občinstva, hkrati pa imajo tamkajšnji dogodki značaj dostopnosti (do širšega občinstva), s čimer kažejo svoj širši sociološki, ne le umetniški značaj. Kot opomni Willmar Sauter, festivali niso le srečanje med uprizoritvijo in občinstvom, ampak stopajo iz tega vakuuma in vključujejo večjo dogodkovno kompleksnost, ki se kaže skozi prizme estetike, ekonomije, izobrazbe, tradicij itd. Raziskava je pokazala, da je v obdobju 1990-2015 v Sloveniji gostovalo 46 makedonskih gledaliških dogodkov, v Makedoniji pa 69 slovenskih. Članek je strukturiran dvodelno: v prvem delu predstavi in reflektira različne slovenske festivale, ki so v svoje programe povabili makedonske gledališke produkcije (teh je 33), medtem ko je v preostalih gledaliških institucijah (individualno) gostovalo 13 makedonskih uprizoritev. Drugi del članka se osredotoča na slovensko gledališko produkcijo, ki je gostovala v Makedoniji in je potekala izključno pod okriljem različnih festivalov. Najzaslužnejša gledališka festivala za neprekinjeno izmenjavo med državama sta bila MOT in Ex Ponto. Podatki o gostovanjih so v članku razporejeni in osvetljeni prek različnih statističnih razpredelnic, ki ponujajo vpogled v dinamiko obojestranskih sodelovanj ter prikažejo tudi raznovrstnost oziroma tendence določenih avtorskih imen, besedil in žanrov. Podatki izhajajo iz serije gledaliških letopisov, strokovnih publikacij, ki jih že desetletja izdaja Slovenski gledališki inštitut (SLOGI), in iz baze dokumentiranega gledališkega arhiva, ki ga hrani Fakulteta za dramsko umetnost v Skopju. Makedonska gledališka produkcija je bila slovenskemu občinstvu v najvišji meri predstavljena v okviru festivalov - med njimi so Ex Ponto, Teden slovenske drame, Primorski poletni festival, Ljubljanski mednarodni festival pantomime, Festival 62 Borštnikovo srečanje -, občasno pa so makedonske uprizoritve gostila tudi posamična gledališča (SNG Drama Ljubljana, SNG Nova Gorica, Slovensko mladinsko gledališče, Slovensko ljudsko gledališče Celje, Cankarjev dom, Prešernovo gledališče Kranj). Gledališka sodelovanja slovenskih uprizoritev v Makedoniji lahko okvirno razporedimo v tri segmente: gostovanje Slovenskega mladinskega gledališča na festivalu MOT, gostovanje različnih slovenskih gledališč na Ohridskem poletnem festivalu in gostovanja različnih slovenskih gledališč na drugih festivalih. Vse tri strukturne enote ponujajo oris visoke dinamike gostovanj, hkrati pa se v tem kontekstu vzpostavi tudi vpliv slovenskih gledališč na makedonsko gledališko sceno. Redna gostovanja Slovenskega mladinskega gledališča na festivalu MOT naj bi osvetljevala vpliv, ki ga je SMG v zadnjih dveh desetletjih imelo na makedonsko gledališče - tako z vidika produkcije kot kreacije. Razmerje med sodelovanji in gostovanji med Makedonijo in Slovenijo v obdobju 19902015 je bilo vendarle disproporcionalno, v Makedoniji je gostovalo 69 slovenskih gledaliških produkcij (v Sloveniji 46 makedonskih). To razmerje odpira vprašanja tako kulturne politike obeh držav kot tudi umetniških afinitet do posameznih gledaliških imen. Če je v Makedoniji ključno vlogo pri vzpostavljanju odnosa (in mestoma vpliva) s slovenskim gledališkim prostorom prevzel festival MOT, je slovenskemu občinstvu večinoma makedonsko produkcijo prezentiral festival Ex Ponto, ki je bil že v samem izhodišču zasnovan kot festival, ki je gojil trdne medsebojne kulturno-gledališke stike med državami nekdanje Jugoslavije. Hkrati se je treba zavedati, da je forma festivala (pre)pogosto podvržena recipročnim, žal včasih tudi prijateljskim vezem, ki lahko določenim programskim odločitvam odvzemajo kredibilnost, obenem pa na oblikovanje programa močno vplivajo tudi finance. Pojavlja se neprijetno, a neizbežno vprašanje, ali so bile umeščene gostujoče uprizoritve vselej rezultat želje po posredovanju najkakovostnejših ali drugače izstopajočih uprizoritev ali pa je bila njihova navzočnost na festivalu plod bolj zasebnih dogovorov. Makedonske gledališke produkcije so bile po razpadu Jugoslavije v Sloveniji sicer ves čas navzoče, a v sporadični dinamiki, zato lahko sklenemo, da je makedonsko gledališče imelo manjši vpliv na slovensko kot obratno. 64 UDC 792[497,4]:792[497,7] The article is part of the bilateral research project of the Faculty of Dramatic Arts [UKIM, Skopje] and the Academy of Theatre, Radio, Film and Television [University of Ljubljana] examining Macedonian-Slovenian [and vice versa] theatrical relations. It contains the concluding observations about the specific theatre relations between both cultures, statistically processed in the three individual phases of the research, and a phenomenological study analysing the individual factors of influence of the Slovenian theatre to the Macedonian theatre production. The main focus is on the influence of the aesthetics of the Mladinsko Theatre [SMG], which is a constant guest at the Young Open Theatre [MOT] Festival in Skopje and the influence of several contemporary Slovenian theatre directors to the poetics and aesthetics of the Macedonian theatre. Keywords: Republic of Macedonia, Republic of Slovenia, exchange, festivals, MOT, Mladinsko Theatre [SMG], Tomaž Pandur, Diego de Brea, Tomi Janežič The Influence of Slovenian Theatre in Macedonia (from 1990 until the Present) Sasho Dimoski, Ana Stojanoska, Hristina Cvetanoska Setting up the coordinates of the study In the introductory text of the voluminous book Writing and Rewriting National Theatre Histories, edited by S. E. Wilmer, contemporary theatre theorist Erica FisherLichte writes about the critical remarks of theatrical historiography and mentions the significance of periodisation, statistics and concretisation of the context (social and political) in order to establish an argumented, well-maintained and serious history of a theatre (whether national or not, but especially emphasising the importance of national theatres). In her opinion, determining the exact time and space, as well as the significance of that time and space in relation to the creation of a theatre, a theatre play, a repertoire, a repertoire policy, as well as the creation of the theatre aesthetics (of a national or a community theatre) is extremely important and should be the foundation of any research ("Some Critical Remarks" 2-3). When it comes to presenting scientific research results, which implies comparing the aesthetics of two different cultures (which at one time of their existence were part of a joint multinational state), special consideration should be given to the suggestions by Fischer-Lichte, because the definition of time and space, as well as the context, can say a lot about a theatre or a theatre culture. When it comes to the influence that one theatre culture has on another, the time period, the social context and other important factors that help establish this relationship should be mentioned. The bilateral project Macedonian-Slovenian Theatre Relations (from 1990 until the Present) explores the ways of achieving theatre communications between the Republic of Macedonia and the Republic of Slovenia in the period from when they declared their independence from the Yugoslav Federation (from the declaration of independence of the two countries) up to 2016. This part of the research refers to the ways through which this bilateral communication has been achieved in Macedonia in a quarter-century time span and therefore generates two optics. The first optics includes the presence of different profiles of Slovenian theatre directors in the theatrical productions in the Republic of Macedonia. Through this optics, the direct influence of the contemporary Slovenian theatre tradition in the Macedonian theatre production is perceived within the time frame in which the research is set. 66 This influence is also recognised through the way the theatre in Macedonia is treated by the domestic theatre artists after a guest visit by some Slovenian author, as well as a director's influence on an ensemble which can be mostly seen by the way he/ she can change the entire aesthetics of a theatre. Until now, this impact has been researched on a small scale, and because it exists and is recognisable, it is important to devote greater and more focused attention to the same. Till now, there have been a few papers/articles about these connections, but it has been researched as the main subject. Thus, this article is a starting point for further research about the influence of the Slovenian Theatre in Macedonia. The second optics, however, is generally dedicated to the guest visits by Slovenian productions to Macedonian theatres and festivals. The procedures of the research project open two basic perspectives: the first, in which the data collected in the research is summarised according to a common method,1 and the second, in which the dense places where the cooperation is realised are being analysed, that is, the theatre festivals where the Slovenian productions have most frequently visited. These frequent visits of certain Slovenian theatres to Macedonian theatre festivals have become initial points from which the detailed, direct influence of the Slovenian theatre (as a general determinant) into the Macedonian theatre production is further perceived. There were 52 visits of individual artists and 69 festival participations in this period. These numbers led us to research the influence in two different ways: the direct artistic achievement of Slovenian theatre artists in the Republic of Macedonia and the influences of festival visits by Slovenian productions in the Republic of Macedonia.2 About the research data: the dense places of cooperation When we look closely at the data gathered, we notice two significant topoi. The first refers to the participation of the Mladinsko Theatre (Slovensko mladinsko gledališče, SMG or the Mladinsko) at the Young Open Theatre Festival (hereinafter referred to as the Mladinsko and MOT, respectively), and the second, presented in the subsection on case studies, reveals the general framework for the impact that the Slovenian theatre directors have had on the Macedonian theatre, directly and indirectly. We can recognise the influence of the Mladinsko on the Macedonian theatre not only statistically according to the number of productions that have visited MOT, but also according to what each of those visits provoked, as seen in the Macedonian theatre 1 The common method used by the teams working on the bilateral project: collecting the data about the different types of collaboration and putting them in different frames according to the subject of interest. 2 Slovenian theatre productions have participated in the following six theatre festivals in Macedonia: MOT in Skopje, Ohrid Summer Festival, IMPACT in Veles, Spring in Skopje, Risto Shishkov in Strumica, Monodrama festival in Bitola. productions as well as in the work of some Macedonian theatre directors. For this 67 purpose, the research of theatre reception and repertoires in Macedonia, especially those with younger artistic staff, imposes the conclusion that after numerous visits of this Slovenian theatre to MOT, a specially profiled aesthetics has been transferred. The Mladinsko and MOT MOT was created in the 1970s. According to one of its founders, Ljubisa Nikodinovski-Bish, the festival "expressed the spirit of the latest theatre aspirations in the world at the time and was an expression of the cultural ideas and endeavours of Macedonian alternative theatre artists, aesthetics and cultural organisers" (Nikodinovski-Bish 9). From the first plays shown in 1970 until today, MOT offers a contemporary, avantgarde, provocative theatre programme dedicated to the young people in Macedonia. This basic nomenclature of the festival is of course the most adequate for the aesthetics offered by the Mladinsko. The baseline statistics highlight the participation of the Mladinsko at MOT on twenty-five occasions (in the time period being researched in our project), listed in the table included in the article on festivals by Sasho Dimoski and Zala Dobovšek published in this joint issue of the journals, indicating the similar profile of the two institutions. Namely, after the change in 1980 (up until then, it was a children's and youth theatre), the Mladinsko profiled itself as an authentic type of scenic laboratory which nourishes innovative stage forms of performance. On the other hand, from its formation in 1970, MOT has also been profiled as a theatre festival for experimental theatrical forms and stage laboratories. This similarity makes MOT the most accessible platform for the presentation of the Mladinsko productions in the Republic of Macedonia. The first participation of the Mladinsko on MOT was in 1982 with the performances Smrad opera directed by Dušan Jovanovic and Mass in A Minor, a theatre adaptation of A Tomb for Boris Davidovich by Danilo Kiš, directed by Ljubiša Ristic. In the article "Macedonian-Slovenian Theatre Relations/Makedonsko-Slovenske gledališke povezave", Ana Stojanoska wrote about this first participation and its influence on Macedonian Theatre. In 1995, when MOT celebrated its jubilee, several forums were organised. According to the text by Nikodinovski-Bish, "for the Slovenian theatrical moment, the performances of the Mladinsko Theatre and Glej, which are often present at MOT, were being discussed, as well as the director Matjaž Pograjc, who staged all three performances this year at MOT" (Nikodinovski-Bish 114). This forum, together with the thematic block called Slovenian Theatre from the ninth edition of MOT (1-23 September 1984), were the initial impulses for the theoretical description and determination of the 68 influence of the Slovenian theatre at MOT. The meaning of the Mladinsko in Macedonia is discussed in the portrait entitled "Contemporary theatre concept" from this block, in which the organisers of the festival emphasise the influence of the Mladinsko as "MOT's greatest friend". This romantic reference distinguishes the Mladinsko as a unique partner of MOT from the first reading, as a theatre that has had an enormous influence on the Macedonian theatre. The influence of the Mladinsko can be closely studied in a contemporary theatre project through the way of treating the stage, the dramatic text and the relationship with the actors. The National Theatre "Jordan Hadji Konstantinov-Djinot" from Veles had a direct cooperation with the Mladinsko in 2016. The immediate experience in the co-production Fedra (S. Dimoski/A. Ivanovski, 2016) clearly indicates the principle of work according to which the Mladinsko operates on several different levels, especially in the acting process. The co-production was accomplished through the exchange of artists: Maruša Oblak interpreted the title role in the play, while the Veles Theatre co-produced both the artistic and technical aspect of the co-operation. Already in the preparations for the production, the actor's approach towards the dramatic text by Oblak is easily determined as a principle of self-referencing, that is, building an internal biography of a character through extremely personal and even intimate sensors. Since this is a play in which the body language dominates the verbal line, Maruša Oblak presented (during the rehearsals and the performances of the play) exceptional body articulation and a conscious body to which the spoken line is almost superfluous. During the rehearsals, the actress pointed out the importance of the Mladinsko ensemble in this regard and their dedication to the body and the possibilities for expression that it offers, as well as its consciousness and keeping it in full fitness and willingness for stage labs that have the body in focus. This is one of the rare experiences of direct cooperation which implies the influence of the Slovenian theatre on the Macedonian theatre practice. The Mladinsko's concept of observing the society and its critical approach can be seen through the projection of ideas by the contemporary Macedonian theatre after each visit. As it is stated in the founding determinants of the theatre that speaks loudly, a theatre that is intended for more than just viewing. When describing its theatrical concept, the Mladinsko states that it "critically observes our society, comments on it and strives to shape it. Mladinsko is a theatre organism that tries to penetrate into the public space from the stage, so that for us, the public space becomes an equal space for performance. MLADINSKO IS NOT JUST A THEATRE" ('About Mladinsko"). It is not an epigonic influence, but just like the basic maxims of both theatrical poetics, it is the critical thinking of the theatre and its placement at the centre of the artistic and critical approach. Directors 69 The case studies in which we can directly see the influence that the poetics of Slovenian directors have on the Macedonian theatre production have been divided into two groups: Immediate - through the directing of theatre plays in the Macedonian theatres (such as the directing of Diego de Brea and Tomi Janežič), and Indirect - through the participation of notable plays at various festivals in the Republic of Macedonia (Tomaž Pandur, as a special stage poetics). Tomaž Pandur The process of creating a specific theatre, determined as postdramatic according to its characteristics, developed in three phases in Pandur's career (1963-2016). In the first, Ljubljana phase (1980-89), he sketched his poetics through stage labs and experiments. In the second, Maribor phase (1989-96), as the director of the Slovene National Theatre Maribor, he shaped it not only on the Slovenian, but also on the European theatre stage by developing the basic elements of his poetics in high-production stage spectacles; and the third, the European phase (1996-2016), in which he completed his approach in an authentic, paradigmatic, postdramatic manner. In addition to the four existing Chronotopes,3 Lukic determined Pandur's as an authentic, fifth, sacral chronotopos in order to define Pandur's poetics. Summarising his opus magnum in general determinants, and according to the alphabet of postdramatic theatre, the stage semantics in Pandur's plays are encoded in counterpoints: text/ stage, word/movement, speech/action and sound/picture. Lukic called these four procedures (which resonate with each other in the unity of the theatre play) "a method of intellectual perfume distillation", which is actually a procedure for creating a hybrid stage language. Profiled for elitists, intended mainly for those viewers called second-level viewers by Eco (Eco 7), the high intellectualism in the plays touches the first-level viewers as well through powerful, heated scenic images that have an almost hypnotic effect on the audience and are reflected in the emotional apparatus of the viewer: one feels what cannot be interpreted. The Macedonian audience has so far had the opportunity to see several plays by Pandur from all of his phases: at the sixth edition of MOT, Heavy Curtains by Slavko Grum, production by his own company Tespisov voz (The Carriage of Thespis), Maribor; at the seventh edition of MOT, 1982, Dead Man Comes for His Mistress, production by The Carriage of Thespis, Maribor; at the ninth edition of MOT, 1984, Night Shifts; at the fourteenth edition of MOT, 1989, Scheherazade by Ivo Svetina, production by the 3 In order to determine Pandur's stage poetics, Lukic defines the constitutional elements of his handwriting as a fifth chronotope. More about this online, at www.pandurtheaters.com. 70 Mladinsko; Caligula by A. Camus production by the Gavella Theatre, Zagreb, at Ohrid Summer Festival 2008; Medea according to Euripides (Dubrovnik Summer Games -Co-Production Company) at the MNT Fest 2014; and Faust, production by SNT Drama Ljubljana and Festival Ljubljana, again at the MNT Fest in 2016, posthumously. Finally, the direct and fatal encounter between the Macedonian theatre and Pandur happened on the occasion of his direction of Shakespeare's King Lear, at MNT, season 2016, for which the curtain never lifted. The influence that Pandur's poetics has in the (Macedonian) theatre is very strong, especially through the entire stage speech of the plays from his last phase, and is easily recognisable in many performances staged by Macedonian directors, for example, in the performances of Dejan Projkovski. Still, Pandur's influence is not recognised in the density of the semantic knots diluted in a theatre play, but in the copied solutions, adapted in plays with different titles that can easily carry a working subtitle - inspired by Pandur. For example, Projkovski directed On the bottom at National Theatre Shtip using Pandur's spatial organisation and semantics, applying water as a prime element of the scenography, as well as noir-labelled costumes as seen in Pandur's Caligula. There are many plays that may be subject to such a comparison: Prometheus (Turkish Theatre, 2016, Skopje, Aeschylus/Projkovski); The Tempest (Podgorica, Montenegro, 2017, Shakespeare/Projkovski); another example is the influence that the structural elements of the stage hybrid language of Pandur had in the play Romeo and Juliet (National Theatre Istanbul, 2017, Shakespeare/Projkovski). Projkovski took the solutions for space shaping directly from the authentic hybrid stage language of Pandur: he uses water (which is a principle of Pandur, rather than a circumstance/ condition on stage) as an amorphous mass around which he places various solutions already seen in several plays of Pandur: he also places a swimming pool in which a part of the dramatic action takes place - a solution that Pandur offers in his Medea. Through this visual building of a part of the stage language, Projkovski clearly indicates the influence that Pandur had on him, and shows as well as cites it in his own production. As general manager of MNT, Projkovski surely met Pandur in 2016 - since Pandur was his choice for directing King Lear in that season. This parallel is only one of many that can be found in a number of directors. A more appropriate influence might be one in which the director creates his own, authentic hybrid language, following the example of the technology of creating a play, uniquely recognisable for Pandur, who melted himself in his works through creating an incredible stage poetry4 and disappeared, leaving a great mark. 4 "When the artist somehow melts himself into an artwork and then he himself disappears, then that is incredible poetry." - Pandur in an interview for Dnevnik HRT, a few hours before the premiere of Medea (28. 07. 2012). Diego de Brea 71 Diego de Brea (1969) is a Slovenian director with unique postdramatic theatre thought who directed three plays on Macedonian stages: on the stage of the National Theatre - Bitola, Crime and Punishment from Dostoevsky (2016) and Shakespeare's Othello (2014) and on the stage of the Turkish Theatre in Skopje, King Lear (2017). In the poetics of de Brea, the theatre play is seen as a reduction of the dense scenic semantics performed through a textual reduction of the basic story/problem. Produced through a reduction procedure of this type, the dense scenic semantics are actually an approach to the text through which the form becomes a sign of the historical impossibility for a tragedy in five acts (Lehmann 75). His primary research for each play, in his words, starts from the idea that "the purpose of the theatre is to open things that are deeply hidden, embalmed when man is relaxed" (Toporišič). In the dramaturgical procedure on the texts for the plays, de Brea thickens the play's dramatics through re-textualisation as a procedure of the post-dramatic theatre. Re-textualisation, which rests on the integral text (in the case of Othello) is performed by assembling textual collages from the source in order to focus the play only on the basic problem (Lehmann 7). He does what Lehmann points out as the main feature of the post-dramatic theatre, "to violate the conventionalized rule and the more or less established norm of sign density. It is either too much or too little. In relation to the time, to the space or to the importance of the matter, the viewer perceives a repletion or conversely a noticeable dilution of signs. We can recognize here an aesthetic intention to make space for a dialectic of plethora and deprivation, plenitude and emptiness" (Lehmann 89). What Lehmann writes, de Brea does (regardless of the fact that he set these plays on other theatre stages as well, with the same or similar concept), thus setting up a new reduced, collected or sign-defined aesthetics of the Macedonian theatre. De Brea also reduced the characters of the source, explicitly shown in King Lear (Turkish Theatre, 2017), where the dramatic action is built only by the directly affected characters, the royal family from Shakespeare's source: the king, his daughters and sons-in-law. In the audio-visual shaping, de Brea uses pure and clear semantic signs that facilitate the reception of the play, setting the actor's play (in the micro and macro format) as a dominant feature onstage. It should be noted that both in the theatre in Bitola and in the Turkish Theatre, de Brea has completely changed the way of treating the stage, introducing novelty into the stage treatment in Macedonian theatre. In the Macedonian theatre practice, the National Theatre of Bitola is famous for its contemporary and current theatre, which is usually framed in a tremendous, rough and extensive scenography. The staging of Othello showed how the empty stage can be treated and opened the possibilities for the theatre in Bitola. The Turkish Theatre mainly stages plays that focus on the cultural 72 and authentic expression of the Turkish culture, along with the idea of profiling modern aesthetics based on a traditional culture. The arrival of de Brea showed how young actors from the ensemble could act, regardless of their cultural background, a practice which had been insisted upon over the years. Overall, as a conclusion, with the directing of these three plays in the Macedonian theatres, Diego de Brea set an aesthetic principle of changing the contemporary and current theatre that "eased" the burdened, multi-signed, theatrical aesthetics which defined and interpreted the theatre to the spectator and turned it into the simplest, but strongest theatrical aesthetics conceived by Peter Brook in the last century: The theatre should make us imagine! Tomi Janezic Tomi Janezic (1972) appeared on the Macedonian theatre stage for the first time in 2004, at MOT (The Three Sisters) with the Mladinsko ensemble. Since then, the Macedonian audience had the opportunity to see his work twice more: in 2005, when he worked with the actors of the Macedonian National Theatre directly applying his poetics to the Macedonian acting sensibility in The Blind, and in 2013, again at MOT with another drama of Chekhov, Seagull, performed by the actors of the Serbian National Theatre, Novi Sad. Tomi Janezic is one of the most interesting European theatre directors of his generation and is internationally recognised as one of the experts in the field of creating new acting techniques, referring to psychodrama as a specific field of interest. Janezic's directorial poetics are based primarily on the principles ofthe psychodramatic technique by Jacob Levy Moreno, but also communicate with all the predecessors who dealt with the study of play-acting, from Stanislavski to Brecht and Grotowski. The way that an actor in Janezic's performances achieves distancing from the character he interprets (a characteristic of Brecht's theatre) is through the principles of psychodrama. He is called upon to gain a psychological flexibility to interpret different roles that will allow him to develop different views of the given situation or story, to look at it from multiple perspectives and to be spontaneous and authentic according to the definition given by Moreno. Moreno does not identify spontaneity with a series of uncontrolled impulses; on the contrary, he thinks that it is focused on creativity, that it is the way we react to repeating patterns of life, templates, the routine which we often fail to avoid, and that ability to react again to a given situation is related to adapting to a new perspective, with a new role, by replacing the role, by a fresh outlook at things. In the productions by Janezic, the collective dynamics created in the theatre ensemble is of utmost importance. One cannot speak of Tomi Janežič only as a theatre director, because he himself refuses to be defined as a 73 director only, so it may be more appropriate to talk about a creator, a moderator who creates/provides space for exchange. In his approach to work, the actor constantly communicates with the character he interprets, at one moment, he distances himself and becomes a spectator, the character has the opportunity to directly confront his own pains that materialise in front of himself in a new character, in his antagonist, etc. What is actually happening onstage is a lively, active, creative analysis of the specific play. In this way, very specifically and very real, in front of our eyes, the dynamics, tensions and conflicts that are contained in the dramatic situation unfold. According to Janežič, stage does not imitate life, but it creates a life, and this is also reflected in his plays, which often last for hours. Janežič experiments with space, and this is mostly reflected in his staging of Maeterlinck's drama Blinds, but the focus always remains on the actor as the pivot of the play. Psychodrama, as an actor's technique with the help of which a certain character is built, still makes its way into the world of theatre art. It is somewhere halfway between art and therapy. However, in Janežič's poetics, psychodrama is more a foundation for a play than therapy. It serves to break down the personal and interpersonal blockages that arise among actors confronted with the creative process. The three plays by Janežič received an exceptional response by the audience, however, among the Macedonian directors one cannot find a counterpart for this principle of work. Janežič's influence is recognised in the interest of the younger generation of Macedonian theatre directors and their performances mainly working for independent productions. General determinants of impact Each of these three directors brought changes to the Macedonian stages that are evident and easily recognisable. Regardless of whether it was done through directing a play in a Macedonian theatre or through a play that was performed at a Macedonian festival (mainly at MOT), every one of these three directors made a visible impact on the Macedonian theatre. The actors in these plays, the entire ensembles of the plays directed in Macedonia by these three directors, talk about their incredible experience from working with them, and the way their play-acting and the treatment of the theatre has changed. A testimony for this is the prizes that these productions received from festivals in Macedonia and abroad. The play King Lear by Shakespeare, directed by Diego de Brea won three important awards at this year's (2018) MTF "Vojdan Chernodrinski" in Prilep - the first one was for Diego de Brea's directing; the second one for best young actress for Ebru Musli, who played Cordelia; and the third one, which emphasises the influence of de Brea in the Macedonian theatre, was entitled: "A special award for contemporary acting expression and innovative approach to stage classics". 74 The play Seagull by Chekhov, directed by Tomi Janezic, shown at MOT festival, 2013, brought a theatre that was remembered for a long time. We can also talk about the phenomenon of Janezic and his influence on the Macedonian theatre. One of the play reviews cites the excitement of both the critic and the audience watching the play because, unlike when watching many other plays, the audience stayed until the very end and increased in number, despite the fact that it lasted seven hours. For this play, Liljana Mazova says that, "it delights everywhere with the implementation of the director's idea, with the complete performance that can simply be considered as a completely clever theatre". The performance is also an attraction because of its length - about seven hours. For example, it began at 5:15 pm on the stage of the Macedonian National Theatre and it ended at 0:30 am. The length is not an issue because this is a theatre that thinks, plays, the spectator is a participant, the actor is thinking through an actor's prism and through a prism of a spectator who watches that play. And something unusual happened: the play started with 100 spectators (the capacity of the old stage) and ended with 130! Pandur's influence is most dominant in several directing instances of some Macedonian directors, especially, as pointed out by this text, in the directing of Dejan Projkovski. The idea to make a dream from the theatre, or as described by Darko Lukic, "dreams are the main key word. All seven plays [in the period 1989-1996] give the impression that they should be read as a book of dreams" ("Mapping Pandur's theatre"), and to break down the linearity as a feature of time, maybe the closest to the Macedonian audience and theatre, precisely because of the inheritance that we have and the specific relation to mythology and narration. Unfortunately, Pandur failed to direct a play in Macedonia, but his influence is visible and recognisable today, and his plays are mentioned all the time. Each of these three directors has had a specific impact on the Macedonian theatre, and thus the connection between the two theatre cultures can be followed directly. Besides through the directors, the influence through the theatres or actors is also being followed. There are some cases5 where the acting approach offered by the Mladinsko actors through the treatment of body language in a crisis caused the development of the author-actor speech of this type and its implementation in several theatre plays, usually defined as aesthetic incidents in the Macedonian theatre. The research of the relation between the Macedonian and the Slovenian theatre shows a direct and immediate, continuous influence that can be determined and theoretically explained. The influence is continuous from the first visit at MOT to the present and is followed directly in the Macedonian production. It is not the only case of influence but a part of the many different influences that enabled the Macedonian theatre to build its own author's aesthetics. Based on the ethno-theatre tradition and the folk drama, 5 The specific usage of the body as narrative instrument of the actor, shown in various performances of the Mladinsko. the contemporary Macedonian theatre profiled itself with the help of the outside 75 influences and created an authentic author's expression. The 1970s mark the creation of the new, current, progressive theatre in Macedonia, which, thanks to the outside experiences, especially from the Slovenian theatre (the Mladinsko as a direct initiator for the same), is today recognised by its author's practice and aesthetics. The findings of the project Macedonian-Slovenian Theatre Relations (from 1990 until the Present) are further proof of the existence of the relationships between these two theatre cultures. In the spirit of the intercultural theatre thought, this influence is not rigid, and it is not focused on subordinating one culture to the other, but on the exchange of experiences, which is reflected in the mutual understanding of the two cultures. As defined at the beginning of the research, the period of the 1970s (when the aesthetic of postmodern theatre was developed in Europe and the Western world) was the time when this direct relationship began to develop, and the social context - the joint state, Yugoslavia, and then after the independence of Slovenia and Macedonia, the contacts that were created - shows that it is the dominant factor for such cooperation. The main potential for this influence was recognised in the existence of MOT as a festival of the new avant-garde theatre, and thus the opportunity to see plays from Slovenia that would influence the Macedonian theatre. 76 Bibliography "About Mladinsko", mladinsko.com/en/about-mladinsko. Accessed 18 July 2018. Eco, Umberto. The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts, edited by Thomas Sebeok, Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1979. Fischer Lichte, Erica. "Some Critical Remarks on Theatre Historiography." Writing and Rewriting National Theatre Histories, edited by S. E. Wilmer, U of Iowa P, 2004, pp. 2-3. Herbert, Ian, editor. The World of the Theatre. London-New York: Routledge, 2003. Krakowska, Joanna and Odija, Daria, editors. Platform East European Performing Arts Companion. Lublin-Warsaw: Adam Mickiewicz Institute, Centre for Culture in Lublin, Institute of Arts of the Polish Academy of Science, City of Lublin, 2006. Lehmann, Hans. Postdramatic Theatre. Routledge, 2006. Lukič, Darko. "Mapping Pandurtheatres". Pandurtheatres, www.pandurtheaters. com/#!/essays. Accessed 18 July 2018. Matsuda, Chioko (Interview and annotation). "National Theatres in the Global Age, An interview with Derek Walcott", Comparative Theatre Review, vol. 13, March 2014, pp. 19-21. Ma30Ba, ^HnjaHa (Mazova, Liljana). "38. Mnag 0TB0peH TeaTap: B036ygnHBa TeaTapcKa npHKa3Ha" ("38. Mlad otvoren teatar: vozbudliva teatarska prikazna") [The 38. Youth Open Theatre: an exciting theatre story]. Tno6yc, 1. 10. 2013, www.globusmagazin.com. mk/?ItemID=C0A7379D50EF994BB81795918FAE667E. Accessed 18 July 2018. "Harpagu Ha 53-ot MaKegoHCKU TeaTapcra OecraBan 'BojgaH MepHogpHHCKH' npmen". ("Nagradi na 53-ot Makedonski Teatarski Festival 'Vojdan Cernodrinski' Prilep" [The 53. Macedonian theatre festival "Vojdan Cernodrinski" Prilep Awards], www.mtf.com. mk/2018/index.php?mn_sel=awards. Accessed 18 July 2018 HHKOflHHOBCKH-EHm, ^y6uma (Nikodinovski-Bish Ljubisha). MoKra Ha TeaTapoT -MeryHapofleH TeaTapcra ^ecraBan Mnag oTBopeH TeaTap (MOT). (Mokjta na teatarot -Megjunaroden teatarski festival Mlad otvoren teatar) [The power of Theatre - International Theatre Festival Youth Open Theatre (MOT)]. CKonje: Mnagracra KynrypeH ^HTap, 2015. Stojanoska, Ana. "Makedonsko-slovenske gledališke povezave". Uprizoritvene umetnosti, migracije, politika: slovensko gledališče kot sooblikovalec medkulturnih izmenjav, edited by Barbara Orel, Ljubljana: UL AGRFT in UL FF, 2017. "Tomi Janežič". SiGledal, sigledal.org/geslo/Tomi_Jane%C5%BEi%C4%8D. Accessed 18 July 2018. Toporišič, Tomaž. "Diego de Brea in Dostojevski", veza.sigledal.org/prispevki/diego- 77 de-brea-in-dostojevski. Accessed 18 July 2018. Wilmar, S. E., editor. Writing and Rewriting National Theatre Histories. U of Iowa P, 2004. BnujaHueTo Ha cnoßeHe^KuoT TeaTap bo MaKegoHuja 79 K^yqHH 3ÖopoBH: BnujaHue, MaKegoHcKu TeaTap, cnoBeHe^Ku TeaTap, TeaTapcKu ^ecruBanu, pe^ucepu OBoj Hay^eH Tpyg e gen og 6unaTepanHuoT npoeKT MaKegoHcKo-cnoBeHe^Ku TeaTapcKu BpcKu, mT0 ru ucrpa^yBa Ha^uHUTe Ha npugo6uBafte Ha TeaTapcKaTa KoMyHUKa^ja Mery Peny6nuKa MaKegoHuja u Peny6nuKa CnoBeHuja, bo nepuogoT og hubhoto npornacyBa^e Ha He3aBucHocTa og JyrocnoBeHcKaTa ^egepa^ja, og 1990, na cè go 2016 r. OBoj c^e^H$H^eH gen og ucrpa^yBafteTo ce ogHecyBa Ha Ha^uHUTe Ha kou 6unaTepanHaTa KoMyHu^uja e cTeKHaTa bo MaKegoHuja bo gBaeceT u neT roguHu, uMajKu ro rnaBHuoT ^0Kyc KoH^HTpupaH Ha BnujaHueTo Ha ecTeTUKaTa Ha CnoBeHcKo MnaguHcKo rneganum^e (CMr) u BnujaHueTo Ha HeKonKyMUHa coBpeMeHu cnoBeHe^Ku TeaTapcKu pe^ucepu, ^uja noeTUKa u ecTeTUKa Bnujae Ha MaKegoHcKuoT TeaTap. McTpa^yBafteTo e reHepupaHo hu3 gBe onTUKu bo kou ce npeno3HaBa BnujaHueTo. npBaTa onTUKa ro BKny^yBa npucycTB0T0 Ha pa3nu^HUTe npo^unu Ha cnoBeHe^KUTe TeaTapcKu yMeTHU^u bo TeaTapcKUTe npogy^uu bo Peny6nuKa MaKegoHuja: pe^ucepu, aKTepu, gpaMcKu aBTopu, gpaMaTyp3u, Kopeorpa^u, K0Mn03UT0pu u c^Horpa^u. OBaa „MU^pa^uja" Bnujaena Ha Toj Ha^uH mT0 ogHocoT koh TeaTapoT bo MaKegoHuja ce cMeHyBa og cTpaHa Ha goMamHUTe TeaTapcKu yMerau^, 0TKaK0 Ke uMa noceTa og cnoBeHe^Ku aBTop, KaKo u Ha npoMeHaTa Ha KoMyHUKa^jaTa. Co guHaMUKaTa co Koja KpeaTUBHU0T tum pa6oTu Ha npeTcTaBaTa, Haj^ecro HanpaBeHa og pe^ucepoT, ce npoMeHyBa u ^naTa ecTeTUKa bo TeaTapoT. BTopaTa onTUKa, reHepanHo, e nocBeTeHa Ha rocryBa^KUTe cnoBeHe^Ku npogy^uu bo MaKegoHcKUTe TeaTpu u Ha ^ecTUBanuTe. Cnopeg 3aKny^o^Te mT0 MaKegoHcKuoT ucrpa^yBa^Ku tum ru go6u no aHanu3UTe Ha npucycTB0T0 Ha cnoBeHe^KUTe TeaTapcKu yMerau^ gupeKTHo bo MaKegoHcKUTe TeaTapcKu npogy^uu u y^ecTB0T0 Ha cnoBeHe^KUTe npogy^uu Ha ^ecTUBancKUTe c^hu bo Peny6nuKa MaKegoHuja, cnopeg $0Kanu3a^jaTa, ce 3a6ene«yBaaT gBa 3Ha^ajHu TeMaTu. npBuoT, pe^epupa Ha y^ecTB0T0 Ha CMr Ha Mnag oTBopeH TeaTap (MOT), co BKyneH 6poj og gBaeceT u neT ^ecruBancKu noceTu, a BTopuoT e reHepanHaTa paMKa Ha BnujaHueTo og cnoBeHe^KUTe TeaTapcKu pe^ucepu mT0 ro uMaaT bo MaKegoHcKuoT TeaTap, gupeKTHo u uHgupeKTHo, npe3eHTupaH bo nornaBjeTo Ha cryguu Ha cny^aj. CnoBeHcKo MnaguHcKo rneganum^e ce npo^unupa KaKo aBTeHTuraa $opMa Ha c^HcKa 80 na6opaTopuja co uHBeHTUBHu u cBe^u c^hcku $opMu Ha u3Beg6a. Og Her0B0T0 ^opMupaae bo cegyMgeceTTUTe roguHu, MOT, ucto TaKa, ce npo^unupa KaKo TeaTapcKu ^ecruBan Ha eKcnepuMeHTanHu TeaTapcKu $opMu u c^hcku na6opaTopuu. OBaa c^umhoct ro npaBu MOT HajgocranHa nnaT^opMa 3a npe3em^uja Ha npogy^uuTe Ha CMr bo Peny6nuKa MaKegoHuja. BpojoT Ha noceTu He e eguHcTBeHuoT peneBaHTeH 3HaK Ha 0Ba BnujaHue; cnegejKu ro penepToapoT Ha MaKegoHcKUTe TeaTpu, ucto KaKo u aBTopcKaTa noeTUKa u ecTeTUKa Ha MaKegoHcKUTe pe^ucepu, Mo«e ga ce 3a6ene«u gupeKTHo BnujaHue. BnujaHueTo og CMr Mo«e ga 6uge u3y^yBaH0 og6nu3y npeKy coBpeMeHuoT TeaTapcKu npoeKT Ha Koj Ha^uH e TpeTupaHa c^HaTa, gpaMcKuoT TeKcT u pa6oTaTa co aKTepuTe. HapogHuoT TeaTap „JopgaH Xapu K0HcTaHTUH0B^uH0T" og Benec uMame gupeKTHa copa6oTKa co CMr bo 2016 r. Hen0cpegH0T0 ucKycTBo co Konpogy^ujaTa „Oegpa" (C. fluMocKu/A. MBaH0BcKu, 2016) jacHo ru noKa«a ^puH^u^UTe Ha pa6oTa cnopeg kou CMr onepupa Ha HeKonKy pa3nurau HUBoa, noce6Ho bo aKTepcKuoT npo^c. CTyguuTe Ha cny^aj, Kage mT0 BnujaHueTo Ha noeTUKaTa Ha cnoBeHe^KUTe pe^ucepu e gupeKTHo BugeHa bo MaKegoHcKUTe TeaTapcKu npogy^uu, Mo«e ga ce nogenaT Ha gBe rpynu: HenocpegHo - npeKy pe^ujaTa Ha TeaTapcKUTe npeTcTaBu bo MaKegoHuja (KaKo mT0 e npuMepoT co pe^uuTe Ha fluero ge Bpea u Tomu JaHe^m) u uHgupeKTHo - npeKy y^ecTB0T0 Ha HeKonKy npeTcraBu Ha pa3nu^Hu ^ecruBanu bo Peny6nuKa MaKegoHuja (npuMepoT co cne^^uraaTa c^HcKa noeTUKa Ha ToMa« naHgyp). MaKegoHcKaTa ny6nuKa ymTe ogaMHa ja uMame npunuKaTa ga ce cpeTHe co HeKonKy npeTcTaBu Ha naHgyp og cuTe HeroBu aBTopcKu nepuogu: „TemKu 3aBecu", npogy^uja Ha TecnucoB B03, Mapu6op, (1982); „MpTBuoT M0BeK goara no HeroBaTa ay6oBHu^", (npogy^uja Ha TecnucoB B03, Mapu6op, (1984); „Hokhu cMeHu", ucto TaKa npogy^uja Ha TecnucoB B03, (1989); „fflexepe3aga", npogy^uja Ha CMr; „Kanuryna", npogy^uja Ha rflK „raBena" og 3arpe6; „Megeja" cnopeg EBpunug (Konpogy^uja Ha fly6poBHu^KuoT neTeH ^ecruBan), Ha MHT ®ecr, (2014) u „Oaycr", npogy^uja Ha CHr flpaMa, npuKa^aHa nocTxyMHo Ha MHT ®ecr, (2016). KoHe^Ho, gupeKTHaTa u ^aTanHa BpcKa Mery MaKegoHcKuoT TeaTap u naHgyp ce cnyqu npu pe^ujaTa Ha ffleKcnupoBuoT „Kpan ïïup" bo 2016 r. bo MHT, no Koja „3aBecaTa HUKoram He ce nogurHa". BnujaHueTo Ha noeTUKaTa Ha naHgyp mT0 ro uMa bo (MaKegoHuja) TeaTapoT e MHory cuneH u jacHo ce npeno3HaBa bo MHory npeTcTaBu nocraBeHu og MaKegoHcKu pe^ucepu (Ha npuMep „PoMeo u Jynuja", bo pe^uja Ha flejaH npojK0BcKu u npogyK^ja Ha McraH6yncKU0T Ha^oHaneH TeaTap og Typ^ja). CenaK, Her0B0T0 BnujaHue He e Henpeno3HaTo bo rycTUHaTa Ha ceMaHimKUTe ja3nu pacnopegeHu bo TeaTapcKaTa npeTcTaBa, TyKy bo KonupaHUTe pemeHuja. fluero ge Bpea (1969) e cnoBeHe^Ku TeaTapcKu pe^ucep co yHUKaTHa nocTgpaMaTu^Ka TeaTapcKa Mucna mT0 uMa pe^upaHo Tpu npeTcTaBu Ha MaKegoHcKUTe c^hu. Ha c^HaTa Ha HapogHuoT TeaTap bo BuTona: „3nocTopcTBo u Ka3Ha" og flocroeBcKu (2016) 81 u ffleKcnuoBuoT „OTeno" (2014) u Ha c^HaTa Ha TypcKuoT TeaTap bo CKonje, gpaMaTa „Kpan ^up" (2017). Tpe6a ga ce 3a6ene^u geKa fle Bpea bo gBaTa TeaTpu u bo BuTona u bo TypcKuoT TeaTap, KoMnnerao ro cMeHu Ha^uHoT Ha TperapafteTo Ha c^HaTa, BoBegyBajKu HoBuTeTu bo TpeTupaaeTo Ha c^HaTa Ha MaKegoHcKuoT TeaTap. Tomu JaHe^m (1972) ce nojaBu Ha MaKegoHcKuTe TeaTapcKu c^hu, 3a npB naT bo 2004 r., Ha MOT („Tpu cecTpu") co aHcaM6noT Ha CMr. Og Toram, MaKegoHcKaTa ny6nuKa, ja uMame Mo^Hocra ga ja Bugu pa6oTaTa Ha oBoj pe^ucep gBa naTu, cnegHaTa 2005 r. („Cnen^"), Kora pa6oTeme co aKTepuTe Ha MHT, gupeKTHo npuMeHyBajKu ja cBojaTa noeTuKa Ha aKTepcKaTa ceH3u6unHocT, u bo 2013 r., noBTopHo Ha MOT, co gpyra gpaMa Ha MexoB, „rane6", u3BegeHa og aKTepuTe Ha CpncKo HapogHo no3opumTe - Hobu Cag. TpuTe npeTcTaBu Ha JaHe^u^, uMaa HeBepojaTeH npueM og ny6nuKaTa, ho u Mery MaKegoHcKuTe pe^ucepu, bo KoumTo He Mo^e ga ce Hajge coogBeTeH npuMep Ha oBoj Ha^uH Ha pa6oTa. BnujaHueTo Ha JaHe^m e npeno3HaeHo bo uHTepecoT Ha noMnagaTa reHepa^ja MaKegoHcKu TeaTapcKu pe^ucepu u HuBHuTe npeTcTaBu, Haj^ecro ogurpaHu bo He3aBucHa npogy^uja. CeKoj og Tpoj^Ta pe^ucepu goHece npoMeHu Ha MaKegoHcKuTe c^hu mTo e eBugeHTHo u necHo npeno3HaTnuBo.Be3 pa3nuKaganu e ToaHanpaBeHocogupeKTHa pe^ujaBo MaKegoHcKu TeaTap unu npeKy npeTcraBa mTo 6una npuKa^aHa Ha MaKegoHcKu ^ecraBan (Haj^ecro Ha MOT), ceKoj og Tpoj^Ta pe^ucepu HanpaBu BugnuBo BnujaHue Bp3 MaKegoHcKuoT TeaTap. AKTepuTe bo Tue npeTcTaBu, ^nuoT aHcaM6n Ha npeTcTaBuTe pe^upaHu bo MaKegoHuja og oBue Tpoj^ pe^ucepu, 36opyBaaT 3a hubhoto HeBepojaTHo ucKycTBo og pa6oTaTa co hub, u KaKo e cMeHeT hubhuot Ha^uH Ha rnyMa u Tperapafte Ha TeaTapoT. Vpliv slovenskega gledališča v Makedoniji (od 1990 do danes) Ključne besede: Makedonija, Slovenija, izmenjave, festivali, Mlado odprto gledališče [MOT], Slovensko mladinsko gledališče [SMG], Tomaž Pandur, Diego de Brea, Tomi Janežič Raziskava je del bilateralnega projekta Makedonsko-slovenske gledališke vezi, ki raziskuje gledališko komunikacijo med Republiko Makedonijo in Republiko Slovenijo v obdobju od razglasitve neodvisnosti od jugoslovanske federacije leta 1990 pa vse do leta 2016. Ta del raziskave se ukvarja z gledališko komunikacijo, do katere je v omenjenem obdobju prihajalo v Makedoniji, pri čemer se osredotoča predvsem na vpliv estetike Slovenskega mladinskega gledališča (SMG) in nekaterih sodobnih slovenskih gledaliških režiserjev na poetiko in estetiko makedonskega gledališča. Raziskava je razločila dve področji tega vpliva. Prvo vključuje navzočnost različnih profilov slovenskih gledaliških umetnikov v gledaliških produkcijah v Makedoniji: režiserjev, igralcev, dramatikov, dramaturgov, koreografov, skladateljev in scenografov. Ta »migracija« je vplivala na odnos domačih umetnikov do gledališča v Makedoniji po obisku slovenskega avtorja, spremenila pa je tudi komunikacijo/dinamiko v skupini, ki ustvarja predstavo, kar navadno naredi režiser, in sicer tako, da spremeni celotno estetiko gledališča. Drugo področje so na splošno gostovanja slovenskih produkcij na makedonskih odrih in festivalih. Po ugotovitvah makedonske raziskovalne skupine, ki je analizirala neposredno navzočnost slovenskih gledaliških umetnikov v makedonski gledališki produkciji in sodelovanje slovenskih produkcij na festivalskih odrih v Makedoniji, je mogoče, v skladu s fokalizacijo, zaznati dva motiva. Prvi se nanaša na sodelovanje Slovenskega mladinskega gledališča na festivalu MOT (Mlado odprto gledališče - M^ag 0TB0peH TeaTap) s skupaj 25 festivalskimi gostovanji, drugi pa je splošni okvir za posredni ali neposredni vpliv, ki ga imajo slovenski gledališki režiserji na makedonsko gledališče in je predstavljen v poglavju s študijami primerov. SMG se je profiliralo kot avtentični tip scenskega laboratorija, ki neguje inovativne odrske forme predstav. Od svoje ustanovitve leta 1970 je tudi MOT profiliran kot gledališki festival za eksperimentalne gledališke oblike in odrske laboratorije. Zaradi te podobnosti je MOT najdostopnejša platforma za predstavitev produkcij SMG v Makedoniji. Število obiskov ni edini relevantni pokazatelj tega vpliva; če spremljamo repertoar makedonskih gledališč pa tudi avtorske estetike in poetike makedonskih režiserjev, 84 lahko opazimo neposredni vpliv. Vpliv SMG v sodobnih gledaliških projektih podrobno proučujemo glede na to, kako ti projekti vzpostavljajo odnos do odra, dramskega teksta in igralcev. Narodno gledališče Jordan Hadži Konstantinov-Džinot je s SMG neposredno sodelovalo leta 2016. Neposredna izkušnja pri koprodukciji Fedra (S. Dimoski/A. Ivanovski, 2016) jasno kaže na način dela, po katerem SMG deluje na različnih ravneh, posebej pri igralskih procesih. Študije primerov, pri katerih je viden neposredni vpliv, ki ga imajo poetike slovenskih režiserjev na makedonsko gledališko produkcijo, so razdeljene v dve skupini: takojšnjo - režije gledaliških del na makedonskih odrih (na primer režije Diega de Bree in Tomija Janežiča), in posredno - sodelovanje pomembnih predstav na različnih festivalih v Makedoniji (Tomaž Pandur kot posebna odrska poetika). Makedonsko občinstvo je imelo do zdaj priložnost videti več Pandurjevih predstav iz vseh avtorjevih obdobij: najprej Trudne zastore; leta 1982 predstavo Mrtvec pride po ljubico; leta 1984 Nočne prizore, vse tri v produkciji Pandurjeve skupine Tespisov voz iz Maribora; leta 1989 Šeherezado (SMG) in Kaligulo (Dramsko gledališče Gavella iz Zagreba); leta 2014 Medejo po Evripidu (v koprodukciji z Dubrovniškimi poletnimi igrami) na festivalu MNT Fest; leta 2016 pa posmrtno še Fausta, produkcijo SNG Drama Ljubljana, znova na festivalu MNT Fest. In končno, neposreden in usoden stik med Pandurjem in makedonskim gledališčem se je zgodil ob njegovi režiji Shakespearovega Kralja Leara leta 2016 v Makedonskem narodnem gledališču, ki ni doživel premiere. Vpliv, ki ga ima Pandurjeva poetika na (makedonsko) gledališče, je zelo močan in lahko prepoznaven v številnih predstavah, ki so jih uprizorili makedonski režiserji (npr. Romeo in Julija v produkciji Narodnega gledališča iz Istanbula v režiji Dejana Projkovskega). Vendar njegov vpliv ni prepoznaven v številnih semantičnih vozlih, razredčenih v gledališki igri, ampak v kopiranih rešitvah. Diego de Brea (1969) je slovenski režiser z edinstveno postdramsko gledališko mislijo, ki je na makedonskih odrih režiral tri igre. Na odru Narodnega gledališča Bitola Zločin in kazen Dostojevskega (2016) in Shakespearovega Othella (2014), na odru Turškega gledališča v Skopju pa Kralja Leara (2017). Omeniti je treba, da je de Brea tako v Bitoli kakor tudi v Turškem gledališču v celoti spremenil makedonski odnos do odra in vanj vpeljal novosti. Tomi Janežič (1972) se je na makedonskem gledališkem odru pojavil leta 2004 na MOT (Tri sestre) z ansamblom SMG. Od takrat je imelo makedonsko občinstvo priložnost videti njegovo delo še dvakrat: leto pozneje (Slepci), ko je delal z igralci Makedonskega narodnega gledališča in neposredno uporabljal svojo poetiko za igralsko senzibilnost, ter leta 2013, znova na MOT, z drugim delom Čehova Galebom, ki so ga uprizorili igralci Srbskega narodnega gledališča. Vse tri Janežičeve predstave so doživele izjemen odziv pri občinstvu, vendar med makedonskimi režiserji ne moremo najti primerljivega načina dela. Janežičev vpliv lahko prepoznamo v interesih 85 mlajše generacije makedonskih gledaliških režiserjev in njenih predstavah, večinoma neodvisnih produkcijah. Vsak od omenjenih treh režiserjev je na makedonske odre vnesel spremembe, ki so očitne in lahko prepoznavne. Ne glede na to, ali je do tega prišlo z režijo v makedonskem gledališču ali s predstavo, ki je bila odigrana na makedonskem festivalu (večinoma na MOT), so vsi trije vidno vplivali na makedonsko gledališče. Igralci v njihovih predstavah, celotni ansambli, s katerimi so v Makedoniji sodelovali omenjeni režiserji, pripovedujejo o svojih neverjetnih delovnih izkušnjah z njimi in kako so te spremenile njihovo igranje in odnos do gledališča. Prevedla Barbara Skubic UDC 793.3(497.7+497.4) Our aim in this text is twofold: first, to offer a preliminary overview of cooperative activities between Slovenian and Macedonian ballet and dance artists, national institutions and non-governmental organisations in the last 25 years, that is, in the period of independence of both states, with a short excursus into the time preceding that period; and second, to offer a kind of a prima vista analysis of the main achievements as well as obstacles in those collaborative practices. In the period of its existence the Yugoslav Federation provided not only material support to professional theatre institutions, but also stimulated cultural collaboration among federal republics. Especially non-verbal forms of artistic expression, such as ballet and dance, were adequate communicators in a multinational and multilingual state as was the Socialist Yugoslavia. The official cultural policies of the newly established states declaratively (i.e. in ratified bilateral agreements) advocated the preservation of cultural connections that existed from the era of the former Yugoslavia. However, the level of intercultural exchange presupposed in these bilateral agreements is rather modest and unambitious, especially in the field of dance. The processes of dissolution of the former Yugoslavia and the establishing of the independent states of Macedonia and Slovenia produced significant changes in the field of dance and opera theatre. The main characteristics of these changes were, on the one hand, a rapid diminishing of the collaboration between national ballet and opera institutions, and on the other hand, a gradual increasing of cooperation between non-governmental organisations active in the creation, promotion and exchange of contemporary dance productions. Keywords: ballet, dance, Slovenia, Macedonia, collaborative practices, dance festivals From Yugoslav Ballet to Post-Yugoslav Contemporary Dance: Permutations in Collaborative Practices between Macedonian and Slovenian Dance Scenes 87 Sonja Zdravkova Djeparoska and Aldo Milohnic The corpus of historiographical and theoretical studies of Macedonian and Slovenian ballet and dance has been significantly growing in the last few decades, but we are still lacking a synthetic study on the mutual collaboration of Macedonian and Slovenian artists and the interstate exchange of guest performances. Our aim in this text is thus twofold: first, to offer a first (and rather preliminary) overview of these cooperative activities in the last 25 years, that is, in the period of independency of both states, with a short excursus into the time preceding that period; and second, to offer a kind of a prima vista analysis of the main achievements as well as obstacles in the collaborative practices between Slovenian and Macedonian ballet and dance artists, national institutions and non-governmental organisations. In addition, we will offer some basic insights into the bilateral collaborative practices in the field of opera, rather as a supplement (or a corollary) to our focus on ballet and dance. At the very beginning of the research process, we were eager to see whether the analysis of the hard data we collected within our research project could detect some broader aspects of the social context. In other words, we were concerned with the question: is it possible through dance - as an art that deals with the aesthetic side of shaping the body as the basic medium of expression - to detect and decode a wider context with all its features on the social, political and cultural level? Can we identify a certain modus operandi of the social and political tendencies in these collaborative practices, especially on the level of both national and bilateral cultural policies? To put it shortly, how are these two spheres (dance and politics) connected and possibly even interdependent? One of the first dance artists trying to answer this question was American dancer and choreographer Martha Graham. In her text "A Modern Dancer's Primer for Action" she wrote "art does not create changes, it only records them" (166). In other words, any 88 attempt to proclaim art as a tool for social change would be unrealistic and would impose a heavy burden on artistic practices; on the other hand, recording changes through dance, including collaboration practices related to it, might offer a useful source for exploring specific relations between dance practices and social, political and economic circumstances of its production in respective historical contexts. Not only Graham was interested in defining the relationship between society and art production. In his essay entitled "Theatre Sociology", Italian theatre theoretician and historiographer Marco De Marinis comments on the impact of society on artistic production and, more specifically, on performing arts practices: "Presentation and performance both derive from the current cultural norms of the time they exist in, they change influenced by them, ultimately functioning as a 'secondary modeling system', expressed by the words of the Russian Formalist Lotman" (63). Slovenian sociologist and cultural theorist Rastko Močnik has developed a productive theory of a specific relation between art and society also inspired by Russian Formalists (although not by Yuri Lotman but by Pavel Medvedev). In his seminal essay "Eastwest", Močnik explains that art practice does not relay directly to social reality but takes the already ideologically "refracted" reality as its material and "works upon" it: "In this sense, artistic practices perform a sort of secondary elaboration upon ideologically 'refracted' material" (21). Andrew Hewitt takes a different position in his book Social Choreography: Ideology as Performance in Dance and Everyday Movement proclaiming that choreography is not only a secondary representation but also a primary performance of the modern organisation of society: "I wish to demonstrate how choreography has served not only as a secondary metaphor for modernity but also as a structuring blueprint for thinking and effecting modern social organization: it is not only a secondary representation but also a primary performance of that order" (14). These are only several inspiring theses on the subtle relation between art (or, more specifically, dance) practices and the social reality. We could mention many others. However, since this text is based mainly on empirical research, we will continue with presenting the data collected within our project and analysing it in the context of collaboration between Macedonian and Slovenian dancers and the exchange of their performances. Ballet as a catalyst of cultural exchange in the former Yugoslavia In the last century, Macedonia and Slovenia were part of the same state for just over 70 years. In the period between WWI and WWII, that state was the Kingdom of Yugoslavia; in the period after the liberation until 1991, it was the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia. Due to this long common history in the 20th century, it is 89 not surprising that cultural collaborations and exchanges between Slovenia and Macedonia in the last 25 years are based on the continuity of cultural connections from previous decades. Having in mind these facts, it is useful to compare the level of cultural interactions in the Yugoslav period with that in the period after these two countries gained independency. The connections and relations in the federal state from 1945 till the last days of Yugoslavia were mainly designed and promoted by the governing bodies. In her essay "Cultural Policy and the Political Nature of Culture", Carole Rosenstein writes about cultural policy and its connection with politics and the centres of power: Policies impact the distribution of cultural resources: policies project and promote certain cultural values and narratives as being shared and public; they shape the ways in which people gain access to places where legitimate and valorized expressions of this shared public culture are created; and they can provide opportunities for people to develop their capabilities to critique and restate such shared and public values in terms that resonate with their own experiences. (24) Although Rosenstein analyses contemporary democratic society, yet during the period of socialism, the way that cultural policies could be modelled in accordance with a particular ideology was even more visible. The best reflection of this tendency can be found in the slogan "brotherhood and unity" promoted by president Josip Broz Tito as one of the fundamental values of the federation. A grid of institutional collaboration, the exchange of guest performances on festivals and other manifestations, etc., supported the idea of increasing cultural ties with an emphasis on the presentation of the nation's own culture, but at the same time, accepting the culture of others (including their ethnic and national diversity) in order to strengthen the unity, cooperation and integration into a great multicultural image of the Yugoslav socialist society. Regular cultural exchange among the republics of the former Yugoslavia was an integral part of the official cultural policy on the level of the federation as well as of the respective republics: The Cultural Community of Slovenia encouraged cultural co-operation with other Yugoslav nations. The republics put forward a list of cultural projects of shared importance (approx. twenty projects every year) for which the republics agreed to cover the entire costs of the participation of their own groups (for example, the opera and ballet biennial, drama meetings, meetings of poets and writers). Some of these events were highly respected by cultural workers. (Cultural Policy in Slovenia 229) Regarding institutional cultural ties between Macedonia and Slovenia in the period of the former Yugoslavia, the three most significant manifestations connected with opera and ballet are of our crucial interest: the Ballet Biennale and the Meeting of Yugoslav Ballet Dancers located in Ljubljana and the festival May Opera Evenings located in Skopje. 90 The first Ballet Biennale took place in Ljubljana from 30 June to 10 July 1960 in the frame of the 7th Ljubljana Festival. At that time, it was called the Revue of the Yugoslav Ballet (Revija jugoslovanskega baleta). Due to bad weather conditions, all the performances were performed on the stage of the Slovenian National Theatre Opera and Ballet Ljubljana1 (instead of the open-air stage Križanke, the usual location of Ljubljana Festival events). Along with ballet performances from five Yugoslav institutions (Ljubljana, Belgrade, Sarajevo, Zagreb and Skopje), two accompanying programmes were presented: a congress of Yugoslav ballet artists (1-2 July) and an exhibition of Yugoslav ballet (1-12 July, in Moderna galerija).2 The ballet ensemble of the Macedonian National Theatre from Skopje took third prize and its member, Natka Penušliska, won the prize as the best classical solo dancer.3 It was the first and the last time at the Ballet Biennale that Yugoslav ballet institutions and artists competed for prizes in different categories; already at the second Ballet Biennale this practice was abandoned. This manifestation was continuously organised (with short interruptions in the late 1960s and the early 1980s) until 1989, when it took place for the last time. In addition to 1960, the ballet ensemble of the Macedonian National Theatre was represented at the festival editions in 1962, 1972, 1974, 1981 ... In the 1970s, the Ballet Biennale experimented with a new practice - along with guest performances from Yugoslav ballet institutions, several editions of the festival presented special joint productions (ballet concerts) with ballet dancers from these institutions, including some participants from Skopje. The positive experiences of concert ballet performances with dancers from all around Yugoslavia gave rise to establishing a new ballet manifestation in Ljubljana called the Meeting of Yugoslav Ballet Dancers (Srečanje jugoslovanskih baletnih umetnikov). The first meeting took place in 1978 and was organised annually until 1989 (twelve editions in total). The first six manifestations were organised by Slovenian ballet dancer Lidija Sotlar4 and her group, while from 1984 on, several other organisers took care of it (Iko Otrin 1984, Vlasto Dedovic 1985-87 and Ivo Kosi 1988-89). Macedonian ballet dancers were regularly invited to this manifestation, among them Marin Crvenov, Aleksandar Hadžimanov, Ana Husein, Zoica Purovska, Jagoda Slaneva, Snežana Spasovska (also as choreographer), Zoran Velevski .. ,5 Every edition of the Meeting was an important cultural event in Ljubljana. The manifestation was important as a kind of "showcase" of many 1 At that time the official name of the theatre was Opera of the Slovenian National Theatre in Ljubljana. See also footnote 14. 2 Artefacts selected for the exhibition came from ten Yugoslav ballet institutions and were documented in an exhibition catalogue. However, it was not the first publication of its kind - a monograph on Yugoslav ballet intended for international readership (the language of the edition was English) was published in Belgrade in 1958. 3 For a more detailed report on this event, see "Prva nagradna revija" and Neubauer 64-65. The first four editions of the Ballet Biennale are extensively described and visually illustrated in the recently published book Ko se zgodi pies. Zapisi, dokumenti, spomini (Kraigher 130-167). 4 Lidija Sotlar was a renowned Slovenian ballet dancer and choreographer. She was the selector of the last Ballet Biennale in Ljubljana (1989) and a member of the jury (as well as a member of the Advisory Board in the last years of its existence) of the Yugoslav Ballet Competition (Jugosiovensko baietsko takmicenje) in Novi Sad, another festival of Yugoslav ballet established in 1982 by ballet critic Branka Rakic and devoted to young dancers from Yugoslav ballet schools and theatres. The festival was organised for the last time in 1991. 5 For a more detailed list of dancers and choreographers, see Sotlar 154. leading ballet dancers from all Yugoslav ballet ensembles and at the same time it was a 91 meeting point for them, that is, it offered them a possibility to meet at least once a year to collaborate on a joint project and to keep vivid old (or to establish new) professional ties. May Opera Evenings (Majski operski večeri) is a manifestation established in 1972 as an opera festival. In the early period, soloists, conductors and ensembles from Yugoslavia and neighbouring Balkan countries were invited. Later on, the programming concept of the manifestation changed; the programme originally based on Yugoslavian and Balkan collaborations was enriched with artists coming from Europe, America, Asia and Australia. Apart from operas, the programme included concerts and ballet performances. Performances were held in general in the Macedonian National Theatre, but in the first decade there were three concerts in the Hall ofthe Macedonian Philharmonic Orchestra and three concerts in the Church "Saint Sophia" in Ohrid.6 "At the very beginning, every opera house from the former Yugoslavia's opera centres had an evening with complete soloists casts and a conductor. The opera houses from Belgrade, Zagreb, Ljubljana, Sarajevo and Novi Sad were presented continuously" (KoHHmKH 26).7 The data from the programmes at the May Opera Evenings show that this trend was carried out consistently in the first decade of the festival. As part of the manifestation May Opera Evenings from 1973 to 1983, the competitions "Meetings of young opera talents - Tome Grncharovski" were held, in which young Slovenian opera singers were constantly present from the very beginning until 1981. In 1984, the principle of representation of opera houses with complete teams was abandoned and a new festival tendency was creation of performances featuring soloists from different theatres. Slovenian singers and conductors were frequent guests at the May Opera Evenings, but their number significantly decreased after 1984, because of the transition to a different model/concept of organisation. Despite this negative trend, Slovenian artists were still present. On the other hand, it is difficult to understand why there was not a single guest appearance of Slovenian ballet on the May Opera Evenings in the previous 45 years. Unlike the constant presence of Macedonian ballet artists at the Ballet Biennale and the Meeting ofYugoslavian Ballet Dancers in Ljubljana, the Macedonian audience in Skopje has not been able to follow the performances of the Slovenian national ballet. This deficit on the side of the Slovenian ballet (non)appearance in Macedonia could not be sufficiently explained on the level of the proclaimed cultural policy of the former Yugoslavia, thus there must be other reasons for it.8 6 For a detailed analysis and data of the festival, see KonnrnKH. 7 The entire cast of soloists with the conductor from the Slovenian National Theatre Ljubljana performed on May Opera Evenings is as follows: Aida (1972), Carmen (1973), The Barber of Seville (1974), Madame Butterfly (1975), La Bohème (1976), Il trovatore (1977), Carmen (1978), Rigoletto (1980), La Bohème (1981). 8 As the main focus of our research was the period 1990-2015, we limited the analysis of ballet and dance exchange practices between Macedonia and Slovenia in the time of Socialist Yugoslavia to festivals, leaving aside other forms of collaboration from that period, such as respective exchanges of individual artists or performances. Needless to say, individual guest performances (starting with Taglioni's and Lindpaintner's Danina choreographed by Pia and Pino Mlakar and performed in Skopje in 1951) and guest choreographers (such as Pino Mlakar's choreography of Devil in the Village in 1955 or Maks Kirbos's choreography of Stevan Hristic's The Legend of Ohrid in 1956, both in the Macedonian National Theatre in Skopje, to mention just a few early examples) would require a separate analysis with a different research focus. 92 Institutional and interstate exchange after 1991 The previous tendency of relatively frequent cultural exchanges between Macedonia and Slovenia also continued in the Yugoslav federation's last year of existence, in the period when the disintegration process was gradually intensifying. In 1990, four Slovenian singers were guests of May Opera Nights (Neven Belamaric in Nabucco, Ciril Cvetko and Ferdinand Radovan in Rigoletto and Zlatimira Nikolova in Aida). This number from the 1990 season is larger than the number of guest appearances in the field of ballet and opera performances in the research period of 25 years. In addition, Jasna Knez created choreography for the theatre performance Cardboard Box that premiered in January 1991 in the Turkish Theatre in Skopje. Reciprocally, from the Macedonian side, Jagoda Slaneva worked in the Slovenian National Theatre in Ljubljana as part of an inter-institutional state cooperation. She choreographed Euripides' The Bacchae with the ballet ensemble in the 1989/90 season. Singer Boris Trajanov sang in the Slovenian National Theatre Opera and Ballet Ljubljana in Donizetti's Lucia di Lammermoor in 1990 and in Mozart's Cosi fan tutte in 1991.9 The official cultural policies of the newly-established states declaratively advocated the preservation of cultural connections that existed (in a very active and well-developed form) from the era of the former Yugoslavia. This approach could be traced in ratified agreements between Slovenia and Macedonia in the field of culture. The "Agreement on Cooperation in Education, Culture and Science between the Government of the Republic of Macedonia and the Government of the Republic of Slovenia," which established the basis for further cooperation at the level of national governments, was signed on 8 July 1993.10 This agreement provided an appropriate legal background for further normative acts (called "Programmes") that regulated concrete ways and forms of collaboration in culture. So far, four such "Programmes" were signed between Macedonia and Slovenia.11 In the first two "Programmes" the field of theatre was elaborated more precisely, including the list of manifestations and 9 From the methodological point of view of the research project of which this article is a part, we make a difference between so called "guest artists" and "resident artists" (see the introduction by Ana Stojanoska and Aldo Milohnic for a more detailed elaboration). It is the reason that among the names of "guest artists" mentioned above there are no names of the artists born in Macedonia but settled in Slovenia for a fairly long time (for instance, ballet dancers Redjep Ramadani and Slavčo Stoleski who have been permanently employed as ballet dancers in Slovenian national theatres in Ljubljana and Maribor since 1990). 10 This and other interstate documents regulating bilateral cultural cooperation between Macedonia and Slovenia were kindly provided by Maja Žužek and Tadeja Marinič from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Slovenia and a representative of the Sector for International Cooperation and Cooperation with UNESCO in the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Macedonia. 11 Cultural cooperation programme between the Government of the Republic of Slovenia and the Government of the Republic of Macedonia for the period 1995 to 1997 (signed on 30 March 1995); Cultural cooperation programme between the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Slovenia and the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Macedonia for the years 1998, 1999 and 2000 (signed on 10 June 1998); Cultural cooperation programme between the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Slovenia and the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Macedonia in the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 (signed on 24 March 2004); Programme of cooperation in the field of culture and art between the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Macedonia and the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Slovenia for the years 2010 to 2013 (signed on 24 September 2010; valid until the conclusion of the new Programme). festivals which were recognised as major agents of the interstate cultural collaboration 93 at that time - in Slovenia: Festival Ljubljana and the International Youth Singers Festival in Celje; in Macedonia: Ohrid Summer Festival, Interfest Bitola, May Opera Evenings, Youth Open Theatre and International Jazz Festival (the last three in Skopje).12 In the period covered by the first "Programme" (1995-97), opera theatres in Ljubljana and Skopje were expected to exchange three singers (soloists) and one conductor. Drama theatre exchange would be represented by one guest performance "of smaller theatre groups and individuals". The "Programme" stipulated some other, albeit more general provisions, such as governmental support for "the exchange of theatre directors, scenographers, costume designers, actors, etc." and "staging plays by Macedonian playwrights in Slovenia and plays by Slovenian playwrights in Macedonia". Our general impression is that the level of intercultural exchange presupposed in these bilateral agreements is rather modest and unambitious, especially in the field of dance where the exchange of folkloristic dance groups is explicitly stipulated ("one or two guest performances by folklore ensembles in larger Slovenian and Macedonian cities") while exchanges of ballet and contemporary dance performances are not mentioned at all. Furthermore, it seems that Slovenian and Macedonian governments lost interest in more detailed arrangements of cultural exchange towards the end of the 1990s; it is quite obvious when we compare the first two "Programmes" signed in the 1990s and those signed in 2004 and 2010 - the last two "Programmes" are far less elaborated, written in a more general diction, especially in articles regulating bilateral exchanges of theatre artists and performances. Even more, in the last "Programme" there is an explicit statement that it is "valid until the conclusion of the new Programme". And eight years later, nobody knows when (if ever) the next bilateral "Programme" will be signed ... Nevertheless, in the first years of independence, Macedonian opera art was fairly present in Slovenia. For instance, singer Boris Trajanov performed in Don Carlos in 1993; Cvetan Stojanovski was invited to the Slovene National Theatre Maribor in 1995 where he performed in Donizetti's Lucia di Lammermoor and Verdi's Troubadour; three ballet dancers - Goran and Aleksandar Bozinov in the season 1995/96 and Ivana Kocevska in the season 2004/05 - danced in annual programmes of the national theatres in Ljubljana and Maribor. Although a first impression might be that established relations had continued, the situation changed drastically. As emphasised in Singh's theory of international cultural policies, "the constructivist ideas of regulative (quotidian) versus constitutive social norms and facts are also relevant [...] in demarcating the lines between what 'is' and 'how' it came into being" (6). Respective national strategies which were based on bilateral collaboration between state organisations like national theatres or festivals, put on paper these 12 This presupposed framework for exchange of artists and theatre institutions was supplemented in second "Programme" by several new manifestations (Sintezis in Skopje; Festival Lent in Maribor and Summer Theatre Festival in Koper). 94 established relations from the previous political system, but this projection did not function that well in practice. In fact, all the mentioned artists and their artistic appearances in Slovenian theatres were part of other kinds of initiatives (open auditions, personal invitations, etc.) rather than part of the existing programmes of the interstate cultural collaboration between Macedonia and Slovenia. Despite these bilateral state agreements and programmes, the national opera and ballet institutions - Macedonian Opera and Ballet,13 Slovenian National Theatre Opera and Ballet Ljubljana14 and Opera and Ballet of the Slovene National Theatre Maribor15 - as well as the festivals with a long tradition (of which we wrote about earlier in this text) did not show enough interest in continuing the cooperation. The data for the period 1990-2015 shows a rather disappointing image of the continuation of collaboration between the national opera and ballet theatres after these two former Yugoslav republics gained independence. As a result of the connections at a higher official institutional level, only three Slovenian artists were guests of the National Opera and Ballet in Macedonia in the last 25 years: Maksimilijan Censic conducted Nabucco in 2009, Simon Krcic was assistant conductor on Simon Boccanegra in 2014, and Mojca Majcen was assistant choreographer on Red room in 2016. The Slovene National Theatre Maribor presented the ballet performance Romeo and Juliet on the Ohrid Summer Festival (Festival Ohridsko leto) in 2006, the only guest ballet performance from Slovenia presented on this festival so far. Another Macedonian festival that presented at least one guest ballet performance from Slovenia16 was the Dance Fest in Skopje, presenting Yin & Yang, a ballet performance of the Slovenian National Theatre Opera and Ballet Ljubljana in 2008. This is the only ballet performance which the Macedonian audience could see from the Slovenian national theatre in the more recent history of the Macedonian National Theatre; the result of the activities of an independent non-governmental organisation led by Risima Risimkin. On the other hand, only one Macedonian choreographer, Risima Risimkin, worked in the Slovenian national ballet institutions in that period; she staged her author's project Samorog in Ljubljana in 2010. But this collaboration was also the result of various personal connections rather than official interstate agreements and proclaimed programs of cultural cooperation. 13 The structure of the Macedonian National Theatre (previously consisted of drama, opera and ballet ensembles) established in 1945 was changed in 2004, when MNT continued only as a drama ensemble and was dislocated into a new building. The opera and ballet ensembles became a new organisation named the Macedonian Opera and Ballet. 14 The Slovenian National Theatre Opera and Ballet Ljubljana is the official name of this national institution since 1992. Until 1968, it was called the Opera of the Slovenian National Theatre Ljubljana and from 1968 till 1992, the official name was the Opera and Ballet of the Slovenian National Theatre Ljubljana. 15 At the beginning, the ballet ensemble of the national theatre in Maribor was not represented in the official name of the theatre. However, only a few years after the renaming of the national theatre in Ljubljana, the name of the national theatre in Maribor has been also changed to the Opera and Ballet of the Slovene National Theatre Maribor. 16 Otherwise the Dance Fest has managed to establish cooperation with many regional and European national ballet companies which became part of the festival programme in the last ten years: National Theatre Belgrade, Serbia (2005); State Ballet Ankara, Turkey (2005); Hungarian National Ballet Pecs, Hungary (2006); State Ballet from Hildesheim, Germany (2006); National Ballet Lisbon, Portugal (2007); National Ballet Theatre Istanbul, Turkey (2008, 2011); National Theatre Prishtina, Kosovo (2008, 2010, 2014); Netherlands Dance Theatre (2011); National Ballet Theatre, Antalya, Turkey (2013); State Opera and Ballet from Izmir, Turkey (2016). Contemporary dance as a new common denominator of 95 collaboration The processes of démocratisation, followed by the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia and the process of gradual integration into the European Union have created quite different social conditions. The centralised system of maintaining the cooperation among Yugoslav federal republics was replaced by a new approach of cultural institutions to initiate, realise, achieve and maintain cooperation on their own and to increase and develop intercultural relations based on the European principle of the development of cultural values. Unlike the bulky organisation of the national institutions, which did not respond to the new needs in terms of cooperation, exchange and networking, the new non-governmental organisations that have intensified domestic and international cooperation in this period have established themselves as a parallel system of the cultural offer. Within this group, our special interest is devoted to the most propulsive independent (nongovernmental) centres that have involved dance in their programmes, dominantly or segmentally, at different levels - production, education, festival programmes, etc. In 2006, Tanzquartier in Vienna hosted several theatre artists and researchers from the former Yugoslavia who came to the residency with an ambition to create a kind of manifesto for a laboratory they provisionally called "East - Dance - Academy". A text with the same title, which was later published in several theatre journals and anthologies, is important for the second vector of research we are developing in this paper - contemporary dance and its material as well as organisational preconditions. Although we focus here on relations between Macedonian and Slovenian ballet and dance artists and institutions, "East - Dance - Academy" might be the right place to start. The authors of the manifesto remind us that there are hidden histories of the Eastern European art (including dance). On the other hand, performing arts production in Eastern European countries in the last few decades of the 20th century "incorporated not only material elements of dance but - and that is even more important - a mental operation of 'thinking-through-dance', which was not merely aesthetic, but also had important political implications" (Janša et al. 20). The main thesis of the manifesto is that in the political circumstances of the "Real Socialism" (Eastern/Soviet Block) as well as the "Self-governing Socialism" (Yugoslavia) dance could not find its own institutional status and was instead "piercing through" other performative media, such as visual arts, performance art, experimental music and theatre, etc. In other words, "in the Eastern context, dance and performance arts were produced in rather poor material conditions, in a spontaneous manner, and even on the edge of political or/and cultural incident" (Ibid. 22). 96 In Slovenia, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the neo avant-garde groups OHO and the Pupilija Ferkeverk Theatre put on the agenda the issue of corporeality in theatre and performance. This concept was partly maintained in the early 1970s by the experimental theatres Glej, Pekarna and Nomenklatura, while in the late 1970s and early 1980s it was revived in performances stimulated by the opening of the ŠKUC Gallery in Ljubljana (1978). Corporeality was only constituted in a developed and thus conceptualised form in the 1980s, when it was accepted and treated as such by theatre critics but also thanks to the emerging contemporary dance scene. A turning-point in the history of Slovenian contemporary dance was the year 1984, when a renowned Slovenian dancer and choreographer Ksenija Hribar founded Dance Theatre Ljubljana (Plesni Teater Ljubljana - PTL) as the first professional contemporary dance company in Slovenia. PTL was an integral part of the alternative cultural scene in Ljubljana17 and at the same time an important incubator of dancers and choreographers (Tanja Zgonc, Sabina Potočki, Andreja Obreza, Sinja Ožbolt, Mateja Rebolj, Sanja Neškovic, Mare Mlačnik, Branko Završan, among others); many of them are today leaders of propulsive dance groups and/or cultural non-governmental organisations (Iztok Kovač - EN-KNAP, Matjaž Farič - Flota, Branko Potočan - Fourklor, Mateja Bučar -DUM, etc.).18 At the end of the 1990s, PTL opened the first permanent theatre venue for contemporary dance in Ljubljana (probably also in Slovenia) which became a place for production as well as rehearsal and dance education. In the 1990s, the Slovenian contemporary dance scene was strongly influenced by a "new wave" ofFlemish choreographers such as Jan Fabre, Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker, Jan Lauwers, Wim Vandekeybus ... A confirmation of that trend in Slovenia was the theatre festival called "Belgian Explosion" which took place in Ljubljana in 1990. A year after, PTL launched the Video-Dance Festival; the Slovenian producer Miran Šušteršič and two guests from Belgium - Cis Bierinckx and Koen Van Daele - curated the festival. At that time, several Slovenian-trained dancers, mostly from the circle of PTL, went to Belgium and then, as returnees, brought back to Slovenia new knowledge, contacts and experience. An important achievement was also the establishment of the Contemporary Dance Association Slovenia in 1994 (the Association of Ballet Artists of Slovenia was founded already in 1962). According to data collected by Rok Vevar, in the second half of the 1990s, the quantity of the contemporary dance production in Slovenia grew by over 50% (Vevar, 'The Story" 91). There is evident continuity in the development of contemporary dance in Slovenia from the 1980s until today and precisely that continuity is probably the biggest achievement of the non-governmental organisations in that field of art production 17 The contextualisation of PTL within the alternative culture in Ljubljana is elaborated in Vevar and Založnik, "Metamor-phic Punk". 18 At the beginning, Ksenija Hribar collaborated also with choreographer and founder of the Plesno gledališče Celje (1976) Damir Zlatar Frey, but he stayed with PTL only two years before he founded a small theatre house called Koreodrama. and education. However, dancers and choreographers in Slovenia are still working 97 in precarious conditions. In such circumstances, the freedom of the dance profession cannot be more than an illusionary substitute for poor working conditions and the struggle to survive. More intensive international collaboration in such an unstable situation is hardly possible and it is quite understandable that Slovenian dance artists and their organisations cannot develop as close collaboration with their potential partners from Macedonia as we may expect. In Macedonia, the second half of the first decade of the new millennium brought new ways of collaboration and opened new perspectives, especially in the field of dance art. Two non-governmental organisations were important for continuity in the dance collaboration between Slovenia and Macedonia: Interart and Lokomotiva. Interart (1996) and Macedonian Dance Centre - MDC (2002) were founded by Risima Risimkin as non-governmental organisations aiming to promote modern and contemporary dance through art productions. She also established the festival Tanc Fest in 2005.19 Biljana Tanurovska-Kjulavkovski and Iskra Shukarova, among others, founded Lokomotiva, the centre for new initiatives in art and culture, which commenced its operation in 2003. This centre works to accomplish a dance-related programme; it is focused primarily on further education and on creating conditions for realisation of co-productions of foreign artists and domestic choreographers as well as on exchange of performances. Lokomotiva was also the organiser of the LocoMotion festival from 2008 to 20 1 5.20 In its programme framework, it adopted the criteria for staging only performances from contemporary dance production, which gives uniqueness to the festival. Interart and Lokomotiva represent a new form of organisation characterised by the quick and active establishment of connections and relations leading to cultural and artistic fluctuation and distribution. Their mobility reflects the wish to be part of the global processes, to accept the norms of European cultural action and to promote issues that sometimes are not included in the official national cultural policy. These new cooperative practices are developing vivid regional networking processes where production and educational experiences are intensively exchanged, shared and joined. Their way of networking is characterised by the exchange of productions, experiences and contacts established through numerous festivals, platforms, collaborations and joint projects. In her article 'A Historical Construction of the Development of Contemporary Dance Scene in Macedonia", Biljana Tanurovska-Kjulavkovski tries to define the new way, idea and functioning of this structure: 19 The most recent collaboration between Slovenian and Macedonian dance scenes was the dance project Orlandina choreographed by Risima Risimkin and performed by Slovenian dancer Rosana Hribar. This coproduction of PTL (Ljubljana) and Interart (Skopje) premièred in PTL in March 2018 and the following month it opened Tanc Fest in Skopje. 20 Since 2015, a new project space for contemporary performing arts and culture called Kino Kultura was established by Lokomotiva. Contemporary dance projects are regularly included in its program, such as Platform(a) for Contemporary Performing Arts etc. In the frame of Kino Kultura several Slovenian performers and performing arts theoreticians were presented to Macedonian audience in the last few years. More about it on www.lokomotiva.org.mk and www.kinokultura. org.mk. 98 The new perception of the dance or the introduction of new dance practices as well as the expansion of the field of choreography did not happen only in the institutions but began to live in a whole new segment, that is, in the civil sector. As a need to introduce innovations and to stimulate new dance expression, in the first decade of the 21 century as part of the civil sector or the independent cultural scene, there appeared initiatives and organizations that supported different production processes, logic and philosophy about the dance art and choreography. (Tanurovska-Kjulavkovski and Zdravkova-Djeparoska, online) As a result of these new artistic organisations that showed a particular degree of independence and their own vision, the once completely interrupted cooperation in the sphere of dance art now continued and intensified. The first official appearance of Macedonian artists organised by Lokomotiva was the presentation of Macedonian contemporary dance on the Platform of Contemporary Dance in Celje in 2003. Kire Miladinoski as a choreographer and Kire Georgievski as a dancer presented the performance Short Cuts 2 in 2009 as part of the programme prepared by Fico Balet in coproduction with Lokomotiva.21 In the programme of LocoMotion22 but also of different programmes23 and festivals,24 Slovenian dancers are constantly present on the Macedonian stage (which was not a regular practice in the previous period). Collaborations in the process of choreographing became a characteristic production model of the contemporary dance scene in both countries. In that sense, one creative duo is of specific interest in the frame of this research, that is, the choreographers Iskra Shukarova from Macedonia and Dejan Srhoj from Slovenia who worked together on the dance project Formula. This choreography can be named "work in process", because the audience can follow the results of this long-term creative process through several presentations. Formula was presented at the Regional Contemporary Dance Event in Skopje in 2005, and then on the festival LocoMotion in Skopje in 2008. The Macedonian-Slovenian choreographic team realised a residency in Kanjiza, Serbia, with the world renowned choreographer Josef Nadj. They performed Formula on the Balkan Dance Platform in Athens, Greece, in 2007, and on Dance Festival in Orleans, France, in 2009. This performance reveals its own vitality, actuality and mutual relations which are not set at the level of the exchange of products (visits), but at the level of the exchange of experiences, creative concepts and a collaborative research process. 21 In 2011, Miladinoski returned to Ljubljana with his choreography Bug's performed by Dance Studio Zodijak (Prilep) at the festival Exodos. 22 Slovenian dancers and choreographers are frequent guests at the LocoMotion festival: Goran Bogdanovski with John in 2008; Dejan Srhoj and Iskra Shukarova with Formula in 2008; Bara Kolenc with Atelier and Jurij Konjar with Ulysses in 2008; EnKnapGroup with Cut Out / Brake / In Between / Sky in 2009; Snježana Premuš with MOVE-AS/Stories of the Body 4 in 2010; Sabrina Železnik with Movement of Love in 2015. 23 In the same year (2005) when Formula was performed on the Regional Contemporary Dance Event, Dejan Srhoj held a few seminars with students of the State Ballet School in Skopje within the organisation of Lokomotiva. 24 For instance, since 1995, a number of Slovenian dance performances as well as theatre performances with prevailing choreographed components were presented at MOT Festival in Skopje, mainly produced by Glej Theatre and directed by Matjaž Pograjc (Every Word a Gold Coin's Worth, 1995) and Tomaž Štrucl (Xanax, 1996; Hamlets n' Roses, 1996; Jezus F., 1998) but also produced by Cankarjev dom / Vitkar (Branko Potocan's Melancholic Thoughts, 1998) and Mladinsko Theatre (Nijinsky's Last Dance, 2011). The regional network Nomad Dance Academy was established in 2005 by six 99 organisations from Belgrade (Station), Ljubljana (Fico Balet), Sarajevo (Tanzelarija), Skopje (Lokomotiva), Sofia (Brain Store Project) and Zagreb (Tala Dance Center) as a platform for collaboration, creation, promotion and education in the field of contemporary dance. By establishing the network, the partners responded to real and urgent needs to foster professionalisation of contemporary dance in the region, to develop education and research opportunities for dancers and choreographers, to improve production conditions in the sector, and last but not least, to develop the audience and to promote dance as a socially relevant art practice. The network activities resulted in many collaborative projects, among them several dance festivals, including LocoMotion in Skopje and Pleskavica in Ljubljana (in 2012 it merged with several other initiatives into CoFestival), cultural advocacy projects (such as Nomad Dance Advocates aiming to stimulate the development of regional cultural policies in the field of dance as well as to improve the working conditions for dancers and choreographers in the region) and many other regional collaborative projects (one of the most recent examples is the Balkan Dance Tour, co-organised by NDA for the partners of the European Dancehouse Network who visited Ljubljana, Zagreb, Belgrade, Skopje and Sofia in 2018). Another important project with regional characteristics which also involve Macedonian and Slovenian performers and choreographers is the Balkan Dance Project.25 Igor Kirov from Macedonia is involved in this project as a choreographer, while Adrijana Danchevska from Macedonia and Mojca Majcen from Slovenia participate as dancers in an international dance team.26 As a part of this joint project, the group performed Kirov's choreography Stories in Velenje,27 Sarajevo and Belgrade in 2015. Balkan Dance Project Vol. 1 had a mini tour in Macedonia (Skopje, Bitola, Veles and Shtip) in the same year. As a part of the joint project Balkan Dance Project Vol. 2, Kirov's choreography The Cube Untold with Slovenian dancer Mojca Majcen was performed in Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and Croatia. Balkan Dance Project Vol. 3 involved the same creative team, but unfortunately without appearances in Slovenia and Macedonia. Collaborative platforms like the Balkan Dance Project and the Nomad Dance Academy show a new initiative and a new way of establishing connections and fostering collaboration among artists from the region, including bilateral collaboration between Slovenian and Macedonian dancers and choreographers. These activities could not 25 This initiative should not be confused with the Balkan Dance Platform, a project initiated by Cosmin Manolescu and Dessy Gavrilova in 2000, co-curated by Exodos (Ljubljana) and Lokomotiva (Skopje), among others (more about it on https://balkandanceplatform.wordpress.com/balkan-dance-platform-2011). It is among the collaborative projects that appeared after 2000s in changed cultural and political landscape in the region in order to intensify collaboration between the contemporary dance scenes on the Balkans. 26 Other performers and choreographers involved in the project that are not in the focus of this research are not listed. 27 The beginning of his collaboration with the Velenje Festival as a choreographer was the performance He, he, helium in 2013 (dancer Mojca Majcen was involved in this project as well); the same year the performance was invited to Autumn Music Festivities (Esenski muzicki svecenosti) in Skopje. 100 be possible without highly dedicated and professional work of the artists based in Macedonia and Slovenia. Of course, a number of young dancers who were educated abroad have stayed there and continue their work outside their homelands, but the mobility is an integral part of contemporary culture. An obvious example is Igor Kirov, who associates his career as dancer and choreographer with the countries of Western Europe (currently he is head of the Ballet of the Croatian National Theatre in Split), but at the same time he is a representative of Macedonia in the Balkan Dance Project. Lessons learned and prospects for the future At the beginning of our research, we could only presuppose that politics strongly influences not only the basic social order and everyday life of people, but also the way artistic practices are being performed. Now, when we are approaching the end of our journey through the collaborative practices between the Macedonian and Slovenian dance scenes in the last 25 years (and briefly also in the 45 years of the existence of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia), we can say that we got confirmation for that hypothesis - yes, artistic practices and especially the way that artists and their institutions collaborate, cannot be studied and analysed in isolation from a broader political context. In the period of its existence, the Yugoslav federation provided not only material (financial, infrastructural, etc.) support to professional theatre institutions, but also stimulated cultural collaboration among federal republics. Even more, the very existence of the federation as a political frame lead to many initiatives - not only politically dictated from above but also spontaneously generated from below - of cultural exchange among Yugoslav nations. Especially non-verbal forms of artistic expression, such as ballet and dance, were adequate communicators in a multinational and multilingual state as it was the Socialist Yugoslavia. Besides many other direct and indirect professional ties between Slovenian and Macedonian dancers and choreographers (but also opera singers, composers and conductors), there were also important festivals in Ljubljana (the Ballet Biennale and the Meeting of Yugoslav Ballet Dancers) and Skopje (the May Opera Evenings) where they regularly met, collaborated in joint festival projects and exchanged their performances. The functioning of these manifestations as well as other channels of communication and collaboration was certainly not perfect. There were also different misunderstandings and distortions, but the motivation for collaboration and the federal political context were synergic and stimulating for the development and maintaining collaborative practices of Macedonian and Slovenian dance artists. After 1991 and the dissolution of Socialist Yugoslavia, Macedonia and Slovenia became independent states and the previous common political frame disappeared. What remained was the memory of almost seventy years of living in the same country (albeit with different political regimes) as well as personal and professional ties among people. Official connections between cultural institutions, however, were 101 diminished and in some cases, even broken. Both ballet manifestations in Ljubljana ceased to exist, priorities of international collaboration have changed (especially in East-West relations). Macedonian and Slovenian governments signed the agreement regulating interstate cultural cooperation already in 1993, followed by four bilateral programme documents in 1995, 1998, 2004 and 2010, but they were rather modest and unambitious, especially in the field of dance. Not only these bilateral normative acts, but also concrete, hard data collected and analysed within our research project, give us sufficient material evidence for the following conclusion: the processes of dissolution of the former Yugoslavia and establishing of the independent states of Macedonia and Slovenia produced significant changes in the field of dance and opera theatre. The main characteristics of these changes were, on the one hand, a rapid diminishing of collaboration between national ballet and opera institutions, and on the other hand, a gradual increasing of cooperation between non-governmental organisations active in the creation, promotion and exchange of contemporary dance production. The organisations like PTL, EN-KNAP, Flota, Fico Balet, Fourklor, Emanat, Maska, etc., in Slovenia or Interart and Lokomotiva in Macedonia have opened new perspectives in bilateral cultural collaboration between the newly established states. Even more, they have been willing and able to initiate and develop new platforms of regional collaboration, such as Nomad Dance Academy and Balkan Dance Project. However, cultural non-governmental organisations in Macedonia and Slovenia are working in poor material conditions; some of them are even struggling for survival. We hope that the national cultural policies of both countries will finally recognise their importance and more generously support their efforts to improve dance production in their local environment as well as to develop their bilateral, regional and international collaboration. Furthermore, we would recommend a more proactive governmental policy in fostering bilateral cultural cooperation on the level of Macedonian and Slovenian national cultural institutions in general and theatre, ballet and opera institutions in particular. 102 Bibliography Cultural Policy in Slovenia. Council of Europe, 1998. fle MapuHuc, MapKo. „Co^onoruja Ha TeaTapoT." Teopuja Ha gpaMawa u weawapow, JeneHa ^y^uHa, yp., fleTCKa pagocT, 1998, cTp. 55-83. ^nyHoBa, EMunuja. MaKegoHCKa 6anewcKa cu,em, naHunu, 2011. Graham, Martha. „Početnica za plesača modernog plesa." Ples kao kazališna umjetnost, edited by Selma Jeanne Cohen, CEKADE, 1988, pp. 162-171. Hewitt, Andrew. Social Choreography: Ideology as Performance in Dance and Everyday Movement, Duke University Press, 2005. Janša, Janez, Bojana Kunst, Aldo Milohnič and Goran Sergej Pristaš. "East - Dance -Academy." Parallel Slalom: A Lexicon of Non-aligned Poetics, edited by Bojana Cvejič and Goran Sergej Pristaš, TkH and CDU, 2013, pp. 16-30. Ko^umKu, Be^o. 30 logum MajcKu OnepcKu Beuepu. MaKegoHcKu HapogeH TeaTap, 2002. Kraigher, Živa. Ko se zgodi ples. Zapisi, dokumenti, spomini. JSKD and Maska, 2016. MapuHKoBuK, CnaBoMup, BuoneTa AHgpeeBa, Mapuja HemKocKa. MHT Eaxew 50 wgurn. MHT, 1999. Močnik, Rastko. "Eastwest." Maska, vol. 19, no. 86-87, 2004, pp. 20-29. Neubauer, Henrik. Razvoj baletne umetnosti v Sloveniji II. Društvo baletnih umetnikov Slovenije, 1999. "Prva nagradna revija jugoslovanskega baleta v Ljubljani 1961." Gledališki list, Opera SNG v Ljubljani, no. 7, season 1960/61, pp. 265-272. Rosenstein, Carole. "Cultural Policy and the Political Nature of Culture." International Cultural Policies and Power, edited by J. P. Singh, Palgrave Macmillan, 2011, pp. 1929. Sotlar, Lidija. Spomini balerine. Slovensko komorno glasbeno gledališče, 2006. Tanurovska-Kjulavkovski, Biljana and Sonja Zdravkova-Djeparoska. "A Historical Construction of the Development of Contemporary Dance Scene in Macedonia." Mediantrop 13, http://www.mediantrop.rankomunitic.org/biljana-tanurovska-kulavkovski-i-sonja-zdravkova-dzeparoska-edna-istoriska-konstrukcijaza-razvoj-na-sovremenata-tancova-scena-vo-makedonija-del-2. Accessed 17 April 2018. Vevar, Rok. "The Story of the Slovenian Dance Precariat: On the Statuses of Self-employed Persons in the Field of Culture". Maska, vol. 32, no. 163-164, 2014, pp. 89-91. Vevar, Rok and Jasmina Založnik. "Metamorphic Punk." Maska, vol. 32, no. 183-184, 103 2017, pp. 82-95. Zdravkova Djeparoska, Sonja. "The Role of Contemporary Dance in Macedonia. Analysis Based on the Festival Locomotion." The World of Theatre, edited by Ramendu Majumdar and Mofidul Hoque, International Theatre Institute, 2014, pp. 156-159. Og jyr0Cfl0BeHCKH0T 6aneT go n0CTjyr0CH0BeHCKH0T coBpeMeH TaH^ nepMy^uu bo Kona6opaTHBHHTe npaKTHKH Mery cnoBeHe^KaTa h MaKegoHCKaTa TaH^Ba c^Ha K^yqHH 36opoBH: 6aneT, TaH^ CnoBeHuja, MaKegoHuja, Kona6opaTHBHH npaKTHKH, (^ecraBanu 105 HamaTa bo oBoj TeKCT e gBojHa: HajnpBHH, ga ce HanpaBH npBH^eH npemeg Ha 3aeflHH^KHTe, Kona6oparaBHu aKTHBHocTH bo 6aneTCKaTa u TaH^Ba c^epa Ha CnoBeHuja u Ha MaKegoHuja bo ogHoc Ha copa6oTKHTe Ha yMerau^Te, Ha^oHamuTe uHcraT^uu u HeBnaguHuTe opraHroa^u bo nocnegHuTe 25 roguHu, ogHocHo bo nepuogoT Ha He3aBucHocTa Ha gBeTe gp^aBu, co KpaToK eKcKypc bo BpeMeTo npeg Toa, u noToa, ga noHyguMe egeH Bug prima vista aHanroa Ha maBHuTe gocrarayBafta, KaKo u npe^KuTe bo Tue npaKTuKu Ha copa6oTKa. Bo BpcKa co HHCTHTy^HOHa^HHTe KynTypHu BpcKu Mery MaKegoHuja u CnoBeHuja bo nepuogoT Ha nopaHemHa JyrocnaBuja, og cymraHCKa Ba^HocT ce Tpu MaHu^ecTa^u noBp3aHu co onepaTa u 6aneToT: Baletski Bienale u Srečanje jugoslovanskih baletnih umetnikov no^paHu bo ^y6aaHa u ^ecTuBanoT MajcKU oUepcKU seuepu Koj ce ogp»yBa bo CKonje. npBoTo 6aneTCKo 6ueHane ce ogp^a bo 1960 r. bo paMKuTe Ha 7. ^y6aaHCKu ^ecraBan. BaneTCKuoT aHcaM6n Ha MaKegoHcKuoT HapogeH TeaTap og CKonje go6u TpeTa Harpaga, a 6anepuHaTa HaTKa neHymnucKa ja go6u HarpagaTa 3a Hajgo6ap 6aneTCKu Tarnap. OBaa MaHu^ecTa^ja KomuHppaHo 6eme opraHu3upaHa go 1989 r. Kora ce ogp^a 3a nocnegeH naT. Bo cegyMgeceTTuTe roguHu, Baletski Bienale BoBege HoBa npaKTuKa - noKpaj ocTBapyBaftaTa og jyrocnoBeHCKuTe 6aneTCKu uHcraT^uu, bo HeKomy ^ecraBancKu u3gaHuja 6ea npe3eHTupaHu cne^jamu 3aegHu^Ku npogy^uu (6aneTCKu koh^ptu) co 6aneTCKu u3BegyBa^u og oBue uHcraT^uu Mery kou u HeKomy y^ecHu^ og CKonje. ^uTuBHuTe ucKycTBa og KoH^prauTe 6aneTCKu u3Beg6u co TaH^apu og ^na JyrocnaBuja goBegoa go ^opMupaae HoBa 6aneTCKa MaHu^ecm^ja bo ^y6aaHa Hape^eHa Srečanje jugoslovanskih baletnih umetnikov. npBuoT ^ecraBan ce ogp^a bo 1978 roguHa u 6eme opraHu3upaH ceKoja roguHa go 1989 roguHa (T.e. BKynHo gBaHaeceT naTu). MaKegoHCKuTe 6aneTCKu Tarnapu pegoBHo 6ea KaHeTu Ha oBaa MaHu^ecm^ja. MajcKuTe oUepcKU seuepu eMaHu^ecTa^ja ocHoBaHa bo 1972 r., KaKo onepcKu ^ecraBan. Bo paHuoT nepuog 6ea KaHeTu conucTu, gupureHTu u aHcaM6nu og JyrocnaBuja u og cocegHuTe 6anKaHCKu 3eMju. 106 nogo^a, nporpaMcKuoT koh^ot Ha MaHu^ec^ujaTa ce MeHyBame; nporpaMaTa npBH^HO nocTaBeHa Bp3 0CH0Ba Ha jyrocnoBeHcKaTa u Ha 6anKaHcKaTa copa6oTKa 6eme 36oraTeHa co yMeTHu^u kou goaraa og EBpona, AMepuKa, A3uja u ABcrpanuja. OcBeH onepcKu npeTcraBu, nporpaMaTa BKny^yBame koh^ptu u 6aneTcKu npeTcraBu. Bo 1984 r. 6eme HanymTeH npuH^noT Ha 3acTanyBa^e Ha onepcKu KyKu co KoMnneTHu tumobu, a HoBaTa t^ecTuBancKa TeHgeH^uja 6eme co3gaBa^eTo Ha npeTcraBu co conucru og pa3nurau TeaTpu. CnoBeHe^KuTe neja™ u gupureHTu 6ea ^ecra rocru Ha MajcKuTe oüepcKU seuepu, ho hubhuot 6poj 3Ha^uTenH0 ce HaManyBame no 1984 r., nopagu npeMUHoT koh pa3nmeH Moflen / koh^ot Ha opraHU3a^uja. O^u^janHuTe KynTypHu nonuruKu Ha HoBo^opMupaHuTe gp^aBu geKnapaTuBHo ce 3anaraa 3a 3a^yByBafte Ha KynTypHuTe BpcKu mTo nocToene bo epaTa Ha nopaHemHa JyrocnaBuja. OBoj npucTan Mo^e ga ce cnegu npeKy para^uKyBaHuTe goroBopu Mery CnoBeHuja u MaKegoHuja bo o6nacra Ha KynTypaTa. floíosopow 3a copaóowm bo o6pa3osaHuewo, Kyxwypawa u Haymwa üoMeíy Bmgawa Ha Peüyúmm MaKegoHuja u Brngawa Ha Peüyúmm CnoBernja, Koj ja nocraBu ocHoBaTa 3a HaTaMomHa copa6oTKa Ha hubo Ha BnaguTe, 6eme noTnumaH bo 1993 roguHa. OBoj goroBop o6e36egu coogBeTHa npaBHa no3aguHa 3a noHaTaMomHu HopMaTuBHu aKTu co kou ce perynupaHu KoHKpeTHu Ha^uHu u o6nu^ Ha copa6oTKa bo KynTypaTa. HamuoT onmT Bne^aToK e geKa huboto Ha MeryKynrypHa pa3MeHa npegBugeHa co oBue 6unaTepanHu goroBopu e npunurao cKpoMHa u HeaM6u^u03H0 nocTaBeHa, oco6eHo Ha noneTo Ha TaH^T, Kage mTo eKcnnu^rao e HarnaceHa pa3MeHa Ha ^onKnopHu TaH^Bu rpynu, gogeKa BoonmTo He ce cnoMeHyBaaT pa3MeHu Ha 6aneTcKu u coBpeMeHu TaH^Bu npeTcTaBu. noga^ure 3a nepuogoT (1990 - 2015) noKa^yBaaT npunurao pa3o^apyBa^Ka cnuKa 3a copa6oTKaTa Mery Ha^oHanHure onepcKu u 6aneTcKu TeaTpu no npornacyBafteTo Ha He3aBucHocTa Ha oBue gBe nopaHemHu jyrocnoBeHcKu peny6nuKu. KaKo pe3ynTaT Ha BpcKuTe Ha noBucoKo o^u^janHo uHcraTy^uoHanHo hubo, caMo Tpoj^ cnoBeHe^Ku yMeTHu^u 6ea rocTu Ha MaKegoHcKaTa onepa u 6aneT bo nocnegHuTe 25 roguHu. CnoBeHcKo HapogHo rneganum^e bo Mapu6op ce npeTcTaBu co egHo 6aneTcK0 geno Ha $ecraBanoT OxpugcKo newo bo 2006 r. u CnoBeHcKo HapogHo rneganum^e bo ^y6aaHa, uMame egeH 6aneTcKu HacTan Ha TaHU, $ecw bo CKonje bo 2008 r. Og gpyra cTpaHa, caMo egeH MaKegoHcKu Kopeorpa^ pa6oTeme bo cnoBeHe^KuTe Ha^oHanHu 6aneTcKu uhctut^uu bo Toj nepuog; Toa 6eme PucuMa Pucumkuh, Koja ro nocTaBu cBojoT aBTopcKu npoeKT bo ^y6aaHa bo 2010 r. 3a pa3nuKa og rnoMa3HaTa opraHroa^ja Ha Ha^oHanHuTe uhctut^uu kou He ogroBopuja Ha HoBuTe noTpe6u bo cMucna Ha 6p30 u e^uKacHo BocnocraByBafte copa6oTKa, pa3MeHa u BMpe^yBaae no pacnagoT Ha nopaHemHa JyrocnaBuja, HoBuTe HeBnaguHu opraHroa^u ce HaMeTHaa KaKo napaneneH cucTeM Ha KynTypHa noHyga. Bo ucTopujaTa Ha cnoBeHe^KuoT coBpeMeH TaH^ Knyraa 6eme 1984 r., Kora 6eme ^opMupaH Plesni Teater Ljubljana - PTL KaKO npBa npo^ecuoHanHa KOMnaHuja 3a coBpeMeH TaH^ bo CnoBeHuja. 107 PTL 6eme cocraBeH gen Ha anTepHaraBHaTa KynTypHa c^Ha bo ^y6aaHa, a BoegHO u Ba^eH HHKy6aTop Ha Tarnapu u Kopeorpa^u; MHory og hub geHec ce nugepu Ha rpynu 3a coBpeMeH TaH^ u/unu KynTypHu HeBnaguHu opraHroa^u. Bo MaKegoHuja, gBe HeBnaguHu opraHroa^u 6ea Ba^Hu 3a KOHTuHyuTeTOT bo TaH^yBa^KaTa copa6oTKa Mery CnoBeHuja u MaKegoHuja: MHwepapw (og 1996) u HoKOMOwusa (og 2003). Tue npeTcTaByBaaT HOBa $opMa Ha opraHH3a^Hja Koja ce KapaKTepu3upa co 6p3O u aKTuBHO BocnocTaByBa^e BpcKu u ogHocu kou goBegyBaaT go KynTypHu u yMeramKu ^nyKTya^u u gucTp^y^uja, BKny^yBajKu u gBa Ba^Hu TaH^Bu ^ecraBanu HHH^HpaHH og hub: TaHU, @ecw (og 2005) u LocoMotion (2008 - 2015). MaKe goHcKwre u cnoBeHe^KuTe KynTypHu HeBnaguHu opraHroa^u ce aKTuBHu u Ha peruoHanHuTe TaH^Bu nnaT^opMu. PeruoHanHaTa Mpe^a Nomad Dance Academy e ocHOBaHa bo 2005 r. og mecT opraHu3a^u (Mery kou 6aneT og ^y6aaHa u HoKOMOwusa og CKonje), u gejcTByBa KaKO nnaT^opMa 3a copa6oTKa, Kpeupaae, npoMO^ja u egy^uja bo genoT Ha coBpeMeHuoT TaH^ flpyr Ba^eH npoeKT co peruoHanHu KapaKTepucTuKu, Koj, ucto TaKa, BKny^yBa MaKegoHcKu u cnoBeHe^Ku Tarnapu u Kopeorpa^u, e Balkan Dance Project. Bo nepuogoT Ha cBoeTO nocroefte, jyrocnoBeHcKaTa $egepa^Hja He caMO mTO o6e36egu MaTepujanHa noggpmKa 3a npo^ecuoHanHuTe TeaTapcKu HHCTHTy^HH, TyKy u ja noTTuKHa KynTypHaTa copa6oTKa Mery ^egepanHuTe peny6nuKu. Oco6eHO HeBep6anHuTe $opMu Ha yMeramKO u3pa3yBaae, KaKO mTO ce 6aneTOT u TaH^T, 6ea ageKBarau KOMyHuKaTopu bo MynTuHa^OHanHaTa u noBeKeja3mHa gp^aBa, KaKO mTO 6eme Co^janucTmKa Jy^ocnaBHja.^po^ecHTeHage3HHTerpa^HjaHa^opaHemHaJy^ocnaBHjaHBOc^ocTaByBafteTO Ha He3aBucHu gp^aBu - MaKegoHuja u CnoBeHuja npegu3BuKaa 3Ha^uTenHu npoMeHu Ha noneTO Ha TaH^T u onepcKuoT TeaTap. rnaBHuTe KapaKTepucTuKu Ha OBue npoMeHu 6ea, og egHa cTpaHa, BugnuBOTO HaManyBa^e Ha copa6oTKaTa Mery Ha^HOHanHHTe 6aneTcKu u onepcKu uhctuty^u, a og gpyra cTpaHa, nocTeneHO 3roneMyBaae Ha copa6oTKaTa Mery HeBnaguHuTe opraHH3a^HH aKTuBHu bo co3gaBa^eTO, ^poMO^HjaTa u pa3MeHaTa Ha coBpeMeHaTa TaH^Ba npogy^uja. CenaK, KynTypHuTe HeBnaguHu opraHroa^u bo MaKegoHuja u Bo CnoBeHuja pa6oTaT Bo nomu MaTepujanHu ycnoBu. Ce HageBaMe geKa Ha^OHanHuTe KynTypHu nonuTuKu Ha gBeTe 3eMju KOHe^HO Ke ja npeno3HaaT HuBHaTa Ba^HocT u 3acuneHO Ke ru noggp^aT HuBHuTe Hanopu 3a nogo6pyBaae Ha TaH^BaTa npogy^ujaTa bo HuBHaTa noKanHa cpeguHa, KaKO u bo ogHoc Ha pa3BuBarae 6unaTepanHu, peruoHanHu u MeryHapogHu copa6oTKu. noHaTaMy, Ke npenopa^aMe noaKTuBHa BnaguHa nonuTuKa 3a noTTuKHyBaae Ha 6unaTepanHaTa KynTypHa copa6oTKa Ha hubo Ha MaKegoHcKuTe u Ha cnoBeHe^KuTe Ha^HOHanHH KynTypHu uHcraTy^u BOonmTO, a oco6eHO Ha TeaTapcKuTe, 6aneTcKuTe u onepcKuTe uhctuty^u. Od jugoslovanskega baleta do postjugoslovanskega sodobnega plesa: premene sodelovalnih praks med makedonsko in slovensko plesno sceno 109 Ključne besede: balet, ples, Slovenija, Makedonija, sodelovalne prakse, plesni festivali Namen tega prispevka je: prvič, ponuditi prvi (preliminarni) pregled sodelovanja med slovenskimi in makedonskimi baletnimi in plesnimi umetniki, nacionalnimi institucijami in nevladnimi organizacijami v zadnjih 25 letih, tj. odkar sta Slovenija in Makedonija postali samostojni državi, s krajšim ekskurzom v čas pred tem obdobjem, in drugič, predstaviti prima vista analizo glavnih dosežkov pa tudi ovire pri teh sodelovalnih praksah. Kar zadeva institucionalne kulturne vezi med Makedonijo in Slovenijo v času nekdanje Jugoslavije, so za našo temo najpomembnejše tri manifestacije, ki so povezane z opero in baletom: Baletni bienale in Srečanje jugoslovanskih baletnih umetnikov v Ljubljani ter festival Majski operni večeri v Skopju. Prvi Baletni bienale je potekal leta 1960 v okviru 7. Ljubljanskega festivala. Baletni ansambel Makedonskega narodnega gledališča iz Skopja je dobil tretjo nagrado, njegova članica Natka Penušliska pa je bila nagrajena kot najboljša klasična solistka. Ta manifestacija je redno potekala do leta 1989, ko se je zgodila zadnjič. V sedemdesetih letih je Baletni bienale eksperimentiral z novo prakso - v okviru nekaterih edicij festivala so poleg gostovanja jugoslovanskih baletnih institucij predstavili tudi posebne skupne produkcije (baletne koncerte) z baletnimi plesalci iz teh ustanov, med katerimi so bili tudi udeleženci iz Skopja. Pozitivne izkušnje s koncertnimi baletnimi predstavami, v katerih so nastopali plesalci iz vse Jugoslavije, so spodbudile nastanek nove baletne manifestacije v Ljubljani, imenovane Srečanje jugoslovanskih baletnih umetnikov. Prvo Srečanje je bilo leta 1978 in je nato potekalo redno do leta 1989 (tj. skupaj dvanajstkrat). Makedonski baletni plesalci so bili na dogodek redno vabljeni. Majski operni večeri je manifestacija, ki je bila ustanovljena leta 1972 kot mednarodni operni festival. V zgodnjem obdobju so na festival vabili soliste, dirigente in ansamble iz Jugoslavije in sosednjih balkanskih držav. Programski koncept manifestacije so pozneje spremenili; program, ki je prvotno temeljil na jugoslovanskem in balkanskem sodelovanju, so razširili na umetnike iz Evrope, Amerike, Azije in Avstralije. Poleg opere je program vključeval tudi koncerte in baletne predstave. Leta 1984 so opustili načelo zastopanja opernih hiš s celotnimi 110 ansambli in se preusmerili na ustvarjanje predstav s solisti iz različnih gledališč. Slovenski pevci in dirigenti so bili pogosti gostje na Majskih opernih večerih, vendar se je njihovo število po letu 1984 občutno zmanjšalo zaradi prehoda na drugačen model oz. koncept organizacije. Uradne kulturne politike novoustanovljenih držav so se deklarativno zavzemale za ohranjanje kulturnih povezav, ki so obstajale v času nekdanje Jugoslavije. Tak pristop lahko zasledimo v ratificiranih sporazumih med Slovenijo in Makedonijo na področju kulture. »Sporazum o sodelovanju v izobraževanju, kulturi in znanosti med Vlado Republike Makedonije in Vlado Republike Slovenije«, ki je postavil temelje za nadaljnje sodelovanje na ravni nacionalnih vlad, je bil podpisan leta 1993. Ta sporazum je zagotovil ustrezno pravno podlago za nadaljnje normativne akte, ki so urejali konkretne načine in oblike sodelovanja v kulturi. Splošni vtis je, da je bila stopnja medkulturne izmenjave, ki so jo predvidevali ti dvostranski sporazumi, dokaj skromna in neambiciozna, zlasti na področju plesa, kjer je bila izrecno predvidena izmenjava folklornih plesnih skupin, medtem ko izmenjave baletnih predstav in predstav sodobnega plesa sploh niso omenjene. Podatki za obdobje 1990-2015 kažejo dokaj klavrno podobo sodelovanja med nacionalnimi opernimi in baletnimi hišami po tem, ko sta se ti dve nekdanji jugoslovanski republiki osamosvojili. Zaradi povezav na višji (uradni) institucionalni ravni so v zadnjih 25 letih v Makedoniji gostovali le trije slovenski operni in baletni umetniki. Po eno baletno predstavo sta izvedla Slovensko narodno gledališče Maribor leta 2006 na festivalu Ohridsko leto in Slovensko narodno gledališče Ljubljana leta 2008 na festivalu Tanc Fest v Skopju. Po drugi strani pa je v tem obdobju v slovenskih baletnih institucijah gostovala le ena makedonska koreografka - Risima Risimkin, ki je leta 2010 v Ljubljani uprizorila svoj avtorski projekt. Za razliko od okorne organizacije nacionalnih institucij, ki se niso odzvale na nove potrebe glede sodelovanja, izmenjave in mreženja po razpadu nekdanje Jugoslavije, so se nove nevladne organizacije uveljavile kot vzporedni sistem kulturne ponudbe. Za zgodovino slovenskega sodobnega plesa je bilo prelomno leto 1984, ko je nastal Plesni Teater Ljubljana (PTL) kot prva profesionalna sodobnoplesna skupina v Sloveniji. PTL je bil sestavni del alternativne kulturne scene v Ljubljani in hkrati pomemben inkubator plesalcev in koreografov; mnogi med njimi so danes vodje pomembnih plesnih skupin in/ali kulturnih nevladnih organizacij. V Makedoniji sta bili za sodelovanje med Slovenijo in Makedonijo pomembni dve nevladni organizaciji: Interart (od leta 1996) in Lokomotiva (od leta 2003). Predstavljata novo obliko organizacije, za katero je značilna hitra in aktivna vzpostavitev povezav in odnosov, ki vodijo h kulturni in umetniški izmenjavi in distribuciji, vključno z dvema pomembnima plesnima festivaloma, ki sta jih sprožila: Tanc Fest (od leta 2005) in LocoMotion (od leta 2008 do leta 2015). Makedonske in slovenske kulturne nevladne organizacije so aktivne tudi v okviru regionalnih plesnih platform. Regionalno mrežo Nomad Dance 111 Academy je leta 2005 ustanovilo šest organizacij, med njimi Fičo Balet iz Ljubljane in Lokomotiva iz Skopja, kot platformo za sodelovanje, ustvarjanje, promocijo in izobraževanje na področju sodobnega plesa. Drugi pomemben projekt z regionalnimi značilnostmi, ki vključuje tudi makedonske in slovenske izvajalce in koreografe, je Balkan Dance Project. V času svojega obstoja jugoslovanska federacija ni zagotavljala samo materialne podpore profesionalnim gledališkim institucijam, temveč je tudi spodbujala kulturno sodelovanje med republikami. Zlasti neverbalne oblike umetniškega izražanja, kot sta balet in ples, so dobro funkcionirale v večnacionalni in večjezični državi, kot je bila socialistična Jugoslavija. Proces razpada nekdanje Jugoslavije in vzpostavitev neodvisnih držav, med njimi Makedonije in Slovenije, sta povzročila velike spremembe na področju plesa in opere. Glavne značilnosti teh sprememb so bile po eni strani hitro upadanje sodelovanja med nacionalnimi baletnimi in opernimi institucijami, po drugi strani pa postopno povečevanje sodelovanja med nevladnimi organizacijami, ki so dejavne pri ustvarjanju, promociji in izmenjavi sodobne plesne produkcije. Vendar pa kulturne nevladne organizacije v Makedoniji in Sloveniji delajo v slabih materialnih razmerah. Upamo, da bodo nacionalne kulturne politike obeh držav končno priznale njihov pomen in bolj podpirale njihova prizadevanja za izboljšanje plesne produkcije v lokalnem okolju ter za razvoj bilateralnega, regionalnega in mednarodnega sodelovanja. Poleg tega bi priporočili bolj proaktivno vladno politiko pri spodbujanju bilateralnega kulturnega sodelovanja med makedonskimi in slovenskimi nacionalnimi kulturnimi ustanovami, zlasti gledališkimi, baletnimi in opernimi. UDC 821,1B3,B-2:792[497,7] 821,1B3,3-2:792[497,4] The article analyses Slovenian-Macedonian exchange In the field of drama, which seems to be a moderate one, In the period from 1990 till 2015, there were six Macedonian texts staged in Slovenian institutions and eight Slovenian ones in Macedonian theatres, Furthermore, contemporary Slovenian authors are completely absent from Macedonian theatre life and Macedonian ones are represented with three names only, Though it might seem to be a natural decline after the fall of Communism and the disintegration of former Yugoslavia, this seems to be only partly the case, Keywords: Slovenian drama, Macedonian drama, Slovenian-Macedonian theatre exchange, Goran Stefanovski, Aleksandar Popovski, Dusan Jovanovic, Drago Jancar, Dane Zajc Polite Ignorance The Exchange of Drama between Slovenia and Macedonia from 1990 till 2015 Hristina Cvetanoska and Gasper Troha 113 When we speak of Slovenian-Macedonian exchange in the field of drama it seems to be a moderate one and mainly a one-way road. In the period from 1990 till 2015, six Macedonian texts were staged in Slovenian institutions and eight Slovenian ones in Macedonian theatres. Though it might be a natural decline after the fall of Communism and disintegration of former Yugoslavia, this seems to be only partly the case. Macedonian playwrights are almost unknown to the Slovenian audience. The Web Yearbook of Slovenian Theatre Production lists three texts by Kole Čašule (Vejka na vetrot, 11 December 1957, Ptuj City Theatre, directed by Mirko Stefanovski; Socialistična Eva, 7 December 1962, Ljubljana City Theatre, directed by Jože Tiran; Vitel, 23 February 1978, Slovene Permanent Theatre in Trieste, directed by Ljubiša Georgijevski). In the 1980s, those three texts were followed by two by Goran Stefanovski (Let vo mesto, 14 March 1983, Celje People's Theatre, directed by Mile Korun; Hi-fi, 6 October 1983, Ljubljana City Theatre, directed by Zvone Šedlbauer). After the 1980s, there is a gap of fifteen years till the next performance of Macedonian drama. It returns with Goran Stefanovski (Bacchanalia) in the production of the final year students of the Academy of Theatre, Film, Radio and Television (15 May 1998, directed by Sebastijan Horvat). It took five years longer for a Macedonian text to be staged in a professional theatre. However, it is the introduction of a new author, Dejan Dukovski, with his Dracula (18 January 2002, the Drama of SNT Maribor, directed by Aleksandar Popovski). Interestingly enough, it is the only text by Dukovski that has been staged in Slovenian so far. The question remains why Dukovski's most important texts, such as Powder Keg (1994)1, a play which has been translated into twenty languages worldwide; Damn He Who Started It (1997), winner of the Grand Prix of the international theatre festival BITEF in 1997; The Balkans Are Not Dead (1992), have failed to find their place on the repertoire of the Slovenian theatre stages. Moreover, one of the best Macedonian playwrights, very important for the development of the Macedonian dramaturgy in the 1990s, Jugoslav Petrovski (an author of the same generation as Dejan Dukovski), winner of the Shakespeare Award 1 Powder Keg was staged in the off-scene by Dejmo stisnt teater in 1998. 