English Version
Introduction
In early August 2015, after several months apart in China, I met Professor Kui Dong again on a quiet afternoon at a Paris Baguette café on University Avenue in Palo Alto, California. A tenured professor of composition at Dartmouth College and a Chinese American composer, she embodies an artistic identity shaped by both China and the United States. In 1983, she entered the Composition Department of the Central Conservatory of Music, studying with Du Mingxin and Wu Zuqiang. In 1990, she went to Stanford University to study computer music and received her PhD in 1996. Her works have received awards in the United States, Austria, and Italy, and have been praised by Western media for their extraordinary aesthetic sensibility and imagination.
In May and June of 2015, Dong returned to China with her chamber works, presenting concerts and lectures at institutions including the Central Conservatory of Music and the Shenyang Conservatory of Music. Her music, marked by modernist sensibility and intellectual depth, opened a cultural space for dialogue between Eastern and Western artistic thought. Several months later, after crossing half the globe, we met again in Palo Alto. Our wide-ranging conversation naturally turned toward her reflections on American higher education in the arts.
American Higher Arts Education Through an Eastern Lens
Zang Na: I recently attended your lectures in China, where you spoke about your experiences in composition. I was struck by how Eastern and Western artistic ideas seemed to collide and converse in your work. This time, could we approach the subject from another angle? From an Eastern perspective, could you speak about the American art world, especially art education?
Kui Dong: I graduated from the Composition Department of the Central Conservatory of Music in 1987. At that time, China’s film and television industries were beginning to develop, and music students suddenly had ways to earn money, such as arranging for film and television or composing for advertising. Compared with ordinary university students, we were relatively well-off. But I have always felt uneasy about turning everything into an “industry.” A television director might ask for a sad piece or a cheerful piece. That can pay well, but from the creator’s perspective, it is essentially commercial work. Once art becomes overly commercialized, it tends to become formulaic, and over time innovation begins to erode. For me, commercial music and art music should remain distinct, because they serve different purposes.
Later, when I came to the United States to continue my studies in composition, I realized that art here is also deeply shaped by the economy and the market. The United States does not place particular emphasis on “pure art.” If you say you are a composer, people often ask which films you have scored, as though that defines what a composer is supposed to do. Writing art music alone rarely provides a stable income. In the United States, the dominant priorities remain science and technology, and universities with strong science programs are often exceptionally wealthy. Donors tend to support education and disadvantaged communities, but relatively few direct their philanthropy toward the arts.
There are many reasons for this, and cultural tradition plays a major role. The humanities in the United States have never occupied the same central position as science and technology. Because the United States is an immigrant nation, new arrivals often first need to solve basic survival and livelihood issues. Cultural pursuits usually come later, often in the second generation. There is a delay. This is why the cultural soil of the United States is not as deeply layered as Europe’s. Of course, there are refined forms of high culture here, but fast-food culture is extremely widespread, and that has become a global issue.
Zang Na: So fast-food culture and industrialization limit the development of pure art to some extent. Yet we also see the United States as a center of contemporary art. What role has art education played in this?
Kui Dong: Fast-food culture does involve standardization, but simply copying others will not allow you to survive. In popular music, for example, if you do not have your own style and personality, you cannot stand. This is connected to American education, which emphasizes individuality from a very early stage. Students are encouraged to think outside the box. They grow up questioning tradition. This has positive significance for art itself and for the art market, because art is inherently individualistic. First, you must love what you do. You need passion. Individualism naturally leads to diversity, and diversity is fundamental to art.
At the same time, too much emphasis on novelty and rebellion can create problems. If one seeks only the new, one may lack inheritance and accumulation. If technique has not developed deeply enough, it is difficult to create something truly new.
Zang Na: So although industrialization and fast-food culture bring problems of standardization, individualized education provides fertile ground for innovation.
Kui Dong: Yes. No matter how commercialized the broader culture becomes, art education in American universities remains relatively pure and, for lack of a better word, “elite.” Universities rarely offer courses simply on writing pop songs. Popular music is everywhere; many people make it without formal schooling. The role of the university is different. It teaches technique, but more importantly it teaches how to use technique. It provides the soil in which artistic seeds can grow. Later, whether students pursue popular art or avant-garde art is up to them.
Another important feature is liberal arts education. At Dartmouth, even music majors are expected to know something beyond music. Students do not immediately choose a major in their first year. If they are science-oriented, they must take arts courses; if they are humanities-oriented, they must study math and science. The goal is not merely to train skills, but to cultivate fully developed people. The music department may graduate only about ten majors each year, but hundreds of students take music courses as minors or electives. Some eventually choose music as a career, and in many cases they have great potential.
I had a student who played viola. She first studied with me while majoring in geography. She loved music, but her family opposed her majoring in it because they thought art was not practical. I advised her not to clash with her family and to keep music as a minor. She later went to graduate school in music and won a position in a British orchestra. At first, she sat at the back of the viola section because her technique was not as strong as conservatory-trained players. Five years later she called me and said she had been promoted. I thought she had become a section leader, but she told me she had become principal violist.
Her technique had improved, but another key reason was her broader education. The orchestra often performed modern works, and the conductor would ask about historical background or compositional ideas. Others could not always answer, but she could. Gradually the conductor noticed her perspective. Students from comprehensive universities may not always have the strongest technique, but they often have cultural depth, intellectual flexibility, and a broader vision. The demands on musicians are changing as society evolves.
Higher art education aims not only to train outstanding artists, but also to cultivate people who truly understand art. They may become lawyers, doctors, or engineers, but they will also become informed and sensitive audiences. Art cannot exist without appreciation. Without an audience capable of understanding it, art easily disappears.
Zang Na: Do you see comprehensive education as a future direction for art education?
Kui Dong: Absolutely. Comprehensive education is the future. A broad education gives students analytical judgment and makes them more competitive. Chinese universities are also moving toward general education, and I think this is encouraging. Chinese culture itself is expansive and inclusive. It has always absorbed and integrated different cultures into a coherent whole. This openness may point toward the future direction of humanities education in China.
Zang Na: Professor Dong, meeting you in Silicon Valley has been tremendously rewarding. Your Eastern perspective on American higher arts education will bring valuable insights to readers in China. Thank you for the afternoon tea, and I look forward to your new work.
Originally published in New Century Theatre, No. 6, 2015, pp. 62–67.
中文原文
编者按
美国加州帕罗奥图市（Palo Alto）硅谷大学街（University Ave）Paris Baguette甜品店，刚刚在国内分别数月，再次见到董夔教授已是2015年8月初的一个午后。作为美国达特茅斯学院终身作曲教授、美籍华裔作曲家，她在音乐艺术领域拥有中美双重文化背景：1983年董夔考入中央音乐学院作曲系，师从杜铭心、吴祖强教授，成为上世纪80年代末带有“新启蒙”时代风尚的中国作曲家；1990年进入斯坦福大学学习电脑音乐，1996年获得斯坦福大学博士学位，她的作品曾在美国、奥地利、意大利获奖，被《华盛顿邮报》等西方媒体誉为“具有超凡的美感和想象力”“一个混合音响的迷宫”。2015年五六月间，董夔带着自己的室内乐作品回到中国，在中央音乐学院、沈阳音乐学院等艺术院校举办音乐会，并开设讲座，其极富现代性意味和思想魅力的音乐作品，无形中构建出中西方艺术思想交流与融合的文化场域，引人怀想。数月后跨越一个半球再次相见，漫无边际的闲谈中充斥着时空张力，她立足于中西方双重文化视野解读美国高等艺术教育，成为这次午后漫谈的一个重要话题。
东方视野中的美国高等艺术教育
臧娜：前段时间在国内听了您的讲座，听您讲自己的音乐创作经历，里面有一种东西方艺术思想相互碰撞的味道。但是当时时间有限，您更多是就音乐创作和具体作品来谈，感觉意犹未尽，这次我们可不可以换一个角度，从东方人的视角讲讲您对美国艺术领域尤其是艺术教育的看法，毕竟您的人生经历正好中美各占一半，还是很有发言权的。
董夔：我是1987年从中央音乐学院作曲系毕业，当时国内的影视产业刚刚开始发展，音乐学院的学生就有了赚钱的通路，比如为影视作品配器、为广告编曲，跟普通大学生比我们就显得很富裕。但我对“产业”始终有一点异议，觉得不能什么都做产业，比如一个电视导演来找你，说需要一段比较伤感的音乐或者一段比较愉悦的音乐，这当然很赚钱，但从创作者自身角度讲，这只是一种商业行为，商业化之后就容易流于模式化，久而久之，就会缺乏创新。对我来说，商业音乐和艺术音乐是应该分开的，因为它们的功用不一样。
后来我来美国读书，继续搞作曲。事实上艺术在美国受经济或者说市场的影响也比较大，美国不大追求纯艺术，作为一个作曲家你出去人家会问你曾经为哪个电影作曲，一般认为这才是作曲家应该做的，而专门写艺术音乐是赚不到很多钱的。在资本主义国家，艺术基本都是靠私人和基金会资助，国家给得很少（当然欧洲给得多一些，比较支持纯艺术）。在美国，领先的领域还是科技，一般美国大学理学院都很富裕，尤其硅谷的很多创业者都是斯坦福毕业的，会回馈给母校很多捐款，美国人喜欢捐款给教育和贫困群体，但为艺术出钱的人相对少。
