2010 Macau Fringe Festival ｜第十屆澳門城市藝穗節 ｜Critics Meeting Each Other | 藝評人小聚
2010 Macau Fringe Festival
by Richard Chua
12 November 2010
Art writing is normally regarded as a solitary activity. A writer first puts his/her words on paper, then he/she engages in thinking and providing feedback to him/herself, before putting words back onto the paper again. This process of rethinking, rewriting, retyping informs a writer that reflection is ever so important in the process of working out a piece of effective communique. For the public needs information on the processes of art-making, the aesthetics in appreciating an artist’s intention, and the social impact an art-work has on the very location they are working in. Art critic Lee Weng Choy, in his writing 5 Entries(1), summarised, cogently, philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein’s questioning on the attributing thinking to the head(2), where two questions were raised, “Where does thinking actually take place? And what exactly is “thinking”? He was interested in how “we have been manipulating signs with meanings” (Lee). Besides locating thinking in our heads, according to Lee Weng Choy, it might be less misleading to say that thinking takes place with pen or paper.
If thinking and writing actually does happen outside our heads, not within it, why should art-writing be a solitary activity performed in the confines in one’s study? If the manipulation of words in order to get meanings is done outside of one’s body, why should a writer confine him/herself to just having a relationship with his/her word-processor? Lee’s essay hints on the seemingly dangerous result of spending too much time on the computer risking of oneself becoming a cyborg. But to me, being a total cyborg, spending most of my time with my word-processor, writing has been a way to establish connections and producing knowledge with friends in the Chinese-speaking societies in Asia.
My invitation to the 2010 Macau Fringe Festival as a resident critic under it’s Resident Critic Programme is an example on how art-writing “cyborgs” working in different locations within this highly diverse – not to mention filled with different contestations – region try to link themselves up through technologies provided by Facebook, Twitters, Tumblr(s), and the likes. Writings on theatre art have sprung like creepers all over the internet, posing challenges to traditional broadsheets and even online art journals. Speed of transmission has been phenomenal, let alone fast and efficient. And that, to me, epitomises the spirit of fringe festivals – where art can happen anywhere, anytime.
In continuing the spirit laid by the 2009 Macau Fringe Festival Critic Residency Programme organised by the Macau Theatre Culture Association and the International Association of Theatre Critics (Hong Kong Chapter) and the MKJC, which saw the gathering of more than 13 critics in the region coming together to share and produce knowledge on the theatres in their own respective sites, critics will again gather in the fringe festival to further discussions and discourses in the understanding fringe theatres in the region and beyond. In addition, critics will attend performances and provide critical feedback to artists participating in the festival.
This is not uncommon in fringe festivals organised in at least the two festivals this year: the recently concluded 2010 Taipei Fringe Festival 2010, and the one I will be residing in the week ahead. The critics group in the Taipei festival has been diligent in catching the shows within the festival and providing feedback to artists, producers, and other theatre practitioners. My festival participation under theatre collective Little Red Shop (Generations) has not been spared under the scalpel of the critics. Their critiques have been constructive and insightful, filling in gaps within our creative processes and artistic strategies. One group of critics named 每週看戲俱樂部 (MJKC), the group I have mentioned in passing in the earlier paragraph as one of the co-organisers of the critic residency programme in the 2009 Macau Fringe Festival, deserves special mention. The energy and determination they have shown in theatre art-writing deserves respect and encouragement. Besides showing professional practice in talking to, researching on, conversing with artists before and after every theatre showing, they have also exhibited good spirit in trying to put artists strategies before their own critiques on them. A true spirit of criticism which I advocate and demand: having a conversation with the art-work.
Founder of the MJKC Lin Naiwen will be showing her work 《小劇場說明會》(translated as A Talk About Small Theatre) at the upcoming 2010 Macau Fringe Festival. She will bring audiences on a journey to understand what Taiwan small theatre is about through a performance lecture. To me, that’s theatre criticism at its most humanistic form, where conversation is actually valued and actively promoted among audiences and the critics. This could be seen as an attempt to dispel boredom and loneliness within a critics body, addressing the badly needed conversation a critic needs with the another human being, not necessary one who is involved in the same practice.
Perhaps that’s a good way to stop a writer from becoming a cyborg due to excessive working on his/her word-processor. For art-writing is a fluid process of talking, writing, providing feedback to oneself in sorting out his/her thought, not to mention pre-conceived notions and assumptions about the topic at hand. To borrow a over-used – and most probably the most cliché of them all – term, “No Man is an Island”; there is a need for writers to gather together, not just to reaffirm each other’s friendship in dispelling boredom and loneliness, but to simply sort out their misconceptions and doubts. Most importantly, this wonderful activity will help theatre art writers to reduce their dependency on this piece of technology used to churn out this piece of writing, and get out more to meet and talk to more people.
Notes:
1. Lee, Weng Choy. “5 Entries.” Experimenta: Mesh 17, New Media Art in Australia and Asia. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Nov 2010. .
2. Ludwig Wittgenstein, The Blue and Brown Books: Preliminary Studies for the “Philosophical Investigations”, New York: Harper & Row, 1958, pp. 6-7.
藝術文字工作通常被視為一個獨立的活動。一個文字工作者通常先將他／她的文字賦予電腦屏幕上，在加以思考後，回應自己，再把文字重新輸入。這個重新思考，反覆書寫模式，反覆將文字輸入電腦的程序意味著反思是準備一份有效溝通文件的一大重責。供公眾閱讀的藝術文字需要提供有關藝術創作的過程紀錄，一個瞭解藝術工作者意圖的美學，以及一個藝術作品在藝術工作者所處的社會裡之衝擊。藝術評論李永財，在他撰寫的藝術文字5 Entries (1) 裡，他提及哲學家LudWig Wittgenstein 在賦予思想為大腦的一部分之質問（2）裡的兩個問題：“思考到底是在甚麼地方進行的？”；“思考到底是甚麼？”，主要關心之議題是我們如何“操控符號而賦予意義”（李永財）李永財也認為，與其把思考置放在大腦裡，不如較為不被誤解地說，思考過程在紙和筆間進行。
如果思考和書寫過程是在我們腦子外進行的，哪為何藝術工作應當是一門在書房裡進行的活動呢？文字的操控發生於題外，文字工作者又為何只和自己的電腦屏幕共處呢？李永財的文字意味著長期和自己電腦相處而變成機械人。我這個長期和電腦關係密切的機械人，書寫變成了我的和其他文字工作者建立橋樑的溝通過程，也是和同仁們一起出產知識的共同平台。
這次，承蒙2010 年澳門藝穗節之邀請，我將赴澳門參與該節的活動，為《駐節藝評人》活動出力。我也將會體驗各地藝術文字“機械人”，從各個不同的地域視角，通過網路工具，如Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr(s)等，聯繫彼此。藝術文字將像蔓草一樣，散佈於網絡空間，給傳統媒體以及正規網路媒體提供必要的挑戰。傳輸的潛力甚廣。對我而言，那就是藝穗的力量節的力量，藝術可隨時隨地發生。
在延續2009年由澳門文化學會、國際劇場評論協會（香港分會）以及台灣《每週看戲俱樂部》聯合主辦的澳門藝穗節所積澱的功績為前提，各地藝評人將再次聚積2010年澳門藝穗節，為分享各地藝穗之狀況，進行交流。藝評人也將會參與演出，並給予建設性的評論。
這類型的活動在今年至少兩個區域藝穗節並不陌生：在9月的台北藝穗節當中，我也受惠於台灣藝評人所賦予的評論。台灣的藝評人都非常積極地看戲，提供藝術工作者們富有建設性的評論。我所帶領的團體赤點當代劇場也沒被赦免。評論給我們團隊不同的觀點，給我們在藝術創作中之縫隙填上的養分。其中一個藝術評論團體；我剛才提及的《每週看戲俱樂部》需要加以注意。它們所付出的對觀賞劇場的熱誠和對藝術文字的堅持是值得讚美的，不管在與藝術工作者互相討論作品內容方面，抑或收集資料和研究藝術工作者與作品背景方面，或者與藝術家呈獻作品前後的對談，都在在見證了台灣藝評人對藝術而評論之概念的注重與關懷。
這次，來自台北（台灣）的《每週看戲俱樂部》創辦人林乃文（凹凸之外）也將會在2010澳門藝穗節展演一個演出，名為《小劇場說明會》。該劇評組織的創辦人林乃文將會帶領觀眾們一覽台灣小劇場的景觀。對我來說，這種演出就是評論最富有人性的行為，觀眾和藝評者們都能對話，建立親密的劇場關係。這也是一種讓藝評人能排除內心的孤寂的一項活動，好是一個他／她對話的理由。
這有可能就是一個預防藝術文字工作者蛻變成一個電腦機械人的一個好方法。藝術文字工作是一個富有流動性，涉及對談、書寫、回應，而釐清個人思想的活動，不外乎是一個能挑戰以及反省資深既定概念和設定框架的必要過程。所以，引用一個老掉牙的概念：“人是需要群體”，藝術文字工作者們是需要結伴同行，少用手中電腦，也多出門和別人做朋友。
引用資料：
1. Lee, Weng Choy. “5 Entries.” Experimenta: Mesh 17, New Media Art in Australia and Asia. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Nov 2010. .
2. Ludwig Wittgenstein, The Blue and Brown Books: Preliminary Studies for the “Philosophical Investigations”, New York: Harper & Row, 1958, pp. 6-7.