114 at the international drama competition in Exeter, Great Britain in 1995 for his play Porcelain Vase, has never been staged in Slovenia. Till today, four more texts have appeared in Slovenia, two by Goran Stefanovski (Odyssey, 10 October 2012, the Drama of SNT Maribor, directed by Aleksandar Popovski; and Figurae Veneris Historiae, 16 October 2014, SNT Drama Ljubljana, directed by Aleksandar Popovski), and two by Viktorija Rangelova (An Impossible Relationship, ŠKUC on 28 December 2012, and Naked, ŠKUC and Ljubljana City Theatre, 12 October 2013, directed by Alen Jelen)2. Hence, it is evident that Macedonian drama is virtually non-existent in Slovenian theatre. After a long pause, there were some attempts, particularly by director Aleksandar Popovski, to establish Goran Stefanovski in our consciousness, but with moderate success. Slovenian drama in Macedonia reveals a different picture. It had a solid presence in the last decade of Yugoslavia. In the past, Ivan Cankar was very much present in Macedonian theatre; from 1945 till 1976 he had two texts performed in seven productions (The King of Betajnova: 1946 in Skopje, MNT and in Bitola; 1954/55 in Prilep; 1950 and 1962 in Strumica; Scandal in the Valley of St Florian: 1976 in Strumica and in Skopje - in a very short time period). In the 1980s, there were eight texts staged by five different authors, one of them (My Dad, the Socialist Kulak by Tone Partljič) even twice. This means that the Macedonian audience must have had quite an overview of Slovenian contemporary drama, having seen: Karamazovs and Military Secret by Dušan Jovanovic; My Dad, the Socialist Kulak by Tone Partljič; Slovene Sauna and The Wedding by Rudi Šeligo; The Great Brilliant Waltz and Klement's Fall by Drago Jančar; and Medea by Dane Zajc. After 1990, the situation seems at first glance to have not changed much. The repertoire records eight texts by Drago Jančar, Dušan Jovanovic, Dane Zajc, Josip Vandot, Andrej Rozman and Tina Kosi. When we look closely, however, the picture changes significantly. Three of those were adaptations (Kekec and Mojca by Josip Vandot was an adaptation of a movie scenario, Tartif (Tartuffe) was an adaptation by Andrej Rozman Roza of the well-known Molière play, and Tina Kosi wrote her Metamorfoze (Metamorphoses) as an adaptation of a selection of stories by Ovid). Furthermore, the majority of performances took place at the beginning of the 1990s: Jančar's The Great Brilliant Waltz in 1990, Zajc's Medea in 1991, Jovanovic's Antigone in 1993, and The Liberation of Skopje and The Life of Provincial Playboys in 2002. It seems thus that the interest for Slovenian playwrights took momentum in the 1980s and almost ceased to exist at the beginning of a new millennium, thus leaving out all contemporary authors who entered the scene after 1990 (for example, Matjaž Zupančič, Vinko Moderndorfer, Evald Flisar, Simona Semenič ...). 2 There was another reading performance of a play Sophie's Picture (Sofijina slika) by Maja Stevanovič. It was performed on the festival Preglej na glas! 2007 on 5 December 2007. What are the reasons behind these figures? Where were the texts staged, how were 115 they received by theatre professionals? These are the questions that we want to discuss further in this article. We will do it by analysing the plays staged in Macedonia and Slovenia respectively from 1990 till 2015. Furthermore, we will analyse reviews and thus try to describe the reception and think of possible reasons for the ignorance in our title. Before we can dig into our matter, we need to mention a particular author. Žanina Mirčevska, a dramatist of Macedonian origin who was also educated in Macedonia, but later emigrated to Slovenia where she works as an author, dramatist and in the last years as a professor at the Academy of Theatre, Radio, Film and Television, University of Ljubljana. She was awarded the Slavko Grum Award for the best new Slovenian play in 2009 for The End of Atlas and she has collaborated in 43 performances in Slovenian professional theatres. Žanina Mirčevska is thus analysed as a Slovenian author of Macedonian origin, as she is writing in Slovenian language and she lives and works in Slovenia. Furthermore, she has been accepted into the Slovenian literary canon by winning the Grum Award for her play. It is surprising that only two texts written in Slovene language have been staged in Macedonia (The Gorge in Dramski teatar Skopje in 2013 and A Place I've Never Been in NT Vojdan Cernodrinski, Prilep, both directed by the same director, Zoja Buzalkovska). Furthermore, in Macedonia there is no book with collected plays by Žanina Mirčevska. She is present only in some anthologies. Therefore, most of her plays are not accessible to the public. Plays will be analysed in two groups (Slovenian drama staged in Macedonia and Macedonian drama staged in Slovenia). Žanina Mirčevska stands between these two groups as we consider her to be a Macedonian and Slovenian author at the same time, therefore, it seems that neither the Slovenian nor Macedonian audience considers her to be a foreign playwright. Within each group, the analysis follows the chronological order of the performances. Drago Jančar: The Great Brilliant Waltz Written in 1985, it was immediately staged at both national theatres in Slovenia (SNT Drama Ljubljana, 6 March 1985, directed by Zvone Šedlbauer; the Drama of the SNT Maribor, 8 March 1985, directed by Peter Veček) and published by Cankarjeva založba. Its main theme sees history and the social system as a substitute for destiny that crushes an individual, to be more precise, an intellectual. The Great Brilliant Waltz presents the re-education of the historian Simon Veber, who, after a night on the booze, finds himself in a mental institution with a telling name: Freedom liberates (an allusion to signs over Nazi concentration camps "Arbeit macht frei"). Simon is to be re-educated into Simon 116 Drohojowski, a Polish rebel, whom Veber is studying at the moment. Simon resists all attempts by Doctor to persuade him into being Drohojowski, which is why male nurse Volodja takes the initiative. Using brutal force, he cuts off Simon's leg, thus actually transforming Simon into Drohojowski, and takes control of the institution. It is thus the brutal force of the system that transforms individuals into shapeless, impersonal carnal forms with no values, ethics, or morals. At the end, we see a grotesque scene of a dance, where inmates, completely crushed and apathic, dance to the Chopin's Great Brilliant Waltz, an example of romantic emotions and a lust for freedom. The first performance of this play on the Macedonian professional theatre stage dates back to 1985 (directed by Branko Stavrev), the same year it was written and staged on the boards of Jancar's native, national scene. It shows that the main theme of this play was quickly recognised in the wider social context and confirms the immediate connection between the professional theatre workers who worked and lived in Yugoslavia. The second performance of The Great Brilliant Waltz in Macedonia happened in 1990, directed by Stojan Stojanoski. The 1990s were marked by significant economic, political and social crises. The years after the fall of the Berlin Wall built lots of other walls in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It was a time of wars and political disturbance, the time of organising referendums for independence in Slovenia and Croatia. If the first performance in 1985 somehow suggested the end of the world that existed, the second one was staged in the middle of the creation of another world that was fragile in its search for freedom. And staging this play in such real madness could be good timing, but it could also pass by unobserved, as it happened with the performance in 1990. Maybe it just was not a good time for metaphors. Dane Zajc: Medea Dane Zajc wrote his Medea in 1988 and it premiered at the Celje People's Theatre (9 December 1988, directed by Franci Križaj). The next season, it was restaged in SNT Drama Ljubljana (6 January 1990, directed by Meta Hočevar), as well as in Zagreb (Croatian National Radio) and Skopje (Skopje Drama Theatre, Budva, directed by Vito Taufer), both 1989. Zajc took the end of the Medea myth and pictured the rise and fall of Jason to the throne of Iolcus. It was Medea who helped him to kill Pelias, the king of Iolcus. Later, Jason's family has to flee the kingdom of Iolcus, because they are condemned and prosecuted by Acast, Pelias's son. Jason and Medea want to run away from their destiny by getting married by Kirka, though Medea sees their dark future. At the end, Jason falls in love with Glauce, the 117 daughter of Creon, who gives protection to the fugitives in Corinth. Jason sees his love as his destiny but neglects to realise his debt to Medea. She is driven by jealousy to murdering her own children and Glauce. The final scene is thus a variation of the beginning. Jason is coming to Iolcus again, however, this time he is only the shadow of a former hero. He carries his sons and his wife on his shoulders, and Acast, who was seeking his revenge before the Corinth, cannot see Jason in this feeble body. Acast: You have not been Jason and you will never be. (Zajc 436) Later, he surrenders him to his sisters, the daughters of Pelias. The story of this play in Macedonia shows an interesting case of staging a play, as it had four premières. The first one was in Budva in 1989, the second one in Ohrid, staged on the occasion of the Ohrid Summer Festival, then in Skopje in Drama Theatre in 1991 and again in Ohrid in 1991. In fact, the ensemble was always the same. What changed was the setting. The director Vito Taufer experimented with the scenic space and scenography and that gave new directions of the play. We do not have any information about how long this play was on the repertoire in Drama Theatre in Skopje, so we cannot even say how many spectators may have seen it, or how the public received it. There are only two reviews about the performance in Ohrid and both are enthusiastic about the reception of the play: "it was crowded and most of the people had to stand to watch the play or sit on the ground". The play was defined as a "ritual - spectacle" and compared to the performances directed by Paolo Magelli and Ljubiša Ristic (Petreski 9). The reviews were positive about the way of acting defining it as a "collective and balanced". Dušan Jovanovic: Antigone The 1990s were marked by the change of the political and economic system in Slovenia as well as by the disintegration of former Yugoslavia. The latter led to a series of wars or intensive conflicts between neighbours of different nationalities. Slovenia was the first to gain independence and the conflicts there were relatively mild, as they lasted only ten days. The tragedy began afterwards in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo. The loss of the larger cultural space of Yugoslavia as well as the war influenced a number of plays by Slovenian authors. Perhaps the most complex is the trilogy Antigone, The Puzzle of Courage and Who is Singing Sisyphus? by Dušan Jovanovic. The three plays premièred at the SNT Drama Ljubljana from 1993 till 1997, when they were also published by Cankarjeva založba. Antigone (SNT Drama Ljubljana, 15 October 1993, directed by Meta Hočevar) is based on the myth of Oedipus and his sons. Jovanovic took the myth as a symbol of the 118 Balkan wars in former Yugoslavia. The main question asked by Sphinx is thus: "How can Polyneices rule over the city without Eteocles losing it?" (Jovanovic, Balkan 19). The question stays unanswered till the end and the conflict escalates to an orgiastic Elimination, as Jovanovic entitled this scene. Eteocles and Polyneices comment on their actions as sport reporters until they are both dead and Creon finally takes the throne. Antigone is the one who might have redeemed the city with her love and forgiveness, however, she cannot act before both her brothers are dead. Her burial of Polyneices of course leads to the condemnation and punishment of Creon, the statesman. It is notable that Creon, a politician and a symbol of rational power, cannot comprehend why the violence has to end: "I do not understand why hatred should all of a sudden vanish from the face of the Earth!" (37) And when Antigone insists on the simple fact that the plague should be no longer, he retorts: "What bullshit is this!" (Ibid.) Antigone is sentenced to death and taken away by the guards, however, Eteocles and Polyneices cannot find peace. Jocaste lifts them up and they have to mime the whole fight that seems to be going on over and over again. It is a depressing image that resonates in the final lines given to the Old Woman (played by the same actor as the Sphinx) who tells fortunes from human excrement: "It is a shame. Too bad, your shit was so promising. Oh God, it was beautiful. There hasn't been better looking shit in all of Thebe!" (39) The final revelation to Antigone and Ismene alike: "You are pregnant! And you are pregnant too!" (Ibid.) can be understood as hope for the future or as an indication of the never-ending conflict. If the staging of The Great Brilliant Waltz comes as a prophecy, The Liberation of Skopje is a flashback to the recent past and the consequences of the war, the staging of Antigone in 1993, is a perfect definition of the here and now theory on the power of the theatre. It is theatre that is firmly integrated in its society. With its action situated in Sarajevo, the play was not only happening in the theatre in Kumanovo (staged in the National Theatre Kumanovo, on 16 October 1993, it was also performed at the Week of Slovenian Drama in 1994) or in Kranj, but it was happening in Sarajevo while it was played in the theatres, and this gave the performance the possibility to exist on more than one level. It functioned even as meta-theatre, if we remember the phrase "all the world is a stage". Jovanovic made an excellent move by adopting the old myth and transferring it from Thebe to Sarajevo in the present, which was immediately recognised as a crisis to be represented by the theatres in the countries, which were part of Yugoslavia. The theme of the eternal fight between two brothers resonates in the ethnic tensions between the city's two different nationalities that once lived together well, without the need to point a gun at each other. Eight years after the performance in Kumanovo, the last major ethnic conflict will erupt into violence in the territory of Macedonia. Dušan Jovanovic: The Liberation of Skopje 119 The Liberation of Skopje is probably the best and most often staged drama by Dušan Jovanovic. He wrote the piece in 1976 and 1977. It premiered in SNT Drama Ljubljana on 7 November 1978, directed by Ljubiša Georgijevski, and was translated into six different languages. It was staged in all parts of former Yugoslavia as well as in the UK. The drama is constructed out of fragmented memories of a then-six-year old Zoran in the last months of World War II in Skopje. It is an autobiographical play that goes beyond the author's memories in order to explore the theme of the impact of historical events on an individual. These events take the form of destiny that shapes the protagonists' lives. So, we can observe a complex family life with the partisan Dušan, Zoran's father, who is absent and only arrives at the end as a liberator; members of the resistance in Skopje, like his uncle Georgij, who is brutally tortured by the Bulgarian secret police, etc. In contrast, there are a number of women protagonists, who try to survive in difficult circumstances. Lica, Zoran's mother, thus prostitutes herself with a German officer in order to get food for her children and the whole family, while his aunt Lenče is giving piano lessons to a Jewish girl who is deported in the middle of the play. Life is pictured as far more complex than it was presented by the official ideology after the war. One of the most illustrative scenes is Act 3, Scene 5, entitled "Orgy". We see the flat of Zoran's family, in which his mother is dancing half-naked for the German officer, the Doctor is dictating to Lenče a list of provisions sent to the Partisan army in the basement, Grandma Ana is smoking one cigarette after the other, next to her is her son Georgij, completely ruined by the torture, drunk and singing a traditional Macedonian song. Zoran is observing all this, unable to grasp the meaning of all the antagonisms. No wonder that his friend Crazy Vavo in Act 3, Scene 8 reveals the truth of a lost generation, saying to Zoran and his friends: Vavo: You brats, you'll never be happy! You've seen too much and understood too little. You've experienced too much and lived too little. (Jovanovic, "The Liberation" 75) Furthermore, at the end, Jovanovic makes a statement about his generation to the generation of his father, the liberators and founders of the former Yugoslavia. At the end of the play, he explains his nightmare to his father Dušan: Zoran: One night I woke up at three o'clock from a peaceful sleep, without the shadow of a dream. I was woken by some unexpected realization: I felt I have suddenly discovered the meaning of my life. At first, it was like the soft, gentle transformation of blood into clotting mud. Starting in the tiniest blood vessels at the extremities of my body; under my nails, in my toes, my lips, at the bottom of my nose. Then the coagulation spread through all my veins. 120 At this very moment, I had a peculiar feeling that I could destroy this experience, annul it, and wipe it out. By disappearing. By flying away. By coming unstuck and leaving behind the trammels of my body. The capillary vessels in my brain became filled with this clotted blood and the neurons began to die one after the other. Then the arteries hardened, the hearty stopped, died and burst in a great milky jet which spurted out and filled all space. ("The Liberation of Skopje" 76) The last line belongs to Dušan: "My son, I don't understand you." (Ibid.) The resistance, the heroic, mythic act of socialist authorities, is depicted as a problematic one, the results and traumas of WWII being the main legacy of the next generation. The text was written, published and staged at the end of the 1970s when Tito's power was diminishing, and national conflicts were rising again. It was the time when intellectuals felt an urge to renegotiate the limits of freedom of speech and the very foundations of the socialist ideology. They met some opposition from the authorities, but mainly the plays were allowed to be staged, which gained them high popularity and even created the impression that they helped to bring down the system at the end of the 1980s. The Liberation of Skopje had three performances in Macedonia, two in Skopje (1978, 2002) and one in Shtip (1979). The story is situated in Skopje, the city where Jovanovic (and Zoran, the character in the play) lived when he was six. This biographical fact created an interesting key for the play when staged in Skopje. In their everyday lives, most of the public who went to see the performances passed by the house that still existed on the street St. Klement Ohridski and in which the events took place. Written in 1976, the play had its première two years later, due to censorship. After 24 years, MNT decided to perform this play on the jubilee of the liberation of the city. The theatre scholar and professor Jelena Lužina, in her text Dušan Jovanovic, the Liberator of Skopje (flymaH JoBaHOBHK, oc^oôogHTe^ Ha CKonje) published in The Liberation of Skopje ( Oc^oôogyBa^eTO Ha CKonje, Liljana Mazova, 415) says that this incidental and occasional staging of the play automatically meant - an unsuccessful one. On the other hand, it was staged only one year after the war conflict in Macedonia. History had created another context for this performance, without any consideration about its first intention. And that makes things interesting. Dušan Jovanovic: The Life of Provincial Playboys or Others' We Want, Ours We Keep (Življenje podeželskih prejbojev ali Tuje hočemo, svojega ne damo) The Life of Provincial Playboys is the fourth drama by Dušan Jovanovic. It premiered in Slovene Permanent Theatre in Trieste (Italy) on 14 April 1972, directed by the author himself. It is a play that is marked by Jovanovic's interest with a playfulness 121 and theatrical form. The latter brought him to the genre of the theatre of the absurd, however in Playboys it was rather a dialogue with theatrical past. It was written as a paraphrase of a canovaccio, a scenario of commedia dell' arte, by an anonymous author. There are ten dramatis personae on stage, five pairs of husbands and wives who are constantly trying to cheat on his/her partner. In fact, they have all already slept with each other, but they have managed to conceal the fact. Thus, they are proud of their cunningness when they succeed, on the one hand, and terrified of being cheated upon, on the other. The contrast between their beliefs and the truth is a source of endless comic situations and it is a potential for a show-off of the actors' brilliance and virtuosity. It was restaged only once in the repertory theatres (SNT Drama Ljubljana in 2007/08, directed by Jaka Andrej Vojevec). In Macedonia, The Life of Provincial Playboys was staged at National Theatre Jordan Hadi Konstantinov-Binot in Veles on 30 November 2002. Zanina Mircevska Slovenian playwright of Macedonian origin Zanina Mircevska has to be discussed between the Macedonian and Slovenian playwrights as she represents a specific case of Slovenian-Macedonian theatre exchange. We consider her as a Slovenian and Macedonian playwright at the same time. She was born in 1967 in Skopje where she has got her bachelor's degree in theatre directing and dramaturgy from the University of Kiril and Metod. In the 1990s, she moved to Ljubljana, where she has been working ever since. She has become one of the most prominent Slovenian playwrights with five nominations for the Grum Award for the best new Slovenian play, winning the award in 2009 for her text The End of Atlas. Thus, neither the Slovenian nor Macedonian audience takes her as a foreign author. In the last 28 years, she has written fifteen plays in Slovenian language, six of them staged in Slovenian theatres. It is thus interesting that only six texts were also written or translated into Macedonian and that only four were staged in Macedonia (Dies Irae in Makedonski naroden teatar, Skopje, 1991; Sen... in Teatarska laboratorija, Skopje, 1993; A Place I've Never Been and The Gorge). Zanina can thus be considered as a Slovenian playwright of Macedonian origin, however, it is hard to believe that the Macedonian audience would see her works as foreign plays when staged in Macedonian theatres. Nevertheless, we believe that it is precisely the performances of her Slovenian dramas in Macedonian theatres that can be considered as part of the Slovenian-Macedonian theatre exchange. 122 The Gorge The Gorge was written in 2006 and premièred on 13 February 2009 at SNT Drama Ljubljana, directed by Andreja Kovač. It is an image of contemporary materialist society where an individual craves material things. The protagonist is "... the one who ate his name" (26), a poor fellow who starves and dreams of earning money for food. However, his appetite for food as well as for everything else is incessant. Already in the first lines, when he finds some mushrooms in the woods and starts picking them up, one can see the vicious circle of capitalist expansion. If I sell two full baskets, that is that is a pair of trousers, a shirt, some socks, snickers, toilet paper if I sell three a trout, bird eggs, Burrata cheese, fois gras, goat feta cheese, horse-meat steak, blond and dark Bavaria beer, Président butter; I would taste it all; one needs two stomachs like a kangaroo; one trolley is not enough; one needs two; three; five; nine; one needs a truck, several trucks; the big ones, like Schwarzmüller or Raba. Pick them up, pick them up, do not leave any. I will open up a business for mushrooms. I will do business. I will export them. To Australia, Brazil, Argentina, Guatemala. Where the hell is Guatemala? Where? Where Guatemalans live. Now is not the time to think. GUATEMALA WON'T GO AWAY. A new chapter waits. It is a unique opportunity. It is not a coincidence that mushrooms are a golden colour. No coincidence indeed. Every symbol has its meaning. I HAVE TO PICK THEM ALL UP. Not to leave even one of them. They are mine, all are mine. I will be so terribly, unbelievably RICH ... (27, translated from Slovenian language by G. Troha) The man is caught as mushrooms are the private property of an old woman, however, he does get extremely rich as she recognises him as her lost son. The idea of owning everything and having wealth without end sends the protagonist on a path of disaster. On the one hand, he wants to have and to try everything. On the other, he even has an urge to provide for others, especially for his employees, but his actions have negative effects, like the death of a little girl's rabbit. At the end, we have a cyclic structure that brings the protagonist to the scene from the beginning. He is back in the woods, hungry and searching for mushrooms. He meets a bear named Haribo (again an allusion to modern consumerism) that sings him a lullaby and puts him to sleep. A Place I've Never Been 123 The play A Place I've Never Been by Žanina Mirčevska was written in 1996 and premiered at the Mladinsko Theatre on 16 June 1996, directed by Matjaž Pograjc. It is a fantasy story of a small village on a hill that is surrounded by a Morass. The latter is taking its toll from the villagers again and again. It is the story of Mayor Peter, a competent vintner, whose bride was taken by the Morass only days after their daughter was born. After eighteen years, Julia is getting married to the poor neighbour Anton, but the Morass is here again. This time, a golden bell from the church falls into the Morass and Julia has to sacrifice herself in order to get it back. The curse spreads to both families, thus, Mayor Peter drowns himself from grief after not being able to save his daughter. Anton flies away on a cloud with the help of his rooster, the one who put the whole thing in motion by avenging himself to the villagers for not letting him wake them up: "Well, I also have a sharp beak, which can cut through the rope. Once the Bell has fallen, you will be kneeling in front of me to herald the arrival of dawn. The Church already caresses its wee Bell of gold. It combs and braids threads into a rope, as if it were a maiden's cloak of hair. Chanticleer dear, whet your rapier, while the Church prepares its Bell of gold for the wedding vows to be told." (Mirčevska, A Place 6) Julia surrenders to the Morass and the village institutions (The School, The Court and The Church) restore the peace and order of the community. It thus seems that Mirčevska wants to show her readers/viewers that any deed against nature and its laws has to be punished and it has unforeseeable consequences. However, at the end, it is Bedlam who relativises this notion by the following lines: Bedlam: Clad in a silken shirt flying in the wind, a man stood on a cloud, looking towards the horizon with the hand shielding his eyes. He floated, and floated and reached a cloud on which a girl stood, clad in a white silk dress. Both clouds united and flew off to the horizon. They flew, and flew, and reached a cloud with three wee curly-haired children on it, three large white steeds and a house with large windows and a huge door. This cloud also joined the first two. All of them flew away on one big cloud, their gazes fixed on the horizon. There must be something beyond the Morass. Nobody knows as nobody has ever been there. But they may already have arrived there on this cloud. (21) It is a variation of his vision that is repeated several times throughout the text, so it gives an impression of hope, a hope that there is life beyond the conflict between the Morass and people, between people and nature. One suspects a happy-end, a fairytale about a couple with a house and three children that is told by Anton to Julia at the beginning, is possible, but the last lines, spoken by Anton, leave us wondering in the dark again: 124 Anton: ...Maybe they have changed their course. Maybe they landed on another cloud for some rest. Maybe they want to tease me a little. Let them have their fun. We'll play hide-and-seek in the dark. The tired sun is standing on the very edge of the horizon. The large orange slowly sinks into the Morass, as if it would like to observe me floating on my cloud for a little while longer. Where am I floating to? Where!? Is there any harbour for me somewhere?! Everything is infinitely empty. The sky, the Morass, the cloud and I. Nothing else. A landscape of emptiness. The cosmic silence can be heard. This infinitely silent landscape should drive me mad if there were no thoughts of Julia, to warm my heart, no thought of the White Chanticleer to render courage to my soul. He is the personification of true friendship. The quintessence of the absolute sacrifice itself. Self-effacement in the name of friendship, in the name of humanity. How is one to fill this realm of this cosmic silence? How?! ... Julia, Julia, Julia. (22) It is a parable about the relationship between Society and nature as well as of relationships within the society that is radically pessimistic. However, we have to admit that Zanina Mircevska does open up a beam of light that might bring some hope if one dares to go beyond, to think and act out of the box, so to speak. Goran Stefanovski: Bakanalije [Bacchanalia] Bacchanalia was the first play by a Macedonian author staged after 1990 in Slovenia. Goran Stefanovski wrote it after The Bacchae by Euripides. It mainly follows the original story and the conflict between Pentheus, the king of Thebe, as the rational side and the god Dionysus as the intuitive one. In both plays, seeing a ritual is a crime against the gods and has to be punished. Euripides puts Pentheus in the hands of his followers led by Agave, Pentheus's mother, who rips his body apart and brings his head as a trophy back to Thebe. When Agave realises the truth, it is too late, and she has to flee in exile together with her sisters while barbarian hordes led by Dionysus destroy the city. Stefanovski wrote his version after the wars in ex-Yugoslavia at the beginning of the 1990s. He introduced new dramatis personae (that is, Woodman, Guard, Fugitive), thus, writing a commentary of the contemporary society and madness in the Balkans. Furthermore, the author changes the ending. If Euripides in his Bacchae breaks the cycle of the myth in a sense that it prevents Pentheus from rising from the dead, Stefanovski restores the cyclic structure. Pentheus returns at the end to report of his death and leaves together with Dionysus. It is, nevertheless, a disenchanted world where Teiresias loses his prophetic powers but sees again, a messenger (Woodman) becomes mute, the Guard is blind, Agave and Cadmus are exiled, and even Dionysus has a hangover and is no longer sure what has been happening and what he wants. It seems like the madness is becoming a perpetual state with no end. Bacchanalia was staged in Nova Gorica (then the Drama Theatre of Primorska, today 125 the Slovene National Theatre Nova Gorica) as a co-production with the Academy of Theatre, Radio, Film and Television, University of Ljubljana, on 14 May 1998, directed by Sebastijan Horvat. It was the final production of the students at UL AGRFT. Its two reviews mainly describe the event (Pintar; Pezdir, "Zmagoslavje"). They comment shortly on Stefanovski's text as well, mentioning mainly its connection to Euripides. Slavko Pezdir, however, adds that it is "sometimes a rather 'dry' text". Boris Pintar judges the performance positively, stating that actors "are up to the professional task with their acting and singing". Less enthusiastic was Pezdir, who saw the performance as "an abstract dramatic oratory that leaves a spectator untouched and distanced from the topical theme and possible social engagement". The play was thus important, as it was the first Macedonian play to be staged in Slovenia after almost a decade. However, its resonance was limited as it was a production of the theatre academy from Ljubljana. It thus did not stimulate productions of Macedonian texts in Slovenian professional theatres in the following years. Dejan Dukovski: Dracula and the "theory of relativity"-+ The new trend of European drama, known as "in-yer-face" theatre in Macedonia is introduced with the work of Dukovski. Actually, his drama Powder Keg [Bure baruta], staged 15 October 1994, anticipates the productions of the plays written by the major representatives of this trend - Sarah Kane and Mark Ravenhill. A clear evidence for its popularity is the number of translations (the play has been translated into twenty languages) and the fact that in 1998 it was turned into a film, directed by Goran Paskaljevic. The theme of violence, sexual or physical, is always present in the plays of Dukovski. And it always exists as a lack of love and kindness, which, in this world of lost values, are impossible to reach and rediscover. Dracula, written in 2002, premiered the same year in SNT Maribor, Slovenia. Written in two languages, Macedonian and English, the play is based on the novel Dracula by Bram Stoker, and other stories, (myths or truths) about Dracula. Titled identically as Stoker's novel, the play consists of twenty scenes in which every scene has its own title and the last one is a summary of all the previous ones. Dukovski as an author is always playing with tradition, old stories, myths and stereotypes. In this play, he is also playing with his previous plays, he even includes in the text some monologues from another of his plays. Who is Dracula in his play? Dracula is a hospital patient. The story takes place in a mental hospital. This strange and unusual context gives another direction to the story, where Dracula is not the only "troublemaker" or incarnation of evil itself. Even if the focus still remains on this eternal fight between good and evil, we begin to ask ourselves where is that border that decides what is 126 good and what is bad? We have this feeling that "killing in the name of the Good" is only an old meaningless expression. The legend of Count Dracula, the immortal vampire who sucks blood, has its origins in the fantasy horror novel of Bram Stoker. Dracula, in Romania is famous as a hero who fought for Christianity against the Ottomans. Even his grave is located in a church. So, Dukovski finds a way to unite, to connect these two different stories - one from history and collective memory and the other from fantasy - and of course, to play with them. With his very unique kind of humour, Dukovski depicts a world where violence can easily become an act of love, where purity can suddenly become greed ... Dracula was staged in the Drama of the SNT Maribor on 18 January 2002, directed by Aleksandar Popovski. It was the most successful performance of the season 2001/02 in the Maribor theatre with fourteen nights on the repertoire and almost 5800 visitors. It is the only performance of a text by Dejan Dukovski till today. Naturally, the reviews discuss the text as well mainly emphasise its intertextual connections to Bram Stoker' novel. One of the reviews also gave a short presentation of the author, mentioning his scenario for the movie Powder Keg, directed by Goran Paskaljevic (Gruden). The general impression was not particularly positive, though it is true that the reviews do not discuss the play in detail, as they consider it to be a dramatisation of Stoker's novel. Petra Vidali thus wrote: "the play is interesting, sometimes even excellent, a very good idea and flawless staging, however, it is predictable and not entirely convincing" (12). Slavko Pezdir marks his general impression with "already seen" (Pezdir, "V ogledalu"). Special praise is given to the actors, especially Radko Polič Rac (Van Helsing) and Tadej Toš (Dracula). Lučka Gruden, on the other hand, sees an imbalance between the two protagonists as Polič Rac is an experienced actor, and Toš is younger, and adds here also the tension between pornography and philosophy as well as the dramaturgy of fragment vs. a spectator's need for coherence. Nevertheless, her overall judgement is positive, describing Dracula as "a memorable performance that will leave an impression with its dream-scenes" (Gruden). It is surprising that Dukovski has not gotten a second chance in Slovenia. Dracula had quite a success with the audience and critics. Perhaps it was the fact that it was seen as an adaptation of a novel and not so much as an example of new Macedonian writing. A much more present and well-known author is Goran Stefanovski. Goran Stefanovski: Odyssey Commissioned by the Ulysses Theatre, Brioni, for its ten-year anniversary, this play was realised as a co-production between Ulysses Theatre, Brioni (Croatia); Atelier 212 Theatre, Belgrade; Gavella Drama Theatre, Zagreb (Croatia); SNT, Novi Sad; the Drama of the SNT Maribor (Slovenia); Theatre Navigator, Skopje (Macedonia) and Sterijino 127 pozorje, Novi Sad. It premiered on 20 July 2012. In his play, Stefanovski incorporated fragments from Homer's Odyssey and from The Trojan Women by Euripides. Structured in 23 scenes, the story has a circular narrative, where the last scene is a continuation of the first. Stefanovski takes only the skeleton of the epic tragedy of Odysseus and changes the dimension from mythical to a more human and individual point of view, giving voice to those who did not have the opportunity to speak. For example, Penelope is not depicted as the symbol of a faithful woman who has spent twenty years of her life waiting for her husband, on the contrary, she is an abandoned woman who has had to raise a child all alone and take care of everything, life has not stopped for her, for Telemachus and for the citizens of Ithaca after the departure of Odyssey, but continues with all difficulties and problems it can bring. The people of Ithaca hardly remember Odyssey, and those who remember him, seek revenge on him, the murderer of their fathers, not the hero. In fact, Stefanovski questions the existence of a hero in the postwar period. What does it mean to be a hero? Was Odyssey really a hero? Yes, if the war is perceived as a chance for heroic acts, but in the play of Stefanovski the war is seen as plunder. We see the consequences. The homecoming and the obstacles during the journey are not in the focus, they are represented as a play within a play, with a certain parody. Ithaca was not waiting still and unchanged for Odyssey to return. Everything has changed, even Odyssey himself. By the time this play was written and staged, almost twenty years had passed since the devastating war and conflicts that marked these lands, establishing borders that were not only geographic, but also emotional. Realised as a co-production, Odyssey brought together artists from countries that were part of the former Republic of Yugoslavia. And they told the story of the hero who returned home just to find that his home was totally changed and disintegrated. And it took him twenty years to return home from war. If Ithaca, perceived in this way, refers to the disintegrated Yugoslavia, are we still returning to our homes or are we already there, but cannot recognise them? What means "home" for the generations that lived in the period of transition? There is a scene in which the mother of Odyssey tells him that a new generation has grown up and soon he will no longer have anyone with whom he can speak about the war. Later, there is a conversation between the son and the father, which reminds of the dialogue between Zoran and his father in The Liberation of Skopje by D. Jovanovic. The son is waiting for the father to return, and when he does, they have nothing to say to each other because they cannot understand one another. In Stefanovski's play, destiny also takes part, but as a political game between the gods. They are represented as political manipulators who create our destiny, seen in Odyssey's words that are repeated as a refrain: "Who are you working for?" Stefanovski's Odyssey is a drama for the hero who got old. The play was a vast Yugoslav co-production directed by Aleksandar Popovski and with an international cast from participating theatres. It was on the repertoire for 128 sixteen nights, thirteen of them on tour, and was seen by almost 9,300 spectators. It was thus an exclusive performance that could be seen in Slovenia, more precisely in Maribor, only three nights, thus a scarce number of two reviews is understandable (one of the première on Brioni and the other one from the reprise in Maribor). Both authors are enthusiastic about the actors, especially Ozren Grabaric (Odyssey) and Nataša Matjašec (Athena), as well as about the meticulous direction of Aleksandar Popovski. Less in tune are Peter Rak and Vesna Jurca Tadel at judging Stefanovski's text. It is "an excellent text" (23) for Rak and "an unbalanced text" (22) for Jurca Tadel. Nevertheless, they both seem to stay rather cold in their final judgement. "Nothing exceptional, but exciting enough to create an unusual theatre experience." (Rak 23) Jurca Tadel is more specific: "Nevertheless, the result of this performance is fascination over form - over an excellent directing, extraordinarily natural acting of the leading actor, over humour that is carefully scattered around the whole performance that is aesthetically perfect and at some moments even inspiring" (22). Odyssey was primarily a proof of possible co-operation in the region of former Yugoslavia. It was a vast co-production that brought together some of the best actors from different countries. It was seen in Slovenia as an experiment or perhaps better as an exclusive theatre experience that did not, unfortunately, open up the doors for similar projects in the future. Co-productions exist but are mainly smaller. One of those featured Naked by Viktorija Rangelova. Viktorija Rangelova: Naked (Gola)3 Written by the Macedonian dramatist Viktorija Rangelova, this play premièred on 12 October 2013 in Ljubljana City Theatre and co-produced by ŠKUC theatre. Naked is a psychological drama that explores the relationship between a middle-aged woman (Patricia, 47) and a younger man (Lev, 25). Everything happens in just one room. Everything happens behind the closed door and the four walls. This claustrophobic atmosphere is perfect for developing a third character, and in this play that is the torridity, the unsupportable warmth. There is a possibility of escaping, but who knows if that is the right way. The author leaves open the question of salvation "if they go outside, it is possible that they could (not) find the right way" says at the beginning. It seems that the characters are victim and villain at the same time. Composed of four scenes, the play reveals the internal conflicts of each of the characters, which is typical for psychological drama. In Lev that conflict results with a physical manifestation: every time Patricia touches him, his leg performs some strange DANCE. The beauty of 3 The play was also performed on 28 December 2012 at SKUC Gallery as a reading performance directed by Spela Kravogel under the title An Impossible Relationship [Nemogoca zveza]. It was a part of a process that resulted in a performance of Naked in 2013 that is analysed in more detail. Patricia, her long beautiful legs, her eroticism is in contrast with her age, her loneliness 129 and her abandonment. The theme focuses on an old taboo, a myth connected to the incest. The strange DANCE that we see repeat through the scenes, the sleeping position of Lev that reminds one of a foetus, the words that Patricia repeats: "I love you more, and that's the way it should be," are all signs that lead us to the moment of culmination, in which Lev calls Patricia "Mother". The text was commissioned by association ŠKUC and co-produced by Ljubljana City Theatre in 2013. It was staged on the small stage, which mainly puts mainly experimental performances. It was directed by Alen Jelen and had a moderate success with sixteen nights and almost 1200 visitors. Reviews were mainly positive, with unanimous praise for Nataša Barbara Gračner, a very well-established actress from SNT Drama Ljubljana, who played the role of Patricia, and a young graduate from the UL AGRFT, Jernej Gašperin, who had just started his career at the Ljubljana City Theatre and Lev was his first major role (Pezdir 16, Perne 22, Krečič). It is interesting that none of the critics analysed Viktorija Rangelova's text or tried to put it in the context of contemporary Macedonian drama. As if there has not been a gap of more than a decade from the disintegration of ex-Yugoslavia before a Macedonian text (Dracula by Dejan Dukovski) was staged in Slovenia and yet another decade passed before Odyssey by Goran Stefanovski and Naked followed. Goran Stefanovski: Figurae Veneris Historiae Goran Stefanovski was commissioned to write a play that would be directed by Aleksandar Popovski in SNT Drama Ljubljana. The year 2014 marked one hundred years since the beginning of World War I. This occasion established a symbolic dialogue with one of the largest wars in history, creating a pretext, which permitted Stefanovski to take the war as the main theme in his new play. In fact, it became the main character. Entitled Figurae Veneris Historiae, the play is based on Sexual History of the World War, a book by Magnus Hirschfeld, a German Jewish physician and sexologist, a book that Stefanovski discovered during his puberty in his father's library. The play premiered on 16 October 2014, in SNT Drama Ljubljana. Written as a tragic farce in two acts, it portrays eleven dramatis personae who represent different social classes struggling to survive in the war conflict. The farcical code used to reconsider the history, reminds us of the words of Marx, that all great world-historic facts and personages appear twice: the first time as a tragedy, the second time as a farce. Stefanovski has found the perfect way to look at the war from another angle. The war in his play is perceived as a massive and organised violence, as an orgy, a bacchanalia. The title Figurae Veneris Historiae gives a very simple message - there is something 130 pornographic in history, especially in conflict situations. Evil is like a plague. And when there is a plague, everything turns upside down. The killer becomes a hero. The war becomes a business. A necessity. The story is presented as a hypnotherapy, and Magnus Hirschfeld appears as the narrator. This gives originality to the approach to the theme of war in a way that it permits a more intimate, confidential viewpoint. In a situation where violence has occupied us, we are hungry for love, for a kind word, for warmth, but in a world where politics takes advantage of us, that is impossible. From time to time, these characters stay still and try to listen to something: the silence behind the chaos, the noise, the beautiful silence. But the immoral history of war and conflicts is louder. After the First World War comes the Second, then the Cold one ... it seems it has an infinite echo. The first performance was quite successful with 21 nights on the repertoire and almost 5500 visitors, which pairs it to a dramatization of Die Zauberberg by Thomas Mann in the same season. Reviews were mainly positive, some of them even characterising it as: "one of the most coherent performances, and not only on this stage" (Rogelj). They were unanimous in praising the actors, scenography and music, especially Janez Škof as Magnus Hirschfeld. Nevertheless, some do mention a lack of contextualisation of the main theme: "The most visible is the massive consumption of sexual tension, that lacks clearer contextualisation, which could bring it to a more abstract level and make it a relevant theme for the contemporary audience" (Arhar 17). Nika Leskovšek puts it into the following question: "What does a performance like this tells us in a time when one-third of the states on the globe are involved in different war conflicts - does it manage to get through to our distanced position" (21). Goran Stefanovski is thus the most popular and established contemporary Macedonian author in Slovenian theatre. He was accepted into the Slovenian scene also with the Vilenica International Literary Prize that is awarded by a jury comprised of literary experts from different disciplines ranging from publishing business, comparative literature and different languages of Central Europe. Slovenian theatre institutions commissioned two of his analysed plays, however, it is notable that his compatriot Aleksandar Popovski directed them both. As if his work does not get through to Slovenian directors, as all three dramas (Bacchanalia, Odyssey and Figurae Veneris Historiae) were well received by actors, audience and critics. Conclusion 131 According to the statistics presented in this essay, the exchange of drama between Slovenia and Macedonia from 1990 till 2015 was a scarce one. In a period of twenty-five years, only six texts of Macedonian authors were staged in Slovenia, and eight Slovenian ones in Macedonian theatres. In fact, during the 1990s, there were no Macedonian play staged in Slovenia - an exception being Bacchanalia by Goran Stefanovski that was produced by the Academy of Theatre, Film, Radio and Television in the 1998 and Powder Keg by Dejan Dukovski in the off-scene by Dejmo stisnt teater in 1998. The last play by a Slovenian author that was staged on the Macedonian professional theatre scene dates back to 2005 (Metamorphoses by Tina Kosi). In addition, the last Macedonian play staged in Slovenia was in 2014 (Figurae Veneris Historiae by Goran Stefanovski). Furthermore, if we observe the basic data about the performances in question, we can draw some further observations. From the performance of Bacchanalia by G. Stefanovski (1998), four years have passed until the next staging of a Macedonian author. Dejan Dukovski, one of the most translated and famous Macedonian authors, was introduced to the Slovenian theatre scene for the first time only in 2002 (surprisingly, Dejan Dukovski was not introduced in Slovenia with his most famous plays that have made a revolution in dramaturgy and are staged all over the world, but with Dracula, the only text by this author that has been staged in Slovenia till today). The other two texts that followed, again with a gap of a decade, were from the author that is already known to the Slovenian audience, Goran Stefanovski with Odyssey in 2012 and Figurae Veneris Historiae in 2014. Furthermore, it is interesting that Aleksandar Popovski directed them both. Until 1983, the Slovenian directors (for example, Zvone Šedlbauer, Jože Tiran and Mile Korun) showed an interest in staging texts written by Macedonian authors. On the other hand, Macedonian directors directed four of the eight texts by Slovenian authors staged in Macedonia. What lies behind this fact? Could the reason be a scarcity of translated material? Or is it a question of motives and themes that are not suitable? When analysing the plays staged in Macedonia and Slovenia, we can find some similarities in the motifs that inspired the authors and motivated the directors to stage particular texts, for example, the shadow of the former hero (Jason in Medea by Dane Zajc and Odyssey in Goran Stefanovski's play), or the war, the eternal conflict between the individual and the society, etc. According to the analysis of the reception of the Macedonian drama in Slovenia, we can say that it is not a question of lack of interest. The reviews are quite positive and the numbers of audience good ones. Unfortunately, we cannot reconstruct the Macedonian reception of Slovenian plays, as relevant reviews do not exist. As we mentioned earlier, one of the possible reasons for such moderate exchange 132 could be the disintegration of Yugoslavia. In fact, the Slovenian authors that were staged after 1990 are mainly the same authors that were introduced in the 1980s, well known to the Macedonian theatre practitioners: Dušan Jovanovic, Drago Jančar and Dane Zajc. So practically, these authors somehow represent a continuation of earlier-known collaboration. Despite the fact that in 2006, with the financial support of the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Slovenia, a book of contemporary Slovenian drama was published in Macedonian language and included the authors Saša Pavček, Tina Kosi, Dragica Potočnjak and Matjaž Zupančič, these texts have never been staged/ produced (except Metamorphoses by Tina Kosi). In this case, we can say that the reason for this indifference does not lie in the scarcity of translation. The general impression provided by these facts is one of a reciprocal ignorance towards and detachment from the recent, contemporary dramaturgy between our countries. Contrary to the collaboration in the other fields of theatrical practice (visiting directors and artists), the exchange in the field of drama seems to be almost vanishing. It is probably the result of a more general turn of Slovenian and Macedonian cultural policy and interest in international relations. These focuses were and still are the countries of European Union, the USA, and in the last years, India and China. An analysis of translations and performances of Slovenian drama abroad between 1980 and 2015 clearly show this trend (see Troha). It is hard to suggest what is to be done. Clearly, growth in the number of new productions can only come about if Slovenian directors or other theatre professionals take an active interest in Macedonian drama and vice versa. Bibliography 133 Arhar, Nika. "Goran Stefanovski: Figurae veneris historiae." Delo, 22 Oct. 2014, p. 17. Crnovic, Deja. "Zgodovina vojne je tudi zgodovina seksa." Siol.net. Accessed 17 Oct. 2014. flyKOBCKH, flejaH. ffpaMU.(Drami). JeneHa ^y^HHa, npupegyBa^. Kynrypa, 2012. Gruden, Lučka. "Dogodki in odmevi." Radio Slovenia. 19 Jan. 2002. Jarnap, flparo. Tubko ce Huwa wcoshukow. (Tivko se nisa casovnikot). ^HnjaHa Ma30Ba, npup. Mara^ MaKegoHCKa, 2009. Jančar, Drago. Veliki briljantni valček (The Great Brilliant Waltz). Cankarjeva založba, 1985. Jovanovic, Dušan. "The Liberation of Skopje." Scena, 8, 1985, p. 61-76. —. Balkanska trilogija (The Balkan Trilogy). Cankarjeva založba, 1997. —. Osvoboditev Skopja in druge gledališke igre (The Liberation of Skopje and Other Theatre Plays). Mladinska knjiga, 1981. Jurca Tadel, Vesna. "Zakaj Stefanovski potrebuje Odiseja?" Pogledi, 24 Oct. 2012, p. 22. Krečič, Tadeja. "Premiera igre Gola v Mestnem gledališču ljubljanskem." Dogodki in odmevi, Radio Slovenia, 13 October 2013. Leskovšek, Nika. "Spakljive podobe vojne." Dnevnik, 21. Oct. 2014, p. 21. ^y^HHa, JeneHa. "flymaH JoBaHOBHK, ocno6ogHTen Ha CKonje". OcmSogyBaftewo Ha Crnuje, npup. ^HnjaHa Ma30Ba, Mara^, 2007, p. 399. Mirčevska, Žanina. "A Place I've Never Been." Ten Modern Macedonian Plays, Jelena Lužina ed., Matica Makedonska, 2000. —. A Place I've Never Been. Jure Potokar (transl.), typescript. —. "Žrelo." (The Gorge) Gledališki list SNG Drama Ljubljana, 2009, pp. 25-44. Perne, Ana. "Ko v prostoru žge vročina." Dnevnik, 18 Nov. 2013, p. 22. neTpecKH, XpucTO. "C^hckh cneKTaKn." HoBa MaKegoHuja, 25 July 1990, p. 9. Pezdir, Slavko. "V ogledalu Drakule." Delo, 22 Jan. 2002, p. 8. —. "Viktorija Rangelova: Gola." Delo, 17 Oct. 2013, p. 16. —. "Zmagoslavje brezumnosti." Delo, 21 May 1998. Pintar, Boris. "Dionizovi čudeži." Razgledi, 27 May 1998, p. 31. Rak, Peter. "Briljantna anatomija razkroja." Delo, 23 July 2012, p. 23. Rogelj, Dušan. "Figurae veneris historiae na odru ljubljanske Drame." Dogodki in odmevi, Radio Slovenia, 17 Oct. 2014. 