研
究
評
論
傳統與當代、在地與國際:東亞舞蹈文化的交會
Traditional and Contemporary, Local and Global: Exchange between Asian Dance Cultures
徐瑋瑩
WEI YING HSU
WEI YING HSU
七月的最後一周,蒂摩爾古薪舞集以舞團的人力與爭取到的資源,主辦了第二屆「Tjimur藝術生活節(地磨兒藝術生活節)」。為期四天的藝術節除了有多項排灣族手作文化體驗、移動劇場、市集、原住民美食、一起吃喝「唉撒撒」等活動,還有重點節目:舞蹈工作坊與三場集結台灣、印度雙邊的售票國際匯演。我們要如何觀看這樣一場遠在山上部落,發生在舞蹈排練室裡,且舞作實驗持續進行中的演出呢?
特地花長時間驅車前往部落,即使一場簡單的演出都帶來身心不同的體驗。進入山林、登高遠望,聽水聲鳥鳴,偶爾傳來陣陣山豬肉的香氣,再轉入狹小的斜坡巷弄,享受遠離車水馬龍的寧靜。觀演前的身心狀態迥然不同於進入熙熙攘攘的城市演藝廳。演出的在地環境影響了觀者身心樣態,同時也直接影響了觀演中的身心感受與演後印象。在觀者身心放鬆後,嚴厲尖銳的評論似乎都無法起作用,也似乎不再重要。地磨兒部落是舞台,整個藝術節成了一場大演出,台印匯演是其中的一部分。在有吃、有喝、有玩的環境下觀賞演出,體驗部落的教育意義大大勝過只是觀賞單場演出。特別是透過參與排灣當代身體工作坊與印度奧迪西(Odissi)身體工作坊的實作過程,更能深入掌握不同文化的身體肌理。
那麼,這場發生在山中部落、現代化舞蹈排練場的台印匯演,給我們怎樣的啟發?感動?
首先,這是一場台印雙方舞團仍持續實驗中的作品展演,英文稱work in progress,有半成品的意思。一般在如此狀態下的呈現,作品大多有如草稿,尚待拋光打磨或去蕪存菁。然而,這次的台印匯演卻有如一場已經打磨拋光完成的演出,甚至比起當代劇場常出現的實驗性作品,更加乾淨與完整。九首小品各自呈現完美的姿態,就此可見蒂摩爾古薪舞集對藝術標準的要求與堅持―不論在何地、以甚麼形式演出,都呈現最完整精緻的作品。
第二,展開東亞舞蹈文化交流的田野模式。晚近,台灣除了與西方舞蹈界頻繁交流外,也出現台灣與東亞國家日益緊密的交流與跨國共製作品。透過多年期的交流與共製節目,雙方舞團能較深度的認識彼此,並藉由一起工作的過程中,重新思索自己在地文化,開啟可能的未來。此次台印交流與匯演即是一例。蒂摩爾古薪舞集飛往印度與Kaishiki Nrityabhashau舞團一同工作;同時Kaishiki Nrityabhashau舞團也飛到地磨兒部落,進入部落、體驗文化,與蒂摩爾古薪舞集一同吃喝、參與收穫祭、共同排練。將舞蹈的創新立基在田野調查式的實踐過程,從體會宏觀的人文、地景,再進入舞蹈作品的實驗創作,以便能深入掌握舞蹈所在的文化脈絡而有創發的根基,是此次台印交流所共同秉持的精神。這個實作過程也體現在這次演出的小品中,特別是兩首由兩團舞者合演的小品。
第三,不同的身體文化如何共融?這個問題是雙方共製最關鍵的問題,也是舞蹈語彙在不同文化之間如何挪用、轉譯,解構與重構的問題。印度奧迪西與台灣排灣族舞蹈,雖然都屬東亞身體文化,但卻是兩種南轅北轍的身體運作方式。從工作坊與舞蹈小品的呈現,兩種不同的舞蹈可從幾個層面對照:一,奧迪西屬於表演性質的古典舞;而蒂摩爾古薪的舞蹈素材來自部落群體聯誼或儀式性的舞蹈。因此舞蹈的文化運用屬性不同;二,奧迪西多為舞者個人身體技法的展現或帶有故事情節的表現,上半身姿態與臉部表情是亮點。排灣傳統樂舞則是以歌入舞,隨歌唱呼吸節奏帶動身體律動。在雙手交疊牽手的大圓圈群體中,主要以腳步的踩踏為主。因此,奧迪西將觀眾的焦點拉往舞者臉部表情與上半身姿態,排灣傳統樂舞則是藉由腿部的踩踏帶動全身的律動。兩種舞蹈的身體運作方式非常不同;三,奧迪西的雙腿踩踏地面有強弱節奏,用力踩踏的強節奏特別亮眼。排灣傳統樂舞的踩踏方式則相對溫柔。因此,兩舞種踩踏地面與對待土地的腳步方式不同,而這也影響到身體重心的使用;四,就我的工作坊實作經驗,舞奧迪西時下半身要十分沉穩有力,上半身也得控制得宜,才能呈現優雅的古典美。而排灣傳統樂舞的舞動過程,在群舞的結構作用力下,個人腳步的踩踏讓位給群體的強制力。個人的表現並不那麼重要,跟上群體維持隊伍才是關鍵。同時,身體的前後舞動靠的是呼吸與手臂前後擺動的力道,這使得跳躍動作省力許多。
那麼,兩種截然不同的舞種交流相撞之下,彼此如何融通?在此涉及到的不只是上述的身體語彙差異性的問題,還關涉到編舞者開啟國際交流的理想與編創習慣的問題。九首小品其中的兩首分別由兩團的編舞者(Daksha Mashruwala和巴魯·瑪迪霖)創作給兩地舞者同台共舞。這兩首小品展現非常不同的編創風格。
Daksha Mashruwala關懷的是如何透過國際交流豐富奧迪西舞蹈的編創。在《原點》這首小品,台灣舞者學習奧迪西的動作與印度舞者們共舞。顯然,一個舞種的身體養成是長時間經過潛移默化的成果,台灣舞者雖然外型動作都有模有樣,甚至與印度舞者不相上下,但是舞蹈的味道卻難以在短時間內把握,特別是印度舞者舞動時體現出「自然」的動作意涵與情感。這很難在短時間內被不同文化的舞者精熟與體認。然而台灣舞者身體的靈活性,具快速接受不同舞種的敏捷度,也在此一覽無遺。台灣舞者雖然對奧迪西舞動的深沉情感尚未把握,但是身體外型與節奏拿捏都與印度舞者不相上下。
巴魯•瑪迪霖的編創思維則著墨於從傳統中創新,作品《XVII》以七拍為基底節奏編創,呼應台印七位舞者同台共舞。巴魯的創作留給舞者較大的自由度來展現自己的身體文化,七位舞者身著當代化的日常印度服,從面向觀眾整齊一致的手部數拍姿勢開始,相對於《原點》吸引我的是舞者散發出個人靈動內斂的舞動神態,《XVII》的外放式動作精力是作品特色,而其中又穿插整體秩序與個人自由發揮的反差。《XVII》有整齊一致的嚴謹動作,也有個人展現自我風格的機會,舞作在空間與力道的使用對比張力大,這也呈顯了傳統文化講求集體、秩序,與當代藝術追求個人、解放的拉鋸與對話。從排灣群體共舞的秩序性與群體性,到當代舞蹈劇場講求的個殊性與創意性,我似乎能在巴魯舞作結構中撇見兩極化的張力,這個張力(或對自我文化中的矛盾情感)也是巴魯舞作之所以「戲劇化」而吸引人之處。
一個在地(部落)的舞團能貢獻社會甚麼?能為自己創造怎樣的機會?蒂摩爾古薪舞集為我們作了一個示範。透過舞團的力量策劃活動、爭取資源舉辦「地磨兒藝術生活節」,結合部落文化與手作、美食,邀請東亞舞團駐地體驗與工作,安排工作坊與演出呈現,我確實看到有遠從南部城市驅車前來體驗與學習的一般民眾。目前台灣各地接連舉辦文化藝術季,或許不久的將來我們也可以見到有深度、有溫度、有情感,且精緻化的國際文化藝術季在地磨兒部落舉行,朝著「#我部落 #我國際」的具體理想一步步實現。
特地花長時間驅車前往部落,即使一場簡單的演出都帶來身心不同的體驗。進入山林、登高遠望,聽水聲鳥鳴,偶爾傳來陣陣山豬肉的香氣,再轉入狹小的斜坡巷弄,享受遠離車水馬龍的寧靜。觀演前的身心狀態迥然不同於進入熙熙攘攘的城市演藝廳。演出的在地環境影響了觀者身心樣態,同時也直接影響了觀演中的身心感受與演後印象。在觀者身心放鬆後,嚴厲尖銳的評論似乎都無法起作用,也似乎不再重要。地磨兒部落是舞台,整個藝術節成了一場大演出,台印匯演是其中的一部分。在有吃、有喝、有玩的環境下觀賞演出,體驗部落的教育意義大大勝過只是觀賞單場演出。特別是透過參與排灣當代身體工作坊與印度奧迪西(Odissi)身體工作坊的實作過程,更能深入掌握不同文化的身體肌理。
那麼,這場發生在山中部落、現代化舞蹈排練場的台印匯演,給我們怎樣的啟發?感動?
首先,這是一場台印雙方舞團仍持續實驗中的作品展演,英文稱work in progress,有半成品的意思。一般在如此狀態下的呈現,作品大多有如草稿,尚待拋光打磨或去蕪存菁。然而,這次的台印匯演卻有如一場已經打磨拋光完成的演出,甚至比起當代劇場常出現的實驗性作品,更加乾淨與完整。九首小品各自呈現完美的姿態,就此可見蒂摩爾古薪舞集對藝術標準的要求與堅持―不論在何地、以甚麼形式演出,都呈現最完整精緻的作品。
第二,展開東亞舞蹈文化交流的田野模式。晚近,台灣除了與西方舞蹈界頻繁交流外,也出現台灣與東亞國家日益緊密的交流與跨國共製作品。透過多年期的交流與共製節目,雙方舞團能較深度的認識彼此,並藉由一起工作的過程中,重新思索自己在地文化,開啟可能的未來。此次台印交流與匯演即是一例。蒂摩爾古薪舞集飛往印度與Kaishiki Nrityabhashau舞團一同工作;同時Kaishiki Nrityabhashau舞團也飛到地磨兒部落,進入部落、體驗文化,與蒂摩爾古薪舞集一同吃喝、參與收穫祭、共同排練。將舞蹈的創新立基在田野調查式的實踐過程,從體會宏觀的人文、地景,再進入舞蹈作品的實驗創作,以便能深入掌握舞蹈所在的文化脈絡而有創發的根基,是此次台印交流所共同秉持的精神。這個實作過程也體現在這次演出的小品中,特別是兩首由兩團舞者合演的小品。
第三,不同的身體文化如何共融?這個問題是雙方共製最關鍵的問題,也是舞蹈語彙在不同文化之間如何挪用、轉譯,解構與重構的問題。印度奧迪西與台灣排灣族舞蹈,雖然都屬東亞身體文化,但卻是兩種南轅北轍的身體運作方式。從工作坊與舞蹈小品的呈現,兩種不同的舞蹈可從幾個層面對照:一,奧迪西屬於表演性質的古典舞;而蒂摩爾古薪的舞蹈素材來自部落群體聯誼或儀式性的舞蹈。因此舞蹈的文化運用屬性不同;二,奧迪西多為舞者個人身體技法的展現或帶有故事情節的表現,上半身姿態與臉部表情是亮點。排灣傳統樂舞則是以歌入舞,隨歌唱呼吸節奏帶動身體律動。在雙手交疊牽手的大圓圈群體中,主要以腳步的踩踏為主。因此,奧迪西將觀眾的焦點拉往舞者臉部表情與上半身姿態,排灣傳統樂舞則是藉由腿部的踩踏帶動全身的律動。兩種舞蹈的身體運作方式非常不同;三,奧迪西的雙腿踩踏地面有強弱節奏,用力踩踏的強節奏特別亮眼。排灣傳統樂舞的踩踏方式則相對溫柔。因此,兩舞種踩踏地面與對待土地的腳步方式不同,而這也影響到身體重心的使用;四,就我的工作坊實作經驗,舞奧迪西時下半身要十分沉穩有力,上半身也得控制得宜,才能呈現優雅的古典美。而排灣傳統樂舞的舞動過程,在群舞的結構作用力下,個人腳步的踩踏讓位給群體的強制力。個人的表現並不那麼重要,跟上群體維持隊伍才是關鍵。同時,身體的前後舞動靠的是呼吸與手臂前後擺動的力道,這使得跳躍動作省力許多。
那麼,兩種截然不同的舞種交流相撞之下,彼此如何融通?在此涉及到的不只是上述的身體語彙差異性的問題,還關涉到編舞者開啟國際交流的理想與編創習慣的問題。九首小品其中的兩首分別由兩團的編舞者(Daksha Mashruwala和巴魯·瑪迪霖)創作給兩地舞者同台共舞。這兩首小品展現非常不同的編創風格。
Daksha Mashruwala關懷的是如何透過國際交流豐富奧迪西舞蹈的編創。在《原點》這首小品,台灣舞者學習奧迪西的動作與印度舞者們共舞。顯然,一個舞種的身體養成是長時間經過潛移默化的成果,台灣舞者雖然外型動作都有模有樣,甚至與印度舞者不相上下,但是舞蹈的味道卻難以在短時間內把握,特別是印度舞者舞動時體現出「自然」的動作意涵與情感。這很難在短時間內被不同文化的舞者精熟與體認。然而台灣舞者身體的靈活性,具快速接受不同舞種的敏捷度,也在此一覽無遺。台灣舞者雖然對奧迪西舞動的深沉情感尚未把握,但是身體外型與節奏拿捏都與印度舞者不相上下。
巴魯•瑪迪霖的編創思維則著墨於從傳統中創新,作品《XVII》以七拍為基底節奏編創,呼應台印七位舞者同台共舞。巴魯的創作留給舞者較大的自由度來展現自己的身體文化,七位舞者身著當代化的日常印度服,從面向觀眾整齊一致的手部數拍姿勢開始,相對於《原點》吸引我的是舞者散發出個人靈動內斂的舞動神態,《XVII》的外放式動作精力是作品特色,而其中又穿插整體秩序與個人自由發揮的反差。《XVII》有整齊一致的嚴謹動作,也有個人展現自我風格的機會,舞作在空間與力道的使用對比張力大,這也呈顯了傳統文化講求集體、秩序,與當代藝術追求個人、解放的拉鋸與對話。從排灣群體共舞的秩序性與群體性,到當代舞蹈劇場講求的個殊性與創意性,我似乎能在巴魯舞作結構中撇見兩極化的張力,這個張力(或對自我文化中的矛盾情感)也是巴魯舞作之所以「戲劇化」而吸引人之處。
一個在地(部落)的舞團能貢獻社會甚麼?能為自己創造怎樣的機會?蒂摩爾古薪舞集為我們作了一個示範。透過舞團的力量策劃活動、爭取資源舉辦「地磨兒藝術生活節」,結合部落文化與手作、美食,邀請東亞舞團駐地體驗與工作,安排工作坊與演出呈現,我確實看到有遠從南部城市驅車前來體驗與學習的一般民眾。目前台灣各地接連舉辦文化藝術季,或許不久的將來我們也可以見到有深度、有溫度、有情感,且精緻化的國際文化藝術季在地磨兒部落舉行,朝著「#我部落 #我國際」的具體理想一步步實現。
In the last week of July, Tjimur Dance Theatre hosted the second “Tjimur Arts Festival”, a self-funded event. In addition to a number of Paiwan handicraft workshops, moving theatres, markets, indigenous cuisine and “ai~sa sa” (a food and drink savouring activity), the four-day festival also featured two key programmes: dance workshops and three ticket-selling performances produced under the collaboration between Taiwan and India. How do we view such an on-going dance experiment which took place in a rehearsal studio in a distant mountain tribe?
The author of this article took time to reach the tribe by car. Despite the simplicity of the presentation, it provided a whole new experience for the body and mind. Once deep in the mountain woods, the view from hilltops, the chirping birds as well as the singing creeks, together with the aroma of roasted boar from afar, all contributed to the tranquility that one cannot possibly experience in the concert halls located in bustling cities. The surrounding environments of the performance contribute to the physical and mental state of the viewer, which also directly influence one’s viewing experience and post-performance impressions. Once the viewer’s body and mind are able to relax, any harsh comments seem to be ineffective and of no importance. Tjimur Tribe has become the stage, and the art festival is a performance itself, in which the collaborative performances between Taiwanese and Indian dancers played a vital part. Participants of this festival were given the opportunity to enjoy performances with food, drinks and hands-on activities, which largely increased the educational purpose of the festival. The Body Workshop, in which participants experienced Taiwan’s Paiwan and India’s Odissi dance, enabled them to have a better grasp of how the two cultures use the body differently.
So, how has this Taiwan-India collaboration that took place in a modernised rehearsal studio in the mountain tribe inspired and moved us?
First of all, this is a collaborative work which both dance companies are continuing to experiment with. It is referred to as “work in progress” in English, which means semi-finished products. The majority of the works presented this way are like drafts, which still need to be refined. However, this collaborative performance is like a well-polished piece of sculpture, which appears to be more defined and completed than most experimental works presented in contemporary theatres. Each of the nine pieces stood on their own perfectly, an epitome of the artistic standards which Tjimur Dance Theatre has set: no matter where and how a work is presented, it has to be presented in its most complete and refined entity.
Second, the festival has unfolded the model of fieldwork of dance exchange in Asia. In recent years, in addition to frequent exchange with Western dance communities, Taiwan has also been increasingly in close contact with Asian countries and launched transnational collaborations. Through years of international exchange and programme co-production, dance companies are enabled to know one another on a deeper level; meanwhile, in the process of working together, they are led to contemplate on their own culture, opening up future possibilities. This Taiwan-India collaboration is one example. Tjimur Dance Theatre has flown to India to work with Kaishiki Nrityabhasha Dance Institute; Kaishiki Nrityabhasha also flew to Taiwan, lived in the tribe, experienced culture, ate and drank with Tjimur members, participated in the harvest festival as well as rehearsals, which established dance innovation by means of field studies. From experiencing macroscopic humanities and landscapes to the experimental creation of dance works, they grasped the cultural context of dance, lying the foundation for creative development. This is the collective belief of this Taiwan-India exchange. This creative practice is also reflected in the dance works, especially the two pieces co-performed by both dance troupes.
Thirdly, how do different body cultures blend together? This is the most critical issue for the joint production of the two groups, and it is also a question of how dance vocabulary is diverted, interpreted, deconstructed and reconstructed among different cultures. Though both could be classified under Asian body culture, India’s Odissi and Taiwan’s Paiwan dance use the body in complete different ways. We can compare these two dance genres from several aspects that could be observed in the workshops and performances. To begin with, Odissi is a performative classical dance style, whereas the choreographic materials of Tjimur are taken mostly from tribal dances found in social gatherings or rituals; there is a cultural difference as to how and why these two dances are performed. Next, Odissi dance focuses on the articulation of the dancers’ physical techniques or the narration of the storyline; the postures of the upper body and facial expressions are highlights. On the other hand, in the tradition of Paiwan music and dance culture, dance is incorporated into music, and dancers move to the singing rhythm accordingly. Since dancers are supposed to hold hands to form a big circle, the movements are largely focused on the steps. Hence, Odissi dance brings the audience’s focus to the dancers' facial expressions and upper body postures, while traditional Paiwan dance initiates the rhythm of the entire body with the stepping of feet. The dancing body functions very differently in these two dance styles. Third, in Odissi dance, the stepping of the feet on the ground vary in strength, and the strong rhythm of stomping is particularly eye-catching. The manner of stepping in Paiwan traditional dance is relatively gentle. As can be seen, the two dance styles vary in their rhythm and strength of stepping, which also affects how the body finds its centre of gravity. Lastly, as far as my experience in the workshop is concerned, to perform Odissi dance, the lower body should remain calm and powerful, and the upper body must be well controlled to present elegant classical beauty. In the dance process of the traditional music and dance of Paiwan, under the structural force of the group dance, the individual stepping gives way to the group’s collective force. Individual performance is not that important; keeping up with the group is the key. Meanwhile, the moving of the body relies on breathing and the swaying of the arms, which makes jumping movements much less laborious.
We might then ask how do these two drastically different kinds of dance fuse and mingle? This is not only the question of the fore-mentioned differences in body languages, but also the question of the ideals and choreographic habits of choreographers when it comes to opening up international exchanges. Two of the nine dance works were co-created by the choreographers of both groups, Daksha Mashruwala and Baru Madiljin, for their dancers to perform together. These two pieces demonstrated very different creative styles.
Daksha Mashruwala is concerned with how to enrich the creation of Odissi dance through international exchanges. For the presentation of “Original Point”, Taiwanese dancers learned Odissi dance movements and performed with Indian dancers. It goes without saying that the body development of a dancer is a result of long-term cultivation. Despite that Taiwanese dancers were able to demonstrate forms and movements no lesser than Indian dancers, it was difficult for Taiwanese dancers to grasp the essence of the dance in a short time. In particular, Indian dancers conveyed “natural” movements and emotions when they danced, which are not easy for dancers of a different culture to master and exemplify in a short time. However, the physical mobility of Taiwanese dancers and their agility of learning a different dance style were also evident. Although Taiwanese dancers had not yet mastered the deep emotional expressivity of Odissi dance, they were able to demonstrate body shapes and rhythmic contents just as well as Indian dancers.
Baru Madiljin’s creative thinking, on the other hand, focused on finding innovation in tradition. His work “XVII” was choreographed with the pattern of seven-count beat, echoing the seven dancers from Taiwan and India who danced together. Baru’s creation left the dancers with a greater degree of freedom to express their own body cultures. Dressed in contemporary everyday Indian clothes, the seven dancers began the performance with well-synchronised hand-counting gestures facing the audience. For me, what was fascinating in the “Original Point” is the dancers’ vivid but implicit expressivity, while the radiating energy of the movements is the characteristic of “XVII”, in which the overall order and individual dancers’ free expressions contrasted each other. Synchronised and rigorous movements could be observed in “XVII” , and dancers were also given the opportunity to express their personal style. The contrast is significant in terms of the use of space and energy. These differences show that traditional cultures pay more attention to collectivity and order, whereas individualism and liberation are emphasised in contemporary art forms. From the collectivity and order of Paiwan dance to the uniqueness and creativity sought after by contemporary dance theatres, I felt I could get a glimpse of the polarised tension in the structures of Baru's choreography, and this tension (which could be interpreted as contradictory emotions in one's own culture) contributed to the “theatricality” of Baru Madiljin’s works.
What can a local (tribal) dance group contribute to society? What opportunities can it create for itself? Tjimur Dance Theatre has set an example for us by planning activities on its own and looking for resources to host the Tjimur Arts Festival, which combined tribal culture, handicrafts and cuisine. In addition to inviting another Asian dance troupe to work on site and experience local culture, they organised workshops and performances which attracted festival goers from the far south. At present, cultural and art festivals are booming one after another in various places in Taiwan. Perhaps in the near future, we can expect a sophisticated international cultural and art festival with depth, warmth and emotion to be held in Tjimur Tribe, realising the concrete goal of "#ITribal #IGlobal" step by step.
The author of this article took time to reach the tribe by car. Despite the simplicity of the presentation, it provided a whole new experience for the body and mind. Once deep in the mountain woods, the view from hilltops, the chirping birds as well as the singing creeks, together with the aroma of roasted boar from afar, all contributed to the tranquility that one cannot possibly experience in the concert halls located in bustling cities. The surrounding environments of the performance contribute to the physical and mental state of the viewer, which also directly influence one’s viewing experience and post-performance impressions. Once the viewer’s body and mind are able to relax, any harsh comments seem to be ineffective and of no importance. Tjimur Tribe has become the stage, and the art festival is a performance itself, in which the collaborative performances between Taiwanese and Indian dancers played a vital part. Participants of this festival were given the opportunity to enjoy performances with food, drinks and hands-on activities, which largely increased the educational purpose of the festival. The Body Workshop, in which participants experienced Taiwan’s Paiwan and India’s Odissi dance, enabled them to have a better grasp of how the two cultures use the body differently.
So, how has this Taiwan-India collaboration that took place in a modernised rehearsal studio in the mountain tribe inspired and moved us?
First of all, this is a collaborative work which both dance companies are continuing to experiment with. It is referred to as “work in progress” in English, which means semi-finished products. The majority of the works presented this way are like drafts, which still need to be refined. However, this collaborative performance is like a well-polished piece of sculpture, which appears to be more defined and completed than most experimental works presented in contemporary theatres. Each of the nine pieces stood on their own perfectly, an epitome of the artistic standards which Tjimur Dance Theatre has set: no matter where and how a work is presented, it has to be presented in its most complete and refined entity.
Second, the festival has unfolded the model of fieldwork of dance exchange in Asia. In recent years, in addition to frequent exchange with Western dance communities, Taiwan has also been increasingly in close contact with Asian countries and launched transnational collaborations. Through years of international exchange and programme co-production, dance companies are enabled to know one another on a deeper level; meanwhile, in the process of working together, they are led to contemplate on their own culture, opening up future possibilities. This Taiwan-India collaboration is one example. Tjimur Dance Theatre has flown to India to work with Kaishiki Nrityabhasha Dance Institute; Kaishiki Nrityabhasha also flew to Taiwan, lived in the tribe, experienced culture, ate and drank with Tjimur members, participated in the harvest festival as well as rehearsals, which established dance innovation by means of field studies. From experiencing macroscopic humanities and landscapes to the experimental creation of dance works, they grasped the cultural context of dance, lying the foundation for creative development. This is the collective belief of this Taiwan-India exchange. This creative practice is also reflected in the dance works, especially the two pieces co-performed by both dance troupes.
Thirdly, how do different body cultures blend together? This is the most critical issue for the joint production of the two groups, and it is also a question of how dance vocabulary is diverted, interpreted, deconstructed and reconstructed among different cultures. Though both could be classified under Asian body culture, India’s Odissi and Taiwan’s Paiwan dance use the body in complete different ways. We can compare these two dance genres from several aspects that could be observed in the workshops and performances. To begin with, Odissi is a performative classical dance style, whereas the choreographic materials of Tjimur are taken mostly from tribal dances found in social gatherings or rituals; there is a cultural difference as to how and why these two dances are performed. Next, Odissi dance focuses on the articulation of the dancers’ physical techniques or the narration of the storyline; the postures of the upper body and facial expressions are highlights. On the other hand, in the tradition of Paiwan music and dance culture, dance is incorporated into music, and dancers move to the singing rhythm accordingly. Since dancers are supposed to hold hands to form a big circle, the movements are largely focused on the steps. Hence, Odissi dance brings the audience’s focus to the dancers' facial expressions and upper body postures, while traditional Paiwan dance initiates the rhythm of the entire body with the stepping of feet. The dancing body functions very differently in these two dance styles. Third, in Odissi dance, the stepping of the feet on the ground vary in strength, and the strong rhythm of stomping is particularly eye-catching. The manner of stepping in Paiwan traditional dance is relatively gentle. As can be seen, the two dance styles vary in their rhythm and strength of stepping, which also affects how the body finds its centre of gravity. Lastly, as far as my experience in the workshop is concerned, to perform Odissi dance, the lower body should remain calm and powerful, and the upper body must be well controlled to present elegant classical beauty. In the dance process of the traditional music and dance of Paiwan, under the structural force of the group dance, the individual stepping gives way to the group’s collective force. Individual performance is not that important; keeping up with the group is the key. Meanwhile, the moving of the body relies on breathing and the swaying of the arms, which makes jumping movements much less laborious.
We might then ask how do these two drastically different kinds of dance fuse and mingle? This is not only the question of the fore-mentioned differences in body languages, but also the question of the ideals and choreographic habits of choreographers when it comes to opening up international exchanges. Two of the nine dance works were co-created by the choreographers of both groups, Daksha Mashruwala and Baru Madiljin, for their dancers to perform together. These two pieces demonstrated very different creative styles.
Daksha Mashruwala is concerned with how to enrich the creation of Odissi dance through international exchanges. For the presentation of “Original Point”, Taiwanese dancers learned Odissi dance movements and performed with Indian dancers. It goes without saying that the body development of a dancer is a result of long-term cultivation. Despite that Taiwanese dancers were able to demonstrate forms and movements no lesser than Indian dancers, it was difficult for Taiwanese dancers to grasp the essence of the dance in a short time. In particular, Indian dancers conveyed “natural” movements and emotions when they danced, which are not easy for dancers of a different culture to master and exemplify in a short time. However, the physical mobility of Taiwanese dancers and their agility of learning a different dance style were also evident. Although Taiwanese dancers had not yet mastered the deep emotional expressivity of Odissi dance, they were able to demonstrate body shapes and rhythmic contents just as well as Indian dancers.
Baru Madiljin’s creative thinking, on the other hand, focused on finding innovation in tradition. His work “XVII” was choreographed with the pattern of seven-count beat, echoing the seven dancers from Taiwan and India who danced together. Baru’s creation left the dancers with a greater degree of freedom to express their own body cultures. Dressed in contemporary everyday Indian clothes, the seven dancers began the performance with well-synchronised hand-counting gestures facing the audience. For me, what was fascinating in the “Original Point” is the dancers’ vivid but implicit expressivity, while the radiating energy of the movements is the characteristic of “XVII”, in which the overall order and individual dancers’ free expressions contrasted each other. Synchronised and rigorous movements could be observed in “XVII” , and dancers were also given the opportunity to express their personal style. The contrast is significant in terms of the use of space and energy. These differences show that traditional cultures pay more attention to collectivity and order, whereas individualism and liberation are emphasised in contemporary art forms. From the collectivity and order of Paiwan dance to the uniqueness and creativity sought after by contemporary dance theatres, I felt I could get a glimpse of the polarised tension in the structures of Baru's choreography, and this tension (which could be interpreted as contradictory emotions in one's own culture) contributed to the “theatricality” of Baru Madiljin’s works.
What can a local (tribal) dance group contribute to society? What opportunities can it create for itself? Tjimur Dance Theatre has set an example for us by planning activities on its own and looking for resources to host the Tjimur Arts Festival, which combined tribal culture, handicrafts and cuisine. In addition to inviting another Asian dance troupe to work on site and experience local culture, they organised workshops and performances which attracted festival goers from the far south. At present, cultural and art festivals are booming one after another in various places in Taiwan. Perhaps in the near future, we can expect a sophisticated international cultural and art festival with depth, warmth and emotion to be held in Tjimur Tribe, realising the concrete goal of "#ITribal #IGlobal" step by step.