First, what is the "end"?
Since the last decade of the 20th century, various "final conclusions" have become a hot topic in western academic circles. The conclusion of "termination" is frequently used and posted in many fields of humanities. There are judgments such as the end of history, discipline, ideology, modernity, pioneer, enlightenment, philosophy, art, literature and literary research. Hillis Miller, an American deconstructionist literary critic, first introduced the topic of "final conclusion" theory in the western context into the field of China literature and art research. The 4th issue of Literary Review 1997 published hillis Miller's article The Influence of Globalization on Literary Studies. He put forward that "in the new global culture, the role of literature in the old sense is getting smaller and smaller", and pure literary research or literary theory will no longer exist. Four years later, the 200 1, 1 issue of Literary Review published his "Will literary research continue to exist in the era of globalization?" According to the fact that literary forms and cultural studies have turned in the era of electronization and globalization, Miller further proposed that "the era of literary studies has passed. There will never be an era when literature will be studied solely for its own purposes, regardless of theoretical or political factors. That's not appropriate. I very much doubt whether literary research will be timely or whether there will be a boom. " At the beginning of the new century, the "final conclusion" of Miller's literary research aroused great interest of China scholars and triggered related discussions. 200 1 The Terminator translation series edited by Zhou Xian and Xu Juner was published by Jiangsu People's Publishing House, including The End of Art by American philosopher Arthur Danto. In this way, the topic of "ending" has increasingly become one of the hot issues in domestic literary and artistic research and cultural research in the early years of the new century.
However, "final conclusion" is not a topic that has existed for more than ten years. As a theoretical discourse, "the final conclusion of art" has always been concerned by theorists in the history of modern western aesthetics and art, and most of the judgments about "the final conclusion" are based on the misinterpretation or extension of Hegel's theory of "the final conclusion of art" more than 100 years ago. Hegel pointed out in his aesthetic speech in Berlin:
As far as its highest function is concerned, art is a thing of the past for us modern people. Therefore, it has lost its true truth and life, and can no longer maintain its once necessary and lofty status in reality. On the contrary, it has entered our conceptual world. ①
A close reading of Hegel's two expositions about "the end of art" in Aesthetics shows that his meaning mainly includes two aspects: first, he emphasizes that the ideal era of art is gone forever compared with the glory of ancient Greek art, and art no longer occupies a "necessary and lofty position" in reality; The second is that a specific art form is the product of a certain historical stage. In the history of art, symbolic art first disintegrated, then in the romantic era, classical art disintegrated, and then in modern society, romantic art came to an end. An art history is a history of change in which old art is constantly disintegrating and new art is constantly being born. Therefore, it is a specific art form, not the whole art, that will "end". As Jameson once pointed out, Hegel intentionally called "the end of art" "a constituent feature of that event is actually the end of some kind of art" (2) Although Hegel's theory of "the end of art" is easy to cause ambiguity and misunderstanding, his theory is obviously full of dialectical thoughts. In essence, as a contemporary western scholar said: "Hegel, as an art lover of that era, did not announce the death of art, but announced the birth of new art, and he also announced the birth of aesthetics called' the science of art'. Contrary to those scripted ideas, Hegel never used the rhetoric of the end or death of art, but adopted the word' melting'. " ③
After Hegel, the theorists who continue to discuss the topic of "the end of art" mainly include Adorno, Arthur Danto and hillis Miller mentioned above. In an era of high technology and commercialization, Adorno reinterpreted Hegel's topic of "the end of art" mainly from the standpoint of cultural criticism. What he saw was: "From the outside, art has become an impossible thing; But from the heart, art must continue. " The crisis of art and how to seek survival and development in the crisis are exactly what he is concerned about. Therefore, he is not so much judging the end of art as criticizing the deprivation of artistic survival right by cultural industrialization and rationalization of social tools. Arthur Danto, on the basis of in-depth study of the modernist painter marcel duchamp's The Spring and Brillo andy warhol's The Brillo Brand Packing Box, thinks that the works of Duchamp and Brillo have formed an absolute boundary to some extent, beyond which art history will cease. Therefore, it is proposed: "With the appearance of Brillo's works, all the arts may have been realized, so, in a sense, the history of art is over. Art history did not stop, but ended. In this sense, art history has learned its own destiny, and it has evolved into art philosophy. " ⑤ "History ends with the arrival of self-awareness" and "Art ends with the appearance of its own philosophy." Therefore, Arthur Danto's so-called "end of art" does not mean "death of art". He used the word "end" in the sense of "narrative". He said, "It's like the story is over, but the characters are not." What ends is the narrative itself, not the object of narrative, that is, art. As for hillis Miller's so-called "end" of literary research, it is only in terms of literary research in the traditional sense as he understands it. In Miller's view, traditional literature research with language as the medium is declining in the era of electronization and globalization. However, with the emergence of new literary forms, a new literary research paradigm will be established. Therefore, literature and literary research will not really "end".
Throughout the discourse of "ending" in the western cultural context, we can see that this is a very rich and complex theoretical topic. Mr. Zhou made a comprehensive investigation and research on the exposition of "the end of art" in the history of western cultural aesthetics, and his conclusion was:
1, "the end of art" does not mean the end, extinction or non-existence of art. The problem of "the end of art" is related to the historical turning point of art form. 3. In the turning point of history, an artistic concept may be abandoned by people intentionally or unintentionally. In this regard, the end of a particular art is possible. This also shows that art is historic and the product of a specific historical stage. 4. The core focus of the end of art is not the end of art, but the change of artistic concept and artistic function. These changes have complicated social, cultural, historical and philosophical reasons.
These conclusions are in line with the reality, which has an important enlightening effect on our understanding of the discourse of "the end of art". At least, we can know that in the western context, the so-called "terminator" is not really "death", but contains rich and complex connotations such as crisis, transformation and transformation. "End" is not only not equal to "extinction", but sometimes even "nirvana", which means the end of the old and the birth of the new.
Although the theory of "end" was introduced into the discussion of "contemporary drama and the end of drama", the initiation of this discussion was obviously related to the academic background of the above-mentioned "end of art" research. However, when the discussant announced the end of contemporary drama, the "end" he said did not contain the rich connotation of the theoretical discourse analyzed above. Simply put, the "end" that people who judge the end of contemporary drama means "decline" or "extinction". Contemporary Drama Towards the End is also Contemporary Drama Towards the Death. Is the present situation and prospect of contemporary drama really like this? The author's answer is no.
Second, "Contemporary Drama Towards the End" is a false proposition.
In the article Contemporary Drama Towards the End, Mr. Zhu Shoutong put forward: "Under the encirclement and embrace of three-dimensional media in the era of electronic civilization, the advantages of drama art, whether as an aesthetic object or as an object of cultural consumption, have been lost, and its end is inevitable in the times. If the drama loses the above advantages, it will inevitably lose the audience, lose the cultural market that originally belonged to it, lose the capital and motivation to further prosper or maintain its own prosperity and development, and naturally get the fate of waiting for death. " ⑧ The advantages of drama mentioned by Mr. Zhu refer to three aspects: "the theater effect of drama communication", "the scene of drama performance" and "drama as a comprehensive art". His conclusion is drawn by analyzing the loss of these three advantages of drama. But the problem is that Mr. Zhu's analysis can't explain the loss of drama advantage, so it can't be convincing and his proposition can't be established.