134 CoBpeMeHa CAoeeHeum gpaMa (Contemporary Slovene Drama), ^HTap 3a KyrnypHa HHH^jaraBa, fflran, 2006. CTe^aHOBCKH, ropaH. CočpaHU gpaMU (Selected Plays). Ta6epHaKyn, 2002. Stefanovski, Goran. Bakanalije. Zdravko Duša (trans.), AGRFT, 1997, typescript. Štefe, Nataša. "Druga repriza predstave Gola." Radio Slovenia, 15 October 2013. Troha, Gašper. "Prevodi in uprizoritve slovenske dramatike v mednarodnem prostoru." Barbara Orel (ed.), Uprizoritvene umetnosti, migracije, politika: slovensko gledališče kot sooblikovalec medkulturnih izmenjav, UL FF and UL AGRFT, 2017, p. 345-394. Vidali, Petra. "Umerjeni spektakel." Večer, 22 Jan. 2018, p. 12. Zajc, Dane. Drame. Emonica, 1990, Dane Zajc v petih knjigah. ^y6e3H0 urHopupafte Pa3MeHa Ha gpaMcKu TeKcroBu Mery CnoBeHuja u MaKegoHuja bo nepuogoT og 1990 go 2015 roguHa 135 K^yqHH 3ÖopoBH: cnoBeHe^Ka gpaMa, MaKegoHcKa gpaMa, cnoBeHe^Ko - MaKegoHcKu TeaTapcKu BpcKu, ropaH CTe$aH0BcKu, AneKcaHgap nonoBcKu, flymaH j0BaH0BuK, flparo Jarnap, flaHe 3aj^ ^nTa Ha oBoj Tpyg e ga ru aHanu3upa cnoBeHe^Ko - MaKegoHcKUTe BpcKu kou er3ucTupaaT bo o6nacTa Ha gpaMaTyprujaTa. Bo nepuogoT og 1990 go 2015 roguHa, Ha cnoBeHe^KUTe npo$ecuoHanHu c^hu ce nocTaBeHu BKynHo mecT gpaMcKu TeKcT0Bu og MaKegoHcKu aBTopu, gogeKa bo MaKegoHuja ce ogurpaHu ocyM gpaMu Ha cnoBeHe^Ku aBTopu. OBoj Man npo^HT Ha ocTBapeHu copa6oTKu bo o6nacTa Ha gpaMcKaTa khu^bhoct, ^ecro ce HaBegyBa KaK0 nocnegu^ Ha egeH nomupoK ucTopucKu KoHTeKcT, pacnagoT Ha JyrocnaBuja, Meryroa Toa e caM0 egHa og Mo^HUTe npmuHu. ropaH CTe^aH0BcKu e npBuoT MaKegoHcKu gpaMcKu aBTop ogurpaH Ha cnoBeHe^KUTe c^hu bo 90-TUTe. HeroBaTa gpaMa Eaxamnuu e u3BegeHa Ha 15. 5. 1998 r., KaKo gunnoMcKa npogy^uja Ha AGRFT (AKageMuja 3a TeaTap, paguo, $uam u TeneBU3uja - ^y6aaHa), bo pe^uja Ha Ce6acTujaH XopBaT. npBuoT gpaMcKu TeKcT ogurpaH Ha npo^ecuoHanHa c^Ha, cnegu neT roguHu oTnocne. CTaHyBa 360p 3a gpaMaTa Ha flejaH flyK0BcKu, fípanyna (18.1.2002, CHr flpaMa Mapu6op, bo pe^uja Ha AneKcaHgap nonoBcKu) co Koja cnoBeHe^KaTa ny6nuKa 3a npB naT ro 3ano3HaBa KaKo aBTop. OHa mT0 npegu3BUKyBa uHTepec e $aKT0T mT0 gocera 0Ba e eguHcTBeHaTa gpaMa Ha flyK0BcKu Koja e ogurpaHa bo CnoBeHuja. flo geH - geHec, bo CnoBeHuja Ke ce nojaBaT caMo ymTe Tpu gpaMcKu TeKcTa Ha MaKegoHcKu aBTopu. flBa og hub ce Ha ropaH Cre$aH0BcKu (Ogucej, 10.10.2012, CHr flpaMa Mapu6op, bo pe^uja Ha AneKcaHgap nonoBcKu; Figurae Veneris Historiae, 16.10.2014, CHr flpaMa ^y6aaHa, ucto TaKa bo pe^uja Ha AneKcaHgap nonoBcKu) u egeH TeKcT e Ha BuKTopuja PaHrenoBa (roña, 12. 10. 2013, TeaTap fflK^, MEH, bo pe^uja Ha AneH JeneH). Og npuno^eHUTe $aKTu Mo«e ga ce 3aKny^u geKa MaKegoHcKaTa gpaMa pe^ucu u BoonmTo He ^urypupa Ha c^HaTa Ha cnoBeHe^KuoT TeaTap. no gonra nay3a, og cTpaHa Ha pe^ucepoT AneKcaHgap nonoBcKu ce 3a6ene«yBaaT o6ugu 3a noBTopHo uHTerpupafte Ha ropaH CTe$aH0BcKu KaKo aBTop, ho cenaK co cKpoMeH ycnex. 136 CnoBeHe^KaTa gpaMa bo MaKegoHuja gaBa ManKy nouHaKBa cnuKa. PenepToapoT 6ene«u ocyM U3BegeHU TeKcTa Ha cnoBeHe^KUTe gpaMcKU aBTopu: flparo Jarnap, flymaH j0BaH0BuK, flaHe 3aj^ Jocun BaHgoT, AHgpej Po3MaH u TuHa Kocu. Meryroa goKonKy nornegHeMe og6nu3y, cnuKaTa 3Ha^UTenH0 ce MeHyBa. Tpu og HaBegeHUTe TeKcT0BU ce agarcra^u (KeKeu, u Moju,a og Jocun BaHgoT e agarcra^ja Ha ^unMcKo c^Hapuo, Tapwufy e agarcra^ja Koja AHgpej Po3MaH ja npaBU Ha go6po no3HaTaTa MonuepoBa gpaMa, a TuHa Kocu ja numyBa MewaM0p$03u noBUKyBajKu ce Ha pacKa3UTe Ha OBuguj). OcBeH Toa, roneM gen og H3Beg6uTe ce cnyquja Ha n0^er0K0T Ha 90-TUTe roguHu: íommuow öpunujaHweH Baxu,ep Ha flparo Jarnap e nocraBeHa bo 1990, Megeja Ha flaHe 3aj^ bo 1991, AHTuroHa Ha flymaH j0BaH0BuK bo 1993, a caMo OcrnSogysamwo Ha Crnüje u Musowow Ha üpoBmu,ucKuwe ünejöou üocm Bwopawa csewcm BOjHa, og hcthot aBTop, ce H3BegeHU bo 2002 r. EBugeHTHo e geKa UHTepecoT 3a cnoBeHe^KUTe gpaMcKU TeKcroBU 6un Haju3pa3UT bo 80-TUTe roguHu Ha MUHaTU0T BeK u noneKa noraan ga uc^e3HyBa Ha n0^eT0K0T Ha H0BU0T MuneHuyM, 3aHeMapyBajKu ro hobhot 6paH coBpeMeHU cnoBeHe^KU aBTopu koh ce nojaByBaaT bo 90-TUTe (MaTja« ^ynaH^m, CuM0Ha CeMeHU^, EBang Onucap u Bhhko MygepHgop^ep). KaKo noce6eH npuMep ro aHanu3upaBMe TB0pemTB0T0 Ha ^aHUHa Mup^eBcKa, gpaMcKU aBTop, gpaMaTypr u npo^ecop Ha AGRFT bo ^y6aaHa, Koja e pogeHa bo MaKegoHuja Kage mT0 u ro 3aBpmyBa cBoeTo 06pa30BaHue, ho «UBee u pa6oTU bo CnoBeHuja, numyBajKu ru cBouTe TeKcToBU Ha cnoBeHe^KU ja3UK. Bo 2009 r., Hej3UHaTa gpaMa KpajoT Ha Áwnac ja go6uBa HarpagaTa Grum 3a Hajgo6ap gpaMcKU TeKcT. Hej3UHU0T TBope^KU onyc, u KaKo gpaMaTypr u KaKo gpaMcKU aBTop, 6pou 43 H3Beg6u bo cnoBeHe^KUTe npo^ecuoHanHU TeaTpu. MeryToa, caMo gBa Hej3UHU TeKcTa ce ogurpaHU bo MaKegoHuja (ffîgpexo, flpaMcKU TeaTap CKonje bo (2013) u TaMy Kage wwo He cyM 6rn bo HapogeH TeaTap BojgaH MepHogpuHcKU, npunen, u gBaTa bo pe«uja Ha 3oja By3anK0BcKa). M3HeHagyBa $aKT0T mT0 bo MaKegoHuja He nocTou 36upKa Ha co6paHU gpaMU og ^aHUHa Mup^eBcKa. npucyroa e caMo bo HeKonKy aHTonoruu. nopagu Toa, MHory og Hej3UHUTe TeKcToBU ocTaHyBaaT Heno3HaTU 3a MaKegoHcKaTa jaBHocT. Koja e npu^UHaTa no3agu cuTe 0Bue $aKTU? Mo«e nu KaKo rnaBeH $aKTop ga ce HaBege HegocTaT0K0T og coogBeTeH npeBog Ha gpaMcKUTe TeKcT0BU? Mnu ce pa6oTU 3a TeMU u M0TUBU koh K0HTeKcTyanH0 ce noKa«ane HecoogBeTHU? AHanu3aTa Ha gpaMcKUTe TeKcToBU nocTaBeHU bo MaKegoHuja u CnoBeHuja, yKa«a Ha HeKou cnmHocra bo ogHoc Ha MoTUBUTe koh nocny«une KaKo UHcnupa^ja 3a aBTopuTe u KaKo noTTUK 3a pe«ucepuTe ga ro nocraBaT T0KMy Toj TeKcT, Ha npuMep - ceHKaTa Ha HeK0ramHU0T xepoj (JacoH bo Megeja Ha flaHe 3aj^ u Ogucej bo ucTouMeHaTa gpaMa Ha r. Cre$aH0BcKu), unu BojHaTa, Be^HuoT KoH^nuKT Mery UHguBugyaTa u 0nmTecTB0T0 hth. Cnopeg HanpaBeHaTa aHanu3a Ha pe^n^jaTa Ha MaKegoHcKUTe gpaMcKU TeKcT0BU bo CnoBeHuja, Mo«e ga ce noTBpgu geKa UHTepecoT 3a hub He HegocracyBa: KpuTUKUTe ce npunu^Ho no3UTUBHU, a u 6pojoT Ha noceTuTenuTe He e 3a no^eHyBafte. 3a «an, He Mo«e ga ce HanpaBu pecneKTuBHa 137 peKoHcrpy^uja Ha pe^e^^ujaTa Ha cnoBeHe^KuTe gpaMu bo MaKegoHuja, 6ugejKu He nocTou coogBeraa u peneBaHTHa KpuTuKa. KaKo egHa og Mo^HHTe npu^uHu 3a BaKBaTa cKpoMHa pa3MeHa, KaKo mTo BeKe cnoMeHaBMe u norope, Mo«e ga ce u3gBou pacnagoT Ha JyrocnaBuja. BcymHocT, cnoBeHe^KuTe aBTopu kou no 1990 r. ce ogurpaHu Ha MaKegoHcKaTa c^Ha ce rnaBHo ucTUTe oHue kou ymTe bo 80-TUTe 6une npeTcTaBeHu npeg MaKegoHcKaTa ny6nuKa - flymaH JoBaHoBuK, flparo Jarnap u flaHe 3aj^ EguHcTBeHuoT ucKny^oK e TuHa Kocu. MMeHo, oBue aBTopu Ha HeKoj Ha^uH ro npeTcTaByBaaT Toj KoHTuHyuTeT Ha copa6oTKa BeKe BocnocTaBeH npeTxogHo, mTo goBegyBa go co3HaHueTo geKa HeMa o6ugu ga ce pu3uKyBa u ga ce BHece HemTo hobo. H noKpaj ^aKToT mTo bo 2006 r., co ^uHaHcucKa noggpmKa Ha MuHucTepcTBoTo 3a KynTypa Ha CnoBeHuja, u3gageHa e KHura Ha coBpeMeHa cnoBeHe^Ka gpaMa Ha MaKegoHcKu ja3uK, u bo Koja ce cogp«aHu TeKcToBu Ha coBpeMeHu cnoBeHe^Ku gpaMcKu aBTopu KaKo Cama naB^eK, TuHa Kocu, flparu^ noTornaK u Maraja ^ynamu^, oBue TeKcToBu HuKoram He ro npoHajgoa cBojoT naT go MaKegoHcKaTa c^Ha (ocBeH MewaM0p$03u Ha TuHa Kocu). Bo oBoj cny^aj, He Mo«eMe ga KoHcrarapaMe geKa paMHogymHocTa koh cnoBeHe^KuTe gpaMcKu aBTopu ce Kpue bo $aKToT Ha HegocTanHocra, ogHocHo bo npo6neMoT Ha npeBogoT. Og Toa npou3neryBa Bne^aToKoT geKa ce pa6oTu 3a pe^npo^Ha He3auHTepecupaHocT, urHopaHTcKu ogHoc Koj oBue gBe 3eMju ro co3gane egHa koh gpyra bo ogHoc Ha coBpeMeHaTa gpaMaTypruja. 3a pa3nuKa og copa6oTKaTa Koja bo gpyruTe nonuaa Ha TeaTapcKaTa npaKca e Ha 3aBugHo hubo unu 6apeM oncTojyBa bo HeKou nomupoKu paMKu, copa6oTKaTa bo o6nacra Ha gpaMaTyprujaTa noneKa 3racHyBa, ogHocHo pe^ucu u He nocTou. Vljudna brezbrižnost Izmenjave slovenske in makedonske dramatike med letoma 1990 in 2015 Ključne besede: slovenska drama, makedonska drama, slovensko-makedonske Izmenjave, Goran Stefanovski, Aleksandar Popovski, Dušan Jovanovic, Drago Jančar, Dane Zajc Razprava analizira slovensko-makedonske gledališke izmenjave na področju dramatike. Zdi se, da so te v obdobju med letoma 1990 in 2015 redke in večinoma enosmerne, saj je bilo v Sloveniji uprizorjenih šest makedonskih dramskih tekstov, v Makedoniji pa osem slovenskih. Čeprav se na prvi pogled zdi, da je to posledica razpada nekdanje Jugoslavije, je to le del resnice. Goran Stefanovski je prvi makedonski avtor, ki je stopil na slovenske odre po letu 1990, in sicer z Bakanalijami (diplomska produkcija AGRFT 15. 5. 1998, režija Sebastijan Horvat). Prva uprizoritev na profesionalnih odrih je sledila pet let pozneje. V SNG Maribor so uprizorili Drakulo Dejana Dukovskega (18. 1. 2002, režija Aleksander Popovski), ki sicer ni najbolj znano in značilno besedilo tega avtorja makedonske različice gledališča »u fris«, a je ostala edina uprizoritev kakega njegovega teksta. Do danes sta bili uprizorjeni še dve drami Gorana Stefanovskega - Odisej, 10. 10. 2012, SNG Maribor, režija Aleksandar Popovski; in Figurae veneris historiae, 16. 10. 2014, SNG Drama Ljubljana, režija Aleksandar Popovski. Med njima najdemo še uprizoritvi dveh dram Viktorije Rangelove. Nemogoča zveza je bila ena od verzij teksta Gola. Bralno uprizoritev je doživela v ŠKUC gledališču 28. 12. 2012, režija Špela Kravogel. Gola je bila uprizorjena v koprodukciji ŠKUC gledališča in MGL 12. 10. 2013, režija Alen Jelen. Zdi se, da makedonska drama na slovenskih odrih skorajda ne obstaja. Po relativno dolgem premoru je prišlo do nekaterih poskusov, ki pa so omejeni na tri avtorje in so bili večinoma spodbujeni s strani režiserja Aleksandra Popovskega. Slovenska dramatika na makedonskih odrih kaže drugačno sliko. Repertoar beleži osem uprizoritev dram, ki so jih napisali Drago Jančar, Dušan Jovanovic, Dane Zajc, Josip Vandot, Andrej Rozman Roza in Tina Kosi. Vendar pa nam podrobnejši premislek pokaže drugačno sliko. Trije od teh tekstov so adaptacije (Kekec in Mojca je adaptacija filmskega scenarija, Tartif Andreja Rozmana Roze je predelava znane Molierjeve komedije, Tina Kosi pa je svoje Metamorfoze napisala kot predelavo izbranih Ovidovih zgodb). Poleg tega se je večina uprizoritev zgodila na začetku devetdesetih let: Veliki briljantni valček Draga Jančarja leta 1990, Medeja Daneta Zajca leta 1991, Antigona Dušana Jovanovica leta 1993, Osvoboditev Skopja in Življenje podeželskih plejbojev pa leta 2002. Zdi se torej, da je bil interes za slovensko dramatiko posledica izmenjav v osemdesetih letih in je skorajda izginil na začetku novega tisočletja. Tako so makedonski publiki povsem neznani avtorji, ki so se uveljavili po letu 1990 (npr. Matjaž Zupančič, Simona Semenič, Evald Flisar in Vinko Moderndorfer). Žanino Mirčevsko smo analizirali kot poseben primer, saj je dramaturginja, dramatičarka in profesorica na UL AGRFT v Ljubljani, ki se je rodila in se šolala v Makedoniji, a se je po koncu študija preselila v Slovenijo, kjer deluje in piše dramske tekste v slovenščini. Leta 2009 je dobila Grumovo nagrado, nagrado za najboljše dramsko besedilo za Konec Atlasa, njen opus pa obsega tudi 43 uprizoritev v slovenskih profesionalnih gledališčih, pri katerih je sodelovala kot dramaturginja, pogosto tudi kot avtorica priredbe besedila. Kljub temu sta bila le dva teksta izmed tistih, ki jih je napisala v slovenščini, uprizorjena tudi v Makedoniji (Žrelo v Dramskem teatru Skopje leta 2013 in Mesto, kjer nisem bil v Narodnem teatru Vojdan Černodrinski v Prilepu - oba je režirala Zoja Buzalkovska). Presenetljivo je dejstvo, da v Makedoniji ni izšla knjiga dram Žanine Mirčevske, tako da je prisotna le v nekaterih antologijah. Razprava išče vzroke za zgoraj našteta dejstva. Gre za vprašanje prevodov? So redki stiki posledica različnih motivov in tem? Podrobnejša analiza tekstov pokaže številne podobnosti med motivi in temami. Npr. vprašanje nekdanjih junakov (Medeja Daneta Zajca in Odisej Gorana Stefanovskega), vojna, večni konflikt med posameznikom in družbo itd. Analiza recepcije makedonske dramatike v Sloveniji kaže, da so imele uprizoritve dober obisk in povprečen medijski odziv, tako da tudi slab interes publike ni pravi vzrok za opisano situacijo. Na žalost makedonske recepcije slovenske dramatike ni bilo mogoče analizirati, saj ni relevantnih zapisov o uprizoritvah. Ena od mogočih razlag je razpad nekdanje Jugoslavije. Slovenski avtorji, ki smo jih obravnavali, so po večini tisti, ki so bili na makedonskih odrih prisotni že v osemdesetih letih - Dušan Jovanovic, Drago Jančar in Dane Zajc. Izjema je le Tina Kosi. Tako slovenski dramatiki predstavljajo nadaljevanje preteklih gledaliških izmenjav. Čeprav je leta 2006 v Makedoniji izšla knjiga Sodobna slovenska drama, ki je v makedonskem prevodu predstavila tekste Saše Pavček, Tine Kosi, Dragice Potočnjak in Matjaža Zupančiča, so bile uprizorjene le Metamorfoze Tine Kosi. Razlog torej prav tako ni v neobstoju prevodov. Tako je splošni vtis o gledaliških izmenjavah na področju dramatike nekakšna vzajemna ignoranca gledaliških ustvarjalcev (bržkone režiserjev in direktorjev 141 gledališč) do sodobne dramatike obeh narodov. V nasprotju s podobo gledaliških izmenjav na drugih področjih (npr. pri izmenjavi umetnikov, režiserjev), ki so vsa ta leta zelo živahne in pogoste, teh v dramatiki skorajda ni več. Contributors 143 Hristina Cvetanoska graduated from the Department of Italian Language, Faculty of Philology Blazhe Koneski, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University - Skopje. This year, she began postgraduate work in theatre studies at the Department of Drama Actors, Faculty of Dramatic Arts. At the short film competition organised by the EU-MK InfoCentre on the occasion of Shakespeare's 450-year birth anniversary, she won the third place for her role in the film Mind Full of Scorpions. In 2009, she participated in the Amateur Drama Festival (ADF) with the soliloquy Confessions of an Aegean Woman. She won the award "Karamanov" in 2015 at the traditional Karamanov poetry meetings for her collection of poems Grids and Other Delusions. hristina_cvetanoska@live.com Sasho Dimoski graduated in general and comparative literature in 2008 at the Faculty for Philology Blazhe Koneski, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University - Skopje. He is finishing his doctoral dissertation at the Department of Theatre Studies, Faculty of Drama Arts, at the same university. Since 2014, Dimoski works as a dramatist at the National Theatre J.H.K. Dzinot in Veles, Macedonia. He has published the following books: The Hooligan's Diary (Kultura, 2014); Alma Mahler (Kultura, 2014, Laguna, 2017, Dalkey Archive Press, 2018); a book of collected plays set onstage We, the Others (Kultura 2015); The Fifth Season (novel, Kultura 2015, Ombra GVG 2018, Dalkey Archive Press 2019) - awarded the prestigious Racin Award for contemporary Macedonian prose - Sleeping Beauties (Kultura, 2017). His short tales were published in the international literature magazine Rukopisi (2011, Pancevo, Serbia), as well as in the Anthology of the Macedonian short tale (Dalkey Archive Press, 2018). As a leading playwright of Macedonia's youngest generation, the following drama texts stand out in Dimoski's biography: Phaedra (2015, co-produced by National Theatre Dzinot, Veles and Mladinsko Theatre, Ljubljana, Slovenia), Medea (2016, produced by the festival of antique drama Stobi), The Assembly Women (2016, National Theatre Ohrid, same year - National Theatre in Nish, Serbia), the libretto for contemporary ballet The Red Room (2016, Macedonian Opera and Ballet, SkopjeJ, Ana Comnena (2017, National Theatre Dzinot), My Forest's Tree (2017, National Theatre Dzinot), the libretto for contemporary ballet Death and the Dervish (2017, HNK Split, Croatia), Les Demoiselles D'Avignon (2018, Macedonian National Theatre), The Royal Bastards (2018, National Theatre Dzinot) and others. dimoski.sasho@gmail.com 144 Zala Dobovšek graduated with a BA in dramaturgy from the Academy of Theatre, Radio, Film and Television, University of Ljubljana (UL AGRFT) and is also assistant for dramaturgy and performing arts at the same institution. In 2008/09, she studied at DAMU in Prague. Since 2005, she has been writing for the Culture and Humanities Department of Radio Student Ljubljana; from 2009 to 2014, she worked as a theatre critic at the Slovenian daily Delo; since 2015, she has been contributing to the fortnightly arts and culture newspaper Pogledi and the daily Dnevnik. Her contributions are published also in professional journals (Maska, Dialogi, Amfiteater ...). She has been a member of different expert juries (Maribor Theatre Festival, Week of Slovenian Drama, Gibanica - Biennial of Slovenian Contemporary Dance, MESS Festival Sarajevo, Ministry of Culture) and a programme selector (MESS Festival 2014 - national programme, Golden Stick 2013 - Festival of children's and young people's theatre). In 2017/2018, she was a selector of the competition programme of the main Slovenian national festival, the Maribor Theatre Festival. She is member of the Association of Theatre Critics and Researchers of Slovenia. As dramaturg she has collaborated with the following theatres and institutions: Mini teater, Ljubljana City Theatre, Senzorium Institute, Ljubljana Puppet Theatre, Maribor Puppet Theatre, and DAMU in Prague. Since 2016, she has been a mentor of Mala šola kritike - a seminar of writing about puppetry and contemporary performing arts. Currently she is pursuing a doctorate in performing arts at UL AGRFT with the research topic Theatre and War: Basic Relations between Performing Arts and the Wars in the Area of the Former Yugoslavia in the 1990s. zala.dobovsek@yahoo.com Aldo Milohnic is an associate professor of the History of Theatre at the Academy of Theatre, Radio, Film and Television, University of Ljubljana (UL AGRFT). He is author of two books (Theories of Contemporary Theatre and Performance; Art in Times of the Rule of Law and Capital) and numerous articles in academic journals. He is co-author of several books (Culture Ltd. - Material Conditions of Cultural Production; It's Time for Brecht, among others) and editor of numerous anthologies and special issues of performing arts journals (Theatre of Resistance; The Politicality of Performance; Pupilcheks Arrived - 40 Years of the Pupilija Ferkeverk Theatre; Artivism; Brecht/Gestus; How to Do Things with Words in Theatre; Women in Theatre; Along the Margins of the Humanities, etc.). He is a member of the editorial boards of several performing arts journals; a member of the Association of Theatre Critics and Researchers of Slovenia and International Federation for Theatre Research; and a board member of the Slovenian Theatre Institute and the European Association for the Study of Theatre and Performance. aldo.milohnic@guest.arnes.si Ana Stojanoska graduated in general and comparative literature (2001). She 145 obtained her MA (2003) and PhD (2007) in theatre studies at the Faculty of Dramatic Arts - Skopje. She is an associate professor for the subjects: Macedonian Drama and Theatre, History ofWorld Drama and Theatre and From Book to Movie. She has her own subjects at the master/post-graduate and doctoral studies at the Faculty of Dramatic Arts - Skopje (Ss. Cyril and Methodius University). She publishes prose, essays and scientific papers in the field of theatre, gender studies and theory of literature in Macedonian and foreign periodicals. She actively cooperates with a number of events regarding theatre museology in the country and abroad (author/curator of the exhibition "Chernodrinski 060", Prilep, 2011; collaborator to the exhibition "Kiril Ristoski", Prilep, 2012; external collaborator to the exhibition "National Theatre in Skopje (1913-1941) - a hundred years since the founding, Belgrade, 2013). She used to write reviews for theatre plays in the Macedonian daily newspaper flHeBHHK [Dnevnik] (2004). She edited the book Plays by Dejan Dukovski (Skopje: ProArts, 2002). She selected, reviewed and edited the book Macedonian Contemporary Drama, Volume 101, from the project 130 Volumes of Macedonian Literature (Bitola: Mikena, 2008). She is the author of Macedonian Postmodern Theatre (Skopje: FDA, 2006) and Dimitar Kjostarov - Realistic Poetics and Aesthetic of a Director (Skopje: FDA, 2014). She is one of the authors of Glossary of Literary Theory (Skopje: MANU, 2007). Partial editor of Facts and one of the co-authors of the monographs Hija Milchin, (ed. Jelena Luzhina, Prilep: MTF "Vojdan Chernodrinski", 2003) and Petre Prlichko, (ed. Jelena Luzhina, Skopje: Magor, 2004). She is the author of the soliloquy The Glass Lampion, first performed in Theatra, 16 June 2013. Initiator, coordinator and one of the editors of Ars Academica, a scientific journal with international redaction, jointly prepared and published by the Faculty of Dramatic Arts - Skopje and the Faculty of Music - Skopje. She has participated in the work of several scientific symposiums and workshops regarding theatre science. arcanna10@gmail.com Gašper Troha graduated from the Department of Comparative Literature and Literary Theory of the Faculty of Arts and the Academy of Music, both of the University of Ljubljana. In 2007, he received his PhD with the dissertation Artikulacija odnosa do oblasti v slovenski drami 1943-1990 [The Articulation of the Relationship to Authority in Slovenian Drama 1943-1990]. His research focuses on the sociology of literature, especially concerning the questions of contemporary world and Slovenian drama and theatre. He works part-time at the Faculty of Arts and also heads the Arsem Publishing House. In addition, he was the programme director of the Vilenica International 146 Literary Festival (2010-13) and the general director of the Creativity Directorate at the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Slovenia (2013-14). He has contributed to numerous national and foreign scientific journals and edited several scientific monographs, among them, History and its Literary Genres (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008), Literarni modernizem v »svinčenih« letih [Literary Modernism in the Lead Years] (Študentska založba, 2008) and Lojze Kovačič: življenje in delo [Lojze Kovačič: Life and Work] (Študentska založba, 2009). His recent publications include a book on cultural opposition and Slovene dramatic literature entitled Ujetniki svobode [Prisoners of Freedom] (Dialogi, AGRFT, 2015). gasper. troha@gmail.com Sonja Zdravkova-Djeparoska graduated from the State Institute for Theatre Art (GITIS), Department of Ballet, in Moscow, Russia. In 1993, at the same institute, she earned her MFA. She completed her postgraduate work and doctorate in theatre studies at the Faculty of Dramatic Arts, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University - Skopje (2003 and 2010). During the period of 1993-2010, she led her own ballet class at the State school centre for music and ballet "Ilija Nikolovski - Luj", Skopje. She is an external collaborator of different periodicals in Macedonia and abroad. Since 2001, she has been cooperating actively with the Institute of Theatre Studies, taking part in several projects. In 2010, when the department of ballet pedagogy and modern dance was opened at the Faculty of Music, she was elected assistant professor for the subjects History and Analysis of Modern and Contemporary Dance and Character Plays; and at the Faculty of Dramatic Arts - Skopje for the subjects Theory of Performance and History of Ballet. She is a member of several national and international organisations connected to the performing arts. She is the author of the books Character Games (Skopje: Magnat, 1998); Discourses of the Dance Art of the Twentieth Century (Skopje: Jugoreklam, 2001); Ballet Dramaturgy (Skopje: FDA, 2003); History and Theory of the Ballet Art (Skopje: MI-AN, 2006); Aspects of the Performative Kinaesthesia (Skopje: Jugoreklam, 2011). In 2014, she was the initiator of the journal Ars Academica, published by the Faculty of Dramatic Arts - Skopje and the Faculty of Music -Skopje; today, she is one of its chief editors. She is a member of the editorial board for international editions of ICTM - Dance, Narratives, Heritage, published by ICTM and the Institute for Ethnology and Folklore (2015), Zagreb, Croatia, as well as Improvisation, professionalization and interdisciplinarity in ethnomusicology and ethnochoreology, published by ICTM and the Faculty of Arts, Belgrade, Serbia (2016). She continuously participates in congresses, conferences and symposiums. z.djeparoska@gmail.com Interviews I MHTepBjya I Intervjuja Dejan Srhoj, dancer and choreographer Dance is an Overlooked Potential of Intercultural Cooperation Interviewed by Aldo Milohnic Dejan Srhoj, a performer and author in the field of contemporary dance, celebrated his 40th birthday on 31 October of this year. Currently, most of his work focuses on the long-term project, Composition of Differences, where he researches choreographic principles through dance improvisations, sharing practices and education. Upon finding out that a robot could evoke emotions in him, he created a performance in Sweden for a Nao robot who speaks, dances and thinks. In addition to that, he curates CoFestival in Ljubljana and actively collaborates in developing the programmes of the Nomad Dance Academy network, which he established together with colleagues from Slovenia and the Balkans. Since 2001, he is an independent artist. A co-founder of Fičo Balet, he collaborated as either a dancer or author in the performances 1:0, Sweat & Soot, Emofad, Sun City, Confidance, Edge of Eden, Formula, 2:0 etc. During this time, he also performed in dance and theatre projects with Janez Janša, Ivica Buljan, Sebastijan Horvat, Betontanc, Magdalena Reiter, Silvan Omerzu, Kaja Lorenci, and others. Before that, between 1998 and 2001, he was a soloist at the SNT Opera and Ballet Ljubljana, where he mostly danced principal roles in classical ballets. In the 1990s, you danced in the performances of the ballet ensemble at the SNT Opera and Ballet Ljubljana, but in the new millennium, you shifted to contemporary dance and movement theatre. How and why did you make this shift from classical ballet to contemporary dance? Your question reminded me of the Fake it! project that we did with Emil Hrvatin, or Janez Janša. In the project, we reconstructed old performances that we transposed into the contemporary context while researching and questioning the context in which these performances were created: what has changed, how do we experience space, body and movement now, who were these choreographers, why did they do it, what was their education, in what kind of environment were they creating these performances ... 152 Ballet didn't have this approach. In ballet, we blindly copied movements that certain choreographers determined a hundred or more years ago. As for those movements, we didn't place them in the context of that or the present time, as we were merely to repeat them as a prescribed form. It bothered me that I didn't know what I was doing, even though ballet appears to be very clear, simple. It also bothered me that ballet choreographers didn't work with people, with individuals, they didn't create choreographies for particular dancers, but we were simply some sort of putty objects that choreographers could mould according to their wishes. Recently, a Russian ballet dancer was telling me that the first three years in ballet school in Russia are aimed at killing the person's sense of self with the very clear objective of transforming the dancer into putty. But when I started creating in the field of contemporary dance, a new world opened up to me. The very course of a rehearsal is different - it can start a couple of minutes late, you can take a break, you can talk, your opinion matters, you feel some basic respect among your co-workers ... When you transitioned to contemporary dance, did you first have to "cleanse" the residue of ballet training? Did the rehearsed ballet moves interfere with creating contemporary dance performances? With ballet, the centre of the body is in the chest (probably connected to the fact that you project yourself as strong, handsome, the best, flawless), and in contemporary dance, it's in the pelvis. That very fact creates different images, emotions and so on for the dancer. It took me several years to move the centre from the chest to the pelvis, or to be able to research where it could be shifted. Establishing Fico Balet was a milestone in your dance creativity. How do you evaluate its importance today, twenty years later, and the place it has in the recent history of contemporary dance in Slovenia? The Fico Balet website once stated that we were in the business of democratising highbrow art. What we wanted to say was that we'd inject classical ballet with humour, casualness, perhaps even mischief, and we'd have fun doing this. Personally, I felt that was my own dance emancipation, because with all the knowledge that dance teachers and choreographers had given me so meticulously, I could, at the end of the day, play, reflect or ironise it. Perhaps this playfulness regarding ballet and introducing humour in this otherwise serious dance form has been the greatest achievement of Fico Balet in our environment. And another interesting thing: almost all the dancers were male. When we entered this space between the classical and contemporary dance and started touring the festivals, it became obvious that this wasn't so common. 153 I remember when John Ashford, a contemporary dance producer, who at the time was the director of The Place theatre in London, said, quite surprised: "Well, look, in Slovenia, men dance." In general, however, I think that Fico Balet remains in some sort of interspace and this might be why to this day it hasn't been present enough in the theory of either classical or contemporary dance. Perhaps the reason is also that we've never followed particular trends in contemporary dance, but have preferred to pick particular dance elements and mix them in our own way. How did the establishment of the Nomad Dance Academy (NDA) come about and what were the reasons for its creation? A couple of days before the theatre network IETM met in 2005 in Belgrade, the Bunker Institute organised a meeting of the Balkan Express network, in which many NGOs and independent artists from the territories of the former Yugoslavia and other Balkan countries participated. At one of the meetings, dancers, choreographers and contemporary dance producers from the region gathered and talked about the unusual fact that we knew what was happening in Berlin, Paris or London, but not what was happening in the cities nearby, although we came from a once united cultural space, and had a common history, spoke similar languages, etc. We also found out that we were facing similar production limitations. From there, the desire to meet again and strengthen our cooperation grew. Which achievements of the NDA would you emphasise as the most important from the point of view of regional cooperation? The cooperation started with the formation of a nomadic educational programme, where 14 to 15 participants travelled through the entire territory of former Yugoslavia and Bulgaria for four months. They spent a couple of weeks in each country, followed lectures, participated in workshops and created their own art. Perhaps most important was that they got to know the local scene - who were the actors, how they worked, thought, what problems they encountered ... From this educational programme, in which in one way or another over 100 people participated, grew a community in which organisers and participants of the programme connected. This was the basis for future cooperation. Later, of course, new challenges appeared, for example, how to ensure the long-term financing of contemporary dance. NDA's activities are funded from the European culture programmes and we're quite successful at that, but we 154 have immense problems with providing the required 50% co-financing from our local communities. We thus learnt that we had to organise advocacy events where we would convince the deciders that a regional fund should be set up, one that would cofinance the cooperation of artists in the region, as well as the European projects into which these artists are included. As a part of this programme of advocacy, we have so far organised three events in the region, and the fourth will be next year in Ljubljana, where we will defend the idea for setting up a network of residencies in the cities in which we have partners. The third segment is support for archiving, because the region doesn't have an institution that systematically works on archiving contemporary dance. Let me mention another NDA achievement, the Nomad Dance Institute which offers coproductions to projects that come recommended. We started this community building through coproducing performances some years ago, when we met at the MSUM+ in Ljubljana, where every member of the NDA had a chance to present their project or invite another member's project to a coproducing cooperation. Then we adopted the rule of regional cooperation within the project: you could either offer your own project to other members to coproduce, or you invited another member's project to work with you - both at the same time was not possible according to this rule. We thus tried to evoke interest for participation in every member, about what other members of the community were doing, for co-decision. In short, we didn't want to shift the responsibility to some committee, but rather to give the power of decision to each individual and thus practice some agreed form of direct democracy. The NDA encouraged the establishment of some contemporary dance festivals in the Balkans. Can you tell us a bit more about the strategy of establishing dance festivals and the role the NDA has in these processes? The route to these festivals was organic, they were created because their existence was necessary. Dance scenes in the region needed greater visibility and some kind of a platform so they could share their creativity with the interested audience. The NDA guaranteed start-up funding for these festivals, from a European project. In this way, the festivals Antistatic in Sofia, LocoMotion in Skopje, Zvrk in Sarajevo, Kondenz in Belgrade were founded, and even before the NDA, the Platforma festival in Zagreb. In Ljubljana, we presented the student productions from the educational part of the programme at the mini-festival Short Cuts. In 2011, the festival Pleskavica developed from this, and the year after that, we merged with the festival Ukrep (PTL) and Modul Dance Project (Kino Šiška) into CoFestival. To sum up, this is about strengthening visibility, building community, creating audience, but also developing incentive for local cultural politicians in the region to attend festivals and get to know contemporary dance. As the members ofthe NDA, you have developed your own principles of operation 155 - how do you use these principles when you organise and realise the CoFestival? The fundamental principle is definitely the invitation, as I've already mentioned. We do have an artistic board which decides, but we don't have designated functions; someone might focus more on production, someone else on workshop organisation etc., depending on their own preference, but we all prepare the programme together. In addition to that, we use the principle of balance, which means we make sure we invite performances from different countries and that different genres and styles of performances are represented. We're also careful that there aren't disproportionate differences in fees for performers and other collaborators. We also have the open space principle, which allows us to leave open the opportunity for the unknown. This can be a performance that has surprised up, a lecturer that brings in a fresh approach, or could also mean to let someone from the outside of the NDA organise a meeting, etc. It's a moment of coincidence that may bring new knowledge or insight. What currently interests me most in contemporary dance is this very moment, which inside a certain frame allows for a possibility of research, testing, also mistakes. And how this principle, through the idea of choreography as an expanded practice, can be applied to the organisation of a festival or another event. As you have already mentioned, one of the festivals created on the NDA initiative is the LocoMotion in Skopje, whose producer (until 2015) was Lokomotiva, a cultural NGO. How does the cooperation with Lokomotiva work and how would you rate its importance for the dance scene in Macedonia? In addition to the Macedonian part of the NDA, Lokomotiva is one of the few cultural NGOs in Macedonia that is working in the production and promotion of contemporary dance, so it is very important for the development of their dance scene. Biljana Tanurovska Kjulavkovski and Iskra Shukarova were the most instrumental in making Lokomotiva the leading NGO for contemporary dance in Macedonia. In addition to that, Biljana has been a member of the NDA coordination group throughout, and has greatly contributed to retaining the platform, that it was financially sustainable and that it developed in the production sense. But I think that in Macedonia they may not be fully aware how important Lokomotiva is for their dance scene. I participated in the Locomotion Festival several times and it was excellent, there was always a lot of audience, many discussions, educational programmes, in short, the festival offered everything that we believe a contemporary dance festival should offer: artistic events, reflection of these events, education and creating a community. 156 What's your opinion about the situation of contemporary dance in Macedonia? Could you compare the production circumstances (for example, financial support, technical conditions of work, promotional practices, etc.) in Macedonia and Slovenia? Compared to the Slovenian dance scene, the Macedonian one is small. Besides that, there is a huge difference in the number of performing venues. Ljubljana has several venues that relatively regularly present contemporary dance (PTL, Španski borci, Stara elektrarna, Cankarjev dom ...), they are relevant, well-equipped, supported by technical and PR personnel, etc. In Skopje, there is not a single stage dedicated exclusively, or even predominantly, to contemporary dance. For the last two years, Lokomotiva has used the premises of the former cinema Kultura in Skopje, where they show contemporary dance, but in the financial and technical sense, this is still extremely undernourished. Iskra Shukarova, who has been on the dance scenes for two decades, is able to raise only between one and two thousand euros on the calls for public tender, but in Slovenia, we get funding up to ten times higher for a similar project. But we both have a similar problem: we don't have a dance studio that would be dedicated exclusively to practising contemporary dance. In the context of the bilateral research project about Macedonian-Slovenian theatre links, your collaboration with the Macedonian choreographer Iskra Shukarova is particularly interesting. How did it come about? Iskra and I collaborated intensively in the project Formula. When I was teaching dance in Macedonia years ago, Iskra suggested that we take a couple of days to research the stage as an extended Laban's cube, within which we studied geometrical relationships and at the same time the deconstruction of ballet, from which we both started. We were interested in how ballet could be placed in the paradigm of contemporary dance, and we worked on it for several years; we took a couple of days before each reprise, to develop a new formula. This word, formula, must be understood in all its meanings: as a recipe, formula for success, formula of use of time and space, as a mathematical formula and even as a vehicle - at one point we really brought a model of a car shaped as a formula that was remotely controlled, and moved instead of us along the lines and diagonals inside the Laban's cube. This was a truly inspiring and entertaining project. Do you plan for new future projects in cooperation with Iskra Shukarova? Perhaps also with other Macedonian artists? At this moment, Iskra and I are discussing organising "co-teaching" in Skopje - a form of education where several teachers teach the same training method or lead the same workshop so that the same training or workshop gives the participants different 157 views, and also so that transfer of knowledge becomes a process during which the teachers learn, too. Since Iskra teaches contemporary dance at the University of Skopje, she envisioned that this format should be tested there. Within the NDA frame, the cooperation with contemporary dance artists from Macedonia continues, so it is not impossible that we would bring some of them to the CoFestival in the future. What do you think of the intensity of the cooperation between Slovenian and Macedonian dancers and choreographers so far? Have the possibilities for cooperation been explored and used enough so far? There were, of course, some guest performances by dance performances or artists, within the festivals or educational programmes, but these were sporadic events and not a more systemic form of cooperation. Which is surprising, in fact, because the countries are, after all, quite similar - in size, number of citizens, they also have decades of common history, the nations have never been in conflict, quite the opposite, when I come to Macedonia, I always feel some respect and friendship. It is thus clear that the politicians of both countries haven't yet recognised contemporary dance as a form of artistic production with which we could strengthen intercultural cooperation. The basic question is therefore how to conceive a state - through contemporary creativity or through some out-dated patterns and stereotypes, through folklore, etc. The NDA, the Balkan Dance Project and similar projects of regional cooperation point at a thoughtful approach to conceiving joint projects. Is this approach, in general, comparable to similar projects of years-long cooperation with partner organisations and individuals from other European countries? Last year, Nina Božič - with whom I've been working for a long time on projects connecting art and industry - and I ran a workshop for directors of co-working spaces in Stockholm. During this workshop, I was really surprised that they didn't really feel a need for cooperation, because where they are, such spaces have sufficient financial support and have their target user groups. For this reason, the meeting was completely artificial, everybody was extremely polite, we brainstormed about how we could cooperate, but in reality, they had no need for that. To link this to contemporary dance in Europe, I can tell you that there are many dance groups, particularly in Western Europe, that are adequately financed, including via long-term programmes, so I haven't noticed a particular need for cooperation from their side. Of course, they have to collaborate, because the European financiers usually demand that, but they more or less do it to comply with the grant requirements and not because they really want to. 158 In Yugoslavia, there was relatively a lot of collaboration between the Slovenian and Macedonian ballet artists, particularly as a part of the regular festival manifestations. After the disintegration of our former shared country, the intensity of this collaboration was significantly reduced and is now sporadic. Do you see possibilities for the intensification of future collaboration between Macedonian and Slovenian ballet ensembles and individual artists? I'm not familiar enough with the regional and bilateral policies in the field of ballet, so I can only agree with your observation, as mine is the same - the collaboration is minimal, it depends on individual initiatives, but there is no structural support. As a part of CoFestival, for example, it happens that we can much more easily invite Swiss, Austrian or German artists than the artists from the Balkans; although the former cost a lot more, we can bring them, because such tours and appearances are financially supported by the cultural policies of their countries. On the other hand, the festival would have to fully cover the cost of the appearance if we wanted to bring someone from Macedonia. The moment you start to explain to the politicians about the cooperation in the region, you get a lovely smile and a polite word, but in reality, there is no real interest to support cultural cooperation, because the countries in the Balkans are still in the phase of constructing their own identity and are living with the false conviction that by evoking some made-up, mythical history and shifting the cultural cooperation from the Balkans to Western Europe will reinforce their recognisability. What should we improve on the level of cultural policies of both countries so that there are more reciprocal guest appearances of ballet ensembles and ballet artists? The least we should expect and demand of organised cultural policies is that, in the strategic documents, it clearly states how it will contribute to the development of an individual field and how it will encourage tours and other forms of bilateral and regional cooperation in this field. Among the artists, there is a desire for cooperation, there's also potential, but there is not enough support for the latter to be realised. Translated by Barbara Skubic flejaH Cpxoj, TaH^ap h Kopeorpa^ TaH^T e npeHe6perHaT ^OTeH^ujan Ha MeryKynTypHaTa copa6oTKa Pa3roBapame: Ango MunoxHuK flejaH Cpxoj, H3BegyBa^oT u TBope^ Ha noneTo Ha coBpeMeHuoT TaH^ Ha 31 oktombpu oBaa roguHa cnaBeme ^erapueceT roguHu. Bo MoMeHToB pa6ora npBeHCTBeHo Ha gonroporauoT npoeKT KoMno3H^u Ha pa3nuKUTe, (Kompozicije razlik) Kage mTo ru ucTpa^yBa Kopeorpa^CKUTe npuH^nu npeKy TaH^Bu uMnpoBroa^u, npaKTuKu Ha cnogenyBaae u egyKa^ja. nopagu ^ktot geKa u po6otot Mo^e ga pa3BuBa eMo^u, Toj bo fflBegcKa HanpaBu npeTcTaBa 3a HAO-po6oToT Koj 36opyBa, TaH^a u Mucnu. noKpaj Toa, ro Bogu CoFestival bo ^y6aaHa u e aKTuBHo BKny^eH bo pa3BojoT Ha nporpaMu Ha Mpe^aTa Nomad Dance Academy, Koja ja ocHoBa 3aegHo co copa6orau^ og CnoBeHuja u 6anKaHcKuoT peruoH. Og 2001 roguHa e He3aBuceH yMeTHuK, coocHoBa^ Ha EaneT, bo muu paMKu KaKo aBTop unu KaKo Tarnap y^ecreyBan bo npeTcraBuTe 1:0, Švic in Švarc, Emofad, Sun City, Confidance, Rob Raja, Formula, 2:0 u gpyru. noKpaj Toa, y^ecreyBan KaKo u3BegyBa^ bo TaH^Bu u TeaTapcKu npoeKTu co JaHe3 JaHma, Mbu^ Ey^aH, Ce6acTujaH XopBaT, EeTonraH^ MarganeHa PeuTep, CunBaH OMep3y, Kaja ^opeH^ u gpyru. npeg Toa, bo nepuogoT Mery 1998 u 2001 roguHa e aHra^upaH KaKo 6aneTcKu conucT bo CHr Onepa u 6aneT, ^y6aaHa Kage mTo Haj^ecTo 6un HocuTen Ha rnaBHu ynoru bo KnacmeH 6aneT. Bo 90-THTe roguHH HacTanyBame bo npeTCTaBHTe Ha ^yfrtoaHCKuoT 6aneT, a Ha noqeTOKOT Ha hobhot MuneHuyM ce npeHacoqu koh coBpeMeHHOT TaH^ h (Jh-oifikhot TeaTap. KaKo u 3omTo gojge go Toj noTer og KnacuqeH 6aneT go coBpeMeH TaH^ npamaaeTo Me noTcera Ha npoeKToT Fake It!, mTo ro pa6oTeBMe co EMun XpBaTuH, ogHocHo JaHe3 JaHma. Bo oBoj npoeKT npaBeBMe peKoHcrpy^uja Ha crapu npeTcTaBu u ru cMecTyBaBMe bo coBpeMeH KoHTeKcT, a bo ucto BpeMe ce npamyBaBMe 3a KoHTeKcToT bo Koj ce nojaBuja ucTuTe npeTcTaBu: mTo e Toa mTo ce npoMeHu, KaKo cera ro go^uByBaMe npocTopoT, TenoTo, gBu^eaeTo, kou 6une Tue Kopeorpa^u, 3omTo ro npaBene Toa, KaKBo 6uno hubhoto o6pa3oBaHue, bo KaKBa oKonuHa ru co3gaBane Tue npeTcTaBu... Bo 6aneToT He nocToeme TaKoB npucran; bo 6aneToT caMo cneno ru KonupaBMe gBu^eaaTa onpegeneHu og HeKou Kopeorpa^u npeg cto u HeKonKy roguHu. Tue 6aneTcKu gBu^eaa gypu u He ru cTaBaBMe bo KoHTeKcT Ha ToramHoTo unu geHemHoTo BpeMe, 6ugejKu 162 MopaBMe ga ru noBTopyBaMe caM0 KaKo gageHa (opMa. MeHe mu npe^eme Toa mT0 He 3HaeB mT0 npaBaM, uaKo 6aneT0T U3rnega geKa e MHory jacHa, egHocTaBHa (opMa Ha TaH^Bo gBu^eae. noKpaj Toa, mu npe^eme mT0 6aneTcKUTe Kopeorpa(u He pa6oTea co nyre, co ^oeguH^u, He co3gaBaa Kopeorpa(uja 3a ogpegeH TaH^ap, TyKy cuTe 6eBMe egeH Bug o6jeKTu og nnacTenuH, kou Kopeorpa(uTe cu ru o6nuKyBaa cnopeg HUBHaTa «en6a. HeogaMHa, egeH pycKu 6aneTaH o6jacHyBame geKa npBUTe Tpu roguHu bo 6aneTcKUTe mKonu bo Pycuja ce HaMeHeTu ga ro y6ujaT M0BeK0B0T0 jac co jacHa HaMepa, TaH^apoT ga ro TpaHc(opMupaaT bo nnacTenuH. Kora noraaB ga co3gaBaM bo noneTo Ha coBpeMeHuoT TaH^ 3a MeHe ce oTBopu hob cBeT. Bo coBpeMeHuoT TaH^ e nouHaKBa gypu u npo6aTa - Taa Mo«e ga 3anorae HeKonKy MUHyTu ^ogo^Ha, Mo«e ga HanpaBum nay3a 3a ogMop, ga pa3roBapam, TBoeTo Mucneae uMa Te^uHa, ce ^yBcreyBa HeKoe ochobho no^uTyBaae Mery KoneruTe... ^ami Tpeöame ga ce „hcthcth" ocTaToKoT og öaneTcKoTo o6pa3oBaHiie co npeMHHoT koh coBpeMeHHoT TaH^ ^ann ycBoeHHTe öaneTcKH gBimeaa th npeqea npa co3gaBaaeTo Ha npeTcTaBH co coBpeMeHHoT TaH^ Bo 6aneT0T, ^HTapoT Ha TenoTo e bo rpagHuoT Kom (Toa BepojaTHo e noBp3aHo co Toa geKa ce npeTcTaByBam KaKo cuneH, y6aB, Hajgo6ap, 6e3 rpemKa) a bo coBpeMeHuoT TaH^ ^HTapoT e bo Kapnu^Ta, u BeKe oBoj (aKT Kaj TarnapuTe co3gaBa pa3nu^Ha cnuKa, eMo^u, UTH. Mu Tpe6aa HeKonKy roguHu ga ro npeMecraM oBoj ^HTap, og rpagHuoT Kom bo Kapnu^Ta, ogHocHo ga ucrpa^yBaM Kage cè Mo«aM ga ro npeMecraM. OcHoBaaeTo Ha BaneT 6eme npecBpTHi^a bo TBoeTo TaH^TBopeae. KaKo geHec, no petaca gBe ge^HHH, ro o^HyBam HeroBoTo 3Haqeae h MecToTo mTo ro 3a3eMa bo noHoBaTa iicTopiija Ha coBpeMeHHoT TaH^ bo CmoBeHHja? Ha uHTepHeT-cTpaHu^Ta Ha BaneT, egHo BpeMe uMaBMe HanumaHo 3a geM0KpaTU3a^jaTa Ha BucoKaTa yMeTHocT. CaKaBMe ga Ka^eMe geKa bo Knacu^HuoT 6aneT Ke BHecyBaMe xyMop, onymTeHocT, M0«e6u gypu u 6e3o6supHocT, u npuToa Ke ce 3a6aByBaMe. ïïu^ho, Toa ro MyBcTByBaB KaKo Moja TaH^-eMaH^u^a^uja, 6ugejKu Mo«eB ga cu urpaM, ga ro npeucnuTyBaM unu ga ro upoHU3upaM ceTo 3Haeae mTo 6aneTcKUTe y^uTenu u Kopeorpa(u cTporo mu ro npeHecyBaa. Mo«e6u T0KMy nourpyBaaeTo co 6aneT0T u BHecyBaaeTo xyMop bo 0Baa uHaKy MomHe cepuo3Ha TaH^Ba (opMa 6u ro ucTaKHan KaKo HajroneMo gocTurHyBaae Ha BaneT bo HamaTa cpeguHa. H HemTo gpyro e uHTepecHo: pe^ucu cuTe Tarnapu 6eBMe Ma«u. Kora BneroBMe bo npocTopoT Mery Knacu^HuoT u coBpeMeHuoT TaH^ u no^HaBMe ga rocTyBaMe Ha cTpaHcKu (ecTUBanu, cTaHa o^urnegHo geKa 0Ba He 6eme TonKy qecra nojaBa. Ce ceKaBaM Kora ^h Am(opg, npogy^eHT0T 3a coBpeMeH TaH^ Koj bo Toa BpeMe 6eme gupeKTop Ha noHgoHcKuoT TeaTap The Place, co u3HeHagyBafte pe^e: Bugu, Bugu, bo CnoBeHuja u Ma«u TaH^yBaaT. MHaKy, 163 mu ce MUHU geKa BaneT ocTaHyBa bo HeKoj MerynpocTop u M0«e6u 0Ba e npmuHaTa 3omTo Toj go cera cè ymTe He 6eme goBonHo npucyTeH bo cnoBeHe^KaTa Teopuja 3a Knacu^eH unu coBpeMeH TaH^ Mo«e6u npmuHaTa e u Toa mT0 Hue HUKoram He cnegeBMe ogpegeHu TpeHfloBu bo coBpeMeHuoT TaH^ TyKy co6paBMe pa3Hu TaH^Bu eneMeHTu u ru MemaBMe Ha HeKoj cBoj Ha^uH. KaKo gojge go $opMHpara Ha Nomad Dance Academy (NDA) h koh 6ea npimiiHiiTe 3a Hej3HH0T0 ^opMHpafte? HeKonKy geHa npeg cpeg6aTa Ha TeaTapcKaTa Mpe^a IETM, mT0 ce ogp^a bo 2005 roguHa bo Benrpag, Zavod Bunker opraHU3upame cpeg6a Ha Mpe^aTa Balkan Express, bo Koja y^ecTByBaa roneM 6poj HeBnaguHu opraHU3a^uu u He3aBucHu KpeaTopu bo KynTypaTa og nopaHemHa JyrocnaBuja u og gpyruTe 3eMju Ha BanKaH0T. Ha egeH og pa3roBopuTe ce co6paBMe TaH^apu, Kopeorpa^u u npogy^eHTu Ha coBpeMeHuoT TaH^ og peru0H0T u ro 3aKny^uBMe Heo6u^HuoT $aKT geKa 3HaeMe mT0 ce cny^yBa bo BepnuH, napu3 unu ^0Hfl0H, ho He 3HaeMe mT0 ce cny^yBa Ha MecTa kou ce bo Hama HenocpegHa 6nu3UHa, u noKpaj Toa mT0 goaraMe og 3aegHu^Ku KynTypeH npocTop u genuMe 3aegHu^Ka ucTopuja, 36opyBaMe cnu^Hu ja3u^ uth. noKpaj Toa, 3aKny^uBMe geKa ce coo^yBaMe co cnu^Hu npogy^ucKu orpaHu^yBaaa. Toram ce pogu «en6aTa 3a noBTopHa cpeg6a u 3a 3ajaKHyBafte Ha HamaTa copa6oTKa. KOH gocTHrayBaaa Ha NDA Ke ra H3gBoHTe KaKo HajBa^HH BO ogHoc Ha peraoHaflHaTa copaöoTKa? Copa6oTKaTa 3ano^Ha co Kpeupaae Ha HoMagcKa 06pa30BHa nporpaMa, bo Koja 14 - 15 yqecHU^u Ha nporpaMaTa naTyBaa ^erapu Mece^u hu3 ^naTa TepuTopuja Ha nopaHemHa JyrocnaBuja u Byrapuja. Bo ceKoja 3eMja ocTaHaa no HeKonKy Hegenu, cnymaa npegaBaaa, y^ecrayBaa Ha pa6oTunHU^u u Kpeupaa concTBeHu yMeTHu^Ku gena. Mo«e6u HajBa«H0T0 6eme mT0 ja 3ano3Haa noKanHaTa c^Ha - kou ce aKTepuTe, KaKo Tue pa6oTaT, KaKo pa3MucnyBaaT, co KaKBu npo6neMu ce coo^yBaaT... Og Taa nporpaMa, bo Koja TaKa unu nouHaKy 6ea BKny^eHu noBeKe og cto nyre, HacTaHa 3aegHu^, bo Koja ce noBp3aBMe Hue opraHU3aTopuTe co y^ecHU^UTe Ha nporpaMaTa. OBa 6eme 0cH0Ba 3a ugHa copa6oTKa. ^ogo^Ha ce nojaBuja hobu ^pegu3BU^u, Ha npuMep, KaKo ga ce o6e36egu gonropo^Ho ^uHaHcupaae Ha coBpeMeHuoT TaH^ NDA, 3a cBoeTo pa6oTeae go6uBa ^uHaHcucKu cpegcTBa og eBponcKUTe nporpaMu, bo Toa cMe npunu^Ho ycnemHu, ho uMaMe roneMu TemK0Tuu bo o6e36egyBaaeTo Ha noTpe6HUTe 50% Ko^uHaHcupaae og noKanHaTa cpeguHa. TaKa c^aTUBMe geKa Tpe6a ga opraHU3upaMe HacTaHu Ha kou Ke ru y6egyBaMe ogroBopHUTe nu^ geKa nocrou 164 noTpe6a 3a peruoHaneH $oh# mTO Ke ru Ko^uHaHcupa u copa6oTKuTe Ha yMeTHU^UTe bo peruoHOT u eBponcKUTe npoeKTu bo kou ce BKny^eHu OBue yMeTHU^u. Bo paMKUTe Ha oBaa nporpaMa gocera opraHU3upaBMe Tpu HacTaHU bo peruoHOT, a ^eTBpTuoT HacTaH Ke 6uge cnegHaTa roguHa bo ^y6aaHa Kage mTo Ke 3acTaHeMe bo og6paHa Ha ugejaTa 3a BocnocraByBaae Ha Mpe^a Ha pe3U,^eH^uu bo rpagoBuTe muu napTHepu cMe. TpeTuoT cerMeHT e noggpmKa 3a apxuBupaae, 6ugejKu bo oBoj peruoH HeMaMe uHcTm^uja mTo cucreMaTcKu Ke ce 3aHuMaBa co apxuBupaae Ha coBpeMeHuoT TaH^ fla cnoMeHeMe ymTe egHo gocTurayBafte Ha NDA, Hape^eHo Nomad Dance Institute, Koj Hygu Konpogy^ucKa copa6oTKa Ha npegno^eHu npoeKTu. OBa u3rpag6a Ha 3ae#HH^Ta npeKy Konpogy^uja Ha npeTcraBu ja no^HaBMe npeg HeKonKy roguHu, Kora ce cpeTHaBMe bo My3ejoT Ha coBpeMeHa yMeTHocT bo ^y6aaHa, Kage mTo ceKoj ^neH Ha NDA uMame mo^hoct ga ru npe3eHTupa cBouTe npoeKTu unu ga noKaHu npoeKT 3a Konpogy^ucKa copa6oTKa og gpyr ^neH. Toram bo paMKuTe Ha npoeKToT ro ycBouBMe npaBunoTo 3a peruoHanHa copa6oTKa: Ha gpyruTe ^neHOBu Mo^e ga um ro noHygum cBojoT npoeKT 3a Konpogy^uja, unu 3a copa6oTKa noKaHyBam npoeKT noHygeH og cTpaHa Ha HeKoj ^neH - gBeTe mo^hoctu cnopeg OBa npaBuno He ce gonymTeHu bo ucto BpeMe. TaKa ce o6ugoBMe ga ro 3auHTepecupaMe ceKoj ^neH, ga ce BKny^u, ga ce 3ano3Hae co pa6oTaTa Ha gpyruTe ^neHOBu bo 3aegHu^Ta, ga uMa mo^hoct 3a 3aegHu^Ko goHecyBaae ognyKu, Ha KpaTKo, ga He ja npe^pnyBaMe ogroBopHocra Ha HeKoj og6op, TyKy ceKoj ^oeguHe^ ga uMa mok ga ogny^yBa u Ha Toj Ha^uH ga ce npaKTuKyBa HeKoja goroBopHa $opMa Ha gupeKTHa geMOKpaTuja. NDA noTTHKHa ocHOBaue Ha HeKo^Ky ^ecraBana Ha coBpeMeHHOT TaH^ bo 6a^KaHCKHOT perHOH. Momem ah ga hh Kamem HemTO noBene omny cTpaTerajaTa 3a ocHOBaue TaH^Bii ^ecTHBa^H h 3a ynoraTa mTo NDA ja iiMame bo oBHe npo^ca? OBue ^ecraBanu 6ea co3gageHu no opraHcKu naT, ogHocHo nopagu Toa mTo uMame noTpe6a og hubho nocroerae. TaH^Bure c^hu bo peruoHOT 6apaa noroneMa BugnuBocr u HeKoja nnaT^opMa, 3a cBojaTa KpeaTuBHocT ga ja cnogenaT co 3auHTepecupaHa ny6nuKa. NDA Ha OBue ^ecraBanu um o6e36egu no^erau cpegcTBa og eBponcKu npoeKT. TaKa ce pogu ^ecTuBanoT Antistatic bo Coruja, LocoMotion bo CKonje, Zvrk bo CapaeBo, Kondenz bo Benrpag, a npeg NDA ce nojaBu ^ecTuBanoT Platforma bo 3arpe6. Bo ^y6aaHa crygeHTcKuTe npogy^uu og o6pa3OBHuoT gen Ha nporpaMaTa ru npeTcraBuBMe Ha MuHu^ecTuBanoT Short Cuts, bo 2011 roguHa og oBoj ^ecTuBan u3pacHa ^ecTuBanoT Pleskavica, gogeKa cnegHaTa roguHa co Ukrep (nTflj u npoeKToT Modul Dance (Kuho fflumKa) ce cnouBMe bo CoFestival. Cnopeg Toa, cTaHyBa 36op 3a 3ajaKHyBaae Ha npeno3HaTnuBocTa, rpageae 3aegHu^, co3gaBaae ny6nuKa, KaKo u noTTuKHyBaae Ha noKanHure KynTypHu nonuTu^apu og peruoHOT ga noceTyBaaT ^ecTuBanu u ga ro 3ano3HaaT coBpeMeHuoT TaH^ ^neHoBure Ha NDA pa3BHja HeKoii concraeHH npiiH^mii Ha paöoTeae- KaKo rae 165 Harema rH nprneHyBaTe npa opraHioa^ijaTa h cnpoBegyBaaeTo Ha CoFestival? Bo ceKoj cny^aj, ochobhuot ^puH^u^ e noKaHaTa 3a Koja 36opyBaB npeTxogHo. HHaKy, uMaMe yMerau^Ku coBeT mT0 ogny^yBa, ho bo c0BeT0T He nocTojaT ogpegeHu $yH^uu; HeKoj e noBeKe nocBeTeH Ha npogy^ujaTa, gpyr Ha opraHU3a^uja Ha pa6oTunHu^ uth., ogHocHo ceKoj cnopeg cBouTe npe^epeH^u, ho cuTe 3aegH0 pa6oTuMe Ha nporpaMaTa. noKpaj Toa, ce BoguMe cnopeg npuH^noT Ha paMH0Te«a, mT0 3Ha^u geKa noKaHyBaMe npeTcTaBu og pa3nurau 3eMju u BHuMaBaMe ga ce 3acTaneHu pa3nurau BugoBu npeTcTaBu. Hcto TaKa, o6pHyBaMe BHuMaHue ga HeMa npeTepaHu pa3nuKu bo nnaKa^aTa 3a HacTanuTe Ha u3BeflyBa^uTe u pa6oTaTa Ha gpyruTe Koneru. HMaMe u ^puH^u^ Ha oTBopeH npocTop, ocTaBajKu oTBopeHa mo^hoct 3a Hen03HaT0T0. OBa Mo«e ga 6uge npeTcTaBa mT0 Ke Hè u3HeHageHu, npegaBa^ co cBe« npucTan, a Mo«e ga 6uge u Toa ga My ce npenymTu opraHU3a^ujaTa Ha HacTaH Ha HeKoj Koj e HagBop og KpyroT Ha NDA u cnurao. Ce pa6oTu 3a M0MeHT Ha cny^ajHocr mT0 Mo«e ga goHece hobu 3Hae^a unu hobu co3HaHuja. OHa mT0 HajMHory Me uHTepecupa bo coBpeMeHuoT TaH^ e T0KMy oBoj M0MeHT, Koj bo ogpegeHa paMKa 0B03M0«yBa mo^hoct 3a ucTpa^yBa^e, npeucnuTyBarae, na u rpemKu. H KaKo oBoj ^puH^u^, npeKy ugejaTa Ha Kopeorpa^ujaTa KaKo pamupeHa npaKTuKa, Mo«e ga ce npeHece Ha opraHu3a^jaTa Ha $ecraBanoT unu Ha HeKoj gpyr HacTaH. KaKo mTo cnoMeHa, LocoMotion bo CKonje e egeH og (ecraBanHTe mTo 6eme (opMiipaH no HHH^jaraBa Ha NDA, npogy^HT (go 2015) 6eme HoKOMornuea, HeBnagirna opraHioa^ija bo oönacra Ha KynTypaTa. KaKo ce ogBHBa copaöoraaTa co ïïoKoMoraBa h KaKo ro o^HyBaTe Hej3HHoTo 3Haqeae 3a Ta^oBaTa c^Ha bo MaKegoHHja? OcBeH MaKefl0HcKu0T gen og NDA, ÏÏOKOMOwusa e egHa og peTKuTe HeBnaguHu opraHU3a^uu bo o6nacTa Ha KynTypaTa, Koja ce 3aHuMaBa co npogy^uja u ^p0M0^uja Ha coBpeMeHuoT TaH^ bo MaKegoHuja, 3aToa e MHory Ba^Ha 3a pa3BojoT Ha HuBHaTa TaH^Ba c^Ha. Toa mTo ÏÏ0K0M0TuBa cTaHa Boge^Ka HeBnaguHa opraHU3a^uja bo o6nacTa Ha coBpeMeHuoT TaH^ bo MaKegoHuja bo roneMa Mepa e 3acnyra Ha BunjaHa TaHyp0BcKa-KynaBK0BcKu u HcKpa fflyKapoBa. BunjaHa e nocTojaH gen og KoopfluHaTuBHaTa rpyna Ha NDA u uMa orpoMeH npugoHec npu ogp^yBa^e Ha 0Baa nnaT^opMa, Hej3uHaTa ^uHaHcucKa ogp^nuBocr u Hej3uHuoT npogy^ucKu pa3Boj. Mu ce muhu geKa bo MaKegoHuja He ce goBonHo cBecHu KonKy e ÏÏOKOMOwusa Ba^Ha 3a HuBHaTa TaH^Ba c^Ha. HeKonKynaTu y^ecrayBaB Ha $ecTuBanoT LocoMotion u ceKojnaT 6eme ognu^Ho, ceKoram MHory ny6nuKa, MHory pa3roBopu, 06pa30BHu nporpaMu, Ha KpaTKo, $ecTuBanoT ro Hygu ceTo 0Ha 3a Koe cMeTaMe geKa egeH ^ecTuBan Ha coBpeMeH TaH^ Mopa ga ro uMa: yMerau^Ku HacTaHu, HuBHa pe^neKcuja, 06pa30BaHue u co3gaBa^e 3aegHu^. 