Cutaway #3: Aminata Demba and Mathieu Charles on art as a social tool

Speakers

• Aminata Demba is an actress and creator, part of the team behind the theatre company Laïka, and draws on a practice centred on social engagement and personal necessity.
• Mathieu Charles works as a creator and dramaturg, and supports organisations in initiatives focused on connection, inclusion and structural change.

Summary

In this conversation, Aminata and Mathieu discuss the role of art in social change and the way in which arts organisations address issues such as inclusion, representation and structural transition. Drawing on their complementary experiences – both within and outside institutions – they offer a critical reflection on the tensions between artistic intention, organisational reality and social impact.

Social architecture and seeking out resistance beyond the walls of the institution

The speakers draw a clear distinction between the context of the theatre auditorium and that of the public space. According to them, within the theatre auditorium there is an implicit agreement: the audience chooses to be there and is therefore, in principle, open to what is being shown. This voluntary participation creates a basis for dialogue and reflection, even when the work is confrontational. Outside that context, that self-evident openness disappears. Artistic interventions in public space are more readily perceived as disruptive or intrusive, precisely because they reach people who have not consciously chosen to be there. As a result, the impact of art becomes less predictable.

At the same time, the speakers emphasise that this tension is not necessarily negative, but inherent to working outside institutional frameworks. Art becomes part of a broader social reality in which different sensitivities, expectations and boundaries converge. This requires a different attitude from creators: not merely ‘broadcasting’, but also listening, feeling their way and negotiating.

It is within this framework that Mathieu’s work as a ‘social architect’ is situated. He describes how he was commissioned by Theater Rotterdam to reflect on the relationship between the institution and its environment, both internally and externally. A concrete example of this is the process surrounding the renaming of one of the buildings, which originally bore a name that was deemed historically and socially problematic. Instead of determining a new name top-down, he set up a process involving various groups within the organisation. He organised discussions, both in groups and individually, to identify diverse perspectives and sensitivities. That process made it clear that there was no consensus: every proposed name carried its own connotations and met with resistance from some of those involved. His intervention ultimately consisted of rethinking and simplifying the problem. By starting with the building numbers, a solution was found that could be widely supported by the organisation. The success of that choice lay not so much in the creativity of the name itself, but in the process that preceded it: a journey of listening, connecting and searching for a shared point of reference.

This example illustrates how social architecture functions as a practice situated between art and organisation. It is not about imposing a vision, but about facilitating processes in which different voices come together and lead to widely supported decisions. In this sense, social architecture constitutes an essential tool for bridging the gap between artistic intentions and the complex reality of institutions and their environment.

Transition within organisations: between intention, overheating and choices

Within organisations such as Laïka, it becomes clear that change rarely proceeds in a linear fashion and is embedded within broader structural tensions. What becomes visible on stage – different voices, new perspectives – does not mean that the organisation itself is transforming at a structural level.

Aminata describes how theatres find themselves in a constant survival mode, driven by production pressures and recurring funding rounds. The focus is on creating, remaining visible and securing resources, causing long-term thinking to take a back seat. According to her, organisations are primarily occupied with solving urgent problems, which leaves little room to work sustainably on internal change and transformation.

Mathieu describes this as a state of overheating, in which everyone in the sector is overburdened. In such a context, transition processes are quickly perceived as an additional burden, on top of an already full agenda. Initiatives often start from a place of commitment, but come up against limitations such as time, energy and resources. At that point, they are postponed, watered down or reduced to symbolic actions.

At the same time, the discussion takes a critical look at the role of reflection. Although there is a great deal of knowledge and awareness, the step towards concrete action is often not taken. The sector knows broadly what is needed, but postpones decisions or gets bogged down in analysis. The key question therefore shifts from “what should we do” to “what do we actually choose to do”. Economic arguments are nuanced in this context: it is less about an absolute shortage of resources, and more about how existing resources are deployed. Every decision not to invest in structural change is therefore in itself a policy choice.

Project-based working versus a consistent approach

A key structural problem linked to this is the sector’s project-based nature. Mathieu explicitly points out how this model prevents continuity from developing. Projects are launched, carried out and completed within a defined timeframe, after which they disappear without knowledge, experiences or relationships being permanently embedded and archived. According to him, this leads to the same discussions and repetitions time and again: organisations start ‘from scratch’ again, even though similar processes have already been undertaken.