Summarizing Mr. Zhu's three-point analysis, his basic views are as follows:
First, all kinds of entertainment places represented by dance halls can replace theaters. "The entertainment and emotional catharsis obtained by the vast majority of the audience from various dance halls, karaoke bars, nightclubs and other live environments are already sufficient, and there is no need to enter a very restricted theater." Moreover, in a sense, all kinds of private rooms-dance halls, restaurants, saunas-are far more practical and emotional than theater boxes. Second, the live performance of the drama has nothing to do with the drama art itself, and the audience watching the drama is only caused by the star worship complex. The role of drama in the audience has been lost because of the rise of film and television. Thirdly, as a comprehensive art, the beauty and stimulation of drama to the audience have been covered up by the decoration of dance halls that stimulate people's nerves more directly, and the advantages of drama in this respect have disappeared. If the skillful use of scientific and technological means is concerned, drama cannot be compared with film and television art. "
The author thinks that Mr. Zhu's three-point analysis of the loss of drama advantage can really use a sentence repeated many times in his article: "It has nothing to do with drama." Obviously, none of the three conclusions can be established.
First of all, the advantage of drama is that it is truly unique: drama is a living actor performing a story in front of an audience in the theater. Drama has a live effect that other art forms do not have. As two American contemporary drama scholars said: "The deep and fundamental needs of human beings realized through drama between the audience and the performers cannot be met by big-screen movies or small-screen TVs in the living room. The current-like human emotional communication and emotional response between performers and audiences-including the infection of laughter in the face of comedy and the solemnity of solemn moments-can't be achieved by other media besides drama. " Pet-name ruby drama can realize the emotional communication between watching and performing, because the stories performed by drama involve the basic emotions and life contents of human beings such as hope, fear, pain and happiness. And these are by no means comparable to the sensory stimulation and entertainment projects in today's popular dance halls or even hotels and saunas. Drama not only gives people sensory entertainment, but also cultivates aesthetics, purifies the soul and even shocks it. The entertainment form represented by ballroom mainly provides sensory stimulation. The former is about the soul, while the latter only stimulates the senses. The former is art, which can cultivate temperament and expand people's spiritual space; The latter is the dwarfing of art and the way to eat, drink and be merry in time. Its vulgarity and emptiness will only corrode people's artistic taste. Therefore, drama and entertainment in dance halls cannot be compared, and the latter is even less likely to replace the former. Walking into the theater or walking into a nightclub can be two options that coexist. It is understandable that some people in the world pay attention to spiritual entertainment and some people pursue sensory stimulation. Even if there are karaoke bars and other entertainment venues crowded, there are fewer and fewer cars and horses at her door, which is not the normal state that society should have, let alone social progress. This can only show that there are problems in our society. Therefore, we should reform and develop in order to achieve social progress and all-round improvement of people. I am really surprised and puzzled if drama is dwarfed into just one of the entertainment forms such as dance halls that are still popular in towns today, and even think that drama is far less "practical" and "emotional" than the latter. It is surprising that the narrator is so biased towards drama, and it also makes people wonder whether there is something wrong with the narrator's taste. Otherwise, it is the arguer's posturing language.
Secondly, the actor's role in the theater is one of the fundamental reasons for the existence of drama, that is, "live performance of drama", which is the key factor that distinguishes drama from or is superior to comprehensive art styles such as film and television. It is in this sense that scholars call drama "living art". "The directness of life drama enables actors to detect the reaction of the audience and respond. On the contrary, no matter how talented film and television actors are, the media form itself freezes their performances and they cannot respond to the audience. " Film and television only provide the audience with images and pictures of people. "What we see on the screen is just the video of their performance. They have left themselves, and some have retired or even died. In short, in any case, they have left the performance itself. " Watching drama is based on the presence of actors, so the interaction and communication between watching and performing is unique to drama. Mr. Zhu Shoutong believes that "such factors actually exist outside the drama art itself". Therefore, he basically did not demonstrate how this unique advantage of drama art was lost. After putting forward this view, he turned the topic to the issue of star worship complex. In Zhu's view, the significance of drama to the audience lies in star worship. In other words, the audience watching the drama is only caused by the star worship complex. "However, in the era of three-dimensional media, the star worship complex cultivated through drama can be ignored compared with that cultivated through movies, especially TV media. Even for a long time, drama basically lost its effect on the audience. " Therefore, he concluded that the drama was coming to an end. There is an obvious misunderstanding here, that is, although star worship is a prominent phenomenon in the appreciation of drama, film and television, it is only a subsidiary phenomenon outside art after all, and it is obviously putting the cart before the horse to regard it as the basic function of drama, film and television art to the audience. As an ancient art style, drama is not produced by the audience's star worship complex, nor does it rely on the audience's star worship complex to survive. In fact, it is not all because of the so-called "star worship complex" that the audience enters the theater or cinema. Therefore, no matter how the phenomenon of movie star worship is getting worse, we can't come to the conclusion that drama has come to an end. In a sense, they have nothing to do with drama. Moreover, according to Mr. Zhu, the traditional way of accepting drama has changed in the 20th century, and the actor's function of "star worship" to the audience has weakened. However, the 20th century is still considered as "the most prosperous drama" by Mr. Zhu, and even called "the drama century". The contradiction between them is also obvious. In addition, in Mr. Zhu's view, because the "star worship" function of drama has been replaced by film and television, the audience does not need to enter the theater again. For the theater audience, "there is not much difference between sitting at home watching the drama channel or sitting in a deserted theater watching the live performance." Speaking of which, Mr. Zhu also forgot the source of the drama channel program on TV. How can there be a drama channel program without a theater performance?
Thirdly, the comprehensive characteristics of drama art, as Mr. Zhu said, "often give the audience a three-dimensional and all-round feeling", "the audience can not only appreciate the aesthetic taste of art, but also feel the stimulation of high technology." However, Mr. Zhu believes that in terms of comprehensiveness, the theater has been covered by "more wonderful ballroom decoration" and the advantages of drama have given way to the ballroom. As far as the application of scientific and technological means is concerned, drama is not as good as film and television art. Therefore, it is considered that the loss of the "comprehensive" advantage of drama is the third reason for its end. The comprehensiveness of drama art actually means that drama is a comprehensive art that combines the advantages and characteristics of literature, performance, music, art, dance, architecture and other art categories. Generally speaking, literature and stage are its two major elements. The former mainly refers to literary scripts and their creators and playwrights, who are the main providers and carriers of drama content, ideas and spirit. The latter includes performance, director, beauty of dance, music and other factors, stage presentation and the creation of stage image. Relatively speaking, the former determines the depth of the spiritual level of drama, while the latter is more related to the material level of drama. Drama is an organic combination of the two. The former is the premise and the main basis of theatrical stage creation, which often plays a decisive role in the success or failure of theatrical art, while the latter is the unique expression of its literariness as a stage image. However, there is often an imbalance between the two. A drama with strong literariness and weak stage performance is naturally not the best drama, while a drama without literariness, superficial thinking and mental atrophy is just a mediocre one even with a luxurious material shell and high-tech stage art and lighting design. The "ballroom decoration" that Mr. Zhu said is superior to the theater is actually only on the material level. There is no spirit here. Although the decoration of the ballroom may exceed that of the theater, it will only stimulate people's nerves, but it will not stimulate people's emotions, and it will not shake people's souls. Its so-called comprehensiveness is only the comprehensiveness of material shell packaging, which cannot be compared with the comprehensiveness of drama art. Therefore, dance halls cannot replace theaters, and the entertainment that "stimulates people's nerves" in dance halls will never be superior to the drama that gives people sensory pleasure and spiritual pleasure. On the other hand, the comprehensiveness of drama art means that drama is a developed and open art, which does not refuse to absorb the nutrients of any other artistic variety of human beings, including all new artistic styles younger than it, such as the forms and techniques of films, television and other media. When people talk about the influence of film and television on drama, they often ignore the appearance of new media such as film and television, which provides new forms and ways for the construction of drama itself and the spread of drama art every time. Therefore, the drama side should not blindly accuse the film and television of squeezing itself, but also thank the film and television for helping itself. Film and television and other new artistic varieties born in the highly developed era of science and technology not only bring challenges and competition to the ancient and unique dramatic artistic style, but also greatly enrich its means of expression, broaden its field of expression and update its artistic concept. Film and television have flourished for decades, but they have not replaced drama art because of the advanced scientific and technological means. On the contrary, "there may be more drama activities in the United States today than at any time since the film itself." Cloud [1] Drama and film and television, as different artistic styles, will inevitably change with the development of science and technology and the emergence of new artistic varieties. They coexist in contemporary times, reflecting the richness and diversity of contemporary social and cultural life and the diversity of artistic forms. Although the development of various art forms will be in crisis in a certain period, at least in contemporary times, they have no signs of ending.
In a word, drama, as a "living art", is different from all other art styles in that actors play roles in the theater and directly perform stories to the audience. Because of its unique attractive viewing relationship, live drama still maintains lasting vitality on the world drama stage. The unique advantages of drama have not been lost as Mr. Zhu Shoutong said "surrounded by many three-dimensional media". What's more, the birth and development of drama from today to the future also stems from the instinctive impulse of human beings to create drama. The present situation of drama in many countries in the world also proves that drama still maintains lasting charm and vitality. Therefore, it is a false proposition to declare that contemporary drama has come to an end, which is not convincing in theory and does not conform to the actual situation.
Third, the crisis and outlet of contemporary drama
The author denies the proposition that contemporary drama is coming to an end, but it does not mean that contemporary drama has no crisis. On the contrary, the author thinks that the discussion of "the end of contemporary drama and drama" initiated by Mr. Zhu Shoutong and others mainly reflects a valuable sense of crisis in a positive way. The crisis of contemporary drama has been a topic of discussion in the field of drama in recent 20 years. From1the debate on the concept of drama in the mid-1980s to the discussion on "the fate of contemporary drama" initiated by playwrights in recent years, from the slogan of "rebuilding China's drama" put forward by Mr. Luo Huaizhen to "the atrophy of the spirit of contemporary drama" pointed out by the playwright. [10] Although the views of various schools are different, they undoubtedly show a strong sense of crisis.
With the high development of science and technology, the popularization of new media forms such as film and television, and the arrival of the electronic age, drama is naturally facing unprecedented challenges and crises. But as mentioned above, the challenge and competition of new media forms will only change and enrich drama, not replace it. Although the challenge from the outside world has made the play face a crisis, it turns out that the play has not suffered from the bad luck that people have long predicted. The crisis of drama mainly comes from the drama itself. The concept of contemporary drama is narrow, the spirit of drama is shrinking, the literariness of drama is declining, the material level of drama is pursued unilaterally, the management system of drama is rigid, and the operation mechanism is defective. People of insight have discussed it, which is the main manifestation and reason of the crisis of contemporary drama, so I won't repeat it here. What I want to emphasize is that the neglect of drama genre from theory to practice in contemporary drama is also a big deficiency. Specifically, the key to the poverty of contemporary drama is that we have neither tragedy nor comedy, and the tragic spirit and comedy spirit of contemporary drama are seriously lost, which is also the crisis of drama.
So, how does contemporary drama get out of the crisis? How to realize the normal development of drama and maintain its unique artistic charm and vitality? The author believes that efforts should be made in the following three aspects at present:
First of all, evocation for drama. In my opinion, an actor plays a role in a theater and directly performs a story to the audience. This is the most fundamental feature, which is different from other artistic styles, and this has formed a * * * knowledge inside and outside the theater industry. Therefore, drama should make full use of the advantages of "living art" and show its charm. At present, this point has been highly valued by drama artists and has been put into practice. But relatively speaking, this advantage is only the external expression of drama art, that is, the "body" of drama. In order to realize the emotional communication and soul dialogue between the audience and let the audience get not only sensory pleasure, but also spiritual pleasure, we must rely on its true content and rich spiritual connotation, that is, the "soul" of the drama? Cave soul? It's snowing. In other words, drama should not only have a distinctive "style"? Smoked should also have a real and fresh "soul". In my opinion, tragic spirit and comic spirit are the soul of drama. The biggest defect of contemporary drama is the lack of thought and the atrophy of mind. Some dramas no longer pay more attention to "what to show", but only pay attention to "how to show" and are keen on exploring new things and seeking novelty. As a result, they are advanced in technology, weak in thinking, lively on the surface and mediocre in practice. There are also some dramas that devote themselves to the luxurious packaging of the material level of the stage, but give up the deep excavation of the spiritual connotation, resulting in the loss of enthusiasm, lethargy of the soul, no sadness or joy, and prosaic. These works can only meet the low-level needs of people in the material age, and are of no help to the promotion of human spirit and the dialogue between souls. As Kandinsky said when he criticized the soulless paintings in Russian painting circles in the early 20th century, "The audience looked at these works coldly and remained indifferent. The connoisseur praises the so-called' skill', just as the audience praises the acrobats who walk a tightrope; Appreciators appreciate the so-called' image quality', just like a person tasting a cake with relish. " "This kind of art can only artistically repeat what contemporaries have clearly understood. Therefore, it has no vitality, it is only the product of the times and cannot breed the future. This is a castrated art, it is short-lived, and once the environment that raised it changes, it immediately dies mentally. " [1 1] Therefore, it is imperative to summon the soul for the contemporary drama to get out of the crisis. At present, it is necessary to call for the tragic spirit to repair the freedom of human mind disturbed by the noise of the times and purify the soul. At the same time, we should hold high the spirit of comedy, attack our "century bad habits" with comedy, portray the "progressive society" with comedy, speak for the people with comedy, and safeguard the freedom and liberation of human hearts with comedy. The author believes that adhering to the "body" of drama is the foundation of developing drama, and finding the "soul" of drama is the urgent task of reviving drama. Only when the soul returns to drama can China's drama really get out of the crisis.
Second, solve the drama. China's plays have always assumed too many social functions other than art, but in the prevailing period of contemporary ultra-left ideological trend, plays have been highly politicized and alienated into tools of real politics. The management system and operation mechanism of contemporary drama have always maintained the rigid model in the era of planned economy and the period when political pragmatism and left-leaning dogmatism prevailed. All these violate the inherent law of the development of drama art and hinder the creation and innovation of drama. Therefore, in order to have new development and get out of the crisis, it is necessary to "reduce the burden" and be light. At the same time, it is more necessary to have a relaxed external environment and a more reasonable management system, so that it can embark on a benign operation road that conforms to the development law of drama art.
Third, cultivate seedlings for drama. Drama is the closest art to life, and it is also the most difficult art. Because of its comprehensiveness and complexity, drama is difficult for practitioners to learn and audiences to appreciate. Therefore, drama education is a century-long plan for the development of drama. It is necessary to train not only playwrights, directors, actors, directors and other drama artists, but also audiences. The weakness of drama education in contemporary China is obvious to all. In the field of basic education, drama education is almost blank. In higher education, there are only a handful of drama majors in professional drama colleges and comprehensive universities. This is not commensurate with the history and present situation of a great drama country. Therefore, in order to get out of the crisis and achieve sustained and healthy development, contemporary drama should start with drama education and basic education. Primary and secondary schools should offer drama appreciation courses and drama activities, and comprehensive universities should offer drama majors. Drama education is a comprehensive art education, which not only helps to cultivate new citizens' good humanistic quality and artistic quality, but also is the source of future drama development.
In a word, although contemporary drama is facing a crisis, it is not without its merits, and it has not come to an end. "Today's era is not yet the era of great drama, but it is a period of frequent creative and performance activities and fruitful results, and it is a period in which avant-garde experimental dramas and classic works are repeated." (14) I think it is generally appropriate to use these words written by two American scholars to evaluate the present situation of contemporary drama in China.