[Eng] Weaving Nets and Decentering Structures: The Ecological Positioning of Independent Producers and Inter-Asia Dialogue

Text: Alice Wong, Christy Koo, Felix Chan, Ian Leung, Michael Li, and Miu Law

This article covers key points from a roundtable sharing session held on 28 February 2026 at the Eaton Club, Langham Place, by the Hong Kong Producers’ Network.

The session featured six Hong Kong producers—Alice Wong, Christy Koo, Felix Chan, Ian Leung, Michael Li, and Miu Law—who participated last November in the Asian Producers’ Platform (APP) Camp, a nine-day peer exchange programme designed for performing arts producer research across the Asia-Pacific region, with the 2025 edition held in Kaohsiung and Okinawa.

Drawing on the experiences and insights the producers gained from the camp, the sharing session expanded into a discussion of several key themes concerning the positioning of producers, including:

1. Possibilities of non-hierarchical and collective organisational structures

2. Art entrepreneurship and innovation

3. Asian networks and cross-regional collaboration

The following is a documented compilation of reflections shared by the six producers, together with contributions from over 20 other participants in the roundtable.

Background

The Hong Kong Producers’ Network is a community of independent producers and arts managers from or based in Hong Kong. This is a professional platform dedicated to fostering peer-to-peer support, knowledge exchange, and international collaboration among producers in the performing and interdisciplinary arts.

The Asian Producers’ Platform (APP) is a peer-to-peer network founded by a small group of independent producers working across Asia with the goal of creating a strongly linked network of producers who could collaborate across the region. Since 2014, APP has produced and delivered its annual flagship event, APP Camp . This was conceived as a unique opportunity for participants to develop industry networks, explore producing as a creative practice, develop intercultural producing skills and foster alternative arts leadership perspectives and methodologies.

1. Possibilities of non-hierarchical and collective organisational structures (compiled by Alice Wong and Miu Law)

Within the ecology of the performing arts, producers have long occupied a position that is both pivotal and relatively invisible. They operate across multiple interfaces—artists, institutions, funding systems, venues, technical teams, and audiences—undertaking roles that span administration, coordination, translation, and execution. Yet, unlike artists. who are often embedded within creative communities, or institutions. that carry representational identity, producers frequently find themselves working in relative isolation. This sense of solitude arises not only from the intensity and scope of the workload, but also from the absence of a collective platform through which experiences can be exchanged, practical knowledge accumulated, and a shared imagination cultivated.

Observations from other parts of Asia reveal the emergence of various forms of producer networks and organisations. In Taiwan, the Performing Arts Network Development Association (PANDA) exemplifies an organic mode of connection: through regular informal gatherings, it fosters both personal bonds and professional development, extending into workshops and international training programmes. In Singapore, Producers SG explores intergenerational exchange by establishing mentorship-like relationships, while retaining a strong ethos of peer-based mutual support.

These regional examples offer valuable insights for Hong Kong. The formation of a “non-hierarchical” producer collective may prove more feasible and adaptable than the establishment of a formalised institutional structure. Here, “non-hierarchical” does not imply a lack of professionalism; rather, it suggests a deliberate resistance to being prematurely defined by administrative frameworks, representational systems, or competition for resources—thereby preserving openness, fluidity, and experimental potential.

Such a loose yet organic structure may be understood as a state of strategic elasticity: capable of consolidating into a collective body with negotiating power when advocating for rights or securing funding, while, in its everyday operation, reverting to a safe and open space for information exchange and resource sharing. Within such a space, producers can reflect critically on their own practices, unencumbered by the constraints of funding frameworks or institutional identities.

In recent years, the working modes and conditions of Hong Kong’s arts sector have undergone significant shifts. Increasingly, producers are re-evaluating the sustainability of their practices and their positions within the broader cultural eco-system. Collective experience and shared reflection may offer more constructive responses to the challenges faced by the sector. Rather than waiting for top-down institutional reform, there is merit in cultivating bottom-up, fluid networks.

Ultimately, the potential of forming a non-hierarchical producer collective does not lie in its capacity for formal registration or external representation, but in whether it can function as a “non-physical space” to which producers are willing to commit their time and energy—an organic form of collective practice. In this sense, it may also be read as a response to the competitive dynamics of capitalist society through the proposition that, while we co-exist within the same system, we do not have to remain competitors for resources, but can instead become co-practitioners navigating ecological change together.

