Cross talk, also known as xiangsheng (相声), was once on the verge of becoming extinct in the field of traditional Chinese folk arts. Since the Qing Dynasty, audiences have been captivated by this performance art, which combines caustic monologue, narrative, and humorous conversation. However, as the 20th century came to a conclusion, its allure started to fade. In the face of contemporary entertainment forms, xiangsheng was having difficulty retaining its cultural value at the turn of the millennium. But one individual, Guo Degang (Chinese: 郭德纲; pinyin: Guō Dégāng), is largely responsible for the resurgence of this cherished genre.
Guo Degang, who was born in Tianjin, China’s ancient center of the performing arts, in 1973, started his xiangsheng adventure when he was just nine years old. Guo became a shining example for xiangsheng fans by becoming proficient in a wide range of traditional and modern works and developing his abilities in other folk arts like pingshu (storytelling) and jingju (Peking Opera). A turning point for the art form was reached in 1996 when he founded the Deyun Club, which provided a fresh forum for cross-talk and eventually drew viewers back to theaters.
Guo takes a very different stance on xiangsheng. He incorporates elements into his presentations that are unconventional by conventional standards, such as open conversations about current societal issues like job struggles, the secrets of the entertainment industry, and even more controversial subjects like prostitution and pornography. The everyday experiences and societal annoyances of the average person are reflected in this daring content, which is humorously wrapped.
However, not all critics have found Guo’s style to be appealing. Many have criticized him as a purveyor of vulgarity because of his use of crude humor and moral dilemmas. However, the contradiction of Guo’s public image—vilified yet incredibly popular—is highlighted by these very criticisms. His online persona on Weibo, where he displays a completely other aspect of himself—eloquent, sophisticated, and representative of classic Chinese literati aesthetics—also reflects this dichotomy. In sharp contrast to his theatrical demeanor, his posts frequently contain traditional poetry that reflects a profound respect for classical Chinese culture.
This dichotomy is representative of the quyi (folk performance) yasugongshang heritage, where art is supposed to satisfy both affluent and common tastes. Guo Degang succeeds in this custom by drawing a wide range of viewers. His performances serve as a means of both conserving and adapting xiangsheng’s cultural legacy to modern preferences and social awareness.
Authorities and some traditionalists have criticized Guo for what they see as the coarsening of xiangsheng, but Guo has capitalized on the criticism to increase his popularity and influence. Instead of impeding him, the charges of vulgarity have strengthened his reputation as a cultural figure who defies convention in the arts.
The resurgence of xiangsheng and Guo Degang’s professional path highlight a larger issue that is present in many modern societies: the conflict between cultural adaptation and preservation in a society that is always changing. His ability to use humor to address weighty societal issues while still showcasing ancient Chinese art on his microblog demonstrates the nuanced, multi-layered nature of public personas and the arts they support.
Essentially, Guo Degang has reinterpreted xiangsheng in addition to reviving it, providing a mirror reflecting both the positive and negative aspects of contemporary Chinese society. His work reminds us that culture is a living, breathing phenomenon that changes with its people, highlighting the classical arts’ continued relevance in contemporary conversation. Guo’s tale demonstrates the adaptability and tenacity of cultural manifestations, striking a chord with a new generation while respecting the heritage of the past.
References:
Cai, Shenshen. “Guo Degang: A Xiangsheng (Cross Talk) Performer Bridging the Gap Between Su (Vulgarity) and Ya (Elegance).” Asian ethnology 76.2 (2017): 343-365.
