Vida老师的舞蹈写作课，让我们看到了她的方法：感受、捕捉、心得，强调的是写作者用心去感受动作并予以总结自我感觉进而去用笔表达出来的过程。这种十分感性的体验式写作方法，虽然并不陌生，但还是让我们通过这次讲座而对这种方法予以再次的关注。我发现中西的舞蹈写作方法是不太一样的，他们注重的是身体的感觉，而我们在意识形态方面上的关注更甚。不同的方法、习惯和传统而已，无关乎对于哪种写作方法的价值判断。
关于舞蹈写作，吕艺生先生表达了一个认识，那就是舞蹈写作是完成不了所诠释的那个作品的全部涵义的。他言下之意是，舞蹈是一个特殊的用肢体动作表达的运动和艺术过程，而用笔来进行书写，关乎的则是另一门功夫。书写本身，无论怎样尽力，都不会等同于舞蹈本身的。吕老师的话也让我们再次思考：舞蹈的书写，究竟应当是一种复述，还是一种创造？
应该说，舞蹈的书写也是有各种类型的。但仅仅针对舞评而言，复述和创造，的确是我们遇到的最基本问题。
显然对于一个舞评家而言，复述是他的基本责任。他看到了什么，用斟酌仔细和运用精确的语言将其描述、记录下来，以完成对这个作品的基本印象。这种写法需要较为实证的写作和较为准确的直观感受，同时需要较为可靠的直觉。然而，任何以复述为目的的复述都存在着危险和陷阱，这是舞蹈这门艺术的特性所决定的。也就是说，如果单单为了是复述舞蹈发生的过程，那无论写作者怎样观察、怎样全面的记录，都已经不可能舞蹈的原貌了。因此，以复述为目的的舞蹈书写，显然从一开始就是有漏洞的。如此看来，舞蹈的书写似乎更应该发生在创造的层面之上。
舞评的所谓“评”，自然是舞评者对于所观察事物的主观认识和言说。在言说的过程中，他主要是通过对于对象的观摩与揣摩表达出自己的诠释以至结论。这种表达显然是具有个人化色彩和倾向的。当然，诠释的方式也是有差别的，既可以是在诠释舞蹈或者编导的意图，同时也可以在不断地咀嚼着写作者自己从作品中获得的含义。这样写作的结果，当然也呈现出各种可能是彼此巨大的差异，这与写作者的审美经验、观察和感受能力、预先所做功课、对作品的熟悉程度等都直接相关。当然，所谓创造性的书写若脱离了所观察对象而缺乏针对性的天马行空则是不可取的，但在认识的结果上与编导、与其他观者存有差异自然是可能的。实际上，一个称职的舞评能够咀嚼出别人所不能看到的内涵，更证明了他的价值。
复述与创造，应该并存并交融。
至于写作用母语还是外语更为舒服的问题，这都不必多说了，那自然是母语的书写更能激发思维上的活跃，我同意许锐说的“用母语写作关注的是怎么想，用外语写作只能局限在怎么写上”这个观点，因为我也颇有同感。我虽然曾写过一本英文舞蹈专著，但那个过程中的痛苦让我几年之后至今仍然记忆犹新，除了不得不用的情况下，我是完全不喜欢那个过程的。当然，这个也同训练直接相关，台湾学者陈雅萍似乎就更喜欢用英语写作，这个跟她的学术背景和习惯有关。VIDA还问到在什么地方写作更有效率，瑞典裔英籍学者OLA好像说是在VICTORIA车站，而我自己有个癖好，喜欢在候机厅和飞机上写作，那种流畅的行文和表达，一直让我感觉很好。
Translation…
London ArtsCross Reflections 03: Dance writing
Vida’s class on dance writing gave us an insight into her methods: feeling, capturing, experiencing and then emphasizing is the process which dance writers go through in experiencing movements and then encapsulating their own feelings and expressing them in writing. While we were not unfamiliar with this very emotive and experiential approach to writing, this lecture did cause us to look again at this approach. I discovered that Chinese and Western approaches to dance writing are not quite the same. They emphasise physical sensation while we pay more attention to states of consciousness. These are just observations on the different approaches, conventions and traditions, and do not contain any value judgements on the different approaches to writing.
On the topic of dance writing, Lu Yisheng shared a realisation: dance writing is unable to capture the full meaning of the work which it seeks to interpret. In other words, he was saying that dance is a particular art form, which uses movements of the body to express meaning. Writing, on the other hand, is a different skill. No matter how hard one tries, writing can never be the same as dance. Professor Lu’s words gave us pause for thought. Should dance writing be considered as a way of describing, or of creating?
I should note here that there are many forms of dance writing. But for a dance writer, describing and creating are the most fundamental concerns.
For a dance writer, it is clear that describing is the most fundamental responsibility. The dance writer must use carefully thought out, precise language to describe and record, articulating his most basic impressions of a work. This type of writing requires an ability to write demonstratively and to feel intuitively. It also requires a reliable sense of intuition. However, any effort to engage in describing for the sake of describing carries risks and potential traps. This is the result of the particular nature of dance as an art form. In other words, if one seeks simply to describe a work of dance, no matter how closely one observes, and no matter how comprehensive one’s notes, one will never be able to recreate the original appearance of the work. Dance writing for the purpose of description will therefore always be incomplete. With this in mind, it seems that dance writing should take place at the level of creation.
The “writing” in which the dance writers are engaged represents their subjective understanding and explanation of the things that they observe. During the process of explanation, they are primarily seeking to express their own interpretation and conclusions, based on their interaction and consideration of their subject. Of course, this expression incorporates personal characteristics and orientations. Naturally, there are different approaches to interpretation. The writer can seek to interpret the intentions of the dancer or choreographer. The writer may also seek to express in writing the meaning which she drew from the work. The final products of such efforts may also differ hugely from one another. This is directly related to a number of factors, including the aesthetic background of the writer, his capacities for observation and feeling, his preparatory work and his degree of familiarity with the work. Of course, where
Description and creation should coexist and interact with one another.
With regard to the question of whether it is preferable to write in one’s native language or in a foreign language, we don’t need to go into too much detail. Of course, it is easier to stimulate one’s thinking when using one’s mother tongue. I agree with Xu Rui’s assessment. “When using your mother tongue, you tend to focus on how to think. When using a foreign language, you are limited to thinking about how to write.” I have experienced the same feeling. Although I once wrote a thesis on dance using English, the painful nature of this process means that several years later, I still remember it as if it were yesterday. Except where one has no choice, I do not enjoy the process at all. Of course, this is also directly linked to one’s training. The Taiwanese academic Chen