《PAR表演藝術》 301 期 / 2018年01月號
http://par.npac-ntch.org/tw/article/doc-%E9%9B%A3%E4%BB%A5%E6%83%B3%E5%83%8F%E7%9A%84%E3%80%8C%E4%BA%9E%E6%B4%B2%E8%88%9E%E8%B9%88%E3%80%8D-%E8%A8%98%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E5%9F%8E%E5%B8%82%E7%95%B6%E4%BB%A3%E8%88%9E%E8%B9%88%E7%AF%80%E4%B9%8B%E3%80%8CChatBox-%E8%AB%96%E5%A3%87%E3%80%8D-ewwgpmz4dm
「城市當代舞蹈節」2017年11月舉行，香港首次以東道主身份，迎來東亞地區的當代舞演出單位，以及來自世界各地的藝術節總監、創作人、評論人，等等。舞蹈節活動之一是「ChatBox 論壇」，主題為「亞洲舞蹈新想像」。我擔任主持兼香港舞評人代表，與駐瑞典國家公共廣播電台的劇場和舞評人Cecilia Djurberg，泰國朱拉隆功大學戲劇藝術系系主任Pawit Mahasarinand教授，以及台灣表演藝術評論台專案評論人劉純良，討論了這個指涉極廣的主題：亞洲、舞蹈、想像，三個詞組，三個有待釐清的概念。
「舞蹈」
既然是舞蹈節，必須先談「舞蹈」。Djurberg表示在今天的瑞典，「舞蹈」的邊界遼闊，有海納百川之勢，一般人對舞蹈的期待，只要是「有身體、有空間、有動作、有聲音」，已願足矣。瑞典人甚至特別創造了「dance dance」（舞蹈舞蹈）一詞，指那些展現學院派技巧、傳統編舞模式較明顯的作品。Djurberg對亞洲舞蹈認識不深，所以當她在舞蹈節中看見的作品主要屬於「舞蹈舞蹈」一類時，很好奇這現象是源於舞蹈節的挑選準則，還是反映了亞洲舞蹈創作的大方向。但若說是亞洲取向，Djurberg同時對作品的表達手法深感熟悉，原因是與歐洲舞蹈的敘事手法近似。
劉純良認為熟悉感可能是來自亞洲舞蹈學院廣泛應用西方訓練課程設計（例如葛蘭娒系統）。Djurberg贊成訓練的影響，但她強調舞蹈應該是一個「如何在舞台上展現身體」的概念。相對於歐洲舞蹈的跨媒介、著重身體感的表演性，亞洲舞蹈似乎集中在肢體技巧展示；歐洲舞蹈的呈現形式林林總總，舞蹈節節目卻比較單一。由於舞蹈節本身無可避免帶有代表性，因此她不禁思考「表演性」（performativity）在亞洲舞蹈的位置。她看見技藝高強的舞者，例如北京「雷動天下」舞蹈團的一眾，似乎是帶着一種情感上的距離上舞台；他們的舞蹈是再現，表演性不高。Djurberg雖然也欣賞流動的、受過優良訓練的身體，但是如果作品尋求傳遞訊息或態度，那麼可能需要更全面的表演能力。
對藝術形式的界定，是學院、資源持有人、以及在地實踐的藝術家三方面的持續角力。Mahasarinand說，在亞洲，舞蹈訓練獨立於其他藝術形式之外，在歐洲則是綜合式的「藝術教育」。因為教育方式的迥異，歐洲藝術家們擅於跨界創作，作品並不符合任何既有範疇的描述，故此得以突破既有想像。當代藝術的特色就是不受限制。在亞洲，因為教育、政府官僚架構等等，舞蹈很少與其他藝術界別混在一起。
「亞洲」
Mahasarinand記起他七歲時第一次來香港，吃漢堡、買日本機械人。香港所代表的亞洲，對一個泰國小孩來說，跟他認識的「亞洲」毫無關連，漢堡和機械人卻非香港產物。到現在他已來過香港無數次，但每次仍然會發現從未吃過的廣東點心。「Pad Thai」原意是泰式小炒，材料不限，但在泰國以外已被單一理解為炒麵條。Mahasarinand問，「亞洲」，其實是甚麼？
如果Djurberg感到作品很西方，Mahasarinand認為那實在是件大好事，因為這表示「（亞洲舞蹈工作者）讓人看我們真正在做的，而不是配合其他人的『亞洲舞蹈』期望——且不說那期望是異國情調還是傳統風味。」他在歐洲看過的亞洲舞蹈，都會刻意突顯傳統，但那不是當下的、現實的亞洲。他認為要想像亞洲，必須承認它真實的狀態，而不是執著於想看的。他認識的一位德國藝術總監，三年前把三個泰國舞蹈作品引入其舞蹈節。該些作品沒有傳統元素，卻論及泰國當下政治狀況。Mahasarinand希望更多類似的亞洲作品可以獲推介到歐洲。他更鞭辟入裡地指出，西方人期望在當代亞洲中看見傳統，然而現實的當代亞洲，並不帶有傳統的痕跡。
此言並非人人接受。一位來自意大利的與會者，直言在城市當代舞蹈節看到的作品「沒有身分」，指年青編舞不回溯傳統，導致作品「沒有內容」——他們很在乎動作，卻不怎麼在意與觀眾的溝通。另一位來自紐西蘭的藝術節總監則表示，很多歐洲觀眾對紐西蘭舞蹈的想像，同樣只限於土著舞蹈，她一方面心有不甘，但輪到自己選擇作品成為藝術節節目時，卻往往因為票房考慮而以主流觀眾的既有想像為品味標準。
「再想像」
要再想像，必須先有想像基礎。當代舞蹈的發展基礎，在歐洲和亞洲大不同。現代主義思潮是歐洲現代舞的濫觴，藝術家以背向傳統、打破囿限為創作動力。Djurberg說，很多歐洲當代舞展現的是對傳統舞蹈定義的訕笑；亞洲大部分國家在近數十年才重殖民統治走出來，現代化與建立主體性同步進行的結果是以西方經驗為楷模。
劉純良認為把亞洲作為整體去想像，本身就是迷思。她關心的是當代舞蹈處理甚麼樣的「現實」。「我是台灣人，但我對台灣的認識可能不比Djurberg深。所以，不一定只有西方人才需要想像亞洲。想像從來無處不在。」對她而言，當代舞無關身體外形或音樂，而是在於詰問的意識、在於舞蹈創作人如何透過動作探索，故此，她批評舞蹈節節目大部分缺乏激進觀點。即使創作並不以提問為核心，有質素的作品會把問題引發出來。日本「無設限舞團」的《妮娜——祭品物質化》便是一例。她認為當代舞作為一次協力，並不只是在於不同崗位的舞台工作人員之間，更包括編舞與觀眾間的交換，沒有被看到的作品或者觀眾看後沒有反應的作品，不能算是作品。「在『大身體製造』的《再見吧！！兔子》（劉彥成作品）演出期間，有部分觀眾笑了。是因為梅若穎的表演令我們快樂嗎？我認為未必是。笑是很簡單的身體反應，人人都可以做到；觀眾也會有壓力，好像必須要給某種反應，那麼，便笑吧！但這是編舞與觀眾之間真誠的協力嗎？它可能是實在的，但它未必是真實的。」
舞蹈節節目來自中國、韓國、日本、台灣、香港，五個東亞城市都深受儒家文化影響，尊重階級觀念，個人代表的除了他自己更包括他所屬的群體。這可能部分解釋了何以劉純良認為亞洲舞者「很控制，追求外表上的美，怕失敗，觀眾幾乎可以感受到舞者身體承受着的恐懼。」是否因為同樣原因，亞洲舞蹈把與觀眾的共同語言建立在陳腔濫調的安全區之中？Djurberg形容陳腔濫調為「表演藝術的詛咒」：陳腔濫調是共同參照，它幫助觀眾掌握（想像）創作人的出發點，使他們得以衡量（再想像）意念有多激進；但不是每個作品都可以跨越陳腔濫調的規範，而創作人往往不自知。當代性也一樣。東方和西方的當代性有無不同，在於觀者的參照。當代性本來就是一個流動的、相對的概念，沒有穩定的定義，但出席論壇的西方賓客傾向尋找亞洲當代舞與東方傳統的關係，亞洲代表則深知亞洲已經西化得連傳統也必須刻意保存，否則無法在日常生活中找到位置。令人難以想像的「亞洲舞蹈」，也許正正需要加緊腳步，把自身建立成想像的終極參照，才可以讓世人認清它的面貌。