形成这种状况的原因有很多，这里面文化传统是非常重要的。文科在美国不是很受重视，至少没有理科那么受重视。现在美国的人文工作者也认为美国的人文状况比以前差了很多，就是因为这是一个移民国家，外来移民来这里要解决的第一件事是吃饱饭，是基本生活，上层建筑是下一步要考虑的东西，所以一般移民的第二代才开始注重文化教育，这里有一个延迟（delay）。所以美国在文化上就不如欧洲土壤那么深厚，美国的大好河山有时候让人觉得没有欧洲那么好看，其实是缺乏比较精致和有历史感的内容。当然这里也有极端高雅文化，但快餐文化非常普遍，而且这种快餐文化现在已经出现在全世界范围，必须承认，这是美国艺术和人文领域发展的一个问题。
臧娜：这么说，在美国，快餐文化和产业化是制约纯艺术发展的一个因素。但我们现在把美国看做是当代艺术的“主场”，事实也是这样，二战之后美国艺术市场逐渐发展起来，这种繁荣背后肯定有一定的原因，除了政治、经济的因素之外，艺术教育在这个过程中扮演了什么样的角色，体现出哪些特点呢？
董夔：美国的快餐文化确实有一种模式化的东西在里面，但是如果你只是模仿别人，也是活不下去的。比如搞流行音乐，如果没有自己的风格，没有自己的个性，也是无法立足的。这跟美国艺术教育，或者说教育从开始就讲求个性化有关。
美国从小学教育开始就要求个性化，要求你跳出模式化思维之外（think out of box），所以孩子们从小就有反抗传统的心理。这对艺术本身和艺术市场的发展有比较积极的意义，因为艺术本身就是“个人主义”的，首先是要你喜欢，你要有这个热情，自己愿意去做，“个人主义”一定是多样化的，这是艺术的最基本特性。如果一切都大同了就不会有多样化，这也是美国艺术教育为艺术市场发展做出的积极影响。
当然，完全追求个性化、反抗传统也有不好的地方，容易矫枉过正，因为太过求新就会缺乏继承和积累。有的时候你的技术由于缺乏积累还停留在一个比较低的层次，想创造新的东西就很难达到。
臧娜：我理解是不是可以这样说，虽然说艺术的产业化、快餐化存在模式化的弊端，但因为有个性化的教育提供创新的土壤，美国的艺术产业才能够实现今天的繁荣发展。
董夔：可以这样说。事实上，不管快餐文化、艺术产业发展得怎样，美国的艺术教育，尤其是大学里面的艺术教育还是尽量比较纯净，比较“高大上”。比如，在大学里很少有人会开课教学生写流行歌，因为在美国流行音乐很普遍，随便拉出一个小孩子就有可能是下一个歌星或者吉他手，很多人不用上学也可以做流行音乐。而学校的作用，就是在教你技术的同时更强调怎样去运用技术，也就是给你提供一个土壤，把艺术的种子种进去，将来你要搞流行的或是尖端的艺术都可以，可以自由选择。
臧娜：刚刚你提到美国大学里面的艺术教育比较“高大上”，我比较好奇，这种“高大上”体现在哪儿呢？
董夔：一个是我前面提到的“个性化”，这个比较遵循纯艺术的观念，就是多样化。还有一个就是强调综合性的人文教育（liberal art education）。从我们综合性大学里面开设音乐艺术教育来讲，外籍学生一般比美国学生的基础音乐技术要好，而在我们学校，学生虽然是学音乐的，但除了本学科之外，什么都懂一些，这就是综合性大学人文教育的结果。达特茅斯（Dartmouth）是以全才教育理念而著称的。比如说，新生第一年不选主科，如果你入校时偏重理科，学校就一定要你学两门艺术学科的课；反过来，偏重人文的就一定要学数理化。
欧美通行的人文教育实际上类似于通识教育，美国通识教育的最大目标是要为整个社会培育出全面发展的人，当然教授技术也是教育的一部分，但不是最终目标。我们的学生入学前两年是不分专业的，只是在报名的时候说明自己选择专业的倾向性，学生们入学第二年之后才能够选择专业方向，有的学生学两个专业，可以选修一个主科（major）和一个副科（minor）。在我们学校（达特茅斯学院），艺术类专业是为整个学校服务的。音乐系每年只有十个毕业生，但是用音乐作为副科的学生不在少数，每学期上过音乐系课程的学生几百人不等。这些辅修音乐的学生将来毕业之后，也有人最后放弃了自己的主科，选择从事音乐，这样的学生一般来说更有发展潜力。
我给你举个例子，我有一个学生Carmen Flores是拉中提琴的，她当时来我音乐学院上课的时候，主修的是地理。但是她热爱音乐，家里人不同意她主修音乐，因为在美国大家认为艺术不够实际，不能让你吃饱饭。我们学校是私立学校，学费很高，除了学生功课要特别好之外，家里还要供得起，两个缺一不可，很多学生是带着遗产来的。这个学生的家长说得特别明白，如果你主修音乐，家里的遗产就不给你了。这个学生问我怎么办。我说你还是不要跟家里人有冲突，可以把音乐作为副科。她最后以地理主科、音乐副科毕业了，毕业之后她又读了研究生，把音乐作为主科。研究生毕业之后，她考进了英国的一个大乐队，这个乐队虽然没有伦敦交响乐团那么棒，也已经是很不错的了。进了乐队之后，她一直坐在乐团的最后一排，因为她手上的技术没有别人好，她的同事都是专科音乐学院出来的，技术特棒。五年之后，突然有一天她给我打了个电话，“老师，你知道吗，我提升啦”。我当时很高兴，乐队里面“提升”，指的一般就是你成为你们这个声部的声部长，我说，“你是做声部长了吗？”她说，“不是，我做中提琴声部首席啦！”
