When I'm talking to you now, we communicate with language. The relationship of language and words, the relationship of spoken language and written language, are topics we care a lot. The origin of both words and language started with symbols. As you all know, the earliest form of words is rope, which is a sign, trying to show you there is danger ahead, and so you shouldn't go forward.

In ancient times, when people saw a rope on the ground, then they knew they shouldn't walk forward. Then, it slowly evolved into words, the simplest form of words. Basically, words are all symbols. In Chinese culture, characters are hieroglyphs, and therefore, each character is a symbol. In the west, the Germanic or Latin languages started with sounds, and so they are different (from Chinese). Let's start talking about our Oriental culture, especially Chinese culture, and see how we turned from a world of symbols into a world of words, and then how it has turned into a world where symbols reemerged today. Have we simplified our words again? For example, when we see that certain figure, we'd know that it's a men's washroom; and with another figure, then, it's the ladies' washroom.

The figure in the dress, that's the ladies' washroom, and that with the pants, that's the men's washroom. Or, when we see certain signs, then we know there's danger ahead, or there's some construction work in progress in front. All these are signs/symbols. The world of symbols has simplified the world of words. How do we deal with the history of this kind of communications? All these are very important contents, when we look at the stage as a laboratory. In 2013, I did an experimental workshop with the students of the Drama Department of the Hong Kong Academy for the Performing Arts. I started with a piece of white A4 paper in the workshop. I told everybody, “Let us try to pick up a piece of white A4 paper slowly, and use it to cover our face.”

Just like this, taking it up slowly, and covering up my face slowly. Then, we discussed what an “A4 paper” is, why an A4 paper is this size, why it is this thick, and why it is white. After that, we talked about how we could use a piece of A4 paper to convey messages. Do we type words on it, or should we draw figures on it? So, when we take a piece of A4 paper to cover our face, does that mean these messages are hindering us from seeing the world in front of us? Do we just see the messages and not the world beyond these messages? Just like a lot of time when we are holding a mobile phone in our hand. Do we see only our mobile phone, and not the world beyond that? In that case, we are talking about the medium too. When we look at a theatre, I hope we can see the world outside the theatre, and not only the theatre itself.

I hope we can see the relationship between the theatre and the world outside, rather than indulging in the theatre. We always ask the question: Do we think in words, in symbols, in pictures, or in sounds? Are there sounds when you think? Or, is it purely a visual experience? In theatre, what we deal with are sounds and visuals, but at the same time we are also handling the relationship of ourselves with sounds, visual symbols, words and languages. Actually, above all, we are most concerned with how we think.

If we don't think, may it be words, or languages, or symbols, those are but only packaging. If we think, how should we use words, languages and symbols, in order not to let them bind us? What is to bind? In fact, I think that we always have a phase when we are bound by words, by languages, by symbols, or by sounds. But if we understand what is to be “bound”, then we won't be bound by them. Actually, we could use those boundaries, and extend them. Then, we could enlarge the boundaries, and maybe there'll be some new changes, and we could develop with more flexibility. I think that when we discuss about symbols, we ought to start with how we should review the existing symbols in theatre.

In fact, theatre itself is a symbol because when we talk about theatre, we'd immediately think of theatre as a space like this, a framework like this; and how you should breakthrough this symbol. That's why theatre is a stage, and also an open stage, as well as an arena stage. With all these, we are talking about expanding the theatre as a symbol, making it into an open symbol. In the theatre of traditional Chinese performing arts, the most prominent symbol would be the set on the stage, and that is a table and two chairs. This is the most iconic staging in a traditional Chinese theatre, and it is the most representative set on the stage.

For sure, this reflects the semi-abstract concept and alienation effect of traditional Chinese theatre. I think that one table two chairs is inseparable in traditional performing arts now. They are in fact the same thing. Through the concept of one table two chairs, we try to reexamine theatre, and this is also one of the experiments we could do. That's why around the year 1997, I started to commission a lot of friends to do some creative works with one table two chairs with me. On the first batch of works, I made a cross-disciplinary invitation, and invited many movie directors, some visual artists, and some critics to create a theatre piece. In that theatre work, everybody had to deal with a table and two chairs; and everyone had 20 minutes to tell what they wanted to say with two performers.

