How to create a dance house? Joanna Leśnierowska in conversation with Eva Broberg

Joanna Leśnierowska: The Warsaw Dance Community is envisioning their first-ever dance venue in Warsaw. We are waiting to learn who will be granted the mission of a pilot year programme in the Vistula River Pavilion. It will become the first-ever dance venue in Warsaw. Thinking of what international connections this new city institution could bring into the Warsaw dance landscape, I would love to talk to you about the European Dance Development Network, the former European Dancehouse Network (EDN) you manage. Can we start with a little bit of its history?

Eva Broberg: It started with seven European dance organisations initiating a collaboration project in 2005. After that experience, an informal network was developed under the legal frame of an Association 2009 in Spain. When this frame was set, it was then possible to create a bigger project, Module Dance, a 4-year programme, which at the time was one of the biggest EU projects with a focus only on the contemporary dance sector.

The network currently unites 52 members from 27 European countries. It is an EU-supported network, however, we aim to represent the dance sector in the whole of Europe. So we also go beyond the EU and pose the question of how we can work, support and facilitate a platform, a place, and a structure that supports the contemporary dance sector in general. The aims of the network are advocacy and research, competence building and creating opportunities for connections and collaborations. It is an art form that depends hugely on collaborations and very often these are international collaborations. It is an art form that won’t survive without many stakeholders. Therefore networking is of utmost importance for the dance sector. As I already said: the starting point for EDN was as a collaboration project and it slowly developed into a sustainable network.

JL: I had the pleasure of being invited to join the group initiating the network with my dance development programme Old Brewery New Dance in Poznan, to represent, for quite a while alone.., Eastern Europe. I remember our talks and desire to get united, first of all in understanding how dance production/creative process differs from theatre and other performance arts, and how much we need each other to pull the work and make dance circulate through Europe. Modul Dance was offering mid-career artists from well-developed and underdeveloped communities to create their work in 4 modules: research/rehearsing/production module ending with the premiere of the work and finally diffusion module: touring among partners. In this project, a large organisation from a very well-established dance community could collaborate with a very small one, something previously impossible to imagine! We were connecting and gathering around an artist and joined in the common interest in their work rather than matching financial possibilities and inputs. We assumed that we all had something to share (some resources) – sometimes it was just a residency space, sometimes a very well-equipped stage for production and premiere. We knew that only by joining forces could we create a perfect production scheme and conditions for artists to develop works, travel, and connect communities that normally would never learn about each other.

The network also came from the belief that a dance house is the ultimate and perfect way to support the development of dance. So the description, a model of a dance house, was coined, providing entering criteria for new members. We knew however that blindly sticking to them would be extremely exclusive for those organisations and communities that were still on their way to a dance house, and mostly due to their local politics were not able to establish one yet. That way an important mission of the network also revealed itself: advocating and lobbying for a dance house in every European country.

EB: Yes, and from the beginning it was not only about architecture, a real building, a house for dance, but also about developing competence and about advocacy for the art form in general.

JL: We could say that the mission of the network has been instilled through the real action of collaboration. The four years of the Module Dance project became a kind of self-training programme for the network partners to understand how we could sustainably exchange ideas and develop programmes together, support each other and thus also support better artists we work with.

EB: And also, to understand that collaboration needs trust and that to develop trust between people that are not situated in the same location nor conditions, it needs a platform where you meet and exchange ideas, and where you share excitements and concerns on a regular basis. These direct relationships we managed to establish and build upon turned out crucial… We know it especially today, after the pandemic and when the digital ways of connecting are immensely replacing live meetings, that one cannot start a real exchange platform without live encounters… It is hard to start building trust through the two-dimensional, flat screen. To be able to create the space for exchanging, we consider the size of the network too. I believe this is one of the reasons why the EDN has not rapidly increased the member association. To be able to sit together in one room, and be able to hear each other. Deciding on keeping the core network rather small, the more important question became how is this network then developing its accessibility? How can professionals in the dance sector take part in the network’s activities and gain access to its knowledge, and information and take part in the exchange of ideas? That way we got to the point that majority of EDN activities would be accessible to all the professionals.

JL: I think that insistence on live encounters and the connections network developed that way over the years surely helped to survive also hard pandemic times. It is interesting to point out that the network is managed from many different places, not the one headquarters office…

EB: Indeed. We run the office in the digital space from Sweden, Spain, Germany and Slovenia. So we are covering North, South, East and West of Europe. It is of great value, especially when we are thinking about selection criteria, urgent issues, new possible partners and locations for activities. One always has the perspective of where one is standing and we often tend to forget about it. Being based in different places, we connect knowledge of opposite parts of Europe and are reminded of which one we self-represent.

JL: What are the tools that the EDN realises its mission with?

EB: One is that we conduct research, for example about artistic practice, and for dance organisation’s development, we reflect on how to create sustainability and develop better working conditions. We share knowledge of the practice and collect information. It’s not only about good practices, it’s also about learning from unsuccessful projects and processes of our partners. We bring together experts from the field or cross-sectorial, to learn what could support different stakeholders and professionals of the dance sector and how we can grow from that. These are physical workshops called the ateliers. Then we have the competence building programme where the members have a possibility to exchange practice through travelling to another organisation and learn from them as well as sharing one’s own knowledge. We also have a programme for artists to meet and exchange. The activity is usually hosted by artists from the local community, connected to an EDN member organisation, and the event focuses on urgent topics for artistic practice. For example this year the focus is on the parental perspective: how artistic practice and childcare could reorganise each other?

JL: And what were the reasons behind the decision to change the network name: from Dance Houses Network to Dance Development Network?

EB: Through the ongoing development of the network, we reflected upon the situation in the European dance scene. The dance sector is in itself very elastic, it has flexibility allowing the art form to develop quite rapidly and to ongoingly explore and change its conditions of production and ways to meet the audience. And it is a fantastic value. On the other hand, infrastructural and institutional dance structure is quite fragile. Just a few institutions have more or less stable funding and the majority of professionals are independent. This means that having structures like dance houses or other forms of established dance organisations where you can produce, where you can have residencies and research, and where you can also present and meet your audience is crucial for the sustainability of the art form. But we live in times of severe financial cuts for the arts, and dance is everywhere, always suffering first. The cuts make many dance organisations suffer or even disappear… So, what happens when our members lose their physical house because they don’t get any money anymore or the owner of the space raises the rent that could only be covered by commercial business? The current situation in the dance sector initiated a discussion within the network about whether physical space, a building, is still the necessary criteria for membership in EDN. Even if the community loses its space, the knowledge and expertise do not disappear, and the people who worked in the house continue to work for the community by either using other spaces temporarily or finding an office space, collaborating with other venues, and advocating to get their house back. It became quite clear that this wasn’t the time for the network to end membership due to the criteria when a dance community needs support the most. That way the very house became not so relevant anymore as membership criteria. This, together with the development of the network towards advocacy rather than running collaboration projects, led us to change the network’s name: it is now the European Dance Development Network…

JL: There is a danger such change may imply understanding that the dance house as a model/concept is not significant anymore. For years it has been a big part of the EDN narrative and mission to lobby and support partners without their houses or with the houses-to-become in convincing the local authorities towards the relevance of having a physical space for dance. Aren’t you afraid that getting rid of the dance house from the network name may sabotage these efforts?

EG: We were very much aware of such danger and also, we shared these fears ourselves. That is why changing the name was a really long process and we went through many workshops/think tanks and discussions. The real change is to admit that dance house is not the only way anymore. Our current members and organisations that want to become members still need to be able to produce dance, host residencies and have an audience development programme regularly. It’s still the same mission that dance house runs, it is just acknowledging that not everywhere, not in every context, can be done via managing one big building. Having a dedicated house /venue for dance is still very relevant and probably more important than ever in light of such a severe financial crisis in the arts. The dance communities everywhere are mostly built of independent artists. And it’s them who are constantly in threat of losing everything if they do not have a place they can work in, research, present… Then the advocacy for having this structure and facility is more than ever important. Dance development still needs houses, there is no doubt about it.

Also, by being the European network, we need to represent the whole of Europe. With 27 countries represented we reach far but not enough. Lots of countries in Europe do not have buildings for dance only nor sometimes even the structure for it. How can the network then be represented in these countries? It’s in these countries especially where we need to do the work and advocate for proper conditions for the art form. The point is not to get rid of the dance house, it’s rather to update its concept and make it more accessible, and make others also understand that it is still able to continue the development of dance structures and organisations in building their competencies, even if the building their community needs is not there yet.

