The Culture of Chuxiong Yi Nationality “LaoHu Sheng”: The Original Human Art Study for Inheritance and Promotion
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study aimed to explore the artistic origins and cultural significance of the Yi ethnic group's "LaoHu Sheng." The research objectives included: (1) analyzing the artistic characteristics and generation logic of the "LaoHu Sheng" from the perspective of Western theories of the origin of art (imitation theory, expression theory, witchcraft theory, etc.); (2) exploring its cultural connotations and social functions in the Chuxiong Yi society; and (3) revealing the value of the "LaoHu Sheng" in the inheritance and identity of contemporary ethnic culture. The study used the "LaoHu Sheng" performances and related groups in the Chuxiong area as samples, adopted a combination of literature review and participatory observation, and conducted a systematic study through content analysis.
The study results showed that: 1. The "LaoHu Sheng" embodied multiple origin motivations in its artistic form, including the imitation of natural forms and the externalization of ethnic emotions and beliefs while retaining ritual and witchcraft characteristics. 2. In terms of cultural function, the "LaoHu Sheng" was not only an important carrier of religious sacrifices and nature worship but also a core form of ethnic festivals and social interactions, which enhanced the cohesion and cultural identity of the ethnic group. 3. In the contemporary context, the "LaoHu Sheng," as an intangible cultural heritage, held significant value for preservation and inheritance while also providing a unique resource and practical case for the dissemination of national culture and artistic innovation.
Overall, this study reveals the multidimensional characteristics of "LaoHu Sheng" as a complex art and culture, providing new empirical support for cross-cultural research on theories of artistic origins.
Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Views and opinions appearing in the Journal it is the responsibility of the author of the article, and does not constitute the view and responsibility of the editorial team.
References
Bradley, D. (2012). Language policy for the Yi, In Stevan Harrell (ed.), Perspectives on the Yi of Southwest China (Oakland, CA, 2001; online ed.). California Scholarship Online. https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520219885.003.0013
Gershman, B. (2022). Witchcraft beliefs around the world: An exploratory analysis. PloS ONE, 17(11), e0276872. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276872
Kuhn, D. (1973). Imitation theory and research from a cognitive perspective. Human Development, 16(3), 157-180. https://doi.org/10.1159/000271274
Lorblanchet, M. (2007). The origin of art. Diogenes, 54(2), 98-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0392192107077651
Lin, L., & Gui, Y. (2025). Traditional culture of settlements associated with the natural environment: the case of Yi minority Southwest China. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 24(4), 2411-2429. https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2024.2373822
Lei, H. (2020, November). A comparative cultural study of Australian Yurlungur totem and Yi Tiger totem. In 2020 Conference on Education, Language and Inter-cultural Communication (ELIC 2020) (pp. 535-539). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.201127.106
Takhvar, M. (1988). Play and theories of play: A review of the literature. Early Child Development and Care, 39(1), 221–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/0300443880390117
Wang, J., Mayusoh, C., Inkuer, A., & Puntien, P. (2024). Research report on Chuxiong Yi clothing culture. Journal of Roi Kaensarn Academi, 9(7), 330-339. Retrieved from https://so02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/JRKSA/article/view/269004
Zhurov, R. Ia. (1977). On one hypothesis relating to the origin of art. Soviet Anthropology and Archeology, 16(3–4), 43–63. https://doi.org/10.2753/AAE1061-195916030443
Zhurov, R. Ia. (1981). On the question of the origin of art (an answer to opponents). Soviet Anthropology and Archeology, 20(3), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.2753/AAE1061-1959200359