不是旅遊指南之馬來西亞幾好玩

http://www.iatc.com.hk/?a=doc&id=37741&issue_id=37732

在地理上，香港位處亞洲中央，乘飛機到首爾跟到吉隆坡需時相約。但在尋找可與之角力的文化夥伴時，我們似乎偏好向北望，望向日本南韓；向東望，望向台灣； 或極目遠望，望向歐美。筆者也不例外。近期在馬來西亞吉隆坡住了三個半月，對這邊的表演文化、特別是小型演出認識多了，發現老話還是對的：不認識，所以不 接受。主觀的狹隘有時真的很幼稚。

有限的政府資助

馬六甲表演藝術節的主要演出場地：St. Paul's Hill 上的古蹟教堂。

馬 來西亞的保守政治勢力自國家獨立以來一直執政，直至近年才見反對派勢力抬頭，所以難免文化資源一直集中用於弘揚傳統馬來及回教文化。從在吉隆坡的「文化宮 殿」Istana Budaya 駐場的藝團分別為傳統音樂、傳統舞蹈，以及管弦樂團，可見一斑。在巴生谷區域（即吉隆坡和其周圍的雪蘭莪屬市鎮），沒有任何官方藝術製作或行政經費可供申 請。國家文化及藝術部（Jabatan Kebudayaan DanKesenian Negara / National Department for Culture and Arts）可能提供一些支援，但相比起香港的「康文署」和「藝發局」直接向藝術家發放現金資助的做法，在馬來西亞要以當代表演藝術維生似乎相當困難。在現 代舞圈子，大部分人從事與藝術無關的全職工作，小部分則擔任舞蹈教師，然後把收入用於舞台製作。故此，嚴格來說他們不是專業編舞，而很多時舞者是無償演出 的。

Kuala Lumpur Performing Arts Center，由廢置火車站改建而成。

無 疑沒有政府資助令創作人面對財政壓力，但香港的受資助團體何嘗不面對壓力：資助額低、票房慘淡，還要迎合撥款單位的衡量標準，以求獲得下次的資助。在這方 面，馬來西亞的朋友背負的包袱便輕得多了。以我看過的小型演出為例，最少座上客的一次是只有六名觀眾及兩名記者的即興舞蹈（舞者及現場音樂演出者共九 人）；有自詡為「結合日本摺紙藝術與現代舞的互動舞蹈」卻實為「劇場災難」的製作；也有用廣東話說就是「唔知想點」的小作品；當然也不乏水準之作。且不談 個別作品的優劣，他們作為整體展示的是率真的勇氣。沒有必須考慮的遊戲規則，作品可以「胡來」，亦即是百花齊放，自由灑脫，不囿於形式技巧；演出者亦投入 享受在台上的時間。真正的考驗，是如何從自由中保持自律，提煉出動人心弦的創作。香港近年的演出漸漸變得似曾相識，票房考慮讓我們選擇安全的決定，資助額 是因循之路的路標。筆者仍然認為政府在支援藝術發展方面責無旁貸，但如何在撥款前穩守藝術創作的尊嚴，則是資助提供者、藝術家、觀眾和藝評人的共同責 任。 誠然，不是每個馬來西亞藝團都是一窮二白的。葉忠文任藝術總監的「共享空間」（Dua Space），美學詞彙是帶明顯中國符號的現代舞，舞團主要收入來自商業演出。2013 年 11 月演出的《萬象甲骨》，以書法入舞為賣點，同時向本土華人書法家沈慕羽致敬。筆者在吉隆坡表演藝術中心（Kuala Lumpur Performing ArtsCenter）劇院看的最後一場演出，幾近滿座。另一個滿座的演出是由「壽板舞踏祭」（Nyoba Kan International Butoh Festival）的《千手羅漢》。壽板舞踏祭藝術總監李瑞強曾數次來港演出，香港觀眾可能對他那全身塗白的造型印象猶新。看罷這兩台作品，有感創作之純 粹與觀眾口味之間那永存的矛盾：我看台上演出有著隔靴搔癢之感，但明顯不是「舞台死硬粉絲」的觀眾（佔大比例）卻興奮不已。對兩位藝術總監來說，演出展現 的藝術選擇是計算還是妥協，我不得而知；應該追求最多的掌聲還是夾雜致敬與辱罵的台下反應，在香港劇場中也一直被爭論不休吧。

都市發展，地產商，表演空間

位於中產住宅區的 Damansara Performing Arts Center (DPAC)，設有鏡框式及黑盒劇場。

吉 隆坡都市近年高速擴張，十年前還是村落的地方已發展成新興的中產住宅區。這些新區有明顯的士紳化痕跡，與其他「前輩城市」一樣，「前衛藝術」（真實意義上 的還是感覺上的皆可）同樣被用作士紳化催化劑。撇開士紳化的文化意義不談，這趨勢卻為吉隆坡的獨立表演藝術家提供了新的演出場地。由於地方大、公共運輸網 絡不完善，加上天氣炎熱，中產家庭比較樂意開車到同一地點同時吃、喝、買，以及思想提升。與其不斷要想出新點子或投入大量廣告費，地產商很樂意在商區內加 設小劇場，既可讓租賃者分擔吸引人流的責任，又能以藝術活動為商區製造高格調的氛圍。在靠近吉隆坡會議中心的「Publika」，商場內有商業畫廊及創意 工作室的專層，Black Box 劇場和展覽／多媒體演出用的 White Box。而被 Damansara區新型住宅大樓環繞的 Damansara Performing Arts Center，更設有藝術總監一職，專責兩個演出場地的使用情況。雖然還是要付場租，而且設備只屬一般，但這些私營場地為小型演出提供了更多可能性，藝術 家亦可嘗試以不同形式與地產商合作，彌補缺席的政府資助。例如之前提及的李瑞強便在「壽板舞踏祭」期間在Publika 舉行相片展。

順帶一提，吉隆坡有好些私人舞蹈學校附設有演出場地，可供外借，筆者到過的Fonteyn Studio Theatre 及 Actors Studio @ KuAsh Theatre，便分別可容納約八十名及二百名觀眾，適合設計簡約的演出。

多民族文化
馬來西亞的三大種族是馬來人、中國人和印度人。市民在生活上恪守自己的價值及習俗，同時包容其他文化。你可能在並排的數條街道上找到回教廟、印度廟及關帝 廟。這兒公眾假期很多，不同民族共同慶祝各種節慶。然而劇場演出卻是涇渭分明，也許由於參與藝術分享不能止於承認其他文化的並存，而是要投入共鳴，故此藝 團成員和觀眾傾向屬於同一種族。相信與教育制度也有關，因為各種族兒童分別上馬來學校、華文學校，和印度學校，自幼接受在語言等方面不同的學習重點，形成 了「民族主義」的觀眾群。藝術家們也明白如果能突破種族界限，將有助提高小劇場的觀眾人數；但以筆者看過的一個小型劇為例，演出是半英語半馬來語，英語演 出算是吸引教育水平較高的本地人和我這群「非我族類」，然而當內容涉及政治民生時，演員便以馬來語演出，沒有任何字幕或場刊解說。在現代舞圈這情況可能稍 佳，但例如小型現代舞團「雪隆廣青舞團」（Kwang Tung DanceCompany），成員全為華人，就最近一次演出 Island 所見，華藉觀眾佔大多數。

