Cultural production under Mao, and how artists and thinkers found autonomy in a culture of conformity
In the 1950s, a French journalist joked that the Chinese were “blue ants under the red flag,” dressing identically and even moving in concert like robots. When the Cultural Revolution officially began, this uniformity seemed to extend to the mind. From the outside, China had become a monotonous world, a place of endless repetition and imitation, but a closer look reveals a range of cultural experiences, which also provided individuals with an obscure sense of freedom.
In The Art of Cloning, Pang Laikwan examines this period in Chinese history when ordinary citizens read widely, traveled extensively through the country, and engaged in a range of cultural and artistic activities. The freedom they experienced, argues Pang, differs from the freedom, under Western capitalism, to express individuality through a range of consumer products. But it was far from boring and was possessed of its own kind of diversity.
Reviews
“A thoughtful contribution to the writing of a new and nuanced cultural history of the Cultural Revolution. Pang’s work brings a fresh optic to the question of how Chinese people lived, felt and made art in a fraught age of revolution.”
– Andrew Jones, author of Yellow Music: Media Culture and Colonial Modernity in the Chinese Jazz Age
“Pang Laikwan’s meticulous research draws the reader into a world in which this art of copying, of making models and of typifications framed the cultural and political realm and then spread across the social landscape to fashion life itself. Offering new and exciting insights based upon impeccable research, this is one book about the Cultural Revolution that should not be missed.”
– Michael Dutton, coauthor of Beijing Time
“A major intervention into a fraught field. Luminously opening new and old channels of inquiry, Pang forces a reconsideration of the processes and politics of cultural production in China’s Cultural Revolutionary decade.”
– Rebecca Karl, author of Mao Zedong and China in the Twentieth-Century World: A Concise History
0 有用 对方 2019-09-20 01:52:57
彭是个艺术感觉很好的人,样板戏那章很好。看到一点文革的肉,但似乎通过学术写作去捕捉这种复杂太困难了。样板 / 模范;苏联和中国截然不同的“社会主义现实主义”来源;
12 有用 沵 2018-07-17 15:17:27
中文版被禁 意味著否定今天和過去的任何聯繫 文革表面極之同質 但也仍有足夠的空間讓個體去表現自己的特殊性格 而所謂的個體性又非常相似 個體性和集體性之間的微妙辯證是引人好奇的地方
0 有用 L 2021-10-29 03:13:48
延续《哈哈镜》的思路,还是强调人的能动性,和意识形态的关系并非被动的内化,而是社会模仿的过程,在表演意底牢结的过程中形成自我并生产(一个并非完全整齐划一的)集体文化。历史论述中有许多受益匪浅的部分,比如对毛氏浪漫主义的辨析、模范到样板的转变(how the regime如何逐渐发现虚构性比现实更为可靠);复制也并非仅仅发生在抽象的个体和意底牢结之间,个体身份、媒介、声画各自的特性、国际交流等因素都... 延续《哈哈镜》的思路,还是强调人的能动性,和意识形态的关系并非被动的内化,而是社会模仿的过程,在表演意底牢结的过程中形成自我并生产(一个并非完全整齐划一的)集体文化。历史论述中有许多受益匪浅的部分,比如对毛氏浪漫主义的辨析、模范到样板的转变(how the regime如何逐渐发现虚构性比现实更为可靠);复制也并非仅仅发生在抽象的个体和意底牢结之间,个体身份、媒介、声画各自的特性、国际交流等因素都会限制复制发生的方式和结果。有些疑惑的是:是否应该让理论框架中的“文化”和(其实是几乎同时期的)CCP 的文化理论有一个直接的对话,否则虽然否定了资本主义生产关系下产生的对主体性的定义,又似乎默许了同样来自对这套生产关系的批判而产生的关于“文化”及其autonomy and agency的理论。 (展开)
8 有用 練る 2020-04-11 22:38:19
借标中译版。作者认为文革的根本悖论在于它既要求个体将自我塑造为革命的主体,又妄图将个体统摄在威权意志下,于是社会的泛政治化同个体的去政治化悖谬地并存。在这悖论的裂口,作者试图考掘文化和艺术生产的异域,寻找个人和集体不为官方所传唤的审美飞地。这可以说是文革的另面,但作者似乎也想将其理解为文化革命的本意。材料和理论穿插的节奏很明快,行文/译笔也很干净。在序言中,作者说“面对这样暴烈的历史,我只想写一本... 借标中译版。作者认为文革的根本悖论在于它既要求个体将自我塑造为革命的主体,又妄图将个体统摄在威权意志下,于是社会的泛政治化同个体的去政治化悖谬地并存。在这悖论的裂口,作者试图考掘文化和艺术生产的异域,寻找个人和集体不为官方所传唤的审美飞地。这可以说是文革的另面,但作者似乎也想将其理解为文化革命的本意。材料和理论穿插的节奏很明快,行文/译笔也很干净。在序言中,作者说“面对这样暴烈的历史,我只想写一本温柔一点的书”,当无望于轻盈,温柔或许的确是一种适宜的姿态。 (展开)
1 有用 Rav.ruro 2021-02-28 13:03:15
看了港版。 #文藝複製中也有各種變異;#CR中傳統女性角色仍未被撼動;#毛思想中的傳統文化因素。
1 有用 叉刀 2024-05-22 19:06:41 上海
英文还在就直接标了,模范文化和样板文化的微妙差别那部分很有趣,还有血统论和身份焦虑那个点以及宣传画中的男女分工和现实的差别。启蒙要求永不完成于是敌人不能被彻底消灭,在被批判后必须重新回来这个点也有意思。但是总体还是感觉散了些又隔了层,也许因为作者本意想写温柔些吧,预期还是有偏差。
0 有用 断鹤续尻 2024-03-21 15:58:16 安徽
视角新颖,但是具体就一般了,理论完基本没论述。不过了解了很多样板戏的内容,总体而言还行。
0 有用 de huma 2024-02-21 22:17:28 日本
好的研究往往是反其道而行之。
0 有用 花落人亡 2024-01-26 09:40:35 浙江
复制这些模式的同时,发展出了各自的理解,最终使这些模式失去了意义。通过颠倒社会角色来消除社会内部差异的初衷导致维持社会秩序的机构遭到破坏。
1 有用 MOSS·YANG 2024-01-12 13:10:18 云南
这本书极大地激起了我对样板戏的兴趣。