From then, I have been making a series of commissioned works with this basic set, and there are almost 100 works up till now, and that means 100 pieces of 20-minute works. Artists invited include some from Greater China, and some from other Asian cities. These works were presented in Europe and the USA. In fact, through this series, we have promoted another concept, and that's the concept of cultural exchange. I borrow a symbol to discuss with you how you'd interpret one table two chairs, and how I'd interpret one table two chairs. Then we make comparisons and see how we discuss cultural exchange and cultural development with the idea of one table two chairs. That's why, very often with symbols, especially more abstract symbols, there is more space for interpretations and exchange.

Let's be more specific. For instance, we all have done Shakespeare's works before. The space between how you do Shakespeare and how I do Shakespeare is rather big, but it is not as big as that of between how you do one table two chairs and how I do one table two chairs. I think that we should start from this symbol, a set in our traditional Chinese culture, which is a very important concept of dealing with exchange. We can imagine, one table and two chairs, with two persons sitting on the chairs. How they would talk to each other, this in fact is already saying a lot. I, as a spectator, watching how these two persons talk and discuss things, or these two may look at the audience. In doing that, a relationship with the theatre is already established.

So, we start a dialogue using a symbol of a stage set in traditional performing arts. This is an experiment I've been doing for more than twenty years. In these more than a hundred commissioned works, we can see how artists from different backgrounds interpret, comments, and reconstruct the concept of one table two chairs; and how they deal with the confines of 20 minutes. And then, how they compare each other's work through such an experiment. I think this is a very important aspect in the development of theatre arts. Because, very often, in the present state of theatre arts development, arts festivals are basically a cultural consumer product for the middle class.

I think that there should be a larger dialectical space for theatre arts, more discussions among artists, on the relationship between the stage and the real world, on the relationship between ourselves with the past and the present, on the relationship between the symbols of installation arts and this world. All these are very important topics. That's why, very often when I work on one table two chairs, and use this symbol for my creative works, I'm actually reconstructing “what is an arts festival”, and “what is a platform of arts exchange” at the same time. Stereotyping in traditional Chinese performing arts is a very common case in theatre. For example, we have Dan (female role), Sheng (male role) and Chou (clown role). For clown roles, there are subtypes like flowery face and small flowery face.

While for male roles, there are military and martial types. As for female roles, there are even more different types. Turning a stereotype into a symbol is obviously a phenomenon in traditional arts. How, then, should we discuss this phenomenon? And then how should we examine traditional Chinese performing arts through these discussions? This is one aspect our performing arts sector is very concerned about.

From 2012, I've been collaborating with a group of young traditional performing arts practitioners, who are Kunqu opera actors, from Nanjing Kun Opera Theatre. I always talk with them about switching roles, in other words, disrupting the symbols. You see a clown, then suddenly he changes into a male role, or maybe a female role. Because of their training and experience, they could switch roles anytime. After that, I invited actors from various parts of Asia to discuss transgender experiment, such as, “fan chuan” (gender bending), which is very common in traditional opera. Men playing female roles, or women playing male roles. In Indonesia, India, Thailand, and other places like Japan and Korea...gender bending is actually a very significant phenomenon in performing arts.

It is also an essential part in the development of cross over reality performing arts. We transcend the existing symbols of roles, and this is a crucial part of the experiment. In traditional kunqu opera, I always ask the male martial roles to act the female parts, and the female roles to act the male types or the flowery face clowns, and the flowery face clowns to act the small flowery face. Through crossing over, they'd develop their existing potentials further, and in this way, they'd gain more perspectives and layers, because they would look at and interpret the flowery face clown from the point of view of a small flowery face, or an actor experienced with male martial roles would interpret a female role. I think these cross-overs are very vital elements in experimental theatre.

Apart from the cross-overs in roles, we try to communicate, exchange and develop culture by cross-cultural means. We think that this is a very significant attempt for performing arts, for arts development, for culture, as well as for cultural development. This broadens the horizon of our vision, and makes us more accommodating with the way we see things, and allows us to see each other's position as we constantly keep changing identities, and to gain anew more space for contemplation, and then to reflect on our own position amidst today's cultural development.