2018年3月16日 星期五
The Essence of Networking
Globalization, art commercialization, cultural tourism, aestheticization of politics… you name it. Whatever the drive is, the phenomenon is ubiquitous art markets across various art forms; and dance, to nobody’s surprise, is one of many. When Hong Kong moves from 2017 into 2018, it hosts two new dance festivals. Where can they possibly sit amongst the already crowded worldwide festival scene?
I talked to Karen Cheung, Head of China Dance Development of CCDC, who managed the City Contemporary Dance Festival (CCDF) held in November 2017; and Daniel Yeung, veteran dance artist who has doubled up as the Director of Hong Kong Dance Exchange (HKDE) scheduled to take place in Hong Kong in January 2018. I wanted to find out how they differentiate what they’re doing when they have neither the discursive nor bargaining power of the established, large-scale festival networks. And it was heartening to learn that the answer is obvious.
Both Cheung and Yeung hold the opinion that ‘art market’ is an outdated concept. “While they were intended to be occasions when program buyers meet artists in person, art markets have turned into repeated gatherings of the same group of authoritative presenters. Artists’ presence is not even required because the presenters gang pick the next star and put him on tour for the next couple of years,” Yeung said. No wonder institutionalized programing strategies have been accused of dominating art tastes and eroding cultural individuality through the globalization of taste. “See, I don’t call my upcoming project ‘festival’, I call it ‘exchange’. The key is to ‘exchange’ not just programs but artistic vision, non-monetary resources, and people relationships, across an artist-to-artist network.”
Cheung also stressed that, while presenters have been invited to CCDF, there are not going to be any pitching sessions to talk about ‘products’ – a dance piece awaiting touring opportunities. “We launched the idea of DanceX, X for exchange, in Guangzhou in 2015, because I came to the realization that people networks take time to develop. What a festival should provide, instead of transaction mechanisms, is a platform for independent artists to gain international exposure. This time around in Hong Kong, we have organized the daily events in a way that the presenters and the artists will attend performances together, to talk and to get to know each other. And they are encouraged to take all the time they need to do so.” With their deep understanding of the characteristics of presenters and artists, and a meticulous selection and invitation process, Yeung and Cheung have hit the nail on the head when it comes to the role of a festival organizer: networking like-minded people so that their shared visions can collide and create sparks. At the end of the day, the exchange required to turn conversation on, not to mention creativity, goes beyond merely exchanging name cards.
What is the creativity they are looking for? To Yeung, dance production does not happen on the stage alone. “It takes creativity throughout the cultural sector for a good dance to be produced. But I find this rather lacking in this city. I therefore hope that artists could contribute to the festival scene, introducing artists’ perspectives to tasks traditionally led by administrators. All my presenter-counterparts at HKDE are choreographers.” Cheung, as a seasoned arts administrator, believes strongly in the equal importance of every stakeholder in the sector and throughout the production ecology. “Like-minded presenters and artists with similar tastes and working from platforms of similar nature and scale are more prone to develop synergy and work collectively. I emphasize appropriate matches instead of a work per-se.”
Who gets a ticket to the table of appropriate matches? Or, put it another way, who decides what goes into the exchange? Yeung invited four panelists who together selected eight 20-minute works that had their debuts in the last two years, to be featured in HKDE. He stressed that the fact that all eight pieces had been created by young(er) dance artists was a coincidence instead of a curatorial strategy. “One should look at this combination as a phenomenon of the current dance scene. If you ask me what we are facing, I gather, first has to do with the comparatively greater willingness of young artists to dedicate extensive time to creating a new work; second has to do with the limitations of the local art funding system. Public funding does not favor dance artists with ten years’ experience or more. Grants or subsidies available to them for the creation of new work is pretty limited. On top of that, this tier of artists might have entered a life-stage when they have to devote their time to family obligations. The scale is unbalanced. There are many, or maybe too many, choreographic opportunities and resources for the young ones to try things out.” If Yeung has not suggested a curatorial influence, it is even softer at CCDF. “The programs in CCDF came from an open call-for-submission. They have to be ready for ‘exchange’ - over the next three years these programs may travel to the partner-festivals in our network of Hong Kong, Korea, and Japan,” Cheung explained.
“Networking is not merely a watchword,” remarked Yeung. “We should expect substance: that networking triggers considerable effects, that networking shows us the tipping point.” Therefore, Yeung chooses to build networks with small-scale, flexible festival circuits and talks to those festival directors who possess the open-mindedness favorable to the development of new generation Asian dance. “We have always envied how European dance artists tour across nearby countries. We attribute that to similar culture, to low-cost transport, and the like. But actually, in Asia we can do the same if we pool our resources. My festival collaborators are presenting events in Taiwan, Japan, and Singapore between February and December 2018. Later on, we may have Macau in the picture too. So, with this ‘network’ we are already realizing the possibility of touring around Asia throughout the year.”
Playing the devil’s advocate, I pointed out that societies following the value system of the New Liberalism. a new liberal value system do not necessarily value the ‘art’ in ‘the arts’, hence art funding systems are managed by technicians and bureaucrats rather than artists. How do we translate the artist-led vision into the language of the funders? Cheung acknowledged that “We don’t know if we are doing the right thing but we can only try. We cannot solve all problems with one answer. What is important is having different people doing different things, because, each one of them is like a piece of a puzzle and only by putting them together can we see the complete picture.” Yeung wonders if one always has to follow the institutional game plan. “Can we think outside of the box? Do resources always mean money? Can it possibly mean people network, cultural interaction, and artists’ dedication?” Having said all the above, there is one thing that will always stay at the core no matter how things will or can be done differently. “Make a good work. No matter where the world is going, a good work is where it all starts.”
So, we have two long-time Hong Kong dance practitioners, one an arts administrator and the other an arts creator, both shouldering a sense of obligation to the betterment of local dance development, both taking unconventional paths. They demonstrate to us that there does not really have to be a divide between artists and arts administrators – a situation facing Hong Kong and the larger festival scene. Yeung and Cheung agreed that international trends have changed and it is NOW high time to doing things differently. To them, the notion of ‘festival’ has immense potential. There is more than one way to define it. While it is too early for either of them to try to propose a new ‘festival’ standard, they believe they are engaging in a conversation about what Hong Kong currently needs, namely, filling the (creativity) gap in the larger culture sector. I cannot agree more, as it echoes my observations, that Hong Kong has received loud wake-up calls in the past few years. And, there have been sparks here and there, arousing our desire to make bottom-up changes. What we need is a collective and strategic effort to gather the sparks into a bonfire visible from a distance.
Published in dance journal/hk, Dec 2017 issue
I talked to Karen Cheung, Head of China Dance Development of CCDC, who managed the City Contemporary Dance Festival (CCDF) held in November 2017; and Daniel Yeung, veteran dance artist who has doubled up as the Director of Hong Kong Dance Exchange (HKDE) scheduled to take place in Hong Kong in January 2018. I wanted to find out how they differentiate what they’re doing when they have neither the discursive nor bargaining power of the established, large-scale festival networks. And it was heartening to learn that the answer is obvious.
Both Cheung and Yeung hold the opinion that ‘art market’ is an outdated concept. “While they were intended to be occasions when program buyers meet artists in person, art markets have turned into repeated gatherings of the same group of authoritative presenters. Artists’ presence is not even required because the presenters gang pick the next star and put him on tour for the next couple of years,” Yeung said. No wonder institutionalized programing strategies have been accused of dominating art tastes and eroding cultural individuality through the globalization of taste. “See, I don’t call my upcoming project ‘festival’, I call it ‘exchange’. The key is to ‘exchange’ not just programs but artistic vision, non-monetary resources, and people relationships, across an artist-to-artist network.”
