All artists are “Made in Bangladesh

In November 2012, a horrific fire destroyed the Tazreen garment factory in Bangladesh. Later, in April 2013, the nine-story Rana Plaza factory building collapsed, crushing and injuring thousands of people. The world was alarmed. Calls for boycotts against Western companies whose products were manufactured in these inhumane conditions followed almost immediately. A year later, dance director Helena Waldmann visited the site. With the help of the dance organization Shadona, headed by Bangladeshi dancer Lubna Marium, a dance company was formed in Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, that put on an internationally touring production: “Made in Bangladesh.” Audiences and critics worldwide marveled at the exoticism of the foreign workers portrayed by dancers. Small stalls regularly appeared in the foyers of the theaters where the play was touring, promoting “regional products” and “upcycling” and protesting exploitation and the globalized clothing industry. The work, however, was about something else:

Don’t boycott our products: The background is easy to explain. While seamstresses are dependent on insufficient wages and forced overtime, this work is the only way for the women in this Muslim country to break out of their restricted circumstances and emancipate themselves as breadwinners for their families. They are proud of their work, and it is this pride that enables them to demand higher wages and improved occupational health and safety.

The only way these can be achieved, however, is if the West does not, in fact, boycott their products. So what do we want? To promote the emancipation of women and at the same time boycott globalization? And there is yet more we do not see. “Made in Bangladesh” not only uses dance to express the penetrating beat of the clothes produced on a piece-per-hour basis through ever-repeating hand and arm movements – which, incidentally, are based on the Kathak dance form that is common in Bangladesh – but in a second part of the piece, the workforce, portrayed by the dancers, takes a good look at itself. What about exploitation and emancipation among us – among the artists themselves?

How much self-exploitation, how much hope for the future, how many underpaid or unpaid hours of work are necessary to escape our own precarious situations through art, dance, music, or the like, of all things? If you read the reviews of this piece, you will find that this question is still a taboo in the art world. Many point fingers at Bangladesh, but hardly anyone sees the economic issues that are just as pressing in our own culture, which is relished by tens of thousands every evening. Yet it is no secret that only a fraction of independent artists can actually make a living from their own art.

What is the reason for this? Is it oversupply? If there really were too many artists waiting like an endless army of willing workers outside the factory gates in Bangladesh, or making their way from one grant application to the next, as is customary in Germany, then this should mean that just as Bangladesh is a country of the clothing industry, Germany – in the words of publicist Adrienne Goehler – is a “cultural state.”

More than half of all self-employed people in Germany make their living in the cultural sector. They work in industries such as design, film, journalism, art, literature, music, dance, and theater, or make a living from these arts in agencies, television stations, galleries, foundations, universities, as producers, organizers, distributors, and publishers. Together they are a force to be reckoned with, yet often without steady work and rarely unionized. Together they stand for the progressive emancipation from the outdated structures and mindsets in Germany. Tremendous revenues are generated in this sector: Culture is one of the biggest economic drivers in Germany, generating as much as 106.4 billion euros in revenue each year. As a result, “the culture and creative industries now surpass other important sectors such as the chemical industry, energy suppliers, and financial service providers in terms of value added,” according to the office of the German Minister of Economic Affairs. However, only a fraction of this money ends up in the pockets of the cultural professionals themselves. By far the largest part is swallowed up by administrative costs and technical departments – the old, still strong pillars of the German economic miracle.