PONEC theatre in a tight spot: Prague City Hall committee does not share the Artistic Council’s optimism

The new management had planned an ambitious relaunch for 2025: seven premieres, a new dramaturgical model and the opening of the stage to a wider range of creators. Reality, however, quickly revealed harsh limitations.

Under pressure from a significant reduction in funding for co-productions and the creators’ dependence on external sources, the original plan began to crumble even before it could be tested in practice. Whilst the Artistic Council speaks of a transitional period, the grant committee of the Prague City Council (MHMP) notes an unfinished transformation with a vague concept. And the artists who have left PONEC are, at best, uninterested in it.

November 2023

The abolition of the artistic director’s post and Markéta Perroud’s departure marked the start of the theatre’s management restructuring. This move, justified by the accumulation of roles, has sparked uncertainty regarding the venue’s future direction. Markéta Perroud was regarded within the industry as a guarantee of the quality of the programme.

February 2024

A mediated meeting between the theatre’s management and the artists, held on neutral ground at HAMU, was intended to clarify the new direction; instead, it deepened mutual mistrust and subsequently led to the departure of key companies.

March 2024

Tanec Praha, the theatre’s operator, issues an open call for members of the PONEC Artistic Council. The decision to establish a collective dramaturgical body was inspired by director Yvona Kreuzmannová’s observations of international dance houses, combined with input from the dance community, whose suggestions focused primarily on the method of selecting Council members. However, some collaborating artists still consider the selection process to be insufficiently transparent and fear that it may be based on personal preferences.

April 2024

Key companies Spitfire Company, Temporary Collective and tYhle announce their departure from PONEC due to a loss of trust in the management and disagreement with the new concept. Further departures followed (ZDRUHESTRANY, Ostružina, POCKETART, etc.), causing the theatre to lose its principal creators and their repertoire. During the same period, the Artistic Council is appointed.

2025

The first year of the theatre’s operation under the full dramaturgical management of the three-member Artistic Council and the implementation of new programme lines.

The content of the main programme is now determined by a committee comprising Dagmar Bednáriková, Sylva Šafková and Honza Malík. The committee has gradually formulated three main programme strands: Artist in Residence, Open Call for new co-production projects, and Open Stage.

 

The paradox of a split: When conflict helps to cast wider nets

This is apparently the only and final point on which the parties on both sides of the dispute agree. Although the departure of key companies was a shock for PONEC, for Prague’s dance scene it represented an unexpected boost. The creative energy, previously concentrated beneath the Žižkov viaduct, has dispersed into venues such as DOX+, Jatka78, ALTA, ARCHA+, Venuše ve Švehlovce and Galaxie. Paradoxically, this forced diversification led to what the sector had been striving for for years: greater visibility for contemporary dance outside its traditional ‘main tent’.

Viktor Černický also views his departure from PONEC positively without hesitation: “We have more control over our own work. I now perceive relations between the companies as better. Joining forces and having the courage to leave have brought a breath of fresh air, giving rise to new projects and new connections between associations and organisations. Overall, this has revitalised and united the dance community.”

The same shift, which from the perspective of the individual artist means greater autonomy, appears from an institutional standpoint to be more of a side effect of a broader restructuring of the sector: “What happened at PONEC is actually positive, because ultimately it means dance is appearing in far more places,” Honza Malík repeatedly points out, and Dagmar Bednáriková expressed a similar view in the interview.

Malík also adds that, despite the current turbulence, PONEC remains an exceptional co-production partner: “Conditions at PONEC have been stable for years, whether it’s financial contributions towards fees or a share of the ticket takings, and all without any requirement to rent the premises.”

However, the agreement that breaking down the old structures of the sector has ultimately been beneficial is the last point on which the visions of the management and the departing artists converge. As soon as the conversation turns to financial terms, Viktor Černický does not confirm PONEC’s reliability: “For us, for example, even something as simple as our partners honouring agreements—including financial ones—improved after we left, which unfortunately could not be said of PONECtowards the end of our tenure.”

