Is contemporary theater coming to an end?

This year's issue of Literary and Artistic Controversy, No. 3, published a set of research papers on the state of contemporary Chinese theater, initiating a discussion on "contemporary theater and the 'end' of theater". While some of the descriptions of the current state of contemporary theater in the discussion are true, and some of the ideas put forward are enlightening, the pronouncement that "theater is facing the inevitable fate of shrinking and even dying out", that is, contemporary theater is "heading towards the end" and its argumentation are not convincing. In the author's opinion, "contemporary theater towards the end" is a false proposition. In this paper, I would like to express my own views on this issue, and seek advice from Mr. Zhu Shoutong, who put forward this proposition, and my colleagues in the academic circle.

I. What is "the end"?

Since the last decade of the twentieth century, all kinds of "end" has become a hot topic in the Western academic world. The assertion of "the end" has been used frequently and has been posted in many areas of the humanities. Judgments such as the end of history, the end of the subject, the end of ideology, the end of modernity, the end of the avant-garde, the end of the Enlightenment, the end of philosophy, the end of art, the end of literature and literary studies, and so on have emerged. The American deconstructionist literary critic Hillis Miller was the first to introduce the theoretical topic of "finality" in the Western context into the field of Chinese literature and art studies. In the fourth issue of Literary Review in 1997, Hillis Miller's article "The Impact of Globalization on the Study of Literature" was published, in which he suggested that "in the new globalized culture, the role of literature in the old sense of the word is becoming smaller and smaller," and that the kind of pure literary study or literary theory would no longer exist. Four years later, in 2001, Literary Review, No. 1, published his "Will Literary Studies Continue to Exist in the Age of Globalization? Drawing on the fact that literary forms and cultural studies have shifted in the age of electronization and globalization, Miller further argues that "the time for literary studies is over. There will never again be a time when literature is studied for its own sake, leaving aside theoretical or political considerations. That would be an anachronism. I doubt very much whether literary studies will ever be in fashion again, or whether there will ever be a period of prosperity." Miller's "final conclusion" of literary studies aroused strong interest among Chinese scholars at the beginning of the new century and stimulated related discussions. In 2001, the "Terminator Translation Series" edited by Mr. Zhou Xian and Mr. Xu Jun was published by Jiangsu People's Publishing House, which included American philosopher Arthur Danto's book The End of Art. In this way, the topic of "the end" has become one of the hot issues of domestic literary and cultural studies in the early years of the new century.

But "the end" is not a new topic in the last decade or so. As a theoretical discourse, "the end of art" has always received attention from theorists in the history of modern Western aesthetics and art. Most of the judgments about "the end" are based on the misinterpretation or derivation of Hegel's theory of "the end of art". More than a hundred years ago, Hegel's aesthetic lectures in Berlin pointed out:

As far as its highest function is concerned, art is a thing of the past for us moderns. Consequently, it has also lost its true reality and life, and is no longer able to maintain its former necessary and exalted position in reality; rather, it has been transferred to our world of ideas. ①

Reading Hegel in the "Aesthetics" twice on the "end of art", we can see that his meaning has two main aspects: one is to emphasize that relative to the splendor of ancient Greek art, the ideal era of art is gone, art no longer occupies a "necessary and noble position" in reality; the second is to think that art no longer occupies a "necessary and noble position" in reality; the other is to think that the real truth and life can no longer maintain its former necessity and lofty position in reality. The first is to emphasize that the ideal era of art is gone, and art no longer occupies a "necessary and noble position" in reality; the second is to think that a specific art form is a product of a certain historical stage. In the history of art, there was first the disintegration of symbolic art, then the disintegration of classical art in the era of Romanticism, and then the end of romantic art in modern society. The history of art is a history of change in which old art is constantly disintegrating and new art is constantly being born. Therefore, it is a specific art form that comes to an end, not the whole art. As Jameson has pointed out, what Hegel intends to call "the end of art" is "a constitutive feature of that event which is, in fact, the end of a certain kind of art." Although Hegel's theory of the "end of art" is prone to ambiguity and misinterpretation, it is clear that his theory is full of dialectical ideas. In essence, as a contemporary Western scholar puts it, "Hegel, as a lover of art in his time, did not announce the death of art but the birth of a new kind of art, and he also announced the birth of aesthetics, named 'the science of art'. Contrary to those who think by the book, Hegel never used the rhetoric of the end of art or the death of art, but adopted the term 'Auflosung' (ablation)." (3)

