Director Tjaša Črnigoj talks to Karolina Bugajak about Sex Education II, her five-part lecture performance about women’s sexual pleasure, her approach to documentary theatre, how psychotherapy informs her work, and why she feels theater is still ruled by patriarchal culture.
Welcome to the House of Pleasure! Audiences to Play, one part of Tjaša Črnigoj’s five-part project Sex Education II, are invited to explore a room full of erotic costumes and objects related to BDSM practices. Play was just one chapter in Črnigoj’s performative lecture series in which real women shared their experiences with sexuality and desire. While the other chapters were titled Diagnosis, Consent, Ability and Fight, pleasure was the main focus of the project. Sex Education II used a documentary approach to discuss topics which are rarely addressed in schools and even less frequently in theater.
Črnigoj’s practice is focussed on documentary theater with feminist themes. She completed her education at the University of Ljubljana, AGRFT, and is currently training to become a psychodrama psychotherapist with the Slovenian Psychodrama Association. The Sex Education II project was awarded the Special Jury Award at this year’s Maribor Theatre Festival.
The interview has been edited for clarity and length.
Karolina Bugajak: The Sex Education II project and your 2023 piece, Girls, which you made with the Croatian Kolektiv Igralke, both explore female sexuality, history of female sexual emancipation, and reproductive rights. What drew you to these topics?
Tjaša Črnigoj: As a director I explored body and sexuality on stage before, but a documentary approach and a more articulated feminist position is maybe something that is specific and new with these two projects. The idea started during the first half of 2021. It was COVID and also the time of the Slovenian and Balkan #MeToo movement. For me, it was a turning point. The theaters were closed, and I found myself reflecting a lot on what kind of theater I wanted to do. Did I still want to do theater? Why would I want to do theater? What would make sense for me?
At the same time, topics about women’s sexual rights were very present in the media. I began to think that it was really important to speak about this. However, I also noticed that the media was full of stories about sexual violence and harassment. This was of course important, but it made me wonder about the other side of sexual autonomy as well. Sexual autonomy means the right that something that you don’t want is not done to you. It also means the right to do what you want (while respecting the autonomy of others).
Let’s not forget, sexual autonomy also means the right to enjoy our bodies and to experience pleasure. The right to pleasure is actually a fundamental part of sexual rights in the frame of human rights. I was thinking that if we were more conscious of that as a society, there would probably be less sexual violence and harassment. I was thinking about dedicating a piece in the theatre to this perspective. And the documentary approach seemed the most adequate because It offered an opportunity to tell a plurality of stories that haven’t been told yet.
KB: Why do you think theater is a good medium to talk about these topics?
TČ: Women’s sexual pleasure is still a big taboo in our society. It is often considered something shameful, something dirty or something indecent. We are not used to sharing stories about pleasure or sex related problems in a group setting. This is exactly why I felt theater has a great potential for addressing these topics. Theatre as a group of people that gathers to be together in the same space and to participate in something. I believed it could be exciting and, in a way transgressive, to present sexual experiences of real women in front of a group.
Sex Education II: Fight
KB: Sex Education II is a documentary theatre piece based on research and made out of several performative lectures. Every part has its own special form and theatre language. What does your creative process look like and how do you transform all your research into a theatre piece?
TČ: We had a three-month laboratory with the performers, Lina Akif, Sendi Bakotić, Nika Rozman, and Vanda Velagić, in which we explored various topics. Although I had prepared some ideas that I thought would be interesting, I kept an open mind and encouraged the performers to bring their own topics. The only fixed element was that our work would be centered around women’s sexual pleasure as a human right. During this laboratory phase, we brought in different scenes and materials, which we found organically led to the creation of specific languages for each topic. It became clear which topics resonated most with us and which made the most sense at that moment. Some scenes or combinations of scenes stood out as particularly interesting. Our process was very collaborative, and the materials we chose evolved organically. As a director, I had the final say in deciding which topics and materials to include and develop further as well as giving direction in which way to develop them.
The important moment was when other collaborators joined the process; Tijana Todorović (costume and set designer as well as designer of visuals), Tea Vidmar (vocal performer and composer), Barbara Kapelj (set designer) and Lene Lekše (set designer). The pieces were getting their final shape and the more the process progressed, the more my role became one of decision-making, building the dramaturgy of the pieces and intervening, cutting, replacing the material from the outside.
A very important part of our process was research and interviews with different women about their sexual experiences. We also had conversations with quite a few experts, and went digging into the archives. This research began already during the ‘laboratory period’ and continued until the premiere of each piece. In each of the pieces we integrated the ‘documents’ – audio recordings of interviews, copies of archival materials, artifacts – in different ways. We had a lot of fun in experimenting and inventing strategies to integrate the documents.
KB: You completed studies not only at AGRFT but also Philosophy and Comparative Literature at Faculty of Arts University of Ljubljana. How have these studies influenced or contributed to your theatrical work?
TČ: In the beginning, I was really interested in working with classical canonical texts. My first pieces after the Academy were based on works like Shakespeare’s Hamlet and the Epic of Gilgamesh. Over time, I discovered and developed a more feminist position. I became more and more sensitive to inequalities in society, started to question the patriarchal perspective that was dominating the field of philosophy, got more familiar with feminism and found more importance in direct approach to very contemporary issues. Suddenly, the canonical texts I used to value so much were lacking the perspectives I felt compelled to present on stage. I realized at one point that I found more value in working with very contemporary and deeply personal stories from people, rather than focusing on text.
KB: Currently you are mostly focused on documentary theatre. Did you learn about it during studies at AGRFT or discovered it by yourself?
TČ: I first learned about it from attending different performances, but having Tomi Janežič and Janez Janša as mentors during my master’s studies was quite important as well. Janez Janša is a director who has worked extensively in the more progressive, independent scene, often in a more conceptual and documentary style. His perspective on theatre was eye-opening for me, introducing approaches I was either unfamiliar with or only superficially aware of. Encountering him broadened my understanding of what theatre is and what it can be. Later I collaborated with Tomi Janežič as an assistant director. He is also incorporating some documentary procedures or those influenced by documentary theatre into his work, which was inspiring for me. But most of all as a mentor he really encouraged and supported me and my classmates to protect, nourish and develop our own creativity and simply follow what we love to do. Since then, I’ve continued to learn about documentary theatre independently, but always through inspiring individuals I’ve met along the way.
KB: You also studied psychodrama therapy, is that right?
TČ: Just a small correction: “psychodrama psychotherapy” is the term that we use. This has been a really important part of my life for a few years now. I recently started practicing as a psychotherapist, and I’m leading my own group. Psychodrama is a modality of group psychotherapy that isn’t just based on sitting in a circle and talking; it’s based on action, on things you do in space with your body. Psychodrama enables individuals to externalize their inner world, to put it in space. Each person in the group plays a role in this process, allowing the individual to observe their relationships and situations from their life from the outside. It also provides an opportunity to intervene and creatively change them in a psychodramatic ‘as if’ space, and then internalize them again.
KB: So it’s more therapy, less theater. Do you incorporate techniques from psychodrama into your performances?
TČ: Psychodrama is a psychotherapeutic modality. The typical technique in psychodrama is role reversal, which allows a person to see themselves through the eyes of the others. It’s not directly related to theater, but two fundamental principles in psychodrama are creativity and spontaneity. Psychodrama allows us to cultivate our creativity and spontaneity in all areas of our lives. I have incorporated some exercises from psychodrama during the early stages of rehearsals. These exercises made us explore the topic, the roles, and different perspectives on the topics in a very concrete way. Instead of sitting at a table and just talking or thinking about it, we explored different topics through movement and space, making it fun. However, another important thing I took from psychodrama was realizing how poetic our lives are. I discovered that each personal story contains so much poetry and potential. I think this realization is a significant reason why I began focusing more on documentaries and working with personal stories.
KB: Your theater fill a space left by institutional theaters and educational systems by addressing topics that are often overlooked or intentionally ignored. Do you feel a responsibility to educate through your theatre?
TČ: I’ve always been hesitant to use the word “educate” because for me it can imply a didactic approach that I wanted to avoid. Instead, I preferred to think of the project as informing or bringing new information to the stage. However the title Sex Education was important to me because it evokes the shame and associations we have with the school system’s and society’s general inadequate handling of such topics. I wanted to provoke these associations. I decided to title it Sex Education II to frame it as a continuation of sex education, coming after Sex Education I—the one we received in schools and throughout our lives from our relatives, friends, and society in general.
Sex Education II: Ability. Photo: Nada Zgank
KB: Currently, a lot of directors and theaters are creating manifestos. They write that theater has to have a mission, focus on social aspects, and actually impact and change the world. Do you agree with this approach to theater?
TČ: In my view, theater loses its purpose if it is not driven by the belief that it can change the world. For me, it is deeply disappointing to hear a theater maker claim that “theater can’t change the world.” Why are you doing it then? I’m not saying performance should be a revolution. I think it can change the world in small steps, but I have to approach it this way. Otherwise, it seems purposeless. What I find meaningful in theater is its ability to bring to the stage issues that are less visible in society. I see it as a platform to introduce invisible narratives into the public discourse. To me the activist dimension of theater is meaningful.
KB: Do you think theater should be solely activism? When I suggest that theater should address certain issues, I often hear comments that it’s too activist or political. But theater is still art; we need good actors and good texts.
TČ: I believe this is another crucial and important dimension. I emphasize the activist aspect because it seems less present in the theater scene, but the artistic dimension is equally crucial. Theater must involve creativity, allowing for the invention, play, and combination of different theatrical languages. For me, theater is most compelling when it is transdisciplinary, incorporating elements from visual art, installation, object theater, puppet theater, or performance art. This dimension is significant because it enriches both the creators and the spectators. It provides pleasure and joy, from the creation process to the enjoyment of discovering new things, being playful, challenging oneself as an artist, and attempting to surprise oneself with something unexpected. This approach also brings pleasure to the audience when they encounter something surprising, fresh, playful, and creative. I personally find great enjoyment in seeing such performances.
KB: You work in both institutional and independent theater. Do you see a difference in how social topics are approached in these different sectors?
TČ: In institutional theater the social aspects are often less direct; they tend to be hidden or implicit behind a dramatic text. The processes are more uniform, making it difficult to implement new methods. For instance, the typical two-month rehearsal period is almost set in stone, and some topics are not readily accepted for direct discussion. An example of a more experimental approach was a hybrid project Nova pošta, which was a partnership between Maska, which is an NGO, and the Mladinsko theater, which is an institution. While creating Sex Education II this collaboration allowed us to use institutional resources, such as space for rehearsals, provided more time, and offered a bit more funding than working in the independent scene would have. We also enjoyed a lot of freedom in terms of aesthetics. Such an environment allowed for more direct engagement with social topics.
KB: What are your thoughts on the current state of Slovenian theatre, both in the institutional and independent scenes? Is there anything you would like to be changed in Slovenian theatre?
TČ: I’m not sure where to begin (laughs), this is such a broad question … The first thing that comes to my mind, when I think of what I would like to change; is to increase funding for independent and progressive productions, to enable artists working in the independent scene to make really high quality and well researched work. I would definitely change the position of self-employed artists to be more secure and stable. I would like more opportunities for funding of artist residencies abroad – I think it’s very important for artists to go on residencies to foreign contexts and broaden their horizons. As a spectator and theatre professional, I would like to see more guest performances from abroad in Slovenia. And so on and so on. I could brainstorm indefinitely, but I think as an artist I actually try to change and am changing the scene mostly with my work in the theatre, by bringing topics and practices that I feel are missing.
KB: Having seen many performances in other countries, how would you situate Slovenian theater? When I moved to Slovenia, I heard a number of comments that the theater here is ‘bad theater.’
TČ: I don’t think we have bad theater in Slovenia. I think we actually have a really good one. I think there are some really amazing performers, as well as inspiring authors, directors and dramaturgs. However, for me it’s super inspiring to go abroad because I can discover new things. For example, it was a big discovery for me when I saw documentary theater by Mohammed el Khatib, or became familiar with work by Marcus Lindeen. Their documentaries maybe don’t seem political at first sight or are not political in a way that I was used to from the documentary theatre I was familiar with. Their theatre is focusing on stories that are more personal. But of course; personal is political and this is why their work was very inspiring for me.
Sex Education II: Consentire. Photo: Nada Zgank
KB: How do you feel about the tendency towards overproduction in Slovenia?
TČ: I think It is important to fight against overproduction and fight for more time, available spaces, more money and security for the self-employed artists. These conditions undoubtedly mean higher quality of artistic work. Sex Education II was only possible because It was in certain ways defying the logic of overproduction – the process was relatively long, one year and a half, and we had the venue to ourselves for a relatively long time. I am constantly fighting to have the conditions that I and the people that I work with need for our work. But I am more than aware that this exceeds the fight of an individual artist and is a matter of artists’ and cultural associations as well as cultural politics. I am currently not participating in the latter as much as I wish I could and I’m immensely thankful to the individuals who are fighting for all of us.
KB: While there are some notable female directors in Slovenian theatre, it’s still not that common. Do you feel that it’s still a field dominated by men?
TČ: When I was finishing my bachelor’s studies 10 years ago it seemed that there were a lot of women studying directing at the Academy, but later on in the professional sphere they disappeared. Things changed a bit through the years and today it seems like more women are directing. However, I still miss more feminist content and approaches. I think the progress is slow and the theatre is still ruled by patriarchal culture. In my experience theater is not a safe space, free from discrimination on the basis of gender. It’s often a space where communication is not sensitive. Sometimes it is even disrespectful and offensive.
KB: What are you working on now, and what are your future plans?
TČ: Recently I had a chance to be part of the Shared Landscapes project which just had a Slovenian premiere at Mladi Levi festival. It is a piece about forest, also happening in the forest. I really appreciate having had the opportunity to collaborate with Stefan Kaegi (Rimini Protokoll) who has so much experience and knowledge in documentary theatre.
Soon I will start to work more intensely on my next project, produced by Mladinsko Theatre. The idea for it was born after Sex Education II. It’s called the 55th Article, and it’s going to be a documentary performance about the 55th Article of the Slovenian Constitution, which is dedicated to women’s reproductive rights and protects the right to abortion and contraception.
When Slovenia was becoming independent, there was big controversy around this article. Feminists had to fight really hard for it and the fight culminated in large demonstrations in front of the parliament. I feel it’s important to reconstruct these events to make people remember to not take the rights we have in Slovenia today for granted. The performance will be based on archival materials and conversations with women who were involved in this fight and in feminist movements of that time.
Main image credit: Jože Suhadolnik/DELO
For more information, visit: Mladinsko.com
Further reading: review of Sex Education II
Further reading: review of Girls
Karolina Bugajak is a theater critic from Poland, currently living in Ljubljana. She studied culture and contemporary art at the University of Lodz. The title of her master's thesis was "Theatricality and Exaggeration. Camp aesthetics as a strategy for creating new identities in the plays of Grzegorz Jaremko". Her main theatrical interests include topics such as institutional criticism, the representation of marginalized groups in plays, and most recently the theater of the former Yugoslav states.
