Print

Mail

wiki links

Arts budget need creative thinking

'How could Cloud Gate have been allowed to make-do for so many years with what was little more than an illegally built corrugated metal shack?'

CLOUD GATE DANCE THEATRE'S (雲門舞集) rehearsal studio was recently destroyed by a fire and the unexpected event became an interlude to the presidential election. The pan-blue camp has promised to raise the arts and culture budget to 4 percent of the central government's budget in the next four years; the pan-green camp promises 5 percent. Would this fire have been helpful to the arts industry had it come a few years earlier? If Cloud Gate's misfortunes can improve the government's arts and culture policy, then it would be an unwitting contribution to the industry.

The government's support of the arts has usually been seen through increasing subsidies. Of course, the development of arts and culture requires financial support at every turn, hence an increase in the proportion of arts funding is the long cherished hope of the field.

However, would more money really bring better arts and culture? Not necessarily.

In recent years, the Council for Cultural Affairs (CCA) has had a more generous budget. But what has it produced? Are there any on-going plans for the improvement of the general public's artistic appreciation?

Culture is not an industry that requires a great deal of expenditure and a large budget creates problems when it comes to determining how it should be spent. The most common way is to hold events, so publicly funded cultural events range from large displays costing tens of millions of dollars to small conferences with foreign guests -- both of which have little benefit for cultural development. This shows that while more government funding for the arts is crucial, how to effectively spend the money is more important.

Take Cloud Gate for example: In a major country, such an internationally renowned company would probably have a "home" -- a specific performance venue/rehearsal space that offers seasonal performances to the public. How could Cloud Gate have been allowed to make-do for so many years with what was little more than an illegally built corrugated metal shack? This indicates that in terms of arts and culture, we are still a backward country, as neither the public and the government had noticed the company's predicament.

Even minor subsidies from the government for domestic and international tours sometimes arouse criticism. With this kind of attitude, more funding would still not achieve much.

The wise utilization of arts funding requires clear policy and concrete implementation. In other words, a good system must be defined. In today's materialistic climate, the argument that culture is good business has gradually gained the upper hand. But this has been misinterpreted to mean that only those art or cultural forms that can be turned into profitable businesses are worthwhile. Art becomes just another industry.

Such a belief might not have an adverse effect in countries where culture is intertwined with life, as in Europe. In Taiwan, however, where the idea of a culturally oriented lifestyle still needs to be cultivated, the idea may be premature.

For example, suggestions that companies such as Cloud Gate should be self-sufficient shows a lack of awareness of the arts and the kind of funding necessary to maintain such troupes.

In Taiwan, arts and culture and the cultural industry must be considered separately. Raising the public's appreciation of the arts is a cultural task, while the cultural creativity industry is a means of raising competitiveness. The two should not be confused. Following blindly in the steps of other countries will take us down the wrong path, and lead to the treatment of culture as business.

Culture is not business. In countries where cultural demand is high, it can be taken as such -- but we are still far from that stage. Hence Cloud Gate only stages about two weeks of performances a year in Taipei.

Until the cultural environment is mature, we still have to help Cloud Gate and other organizations that aspire to its achievements to survive and grow.

The foundation of culture is the fostering of environment -- without a foundation, the cultural creativity industry would never succeed. In the last few years, the CCA has spent a lot of funds on community building. While this is an important task, it is not directly linked to arts and culture and it does not help to lay down a solid foundation. The cultural creativity industry and community building are not unimportant. However, a healthy cultural environment, followed by efforts from industry and social bodies, is the only way to bring about results. Otherwise, money would be misspent without taking root -- once the funds dry up, the results wither.

Council Chairman Wang Tuoh (王拓) has suggested increasing the culture budget. This is good -- but first, a spending plan must be clearly thought out. The council and associated bodies must figure out what is to be done and how it is to be achieved. Otherwise, it would be a waste of taxpayers' money. Just look at the investment made by the council on the cultural creativity industry and community building.

Han Pao-teh is the director of the Museum of World Religions.

TRANSLATED BY ANGELA HONG
This story has been viewed 1002 times.