臧娜：太让人兴奋了，一定是她的技术在乐队里不断提升了吧？
董夔：一个原因是她的技术在不断的提升，还有一个更重要的原因，她说，“老师我非常感谢您，您教了我很多作曲上的东西”。因为很多音乐学院管弦乐系的学生对音乐学、音乐史和作品分析不如作曲系的学生那么感兴趣，课程随便上一通；但是我们这种综合类大学要求你每门课都要上得特别好，在专科音乐学院一般只要求作曲系学生要把“四大件”学得特别好，管弦系的四大件学得差不多了就行，因为是共同课，不是专业课，管弦系学生最后还是要拉琴或者吹小号，不是作曲，老师也不会那么严格要求学生。但是，在我们这里共同课和专业课是一样的，学生必须要好好学，为了拿到A的成绩，学生会非常努力。那个学生跟我说，他们那个交响乐团经常演现代作品，在排练的时候，乐队指挥会经常问，某一段现代音乐作品的历史如何，是怎么创作的，有时其他人答不出来，只有她一个人答得出来，指挥慢慢就注意到她了，而且越来越喜欢她，主要是因为她的学习背景决定了她的视野。
虽然这个学生技术上可能还是没有科班出身的人那么好，但是她更有头脑，这对她帮助很大。像她这种不是专科音乐学院毕业，技术在乐队里也算不上最好，三十几岁就坐到首席的位置，是非常不容易的，也是很棒的。这个学生非常有想法，现在又组成了一个弦乐乐团，自己做团长，更说明她有头脑，有组织能力。我们这种综合类院校培养的学生可能技术没有专科院校的学生那么好，但是有足够的文化底蕴。我们的学生也有考进很好的交响乐团作乐手，他们可能因为技术原因坐不到乐团的前几排，但他们却是最聪明最有头脑的人，因为时代在发展，对音乐家的要求也不一样。
臧娜：我明白了，这就是您说的“高大上”的美国高等艺术教育，强调个性化和综合性，这种人文教育培养出来的学生更有发展潜力，不论是您说的“流行的”还是“尖端的”艺术领域，未来都需要这样的人去推动。
董夔：当然，我们知道在任何一个社会里，艺术家都是比较难生存的，所以我们一般都很小心跟学生建议，“你学音乐专业吧！”因为这个很难，除非你有热情（passion）或者天赋。对于高等艺术教育来说，第一当然是想培养高水平的艺术家，第二是想培养懂艺术的人，这些人可能是未来的律师、医生或者工程师，但他们同时也是高水平的艺术欣赏人。因为艺术的发展是脱离不开观众的，就是说要有人欣赏你，如果没有这样一群人能够去欣赏你的艺术，那么这个艺术就很容易消失。
臧娜：是的，艺术受众对于艺术的发展是很重要的，这需要一种综合性的艺术教育作土壤。您认为这是未来艺术教育的一个发展趋势吗？就是在更大程度上打破专业的隔阂和界限。
董夔：综合性一定是未来艺术教育的一个方向。比如刚刚我提到的这个学生，她现在是中提琴首席，你说她聪明么，我见过聪明孩子多了，她也不是特聪明，只是她曾经在综合性大学里学习，知识面广，有比较强的分析判断能力，在将来的社会更有竞争力。
臧娜：刚刚您提到的通识教育，现在国内大学也在实施，不知道您对这方面有没有了解，怎样能建立起一种复合中国国情的人文教育体系呢，能提些建议吗？
董夔：这个我有些了解，国内大学的一些有识之士已经意识到向人文教育这方面转了，这是值得期待的。我认为这种转向是符合中国文化实际的，因为中国文化本身就在于她的博大。改革开放之后我们吸收了很多西方的东西进来，到现在很多人都在追问什么是中国文化，其实我觉得没有必要去穷究这个，因为民国之前是清朝，如果说汉文化是中国本土文化的话，那么中国本土文化把满族给同化了，如果说明朝有中国传统的东西，再往前追溯是元朝，又是外来文化，也许中国文化就在于她的博大，他能够接受别的文化进来，自成一体，这可能也代表了中国人文教育的一个发展方向。
臧娜：董老师，这次美国之行能够在硅谷见到您真是一个巨大收获，您本人是华裔，人生经历又正好中美各占一半，从东方人的视角看美国高等艺术教育，相信会给国内的同行们带来一些启示。您还向我们介绍了您的那位学生，相信她的经历也会给很多学子带来希望，帮助他们找到未来的发展方向。感谢您的下午茶，听说您正忙于一部历史题材小说的出版，音乐人写小说，这也算是一种跨界吧，期待您的新作！
Originally published in New Century Theatre, No. 6, 2015, pp. 62–67.
原载于《新世纪剧坛》，2015年第6期，第62–67页。