Creative Europe in Slovenia: Glej Theatre as a Space for Experimentation, Participatory Practices, and Devised Theatre by Young People
Glej Theatre as a Space for Experimentation, Participatory Practices, and Devised Theatre by Young People
Glej Theatre has developed long-term, in-depth work with young people – not merely as an audience, but as creative practitioners. What draws you most to this work? And which needs of young people did you find most overlooked within the institutional theatre landscape?
Poček: In 2014 and 2015, most theatre production for young people in Slovenia was created without actually involving young people. Youth performances typically featured adult actors playing children and teenagers, were directed by adults, and were based on texts by adult authors. The choice of themes – again determined by adults – was often patronising and prone to moralising. Productions that attempted to move beyond this framework and address more complex subjects such as addiction, sexuality, and identity were often at the centre of public controversy over their supposed “harmfulness” or unsuitability.
Even back then, we were closely following the development of different practices abroad – models that organically involved young people in creative processes and established theatre as a tool for overcoming social and cultural exclusion. Particularly inspiring was the example of an organisation in the Netherlands that provided parallel artistic education to young people from culturally disadvantaged backgrounds. Over time, this raised their chances of being accepted into arts academies and pursuing professional careers, while former participants became mentors to the next generations. This circular model of passing on knowledge and responsibility seemed enormously significant to us. Amid a marked decline in audiences aged 14 to 19, we observed that devised theatre and contemporary performance practices had virtually no place in formal education and thus remained largely unknown to most young people. We launched the project Generation to Generation to open up a dialogue and offer the generations we were losing from our auditoriums a direct experience of devised theatre – not as consumers, but as co-creators.
When we entrust young people with an authorial role, a shift occurs: they move from being passive recipients of content to active makers of meaning. Their motivation changes, as does their sense of responsibility and way of thinking about art. Theatre is no longer just a space of interpretation, but becomes a space for articulating their own experience. It is precisely this feeling – that their voice is legitimate and heard – that we felt was essential to building a healthy relationship with theatre.
Remeta: At Glej Theatre, we regarded the development of new models for working with young people as a strategic decision, never as a single, isolated project. We began with the principle that unfamiliarity is not a weakness but a developmental potential. That is why we systematically focused on research and education in participatory models already demonstrating measurable effects abroad, both artistically and socially. Based on these practices, we shaped our own approach, grounded in the active authorial participation of young people.
The results were multi-layered. The first effect was the establishment of a more lasting relationship with audiences: young people were not merely occasional participants in performances but became long-term partners of the institution. They returned to the theatre and brought their peers with them, organically expanding the community around the programme. The second aspect – strategically even more significant – was the development of competencies. The programmes fostered not only artistic expression but also a transferable set of skills: critical thinking, responsibility, self-confidence, the ability to articulate viewpoints and to collaborate.
In this way, the theatre assumed a broader social function; it became a space for shaping active, engaged individuals. Over a decade of consistent work, this multi-layered impact on art, audiences, and society has consolidated Glej’s position as a reference point for the development of participatory and devised practices with young people.
The DNA – Development of New Art project focused on supporting new performative approaches and genre-hybrid practices. How important is it for emerging artists to have a space for risk-taking and experimentation?
Remeta: The decision to join the DNA – Development of New Art project was strategically important for Glej precisely because, at that time, it was not our “first choice” in terms of established programme priorities. Quite the contrary, we saw it as an opportunity to test new practices, experiment with different production models, and explore new forms of collaboration. We developed the project’s central thread – dance – in our own distinctive, hybrid way. The project brought us not only new aesthetic insights but, above all, a sense of institutional empowerment: we stepped onto the international scene as an equal partner rather than merely as an observer, and began operating within the European space in a more systematic and ambitious way. It set us on a new developmental and organisational trajectory, consolidated in subsequent years through the successful acquisition of European funding and participation in international networks. This shift was not purely financial; it also influenced organisational culture, the professionalisation of production processes, and the broadening of strategic partnerships.
