2024年9月21日 星期六

Maria Hassabi "I'll Be Your Mirror", Oct 2023, Hong Kong

 

因為好奇Maria Hassabi二十年來,如何以身體介入展覽空間,觸碰展示與觀看、動作與靜止、表演與展覽等之間的邊界,所以第一時間去看了Maria Hassabi "I'll Be Your Mirror"展覽。

第一個展廳 "White Out",偌大空間中耀眼的白和趾高氣揚的金,氣勢逼人。穿上黃色衣服的男舞者,被包圍在四週揚聲器播放的低沉頌唱聲中。他輕皺著眉,緩緩地在金色的長椅上轉換姿勢和位置。我坐在他身前的地上,目光追隨著他的舉動,漸漸地,彷彿能夠與他的呼吸同步,感受到動作背後的情緒。

相比起在網上看過的Hassabi 的其他作品,這位舞者動作不算慢,以靜止或雕塑比擬,都未必適合。於是,我的閱讀,由預想中對甚麼是「展」、「品」、「舞」、「動」、身體在展覽場域的靜態介入,等等,轉為在展覽空間中動態身體作為事件(event);剛好遇上這位在場感不俗的表演者,有意識地聆聽著承托他的長椅提供的動作契機,物與人的關係,稍稍鬆動起來。這難道就是海德格的thingness?我想。

當我們煞有介事地說舞蹈進入展覽,或者人如雕塑靜止時,我們是否依據著動與不動/人與人造物之類的antinomy,甚至是hierarchy來思考?

約半個小時後,男舞者站到長椅上,向前望。表面上,他沒有在動,但過去30分鐘他經歷過的思緒、五感、干擾、內在對話等,在他體內奔騰成流,幾乎可見。

另一個鋪滿金色鏡子的展廳,與展覽同名。人一走進去,便無可避免成為畫面內容。人能否在充滿自己鏡像的空間裡把注意力放在另一個人身上?自我凝視和自戀,圖像的無限複製和扭曲,喧囂的黃金令到在緩慢移動的女性身體經乎隱沒於其中。奇怪,明明展覽有指定路線,但又後門大開,一有參觀者探頭進來,工作人員便要橫過展廳,告訴他們入口在另一邊。有感難以專注,我只逗留一會便離開了。



 

一次關於嶺南畫派的口述歷史經驗

https://p-articles.com/critics/1762.html

法定藝術機構正在進行一項資深藝術工作者口述歷史計劃,我參與其中,研究對像是嶺南畫派第二代傳人中唯一仍然在生的黎明先生。黎先生本名黎國安,1929年出生,年屆九十一,可能因為長期與鍾愛的為伴,他身體健壯,思路清晰。在歷時數月的準備、拍攝以及後期製作的過程中,黎先生雖然也就像很多老人家般,不時重複說過的,但內容的一致性很強,令我肯定這些經歷對他來說是何其深刻:與其說用腦袋來記,不如說所有與寫畫有關的事,都已經成為了黎先生存在的自然部分。

 

藝術史家對嶺南畫派的表現風格,似乎爭議不大,可能因為嶺南畫派的包容性本來就很強;高劍父、高奇峰、陳樹人三位創立畫派,正是為了對抗清末畫壇陳陳相因、派別先行的風氣。高劍父在(約)1940年撰寫〈我的現代繪畫觀〉一文,提到「兄弟追隨(孫)總理作政治革命以後,就感覺到我國藝術實有革新之必要」。[1] 提倡「藝術要民眾化,民眾要藝術化」;[2] 現代畫要「把古今中外的長處折衷地和革新地處理」。[3]「折衷」是嶺南畫派特色的關鍵詞。「嶺南畫派」是後人的叫法,高劍父反對地域視野,畫派命名為「折衷派」。

 

對於嶺南派的系譜(lineage),機構、史家和嶺南派門生的觀點並不一致。作為高劍父入室弟子的黎明,稱居廉和居巢(「二居」,晚清畫家)為「師公」,原因有二:一、高劍父師承居廉,所以對黎來說,居氏是師公——師父的師父,毋容置疑;二、嶺南畫派特色的「撞水撞粉」技法,按黎表示,二居也曾使用,雖然並非由二人始創。儘管如此,在研究過程中,黎先生一直表示嶺南畫派是由高劍父、高奇峰、陳樹人三人所創。

 

