I do like listening to crosstalk, but I don’t know much about the performing arts, and I’ve not thought about them very deeply either. So in the first place, there was no need for me to choose this topic and write an essay about it.
Still, lately I’ve begun to feel that, however much of a philosopher one may be, one ought at least to cultivate a sufficient concern for problems—on any topic worth discussing, if you put in a certain amount of effort, you can immediately spin out a few opinions.
Since I’ve always hoped that friends would comment on the topics I discuss on my blog, even when those topics are unfamiliar to them, then with regard to their essays, even if I’m an outsider, I might as well say a few things. I’m determined to prove that I can talk about any topic at all~
Many people, including friends of mine, rather look down on Guo Degang—he became famous through media hype, and our tastes in appreciation are also “educated” by the media—“The media, for us, is actually a kind of ‘other-directed anonymous rule.’ The taste produced by the media is in fact the trace of cultural consumerism.” (ZW essay) I’m not clear what exactly “cultural consumerism” refers to; probably the problem is not that profound.
ZW has been to several live performances where he listened to Guo Degang’s crosstalk, and he does not appreciate it. Indeed, the crosstalk Guo Degang performs is not only non-mainstream in form, but also rather lowbrow in content—for example, it contains quite a bit of vulgar taste and even dirty jokes, and so on.
I think this hardly seems to be the main issue. Of course I don’t like such vulgar tastes. But I’ve also listened to two recordings of Guo Degang’s crosstalk, and perhaps I was lucky, because I still haven’t heard anything especially unbearable. Even if there are some obscene jokes, I suppose they should still be only flirting with the line. This certainly cannot be put on the grand stage, but what about the mainstream media today? In today’s most popular TV dramas, entertainment programs, and so forth, aren’t they likewise saturated with vulgarity?
Guo Degang never intended to “enter the grand stage” in the first place. In fact, crosstalk has never been on the same level as opera, ballet, or other high arts; it grew up outdoors and in teahouses from the outset, meant to be told to ordinary urban folk. Of course, crosstalk going onto the screen and onto the “Spring Festival Gala,” such grand stages, are all good things. But that does not mean crosstalk has really become some kind of high art. The positioning of crosstalk can never lose the word “vulgar.”
Ma Ji said that crosstalk can not only criticize and satirize, but also praise, and that is certainly true. However, the purpose of crosstalk is not praise. Not everything needs to be demanded to be so lofty. The most basic purpose of crosstalk is to “amuse,” and the most basic identity of the crosstalk performer is that of a “busker.” As for whether crosstalk may reveal social problems through satire, or praise what is beautiful, or pursue a higher artistic realm, and so on, these are all further aspirations. The prerequisite for being qualified to pursue such goals is to first do one’s basic duty well.
Chinese people often choose programs with a “theme first” requirement—first make sure the idea is positive and healthy, then design the program, and only after that consider adapting it to the audience’s tastes. This way of thinking is upside down. This is true not only of crosstalk, but of many other “programs” as well, such as animated films and so forth. People expect the “educational significance” borne by crosstalk, animated films, and other popular programs to be too heavy. Yet even if an animated film has a very “high” educational significance, if children don’t like watching it, how much of that significance can it actually bring into play? Children—including we young people—like watching Japanese anime, because those animated works all come from the masses; the starting point for drawing manga is one’s own creative passion. So, compared with Chinese deliberate creation, does Japanese animation lack “educational significance”? I don’t think so. Japanese anime does indeed contain many vulgar, low-grade, and even plenty of works unfit for children. However, among them, the excellent works—for example, Hayao Miyazaki’s animations—have, in my view, educational significance far deeper than any carefully designed Chinese educational animated film! The key is that Miyazaki’s animations are deeply beloved by the masses. But if there were no groundwork laid by those large numbers of crude, mocking, and mischievous works, then there would be no soil from which masters could emerge.
Chinese crosstalk, like Chinese animation, is also facing a “crisis.” But preserving Chinese animation can still be done through coercive means such as restricting the amount of imported animation broadcast by television stations! After all, children always like watching animation. If there are no Japanese animated films to choose from, then they will have no choice but to settle for Chinese animation. Crosstalk, however, is not so easy. If people no longer like listening to crosstalk, they can easily find some other program to pass the time with!
Guo Degang said, “If crosstalk is too heavy, then nobody will like listening to it,” and that makes sense. This does not mean that all crosstalk performers should develop in a vulgar direction and learn from Guo Degang. But we can think about whether Guo Degang, from the perspective of crosstalk’s development, actually has any positive significance.
I think there is absolutely no doubt that he does! Guo Degang advocates returning to teahouse theaters, returning to worldly life, and restoring crosstalk to its “freedom”; and regardless of how much rash or restless motivation there may have been in the media hype, the result was to make Guo Degang’s ideas widely known and to shake the mainstream crosstalk circle considerably. Perhaps Guo Degang’s methods and statements are too extreme. Yet when the mainstream is always content with the status quo, the kind of proposition that can land with force and draw sufficient attention often can only be expressed through an extremist. For example, when the modern mechanical view of nature and instrumental rationalism were sweeping the field, heterodox positions such as naturalism, mysticism, and romanticism often seemed as though they would fall into another extreme. We need not worry too much about whether they might “overcorrect.”
Of course, as a philosophy skilled at criticism, when the media and the public are all praising Guo Degang, one should also reflect on this phenomenon and expose the “restlessness” of the media and the public. However, if one looks only from the angle of “crosstalk,” then criticizing Guo Degang is not very meaningful. If one stands more from the standpoint of considering the development of crosstalk, then one should value Guo Degang, remember Guo Degang, and even more seriously reflect on what exactly has gone wrong with mainstream crosstalk.
Many other similar phenomena, such as Liu Xinwu and the study of the Dream of the Red Chamber, are the same. The restless mentality of the media and the public in joining the excitement and overhyping things certainly deserves criticism, but rather than criticizing the heterodox challenger, it is better first to seriously reflect on the problems of the mainstream.
March 26, 2006
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply