Audience first
As part of the collaboration with the TRIGGER festival, two in-depth analytical essays are produced by Karolina Bugajak and Metod Zupan. The texts connect the productions included in the festival’s programme and reflect on their aesthetic approaches, production models, and broader social and artistic contexts.
Slovenian version of the text can be found here.
“Trigger” is a word that appears more and more often in theatre. Trigger warnings are becoming common as awareness of audience wellbeing grows. This is an example of the age of the spectator and a turn towards the audience. Symbolically, the TRIGGER Showcase Festival has the same word in its title and, somewhat ironically, this year it focuses primarily on the audience.
Festivals and showcases are becoming an increasingly popular and influential way of presenting art and theatre. Their programmes and curatorial choices, although often personal, are also political and shaped by the context of a given country and its culture. The role of theirs curators includes identifying new artists and trends, preparing contextual materials, and taking a clear position by speaking out.1 M. Keil, Praktyki instytucjonalne festiwali, POLISH THEATRE JOURNAL nr 01, 2015, p. 7. For this reason, shaping discourse becomes one of the key elements in the process of creating a showcase. It allows performances to exist in the awareness of guests and to be interpreted in an appropriate way. This is why these texts have been created – to present the perspectives and directions of development in Slovenian independent theatre in a clear and accessible manner.
Programming a showcase is fundamentally different from programming a festival in its classical form. The aim of a showcase is not only to present a selection of the “best” artistic works, but above all to offer an overview of current trends, aesthetics, and models of theatrical practice operating within a given country, community, or institution at a specific moment in time.
Programming a showcase is fundamentally different from programming a festival in its classical form. The aim of a showcase is not only to present a selection of the “best” artistic works, but above all to offer an overview of current trends, aesthetics, and models of theatrical practice operating within a given country, community, or institution at a specific moment in time. In the case of the TRIGGER showcase, the curatorial process is limited to presenting performances produced by the partner organisations that co-create the event. However, there is also the possibility of inviting a performance that was created outside the circle of partners. This kind of structural narrowing of the selection, one might think, may lead to the omission of some themes and aesthetics present on the independent theatre scene. At the same time, considering the scale of Slovenian off-theatre and the size of the country itself, it can be stated that a significant part of the key trends will still be represented.
An analysis of the programmes from previous editions makes it possible to observe both the presence of new creators in each subsequent edition of the showcase and the rotating nature of the invited artists. The recurrence of certain names seems to result from long-term relationships between artists and specific producing organisations. The programme is also characterised by clear thematic and aesthetic diversity.
In this year’s programme, participatory performances seem to be particularly prominent. By “participatory,” I mean performances that actively seek to engage the spectator or attempt to establish a specific relationship with the audience through participatory tools and strategies. Elements of participatory theatre can be seen at this year’s showcase in the performances Sukeban, To Our Delight, Jadran Resort, and Under Control. Signs of participation can also be noticed in the performances Is joy II and The Art of Living: The Act of Killing. In total, more than half of the performances selected for the showcase involve working with the audience.
Why participatory theatre ?
As many theatre scholars have already noted, the nineteenth century was the age of actors, the twentieth century the age of directors, and contemporary theatre now belongs to audiences.2 Anna R. Burzyńska, Introduction [in:] Joined forces. Audience participation in theatre, House of Fire, Berlin 2016, p. 9. Despite the well-established theory of the emancipated spectator by Jacques Rancière, with which many theatre makers seem to agree at least on a declarative level, we can observe a growing number of performances in which directors and artists attempt to physically activate the audience, for example by inviting spectators onto the stage or addressing them with direct questions. Perhaps this is an extension of Rancière’s philosophy, through which artists want more and seek to co-create with the audience, giving them part of their own space.3 Ibid. It is worth emphasising that this tendency is particularly characteristic of independent theatres, from Grotowski and Living Theatre to todays Ontroerend Goed and Rimini Protokoll.
It seemed to me that many performers were primarily focused on their own emotions, creating performances that functioned almost as a form of personal expression or self-therapy. As a result, audiences were often left attempting to decipher someone’s inner world, which does not always produce a meaningful or engaging theatrical experience.
I must admit that when I first came to Slovenia, it seemed to me that many performers were primarily focused on their own emotions, creating performances that functioned almost as a form of personal expression or self-therapy. As a result, audiences were often left attempting to decipher someone’s inner world, which does not always produce a meaningful or engaging theatrical experience. For this reason, I am particularly encouraged to see an increasing number of performances that shift their focus toward the audience.
However, it is difficult for me to outline a simple characteristics of participatory theatre in Slovenia. This is because each performance, both those included in the programme and those outside it, seems to have a different form of participation, specific to the individual production. For this reason, it may be best to say that there is no single Slovenian model of participation, as each artist carefully adapts its form to the theme and structure of the performance. What certainly does exist, however, is the creators’ need to activate their Slovenian (and not only) audiences. This raises the question: why is that and why now? A few ideas have come to my mind that could perhaps serve as useful lines of interpretation.
The first idea connects to a sense of community. Perhaps theatre that seeks greater collectivity in small performance spaces reflects a need to rebuild community in a world that increasingly values individualism, while tradition, with its inherent sense of communal or even tribal connection, gradually fades. Looking more broadly, collective performances may be particularly necessary now, at a time when the world is consumed by wars, the spectre of fascism casts its shadow over Europe once again, and societies (including in Slovenia) are becoming increasingly polarized. In this context, the idea of community appears as an appropriate response to contemporary tensions and crises. Maybe another perspective is one from someone coming from a larger country but perhaps this approach is gaining popularity in Slovenia because, in smaller countries, activating and involving the audience is simply easier. This may be due to the already intimate and close-knit nature of the independent scene, where everyone knows one another.
Creators working in Slovenia draw on the strategies and tools of participatory theatre when addressing politically and socially significant issues such as ecology and feminism. These approaches align with broader tendencies observable across Europe. Building relationships with the audience and involving them in the structure of a performance then becomes not only an aesthetic device but also a consciously applied tool of influence.
There is also a more pragmatic interpretative perspective, referring to the concept of “artivism,” understood as the intersection of artistic practices and activist actions. This kind of theatre does not function in isolation, but often intersects with other important topics. Creators working in Slovenia draw on the strategies and tools of participatory theatre when addressing politically and socially significant issues such as ecology and feminism. These approaches align with broader tendencies observable across Europe. Building relationships with the audience and involving them in the structure of a performance then becomes not only an aesthetic device but also a consciously applied tool of influence. Activating the audience by inviting them to co-create the performance serves an educational and emancipatory function. It encourages deeper reflection, raises awareness, and sensitizes spectators to issues that the creators consider key to the artistic project.
Who is on stage?
I will begin with the performance Sukeban, directed by Varja Hrvatin. The title refers to Japanese female gangs. The title itself establishes a particular interpretative path, revolving around feminist issues. Both the title and the country of its cultural origin shape the aesthetics of the performance as well as the way its narrative and structure are constructed. The performance features two artists who, dressed in futuristic costumes inspired by Japanese pop culture, manga aesthetics, and cosplay conventions, evoke various forms of male violence against women and openly call for resistance against it. The entire piece is set within the conventions of a video game, and the choreography of movement resembles animated gestures of anime characters.
The performance can be understood as an example of feminist art aligned with the paradigm of fourth-wave feminism, strongly connected to online activism and social media. Moreover, the participatory element in the form of a multimedia voting application embedded in the performance can also be seen as an example of online feminism, since the audience must be online in order to participate in the vote. In the context of feminist themes, this strategy takes on particular significance. The artists pose controversial questions that, on one hand, serve an investigative function by addressing the social position of women, and on the other, force the audience to confront issues such as pornography, positioning spectators as part of the system being examined. This can create discomfort for some, as they are suddenly required to answer questions about their private lives.
In this format, it is difficult to speak of creating a real sense of communal experience. Everything indicates that this was not the primary goal for the creators in this case since a clear division between the artists and the audience is maintained. Multimedia participation only allows indirect engagement, and participation does not eliminate boundaries but rather redefines them.
In this format, it is difficult to speak of creating a real sense of communal experience, which as I mentioned, might be in some cases central aim of participatory theatre. Everything indicates that this was not the primary goal for the creators in this case since a clear division between the artists and the audience is maintained. Multimedia participation only allows indirect engagement, and participation does not eliminate boundaries but rather redefines them. In this sense, participation does not serve to build community but becomes an “artivist” tool. The creators use it to confront the audience with the tension between the private and the political, making the theme of the project clearer, more impactful, and harder to ignore.