The main theorists who continued to discuss the topic of the "end of art" after Hegel were Adorno and, as mentioned above, Arthur Danto and Hillis Miller. Adorno mainly reinterpreted Hegel's thesis of the "end of art" from the standpoint of cultural criticism in a highly technologized and commercialized era. What he sees is that "externally, art has become an impossibility; but internally, it must go on." The crisis of art and how to seek survival and development in the midst of the crisis was precisely his concern. Thus, rather than pronouncing on the end of art, he is critical of the denial of art's right to exist by the industrialization of culture and the instrumental rationalization of society. Arthur Danto, on the other hand, on the basis of an in-depth study of readymade works of art such as Modernist painter Marcel Duchamp's The Fountain and Brillo Andy Warhol's Brillo Plate Packing Boxes, argues that Duchamp's and Brillo's works, to a certain extent, form absolute boundaries beyond which the history of art is no longer applicable. Thus suggesting that "with Brillo's work, all artistic possibilities have been realized, so that, in a sense, the history of art has ended. The history of art has not ceased, but has ended. From this sense, the history of art understands its own destiny and evolves into the philosophy of art." ⑤ "History ends with the arrival of self-consciousness," and "art ends with the emergence of its own philosophy." (6) Therefore, Arthur Danto's term "end of art" does not mean "death of art" either. He uses the word "end" in the sense of "narrative," saying, "Just as the story ends, but the characters do not," what ends is the narrative itself, not the object of the narrative, i.e., art. It is the narrative itself that ends, not the object of the narrative, i.e., the art. As for what Hillis Miller calls the "end" of literary study, it is only in terms of what he understands as the traditional sense of literary study. In Miller's view, the traditional language-mediated study of literature is on the decline in the age of electronics and globalization. But with the emergence of new literary forms, a new paradigm of literary studies is bound to be established. Therefore, literature and literary studies will not really "end".

Looking at the discourse of "the end" in the context of Western culture, we can see that it is a theoretical topic with very rich and complex connotations. Mr. Zhou Jiwu has conducted a comprehensive study and research on the discourse of "the end of art" in the history of Western culture and aesthetics, and he has come to the following conclusions:

1. "The end of art" doesn't mean the termination of art, its demise, or its non-existence. 2, The question of "the end of art" is related to the historical transition of art forms. 3. In the historical transition, a certain conception of art may be abandoned by people intentionally or unintentionally. In this regard, the end of a particular art is possible. This also shows that art is historical and a product of a specific historical stage.4 The core focus of the end of art is not the question of whether art is terminated or not, but the change of art concepts and art functions. These changes have complex social, cultural, historical and philosophical reasons.

These conclusions are realistic, and they are important for our understanding of the discourse of the "end of art". At least, we can know that in the Western context, the so-called "end" is not really "death", but contains a rich and complex connotation of crisis, transformation, and transformation of the old into the new. The "end" is not only not equal to the "demise", but sometimes even "nirvana", which means the end of the old and the birth of the new.

While the discussion on "Contemporary Drama and the 'End' of Drama" has introduced the theoretical discourse of "end theory", the initiation of this discussion is obviously different from that of the above. Although the theoretical discourse of "finality" was introduced, the initiation of this discussion was also clearly related to the academic background of the above-mentioned studies on the "end of art". However, when the discussants pronounced that contemporary theatre was coming to an end, the "end" they referred to did not contain the rich connotations of the theoretical discourse analyzed above. Simply put, the "end" referred to by those who pronounce contemporary theater to be on its way to its end is "decline" or "extinction". "Contemporary theater that is coming to an end" is also "contemporary theater that is going to die out." But is this really the case with the present and future of contemporary theater? The author's answer is no.

Second, "Contemporary Drama Toward the End" is a False Proposition

Mr. Zhu Shoutong, in his article "On Contemporary Drama Toward the End", puts forward the following idea: "Surrounded by the three-dimensional media in the age of electronic civilization, the art of drama, whether as an object of aesthetic appreciation or as an object of cultural consumption, has become the most popular form of drama in the world, and it has become the most important form of theater. Under the siege and hostage of three-dimensional media in the age of electronic civilization, theater art, whether as an object of aesthetic appreciation or as an object of cultural consumption, has lost all its advantages, and its end is reflected as a necessity of the times. Drama lost the above advantages, it is bound to lose the audience, lost originally belongs to its part of the cultural market, lost further prosperity or to maintain their own prosperity and development of the capital and the driving force, and therefore also naturally gained the fate of waiting for the end." (8) Mr. Zhu's advantages of drama refer to the three aspects of "theater effect of drama communication", "scene of drama performance" and "drama as a comprehensive art", and his conclusion is precisely from the analysis of this aspect of drama. Mr. Zhu's conclusion is drawn from analyzing the loss of these three advantages of drama. But the problem is that Mr. Zhu's analysis does not account for the loss of drama's advantages, and thus is not convincing, and his proposition is not valid.

