Chris在学者与编导的见面会上谈到一个话题，就是ArtsCross Habitus问题，即“跨艺惯习”。“惯习”一词是台湾学者陈雅萍在翻译该词时所使用的词汇，我们大陆学界一般采用“习性”一词；不过我认为“惯习”一词翻得不错，不仅符合原义，同时可以让这一词汇在汉语领域中获得了专有化的身份，得以聚化我们思考该问题的认知范围。
在那个特定的情境下，Chris的原义是想问三地的编导们是否特意为“跨艺”计划而在编导方式和主张上做相应的改变。我想他实际上是想表达，“跨艺”作为一个特定的平台，四年来已经开始慢慢形成自己的特质，那么，这个“跨艺特质”是什么呢？
这是个好问题，而且随着“跨艺”四年来的不断壮大，也的确到了要考虑它的时机。那么，我认为“跨艺特质”至少表现在这些方面：
一是交流。
在这个项目中，交流的作用是显而易见的；而且更关键的是，它不仅发生在中西之间，更有大陆与台湾之间的交流。实际上，同属一个文化体内的大陆和台湾，在多年的隔膜中，各自都发展出自己的方法和取向，而“跨艺”能够让一个舞蹈交流的项目跨越海峡的阻隔，让两岸同业人员就统一的对象和目的一同进入思考、相互沟通，这个意义甚至不亚于中西之间的交流。也的确，通过这个交流，我们了解到台湾舞蹈的发展，这种一手材料的掌握对我们判断事物的发展带来积极而全面的意义。在这段时间中，大家相坐一堂，互通有无，这样的交流对我们彼此的发展都是健康而有益的。当然，“跨艺”在中西之间的交流作用亦是相当显著的。通过这么一个项目，来自不同文化背景和眼界的各路人马，相互交流和展示，这种交流的意义远远超过这个项目本身。在交流中，难免会发生一些彼此不解甚至相抵触的观点碰撞，但这并不可怕。吕艺生先生介绍并倡导的中国太极思维和方法，实际上能够有效而合适地解决这类碰撞：交流的目的当然不是谁压倒谁，而是在融通中相互交融，彼此共处。这样的理念和智慧，值得我们在国际层面的交流中坚持。美国学者Ted在其主持的第三场seminar中特别提出了confrontatation和common grounds两个概念，也同时希望将大家彼此的异同性做一个提醒。概言之，我们所处于的这个时代是一个高度融合的全球化时代，处于一个地球村的人类如何相处、如何彼此尊重，是一个时代的话题。在这里，“跨艺”用自己的特质给出一个完美的答案。
二还是交流。
“跨艺特质”的交流并不仅仅体现在地域上，这个项目云集了学者、编导和舞者，三个领域的人员通过这个平台相会在一起，让一个项目凸显了一个完整的舞蹈链过程。这样的安排和举措，显然彰显出项目策划人的素养和眼光。这个问题关乎实践领域与理论领域的携手。长期以来，无论中西，舞蹈的实践与理论的分家可谓让人无奈，实践领域缺乏理性关照，理论领域缺乏感性投射，而“跨艺”将三路人马整合在一起，让学者们自由地参与到舞蹈创作的全过程之中，去发现、去质询、去交融，学者们通过课堂的观察再集中探讨一些彼此感兴趣的重大问题，这种跟以往有别的安排和工作方法，领创一种新思维和新途径，让以往彼此分裂的活动再次找到了弥合的连接点。在我看来，这不啻是又一个“跨艺特质”。
“跨艺”的特质是“交流”，而由于这个“交流”发生在与己相异的层面，因此任何一方的参与者，都要思考自己究竟要为这个“特质”怎样的调整和展示。这样，“跨艺”就像一个纽带，一颗磁石，将一个同中有异、异中有同的和谐图貌展现出来。
Translation…
Jiang Dong’s London Reflections 05: The “special character of ArtsCross”
During the meeting between the academics and the choreographers, Chris touched on the topic of “ArtsCross Habitus”. “Habitus” is a word which was translated by the Taiwanese academic Chen
Within this context, Chris’s intention was to question the three groups of choreographers whether they intended to make special modifications to their choreographic approach and principles for the purpose of ArtsCross. I think what he was actually trying to express was, given that during the past four years, ArtsCross has started to develop its own characteristics as a special platform, what is the “special character of ArtsCross?”
This was a good question, and given the continual growth of ArtsCross over the past four years, it was a good time to consider this question. Personally, I think the “special character of ArtsCross” is manifested in at least three areas:
First, in communication and exchange of ideas.
Within this project, the importance of communication and exchange of ideas was clear for all to see. What is more key is that communication and exchange of ideas doesn’t just occur between the Chinese and Western participants, but also between the mainland and Taiwanese participants. Mainland China and Taiwan, while belonging to a common cultural bloc, have developed their own individual approaches and orientations after many years of partition. ArtsCross enabled a dance project to create a bridge across the Taiwan Straits, bringing together colleagues from both sides of the water together to consider the same questions and communicate with one another. The significance of this was no less than that of the interaction between the Chinese and Western participants. Through this exchange, we also learnt a lot about the development of dance in Taiwan. This
In his third seminar, the American academic Ted Warburton paid particular attention to the concepts of confrontation and common ground. He also expressed his hope that people’s differences can serve as a reminder to us all. In other words, the era in which we find ourselves is a highly globalised era. The question of how humans, living together in a ‘global village’, can respect one another is an important question for our times. On this point, ArtsCross was able to present its own perfect answer.
Second, again, is communication and exchange of ideas.
Communication and exchange of ideas on “the special character of ArtsCross” was not limited to an exchange between geographical regions. The project brought together academics, choreographers and dancers. By bringing together these three constituencies within one platform, the project created an unbroken chain of dance creation. This approach clearly demonstrated the cultivation and vision of the project planners. At the crux of the discussion were the connections between theory and practice. For a long time, whether in China or the West, the separation between dance practice and theory has been frustrating. The practical arena lacks a rational perspective, and the theoretical world lacks emotion and participation. ArtsCross, on the other hand, brings the three groups together, bringing academics into the centre of the dance creation process — to discover, to question and to interact. Through classroom observation, the academics are able to conduct a detailed investigation into the questions which interest them. This new approach creates a new way of thinking and new pathways of investigation, building a bridge between the two sides, which in the past were divided. I would contest that this is another element of the “special character of ArtsCross.”
The special character of ArtsCross is rooted in communication and exchange of ideas. What is more, since this exchange of ideas takes place in a context unfamiliar to all participants, they are therefore forced to consider what adjustments they must make to operate within these “special circumstances.” In this sense, ArtsCross resembles a conduit, or a magnet, drawing together common and differing perspectives to create one harmonious whole.