166 Oto Mucnum 3a cocTojöaTa Ha coBpeMeHuoT TaH^ bo MaKegoHuja? Morne nu ga ru cnopegum ycnoBUTe 3a npogy^uja (Ha npuMep, (|)iiHaHCiiCKa noggpmKa, TexHu^Ku ycnoBu 3a paöoTa, npoMo^ija hth.) bo MaKegoHuja u bo CnoBeHuja? CnopegeHo co cnoBeHe^KaTa, MaKegoHcKaTa TaH^Ba c^Ha e noMany6pojHa. noKpaj Toa, nocTou roneMa pa3nuKa bo 6pojoT Ha c^hu. Bo ^y6aaHa uMaMe noBeKe c^hu Kage mT0 pegoBHo uMa coBpeMeH TaH^ fiTÏÏ, ŒûaHCKU 6opw, CTapa eMKwpapHa, fymapjeB goM...) Kou ce peneBaHTHu, TexHu^Ku go6po onpeMeHu, co TexHu^KaTa noggpmKa u nP oggenu uth. Bo CKonje HeMaaT huty egeH npocTop mT0 6u 6un HaMeHeT caMo 3a coBpeMeH TaH^ unu 6apeM 6u npeoBnagyBan bo Hero. ÏÏoKOMowuBa, nocnegHure gBe roguHu ru KopucTu npocTopuuTe Ha n0paHemH0T0 kuho KynTypa, bo kou ro npeTcTaByBaaT coBpeMeHuoT TaH^ ho ^uHaHcucKu u TexHmKu rnegaHo ycnoBure He ce Ha 3aBugH0 hubo. HcKpa fflyKapoBa, Koja e BeKe gBaeceT roguHu Ha c^Ha, Ha KoHKypcuTe go6uBa Mery unjaga u gBe unjagu eBpa, gogeKa, bo CnoBeHuja, 3a cnuraa TaKBa nporpaMa ce go6uBa geceT naTu noroneMa noggpmKa. Ho u gBeTe 3eMju uMaaT uct npo6neM: HeMaMe cTyguo 3a TaH^ mT0 Ke 6uge nocBeTeHo ucka^ubo 3a Be«6u Ha coBpeMeHuoT TaH^ Bo KoHTeKCT Ha ôu^aTepa^HuoT ucTpamyBaqKu npoeKT 3a MaKegoHCKo-cnoBeHe^KUTe TeaTapcKH BpcKu, ocoöeHo CMe 3auHTepecupaHu 3a TBojaTa copaöoTKa co MaKegoHCKaTa Kopeorpa$Ka HcKpa OyKapoBa. KaKo gojge go BamaTa copaöoTKa? Co HcKpa uHTeH3uBH0 copa6oTyBaBMe bo npoeKT0T Formula. Kora 6eB npeg HeKonKy roguHu npegaBaB TaH^ bo MaKegoHuja, HcKpa mu npegno^u ga ogBouMe HeKonKy geHa 3a ga ja ucrpa^uMe c^HaTa KaKo pamupeHa M6aHOBa rn^a, bo paMKuTe Ha Koja ce 3aHuMaBaBMe co reoMerpucKwre ogHocu u bo ucto BpeMe co geKoHcrpy^ujaTa Ha 6aneT0T, og Koj u3neroBMe u o6aj^Ta. Hue 6eBMe 3auHTepecupaHu 3a Toa KaKo Ke 6uge mo«ho 6aneT0T ga ce cMecTu bo napagurMaTa Ha coBpeMeHuoT TaH^ u co Toa ce 3aHuMaBaBMe noBeKe roguHu, npu mT0, npeg ceKoe noBTopyBafte ogBojyBaBMe HeKonKy geHa 3a ga pa3BueMe H0Ba ^opMyna. H Toj 360p Mopa ga ce c^ara bo cuTe HeroBu 3Ha^eaa: KaKo pe^rcr, ^opMynaTa 3a ycnex, ^opMyna 3a KopucTeae Ha BpeMeTo u npocTopoT, KaKo MaTeMararoa ^opMyna, unu gypu u KaKo B03un0-Bo egeH M0MeHT HaBucTuHa goHecoBMe MaKeTa Ha aBT0M06un bo $opMa Ha ^opMyna, Koja 6eme gane^uHcKu ynpaByBaHa u HaMecTo Hac ce gBu^eme no nuHuuTe u gujaroHanuTe Ha Taa M6aHOBa rn^a. Toa 6eme HaBucTuHa uHcnupaTuBeH u 3a6aBeH npoeKT. ^anu bo ugHUHa nnaHupaTe hobh npoeKTu bo copaöoTKa co HcKpa OyKapoBa? Morneöu u co gpyru yMeTHu^ og MaKegoHuja? fflT0TYKy pa3roBapaBMe co HcKpa, bo CKonje ga opraHu3upaMe TaKaHape^eH co-teaching — egeH Bug 06pa30BaHue, npu mT0 noBeKe y^urenu npegaBaaT ucTa MeToga Ha TpeHuHr unu BogaT ucTa pa6oranHu^, 3a Ha hcthot TpeHHHr unu pa6oranHH^ yqecHH^Te ga go6ujaT 167 pa3nmHu nornegu u, hcto TaKa, npeHecyBa^eTO Ha 3HaefteTO ga CTaHe npo^c bo Koj ce yqaT u npegaBa^me. EugejKu McKpa e negaror 3a coBpeMeH TaH^ Ha YHHBep3m,eTOT bo CKonje, Taa 3aMucnu OBOj ^opMaT ga ro ucnpo6a co hub. Bo MOMeHTOB cMe bo npo^c Ha o6nuKyBafte Ha OBaa nporpaMa u 6apaMe ^uHaHcucKu cpegcrea 3a peanroa^ja. flypu u bo paMKHTe Ha NDA npogon^yBa copa6oTKaTa co KpeaTopuTe Ha coBpeMeHHOT TaH^ bo MaKegoHuja, a bo ugHHHa He e ucKnyqeHO Ha CoFestival ga ce nojaBaT HeKOH MaKegoHcKH yMerau^. Oto Miicniim 3a HHTeH3HTeTOT Ha goceramHaTa copaöoTKa Mery cnoBeHe^KHTe h MaKegoHCKHTe TaH^apn h Kopeorpa^H? ^ann noTeH^janHHTe momhocth 3a copaöoTKa Öane goBonHo HCKopHCTeHH? Ce pa36upa, HeKonKy rocTyBa^a Ha TaH^BH npeTcTaBH unu yMerau^ ce cny^uja, bo paMKH Ha ^ecruBanu unu o6pa3OBHH nporpaMH, ho Toa 6ea noBeKe cnopagmHu HacraHH OTKonKy nocucTeMaTcKa $opMa Ha copa6oTKa. OHa mTO Me pagyBa e ^aKTOT geKa gBeTe 3eMju ce npunu^HO cnu^HH — no roneMHHa, 6poj Ha HaceneHue, HMaaT HeKonKy ge^Huu 3aegHHMKa ucTopuja, HapoguTe HHKoram He 6une bo KOH^nuKT, HanpoTHB, Kora u ga gojgaM bo MaKegoHuja ceKoram ^yBCTByBaM HeKoja no^HT u npujaTencTBO. O^urnegHO, nonuTH^apuTe bo gBeTe 3eMju cè ymTe He ro npeno3Hane coBpeMeHHOT TaH^ KaKO $opMa Ha yMeTHH^Ka npogy^uja, co Koja 6u Mo^ene ga ja 3ajaKHaT MeryKynTypHaTa copa6oTKa. 3Ha^u, ochobho npama^e e KaKo gp^aBaTa pa3MucnyBa - npeKy coBpeMeHa KpeaTHBHocT unu npeKy HeKOH cTapu Mogenu u cTepeoTunu, npeKy ^onKnop, hth. NDA, Balkan Dance Project h cnH^HHTe npoeKTH 3a peruoHanHa copaöoTKa ynaTyBaaT Ha BHHMaTeneH npiiCTan koh TBopeae 3aegHimKii npoeKTH. ^ann oBoj npiiCTan reHepanHo e cnopegnHB co cna^HHTe noBeKerogiimHii npoeKTH 3a copaöoTKa co napTHepcKHTe opraHioa^iii h noegiiH^i og gpyrure eBponcKii 3eMjH? Co HuHa Eo^uK, co Koja nogonro BpeMe pa6oTaM Ha npoeKTH mTO ru noBp3yBaaT yMeTHocTa u cTonaHcTBOTO, MHHaTaTa roguHa HMaBMe pa6oranHH^ 3a gupeKTopu Ha co-working-npocTopu bo CTOKXonM. Ha OBaa pa6oranHH^ 6eB MHory H3HeHageH geKa Tue HaBucTHHa He ^yßcreyBaaT noTpe6a ga copa6oTyBaaT, 6ugejKu Kaj hub Tue co-working npocTopu ce g0B0nH0 ^HHaHcucKu noggp^aHH u BeKe ru HMaaT onpegeneHO cBOHTe ^nHH rpynu. 3aToa, Taa cpeg6a 6eme ^nocHO BemTa^Ka, cuTe 6eBMe MomHe rt>y6e3Hu, gypu HanpaBHBMe u brainstorming 3a Toa KaKO MO^eMe ga copa6oTyBaMe, ho peanHO, Kaj hub He ce ^yBcreyBame HHKaKBa noTpe6a 3a Toa. Ako OBaa npuKa3Ha ja HagoBp3aM Ha coBpeMeHHOT TaH^ bo EBpona, MO^aM ga Ka^aM geKa MHory TaH^rpynu, oco6eHO bo 3anagHa EBpona, ce npunu^HO npucTOjHO ^HHaHcupaHu, u npeKy noBeKerogumHH nporpaMH, 3aToa u Kaj hub He 3a6ene«aB HeKoja oco6eHO roneMa noTpe6a 3a copa6oTKa. 168 Ce pa36upa, Tue Mopa ga copa6oTyBaaT, 6ugejKu eBponcKuTe ^uHaHcuepu reHepanHo ro 6apaaT Toa og hub, ho Toa ro npaBaT noManKy unu noBeKe 3a ga ru ucnonHaT ycnoBuTe Ha KoHKypcuTe, a He 3aToa mTo HaBucTuHa ro caKaaT. Bo JyrocflaBuja iiMame penaTUBHo BiicoKa copaöoTKa Mery cnoBeHe^KUTe h MaKegoHCKHTe öa^eTCKU yMeraum ocoöeHo bo paMKUTe Ha pegoBHUTe ^ecriBancKU MaHi«l)ecTa^iH. no pacnagoT Ha nopaHemHaTa 3aegHU^Ka gprnaBa uHTeH3UTeToT Ha copaöoTKa 3HaquTeflHo ce HaManu u cera e caMo cnopagmeH. ^anu raegam mo®hoct 3a HHTeH3HBupaue Ha ugHaTa copaöoTKa Mery MaKegoHcKUTe u cnoBeHe^KUTe öaneTcKU aHcaMÖmi u öaneTcKUTe yMerau^? PeruoHanHuTe u 6unaTepanHuTe KynTypHu nonuTuKu bo o6nacra Ha 6aneToT He ru no3HaBaM goBonHo, TaKa mTo caMo Mo«e ga ce cornacaM co Te6e, 6ugejKu u MoeTo Mucne^e e ucto -TaKBaTa copa6oTKa e MHory Mana, 3aBucu og uHguBugyanHuTe uHu^ujaTUBu, u He nocrou cTpyKTypHa noggpmKa. Bo paMKuTe Ha CoFestival, Ha npuMep, ce cny^yBa ga hu e nonecHo ga npe^eKaMe mBaj^pcKu, aBcTpucKu unu repMaHcKu yMeTHu^u oTKonKy yMerau^ og BanKaHoT; u noKpaj Toa mTo Tue ^uHaT MHory noBeKe, Hue Mo^eMe ga ru goHeceMe, 3aToa mTo oBue rocryBafta ^uHaHcucKu ce noggp^aHu og KynTypHuTe nonuTuKu Ha HuBHuTe 3eMju. Og gpyra cTpaHa, caMuoT ^ecraBan Tpe6a ga ru noKpue cuTe Tpomo^u aKo caKa ga noKaHu HeKoj og MaKegoHuja. Bo MoMeHToT Kora Ha HeKoj nonmrnap Ke noraeTe ga My 36opyBaTe 3a peruoHanHa copa6oTKa, go6uBaTe y6aBa HacMeBKa u rt>y6e3Hu 36opoBu, a bo cymTuHa buctuhcku uHTepec 3a noggpmKa Ha KynTypHaTa copa6oTKa He nocrou, nopagu Toa mTo 3eMjuTe bo peruoHoT Ha BanKaHoT cè ymTe ce bo $a3a Ha rpage^e concTBeH ugeHTuTeT u «uBeaT bo 3a6nyga geKa co noBuKyBaae Ha HeKoja ^uKTuBHa, MuTcKa ucTopuja u co npeHaco^yBaae Ha KynTypHaTa copa6oTKa og BanKaHoT koh 3anagHa EBpona Ke ja 3ajaKHaT cBojaTa npeno3HaTnuBocT. Oto Tpeöa ga nogoöpuMe Ha hubo Ha KyrnypHU nomiTiiKii Ha gBeTe 3eMju, 3a ga UMa noBeKe MeryceÖHU rocTyBaaa Ha öaneTcKU aHcaMÖmi u öaneTcKU yMerau^? Bo HajMana paKa, oHa mTo Tpe6a ga ce o^eKyBa u ga ce no6apa og egHa go6po ypegeHa KynTypHa nonuTuKa e bo cBouTe cTpaTemKu goKyMeHTu jacHo ga HaBege KaKo Ke npugoHece 3a pa3BojoT Ha ogpegeHa o6nacT u KaKo Ke noTTuKHe rocryBafte u gpyru $opMu Ha 6unaTepanHa u peruoHanHa copa6oTKa bo Taa o6nacT. Mery yMerau^Te nocTou «en6a ga copa6oTyBaaT, nocTojaT u noTeH^janu, ho HeMa goBonHo noggpmKa 3a peanroupa^e Ha oBue noTeH^janu. Dejan Srhoj, plesalec in koreograf 171 Ples je spregledan potencial medkulturnega sodelovanja Pogovarjal se je Aldo Milohnič. Dejan Srhoj, performer in ustvarjalec na področju sodobnega plesa, je 31. oktobra letos praznoval okroglih štirideset let. Trenutno se ukvarja predvsem z dolgoročnim projektom Kompozicije razlik, kjer raziskuje koreografske principe skozi plesne improvizacije, deljenje praks in izobraževanje. Ker je spoznal, da robot v njem lahko vzbudi čustva, je na Švedskem ustvaril predstavo za robota tipa Nao, ki govori, pleše in misli. Poleg tega kurira CoFestival v Ljubljani ter aktivno sodeluje pri razvoju programov mreže Nomad Dance Academy, ki jo je soustanovil skupaj s kolegi_cami iz Slovenije in balkanske regije. Od leta 2001 je neodvisni umetnik, soustanovitelj Fičo Baleta, v okviru katerega je kot plesalec ali avtor sodeloval v predstavah 1:0, Švic in Švarc, Emofad, Sun City, Confidance, Rob Raja, Formula, 2:0 itn. Ob tem je kot performer sodeloval v plesnih in gledaliških projektih z Janezom Janšo, Ivico Buljanom, Sebastijanom Horvatom, Betontancem, Magdaleno Reiter, Silvanom Omerzujem, Kajo Lorenci in drugimi. Pred tem je bil med letoma 1998 in 2001 angažiran kot baletni solist v SNG Opera in balet Ljubljana, kjer je plesal predvsem glavne vloge v klasičnih baletih. V devetdesetih letih si nastopal v predstavah ljubljanskega baleta, na prehodu v novo tisočletje pa si se preusmeril v sodobni ples in gibalno gledališče. Kako in zakaj je prišlo do tega premika iz klasičnega baleta v sodobni ples? Z vprašanjem si me spomnil na projekt Fake it!, ki smo ga delali z Emilom Hrvatinom oziroma Janezom Janšo. Pri tem projektu smo delali rekonstrukcije starih predstav, jih premeščali v sodobni kontekst in se hkrati spraševali o kontekstu, v katerem so te predstave nastale: kaj se je spremenilo, kako zdaj doživljamo prostor, telo, gib, kdo so bili ti koreografi, zakaj so to počeli, kakšna je bila njihova izobrazba, v kakšnem okolju so ustvarjali te predstave ... Takega pristopa v baletu ni bilo; tam smo samo slepo kopirali gibe, ki so jih določili nekateri koreografi pred sto in več leti. In celo teh baletnih gibov nismo umeščali v kontekst takratnega ali današnjega časa, saj smo jih morali ponavljati le kot dano formo. Motilo me je torej, da ne vem, kaj počnem, čeprav je balet videti kot zelo jasna, preprosta plesno-gibalna oblika. Poleg tega me je motilo, da baletni koreografi niso delali z ljudmi, s posamezniki, niso ustvarjali koreografij 172 za določenega plesalca, temveč smo bili samo nekakšni objekti iz plastelina, ki so jih koreografi oblikovali po svojih željah. Nedavno mi je nek ruski baletni plesalec razlagal, da so prva tri leta v baletnih šolah v Rusiji namenjena temu, da ubijejo človekov jaz z jasnim namenom, da plesalca spremenijo v plastelin. Ko sem začel ustvarjati na področju sodobnega plesa, se mi je odprl nov svet. Drugačen je že način poteka vaje - ta se lahko začne tudi nekaj minut pozneje, lahko si vzameš premor, se pogovarjaš, tvoje mnenje šteje, čutiš neko osnovno spoštovanje med sodelavci ... Ali si moral s prehodom na sodobni ples najprej »izčistiti« ostaline baletne izobrazbe? So te naučeni baletni gibi motili pri ustvarjanju v predstavah sodobnega plesa? Pri baletu je tako, da imaš center telesa v prsnem košu (kar je verjetno povezano s tem, da se predstavljaš kot močan, lep, najboljši, brez napak), v sodobnem plesu pa v medenici, in že to dejstvo pri plesalcu ustvarja drugačne podobe, emocije itn. Potreboval sem več let, da sem ta center premaknil iz prsnega koša v medenico oziroma da sem lahko raziskoval, kam vse ga lahko premaknem. Ustanovitev Fičo Baleta je bil mejnik v tvojem plesnem ustvarjanju. Kako danes, po skoraj dveh desetletjih, ocenjuješ njegov pomen in mesto, ki ga zaseda v novejši zgodovini sodobnega plesa v Sloveniji? Na spletni strani Fičo Baleta smo imeli svoj čas napisano, da se ukvarjamo z demokratizacijo visoke umetnosti. Hoteli smo povedati, da bomo v klasični balet vnašali humor, sproščenost, morda celo pobalinstvo, in da se pri tem zabavamo. Osebno sem to čutil kot lastno plesno emancipacijo, saj sem se z vsem tem znanjem, ki so ga baletni učitelji in koreografi tako strogo prenašali name, navsezadnje lahko tudi poigraval, ga reflektiral ali ironiziral. Morda bi prav poigravanje z baletom in vnašanje humorja v to sicer zelo resno plesno formo izpostavil kot največji dosežek Fičo Baleta v našem okolju. Pa še nekaj je zanimivega: skoraj vsi plesalci smo bili moški. Ko smo vstopili v ta prostor med klasičnim in sodobnim plesom ter začeli gostovati po tujih festivalih, je postalo očitno, da to ni tako pogosto. Spomnim se, da je John Ashford, producent sodobnega plesa, ki je bil takrat direktor londonskega gledališča The Place, z začudenjem dejal: »Glej, glej, v Sloveniji plešejo moški.« Sicer pa se mi zdi, da Fičo Balet ostaja v nekem medprostoru in morda prav zato do zdaj še ni bil dovolj prisoten v slovenski teoriji bodisi klasičnega bodisi sodobnega plesa. Morda je razlog tudi v tem, da nikoli nismo sledili določenim trendom v sodobnem plesu, raje smo nabirali razne plesne elemente in jih premešali na nek svoj način. Kako je prišlo do ustanovitve Nomad Dance Academy (NDA) in kaj so bili razlogi 173 za njen nastanek? Nekaj dni pred začetkom srečanja gledališke mreže IETM, ki je potekalo leta 2005 v Beogradu, je Zavod Bunker organiziral srečanje mreže Balkan Express, na katerem so sodelovale mnoge nevladne organizacije in neodvisni ustvarjalci v kulturi s področja nekdanje Jugoslavije in drugih držav na Balkanu. Na enem od pogovorov smo se zbrali plesalci, koreografi in producenti sodobnega plesa iz te regije ter ugotovili nenavadno dejstvo, da vemo, kaj se dogaja v Berlinu, Parizu ali Londonu, ne vemo pa, kaj se dogaja v mestih, ki so v naši neposredni bližini, čeprav izhajamo iz nekega skupnega kulturnega prostora in imamo skupno zgodovino, govorimo podobne jezike itn. Poleg tega smo ugotovili, da se srečujemo s podobnimi produkcijskimi omejitvami. Iz tega je nastala želja, da se ponovno srečamo in okrepimo sodelovanje. Katere dosežke NDA bi izpostavil kot najpomembnejše z vidika regionalnega sodelovanja? Sodelovanje se je začelo z oblikovanjem nomadskega izobraževalnega programa, v okviru katerega je 14-15 udeležencev programa štiri mesece potovalo po celotnem prostoru nekdanje Jugoslavije in po Bolgariji. V vsaki državi so bili nekaj tednov, poslušali predavanja, se udeleževali delavnic in ustvarjali lastna umetniška dela. Morda najpomembnejše pa je bilo, da so spoznali lokalno sceno - kdo so akterji, kako delajo, razmišljajo, s katerimi težavami se srečujejo ... Iz tega izobraževalnega programa, v katerem je tako ali drugače sodelovalo več kot sto ljudi, je nastala skupnost, v katero smo se povezali organizatorji in udeleženci programa. To je bila podlaga za prihodnje sodelovanje. Kasneje so se seveda pojavili novi izzivi, npr. kako zagotoviti dolgoročno financiranje sodobnega plesa. NDA sredstva za svoje delovanje pridobiva iz evropskih programov, pri tem smo dokaj uspešni, imamo pa velike težave pri zagotavljanju predpisanega 50-odstotnega sofinanciranja iz lokalnega okolja. Tako smo spoznali, da moramo organizirati zagovorniške dogodke, na katerih bomo odločevalce prepričevali, da bi bilo treba ustanoviti regionalni sklad, ki bo sofinanciral sodelovanje umetnikov v regiji in hkrati tudi evropske projekte, v katere so ti umetniki vključeni. V okviru tega programa zagovorništva smo do zdaj organizirali tri dogodke v regiji, četrti pa bo prihodnje leto v Ljubljani, kjer bomo zagovarjali idejo vzpostavitve mreže rezidenc v mestih, katerih partnerji smo. Tretji segment je podpora arhiviranju, saj v tej regiji nimamo institucije, ki bi se sistematično ukvarjala z arhiviranjem sodobnega plesa. Naj omenim še en dosežek NDA, ki ga imenujemo Nomad Dance Institute, v okviru katerega ponujamo koprodukcijsko sodelovanje projektom, ki jih nekdo predlaga. To grajenje skupnosti prek soproduciranja predstav smo začeli pred leti, ko smo se sestali v Muzeju sodobne umetnosti v Ljubljani, kjer je vsak član NDA imel možnost 174 predstaviti svoj projekt ali pa povabiti k soproducentskemu sodelovanju projekt drugega člana. Takrat smo v okviru projekta sprejeli pravilo regionalnega sodelovanja: drugim članom si lahko v soprodukcijo ponudil lasten projekt ali pa si projekt, ki ga je ponudil nekdo od članov, povabil k sodelovanju - oboje hkrati po tem pravilu ni bilo mogoče. Tako smo poskusili v vsakem članu vzbuditi zanimanje za soudeležbo, za spoznavanje tega, kaj počnejo drugi člani skupnosti, za soodločanje, skratka, nismo želeli prenašati odgovornosti na nek odbor, temveč dati moč odločanja vsakemu posamezniku in tako prakticirati neko dogovorjeno obliko neposredne demokracije. NDA je spodbudila nastanek nekaterih festivalov sodobnega plesa v balkanski regiji. Nam lahko poveš kaj več o strategiji ustanavljanja plesnih festivalov in vlogi, ki jo je imela NDA v teh procesih? Ti festivali so nastali po organski poti, torej zato, ker je obstajala potreba po njihovem obstoju. Plesne scene v regiji so potrebovale večjo vidnost in neko platformo, da lahko delijo svoje ustvarjanje z zainteresirano publiko. NDA je tem festivalom zagotovila zagonska sredstva iz evropskega projekta. Tako so nastali festivali Antistatic v Sofiji, LocoMotion v Skopju, Zvrk v Sarajevu, Kondenz v Beogradu, še pred NDA pa festival Platforma v Zagrebu. V Ljubljani smo študentske produkcije iz izobraževalnega dela programa predstavljali na mini festivalu Short Cuts, leta 2011 je iz tega nastal festival Pleskavica, prihodnje leto pa smo se s festivalom Ukrep (PTL) in projektom Modul Dance (Kino Šiška) združili v CoFestival. Če povzamem, gre torej za krepitev vidnosti, grajenje skupnosti, ustvarjanje publike pa tudi za spodbudo lokalnim kulturnim politikom v regiji, da obiskujejo festivale in spoznajo sodobni ples. Člani in članice NDA ste razvili nekatere lastne principe delovanja - kako ta načela uporabljate pri organizaciji in izvedbi CoFestivala? Vsekakor je temeljni princip povabila, ki sem ga že omenil. Sicer imamo umetniški svet, ki odloča, vendar nimamo določenih funkcij; nekdo se bolj posveča produkciji, drugi bolj organizaciji delavnic ipd., pač glede na lastne preference, vsi skupaj pa pripravljamo program. Poleg tega uporabljamo načelo ravnotežja, kar pomeni, da pazimo na to, da vabimo predstave iz različnih držav in da so zastopane različne zvrsti predstav. Pozorni smo tudi na to, da ni pretiranih razlik pri plačilih za nastope performerjev in delo drugih sodelavcev. Imamo tudi načelo odprtega prostora, s katerim puščamo odprto možnost za neznano. To je lahko predstava, ki nas preseneti, predavatelj, ki prinese svež pristop, lahko je tudi to, da prepustiš organizacijo dogodka nekomu, ki je zunaj kroga NDA, ipd. Je nek moment naključja, ki lahko prinese novo znanje ali nova spoznanja. Kar me trenutno najbolj zanima v sodobnem plesu, je prav ta moment, ki znotraj nekega določenega okvira dopušča možnost raziskovanja, 175 preizkušanja, tudi napake. In kako lahko ta princip, skozi idejo koreografije kot razširjene prakse, prenesti na organizacijo festivala ali nekega drugega dogodka. Kot si že omenil, je eden od festivalov, ki je nastal na pobudo NDA, tudi LocoMotion v Skopju, katerega producent (do leta 2015) je bila Lokomotiva, nevladna organizacija v kulturi. Kako poteka sodelovanje z Lokomotivo in kako ocenjuješ njen pomen za plesno sceno v Makedoniji? Poleg makedonskega dela NDA je Lokomotiva ena redkih nevladnih organizacij v kulturi, ki se ukvarjajo s produkcijo in promocijo sodobnega plesa v Makedoniji, zato je zelo pomembna za razvoj njihove plesne scene. K temu, da je Lokomotiva postala vodilna nevladna organizacija na področju sodobnega plesa v Makedoniji, sta največ prispevali Biljana Tanurovska Kjulavkovski in Iskra Šukarova. Biljana je poleg tega ves čas v koordinacijski skupini NDA in je zelo pripomogla k temu, da se je ta platforma ohranila, da je bila finančno vzdržna in se je produkcijsko razvijala. Se mi pa zdi, da se v Makedoniji morda povsem ne zavedajo, kako pomembna je Lokomotiva za njihovo plesno sceno. Na festivalu LocoMotion sem večkrat sodeloval in je bilo odlično, vedno je bilo veliko publike, bilo je veliko pogovorov, izobraževalnih programov, skratka, festival je ponujal vse, za kar si predstavljamo, da bi festival sodobnega plesa moral ponujati: umetniške dogodke, refleksijo teh dogodkov, izobraževanje in ustvarjanje skupnosti. Kaj meniš o položaju sodobnega plesa v Makedoniji? Bi lahko primerjal produkcijske razmere (npr. finančna podpora, tehnični pogoji dela, promocija ipd.) v Makedoniji in Sloveniji? V primerjavi s slovensko je makedonska plesna scena maloštevilna. Poleg tega je velika razlika tudi v številu prizorišč. V Ljubljani imamo več prizorišč, kjer se dokaj redno predstavlja sodobni ples (PTL, Španski borci, Stara elektrarna, Cankarjev dom ...), ki so relevantna, dobro tehnično opremljena, podprta s tehničnimi in PR-službami itn. V Skopju nimajo niti enega prostora, ki bi bil namenjen samo sodobnemu plesu ali v katerem bi ta vsaj prevladoval. Lokomotiva sicer zadnje dve leti uporablja prostore nekdanjega kina Kultura v Skopju, v katerih predstavljajo sodobni ples, ampak to je v finančnem in tehničnem smislu še vedno zelo podhranjeno. Iskra Šukarova, ki je že dvajset let na plesni sceni, dobi na razpisih kvečjemu med tisoč in dva tisoč evrov, v Sloveniji pa se za primerljiv program dobi tudi desetkrat večja podpora. Imamo pa oboji enako težavo: nimamo plesnega studia, ki bi bil namenjen izključno vadbi sodobnega plesa. 176 V kontekstu bilateralnega raziskovalnega projekta o makedonsko-slovenskih gledaliških povezavah nam je zlasti zanimivo tvoje sodelovanje z makedonsko koreografko Iskro Šukarovo. Kako je prišlo do vajinega sodelovanja? Z Iskro sva intenzivno sodelovala v projektu Formula. Ko sem pred leti poučeval ples v Makedoniji, mi je Iskra predlagala, da si vzameva nekaj dni za raziskavo odra kot razširjene Labanove kocke, znotraj katere sva se ukvarjala z geometričnimi razmerji in hkrati z dekonstrukcijo baleta, iz katerega sva oba izšla. Zanimalo naju je, kako bi bilo možno balet umestiti v paradigmo sodobnega plesa, in s tem sva se ukvarjala več let, pri čemer sva si pred vsako ponovitvijo vzela nekaj dni, da sva razvila neko novo formulo. In to besedo moramo razumeti v vseh njenih pomenih: kot recept, formulo uspeha, formulo uporabe časa in prostora, kot matematično formulo ali celo kot vozilo - v nekem trenutku sva dejansko prinesla na oder maketo avta v obliki formule, ki je bila daljinsko vodena in se je namesto naju premikala po linijah in diagonalah znotraj Labanove kocke. To je bil res navdihujoč in zabaven projekt. Ali v prihodnje načrtuješ nove projekte v sodelovanju z Iskro Šukarovo? Morda tudi z drugimi umetniki in umetnicami iz Makedonije? Pravkar se z Iskro pogovarjava, da bi v Skopju organizirali t. i. »co-teaching« - obliko izobraževanja, pri kateri več učiteljev poučuje enako metodo treninga ali vodi enako delavnico zato, da na istem treningu ali delavnici udeleženci dobijo različne poglede, in tudi zato, da prenos znanja postane proces, v katerem se učijo tudi učitelji. Ker je Iskra pedagoginja za sodobni ples na univerzi v Skopju, si je zamislila, da bi ta format preizkusili pri njih. Trenutno sva v fazi oblikovanja tega programa in iskanja finančnih sredstev, s katerimi bi ga lahko realizirala. Tudi v okviru NDA se nadaljuje sodelovanje z ustvarjalci sodobnega plesa iz Makedonije in ni izključeno, da bomo na CoFestival v prihodnje pripeljali nekatere makedonske umetnike. Kaj meniš o intenzivnosti dosedanjega sodelovanja med slovenskimi in makedonskimi plesalci in koreografi? Ali so bile potencialne možnosti sodelovanja do zdaj dovolj izkoriščene? Nekaj gostovanj plesnih predstav ali umetnikov se je seveda zgodilo, v okviru festivalov ali izobraževalnih programov, a to so bili bolj sporadični dogodki kot kakšna bolj sistematična oblika sodelovanja. Kar je pravzaprav presenetljivo, saj sta si državi vendarle dokaj podobni - po velikosti, številu prebivalcev, imata tudi desetletja skupne zgodovine, naroda nikoli nista bila v konfliktu, nasprotno, kadar pridem v Makedonijo, vedno čutim neko spoštovanje in prijateljstvo. Očitno torej politiki v obeh državah sodobnega plesa do zdaj še niso prepoznali kot obliko umetnostne 177 produkcije, s katero bi lahko krepili medkulturno sodelovanje. Temeljno vprašanje je torej, kako misliti državo - skozi sodobno ustvarjalnost ali neke stare vzorce in stereotipe, skozi folkloro ipd. NDA, Balkan Dance Project in podobni projekti regionalnega sodelovanja kažejo na premišljen pristop k snovanju skupnih projektov. Ali je na splošno ta pristop primerljiv s podobnimi projekti večletnega sodelovanja s partnerskimi organizacijami in posamezniki iz drugih evropskih držav? Z Nino Božič, s katero že dalj časa sodelujem pri projektih povezovanja umetnosti in gospodarstva, sva imela lani delavnico za direktorje coworking prostorov v Stockholmu. Na tej delavnici me je zelo presenetilo, da ti v resnici sploh ne čutijo potrebe po sodelovanju, saj so pri njih ti prostori že dovolj finančno podprti in že imajo določene ciljne skupine uporabnikov. Zato je bilo to srečanje povsem umetno, vsi smo bili zelo vljudni, naredili smo tudi brainstorming o tem, kako bi lahko sodelovali, ampak v resnici pri njih ni bilo čutiti nobene potrebe po tem. Če to zgodbo navežem na sodobni ples po Evropi, lahko povem, da je veliko plesnih skupin, zlasti v Zahodni Evropi, dokaj spodobno financiranih, tudi prek večletnih programov, zato tudi pri njih kakšne posebej velike potrebe po sodelovanju ne opažam. Seveda morajo sodelovati, ker evropski financerji to navadno od njih zahtevajo, vendar to počnejo bolj ali manj zato, da zadostijo razpisnim pogojem, in ne zato, ker bi si to zares želeli. V Jugoslaviji je bilo relativno veliko sodelovanja med slovenskimi in makedonskimi baletnimi umetniki, zlasti v okviru rednih festivalskih manifestacij. Po razpadu nekdanje skupne države se je intenziteta sodelovanja občutno zmanjšala in zdaj poteka le sporadično. Ali vidiš možnosti za intenziviranje prihodnjega sodelovanja med makedonskimi in slovenskimi baletnimi ansambli ter posameznimi baletnimi umetniki? Regionalnih in bilateralnih kulturnih politik na področju baleta ne poznam dovolj dobro, zato se lahko samo pridružim tvojemu opažanju, saj je moje enako - tega sodelovanja je zelo malo, odvisno je od posameznih pobud, ni pa strukturne podpore. V okviru CoFestivala se nam npr. dogaja, da švicarske, avstrijske ali nemške umetnike veliko lažje gostimo kot umetnike z Balkana; čeprav stanejo veliko več, jih lahko pripeljemo, ker ta gostovanja finančno podpirajo kulturne politike njihovih držav. Po drugi strani pa mora festival sam pokriti celotne stroške gostovanja, če želi povabiti nekoga iz Makedonije. V trenutku, ko začneš politikom razlagati o sodelovanju v regiji, si deležen lepega nasmeška in vljudne besede, v resnici pa pravega interesa za 178 podporo kulturnemu sodelovanju ni, ker so države v balkanski regiji še vedno v fazi grajenja lastne identitete in živijo v zmotnem prepričanju, da bodo s sklicevanjem na neko izmišljeno, mitsko zgodovino in s preusmeritvijo kulturnega sodelovanja z Balkana na Zahodno Evropo okrepile svojo prepoznavnost. Kaj bi morali izboljšati na ravni kulturnih politik obeh držav, da bi bilo več medsebojnih gostovanj baletnih ansamblov in baletnih umetnikov? Najmanj, kar bi morali pričakovati in zahtevati od urejene kulturne politike, je, da ima v strateških dokumentih jasno zapisano, kako bo prispevala k razvoju posameznega področja ter kako bo spodbujala gostovanja in druge oblike bilateralnega in regionalnega sodelovanja na tem področju. Med umetniki želja po sodelovanju obstaja, obstajajo tudi potenciali, ni pa zadostne podpore, da bi se ti potenciali realizirali. Slobodan Unkovski, director Theatre as a Relationship 181 Interviewed by Ana Stojanoska According to the data collected within the project Macedonian-Slovenian Theatre Relations (from 1990 until the Present), the Macedonian director Slobodan Unkovski has directed five plays in four Slovenian theatres in the period of our interest: Peer Gynt by Ibsen, produced by SNT Drama Ljubljana (1991), The Misanthrope by Molière, produced by SNT Drama Ljubljana (2000), As You Like It by Shakespeare, produced by Ljubljana City Theatre (2001), The Fourth Sister by Glowacki, produced by SNT Drama Ljubljana (2002) and The Green Bird by Gozzi, produced by SNT Nova Gorica (2005). He has directed in Slovenia in 1983, too: Top Secret by Dušan Jovanovic in the Slovene Permanent Theatre in Trieste. Apart from his work with the Slovenian theatres, his relationship with the Slovene theatre is also important, mainly through directing several important Slovenian playwrights like Dušan Jovanovic and Rudi Šeligo. For that purpose, this interview is conceived as a theoretical and aesthetic presentation of the work of Slobodan Unkovski as a director and his personal understanding of the Slovenian theatre. The Slovenian theatre and your interest in it, when did you start, why and is there a specific play or an ensemble to blame for that? I met Slovenian theatre when I started attending festivals, and that was during my studies, practically as early as 1971. The Slovenian theatre had distinguished itself in many ways then: the acting, the equipment, other elements. And then, I was also a selector in Sarajevo (for the MESS festival), I travelled and watched Slovenian plays. And, finally, I was with Milena Zupančič in a jury in Zagreb, at the Gavella Evenings, so I also met her. Then I collaborated with Dušan Jovanovic when we worked on and I directed The Liberation of Skopje in Skopje. Finally, I have been working with Meta Hočevar since 1978. The collaboration with Meta Hočevar started in Zenica, and the play was Legend by Miroslav Krleža. The Mladinsko, of course, I watched their plays in Belgrade. Later I also learnt about it through Ljubiša Ristic's work. And my first play there in the 1990s was Peer Gynt in SNT Drama Ljubljana. The work on the play had started, then fell apart because Radko Polič quit, and he was supposed to play Peer Gynt. Then I took Igor Samobor, a young actor then, and we started working 182 on it even during the spring. During the summer he completed his other obligations and came very ready in September, so we made a play that was remembered there as something significant and good. After that I worked in several theatres. I mean, mainly in Drama, once in the Ljubljana City Theatre, also in Nova Gorica, and I also had negotiations with other theatres, but nothing came through. I had some projects that I didn't complete, like Vinko Moderndorfer's Europe, I was supposed to work on. Before that, there was an initiative by one famous writer, I can't remember his name now, but Lado Kralj brought me the text, after we came with my performance Proud Flash or Hamlet in Ljubljana, can't remember exactly, at the airport, before I got on the airplane, they gave me a text they wanted me to direct, but I didn't like it and I didn't work on it. I mean, I've often been in the company of the actors and playwrights from Slovenia, I directed Rudi Šeligo in Sarajevo, Dušan Jovanovic in Skopje and Trieste, so I was constantly in touch with the Slovenian theatre, with dramatic texts, with authors, playwrights, actors, etc. You mention Dušan Jovanovic. Is there something specific about him as a playwright that provoked you to direct his work? I liked that he treated political issues in a subtle way, that he opened some questions that were closed before that. For example, in Karamazovs, also in the other plays. Because those were the 1980s, the period when political theatre became dominant. He and Ljubiša Ristic were the most prominent. I caught that wave directing Croatian Faust by Slobodan Šnajder in Belgrade, in a way expressing my aesthetics, but it was absolutely political, dramatically important to work on. The Liberation of Skopje is the best that has come out of him, I directed that, and I think he is an exceptional playwright and a director, very specific, some may like him a lot, some may not. What are the main aesthetic features ofthe Slovenian theatre? More precisely, can we define Slovenian theatre as a category with its own special type of aesthetics and poetics? Slovenian theatre is not a simple term, so to say. In the former Yugoslavia, we knew the most talked about Slovenian plays, those that were aesthetically different, minimalistic in many aspects, with a certain type and way of acting. But in Slovenia, there is an abundance of plays that are conventional. Just as in German or other theatres, they are not unimportant, they are important for the audience, people come to see them, whether they be tasteful or not, but they work. They have always had the need to examine new directions. To make further steps. Whether it is in the theme, the nudity, the inclusion of animals in the plays, etc., they have always been provocative and different, and brave, I must say. For example, some companies, like Mladinsko or Glej in a certain phase, others also had specific aesthetics and we knew what to expect from that theatre. SNT Drama had serious production, serious set design, they had high quality actors with whom it was always a pleasure to work. They were actually constantly positioned between a strictness and sharpness in their attitude and expression, with a masterful interpretation of poetry, of the unreachable, and that mix has always been exciting. It is not possible to say that there were no great influences from the German theatre, I think that they had that influence even in the internal organisation, the production plan, in the dramatists and their role, in the equipment, in the design. It was easy for them to travel to Munich, to Vienna and other cities, while it was complicated for us even to get there. So, when we started to compete within Yugoslavia, for example, with our Drama Theatre Skopje, it was always a pleasure to beat the Slovenians at Sterijino pozorje festival, while at MESS we had equal success. But we competed mainly with them, less then with Belgrade. They were the measuring stick. Those festivals were our favourite for the competition with them. And we had success. They have many interesting playwrights with different themes from ours. So, excuse me if I forget some names, let's start with Cankar, then from Hieng, Šeligo, Jovanovic, Jančar, and all the way to the younger generation, they opened different themes. Those themes were under the influence of the European trends, of the English dramaturgy and other things, there are certainly more appropriate studies, but it was always interesting for us to see a different way of thinking, like some other ... not civilisation, far from that, but another way ... if the emotional was the rule with us, they were ruled by the rational. That's why it was interesting for me to work there and for them, because I had the mix from those two worlds and it gave a special quality to the product we came up with at the end. It was a theatre of other possibilities, other budgets, other everything. The same was in Yugoslavia. So, it was real theatre. "Hrepenenje" ["longing"] was the synonym for a Slovenian play for us (laughs). Which theatre is the most modern or most avant-garde in Slovenia and why? I'm more oriented to certain institutions, so to say, to big theatres. SNT Drama Ljubljana was in many aspects an avant-garde theatre for me. Also, Glej, Mladinsko and some other companies I can't remember now, they have also had significant influence. But I can't make the judgment here. Not everything that looks avant-garde is actually avantgarde. Sometimes avant-garde-ness is packed in a very seemingly simple form, which doesn't have to be blood, sweat, skin, water, feathers, foam, penises or bare asses, etc. It can also be packed more plainly and to open important aesthetic new directions. So, I can't judge, I haven't thought about it like that. 184 Is there a theatre in Slovenia that you consider similar/same to your poetics? Five plays directed in Slovenia in four different theatres. How do you consider your collaboration with the Slovenian theatres and theatre artists? I don't know how to answer that, since my poetics, my way of thinking exists always, of course, but it gets modified according to the ensemble, to the location, to the text, the situation, etc. I feel SNT Drama the closest, personally, maybe because I've worked on a couple of plays there. That is a theatre in which I could work forever. Theatre in the real sense of the word. My first contract in Slovenia was with Mladinsko, to work on Class Enemy by Nigel Williams there, and then it turned out I couldn't go, so I suggested that my assistant-to-be (Vito Taufer) direct it. And he did. Mladinsko somehow recognised me and called me first. After that, SNT called. The experience in Nova Gorica was also very interesting to me. It's a very interesting ensemble closed in a made-up city. It is a made-up town, a made-up casino, a made-up mountain, only the wine is real and the border, it is a non-existent city, there's nothing to do there but drink, gamble and make theatre. It is important as an event. And as a theatre, as an applied structure, as looking for things, as an exploration, it was always SNT for me. I directed a play in Mestno [Ljubljana City Theatre], by Shakespeare, we connected and we didn't connect, as I would like to work. Ljubljana City Theatre has to secure and earn a huge chunk of their budget by themselves. Everybody does, but they have to the most. It can also be seen by the repertoire, by the things they produce for the audience. It is hard with that way of work, it is an effort to keep the quality. But I am talking about a period in the past. I don't claim to know the situation now. So, to answer your question, SNT Drama, the plays I like to watch, I like to work there, it is exciting, interesting, uncertain as everywhere, and I had the great fortune to work with Jernej Šugman, a couple of plays, but he passed away too early. I had the fortune to work with some of their excellent actresses like Nataša Barbara Gračner, with Polona Juh, with which we met in Peer Gynt, and many others, too many to list them now. Except with Silva Čušin, she remains my unfulfilled wish, I really like her. Ibsen, Gtowacki, Jovanovic, Shakespeare, Molière as a choice of playwrights you directed in Slovenian theatres. Why that choice and is it connected with the environment in which you direct? Is there a difference in the choice of plays for the Slovenian audience and for the others? No, there is no difference. It is connected to my field of research and what interests me. We didn't mention Carlo Gozzi with The Green Bird in Nova Gorica. A philosophical renaissance comedy. The Slovenian theatres have dramaturgs, and before the start of a season, they very often came to me with suggestions and I have accepted them or not. So, the choice of play was a result of my interests at the time, or their interests, of repertoire structure for that year, their direction, what they discovered in the contemporary theatre and so on. I think that in SNT Drama, Peer Gynt, The Fourth 185 Sister and The Misanthrope were their suggestions. And on that topic, the choice of a play, is it always yours or does it happen that an ensemble, or the theatre manager, or the playwright, asks you to stage a play? When the dramaturgy department is strong, when there are three or four serious dramaturgs, who know languages, some of them hard to work with, some wonderful, competent, then you have faith in their suggestions. And it is very interesting for me. Since the working period is agreed upon much in advance, I have enough time to see if the play works for me and what I can do with it. So, the choice is usually from both sides. They have also offered me new texts that I haven't heard about, because they read a lot of plays, that's their job. They translate from German and English, from other languages, and they make a proposal for the repertoire. Slovenian drama and your interest in it? I am terribly sorry I have never worked on Cankar. I think I'm a director for Cankar, that his texts are for me. And the offer to work on Europe by Vinko Moderndorfer, a text based on Cankar, was in a way a natural choice. It is a contemporary view on the Slovenian situation. And I've worked on Šeligo with great pleasure. Dušan Jovanovic, I mentioned that. Anyway, I also liked Hieng s plays. There were many new Slovenian texts coming to me for a time, but I didn't work so often in order to answer to all those proposals. For me, Slovenian drama is very interesting. It is exotic for me in a way. It is not banal, but thematically exotic. There are myths that a dragged for a long time, we are not aware of them so much here, but there are legends and myths, and practically, like I was given German texts to direct in Germany two or three times, so they can see my view on their inheritance, I found the same thing in the Slovenian texts I directed, there was a different, another aspect. I think that was useful for me, as well as for the authors and the audience. Theatre reviews in Slovenia, what is your relation and opinion about the reviews written about your plays? I don't have any special memory of a review of my plays. Not only in Slovenia, but haven't relied on reviews anywhere. Not that I underestimate them, they just don't help me. Even if they are the best or worst, they don't help me, I've gotten to my own 186 understanding and that's what's guiding me. It is not a haughty attitude, just a complex process of mine that is always something more than the content of some written text. And it is always a simplification for me or, very often, a general lack of recognition of dramatically different directions. However, one cannot be angry at that, because that's just the way things are. Because the transfer, the contact and the understanding were equal to the possibilities of the author, of their knowledge of theatre and whether they are a failed director or actor, whether they are a failed writer, or they are a real critic, a professional. I have always liked a good review, of course. It was important to me to see what will Delo say, or Dnevnik, what will Primorske novice say, but mainly I leave the same or the next day after the premiere, so when the review comes out, they post it to me, so it doesn't influence me. Do you treat the plays in Slovenia and Macedonia differently (choice of play, working process, ensemble)? No. It doesn't matter whether I direct in Slovenia, Germany, America or Macedonia, I always want to make the process and the play at a level that is mine, to articulate myself, otherwise I wouldn't have a play. Are there differences in the production conditions (for example, the financial budgets for the plays, the technical conditions for working in a theatre, the support of the management, promotion, etc.) between the Macedonian and the Slovenian theatres where you have directed? If there are, how would you describe them? Of course, there are differences, like there are differences between Slovenia and Germany. Or Germany and America. There are differences all the time. Over here the theatres try to indulge me when I work. To the maximum possible within the state given budget. That's the difference. For example, Einstein's Dreams in Belgrade I think costs 120,000 to 150,000 euros, or The Marriage and Divorce of Figaro at the National Theatre Belgrade certainly costs 150,000 euros, not so much for a complicated project like that. In Skopje, if they give you 30,000 euros they think they gave the maximum. There is no understanding that some projects should get much more. Not for a larger fee for me, but for a better production in every aspect. The list of my collaborators in Slovenia or in Belgrade or in Skopje differs a lot. When you see the bill of fare, there is a great difference. The poster in Belgrade is done by Mirko Ilic, who is a renowned graphic designer. Here [in Macedonia], I don't know if there's going to be a poster at all. The catalogue here is with one or two pages, it should be a special occasion for more than that, and even then, the content is questionable. Do you see any unexploited possibilities for collaboration between the 187 Slovenian and the Macedonian theatres and do you maybe have any suggestions for intensifying the collaboration? I haven't thought about that. It's a part of the cultural politics. I haven't done that for years. So, I don't have a clear proposal. I think that exchanging plays and touring is always exciting, and that's a lot. I am sorry that some of our plays have not played there, but now it is a question whether the Macedonian theatre has any plays to send there at all. Macedonian-Slovenian theatre connections, what is your take on this syntagma? Can we talk about a relationship between our and the Slovenian theatre? At an individual level, I, Aco Popovski and a couple of other people who have worked there, yes, certainly. On the other hand, I don't see a dramatically significant other collaboration. I don't recognise it, I haven't seen it, I don't know of it. It is more of an idea than a collaboration. Translated by Aleksandar Zafirovski Cno6oflaH yhkgbcku, TeaTapcKu pernucep TeaTapoT KaKO penaquja 189 Pa3roBapame: AHa CTojaHocKa Og npuMapHUTe ucrpa«yBaaa Ha noga^uTe mTO ucTpa«yBa^uTe ru co6paa og OBoj npoeKT, MaKegoHcKuOT pe«ucep Cno6ogaH Yhkobcku pe«upan neT npeTcTaBu bo ^eTupu cnoBeHe^Ku TeaTpu bo nepuogoT mTO e Ba«eH 3a HameTO ucrpa«yBaae. ïïep ruHT og H63eH, bo npogy^uja Ha CHr flpaMa, ^y6aaHa (1991), MmaHwpoü og Monuep, bo npogy^uja Ha CHr flpaMa, ^y6aaHa (2000), KaKo wwo MuxyBawe og ffleKcnup, bo npogy^uja Ha MecTHO rneganum^e, ^y6aaHa (2001), HewBpwawa cecTpa og TnoBa^u, bo npogy^uja Ha CHr flpaMa, ^y6aaHa (2002), 3enemwa üwuma og ^u, bo npogy^uja Ha CHr - HoBa Topu^ (2005). Bo CnoBeHuja pe«upan u bo 1983 roguHa, TeKcTOT Ha flymaH JoBaHOBUK BoeHa TajHa bo CTanHO cnoBeHcKO rneganum^e, TpcT. OcBeH co pa6oTaTa co cnoBeHe^KUTe TeaTpu, 3Ha^ajHa e HeroBaTa pena^uja co cnoBeHe^KuOT TeaTap, npeKy pe«ujaTa Ha HeKonKy Ba«Hu cnoBeHe^Ku gpaMcKu aBTopu KaKo mTO ce flymaH JoBaHOBUK u Pygu fflenuro. 3a Taa ^n, OBa uHTepBjy e K0H^u^upaH0 3a Hay^HO-ecreTcKu ga ce npe3eHTupa pa6oTaTa Ha pe«ucepoT Cno6ogaH Yhkobcku u HeroBOTO nu^HO pa36upaae u geTepMUHupaae Ha cnoBeHe^KuOT TeaTap. CmoBeHe^KHoT TeaTap h HHTepecoT 3a Hero, og Kora no^iHa, 3omTo h gama iiMa HeKoja npeTcTaBa/aHacaMÖm mTo e npimiiHa 3a Toa? Co cnoBeHe^KuOT TeaTap ce cpeTHaB Kora noraaB ga ogaM Ha (ecruBanu, a Toa 6eme 3a BpeMe Ha cTyguuTe, npaKTu^HO ymTe bo 1971 roguHa. Toram ce pa3nuKyBame cnoBeHe^KuOT TeaTap no noBeKe eneMeHTu, no Ha^uHOT Ha urpa, no onpeMa, no pa3Hu pa6oTu. A noToa, 6eB u ceneKTop bo CapaeBO (ce Mucnu Ha (ecruBanoT MECC) naTyBaB, u ru rnegaB cnoBeHe^KUTe npeTcTaBu. H KOHe^HO, co MuneHa 3ynarnuK 6eB bo «upu bo 3arpe6, Ha raBenuHu Be^epu, na ja 3ano3HaB Hea. noToa copa6oTyBaB co flymaH JoBaHOBUK Kora ce pa6oTeme OcxoôogyBa^ewo Ha Crnüje mTo ro pe«upaB bo CKonje. H KOHe^HO co MeTa Xo^eBap co KojamTO pa6oTaM og 1978 roguHa. Copa6oTKaTa co MeTa Xo^eBap noraa bo 3eHu^, npeTcTaBaTa 6eme ïïeîeHga og Kpne«a. MnaguHcKO, ce pa36upa, co HUBHUTe npeTcTaBu ru rnegaB bo Benrpag. ^ogo^Ha ce 3ano3HaB u npeKy npeTcTaBUTe Ha ^y6uma Puctuk. H MojaTa npBa npeTcTaBa TaMy bo geBegeceTTUTe roguHu ïïep fuHW bo CHr 190 flpaMa. npeTCTaBaTa noraa ga ce pa6oTu egHam, na ce pacnagHa, 3aToa mTO PaTKO nonuK oTKa^a, Toj Tpe6ame ga ro urpa nep ruHT. H Toram ro 3egoB Hrop CaMo6op Toram Mnag rnyMe^ co Koj ymTe nponeTTa no^HaBMe ga ja pa6oTuMe. Toj npeKy neToTo ru 3aBpmu cuTe cbou pa6oTu mTo ru uMame u flojee MHory cnpeMeH og cenTeMBpu u HanpaBUBMe egHa npeTcraBa KojamTo ocTaHa 3anaMeTeHa TaMy, KaKo HemTo mTo e 3Ha^ajHo u go6po. noToa pa6oTeB bo noBeKe TeaTpu. MucnaM, rnaBHo bo flpaMa HajMHory, bo MecTHo egHam, bo Topu^, cyM nperoBapan u bo gpyru TeaTpu, aMa He ucnagHa HumTo. HMaB HeKou npoeKTu mTo nponagHane, KaKo Toj Ha Buhko MegepHgop^ep Espoüa mTo Tpe6ame ga ro pa6oTaM. npeTxoflHo uMame uHu^ujaTUBa co egeH no3HaT nucaTen, cera He mu TeKHyBa uMeTo HeroBo, ^ago Kpaa mu ro goHece TeKcToT, no npuKa^yBaraeTo Ha MojaTa npeTcTaBa ffuso Meco, MucnaM bo ^y6aaHa unu XaMnew, He ce ceKaBaM mTo 6eme, Ha aepogpoM npeg ga Bne3aM bo aBuoH, mu gagoa egeH TeKcT mTo caKaa ga ro pa6oTaM, ho He mu ce gonagHa TeKcToT u He ro pa6oTeB. CaKaM fla Ka^aM, co rnyM^Te u aBTopuTe og CnoBeHuja ce gpy^eB, Pygu fflenuro ro pa6oTeB bo CapaeBo, flymaH JoBaHoBuK bo CKonje u bo TpcT, TaKa mTo cranHo 6eB bo KoHTaKT co cnoBeHe^KuoT TeaTap, co gpaMcKu TeKcroBu, co aBTopu, co nucaTenu, co rnyM^u uth. Kora ro cnoMeHaBTe ^ymaH JoBaHOBHK, gana HMa HemTo mTo Mome ga ce logBon 3a Hero KaKo aBTop mTo Be npoBompa ga ro pa6oTHTe? Kaj Hero mu ce gonarame Toa mTo ce 3aHuMaBa co nonura^Ku npama^a Ha egeH cymuneH Ha^HH, mTo oTBopa HeKou TeMu, mTo He 6ea oTBopaHu npeTxogHo. npuMep bo KapaMa30BU u bo gpyruTe TeKcToBu ucto. BugejKu Ha HeKoj Ha^uH Toa ce ocyMgeceTTuTe roguHu, Kora Toj nonuTu^Ku TeaTap cTaHa goMuHaHTeH. HeKaKo 6ea HajucTaKHaTu ^y6uma Phcthk u Toj. Jac HeKaKo ce npuKny^uB Ha Toa co MojaTa npeTcTaBa XpBawcKU @aycw bo Benrpag, Ha Ha^uH mTo ja ogpa3yBa MojaTa ecTeTuKa, Meryroa, anconymo 6eme nonuTOTKu, ApaMaTu^Ho 6uraa 3a pa6oTa. OcrnSogyBamwo Ha Crnuje e HemTo Hajgo6po og Hero u Toa ro pa6oTeB u cMeTaM geKa e egeH u3BoHpegeH u aBTop u pe^ucep, c^e^u$u^eH, Ha HeKou Mo^e fla um ce gonara MHory, Ha HeKou He. Koh ce 3a Bac raaBHHTe ecTeTCKH KapaKTepiicTiiKii Ha cnoBeHe^KHoT TeaTap? noTO^HO, ganu Mome ga ge$HHHpaMe KaTeropuja cnoBeHe^KH TeaTap h ga ja ge$HHHpaMe ecTeTHKaTa h noeTHKaTa Ha Toj Tun TeaTap? CnoBeHe^KuoT TeaTap He e egHocTaBeH TepMuH, TaKa ga Ka^aM. 3amTo Hue bo nopaHemHa JyrocnaBuja ru 3HaeBMe Haju3BuKaHuTe cnoBeHe^Ku npeTcTaBu, Tue mTo 6ea ecTeTcKu pa3nu^Hu, mTo 6ea MuHuManucra^Ku og MHory acneKTu, mTo 6ea co ogpegeH Tun u Ha^uH Ha urpa. A og CnoBeHuja uMa ymTe MHory npeTcTaBu KoumTo ce KoHBeH^oHanHu. KaKo mTo e Toa bo repMaHcKuoT TeaTap unu gpyru MecTa, KoumTo He ce He6uTHu, Tue ce 6uthu 3a ny6nuKa, goara ga ru rnega, noManKy unu noBeKe BKycHu unu HeBKycHu, 191 MeryToa cu $yH^uoHupaaT. CTanHo uMane noTpe6a ga ce ucnuTaaT HeKou hobu npaB^. fla ce HanpaBaT uc^eKopu. flanu Toa Ke 6uge bo TeMaTa, bo co6neKyBaae, bo BKny^yBaae «ubothu bo npeTcTaBUTe, uth. u ceKoram 6une np0B0KaTUBHu u pa3nu^Hu, u 6une xpa6pu, MopaM ga Ka^aM. TaKa Ha npuMep, HeKou KoMnaHuu, KaKo MnaguHcKo unu rnej bo HeKoja $a3a u gpyru uMaa egHa MHory c^e^u$u^Ha ecreTUKa u ce 3Haeme mT0 ga ce ^eKa og Toj TeaTap. CHr flpaMa uMame cepuo3Ha npogy^uja, cepuo3eH gu3ajH, uMame Buc0K0KBanuTeTHu rnyM^u co KoumTo e ceKoram roneMo 3agoBoncTBo ga pa6oTum. Bo cymTUHa Tue cTanHo 6ea Mery egHa crporocr u ocTpocT bo cBouTe cTaB0Bu u bo u3pa30T, co MajcTopcKo TonKyBaae Ha noe3uja, Ha Hego^amuBo uth. u Toj mukc 6eme ceKoram B036ygnuB. He Mo«e ga ce Ka«e geKa HeMane roneMu BnujaHuja og repMaHcKuoT TeaTap, cnopeg MeHe u bo BHaTpemHaTa opraHU3a^uja, bo nnaHupaaeTo Ha npogy^ujaTa, bo gpaMaTyp3UTe u ynoraTa HUBHa, bo onpeMaTa, bo gu3ajH0T. ïïecHo um 6eme ga naTyBaaT bo MuHxeH, bo BueHa u bo gpyru rpagoBu, 3a pa3nuKa og Hac, Ha kou u go hub ga gojgeMe, hu 6eme K0M^nu^upaH0. TaKa mT0 Hue Kora noraaBMe ga ce HaTnpeBapyBaMe bo jyrocnoBeHcKu paMKu, Ha npuMep, co flpaMcKu TeaTap og TyKa, ceKoram hu 6eme MepaK ga ru no6eguMe CnoBeH^UTe, Ha no3opje, Ha MECC HeKoram Tue Hè no6egyBaa, HeKoram Hue. Ho, rnaBHo co hub ce HaTnpeBapyBaBMe, noManKy co Benrpag. Tue hu 6ea penep. TaMy hu 6eme HajMHory MepaK co hub ga ce MepuMe. H ycneBaBMe. HMaaT MHory uHTepecHu gpaMcKu aBTopu co gpyru TeMu og HamuTe. 3Ha^u, HeMa ga mu TeKHaT cuTe uMuaa, og ^HKap ga no^HeMe, og Xuhk, og fflenuro, og flymaH go JaH^ap, na go noMnaguTe, ce oTBopaa egHu gpyru TeMu. TeMu KoumTo 6ea nog BnujaHue Ha eBponcKUTe TeK0Bu, Ha aHrnucKa gpaMaTypruja u Ha gpyru pa6oTu, curypHo 3a Toa nocTojaT noageKBaTHu cryguu, ho ceKoram hu 6eme uHTepecHo ga BuguMe gpyr Ha^uH Ha Mucneae, KaKo gpyra, He ^UBunu3a^uja, ganeKy e Toa, MeryToa, gpyr Ha^uH, aK0 Kaj Hac 6eme Toa mT0 e eM0TUBH0, Kaj hub pa^U0T0 6eme goMUHaHTHo. H 3aToa 6eme 3a MeHe uHTepecHo ga pa6oTaM TaMy u 3a hub, ucto TaKa, 6ugejKu uMaBMe mukc og Tue gBe pa6oTu u Toa gaBame egeH noce6eH KBanuTeT Ha npou3BogoT mT0 ro uc^pnaBMe Ha Kpaj. Toa 6eme TeaTap Ha gpyru mo«hoctu, gpyru 6yyeTu, gpyro cè. H bo JyrocnaBuja ucto. TaKa mT0 6eme npaB TeaTap. „Hrepenenje" 6eme 3a Hac cuhohum Ha cnoBeHe^Ka npeTcraBa (ce cMee). Koj cnopeg Bac e HajMogepHiioT hah HajaBaHrapgHiioT TeaTap bo CfloBeHHja h 3omTo? Jac noBeKe cyM opueHTupaH koh og6paHu uhctut^uu, TaKa ga Ka^aM, koh roneMu TeaTpu. 3a MeHe CHr bo MHory acneKTu 6eme aBaHrapgeH TeaTap. TyKa u rnej, MnaguHcKo u HeKou gpyru KoMnaHuu mT0 He mu naraaT Ha naMeT cera, ucto TaKa, uMane 3Ha^ajH0 BHUMaHue. Ho He Mo«aM ga npecygaM TyKa. He e cè aBaHrapgHo bo Toa ga U3rnega aBaHrapgHo. noHeKoram aBaHrapgHocTa e cnaKyBaHa bo MHory, Hau3rneg egHocTaBHa $opMa, KojamTo 192 He Mopa ga 6uge KpB, noT, Ko«a, Boga, nepja, neHa, neHucu unu ronu 3agHu^u uth. Mo«e ga 6uge u MHory noegHocraBHo cnaKyBaHa u ga oTBopa Ba«Hu ecTeTcKu hobu npaB^. TaKa mT0 He Mo«aM ga cygaM, He cyM pa3MucnyBan TaKa. ^arni nocToH TeaTap bo CnoBeHHja qaja paöoTa ja npeno3HaBaTe KaKo cna^Ha/ HcTa Ha BamaTa noeTHKa? OecT npeTcTaBH pemipaHii bo CnoBeHHja bo qerapa pa3mmHii TeaTpH. KaKo ja npo^HyBaTe BamaTa copaöoTKa co cnoBeHe^KHTe TeaTpa h TeaTapcKH yMeTH^H? He 3HaM mT0 tomho ga Ka«aM Ha Toa, 6ugejKu MojaTa noeTuKa, Ha^uH0T Ha Mucneae nocTou cTanHo, ce pa36upa, MeryToa ce Mogu$u^upa 3aBucH0 og aHcaM6nuTe, og MecT0T0, og TeKcT0T, og cuTya^ujaTa uth. Haj6nucKy mu e CHr, MeHe nu^Ho, M0«e6u 3aToa mT0 cyM pa6oTen HeKonKy npeTcTaBu TaMy. Toa e ga pe^eMe TeaTap bo Koj 6u Mo«en ga pa6oTaM ceKoram. TeaTap, bo BucTuHcKa cMucna Ha 36opoT. MojoT npB goroBop, Kage 6uno bo CnoBeHuja, 6eme co MnaguHcKo, ga ro pa6oTaM TaMy KrnceH Heüpujawen u ucnagHa nocne geKa He Mo«aM ga gojgaM, a jac um npegno«uB Toj mT0 Tpe6ame ga mu 6uge MeHe acucTeHT (Buto Tay^ep) Toj ga ro cpa6oTu. H Toj ro pe«upame. MnaguHcKo HeKaKo Me npeno3Ha u Me BuKHa npBo. noToa ce jaBu CHr. Ha npuMep, 3a MeHe 6eme MomHe uHTepecHo ucKycTB0T0 u bo HoBa ropu^. Toa e egeH MHory uHTepeceH aHcaM6n KojmTo e 3aTBopeH Bo egeH rpag mTo e u3MucneH. H3MucneH e rpagoT, u3MucneHa Ko^apHu^, u3MucneHa nnaHuHa, caMo buhoto e peanHo, rpaHu^Ta e, Henocroe^Ku rpag e, Kaj mT0 HeMa HumTo mT0 ga ce npaBu ocBeH ga ce nue, ga ce K0^Ka, ga ce npaBu npeTcraBa. Toa e KaKo HacTaH Ba«H0. A KaKo TeaTap, KaKo a^nu^upaHa crpyKTypa, KaKo 6apaae pa6oTu, KaKo ucrpa«yBafte, 3a MeHe 6eme ceKoram CHr. Pa6oTeB bo MecTHo egHa npeTcraBa, ffleKcnup, ce cnouBMe u He ce cnouBMe, ko mT0 6u caKan ga npaBaM. MecTHo egeH roneM gen og cBojoT 6ypeT Tpe6a caMu ga ro o6e36egaT u ga ro 3apa6oTaT. MeryToa, cuTe MopaaT, ho Tue HajMHory. H Toa ce rnega bo penepToapoT, kou pa6oTu ru npaBaT 3a ny6nuKa. MHory e TemKo bo Toj Ha^uH Ha pa6oTa, Man^ e TemKo ga ce 3agp«u egeH KBanuTeT. MeryToa jac 36opyBaM cera 3a egeH nepuog mT0 6un nopaHo. He npeTeHgupaM geKa 3HaM cera KaKo e. TaKa mT0, ga ogroBopaM Ha TBoeTo npamaae, flpaMa (CHr), npeTcTaBuTe mT0 caKaM ga ru rnegaM, ga pa6oTaM TaMy, Mu e Bo36ygnuBo, uHTepecHo, Heu3BecHo KaKo u ceKage, uMaB roneMa cpeKa ga pa6oTaM co JepHej fflyraaH, HeKonKy npeTcTaBu, Toj 3a «an, npepaHo no^uHa. HMaB cpeKa ga pa6oTaM co HeKonKy hubhu u3B0HpegHu rnyMu^u, KaKo mT0 e HaTama Bap6apa rpa^Hep, co nonoHa Jyx co kou ce cpeTHaBMe ymTe bo nep ruHT, u co MHory gpyru, kou 0Bge cera He Mo«aM ga ru pegaM. OcBeH co CunBa MymuH, Toa mu ocTaHa HeucnonHeTa «en6a 3amT0 oco6eHo mu ce gonara. HÖ3eH, InoBa^H, JoBaHoBiiK, OeKcnup, Monuep KaKo io6op Ha aBTopu mTo cTe ra 193 pemupane bo cnoBeHe^KUTe TeaTpu. 