论文部分内容阅读
今天,谁也不否认戏曲必须改革,谁也不反对戏曲“推陈出新”。但对于如何改革,如何“推陈出新”,却往往仁者见仁,智者见智,主张“移步不换形”者有之,坚持“移步必须换形”者亦有之;有人认为“×剧必须姓×”,有人反其道而行之,主张“×剧不必姓×”;有的倡议戏曲“非戏曲化”,有的则针锋相对,以为万万不可……这些见解尽管大相径庭,基本上却都是艺术家与理论家的主观认识。我认为衡量一种经过改革的戏曲艺术的得失成败,有一个不以人们的意志为转移的、比较客观的标准:
Today, no one denies that the opera must be reformed, and no one opposes the drama “innovation.” But how to “reform” and how to “promote innovation”, but often benevolent see the benevolent, the wise see the wisdom, advocating “no change”, insisted that “the move must be changed” who also have it; some people think that “ × ”Some people do the opposite, advocating“ × drama without surname × ”; some advocacy drama“ non-dramatization ”, while others tit for tat, that must never be ... ... despite these divergent views, but basically Is a subjective understanding of artists and theorists. I think the success or failure of weighing a kind of reformed opera art has an objective standard that is not shifted by people’s will: