關於seminar 2的思考
關於跨語言的研究，在我看來，歸根結底是跨文化的研究。如同今天雅萍老師的關鍵詞“travel”，文化之旅自始自在，雖然人是Travel的主體，但人在旅途中是難以自控的，中國的武俠小說中有一句話：“人在江湖，身不由己”。
1、文化的開放性－跨文化的客觀性
如今，科技的發展，世界的聯通加速了這種跨文化、跨語言的存在與發展。每一族群、地域的文化不再是一個穩定、封閉的系統（其實文化一直是一個開放的系統，中國唐代舞蹈的高峰離不開魏晉南北朝時期的南北文化的交融，鄧肯的現代舞受到古希臘文化的深刻影響）。在這樣一個開放、複雜的背景下，文化身份的界定何其之難。文化的動態發展，導致了身份的確定與認同是一個不斷變化的過程，因此在身份的確認與認同中，凝結了內涵而又外顯的文化符號因為易於辨識爾成為識別的主要依據，所以美術、建築、舞蹈這些形象性、形式感很強的藝術樣式常常成為民族／國家／地區文化的標誌性符號。如郭磊老師的作品，因為符號性的面具和手勢、態而成為台北、倫敦學者們對中國傳統文化好奇與關注的焦點。也正如許銳所說，這是郭磊在跨藝語境中創作的作品——有特定的代表性而非普遍的代表性，亦如同我之前在博客中所說的：“跨艺项目的实验性之一，就是人为设定了一个高度浓缩的跨文化创作语境——东西方之间；北京、台北、伦敦不同城市之间；编导、舞者、学者的不同文化背景等等”。跨文化、跨語言無處不在，有時我們沒有意識到，有時我們又明顯感受到。
2、文化的多元性－跨藝的複雜性
跨藝的背景是跨文化的存在與發展，是不同地域／民族／國家文化間“和而不同”的存在；跨藝的方式是交叉性思維與表達；跨藝的過程一方面受到特定創作語境的影響（如界定性的主題、時間、舞者等因素），另一方面也受到編導、舞者“知識儲備”的影響（如對主題的理解、對特定文化形式的理解，包括溝通的語言——這裡又涉及到翻譯的英語－漢語的知識儲備）。所以，跨藝項目研究的特殊之處就在於這種多樣性與複雜性，它不是對藝術創作、表演的單純的研究，而是有著極為豐富、複雜的研究背景、研究視角和研究內容——這正式跨藝的價值所在：當我們通過特殊語境的設定，對跨文化、跨藝中舞蹈創作、表演的複雜性進行分析與研究，得出認識、辨析與判斷的思路與方法／對策，從實際操作層面認識世界性多元文化交流的內涵、意義、價值，以更好地表達文化自我價值，進而獲得文化身份的認同。
在排練室里，舞者、編導用舞蹈在記錄、在表達，我們在同一空間中進行觀察與思考。其本質是，在各自的文化思維引導中，他們在從理性地創作到感性的表達，我們則是從感性的觀察到理性的思考。大家共同在跨藝的語境中，呼吸著跨文化的氣息。
Translation…
ArtsCross Observations (2)
Thoughts on Seminar 2
In my view, cross-linguistic research is essentially a form of cross-cultural research. Just like Ya-Ping‘s keyword for today, “travel”, the cultural journey is unrestrained from the outset. While people constitute the subjective participants in “travel”, while on the road, people are often unable to control their own destiny. As they say in the Chinese Kung Fu novels, “Out there in the real world, you don’t control your own destiny.”
1. The openness of culture — the objectivity of cross-culturalism
Modern developments in science and technology, along with greater global interconnectedness, have sped up the development of cross-culturalism and linguistic crossover. No longer can the cultures of individual groups and regions remain as closed-off systems (in reality, cultures have always been open systems. The high point of dance within China’s Tang Dynasty was intimately linked to crossovers with the Nanbei civilization during the Northern Wei and Jin dynasties. Duncan’s modern dance was strongly influenced by ancient Greek civilization). Against such an open, complex backdrop, identification of cultural boundaries becomes very difficult. The dynamic development of culture means that cultural identification and recognition is a constantly evolving process. Therefore, in defining and recognising identity, cultural symbols which contain both inherent meaning and external appearance become the primary means of differentiation thanks to the ease with which they can be recognised. Therefore, the fine arts, architecture, dance and other such form-based art forms are often adopted as symbols representing the cultures of races/ countries/regions.
As with Guo Lei’s piece, the symbolic nature of the masks and gestures allowed the piece to become a focal point for the curiosity and interest of the Taipei and London academics in Chinese traditional culture. Just like Xu Rui said, this work was created by Guo Lei within a cross-disciplinary and cross-linguistic context — it had some specifically representative aspects and some more generally representative aspects. Just like I wrote in my blog: “One of the experimental aspects of the ArtsCross project is that it creates a highly concentrated creative environment – between West and East; between cities: Beijing, Taipei, London; between people of different backgrounds: choreographers, dancers, academics, etc.” Cross-cultural and cross-linguistic elements are to be found everywhere. At times we do not realise it, yet sometimes we sense it clearly.
2. The diversity of culture — the complexity of ArtsCross
The existence and development of culture forms the backdrop for ArtsCross. It is the co-existence of different regional/ethnic/national cultures. The approach adopted by ArtsCross is to seek crossovers in approaches to thought and expression. The process of ArtsCross creation is from one side influenced by the conditions imposed by the creative environment (such as the imposition of themes, time constraints, choice of dancers, etc.). From another side, the creation is influenced by the ideas within the “idea base” of the choreographer and the dancer (for example the interpretation of the theme, the understanding of a specific cultural form, including the language of communication. Here we again encounter the issue of English and Chinese translation capabilities). So, the special nature of research within the ArtsCross project is a function of its variety and complexity. It is not simply research into artistic creation, or performance. Rather, it takes place within an extremely rich, yet highly complex research context and perspective. This is where the value of ArtsCross lies: through creating a special creative environment, and engaging in analysis and research of cultural crossovers, dance creation within a cross-disciplinary context, and the complexity of performance, we obtain ideas and approaches based on understanding, analysis and judgement. At the practical level, we gain an awareness of the meaning and value of communication within a diversified world, allowing us to better represent the inherent value of culture, thereby obtaining a sense of recognition of cultural identity.
In the rehearsal studio, the dancers and choreographers use dance to record and to express. Within the same space, we observe and reflect. Essentially, each participant, under the guidance of their culturally-informed thought patterns, is seeking to create an expression of emotion, starting from a foundation of rational thought, while we are seeking to engage in rational thinking based on emotional observation. Everyone breathed in the oxygen of cross-culturalism in the space provided by ArtsCross.
Related