3omTo ToKMy Toj io6op u ganu e noBp3aHo co cpeguHaTa bo Koja pemupaTe? ^anu nocTou pa3nuKa bo U3ÖopoT Ha gpaMcKuoT TeKcT 3a cnoBeHe^KaTa TeaTapcKa nyönuKa u gpyruTe? He, HeMa pa3nuKa. Toa e noBp3aHo co Toa mTo e Moj npegMeT Ha ucipa«yBafte u oHa mTo Me uHTepecupa. TyKa He e cnoMeHaT Kapno ^u, co 3enemwa üwrnrn bo HoBa ropu^. ®uno3o$cKa peHecaHcHa KoMeguja. Bo cnoBeHe^KuTe TeaTpu, 6ugejKu uMa gpaMaTyp3u, bo npecpeT Ha ce3oHaTa, MHory ^ecio Tue goarane co npegnor u jac cyM npu^aKan unu He. TaKa u36opoT Ha geno 6uno pe3ynraT Ha HeKou mou MoMeHTanHu uHTepecu unu Ha hubhu uHTepec, Ha cTpyKTypa Ha penepToapoT Taa roguHa, Kage ogaT, mTo oTKpune bo cBeTcKuoT coBpeMeH TeaTap uth. MucnaM geKa bo CHr flpaMa nep rmw, Hewspwawa cecTpa u MmaHwpoü 6une hubhu npegno3u. H bo Taa HacoKa, U3ÖopoT Ha gpaMcKuoT TeKcT ganu e ceKoram Bam unu ce cnyquno aHcaMÖnoT, gupeKTopoT Ha TeaTapoT, aBTopoT ga noöapa og Bac Toj TeKcT ga ce nocTaBU? npeTe«Ho Kora uMaTe TaKa jaKu gpaMaTypmKu oggeneHuja, no Tpoj^, ^eTBopu^ cepuo3Hu gpaMaTyp3u, 3HaaT ja3uK, HeKou og hub TemKu 3a copa6oTKa, gpyru npeKpacHu, KoMneTeHTHu, um BepyBam Ha HuBHuTe npegno3u. H Toa e 3a MeHe MHory uHTepecHo. BugejKu TepMuHoT 3a pa6oTa ce goroBapa MHory ogHanpeg, uMaM goBonHo BpeMe ga BugaM ganu genoTo mu ce gonara u ga BugaM mTo Ke HanpaBaM og Toa. TaKa mTo e Toa u36op Haj^ecio Ha gBeTe cTpaHu. Tue mu Hygene hobu TeKcToBu KoumTo jac ^ecro He cyM ru 3Haen, ^uiaaT MHory TeKcToBu, Toa um e pa6oTa. npeBegyBaaT og repMaHcKu u aHrnucKu, og gpyruTe ja3u^ u ro npaBaT npegnor-penepToapoT u Bp3 ocHoBa Ha Toa. CnoBeHe^KaTa gpaMaTypruja u BamuoT UHTepec 3a Hea? MeHe mu e MHory «an mTo HuKoram He cyM ro pa6oTen ^HKap. MucnaM geKa jac cyM pe«ucep 3a ^HKap, TaKa mTo MucnaM geKa Toa e 3a MeHe, HeroBuTe TeKcToBu. H Toa mTo Tpe6ame ga ja pa6oTaM Espoüa og Buhko MegeHgop^ep TeKcT 6a3upaH Ha ^HKap, Ha HeKoj Ha^uH 6eme npupogeH u36op. Toa e egHo coBpeMeHo rnega^e Ha cnoBeHe^KaTa cuTya^uja. H fflenuro co roneM MepaK cyM ro pa6oTen. flymaH JoBaHoBuK BeKe peKoB. Bo ceKoj cny^aj mu ce gonarane gpaMuTe u Ha XuHr. MHory hobu cnoBeHe^Ku TeKcToBu mu goaraa egHo BpeMe, Meryioa He pa6oTeB TonKy ^ecTo 3a ga Mo«aM ga ogroBopaM Ha cuTe Tue npegno3u. 3a MeHe cnoBeHe^KaTa gpaMaTypruja e MHory uHTepecHa. EreoirnHa Ha egeH Ha^uH 3a MeHe. He e 6aHanHa, TyKy TeMaTcKu ereoTMHa. Mutobu mTo ru TerHaT og MHory nopaHo, Hue He ru 3HaeMe TyKa goBonHo, nereHgu u mutobu, u npaKiu^Ho, KaKo mTo bo repMaHuja mu gagoa gBa, Tpu naTu ga pa6oTaM repMaHcKu TeKcT, ga ce Bugu MojoT norneg Ha 194 hubhoto HacnegcTBo, TaKa ucto u bo cnoBeHe^KUTe TeKcToBu mTo ru pa6oTeB uMame gpyr, nouHaKoB acneKT. MucnaM geKa Toa 6eme KopucHo u 3a MeHe u 3a nucaTenuTe u 3a ny6nuKaTa. TeaTapcKaTa KpuTUKa bo CnoBeHuja, Koj e BamuoT ogHoc u Mucneae koh HanumaHUTe KpuTUKU 3a BamuTe npeTcraBU? He ce ceKaBaM noce6Ho Ha HeKoja KpuTUKa 3a MouTe npeTcraBu. He caMo bo CnoBeHuja, TyKy HUKage He cyM ce noTnupan caMo Ha KpuTUKaTa. He geKa ja no^eHyBaM, He mu noMara. flypu ga e Hajgo6pa unu Hajnoma He mu noMara, jac uMaM cBoe pa36upaae go Kaj cyM cTurHan u Toa e Toa mTo Me Bogu. Toa He e HeKoj HagMeH craB, TyKy e noKoMnneKceH MojoT npo^c, oTKonKy mTo Mo«e ga ce Hanume bo HeKoj TeKcT. H ceKoram mu e ynpocTyBaae unu MHory ^ecro, BoonmTo, Henpeno3HaBaae Ha Toa mTo ce gpaMaTurao pa3nu^Hu ^paB^u. MeryToa, Ha Toa He Modern ga ce nyTum, 3aToa mTo e Toa TaKa. 3aToa mTo Toa TonKy npe^pnuno, TonKy gonpeno u ce pa36pano u Mo^en TonKy Toj mTo ro numyBan cnopeg cBoeTo co3HaHue Ha TeaTap u no Toa ganu e nponagHaT pe^ucep unu rnyMe^ ganu e nucaTen nponagHaT unu e creapHo KpuTu^ap, KojmTo ce 3aHUMaBa co Toa. CyM caKan ga go6ujaM go6pa KpuTUKa, ce pa36upa. Mu 6uno 3Ha^ajHo mTo Ke Hanume fleno mTo Ke Hanume flHesHUK, mTo Ke HanumaT npuMopcKe Hosuu^e, aMa rnaBHo cu ogaM uctuot geH unu yTpegeHTa no npeTcTaBaTa, TaKa mTo Kora Ke U3ne3e KpuTUKaTa mu ja ucnpaKaaT, aMa HeMa BnujaHue Ha MeHe. ^anu Ha pa3nuqeH Hamm ja TpeTupaTe npeTcTaBaTa bo CnoBeHuja u bo MaKegoHuja (u3Öop Ha TeKcT, npo^c Ha paôoTa, aHcaMÖn)? He. Be3 pa3nuKa Kage npaBaM npeTcTaBa bo CnoBeHuja, bo TepMaHuja, bo AMepuKa, bo MaKegoHuja, ceKoram rnegaM ga ro HanpaBaM npo^coT u npeTcTaBaTa go egHo hubo mTo e Moe, ga ce apTUKynupaM ce6ecu, 6e3 Toa HeMa ga uMaM npeTcTaBa. ^anu nocTojaT pa3nuKU bo npogy^HCKHTe ycnoBU (Ha npuMep, ^UHaHCHCKUTe öyyera Ha npeTCTaBUTe, TexHU^KUTe ycnoBU 3a paôoTa bo TeaTapoT, noggpmKa og MeHayMeHToT Ha TeaTapoT, npoMo^ja hth.) Mery MaKegoHCKUTe u cnoBeHe^KUTe TeaTpu bo koh cTe pe®upane go cera? Ako nocTojaT, KaKo 6u ru onumane Tue pa3nuKU? nocTojaT ce pa36upa pa3nuKu, KaKo mTo nocTojaT pa3nuKu Mery CnoBeHuja u repMaHuja. Hnu Mery TepMaHuja u AMepuKa. CranHo nocTojaT pa3nuKu. Co Toa mTo gypu u oBge TeaTpuTe ce TpygaT ga Me cnegaT Kora pa6oTaM. MaKcuManHo mTo Mo^aT, bo paMKu Ha HemTo mTo ro go6uBaaT og gp^aBaTa. Toa ce pa3nuKyBa. Ha npuMep, MojaTa npeTcTaBa ÁjHwwajmsu coHuwwa bo Benrpag MucnaM geKa muhu og 120.000 go 150.000 eBpa, unu Oulaposawa memg6a u pa3Bog bo HapogHo no3opumTe ^uHeme curypHo 150.000 eBpa, 195 mTo u He e TaKa MHory 3a KoMnnu^paH npoeKT. Bo CKonje aKO tu gagaT 30.000 eBpa MucnaT geKa HanpaBune MaKcuMyM mTo Mo»e. HeMa cBecT ga pe^eMe geKa HeKoj npoeKT Tpe6a ga 3eMe MHory noBeKe. He 3a ga 3eMaM jac noroneM xoHopap, TyKy 3a ga ce onpeMu bo ceKoj norneg. ^ucraTa Ha MouTe copa6oTHu^u Kora Ke ja BuguTe bo CnoBeHuja unu bo Benrpag u bo CKonje uMa roneMa pa3nuKa. Kora Ke ro BuguTe nporpaM^eTo uMa roneMa pa3nuKa. nnaKaToT bo Benrpag ro npaBu MupKo HnuK KojmTo e cBeTcKu no3HaT rpa^u^Ku gu3ajHep. OBge He 3HaM ganu Ke uMa unu Ke HeMa nnaKaT. TaKa mTo nporpaM^eTo oBge uMa egHa unu gBe crpaHu^, Tpe6a ga e HeKoj oco6eH noBog, na ga uMa noBeKe crpaHu^, a u Toram e npama^e mTo numyBa BHaTpe u Koj ro numyBa. ^anii rnegaTe go cera HeKou HeacKopHcreHH momhocth 3a copa6oTKa Mery c^oBeHe^KHTe h MaKegoHCKHTe TeaTpa h gana Mome6a HMaTe HeKou npegno3H 3a HHTeH3HBHpaue Ha Taa copa6oTKa? He cyM pa3MucnyBan 3a Toa. Toa e HemTo mTo e gen Ha KynTypHa nonuTuKa. He ce 3aHuMaBaM co Toa co roguHu BeKe. TaKa mTo HeMaM HeKoj jaceH npegnor. MucnaM geKa pa3MeHa Ha npeTcTaBu, rocryBafta e ceKoram Bo36ygnuBo u Toa He e ManKy. Mu e »an mTo HeKou Hamu npeTcTaBu He ce npuKa»aHu TaMy, Meryroa npamaae e cera ganu bo MoMeHToB MaKegoHcKuoT TeaTap 6am uMa u HeKou npeTcTaBu 3a TaMy. MaKeflOHCKo-cnoBeHe^KH TeaTapcKH BpcKii, KaKo rnegaTe Ha oBaa cHHTarMa? ^ann Mome ga ce 36opyBa 3a pena^ja Mery HamiioT h cnoBeHe^KHOT TeaTap? Ha noeguHe^Ho hubo, jac, A^ nonoBcKu, HeKou gpyru nyre mTo pa6oTea TaMy, Toa ga, curypHo. Og gpyra cTpaHa, HeKoja gpaMararao 6uTHa gpyra copa6oTKa He rnegaM. He ja npeno3HaBaM, He cyM ja Bugen, He ja 3HaM. noBeKe e Toa ugeja oTKonKy copa6oTKa. Slobodan Unkovski, gledališki režiser Gledališče kot odnos 197 Pogovarjala se je Ana Stojanoska. Prvotne analize podatkov, ki so jih raziskovalci zbrali med izvajanjem projekta Makedonsko-slovenske gledališke vezi (od leta 1990 do danes), kažejo, da je makedonski režiser Slobodan Unkovski v obdobju, pomembnem za našo raziskavo, režiral pet predstav v štirih slovenskih gledališčih: Ibsenovega Peera Gynta v produkciji SNG Drame Ljubljana (1991), Molierjevega Ljudomrznika v produkciji SNG Drame Ljubljana (2000), Shakespearjevo komedijo Kakor vam drago v produkciji Mestnega gledališča ljubljanskega (2001), Četrto sestro Glowackega v produkciji SNG Drama Ljubljana (2002) in Gozzijevega Zelenega ptička v produkciji SNG Nova Gorica (2005). V Sloveniji je režiral tudi leta 1983, in sicer besedilo Dušana Jovanovica Vojaška skrivnost v Slovenskem stalnem gledališču v Trstu. Poleg sodelovanja s slovenskimi gledališkimi hišami je s slovenskim gledališčem povezan tudi prek režij besedil pomembnih slovenskih dramskih avtorjev, kot sta Dušan Jovanovic in Rudi Šeligo. Namen tega intervjuja je v teoretskem in estetskem pomenu predstaviti delovanje režiserja Slobodana Unkovskega in njegovo razumevanje slovenskega gledališča. Kdaj in zakaj ste se začeli zanimati za slovensko gledališče? Vas je morda k temu spodbudila kakšna predstava ali ansambel? S slovenskim gledališčem sem se srečal, ko sem začel obiskovati festivale, praktično že leta 1971. Tedaj se je slovensko gledališče razlikovalo po več elementih, po načinu igre, opremi, različnih stvareh. Bil sem tudi selektor v Sarajevu (festival MESS), potoval sem in si ogledoval slovenske predstave. Z Mileno Zupančič sva bila tudi skupaj v žiriji v Zagrebu, na Gavellinih večerih, tako da sem spoznal tudi njo. Sodeloval sem tudi z Dušanom Jovanovicem, ko sem režiral Osvoboditev Skopja v Skopju, pa tudi z Meto Hočevar, s katero sodelujem od leta 1978. Sodelovanje z njo se je začelo v Zenici s predstavo Legenda po Krleževem besedilu. Pa seveda Slovensko mladinsko gledališče, njihove predstave sem si ogledoval v Beogradu. Kasneje sem se z njimi seznanil tudi prek predstav Ljubiše Ristica. Prvo predstavo sem v Sloveniji režiral v devetdesetih letih, Peera Gynta v Drami SNG. Prvi poskus 198 je bil neuspešen, ker je Radko Polič, ki bi moral igrati Peera Gynta, odpovedal sodelovanje. Potem sem vzel Igorja Samoborja, tedaj mladega igralca, s katerim smo začeli delati že spomladi. Poleti je opravil vse svoje obveznosti in septembra je prišel zelo dobro pripravljen, tako da smo ustvarili predstavo, ki je ostala v spominu kot nekaj pomembnega in dobrega. Potem sem delal v več gledališčih, večinoma v Drami, enkrat v MGL, v Novi Gorici, pogajal sem se tudi z drugimi gledališči, vendar se ni izšlo. Nekateri projekti so propadli, na primer projekt Vinka Moderndorferja Evropa. Pred tem je prišla pobuda nekega znanega pisatelja, trenutno se ne morem spomniti njegovega imena. Lado Kralj mi je prinesel besedilo po izvedbi moje predstave Divje meso, zdi se mi, da v Ljubljani, ali Hamleta, se ne spomnim natančno. Na letališču, preden sem vstopil v letalo, so mi dali neko besedilo, za katero so želeli, da bi ga delal, vendar mi ni bilo všeč. Hočem reči, da sem se družil z igralci in avtorji iz Slovenije, režiral sem besedilo Rudija Šeliga v Sarajevu, pa Dušana Jovanovica v Skopju in Trstu, tako da sem bil stalno v stiku s slovenskim gledališčem, z dramskimi besedili, avtorji, pisatelji, igralci ... Omenili ste Dušana Jovanovica, kaj vas spodbuja, da se ukvarjate z njegovimi besedili? Pri njem mi je bilo všeč to, da se s političnimi vprašanji ukvarja na subtilen način, da odpira nekatere teme, ki jih prej nihče ni. Na primer v predstavi Bratje Karamazovi in v drugih besedilih. Gre za osemdeseta leta, ko je politično gledališče začelo prevladovati. On in Ljubiša Ristic sta bila vodilna režiserja. Jaz sem se jima nekako pridružil s predstavo Hrvaški Faust v Beogradu, ki je odražala mojo estetiko in bila absolutno politično, dramatično pomembna za delo. Osvoboditev Skopja je ena njegovih najboljših predstav in menim, da je izjemen avtor in režiser, poseben, nekaterim je lahko zelo všeč, nekaterim ne. Katere so po vašem mnenju glavne estetske značilnosti slovenskega gledališča? Natančneje, ali lahko definiramo kategorijo »slovensko gledališče« ter njegovo estetiko in poetiko? Slovensko gledališče ni preprost termin, če lahko tako rečem. V nekdanji Jugoslaviji smo poznali najpopularnejše slovenske predstave, tiste, ki so bile estetsko različne, minimalistične s številnih vidikov in so predstavljale določen tip igre. V Sloveniji pa je še veliko predstav, ki so konvencionalne. Enako kot v nemškem ali drugih gledališčih, kjer se igrajo predstave, ki niso nepomembne, ki so pomembne za njihovo publiko - več ali manj okusne ali neokusne, vendar jih gledalci obiskujejo. Vedno so imeli potrebo po raziskovanju novih smeri, želeli so narediti korak naprej glede teme, golote, vključevanja živali v predstave in 199 podobno ter so bili vedno provokativni in drugačni, moram reči pogumni. Tako so na primer nekatera gledališča, kot sta Mladinsko in Glej, pa tudi druga v določenih fazah, imela zelo posebno estetiko in vedeli smo, kaj lahko od posameznega pričakujemo. SNG Drama je imela resno produkcijo, resno oblikovno zasnovo in kakovostne igralce, s katerimi je bilo vedno užitek delati. Pravzaprav so bili vedno na sredini med strogostjo in ostrostjo stališč in izraza, z mojstrskim razumevanjem poezije, neulovljivega in tako naprej. Ta mešanica je bila vsakič vznemirljiva. Ne morem reči, da vpliv nemškega gledališča ni bil prisoten tudi v notranji organizaciji, načrtovanju produkcije, pri dramaturgih in njihovi vlogi, opremi, oblikovanju. Brez težav so potovali v München, na Dunaj in v druge kraje, za razliko od nas, ki nam je bilo to preveč zapleteno. Ko smo začeli tekmovati na jugoslovanski ravni, na primer z Dramskim gledališčem Skopje, smo vedno želeli premagati Slovence: na Sterijinem pozorju, na MESS-u so včasih oni premagali nas, včasih pa mi njih. Vendar smo več tekmovali z njimi kot pa z Beogradom. Za nas so bili merilo. Najraje smo tekmovali prav z njimi. In uspelo nam je. Ne morem se spomniti vseh imen, začnimo s Cankarjem in pojdimo naprej od Hienga do Šeliga, od Jovanovica do Jančarja pa vse do mlajših avtorjev, ki so odpirali drugačne teme. Take, ki so bile pod vplivom evropskih tokov, angleške dramaturgije in drugih stvari, o tem zagotovo obstajajo primernejše študije, vendar se nam je zdelo vedno zanimivo videti drugačen način razmišljanja, ne drugačno civilizacijo, daleč od tega, ampak drugačen način - pri nas se je namreč vse odvijalo na čustveni ravni, pri njih pa je prevladoval ratio. Prav zato mi je bilo zanimivo delati tam, zanimivo je bilo tudi njim, ker smo imeli mešanico teh dveh stvari, ki je našemu končnemu izdelku dajala posebno kakovost. To je bilo gledališče z drugačnimi možnostmi, drugačnimi proračuni, vse je bilo drugače. Tudi v Jugoslaviji je bilo tako. To je bilo pravo gledališče. »Hrepenenje« je bilo sinonim za slovenske predstave. (smeh) Katero je po vaši oceni najsodobnejše ali najbolj avantgardno gledališče v Sloveniji in zakaj? Sam sem bolj usmerjen k izbranim institucijam, če lahko tako rečem, k velikim gledališčem. Zame je bilo SNG Drama z mnogih vidikov avantgardno gledališče. Pomembna so tudi Glej, Mladinsko in nekatera druga gledališča, ki se jih trenutno ne morem spomniti. Ne morem presoditi. Ni avantgardno vse, kar se zdi avantgardno. Včasih je avantgardnost zavita v na videz enostavno obliko, ki ni nujno kri, znoj, koža, voda, perje, pena, penisi ali nage riti in podobno. Lahko je tudi veliko enostavneje zapakirana in lahko odpira pomembne nove estetske smeri. Tako da ne morem ocenjevati, nisem razmišljal na takšen način. 200 V Sloveniji ste v štirih različnih gledališčih režirali pet predstav. Ali je poetika katerega slovenskega gledališča podobna/enaka vaši? Kako ocenjujete svoje sodelovanje s slovenskimi gledališči in gledališčnimi umetniki? Ne vem natančno, kaj bi rekel o tem, saj je moja poetika, način izražanja, vsekakor vedno prisotna, vendar se spreminja glede na ansambel, mesto, besedilo, okoliščine in tako naprej. Najbližje mi je SNG Drama, morda zato, ker sem tam pripravil kar nekaj predstav. To je gledališče, v katerem bi lahko vedno delal - gledališče v pravem pomenu besede. Moja prva pogodba v Sloveniji je bila za režijo Razrednega sovražnika v Mladinskem gledališču, vendar potem nisem mogel priti in sem jim predlagal Vita Tauferja, ki naj bi bil moj asistent. Potem ga je režiral on. Mladinsko gledališče me je na nek način prepoznalo in bilo prvo, ki me je povabilo. Nato so se oglasili iz SNG Drama. Zelo zanimiva je bila tudi izkušnja v Novi Gorici. Gre za izredno zanimiv ansambel, ki je zaprt v nekem izmišljenem mestu: izmišljena je igralnica, gora je izmišljena, le vino je resnično. Gre za mejo, neobstoječe mesto, kjer nimaš kaj početi, razen piti, kockati in pripravljati predstavo. To je pomembno kot dogodek. Kot gledališče, glede aplicirane strukture, iskanja stvari, raziskovanja, pa je bilo zame vedno pomembno SNG Drama. Delal sem predstavo v Mestnem gledališču po Shakespearjevem besedilu, povezali smo se, a ne tako, kot bi si želel. Mestno gledališče mora velik del svojega proračuna zagotoviti samostojno in ga zaslužiti. Tako je pri vseh gledališčih, vendar pri njih še posebej. Iz repertoarja je razvidno, katere stvari delajo za publiko. Ob takšnem načinu dela je zelo težko ohraniti kakovost. Vendar zdaj govorim o nekem minulem obdobju. Ne morem reči, da vem, kako je zdaj. Če odgovorim na tvoje vprašanje: SNG Drama, tam so predstave, ki si jih želim ogledati, tam želim delati, tam je zame vznemirljivo, zanimivo, negotovo ... Imel sem veliko srečo, da sem nekaj predstav delal z Jernejem Šugmanom, ki je žal prezgodaj umrl. Imel sem srečo, da sem delal z nekaterimi njihovimi izrednimi igralkami, kot sta Nataša Barbara Gračner in Polona Juh, s katerima sem se srečal že pri Peeru Gyntu, pa tudi z mnogimi drugimi, ki jih zdaj ne morem našteti. Le sodelovanje s Silvo Čušin je ostalo moja neizpolnjena želja, zelo mi je všeč. Ibsen, Glowacki, Jovanovic, Shakespeare, Molière so avtorji, katerih dela ste režirali v slovenskih gledališčih. Zakaj prav ti in ali je to povezano z okoljem, v katerem režirate? Ali je razlika med izbiro dramskega besedila za slovensko gledališko publiko in za druge? Ne, ni razlike. To je povezano s predmetom mojega raziskovanja in s tem, kar me zanima. Nisem omenil Carla Gozzija z Zelenim ptičkom v Novi Gorici - filozofska renesančna komedija. Dramaturgi slovenskih gledališč so pred začetkom sezone prihajali s predlogi, ki sem jih sprejemal ali pa ne. Izbor dela je bil rezultat mojega 201 ali njihovega trenutnega zanimanja, strukture repertoarja za določeno leto, smeri, ki jim sledijo, odkritij v svetovnem sodobnem gledališču in tako dalje. Peer Gynt, Četrta sestra in Ljudomrznik v SNG Drama so bili pravzaprav njihovi predlogi. Ali vedno sami izberete dramsko besedilo ali pa se je kdaj zgodilo, da so ansambel, direktor gledališča ali avtor od vas zahtevali, da na oder postavite določeno besedilo? Če ima gledališče močan dramaturški oddelek, sestavljen iz treh ali štirih resnih dramaturgov, ki obvladajo jezik, je z nekaterimi težko sodelovati, nekateri pa so čudoviti, kompetentni in zaupaš njihovim predlogom. To je zame veliko zanimivejše. Ker se je treba o terminih za delo dogovoriti veliko vnaprej, imam dovolj časa, da ugotovim, ali mi je delo všeč in kaj bom naredil z njim. Najpogosteje gre za skupni izbor. Ponujali so mi nova besedila, ki mi niso bila znana - berejo veliko besedil, to je njihovo delo. Prevajajo iz nemščine in angleščine in drugih jezikov ter tudi na tej osnovi pripravljajo repertoar. Slovenska dramaturgija in vaše zanimanje zanjo? Izredno obžalujem, da nikoli nisem delal Cankarja. Menim, da sem pravi režiser zanj in njegova besedila so prava zame. Zato je bila nameravana režija Evrope Vinka Moderndorferja, besedila, ki temelji na Cankarju, na nek način naravna izbira. Gre za sodoben pogled na slovensko situacijo. Tudi Šeligova besedila sem režiral z velikim zadovoljstvom. O Dušanu Jovanovicu sem že govoril. V vsakem primeru so mi bile všeč tudi Hiengove drame. Nekaj časa sem prejemal veliko novih slovenskih besedil, vendar nisem režiral tako pogosto, da bi lahko odgovoril na vse te predloge. Slovenska dramaturgija se mi zdi zelo zanimiva, na določen način eksotična - ne banalna, temveč tematsko eksotična. Enako kot v Nemčiji, kjer so mi dvakrat ali trikrat dali režirati nemško besedilo, da bi videli moj pogled na njihovo dediščino, njihove starodavne mite, ki jih tukaj ne poznamo dovolj. Legende in miti imajo drugačen vidik. Menim, da je bilo to koristno tako zame kot tudi za pisatelje in publiko. Gledališka kritika v Sloveniji - kakšen je vaš odnos do kritik, napisanih o vaših predstavah? Prav posebej se ne spomnim nobene kritike svoje predstave. Ne samo v Sloveniji, nikjer se nisem zanašal samo na kritiko. Ne podcenjujem je, vendar mi ne pomaga. 202 Tudi če je najslabša ali najboljša, mi ne pomaga, imam svoje razumevanje tega, kako daleč sem prišel, in to me vodi. Ne gre za arogantno stališče, temveč je moj proces kompleksnejši, kot ga je mogoče opisati v nekem besedilu. Kritika je zame vedno poenostavljanje stvari ali nerazumevanje različnih dramskih smeri. Vendar se glede tega ne smemo jeziti. Vse je odvisno od tega, koliko se je predstava avtorja kritike dotaknila, koliko je razumel in koliko ve o gledališču, ali je avtor kritike propadli režiser, igralec ali pisatelj ali pa resnični gledališki kritik. Želel sem si dobre kritike, seveda. Pomembno mi je bilo, kaj bodo napisali v Delu, Dnevniku, Primorskih novicah, vendar večinoma odidem že isti ali naslednji dan po predstavi, tako da kritika, ki mi jo potem pošljejo, name ne vpliva. Ali k predstavi v Sloveniji pristopite na drugačen način kot v Makedoniji (izbor besedila, proces dela, ansambel)? Ne. Ne glede na to, ali gre za Slovenijo, Nemčijo, ZDA ali Makedonijo, si proces in predstavo vedno prizadevam pripeljati na raven, ki je moja, in artikulirati samega sebe, saj brez tega ne bom imel predstave. Ali obstajajo razlike v produkcijskih pogojih (npr. finančni proračuni predstav, tehnični pogoji za delo v gledališču, podpora vodstva gledališča, promocija itn.) med makedonskimi in slovenskimi gledališči, v katerih ste doslej režirali? Če obstajajo, kako bi jih opisali? Razlike so, enako kot tudi med Slovenijo in Nemčijo. Ali med Nemčijo in ZDA. Razlike vedno obstajajo. Tukaj si gledališča prizadevajo podpirati moje delo. V največji mogoči meri, v okviru tega, kar dobijo od države. V tem je razlika. Na primer moja predstava Einsteinove sanje v Beogradu stane od 120.000 do 150.000 evrov. Figarova svatba in ločitev v Narodnem gledališču Beograd je zagotovo stala 150.000 evrov, kar ni zelo veliko za tako zahteven projekt. Če ti v Skopju dajo 30.000 evrov, menijo, da so storili vse, kar je bilo mogoče. Ne zavedajo se, da nekateri projekti zahtevajo veliko več. Ne zato, da bi jaz dobil višji honorar, temveč da bi bila predstava v vsakem pogledu čim bolje opremljena. Seznami mojih sodelavcev v Sloveniji, Beogradu in Skopju so zelo različni. Če pogledate program, je razlika velika. V Beogradu plakat izdeluje Mirko Ilic, ki je svetovno znan grafični oblikovalec. Tukaj [v Makedoniji] ne vem, ali bo predstava sploh imela plakat. Programček ima tukaj eno ali dve strani, več bi jih imel le ob posebni priložnosti, pa tudi takrat je vprašanje, kdo bo pisal in kaj. Ali opažate katere doslej neizkoriščene možnosti za sodelovanje med 203 slovenskimi in makedonskimi gledališči ter ali imate morda kakšne predloge za pospešitev sodelovanja? Nisem razmišljal o tem. To je nekaj, kar je sestavni del kulturne politike. Že leta se s tem ne ukvarjam več, tako da nimam nekega jasnega predloga. Menim, da je izmenjava predstav vedno vznemirljiva in že to je nekaj. Obžalujem, da nekatere naše predstave niso bile predstavljene v Sloveniji, vendar je vprašanje, ali ima trenutno makedonsko gledališče predstave, ki bi bile za to primerne. Makedonsko-slovenske gledališke povezave - kako gledate na to sintagmo? Ali lahko govorimo o odnosu med makedonskim in slovenskim gledališčem? Na ravni posameznika - jaz, Aco Popovski in drugi, ki so delali v Sloveniji - zagotovo. Po drugi strani pa nekega dramatično pomembnega sodelovanja ne vidim. Ga ne prepoznavam, nisem ga videl, ga ne poznam. Gre bolj za idejo kot za sodelovanje. Prevedel Darko Jan Spasov Razprave / Articles 206 IJDK 792,071,2,027[497,4] Članek pokaže, da je zametke postdramskega gledališča na Slovenskem mogoče zaslediti že konec petdesetih let 20. stoletja v režijskem opusu Balbine Battelino Baranovič. Osredotoči se na analizo njenih uprizoritev v Eksperimentalnem gledališču, ki ga je ustanovila in vodila v obdobju 1955-1967. Repertoar je slonel na štirih prevladujočih sklopih besedilnih predlog, ki naznanjajo prehod v postdramsko gledališče kot gledališče »po« drami: na priredbah pripovednih del; dramskih besedilih, ki zaobhajajo tradicionalno, v arlstotelskl dramaturgiji utemeljeno absolutno dramo; dramah absurda in pesniških delih. Značilnosti postdramskega gledališča so proučene z vidika dveh poglavitnih teženj: težnje po odtegnitvi označevanja, to je po odmiku od reprezentacije, in težnje po razhierarhizaciji gledaliških sredstev. V največji meri so bile uresničene v uprizoritvah, ki so bile izvedene kot gledališče v krogu. Načela paratakse, simultanosti in igra z gostoto znakov so bili najbolje razvidni v uprizoritvi Goethejevega Fausta [1959]. Članek režiserko uvrsti med predhodnike postdramskega gledališča, ki ga avtor te terminološke oznake Hans-Thies Lehmann sicer umešča v sedemdeseta leta 20. stoletja, v slovenskem prostoru pa njegov odmevni začetek po doslej uveljavljenih interpretacijah označuje predstava Pupilija, papa Pupilo pa Pupilčki v izvedbi Gledališča Pupilije Ferkeverk leta 1969. Ključne besede: slovensko gledališče, eksperimentalno gledališče, postdramsko gledališče, gledališče v krogu, avtentičnost, Balbina Baranovič Barbara Orel je izredna profesorica za področje dramaturgije in študijev scenskih umetnosti ter vodja raziskovalne skupine na UL AGRFT. Osrednja področja njenih raziskav so eksperimentalne gledališke prakse, avantgardna gibanja in sodobne scenske umetnosti, Napisala je knjigo Igra v igri [2003] in uredila več znanstvenih monografij, nazadnje Uprizoritvene umetnosti, migracije, politika: slovensko gledališče kot sooblikovalec medkulturnih izmenjav [2017], Kot raziskovalka sodeluje z delovno skupino Theatrical Event [v okviru International Federation for Theatre Research], Predavala je tudi na univerzah v tujini, med njimi na University of Warwick in University of Tartu, barbara,orel@guest,arnes,si Zametki postdramskega gledališča na Slovenskem: 207 Eksperimentalno gledališče Balbine Battelino Baranovič (1955-1967) Barbara Ore Nekatere značilnosti oziroma zametke postdramskega gledališča na Slovenskem je mogoče zaslediti že v Eksperimentalnem gledališču, ki ga je v letih 1955-1967 vodila Balbina Battelino Baranovič. To je še pred »uradnim« začetkom postdramskega gledališča, ki ga avtor te terminološke oznake Hans-This Lehmann sicer umešča v sedemdeseta leta 20. stoletja, in obenem tudi dobro desetletje pred predstavo Pupilija, papa Pupilo pa Pupilčki v izvedbi Gledališča Pupilije Ferkeverk leta 1969, ki po doslej uveljavljenih interpretacijah označuje odmeven začetek postdramskega gledališča na Slovenskem. Gradivo o opusu Balbine Baranovič, ki zgovorno priča o postdramskem zastavku njenega Eksperimentalnega gledališča, je bilo v slovenskem gledališkem zgodovinopisju prvič podrobno in pregledno predstavljeno v knjigi Primoža Jesenka Rob v središču: izbrana poglavja o eksperimentalnem gledališču v Sloveniji (1955-1967). Sinergija med eksperimentalnimi gledališkimi praksami in institucionalnimi gledališči Eksperimentalne gledališke prakse na Slovenskem so po drugi svetovni vojni delovale v svojevrstni sinergiji z institucionalnimi gledališči. To je osrednja misel, ki jo Primož Jesenko izpisuje v znanstveni monografiji in jo lucidno izpostavi že v naslovu: Rob v središču. O gledališkem eksperimentu smo doslej večinoma razmišljali kot o alternativi, ki se je oblikovala kot opozicija in je delovala na obrobju, ločeno, predvsem pa neodvisno od institucionalnih gledališč.1 Jesenko, ki poglobljeno in Zahvala: Članek je nastal v okviru raziskovalnega programa Gledališke in medumetnostne raziskave (P6-0376), ki ga sofinancira Javna agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije iz državnega proračuna. 1 Kot ugotavlja Tomaž Toporišič, sta v slovenskem prostoru - tako kot v drugih vzhodnoevropskih državah - v petdesetih in šestdesetih letih 20. stoletja soobstajala dva tipa gledališča, t. i. gledališče konsenza in gledališče opozicije (Levitve 139-141). Tako ju imenuje Valentina Valentini: »1. Gledališče konsenza, katerega dominantni orodji sta tekst in igralec. Tekst je socrealističen ali klasičen, igralec je utelešenje zvestobe političnega aktivista. 2. Gledališče opozicije, ne-strinjanja (disidence). Njegova protagonista sta avtor in režiser, njegovi orodji prostor in telo« (prav tam 139). V skladu s tema modeloma je bila pri nas zgodovinjena tudi gledališka praksa. 208 s strastno akribijo razišče prvi val gledališkega eksperimenta po drugi svetovni vojni, to splošno razširjeno in uveljavljeno razlago ovrže oziroma temeljno korigira: gledališki eksperiment v Sloveniji se je tako v estetskem kot političnem pogledu sicer vzpostavljal kot alternativa gledališkim praksam v institucionalnih gledališčih, obenem pa so prav ta ponujala prostor in s svojo infrastrukturo omogočala, celo spodbujala njegovo delovanje ter skrbela za njegovo kontinuiteto. Avtorja pri tem sicer ni motiviralo »radikalno preoblikovanje razumevanja zgodovine gledališkega eksperimenta ali klic po prevrednotenju že znanega« (Jesenko 11), temveč potreba po ponovnem ozaveščenju dejstva, da ima eksperiment konstitutivno vlogo pri razvoju gledališke dejavnosti. V času, ko zavest o tem in ugled gledališkega eksperimenta drastično upadata, je to - kot poudarja Jesenko (prav tam) - še posebej pomembno izpostaviti. Raziskava izbranih poglavij o eksperimentalnem gledališču v Sloveniji (kot točno sporoča že podnaslov knjige) je zamejena z letnicama 1955-1969. To je čas, v katerem je delovalo Eksperimentalno gledališče Balbine Battelino Baranovič. Vendar se avtor ne osredinja le na proučevanje njenih inovativnih pobud, temveč v raziskavo vključi tudi avtorice in avtorje ter skupine, ki so v tem času ustvarjali v zarisu eksperimentalnih gledaliških praks: Drago Ahačič in Gledališče Ad hoc, Oder 57, Žarka Petana, Mileta Koruna, Jurija Součka in njegovo skupino 312 860, imenovano tudi Stranski vhod ali Součkova skupina ter Študentsko aktualno gledališče - ŠAG. Kot poudarja Jesenko, mu ne gre za posredovanje vednosti o »zamolčani preteklosti«, temveč za »prikazovanje prezrtih in netematiziranih vmesnih prostorov in optik« (11), ki so se razpirali med eksperimentalno in mainstreamovsko gledališko produkcijo v repertoarnih gledališčih. Ob tem opozarja tudi, da nobeden od obravnavanih protagonistk in protagonistov ni ostal docela prezrt, pač pa je pomanjkljivo obravnavana, na površinske sodbe in pavšalno poznavanje pritrjena ostala dejavnost Balbine Baranovič in Drage Ahačič (27). Da je ustvarjalnost ženskih avtoric ostala pomanjkljivo obravnavana, ni le znak, temveč simptom prevladujoče moške linije v zgodovini in zgodovinjenju (ne le) slovenskega gledališča. Zato je toliko pomembneje opozoriti na (eno od) ugotovitev, ki jih prinaša knjiga in je bila doslej premalo poudarjena, včasih celo prezrta: gledališkemu eksperimentu sta v Sloveniji po letu 1945 pot utirali Balbina Baranovič in Draga Ahačič. Jesenko uvodoma natančneje opredeli pojem gledališkega eksperimenta, ga prouči v razmerju do sorodnih praks, kot sta avantgarda in komorno gledališče, obravnavanim praksam v obdobju 1955-1967, ki so izhajale iz modifikacij dramskega modusa, pa poišče izhodišče v naturalizmu. Težnja po natančnem posnemanju resničnosti in stiku z realnim je očitno poganjala tudi gledališki eksperiment pri nas. »Predzgodovino« obravnavanemu obdobju izpiše v poglavju o Delavskem odru (1919-1939 in 19561960), pri čemer opozori na povezavo med eksperimentalno in amatersko gledališko dejavnostjo, ki je zaradi vztrajanja pri oblikovanju profesionalnih standardov 209 v institucionalnih gledališčih ostala slabo raziskana. Po temeljiti predstavitvi zgodovinskega konteksta, v katerem je delovala gledališka ustvarjalnost v petdesetih letih 20. stoletja, se posveti poglobljeni analizi del navedenih avtoric in avtorjev. Osredotoči se na odkrivanje razmerij med eksperimentalnimi in etabliranimi gledališkimi praksami ter pokaže, da jih ni urejalo načelo izključevanja, temveč načelo integralnega vključevanja eksperimenta v institucijo. To je potekalo predvsem na malih odrih, ki so bili ustanovljeni prav s tem namenom (v Drami SNG Maribor že leta 1959, v Drami SNG Ljubljana leta 1963). Znanstveno razpravo dopolnjuje izdatno fotografsko gradivo. V Dodatku je poleg seznama režij Balbine Battelino Baranovič objavljen tudi seznam eksperimentalnih gledaliških predstav, uprizorjenih na odrih institucionalnih gledališč. Ta je za nadaljnje raziskave gledališkega eksperimenta izjemnega pomena, saj so bili raziskovalci doslej prepuščeni iskanju podatkov v zbirkah kritik, periodičnem tisku, redkih preglednih monografijah in različnih drugih virih.2 V posebnem poglavju so ponatisnjene kritike izbranih uprizoritev, ki izostrujejo osrednjo rdečo nit v knjigi in izpostavljena raziskovalna vprašanja. Poleg preučitve vse razpoložljive literature, vključno s periodičnimi publikacijami, in arhivskih virov (v slovenskih gledališčih, Slovenskem gledališkem inštitutu, Centru za teatrologijo in filmologijo UL AGRFT, Arhivu Republike Slovenije, Zgodovinskem arhivu Ljubljana, Zgodovinskem arhivu Celje in drugih, tudi zasebnih arhivih gledaliških ustvarjalcev) je Primož Jesenko kot metodo dela uporabil tudi intervju. Objavljeni pogovori s pričevalci dogajanja (Balbino Battelino Baranovič, Henrikom Neubauerjem, Kristijanom Muckom, Drago Ahačič, Žarkom Petanom, Mijo Janžekovič in Veljkom Rusom) odstirajo vpogled v zakulisje in osvetljujejo obravnavana vprašanja z osebnih perspektiv. Intervju kot delovna metoda ne daje le izjemno dragocenih podatkov, temveč raziskovalcu vzbuja tudi posebne vrste zavezo do obravnavanih vsebin, zgodovinskega obdobja in njihovih protagonistov. Rezultat te temeljito opravljene raziskave je znanstvena monografija, ki temeljno dopolnjuje zgodovino eksperimentalnega gledališča na Slovenskem. Izčrpna baza podatkov, ki s poglobljeno analizo ponuja obilje iztočnic za nadaljnje raziskave. Med drugim prinaša tudi gradivo, ki priča o zametkih postdramskega gledališča na Slovenskem. V nadaljevanju nameravam pokazati, da je nekatere značilnosti postdramskega gledališča mogoče zaslediti že v Eksperimentalnem gledališču Balbine Battelino Baranovič (1955-1967). 2 O soočenju »s pomanjkanjem ali kar odsotnostjo sistematične in kontinuirane refleksije o eksperimentalnih tokovih« gl. Jesenko (25). Prim. tudi članek Tomaža Toporišiča »Kako zgodoviniti sodobno slovensko gledališče?« (106-113). 210 Postdramske značilnosti v Eksperimentalnem gledališču Balbine Battelino Baranovič Hans-Thies Lehmann s pojmom postdramsko gledališče označi gledališče »po« drami oziroma »onstran« drame; to je gledališče, ki se vzpostavlja onkraj tradicionalnega razumevanja drame in hierarhije znakovnih sistemov v gledališču. Spremembo uprizoritvene paradigme v gledališču zahodnega sveta opazi v predstavah in performansih v sedemdesetih in osemdesetih letih 20. stoletja ter jih prouči v monografiji Postdramsko gledališče (v nemškem izvirniku je izšla leta 1999, v slovenskem prevodu pa leta 2003).3 Pod to oznako uvršča »raznovrstne gledališke tokove po letu 1970, ki sledijo avantgardnim težnjam po reteatralizaciji gledališča ter poudarjeno izpostavljajo estetske kvalitete gledališča samega, zlasti čas, prostor in materialnost telesa« (Šorli 37). Postdramsko gledališče je sicer ohlapno definirana, a sprejeta in široko uporabljana oznaka, ki se je kljub svoji pomanjkljivi teoretski opredelitvi udomačila tudi v znanstvenih krogih.4 V monografiji Performance Studies: Key Words, Concepts, and Theories (2014), v kateri so predstavljeni ključni termini in koncepti za proučevanje scenskih umetnosti, ga Patrice Pavis predstavi kot gledališče, ki je emancipirano od dramskega teksta in uveljavlja odsotnost hierarhije med odrskimi sistemi, in kar je najpomembnejše, uveljavlja odsotnost hierarhije med odrom in tekstom (260). Gre za gledališče, ki ga temeljno zaznamujeta dve načeli: 1. »odtegnitev označevanja« (kot se izrazi Lehmann, 101), to je odmik od reprezentacije oziroma predstavljanja, nadomesti pa ga težnja po prezentaciji oziroma prisotnosti, in 2. »razhierarhiziranje gledaliških sredstev« (Lehmann 105). Maja Šorli v monografiji Slovenska postdramska pomlad (v kateri razišče obdobje razcveta postdramskega gledališča v devetdesetih letih 20. stoletja) začetek postdramskega gledališča v Sloveniji umesti v predstavo Pupilija, papa Pupilo pa Pupilčki (1969), oziroma kot se natančneje izrazi: Kot prvega odmevnega predstavnika slovenskega postdramskega gledališča je mogoče imenovati Gledališče Pupilije Ferkeverk in njihovo danes že dodobra raziskano antologijsko uprizoritev iz leta 1969 Pupilija, papa Pupilo pa Pupilčki, spektakelski uvod v razcvet postdramskega gledališča pa je odigral Krst pod Triglavom leta 1986. (Šorli 37-38) 3 Kot ugotavlja Patrice Pavis, Lehmann prouči spremembo uprizoritvene paradigme in jo utemelji na primerih gledaliških dogodkov in performansov, ki si jih je sam ogledal v sedemdesetih in osemdesetih letih v Nemčiji (zlasti v Theater am Turm v Frankfurtu), na Nizozemskem in v Belgiji (Pavis 262). V knjigi Postdramsko gledališče analizira tudi uprizoritve iz drugih držav, med njimi tudi iz Slovenije, in sicer predstave v režiji Tomaža Pandurja in Emila Hrvatina/Janeza Janše. 4 O razvoju termina postdramsko gledališče gl. Pavis (258-259), Toporišič (Ranljivo telo teksta in odra 89-94), Šorli (4044), Milohnič (331-332). Lehmannova opredelitev postdramskega gledališča je bila deležna številnih kritik in tudi konstruktivnih dopolnitev. Avtor sam je po izidu knjige korigiral vrsto svojih trditev v člankih in knjigi Das politische Schreiben (2012). Kljub temu da postdramsko gledališče izziva in kliče po natančnejši terminološki opredelitvi, je nadvse uspešen krovni pojem. Kot ugotavlja Pavis, se po petdesetih letih 20. stoletja, ko je bil iznajden termin »gledališče absurda«, do devetdesetih let, ko je Lehmann konceptualno osmislil »postdramsko gledališče«, ni pojavil noben tako prodoren termin, ki bi zajemal veliko večino eksperimentalne gledališke produkcije. Na osnovi podatkov, ki jih prinaša Jesenkova knjiga Rob v središču, je mogoče nekatere 211 značilnosti postdramskega gledališča prepoznati že pred letom 1969, in sicer v izbranih uprizoritvah, ki jih je v Eksperimentalnem gledališču režirala Balbina Baranovič. O postdramski zastavitvi njenega gledališča kot gledališča »po« drami oziroma onkraj tradicionalnega razumevanja dramskega gledališča zgovorno priča že sam izbor uprizorjenih besedil. V repertoarju Eksperimentalnega gledališča (1955-1967) je mogoče izpostaviti štiri prevladujoče sklope besedilnih predlog: 1. priredbe pripovednih del: Zolajevega romana Thérèse Raquin v dramatizaciji Marcelle Maurette (1955), Platonovih dialogov Poslednji dnevi Sokrata (1957), Requiema za vlačugo Williama Faulknerja (1958), v katerem je avtor dramatiziral svoje lastno pripovedno delo in pri tem eksperimentiral s pripovednimi tehnikami ter ustvaril tekst, ki je delno drama in delno roman; 2. dramska besedila, ki zaobhajajo tradicionalno, v aristotelski dramaturgiji utemeljeno absolutno dramo: Goethejev Faust (1959), Mrtvo pismo Roberta Pingeta (1962), pesniško besedilo v dramski obliki Dylana Thomasa Pod mlečnim gozdom (leta 1963 je bila v Eksperimentalnem gledališču na ogled prva uprizoritev te drame v Jugoslaviji); 3. drama absurda: Beckettovi igri Konec igre (leta 1969 je bil to slovenski krst in obenem prvi Beckett pri nas) in O, lepi dnevi (1964);5 4. pesniška dela: uprizoritev poezije Silvija Strahimira Kranjčevica Vizije, 1958; uprizoritev Lorcove poezije Pesem hoče biti luč, 1960; uprizoritev pesmi socialnega protesta in ljudske vstaje Kri v plamenih (uprizorjena ob 20-letnici narodnoosvobodilnega boja leta 1961). Odtegnitev označevanja Odmik od reprezentacije oziroma odtegnitev označevanja (kot ena izmed poglavitnih značilnosti postdramskega gledališča) je bila najjasneje razvidna predvsem v načinu igranja. Kot opozarja Lehmann, postdramsko gledališče »ni samo novi način uprizoritvenega teksta (kaj šele novi tip gledališkega teksta), marveč je tip uporabe znaka v gledališču, ki obe plasti gledališča temeljito prežame s strukturalno spremenjeno kvaliteto dogodkovnega teksta, ki postane bolj prezenca kot reprezentacija« (105). Načelo, ki vodi k postdramskemu, je strategija odtegnitve označevanju. Ali kot se izrazi Lehmann: »Dovolj je, da moramo dati gledališkim znakom možnost, da delujejo ravno z odtegnitvijo označevanju« (101). To pomeni brisanje intencionalnosti znaka in odvzemanje reprezentacijskega značaja gledališkemu dogodku.6 5 Uprizorjena je bila tudi drama Zgodba o živalskem vrtu Edwarda Albeeja, vendar je bila to edina predstava v Eksperimentalnem gledališču, ki je ni režirala Balbina Baranovič. Režiral jo je Žarko Petan. 6 To se v polni meri uresničuje zlasti v primeru t. i. estetike vdora realnega (Lehmann 118-123), na primer v avtobiografskih performansih. Primere vdora realnega, ki zabrisujejo intencionalnost gledaliških znakov, zasledimo tudi v dramatiki, denimo v opusu gledališča v gledališču Luigija Pirandella. 212 Odtegnitev označevanja je v Eksperimentalnem gledališču pomenila stremljenje k prisotnosti, ki se je družila s težnjo po avtentičnosti in kar najbolj pristni oživitvi odrskega dogajanja.7 Te značilnosti postdramskega gledališča seveda ni mogoče pripisati vsem uprizoritvam v Eksperimentalnem gledališču. Iz kritiških zapisov in drugih dokumentarnih gradiv (fotografij in pričevanj) je mogoče ugotoviti, da so bile najnazorneje izražene v nekaterih uprizoritvah, ki so bile zastavljene kot gledališče v krogu. Krožna postavitev, ki »odrska dela prikazuje publiki z rentgensko močjo, saj se vidi slednja koščica in slednje tkivo, iz katere je delo sestavljeno«, kot se izrazi Jože Javoršek8 (nav. po Taufer 21), je pomenila novost, s katero je mogoče doseči avtentičnost prikazanega. Natančneje, šlo je za ponovno odkritje načina predstavljanja v krogu (znanega že v antiki), ki je bilo v petdesetih letih aktualno kot eksperimentalna oblika uprizarjanja tudi v tujini. Balbino Baranovič je na študijskem obisku v Parizu očarala predstava, ki jo je kot gledališče v krogu odigrala skupina iz Filadelfije. Predstava jo je »popolnoma prevzela«, kot je povedala v intervjuju Primožu Jesenku: [B]ila sem presenečena nad močnim učinkom tega teatra. Ugotovila sem, da se to zgodi zaradi bližine igralca. Ko sem predstavo gledala v drugo, sem se znova počutila neposredno vključeno v dogajanje, ne kot običajno, ko iz parterja gledaš na oder s prostorsko, a tudi z interno človeško distanco. Ko sem prišla naslednji dan preverit izkušnjo, sem ugotovila, da siloviti vtis ni popustil, znova sem začutila isto. Rekla sem si, da bi se to morda dalo preizkusiti pred domačim občinstvom, posebno če se umaknem klasičnim tekstom. (Jesenko 295) Ob vrnitvi domov je Lojzetu Filipiču, takratnemu umetniškemu vodji celjskega gledališča predlagala to novost. Filipič, ki je bil naklonjen inovacijam, je njeno ponudbo takoj sprejel in tako je leta 1953 v Celju nastala prva uprizoritev v krogu v Sloveniji, psihološka kriminalka Willyja Oscarja Somina Atentat. Dve leti pozneje, junija 1955, je bil kot otvoritvena predstava Eksperimentalnega gledališča uprizojen Zolajev roman Thérèse Raquin v režiji Balbine Baranovič. V Slovenskem poročevalcu je bila pred premiero objavljena (nepodpisana) napoved, ki je v predstavitvi značilnosti uprizarjanja v krogu izpostavila prav avtentičnost dogajanja in načina igranja: [G]ledalci in igralci niso ločeni med seboj, marveč povezani v celoto ... Ta način uprizoritve zahteva od igralca intenzivnejšo koncentracijo in večjo poglobitev v igro, ker ni scenerije in drugih običajnih gledaliških rekvizitov ... igralec (je) edini objekt, ki gledalca zanima. Okolje pa samo zahteva, da je podajanje dejanja naravno in pristno. (nav. po Taufer 15, poudarila B. O.) 7 Premislek o razumevanju prisotnosti, pristnosti in avtentičnosti sem z vidika vprašanja o izvirnosti gledaliških dogodkov razgrnila v razpravi »Vprašanje izvirnosti: travmatična točka gledališča in performansa na prelomu tisočletja« (Orel 75-96). Služi lahko kot primerjava med uresničevanjem prisotnosti v petdesetih letih 20. stoletja in po letu 1990. 8 Tako je Javoršek zapisal v oceni uprizoritve Roussinove komedije Mož, žena in smrt, premierno uprizorjeni leta 1956 v Eksperimentalnem gledališču. Miloš Mikeln je v kritiki opozoril, da v tem gledališču »med igralcem in gledalcem ni 213 rampe (rampa pa pomeni razdaljo). Torej se mora igralec vesti popolnoma naturno, 'neprivzdignjeno'« (nav. po Taufer 16, poudarila B. O.). Zato uprizarjanje v krogu »odpravlja 'privzdignjeno igro', prikrojeno za galerijo, da igralca razbremeni še zadnje ovire na poti do naturne, sproščene, po vsebini prav tako umetniške kot na starem odru, po obliki pa običajnemu človeškemu govoru in gibanju podobne odrske stvaritve« (prav tam, poudarila B. O.). Slog igre na krožnem odru je primerjal s filmsko igro, pri kateri gledalcu ne uide »noben drget ustnic, noben pogled« (prav tam).9 Potencial avtentičnosti, ki ga omogoča bližina med vsemi prisotnimi oziroma »hotenje po najbolj intimnem zbližanju odrskega ustvarjalca z gledalcem soustvarjalcem« je v gledališču v krogu prepoznal tudi Vasja Predan in novi način igre opisal kot »intimno, komorno (ne tihotno, marveč preprosto, neposredno), tako rekoč 'domačnostno, 'privatno' igro« (nav. po Jesenko 397, poudarila B. O.). Takšne so bile namere Balbine Baranovič, ki so jih kritiki z veliko naklonjenostjo pozdravili. Do njihovih uresničitev pa so bili prizanesljivi. Če povzamemo z besedami Vasje Predana, je bil to v primeru Thérèse Raquin poskus »s polovičnim umetniškim uspehom« (nav. po Taufer 18). Režiji je očital šibkost »v izredno intenzivnem, kompliciranem forsiranju dramatične koncentracije«, igralcem pa »neintimni« način igre, vendar - kot je poudaril - so se mu »marsikdaj izredno toplo izvili J. Hahnova (Thérèse), Maks Bajc (Camille) in zgolj spočetka Lojze Rozman (Laurent)« (prav tam 17-18). Podobnega mnenja je bil Mikeln: novi način igre je v nekaterih prizorih uspelo ujeti Tkačevi, Hahnovi in Rozmanu (prav tam 17). Strategija odtegnitve označevanju je bila sicer programsko vpisana v uprizoritev, vendar je novi način uprizarjanja od vseh ustvarjalcev terjal več vaje in uigranosti. To jim je uspelo v uprizoritvi Platonovega dela Poslednji dnevi Sokrata (1957), ki je bila velik uspeh Eksperimentalnega gledališča, pravzaprav prava uspešnica. Doživela je več kot petdeset ponovitev, kar je izjemno visoka številka, sploh če pomislimo, da je šlo za eksperimentalno uprizoritev. Presenetljivo je, da se je prvi »odmeven -programski, gledališkoeksperimentalni, režijski in igralski uspeh« Eksperimentalnega gledališča (Taufer 22) posrečil na primeru filozofskega dela in ne na primeru Zolajevega romana, ki je z naturalistično zastavitvijo podajanja vsebin predstavljal adekvatno izhodišče za gledališče v krogu. V vlogi Sokrata je nastopil Lojze Potokar in - kot je zapisala Stanka Godničeva - ustvaril »kreacijo, kakršnih v naši gledališki zgodovini še nismo veliko zabeležili« (nav. po Taufer 23). V igri je »razvil presenetljivo obsežno skalo nians, od retoričnih, a stilno pogojenih, antičnih retoričnih učinkov, 9 Jože Javoršek je igranje in režiranje v gledališču v krogu prav tako primerjal s postopki pri filmu. V kritiki Atentata leta 1953 v Celju je zapisal: »Pod reflektorji igrajo na okrogli plošči igralci. A kje je kamera? Kamera so bleščeče oči številnih gledalcev. Nekatere oči so od igralca oddaljene pol metra (veliki plan), nekatere ga gledajo diagonalno, nekatere so od njega oddaljene spet tako daleč, kot kamera, kadar snema v drugem ali tretjem planu. Zato mora režija s tem novim položajem, ki ga prinaša 'gledališče v krogu' računati, še bolj pa igralec, ki je postavljen dobesedno in od vseh strani pod povečevalno steklo svojega občinstva« (nav. po Jesenko 396). 214 pa do najbolj rahlih čustvenih odtenkov« (prav tam). O Potokarjevem pristopu k oblikovanju vloge zgovorno priča naslednji odlomek iz intervjuja, objavljenega v gledališkem listu. Sokrat je bil zanj lik, »ki je daleč izven vseh kalupov povprečnosti, nad vsemi zapisanimi sistemi srca in pameti, v pravem pomenu idealni lik, ki je več ko kakšna uspela literarna podoba, saj je istočasno umetniško-literaren in življenjsko pristen in preprost ... to je moja doslej največja vloga. Ko jo igram, je ne igram: na vse pozabim izven sebe, živim le kot Sokrat« (nav. po Taufer 22-23, poudarila B. O.). Da ga je zasnoval s »strogim realizmom«, potrjuje tudi Miklavž Prosenc, sicer avtor neprizanesljive kritike v študentski Tribuni.10 Več o samem načinu igre iz kritik ni mogoče razbrati, a težnja po pristnosti, avtentičnosti Platonovega, Sokratovega in Potokarjevega retorično spretnega in človeško prepričljivega zagovora je iz njih dobro razvidna. Uprizoritev je bila zasnovana kot odrski esej, kar je na slovenskih odrih pomenilo novost, s katero so se - kot ugotavlja Jože Javoršek - ustvarjalci »vključili v splošno smer današnje omike, ki teži v esej« (nav. po Taufer 26). Ni šlo samo za nov način uprizarjanja tragičnosti, ki so jo dotlej oblikovali »z monumentalnostjo, miti, z besedo in filozofsko poetično mislijo« (Taufer 25), temveč za »esejistično gledališče«, ki se postavlja v smer »sodobne esejistične dramatike«, kot se izrazi Javoršek (prav tam 26). V njem je mogoče prepoznati novo odrsko kvaliteto in senzibilnost, ki je naznanila estetiko postdramskega gledališča kot postbrechtovskega, antiiluzionističnega, v ne-več-dramskem besedilu zasidranega gledališča, ki deluje s strategijo zabrisovanja intencionalnosti gledališkega znaka in razhierarhizacije gledaliških sredstev. Razhierarhizacija gledaliških sredstev Težnja po razhierarhizaciji gledaliških sredstev je bila dobro razvidna denimo v uprizoritvi Goethejevega Fausta (1959). Kot je mogoče razbrati iz zapisa Balbine Baranovič v gledališkem listu, je bila v osnovi zamišljena kot gledališče v krogu. Na premieri v Viteški dvorani Križank sicer ni bila igrana krožno, pač pa so jo kot gledališče v krogu igrali v preddverju Križank, ko je bila predstavljena v okviru Ljubljanskega festivala (iz intervjuja s Henrikom Neubauerjem, Jesenko 313). Ne glede na to, kje so bili razmeščeni gledalci, je uprizoritev očitno režijsko stavila na nehierarhično uporabo znakov, raznosmerno razporejenih na odru. Ali kot je izpostavil Veno Taufer: na »kontrastiranje nekakšne odrske teatralike z govorno, besedno askezo pesniškega teksta«11 (31). 10 Po Prosenčevem mnenju so se na odru režijsko in igralsko »prepletali vsi stili od reinhardtovskega klasicističnega patosa preko romantične vzvišenosti do pri nas modernega antoinovskega realizma« (nav. po Taufer 24). 11 Taufer sicer pravi, da navedena namera Balbine Baranovič iz zapisa v gledališkem listu ni čisto jasna. A na osnovi kritik, pričevanj in fotografij je s precejšnjo gotovostjo mogoče trditi, da je šlo prav za to. To se dobro vidi tudi na fotografiji, posneti na ponovitvi v preddverju Križank (gl. Jesenko 184). Balbina Baranovič je v gledališkem listu zapisala: 215 Stil naše uprizoritve, ki se v eni smeri približuje epskemu gledališču, naj bi bil artističen in hkrati naraven; zavestno izkoriščanje nasprotij, združenih v celovitost, nam je narekovalo umetniško oblikovano stvarnost in naravno umetnost. (nav. po Taufer 31, poudarila B. O.) V tem je mogoče prepoznati razhierarhizacijo gledaliških sredstev, kot v postdramskem gledališču. Lehmann kot temeljni postopek razhierarhizacije izpostavlja priredno razporejanje gledaliških elementov oziroma paratakso, ki »eklatantno nasprotuje tradiciji« (105). Ta je »dajala prednost hipotaktičnemu povezovalnemu načinu, ki je uravnaval nadrejanje in podrejanje elementov. Pri parataksi v postdramskem gledališču pa elementi niso povezani enopomensko« (prav tam). Paratakso dodatno pojasnjuje s simultanostjo znakov: Medtem ko se dramsko gledališče loteva razporeditve tako, da so iz množice signalov, posredovanih v vsakem trenutku, vsakokrat izpostavljeni in v središču le nekateri signali, vodita parataktična valenca in razvrstitev k izkušnji simultanega, ki zaznavni aparat pogosto - in kot je treba dodati: s sistematično namero - preobremenjuje. (Lehmann 106-107) K temu je (v preddverju Križank) prispevala tudi razmestitev gledalcev okrog prizorišča, tako da režija, koreografija in igra niso bile zastavljene frontalno, temveč raznosmerno. Po pričevanju Henrika Neubauerja je ples potekal »vzporedno z dramskim dogajanjem« (Jesenko 313). Skladno z režijskim konceptom so pri modernem plesnem izrazu uporabili »nujno tudi nekatere elemente današnje rock'n'rollovske obsedenosti«, v dogajanje pa vgradili mesta za improvizacijo: Dopustili smo razne prehode, ki jih je moral vsak igralec - plesalec sam najti, na nekaterih mestih smo predpisali le ritmično osnovo in pazili le na skladnost individualno porojenih gibov. S tem smo hoteli doseči to, da je vsak plesalec čim bolj individualno gradil svoj plesni lik in da je imel vedno manj občutek naučenega in s tem nenaravnega. (Neubauer nav. po Taufer 31-32) Vilko Ukmar je pri komponiranju glasbe izhajal iz premisleka, »da mora scenska glasba spremljati tok dogajanja in krepiti učinek dramske igre«, pri čemer je abstraktno, »izrazito nenaturalistično« moderno glasbo, ki raziskuje tonske zveze in zvočno materijo, opremil tudi z izrazi čustvene vsebine (Taufer 31). Po presoji Stanke Godničeve igralci »niso teatralno napihovali (teksta), ampak skrbno, z notranjo intenzivnostjo preprosto recitirali« (prav tam 32). Epski, lahko bi rekli tudi romaneskni zamah Goethejevega besedila je bil ustrezna podlaga za »igro z gostoto znakov«, kot bi dejal Lehmann. V postdramskem gledališču se praviloma »kršijo konvencionalizirana pravila in bolj ali manj etablirane norme znakovne gostote« (Lehmann 108). Kršitev lahko poteka bodisi v smeri preobilice bodisi primanjkljaja znakov. Faust v režiji Balbine Baranovič je s preobiljem gledaliških znakov kršil oziroma izstopal iz estetike 216 odrskega realizma, ki je v tistem času prevladovala na slovenskih odrih. Tako je uprizoritev Fausta izzivala in obenem segala čez horizont pričakovanja gledalcev. Postdramsko razhierarhizacijo znakov, ki vključuje strategijo paratakse, simultanosti in igro z gostoto znakov, je mogoče pripisati tudi uprizoritvam pesniških del v Eksperimentalnem gledališču. To so bili večeri poezije, ki so bili kot uprizoritve večinoma prezrti in niso bili deležni kritiških ocen. O njihovem gledališkem značaju in pomenu zgovorno priča notica, ki je bila objavljena v najavi Kranjčeviceve poezije Vizije in pravi, da si »modernega gledališkega življenja v tujini (!) skoraj ni mogoče predstavljati brez negovanja pri nas dokaj zanemarjene gledališke zvrsti: komornih koncertov umetniške besede« (nav. po Taufer 30). Najverjetneje so bile to eksperimentalne uprizoritve »recitacijsko-glasbeno-plesnega značaja«. Tako je odrsko postavitev Lorcove poezije označila Marina Golouhova (nav. po Taufer 35) in verjetno so bile po tem ključu ustvarjene tudi druge uprizoritve poezije. To je mogoče sklepati iz zasedb, saj so pri uprizoritvah pesniških del poleg interpretov -igralcev in plesalcev - sodelovali tudi koreografi (Henrik Neubauer in Kristina Piccoli, sicer stalna sodelavca Balbine Baranovič) ter izvajalci glasbe, ki so v živo spremljali dogajanje na odru. Po vsej verjetnosti je šlo za odrsko priredje pesmi, plesa in glasbe, urejeno s postopkom simultanosti. Več kot to pa o uprizoritvah poezije ni mogoče reči. Sklep Postdramske značilnosti so se v Eksperimentalnem gledališču Balbine Battelino Baranovič kazale v težnji po odtegnitvi označevanja in težnji po razhierarhizaciji gledaliških sredstev, to je v dveh težnjah, ki po Lehmannu temeljno določata postdramsko gledališče. V največji meri sta se uresničevali v uprizoritvah, ki so bile izvedene kot gledališče v krogu. Ta forma je že z »ukinitvijo« rampe med odrom in avditorijem pozivala ustvarjalce k odmiku od reprezentacije in h kar najbolj pristnemu, avtentičnemu prikazovanju dramskega dogajanja. Razmestitev gledalcev okrog krožnega odra pa je zahtevala raznosmerno ureditev gledaliških sredstev, ki jih je režiserka uporabila skladno z načelom paratakse in simultanosti, najbolj evidentno v uprizoritvi Goethejevega Fausta (1959). Odmik od konvencije in tradicionalne hierarhije gledaliških znakov je bilo opaziti pri (izbranih) uprizoritvah v vseh štirih izpostavljenih sklopih besedilnih predlog, na katerih so slonele uprizoritve v Eksperimentalnem gledališču: pri priredbah pripovednih del, pri dramskih besedilih, ki zaobhajajo tradicionalno, v aristotelski dramaturgiji utemeljeno absolutno dramo, pri dramah absurda in pri uprizoritvah poezije. Že njihovo vsebinsko in zvrstno poreklo potrjuje premik v postdramsko gledališče kot gledališče »po« drami. Onkraj tradicionalnega razumevanja dramskega gledališča pa jih je privedla uporaba postdramskih uprizoritvenih postopkov v konceptualni zamisli Balbine Battelino Baranovič. Prehod v paradigmo postdramskega gledališča je v slovenskih uprizoritvenih 217 umetnostih tedaj začel potekati že v drugi polovici petdesetih let, zagotovo v izpostavljenih obravnavanih uprizoritvah v Eksperimentalnem gledališču (1955-1967), morda pa tudi v uprizoritvah, ki jih je Balbina Battelino Baranovič v tistem času vzporedno režirala na odrih drugih repertoarnih gledališč. A to vprašanje sega že onkraj zastavljenega okvira pričujočega članka in ostaja predmet za nadaljnje raziskave. 218 Literatura Jesenko, Primož. Rob v središču: Izbrana poglavja o eksperimentalnem gledališču v Sloveniji 1955-1967. Slovenski gledališki inštitut, 2015. Lehmann, Hans-Thies. Postdramskogledališče. Prev. Krištof Jacek Kozak, Maska, 2003. Milohnic, Aldo. »Performativni rez postdramskega gledališča.« Postdramsko gledališče, Hans-Thies Lehmann, prev. Krištof Jacek Kozak, Maska, 2003, str. 329-339. Orel, Barbara. »Vprašanje izvirnosti: travmatična točka gledališča in performansa na prelomu tisočletja.« Hibridni prostori umetnosti, ur. Barbara Orel, Maja Šorli in Gašper Troha, Akademija za gledališče, radio, film in televizijo Univerze v Ljubljani in Maska, 2012, str. 75-96. Pavis, Patrice. »Postdramatic Theatre.« Performance Studies: Key Words, Concepts, and Theories, ur. Bryan Reynolds, Palgrave Macmillan, 2014, str. 258-272. Šorli, Maja. Slovenska postdramska pomlad. Mestno gledališče ljubljansko, 2014. Taufer, Veno. Avantgardna in eksperimentalna gledališča. Živo gledališče III - Pogledi na slovensko gledališče v letih 1945-1979. Ur. Dušan Tomše, Mestno gledališče ljubljansko, 1975. Toporišič, Tomaž. Ranljivo telo teksta in odra: kriza dramskega avtorja v gledališču osemdesetih in devetdesetih let dvajsetega stoletja. Mestno gledališče ljubljansko, 2007. —. Levitve drame in gledališča. Aristej, 2008. —. »Kako zgodoviniti slovensko sodobno gledališče?« Amfiteater, letn. 5, št. 1, 2017, str. 106-113. The Origins of Postdramatic Theatre in Slovenia Balbina Battelino Baranovič's Experimental Theatre (1955-1967) Keywords: Slovenian theatre, experimental theatre, postdramatic theatre, theatre in the round, authenticity, Balbina Baranovic The article claims that the origins of postdramatic theatre in Slovenia can be traced back to the end of the 1950s in the work of the director Balbina Battelino Baranovič. Slovenian theatre historiography obtained a detailed and comprehensive overview of her opus for the first time in 2015 with the monograph The Edge in the Centre: Selected Chapters from the History of Experimental Theatre in Slovenia (1955-1967), written by Primož Jesenko. The present article now brings to Slovenian theatre studies the findings about the characteristics of Baranovič's stagings as characteristics of postdramatic theatre, focusing on an analysis of her work in the Experimental Theatre, established and run by Baranovič in the period 1955-1967. Here, the author understands the director as a forerunner of postdramatic theatre, which - according to the author of the term, Hans-Thies Lehmann - emerged in the 1970s. In contrast, the existing interpretations mark the performance Pupilija, Papa Pupilo, and the Pupilceks, created in 1969 by the Pupilija Ferkeverk Theatre as a reference point of its beginning in the Slovenian space. When discussing the postdramatic orientation of Balbina Baranovič's Experimental Theatre as the theatre "after" drama, that is, beyond the traditional understanding of dramatic theatre, the selection of the texts to be performed speaks for itself. The repertoire was based on texts and plays that can be grouped under four specific categories: adaptations of narrative works; dramatic texts that circumvent traditional, Aristotelian dramaturgy-based absolute drama; absurdist drama; and poetic works. The article examines the characteristics of postdramatic theatre in the light of two tendencies: the tendency to withhold signification and the tendency to dehierarchise theatrical means; concluding that these tendencies were largely realised in the stagings which were performed as theatre in the round. The withdrawal of signification, that is, the shifting away from representation toward the affirmation of presence, is (according to Lehmann) grounded in the obliteration of the intentionality of the sign and in stripping the theatrical event of its representational character. In the Experimental Theatre of Baranovič, this was combined with the tendency for onstage 221 222 activity to be as authentic, alive and genuine as possible. This was readily apparent especially in the approach to acting: partly already in the opening performance, the dramatisation of Zola's novel Thérèse Raquin (1955), and fully in the staging of Plato's philosophical work The Last Days of Socrates (1957), conceptualised as a stage essay, which was a novelty on Slovenian stages. The second highlighted tendency leading to the aesthetic of the postdramatic, that is, the dehierarchisation of theatrical means, was evident from the direction. The author explores it in the case of the staging of Goethe's Faust (1959) and analyses it from the perspective of parataxis, namely, a side-by-side arrangement of theatrical elements, which were organised multidirectionally on the stage, according to the principle of simultaneity, but breaking with the convention of the expected density of signs. The postdramatic dehierarchisation of signs in the Experimental Theatre can be recognised also in the stagings of poetic works. These were experimental performances of a "recital-music-dance nature", in which the poems, the dance, and the music were placed side by side according to the principle of simultaneity. These performances went largely ignored in the daily periodicals and were not critically analysed. The article concludes that the new stage quality and sensibility, signalling the aesthetic of postdramatic theatre as post-Brechtian, anti-illusionist, no longer dramatic text-based theatre, can probably also be detected in the performances directed during the discussed period of time by Balbina Battelino Baranovic on the stages of other repertory theatres, and calls for further research and analyses. Translated by Katja Kosi 224 IJDK 792,024:587,16 Gledališki kostum je drugačen od vsakodnevne obleke, zato sta tudi njegov nastanek in skrb zanj del posebnega procesa gledališkega ustvarjanja. Namen članka je popisati zaodrsko delo zaposlenih, povezanih s procesom nastajanja, nošnje in shranjevanja kostuma. Detektiranje in analiziranje hierarhij v institucionalnem gledališču sestavljata glavno razlagalno os članka: na kratko, kako trenutni družbenoekonomski model neoliberalnega kapitalizma oblikuje procese, odnose in načine dela v institucionalnem gledališču. Ključne besede: kostum, šivilje, garderoberji, garderoberke, kostumografija, institucionalno gledališče Mateja Fajt je študirala kostumografijo na AGRFT UL in je avtorica več gledaliških in filmskih kostumografij, Raziskuje tudi teorijo kostuma in je svoje prispevke predstavila na mednarodni konferenci Critical Costume [2018] ter objavila v reviji Studies in Costume and Performance in zborniku Performance Costume: New Perspectives, ki je pred objavo. mateja,fajt@guest,arnes,si »Šiv ni šiv« 225 Vloga in pomen dela krojačic, šivilj, garderoberk, garderoberjev in čevljarjev v slovenskem institucionalnem gledališču Mateja Fajt Uvod v raziskovanje zaodrja Gledališka uprizoritev temelji na vidnosti: izpostavljenosti nastopajočih, osvetljenosti odra in medijski opaznosti same predstave. Večine ljudi, ki jo ustvarjajo, pa zunanje oko sploh ne vidi, kaj šele oblice dela, vloženega vanjo. Namen tega prispevka je osvetliti nevidno delo v gledališču in tiste zaposlene, ki ga opravljajo. Zaradi svoje kostumografske izkušnje se zelo dobro zavedam, da je veliko dela spregledanega -tisto, ki ga opravljajo zaposlene in zaposleni v zaodrju, pa je dvojno spregledano, saj ni priznano niti v strokovni niti v umetniški javnosti. K pisanju tega članku sta vodili dve stvari: prispevek vodilne sodobne teoretičarke kostuma Aoife Monks »In Defense of Craft: A manifesto«, v katerem raziskovalke in akademičarke spodbuja,1 naj pozornost usmerijo k dogajanju v zaodrju in preizprašujejo ustaljene modele nastajanja in vrednotenja kostuma, ter številni pogovori z Nevenko Tomaševic, dolgoletno šiviljo v SNG Nova Gorica, ki se je v življenju popolnoma posvetila gledališkemu kostumu. Gledališki kostum je drugačen od vsakodnevne obleke, zato sta tudi njegov nastanek in skrb zanj del posebnega procesa gledališkega ustvarjanja. Osnovni premisi tega članka sta, da je vsako oblačilo na gledališkem odru kostum,2 ki nastane v delovnem procesu oblikovanja predstave in terja posebno skrb za ohranitev, ter da je delo zaposlenih, ki so vključeni v življenje kostuma v gledališču, nevidno in nizko vrednoteno. S pomočjo Zahvala: Članek je nastal na podlagi raziskave, ki sem jo opravila v okviru delovne štipendije Ministrstva za kulturo za samozaposlene v kulturi leta 2017. Avtorica bi se posebej rada zahvalila vsem intervjuvancem in intervjuvankam, ki so s posebno naklonjenostjo in entuziazmom soustvarjali raziskavo. 1 V razpravi poljubno uporabljam tako ženske kot moške oblike, v generičnem smislu kot oblike nezaznamovanega slovničnega spola. Kadar z določeno rabo mislim zgolj na en družbeni spol, to pojasnim. 2 Namen izjavljanja take samoumevnosti je vrednotenje kostuma in dela, če take premise ne bi sprejeli. Marsikdo rad sodi o vrednosti kostuma in (raz)vrednoti delo, vloženo v kostumsko opremo. Ko takšno držo zavzamejo osebe na položajih, lahko to v skrajnih primerih privede do krčenja števila zaposlenih ali do ukinitve določenih tehničnih služb. 