馬六甲表演藝術節

已經進行到第五屆的「馬六甲表演藝術節」（Melaka Art & Performance Festival/ MAP)，2013 年 11 月 22-24 日，在世界文化遺產 St Paul’s Hill 及周邊地點舉行。MAP 是一民間自發的藝術節，原則上抱著「來者不拒」的精神，不予演出者薪金，亦不設門票，演出者只要願意遞交建議書及自行負擔（或向資助團體申請）住宿，便可 在藝術節演出。三天的節目包括在古蹟教堂內的「舞台」演出（其實並非正式舞台，只是觀眾和演出者的位置被限定罷了）、環境舞蹈、電影欣賞，討論會及工作 坊。演出類別倒不是那麼容易界定，有加入了現代元素的傳統舞蹈、混合戲劇及舞蹈的形體演出、一人 talk show、走神、相片展，各適其適。演出者來自五湖四海：澳洲、法國、英國、印尼、印度、新加坡、日本、新喀里多尼亞、泰國、越南等。這裡是條真正的木人 巷，演出作品具濃厚實驗性，主辦單位（MAPFEST）只提供有限的藝術和技術支援，開放的場地讓人隨意進出，見真章的就是能否留得住觀眾把演出看完。

五年來，MAP 成功打響名堂，國家旅遊局（Ministry of Tourism and Culture Malaysia）成為贊助團體之一，有好些藝術家得到自家政府資助來參加，澳洲墨爾本大學的藝術支援組織 Asialink（of The University of Melbourne）更派員到場觀
察。 然而名氣帶來了好些問題：首先場地由於是古蹟，不能隨意改動，觀眾席大小受制，現已容不下愈來愈多慕名而來的人士。擠不進的好奇觀眾或者會從外探頭張望， 有的甚至橫過演區，影響演出。亦由於 MAP 對演出申請，原則上是全數接納，要在三天內「安置」所有演出者，每節演出便變得冗長；加上希望藉 MAP 打響名堂的年輕藝術家帶來的節目良莠不齊，影響了 MAP 整體形象。有份演出的藝術家及觀眾都認為，MAP 的理念令它成功，但成功可能迫使它放棄理念：是否要引入甄選制度？誰有資格甄選藝術創意？民間自發的藝術節是否應該接受（更多）政府及商業資助？MAP 的精神與成就值得香港朋友參考，它如何從第一個五年走進下一個五年，相信也會為我們帶來啟示。

筆者在馬期間亦參觀了不少美術館和畫廊。有時難免會覺得馬來西亞的藝術作品傾向和煦悅目，未能衝擊思考，但也許這是因馬來西亞天然資源豐富而多樣化、食物 不缺、燃油便宜、長年陽光及雨水豐盈；雖然人民對政權及民族之間不平等地位有抱怨，但國民性情大抵平和安靜。於是藝術家們感知的世界，色彩繽紛、靜謐閒 適，帶有人文維度的溫暖。與我們慣常接觸的當代藝術相比，東南亞作品在以西方為中心的「藝術世界」仍然「身處邊陲」（近年新加坡政府在努力改變這狀況）； 我亦有感馬來西亞的作品批判性不強，也較少探索生命的陰暗面。確然這國家的政權某程度是建立在人為的民族矛盾之上，但似乎人民對種族的尊嚴更多是呈現為沒 有歇息的對文化根源意義的思考。諷刺的是這種對歷史的本源觀念令西方覺得作品不夠「後現代」。香港創作在個人主義、本土主義的夾縫中進退失據，喜新厭舊的 消費價值觀令我們羞於追源溯本，放眼這邊以沈厚文化為後盾、透現安然幸福的藝術作品，於我們，又有甚麼啟示。

後記：在馬期間我住在市郊一叢林茂密之所。在石屎中長大的我近距離接觸各種樹木花草、蚊蟲蛇蟻、猴子松鼠、老鼠蜥蜴，難免害怕，但也親證了大自然物種之繁 多、形態及顏色之美，以及如何相生相剋地共享生存。古人觀察自然，產生了知識和藝術，找到自己在宇宙中的位置；互聯網和排練室，又如何能比擬。這地方名為 Rimbun Dahan，為馬藉建築師 Hijjas Kasturi 擁有；他與熱愛藝術的妻子居於此，以及成立藝術家駐場計劃，讓亞洲各地從事藝術創作的朋友與自然為鄰，在寧靜中捕捉其變化無窮的鮮活能量，感受生命之喜悅。

