Željko Maksimović has been persevering on the independent art scene in these areas for some time, and yes, actually, we are not clear what the independent scene means, in relation to what it is independent, what is the difference between independent and alternative theater, what does the main stream (mainstream) mean, what are the perspectives of the independent theater... These are some of the questions that Maksimović answers. Graduated from the Faculty of Dramatic Arts, he tried his hand at both the main and "secondary" theater stages, in addition to theater, he also participates in performances, rides a bicycle and translates from English.
WEATHER: You belong to the independent theater scene in Serbia. What is the difference between the independent scene and the alternative scene?
ZELJKO MAKSIMOVIĆ: When we talk about the independent scene, we are talking about the way of financing. To simplify: an independent scene is one that is not continuously financed by the state and state institutions, but finds other ways to get funds, in our country mainly through international funds and the like. In the organizational and legal sense, it functions through associations, the non-governmental sector, which means that it does not have the personnel and logistics that the mainstream has. The alternative scene, on the other hand, refers to a thematic alternative to the mainstream, that is, to some kind of institutional narrative, but it does not have to be independent.
One gets the impression that in many elements those two scenes coincide?
Absolutely. I think it is also our tradition, probably from the time of socialism. I mean in the way of financing. But it is also a European model. In capitalist countries the market is at stake, which means a lot more private money, but in many countries those who invest in the independent scene get tax breaks. The independent and alternative scenes overlap to the extent that they are not part of the institutional arrangement, they are not part of the institutional theater, city or national. Problems arise, however, when we look at who participates in the independent scene and who belongs to the mainstream, i.e. alternative. In our country, the independent scene means that actors who are employed in institutions, my fellow actors, for example, who very often are employed in theaters, take part in it to a large extent.
What do you mean by mainstream?, in the mainstream?
When it comes to actors, they are those who became popular through TV and film content. And then they make an independent play, that is, a play that is not part of the institution, but is played in a theater without an ensemble, or they travel, plays are staged in spaces that are not intended for theater, and so on. My colleague and I run the "echo animato" organization, which primarily deals with alternative content, i.e. experimental approaches, or other forms that are not too popular. There are organizations that deal with dance, circus, and various other performative forms that can never achieve such popularity because they are simply marginalized.
You mean the game is not exactly equal?
Well, yes, we compete with each other, but that competition is not equal because someone who is popular, and probably, therefore, somewhat privileged, gets funds more easily at national competitions. Not to mention organizations close to the regime. This means that a certain number of people occupy a disproportionately large space on both the institutional and the independent scene. But the addiction scene is much more resilient, much tougher than it might seem at first glance. That scene survived even in the nineties of the last century, it has survived in the meantime, and today, under fierce pressure, it survives. Let's say, we recently shot a film in which everyone worked without a fee because they were simply interested in the topic and believed that it made some kind of sense. It should be added that the atmosphere was great.
photo: marija janković...
You said that a certain form of theatrical expression is unpopular and marginalized. What does it mean, in this context, marginalized?
If we simplify the matter, we can say that poor financing leads to a decrease in productivity. How is an independent artist going to make shows if he has nothing to live on? Most of the independent artists have other jobs from which they live - or at least survive - and art becomes a hobby.
Isn't the alternative actually always on the fringes until it becomes mainstream? Isn't it?, historically speaking, it's always been like that?
Yeah, that's exactly what I was going to say about visibility. If the alternative scene became more visible through the media, in whatever way, the popularity would certainly increase, but the question is to what extent. She would probably have a hard time breaking into the mainstream, and, basically, I don't think any of the actors in the alternative scene need to be mainstream, if by that we mean popularity, guest appearances on fashion shows, lifestyle shows, whatever. However, the desire for greater visibility stems from that existential moment: what is there to live on?
How are things in Europe??
Here we have the example of Ireland. A year has passed since they adopted the law on minimum income for artists. The amount is around 300 euros per week...
... In Ireland it is pocket money....
… well, it is, but it is, so, €1200 a month as some sort of guaranteed figure that artists get every month, which I understand is a little for Ireland, but again I don't know what the value ratio would be here. I guess it's calculated that it can cover some basic needs. There was a lot of criticism of that model. However, now the first analyzes have shown that for every euro they got back, I don't know, one euro and 62 cents, for example. We are, of course, far from such treatment.
On the one hand, the theaters are full. On the other hand, we often hear that the theater scene is conservative.
In art, the criteria are not clearly defined and measurable. However, I would say that it is conservative compared to European tendencies, or even theaters on other continents. I think it's related to what we talked about at the beginning, with funding and visibility. I mentioned that actors who are employed or who are in the mainstream also participate in the independent scene. This is problematic insofar as the same kind of, shall I say... sensibility is transferred from one to the other. In some ideal order, the alternative scene would be a good reflection of the mainstream. And in a way, it could offer the mainstream, or the institutional framework, different perspectives. But in our country, the alternative scene has been thoroughly destroyed.
