[中][Eng]研究與發展在身體/形體/創作方面的角色——以策劃及創作的實踐回看

對談：陳冠而（Fee）、何明恩（明恩）

文字整理：何明恩

身體、形體，或是舞蹈？

明恩：

在開始討論研究與發展前，我認為有需要討論一下關於「身體」、「形體」、「舞蹈」。你會如何界定自己的創作與實踐方向？你較認為自己屬於哪一個範疇？

Fee：

嗯，這是一個很好的問題，如何「界定」這幾個詞彙的分野？從我自己創作歷程與脈絡來說，我最初應該是傾向「形體」，一方面是受到當時接觸的老師及表演體系所影響，例如梵谷、梁菲倚及張藝生等老師的傳承。那些學習首先釋放了我當時在「舞蹈」學習上的挫敗，感覺在「形體」練習上有較開闊的個體性與創造空間，而不限於規範化的技巧。所以最初自己傾向以「形體劇場」的想像去創作，及看待自己的創作方式。

近年，我則試圖退後一步、拉闊一點，轉而思考「身體」多於「形體」或「舞蹈」，也思考在表演作為一個作品之前或之外，還有甚麼可能。這個思考框架的轉變是有意識的，也體現在創作及策劃的方向上。如果要談到研究與發展，也更需重新思考這幾個關鍵詞，與表演藝術的實踐有何關係。這些定義在香港較少討論。

賽馬會「觸動」舞蹈計劃　Jockey Club Dance Well Project／攝Photo：劉天明 Lau Tin Ming（照片由何明恩提供 Photo provided by Ho Ming-yan）

明恩：

「運用身體」這四個字，在傳統舞蹈框架下變得有多狹義？又，它其實可以有多廣義？自香港演藝學院當代舞系畢業以來，我有幸遇上不同表演類別的合作，有模仿編舞動作跳到底的、有舞蹈創作研究、地境劇場、跨媒介編創合作、與演員一起的表演研究、也有在工作坊埋首學藝的時候……形式理念大不相同，卻同樣在「表演藝術」的詞條下。我不得不詰問，我從當代舞出身，走進各種表演框架後，現今的我在追尋怎麼樣的「表演」？

Fee：

我認為你也有持續研究與發展的意圖，不是以某個計劃作為形式，而是於所有相關實踐中持續研究與反思；同時也是不囿於舞蹈的框架，進而在思考「表演的身體」，以至「生活的身體」作為表演的身體的前置或基礎。

明恩：

在2021年的幾個表演工作開啟了聲音運用的大門後，我去年（2022）於柏林DOCK 11 & EDEN參加了Joris Camelin[1]，及香港流白之間主辦Thomas Richards[2]的工作坊後，我沉浸享受著打開聲音的愉悅體驗之餘，不禁想——發聲的前置是呼吸、再讓注意力改變身體內部共鳴位置、能量投放大小，連用聲音不也是連用身體的一種嗎？看到不少舞者創作，例如近年在港出現多了的Lecture Performance（表演講堂），也在嘗試開口說話表達、發聲。反過來，錘煉身體狀態亦是演員不可或缺的練習。然後我疑惑，為甚麼在學院裡，會將舞蹈和戲劇的學習完全區間開來？演員與舞者，或不同訓練背景的表演者，是否可以產生更深廣的對話、交流與研究？除了開發聲音，經過反反覆覆，時而有點眉目時而失敗的練習和嘗試，我逐漸能有意識地讓內在狀態與身體動作產生連結（當然也能將動作客觀化——不去連結內在狀態）、讓動作與內在狀態互相影響……我了解到自己視表演藝術為一種人與人溝通的方式，我著重表演者的主體性，視「人」為一個完整單位，以注意力、思想、動機、感情、行動等等切入點，去發掘與身體動作之間的關係。

「表演未來系列」：《白日》彩排 Rehearsal of Future of Performance Bright Day ／攝Photo：Ray Leung（照片由何明恩提供 Photo provided by Ho Ming-yan）

身體性與表演性的研究與發展

Fee：

我近年的創作或策劃計劃《白日》、《未來表演實驗室#1》及《#2》，還有在身體教育的實踐均有研究與發展的導向。《白日》在西九文化區支持的「表演未來系列」中得享較豐厚的時間及人力資源，於兩年內分為三個階段，並獲高度自由埋首於研究與發展（R&D），是在本地難能可貴的一次R&D經驗。很多時候，當資源，尤其時間資源不充足時，R&D並未能真正醞釀、探索。行政與製作團隊對於R&D的視野與工作方式，也直接影響創作者能否放下製作的包袱，真正花時間鑽探。《白日》於三個階段能以截然不同的呈現方式圍繞母題作試驗，三階段的表演性、身體性各有不同：首階段只有「參與者」／「觀眾」，聚焦於他們自身的身體感官主體經驗，不涉及觀看第三身「表演者」；第二及第三階段則重新加入了「表演者」，但視作眾多劇場元素的一部分，相對於傳統舞蹈或戲劇演出較為低度的「表演」，亦在思考「觀看表演」與「經歷劇場體驗」此兩種觀賞體驗，在「表演者」的存在與表演的濃度的影響下會有何分別。回應上述，這個轉變也關係到我在思考「生活的身體」作為表演的身體的前置——我更希望先注視與反思於這個城市中身體生活的方式，是如何形塑我們的身體質感與感知方式，而因此，產生了如何的表演的身體狀態——而非沿用或借用某些表演系統的慣性。我們並需意識到，表演體系的產生與其社會背景與生活狀態息息相關。如果說要尋找一種本土的身體性，該如何尋找？這是此階段在創作與策劃上我希望發問並招朋喚友共同研究的一個母題。

另一方面，我正在進行的更為長期與持續性的研究與發展，則是分散於各個不同資助或計劃之中，但對我來說，它們是一脈相承並且一直反覆在同一母題下探索的身體教學實踐。

身體教學的探索與研究

明恩：

在你近年的身體研究實踐，創意律動（Creative Movement）教育佔了其中重要的一環。

Fee：

我想分享Dance Well的Train-the-trainer計劃讓我獲益匪淺。[3] 它描繪了清晰的價值觀及教學法，讓我學習及重新思考動身體的意義、價值與方法學。Dance Well是賦權的，強調透過導師的指導去誘導學員（在Dance Well語境下會稱所有學員為舞者、舞動的人，大家是平等的）以自己的方式詮釋動作練習，按照自身身體的限制、特色、需要與喜好去調節與發揮。因此，Dance Well課堂上較少示範動作，即使是示範，目的也在於提供一個清晰的框架讓舞者探索，而非硬性跟隨。其賦權亦是對於教學藝術家：Dance Well強調教學藝術家根據自己的特長去設計課程，每課均奢侈地有四位教學藝術家共同教學，互相支援。這個結構讓教學藝術家進入一種持續學習的狀態，刺激了跨界學習的發生。例如我們組別，俞若玫（Cally）擅長並熱愛以文字意象進入身體練習，刺激了我更深入思考如何運用語言誘導動作的發生。我持續探索文字描述戲劇情景、勾引想像、描繪動作、覺察感覺等的詞𢑥、結構與方法等，並在教學中不斷嘗試、發展。

明恩：  

第三位導師，中國舞舞者、歌者彭漲（Jay Peng），為我們主持關於生活與遊歷的課堂，將他雲南土家文化對大自然的尊崇儀式感，轉化成律動素材。而我，則嘗試在Fee、Cally、Jay之間穿針引線，拉近三人的語境，將動作元素貫穿其中，讓運動身體的經驗變得更完整。我觀察到你的強項是運用文字、語言、敘事，提供想像和動身體的線索，編創教材時，其實是在累積語𢑥，同時鞏固藝術家的藝術實踐與教學法。