2. Art entrepreneurship and innovation (compiled by Felix Chan)

This group session, facilitated by Ian Leung and Felix Chan, sought, as Leung outlined at the outset, to explore curatorial possibilities and openness from the perspective of the producer. Leung cited an example from the 2024 APP Camp in Thailand which he attended, where a local producer, Nontawat Machai, responded to the practical problem of audiences waiting in the heat before performances by setting up a beverage stall next to the theatre. What began as a simple refreshment station gradually evolved into a café, and eventually expanded into a delivery service. Through this, even those who did not attend the theatre became aware of the café online and its connection to the venue, thereby generating a small yet self-sustaining market eco-system.

Chan, in turn, introduced the Malaysian online ticketing platform CloudJoi as a case study. He noted that its operations extend beyond Malaysia, attracting productions from Singapore and Thailand. The platform’s value lies not only in ticket sales, but also in its provision of audience analytics—such as segmentation and purchasing behaviour—which enables arts organisations to formulate more informed marketing strategies.

Participants in the session expressed strong interest in comparing funding systems and production models across different regions in Asia. In practice each context presents its own structural challenges. Compared with Hong Kong, many regions in Asia operate with limited public funding, which in turn compels practitioners to seek external resources or to pursue greater cross-border collaboration. This led to further discussion on local ticketing and marketing infrastructures. For instance, existing ticketing providers in Hong Kong were noted for their lack of data transparency, in contrast to platforms such as CloudJoi that offer audience insights which can be acted on.

In terms of promotion and audience engagement, it was observed that productions driven by celebrity appeal or entertainment value are more successful in cultivating large follower bases through relatively private digital channels, often using interactive formats such as games or quizzes. In contrast, arts programmes appear to lack sufficient appeal to encourage audiences to actively share information, participate in online discussions, or engage in community-building activities. This prompted participants to question whether current modes of performance-making are losing relevance to broader audiences, and whether artistically driven works are increasingly being displaced by productions oriented primarily towards entertainment.

At the same time, prevailing promotional strategies in Hong Kong—including traditional leaflet distribution and social media advertising—were seen as insufficient in attracting audiences to attend live performances. While no definitive conclusions were reached, the discussion underscored an urgent need for innovation across multiple dimensions of producing, including financial structuring, production methodologies, and approaches to marketing and audience development.

3. Asian networks and cross-regional collaboration

Looking at the development of the performing arts in neighbouring regions in recent years—across venues, institutions, and festivals—it is not difficult to observe a growing curatorial orientation that places “Asia” at the centre, advocating for exchange, connectivity, and collaboration within the region. Yet beyond the consolidation of resources and the expansion of touring or co-production opportunities, what underpins the value of an “Asia-centred” approach?

The notion of “Asia-Pacific” (often abbreviated as “APAC”) largely emerged from a geopolitical framework constructed by the West—particularly the United States—during the post-World War II Cold War period. Within this framework, diverse Asian societies were discursively grouped into a strategic and economic region oriented around American interests. “Asia,” as such, can be understood as a Western invention: a construct that oversimplifies and homogenises internally diverse cultural and political formations into a single bloc, mapped according to Western priorities and lacking an endogenous historical unity. In Asia as Method: Toward Deimperialization (2006), Kuan-Hsing Chen proposes that Asia should not be treated as a fixed geographical entity, but rather as a method of mutual referencing—one that enables forms of knowledge production grounded in decolonial practice through the study of neighbouring societies.

Within this context—and considering that contemporary performing arts, in many cases, are forms historically introduced through Western frameworks—the advocacy of “Asian networks and cross-regional collaboration” may be understood as a curatorial strategy of decolonisation and decentring Western epistemologies. Through exchanges, dialogues, and collaborations grounded in Asian perspectives, such practices seek to unsettle Western constructs and rearticulate “Asia” on its own terms. In this sense, what is proposed here is not an “intra-Asia” framework, which presumes a pre-defined and unified entity, but rather an “Inter-Asia” approach—one that resists fixed geographical, political, or cultural definitions, and instead embraces the coexistence, friction, and dialogue of multiple perspectives, including those shaped by geopolitics and cultural specificity.

In recent years, there has also been a noticeable increase in attention from Europe and North America towards artists from Asia and other regions. This may be interpreted as a strategic expansion of knowledge systems historically dominated by the West. Following this line of thought, works by Asian artists might more critically foreground originality and locally grounded perspectives, rather than conforming to preconceived “Asian” aesthetics shaped by Western expectations. In light of these shifting dynamics, the proposition of “Asian networks and cross-regional collaboration” emerges not only as relevant, but as a necessary response.

====================================

Alice Wong, Christy Koo, Felix Chan, Ian Leung, Michael Li, and Miu Law