2012 dance data and observations thereon

In order for Hong Kong’s dance activities to be digitally documented, “Hong Kong Dance Yearbook” (Yearbook) gathered and categorized factual details about dance performances in 2012. This article elaborates on the observations induced from the data processing exercise. The Yearbook makes the following assumptions when categorizing and comparing the information to compensate for the inconsistency in the format of and level of details available from publicity materials, the main source of information of this exercise:

1.      The Yearbook is aware of and supports that dance activities in Hong Kong go beyond those presented as performances.  “Performance” as the focus of discussion is for the fact that it can be participated by a party who does not act the dance itself. This to a certain extent reflects the relationship between dance partakers and the community.

2.      “Performance” data only include concerts that took place in “theatres” in conventional terms, or in a LCSD-managed venue, and audiences are required to pay for their entrance. Tickets for all the productions discussed in this article were sold through “URBTIX”, “Cityline” and “HK Ticketing” networks.

3.      The productions covered in this article should not be understood as the exhaustive list of Hong Kong’s 2012 dance productions. The Yearbook has no knowledge of productions that were not publicly announced or information of which not submitted to the Yearbook editorial team.

4.       The “audience count” is estimated by assuming 70% of the venue’s published capacity was filled in each concert. That figure multiplied by the number of concerts makes the total audience estimation of a production. The Yearbook does not factor in scenarios when the venue’s standard seating plan was altered for artistic purpose.

5.      The “average ticket price” is the average figure of all publicized price bands, while excluding exceptionally high price band (for example the $1000 VIP ticket of the Hong Kong Ballet productions). The “average” does not reflect the share of seats for each band and price discounts not factored.

6.      “Professional”, “Amateur” and “Students” (categories) are defined as follows:

                             i.                Professional: dance as a profession for the performers involved, who make their major source of income from undertakings directly related to dance (such as but not limited to performance, education, research.) “Professional” has no judgmental implication of quality, skill level, or audience expectation.

                           ii.                “Amateur”: the performers involved make their major source of income outside of undertakings directly related to dance. “Amateur” has no judgmental implication of quality, skill level, or audience expectation.

                         iii.                “Students”: Either the performers are full-time students or the performance is part of a dance-learning activity (such as but not limited to a graduation gala, anniversary performance of dance schools, competition, or winners’ showcase.)

7.      No year-on-year comparison will be made as only 2012 data is available to the Yearbook on publication.

Productions and concerts

In 2012 there were a total of 180 dance productions which were presented as 407 concerts. The distribution among professional/ amateur/ student is as follows:

Category	Number of productions	% of year total	Number of concerts	% of year total
Professional	80	44.4%	247	60.7%
Amateur	39	21.7%	49	12.0%
Student	61	33.9%	111	27.3%

There is an indirect proportion between the number of productions against that of concerts for both the Amateur and Student categories. The % share of production out of year total was higher than the share of concerts. One possible reason is that there were usually 1 to 2 concerts for Amateur and Student productions, whereas Professional productions could run for 2-5 concerts, or in cases up to 10 (for example 14 for “Nutcracker” by the Hong Kong Ballet and 9 for “Maze” by Passover Dance.)

LCSD (including Cultural Presentations Office, Festivals Office and Audience Building Office) was the largest presenter in 2012, presenting 25 productions with 68 concerts. Yet this concert total was lower than that of the three flagship companies (the Hong Kong Ballet, Hong Kong Dance, City Contemporary Dance Company) together (19 productions with 78 concerts.) Other major presenters, by the number of productions, were the mid to small scale dance companies and independent dancers as a unity, the Hong Kong Arts Festival Society, and the Consulate General of France in Hong Kong and Macau (presenter of “Le French May”.)