How the Council works (and where the problems lie)

Current members of PONEC’s Artistic Council, Sylva Šafková and Honza Malík, went through an official selection process, whilst Dagmar Bednáriková was appointed directly by Yvona Kreuzmannová outside of the open call.

“I wanted to step back from the artistic management of the theatre as early as 2021, but I am still responsible for grants, finances and safety. The three-member team model brings new impetus and fundamentally opens up the theatre— , which was previously confined to a certain group of artists. I felt we needed greater transparency for those who previously didn’t know how to get involved with PONEC at all,” Kreuzmannová explained her motivations.

Although this model is perceived as progressive, its institutional framework shows certain ambiguities, which were later criticised by the Prague City Hall commission. It is clear from interviews with members that neither the length of the Artistic Council’s term nor the precise criteria for its future renewal have yet been firmly defined, and remain an open question even after more than a year of operation. This procedural uncertainty, combined with the appointment of one member outside the open call, leaves room for external criticism regarding the lack of full transparency in the entire transition, as well as the impression that the director has retained control over certain mechanisms.

“Yvona already saw the situation as a crisis; for my part, it was more a matter of offering support in a tense situation. This subsequently led to the plan to establish a three-member Artistic Council. From the outset, my role was focused more on production than purely artistic matters. (…) PONEC was something of a ‘star’ in the dance world, a place everyone wanted to be. It had become unmanageable; everyone was stressed by the pressure and the lack of deadlines. That tension simply had to boil over.”

— Dagmar Bednáriková

“Our role on the Artistic Council isn’t about keeping track of spreadsheets, the number of premieres or grant commitments – that’s a task for the theatre’s executive team. I focus on the substance of the content: I decide who appears on stage, what they do and why. My motivation is to open PONEC up to new energy, particularly the youngest generation and graduates, and to create a space that is transparent and accessible, not preserved for a narrow circle of people. At the same time, I maintain the necessary distance; I believe that relationships on stage should be collegial and professional, not based on socialising at the bar, which in the Czech environment often leads to problems. I am at PONEC because I find fulfilment in building a stage that pulsates with life and has a clear artistic vision.”

— Honza Malík

“My main motivation for joining the Artistic Council was a desire to help PONEC survive as a theatre and continue to offer a high-quality dance repertoire. I have been following the contemporary scene for a long time and felt that, following that major split, there was a need to start rebuilding things from scratch. PONEC should function as an open space, ideally as an incubator for new talent. I am fascinated by the energy the building gains during the TANEC PRAHA festival thanks to its international guests, and my wish is that this inspiring atmosphere can be maintained throughout the year.”

— Sylva Šafková

Whilst the Council believes in the revitalisation process through a new dramaturgical structure, Viktor Černický remains sceptical as to whether systemic change under the same leadership can be genuine:

“One of the reasons for our departure was the impression that, under the leadership of the director of TANEC PRAHA, PONEC had become a space where there is little room for dialogue. We cannot imagine that anything will change unless PONEC undergoes a complete change of leadership. In any case, our previous experience led us to the decision that in future we would no longer wish to have such a close working relationship with any partner, especially when the terms are not clear and comprehensible from the outset and throughout the collaboration.”

The trap called the open call

With the aim of selecting new co-production projects for 2025, an open call was launched, to which 16 applicants responded. The board selected five projects, of which only one was ultimately realised.

The significant disparity between selection and implementation was caused primarily by a lack of funding. PONEC currently provides facilities, fees for performances and a share of the ticket revenue, but the creators must secure the costs of production (authors’ fees, set design, etc.) themselves. If they fail to do so, the collaboration falls through.

Honza Malík explains: “In the current situation, PONEC is unable to provide financial support to artists who do not have their own funds from other grants, as was previously the case. The theatre is facing a huge budget shortfall, and this places significant constraints on our artistic operations. This was the case for Lenka Bartůňková and other experienced creators. It does not mean that the theatre does not want to support them, but unless a project secures external funding, PONEC is currently unable to invest any additional funds in it.”

Time constraints also played a role, as did the fact that some artists ultimately preferred offers from abroad, which is hardly something anyone can blame them for. The theatre’s management views this with complete understanding.

