Gang Fang's Blog

Written originally in English. 中文译文在英文版后。

A long time ago, I read a YouTube comment on a popping competition video along these lines: the quality of dance has deteriorated compared to the skills of the OGs who invented everything in the 70s and 80s. What makes this argument notable is our usual assumption that things are always getting better and that progress always trends upward. Under this assumption, the perceived deterioration of dance’s level or quality is a huge disappointment for the new generations of dancers. It implies we’re not only failing to elevate the dance but are also diluting its essence. This is especially disheartening when considering the burgeoning number of people engaging in street-style dance worldwide.

What should we make of this argument? If we buy into it, what are the factors contributing to this situation? Are people less creative nowadays due to certain factors, with technology being the main suspect? Before delving into my opinion, I should note that this phenomenon isn’t restricted to street-style dancing; it’s pervasive in the art world. For instance, the most popular item in MOMA is undoubtedly Van Gogh’s Starry Night. And if you are a modern-day artist, one thing is certain: your post-impressionism work can’t surpass Starry Night in any measurable standard.

However, this comparison provides useful insight. People are less inclined to label modern-day artists as uncreative or unoriginal simply because their works are not superior to Starry Night, particularly if they practice post-impressionism. I believe we should apply the same criterion to street-style dancing: you can’t outperform Popping Pete in terms of originality, but you can surpass Pete in strength, precision, or any other criteria, provided originality isn’t the benchmark.

Why is this so? When popping was invented by either EB or a collection of other OGs, the act of originality was, by definition, fulfilled. The standards and judgment criteria were established. In other words, the groundwork was laid. Any attempt to create within this dance form is constrained by these standards, and the scope for innovation and originality is considerably limited and perhaps less captivating (e.g., moves nobody has done before, angles no one has used before, characters never before played).

Conversely, elements like quality, techniques, and competition blossomed once the figurative groundwork was laid by the OGs, inviting people to partake, enjoy, and compete. At this point, the art form metamorphosed into a sport for the uninitiated and competitive, with dancers focusing more on winning competitions and refining their techniques. The game of creation gave way to the game of optimization.

A side note regarding the YouTube comment mentioned earlier: the skills and quality of dance are indeed improving. It’s just that the influx of participants, particularly those who are novices, uncommitted, or simply lacking talent, can create the illusion of declining quality. But this is not the case if you consider the best dancers like Greenteck and Kite.

Returning to the topic, I believe the competitive culture in the dance community warrants further discussion. Competitions have always been an integral part of dance, as evidenced by the battles of yesteryears. However, today’s competitions, which retain the format but not the essence of those battles, reinforce the “game of optimization” paradigm. Standards and judging criteria, once subtle aspects of the art, are now explicitly used in competitive events. Often, event organizers require judges to articulate their criteria, further cementing the “optimization game”. Dancers at these events primarily practice to win the competition, as it no longer makes sense to work outside the set standards, even if that work is more personal or creative.

This brings me to my central argument: being a street-style dancer, or an artist in a broader sense, doesn’t automatically confer creativity or originality. You can label yourself as you wish, but what truly matters is what you do in your artistic practice. It reveals whether you are merely a competitor or a creator.

If you choose to be creative and original, the final question to answer is the extent of your originality. We all know those talents who inspire with their distinct personal styles within popping, like Gucchon, Greenteck, MT Pop, and others. They have greatly enriched the dance. However, it’s important to note that their originality is more constrained than that of the OGs. They create within an already established framework, which limits the scope of their originality.

Granted, most dancers aspire to reach the levels of accomplishment of those I mentioned. For those who are more ambitious or simply don’t want to be restricted, I think the solution is to experience dance at a more fundamental level. Try dancing styles other than your primary style and engage in dancing in the most unrestricted setting possible (e.g., club dancing). Alternatively, you can question or challenge: what are the limiting factors of my primary style? How can I overcome them? I’ll again borrow from art to illustrate my point: from realism to impressionism, from impressionism to post-impressionism, and from post-impressionism to more modern styles. The driving force behind these transitions, representing genuine originality, was a dissatisfaction with the limitations of established practices and a willingness to break the rules and explore beyond the known boundaries. A word of caution though: such attempts won’t likely be appreciated by gatekeepers, even the old you. You need to find new crowds who are ready to accept and appreciate your creations.

Currently, my primary focus lies in enhancing my popping skills and cultivating my own style within the genre. However, in the near future, I aim to transcend these boundaries and create something more impactful.

Thank you for reading!

[This post has been proofread and edited by ChatGPT.]