How does the mainstream scene influence the independent scene?? When one actor starts playing on both stages?
We have, for example, actors who are employed and we have us who are independent artists. Therefore, we have the status of independent artists, we are members of the Association of Dramatic Arts. There are actors who are only members of the Association, but do not have the status of independent artists. There are actors who are now independent entrepreneurs, that is, they have agencies through which they receive fees and through which they actually produce independent content. Here are just a few positions that are legally diverse and complex, but which on some level also reflect the attitude towards, as I would say, the artistic approach. There are private productions with popular content. I have nothing against them. I've done shows myself that were popular, with a bit of scenography that we can pack, with the idea of getting some money. Of course, the earnings increase according to the popularity or visibility of the actor.
But it is not an alternative...
Yes, some very classic theatrical forms are at work, a more utilitarian approach, either for the sake of money, or for the sake of some popularity. The alternative scene should, therefore, offer new forms, new approaches, new technologies in the end. My organization, for example, has started to deal with the use of digital tools, live streaming, a combination of live, streamed and pre-recorded theatre. With more or less success, of course, but it happens that some of our performances, or plays, reach an audience that may be small, but important for us. So then we get calls to come back, or do something similar. What we do may not have the potential to become the dominant form of theater, at least not now, but we have our audience.
In which venues do you perform??
I once did a show in a nightclub. It turned out that our audience was clubbers, people who normally go out there and who don't often go to the institutional theater.
We live in a troubled historical moment, what is happening, undoubtedly, reflects on the theater as well...
It makes me think that in problematic historical periods, culture has always, in general, been treated as a necessary evil, or possibly as a propaganda tool. If actors from the institutional scene participate in the independent one, it slowly leads to a certain type of market monopolization. Actually, it's a real monopolization, because we have the same people everywhere. It often happens that my colleagues say that they are tired of working in their home theaters where they are employed, because they quite often work with the same directors. It happens that some new generations are coming, but I'm not sure how much of a specific generational change actually happened.
But what is the problem if the theater hires proven directors?
Yes, but what does proven director, proven actor mean and how is quality measured in those areas? It is terribly problematic and I think it is already entering the sphere of some kind of marketing. If a large enough number of people say that you or I are awesome, there is a good chance that it will be universally accepted. But theaters and, in general, cultural institutions that are state, national, city, whatever, I think that they cannot and must not only have, as I would say, the role of someone who maintains a certain status, even if they call it quality. They must also have some kind of educational role. Therefore, theaters in our country do not deal enough with audience education, audience development. If there is a certain audience that would go to see a play in a club or wherever, but will not come to the city theater, it means that it is a missed opportunity, even in the market sense, although I still think that, according to our model, theaters should not be subject to market logic at all, because they are financed by the state. I mean, there's no need for a theater to struggle to sell tickets, especially if it doesn't bring in too much money. So why isn't there more variety?
Follow the German theater scene. There, a large number of theaters are financed by the state.
In these theaters, artistic directors, who have limited mandates, function as curators. In many theaters, it is more of a curatorial position than a theatrical one, because many forms are already entering other spheres of art and mixing with them. So they have the autonomy to make the program they want. And that's where, I think, there are various reactions and scandals. Also, there is criticism that follows everything very closely. I worked in Prague, for example, which is a smaller environment and which is not so experimental, for example. But it is because in Prague there are, I don't know, with all the independent ones and with all those tourist theaters from Tezgar, more than a hundred stages, I think, smaller or bigger. So there is everything there. They have a circus theater, they have a folk theater with three or four buildings. One is for drama, another is for opera, the third is alternative. But in the Czech Republic there is a strong tradition of fostering theater art.
And the future?
There are a lot of problems at the global level since Trump canceled USAid, and Europe is reducing national budgets for culture in order to, I guess, prepare for a war with Putin and Iran - this has led to increased competition on European funding programs, so that since last year it is much more difficult to get projects in EU tenders. A few days ago, a large number of European film artists (e.g. Juliette Binoche, Sandra Huler, etc.) published a letter asking the European Union to protect the MEDIA program for film financing.
So is it?, wave, the independent scene is tough to the extent that you suggested it?
Perhaps my point in this whole conversation mostly related to the fact that here we still have a large number of organizations that function independently, deal with alternative forms of art, work with marginalized or sensitive groups, produce content for an audience that does not have a large enough offer in the mainstream (e.g. young people aged 15-20), but this is all quite precarious and not very visible, and the mainstream can view the independent scene as less valuable, and in many cases, as dangerous. But that scene is a logical continuation of the Yugoslav avant-garde and alternative tradition from the 1960s to the 1980s, which again has its roots in Zenitism, for example, in the period between the two world wars, as well as in some other, very important, even unavoidable branches of the local artistic tradition.
Real journalism costs money, and we will not be bought by tycoons and corporations. Support us with a one-time or monthly donation. The time for it is now!