Another factor is the “bad atmosphere” within the professional community. Some projects did not go ahead because selected collaborators refused to take part for personal reasons or because they disagreed with the theatre’s direction. Dagmar Bednáriková clarified: “In my view, it was largely down to personal animosity on the part of artists who had left PONEC. For example, someone would apply, set about putting together a team, have a brilliant project, and want to stage it at PONEC, but the people they intended to collaborate with didn’t want to go to PONEC.” Her words correspond with what Viktor Černický says about his current relationship with PONEC: “Nothing will change on our part as long as PONEC remains under the control of the current director. Until then, to be honest, it makes absolutely no difference whether there is a dramaturgical council or not. I don’t believe things have improved there.”

Practice thus shows that the new dramaturgical model is not being introduced into stable conditions, but into an environment where part of the artistic community has lost trust in the institution without giving the new system a chance. At the same time, however, the individual decisions of artists cannot be viewed in isolation, but rather as a possible reaction to a change that is insufficiently supported in terms of funding, staffing and communication.

Nor should we overlook the fact that Yvona Kreuzmannová built PONEC and devoted twenty-five years of her professional life to it. Consequently, the demand that she relinquish control of the organisation entirely comes up against the limits of a phenomenon known as founder’s syndrome. From both a psychological and institutional perspective, this is a critical phase, often the most difficult in the process of organisational transformation.

However, back to the issue of the open call. Despite the fact that only one project emerged from the original selection, the theatre’s management considers it a functional and standard procedure for selecting co-production projects. To an external observer and grant evaluator, however, this disparity between intention and result appears as evidence of low efficiency.

“My view is that those who want to be dissatisfied at any cost will always be dissatisfied. I am extremely curious to see where this will go this year. The open call system has given courage even to the youngest artists and graduates, people who would never have considered a theatre like PONEC at all.”

— Yvona Kreuzmannová

“The system certainly works. The open call has brought transparency to PONEC that was previously lacking. It’s common practice all over the world. But financial constraints are a reality, that’s true. Some people feel we’re not doing anything, but we’re limited by the budget. The conditions are the same for everyone; no one receives a production grant.”

— Sylva Šafková

“For me, the open call is very effective. Thanks to it, I can find out who’s interested in doing something, who wants to co-produce, and who wants to focus on their own creative work. It gives an indication of what the scene wants. Of course, we didn’t expect to select five artists and have three of them not receive funding, but even if a project doesn’t make it into the main programme, we can offer the creators the Open Stage format. I feel under pressure because the public doesn’t know that we wanted to realise many things, and from the outside, this might seem to the Council as insufficiently justified. PONEC may no longer be pulsating at such a frantic pace as before, but is that a bad thing? I don’t think so. This change of pace is an opportunity to create a healthier and more competitive environment.”

— Honza Malík

In relation to the open call system, it should be emphasised that the Artistic Council is responsible only for the theatre’s main programme. Alongside this, there are community projects, public workshops and venue hire (referred to as ‘guest’ in the programme), which contribute significantly to the theatre’s income. The dramaturgy of the main programme then has the three key strands already mentioned.

Resident Artist

The Artist-in-Residence represents a key strand of the programme and offers the selected artist the role of ‘artistic guest’ with firm support. This position is not filled via an open call, but through direct selection by the Council based on alignment with the season’s vision. The artist receives priority access to rehearsals (at PONEC and Studio Krenovka), technical facilities, production support, a financial contribution for performances staged (the amount depends on the size of the team) and a percentage of ticket revenue. Financial responsibility for the production and the creation of the project remains with the artist.

In 2025, Nataša Novotná was the artist-in-residence with a revival of her solo piece Sacrebleu. Her second premiere was again cancelled due to a lack of funding. Adriana Štefaňáková has been approached for 2026.

Open Call for new co-production projects

The Open Call is intended for new projects by independent creators and companies. PONEC provides a fixed support package: up to four weeks of residency space, one week of technical preparation, production support for the premiere and at least two repeat performances. PONEC contributes financially to fees for the performances staged, and the co-producing artist/company shares in the ticket revenue. The theatre contributes technical and personnel resources, whilst the artist is responsible for the production costs, fees and copyright. The selection is open to both established and emerging artists, as well as graduates.

In 2025, the open call led to a collaboration with the group 23 Poems and the premiere of their production Rapture.

Open Stage

Open Stage provides an opportunity to present works in progress, early-stage projects or even revivals of completed productions. Artists are given access to the venue for three days, complete with technical support, and the chance to test their work in professional conditions without the pressure of a full-scale premiere. The project is entitled to 100% of the ticket revenue, the price of which they can set themselves.

In 2025, several artists made use of Open Stage, with the projects by Daniela Hanelová, Jana Vrána and Kristýna Peldová later being included in the main programme as premieres with the possibility of further performances, thanks to their quality and the advanced stage of their development.

In the Czech context, this established model of collaboration provides artists with a certain degree of support, a point also acknowledged by Černický: “PONEC / Tanec Praha took on a great deal of responsibility, which was, in a sense, convenient for both parties.” In the same breath, however, he added that this also meant a loss of autonomy: “But we relinquished part of our own responsibility and placed it in the hands of a single dominant co-producer, who thus held too much authority, and consequently too much control. We are now developing diverse partnerships. Not every project by our ZDRUHESTRANY company has secured the support it would have liked in Prague, but that too is normal. The important thing is that we are now more true to ourselves. We feel better for it. We have taken our work back into our own hands.”

Review of 2025

Seven premieres were planned for 2025. However, the reality was more complicated. The missing premieres were replaced by projects promoted from Open Stage. How do the year’s main organisers assess it?

We asked the Artistic Council and Yvona Kreuzmannová to rate the year on a scale of zero to ten, where 0 is total disillusionment and 10 is ambitions fulfilled to the full.

Dagmar Bednáriková: 7–8

“It was a start, a getting-up-and-running phase, overcoming problems and personnel changes within the team. Things are settling down now. My personal ambition was to establish the Council and set up clear communication with the production team so that the collaboration simply worked, which we managed to do.”

Sylva Šafková: 4

“That one premiere went well, which was great. I wish the energy at PONC during the festival could last all year round, but reality always catches up with us.”

Honza Malík: 7–8

“Not a nine. A seven or an eight. The final reality of the works realised during the first half of the season was a disappointment for me and a wake-up call from a dream that had quite a different dramaturgy.”

Yvona Kreuzmannová: 7–8

“I’m not saying ten, because there were a huge number of complications. Often, what the Council chose wasn’t feasible. But I like their flexibility. They stuck to their guns and looked for what PONEC could handle and what had to be transferred to the festival. The season opened with the revived premiere by Nataša Novotná. Through Open Stage, we then managed to discover names that hadn’t been heard in the Czech Republic for a long time, such as Jana Vrána and Daniela Hanelová. It was with them that the system proved to work – they started on Open Stage and, thanks to the quality of their work, made it all the way to a full-scale premiere. I consider the collaboration with 23 Poems, whose premiere went brilliantly, to be the most successful moment of the season. On the other hand, reality hits us hard; for example, Lenka Bartůňková had to scale back her project to a small solo performance due to a lack of funding. Even though it wasn’t possible to realise everything on the original scale, I’m delighted that new energy and names we haven’t seen here for a long time have emerged at PONCE.”

When examining how PONC operates, the question inevitably arises: does Yvona Kreuzmannová interfere in the Council’s decision-making?

In her own words, she was initially worried about what would happen if the Board approached someone she couldn’t imagine at PONCI at all: “But it turned out we’re on the same wavelength. The Board sticks to the theatre’s profile, which is contemporary as its foundation. I like the fact that, for example, Honza comes up with his own initiatives, such as opening up space for the non-professional scene, which goes beyond the scope of his duties.” And Bednáriková, Šafková and Malík all confirm that they have complete freedom in the main programme.

“It doesn’t want to and doesn’t interfere. It doesn’t even attend our meetings. Often, it’s just the three of us meeting in a café. We then present our proposals at joint meetings. (…) [When selecting artists] what was agreed upon is followed; the Council has 100% authority. If something falls through, it is for production or operational reasons, not because Yvona or anyone else wanted to personally interfere in the selection.”

– Dagmar Bednáriková

“As far as I’m concerned, she doesn’t interfere. For instance, Yvona didn’t even see the latest open calls. She only sees the result – who we’ve chosen. During the first open call, she sat with us; she occasionally gave her opinion, but it wasn’t as though she was telling us ‘this is right, that is wrong’. (…) We feel a sense of freedom.”

– Sylva Šafková

“The theatre also deals with programmes that aren’t in our hands – community projects or guest performances. Artistically, that has nothing to do with us. In the main programme, however, we guard our autonomy and ensure that the Council’s powers are preserved and there is no external interference.”

– Honza Malík

Viktor Černický, however, sees the problem as running deeper than mere disputes over programme authority. For him, it is a failure of the institution’s internal culture as such: “As director, Yvona Kreuzmannová could have chosen between the concept of PONCE as a collection of bricks, or as a collection of people: artists, audiences, and an internal culture of interaction. She chose the bricks, and it turns out that the space itself cannot create a culture. One of the reasons for our departure was the impression that, under the director’s leadership, PONCE had become a space where there is little room for dialogue.”

In addition to the relationship between the Board and the director, the internal dynamics of the three-member team itself are also becoming clearer. Although the Board members agree on democratic decision-making, in terms of proactivity and reaching out to artists, Honza Malík plays a dominant role, according to them. This partly addresses the commission’s criticism that it is not clear from the outside who sets the pace. Internally, it is clear; externally, it may appear as collective anonymity.

Light at the end of the tunnel: the story of 23 Poems

For the 23 Poems collective, the key factor in deciding on the open call was not the internal polarisation within the field, but the prospect of a stable venue and the opportunity to reach a wider audience. “At the time, PONEC was the only theatre willing to openly discuss possibilities for collaboration with us when we wanted to create a co-production,” say the artists from this company.

On the other hand, they confirm that the issue is very much alive within the community and that their co-production with PONEC certainly did not take place in isolation from the professional and personal stances of their colleagues:

“We have discussed the situation at PONEC many times and very intensively, and we continue to reflect on it conscientiously.”

– 23 Poems

Audience success

The company staged the premiere of Rapture and two repeat performances at PONEC. All performances were almost sold out. With an actual seating capacity of 110–120, each of the three performances attracted over a hundred audience members, confirming that PONEC continues to function as a platform capable of generating an audience even for new companies.

Use of infrastructure

Thanks to the technical and spatial facilities, the company was able to pay and technically support a nine-member production team: “Preparing such a large-scale project would have been unrealistic in less well-equipped rehearsal spaces,” the artists confirm, adding that the theatre’s facilities enabled them to achieve a professional standard that they could not have afforded elsewhere as an independent organisation.

Marketing support

The theatre’s role as a co-production partner proves crucial when a fledgling company needs to break out of its own social bubble. For 23 Poems, the collaboration with meant a leap in marketing reach: whilst their own social media accounts have around 300 followers, PONEC opened the door to its established audience of four thousand. The resulting full house is seen by the artists as a successful synergy: a combination of their own intensive engagement with the community and professional support from the theatre.

According to the company, the open call was not merely an administrative formality for them, but a strategic tool for professionalising the creative process. Even within a divided dance community, the creators’ priorities were artistic work, engagement with the audience, and suitable conditions for an international team. They describe the selection process as objective and transparent; their collaboration with PONCE afforded them creative freedom without interference from the Board or management. They are now in talks about staging a revival of Rapture, which was also well-received by critics. The experience of 23 Poems cannot be generalised to the theatre’s entire operation, but it shows that in specific cases the new model can work.

The conclusion could be optimistic: according to the information provided, the Council is making an effort, Yvona Kreuzmannová is not interfering, and PONEC is slowly catching its breath. But then came a head-on collision. Just before the holidays, the Prague City Hall’s grant committee published its assessment, in which it did not recommend the PONEC 2027–2030 project for funding. For a scene that was just attempting a fresh start, this means only one thing: another battle for the future.

The Prague City Hall Grant Committee assesses the PONEC 2027–2030 project as insufficiently prepared and conceptually unfounded. According to the committee, following the departure of key figures in contemporary dance, the theatre offers neither a convincing long-term vision nor a clearly formulated artistic direction. The proposed model of open project selection via the Artistic Council lacks specific criteria, objectives and planned outputs, and fails to identify prominent artistic figures who should set the pace for the new strategy. The committee further notes that, in practice, PONEC tends to continue its existing activities and collaborations rather than bringing truly innovative impetus. It regards ambiguities in the budget, the absence of specific outputs, and references to the period prior to the dramaturgical change as signs of an incomplete transformation. In summary, the Commission considers that the project does not offer sufficient guarantees of artistic excellence or the effective fulfilment of the stated objectives, and therefore it was not recommended for support.

“The functioning of the Artistic Council is described only in general terms – without specific criteria, objectives or planned outcomes.”

“It is not clear from the application which prominent figures on the contemporary dance scene are to set the direction for the new strategy.”

“The theatre’s ongoing operations appear to be driven more by inertia and consistency than by dynamic innovation.”

“The lack of specific outputs, vague selection criteria and ambiguities in the budget point to an incomplete transformation.”

“Neither the creative nor the management team, in their current form, offer any guarantee of the high-quality implementation of a multi-year project.”

In the early 2000s, PONEC was a symbol of triumph and the sole home of contemporary dance. Today, the situation is different. The scene has fragmented; dance is everywhere. It is legitimate to ask: Shouldn’t we reassess our expectations of PONEC? After 25 years, isn’t it right to step back from the position of a ‘national stage’ into the role of a ‘laboratory and incubator’? “Anyone who wants to can see the negatives in the current state of affairs, but for me the key thing is that the system is now transparent and offers opportunities to the new generation who are genuinely interested in creating at PONEC,” Honza Malík describes his position quite clearly.

The Prague City Council clearly expects excellence and big names. PONEC offers a process, openness and a chance for young people. But these two visions are at odds. And in the middle of this clash stands a building with no money.

Černický believes that the rejection of funding by the Prague City Council could also represent a chance for a “genuine” revival for PONEC: “It could turn things around and PONEC could once again take on a meaningful role, but that depends on whether the management ever changes to bring in a breath of fresh air.”

However, if we want a genuine transformation, it is difficult for any institution to manage it with a tight budget and a tight deadline. Grant applications were submitted to the Prague City Council in June, so in reality the planning under the new Council had been underway for barely six months. Assessing the results of the institution’s profound transformation at its very outset may therefore seem, at the very least, premature.

Černický, however, agrees with the City Council committee’s assessment. In his view, PONEC has lost its privileged position not only due to financial constraints, but mainly because of a loss of relevance for those who are supposed to create its content: “It is important to say that our association does not miss working with PONEC. As I’ve already said, we’re more independent, we have a broad network of partners, and we’re doing well even without this theatre’s support. However, the absence of a space dedicated to dance is noticeable in Prague. It seems to me that the concept PONEC currently offers is not vibrant. There are artists who still collaborate with PONEC for various reasons, but the theatre’s operation for dance as a discipline currently has negligible value.”

PONEC still has a grant from the Prague City Council for this year and can apply again for next year. It has also been funded by the Ministry of Culture, where it is currently awaiting the results for 2026, and Prague 3 provides the theatre with preferential terms for renting the premises.

If dance were to lose PONEC after all through a gradual “boiling of the frog”, one must also consider whether the funds would be redirected elsewhere within the sector, or whether they would disappear from dance for years to come.

PONEC today stands neither on the brink of extinction nor on the brink of triumph. It finds itself in the midst of an unfinished transformation, one that is unfolding more slowly than the Czech grant system has the patience for. The question is not whether PONEC has a future. The question is what kind of institution Czech culture is truly prepared to embrace.