226 obeh premis, ki ju preverjam v članku, lahko razumem tudi delo v gledališču3 nasploh. Članek je nastal na podlagi raziskave, ki sem jo izvedla med majem in novembrom 2017 ter v kateri sem intervjuvala deset zaposlenih iz treh nacionalnih gledališč (SNG Drama Ljubljana, SNG Maribor in SNG Nova Gorica), Mestnega gledališča ljubljanskega (MGL) in Slovenskega ljudskega gledališča Celje (SLG Celje). Od tega sem štiri intervjuje opravila z garderoberji in garderoberkami, štiri z zaposlenimi v šiviljskih in krojaških delavnicah ter dva s čevljarjema. Omejila sem se na zaposlene v poklicnih institucionalnih dramskih repertoarnih gledališčih, ki imajo stalni ansambel z dolgo tradicijo in vsaj dva zaposlena v garderobi ter vsaj dva v šivalnici.4 Pogovore sem opravila s tistimi, ki so v gledališču že dalj časa in/ali so za to temo zanimivi s kakšnega drugega vidika. Z raziskavo5 sem se namenila tudi popisati del zgodovine gledališča in kostuma v slovenskem gledališkem prostoru. Osredotočila sem se na ljudi, ki v umetniškem procesu sodelujejo predvsem obrtniško. Zanimale so me zgodbe in stališča posameznikov, ki sodelujejo v nastajanju in življenju kostuma: od nastanka do nošnje in »upokojitve«. Tako se v prispevku dotikam skoraj vseh področij, v katera so vpeti: od delovnega prostora, v katerem delajo, do interpretacije skic, izdelave kostumov, komunikacije s kostumografinjami, učnega procesa pa do plačilnih razredov, skrbi za fundus in arhiviranje. Želela sem analizirati vse vidike njihovega poklica in vse dejavnike, ki nanj vplivajo. V članku povezujem različne dele, ki skupaj tvorijo sestavljanko gledališkega kostuma: večji del sem namenila insertom iz intervjujev, saj sem želela čim več prostora nameniti mislim, ki so jih zaposleni delili z mano, delno sem uporabila strokovno literaturo o tej temi, delno spomine umetniškega osebja iz slovenskega gledališča pa tudi originalne dokumente. Vse to zato, da bi dosegla zastavljeni namen: »mapiranje posrednih razrednih struktur, ki kažejo, kako so različna dela v gledališču vrednotena in kako se različne vrste delavcev mislijo in razumejo« (Monks 176). Prav detektiranje in analiziranje hierarhij v institucionalnem gledališču sestavljata glavno razlagalno os članka: na kratko, kako trenutni družbenoekonomski model neoliberalnega kapitalizma oblikuje procese, odnose in načine dela v institucionalnem gledališču. Temu je inherentna hierarhičnost tako na ravni strukture kot tudi na ravni uprizoritve, ki nastane v tem tipu gledališča in ki je kot njegov produkt neizbežno ujeta v omenjene hierarhije. Položaj kostuma v umetnosti in kostumografinje kot umetnice, sodelujoče v predstavah, je znotraj produkcijskega procesa povezan: hkrati 3 Z besedo gledališče v tem članku mislim na institucionalno dramsko repertoarno gledališče. 4 Slovensko mladinsko gledališče, Slovensko stalno gledališče Trst, Prešernovo gledališče Kranj, Gledališče Koper ali Mini teater imajo zaposlenega vsaj enega garderoberja ali garderoberko, ki pa opravlja tudi druga dela. 5 V proces sem vstopala kot raziskovalka, vendar sem se zavedala, da moje mnenje oblikuje tudi moje subjektivno, kostu-mografsko predznanje. Sogovorniki so mi zato bolj zaupali, kot če bi bila samo v vlogi raziskovalke, hkrati pa sem tudi sama kdaj padla v past samoumevnosti. Moje predhodno poznavanje dela kostumografov in kostumografinj ter gledaliških hiš, v katerih delajo, in moj položaj kostumografinje sta bila pri tej raziskavi tako prednost kot slabost. sta podrejena in tudi sama podrejata. Tak hierarhično urejen produkcijski sistem 227 je sestavljen iz »tehničnih direktorjev in garderoberjev, ki so namenjeni služenju in mediaciji vizije kostumografinje (ki ji služijo izdelovalci, krojači, barvarji itd.), ki naj bi služila igralčevemu nastopu in režijski viziji in ki naj služi nematerialni iluziji, ki manifestira avtoriteto 'igre/uprizoritve'« (Monks 72). Monks gre še dlje in pravi, da odrska iluzija zanika zaodrje: »[G]re za obliko gledališča, ki se močno opira na konkretne prakse za odrom, medtem ko diskurzivno zatira in zanika njihove konkretne prakse« (prav tam). Poleg tega sta način dela in odnos do dela in delavcev odraz produkcijskih odnosov v kapitalizmu. Ko govorimo o umetnosti (ali o delu v umetnosti), ne moremo ne govoriti o kapitalizmu. Bojana Kunst analizira spremembe v sodobni umetnosti in poudarja, »kako so te spremembe tesno povezane s spremembami v sodobnem kapitalizmu in z vstopom postfordističnih načinov proizvodnje v središče sodobnih načinov proizvajanja« (Umetnik na delu 23). V knjigi Umetnik na delu se ukvarja predvsem z vprašanjem politične (ne)moči umetnosti, s tem, kako so umetniki vpeti v sodobne produkcijske procese kapitalizma. V tem članku se ne ukvarjam z umetniki delavci, ampak z obrtniki delavci, ki delajo za umetnike delavce. Če se je v zadnjem desetletju govorilo predvsem o prekarnosti dela in delavcev ter delavk na področju umetnosti in kulture, pa se v tem članku obračam k tistim delavcem in delavkam, ki so redno zaposleni v javnih institucijah. To pa ne pomeni, da niso podvrženi načinom dela in misli, ki jih oblikuje kapitalizem. Kunst zapiše: »Umetniške odločitve, načini in estetske značilnosti umetniškega dela so tesno povezani s pogoji njegove produkcije, načini, kako delamo, pa se globoko zajedajo tudi v samo formo umetniškega dela« (118). Umetniške institucije so vpete v sodobne načine ekonomske produkcije, saj so pomemben in aktiven del preobrata v prekarno in fleksibilno delo (prav tam). Tovrstno fleksibilno, mobilno, performativno, simultano in nestalno delo je značilno za postfordistični način proizvodnje. Zaposleni v gledališču - to v nadaljevanju članka tudi dokazujem - so temu podvrženi posredno; prek praks, ki jih v njihovo delovno okolje vpeljujejo umetniki, s katerimi delajo, in vodstvo, ki definira potek dela. O pokazateljih takega načina produkcije v institucionalnem gledališču govori članek Zofie Smolarske »Institutional Gastroscopy: Publicly Funded Theatre in Poland, Diagnosed by Its Craftspeople«, na katerega se v nadaljevanju večkrat sklicujem, saj podobno črpa iz lastne raziskave med zaposlenimi obrtniki in tehniki poljskih javno financiranih gledališč, pri tem pa izpostavlja diskrepanco med politično držo umetnikov in vodstvi gledališč ter njihovim odnosom do zaposlenih. Tako kot Kunst tudi Smolarska opaža prisotnost postfordističnega načina dela na tem področju. Na Poljskem so v času tranzicije gledališča potihoma začela uvajati tak model s tem, ko so fragmentirala produkcijo in najemala storitve zunaj hiše (outsourcing) z namenom zmanjšanja števila zaposlenih (prav tam). Smolarska trdi, da so poljska javno financirana gledališča prešla s fordističnega modela na postfordistični oziroma da delujejo kot nek (neposrečen) hibrid obeh modelov, v katerem so zaposleni »ostanek 228 starega fordističnega modela« (prav tam). Ta trk dveh različnih modelov oziroma prehajanje na sodobni način dela je prisotno tudi v obravnavanih slovenskih gledališčih: tudi tu se zanaša na delo zunanjih izvajalcev, na povečevanje deleža projektnega dela honorarno najetih umetnikov, prihaja do kompresije produkcijskega časa, povečuje se število predstav in dogodkov ter zmanjšuje pomen zaposlenih v delavnicah. Razvoj kostumografije in z njo povezanih poklicev Kratek vpogled v zgodovino kaže, da so se skladno s političnimi in ekonomskimi okviri družbe spreminjale tudi ideje in prakse dela v gledališču. Najprej je treba poudariti, da je na nastanek obravnavanih poklicev vplival razvoj institucionalnega repertoarnega gledališča in kostumografije. Fragmentacija dela, predvsem pa delitev dela na umetniško in obrtniško, je rezultirala tudi v sistemu zaposlovanja v gledališču, kot ga poznamo danes. »Z ustanovitvijo Dramatičnega društva 1867 se začne na Slovenskem proces institucionalizacije slovenskega gledališča. [...] Ob tem, ko gledališče dobi svoja stalna sredstva, stavbo, umetniško in tehnično osebje, ko ima svoje vodstvo in upravo, postane v njem pomembna organizacija dela« (Lukan, »Gledališče in disciplina« 101). Proces rojevanja kostumografije kot umetniške veje in obrtniške dejavnosti je bil postopen in kostumografinje kot umetniške sodelavke nastopijo kasneje. Igralci in igralke so v obdobju postopne profesionalizacije gledališča, na Slovenskem na prelomu iz 19. v 20. stoletje, sami poskrbeli za kostume. Ivan Cankar takole piše o delavniku igralke Josipine Kreisove leta 1907: »Gospa Kreisova je imela v petek vajo od druge do pete ure. Od petih do sedmih je vadila ples, od sedmih zvečer pa do štirih zjutraj je šivala kostume za Jacinto, od štirih zjutraj do devetih dopoldne se je naučila tekst svoje vloge« (Pušic, »Umetniki, bohemi« 84). Ta prepuščenost samim sebi je po analizi Barbare Sušec Michieli proizvedla tudi neenakost, saj so igralke za svoje kostume morale odšteti več denarja kot moški kolegi (prav tam 88). Gledališče se je v obdobju modernizacije fragmentiralo, zaprlo v umetniški svet in doseglo vse večjo specializacijo zaposlenih. »V prvi polovici dvajsetega stoletja scenograf in kostumograf nista bila ločena poklica, avtorji scene in kostuma so bili eminentni slikarji« (Bakal, »Sto godina hrvatske scenografije« 15). Podobno trdi Ana Lederer, teatrologinja in nekdanja ravnateljica Zagrebškega HNK, ko obravnava zgodovino gledališča na Hrvaškem: »[K]onec tridesetih let se je začela postopna delitev scenografije in kostumografije na dva neodvisna umetniška poklica, razvilo se je njihovo sodelovanje pri oblikovanju likovne podobe predstave, ki se je krepilo v štiridesetih in doseglo vrhunec v petdesetih letih« (»Hrvatska scenografija« 53). Proces delitve dela znotraj gledališča se je nadaljeval in kostumografija postane avtonomno umetniško področje znotraj uprizoritvene (in filmske) umetnosti. Danes se delo v gledališču deli po kartezijansko na um in telo, torej na tiste, ki mislijo, in 229 na one, ki fizično izvajajo. Gledališča delijo ljudi na delavce, ki pripravljajo uprizoritev, torej na t. i. tehnični kader, ki je redno zaposlen, in na umetniške kadre, ki se med gledališči menjujejo kot samostojni zunanji umetniški sodelavci.6 Ta ločitev na umetniško in tehnično osebje je bila še pred kratkim drugačna.7 Kostumografinje so se namreč v slovenskem gledališču začele zaposlovati po vojni: Drama SNG v Ljubljani je med letoma 1946 in 1963 zaposlila kostumografinjo Mijo Jarc, leta 1954 pa kot zadnjo Alenko Bartl. V SNG Maribor je bila od leta 1955 zaposlena Vlasta Hegedušic. V Slovenskem stalnem gledališču Trst je bila zaposlena Marija Vidau, ki je bila sprva (1966) zaposlena kot šivilja in garderoberka, nato pa je opravljala delo hišne kostumografinje. Tako je med drugim »šivala svoje kostume ter uresničevala zamisli gostujočih kostumografov« (Kravos, Aplavz tržaškemu gledališkemu ansamblu 228-29). Iz dokumentov o zaposlitvi Mije Jarc je razvidno, da je bilo njeno delovno mesto med umetniškim osebjem sprva (med letoma 1946 in 1959) navedeno kot »kostumerka« (ali »osnutkarica kostumov«) oziroma sta se ta termina v različnih dokumentih pojavljala izmenično. Šele leta 1960 se v zapisih o honorarnem angažmaju in kasneje ob njeni razrešitvi zapiše termin »kostumograf«. Takrat pa delitev dela ni bila absolutna in Tone Pavček se tako spominja njenega angažmaja v začetkih Slovenskega mladinskega gledališča: Mija je bila skromna, tiha gospa. S krojačem in mojškro je šla izbirat blago, pomagala pred premiero v šiviljski delavnici ali v garderobi pri zadnjih popravkih in izboljšavah, znala je prijeti tudi za čopič in pomagati barvati kulise, ni pa znala ne zahtevati in ne računati honorarja; ni spraševala, kaj ji bomo dali, dajala je ona nam. (Pavček, »Pionirska doba Mladinskega gledališča« 58) Alenka Bartl je bila zadnja zaposlena kostumografinja, ki pa je bila odpuščena zaradi upravljavske politike tedanjega vodstva ljubljanske Drame. Kot navaja Terkman: »V začetku šestdesetih let minulega stoletja je postala (nemara sploh edina) žrtev 'reformističnih' popadkov pokojnega Bojana Štiha v ljubljanski Drami, ki je hotel, naj vsi stalni režiserji, scenografi in kostumografi v Drami ne bi bili več redno angažirani, češ da bi to pripomoglo k njihovi večji fluktuaciji po vsej Sloveniji, s tem pa tudi večji kvaliteti in ustvarjalni rasti celotnega slovenskega gledališča« (»Alenka Bartl« 8). Njegov načrt se po Terkmanovih zapisih neposredno ni uresničil, si je pa Bartlova poiskala novo redno zaposlitev na Šoli za oblikovanje v Ljubljani. 6 Kunst opozarja, da je tranzicijska birokracija spremenila poimenovanje umetnikov iz »neodvisne osebe« v »samozapo-sleni«. Ta terminologija po njenem mnenju že postavlja umetnika iz sfere javnega, neodvisnega delovanja v sfero zasebne ekonomije (Umetnik na delu 123). 7 O spreminjanju kategorizacije različnih poklicev v gledališču Lederer navede primer iz obdobja, ko so scenografe kategorizirali kot del gledališke uprave: »Za razliko od garderoberjev v devetnajstem stoletju, ki so bili smatrani za tehnično in/ali pomočno osebje, so bili Branimir Šenoa [opomba MF: slikar in scenograf] in njegovi nasledniki po odprtju mesta stalnega scenografa navedeni kot člani gledališčne uprave skupaj z upravnikom in ravnateljem gledališča, medtem ko je umetniški poklic ostal rezerviran za scenske performerje - igralce, pevce in plesalce« (»Hrvatska scenografija« 53). 230 Delo krojačic, šivilj, garderoberk, garderoberjev in čevljarjev V nadaljevanju najprej predstavim specifiko dela v krojačnicah in šivalnicah, zatem garderoberk in garderoberjev, nato obe skupini obravnavam skupaj v odnosu do sprememb na delovnem mestu, na koncu pa posebej obravnavam še delo čevljarjev. Analiziram odnos med zaposlenimi in kostumografi, pri čemer se osredotočim predvsem na spremembe v njihovem delu. Raziskujem, kako sta se način dela in vloga kostuma spremenila v času njihovega življenja, kakšni so bili kostumografski načini in pristopi nekoč in danes, kakšen odnos imajo do kostumov ter predstav, kako vidijo sebe in svoj poklic ter ali in kako hranijo skice, materiale in kostume iz starih predstav. Zanimajo me vsi vidiki življenja kostuma v gledališču, za katerega skrbijo zaposleni: ne le operativni del njihovega poklica, temveč predvsem njihov pogled na delo, ki ga opravljajo. Šivilje in krojačice Intervjuvala sem štiri, ki so zaposlene v štirih različnih gledališčih. Njihove izobrazbe so šivilja, konfekcijski modelar, obrtni konfekcionar in diplomirani inženir tekstilstva, v gledališču so zaposlene 5, 18, 22 in 40 let.8 Prej so delale v zasebnih delavnicah ali obratih (Ideal, Vezenina Celje, Thaler, Mura, Nes). Zagate s terminologijo Najprej bom nekaj besed namenila problematiki terminologije, ki ni lastna samo zaposlenim v gledališču, ampak tudi zunanjim krojačnicam oziroma šivalnicam. Tradicionalno izdelovanje zahteva drugačno znanje za izdelavo oblačil za moške kot za ženske. Poimenovanje poklicev, povezanih s tem področjem, pa povzroča nemalo zagat. Termin »krojač« se v pogovornem jeziku uporablja samo v moški obliki, termin »šivilja« pa je rezerviran za ženske.9 Gre za vrsto posrednega, zgodovinsko zakoreninjenega jezikovnega seksizma, ki izvira še iz časov, ko je bil krojaški poklic zahtevnejši in bolje plačan, šiviljski pa manj zahteven in slabše plačan. Podoben vzorec naslanjanja na pretekle prakse vidimo tudi v uradni knjižni terminologiji. Sledeč SSKJ, moški kroji za moške, ženska pa za ženske: krojač se »poklicno ukvarja s krojenjem in šivanjem zlasti moških oblek«, krojačica pa se »poklicno ukvarja s krojenjem in šivanjem ženskih plaščev in kostimov«. Takšna jezikovna diskriminacija se pojavlja tudi v enem izmed obravnavanih gledališč, kjer je 8 Vse navedbe in podatki na podlagi intervjujev so bili zbrani od maja do novembra 2017. 9 Več o vprašanju spola zaposlenih pišem v razdelku Feminizacija poklica. krojaška delavnica (torej za moške kostume) ločena od šiviljske delavnice (za ženske kostume). V pogovornem jeziku se izraza »šivilja« in »krojač« napačno uporabljata kot sopomenki, to pa se odraža tudi v Gledališkem terminološkem slovarju (2007). Šivilja je »izdelovalka zlasti ženskih gledaliških kostumov (angl. seamstres, sticher)«, krojač pa »izdelovalec zlasti moških gledaliških kostumov (angl. cutter)« (181). Dodajanje angleških terminov samo poglablja problematično enačenje teh slovenskih terminov, saj tudi v angleško govorečem gledališkem okolju cutter in seamstres naslavljata različni delovni mesti. Prvo označuje polaganje in urezovanje krojev na blago, medtem ko drugo združevanje teh krojev, torej šivanje. V slovenskem jeziku izraz šivilja stereotipno povezujemo z žensko obliko in nima moške ustreznice, ki bi na konotativni in denotativni ravni nosila isti pomen. V praksi ženske naslavljajo kot šivilje in moške kot krojače: poimenovanji pa ne zadevata samo dveh različnih delovnih mest, temveč tudi poklica z različnim družbenim ugledom. Šiviljo povezujemo s skoraj hišnim opravilom, ki pritiče ženski, medtem ko krojač nosi prizvok prestiža, elegance in strokovnosti, ki pritičejo moškemu.10 V slovenskih gledališčih zaposlene v delavnicah tako krojijo kot šivajo.11 V zelo obsežnem zborniku 50 let MGL (2001) je najti naslednje poklice: ženske so zaposlene kot šivilja, šivilja - vodja, šivilja modelarka, šivilja modelarka - vodja, krojačica, krojačica modelarka, krojačica modelarka - vodja, vodja ženske krojačnice in vajenka v ženski krojačnici. Moški pa kot krojač, krojač - vodja, krojač modelar - vodja in vodja moške krojačnice (Klabus Vesel, 151-62). Če so v praksi ženske zavzele tudi krojaška dela, pa v tem zborniku ni podatka za moškega, ki bi opravljal »nižje« -šiviljsko delovno mesto. Različno se naslavljajo tudi njihovi prostori: krojačice in šivilje delajo v šiviljski delavnici, vodja šivilj in vodja krojačev v prikrojevalnici, krojači v krojaški delavnici, ločene so tudi delavnica, krojaška delavnica in šiviljska delavnica. Prostori, v katerih delajo garderoberke in garderoberji, se ločijo po spolu igralcev: na vratih piše »garderoberke - likalnica«, »garderoberji - likalnica«12 ali pa uradnega naziva za te prostore ni (Kavčič, osebna komunikacija; Bizjak, osebna komunikacija). Pogovorni jezik je seveda manj rigiden in poenostavlja imena tako za prostore kot za zaposlene.13 10 Zunaj gledališča se pojavljajo tudi drugi izrazi. Zavod Republike Slovenije za zaposlovanje tako uvaja termin šiviljec, ki pa v praksi ni v uporabi. Srednja poklicna in strokovna šola Bežigrad v Ljubljani pa namesto nekdanjega programa šivilja - krojač izvaja program izdelovalec oblačil. 11 V opisu del v Gledališkem ateljeju in v notranjih dokumentih SNG Maribor se navaja tudi izraz organizator kostumske opreme, vendar brez opisa delovnega mesta. 12 SNG Drama Ljubljana celo uporablja termin »moška in ženska krojačnica« za označevanje prostorov dela moške in ženske garderobe. Sklepam, da se je poimenovanje ohranilo iz časov, ko gledališče ni imelo Gledališkega ateljeja in so bili prostori uporabljeni v skladu z imenovanjem. 13 Iztok Vadnjal, vodja sektorja tehničnih služb v SNG Drama Ljubljana, me je opozoril na primer iz prakse, ko vodja predstave po zvočniku kliče garderobersko službo glede na spol igralca oziroma igralke. Tako za pomoč igralki kliče »garderoberka ... za to in to ...« in za pomoč igralcu »garderober ... za to in to ...« ne glede na spol zaposlene garderoberke ali garderoberja. V praksi se torej uporablja delitev garderoberske službe glede na spol igralca. 232 Poklic šivilje in krojačice v gledališču Ta poklic zajema širok spekter del, ki se razlikujejo glede na velikost gledališča oziroma število zaposlenih v posamezni krojačnici ali šivalnici. Večje šiviljsko-krojaške delavnice si lahko privoščijo večjo delitev dela, medtem ko v manjših šivilja opravlja vse korake do končne izdelave kostuma (od začetnega pogovora s kostumografom, krojenja, izdelave, pomerjanja,14 korektur do kostumske vaje z izdelanimi kostumi). Ne gre pa samo za znanje, temveč tudi za »občutek«, trdi vodja ženske krojačnice MGL. Njeno delo zajema »najprej seveda pogovor s kostumografi - razumeti moraš skice, moraš jih znati prebrati. Potem je to treba spraviti na kroj, se pravi risanje krojev, krojenje, šivanje, 'probe' ... Moraš znati narediti torbico, klobuk ... Tudi lutke se delajo, pa včasih maskote.« Vodja moške krojačnice v SNG Maribor, ki vodi kolektiv z več zaposlenimi, pravi: Potem ko mi kostumografi predajo skice, določim, koliko blaga je potrebnega za kostum. Glede na skice nato izrežem in pripravim kroje, jih priredim po velikosti igralcev in pevcev, se pravi kroje zgradiram, jih zmodeliram, da je obleka taka, kot mora biti, potem izrežem iz blaga in odnesem našim v šivalnico, da to sestavijo do prve 'probe'. Te imamo z igralci, takrat določimo še kakšne spremembe, potem dam dalje in nadzorujem delo do končne izdelave kostuma. Takrat predam vse kostume v garderobo in kostumska 'proba' se lahko začne. V Drami, Operi in baletu ter Simfoničnemu orkestru SNG Maribor so zaposleni vodja šivilj in vodja krojačev, po štirje pa so zaposleni v šiviljski in krojaški delavnici, skupaj torej deset ljudi. Glavne razlike v primerjavi z njihovimi prejšnjimi zaposlitvami so krojenje in šivanje historičnih oblačil, ročno delo, raznolikost samih oblačil in delo s kostumografinjami in kostumografi znotraj umetniškega procesa. Ena izmed šivilj SLG Celje to utemeljuje takole: »To je čisto drugo delo in narediti moraš točno tako, kot kostumograf reče, ne tako, kot smo se učili v šoli ali kot je prav po kroju. Biti mora tako, kot on reče: če naj bo šiv povprek, mora pač biti povprek.« Šivanje ali krojenje pa nista edini obliki dela v krojačnicah in šivalnicah, saj so za nastanek kostuma pogosto potrebne še druge tehnike. Med njimi sta pogostejši barvanje in patiniranje oziroma staranje. Te postopke izvajajo bodisi zaposleni v krojaških, scenskih ali rekviziterskih delavnicah bodisi kostumografi sami. Praksa barvanja in staranja je v vsakem gledališču drugačna tudi zaradi (pomanjkanja) prostorov, namenjenih tej dejavnosti. 14 V pogovornem jeziku se običajno uporablja izraz 'proba'. Tako se tudi vaji z končnimi kostumi na odru reče kostumska proba. V nadaljevanju so odgovori sogovornikov lektorirani, pri določenih izrazih smo obdržali pogovorno gledališko go- vorico. Tiho znanje v krojačnicah in šivalnicah 233 Znanje zaposlenih v krojačnicah in šivalnicah temelji na obrtniškem znanju določenih tehnik, vendar je to le osnova. Gre za t. i. implicitno oziroma tiho znanje (tacit knowledge), ki ga znanstvenik in filozof Michael Polanyi opredeli kot osebno znanje, pridobljeno iz izkušenj. Njegovi nosilci ga jemljejo kot samoumevnega in ga težko definirajo ali posredujejo na formalen način (3-8). V krojačnicah in šivalnicah je pomemben dejavnik zagotovo učenje poklica: ne le sama izobrazba, ampak predvsem na delovnem mestu pridobljeno znanje in izkušnje. Večina intervjuvank pred zaposlitvijo v gledališču ni imela izkušenj dela s kostumi, kostumografinjami in kostumografi, igralskim ansamblom, ampak s konfekcijskimi oblačili ali z delom pri zasebniku. Zaradi posebnosti dela, ki poleg tehničnega znanja zahteva tudi določeno mero inovacije, razumevanje umetniškega procesa in komunikacijo s kostumografi, sta uvajanje na delovno mesto in predaja znanja neobhoden proces. Vendar gledališča, tako intervjuvanke, tej fazi ne posvečajo posebne pozornosti. Po navadi gre za generacijsko menjavo: ob upokojitvi nastopi nova oseba, ki so ji predane operativne osnove. Edina izjema je intervjuvanka, ki je v gledališču eno leto delala skupaj z dolgoletnim krojačem, preden se je ta upokojil. Vrzel med predznanjem in zahtevami delovnega mesta se zapolni v procesu neformalnega učenja. V kostumskih krojačnicah poteka neformalen prenos znanja s kostumografov na zaposlene in od teh naprej na nove kostumografe. Ta krogotok je dragocen za vse udeleženke procesa in bogati znanje, ki ga ni mogoče pridobiti v drugih institucijah. Zaposlenim v krojačnicah in šivalnicah pride prav tudi tovrstna literatura: tam je pogosto najti velike kupe revij s kroji in knjige s historičnimi oblačili. Vodja ženske krojačnice MGL takole opiše svoj proces učenja dela v gledališču, ki se je začel s šiviljo, ki se je upokojila in zapustila tudi več uporabnih knjig. Še danes včasih odprem knjigo in preverim, kako je bilo leta 1800, kako so bili kroji razrezani. Večinoma sem se pravzaprav sama učila, ona mi je dala neko osnovo in pokazala nekaj stvari - ampak to je vedno počela brez ljubezni. Moram pa reči, da sem se tudi od kostumografov dosti naučila, tako in drugače: recimo Alan [Hranitelj, op. MF] mi je prinesel kakšno knjigo in sva jo skupaj predebatirala, nakar sva se pozanimala na internetu in skupaj ugotovila: Aha, tako je bilo, pa tako, pa tako. To je bilo v primerih, ko je bilo treba delati obleke iz starih časov, rekonstrukcije. Odnos s kostumografi in kostumografinjami Najtesnejši sodelavci zaposlenih v gledaliških krojačnicah in šivalnicah so kostumografi in kostumografinje. V začetnih fazah raziskave sem se najbolj posvetila 234 prav temu odnosu: zanimalo me je, kako ga doživljajo zaposleni, kako poteka pretok informacij in kakšni so izzivi dela. Sogovornice jih vidijo kot tiste, ki prispevajo idejni del: »[S]aj v bistvu so tako ali tako glavne zamisli: te se potem že nekako spravijo s papirja na material, pa na osebo, na lik,« pravi šivilja SLG Celje. Podobno razmišlja intervjuvanka iz SNG Nova Gorica: »[K]ostumograf poda idejo in naša naloga je, da jo čim bolje izvedemo, da je videti tako, kot si je zamislil. Z enim boljše sodeluješ, se ujameš, z drugim manj.« Vodja moške krojačnice SNG Maribor tako opiše delo s kostumografi: Prvič se sestanemo takrat, ko kostumograf preda skice. Dogovarjamo se, kaj bi na primer lahko znova uporabili, predelali, vzeli iz fundusa, da bi bilo podobno novemu kostumu. Potem se določi, kaj se bo šivalo, pa metraža, torej poraba blaga. Po navadi nam predajo dobre skice, najrajši pa imamo tiste tehnično opremljene, da se natančno vidi, kje bo kakšen gumb, všitek ipd. Kasneje se kostumografi oglašajo pri nas in spremljajo naše delo - eni malo več, drugi malo manj - in načeloma, če je delo dobro predano, tudi sami dosti naredimo. Pri 'probah' pa je zraven kostumograf, pove, s čim je zadovoljen in s čim ne, o tem se z njim pogovori tudi režiser, potem pa kaj spremenimo. Vrsta in količina dela sta odvisni od kostumografov. Čeprav so zaposleni v krojačnicah in šivalnicah pod okriljem tehničnega direktorja oziroma vodstva gledališča, pa njihovo delo definira zunanji, menjajoči sodelavec. »Ko je kostumograf v hiši, je tvoj šef kostumograf. Njega je treba poslušati« (šivilja SLG). Pri delu s kostumografi je najpomembnejša komunikacija: »V pogovorih s kostumografi moraš vzpostaviti dober stik in dejansko, če je kemija v redu, se v šivalnici naredi to, kar kostumograf želi. Če tega ni, če ne prideš v glavo kostumografa, ne bo dobrega sodelovanja in tudi rezultat ne bo dober« (šivilja SNG Nova Gorica). »Priti v glavo kostumografa« je tisto, kar Madeline Taylor (The mechanics of creative collaboration) definira kot skupni estetski jezik (angl. shared aesthetic language), ki ga oblikovalec in tehnolog v produkcijskem procesu ustvarita prek vizualne, verbalne in gestične komunikacije. Na podlagi tega dialoga tehnolog sprejme estetske in tehnične odločitve, ki gradijo in dodatno pojasnjujejo začetne ideje in podobe. Komunikacija ni le orodje predajanja tehničnih navodil, ampak način angažiranja zaposlenih. Proces sodelovanja in nenehne prisotnosti razlikuje med zaposlenimi v gledališču in zunanjimi izvajalci. Šivilja SNG Nova Gorica takole opiše svoje delovanje in razumevanje lastne pozicije v procesu nastajanja predstave. Ko mi nekdo reče: Rabim prt! odvrnem: Kakšen prt, za kaj? Kje bo? Vedno sprašujem, ljudje pa se jezijo: Kaj te pa briga, rabim prt ... A niso vsi prti enaki! Kostumograf mora poznati tudi sceno, barve, luči ... Če šivilja ve, kaj dela, tudi lažje sodeluje. Zdi se mi, da se zdaj pričakuje samo, da si delavec ... Šiv ni šiv! Šiv od zavese ni šiv od obleke. Za obleko je drugačen kot za kostum. V pogovoru s kostumografom izveš, kako ga bo igralec nosil, kje bo všitek, kje bo zadrga, ali se bo slekel, ali bo viden ali skrit, ali je bila v tistem času 235 zadrga taka ali drugačna ... Toliko drobnih stvari je treba doreči. Konec koncev moraš nenehno spraševati. Z leti se tega navadiš. Tega pa v šoli ne učijo. Garderoberji Opravila sem intervjuje s štirimi garderoberji (dvema garderoberkama in dvema garderoberjema) iz dveh gledališč, dva med njimi sta bila tudi vodji garderoberske službe. Njihova izobrazba je pete ali nižje stopnje (konfekcijski modelar, konfekcijski tehnik, kemijski procesničar). Termin »garderoberka« ali »garderober« v Gledališkem terminološkem slovarju označuje dva različna poklica: »1. uslužbenec, ki skrbi za kostume in pomaga nastopajočim pri oblačenju ang.: dresser, fr.i habilleur, 2. uslužbenec, ki prevzema, hrani in vrača oblačila gledalcem« (66). Uprave gledališč uporabljajo bolj specifičen termin, in sicer »scenski garderober«, vsaj sodeč po razpisu za delovno mesto v SNG Drama Ljubljana (2016). V njem sta zahtevana štiriletna srednja šola ustrezne smeri in izvajanje naslednjih nalog: »priprava kostumov za predstave; razporejanje kostumov po garderobah; oskrba nastopajočih s kostumi in pomoč pri oblačenju; pomoč pri montaži in snemanju kostumskih dodatkov; manjša sprotna popravila kostumov; priprava kostumov za transport; vzdrževanje in hramba kostumov; predelava in popravila kostumov po potrebi in opravljanje drugih del in nalog po nalogu neposredno nadrejenega oziroma ravnatelja«. Vodja garderobe pa dodatno skrbi še za »organiziranje in vodenje garderoberske službe« (prav tam). V Disciplinarnem redu slovenskega gledališča iz leta 1902, ki ga Lukan opredeljuje kot »slikovit dokument, ki zastavlja trdne oporne točke za profesionalizacijo slovenskega gledališča«, lahko beremo takratni odnos do njihovega dela (»Gledališče in disciplina« 102). Poimenujejo se s podobnim, a rahlo drugačnim terminom. Garderobar ima dolžnost shranjevati, urejati, popolnovati, popravljati in razdeljevati gledališko garderobo. Brez dovoljenja vodstva ne sme izposoditi nikomur ničesar iz garderobe. Jamčiti mora za garderobo v vsakem oziru. Poleti mora stare kostume popravljati in šivati nove. Pred predstavo mora garderobar izročiti garderobo vsaj uro pred začetkom. Garderoba mora biti čista, cela in prava. Ako izroči garderobar članom zamazano ali raztrgano garderobo, ga sme vodstvo kaznovati z globo 1 do 2 K. Vsako jutro po predstavi mora garderobar zložene kostume spraviti zopet v garderobo. Paziti mora garderobar tudi na to, da člani garderobe s šminko in drugim ne umažejo. Ako se zgodi to vendarle, mora na to opozoriti vodstvo. (prav tam 126) V nadaljevanju intervjuvani garderoberji in garderoberke predstavljajo svoj pogled na svoje delo, njegov obseg in spremembe, ki so se zgodile v času njihove zaposlitve. 236 Delo v garderobi Zaposleni so že vrsto let: garderoberki po 13 in 17 let, garderoberja pa 35 in 36 let.15 Večina je imela predhodne izkušnje, povezane s sedanjim delom (v zasebnem salonu, kot telefonist, nabavni referent in vodja fundusa v gledališču). Vse so na delovno mesto uvajali takrat zaposleni v garderobi. Kot specifiko poklica navajajo odnos do gledališča. »Izhajamo iz tega, da moraš gledališče in umetnost najprej imeti zelo rad, da lahko karkoli delaš za odrom. Naš poklic garderoberja je absolutno tak kot poklic neke Ivy, služkinje iz nadaljevanke,« pravi garderober SNG Drama Ljubljana. Lastno delo pred, med in ob zaključku predstave opiše takole: »Kdaj mi je v gledališču najlepše? Pol ure pred predstavo. Ko je vse nared, ko smo vse dogovorjeni in je v tistem trenutku vsak na svojem mestu. Nič več zafrkavanja!« O predstavi pa: »Najbolj napet čas je sama izvedba predstave. Za garderoberja je zelo naporna, saj imaš določenih 40 sekund, v katerih se mora igralec preobleči.« Poseben je tudi zaključek predstave: »Vsa ta leta sem gledal aplavz in to je najlepši del moje službe. Na koncu stati ob zavesi in gledati igralce, kako se klanjajo, slišati ta aplavz - to je to. Nikoli nisem želel stati na odru, to se mi ne zdi pomembno. Vedno sem se dobro počutil za odrom.« Posebnost garderoberskega poklica, po kateri se ta razlikuje od poklicev v gledaliških krojačnicah in šivalnicah, je zahteven urnik, saj delajo v času vaj (od zjutraj do zgodaj popoldne in od zgodnjih do poznih večernih ur) ter v času predstav (večinoma zvečer, otroške čez dan in za konec tedna, poleg gostovanj po Sloveniji in tujini). Prav urnik v gledališču je - tako garderoberka SNG Drama Ljubljana - zelo drugačen od tistega na njenem prejšnjem delovnem mestu v zasebnem salonu: »Ko sem bila zasebnica, sem hodila normalno spat, imela sem normalen bioritem. Tukaj pa bioritma nimaš oziroma je drugačen, ogromno je mednarodnih gostovanj.« Eva Tomaševic Barič v diplomskem delu Novogoriško gledališče od amaterskih začetkov do gledališča nacionalnega pomena, ki popisuje zgodovino novogoriškega gledališča, opazi podobno: Delo v gledališču je specifično. Tehnični del osebja, ki je tesno povezan z izvedbo predstave (frizerke, garderoberke, odrski delavci, tonski mojstri, lučni tehniki ...), ima specifičen delovnik, pogosto delajo pozno v noč, veliko je službenih odsotnosti zaradi gostovanj. Omenjen delovnik in relativno nizke plače vplivajo na odločitev za zaposlitev v gledališču, saj to pomeni precej odrekanja družinskemu življenju in spremembo življenjskega stila. (48-49) Garderoberji med drugimi zdravstvenimi težavami, ki izhajajo iz njihovega dela, navajajo okvaro vida (zaradi teme v različnih delih gledališča)16 in izrabo ramen (zaradi nenehnega dvigovanja kostumov). 15 Eden od njiju je toliko časa zaposlen v gledališču, od tega zadnjih 17 let samo v garderobi. 16 Garderobersko delo večinoma poteka v garderobnih delavnicah, igralskih garderobah, pralnici, fundusu kostumov in zaodrskem prostoru. Prav zadnja dva sta pogosto slabo osvetljena, bodisi zaradi malomarnosti bodisi zaradi zahtev procesa zaodrskega preoblačenja. Odnos z igralci 237 Trenutno edini garderober v SNG Drama Ljubljana, ki ta poklic opravlja že 35 let, pravi, da je delo zelo osebno: »Slačenje je v garderobi nekaj zelo intimnega: tako kot v bolnišnici se tudi tu mora zgoditi, to je intima, o kateri se ne govori, ampak obstaja, mora biti.« Ta osebni stik, ki je vezan na točno določeno osebo, ki opravlja ta poklic, je nenadomestljiv: »Tudi v tem malem poklicu si potreben povsod: v New Yorku, v Seulu, v Londonu ...« O odnosu med igralci in garderoberji pravi takole: »Stik z igralci, ki si ga drugi ljudje ne morejo predstavljati, je enakopraven - to so zelo specifični ljudje, ki se mogoče še bolj razburijo, še bolj skregajo kot drugi, ampak vse to zaradi ustvarjalnosti.« Nadaljuje: »Igralci nas zelo spoštujejo: ni treba, da te ima človek rad, dovolj je, da spoštuje tvoje delo.« Z njim sem se v intervjuju pogovarjala tudi o zaupanju, ki ga mora biti med igralcem in garderoberjem veliko, morda celo več kot med garderoberjem in gostujočim kostumografom. Samo s pogovori in skupnim delom lahko natančno izvemo, da ima nek igralec že nekaj let okvarjen gleženj in da ne more nositi škornja. Na drugi strani kostumograf trdi, da bomo že in da mora nositi škornje. Dopovedujem mu, da to ni mogoče, predlagam one na vezalko, pa globoke čevlje, pa take, ki jih ima najraje, in tako naprej. Kostumograf mora to razumeti, ne pa vztrajati pri neki viziji, da mora biti škorenj. Če si dober kostumograf, mi boš prisluhnil, kakšen čevelj je treba narediti! Iz usnja mu bomo dodali ščitnik, da bo videti kot škorenjček, kajne? Potem so tu še konflikti, ko igralec ni zadovoljen, kostumograf pa misli, da ga hoče nekdo prinesti okoli, da ga ne spoštuje: tudi kostumograf mora biti fleksibilen. Večkrat se zgodi, da igralec po premieri kar sam malce popravi svoj kostum. Če človek ne more dihati, kostumograf pa trdi, da se ne sme razširiti, se bo vseeno razširil - pa še kako! Odnos s kostumografi Garderoberje sem spraševala tudi o njihovem odnosu s kostumografom in o procesu komunikacije z njim. Odgovarjali so, da je delo z različnimi kostumografi različno: »Načeloma se vidimo ali slišimo in pove svoje želje. Pogosto veliko naredimo sami, nekateri kostumografi pa hočejo večino opraviti lastnoročno. Vendar je takih čedalje manj,« pravi garderoberka SNG Drama Ljubljana. Nadaljuje: »To je odvisno od vsakega posameznika. Z nekaterimi je veliko komunikacije, z drugimi manj. Dobro pa bi bilo, da bi nam vsak kostumograf povedal, kaj si je zamislil. To bi izboljšalo komunikacijo.« Garderoberka iz iste gledališke hiše opiše podobno: »Komunikacija takole poteka - pride, pove, ali je kaj pomembnega, ali je kateri kostum tako poseben, 238 da je treba zanj skrbeti na določen način. Nekateri povejo, nekateri ne povejo nič, nekatere vidiš, nekatere sploh ne, različno.« Garderober SNG Maribor je poudaril, da se njihovo delo pri predstavi začne s kostumsko vajo, pred tem pa kostumografinja komunicira predvsem s šiviljami in krojači. Skupne teme Nekatere teme, ki se dotikajo tako del v krojačnicah in šivalnicah kot tudi garderoberskega dela, sem v analizi združila za bolj celosten pregled stališč intervjuvancev. Stik s predstavo Delo v gledališču je zelo specifično, in tudi če si z delom v zunanjem svetu deli določene obrti, se med seboj razlikujeta v nekaterih postopkih, predvsem pa v procesu dela. Delo v zasebni šivalnici ali v čevljarski delavnici je drugače zastavljeno kot v gledališki. Gledališki kostum nastane v t. i. procesu produkcije predstave, ki se za zaposlene praviloma začne z uvodno ali razčlembno vajo in konča s premiero, traja pa več tednov. Vse do zdaj omenjene intervjuvance sem spraševala, kako sodelujejo v tem procesu, ali poznajo besedilo predstave in predstavo kot celoto. Šivilja SLG Celje razloži prakso iz šivalnic: Ne, teksta nikoli ne beremo, predstave pa gremo gledat. Včasih gremo tudi na vaje, da bi videli, kaj želi kostumograf: kaj pri določenem kostumu ni dobro, kaj je treba rešiti, kje se pojavljajo težave. Ogledamo si končno predstavo, da vidimo, kako se je izšlo, izkoristijo pa nas še kot garderoberke. Zanimivo je tudi videti, kaj si naredil. To, kako dobro garderoberji poznajo predstave, je odvisno od števila kostumskih sprememb v njih. »Če se v predstavi sami oblečejo in na koncu slečejo, grem lahko gledat. Če so vmes preobleke, pa to ne gre, moram sodelovati,« pravi garderoberka SNG Drama Ljubljana. Garderober iz Maribora ugotavlja, da je predstavam težko slediti zaradi hiperprodukcije: »Včasih smo jih gledali, za odrom si stal, pa tekste smo bolj poznali kot danes, ko je vsega preveč in ti ne znese. Določene stvari so ti jasne, ampak ne tako kot včasih. Preveč je vsega, enostavno ne gre.« Vodja moške krojačnice SNG Maribor, ki je občasno tudi kostumografinja, pravi, da tekst prebere in obiskuje vaje. Ko pa je na mestu vodje krojačnice, je zanjo proces drugačen: »Na kratko nam povejo zgodbo, če pa koga še posebej zanima, si jo prebere, sicer pa ne beremo. Prvo predstavo vidimo na kostumski vaji. Takrat vso pregledamo, potem pa gremo še na generalko, da vidimo, ali je vse v redu - in to je vse.« Posebnost »posvečenega« odnosa šivilje SNG Nova Gorica je tudi v tem, da obiskuje 239 uvodne oziroma razčlembne vaje. Odkar sem prišla v gledališče, je bila navada, da je bil začetek vaje nekakšen praznik, tako kot premiera. [...] Vztrajala sem, naj se to ohrani. To sem povedala tudi vsem tehničnim šefom. Potem je to malo zamrlo. A sem trmast človek, ne čutim predstave, če tega ni ... Na razčlembnih vajah ti režiserji in dramaturgi povedo, kako bo potekala predstava. Vživiš se v vanjo in spoznaš, kaj boš delal. To je tisto, kar manjka vsem, ki bodo delali predstavo, tudi tonskim tehnikom, električarjem. Poleg tega, to sem sama uvedla, prelistam, pregledam tekst, včasih tudi skoraj vsega preberem. Zaposlene kostumografinje Sogovornike sem spraševala, ali so bile kostumografinje v njihovem gledališču kdaj zaposlene: samo šivilja in garderober iz Maribora sta mi povedala, da je bila pri njih le Vlasta Hegedušic. Garderober SNG Drama Ljubljana poda svoj pogled na to: Čisto osebno mislim, da zaposlitev kostumografa ni dobra niti zanj niti za hišo. Zanj ni dobra zato, ker bo zakrknil in začel »lajnati«, ne bo napredoval in bil ustvarjalen. To sicer prinaša neko gotovost in redno plačo, ampak zdi se mi, da ni zdravo, za hišo pa sploh ne. Boljše je, da se ljudje menjajo in delajo. Razloge v tem, da so včasih imeli zaposlene, vidi takole: Kostumografov je bilo zelo malo. Hiša se je gotovo bala, ali bo dobila koga ali pa bo zaseden. Ker jih ni bilo. Spomnim se, da so se kostumografi tako množično pojavili po letu 1980 in potem so prišle vse te generacije: [Leo] Kulaš, [Svetlana] Visintin, pred tem Meta Sever ... Zdaj bi moral našteti vsa ta imena iz osemdesetih let. Z njimi pa je prišlo tudi zelo lepo, kreativno delo. Dislociranost gledališke hiše Pomembno je, da so scena, rekviziti, lasulje in kostumi, ki so potrebni za predstavo, narejeni v gledališki hiši. Z operativnega vidika je velika prednost, če jih lahko popravljajo, nadgrajujejo in vzdržujejo isti ljudje, ki so določen gledališki element naredili. Predvsem pa zaposleni lažje razumejo zahteve kot zunanji sodelavci, saj poznajo proces dela v gledališču. To omenjam zaradi pojava podizvajalskih del v gledališču, torej prakse, da gledališke elemente proizvajajo obrtniki, katerih primarna dejavnost ni uprizoritvena. Outsourcing se pojavlja povsod, tudi v kulturi. Gre še za eno izmed praks neoliberalnega kapitalističnega modela, katerega namen je nižanje stroškov dela. V gledališču je to povezano predvsem s hiperprodukcijo, včasih s tehnično logistiko (na primer z velikostjo delavnic), 240 tehničnim znanjem ali oceno potrebnega dela in časa v primerjavi s kupljenim izdelkom. Takšen model opaža tudi Smolarska in opozarja, da lahko gledališča zaradi ekonomskih razlogov zaprejo svoje delavnice. V intervjuju z zaposlenimi je zabeležila naslednje: »Če si gledališko orientiran - imaš vizijo celote in veš, da potrebuješ delavnico, da ustvariš celosten svet - boš obdržal delavnico. Če pa si ekonomist in vidiš, da ljudje dva tedna posedajo in ne delajo nič zaradi premora v produkcijskem ciklu - boš delavnico zaprl« (»Institutional Gastroscopy«). Smolarska razlikuje med dvema vrstama gledališča: tistim, ki za uprizoritve reciklira oziroma prilagaja ready-made produkte, in gledališčem kot univerzumom, v jedru katerega je delo visoko kvalificiranih obrtnikov (prav tam). Od štirih obravnavanih gledaliških hiš imata dve nacionalni gledališči (SNG Drama Ljubljana in SNG Nova Gorica) šiviljske prostore zunaj matične hiše. Tako šivilje kot garderoberje sem spraševala o tem, kako dislociranost delovnih enot vpliva na njihovo delo. Vodja ženske krojačnice MGL, kjer so včasih imeli delavnico nad odrom, sedaj pa so nekaj nadstropji višje, pravi: »Zdaj sem toliko odmaknjena, da nimam več toliko vpogleda v to, kaj se v resnici dogaja v teatru, niti se ne zanimam.« Vodja moške krojačnice SNG Maribor, kjer imajo garderobo, fundus in šivalnice v eni hiši, pravi, da si ne zna predstavljati delavnic zunaj hiše. Garderoberji SNG Drama Ljubljana niso delili posebnega mnenja o dislociranosti šiviljskih delavnic Gledališkega ateljeja in zdi se jim, da to niti ne vpliva na njihovo delo. Vendarle iz poznavanja njihovega dela menim, da izvajajo večje število manjših popravkov in ročnega dela kot garderoberji v drugih gledališčih ter da imajo s tem več izkušenj. Šivilja SNG Nova Gorica takole razmišlja o dislociranosti svoje delavnice, pa tudi tiste v Drami: Zaradi izoliranosti delamo dosti lažje, bolj umirjeno, sproščeno. Sicer moraš iti tja [v gledališče] pomerjat, kar prinaša logistične probleme, vendar je ločenost velik plus. To pravijo tudi kostumografi, vidijo, da je tu drugače. Zelo dobro je, da sta šivalnica in fundus skupaj. Vedno lahko greš pogledat, kako so stvari narejene, če ti kaj manjka ... Podobno ima tudi Drama Atelje, ampak oni so povsem ločeni od gledališča, res so servis ... Stvari imajo že od začetka drugače zastavljene. Spremembe v poklicu V tem sklopu bom opisala vse spremembe, ki so mi jih intervjuvanci razkrili ali pa sem jih sama zaznala. Eden izmed razlogov, zakaj sem intervjuvala predvsem starejše zaposlene, je tudi tema o spremembah v poklicu in gledališču, ki me je zanimala. Opisane spremembe sem razvrstila nivojsko: od sprememb na mikro nivoju (blago in materiali, prakse šivanja in/ali kupovanja), nivoju organizacije gledališča (način dela umetnic/kostumografinj, organizacija dela, število predstav), nivoju produkcijskega procesa predstave pa do sprememb na makro nivoju (sprememba ekonomsko-političnega sistema). Ti nivoji se med seboj prepletajo, predvsem pa baza - trenutni družbenoekonomski sistem - vpliva na vse druge dejavnike. Materiali in blago Blago je najpogostejša materialna osnova kostuma, ki je pogojena s trenutno tehnologijo in dostopnimi viri. Zaradi pojava hitre mode v času neoliberalnega kapitalizma je na (slovenskem) trgu malo specializiranih trgovin z blagom. V socializmu je bilo ponudbe blaga prav tako malo, vendar so bili razlogi drugačni. Šivilja SNG Nova Gorica opiše, kako so se včasih spopadali s pomanjkanjem ustreznega blaga: »Kostumografinje niso imele na izbiro toliko materialov in moralo se je veliko barvati. Zdaj se veliko barva s hipermanganom, jaz sem takrat s čajem, s pravim čajem, ruskim čajem. Ruski čaj iz škatel si skuhal, potem si vanj namočil blago, da si dobil kožno barvo. Uporabljali smo ga za patiniranje.« Spominja se tudi barvanja z naravnimi barvili, recimo z bršljanom. Tudi samo blago je drugačno: »Pa tudi ni več toliko težkih materialov, kot jih je bilo včasih, ni žameta, brokata in podobnega, tudi težko jih je dobiti« (šivilja SLG Celje). Šivilja SNG Nova Gorica se strinja in opozarja tudi na tekstilno produkcijo, ki je ni več: Čeprav so bili časi težki, se je za gledališče vseeno dobilo več kot danes. Zdaj se vse dobi preko interneta. Takrat si dobil tudi pri nas, več je bilo modistov, recimo za izdelavo nogavic (npr. Minuk Kocjančič v Ljubljani). Zdaj lahko dobiš samo končni izdelek. Zdaj ni mogoče nikjer naročiti izdelave. Takrat so jih pletli: lahko si izbiral, iz katerega materiala jih bodo naredili. Pokrivala so delali v Kroju, tudi šapke, francoske kape. Zdaj nimaš več možnosti naročiti izdelave. Isto je s čevlji: težko je na primer dobiti peto, nihče več jih ne izdeluje. Enako velja za usnje, podlogo. Ne dobiš več niti medvlog za stilne kostume, kot so bile narejene včasih. Stilno sukno iz leta 1900 z lepljenjem ne bo nikoli stalo tako kot takrat, ko so pikirali. Na platno so delali vse. Za razvoj kostumografije so časi težki. Šivanje in/ali kupovanje Eden izmed prvih dialogov med kostumografi in zaposlenimi v procesu nastajanja kostumografije je o tem, kako materializirati kostumske skice. Najprej se nabavi blago in/ali oblačila: kostum se šiva na novo in/ali kupi in/ali predela (torej iz že obstoječega kostuma se naredi nov kostum). Dejavniki za to so preference kostumografov, zahtevnost skic, znanje zaposlenih, predvsem pa proračun kostumografije in čas. Od zaposlenih sem večkrat slišala, da se je včasih več šivalo, danes se več kupuje: včasih 242 so bili kostumi umetniški, odraz kreativnosti, danes je to samo še »štancanje« in kopiranje z interneta. Zelo podobne opazke navaja tudi Smolarska in citira zaposlena v scenskih delavnicah, ki si delita občutek, da tam samo še popravljajo kose iz Ikee, da nič ne izdelajo povsem na novo, da se v predstave ne vlaga več kreativnosti in da so zato rezultati vedno isti. Praksa nadomeščanja ročno izdelanih z ready-made produkti je odraz (ene izmed) preživetvenih strategij umetnikov, trdi Smolarska, saj lahko v krajšem obdobju hitreje prideš do materializacije ideje (»Institutional Gastroscopy«). Sogovornike in sogovornice sem spraševala o tem, ali se danes res več kupuje in kje vidijo razloge za to. Obe nazadnje omenjeni šivilji pravita, da se je včasih več šivalo. Razloge za to vidita v tem, da je manj stilnih predstav, saj jih je več iz sodobnega časa. Večkrat je torej na odru sodoben estetski kod. Kostumografi in režiserji včasih prestavijo kostum izvorne historične drame v drug čas, ki pa ni nujno sodoben. Šivilja SLG Celje to opiše takole: »Malo spreminjajo, posodabljajo, a ne vem, kako bi temu rekla.« Garderober SNG Maribor sicer začne: »Kostumi, vedno so bili stilni in moderni,« in nato nadaljuje: »Mislim, da se zdaj kupuje več kot nekoč. Na primer v trgovinah z rabljenim blagom in na drugih podobnih mestih, kjer so stvari cenejše.« Tudi vodja ženske krojačnice MGL poudari, da kostumografinje včasih niso imele na voljo takšnih trgovin. Pravi pa tudi, da nima občutka, da se danes kupuje več, in da je razmerje med tem, koliko se šiva in koliko kupi, podobno kot včasih: »Tudi pred 20 leti se je za moderne predstave čisto vse kupilo.« Gledališča načeloma »uravnotežijo« in »porazdelijo« svoj program, finance in estetiko tako, da so nekateri projekti manjši, nekateri koprodukcije, drugi velikih razsežnosti. Pogled na to z direktorske pozicije v intervjuju z nekdanjim direktorjem SNG Nova Gorica Sergijem Pelhanom je več kot zgovoren: Zato so normativi takšni, ker če si nacionalno ali državno gledališče, moraš uprizarjati tudi klasične predstave. Pri takih predstavah je vse dražje, tudi na primer kostumi. Naredili smo celo ocene, koliko stane kostum za sodobno dramo ali za klasično, srednjeveško. Za klasično je bistveno dražji. Potem je prišlo do osamosvojitve Slovenije, kapitalizem je zavladal in kultura ni bila več tako pomembna. (nav. po Eva Tomaševic Barič, Novogoriško gledališče 70-71) Organizacija dela Pomembna dejavnika, ki vplivata na organizacijo dela v obravnavanih poklicih, sta število predstav in število zaposlenih. Prvi dejavnik obravnavam v naslednjem sklopu, drugega pa v tem. Strukturna delitev izdelave kostuma v gledališču poteka takole. MANJ VEČ ZAPOSLENIH ZAPOSLENIH Slika 1. Organizacija kostumskega dela v gledališčih glede na število zaposlenih Gledališča z manj zaposlenimi imajo samo en prostor za kostumsko delo, ki je garderoba in šivalnica obenem, ter ni delitve na garderoberska in šiviljska dela. V tej raziskavi primera takšnega gledališča ni, drugje pa sta v takšnem gledališču zaposlena ena ali dve osebi kot garderoberki. Gledališča z malce več zaposlenimi delo delijo na garderobersko in šiviljsko: od obravnavanih gledališč sta to SLG Celje in SNG Nova Gorica, ki zaposlujeta približno dve osebi na garderobo in dve do tri na šivalnico. Večje gledališče, na primer SNG Maribor z 21 zaposlenimi, deli garderobno delo na moško in žensko, svoje prostore imata tako vodja moške kot ženske krojačnice. Posebni prostori so za šivilje, ki delajo po navodilu vodje krojačnice (svoje mesto imajo tudi čevljarji, ki pa niso vključeni v Sliko 1. V šivalnicah manjših gledališč se zaradi majhne ekipe in velike produkcije spopadajo s težavami pri realizaciji kostumografij, zato kostumografi pogosto angažirajo zunanje šivilje. Izdelava moških kostumov je problem, ki sem ga zasledila v nekaj gledališčih, saj moška obleka spada med tehnično najzahtevnejše. »Problem naših šiviljskih delavnic je ta, da nimamo krojača. Vsi moški kostumi se morajo sešiti v Ljubljani ali pa Zagrebu,« pravi Marko Sosič, nekdanji umetniški vodja Primorskega dramskega gledališča (Tisoč dni, dvesto noči 52). Tudi šivilja SLG Celje se spominja, da je bila včasih šivalnica razdeljena na moški in ženski oddelek, zadnjih šest let pa sta zaposleni samo dve šivilji, ki skrbita za vse. V tem času sta se povečala tako število 244 predstav kot tudi ansambel. V praksi se takšna situacija rešuje s pomočjo zunanjih izvajalcev. V Mariboru sta včasih obstajala vodja za moško in žensko garderobo ter posebna oseba za fundus. Danes je vodja en, ki pravi takole: »Prej so bili tudi trije ali štirje garderoberji. Pralnica je bila posebej, vodja fundusa posebej. Zdaj je to vse na nas. V fundusu ni nikogar.« S tem v zvezi je zanimiv sistem »obračuna« iz MGL, ki je vnaprej določal število ur za določen kostum, česar se spominja vodja ženske krojačnice: »Nikoli nisem mogla razumeti, kako lahko vnaprej določiš, koliko ur dela boš imel z enim kostumom, recimo 40. Nemogoče. Krilo lahko narediš v dveh urah, če ga boš delal iz povsem drugega blaga, pa v štirih. Tako da mi je bilo to zelo nejasno.« Te ocene je dajal vodja šivalnice in krojačnice, vendar pa se obračun po njenih besedah nikoli ni izšel, saj se predvidene in dejanske ure niso ujemale. »Z leti se je vse spremenilo, ne nazadnje tudi država. Najbrž so 'gori' videli, da to je to čudno.« To je zgovoren primer dejstva, da je delo v šivalnicah nerazumljeno: takšna pravila ne morejo delovati v gledališkem ateljeju, saj ne upoštevajo narave dela. Hiperprodukcija Najpogostejši odgovor intervjuvancev na to, kaj se je spremenilo v času njihovega dela, je število produkcij. Za vse to pomeni več dela in obširnejšo organizacijo. Garderoberka SNG Drama Ljubljana pravi, da je sistem dela isti, le da je zdaj dela več. Tudi garderober SNG Maribor opaža podobno: »Delo je bolj stresno in več ga je. Prej smo imeli en večji in en manjši oder za oboje, opero in dramo. Če se je opera postavljala, se je drama podirala. Imel si dan ali dva časa za pripravo opere. Danes pa gre vse na hitro. Delaš dramo, gostovanje, velik oder, komorni oder ali pa mali oder -res je naporno in polno vsega. Včasih delamo celo po dve predstavi skupaj.« V nekaterih gledališčih je danes zaposlenih več garderoberjev kot v preteklih letih, občasno jim pomagajo tudi študentje. »Pomoč dobimo ob hiperprodukciji,« pravi vodja garderoberske službe v SNG Drama Ljubljana, njen sodelavec pa nadaljuje: »Danes je hiperprodukcija, to je ta razlika. Pred 20, 30 leti, ko sem prišel v Dramo, smo imeli po sedem premier, danes pa jih imamo 13, če ne štejem zraven še vseh ostalih dogodkov.« Napornejši urniki od šivilj zagotovo zahtevajo tudi večjo učinkovitost: »Ja, več, bolj je treba biti spreten, v določenih primerih je treba bolj pohiteti. A vse se nekako le ujame. Če vidiš, da ti teče voda v grlo, boš rekel: Aha, danes vidim, da ne bo šlo, da ti kostumi ne bodo gotovi do petka, bomo pa danes podaljšali, ne v petek, takrat bo že prepozno. Tako se vedno organiziramo še pravočasno« (šivilja SLG Celje). Tudi vodja ženske krojačnice MGL se spominja časov, ko je bilo predstav manj, a je bilo tudi več predstav z večjimi zasedbami: »Sploh na velikem odru so bile običajno masovke, vsaj kolikor se spomnim. Ogromno je bilo predstav z veliko nastopajočimi. Zdaj pa je tu seveda še Studio [MGL, 245 op. MF] pa produkcije ... Mislim, da jih je kar 12 ali 14 v sezoni. Veliko.« Tabela 4.1: Število premier v izbranih slovenskih poklicnih gledališčih po sezonah od 2000/2001 do 2014/2015 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 povp. 2001 2012 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Drama LJ 9 11 11 19 10 10 13 13 11 10 13 13 10 14 22 13 MGL 8 7 9 10 13 13 12 12 12 13 11 14 15 21 20 13 SMG 4 7 6 14 5 5 7 8 7 6 6 10 11 9 8 8 Drama MB 13 8 6 5 S 7 10 8 7 7 5 8 6 7 7 7 SLG Celje 6 6 7 4 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 SNG NG 6 7 7 8 5 7 6 7 5 6 8 8 8 9 9 7 SSG 5 S 5 3 5 6 7 6 6 S 5 6 8 5 6 6 PG Kranj 4 5 4 10 4 6 5 7 3 4 4 5 5 4 6 5 MGF 4 6 4 10 4 4 5 3 4 6 6 7 4 7 7 5 G Koper / 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 4 6 6 6 6 Slika 2. Rast števila premier v izbranih slovenskih gledališčih Opombe. Podatki za SNG Maribor zajemajo samo Dramo in ne tudi Opere in baleta. Vir: Tomaševič Barič, Novogoriškogledališče 51. Zgornja slika statistično potrjuje opažanja intervjuvancev. Dodajam pa, da ne zajema še kopice dodatnih aktivnosti, recimo spremljevalnega programa, ki ga gledališke hiše organizirajo in se v uradni statistiki ne beleži kot predstava. Zaposlenim pa to predstavlja dodatno obremenitev oziroma dodatno »predstavo«. Gledališča -tako kot tudi druge kulturne institucije - skušajo s ponujanjem spremljevalnega programa poleg abonmajskega konkurirati na trgu kulturnih vsebin, tekmujejo za občinstvo. Tovrsten pristop ponudbe, povpraševanja, konzumacije in trošenja se preslikava iz ekonomske sfere v kulturno z isto logiko - treba je nenehno ponujati nove predstave, ne pa preigravati »starih«. Proces produkcije predstave Večje število produkcij povzroča tudi krajšanje časa produkcije predstave. Smolarska med opazovanjem stanja v gledališčih na Poljskem opaža, da so »pogovori s tehničnimi direktorji postali mnogo krajši, faza preizkusov in napak - napaka je nepogrešljiva značilnost prototipskega scenskega oblikovanja, torej oblikovanja od začetka - se je prav tako skrajšala« (»Institutional Gastroscopy«). Šivilja SNG Nova Gorica se takole spominja procesa dela za časa Primorskega dramskega gledališča v Novi Gorici (PDG): 246 Bilo je razporejeno tako, da smo imeli po koncu ene predstave 14 dni miru, šele potem smo začeli z drugo. Takrat je bilo zaposlenih manj ljudi, vendar imeli smo tudi velike predstave, srečevali smo se s težavami. A ni bilo 'džumbusa', nervoze. Imeli smo dovolj časa za predstavo. Kostumografi, ki so prihajali, so se že prej zmenili. Gospa Bartlova mi je povedala, da so se že šest mescev prej dobivali z režiserji in se menili, jaz sem dobila zapiske v knjigi, kjer je imela zabeleženo, kako bodo videti kostumi. Skice so se dobivale prej ali takrat, ko se je študij začel, vendar je bilo vse določeno in spremembe so bile redke. Res se je moralo zgoditi kaj izrednega, da je šla predstava v drugo smer, da režiser iz določenega človeka ni izvlekel tistega, kar je nameraval. Ljudje so bili dosti bolj pripravljeni. [...] Vedeli smo, kaj delamo. Stvari so bile velike in zahtevne, če jih primerjam z današnjimi. Zdaj so kostumi večinoma revni. Iz tega odstavka lahko vidimo, kako sta včasih potekala predproces in potem sam proces produkcije predstave. Način ustvarjanja gledališke uprizoritve je bil bolj »akademski«: več idej in odločitev je bilo dorečenih v procesu predpriprave (torej pred uvodno vajo), manj je bilo improvizacije oziroma manj se je predstava gradila med samimi vajami. Gledano s kostumografskega vidika je tovrsten pristop omogočal, da so imeli zaposleni več časa za konstrukcijo kostuma (celo testnega kostuma) in za dodelavo, igralci in igralke so že zgodaj v procesu vedeli, kaj bodo nosili. V prejšnji izjavi je ključna pozicija zaposlenih v tem procesu. »Vedeli smo, kaj delamo« se nanaša na samo vstopno točko šivilje v proces produkcije predstave: na začetku študija, z izdelanimi skicami in načrtom predstave. Izjava pa se nanaša tudi na splošen odnos zaposlenih do svojega dela. Z manj produkcijami je bilo lažje slediti posameznim predstavam in živeti z njimi. Dalj časa so se delale in dalj časa igrale.17 Iz svojih kostumografskih izkušenj v gledališčih lahko dodam, da v garderobi in šivalnici/krojačnici zaposleni včasih težko sledijo dogajanju: katera predstava je že imela premiero, katera se igra, pri kateri se je študij že začel itn. Zaposleni in kostumografi namreč čas in delo v gledališču dojemajo drugače: slednji vidijo svoj projekt v celoti, zaposleni pa le dele - kaj je treba pri tem projektu narediti, kaj pri drugem za mali oder, katera vzdrževalna dela ipd. Bojana Kunst to definira kot distinkcijo med delom in projektom ter to razliko razume kot eno od sodobnih oblik delitve dela, pri čemer vidi projekt kot prevladujoč način današnjega umetniškega dela (133-37). Razliko ponazori s primerjavo Simona Baylya: »Kar je, recimo, za arhitekta projekt novega muzeja, je le časovno omejena delovna naloga za električarja, ki mora narediti nov alarmni sistem« (135). Kunst ostro kritizira projekt kot temeljni način dela v produkciji kulture in kot način ekonomizacije ter urejanja življenja umetnika, saj ga slednje pravzaprav ločuje od časa, kot ga izkušata družba in skupnost. 