Independence and new political systems in Eastern Europe brought with them many unknowns. The last decade of the 20th century in Eastern Europe was also a very important moment for the cultural life of Eastern European countries. In the majority of these countries since 1945, culture was the domain of the state and all its institutions were nationalized. The 1990s brought a major transformation in this sphere. Based on free market principles, a new fi lm and music industry came to life, and the book and media markets grew. However, these dramatic changes were less visible in theatre and dance.

The nationalization of culture after World War II was a reflection of Soviet cultural policy on the shape of social life of most of the countries studied by the EEPAP. One needs to emphasize, however, that while on the Eastern side of the iron curtain the state took it upon itself to popularize culture among the broad masses and financed its organization, following the social-realist, centralist Soviet model, at the same time in the west the authorities were developing the welfare state model, progressively taking culture under their care as well.

Let us quote some examples. After the war, in Great Britain—a country where the decision about public funding of the theatres was made relatively late—the National Theatre was established in 1949 and its enormous, modern building constructed in 1976. In France, in the 1960’s the minister of culture Andre Malraux created a national network of “les maisons de la culture”. In 1970, the activists of the Norwegian International Theatre Institute proclaimed with great satisfaction that the last private theatre in Oslo was closed down and transformed into a city-financed institution. Stabilization of cultural activity was the common feature of the cultural policy in the majority of the countries of post-war Europe.

In this context one also needs to mention the cultural policy implemented in the United States at the time of Kennedy’s and later Johnson’s presidency, and the creation of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and Theatre Communications Group, meant to organize and support the more ambitious American repertory theatres.

“This was ‘meritocracy’: the opening up of elite institutions to mass applicants at public expense or at least underwritten by public assistance,” is how the English historian, Tony Judt, sums up the cultural achievement of the welfare state. “It began the process of replacing selection by inheritance or wealth with upward mobility through education.”

In the 1980s the situation changed radically. New economic thinking by the British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and of the U.S. President Ronald Reagan came to dominate the understanding of the function of the state not only in their respective nations, but in many other countries as well. Therefore, at the turn of the nineties the success of the political transformation of the Eastern European countries was oft en measured by the decrease of state influence in all spheres of life. And in keeping with the spirit of the times, if one wanted to succeed, change was what mattered most.

It is also at this time that big business radically changed its “modus operandi”: from stable development within a bureaucratic frame to the light speed of short-term financial operation. American sociologist Richard Sennett observes that in the last years, “institutional beauty consisted in demonstrating signs of the internal change and flexibility, appearing to be a dynamic company, even if the once-stable company had worked perfectly well before.” Today stability is perceived as a sign of weakness, a signal that the company is not innovative enough, that it cannot manage change, while readiness for destabilization is a positive sign. “Big governments and civic institutions have tried to dismantle their institutional past following this model,” continues Sennett . “The very image of large, stable bureaucracies providing long term, predictable benefits horrifies political reformers.” This way of thinking also influenced culture. British Theatres had a particularly difficult time under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

In the context of these tendencies in the world, art communities in Eastern Europe at the threshold of independence were prepared for serious changes. It was obvious that theatres would no longer be able to function according to the rules defined by the socialist states. In Bulgaria, changes were set off not only by the change of political system but also by the crisis of theatre that began in the 1980s: excessive employment, lack of competitiveness, ineffectiveness. Other countries had to deal with the serious problem of the decline of audiences (Ukraine) and the crisis of the theatres themselves (Poland).

Serious institutional change was feared in some countries. In the Czech Republic, after the political transformation, there was great anxiety about the possible collapse of the theatre network (which had been systematically developing and expanding in the post-war years). In the end only one theatre in Prague and two in the provinces were closed down.

In Poland in 1989, the announcement of the possible closings of institutions was accepted as the necessary result of the political changes, but similarly this positive attitude soon changed. Already in 1990, and in the following years, the spectre of shutdowns loomed large over the debates on the reform of theatre life, although in the end only two theatres with permanent staff were closed down. It is worth pointing out that one of these theatres was reborn thirteen years later on the initiative of the local authorities.

Essentially, for Eastern European theatre communities, particularly for their more important representatives (Poland, Czechoslovakia), the experience of transformation was not particularly dramatic…

SEE MORE: DOWNLOAD THE REPORT

SEE ALSO: IETM ON EEPAP