First,the difference between "dramatic" and "postdramatic" is exaggerated.The opposing status of "literariness" and "theatricality" is emphasized, or even partitioned(as in the case of the differentiation of xiju and juchang).It leaves an impression that "the postdramatic needs no literature".Some people prefer devising without a script as a method of creation, as if the script is already antiquated.Some young scholars easily make "literary theatre" their target of criticism and advocate for the kind of theatre that "entertains the eye".In recent years,"Ibsenian theatre" has become an "outdated" negative example.There are even attempts to repudiate the historical meaning of the May Fourth New Culture Movement.However,there is very little discussion on how "the postdramatic" reflects a "new literariness" while constructing new texts.When the "literature" of contemporary China fails to satisfy,should we give it up altogether? Or should we look for more convincing criticism and suggestions?Second,were we to regard Lehmann's descriptions and generalization of "postdramatic" as specific and canonical,it would restrain our vision and practice.Lehmann points out that "postdramatic" should be studied as a descriptive concept,rather than a diagnostic concept.The most valuable idea of postmodernism is the respect for diversity and difference.When introducing the new trends of the "postdramatic",why should we postulate that the traditional theatre has collapsed and fallen,and set up a new "epoch-making" standard? Why should we be stuck in a Cartesian dualism of either/or logic? Taking some creative methodologies as anxample,romanticism,realism,modernism,etc.,the history develops according to the law of the negation of the negation.However,in the contemporary world, there is no center nor a mainstream as the boundaries between these styles have been blurred and mingled.There is no longer a distinction between old and new,good and bad.After all,isn't it the quality of the "postdramatic" to acknowledge the total diversity of the theatre'?Third,in his book,Lehmann adds many examples of postdramatic artists and their works,most of which belong to the postmodem avant-garde experimental theatre in Europe and the USA.Among them are several extreme cases.Experimental theatre practitioners'exploring a private spiritualism is no doubt worthy of encouragement,but for theorists,from Lehmann to us who introduce his theory,we have been too enthusiastic toward experimental theatre without being calm and critical enough.Experimental art is needed for all ages.But it cannot become the mainstream.Because avant-garde theatre tends to "overdo" things.Successful cases are inevitably rare.The value of such practice is to "break the conventions".However, it would be unwise, at a theoreticallevel at least, to make an emerging trend the "paradigm" and the "direction".In fact,there is a much broader "middle ground" between the examples of the "postdramatic" presented by Lehmann and the traditional theatre.The many successful cases in this "middle ground" might be more worthy of research and study.To give some examples,I shall reflect on and summarize some of the foreign directors and their works presented and become popular in China,such as Requiem by Hanoch Levin,Eugene Onegin by Rimas Tuminas, and Brothers and Sisters by Lev Dodin,only to name a few.The audience enjoyed not just the script; so,as theatrical arts,where does the charm of these works come from?While Lehmann's argument is situated in the cultural context of developed Western countries, thecultural context of contemporary China further complicates and frustrates our approach and understanding.On the current cultural spectrum of China,apart from traditional culture and institutional culture, there is also Enlightenment culture that has not yet expired, the modemist culture regarded as the target of reflection and criticism by postmodernists,as well as the postmodenust culture since the new Millennial.When introducing a new concept into the coexisting and mutual-balancing environment of these diverse cultures,it is necessary to consider its adaptability.For example,regarding the "subjectivity",in China,on the one hand,there is absolute indifference towards the dignity and value of man.On the other,there is also the problem of a generation of "delicate egoists".Thus,any unprincipled advocate of subjectivity or the devaluation of individual spirit is one-sided.Similarly, in regard to rationality and sensibility, in reallife,there are indeed situations,as Weber has pointed out,where instrumental rationality obscures (value) rationality,formal rationality replaces substantive rationality.Also,there is the bureaucratization of power and capital.However,these malaises cannot be solved by completely dissoMng and negating the rationality and advocating a "pure sensibility".As Lehmann wrote,"[T] here is nothing,or nearly nothing,in contemporary society that cannot be rationally discussed……In light of this observation of the progressive breakdown of immediate affective reaction,we have to realize the growing importance of a certain cultivation of affects,the itrairung' of an emotionality that is not under the tutelage of rational preconsiderations."Wlule this might be the reality of the German society, in China, it is the opposite."Immediate affective reaction" does not disappear.Rather, such affective reactions are inundating the public space.One needs only a look at the extremely populists and the emotional "netizen army" to realize that there is "no right or wrong,but only love and hate".In addition,under the influence of the ever-growing "symbolic manipulation" of consumensm,"emotion" and "desire" are summoned up and freed from "the tutelage of rational preconsiderations." Under such circumstances,if our theatre continues to deconstruct the rationality,abolish meaning,and create a sensory world full of "empty noumena",it will only lead to a thinner and thinner humanism and further confusion of values.
……
展开
