In conversation with Anke Politz – the development of contemporary circus in Germany
- Daniel Burow
- Jun 24
- 14 min read
If you had to give a report on the situation of contemporary circus in Germany in 2025, how does it look like?
I feel like we've become a truly vast meadow where a lot is growing and a great deal of biodiversity is emerging. I see that, not least due to the funding we've received in recent years, many more companies have grown. Everything is richer and more diverse. Rich not in the monetary sense, but in terms of content. There are more companies touring in Germany. This was always a kind of gap on the map when it came to touring. More venues are adding contemporary circus to their programs, and more and more openings are happening.
That's my very positive conclusion. At the same time, as part of the independent performing arts, we are facing enormous challenges. The drastic cuts to all cultural budgets and political and social changes are contributing to even greater division and alienation in a society that needs culture as a bridge-building force right now.
In addition to your work as artistic director of the Chamäleon Theater Berlin, you are also on the board of the Federal Association of Contemporary Circus in Germany and are active in cultural policy. What goals motivated you to do this, and what are your goals in your association's work?
It's important to me to improve the working conditions and framework for artists in the cultural sector. No one comes to a theater because the spaces are so beautifully designed; people come to us because they want to see the performances. And it's absurd that so often the very people who create this added value have the most insecure employment conditions. Whether it's holistic systems that take rehearsals, training, and administrative work into account, retirement plans, or affordable insurance systems - there's still a lot of room for improvement in artistic work.
Because fundamentally, added value begins with training every day and continues through so many stages, often unpaid work steps, until we finally see a finished piece on stage. These are all things that aren't compensated or that have to be provided in advance. A lot of change is needed to improve this – and not just in the circus. But equal access to funding structures for the circus makes a huge difference here. With more resources, it can become more resilient and bolder.
Deep down, I believe that contemporary circus is the ideal art form for our time. Because it's so versatile, because it carries so little baggage in the sense that people might feel excluded or uninvited. That it can communicate on so many different levels and then create community through the shared stage experience, or simply open up the space for discourse and allow for debate and reflection in an accessible way.
We need to get people out from behind the televisions and screens and back into the theaters, into the tents, into the squares, into public spaces. Because this strong tendency to distance ourselves from one another, to differentiate, to only look for differences, is unhealthy and dangerous for every society. The challenges of our time, whether ecological, social, or economic, can only be overcome through solidarity, consideration, and participation. Art and culture, and above all contemporary circus, can contribute greatly to this. And that's why it needs equal access, it needs growth, and it needs favorable framework conditions.
We sometimes see this division and emphasis on differences in the circus community as well, especially when it comes to the terms "contemporary" and "classical." My impression is that the artists themselves make this distinction much less than an outside perspective would suggest. What is your view of these different categories?
It's always a tension, of course: On the one hand, you want to demonstrate that this diversity exists; on the other hand, we see the boundaries blurring every day, and the artists in particular are the travelers through the various facets of the circus. Depending on your perspective, the differentiation is either necessary or not. As long as it doesn't entail any judgement, it's a description of diversity and important for daily work, for making things visible and characterizing things.
It often starts to play a role when it comes to funding...
I've often said myself that we have to call a spade a spade, because an application, whatever it is for, has to be filed in a specific subject and assigned to a department. When it comes to public administration, we simply live within categories without which it might not function. It's certainly a great vision to say that one day there will be no more "contemporary" or "classical" – that's what we work for every day – but the differences are often important in the details and help develop core competencies, establish communities, and initiate lobbies.
Let me come back to access to funding opportunities. Yaron Lifschitz, who is a good friend of yours as the artistic director of the Circa company, once said in a podcast that the best way to generate more resources for artists is to give more resources to producers. Do you share this view that the role of producers in contemporary circus should be strengthened?
I would rephrase it a bit. For me, there should be more structural funding, and that includes the role of producers. We need to address the issue of sustainability and the holistic nature of our work.
If we invested in structures - and yes, this also applies to our company - it would be possible to act in a more long-term, sustainable, and thus holistic manner. Viewing everything as a cycle, being able to reflect different competencies and needs, would allow us to understand artistic work as a process and make it more secure. That's better than temporarily giving a person or company money that isn't even enough to survive or build a structure, but whose absence would always lead to standstill and termination. This is a one-way logic that I find incomprehensible.
Producers are certainly a key element. Just because you have an idea it doesn't mean you've brought it into the world; you haven't produced it or secured its future. Even if someone says, "I think your show idea is great, come to me with the piece in two years," you're often no further ahead. You still don't have the money to produce the piece, to rent the space, to hire creatives and artists, to start communication and distribution...
And that's why these structural grants - whether for companies or production venues - are so important. Ultimately, reaching the audience, selling tickets, and generating revenue is perhaps not the greatest challenge. But getting to the point where a structure is sustainable and being able to develop an audience - that's a long road. And I believe that we should invest significantly more in structures and working conditions so that a community can achieve more and everyone can plan together for the long term.
Now I am a bit provocative: When I look at the Chameleon's program, the companies are mostly from Australia or Canada; there aren't many European companies, and certainly no German ones. Are we simply not that far along in Germany in terms of excellence?
Two things can be seen in our situation. First, all the companies that are with us during the major seasons receive funding from their home countries. What we need on a multi-month run is something that companies don't normally have: a 90-minute piece with an interval, designed in such a way, including in terms of the number of performers, that it can play seven performances a week for four to five months. Creating these works requires money, because as a theater that doesn't receive significant funding itself, we can't even fully finance the creation costs.
That's a pretty large barrier. Nevertheless, we try to get things off the ground, even with very young companies or those that don't have any support. But these seasons are a huge machine. They have to work for all of us. Not selling tickets isn't an option, because we live from ticket sales. There are many great companies in Europe, and we're in talks with many of them. But saying exactly, "I can guarantee you that I'll come in a year or two with a piece that fits the bill and for which I can also keep the ensemble available" – that's not easy.
We try to help as best we can – through investments, through smaller projects, through our residency program. We create sketches, especially with the local communities, to support and then see if there's any funding we can apply for together. With every company that contacts us or with whom we engage, we explore how we can support. However, the fact is that only a few companies can meet all of our requirements on their own.
What's the second reason we often see the same established international companies at your Chameleon?
The second reason is that we work very closely with companies, and we also look strategically at which stories we want to tell and which aesthetics and styles our audiences love. But there's definitely a desire to open the doors much wider, to reflect more thematic diversity and representation. However, due to the weak structures and funding systems, it's always a long road. We're in conversation and exchange with so many people, and the invitation is sincere when I say, no matter what it is, please come to us. Even if it's just an idea at first.
An example of a very young company, albeit from Canada, is People Watching, who just finished their season at the Chameleon...
People Watching had a sixty- or seventy-minute piece with six people. It was a substantive decision by the company to open up its artistic work to our needs, and it was a collaborative process to find the resources for a reworking. The company had funding for this in Québèc, and these are precisely the systems I'm talking about, and which we don't have enough of in Germany.
"People Watching" is a great example of how a company can go completely international with its first piece. What distinguishes the company, with which you've worked intensively over the past few months, that allows it to take this path?
For me, this collective is changing the movement and stage language of contemporary circus. Seeing their work is like a wake-up call for many, and a reminder that we all once set out to question things and, despite the accessibility of an art form, not to strive for applause or effect. Perhaps that's how it was with the Seven Fingers, who were our initial encounter at the Chamäleon and who captivated us with their very personal, authentic, and choreographic style of creating. And so, in every art form, there are always impulses or trends that make waves and lead to more freedom.
I believe that "People Watching" have opened a new chapter, especially for the Canadian community. They are certainly excellent at what they do, but the term bothers me enormously when it's used like a label and without context. Because to demonstrate your excellence, you also need a framework. And "People Watcing" are undeniably talented, outstanding at what they do, they work incredibly hard, and have also spent a large part of their lives together – as a collective, as people, as artists. So they have gained an incredible amount of experience and built their expertise. They worked on this piece for two years. It was a very long, challenging process, but one that was also continually encouraged and supported. They created their own world and were able to find support and a framework that enabled them to demonstrate their excellence.
Montreal certainly also plays a role as a place that offers a rich network. Does Berlin have the potential to become a similar cluster for new forms of circus, or perhaps it already is?
I think so. There are now so many different spaces – places where circus is created, where artists train and work together. And if we don't soon face a complete desert of cultural funding in Germany, there will soon be many more circus companies here too that, through consistent support, will be able to develop their own work to such an extent that they are perceived as beacon-like institutions that pave the way for others.
Montreal always sounds like a land of milk and honey. And yes, there is a lot there. But the competition and the demands for funding are high. Due to the concentration of the circus community and increasing real estate speculation, finding affordable spaces is challenging even there. However, thanks to the work of many actors and continuous cultural policy advocacy, contemporary circus has grown into a cultural asset and is consistently supported.
Perhaps something that the various forms of circus have in common is also the tendency to overestimate their situation. Compared to other cultural sectors such as theater, circus as a whole has recovered quite quickly from the pandemic period.
The situation is structurally and financially poor and threatening. In terms of content, however, the stages that program contemporary circus have recovered more quickly. Colleagues who organize various genre festivals often tell me: "You don't have to worry about circus productions; they're always sold out."
So why is there still apparently a reservation, why aren't many stages still programming circus?
Let me put it this way: Everyone has their own profile. If I'm an established municipal theater with spoken theater programs, I can't suddenly throw my profile out the window and say, "I'm doing everything differently." I can understand that. This, too, is related to structural configurations that sometimes make transformation and change more difficult. We in the independent and private sector are considerably more flexible when it comes to transformation processes. We have to be. When the pressure of survival is on our backs, change is simply a virtue that must arise from necessity. Not that I want to praise this constant pressure of survival as a catalyst, but for many, it's always about the bigger picture; the decision to change is simply made for them.