Poček: The DNA – Development of New Art project was nearing completion when I joined Glej, but for me it was significant mainly as an introduction to performance practices I had not previously encountered. It broadened my understanding of how wide-ranging and hybrid the field of contemporary performing arts can be – how it can transcend both genre and institutional boundaries. In the business world, multi-million-euro investments in research and development departments are taken for granted; companies systematically test ideas, hoping that one will reshape the entire ecosystem. Without this, there is no innovation, no long-term progress. The same applies to the arts – yet here, constant excellence is often expected with minimal resources. Not only emerging artists, but anyone seeking to deepen their practice, needs time and conditions for exploration – that is, for experimentation, detours, and even mistakes. The ecosystem progresses precisely because there is space for risk-taking. In this sense, smaller venues such as Glej Theatre are enormously important. They can afford to support people and their processes, not just finished products. Such spaces enable the development of artistic languages that may initially lack a clear market or institutional footing, yet whose influence can prove broader in the long run. European projects play a particularly important role in this regard, facilitating the exchange of practices, the transfer of knowledge, and engagement with diverse aesthetic and production models.
Remeta: I think it is also important to emphasise the role of producers and leadership: without courageous producers who embrace experimentation, take risks, and support processes without guaranteed outcomes, artists cannot have a genuine testing ground for exploration. Experimentation is not only an artistic category; it is also a production and organisational stance. Through projects such as DNA, Glej has demonstrated the courage to pursue hybrid, genre-elusive, and development-oriented practices. I see one of its core missions as preserving and protecting this space for risk-taking in the future as well, since it is precisely from these peripheral, unpredictable processes that the vitality of the entire theatre field emerges.
In the ID: BABYLON project, you explored European identity through the personal experiences of teenagers from diverse social backgrounds.
Remeta: ID: BABYLON marked a moment when, as an organisation, we truly took a deep breath and made a significant leap forward. Two years of continuous work with young people from Italy, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Slovenia required a high level of coordination, production stability, and professional support, but at the same time enabled young people to engage in an in-depth process that shorter projects rarely allow. We devised a performance on the theme of identity – national, European, and personal. The process was based on research carried out in each country, followed by collaborative text writing and the development of an international co-production. After premieres in Slovenia and Italy, we began a tour, which was unfortunately cut short by the pandemic, though this did not diminish the power of the process itself.
Did you notice any differences in how young people from different countries think about belonging, identity, and the future?
Remeta: What was perhaps most surprising were the similarities. Through these exchanges, young people quickly discovered that they were facing very similar challenges: uncertainty about the future, questions of belonging, the pressure of expectations, and the search for their own voice. Differences in cultural contexts did exist, but the underlying experiences were alike. When their stories came to life on a shared stage, a collective message of remarkable energy emerged. The feeling that they were not alone, that their experiences were reflected in their peers from other countries, had an undeniable force. Friendships, alliances, and a sense of European connectedness were formed – one that was not abstract, but personal.
It is also important to highlight the role of our professional support. We offered young people not just workshops, but full production conditions: funding, responsibility, professional standards, mentorship, dramaturgical support, technical infrastructure, and an international stage. In doing so, we gave their work a legitimacy and seriousness that go beyond a school or extracurricular framework. When young people are given a professional environment, their sense of responsibility and artistic ambition grow in proportion to the trust placed in them. The project confirmed that investing in young artists is a long-term investment – not only in them, but in the future of the theatre field itself.
The Future = NOW! A Youth Manifesto project brought together art and activism. How do you see the role of theatre today in opening up space for social dialogue?
Remeta: For us, the Future = NOW! A Youth Manifesto project represented a clear articulation of something we had already been developing in practice: the integration of art and activism. At the time, we consciously referred to this as “artivism”. Today it is clear that it is not a marginal phenomenon but one of the defining processes of our era. Young artists no longer draw a strict line between artistic expression and social engagement. Their need for artistic articulation is simultaneously a need for political and ethical positioning in the world.
The role of theatre today, in my view, lies above all in opening up space for dialogue – not as a declarative platform, but as a concrete site of encounter between different perspectives. Theatre has the advantage of being live, collective, and time-bound – it creates community in the here and now. Precisely because of this, it can become a space where social conflicts, questions about the future, and generational tensions are not merely thematised, but literally staged.
In your view, how do the independent theatre scene and public institutions differ in how they create this space for dialogue?
Remeta: Today, I no longer see a difference in content or ambition; the key distinction lies mainly in response time. The independent scene can respond more quickly to the needs of the cultural landscape, new social phenomena, and generational shifts. Public institutions are slower by virtue of their structure, but this does not mean they cannot or should not do the same. On the contrary, I believe it is extremely important that public institutions also take on this responsibility. To their credit, some already have.
Let us cast our minds back to the early days of our youth programmes. At that time, some colleagues in the field criticised us, claiming that by bringing non-professionals onto the stage we were “amateurising” a professional institution, attempting to discredit our work and undermine our credibility. Yet very soon afterwards, public institutions recognised the necessity of incorporating young people and participatory programmes into their core programming. What had initially been seen as a departure from professionalism proved to be one of the key defining directions of contemporary theatre.
It is also important to recognise that the theatre space must be co-shaped by young people with their own themes and concerns, rather than having adults impose their agendas. This shift from representation to authorship was crucial. We are glad we persisted at the time, even when we had to fight our corner, because it is precisely from those decisions that one of the central fields of contemporary theatre practice has taken shape.
Artivism is no longer an excess or a radical appendage to art. It is art’s natural extension at a time when social, environmental, and political crises directly affect the generation stepping onto the stage. If theatre is to remain a relevant space, it must allow this energy to find expression – responsibly, professionally supported, and in open dialogue with society.
Reflecting on these projects, which insights about working with young people and the conditions necessary for high-quality creative work do you consider most important?
Poček: When I look back at the past ten years, it seems to me that the conditions for working with young people have, paradoxically, both improved and become more complex. In the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, awareness of the importance of high-quality content for young people and of the value of collective creative activity for their development and mental health has grown considerably. Institutions and funders now more readily recognise that art is not merely an “added value” but a space for socialisation, reflection, and identity formation. At the same time, at a societal level, we are witnessing greater fragmentation, individualisation, and an erosion of shared values. Young people enter these processes with a greater need for safe spaces, clear frameworks, and competent guidance. Quality work with young people therefore demands a considerably broader set of skills today than it did a decade ago.
My most important insight is that the artistic process alone is not sufficient. What is crucial is continuity in the long term, rather than one-off projects; time for the process without the pressure of immediate results; a stable mentoring environment; and well-trained mentors who, in addition to artistic expertise, are skilled in group facilitation, working with vulnerable individuals, and recognising and resolving conflicts.
High-quality work with young people is intensive and requires preparation, reflection, and supportive structures. It means additional training and the acquisition of new knowledge, often from outside our primary artistic field (such as pedagogy, psychology, and mediation). This directly raises the question of financial and time investment for both producers and artists. In existing production conditions, budgets are often project-based, timelines short, and administrative demands ever-increasing.
Remeta: Reflecting on these projects, my greatest insight is that working with young people is not a programmatic add-on but a developmental investment. When we entrust young people with space, time, and professional support, we are not merely nurturing a single generation of artists or audiences but transforming the structure of the theatre field in the long term. This type of creative work is often mistakenly perceived as softer or less demanding; in reality, it requires a high level of professionalism and a broader set of competencies than many conventional production models. The producer must understand the developmental process, not just the logistics. The institution must be prepared to invest in knowledge that extends beyond the narrow artistic sector.
One of my key finding is also that quality does not arise from the improvisation of good intentions, but from clearly defined conditions: continuity, a stable production infrastructure, professionally trained mentors, and, above all, time. Time for exploration, for mistakes, for collective reflection. Across all the projects – from Generation to Generation to international co-productions – it has consistently been long-term commitment that enables genuine transformation, both personal and artistic.
Where do you see the greatest obstacles to high-quality creative work today – including creative work with young people?
Poček: In my view, the greatest obstacle today lies precisely in the mismatch between expectations and conditions. The cultural sector is increasingly expected to deliver social, pedagogical, and even therapeutic outcomes, without appropriate systemic frameworks in place. This raises the issue of the instrumentalisation of culture – the risk that art becomes a substitute for the shortcomings of other public systems, and without adequate support at that.
This is why the networks, partnerships, and support structures that have grown out of past projects are so enormously valuable. Long-term European and local connections enable the transfer of knowledge, shared training, and the distribution of responsibility. Without these structures, work of this kind would be considerably harder to sustain.
Remeta: The paradox is that awareness of the importance of our work is greater than ever, yet systemic support remains limited to individual projects. I too see the greatest obstacle in the mismatch between ambition and existing production frameworks. I believe theatre can open up space for reflection, community, and empowerment – but only if working conditions are stable and its value is not measured solely by short-term performance indicators.
That said, I remain optimistic. The experience of international connections, networks, and partnerships has shown that, with perseverance and a clear programmatic focus, a sustainable model can be established. The greatest challenge in the coming years will be to ensure that process – not merely product – remains at the centre.
Glej regularly connects with international networks and professional platforms, not only through projects but also via the TRIGGER platform. How does this type of collaboration with networks such as Onda, IETM, and EAIPA differ from traditional project-based partnerships? Why is internationalisation important for organisations such as Glej?
Poček: Internationalisation is important not only for organisations such as Glej, but for the cultural ecosystem as a whole. The Slovenian space is small and production conditions are limited, so the long-term vitality of the scene is directly linked to its international embeddedness. This is why we conceived the TRIGGER platform as a community-based model – a space that brings together as many stakeholders as possible who understand that continuity and collective representation are essential for effective internationalisation. Slovenian performing arts can be most powerfully represented internationally when working together, rather than in a fragmented fashion.
Collaboration with networks such as Onda, IETM, and EAIPA differs substantially from conventional project partnerships, which are time-limited and tied to specific objectives, budgets, and deliverables. Networks operate at the level of long-term relationships, information exchange, advocacy, and collective policy shaping. In these horizontal structures local content and diversity of contexts are central; through them more sustained access to these contexts, knowledge, and people is established. They broaden their members’ perspectives, facilitate the flow of information, and make it easier to build international connections.
In Slovenia, comparable structural mechanisms are almost entirely absent, and systemic incentives for international networking are also limited. Access to the international arena therefore largely depends on individual organisations or individuals willing to invest their time, resources, and energy. In practice, this means primarily public institutions, and among non-governmental organisations, those with stable programme funding. Artists, with their limited financial resources, have even fewer opportunities for an independent international presence and for networking. This is where organisations such as Glej play an important role, using their infrastructure, networks, and continuity to open up access to the international arena for artists who could not otherwise afford it.
Beyond this, the Slovenian production model is quite specific. Here, production houses are typically programme-funded and collaborate with various artists and collectives, while long-term structural support tied to a single artist or group is rare. In much of western Europe, the system works the other way around: support is often linked directly to artistic collectives or groups, enabling a longer developmental trajectory and greater stability. This results in uneven developmental potential for artists from different systems.
TRIGGER aims to address these inequalities directly. It creates a space for international networking for artists on their home ground, while drawing out local specificities and situating them in a broader context. Rather than the international arena being accessible only to those who can afford constant mobility, we seek to bring part of that infrastructure here. The arrival of international professionals and artists in the local context brings fresh perspectives, different production logics, and questions that we ourselves, out of habit or systemic familiarity, have often stopped asking. The exchange of perspectives is essential for reflecting on one’s own practices and for development, both at the level of individuals and the entire ecosystem.
Remeta: Internationalisation is not a project. It is not a tick box on a funding application. It is not tourist mobility, nor is it networking for networking’s sake. Internationalisation is a decision for openness. It is a conscious choice not to measure your work solely within your own backyard, but to place it in dialogue with the world. Entering the international arena means accepting the risk of comparison. You come face to face with different production models, higher standards, and diverse aesthetics. This disciplines you. It educates you. It forces you into clarity. And it makes you better.
Today, having worked outside Glej for just over a year and with some distance from it, I look with admiration at how deeply this understanding was embedded in the way we operated. Internationalisation did not only make us more financially stable, but also more ambitious in our content, more competent as an organisation, and more considered in our strategy. It taught us long-term thinking and partnership. And it taught us that credibility is not built overnight.
The value of this was most clearly demonstrated in 2022, when Glej lost its funding. At that moment, the international community responded – not out of courtesy, but out of recognition. Organisations, networks, and artists from various countries spoke up, offered support, and helped. That is when you understand you have been building something real: a community that transcends the boundaries of national politics and momentary decisions. You build alliances stronger than any single funding call. You build resilience.
For a small cultural space such as Slovenia’s, internationalisation is not a luxury, but a condition for survival and development. Without it, we remain enclosed within our own limitations, debates, and cycles of self-validation. With it, we become part of a broader ecosystem where knowledge flows freely, solidarity is established horizontally, and art is not a local curiosity but part of a global dialogue. Internationalisation fills your heart, because you know you are not alone. Yet at the same time, it places a responsibility on you: to remain relevant, courageous, and open.
This, in my view, is one of Glej’s greatest legacies: it understood the world to be not a threat, but a space for collaboration. And this space must be built persistently, strategically, and with the faith that culture transcends borders.
About the article
The interview was prepared by Nika Mušič in February 2026 in the framework of the public procurement “Development and upgrade of information portals of the Ministry of Culture for the transition to the eKultura platform” in which Motovila Institute collaborates as a partner with Ljudmila Art and Science Laboratory.
See also
- Glej Theatre
- Creative Europe Desk Slovenia
- Mateja Lazar, Nika Mušič and Sabina Briški Karlić: Creative Europe 2024. Slovenia’s Imprint on the European Cultural Space
- Mateja Lazar: The First Decade of the EU Creative Europe Programme