He contrasts this with the idea of a common thread: a consistent line running through various projects that ensures build-up and depth. He refers to the working process of a filmmaker who continues to work on the same ideas over decades, thereby creating a coherent artistic universe. This form of continuity is often lacking in organisations, where projects coexist without clear cohesion.

Aminata adds to this by pointing out the tension in the allocation of resources. Organisations often choose to invest in concrete productions – which are visible and yield immediate results – rather than in internal processes or structural change. That choice is understandable within a sector where many creators depend on opportunities and support, but at the same time ensures that profound transitions fail to materialise.

The public, power and the dynamics of engagement

A striking feature of the discussion is the emphasis on the role of the audience as an active participant. Aminata makes it clear that the composition of the audience is not neutral: who is in the auditorium influences how organisations interpret their operations. When efforts to reach a diverse audience do not yield visible results, this can be interpreted by institutions as confirmation that those efforts are not working. In this way, existing policy is implicitly confirmed.

She therefore advocates viewing the audience’s presence as a form of action. Buying a ticket and being present in a venue is presented as a choice that helps determine which voices and stories are given space. At the same time, she acknowledges that this responsibility is not separate from the role of organisations. Audience engagement is described in the discussion as a long-term process of relationship-building, which goes beyond communication or marketing.

Both speakers give examples of situations in which audiences are not reached, despite the content being relevant. According to them, this points to a lack of lasting connections: without an established relationship, communication does not work. The idea that new audiences will automatically emerge when programming is diverse, or that the artist themselves must be responsible for mobilising their own supporters, is explicitly debunked.

Recovery and pitfalls

In line with this, the risk of co-optation is also highlighted. Mathieu describes how organisations sometimes capitalise on social issues without this being fully supported or thought through internally. The debate surrounding decolonisation is a good example of this: issues are set up as separate projects but remain disconnected from the organisation’s core activities. This creates a form of superficiality, where change is more symbolic than structural.

He points to the pattern whereby organisations move from one issue to the next without previous initiatives being embedded. This succession of trends ensures that efforts remain fragmented and fail to have a lasting impact. Furthermore, the involvement of specific groups is sometimes instrumental, without genuine relationships or reciprocity being built.

Aminata implicitly addresses this by highlighting the difference between representation and structural change. The fact that certain voices become visible does not automatically mean that anything is shifting internally. Without a change in how decisions are made, inclusion remains limited to the surface.

Decision-making power as the cornerstone of structural change

The quest for power runs like a thread through the conversation. Both speakers return to the importance of decision-making power as a lever for change. Aminata emphasises that bringing in new voices only becomes meaningful when they also have a say in what happens. She warns against structures in which diversity is implemented through, for example, advisory boards, but not within ‘programme teams’.

Mathieu adds to this by pointing out the limits that organisations often implicitly set. There is room for input and dialogue, but that room disappears when fundamental choices are called into question. At that point, initiatives meet with resistance and grind to a halt. Structural change therefore requires not only openness, but also a willingness to redistribute power.

The importance of language in the debate

Language emerges in the discussion as a key factor in how change is understood. Mathieu refers to alternative concepts such as ‘remedial measures’ to reframe the debate on positive discrimination. This shift in terminology highlights that it is not about giving certain groups preferential treatment, but about rectifying historical inequalities.

According to him, the choice of words influences how people position themselves in the debate. Certain terms provoke resistance, whilst others create space for a more constructive approach. Language is therefore not merely a means of describing reality, but also of shaping that reality.

Conclusion

Throughout the conversation, it becomes clear that there is no lack of awareness or commitment. Both speakers acknowledge that many organisations want to change and are aware of the challenges. In their view, the crux of the problem lies in the failure to make consistent choices.

The tension between intention and implementation keeps recurring: ideas remain stuck at the level of plans and discussions, without being translated into structural changes. This has to do with priorities, with a fear of making mistakes, and with existing structures that are difficult to break through.

The challenge therefore lies not in formulating new ambitions, but in making clear choices: what do we invest in, which processes do we make structural, and who is given decision-making power? Only when these choices are consistently implemented can there be sustainable change and transition.