There were 14 productions in 2012 funded by the Hong Kong Arts Development Council, amounting to 73% of the 19 productions by the three flagship companies. However, only 35 concerts came out of the 14 productions, 44% of those of the flagship companies. To understand the difference in proportion, one could contemplate the relationship between ADC grant amount and venue rental, or the LCSD Venue-Partnership Scheme which was in effect in 2012.  

Ticket price

The variation of average ticket price among the three categories was slight:

l   Professional: between $25-$480 (exceptionally high ticket band excluded), average $210

l   Amateur: between $25-$380, average $158

l   Student: between $10-$380, average $130

While the ticket price for Professional productions was highest amongst all three categories, it was only 32% higher than that of Amateur. When one considers the high investment for large-scale productions or for bringing overseas artists to Hong Kong, one could see how the public money subsidy has made its mark on the ticket price.  Unavailable to the Yearbook are the demographic data of ticket buyers and the income-expenditure balance sheet of productions, so for now it is hard to make suggestions on whether Professional ticket price should be adjusted. Also infeasible by now is to estimate the contribution to audience building should the ticket price be reduced further.

Audiences

Please refer to point 4 in the first paragraph of this article for audience estimation assumptions. The following figures are complied according to such assumptions and do not necessarily equate to the actual number of heads inside the theatres:

Number of audiences, year total	274,730
	Total of category	% of year total	Average per concert
Professional	146,489	53.3%	595
Amateur	39,615	14.4%	808
Students	88,626	32.3%	798

One thing to bear in mind when looking at the above figures is that the ticket purchase motivation could be quite different for audiences in different categories. Productions under the Student category comprise of graduation gala, anniversary performance of dance schools, competition, or winners’ showcase. The performer count of these productions is high. Performers’ social networks may intersect but may not overlap, suggesting an ability to attract audiences from community segments who buy tickets for the sheer purpose of friendly support. The average audience count of the Professional category is the mid-point of productions with as many as over 1000 per concert, and those as low as 100. One can do a quick calculation here: multiply the audience count by average ticket price and one could almost visualize the triad of government grant amount, practitioners’ income and resources available for audience development. The dance sector may want to discuss what makes a healthy ecology and who should shoulder a higher responsibility, if any.  Regardless, it is apt to say that the audience count for the Professional category is low when one considers the total population of Hong Kong and its citizens’ participation in dance activities of various forms.

LCSD-organized fringe activities related to the productions described in this article amounted to 8 in 2012. These activities included but were not limited to master classes, seminars, open rehearsals, photo exhibitions etc. All being paid activities, 1300 people joined by paying an amount between $50 - $200. While there is no data showing whether these people ended up in the theatres, there was a growing trend of incorporating fringe activities in the overall dance publicity package.

Venue

The following table describes the distribution of performance venues among the three categories in discussion:

Venue	Professional	Amateur	Student
Grand Theatre, Hong Kong Culture Center	✔
Studio Theatre, Hong Kong Culture Center	✔
Theatre, City Hall	✔
Auditorium, Kwai Tsing Theatre	✔
8/F Platform, Sheung Wan Civic Center	✔
Auditorium, Tsuen Wan Town Hall	✔
Black Box Theatre, Jockey Club Creative Arts Center	✔
HKICC Lee Shau Kee School of Creativity	✔
Fringe Club Studio	✔
Theatre, Ngau Chi Wan Civic Center	✔
McAulay Studio, Hong Kong Arts Center	✔
Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Center	✔
Sam Tung Uk Museum	✔
Xiang Hai Xuan Multi-purpose Hall, Nan Lian Garden	✔
Black Box Theatre, Kwai Tsing Theatre	✔		✔
Lyric Theatre, Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts	✔		✔
Theatre, Sheung Wan Civic Center	✔	✔
Auditorium, Shatin Town Hall	✔	✔
Theatre, Sai Wan Ho Civic Center	✔	✔
Auditorium, Yuen Long Theatre	✔	✔
Auditorium, Tuen Mun Town Hall		✔
Ampitheatre, Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts		✔	✔
Jockey Club Auditorium, PolyU		✔	✔
Tai Po Civic Center		✔
Southorn Stadium		✔
Y Theatre, Youth Square			✔