Cheung also stressed that, while presenters have been invited to CCDF, there are not going to be any pitching sessions to talk about ‘products’ – a dance piece awaiting touring opportunities. “We launched the idea of DanceX, X for exchange, in Guangzhou in 2015, because I came to the realization that people networks take time to develop. What a festival should provide, instead of transaction mechanisms, is a platform for independent artists to gain international exposure. This time around in Hong Kong, we have organized the daily events in a way that the presenters and the artists will attend performances together, to talk and to get to know each other. And they are encouraged to take all the time they need to do so.” With their deep understanding of the characteristics of presenters and artists, and a meticulous selection and invitation process, Yeung and Cheung have hit the nail on the head when it comes to the role of a festival organizer: networking like-minded people so that their shared visions can collide and create sparks. At the end of the day, the exchange required to turn conversation on, not to mention creativity, goes beyond merely exchanging name cards.
What is the creativity they are looking for? To Yeung, dance production does not happen on the stage alone. “It takes creativity throughout the cultural sector for a good dance to be produced. But I find this rather lacking in this city. I therefore hope that artists could contribute to the festival scene, introducing artists’ perspectives to tasks traditionally led by administrators. All my presenter-counterparts at HKDE are choreographers.” Cheung, as a seasoned arts administrator, believes strongly in the equal importance of every stakeholder in the sector and throughout the production ecology. “Like-minded presenters and artists with similar tastes and working from platforms of similar nature and scale are more prone to develop synergy and work collectively. I emphasize appropriate matches instead of a work per-se.”
Who gets a ticket to the table of appropriate matches? Or, put it another way, who decides what goes into the exchange? Yeung invited four panelists who together selected eight 20-minute works that had their debuts in the last two years, to be featured in HKDE. He stressed that the fact that all eight pieces had been created by young(er) dance artists was a coincidence instead of a curatorial strategy. “One should look at this combination as a phenomenon of the current dance scene. If you ask me what we are facing, I gather, first has to do with the comparatively greater willingness of young artists to dedicate extensive time to creating a new work; second has to do with the limitations of the local art funding system. Public funding does not favor dance artists with ten years’ experience or more. Grants or subsidies available to them for the creation of new work is pretty limited. On top of that, this tier of artists might have entered a life-stage when they have to devote their time to family obligations. The scale is unbalanced. There are many, or maybe too many, choreographic opportunities and resources for the young ones to try things out.” If Yeung has not suggested a curatorial influence, it is even softer at CCDF. “The programs in CCDF came from an open call-for-submission. They have to be ready for ‘exchange’ - over the next three years these programs may travel to the partner-festivals in our network of Hong Kong, Korea, and Japan,” Cheung explained.
“Networking is not merely a watchword,” remarked Yeung. “We should expect substance: that networking triggers considerable effects, that networking shows us the tipping point.” Therefore, Yeung chooses to build networks with small-scale, flexible festival circuits and talks to those festival directors who possess the open-mindedness favorable to the development of new generation Asian dance. “We have always envied how European dance artists tour across nearby countries. We attribute that to similar culture, to low-cost transport, and the like. But actually, in Asia we can do the same if we pool our resources. My festival collaborators are presenting events in Taiwan, Japan, and Singapore between February and December 2018. Later on, we may have Macau in the picture too. So, with this ‘network’ we are already realizing the possibility of touring around Asia throughout the year.”
Playing the devil’s advocate, I pointed out that societies following the value system of the New Liberalism. a new liberal value system do not necessarily value the ‘art’ in ‘the arts’, hence art funding systems are managed by technicians and bureaucrats rather than artists. How do we translate the artist-led vision into the language of the funders? Cheung acknowledged that “We don’t know if we are doing the right thing but we can only try. We cannot solve all problems with one answer. What is important is having different people doing different things, because, each one of them is like a piece of a puzzle and only by putting them together can we see the complete picture.” Yeung wonders if one always has to follow the institutional game plan. “Can we think outside of the box? Do resources always mean money? Can it possibly mean people network, cultural interaction, and artists’ dedication?” Having said all the above, there is one thing that will always stay at the core no matter how things will or can be done differently. “Make a good work. No matter where the world is going, a good work is where it all starts.”
So, we have two long-time Hong Kong dance practitioners, one an arts administrator and the other an arts creator, both shouldering a sense of obligation to the betterment of local dance development, both taking unconventional paths. They demonstrate to us that there does not really have to be a divide between artists and arts administrators – a situation facing Hong Kong and the larger festival scene. Yeung and Cheung agreed that international trends have changed and it is NOW high time to doing things differently. To them, the notion of ‘festival’ has immense potential. There is more than one way to define it. While it is too early for either of them to try to propose a new ‘festival’ standard, they believe they are engaging in a conversation about what Hong Kong currently needs, namely, filling the (creativity) gap in the larger culture sector. I cannot agree more, as it echoes my observations, that Hong Kong has received loud wake-up calls in the past few years. And, there have been sparks here and there, arousing our desire to make bottom-up changes. What we need is a collective and strategic effort to gather the sparks into a bonfire visible from a distance.
