Casting an Anchor into the Future

Holger, looking around right now, all one can see are crises. What makes you optimistic?

Looking back helps. My optimism stems from the fact that there have always been ups and downs, and that a downturn makes one think about how to get back to the other direction.

And how does one do that?

By focusing on the core issue: What does the Fonds stand for? What does it fund, and why? We have a very clear charter guiding this: the artistic self-commissioning of independent artists for artistic production. The independent arts produce work quickly and are therefore closely attuned to current events and social debates, such as issues of identity, culture, attribution and technology. We’re currently experiencing profound changes in all these areas, and under politically challenging conditions. Unfortunately, the far-right AfD [sd1.1]has been very successful in convincing even the middle classes that the arts are equivalent to the important NGOs that promote democracy. That’s why it’s important to emphasize: Art is not apolitical, but it’s also not politics.

What are the biggest challenges for the Fonds in this tense political situation?

The task now is to reexamine the questions surrounding culture’s social relevance. This is particularly important for us because there’s still no explicit mandate for cultural funding at the federal level. We must make the nationwide cultural and artistic significance of the independent arts scene even more visible.  

How can this be achieved?

In times of increasingly sparse funds, it’s essential to adopt a collaborative and resilient outlook, with effective alliances and grounded in reality: How can art, through its forms and aesthetics, react to or intervene in the present? How to act? Are there connections? In terms of content and artistic aspects? In production methods and working practices? We also want to focus on this question at the Bundestreffen in September: What is the distinctive nature of independent production, what defines it at its core? What opportunities does it entail?

Speaking of resilience. Isn’t there actually something like a debate marked by envy in the independent arts scene: You at the Fonds, as a federal institution, are well-financed, and us down here, we’ll never get any of that funding?

I would say that we’re currently circling around the question of how much security can freedom tolerate? In recent years, there’s been a growing, and justified, desire for better working conditions, secure structures, greater accessibility, networks, knowledge transfer, the organization of substructures and so on. This leads to an increase in administration and bureaucracy, but not necessarily to more independent art productions of national significance. Much of what’s being demanded is already offered by the training-based theater structures of state and municipal theaters.

But aren’t these demands justified?

Of course, the Fonds must first and foremost ensure artistic production. But as in other policy areas, security and freedom must always be viewed in balance with one another. And by its very nature, a structure must always develop planning security and continuous processes, and thus tends to become embedded as a structure within the mode of production. We should reflect on this and, as the independent arts are capable of doing, respond intelligently with growing security and challenging artistic freedom. As one of the six Bundeskulturfonds with a 40-year history, we are, of course, also very aware that we’re a decisive factor at the federal level in exemplarily combining structures with the potential of the independent arts sector. 

This also includes a certain degree of representativeness.

Exactly. For a long time, the Fonds was unable to do this because, given its founding history, it was essentially a minor appendage to federal funding. This role has changed in recent years. I would hope that this growing significance is viewed as an opportunity much more often. We are the intermediary body, namely a partner, to both independent artists and the Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and the Media (BKM). We operate in accordance with the BKM’s budgetary guidelines, while keeping in mind and understanding the flexibility required for artistic work. In this spirit, we support, advise and provide guidance on projects right through to their final accounting. Many artists greatly appreciate this. 

Speaking of communicating with policymakers – do some things need to be explained to political leaders differently today than 20 years ago?

Above all, we have to confront the successful far-right propaganda in the “culture war” that I mentioned earlier. This makes our work immensely difficult, partly because we have to repeatedly explain the foundations upon which cultural funding in this country rests: All federal cultural funds distribute their grants through independent expert juries, because part of artistic freedom is that this freedom does not end at one’s own nose.

Right now, there’s an impression that the independent arts scene has its back against the wall, because on the one hand, production and living costs are rising, while on the other, funding is being cut. Can, may, or should the federal government compensate for this through institutions like the Fonds?

That’s not possible, because our country’s constitution stipulates that culture is a matter for the states, and the individual states’ constitutions stipulate that it is administered by the municipalities. This is particularly important in the theater sector because theater always takes place for a local audience, and even an independent theater needs a municipality or a state to support it. Aspects of national significance, such as cross-state collaboration, the nationwide presence of theater projects, or outstanding quality, are then supported by the Fonds Darstellende Künste using federal funds.

At the same time, the federal government burdens municipalities with social security contributions to such an extent that almost all of them are bankrupt and can no longer adequately provide their discretionary services, which include cultural programs.

The Association of German Cities is currently making this very clear. That’s why it’s important for the federal government to address its role and its funding instruments. Although the BKM’s organizational structure has only recently been reorganized, funding instruments such as the Bundeskulturfonds have once again seen a massive reduction in their grants since their so-called “landing points,” which were agreed upon after the relaunch. As a result, the BKM naturally does not have a nationwide impact across the multitude of districts and municipalities, but rather operates only through individual flagship projects, which unjustly overshadow the numerous cultural contributions made by many municipalities across the country!

But what would ideal federal funding look like?