JL: We hope that the place for dance in Warsaw can join the network once the city institution is established, but it’s also important to say that it’s not only a city or national institutions eligible for membership. In fact, any dance organisations active in the country and serving the wider community could apply – all the criteria and procedures are on your website where you can also find all the relevant information and open calls for different strands of your activities, like knowledge building, exchanges, and ateliers.

EB: Yes, and almost everything is open for professionals, also the ones not directly connected to any EDN member. The dance sector is maybe not rich in money but so rich in embodied knowledge. I imagine that in the rapid development of our digital tools, and AI, the knowledge of our body will be more and more valued.

JL: I think it’s very important to repeat that supporting the building of necessary structures (architecture) is still one of the major concerns of EDN. But change of your name also points out that the work is never done and even if the house is already there, the work of development continues. The knowledge we have to share is as you said enormous so we need to support its spread but also create constant conditions for generation of new and development of knowledge. I see a very meaningful shift in EDN’s mission which is now so clearly pointing out to a question of sustainability of an art form. And the embodied knowledge built over generations is definitely put forward with ‘development’ in the new name of the network.

EB: Yes, we need stable long-term funded institutions to sustain the work and protect the community from multiple crises that are going to haunt us more and more. If you don’t have any structure at all, if everything relies on independent artists and NGOs, all the competence is at risk and likely to be gone when hard times come. I am very happy that Warsaw will soon have a place for dance and since we lost the Art Stations Foundation /Stary Browar Nowy Taniec we really miss a Polish partner!

I am very much aware of how fragile the process of establishing and then maintaining a new house is so I strongly cross my fingers for you. I believe when one has such an incredible possibility to create a new house physically, it’s very important to also question the major objective. And through its indicators estimate the success and the value of the funding bodies. If you are investing in dance especially to connect with the local and regional citizens, I believe you cannot use the old-fashioned ways of measuring success by the number of seats and the ticket income.

JL: So what would be, you think, the measure?

EB: If you want to connect locally with the community, to have their engagement and make them really participate then maybe you need different kinds of investments. Long-term commitment/work time for the artist/company, and more quality time for the participants. This would mean a smaller audience compared with having a big show on a big stage of 1,500 seats or 700 seats.

As said earlier, one of the art form’s qualities is the development of how it can be presented and the flexibility in meeting its audience. And we cannot 100% imagine how this can be done today. You need the black box to be able to create the magic of a dance show, but dance also needs to be happening in other spaces and contexts, produced and presented through professional organisations. Often dance works that are produced and presented outside the theatres are carried by the independent scene or by organisations with less knowledge and competence of the artform and its needs. And it is here where you meet the possibilities for real big audience development. So the institutions need to broaden the responsibility for where the work can meet its audience. It is an important part of the business model.

JL: Well, the open call for Warsaw’s pilotage year had been already burdened by many criteria: number of audiences, number of events, number of premieres to name a few… The expectations might be unrealistic, especially in the given frame: time-wise, but also budget-wise…

EB: It is I believe crucial to illustrate the whole picture to the politicians and the funding bodies. To clearly identify the aim of this investment: is it to provide accessibility for the citizens to diverse contemporary dance on stage, or is it to give better working conditions for the professionals, or maybe it is developing the quality of dance in the region/national etc. It is of course all of that, but when putting it down in a business plan, it is then crucial to give the diversity of context an equal value. So the productions in a black box/on a big stage will not be valued the same way with its expectations of audience numbers and ticket income as the productions that could happen in other contexts. Maybe several of the estimated successes for the business could be how diverse your audience is, for example geographically, age-wise, background-wise, etcetera. Or in how many stakeholders you collaborate with during a year, how has the structure for production and presentation improved the working conditions for the professionals? If you can identify all these objectives and aims and put the related indicators in a business plan to be agreed upon with the mandate giver you have achieved something we are all looking for at the moment. I know it’s easier said than done…, and it’s the real challenge all the institutions have today. But you now have a clean sheet! And it might be possible to create a real change! It will most certainly create better conditions for a sustainable house and a sustainable dance scene with a growing audience. Not only myself but I’m sure all members of EDN are cheering for that!