Summarizing Mr. Zhu's three-point analysis, the basic points are:

First, various entertainment venues represented by cabarets can replace the theater. "The vast majority of the audience is already sufficiently entertained and emotionally cathartic from the live environments of dance halls, karaoke lounges, and nightclubs, and they don't need to go into a very constricted theater," and "in a sense, the private rooms -- the cabaret, the restaurant, and the theater -- can replace the theaters. Moreover, in a sense, "all kinds of private rooms--cabaret, restaurant, sauna--are far more practical and 'moody' than the theater's box". Secondly, the live nature of the theater performance has nothing to do with the art of theater itself, the audience is only the star worship complex. This function of theater for the audience has been lost due to the rise of movies and television. Thirdly, the aesthetic feeling and stimulation given to the audience by the theater as a comprehensive art has been "covered by more directly stimulating people's nerves with cabaret decorations, and the advantage of the theater in this respect has been lost. If we talk about the use of scientific and technological means of pure and comfortable, how the theater can not be compared with the art of film and television."

The author thought that Mr. Zhu's three-point analysis of the loss of the advantages of the theater, but really with its text many times repeated the phrase: "has nothing to do with the drama". The three conclusions he draws are clearly untenable.

First of all, the advantage of the theater is that it is really different and unique is that: theater is a living actor in the theater in front of the audience to perform the story on the spot. Theater has a live effect that no other art form has. As two American contemporary theater scholars said: "Theatre between the audience and the performer to achieve mutual contact and mutual communication of this deep and fundamental human needs, that is whether the big screen movies or living room in the small screen television is impossible to meet. The electric current of human emotion and emotional response that interacts back and forth between the performers and the audience - including the infectious laughter in the face of comedy and the solemn silences that emerge at solemn moments - is impossible to produce in any other medium than theater. " ⑨ And theater achieves emotional communication between the audience and the performers because the stories it performs deal with basic human emotions and life content such as hope, fear, pain, and pleasure. These are by no means comparable to the sensory stimulation and entertainment programs in today's popular cabarets or even in the private rooms of hotels and saunas. Theater in addition to the entertainment for the senses, there are aesthetic cultivation, spiritual purification and even the shock of the soul. The form of entertainment represented by the cabaret mainly provides sensory stimulation. The former involves the human soul, while the latter only stimulates the human senses. The former is art, can cultivate temperament, expanding human spiritual space; the latter is the dwarfing of art, is the way of timely fun, its vulgarity and emptiness will only corrode people's artistic interest. Therefore, the theater and the entertainment in the cabaret can not be compared, the latter is impossible to replace the former. Into the theater or into the nightclub can be coexisting two choices. Some people in the world focus on spiritual entertainment, some people pursue sensory stimulation, there is no excuse. Even if there is a karaoke and dance halls and other entertainment venues, while the theater performances in front of the cold down cars and horses sparse scenario, that should not be the norm of society, not to mention the progress of society. That can only mean that there are problems in our society, therefore, reform and development are needed to achieve social progress and the overall improvement of human beings. I am really surprised and puzzled if the theatre is dwarfed to the extent that it is only one of the forms of entertainment such as cabaret, which is still very popular in cities and towns today, and is even considered to be far less "practical" and "sentimental" than the latter. I am surprised that the theorist has such a prejudice against the theater, and I am puzzled whether there is a problem with the theorist's interest. Otherwise, it's just a shocking statement by the theorist.