We provided a very clear answer to the question of what the federal government’s role in funding could look like after the pandemic: In collaboration with the states, municipalities and the BKM’s departments, we designed a coordinated funding framework.
We were able to fully implement this framework exactly once in 2024 with a budget allocation of 12.3 million euros; by 2026, the Fonds’ allocation will stand at only 8.6 million euros. 

Despite the federal government’s current cost-cutting efforts, the Fonds’ budget was not reduced significantly compared to the previous year, whereas other important institutions saw severe cuts. The bottom line is a significant shortfall for the independent arts scene. How is the Fonds addressing this?

There has been a total reduction of 16 million euros in funding between 2024 and 2026 – a significant cut that affects the central structures of the independent performing arts. First and foremost, the Bündnis internationaler Produktionshäuser, as well as the phased-out funding for medium-sized and smaller regional networks and the Fonds’ own resources, were reduced by more than 4 million euros in the 2024 budget. That’s why, during the last budget discussion, we expressed our desire to help shape funding for production venues. This request was not granted by the BKM. We now possess expertise that is recognized far beyond our field. The Fonds is considered a pioneer, particularly in the areas of digital technology and innovative, independent funding procedures.

There are theater companies that are currently staging one major premiere after another – and have only secured four or five productions for the upcoming season. What does this mean for the independent scene?

It's precisely the independent production venues that embody this country’s cultural strengths: a spirit of renewal, questioning, utopia, a radical artistic presence, rooted in the present, close to the people. Even if “German nationalism” has been so often misappropriated lately – it’s important to point out that it wasn’t dancing under the maypole that made art great in this country. It was Sturm und Drang[sd3.1]! And this thread runs right through to the present – the wonderful internationalism of the arts here, the shifts in perspective, the exaggerations, the contradictions and the rebellious spirit. It was all of this that gave rise to the creation of the role of Commissioner for Culture and Media in the first place – not the royal castles and gardens, important as they may be. I don’t understand how the federal government can treat this creative and innovative work for the future, carried out by independent dance and theater productions and costing no more than one kilometer of highway in the 2025 budget, with such neglect.

During the pandemic, the independent arts scene seemed to be perceived as relevant, particularly through its actions in public spaces. However, it seems – at least subjectively – that not much of that remains.

The fact that we’re now experiencing such a political setback was already in the making before and during the pandemic. We have noticed that the social debate has intensified, that the far right is fighting against a society that stands up for everyone. And that, as a result, the majority’s attitude toward the independent performing arts is also changing. Even during the pandemic, the term “resilience” came up frequently. But resilience doesn’t mean spinning yourself into a safe cocoon. Rather, it means focusing on what’s essential, charting a clear course and casting an anchor into the future.

Will resilience also be a topic at the Bundestreffen in September?

At the Bundestreffen, the Fonds would like to address issues related to independent production, the aesthetic questions. Perhaps it will be a discussion of the resilience question: What should we focus on? There was once a phase in the development of the independent arts scene when it was clear that there was something more important than money. Lately, we’ve focused so much on financial issues and working conditions, which, according to our goals, were supposed to increasingly align with the security offered by municipal theaters. In practice, that hasn’t really come to fruition yet. But we’ve concentrated our perspective very much on that, instead of asking: Why are we actually doing this?

And perhaps also: What are we telling stories about? Is the independent scene thematically broad enough; does it need to become more popular? Or has it long since been so? It’s interesting to note that when Magdeburg or Mannheim hold their musical theater festivals, they’re predominantly filled with works from the independent scene.

I believe it’s good to foster this kind of permeability. We can only shift reality, including politically, when we navigate these border zones in a way that forges connections rather than creating further divisions. The examples of Magdeburg and Mannheim show that the independent scene can do exactly that: overcome institutional, social, cultural and national boundaries. But right now, that’s anything but popular. That’s why I’d say we need to become more unpopular, more uncomfortable again, and not settle into a society that is increasingly moving toward becoming a battleground.

Let’s return to the topic of optimism: What might a vision for a Fonds of the future look like?

The Bundeskulturfonds are built on a civil society structure that actively helps shape democracy and the community within a small sphere. We need more of this, not less. The Fonds Darstellende Künste is a very well-positioned funding organization, with a fully digital grant system and a digitalized, dedicated administrative office. That’s another reason why we can now award four to five times as much in grants as we did before the pandemic – while maintaining the same ratio of administrative to grants costs.

That sounds as if the Fonds is just getting started…

As an institution, we are indeed very effective and have proven structures that allow us to successfully carry out complex tasks. For example, recently we were again responsible for organizing the Theaterpreis des Bundes – from the jury process to the awards ceremony. In my view, the potential of the Bundeskulturfonds is far from exhausted. Especially in the current situation – given the importance of artistic freedom, the long-term commitment required for cultural funding and the restructuring of the BKM – it’s worth taking a closer look at the existing funding instruments. Our programs have an impact that extends all the way into individual districts. We have the experience and the structures to take on further responsibilities in this area.