香港藝術館網站的嶺南畫派介紹為:「……其淵源可追溯至清代中期寓居廣東的江蘇畫家宋光寶及孟覲乙;以及『隔山派』的居巢、居廉」。台北故宮博物院20138「溯源與拓展——嶺南畫派特展」的「展覽陳述」則寫有廣東地處五嶺之南,習稱嶺南。晚清時期,由於廣州開放為對外通商口岸,外在環境的變遷,啟動了嶺南地區藝術革命的契機。……近代嶺南繪畫的革新,可推居巢、居廉昆仲為先驅。」19866月,嶺南派畫家趙世光撰文〈嶺南畫派界說及其發展導向〉,引用藝術史家莊申教授 [4] 的考證:「居廉昵……首先他從廣西歸來,可能沒有多少積蓄,可是他從東莞帶回來的姨太太,倒有好幾個……趙認為,「宋、孟、二居,早期同是依附於達官巨賈之門……中年後的居巢更長期在殘殺革命份子的大官張敬修衙中充當幕僚……他們的行為又恰好與參加反封建的民主革命鬥爭的三傑對立。再從其藝術宗旨上比較,宋、孟、二居的作風,都是正統的捍衛者,名家的而三傑的理論和作風,則是『折衷中西,融合古今』,提倡藝術革命,主張筆墨應隨時代。」[5]

 

另一嶺南派畫家關山月,在〈試論嶺南畫派和中國畫的創新)(1986)一文表示,「我覺得嶺南派的思想基礎,是和我國辛亥革命前後蓬勃發展的民主主義革命思潮一脈相承的。如果我們不局限於『嶺南』這一地域性的狹窄概念,而是對它的藝術理論和主張作客觀的分析比較,那麼,把它歸入『五四新文化運動』的範疇和體系,也並不為過。」[6] 關山月提到高劍父曾經在自己的畫室製造炸彈,刺殺清廷武官,參加黃花崗武裝起義、光復廣州等重大戰役。「我們回顧高劍父先生早期的這些活動……作為一個畫家和嶺南派的創始人,先生首先是一位民主主義的革命家。」[7]

 

對照各種出版物,會發現不但對嶺南畫派的系譜,而且對誰是畫派的代表畫家,也因地區、界別或研究方法而不同。不禁再一次佩服洪席耶「感性劃分」的洞見。政治權力對可見和不可見的分配、對藝術的承認或貶抑,從來不是隨意的決定。官方機構追溯久遠的淵源,因為「過去」有時會以傳說的姿態,裝飾今日的合理性。嶺南畫派作品第一次在美國展出,大約在1950年,由國民黨的要員鄧龍江的侄子、高劍父的學生賴漢促成,展出高劍父、趙少昂、楊善深及賴漢的畫作;黎先生在上世紀獲得新華社時任要員的引介,作品進入浙江一帶藝壇。

 

也許對九十有一的黎先生來說,革命和政治,如行雲流水,不值一哂。我認為這也反映了一種很「香港」的生活態度:黎先生1953年來港定居,初期在姨丈開設的公司工作和住宿,一星期工作七天,沒有假期。由氹仔華人代表、家中從商、寄情寫畫的大公子,到經歷戰爭以至生活困難的無業青年,來港後必須儘快適應殖民地實用主義、去政治化、以個人為中心的功利價值體系。嶺南畫派創立時的理念,在改變了的時空中是否有需要或者有空間去崇拜?黎先生雖然不忌諱談及高劍父的革命歷史,但也不特別強調。在訪談中,他最關心的始終環繞畫人的素質,念茲在茲的是嶺南派折衷精神以及強調寫生的傳承。他一而再地憶述與高劍父相處的種種;在他眼中,高劍父革的,是繪畫的命;不管是剌客還是義士,對黎先生來說還是嚴厲地教導和殷切地期望的恩師。如果把黎先生在2020年的描述,與兩位同門在三十多年前出版的文章內容比較,是否有一個高劍父更符合「事實」?

 

理想中的口述歷史的價值,是在反單一敘事的基礎上,借助不同角度的描述來審視大歷史,改變可見和不可見的分配。重視口述歷史與懷疑權威,是信念的一體兩面。在自我表述作為人所共有的權利的前提下,應該如何看待對第一身敘事內容「正確性」的「核實」?核實雖然有助口述內容更容易獲廣泛接納,但是它同時強化大敘事的單一性,作為口述歷史,弔詭地愈「可信」價值可能愈低。我們應如何處理口述者作為歷史的代理人、以及當下說話主體之間的距離?口述歷史的「述」,是描述內容本身,還是受訪者的語話邏輯和譴詞用字被放置在怎樣的脈絡中?

 

對我來說,以影像來記錄說話過程的意義是,不但可以記下受訪者有意識地面向他人的語話表達,更可以捕捉了停頓、沉默、斷裂、重複、口誤等等意蘊豐富的非語話、或者不以攝影機為對象的喃喃自語。這些幾近斷章的碎片,必須在它原生的情況下被閱讀,聽者才可以領會留白的意蘊。以這個計劃來說,不管拍攝了幾多小時也好,按要求我會剪輯成二十段、每段十分鐘的短片。有了「計劃」的庇護,重複的、同一內容但用字不同、停頓下來回想或感概,通通予以刪除。參與這項定位為蒐集初級素材的工作,我似乎做不成以存檔作為迴路來干擾既有秩序,唯有自我開脫:主觀介入本身也是歷史。期望將來的存檔用家,以其獨特的詮釋方法,發現理順了的發言背後可能存在過的非邏輯,讓記憶和真相的辨證延續下去。

 

 「口述歷史及資料保存計劃」: https://artsoralhistory.hk/tc/interviewee-details/a-ePQIs0TsE/interview-video/a-ePQIs0TsE 

 

 


[1] 嶺南畫派研究室編:《嶺南畫派研究》(第一輯)(第一版) (中國:嶺南美術出版社,19871月):頁9

[2] 同上,頁19

[3] 同上。

[4] 莊申 (1932-2000),又名莊申慶,是台灣前故宮博物院院長莊嚴(1897-1980)的長子。1965年受聘於香港大學中文系,先後出任理講師、講師及高級講師,後於1978年創立藝術系,為該系系主任及教授。1988年香港大學退休,返回台灣,任中央研究院歷史語言研究所研究員,並受聘為國立台灣師範大學兼任教授。2000813日於臺北病逝。http://hkvisualartsyearbook.org/details/cBn7uZ9Q4pqGXVvKOK9b8Q

[5] 同上,頁46

[6] 同上,頁31-32

[7] 同上


看《100%香港》的喜與悲

 (原文於2021年2月在現已停止運作的網媒網站發布)

德國劇團Rimini Protokoll(RP)2018年與大館合作,製作《Remote X》香港版《遙感城市》,RP的簽名式手法是設計一個通用創作框架,在不同城市收集當地居民資料以及城市故事,組成在地(localized)的演出內容。2021年,RP的《100% City》在西九文化區自由空間主辦、前進進戲劇工作坊擔任合作夥伴的共同努力之下,成為十月底在戲曲中心上演的《100%香港》。記得2018年看罷《遙》,我有感難以判斷RP的手法是否一種對文化同質化的消費;三年之後,當全球城市人口達55%而看不到逆轉的勢頭時,比較有建設性的應該是思考在同質城市生活的定局下,如何保住對異質的辨識和尊重。

 

《100%香港》無疑朝這方向走,然而,走出了多大的一步?

 

按場刊資料介紹,招募演員的過程是「找來第一個人,他在二十四小時內介紹第二個,如此類推。」招募對象按年齡、性別、所住區域以及居所類別分為五大類,是以最終的「100個人的組成符合(香港的)人口結構」。雖然我相信在統計學上,這是行得通的,但是以台上的100人看來,他們代表的香港人似乎太過美好一些。因為認識製作團隊中人,我知道由預計的2019年上演到真正成事的2021年之間,變化多得令人難以招架,接近一半的演員因為各種理由退出,團隊必須重新招募,可謂出盡吃奶的力才把100人湊齊了。場刊也令人欣喜地沒有稱100人為「素人」——他們就是他們而不是從劇場從業員視角來判斷的「白紙」。然而,無法迴避的現實是,能夠配合排練過程和表演狀態要求的100人,必須具備一定程度的理解和溝通能力、餘閒,甚至經濟能力。明顯地,不是每個階層的人士都負擔得來。

 

台上100人,「每人代表73947人」,那麼,站在台上的「我」,是自己還是一個集的代表?當100人按演出設計推進而作出不同選擇時,他們的決定也是另外73946人的決定嗎?觀眾都心中有數,知道世事不這麼簡單。是以,RP的手法一方面追隨西方自啟蒙時代以降的科學崇拜,同時對統計——甚至不少人用以等同民主概念的代議政制——提出了深刻的自我批判。

 

弔詭的是,當鐘庭耀一出現,統計就不再只是數字:它有了人文維度。RP設定該城人口統計研究者是第一個出場人物,於是,「香港民意研究所」總監是演出者一號(題外話:《魷魚遊戲》會否令大家更憂慮以數字對應身分)。眼前的鐘庭耀,代表的不止是他個人或者七萬多人,而是研究所的象徵意義。民意調查得來的數據,是受訪者不以中環價值衡量所花的時間以及即時回報的多寡,以回答問卷為見證個人存在的行動——尤其是在其他行動都變得不可能的時候。

 

鐘庭耀的在場,可視化(visualise)了數據及背後的價值觀。由不可見的變成可見的,將會影響我們的「見」解(perception)。

 

演出以100人介紹自己開始。這環節令到觀眾(包括我)沸騰起來,是因為我們把它視為一次「現身」(appearance)[1] 嗎?「現身的,正正是民眾。我理解的民眾,既是建基於理念的抽象物,也是一群永遠無法被化約為觀念而真實存在的人。」[2] 然而,掌聲和笑聲難掩一抹悲涼感。我們竟然因為聽到別人——這些在日常生活中不難遇上的人——道出姓名、職業和愛好而激動。是因為在香港這地方,讓我們成為自己的機會太少,還是我們從沒有停下來,看清共同活在我城的其他人?

 

我想到英國雕塑家Antony Gormley在2009年的藝術行動《One & Other》。倫敦特拉法加廣場上的第四基座(Fourth Plinth)本來用作放置威廉四世的騎馬像,但因資金不足一直懸空。Gormley與民眾佔據基座100天,2,400參與的公眾人士,每人有一小時用基座為個人舞台,進行「表演」。Gormley表示:「意念很簡單。把個人放上基座,其肉體便會變成隱喻、符號。」[3]

 

第四基座和《100%香港》作為現身平台,畢竟和日常空間不同,它們鼓勵表演性,縱使個人資料千真萬確,但別忘了在selfie年代,人人都懂得把他者目光集中在大小有限的切面,以別人的期望來設定自己的形象。《100%香港》為了推進演出,100人中難免有部分人比其他的「戲份」重。舞台形式也配合劇場社群的既有設定。但是我還是希望借助阿倫特思考「現身」作為「performance」的雙重意義:一是藝術的實踐;二是個人作為主體的行動,意義內在於本身:「for in these instances of action and speech the end (telos) is not pursued but lies in the activity itself which therefore becomes entelecheia, and the work is not what follows and extinguishes the process but is imbedded in it; the performance is the work, is energeia.」[4]

 

在自我介紹環節之後,《100%香港》的大部分組成是由100人就不同的議題表態。問題有社會性的,例如是否贊成同性婚姻、死刑、「明日大嶼」;也有關於個人的,例如曾否坐牢、自殺、患癌、被性侵,有沒有喜歡/討厭其他99人、有沒有在台上說謊,等等。100人有時按表態站到寫有「我」或「不是我」的牌下,有時與同樣取態的人互相靠近,面對觀眾立此存照。問到「有無掛住《蘋果日報》」時,台下掌聲雷動。可是,除了這樣似有還無地觸碰一下紅線之外,香港的貧富懸殊、教師與學生日漸流失的互信、僵化的土地分配和城市規劃、少數族裔權益,等等,都沒有現身。 的確,兩年下來,很多原先設計了的題目被排除了,而排除的準則是甚麼?

 

大部分時候,100人的表態是在兩個選擇中取其一。從演出推進,以及如何引動觀眾反應的角度考慮的話,非一即二的呈現造就直接而簡單的訊息,視覺處理乾淨鮮明。以我所了解,製作團隊曾經向100人詳細解釋問題,所以他們在台上的選擇並非即時的倉促決定;然而, 舞台呈現把思考的細節、反複幽微的過程化約為二元,選擇態度先行,壁壘分明,未能反映人類作為政治行動主體、以及在不同之中共存所必須的與不同見解人士進行思辯。例如印度的種姓制度,不同階級雖然並存於社會之中,但從不交流更遑論交匯,並非共居真正意義之所在。

 

「‘Wherever you go, you will be a polis’... they express the conviction that action and speech create a space between the participants which can find its proper location almost any time and anywhere.」[5]《100%香港》引起的迴響和共鳴,除了一個經過多次試驗而不斷改良的劇場框架、一個動機良好而且韌力非凡的製作團隊,在波折重重以及社會形勢翻天覆地之後,仍然找到可以繼續的空間之外,亦因為觀眾需要一個安全的位置見證自己的想法獲得表達。縱然我們知道,隨框架要求的100人和樂地一同起舞的畫面,不能完全當真,香港人還是太需要同在的溫度。離開劇場之後,我順步走到尖沙咀,行人路上水洩不通,原來有一架貼滿Mirror成員照片的宣傳車停在路邊。對着手機的笑臉令我憂傷:難道我們可以寄託的,只餘下暫借的狂歡派對?

 

 



[1] 現身(appearance)是彭麗君教授在著作《民現:在後佔領時代思考城市民主》一書中論及的觀念(頁17)。

[2] 彭麗君著,李祖喬譯:《民現:在後佔領時代思考城市民主》(香港:手民出版社,2020):18。

[3] https://www.antonygormley.com/show/item-view/id/2277

[4] Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (The University of Chicago Press,1958): 206. Energeia 指亞里士多得的actuality概念。

[5] Ibid., 198-199.


2024年8月13日 星期二

「歡快」的劇場?

 TechBox 2024:

Level 66 The Arcade Project
不要被TechBox一字誤導,《街機計劃》並不追求炫耀新科技。在我看來,它更多是創作團隊嘗試在熟悉的科技中尋求新的敍事手法。以燈光為例,我感受到團隊希望建立它為獨立藝術語言的野心。在繼續發揮功能性價值的同時,如何與其他劇場語言並存,拓展閱讀關係?當同樣以光為物料的投影,在平面上重現80年代電玩的pixelized視覺特色時,燈光在空氣中展現出細緻的層次,溫度亦時有變化,彷彿是站在高視點的旁觀者,觀眾在演出期間自以為隨個人意志走動玩樂之際,它冷不防地問:你真的可以嗎?
假如沒有演員,觀眾走入沒有觀看焦點的機械世界的話,作品鼓勵他們的「玩」,能否更深入地觸碰個體的agency?近年有關注以玩樂(play)為藝術媒介的研究,探索玩樂的美學功能如何開拓反理性、反規範的可能性。在藝術家引導下,參與玩樂的人玩到呀媽都唔認得(losing oneself in play),放下自我慣性,新的連結契機因此而生。以目前的設計來說,尤其是明確的表演者身份的存在,卻包容了觀眾留守安全區的惰性。雖然不時有指示要觀眾作出選擇,例如take side,或者一起操縱巨型街機按鈕,不過既然精心鋪排好的演出繼續佔據劇場中心位置,進程也不太受觀眾行為影響,那麼,人與人、與機械、與指令的交流會很輕,保守,安全。
香港人稱打機為打game(要不正確地發音為gam),英文的game意涵比我們所指的遊戲複雜,玩樂之外亦指博弈,講求分析大局的能力。街機世界的對抗較簡單,按照規則一頭裁進去,盯著贏前進,不贏便輸,沒有其他位置,因此沒有懸念,無須猶豫。《街機計劃》的對抗觀也是這種典型的對陣,一男一女各佔長桌一方,男的造型如《Matrix》式的冷酷,女的西裝剪裁突出她的乳溝,二人下棋、打兵乓波、拔河、擲骰,長桌一端的網球球證坐的高椅,令桌子兩旁的觀眾自動成為了敵對的雙方。強調觀眾要玩的創作團隊,選取了怎樣的態度來呈現這作品世界?如果以demonstrate來說,作品與現實世界愈來愈街機化的戰狼走向,的確一定程度的呼應,特別在追隨者的層面,不要問只要跟,感覺很熟悉。但若以commenting,或者因共在的身體經驗而產生的新認知來說,作品提供了怎樣的空間?有不少觀眾表示玩得開心,「歡快」是否這時這地的劇場追求,在創作人和觀眾都應該有話語權的前提下,也許值得討論。

「一齊嚟,咩都唔做」


 「一齊嚟,咩都唔做」舉行的場地Pointsman是藝術展示空間,它的空空如也直接指向「沒有藝術品」的空,相比起銅鑼灣的地鋪的空,對走進來的人來說,語景不盡相同。是以,「咩都唔做」"doing nothing" 是在「沒有物件(objects)」的narrative 基礎上,嘗試啟動 (art) objectlessness與經驗的對話。

策劃者表示不想過份介入對 do nothing的想像,所以沒有定下任何規則:不要求絕對安靜,也不建議收起手機。誠然,不說話、不看社交媒體與咩都唔做之間,沒有等號;不過,幾個坐在一起不交談,專注地看手機的陌生人,是否意識到自己其實並非身處餐廳、商場,甚至美術館?手機年代的objectless 是否有足夠的agency?薩特在La nausee 一書中有提到物件 (les choses):「它們在那裡。獨立的,不言語,不自我保護,包圍著我。」作為存在主義者,當然他要講講自己如何思考物,他的一大段文字讓我想到:做或不做任何事,與我們身邊有沒有物件,是可以分開來考慮的。如果「做啲咩嘢」是確認存在的方法,那麼現在我們面對的問題並非物件的誘惑,而是欠了別人的視線,便懷疑自己的活著。

雖然我不完全認同「一齊嚟,咩都唔做」的執行方式,但很欣賞有人願意低調地做一件與時代真正relevant的事件,be it art or not. 咩都唔做,不論它是決定、妥協、晦氣、策略、休養、娛樂,這想法總在你我心中浮現過、被不同程度地實踐過。對那天的一個小時的喘息空間,我滿懷感謝。

「一齊嚟,咩都唔做」Let's do nothing
22, 23, 29, 30 June 2024, Pointsman, Sai Ying Pun.
Presented by: SOMEHOW

2024年6月15日 星期六

To defy and to define: Spring Forward Festival 2024

https://springbackmagazine.com/springback-academy/features/defy-and-define-spring-forward-2024/

Before going to the Spring Forward Festival in Germany, there were a few times when I mistakenly called its presenter ‘airwaves’ or ‘aerospace’ instead of Aerowaves. Was it because I had associated Aerowaves with the will to connect, to advance, and to explore? Then came the visit to the Festival, which made me wonder if they were slips of the tongue or moments of foresight.

In 1996, John Ashford, then Director of The Place in London, brought together a small group of European dance colleagues to form Aerowaves, a platform to bring emerging choreographers and their dance to new audiences across Europe. Ashford led the growth of this initiative to a network of partners in 34 countries before he passed away in December 2023. As if to testify to its magnitude, the 2024 iteration of Spring Forward Festival featured 20 dance works selected out of 750 submissions, which will also be promoted through cross-border performances in the partners’ networks.

Yet the Festival is not just about performance, which is but one component of the dance ecology. There are multiple efforts to nurture practitioners in different roles, including the ‘Springback Academy’ for 10 emerging writers resident in Europe, selected through an open call to be mentored by professional journalists; ‘Start Up Forum’, to offer guidance to a group of emerging presenters to address current programming issues; ‘Artists’ Encounter’, for 10 local artists to attend a workshop on international collaboration; and ‘Artist Development and the Buddy System’, which offers support on self-presentation, communication and other issues faced by young independent artists.

Whose Europe?
Europe as a geographical notion has for centuries been an evolving and, at times, contested one. For the Festival to position itself as the ‘dance across Europe’, whose Europe is at stake? If money speaks loudly, the Festival’s partial funding from Creative Europe promotes a level playing field for the 27 member states of the European Union. I may well be speculating but can’t help noticing an effort to even out the appearance by member countries, for one would think that, considering the sheer population and history in contemporary dance development, wouldn’t there be a higher share from some countries than others? If there is a redistributing hand, what kind of defy and define gesture does it make?

As an Asian audience member, it is eye-opening for me to see how choreographers from Cyprus, Greece, or Hungary approach ‘contemporary dance’, while I am also curious what it means for them to come under the massive ‘pan-European’ umbrella. As the Schengen treaty renders border-crossing between member countries less and less a noticeable experience, does this entail a renewed awareness of what were once called Eastern and Western Europe? How does the touring opportunity supported by a funding with shades of political and economic agenda have a bearing on the reflection of identity – European, or not?

Artistry and dependencies
Out of the 20 works presented in the Festival, 8 of them are solos, 8 duets. Arguably, some of these works we see in 2024 might have been created during the great lockdown when it was impossible for a large company of dancers to get together. But let’s also be mindful of their ‘tour-friendliness’ – small number of performers, simple or no set, pedestrian costume, audio and lighting effects within the parameters of the venues – an attribute not only practical for the presenters but also more and more accepted by the artists as a condition instead of a limitation. For artistic endeavour to be visible, it must rely on a network of dependency and collective links, as Howard Becker told us back in 1974 in his sociological analysis of art (‘Art as Collective Action’, American Sociological Review, December 1974). Not all institutions are interested in the business of dictating other people’s aesthetics but works that go beyond their resource capacity simply cannot be performed. Art happens everywhere but it is more readily conceived as art in some places of distribution than others, for example, theatres. As cultural products are more and more formally and professionally distributed, such a dynamic of the interplay between artistry and dependencies will likely continue to shape contemporary dance in the next decades of the 21st century.

Me and ‘my’ body
The notion of ‘body’ as the contested site of history, oppression and identity continues to make its way into dance. Workpiece by Cie A M A (Switzerland) examines the physical and social conditions of labour, and their effects on the body. Lithuanian-born Anna-Marija Adomaityte performs on a treadmill to the live music of Gautier Teuscher, her movements informed by her experience working in a McDonald’s kitchen. A woman-machine, she turns her head to an invisible screen where orders are displayed, exhausting gestures of packaging while her feet move non-stop to catch up with the speed of the treadmill, or that of a fast-food order system. Monotonous, repetitive, without a trace of emotion. For once we pride ourselves with the mastering of tools while the human body has now become the extension of the machine.

A body beyond your control may well be a possessed body, as Chara Kotsali (Greece) tells us in to be possessed. To the backdrop of layers after layers of black and white images of women taken over by devils, Kostali lip-syncs the voice recordings of their testimonies of being possessed. She crawls and twitches, moves fervidly, talking without speaking, losing herself in other people’s literal and symbolic voices. Stories and discourses that are never going to leave us alone, including those of one’s ancestors. Looking into the family archive of personal anecdotes, Belgian-French-Tunisian artist Habib Ben Tanfous makes an intimate inquiry into what shapes the ‘I’ we refer to in Ici je lègue ce qui ne m’appartient pas, presenting his body as the living testimony to the dichotomy of memory and history: the daily experience growing up as a non-white in Europe coupled with his responsibility to hand down the Tunisian heritage which his body has not encountered.
 
The disinclination to move
What does one make of the disinclination to move witnessed in a dance festival? Unlike Ivana Müller who proposes stillness as a form of movement, or Maria Hassabi who interrupts the mobility of ‘art objects’ in the context of art museums, these groups of young choreographers (in their 20s or early 30s) don’t seem to think much about the need to make extensive movements while dancing. While this may be regarded as a continuation of the defiance of stylised, institutionalised dance language since the 1990s, or how ‘dance’ is understood by the digital natives, I read this disinclination as a mute and passive submission to the reality this generation finds itself in. Alienated, confused, and deprived of aspirations, there isn’t the pleasure to motivate their movements, physically and spiritually.

Trevoga (the Netherlands) meshes online fantasies and brutal reality in 11 3 8 7. Three shiny, youthful bodies in trendy styling spend a considerable part of the performance as standing-by avatars: swaying slightly, staring without looking, flexing their muscles to commands beyond their own consciousness. They move from one spot to another to take a selfie, spit some blood on the floor, or snort ketamine. Not having any insight into their situations nor searching for communication with the spectators may explain the lack of development of the movement vocabularies.

A similar stagnancy can be found in Fatigue by Viktor Szeri (Hungary). In 40 minutes of non-stop poundings of electronic music and abstract video images, the dancer sways his pelvis to a consistent breadth and speed, not responding to the environment, rejecting his body’s motor tendency to speed up or elaborate as the repetition builds. ‘…a choreography on fatigue, on wanting nothing. He explores the limits and tolerance of his own body through the filter of burnout’ – these sentences taken from the programme notes seem an apt description of how Fatigue comes across to me.

Alienation is also the result of an ever-present distance between the private self and its public persona on social media; and that between our digital and corporeal presence. You can change your profile picture a few times a day without moving your butt from the sofa. The two performers of Les Idoles (France) shift their weight from one foot to the next throughout REFACE while their faces go through incessant transformations. Their witty use of adhesive tapes, chewing gums, plasters, plastic wraps, and markers leads us through a journey of mutability. As the receding make-up reveals more and more of the performers’ faces, are their identities coming through?

Some believe in movements, they do
At the opposite end of disinclination is the unflinching belief of movements, to its most intense possibility and its deviation from theatrical dance vocabularies. Choreographer Yotam Peled (Germany) and the two performers in Where the Boys Are shared training backgrounds in circus and martial arts, influences deployed extensively in their technique-demanding duets and contact improvisation. A school gym as the performance venue serves as an extra layer of reference to the piece, reminding us of how our bodies succumbed to discipline in those student days. Peled introduces verbal script and colourful music to the piece but in my mind, the emotional texture already exists in the very dedication to the movements by the performers. All that is needed is more trust on the articulative capacity of the body.

On this note, Sarah Baltzinger & Isaiah Wilson (Luxembourg /France) demonstrate a higher confidence in the voice of their bodies in MEGASTRUCTURE. Technically demanding, this duet is a plethora of speed, flexibility, muscle command and weight distribution skilfulness. However, instead of celebrating the amplitude of the human body, the piece has an undertone of the weight of endurance in situations of no exit. When the load on your back gets too heavy but dumping it is not an option, bend further.

Concerning the high proportion of solo and duet dance works and the distribution across countries, I am not sure if the stretch of ‘dance’ is a conscious curatorial direction, or a result of the proposals received. What I do see is the disappearing boundary between dance, acrobatics, gymnastics, sports, and gestural articulations. Cabraqimera by Catarina Miranda (Portugal), a quartet on roller skates, is a case in point, though I am not sure artistically where the wheels lead us. On the other hand, Tom Cassani (United Kingdom) and his magic (and magical!) performance Iterations is an excellent demonstration of choreography in the sense of structure and precision of movements, and performance qualities made perfect through repetition, self-reflection, and imagination.

Imagination is where the beauty lies when the moving bodies are concealed by darkness. In A BEGINNING #16161D by Aurora Bauzà & Pere Jou (Spain), the audiences’ eyes struggle to follow what remains barely visible: sounds of singing, breathing, the rustling fabrics, and dims of lights attached to the performers’ hands. Relieved from the haemorrhage of digital images and immersed in angelic singing, the audiences are gently led to the recognition of the presence of the others. The literal journey from darkness to light in the theatre is at the same time an individual’s journey from disorientation to tranquility.
 
Defying definition

To go back and forth between three cities: Darmstadt, Wiesbaden, and Mainz to attend 20 performances within 3 days is undoubtedly a challenge of physical and mental capacity. Yet this intense presentation format, the appearance of one choreographic strategy after the next like models on a runway, really calls for a reflection on ‘diversity’. One thing I find missing among these works is the lack of interrogation into the performer-spectator positions, physically and symbolically. Otherwise, the Festival’s stakeholders have to an extent demonstrated a will to defy (what dance usually means) and define (what dance can mean). Practitioners of this comparatively marginal art form continue to call attention to its contour while forever trying to redraw it so they might become more than who they are.

2024年5月15日 星期三

《謝洛姆.貝爾》


通透的Jerome Bel,在2020版本的《Jerome Bel》中,繼續以層層的悖論邏輯,建築關於舞蹈和表演的思辯樂園。穿著自傳外衣的文本,以第一人稱書寫,交由表演者讀出,台上的「我」是proxy;然而,文本強調表演是表演者和觀眾共時共地的連結,更以亮起觀眾席燈光來強調訊息,那麼,在現場演繹的「我」便必須處理法藉編舞Jerome Bel、其代理人、以及黃大徽這些身分的游移,等於直接觸及編舞--舞者關係,以及表演核心。


既熟讀Ranciere的 《The Ignorant Schoolmaster》,Bel 定必知道要啟發別人,需要的只是一個接點,於是把自己到現時為止對舞蹈的探索,化為素材,表演者若能成功embody素材為演出的undertone,Bel便能直接從論述個人觀點化身成連結接點,讓參與表演事件的各人接下他手上的思辯之棒。

黃大徽也真的是embody此文本的不二之選。從持續兩個小時的平穩步調以及零度表演中的自在看來,他已找到游移的身分與舞台呈現的平衡。

Bel 設定文本須由演員以當地語言讀出,把存在於編舞和舞者之間的翻譯關係可視化。正如語言和文化互為建構,語言轉換涉及進入另一種文化的可能暴力,以及歧義的無盡異變。舞者在「翻譯」編舞意念時,身體會否為另一文化所異化?舞者的演繹存在編舞可接受的歧義空間嗎?後結構主義的痕跡在Bel 的設定中清晰可見,亦延續著他在其他作品中對美學穩定性的抗拒。

令人大滿足的是一次過看到很多之前只能慕想卻未一睹芳容的Bel 名作,包括《Véronique Doisneau》的錄像。作品簡潔力量強大,叩問的何止是舞蹈/舞者為何,更是制度為何,身在其中的人之為何。喜愛層級階梯秩序的你,看著可有一點兒汗顏?

就如Bel 其他作品一樣,總有半場離去的觀眾。也許是星期四的關係,入場人數不多。我可沒有Kevin Wong 大愛,願意為未買票的人支付門票費用。事實上,若果只是喜歡「表達」而非藝術,只喜歡舞台而非人類,只為了知道如何創作一個作品,而非從整體社會經濟政治文化環境角度審視舞蹈的位置,那麼,其實沒有必要看《Jerome Bel》或任何Bel的作品。美麗新香港需要的畫面、科技、新鮮感、掌聲等,我們從來不缺。