In 2012, performance venues utilized by Professional, Amateur and Student categories were readily distinguishable. But for a few exceptions, amateur and student productions took place in venues that professionals did not usually use. The same was true the other way round.  There was also a longer list of venues for professional productions. Generally speaking, venue decisions reflect the dynamics of rental, availability, facilities, and capacity, also the image of the production and the audience segment it is intended for. The 2012 venue utilization situation seemed to suggest a discussion about resources deployment and geographical audience development endeavor.

Dance genres and themes

Except for a few ethnical (Flamingo, Tango, Central Asia folk dance) dance productions presented by LCSD, the formal variety of professional dance productions is limited to ballet, Chinese or modern dance. This may has to do with the fact that for over three decades, there has been a professional dance company for each of these three forms, but a fourth one is nowhere to be seen so far. The HKAPA School of Dance also has streamlined its curriculum along those three forms.  Amateur category is the most “democratic” among all, with productions comprising different forms and no obvious predisposition to sought after.  Student category shows a preference for Chinese dance. This may be a combined result of the prevailing effort of community groups, a lower learning entry barrier, and higher acceptance among parents. While there is also a certain amount of ballet productions in Student category, one does not see much of sports dance productions.

Re-runs are rare in Hong Kong. The “Nutcracker”, “Giselle” and “Cinderella” of the Hong Kong Ballet should be regarded more as a 2012 version of a classical repertoire and not as a “re-run” per se. In 2012, “Evacuation Order” of the Hong Kong Dance Company and “Chopin vs Ca” by Unlock Dancing Plaza were re-run productions in its strict sense.

Other paid productions

One phenomenon worth noticing is that in 2012, a considerable amount of productions had their tickets sold through channels outside of the three major ticketing networks. They therefore fell out of the scope of the discussion so far. To all intents and purposes, they shared the 2012 Hong Kong dance scene and should be reviewed in order for a full picture to be presented:

Number of productions: 23

Number of performances: 54

(note: the above figures were collected through a call-for-information exercise. All fell into the “Professional” category except for one production/ two concerts.)

Venues: Jockey Club Theatre, CCDC Dance Center/ Big Tree Arts Center/ Pak Tin Community Hall, Shek Kip Mei/ Unlock Dancing Plaza/ Theatre Horizon/ OnandOn/ DanceArt White Box/ Hidden Agenda/ Loft Stage/Y-Space Y Theatre.

Except for OnandOn and Pak Tin community Hall, the other venues are small without any built-in audience block. Capacity ranges from 30 to 80 audiences per concert. Together, around 2000 audiences attended these productions in 2012. This is a significant amount that cannot be neglected.  Average ticket price of these productions is $100, apparently lower than those sold through the three ticketing networks.  Presenters might have reduced the price to compensate for the smaller production scale and reduced ticket purchase flexibility. They might also have passed on to the audiences the savings from handling fee. 

Hong Kong’s three major ticketing networks serve only the “formal” performance venues. To sell tickets of alternative venues, one has to look for alternative channels. But a situation that grew entirely out of needs may soon find itself symbolically significant. It implies a bottom-up, uprising demand for a broader “theatre” definition. Unable to take advantage of the publicity channels associated with the major networks, presenters make their most out of online networks such as facebook, email marketing and word-of-mouth promotion. These mechanisms in turn strengthen the bonding of potential audiences as they are built on people relationship. It definitely is worth the attention of all in the dance field to follow and investigate how this trend will evolve.