---

很久以前，我在一个震感舞（街舞）比赛视频的网络评论中读到这样一段话：舞蹈的质量相比于70年代和80年代的那些发明了一切的OGs（老一辈）来说，已经下降了。这个论点引人注目的地方在于，我们通常假设事情总是在变得更好，进步总是呈上升趋势。在这个假设下，舞蹈的水平或质量被认为在下降，对新一代的舞者来说是巨大的失望。这意味着我们不仅没有提升舞蹈，而且还在稀释其精华。当考虑到全球越来越多的人参与街舞时，这尤其令人沮丧。

我们应该如何看待这个论点？如果我们接受这个论点，那么导致这种情况的因素是什么？是不是现在的人们由于某些因素而变得不够创新，而科技是主要的嫌疑对象？在深入探讨我的观点之前，我应该指出，这个现象并不仅限于街头风格的舞蹈，它在艺术世界中也很普遍。例如，现代艺术博物馆中最受欢迎的项目无疑是梵高的《星夜》。如果你是现代艺术家，有一件事是确定的：你无法在任何可衡量的标准上超越梵高。

然而，这种比较提供了有用的洞察。人们很少会因为现代艺术家的作品不如《星夜》而贬低他们的创造力或原创性，尤其是他们从事后印象派。我认为我们应该将同样的标准应用到街头风格的舞蹈：你无法在原创性上超越Popping Pete，但你可以在力量、精确度或其他任何标准上超越Pete，只要原创性不是衡量标准。

为什么会这样？当波普舞被EB或其他一些OG发明的时候，原创性的行为，按定义，已经完成了。标准和判断准则被建立。换句话说，基础已经打下。任何试图在这种舞蹈形式中创新的尝试都被这些标准所约束，而创新和原创性的空间大大限制了，可能也不那么吸引人（例如，没人做过的动作，没人用过的角度，从未扮演过的角色）。

相反，一旦OG们为这种舞蹈打下了比喻的基础，质量、技术和竞争就开始繁荣，邀请人们参与、享受和竞争。在这个时候，这种艺术形式转变成了一种对于外行和竞争者来说的运动，舞者更多地专注于赢得比赛和提高他们的技巧。创新的游戏变成了优化的游戏。

关于之前提到的YouTube评论的一个旁注：舞蹈的技巧和质量的确在提高。只是参与者的涌入，尤其是那些新手、不那么投入或者简单地说缺乏天赋的人，可以创造出质量下降的错觉。但如果你考虑像Greenteck和Kite这样的顶级舞者，情况就不是这样了。

回到主题，我认为舞蹈社区中的竞争文化值得进一步讨论。比赛一直是舞蹈的重要部分，昔日的舞蹈对决就是证据。然而，今天的比赛，虽然保留了那些对决的形式，但并没有保留它们的本质，反而强化了”优化的游戏”的范式。标准和评判准则，曾经是艺术的微妙方面，现在在竞技活动中被显式地使用。经常有的是，活动组织者要求评委阐述他们的评判准则，进一步强化了”优化游戏”。参加这些活动的舞者主要是为了赢得比赛，因为在已经设定的标准之外工作，即使那是更个人或更创新的工作，已经没有意义了。

这使我提出我的核心论点：成为一个街头风格的舞者，或者在更广义的意义上说，成为一个艺术家，并不自动赋予创新性或原创性。你可以自己贴标签，但真正重要的是你在艺术实践中做了什么。这揭示了你是仅仅一个竞争者，还是一个创作者。

如果你选择创新和原创，最后要回答的问题是你的原创性的程度。我们都知道那些在波普舞中用他们独特的个人风格给人带来启发的天才，比如

Gucchon、Greenteck、MT Pop等人。他们极大地丰富了这种舞蹈。然而，需要注意的是，他们的原创性比OGs更受限。他们是在已经建立的框架内进行创作，这限制了他们原创性的范围。

诚然，大多数舞者都渴望达到我提到的那些人的成就水平。对于那些更有野心的人或者简单地说不想受限的人，我认为解决办法是以更基本的层次去体验舞蹈。尝试舞蹈风格除了你的主要风格，参与到最不受限制的舞蹈环境（例如，俱乐部舞蹈）。或者，你可以提问或挑战：我的主要风格的限制因素是什么？我如何克服它们？我再次借用艺术来阐明我的观点：从现实主义到印象主义，从印象主义到后印象主义，从后印象主义到更现代的风格。这些转变背后的驱动力，代表着真正的原创性，是对已有实践的限制的不满和对打破规则、探索未知边界的愿望。不过需要注意的是：这种尝试可能不会被守门人，甚至旧的你所欣赏。你需要找到新的观众群体，他们准备接受并欣赏你的创作。

目前，我主要的关注点在于提升我的波普舞技巧和培养我在这个领域中自己的风格。然而，近期，我计划超越这些界限，创造出更有影响力的东西。

感谢阅读！

[译文待编辑]