Another performance that we can read as feminist is To Our Delight by Olja Grubić. The performance (or perhaps rather installation or performance art piece) defies straightforward classification, functioning at the intersection of multiple artistic currents. This hybridity of form is gradually becoming a defining feature of the independent scene. This is understandable, given that the project is part of the broader FUTURIZMI cycle,4 Futurizmi – the cycle organized by Maska in coproduction with Glej Theatre that brings together artists, researchers, and practitioners who, through performance and play, explore possible realities, https://maska.si/projekti/futurizmi/. which cannot be adequately described using commonly known categories or languages.
Olja Grubić’s project positions itself in opposition to modernist ideas of constructing grand narratives and comprehensive plans for the world. The artists focus on a seemingly banal yet extremely delicate gesture – building cities out of cookies. Over time, these structures grow uncontrollably, becoming a metaphor for a non-feminist model of the city and an unreflective, accelerated development that leaves no space for relationships or community. The audience remains attentive observers of the cookie metropolises taking shape. However, the arranged space conveys a sense of co-presence and participation in the process. In the finale, a moment of destruction occurs, a rebellious act in which the cookie cities are dismantled and transformed into edible confections, for the preparation of which the audience is invited to participate. In this way, the spectators are genuinely involved in both the process and its continuation. Moreover, the confections can be taken home. Without audience participation, the intended meaning of the project could not fully exist. The ending symbolizes a rejection of patriarchal, “male” grand narratives, replacing the monumental vision of the future with a feminist gesture of collective “cooking” and sharing a meal.
Although for most of the performance the audience is not directly involved in the action, the moment of activation acts as a binding element: it gives the whole piece meaning, completes the structure, and opens up the possibility of a communal experience.
This type of participation is at once subtle and intensely engaging, particularly because it has the potential to shape interpretation. Although for most of the performance the audience is not directly involved in the action, the moment of activation acts as a binding element: it gives the whole piece meaning, completes the structure, and opens up the possibility of a communal experience. Importantly, this participation does not require intense intellectual effort. Rather, it takes the form of a game or playful activity, which relaxes distance and creates an atmosphere of closeness, fostering a sense of collectivity. This lightness proves to be an effective strategy, because the participation does not exert pressure on the audience, nor does it force declarations or compulsory engagement. In this way, collectivity can emerge almost effortlessly, without coercion and without the audience consciously realizing their role in constructing the performance’s conclusion.
The performance that goes furthest in attempting to activate the audience is the performance/immersive walk Jadran Resort by Natalija Vujošević, Tara Langford, and Neja Tomšič. In fact, the project should primarily be understood as a structure designed to engage the audience in the world constructed by the artists. Authors address the themes of tourism and the class inequalities associated with it. This issue is presented through the creation of a fictional hotel world in Montenegro, a region increasingly exploited by wealthy investors.
Here, we are dealing with a form of performative participation, but strictly arranged, since the audience has no real influence over the course of events, which remains precisely planned. Participation determines the success of the project and shifts the focus onto the audience’s experience and active role, although it does not require personal input from the spectator. It functions more as a kind of individual analysis of the issues explored in the arranged project.
Participation is a key principle and, at the same time, the main goal of the project, as each participant is assigned a specific role in the hotel that they must play: an employee, a wealthy businessman, or a tourist. Here, we are dealing with a form of performative participation, but strictly arranged, since the audience has no real influence over the course of events, which remains precisely planned. Participation in Jadran Resort is imposed and necessary. It determines the success of the project and shifts the focus onto the audience’s experience and active role, although it does not require personal input from the spectator. It functions more as a kind of individual analysis of the issues explored in the arranged project. During the performance, there is also time to explore other characters and their tasks. This type of participation allows spectators to examine different perspectives. As a result, the issues addressed may, though not necessarily, be understood by the audience in a multifaceted way.