Nevertheless, I believe that, especially with regard to issues such as declining audiences, accessibility, and social interaction, there can and will be openings and transformations at other theaters. For example, we have just initiated a collaboration with the Brandenburg Theater, the Brandenburg Symphony Orchestra, and the company Gravity & Other Myths. We are currently developing a piece with the orchestra that will be created for the theater in Brandenburg an der Havel and will hopefully be seen on many stages afterward. Not only does this open up a completely new art form, but it also lays the foundation for sustainable evaluation of the resulting material, as we can record the music with an orchestra and thus transfer it to touring. Sharing resources, stimulating thematic ideas, and collaborating between diverse worlds - all of this because a venue demonstrates courage and a willingness to change. We encounter so much openness and creative drive from the orchestra and the entire team, and it's wonderful to see that, in the end, not much separates us. So, you can truly let go of the boundaries of "high arts" and "entertainment".
Introducing something new and innovative to a program is never without risk. You know that as the artistic director of a theater. How do you engage your audience?
"Audience development" is a consistent process that requires strategic decision-making and perseverance. You program something that is outside the comfort zone of your regular audience and accompany it with content. You accept failure or have a structure that allows for it. It's one step forward, two steps back. For us, it's been a 20-year journey and a never-ending conversation with our guests that has led us to program a piece like Play Dead by People Watching, where the circus is staged in such a way that you might think, "Well, where is it?" because there were few static moments where it was visually revealed. That's exactly where funding instruments come into play, because structures need support to sustain these processes. Then it's okay to have lower capacity at times, but without this safety net, it's difficult and very risky, as we can all relate to. But it's worth it; otherwise, we wouldn't be able to enjoy 50% first-time visitors and an average age of 46 today.
On the other hand, looking at your program, you can see two pieces by Circa and Gravity & Other Myths, which have already performed at the Chamäleon. So sometimes you need reliable candidates?
Absolutely. Our existence depends on ticket sales, and my job is also to safeguard operations and all employment relationships through programming. Therefore, we have to plan for risks and operate cautiously. Especially now, when cuts are hitting the arts and the feeling of uncertainty is causing society to panic, we are deeply concerned about our own existence despite all our planning and strategies. It is important that comprehensive cultural funding continues. Even though we currently have to operate without substantial funding, we are part of a subsidized infrastructure, whether it's rehearsal space programs, individual project funding, research funding, or travel expense funding – all actors are directly or indirectly affected by cuts while operating and production costs are rising dramatically. As a theater, we're already at the point where we can no longer increase ticket prices proportionally, because then we'd lose our audience and our claim to be an accessible and social venue, and we'd no longer reach everyone.
You often hear that it's the time for "feel-good productions," where you can simply forget about everyday life. What's your take on that?
It's often said that people don't want to see something heavy in these difficult times. That's certainly true to a large extent, but it's a somewhat undifferentiated view of the whole thing. I'm an advocate of "supply determines demand." And I find it very difficult to say that we only need feel-good productions. I rather believe that we need feel-good spaces. If you experience a positive and appreciative atmosphere in a place, then it's easier to open yourself up to a more difficult context.
We had so many school classes last season, who often arrived loudly and uncoordinated. As the performance began, the young people suddenly became attentive, fascinated by what was happening on stage, even though it was a more complex and at times more abstract work that required a basic level of attention. Yet, their cell phones remained in their pockets, and people remained silent and attentive until the final applause. We often hear feedback from teachers that classes are rather skeptical about their planned theater visits, but after the circus visit, they are completely thrilled and want more.
So, we mustn't underestimate our audience or put them into boxes. After the pandemic, we reopened with plays that I would have previously said I couldn't show here. And then people sat in the auditorium crying, and I learned and understood that I had underestimated our audience. Today, we try very precisely to find out what the needs and expectations of our guests are. Not to offer them exactly what they need, but to determine the level of communication and supporting content.
Furthermore, I also see it as my obligation to share my intentions and those of the artistic work; we also see ourselves as service providers. We now know that people don't come because they want a light-hearted or feel-good evening. They come because they want to see outstanding circus. They come because they want to feel like we're making an effort for them and that everyone has given their best. And they want to have had an uplifting or hopeful experience. This leaves plenty of room for everything else - heavy topics, provocation, abstraction, and so on. Ultimately, the evening should feel empowering, and that doesn't have to be the sole purpose of the program; that can also be a place with its people.
To be honest, I sometimes lack understanding when, in 2024/2025, precisely where resources and opportunities exist, banal or stereotypical, cliché-reinforcing messages are sometimes projected on stages for fear of not reaching a market. I think: Really? Is that what you want to stand for in these times? It's always a balancing act, challenging the audience and surviving commercially. But you can definitely make things a little more difficult for yourself in some areas.
Even on the road, I often hear promoters say, "We don't have an audience for that." And I believe that. We didn't have an audience for many things either. And in our case, we simply decided to do it and built a system, including support, that allowed us to survive. Not everyone has that, and I respect that. But I sometimes wish for more experimentation or courage in some large structures.
Anke Politz is the artistic director of Chamäleon Berlin and chairwoman of the Federal Association of Contemporary Circus (BUZZ).
Comments