Contemporary for Whom? On gatekeeping and access in circus
by Tana Onochie
The CircusDanceFestival positions itself as an international platform aimed at strengthening the contemporary scene in Germany. But what exactly does that mean? A critical analysis of the festival and contemporary circus.
I am a Black queer circus artist. In my artistic work, I constantly navigate spaces dominated by whiteness – spaces characterised by structural exclusion, non-transparent selection processes and other forms of gatekeeping, some subtle, others quite overt. Racism, sexism, queerphobia and patriarchal power structures – all of these influence whether and how I gain access to stages, networks and funding opportunities. It also affects how my art is perceived, evaluated and contextualised.
Many Artists of Colour are familiar with these dynamics: I am approached to lead anti-racism workshops, to offer dramaturgical perspectives or to make ‘diversity’ visible. And don’t get me wrong: I enjoy engaging with these issues. But I feel strange when I get the sense that my artistic practice is being reduced to this. When I am invited primarily if my identity appears politically exploitable.
The circus is accessible only to those who know the codes
To me, “contemporary” essentially stands for openness, experimentation and accessibility. But who do we mean when we say “contemporary”? And perhaps even more importantly: who actually feels included?
At first glance, the scene likes to present itself as progressive, diverse and inclusive. Contemporary circus deliberately sets itself apart from its ‘traditional’ counterpart: no fixed roles, no traditional family structures. Instead, the focus is on collective, interdisciplinary work and political themes – including at the CircusDanceFestival. Yet this self-description often obscures the fact that certain codes are at play here as well. Those who are unfamiliar with these codes or cannot navigate them are left out. In many cases, these are aesthetic, social and economic codes that can be traced back to white supremacy and colonial continuities.
Who can afford this?
Access does not begin on stage, but much earlier: with training. The increasing academisation of the circus scene aims to establish supposed quality standards, yet this development also creates new boundaries. Private schools, unpaid full-time training, precarious living conditions – who can afford this? Who has the financial resources or family support to invest several years in an uncertain artistic career?
This reveals that the scene is not nearly as accessible as is often claimed. Instead, it actively excludes people in many cases. This is also true in artistic practice: networks, informal recommendations and aesthetic norms determine who is visible – on stage, in funding schemes, at festivals.
This gatekeeping is rarely overt; often it is much more subtle: who is allowed to make curatorial decisions? Who decides on funding – and who ultimately receives it? Whose bodies and stories are deemed ‘legible’, ‘interesting’ or ‘relevant’? Exclusions often appear random, but they are in fact structurally embedded.
Racism, classism, sexism and queerphobia also shape the contemporary performing arts. What is considered neutral or universal is often a White, Western-influenced perspective. Other bodies, other life stories are labelled, categorised, reduced, or not invited at all.
Who is this festival for?
At the same time, funding cuts are exacerbating the situation. The loss of funding and rising ticket prices make art less accessible, not only for artists but also for the audience. The question of who gets to participate is therefore relevant on both sides: on stage and in the audience.
Against this backdrop, the question arises once more: Who is this festival for? Who is included and who is not? And what does it really mean to strengthen a ‘contemporary scene’ if key access points remain unevenly distributed?
A look at the festival’s specific focus makes these questions more tangible: Which artists are invited? Which perspectives are visible and which ones are missing? How diverse is the programme really, not only in terms of themes and content, but also in terms of the bodies, biographies and artistic languages represented on stage?
Through the collaboration with the Initiative for Feminist Circus, a first step is being taken to break down existing gatekeeping structures. The initiative is specifically committed to promoting female artists beyond established and often implicit standards of quality. The fact that the CircusDanceFestival creates space for this also opens up an opportunity for me to be part of this programme, with a performance that would probably not have been invited under different circumstances.
For me, this is an important opportunity, yet one that is accompanied by mixed feelings. Yet while a door is opening for me, many others remain closed. So, ultimately, the question remains: to what extent is the aim of strengthening a diverse and accessible scene actually being realised? How contemporary is the circus really?