The question remains, however, whether a sense of community can emerge in the project, and whether it is necessary or intended? Each participant explores the Montenegrin hotel individually. Still, the audience becomes part of it alongside others, which can ultimately lead to a certain sense of collectivity among participants. Activated spectators may feel like a single ensemble cast without which the project could not exist. However, similar to Sukeban, more important is the topic of the project. It seems that not community but audience activation here is more important since participation serves as an educational tool, raising awareness of issues that are important to the creators.
The performance Under Control by Luka Piletič is another example of a trend increasingly visible in Slovenian theatre – the use of first-person narrative. The artist employs this form not only as a means of autobiographical expression but, above all, as a tool to outline a broader, possibly generational issue which is the need to find one’s place in a chaotic, capitalist reality. The performance is built on a simple staging scheme, with minimalism serving as one of its key formal features. The creator shares everyday experiences while addressing the audience directly. Gradually, he pours ping-pong balls from a box and then attempts to organize them. The motif of control is visually illustrated through the obsessive arrangement of objects. From the very beginning, the performance has an inviting, dialogical character. It is a form of participation based on direct interaction, in which the creator breaks the fourth wall and establishes a relaxed relationship with the audience. Despite the division between creator and spectators, contact between the two exists from the outset. This is supported by the humorous tone, first-person narration, and situations with which anyone can identify. The performance remains open to audience interventions, and the artist responds to the spectators’ comments.
Participation, however, always remains an individual experience, dependent on the spectator’s perspective. It is therefore important to aim for a form of participation that does not require extensive personal input while still involving the audience.
The climax of the performance comes when the audience is invited to participate in the on-stage action when spectators are asked to throw balls onto the stage, symbolically highlighting a relinquishing of control and allowing the interpretation to be completed, similar to To Our Delight. The communal experience of being together also emerges here, albeit indirectly, and not everyone may fully engage – stress or direct addresses can diminish it. Participation, however, always remains an individual experience, dependent on the spectator’s perspective. It is therefore important to aim for a form of participation that does not require extensive personal input while still involving the audience, which, in my view, succeeds in this performance.
Conclusions
The TRIGGER Showcase demonstrates that participatory theatre in Slovenia reflects a broader contemporary turn toward the audience. Although there is no single model of participation, the performances presented reveal a shared impulse to activate spectators, whether through digital interaction, immersive structures, playful collective gestures, or direct dialogue.
In Slovenian participatory theatre, community is sometimes both a goal and an underlying assumption, and, more importantly, as a device that sharpens the argument of the performance. In my view, this represents a positive development, as some urgent political or social topics seem to be overlooked within the theatrical sphere in Slovenia. It is therefore particularly significant when such issues are addressed, and explored together with the audience. There is criticism of participatory practices that says that it replace political engagement with mere participation.5 K. Duniec, O polityczności teatru, https://www.dwutygodnik.com/artykul/5695-o-politycznosci-teatru.html, (access date: 17.02.2026). In many cases, this is indeed what happens; however, the examples of participatory performances in this year’s TRIGGER programme, in my view, carry significant political impact and are not only engaging but also genuinely committed largely because of the issues they address. Interestingly, participation per se is not usually the primary focus for creators in Slovenia, as is often the case in other countries. It appears to be a natural choice, a tool for activating both theatre audiences and citizens within society, which explains the prevalence of feminist and ecological themes. In performances not included in the programme but existing in Slovenia and showing traces of participation, one can also observe issues such as precarity or the housing crisis. Participation, therefore, does not merely force involvement, but also forces the audience to focus on the problems.
A sense of community may not always fully emerge in these performances, the curatorial choices suggest another dimension of collectivity. Since we all face the consequences of the same issues, presenting works that address them creates a space for shared reflection – both for local and global audiences.
A sense of community may not always fully emerge in these performances, the curatorial choices suggest another dimension of collectivity. Since we all face the consequences of the same issues, presenting works that address them creates a space for shared reflection – both for local and global audiences. A programme in which more than half of the performances include participatory elements and aim to activate the audience reflects the openness and dialogical orientation of the independent scene. Moreover, this dialogue, as suggested by the programme’s selection, can, according to the creators, extend beyond the local context.
KAROLINA BUGAJAK
is a theater scholar, theater critic, and cultural worker from Poland who lives in Ljubljana, where she is currently pursuing a doctoral degree at the Academy of Theater, Radio, Film, and Television.