創意律動的目的是讓參加者在自主學習框架下，開發身體的可能性。因此，規劃教案時，設計者的內在邏輯要十分清晰，既要包含創意，亦要備有充足的身體運用知識。在教學裡傳遞動身體的經驗，跟在表演裡分享觀賞經驗的分野是，前者可能較聚焦在美感體驗，後者必須要運用有效的意象、準確的語言描述、糅合身體知識，因應對象的背景，選取他所能夠理解的方式溝通。在我個人的創作、教學、表演經驗當中，教學與表演的共通點是，從發現自己志向（心之所向），到整理成獨特的表演美學，需大量時間詰問、消化、試驗與實踐。

[1] Joris Camelin現居柏林，表演者、按摩師，早期修讀音樂學（Musicology），曾與Mark Tompkins、 Constanza Macras、Jeremy Wade、Ingo Reulecke、Sabine Glenz、An Kaler、Meg Stuart、Laurent Chetouane等編舞、導演合作。在「TOUCHED BY VOICE」系列的工作坊裡，他分享打開聲音與身體的連結。

[2] Thomas Richards是現代戲劇大師葛羅托斯基的傳人，去年成立Theatre No Theatre和團隊繼續他的戲劇研究。「Presentation of Songs」工作坊以古老歌謠，連結身體行動、細微內在經驗；及以參加者的準備的歌謠開展個人創作。

[3] Dance Well是賽馬會「觸動」舞蹈計劃，由香港演藝學院舞蹈學院主辦，為柏金遜症患者以及其他不同年齡和身份人士而設，於藝術空間提供定期的舞蹈體驗。計劃以意大利巴薩諾德爾格拉帕市政府及其當代表演藝術中心於2013年推出的「Dance Well」舞蹈計劃為藍本。

============

陳冠而

小息跨媒介創作室藝術總監，劇場導演、策劃、藝術教育及註冊瑜伽導師。主要作品及策劃項目有：表演未來系列：《白日》、《視外之景》、「未來表演實驗室」系列等。亦積極參與藝術教育項目，包括「十八有藝」、賽馬會「觸動」舞蹈計劃等。

何明恩

生於香港，舞蹈藝術工作者，於香港演藝學院主修當代舞及編舞，涉獵跨媒介創作、舞蹈、劇場表演、創意舞蹈教育及社區藝術工作。她熱衷於通過藝術建立跨學科的聯繫，近年開始參與不同社區藝術和藝術教育計劃。

The Role of Research and Development in Body/Movement/Creation

—Looking Back Through Curatorial and Creative Practice

Dialogue: Chan Kwun-fee (Chan), Ho Ming-yan (Ho)

Translator: Eva Kan

Body, Movement, or Dance? 

Ho:

Before we start discussing research and development, we need to talk about ‘body’, ‘movement’ and ‘dance’. How do you define the direction of your creation and practice? Which area do you think you belong to more?

Chan:

Well, this is a very good question. How do we differentiate between these terms? In terms of my journey and way of creating, I guess I was initially inclined to ‘movement’, partly influenced by the teachers and performance systems I was in contact with at that time, such as the teaching by Andy Ng, Faye Leong, and Alex Cheung. Those experiences first helped relieve my frustration with ‘dance’ learning at that time, as there is more room for individuality and creativity in the practice of ‘movement’, rather than being limited to standardised techniques. Therefore, at the beginning, I tended to create and view my way of creating with the imagination of ‘physical theatre’.

In recent years, I have tried to take a step back and broaden my horizons, thinking more about ‘body’ than ‘movement’ or ‘dance’, and also about what else is possible before or beyond the performance presented as a work. This change in the thinking framework is conscious, and is reflected in the direction of my creation and planning. If we talk about research and development, it is even more necessary to rethink how these key terms relate to the practice of performing arts. These definitions are not much discussed in Hong Kong.

　「表演未來系列」：《白日》彩排 Rehearsal of Future of Performance Bright Day ／攝Photo：Ray Leung（照片由何明恩提供 Photo provided by Ho Ming-yan）

Ho:

How narrow is the meaning of ‘use your body’ in the traditional dance context? And how broad can it be? Since graduating from the Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts as a contemporary dance major, I have been lucky to encounter different kinds of performance collaborations. They include dancing through the steps designed by the choreographer, research in dance creation, landscape theatrics, cross-disciplinary co-creation, performance research with performers participating, workshop learning, and more. Their forms and missions are very different from one another, but they all belong to the category of ‘performing arts’. So today, after entering various performance frameworks from a contemporary dance background, I have to ask myself: what kind of ‘performance’ am I pursuing?

Chan:

I think you have the intention of doing continuous research and development, as you are not regarding a particular project as a format, but are engaging in continuous research and reflection on all related practices. At the same time, you are not confined to the framework of dance, but further thinking about the ‘performing body’, and even the ‘living body’ as a precursor or foundation for the former.

Ho:

After several performance jobs in 2021 that opened the door to the use of voice, and after attending Joris Camelin[1]’s workshop at DOCK 11 & EDEN in Berlin last year (2022), and Thomas Richards[2]’s workshop organised by Blank Space Studio in Hong Kong, I couldn't help but think to myself, while enjoying the pleasurable experience of opening up my voice — if breathing comes before using the voice, followed by consciously changing the resonance position within the body and the amount of energy put into it, then isn't the use of voice also a way of using the body? I have seen quite a lot of dancers attempting to express themselves by using their voice in their creations, such as in lecture performances which have become more common in Hong Kong in recent years. On the other hand, body strengthening is an indispensable part of training for actors. So then I wonder: why are dance and drama studies completely separated in the academy? Is it possible for actors and dancers, or performers from different training backgrounds, to create a deeper dialogue, exchange and research?

In addition to developing my voice through repeated practice and endeavour, sometimes with success and sometimes not, I have gradually been able to consciously connect my inner state with my body movements (of course, I can also objectify the movements — not connecting to the inner state), and to let my movements and inner state interact with each other… I found that I regard performing arts as a form of human communication, and that I focus on the subjectivity of the performer, seeing a person as a complete unit, and using entry points such as focus, thoughts, motivation, emotion and action to explore their relationship with body movements.

Research & Development in Physicality and Performativity

Chan:

In recent years, my creative or curatorial projects Bright Day, Future Performing Arts Lab #1 and #2, as well as my practice in body education are all research and development (R&D) oriented. Bright Day, supported by the West Kowloon Cultural District in the Future of Performance series, has enjoyed more time and manpower resources, as it was divided into three phases over two years, with a high degree of freedom to focus on R&D, which is a rare experience in Hong Kong. Very often, when resources, especially time resources, are insufficient, R&D is not really incubated and explored. The view of R&D and working style of the administration and production teams also directly affect whether the creators can set aside the burden of production and really spend time on exploration. Bright Day experiments with three distinctly different ways of presentation relating to the main theme, with different performativity and physicality in each of the three stages: in the first phase, there are only ‘participants’/ ‘audiences’, focusing on one’s bodily and sensory subjective experience, without involving the third party ‘performer’; in the second and third phases, the ‘performer’ is reintroduced, but as part of a multitude of theatrical elements, and the experience is regarded as a ‘performance’ to a lesser extent compared to traditional dance or drama performance, while we reflect on the differences between the two viewing experiences — ‘watching performance’ and ‘experiencing the theatre’ under the influence of the existence of the ‘performer’ and the degree of performativity. In response to the above, this change also relates to my thinking about the ‘living body’ as a precursor to the performing body. Instead of following or borrowing from the conventions of certain performance systems, I prefer to first focus and reflect on how our bodies live in the city, how it has shaped our body textures and ways of perception and, as a result, what performative body states it has produced. It is also important to notice that the emergence of a performance system is closely related to its social background and people’s state of life. If we are looking for one type of local physicality, how should we look for it? This is the main theme in this phase of my creative and curatorial work that I wish to ask questions about and invite friends to work on together.

On the other hand, while the more long-term and ongoing research and development work that I am undertaking is spread across various grants or programmes, to me these are body teaching practices that are exploring the same main theme and have a common origin.

Exploration and Research on Body Teaching

Ho:

Creative movement education has been an important part of your body research practice in recent years.

Chan:

I would like to share how much I have benefited from Dance Well's  Train-the-trainer programme[3]. It depicts clear values and pedagogies that allowed me to learn and rethink the meaning, values and methodology of moving the body. Dance Well is empowering, emphasising the guidance of the instructor to guide the students (in the context of Dance Well, all students are called dancers, dancing people, and are equal) to interpret the movement exercises in their own way, and to adapt and perform according to their own body's limitations, characteristics, needs and preferences. Therefore, in Dance Well classes, instructors are less likely to demonstrate, and even when they do, the aim is to provide a clear framework for dancers to explore, rather than to follow rigidly. It is also empowering for the teaching artists: Dance Well emphasises that the teaching artists design the curriculum according to their own strengths, and each class has the luxury of having four teaching artists to co-teach and support each other. This structure puts the teaching artists into a state of continuous learning and stimulates cross-disciplinary learning. In our group, for example, Cally Yu's expertise and passion for using word imagery in movement exercise has stimulated me to think more deeply about how language can be used to generate movements. I continue to explore the vocabulary, structure, and methods for using words to decribe drama scenarios, inspire imagination, depict movements, and perceive emotions, and I continue to experiment and develop this in my teaching.

Ho:

The third instructor, Chinese dance dancer and singer Jay Peng, led a class on life and travel, transforming his Yunnan Tujia reverence for nature and rituals into movement materials. I, on the other hand, tried to act as a go-between for Chan, Cally and Jay, to bring their context closer, and to weave the movement elements between them, so as to make the experience of moving the body a more complete one. I have observed that your strength is in using words, language and narrative to provide paths to imagination and body movement, and that when you create teaching materials, you are in fact accumulating vocabulary , and consolidates the artist’s artistic practice and teaching methods.

The aim of creative movement is to allow participants to develop the possibilities of the body within a framework of self-directed learning. Therefore, when designing the lesson plan, the inner logic of the designer should be very clear, containing both creativity and sufficient knowledge of the use of the body. The difference between communicating the experience of moving the body in teaching and sharing the experience of watching in performance is that the former may be more focused on the aesthetic experience, while the latter requires the use of effective imagery, accurate verbal descriptions, and a combination of body knowledge to communicate in a way that the target audience can understand, taking into account their background. In my personal experience of creating, teaching, and performing, the common thread between teaching and performing is that it takes a lot of time to interrogate, digest, experiment and practise, from the discovery of one's own aspirations (the heart's desire) to the organisation of a unique performance aesthetic.

[1] Joris Camelin currently lives in Berlin. He is a performer and massage therapist. He earlier studied musicology and has worked with a number of choreographers and directors, including Mark Tompkins, Constanza Macras, Jeremy Wade, Ingo Reulecke, Sabine Glenz, An Kaler, Meg Stuart, and Laurent Chetouane. In the “TOUCHED BY VOICE” workshop series, he shared the opening up of connection between the voice and the body.

[2] Thomas Richards is a successor to modern theatre master Jerzy Grotowski. He set up Theatre No Theatre last year to continue his theatre studies with his team. The “Presentation of Songs” workshop used ancient songs to connect with physical actions and subtle inner experiences, and started individual creations based on songs prepared by the participants.

[3] Dance Well is the three-year Jockey Club Dance Well Project, organised by the School of Dance at the Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts, which provides regular dance experiences in artistic spaces for people of all ages living with or without Parkinson's disease and their families. The project is modelled after the Dance Well initiative introduced by the Municipality of Bassano del Grappa, Italy and its contemporary performing arts centre in 2013.

===========

Chan Kwun-fee

is the artistic director of Littlebreath Creative Workshop. She is also a theatre director, curator, arts educator and registered yoga instructor. Her major works and curatorial projects include: Future of Performance series: Bright Day, Project Seeing, “Future Performing Arts Lab” series among others. She is also actively involved in arts education programmes, including 18dART and Jockey Club Dance Well Project.

Ho Ming-yan

born in Hong Kong, is a dance artist who majored in contemporary dance and choreography at the Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts. She has been involved in cross-media creative work, dance, theatre performance, creative dance education and community arts work. She is passionate about building cross-disciplinary connections through the arts and has been involved in various community arts and arts education programmes in recent years.