17 Sicer ne poznam konkretnih podatkov o tem, koliko časa so se v zadnjih desetletjih igrale predstave, sem pa v Nacionalnem programu za kulturo 2014-2017 na področju uprizoritvenih umetnosti zasledila smernici, ki skušata uravnavati trend več premier-manj ponovitev v institucionalnem gledališču: »[D]o leta 2017 zmanjšati število premier v produkciji NVO za najmanj 20 % in ne povečati števila premier v produkciji javnih zavodov, do leta 2017 povečati obseg postprodukcije na povprečno najmanj 20 ponovitev na produkcijo v produkciji javnih zavodov in najmanj 5 ponovitev na produkcijo v produkciji NVO« (Nacionalni program za kulturo 2014-2017 32). V istem dokumentu je predstavljena statistika za leto 2012, ki beleži 102 premieri in v povprečju 17 ponovitev na premiero v javnih zavodih (prav tam 31). Kostumografi in kostumografinje Najpogostejši odgovor, ki sem ga dobila ob spraševanju, kaj se je najbolj spremenilo pri kostumografiji v času procesa produkcije predstave, je: kostumografska skica. V preteklosti so bile narisane na roko, danes pa si kostumografi pomagajo tudi s tehnologijo in pogosto so skice narejene računalniško. Včasih kostumografi namesto skic oddajo le izrezke iz časopisov ali revij. Najzanimivejša pa sta odgovora, ki omenjata status oziroma položaj, ki so ga uživale kostumografinje. Vodja ženske krojačnice MGL pravi takole: Mogoče je razlika v tem, da so bili kostumografi, takrat gospa [Alenka] Bartlova in [Marija] Kobijeva, bolj cenjeni oziroma so se mogoče počutili bolj cenjeni. Bile so gospe in bili so drugi časi. Vem, da si je gospa Bartlova vedno vzela čas: prišla je, se najprej usedla, popila kavico, dve, pokadila cigaretek, tri, deset, pet, potem smo pa začeli. Že sam začetek procesa je vzel zelo veliko časa, ki ga pa v resnici nismo imeli. Šivilja SNG Nova Gorica se prav tako spominja Alenke Bartl kot gospe, spominja pa se tudi druge kostumografinje, ki tega statusa ni uživala: Močno se spominjam Marije Vidau, ki je bila hišna kostumografinja in šivilja v Trstu. Vedno je prinesla vse stvari iz Trsta, šla je v Rim, šla je na tržnice, v Rimu in v velikih hišah v Milanu se je učila za šiviljo. Vendar je niso spoštovali. Nanjo so gledali drugače kot na Alenko Bartlovo, ki je prišla v krznenem plašču in je imela vedno asistenta. Narisala je skice, v Atelje Drame je nesla pobarvat blago sama ali pa je to storila Meta Severjeva, ki je bila njena asistentka. Bila je gospa. Medtem ko je bila Marija 'una, ki zmerom vlači tiste torbe!'18 Gledališka družina Veliko intervjuvanih je omenilo posebno vrsto odnosa do svojega dela, do gledališča in drugih zaposlenih, ki pa se izgublja. Včasih so čutili, pravijo, večjo povezanost med zaposlenimi in večjo pripadnost gledališču kot takemu. »Vsi delujemo kot ena družina. To je zelo res. Ampak to je bilo mogoče v prejšnjih časih. Ljudje smo zelo nagnjeni govoriti, da je bilo lepše v prejšnjih časih, ampak to izhaja iz moje starosti, ne iz tega, da danes ni lepo. To ljudje mešajo,« pravi garderober SNG Drama Ljubljana. Nadaljuje takole: Ampak ta trenutek družine ni več, razpada - ne zaradi naše skreganosti, ampak ker ni dovolj časa, da bi se stvari delale natančneje, bolj povezovale. Pri delu na predstavah, ki nastajajo dva meseca, si obveščen, poznaš tudi tekst, veš, kdo kaj igra, se pogovarjaš, kostumografi te neprestano obiskujejo, stvari se iščejo, veš torej, kaj hočejo. Danes pri tej hiperprodukciji tega ni, vse to bo izumrlo in družine ne bo več, ker zanjo ni časa. 18 Zanimivo, v svojih spominih Marko Sosič podobno opiše pojavo Marije Vidau: »Roke ima prepolne natrpanih najlonskih vrečk. Z blagom, starimi rekviziti, čipkami in navadnimi cunjami« (67). 248 Zaposleni so bili bolj povezani z gledališko hišo, z njo so živeli: »Nisem hodila v službo sem. Tu živim, sem živela. Takega pristopa najbrž tudi ne bo več. Vsaj ne zdaj, v teh razmerah« (šivilja SNG Nova Gorica). Vodja ženske krojačnice MGL se prav tako spominja časov, ko so zaposleni še živeli z gledališčem, ko so si v službi kuhali kosila ipd.: »Zdi se mi, da sem ob svojem prihodu - tega je že precej let - tu naletela na starejšo generacijo, ki je bila bolj čustveno vezana na teater oziroma so živeli zanj.« Šivilja SNG Nova Gorica se spominja začetkov gledališča, še preden je to dobilo večjo stavbo in postalo nacionalno: Bil je tudi majhen foaje, bolj smo bili kot družina. Ljudje so ostajali po predstavah, več se je družilo, skupaj z igralci. Tudi sama sem bila mlada in gotovo bolj družabna. Tudi igralci so včasih živeli tu [v Novi Gorici, op. MF] in bilo je več pripadnosti teatru. Ljudje so se srečevali po trgovinah. Zdaj je vse odtujeno. Vse je bolj materialistično, ne skrbi se toliko za stvari. Feminizacija poklica Trend zaposlovanja žensk v omenjenih poklicih je v vseh obravnavanih gledališčih skoraj stoodstoten. Če so bili včasih v moški garderobi in v moški krojačnici zaposleni večinoma moški,19 danes ni več tako. Intervjuvana garderoberja se zavedata, da sta med zadnjimi. Za primer feminizacije poklica tako v garderobi kot v kostumskih delavnicah sem zaradi dostopnosti podatkov vzela MGL. Trenutno je tam v garderobi zaposlenih pet oseb, v krojaških delavnicah pa štiri, vse so ženske. Podatki za obdobje med letoma 1950 in 2001 kažejo na bolj raznoliko sestavo: v vseh teh letih je bilo zaposlenih devet garderoberk in sedem garderoberjev, v šivalnicah pa deset žensk in sedem moških.20 Feminizacija poklica je zagotovo slab trend, saj to pomeni nižje plačilo, manj cenjeno delo in njegovo stereotipizacijo. Patriarhalna ureditev družbe se kaže tudi v koncentraciji žensk v t. i. »ženskih« poklicih, ki so pravzaprav nadaljevanje domačih opravil, kot je skrb za druge (poklici v zdravstvu, šolstvu in storitvenih dejavnostih) (»Ali so 'družinske kraljice'« 85). Še posebej pri garderobnem delu bi lahko rekli, da gre za vrsto »gospodinjskega dela«, ki je tradicionalno prihranjeno za ženske. Arhiv MGL ima tudi podatke, katera dela so njihovi zaposleni opravljali v gledališču, in tako izvemo, da so na primer štiri ženske, ki so bile zaposlene kot garderoberke, na neki točki opravljale tudi delo snažilke, šepetalke in šivilje. Medtem ko so moški 19 Iztok Vadnjal se spominja, da sta včasih moško garderobo vodila dva garderoberja in da se je z njunim odhodom spolna delitev podrla. V soglasju z igralci so na mesto garderoberja sprejeli žensko. 20 Od devetih garderoberk sta dve imeli naziv garderoberka - vodja, prav tako sta dva od sedmih garderoberjev imela naziv garderober - vodja. Gledališče je zaposlovalo deset žensk, ki so zasedale naslednja delovna mesta: šivilja, šivilja - vodja, šivilja modelarka, šivilja modelarka - vodja, krojačica, krojačica modelarka, krojačica modelarka - vodja, vodja ženske krojačnice in vajenka v ženski krojačnici. Moški pa krojač, krojač - vodja, krojač modelar - vodja, vodja moške krojačnice (Klabus Vesel 151-62). garderoberji pred ali po delu v gledališču opravljali tipično »moške« poklice, kot so 249 vratar ali vodja predstave. Spolna stereotipizacija je v tehničnih službah gledališč popolna. Poenostavljeno rečeno: scenski tehniki, ki prenašajo težke scenske elemente, so moški, garderoberke pa so ženske, ki likajo in perejo. Gre torej za močan vzorec patriarhalne delitve dela, ki se odraža v horizontalni segregaciji ujemanja spola in poklica. Tako je delo scenskega tehnika maskuliniziran poklic, delo v maskirnicah, garderobah, šivalnicah in krojačnicah pa feminiziran. Poleg neformalnih razlogov in družbenih vzorcev je vprašanje plače zagotovo dejavnik, ki vpliva na izbiro poklica, saj ženske zavzemajo večino nižje plačanih delovnih mest. Celotno področje kostumografije (z izjemo čevljarskih delavnic), ne samo znotraj institucij, ampak tudi med samozaposlenimi, je feminizirano. Razvid samozaposlenih v kulturi iz leta 2017 kaže, da je med kostumografi 87,5 % žensk in 12,5 % moških.21 Plačilni razred Spolna sestava je v veliki meri definirana tudi s plačilom. Slednje je močno povezano z ugledom poklica, zanimanjem zanj in z motivacijo zaposlenih. Zaposlovanje tehničnega osebja v gledališču spada pod javni sektor in je financirano iz državnega proračuna. Od vseh intervjuvancev so garderoberji najnižje plačani. Eden izmed sogovornikov o plačilnem razredu razmišlja takole: V Sloveniji je samo 20 garderoberjev. Zgodila se je velika krivica, ker so nas dali na seznam J, to je najslabše plačano delo, in kategorizirali so nas kot scenski garderober. [...] Krivica se bila storjena s prevedbo plač, za urejanje tega do zdaj nihče ni imel posluha.22 Mislim, da bi se o tem morali pomeniti direktorji, saj nas je garderoberjev samo še 20, jutri bo to tako ali tako samo še servis, ne bo več tega osebnega stika. Jaz sem verjetno še zadnji moški garderober, potem bomo izumrli. Ekonomska degradacija poklica pomeni tudi njegov razvrednotenje v servis, zato nadaljuje: »Če se izgubi ta intimni stik z igralcem, se izgubi zelo pomembna vez v gledališču, saj servis nikoli ne more biti intimen. Mislim, da ni vseeno, ali te pride preoblačit nekdo iz servisa.« Tudi šivilja SNG Nova Gorica govori o svoji izkušnji: »Ko sem šla iz Ideala v gledališče za šiviljo, sem imela tu enkrat višjo plačo kot v Idealu. Z 260.000 dinarjev sem prišla na 440.000. Zdaj pa je šivilja v gledališču dosti slabše plačana kot pri kateremkoli zasebniku.« Ob rob izjavam intervjuvancev navajam še izjavo Andreja Jelačina, direktorja PDG v letih 21 Med skupaj 48 je 42 žensk in šest moških. 22 Omenja prevedbo plač v javnem sektorju leta 2008, ki je dvignila kar nekaj prahu. To na konkretnem primeru SNG Nova Gorica opaža tudi Tomaševič Barič (49): »Izraziti kadrovski problemi so se zgodili leta 2008, ko je bil uveden nov plačni sistem, zaradi katerega je, predvsem tehnično osebje, utrpelo precejšnje znižanje plač, kar gotovo ni prispevalo k dobrim odnosom in zadovoljstvu v kolektivu.«. 250 1962-1968, ko je bilo gledališče v težki finančni situaciji (Jevnikar 2013). V intervjuju z Evo Tomaševic Barič pove: »Potem je nekaj časa gostovanja organiziral Sergej Ferrari: po njegovo je bila za večerjo 'pašta šuta', ko je bilo po moje, rižota. To je bila znana stvar. Te skromne skupne večerje so ogromno pomenile. Vsi smo bili enaki: direktor, igralci, garderoberka ... Znotraj kolektiva nisem imel konfliktov: moja plača je bila v primerjavi z garderoberkino 2 : 1. Kakšne pa so danes?« (78). Velike razlike v plačah so tako med zaposlenimi v gledališču kot tudi v odnosu do kostumografinj. Te v gledališču prejmejo honorar,23 ki je precej višji od plač omenjenih zaposlenih, a jih vseeno postavlja v položaj, da morajo hkrati opravljati več projektov in se nenehno dogovarjati za nove. Kostumografinje so v povsem drugem socialnem položaju kot njihove »sodelavke« iz šivalnice ali garderobe, saj spadajo v t. i. kreativni razred: pogosto so samozaposlene, živijo od honorarnega dela, ki je prekarno in negotovo (prim. Smolarska, »Institutional Gastroscopy«). Kostumski fundus v gledališču Posebno pozornost sem namenila fundusu, ki je nepogrešljivi del tako gledališke hiše kot kostumografske prakse. V skladišču za kostume ali fundusu se shranjujejo kostumi odigranih predstav, a to ni njegova edina funkcija. Tu so še interna in zunanja izposoja, stik z gledališčem, izobraževala funkcija, arhivska funkcija in funkcija varčevanja. Vodstvo gledališča pogosto prepoznava le slednjo; pa tudi sicer ga ne skrbi za fundus, vanj ne vlaga, ga ne ureja in ne prepoznava potenciala, ki ga nosi. Tako na primer nobeno gledališče nima več delovnega mesta, namenjenega samo delu v fundusu. Kostum je neka vrednost v gledališču, pravi šivilja SNG Nova Gorica. S tem se nedvomno strinjam: tako za zaposlene kot tudi za kostumografe je fundus neprecenljiva vrednost, ki pa se ureja sporadično in glede na interes zaposlenih, torej je prepuščena osebnemu angažmaju zaposlenih, kar je razvidno iz stanja, v katerem so ti prostori. Delovanje fundusa Skrb za fundus je odvisna od vsakega gledališča posebej in je povezana z njegovo lokacijo. V SNG Drama Ljubljana, SNG Maribor24 in MGL, kjer so fundusi v isti hiši, zanje skrbijo garderoberji. V SNG Nova Gorica za fundus skrbijo šivilje, saj je na isti dislocirani enoti kot šivalnica, v SLG Celje pa zadnjih pet let za fundus prav tako skrbita šivilji, in sicer zaradi dopoldanskega delovnega urnika. Kostumi so v fundusu običajno razdeljeni po spolu, vrsti oblačila, nekje pa tudi po stilu ali po obdobju. 23 Področje ni urejeno s kolektivno pogodbo, o honorarjih se dogovarjajo individualno, kar omogoča precejšne razlike tudi med kostumografinjami. 24 V tej gledališki hiši za čevlje v fundusu skrbita čevljarja. Šivilja SLG Celje takole opiše ustaljeno prakso v fundusu: »Malo ga pospravimo, zložimo, drugače pa vse ostaja isto. Poskrbimo, da imamo stilne kostume, ki nam nekaj pomenijo, na povsem ločenem mestu.« Spominja se tudi slabe izkušnje s takim urejanjem, ko je vodstvo odredilo številčenje obešalnikov. Ponovilo se je nerazumevanje prakse dela v šivalnicah oziroma garderobah, in ta sistem seveda nikoli ni zaživel. V SNG Drama Ljubljana imajo že vsa leta fundus, ki je, ko je bil še v zgradbi Gledališkega ateljeja, tudi pogorel. Manjši del fundusa imajo v hiši, del pa na dislocirani enoti v skladišču. Potrebujejo ga zaradi velike količine kostumov, ki jih hranijo: »Že vsa ta leta trdim, da je treba vse shranjevati. Tudi zadnjega klošarja, mogoče pa ga bomo kdaj potrebovali. Ni vedno mogoče dobiti fraka, ki je videti znošen, kot da je od sto let starega dedka. Lahko ga sicer patiniraš in tako naprej, ampak ne bo videti enako. Zato so neki izrabljeni čevlji, ki jih najdeš v fundusu, zate pravi biserček« (Garderober SNG Drama Ljubljana). SNG Maribor je fundus večkrat selil in pri tem je bil del seveda uničen. Včasih so zaposlovali osebo, ki je skrbela zanj, vendar so delovno mesto ukinili, ko so krčili zaposlovanje. Nekdanji garderober pravi: »Zato pa govorim, da bi se človek moral spet vrniti v fundus vsaj za štiri ure, ravno za to se borimo. Poleg tega kostume posojamo ven.« Svojega tedanjega dela se spominja takole: »Izposoja kostumov, označevanje, delo s krojači, šiviljami in kostumografi. Pospravil sem, ko so odšli, saj je vedno ostalo še kaj. Vse sem dajal v izposojo: društvom, šolam, zasebnikom, posameznikom in tako.« Poleg manka zaposlenih kot glavni problem fundusa navede tudi manko prostora. Poznavanje fundusa je vrlina, ki se jo zaposleni naučijo skozi leta, a za njegovo profesionalno uporabo sta potrebna čas in interes. Med vsemi intervjuvanci pri svojem delu s fundusom zagotovo izstopata šivilja SNG Nova Gorica in garderober iz Maribora. Slednji pove takole: »Včasih sem v fundusu miže prepoznal kostum. Miže! Pa smo tudi skrbeli za dramo, opero in balet. Danes ne. Danes, priznam, ne moreš vedeti vsega. Tudi za čevlje sem skrbel. Danes je za čevlje čevljar.« Podobno pravi šivilja SNG Nova Gorica: Mislim, da bi bilo s tem fundusom mogoče kaj narediti, če bi imeli človeka, ki bi bil zanj zadolžen. Dobro poznam fundus in vem, kje je kakšen kos. Zakaj to vem, se tudi sama sprašujem. Pri delu z amaterji hodim ves popoldan med kostumi, imam neko zamisel in vem, kaj bi rada, in potem hodim, da vidim, kje je. Večkrat moraš videti. Potrebuješ človeka, ki dela. Nič ti ne pomaga, če kostumografu ne moreš ponuditi kostumov. Nekateri kostumografi tudi ne želijo iti v fundus. Z uporabo fundusa smo dostikrat prihranili denar. Poleg tega, da danes ni več delovnega mesta, ki bi bilo namenjeno samo skrbi za fundus, se je spremenil tudi odnos do kostumov v njem. S tem v zvezi je bila včasih zelo pomembna inventura. Spominja se, da je v PDG trajala tudi tri mesece: odločitve so zagovarjali pred tričlansko komisijo, ki je recimo posamezne kose odpisovala. Ta 252 praksa se je po osamosvojitvi opustila, vseeno pa delajo inventuro in vse kostume, ki končajo v fundusu, oštevilčijo. To se je opustilo v večini gledališč. Garderober SNG Maribor pravi takole: »Včasih je obstajal arhiv in kostumi so bili evidentirani. Danes tega več ni, do kostumov se obnašamo, kot bi to bil potrošni material. Vodimo samo knjigo o predstavah.« Ideologija hitre mode ustvarja potrošniško mišljenje, kar se odslikava v odnosu do oblačil tudi v gledališču. Lažje je kupiti novo kot skrbeti za staro. Kostumi so razumljeni kot potrošna, brezvredna roba. Uporaba fundusa in njegove funkcije Najpogostejša uporaba fundusa, poleg hranjenja kostumov, je (notranja ali zunanja) izposoja. Pri prvi gre predvsem za izposojo kostumov z namenom vadbe (torej za kostume, ki jih igralci uporabljajo na vajah, preden dobijo kostum za uprizoritev) in predelave. Vloga »skrbnika« fundusa je tu ključna, saj lahko veliko pripomore k iskanju ustreznih kosov. Kostumograf gre v fundus navadno v spremstvu zaposlenega: »Sami gledajo in kaj povprašajo, pokažejo skice, potem pa tudi mi zraven sodelujemo, saj poznamo kostume« (garderoberka SNG Drama Ljubljana). Zaposleni se lažje znajdejo, če pride kostumografv fundus s skico: »Čisto odvisno, kako je kostumografpripravljen: če ima skice, mu lahko veliko pomagamo. Ne moremo mi sami izbirati, on si je zamislil kostume. Lahko si zamisli čisto drugače, zato je kostumograf« (garderoberka SNG Drama Ljubljana). Fundus se uporablja tudi za potrebe zunajrepertoarnih predstav, ki pa so del dejavnosti gledališča, za kar po navadi večjo odgovornost prevzamejo garderoberji oziroma tisti, ki skrbijo za fundus. Izposoja skupinam in posameznikom zunaj gledališča je nekakšno sivo področje, ki je sicer urejeno z določili in pravilnikom (ponekod tudi s cenikom), vendar je v praksi pogosto stvar dogovora in osebnega poznanstva. »Fundus se uporablja za lastne potrebe, nekaj pa posojamo tudi za dodatni zaslužek, postavili smo minimalno ceno izposoje kostuma. Največ si izposojajo šole, tega jim ne zaračunamo« (šivilja SLG Celje). Zunanja izposoja je zelo pomembna, saj ustvarja stik gledališča z okoljem -za nekatere ljudi celo edini. Kostume si najpogosteje izposojajo društva, amaterske gledališke skupine, šole pa tudi posamezniki. Vloga zaposlenih je pri tem zelo velika, saj poznajo fundus, kostume, zgodovino oblačenja in prakse izposojanja. Še pomembneje pa je, da morajo prepoznati želje izposojevalcev, saj ti pogosto ne vedo natančno, kaj iščejo. Znanje tako preide na izposojevalce, fundus pa nosi izobraževalno vrednost tudi za same zaposlene. Starejša oblačila lahko šiviljam in krojačem pomagajo pri razumevanju tehnologije oblačil: »V fundusu pustim stare stvari tudi, če niso več za na oder, ker greš lahko pogledat, kako je narejeno. Če imaš možnost pogledati, kako so včasih nekaj naredili, lahko to skopiraš. Pri krojačih, ki ne delajo v gledališču, se ta 253 pomanjkljivost vidi. Saj so pridni, ampak je izdelava konfekcije drugačna kot delo za gledališče. Videz je drugačen« (šivilja SNG Nova Gorica). Na novo zaposleni so namreč prvič soočeni s stilnimi ali atipičnimi oblačili in fundus služi kot bazen znanja oziroma knjižnica kostumov tako zanje kot tudi za kostumografe ali zunanje izposojevalce. Vodstvo gleda na fundus predvsem s stališča varčevanja. Nadalje se šivilja SNG Nova Gorica spominja: »Ko so prišla suha leta - 2007, '08, '09, '10 - so se delale skoraj vse predstave samo iz fundusa. Dosti predstav smo pobirali iz fundusa. Je pa res, da tako ne moreš delati vseh predstav. Potrebno je kaj na novo narediti, kaj kupiti.« Vzgib za uporabo starih kostumov v nove namene je pogosto ekonomski: »Čedalje več je predelav, ker se varčuje.« Včasih pa je to posledica estetske odločitve: »Nekatere predstave prav želijo imeti stare kostume. Noben nov kostum ne more biti tako dober, kot je star,« pravi garderoberka SNG Drama Ljubljana. Njena sodelavka doda: »Vse se reciklira. Razen če igralka reče, da bi ta kostum imela še kdaj za vaje ali pa da bi ga uporabljala, ga pospravimo in hranimo samo zanjo.« Arhiviranje Zadnja funkcija fundusa je arhiviranje. Zanimalo me je, ali zaposleni vodijo še kakšen arhiv drugega materiala, povezanega s kostumom. Šivilja SNG Nova Gorica se spominja izobraževanja v Ateljeju Drame, kjer je za arhiv skrbela gospa, ki je risala kostume, zraven pa pripela koščke blaga in opis. Sama je kasneje v PDG vzpostavila prakso vodenja knjige in kartončkov za vsako predstavo, kjer so zabeleženi osnovni podatki uprizoritve in natančen seznam kostumov po igralcih: kaj je bilo kupljeno, na novo zašito ali popravljeno. Skice kostumov je oddala gledališču v arhiv: »Pravilo je bilo, da morajo originalne skice ostati v hiši. To je bilo pred leti, zdaj jih je bolj malo.« Gledališča vodijo svoj uradni arhiv, kamor shranjujejo tudi skice, ki jih morajo kostumografi po pogodbi oddati. Tudi vodja ženske krojačnice MGL pravi, da predaja bolj malo skic: »To se je nekje izgubilo, kostumografi niso hoteli puščati originalnih skic. Rekla sem, da se ne bom več pregovarjala z njimi o tem. [...] Nihče mi ne pušča originalov. Razen Belinde [Radulovic] in mogoče še kakih dveh.« 254 Zaposleni v vlogi kostumografinje Večina intervjuvanih (izvzemši čevljarje) je tudi sama kdaj nastopila v kostumografski vlogi. Za nekatere je to celo redna praksa. Kostumografija je bila velika želja garderoberja SNG Drama Ljubljana: »V Sloveniji v osemdesetih letih ni bilo oddelka za kostumografijo. To sem hotel študirati, ampak nisem želel iti v Beograd, saj sem od tam pobegnil. Tako da sem ne vem koliko sezon delal kostumografijo. Imam tudi svoje samostojne predstave.« Nekateri delajo kostumografije za amaterska gledališka društva, vodja moške krojačnice SNG Maribor pa nastopa tudi v vlogi kostumografinje v tem gledališču. Pobuda je prišla z njene strani in pravi, da ima s tem sicer malo več dela, ampak da si tako širi obzorja. Vse intervjuvanke, ki delajo v šivalnicah in krojačnicah, se poleg dela v gledališču udejstvujejo tudi drugje - na področjih, ki so sicer tesno povezana z gledališčem. Šivajo za prijatelje in družino, različne nastope ali manjše predstave zunaj gledališke hiše, kreirajo kostume in lastne blagovne znamke. Naj poudarim, da se v gledališču pojavlja tudi praksa režiserja, ki nastopa v več vlogah in je podpisan kot scenograf, avtor glasbe, oblikovalec luči ali kostumograf. Sicer intervjuvancev nisem izrecno spraševala o tem, kaj to pomeni za njihov poklic, je pa pogosto tako, da del obveznosti, ki jo sicer nosi kostumografinja, pade na zaposlene. Primer take prakse lahko vidimo v izseku iz intervjuja z Darjo Reichman: »Spominjam se, da sem leta 2008 igrala vlogo Hedde Gabler v istoimenski Ibsenovi drami Hedda Gabler. Režiser in kostumograf je bil Eduard Miller. Dolgo časa med vajami sploh nisem imela kostuma. Nato Eduard enkrat reče garderoberki, naj prinese eno moško srajco. Jaz jo oblečem in obujem zraven čevlje z visoko peto in potem sem celo predstavo nosila ta kostum« (Rahne, »Super je«). Podobno v svojih spominih zapiše režiser in umetniški vodja PDG Marko Sosič, ki omenja eno od intervjuvank: »Podpisujem namreč tudi scenografijo in kostumografijo predstave, čeprav sem zaprosil šiviljo, naj mi ob tem pomaga« (76). Čevljarji Posebnost SNG Maribor je tudi ta, da imajo v hiši čevljarsko delavnico z dvema čevljarjema. Od običajnih čevljarjev se razlikujeta v tem, da večinoma izdelujeta novo obutev in ne le popravljata staro. Čevljarji v gledališču izdelajo celotno obuvalo, ne le posamezni korak. Oba čevljarja sta v gledališču zaposlena že enajsto leto. Eden od njiju je končal šolo v Kranju in nato več let, preden se je zaposlil, občasno pomagal v delavnici v gledališču. Šole za čevljarje danes v Sloveniji ni več, poklic si lahko čevljarji pridobijo le z opravljanjem mojstrskega poklica. Proces njihovega dela s kostumografi je enak tistemu v šivalnicah in krojačnicah: 255 sestanek s kostumografinjo, predaja skic, nabava materiala, izdelava in pomerjanje. Čevljarja v SNG Maribor skrbita tudi za fundus čevljev. Ko kostumograf išče določene čevlje, greš z njim v fundus in mu pomagaš iskati. Takrat vidi tudi druge čevlje in mogoče ne najde prav takih, kot si jih želi, ampak podobne, ki pa so mu še bolj všeč. Kostumografu pomagaš do stvari, veš, kje so pospravljene in kateri igralec ima rajši malo širšo, malo večjo, mogoče višjo, nižjo peto. Svetuješ zato, da delo čim lažje steče, da so tudi igralci čim bolj zadovoljni, da je kostumografu lažje in da smo na koncu zadovoljni vsi. Čevljarsko delo v gledališču otežuje pomanjkanje materialov: »Vemo, v kakšnem stanju je čevljarska industrija pri nas, da ni tovarn, in če ni tovarn, tudi materiala ni na izbiro, kolikor bi ga lahko bilo. Težko je delati, če tega ni.« Čevljarji si pomagajo z recikliranjem odsluženih čevljev iz gledališča. Pri svojem delu potrebujejo manjše količine materiala in se zato ne morejo primerjati s tistimi iz industrijske proizvodnje. Zaključek S člankom sem želela popisati zaodrsko delo zaposlenih, povezanih s procesom nastajanja, nošnje in shranjevanja kostuma. To delo ni le spregledano, ampak tudi nerazumljeno v širši javnosti in, žal, tudi v gledališkem okolju. Kot šiv ni le šiv, tudi šivilja v gledališču le ne šiva, garderoberka le ne pospravlja, temveč vsi ti poklici zahtevajo celostno obravnavo kostumskega procesa, ki vključuje tako kreativno in obrtniško delo kot tudi delo z ljudmi. Na mikro primeru zaposlenih v gledaliških garderobah in krojačnicah sem preverjala dvodelno tezo - o gledališču, ki zanika zaodrje in je vpeto v trenutni ekonomski sistem. Institucionalno gledališče predpostavlja hierarhijo in tudi estetsko temelji na gradnji iluzije, ki zanika zaodrje, kar se odraža v položaju zaposlenih. Prav tako se v odnosu in položaju zaposlenih zrcali delovanje kulture znotraj kapitalizma: ta je odvisna od trga, ne glede na raven financiranja, saj je podrejena ideologiji kapitalizma, ki vedno želi čim hitreje proizvesti vedno več in vedno novo, pri čemer je neenakost edina možnost reprodukcije tega sistema. Prvi del teze utemeljujem z izsledki, da je delo slabo plačano in ni cenjeno. To se pozna v odnosih med zaposlenimi, v odnosu do dela, v odnosu družbe do teh poklicev in v plačnih razmerjih. Še več - pozna se v odnosu do kostumov, ki so po koncu predstave prepuščeni skladiščenju in dobri volji vodstva ter zaposlenih. V zaposlene se ne vlaga -niso deležni ustreznega uvajanja in dodatnega izobraževanja oziroma izpopolnjevanja. Tudi Smolarska opaža, da gledališča nimajo nikakršnega sistema za motivacijo zaposlenih, ne z vidika plačnega sistema ne z vidika organizacije. Pri obravnavi 256 poljskih gledališč izpostavlja posebno nezanimanje kandidatov za prijavo na delovna mesta. Za razliko od »svobodnih« kostumografov zaposleni nimajo možnosti izbirati predstav, pri katerih bodo sodelovali, in ustvarjajo tudi v prostem času - v povezavi s kostumografijo ali šivanjem. Lepilo, ki zaposlene veže z njihovim delom, je odnos do gledališča oziroma do dela v gledališču, ki pa je odvisen od družbenih sprememb. Več zaposlenih je namreč omenilo močnejšo povezanost z delom in gledališčem v prejšnji družbeni ureditvi. Drugi del teze postavlja (omenjeno) delo v gledališču v bližino kapitalizma, tako po organizaciji delovnega procesa kot po umetniškem delu samem. Delo obravnavanih zaposlenih je namreč pogojeno in odvisno od kostumografov in kostumografinj - od tega, kar slednji prinesejo v njihovo okolje, na primer zamisli, kreacije, način dela, organizacija dela - način pridobivanja kostumov pa neposredno vpliva na način dela zaposlenih. Načinov sodobne proizvodnje zaposleni ne prevzemajo samo prek institucije, katere del so, ampak tudi prek umetnikov, s katerimi so nenehno v stiku. Torej so podvrženi istemu kot kostumografi: oblikam sodobnega dela. Indikatorji postfordističnega načina dela v gledališčih so: najemanje zunanjih izvajalk (za krojenje in šivanje kostumov, ki so potrebni pri določeni predstavi, ali samo za delo, ki ga zaposleni zaradi obremenjenosti niso zmožni opraviti ali je zaradi pomanjkanja tehničnega znanja prezahtevno), zaposlene v šivalnicah in krojačnicah vse pogosteje delajo na polizdelkih (popravljajo torej oblačila, kupljena v trgovini), prezasedenost zaposlenih in njihova nepovezanost s procesom nastajanja predstave - vse bolj so izvajalke, ne pa sodelavke. Produkcij in spremljevalnih dogodkov je vse več, zato morajo biti zaposlene učinkovitejše, manj časa je na voljo tudi v procesu nastajanja predstav - slednje so tudi manj predpripravljene, zato se od zaposlenih pričakuje večja prilagodljivost hitrim spremembam. Tudi pri razumevanju funkcije fundusa je očitno, da odsluženi kostumi nimajo vrednosti, vodstva vidijo predvsem ekonomsko vrednost fundusa (varčevanje pri predstavah in zaračunavanje izposoje). Za konec naj omenim, da je zaposlenih v omenjenih službah v Sloveniji zelo malo. Ko sem jih intervjuvala, sem ugotovila, da imajo zelo podobne izkušnje in razmišljanja, mnogi pa se med seboj sploh ne poznajo. Garderoberska služba se od tiste v krojačnicah in šivalnicah razlikuje po tem, da garderoberji na gostovanja potujejo skupaj z nastopajočimi in imajo tako možnost spoznati zaposlene v drugih gledališčih, njihovo okolje, način dela. Krojačice in šivilje pa te možnosti nimajo in so pri težkih nalogah ali zagatah prepuščene samim sebi. Zaposlene, ki opravljajo poklice, ki jih učijo v šolah, za svoje delo nimajo dovolj podpore, in čeprav je to delo rezultat unikatnega znanja, izkušenj, iznajdljivosti in osebnega angažmaja, ni cenjeno ter se z odhajanjem generacij izgublja. Tako se zmanjšuje možnost povezovanja zaposlenih in izgublja tudi del zgodovine gledališča. Literatura 257 Bakal, Ivana. »Sto godina hrvatske scenografije i kostumografije (1909.-2009).« Sto godina hrvatske scenografije i kostumografije (1909.-2009), ur. Ivana Bakal. ULUPUH, 2011, str. 12-21. Gledališki terminološki slovar. Založba ZRC SAZU, 2007. »Jevnikar, Martin, in Andrej Jelačin.« Slovenska biografija. Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU, 2013, www.slovenska-biografija.si/oseba/sbi1012700/#primorski-slovenski-biografski-leksikon. Dostop 12. 1. 2018. Izvirna objava v: Primorski slovenski biografski leksikon, 7. snopič, 1. knjiga, ur. Martin Jevnikar, Goriška Mohorjeva družba, 1981. Kanjuo Mrčela, Aleksandra. »Ali so 'družinske kraljice' lahko tudi 'šefice'?« Ko odgrneš sedem tančic, ur. Marija Cigale, Društvo Iniciativa, 1992, str. 77-87. Klabus Vesel, Alenka. 50 let MGL I. Eseji, potrteti, seznami. Mestno gledališče Ljubljansko, 2001. Kravos, Bogomila. Aplavz Tržaškemu gledališkemu ansamblu iz let 1945-1965. Založništvo tržaškega tiska, 2017. Kunst, Bojana. Umetnik na delu: bližina umetnosti in kapitalizma. Maska, 2012. Lederer, Ana. »Hrvatska scenografija - sto godina umjetničke raznolikosti.« Sto godina hrvatske scenografije i kostumografije (1909.-2009), ur. Ivana Bakal. ULUPUH, 2011, str. 22-66. Lukan Blaž. »Gledališče in disciplina.« O nevzvišenem v gledališču, ur. Alenka Bogovič in Barbara Pušic, KUD France Prešeren/CTF AGRFT, 1997, str. 95-126. Maclaurin, Ali, in Aoife Monks. Costume. Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. Monks, Aoife. »In Defense of Craft: A manifesto.« Scene, letn. 2, št. 1-2, 2014, str. 175-178. Nacionalni program za kulturo 2014-2017. 2013, www.mk.gov.si/fileadmin/mk.gov. si/pageuploads/Ministrstvo/Drugo/novice/NET.NPK.pdf. Dostop 5. 3. 2018. Opera SNG. Pogodba o honorarnem angažmaju. 21. 4. 1960. Arhiv Slovenskega gledališkega inštituta, personalna mapa Marije Jarc. Pavček, Tone. »Pionirska doba Mladinskega gledališča.« Ali je prihodnost že prišla? Petdeset let Slovenskega mladinskega gledališča, ur. Tomaž Toporišič, Barbara Skubic idr., 2007, str. 49-59. Polanyi, Michael. The Tacit Dimension, University of Chicago P, 2009. Pušic, Barbara. »Umetniki, bohemi, marginalci, izseljenci. Življenje igralcev na Slovenskem ob prelomu stoletja.« O nevzvišenem v gledališču, ur. Alenka Bogovič in Barbara Pušic, KUD France Prešeren/CTF AGRFT, 1997, str. 69-94. 258 Rahne, Alma. 2017. »'Super je, če se vloga zlije s kostumom'.« 24ur.com, 6. okt. 2017, www.24ur.com/ekskluziv/domaca-scena/trgovska-sredisca-novodobna-svetisca. html. Dostop 5. 12. 2017. »Razpis za prosto delovno mesto.« SNG Drama Ljubljana, 2016, www.drama.si/_ files/5751/Razpis_garderober_ 2016_www.pdf. Dostop 12. 12. 2017. »Razpis za prosto delovno mesto J035058 Scenski garderober - vodja (m/ž).« SNG Drama Ljubljana, 4. jun. 2010, www.drama.si/novice/1168. Dostop 12. 12. 2017. »Razvid samozaposlenih v kulturi.« Ministrstvo za kulturo Republike Slovenije, 2017, www.mk.gov.si/fileadmin/mk.gov.si/pageuploads/Ministrstvo/ Razvidi/razvid_ samozaposlenih_v_kulturi/2017/samozaposleni_za_splet_121217.pdf. Dostop 12. 12. 2017. Slovensko narodno gledališče Ljubljana. Odločba. 1. 12. 1963. Arhiv Slovenskega gledališkega inštituta, personalna mapa Marije Jarc. Smolarska, Zofia. »Institutional Gastroscopy: Publicly Funded Theatre in Poland, Diagnosed by Its Craftspeople.« Polish Theatre Journal, 1-2, 2017, www. polishtheatrejournal.com/index.php/ptj/article/view/93/620. Dostop 18. 8. 2018. Sosič, Marko. Tisoč dni, dvesto noči: Moj čas v Primorskem dramskem gledališču. Branko, 1996. Taylor, Madeline. 2017. »The mechanics of creative collaboration: Technician, designer and the costume realisation process.« Neobjavljen članek z raziskovalnega seminarja Thinking Costume, Scenofest, World Stage Design Taipei. Terkman, Borut. »Alenka Bartl: življenje med kostumi in - kostumi.« Alenka Bartl, kostumografka, ur. Francka Slivnik, Slovenski gledališki muzej, 2012, str. 5-14. Tomaševic Barič, Eva. Novogoriško gledališče od amaterskih začetkov do gledališča nacionalnega pomena. FDV, 2016. Intervjuji Garderober SNG Maribor. Osebni intervju. Maribor, 31. 5. 2017. Čevljar 1 in 2 SNG Maribor. Osebni intervju. Maribor, 31. 5. 2017. Garderober SNG Drama Ljubljana. Osebni intervju. Ljubljana, 26. 5. 2017. Šivilja SLG. Osebni intervju. Celje, 23. 5. 2017. Garderoberka SNG Drama Ljubljana. Osebni intervju. Ljubljana, 26. 5. 2017. Garderoberka 2 SNG Drama Ljubljana. Osebni intervju. Ljubljana, 26. 5. 2017. Vodja moške krojačnice SNG Maribor. Osebni intervju. Maribor, 31. 5. 2017. Šivilja SNG Nova Gorica. Osebni intervju. Solkan, 9. 6. in 6. 11. 2017. 259 Vodja ženske krojačnice MGL. Osebni intervju. Ljubljana, 16. 5. 2017. Bizjak, Petra. Osebna komunikacija, 22. 1. 2018. Kavčič, Alan. Osebna komunikacija, 31. 1. 2018. Vadnjal, Iztok. Osebna komunikacija, 15. 1. 2018. "A Seam is not a Seam" 261 The Role and Meaning of the Work of Seamstresses, Tailors, Dressers and Shoemakers in Slovenian Institutional Theatre Keywords: costume, tailors, dressers, seamstress, costume design, institutional theatre The theatrical costume differs from everyday clothing. Accordingly, the way it is made and maintained is part of a special process of theatrical creativity. The aim of this article is to list the backstage activities related to the process of creation, use and storage of costumes, namely, the work that is not only overlooked, but also disregarded in the wider public and, unfortunately, also in the theatrical environment. A seam is not just a seam. Likewise, the seamstress in theatre does not only sew and the dresser does not only take care of the costumes. On the contrary, these professions demand an integrated approach to the costume-making process. This includes both creativity and skill as well as a touch for working with people. The article is based on interviews conducted with ten seamstresses, tailors, dressers and shoemakers employed in five Slovenian theatres. I was interested in the stories and opinions of people involved in the making and the life of a costume; from its inception to its use and "retirement". This article thus touches upon nearly all areas in which these theatre employees are involved: from the working space to the interpretation of the sketches, the making of the costumes, communication with the costume designers, and the learning process, to salary grades, maintenance of the costume storage, and archiving. My aim was to explore how the working process and the role of the costume changed during the course of my interviewees' lives, how the present approaches to costume design differ from past ones, what is their attitude toward the costumes and performances, what is their perception of the work they do, and whether and how they preserve the sketches, materials and costumes from past performances. I was interested in all aspects of the life of a theatrical costume in relation to the work done by the theatre employees; not only in the operative part of their tasks, but primarily in how they perceive their work. The large part of the article records the changes in their work. Organised into 262 levels, they include the changes on the micro level (fabrics and materials, sewing practices and/or shopping), on the level of theatre organisation (the artists'/costume designers' ways of working, work organisation, number of performances), on the level of the performance-production process, and on the macro level (the changes of the economic-political system). Special attention is given to costume storage, an indispensable segment of any theatrical house as well as costume-design practice. Costume storage entails the storing of costumes from staged performances, but this is not its sole function. Storage also provides stock for internal and external rentals and serves educational, archival and economic functions. The detection and analysis of the hierarchies in institutional theatre present the central interpretative axis of the article: in short, how does the current socio-economical model of neoliberal capitalism shape the processes, relations and working modes within institutional theatre. An inherent feature of institutional theatre is hierarchy, both on the level of structure as well as performances, which develops in this type of theatre and which is, as its product, inevitably caught in the mentioned hierarchies. The discussed professions are poorly paid and unappreciated. This is reflected in the relations between the employees, in their relation to the work, in the society's relation towards these professions, as well as in wage ratios. Even more so, it is reflected in the relation toward the costumes, which are, after the productions have run their courses, left to storage and the good will of the management and the employees. The mentioned professions are underinvested - they lack adequate introductory as well as further training and are not provided continuous professional development. The number of productions and accompanying events is continually increasing; as a result, the employees have to find ways to be more efficient, while the creation processes are shorter and shorter - since the performances are not prepared in advance as they could be, the employees are expected to quickly adjust to the changes within the processes. In terms of the organisation of work, the theatres are introducing outsourcing, there are instances of compressed production schedules, the number of performances and events is increasing, while the role and the importance of those working in the workshops is decreasing. This kind of flexible, mobile, performative, simultaneous and unstable work is characteristic of the postFordist mode of production. Theatre employees in institutional theatres are subjected to this indirectly; through the practices introduced into their working environment by the artists with whom they collaborate and by the management that defines the workflow. Translated by Katja Kosi Recenzija / Book Review 266 Teoretizirano zgodovinjenje avantgard Tomaž Toporišič, tomaz.toponsic@agrft.uni-lj.si Aleš Erjavec. Heteronomija umetnosti in avantgard. Spremna beseda Miško Šuvakovic, Maska, 2017. Tudi najnovejša knjiga enega najbolj pronicljivih interpretov sodobne politizirane umetnosti in njenih navezav na zgodovinske avantgarde 20. stoletja Aleša Erjavca se vrača in hkrati na novo osvetljuje in interpretira umetniške avantgarde. Avtor v njej nadaljuje svoje raziskave, zbrane v knjigah O estetiki, umetnosti in ideologiji: študije o francoskem marksizmu (1983), Estetika in epistemologija: eseji in razprave (1984), Ideologija in umetnost modernizma (1988), Estetika in kritična teorija (1995) in Ljubezen na zadnji pogled: avantgarda, estetika in konec umetnosti (2004). Erjavca vedno zanimajo predvsem specifike umetniških avantgard, od italijanskega futurizma do ruskega konstruktivizma in slovenske zgodovinske avantgarde. Hkrati pa tudi odnos teh avantgard do modernizma. Vedno znova, a vsakokrat nekoliko drugače, se vrača k vprašanju razmerja med umetnostjo in politiko, ki se dotika tudi teme političnega gledališča in njegovih meja. Razmerje med zgodovinskimi umetniškimi avantgardami in politiko zelo natančno raziskuje tudi skozi razmerje med italijanskim futurizmom in fašizmom. Tudi v svoji najnovejši knjigi Erjavec kontekstualizira svoje kontinuirano zanimanje za umetniške avantgarde, ki jih poveže z enim najbolj inovativnih področij svojih raziskav: obdobjem poznega 20. stoletja, ko je na različnih koncih sveta nastala specifična politizirana umetnost, ki je bila značilna za bivše ali še vedno obstoječe socialistične dežele. Takšna umetnost se je pojavila v deželah, ki so segale od Slovenije prek nekaterih delov bivše Jugoslavije do Rusije, Kitajske, Kube itd. To ugotovitev tokrat raziskuje tudi v petem poglavju knjige Heteronomija umetnosti in avantgard, ko se navezuje na svoje sistematične raziskave in primerjave umetniške produkcije v Vzhodni Evropi, na Kubi in na Kitajskem predvsem iz osemdesetih let. Njegova osnovna teza, ki jo je uspešno uveljavil v mednarodnem prostoru in je zelo pomembna za uveljavljanje sodobne vizualne (pa tudi uprizoritvene) umetnosti na področju Slovenije, je, da je kontekst razkroja socializma v bivših socialističnih državah proizvedel specifično vizualno in čezmedijsko umetnost. Ta je na prvi pogled spominjala na sočasni zahodni postmodernizem, a je hkrati vsebovala specifične značilnosti, ki jih na zahodu ne najdemo: močna politizacija, poudarjena uporaba ideološkega in političnega diskurza ter simbolov in posebna vrsta nadidentifikacije ter parataktičnosti, »ki se je v temelju razlikovala od modernističnih disidentskih 267 nastopov«. Če je to tezo najodmevneje uveljavil v knjigi-zborniku, ki jo je leta 2003 izdal v ZDA in naslovil Postmodernism and the Postsocialist Condition: Politicized Art under Late Socialism, se v najnovejši knjigi vrača k raziskavam avantgard kot posebne »magme, iz katere se nato rojeva vsakovrstna umetnost, ki konča kot del tradicije umetnosti, in to tudi tedaj, ko prične svojo pot kot njeno nasprotje«. Prva tri poglavja prinašajo nekatere nove uvide v zgodovinjenje avantgarde. Prvo se ukvarja s heteronomijo skozi obravnavo ruskega konstruktivizma, ki ga prikaže tudi v njegovi zgodovinski umestitvi. Tako pokaže prepletenost konstruktivizma in komunističnega gibanja, pri čemer umetniška avantgarda k politični prispeva predvsem »estetsko komponento«. Ruski umetniški konstruktivizem (ki je, mimogrede povedano, pomembno vplival tudi na slovensko zgodovinsko avantgardo od Černigoja, Delaka do Kosovela) si je tako prizadeval, da bi materializiral »svojo vizijo napredka, enotnosti in skrajne prekinitve s preteklostjo«. Ruska avantgarda si je torej prizadevala povezati umetniške (Jacques Rancière bi rekel estetske) in družbene revolucije. Erjavec zelo lepo prikaže, kako je druga faza konstruktivističnega gibanja po oktobrski revoluciji umetnost iztrgala iz njene relativne apolitičnosti ter prvo fazo »formalističnega konstruktivizma« zamenjala s pravo estetsko revolucijo. Ena od tez, ki jih Erjavec izpostavi v knjigi, je, da se avantgardna umetnost odvrne od »čiste« umetnosti tudi tako, da si prizadeva za zlitje umetnosti in industrije, umetnika pa razume kot »umetnika-konstruktorja«, umetnika in tehnika. Pot ruskega konstruktivizma je tako v političnem smislu vodila od anarhističnih tendenc k proletarskemu ali komunističnemu konstruktivizmu. V primeru ruskih umetniških avantgard smo po mnenju Aleša Erjavca, ki ga v knjigi razvija kot eno bistvenih tez za avantgardno umetnost kot celoto, soočeni z dvema ključnima možnostma: »z asimilacijo heteronomne avantgardne umetnosti v institucijo umetnosti ali v kulturno industrijo«. Heteronomne umetniške avantgarde so tako razdvojene in mejne: poskušajo biti politično učinkovite, se odmakniti od avtonomije in čiste umetnosti, po drugi strani pa skušajo biti tudi politične, a se pri tem izogniti nevarnosti, da bi se prelevile v politično propagando. Erjavec je prepričan, da je umetnost vedno na določen način politična, toda v kontekstu heteronomije umetniških avantgard je prepričan, da je treba razlikovati med politično umetnostjo, ki »se nanaša na politično izjavo«, in pa politizirano umetnostjo, ki bi jo bilo mogoče v največji meri misliti v navezavi na italijanski futurizem in ruski konstruktivizem. Politizirana umetnost posreduje politično izjavo tako, da posega v »življenje« in proizvaja politična stališča ter politična dejanja. Skozi primerjavo futurizma in kubizma Erjavec pokaže tudi na razliko med 268 »izrazito politično radikalno avantgardo« in »umetniško radikalno avantgardo«. Drugo poglavje knjige, »Dve avantgardni deli«, prinaša prehod od splošnih vprašanj heteronomije umetniških avantgard h konkretnim primerom in njihovi podrobni analizi: Tatlinov Spomenik III. internacionali ter plakat Bij bele z rdečim klinom Ela Lissitzkega. Tretje poglavje, »Revolucija in avantgardna gibanja«, še dodatno dopolnjuje pojem heteronomije tako, da se osredotoči na pomen in rabo pojma revolucija ter hkrati vzpostavi diferenciacijo socialne in politične revolucije. Uvede tudi nekatere nove poudarke v interpretacijah kulturne revolucije. Pri tem sam pojem umetniške revolucije Erjavec še dodatno členi na umetniško revolucijo ter na umetniško revolucioniranje preko preoblikovanja. Vzporedno s tem se dogaja tudi diferenciacija politične in umetniške avantgarde, ki jo vidi skozi dva cilja: »[C]ilj politične avantgarde je uresničevati socialno-politično revolucijo, medtem ko je cilj politizirane umetniške avantgarde uresničevati estetsko [...] revolucijo, ki spremeni ne le umetniške sloge, pač pa tudi načine, na katere dojemamo svet.« Pojmoma politične in umetniške revolucije doda še pojem estetska revolucija, ki mu sledi in ga nekoliko modificira na osnovi sledenja estetiki, točneje obdobju romantične filozofije Schillerja in Friedricha Schlegla. Estetsko revolucijo naveže na italijanski futurizem, ki mu tokrat dodaja analizo odnosa med futurizmom in boljševizmom s pomočjo vzporedne analize italijanskega in ruskega futurizma. Tako postavi tezo, da je prav italijanski fašizem v veliki meri črpal iz idej futurizma in njegovega ključnega predstavnika - Marinettija. Peto poglavje knjige se premakne po časovnici 20. stoletja k njegovemu zadnjemu delu, geografsko pa v prostore postsocializma. Erjavec ugotavlja, da je bilo v sedemdesetih in osemdesetih letih med deželami vzhodne in srednje Evrope »le malo kulturne interakcije ali vpliva, tako da je bila umetnost, o kateri govorim, zvečine avtohtonega porekla. Kar je imela skupnega, so bile podobne kulturne značilnosti, ideološki pogoji in zgodovinski okvir: socialistična ikonografija, komunistična ideologija, pogosta slabitev socialistične države, privilegirana vloga, pripisana umetnosti in kulturi, in politizacija umetnosti.« Umetnost pa je po tem, ko so izginile družbenopolitične okoliščine, na katere se je neposredno nanašala, postala izvozno blago in del poblagovljene kulture. To dejstvo Erjavec pripisuje še enemu zanimivemu dejstvu, ki ga izpostavi, namreč, da se je ta umetnost »lahko uvrstila na trg šele tedaj, ko so komunistični simboli in gesla, ki so tako pogosto predstavljali pomembne vsebine tovrstnih del, izgubili svoj ideološki in politični pomen ter težo«. To umetnost vidi v okvirjih postmoderne politizirane umetnosti časa, v katerem je nastajala: »Glavne značilnosti te umetnosti so bile: izrazita uporaba postmodernih tehnik in postopkov; specifična zvrst politične kritike, ki spominja na parodijo; vpeljava in enakovredna uporaba narodne umetniške in 269 kulturne preteklosti [...]; eklekticizem; mimikrija avantgardne umetnosti, vendar pod post- ali transavantgardnimi pogoji.« Zadnja poglavja knjige prinašajo nove Erjavčeve prispevke k teoriji in estetiki avantgarde ter sodobne vizualne umetnosti. V poglavju »Pojavne oblike in pogoji umetnosti« se ukvarja s produkcijskim kontekstom umetnosti sodobnosti, razvije zanimivo analizo zahodnega, globalnega ali hegemoničnega umetniškega sveta in neoliberalizma. Analizira tudi proces zmanjševanja vloge nacionalnih držav, hkrati pa tudi razvoja tega, kar danes radi poimenujejo s pojmom kulturne industrije in odmika držav od »mecenskega« sofinanciranja kulture. Podrobneje se posveti umetnosti devetdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja kot naslednici postmodernizma in dokončnemu uveljavljenju globalne umetnosti. Ta je po njegovem mnenju »sodobna in v duhu postkolonialna, zato jo vodi namen nadomestiti središča in obrobja hegemonske modernosti in terja tudi svobodo od privilegija zgodovine«. Izhajajoč iz Arthurja C. Danta zaključi, da se nahajamo v času, ki ga zaznamujeta predvsem krilatici svet umetnosti in institucionalne teorije umetnosti ter bi ga lahko poimenovali s pojmom postzgodovinska umetnost. Izhajajoč iz teorije Terryja Smitha, ki jo reinterpretira, umetnost v globaliziranem svetu sicer še vedno nosi v sebi klice modernosti, a se od nje vseeno bistveno razlikuje, saj uveljavlja plodno sedanjost modernega, a »brez njegove poznejše pogodbe s prihodnostjo«. Pomemben delež knjige posveti tudi razmišljanjem o vzhodnoevropski identiteti in padcu berlinskega zidu, ko je Evropa po njegovi interpretaciji poskušala in delno tudi uspela »v spremenjenih okoliščinah določiti lastno identiteto in reprezentacijo« ter se hkrati kot bolj ali manj enakovreden partner »priključiti Zahodni Evropi, ki so jo prebivalci regije dojemali kot fantazmatski izvor pozitivnih vrednot, ki naj bi dopolnjevale (in ne nadomestile) socialistične vrednote«. Tako še enkrat preveri eno svojih osrednjih tez, ki jim sledi v razpravah in knjigah že nekaj desetletij in jih uspešno uveljavlja v mednarodnem prostoru, namreč, da se je znotraj postkolonialističnega diskurza zgodil zanimiv obrat ali subverzija, znotraj katere so si politično, umetniško in teoretsko razlaščene dežele drugega sveta poskušale same oblikovati lastno zgodovino in jo »vsiliti« tudi hegemoničnemu zahodnemu svetu. Vzhodnoevropski umetniki in intelektualci, ki so velikokrat izhajali iz kritične teorije družbe, so tako postali strastni analitiki lastne situacije, hkrati pa tudi nove situacije, ki je v Evropi in svetu nasploh nastala po padcu sovjetskega bloka. Tako sta umetnost in kultura v času krize in »konca« socializma pridobili podobno funkcijo, kot sta jo imeli v času zgodovinskih avantgard. Postali sta relativno pomembna načina politične artikulacije. 270 Tako zadnja poglavja knjige zaokrožijo in pomembno nadgradijo Erjavčevo celostno teorijo umetnosti, kulture in politik te umetnosti in kulture v 20. ter na prehodu v 21. stoletje. Z lucidno in natančno analizo konteksta postsocialistične umetnosti prinesejo celosten uvid v politično moč in nemoč oziroma kastriranost sodobnih politiziranih umetniških praks, ki jih Erjavec zgodovini in teoretizira skozi kulturni obrat. Erjavčeva Heteronomija umetnosti in avantgard prinaša svež in hkrati izjemno dobro berljiv ter zaokrožen pogled na radikalne politizirane avantgarde (futurizem in konstruktivizem), ki ga poveže s svojo analizo in zgodovinjenjem sodobnih politiziranih umetnosti ter kultur v času postsocializma, postsocialistične avantgarde oziroma avantgarde tretje generacije. Pokaže in dokaže, da se te dejansko navezujejo na estetske revolucije zgodovinskih avantgard, kar povzroči, da klasične avantgarde v nekakšnem »postsocialističnem obratu« doživijo svojo postmoderno ponovitev. Hkrati pa knjiga postavi nekoliko badioujevsko, a kljub temu tipično erjavčevsko tezo, ki bi jo lahko strnili takole: Tako kot avantgarde in sodobna umetnost nenehno reflektirajo svoj odnos do umetnosti in kulture nasploh, lahko in mora estetika kot del filozofije vztrajno reflektirati svoj odnos do umetnosti in avantgarde. Hkrati pa seveda tudi do same sebe. Na ta način sta tako umetnost kot teorija hkrati avtonomni ali heteronomni. Navodila / Submission Guidelines Navodila za avtoriceje Amfiteater je znanstvena revija, ki objavlja izvirne članke s področja scenskih umetnosti v širokem razponu od dramskega gledališča, dramatike, plesa, performansa do hibridnih umetnosti. Uredništvo sprejema prispevke v slovenskem in angleškem jeziku ter pričakuje, da oddana besedila še niso bila objavljena in da istočasno niso bila poslana v objavo drugam. Vsi članki so recenzirani. Priporočena dolžina razprav je približno 30.000 znakov s presledki (5000 besed). Na prvi strani naj bodo navedeni podatki o avtorstvu (ime in priimek, elektronski naslov) in objavi namenjena biografija v obsegu do 550 znakov s presledki. Razprave naj vsebujejo izvleček (do 1500 znakov s presledki) in ključne besede (5-8), oboje v slovenskem in angleškem jeziku. Morebitne zahvale in podatki o financiranju naj sledijo ključnim besedam. Članek je lahko tudi daljši, a naj ne presega 45.000 znakov s presledki (vključno z opombami). Zapisan naj bo v programu Microsoft Word ali Open Office, v pisavi Times New Roman z velikostjo črk 12 ter medvrstičnim razmikom 1,5. Vsak novi odstavek naj bo označen z vrinjeno prazno vrstico. Daljši citati (nad pet vrstic) naj bodo samostojni odstavki z velikostjo pisave 10, od preostalega besedila pa naj bodo ločeni z izpustom vrstice in zamaknjeni v desno. Okrajšave in prilagoditve citatov naj bodo označene z oglatimi oklepaji [...]. Opombe niso namenjene sklicevanju na literaturo in vire. Natisnjene so kot sprotne opombe in zaporedno oštevilčene. Kadar navajamo avtorja in citirano delo med besedilom, v oklepaju označimo samo strani, npr. (161-66). Kadar avtor citata v stavku ni omenjen, zapišemo njegovo ime in številko strani v oklepaju, med njima pa ne postavimo ločila, npr. (Reinelt 161-66). Različne bibliografske enote istega avtorja poimenujemo z okrajšanimi naslovi, npr. (Reinelt, Javno 161-66). • Naslove knjig in umetniških del (dramskih besedil, uprizoritev, raznovrstnih umetniških dogodkov, slik itd.) zapisujemo ležeče: Cankarjeva Lepa Vida. • Naslovi člankov naj bodo zapisani pokončno in v narekovajih kot na seznamu literature: Draga Ahačič je v članku »Blišč in beda teatralnosti: gledališče Tomaža Pandurja« zapisala, da ... • Besedilo v citatu naj bo navedeno z vsemi posebnostmi (arhaizmi, velikimi črkami, kurzi-vami itd.), npr.: ... sta dognala, da »če reče sodnik: 'dovolim', noče 'govoriti o veršitvi' dovoljevanja, temuč dovoljenje v resnici dati, s to besedo dejanje zveršiti« (Škrabec 81). • Pri zaporednem citiranju iste bibliografske enote (članka, knjige) v besedilu uporabljamo besedno zvezo: (prav tam 20). • Pri posrednem navajanju uporabimo: (nav. po Reinelt 10). Seznam literature in virov sestavimo po standardih MLA (8. izdaja). 275 • Za zbornik z več uredniki: Sušec Michieli, Barbara, Blaž Lukan in Maja Šorli, ur. Dinamika sprememb v slovenskem gledališču 20. stoletja. Akademija za gledališče, radio, film in televizijo/Maska, 2010. • Za knjigo: Reinellt, Janelle. Javno uprizarjanje. Eseji o gledališču našega časa. Mestno gledališče ljubljansko, 2006. Knjižnica MGL, 143. • Za del knjige: Auslander, Philip. »'Just Be Your Self: Logocentrism and difference in performance theory.« Acting (Re)Considered: Theories and Practices, ur. Phillip B. Zarrilli, Routledge, 1995, str. 59-67. • Za članek v reviji: Bank, Rosemarie. »Recurrence, Duration, and Ceremonies of Naming.« Amfiteater, letn. 1, št. 2, 2008, str. 13-30. • Za članek v gledališkem listu: Kermauner, Taras. »Nova Sizifova viža.« Gledališki list SNG Drama Ljubljana, letn. 76, št. 5, 1996/97, str. 10-15. • Za članek v časopisu: Ahačič, Draga. »Blišč in beda teatralnosti: gledališče Tomaža Pandurja.« Delo, 6. jul. 1996, str. 37. • Za članek na internetu: Čičigoj, Katja. »Zakaj še vedno kar oponirati s kladivom?« SiGledal, 17. maj 2011, veza.sigle-dal.org/prispevki/zakaj-se-vedno-kar-oponirati-s-kladivom. Dostop 23. jul. 2013. • Za ustne vire oz. intervju: Korda, Neven. »Intervju.« Intervjuvala Tereza Gregorič. Ljubljana, 28. apr. 2011. Zvočni zapis pri T. Gregorič. Zahvale Lahko navedete ljudi ali organizacije, ki so finančno podprle razpravo, ter tiste, ki so bili posredno vpleteni v raziskavo (npr. tehnično pomoč, izposojo tehnične opreme, posnetkov ipd., nasvete, ki ste jih dobili med pisanjem razprave). Pomembno je, da vsakogar, ki ga imenujete, tudi predhodno obvestite o omembi njegovega prispevka. Ne vključujte posvetil. Submission Guidelines The journal Amfiteater publishes articles in field of performing arts in the context of different media, cultures, social sciences and arts. Articles are accepted in Slovenian or English language. It is expected that any manuscript submitted has not been previously published and has not been simultaneously submitted for publication elsewhere. All submissions are peer reviewed. The recommended length of articles is approximately 30,000 characters including spaces. The author's name, postal address and e-mail address are to be specified on a cover sheet along with a short biography for publication that does not exceed 550 characters including spaces. An abstract of up to 1,500 characters (including spaces) and a list of keywords (5-8) are to be added at the end of the article. A list of acknowledgements or funding should follow keywords. Submit articles as an attachment file in Microsoft Word or Open Office format, in the Times New Roman font, 12 point, with 1.5 line spacing. Each new paragraph is marked with an empty line. Quotations longer than five lines are placed in separate paragraphs, in 10 point size, without quotation marks. Abbreviations and adaptations of quotations are marked in square brackets. Notes are not meant for quoting literature; they should appear as footnotes marked with consecutive numbers. When quoting an author and related work within the text, state only the page numbers in brackets, e.g., (161-66). When the author of the quoted work is not mentioned in the sentence, state the author's name and the page numbers in brackets without punctuation between them, e.g., (Reinelt 161-66). For different bibliographical entries by the same author, include a shortened title of the work, e.g., (Reinelt, Javno 161-66). The in-text citations and bibliography is structured according to MLA style, 8th edition. Book with editors: Jones, Amelia, and Adrian Heathfield, editors. Perform, Repeat, Record: Live Art in History. Intellect, 2012. • Book: 277 Reinellt, Janelle. Javno uprizarjanje. Eseji o gledališču našega časa. Mestno gledališče ljubljansko, 2006. Knjižnica MGL, 143. • Book Article or Chapter: Auslander, Philip. "'Just Be Your Self': Logocentrism and difference in performance theory." Acting (Re)Considered: Theories and Practices, edited by Phillip B. Zarrilli, Routledge, 1995, pp. 59-67. • Journal Article: Bank, Rosemarie. "Recurrence, Duration, and Ceremonies of Naming." Amfiteater, vol. 1, no. 2, 2008, pp. 13-30. • Newspaper or Magazine Article: Ahačič, Draga. "Blišč in beda teatralnosti: gledališče Tomaža Pandurja." Delo, 6 July 1996, p. 37. • Article with URL: Čičigoj, Katja. "Zakaj še vedno kar oponirati s kladivom?" SiGledal, 17. maj 2011, veza.sigledal.org/prispevki/zakaj-se-vedno-kar-oponirati-s-kladivom. Accessed 23 July 2013. Acknowledgements and Funding The acknowledgements section is where you may wish to thank people indirectly involved with the research (e.g., technical support; loans of material; comments or suggestions during the creation of the manuscript). However, it is important that anyone listed here knows in advance of your acknowledgement of their contribution. Do not include dedications. Vabilo k razpravam Amfiteater je znanstvena revija, ki objavlja izvirne članke s področja scenskih umetnosti v širokem razponu od dramskega gledališča, dramatike, plesa, performansa do hibridnih umetnosti. Avtorji in avtorice lahko analizirajo oblike in vsebine umetnin in umetnostnih pojavov s področja scenskih umetnosti, njihovo zgodovino, sedanjost in prihodnost ter razmerje do drugih umetnostnih področij in širšega (družbenega, kulturnega, političnega ...) konteksta. Uredništvo sprejema prispevke v slovenskem in angleškem jeziku ter pričakuje, da oddana besedila še niso bila objavljena in da istočasno niso bila poslana v objavo drugam. Vsi članki so recenzirani. Pri navajanju virov in seznamu sledimo standardom MLA (8. izdaja, The Modern Language Association). Prosimo, da pred oddajo prispevka natančno preberete Izjavo o spoštovanju založniških in akademskih etičnih standardov na spletni strani revije. Call for papers 279 Amfiteater - Journal of Performing Arts Theory publishes articles in the field of the performing arts ranging from dramatic theater, writing, dance, performance art to the hybrid arts. Authors may analyse the format and content of art and art events in the field of performing arts, discuss the history, present and future and relationship with other fields of art and a broader (social, cultural, political ...) context. Articles are accepted in Slovenian and English languages. It is expected that any manuscript submitted has not been published before and has not been submitted at the same time for publication elsewhere. All submissions are peer reviewed. The in-text citation and bibliography is structured according to MLA style, 8th edition. Please carefully read the Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement on the Amfiteater webpage before submitting a manuscript. ISSN 1855-4539 Cena: 10 € 9771855453006