Secondly, the public performance of actors playing characters in the theater, i.e., "the live nature of theatrical performances," is one of the fundamental reasons for the existence of the theater, and is the key factor that distinguishes the theater from, or is superior to, the comprehensive art styles of film and television. It is in this sense that scholars call theater a "living art". "This immediacy of the living theater enables the actor to perceive and respond to the audience's reaction. In contrast, movie and television actors, no matter how talented they may be, the form of the medium itself freezes their performances, and it is impossible for them to respond to the audience." Movies and television offer the audience only images and pictures of people, "All we see on the screen is a video of their performance. They themselves have departed, some have retired or even died. In short, in any case, they have left the performance itself." ⑩Theater, however, presupposes the presence of actors, and therefore, interaction and communication between the audience and the performers is unique to theater. Mr. Zhu Shoutong, on the other hand, believes that "such a factor is actually external to the art of theater itself." Therefore, he basically does not argue how this unique advantage of theater art is lost. After making this point, Mr. Zhu shifted the topic to the issue of star-worship complex. In Mr. Zhu's view, the significance of drama for the audience lies in star worship. In other words, the audience's attendance at the theater is simply a result of the star-worship complex. "However, in the age of three-dimensional media, the star-worship complex cultivated through theater is simply negligible compared with that cultivated through movies, especially television media, and even, for quite some time, the theater to the audience has in fact basically lost such a function." Thus, he draws the assertion that theater is coming to an end. Here there is an obvious misunderstanding, that is, although the cult of the stars is a prominent phenomenon in the theater, film and television appreciation, but after all, it is only a kind of art outside of the subsidiary phenomena, and it will be regarded as the theater, film and television art of the audience of the basic function, obviously is the cart before the horse. Drama as an ancient art style, it is not due to the audience's star worship complex and produce, but also does not rely on the audience's star worship complex to maintain its survival. In fact, the audience into the theater or cinema are not always because of the so-called "star worship complex. Therefore, no matter how the phenomenon of film and television star worship is intensifying, we cannot conclude that the theater is coming to an end. In a certain sense, they have nothing to do with theater. Moreover, according to Mr. Zhu, the traditional way of receiving drama has faced changes in the 20th century, and the function of "star worship" of actors for the audience has been weakened. However, the 20th century was still the century in which Mr. Zhu considered "drama flourished the most", and was even named "the century of drama". The contradiction is obvious. In addition, in Mr. Zhu's view, since the "star worship" function of drama for the audience has been replaced by movies and television, the audience does not need to enter the theater anymore. For theatergoers, "it doesn't make much difference whether they sit at home and watch a show on the Drama Channel or sit in a cold theater and watch a live performance." Here, too, Mr. Chu forgets the source of the Drama Channel programs on television, and without theatrical performances in theaters, what would be the Drama Channel programs?

Once again, the comprehensive nature of theater art does, as Mr. Chu says, "often give the audience a three-dimensional and all-encompassing feeling," and "the audience is able to appreciate not only the aesthetic taste of the art, but also the excitement of high technology. " However, Mr. Zhu believes that in terms of comprehensiveness, the theater has been "covered by the more stimulating decor of the cabaret", and the dominance of the theater has given way to the cabaret. In terms of the use of technology, theater is inferior to film and television. Therefore, it is believed that the loss of this "comprehensive" advantage of the theater is the third reason for its end. In fact, the synthesis of theater art on the one hand means that theater is a comprehensive art that combines the advantages and characteristics of literature, performance, music, art, dance, architecture and other artistic disciplines. From a broad perspective, literature and stage are its two major components, the former mainly refers to literary scripts and their creators playwrights, which are the main providers and carriers of the content, ideas and spirit of the theater. The latter includes acting, directing, choreography, music and other factors **** with the creation of the stage presentation and stage image. Comparatively speaking, the former determines the depth of the spiritual dimension of the drama, while the latter is more related to the material dimension of the drama. Drama is an organic combination of the two, the former is the premise and the main basis for the creation of theater stage, often play a decisive role in the success or failure of dramatic art, the latter is the reason why the drama for the existence of the form of drama, is the literary can be presented as a stage image of the unique way of expression. However, there is often an imbalance between the two. A drama with strong literature and weak stage performance naturally cannot be considered as the best drama, while a drama with no literature, shallow ideas, and shrinking spirit, even if it has luxurious material shells and high-tech stage art and lighting design, is still only a mediocre work in drama. What Mr. Zhu calls "cabaret decorations" that are superior to those of theaters are in fact only on the material level, where there is no spirit to speak of. Although the decoration of a cabaret may be superior to that of a theater, it only stimulates people's nerves, but does not stimulate people's emotions, let alone shake their souls. Its so-called comprehensiveness is also only comprehensiveness in the packaging of the material shell, and cannot be compared with the comprehensiveness of the theater art. Therefore, the cabaret can not replace the theater, "more stimulate people's nerves" of the cabaret entertainment will never be better than both to give people the pleasure of the senses and the spiritual pleasure of the theater. Another aspect of the meaning of the comprehensive nature of theater art is that theater is a developing and open art, which does not refuse to absorb the nutrients of any other art varieties of mankind, including all the newer art styles younger than it, such as film and television, and other forms of expression and techniques of the media. When people talk about the impact of film and television on the theater, they often overlook the fact that the emergence of new media such as film and television provides new forms and ways for the construction of the theater itself and the dissemination of theater art every time. Therefore, the theater does not have to blame the movie and television for squeezing itself, but should also thank the movie and television for their help. Movies and television and other new artistic varieties born in the era of high technological development have not only brought challenges and competition to such an ancient and unique artistic charm of the theater, but also greatly enriched its means of expression, broadened its field of expression, and renewed its artistic concepts. Movies and television, which have flourished for decades, have not replaced the art of theater because of their advanced technological means; on the contrary, "there is probably more theater activity in the United States today than at any other time since the beginning of the motion picture." The opinion[1] that theater and film and television as different styles of art are bound to change with the development of technology and the emergence of new varieties of art. Their coexistence in contemporary times reflects the richness and diversity of the cultural life of contemporary society and the plurality of choices of art forms. Although various forms of art will have a crisis of development in a certain period of time, at least in contemporary times they have not yet shown signs of coming to an end.

In short, as a kind of "living art", drama is distinguished from all other art styles by the fact that actors and actresses play the characters in the theater and perform the stories directly in front of the audience. The living theater has maintained a lasting vitality on the world theater stage with its unique and charming relationship between the audience and the performers. The unique advantages of drama have not been lost "surrounded by a multitude of three-dimensional media" as Mr. Zhu Shutong said. Moreover, from its birth and development to the present day and into the future, theater has been born out of the instinctive impulse of human beings to create theater. The current state of theater in many countries around the world today is evidence of its continuing appeal and vitality. Therefore, to claim that contemporary theater has come to an end is neither theoretically convincing nor consistent with the actual situation, and is therefore a false proposition.

The crisis and the way out of contemporary theater

The author denies the proposition that contemporary theater is coming to an end, but it does not mean that there is no crisis in contemporary theater. On the contrary, the author believes that the discussion of "contemporary drama and the 'end' of drama" initiated by Mr. Zhu Shoutong and others mainly embodies a valuable sense of crisis from a positive point of view. The crisis of contemporary theater has been a topic of discussion in the theater world for nearly 20 years. From the controversy over the concept of drama in the mid-1980s to the discussion of "the fate of contemporary drama" initiated by playwright Mr. Wei Minglun, Mr. Luo Huazhen's slogan of "reconstructing Chinese drama", and dramatist Mr. Dong Jian's statement that "the spirit of contemporary drama has withered away. Mr. Luo Huizhen put forward the slogan of "rebuilding Chinese drama", and Mr. Dong Jian, a drama scholar, pointed out the "shrinking of the spirit of contemporary drama".[10] Although the angle of each argument is different, and the viewpoints are different, all of them undoubtedly show a strong sense of crisis.

With the high development of science and technology, the popularization of new media forms such as film and television, and the arrival of the electronic age, drama is naturally facing unprecedented challenges and crises. But as mentioned above, the challenges and competition of new media forms will only change and enrich theater, not replace it. Challenges from the outside certainly make the theater face crisis, but the fact proves that the theater has not suffered the doom that people predicted long ago. The crisis of the theater comes more from the theater itself. Contemporary theater concept of parochialism, the atrophy of the spirit of drama, the decline of dramatic literature, the one-sided pursuit of the material level of the theater, as well as the rigidity of the theater management system, the defects of the operating mechanism, etc., which have been discussed by the insightful people is the main manifestation of the crisis of the contemporary theater and the reasons for this paper will not go into details here. The author would like to emphasize that the neglect of drama genres from theory to practice is also a major deficiency in contemporary drama. Specifically, the poverty of contemporary theater, the key lies in our lack of both tragedy and comedy, the contemporary spirit of tragedy and comedy are seriously lost, which is also the crisis of the theater.

So, how can contemporary theater get out of the crisis? How to realize the normal development of drama and maintain the unique artistic charm and vitality of drama? The author thinks that efforts should be made in the following three aspects:

First, the soul of the theater. The author believes that actors play characters in the theater directly facing the audience to perform the story, is the most fundamental characteristics of the drama is different from other styles of art, which has been formed inside and outside the theater community **** knowledge. Therefore, the theater should make full use of and give full play to the "living art" this advantage, to show its charm. This point has been highly valued by theater artists, and is constantly put into practice. But relatively speaking, this advantage is only the external expression of theater art, i.e. the "body" of theater. Drama to realize the emotional exchange between the audience and the soul of the dialogue, to allow the audience not only to get the pleasure of the senses also get the spirit of the music, it also has to rely on its real content and rich spiritual connotation, that is, the drama of the "soul"? The "soul" of the theater is the cave of soul. In other words, the theater should not only have a distinctive "body"? Smoke should also have a real and vivid "soul". In my opinion, the spirit of tragedy and comedy is the soul of the theater. The biggest defect of contemporary drama is the absence of thought and shrinking of spirit. Some plays no longer consider "what to show", but only "how to show", and are keen on exploring new ideas, resulting in advanced technology and weak ideas, which are lively on the surface, but mediocre in reality. There are also some plays dedicated to the stage material level of luxury packaging, and give up the spiritual connotation of the deep excavation, the loss of enthusiasm, soul sleep, not sad, not happy, bland and tasteless. All these works can only satisfy the low-level needs of people in the material age, and they do not contribute to the elevation of the human spirit and the realization of the dialogue of souls. As Kandinsky said when he criticized the soulless paintings of the Russian painting world at the beginning of the 20th century: "The audience looks at these works with cold eyes and is indifferent. The connoisseur praises the so-called 'technique' as if the viewer were praising an acrobat walking on a tightrope; the connoisseur appreciates the so-called 'quality of the picture' as if one were savoring a piece of cake with relish." "This kind of art can only artfully repeat that which has been clearly recognized by its contemporaries. That is why it has no vitality; it is a mere spawn of its time, incapable of nurturing the future. It is a castrated art. It is short-lived, and as soon as that environment which nourishes it changes, it immediately dies spiritually." [11] Therefore, in order to bring contemporary theater out of crisis, it is imperative to invoke the soul of theater. In contemporary times, there is a need both to call for the spirit of tragedy in order to repair the freedom of the human mind disturbed by the clamor of the times and to purify the soul. At the same time, it is more necessary to promote the spirit of comedy, to attack our "century's vices" with comedy, to draw a portrait of the "advancing society" with comedy, to speak on behalf of the people with comedy, and to safeguard the freedom and liberation of the human mind with comedy. The author thinks that to hold on to the "body" of drama is the basis for developing drama, and to recall the "soul" of drama is the most urgent task for reviving drama. Only when the soul returns to the theater, is the Chinese theater really out of the crisis.

Secondly, we need to loosen up the burden for the theater. Chinese theater has traditionally assumed too many social functions other than art, and in the contemporary period of extreme leftist thinking, theater has been highly politicized and alienated into a tool of realpolitik. The management system and operation mechanism of contemporary theatre have also remained in the rigid mode of the planned economy era and the period when political pragmatism and left-leaning dogmatism were prevalent. All these are against the inner law of the development of theater art and hinder the creation and innovation of theater. Therefore, in order to have a new development of the theater and get out of the crisis, it is necessary to "lighten the load" of the theater, so that it can be carried out with light load. At the same time, there is a greater need for a relaxed external environment, a more reasonable management system, so that it can embark on a benign operation in line with the law of development of the theater arts.

Third, for the theater seedling. Drama is the art closest to life, but also the most difficult of all the arts. Because of its comprehensiveness and complexity, theater is difficult both for practitioners to learn and for audiences to appreciate. Therefore, theater education is a hundred-year plan for the development of theater. We not only need to cultivate theater artists such as playwrights, directors, actors, choreographers, etc., but also need to cultivate audiences. Contemporary China's theater education is a weak fact for all to see, in the field of basic education, theater education is almost a blank, in higher education, professional theater colleges and universities in the theater program only a few. This is not commensurate with the history and status of the great theater country. Therefore, the contemporary theater to get out of the crisis and sustained benign development, should start from the drama education, from basic education. Primary and secondary schools should be opened to appreciate the drama courses and activities to carry out drama, comprehensive universities should be opened to specialize in drama. Drama education is a comprehensive art education, which not only contributes to the formation of good humanistic and artistic qualities of the new nationals, but also is the source of living water for the future development of theater.

In short, although contemporary theater is facing a crisis, it is not for nothing, let alone coming to an end. "While the present era is not yet one that has produced great theater, it is a period of great activity and achievement in writing and performance, in pioneering experimental theater, and in the reenactment of classic masterpieces." (14) These words, written by two American scholars in summarizing the current state of contemporary theater, are, I think, largely appropriate for assessing the current state of contemporary Chinese theater

.