Artistic Diplomacy: On Civic Engagement and Transnational Theatre

  • Jonas TiniusEmail author


Contemporary European theatre builds on many traditions, yet two seem particularly at odds: wandering theatre troupes and publicly funded municipal theatre institutions. While the Italian commedia dell’arte, the French théâtre de la foire or the German Wandertruppen frequently appear as marginalised, itinerant phenomena in theatre histories, the public city, state or national theatres of these three countries embody aristocratic patronage, bourgeois audiences and artistic continuity. This contrast has not always and everywhere been as crass, however. While nineteenth-century Germany did indeed see the gradual erosion of wandering troupes, a few well-known European theatre artists of the twentieth century have kept up a tradition that brings together civic engagement, public patronage and transnational theatre. This chapter introduces a committed cosmopolitan theatre maker, a self-styled ‘bastard-child’ of different critical, nomadic, European traditions and his theatre’s international practice: Roberto Ciulli and the Theater an der Ruhr in the German post-industrial Ruhr valley.


Transnational Theory Artistic Finesse Ciulli Bastardo Civic engagementCivic Engagement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Appadurai, Arjun. 1996. Modernity at Large. Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. London/Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  2. Austen-Smith, D. 1980. ‘On the impact of revenue subsidies on repertory theatre policy.’ Journal of Cultural Economics. 4: 9–17.Google Scholar
  3. Barba, Eugenio. 1987. ‘The etymological intellectual’. New Theatre Quarterly. 3 (10): 188–191.Google Scholar
  4. Barba, Eugenio and Richard Fowler. 1982. ‘Theatre Anthropology’. The Drama Review: TDR. 26 (2): 5–32.Google Scholar
  5. Bartula, Malgorszata and Stefan Schroer. 2001. Über Improvisation. Neun Gespräche mit Roberto Ciulli. Duisburg: trikont.Google Scholar
  6. Blanes, Ruy, Alex Flynn, Maïté Maskens, and Jonas Tinius. 2016. Eds. ‘Micro-utopias: anthropological perspectives on art, relationality, and creativity’. Special Issue. Cadernos de Arte e Antropologia/Journal of Art and Anthropology (5)1.
  7. Bohannan, Laura. 1966. ‘Shakespeare in the Bush’. Natural History 75: 28–33.Google Scholar
  8. Bojadžijev, Manuela and Regina Römhild. 2014. ‘Was kommt nach dem “transnational turn”? Perspektiven für eine kritische Migrationsforschung’. Berliner Blätter. Ethnographische und Ethnologische Beiträge 65: 10–24.Google Scholar
  9. Boyer, Dominic. 2013. ‘Simply the Best: Parody and Political Sincerity’. American Ethnologist 40 (2): 276–284.Google Scholar
  10. Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2007 [2000]. Provincializing Europe. Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Ciulli, Roberto. 2013. ‘Staatspreis NRW für Roberto Ciulli. “Ich blicke auf die Welt wie ein Clown”. Interview with Dorothee Krings. Rheinische Post. 20. November 2013.Google Scholar
  12. Ciulli, Roberto and Helmut Schäfer. N.d. ‘Das Modell’. Subsection ‘Konzeption’. Website of the Theater an der Ruhr. Mülheim., last accessed on 11 October 2017.
  13. ———. N.d. ‘Grundsatz International’. Subsection ‘Konzeption’. Website of the Theater an der Ruhr. Mülheim., last accessed on 11 October 2017.
  14. Crehan, K. 2011. Community Art. An Anthropological Perspective. London/New York: Berghahn.Google Scholar
  15. Daniel, U. 1999. Hoftheater. Zur Geschichte des Theaters und der Höfe im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar
  16. Deck, J. and A. Sieburg. Eds. 2011. Politisch Theater Machen. Neue Artikulationsformen des Politischen in den darstellenden Künsten. Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
  17. Deutscher Bühnenverein. 1999. Theaterstatistik 1998/99. Cologne: Deutscher Bühnenverein.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 2015. Theaterstatistik 2013/2014. Cologne: Deutscher Bühnenverein.Google Scholar
  19. Evans, Nicholas and Jonathan Mair. 2015. ‘Ethics across Borders. Incommensurability and Affinity’. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 5 (2): 201–225.Google Scholar
  20. Fischer-Lichte, E., T. Jost and S. I. Jain 2014. eds. The Politics of Interweaving Performance Cultures. Beyond Postcolonialism. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Flynn, Alex and Jonas Tinius. ‘Reflecting on political performance: Introducing critical perspectives’ (Introduction), in: Anthropology, Theatre, and Performance: The Transformative Potential of Performance. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
  22. Grütters, Monika. 2014a. “Wir müssen unsere Kulturlandschaft schützen!” Interview conducted by Nina May. Leipziger Volkszeitung. 28 July 2014., last accessed on 10 October 2017.
  23. ———. 2014b. ‘Rede von Kulturstaatsministerin Monika Grütters im Rahmen der Mitgliederversammlung des Deutschen Kulturrates’. 25 September 2014. Staatsministerin für Kultur und Medien., last accessed on 10 October 2017.
  24. Hänzi, Denis. 2013. Die Ordnung des Theaters. Eine Soziologie der Regie. Bielefeld: transcript.Google Scholar
  25. Hemke, Rolf C. 2008. ‘Rolf C. Hemke, Netzwerker’. Interview conducted by Margitta Ulbricht. Westfalenpost. 7 December 2008., last accessed on 10 October 2017.
  26. ———. Ed. 2010 Theatre in Sub-Saharan Africa. Berlin: Theater der Zeit.Google Scholar
  27. ———. Ed. 2013. Theatre in the Arab World. Berlin: Theater der Zeit.. Ed. 2013. Theatre in the Arab World. Berlin: Theater der Zeit.Google Scholar
  28. Kallmorgen, W. 1955. Was heisst und zu welchem Ende baut man Kommunaltheater. Darmstadt: Verlag Das Beispiel.Google Scholar
  29. Klein, Armin. 2008 [2003]. Besucherbindung im Kulturbetrieb. Ein Handbuch. 2te Auflage. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  30. Marsden, Magnus/Ibañez-Tirado, Diana/Henig, David. 2016. ‘Everyday Diplomacy. Introduction to Special Issue’. The Cambridge Journal of Anthropology. 34(2): 2–22.Google Scholar
  31. Marx, P. W. 2003. Theater und kulturelle Erinnerung. Kultursemiotische Untersuchungen zu George Tabori, Tadeusz Kantor und Rina Yerushalmi. Basel/Tübingen: A. Francke.Google Scholar
  32. Montias, J. M. (1983) ‘Public support for the performing arts in Europe and the United States’, in: Comparative Development Perspectives. G. Ranis and R. L. West. Eds. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press; reprinted in: P. DiMaggio. 1986. Nonprofit Enterprise in the Arts. Studies in Mission and Constraint. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 287–319.Google Scholar
  33. Neligan, Adriana. 2006. ‘Public funding and repertoire conventionality in the German public theatre sector: an econometric analysis’. Applied Economics. 38: 1111-1121.Google Scholar
  34. O’Hagan, John. 1998. The State and the Arts: An Analysis of Key Economic Policy Issues in Europe and in the United States. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  35. O’Hagan, John and Adriana Neligan. 2005. ‘State Subsidies and Repertoire Conventionality in the Non-Profit English Theatre Sector: An Econometric Analysis’. Journal of Cultural Economics. 29: 35–57.Google Scholar
  36. Oxford Dictionary of English. 2015. 3rd Edn. Ed. Angus Stevenson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Seidl, Rupert. 2012. ‘Darum reisen wir!’. Blog entry. Warum reisen wir? Das Onlinetagebuch des Theater an der Ruhr. 26 November 2012., last accessed 10 October 2017.
  38. Taylor, Diana. 2003. The Archive and the Repertoire. Performing Cultural Memory in the Americas. Durham/London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Throsby, D. C. 1994. ‘The production and consumption of the arts: a view of cultural economics.’ Journal of Economic Literature. 32: 1–29.Google Scholar
  40. Tinius, Jonas. 2015a. ‘Bilder, Reisen und Theaterlandschaften. Roberto Ciullis Theater an der Ruhr.’ Das Deutsche Theater im 20. Jahrhundert. Kleine Schriften der Gesellschaft für Theatergeschichte. Heft 43. Berlin: Gesellschaft für Theatergeschichte, pp. 127–151.Google Scholar
  41. ———. 2015b. ‘Activism and Autonomy, Political Aesthetics and Aesthetic Politics’, in: Anthropology, Theatre, and Development. The Transformative Potential of Theatre. Flynn, Alex and Jonas Tinius. Eds. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 259–263.Google Scholar
  42. ———. 2015c. ‘Ethical self-cultivation as the politics of engaged theatre. How theatre engages refugee politics’, in: Anthropology, Theatre, and Development. The Transformative Potential of Theatre. Flynn, Alex and Jonas Tinius. Eds. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 171–202.Google Scholar
  43. ———. 2015d. ‘Institutional formations and artistic critique in German ensemble theatre’. Performance Research: A Journal of the Performing Arts. 20(4): 71–77.Google Scholar
  44. ———. 2015e. ‘Between Professional Precariousness and Creative Self-Organisation: The Free Performing Arts Scene in Germany’, in: Pascal Gielen and Nico Dockx. Eds. Mobile Autonomy: Exercises in Artists’ Self-Organisation. Amsterdam: Valiz, pp. 171–193.Google Scholar
  45. ———. 2017. ‘Art as ethical practice: anthropological observations on and beyond theatre’. World Art
  46. ———. forthcoming (2018). ‘Interstitial Agents: Negotiating Diversity in Theatre’, in: Bock, Jan-Jonathan and Sharon Macdonald. Eds. Germany’s Differences – Newcomers, Nationhood, and Negotiating Belonging. Oxford/New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  47. Vietta, E. 1955. Darmstädter Gespräch: Theater. Darmstadt: Neue Darmstädter Verlagsanstalt GmbH.Google Scholar
  48. Watson, I. 2002. Negotiating Cultures‬: Eugenio Barba and the Intercultural Debate. Manchester: Manchester University PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Anthropological Research on Museums and Heritage (CARMAH), Institute of European EthnologyHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations