北藝大舞蹈學院於4月18日邀請泰國編舞家皮歇・克朗淳和驫舞劇場創始人陳武康，透過講座分享與交流，展開一場關乎「身體」、「傳統」和「當代」的探究旅程。

    來自臺灣的編舞家陳武康表示，自11歲開始在張秀如舞蹈教室習舞，在第一堂芭蕾基礎課體會到身心合一的感受，從此與芭蕾舞結緣。之後前往國外習舞，他開始思考以臺灣人的身分跳芭蕾舞的合法性，進而對文化上的「家」產生疑惑，直到遇到皮歇・克朗淳，開始有了轉變。

    來自泰國的皮歇・克朗淳高中主修物理，曾在一位泰國傳統舞蹈大師門下習舞。為體驗與鑽研科學時的教條式學習之不同氛圍，皮歇確實感受到自己和身體的連結，因此毅然選擇進入舞蹈學校。然而，僅僅高中三年的訓練導致他和周遭從小接觸舞蹈的同學有著顯著的差距，因此不得不開始思考未來發展方向，這也才意識到泰國傳統舞蹈潛在的問題。

    之後他接著就讀戲劇系，學習西方文本，接受和其他傳統舞者不同的訓練，再輾轉前往紐約生活。回國後，皮歇在第一個作品中取下箜舞的面具和服裝，加入現代舞的元素，大幅轉換了泰國傳統舞蹈的樣貌，此舉卻引發泰國群眾的憤怒。對於觀眾的反應，皮歇表示他非常清楚自己的意圖，並非一昧追尋潮流。

    座談中，提到「傳統」討論部分時，陳武康認為，臺灣的創作似乎經常強調「原創者」，或是某種程度上的「純」。他憶及和皮歇初識和合作的情景，陳武康說到，發現皮歇整個給人有種在家的自在感覺。「一個泰國人，拿著泰國護照，學泰國的傳統舞，一切都好像非常的純正；然而，在一起工作後，則發現到他仍有他的焦慮和不純，那我就釋懷了。」陳武康表示，西方的文化進入臺灣，有時幾乎無法辨別何謂正統。從小學習芭蕾、後練太極拳，陳武康認為，這就是身體的傳統，不會受限於自己的膚色和國界，也是他自己所定義的。

    回應傳統與當代的關係，皮歇認為西方、亞洲和東南亞看待傳統和當代的方式皆有所不同。舉例來說，西方的編舞史是從傳統演化為現代、後現代、直至當代；而東南亞卻是在全球化的浪潮中，從傳統驟然進入當代，缺乏了演變的過程。他並表示，西方也有自身的困境，特別是在過度專注於概念性的、當代性的創作，卻不再創造身體新的可能性。皮歇也提出一個疑問，若以現西方現代舞為例，很多技巧是從過去的傳統衍伸出來的，那麼我們的未來究竟要走向何方呢？

    座談會最後談及何謂「亞洲當代舞蹈」，皮歇認為，亞洲每個國家都有很強的認同，因此，他認為所謂的「亞洲當代舞蹈」，等同於可以取得所有商品的便利商店。

    泰國編舞家皮歇・克朗淳和驫舞劇場創始人陳武康兩位來自不同文化背景的編舞家，藉由不斷翻轉傳統，來尋求自我認同的座標，最後並以身體的記憶傳承，迎來不同文化融合和混種的可能。

 攝影 王世邦 文字 李尚喬 ＃亞洲當代舞蹈 ＃北藝大舞蹈學院 ＃泰國編舞家皮歇・克朗淳

The School of Dance arranged a talk by Thai choreographer Pichet Klunchun and HORSE founder Wu-kang Chen on April 18. Mr. Chen, from Taiwan, started learning ballet at the age of 11 and later also received dance training overseas. Later he started to question the legitimacy of a Taiwanese doing ballet dancing and then the concept of “home” in terms of culture – until he met Mr. Klunchun. Klunchu was once a student of a traditional Thai dance master, and in order to have a different learning environment that would allow him to feel a substantial link between he self and the body, he later enrolled in a dancing school. After three years, he could see the big differences. He started to think about his future and realize the problems with traditional Thai dance. He went on to study theatre, learning Western texts and receiving training different from that for traditional dancers. He later went to live in New York. When he returned to Thailand, Mr. Klunchun created a piece Khon dance without the traditional mask. He added modern elements into the dance, revolutionizing the look of the traditional Thai dance, but enraging the Thai audiences. Mr. Klunchun said he knew his own intentions clearly when creating the work, and he was not trying to be following the trends. As for tradition, Mr. Chen noted that Taiwan’s artists seem to place heavy emphasis on “originality” or a sense of “purity” when it comes to creativity. But he pointed out that the coming of Western culture to Taiwan sometimes makes it difficult to tell what “authenticity” is. He said that having learned ballet at a young age and taichi, he sees his own body as the “tradition” where national boundaries and skin colors do not matter. Mr. Klunchun pointed out different cultures see tradition in different ways. The West has arrived at the present moment after going through the traditional, the modern and the postmodern. Southeast Asia, in contrast, entered the present moment abruptly from the traditional without going through the modern and postmodern.