Published in dance journal/hk, Dec 2017 issue
2017年10月22日 星期日
工廈強拍比不會用八達通更離地
2009年，林鄭特首為時任發展局長期間，曾高調推動「活化工廈」，計劃持續至2016年3月。七年下來，成效強差人意，全港1,400多幢工廈只有151幢完成活化，當中大部份為改裝，整幢重建的有限。
自己倡議「唔輸得」
出任特首後的第一份施政報告中，林鄭即提出「研究重啓工廈活化計劃」，「探討如何在計劃之下為……文化、藝術、創意產業以及合適的社區設施，提供合法及安全的運作空間」。換句話說，使用者的需要將依循活化計劃的大原則，而非因應需要而制定計劃內容。政府的前提是「先改裝，再文化」，與使用者親身驗證的「不改裝，更文化」，原則落差甚大。
我自09年起參與「工廈藝術家關注組」行動，爭取工廈藝術工作室合法化；同一時期發展局降低高樓齡住宅大廈的強拍門檻，但不涉及工廈。2010年，關注組曾與林鄭會面，反映工廈租金在活化計劃推出後大幅上升的情況。林鄭在會上言明，「先要由民間出面問業主（會否進行活化），不能由政府去問民間攞物業。」的確，很多舊工廈業權分散，在政府論述中的「非法使用者」，正正因為申請人無法取得足夠業權比例贊成活化，才可以繼續租用工廈。
曾經有消息指在2014年政府已察覺活化計劃成效有限，但拖了兩年才宣佈停止，事隔短短一年又提重啟，可見林鄭對自己的倡議「唔輸得」，更打算重啟之時，加入新措施，「探討如何促進舊工廈加快集合業權包括檢視適用於舊工廈的『強拍』門檻」，相信就是針對導致活化計劃失敗的一大原因，即業權分散。今天政府幫業主統一業權，所產生的影響並不一定比「攞物業」小。關注組當年向林鄭建議，政府可以規定活化後的工廈預留少量單位，以低於市值、文化藝術工作可承擔的租金租出，作為將在活化後獲得龐大金錢利益的申請者的社會責任。當年建議沒有被接納，以文化之名活化之後加租獲利的卻大有人在。今次重啟計劃，政府有沒有汲取上次向資本家傾斜的教訓，在設計上平衡社會不同持份者的需要？
其實工廈用戶的訴求簡單不過，就是更新地政和消防條例，以配合工廈在本世紀的真實使用情況，不要再停留在1960年代的風險想象。但由於政府無法打通部門之間的合作，唯有假手民間，以申請活化為名改變土地用途，使消防鬆綁。
不過，以香港實際情況來說，除了地產商，還有誰負擔得起活化所需的金錢和人力資源？「非法」工廈用戶之中，除了滿足社會精神層面的文化藝術之外，亦有不少照顧弱勢社群需要的非牟利團體，換句話說，是完成一個文明社會基本構成的使用者群，卻因為過時條例而持續背負違法之名。
在施政報告中與活化工廈相提並論的，是「ADC藝術空間」模式。把它視為對提供文化空間的交代，實在貽笑大方。由2013年至今，ADC只在黃竹坑提供了17個工作室予24位藝術家租用。2015年藝發局啟動大埔舊校改建，完工之日仍未有宣佈。
以小恩小惠轉移視線
由舊廠廈改建的「賽馬會創意藝術中心」，十年來申請租戶一直以倍數高於單位數量，同類設施卻一直未有增加。明明放着可以滿足文化界空間需要的工廈，政府不好好修補現有條例的缺點，卻以杯水車薪式的小恩小惠轉移視線，莫非想向社會表達，文化空間要受規範才值得存在？非牟利團體一直要求政府公開空置校舍資料，以尋求善用閒置空間的方法。直至2017年5月規劃署列出「經中央調配機制檢討的空置校舍用地」，才知道原來香港有近150間空置校舍，但施政報告中，完全未有提及政府對處理此等空間的態度和策略。
對於無法負擔高昂商業租金的工廈用戶來說，新特首的施政報告不過是舊瓶舊酒，新意和誠意都欠奉。
所謂解決工廈問題，就是政府把問題交到社會手中，讓有（金錢）能力者解決之，只要解決了，「解決」的實質為何並不重要。可悲的是，香港仍然存在一種普遍意識，認為窮是種罪；在資本社會的窮是如何發生的，卻很少被討論。
不會用八達通的特首，她的離地被接納為以私家車代步的成功人士的合理無知。所以，她可以理直氣壯地繼續不會用八達通，也可以繼續堅持以強拍對付工廈租戶。
2017年10月23日 信報
2017年10月3日 星期二
身體作為跨學科研究對象
http://www.blankspacestudiohk.com/2015-162418024230-39376225803426934899234782145031574236373533621123.html
曾經有一段時間，我們認為在舞台上的身體應該完全臣服於劇本。十八世紀的舞台身體是符號身體（semiotic body），演員身體表現的自我痕跡必須完全被除掉，它是表達文字劇本的工具。身體的「去身體化」定義舞台身體的價值。
曾經有一後時間，我們認為需要以自身經驗建立與角色的關聯，所以有斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基體系、或美派方法演技（Method acting），甚或梅耶荷德的N=A1 + A2方程式。演員要「演活」角色，以自己的真實存在成就一個虛擬存在的合理性。
到了世界被接連的戰爭弄得殘破不堪，我們轉向關注主體如何存在於世界之中，重新強調身體作為現象（phenomenal body）。Mary Wigman 以表現主義重建在大戰後被踐踏殆盡的個人價值。自1960年代前衛藝術思潮的生發開始，身體成為了眾多重要思考的實踐場域。Jerzy Grotowski強調「我與我的本質體共生」。Lucinda Childs 或 Yvonne Rainer的極簡主義中的舞台，重點只在身體。思想與身體的二元論不再超然於一切地成立。而東方的表演藝術，不論是中國戲曲、峇里舞蹈、能劇、歌舞伎、kathakali等等，從傳統下來一直強調以內在的「意」，貫穿全身才形之於外，身體就是全部，total。
在差不多同一時期，德國及美國的學術界意識到表演研究（performance studies）需要在跨學科層面進行。雖然這意識正好反映了知識區隔（knowledge compartmentalization）及知識份子身份等問題，但其中重要的訊息是我們承認了舞台身體並不可能存在於社會大環境之外。我們的身體，滿載文化印記；要了解在表演中不能或缺的身體，出發點可以是社會學、人類學、哲學、媒體學、文化研究、生物力學……
在香港，我們的表演藝術有其獨特的「純粹性」：表演的概念想象、舞台構思、專才訓練、評論研究，都在表演藝術圈內發生。我們明白「身體作為現象」的理念，我們擅長其使用方式，但我們未能深入剖析現象的內涵。身體好不容易才走到能憑藉其本身特質出現在當代劇場的舞台上，再往前走，它需要變得更明澄、更立體、更豐富、更……當代。
在策劃是次計劃的文化思考部分時，我視所有參與的表演藝術工作者同時為研究員及研究對象。他們表達其關注事件的劇場手法，將會向各觀察員及嘉賓揭示他們的身體文化痕跡。長遠來說，我期望這種揭示引起不同學科的研究員的關注，讓表演研究在本地學術界漸漸找到應有的位置。
乙未年立秋之後
The body as an inter-disciplinary research object
There had been a time when we believed that bodies on the stage served nothing but the written script. In the 18th century, everything hinting at the actors’ bodily being had to be eradicated. The “semiotic body” was the ideal tool for expressing the text.
There had been a time when we believed that we should draw on our own experiences when “playing” a character. From that belief developed Stanislavski’s System, or Method Acting in the US, and the Meyerhold formula N=A1 + A2. Actors rationalized the verisimilitude of fictive characters with their very living bodies.
Then the wars crushed the world. We began to wonder how to relate our identity to the now shattered society, in which we used to exist without giving it a second thought. The presence of the phenomenal body caught our attention. Mary Wigman’s expressionistic dance is an individuality outcry. Since the avant-garde movement in the 1960’s, the body has become a practice ground of ideologies. Jerzy Grotowski advocated “the doubling of being a body and having a body.” Body takes the minimalistic center stage of that of Lucinda Childs’ or Yvonne Rainer’s. The duality of mind and body is no longer truer than everything else. On the other end of the globe, oriental performances, be it Chinese Xiqu, Balinese dance, Noh, Kabuki, or Kathakali, has its emphasis on the “intention” (yi) that travels through the entire body before it finds its way to expression. The body is the total.
Parallel to the artistic explorations was the awareness to the interdisciplinary academic potential of performance studies in the US and Germany. While this inevitably reminds one of the criticism to knowledge compartmentalization and the definition of intellectuals, it is also a recognition of the body on the stage as a continuation of the body in the living environment. Our bodies are tattooed with traces of our culture. The departure point to make sense out of the body, which is the critical component of the bodily co-existence in a performance, lies possibly somewhere in sociology, anthropology, philosophy, media studies, cultural studies, bio-mechanics……..
In Hong Kong, our performance arts follows a peculiar “pureness”: the concepts, stage representations, training, critique and research start and end within the performance art field. We comprehend conceptually what a “phenomenal body” is, we are skillful with its deployment, but we are yet to delve into what lies beneath the “phenomenon.” It has taken a long while for the body to exist in its own right on the contemporary stage. To secure its position, it should become more transparent, more shapely, more resourceful, and more……contemporary.
I regard the participating artists in this project both researchers and research objects when planning the “cultural contemplation” in this project. How these artists tackle the theater issues that interest them will reveal to us the cultural traces embedded in their behavior, their bodies. In the long-run, I wish that such revelation will interest researchers across various knowledge areas, so that performance studies will gradually gain traction in the academic circle in Hong Kong.
曾經有一段時間，我們認為在舞台上的身體應該完全臣服於劇本。十八世紀的舞台身體是符號身體（semiotic body），演員身體表現的自我痕跡必須完全被除掉，它是表達文字劇本的工具。身體的「去身體化」定義舞台身體的價值。
曾經有一後時間，我們認為需要以自身經驗建立與角色的關聯，所以有斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基體系、或美派方法演技（Method acting），甚或梅耶荷德的N=A1 + A2方程式。演員要「演活」角色，以自己的真實存在成就一個虛擬存在的合理性。
到了世界被接連的戰爭弄得殘破不堪，我們轉向關注主體如何存在於世界之中，重新強調身體作為現象（phenomenal body）。Mary Wigman 以表現主義重建在大戰後被踐踏殆盡的個人價值。自1960年代前衛藝術思潮的生發開始，身體成為了眾多重要思考的實踐場域。Jerzy Grotowski強調「我與我的本質體共生」。Lucinda Childs 或 Yvonne Rainer的極簡主義中的舞台，重點只在身體。思想與身體的二元論不再超然於一切地成立。而東方的表演藝術，不論是中國戲曲、峇里舞蹈、能劇、歌舞伎、kathakali等等，從傳統下來一直強調以內在的「意」，貫穿全身才形之於外，身體就是全部，total。
在差不多同一時期，德國及美國的學術界意識到表演研究（performance studies）需要在跨學科層面進行。雖然這意識正好反映了知識區隔（knowledge compartmentalization）及知識份子身份等問題，但其中重要的訊息是我們承認了舞台身體並不可能存在於社會大環境之外。我們的身體，滿載文化印記；要了解在表演中不能或缺的身體，出發點可以是社會學、人類學、哲學、媒體學、文化研究、生物力學……
在香港，我們的表演藝術有其獨特的「純粹性」：表演的概念想象、舞台構思、專才訓練、評論研究，都在表演藝術圈內發生。我們明白「身體作為現象」的理念，我們擅長其使用方式，但我們未能深入剖析現象的內涵。身體好不容易才走到能憑藉其本身特質出現在當代劇場的舞台上，再往前走，它需要變得更明澄、更立體、更豐富、更……當代。
在策劃是次計劃的文化思考部分時，我視所有參與的表演藝術工作者同時為研究員及研究對象。他們表達其關注事件的劇場手法，將會向各觀察員及嘉賓揭示他們的身體文化痕跡。長遠來說，我期望這種揭示引起不同學科的研究員的關注，讓表演研究在本地學術界漸漸找到應有的位置。
乙未年立秋之後
The body as an inter-disciplinary research object
There had been a time when we believed that bodies on the stage served nothing but the written script. In the 18th century, everything hinting at the actors’ bodily being had to be eradicated. The “semiotic body” was the ideal tool for expressing the text.
There had been a time when we believed that we should draw on our own experiences when “playing” a character. From that belief developed Stanislavski’s System, or Method Acting in the US, and the Meyerhold formula N=A1 + A2. Actors rationalized the verisimilitude of fictive characters with their very living bodies.
Then the wars crushed the world. We began to wonder how to relate our identity to the now shattered society, in which we used to exist without giving it a second thought. The presence of the phenomenal body caught our attention. Mary Wigman’s expressionistic dance is an individuality outcry. Since the avant-garde movement in the 1960’s, the body has become a practice ground of ideologies. Jerzy Grotowski advocated “the doubling of being a body and having a body.” Body takes the minimalistic center stage of that of Lucinda Childs’ or Yvonne Rainer’s. The duality of mind and body is no longer truer than everything else. On the other end of the globe, oriental performances, be it Chinese Xiqu, Balinese dance, Noh, Kabuki, or Kathakali, has its emphasis on the “intention” (yi) that travels through the entire body before it finds its way to expression. The body is the total.
Parallel to the artistic explorations was the awareness to the interdisciplinary academic potential of performance studies in the US and Germany. While this inevitably reminds one of the criticism to knowledge compartmentalization and the definition of intellectuals, it is also a recognition of the body on the stage as a continuation of the body in the living environment. Our bodies are tattooed with traces of our culture. The departure point to make sense out of the body, which is the critical component of the bodily co-existence in a performance, lies possibly somewhere in sociology, anthropology, philosophy, media studies, cultural studies, bio-mechanics……..
In Hong Kong, our performance arts follows a peculiar “pureness”: the concepts, stage representations, training, critique and research start and end within the performance art field. We comprehend conceptually what a “phenomenal body” is, we are skillful with its deployment, but we are yet to delve into what lies beneath the “phenomenon.” It has taken a long while for the body to exist in its own right on the contemporary stage. To secure its position, it should become more transparent, more shapely, more resourceful, and more……contemporary.
I regard the participating artists in this project both researchers and research objects when planning the “cultural contemplation” in this project. How these artists tackle the theater issues that interest them will reveal to us the cultural traces embedded in their behavior, their bodies. In the long-run, I wish that such revelation will interest researchers across various knowledge areas, so that performance studies will gradually gain traction in the academic circle in Hong Kong.
2017年9月17日 星期日
要有多純粹的眼睛，才可以看Noé Soulier？
Soulier曾就讀於CNSAD（Conservatoire National Superieur d'art Dramatique Paris）、加拿大l’École Nationale de Ballet du Canada，以及布魯塞爾P.A.R.T.S.等等。Soulier 的作品探索何謂「動作」，而《Performing Arts》則對視覺藝術和表演藝術的界線、「編舞」之為「空間思考」以及「轉瞬即逝」（假如視覺藝術與表演藝術的主要分別是其可保存性的話）的本質提問。
Soulier說：舞者喜歡走進美術館跳舞，那麼是否可以反過來，把美術館放上舞台?《Performing Arts》是一次把藝術品在舞台上放置和移除的展示。「演出」的是「扮演」美術館策展及報展專才的一眾男女。他們解開運送藝術品時加予的重重包裝，小心翼翼地放置在舞台上；二、三分鐘後，過程逆轉，藝術品再次被嚴嚴的包裹好，運離舞台。物件在空間有與無的交替、工作人員（表演者）以幾近鏡像逆向重複的動作，構成演出的全部。
以出場的藝術品的來頭和數量看來，Soulier花在前期的設計及聯絡的心血，應該龐大無比。二十件藝術品橫跨不同媒介，有傳統的雕塑、繪畫，亦有裝置、新媒體藝術、錄像等等，創作年份由上世紀50年代到2012年不等，其中包括如Man Ray、James Dyson、Didier Marcel、Jeroen de Rijke & Willem de Rooij、以及在今年的Münster Skulptur Projekte 甚受歡迎的《On Water》的創作人Ayse Erkmen 的《Netz》（2006）。藝術品由在美術館的靜態展示移送到舞台，在觀眾眼前被逐步佈置，是否令我們對其觀看有所改變？我們不知道，因為在觀眾來得及思考之前，它們已被拆走。轉瞬即逝的不確定性，是存在於不同藝術媒介的本質，還是只在我們的處理方式?
我在《Performing Arts》聽見Soulier向我提問：因為教育或其他原因學習了「藝術媒介分類法」的你，是否仍然有勇氣超越藝術界別的認知框架，讓自己以無知的純然直觀藝術的本質？當你以為來看「舞蹈」時，卻看到一間佈置中的展場，你如何自處？的確，延續巴黎觀眾的傳統，完場時有人大罵，憤然離場。但我實在認為無需討論《Performing Arts》「好不好看」。重要的是，創作人想要掌聲的希冀是否大於他尋找意義的慾望。重複成功，才最不好看。
2017年9月3日 星期日
為自我而舞？為國家服務？ 從何想象「舞蹈中的中國身分」
當代中國人身分想象，該由哪處想起：族群的，地域的，政治的，文化的？創作當代舞，身分是無法迴避的思考。由身分，到身分的載體——身體，到放置身體的環境——社會，我們如何理解之、審視之、成立觀點之、沈澱為美學表達之，大概便是希望以肢體訴說生命為何物的當代舞創作人的主命題。
過去十年，中國很富裕，國際影響力大增。然而，經歷近一世紀的貧窮沉積下來的不安全感，文化大革命對傳統價值的破壞，持續不斷的權力鬥爭，等等，令中國人趨向極度利己主義。與此同時，在威權下「棒打出頭鳥」這句話幾乎接近真理，可以「利」的只能是群眾中面目模糊的「己」。在中國要建立個體身分，要面對的困難和隱藏的代價，可能比其他地方都高。年青人建立自我時，以上一代為參照，要不接納，要不力求與之割裂。在廣州生活、生於1985年的獨立編舞何其沃，回溯青少年時期經歷的迪斯可文化，認為可能是中國人以身體反對既定社會結構的早期例子。廣州與香港除了地域上接近，生活方式和語言也非常相似；由於接收得到香港電視訊號，在網絡還未流行以前，香港文化對於廣州人影響深遠。當年的廣州年青人從電視上見到流行舞蹈，相約到迪斯可模仿，無意識的身體擺動成為了那一代人宣示割裂的集體符號。
學院教育與身分營造
被譽為「中國舞蹈家的搖籃」的北京舞蹈學院，是中國舞蹈教育的最高學府，其現代舞系和編導系隸屬「創意學院」，與其他以技巧訓練為主的獨立學系（如中國古典舞、中國民族民間舞、芭蕾舞、國際標準舞）明顯在地位上有不同處理。根據創意學院網站描述，編導系特色為「繼承中國舞蹈文化傳統，強調在中國文化背景下，依照中國文化和審美，建立中國編舞技術，體現中國人的情感，為中國人的情感表達服務。」如果最高學府的教學特色是為中國人的情感表達「服務」，這可算是一種中國舞蹈的身分嗎？舞蹈在中國傳統中忠於公共現實，以描述式表達背負崇敬自然、道德教化、族群結連等功能。如果學院教育把對藝術的承載、溝通要求與美學邏輯混為一談，假如身體「服務」於中國人的情感表達，它暗示個人身體的服從性，是演繹工具多於存在的終極本體；它認同的身分由中國（家）文化定義；它的審美標準也是中國（家）的。現時中國部分大學的現代舞系，課程採用如葛蘭姆技巧等源於二十世紀初美國的訓練系統。葛蘭娒技巧是否有利於中國當代的生存景況的表達，很難說得準，但被建制採納的會漸漸演化為標準。上世紀的西方標準，就如一種經協商的社會秩序，在當代藝術思維裡，理應是被挑戰而非跟隨的對象。
當代舞的表現方式五花八門，但一般著重破除公共現實，取而代之的是一種個體的、比公共更細緻的主體現實。奉行非形式主義的何其沃，以生活經驗為編創原材料，他對比自己中、小學時期在中國和長大後在外國接受的教育，發現中國的教育包含殖入式的絕對價值判斷，不鼓勵批判思考。中國當代舞需要被殖入「服務」嗎？當代舞蹈該如何看待藝術的公共性？
如果說「技術型的舞蹈，無法觸碰廿一世紀的中國人身分」的話，必定是以偏概全的。也許要先探討一下（特別是）中國年青人的身體／身分想象。何其沃以「二次元的身體」描述物理的和虛擬的身體二元性，筆者認為「二元」的更可推展至身分建立。身分實在了，身體實不實在，也許不太相干。被高速都市化逼使離開根源的身體、在威權之下扭捏造作的身體、迎接強烈生存競爭而被人工美化的身體、營養過盛協調不佳的獨生兒身體，無法讓肉身接上身分意識，比不上網絡上無窒閡地創造的名稱、樣貌、人生。當數萬人挪動真實身體，到演出場地觀看數碼虛擬歌手「初音未來」演唱會時，中國人的共同舞蹈語言——民族民間舞，可以更新為這一代的身體美學嗎？中國舞者要有怎樣的身體質感，才可以做出有中國人生活感覺的動作？如果年青人不再需要通過物理身體體現身分的話，舞蹈的將來便會變得晦暗。
原刊台灣《表演藝術》2017年8月號。
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)