Recently, the government seems to have taken a broad view of culture.
It has turned its ideals into actions and is using events on the scale of the Olympic Games and World Exposition as a benchmark for creativity and strength in art and culture.
It continues to build large cultural centers, and internationally renowned performance groups and artists have displayed their creativity, causing a sensation with every performance.
Appearances by internationally recognized performers are major art and social events.
Many industrialists and art collectors with a passion for art often sponsor events and establish art awards and build museums and concert halls. They are in the news as often as the artists themselves.
From another perspective, massive spending on cultural events seems to have become the government’s way of showing that it cares about cultural affairs.
Little by little, this has led to increases in the government’s budget for culture, which now stands at 4 percent of the annual budget.
Furthermore, the formation of a NT$30 billion (US$952.4 million) art development fund has been named as a key policy.
The cultural events that appear in the news are mostly huge, glamorous events.
In particular, at a time when the arts industry has become so popular, any event that meets these requirements has the potential to be hyped.
Meanwhile, more and more luxury houses are built and decorated as art galleries, with paintings that cost a fortune.
A “rich and well-mannered” society seems to have formed among the rich and powerful.
While the cultural and artistic visions of the government and the social elite are set higher and higher, budget distribution and cultural content are becoming biased and formalistic.
The budget for one large show can be as much as the annual budget for the Taipei National University of the Arts, which actually trains artists.
Once the hardware is installed, the operational and management funds allocated by the government are extremely limited, while various “special budgets” for cultural development can be increased at any time.
The gap between the rich and poor in Taiwan is reflected in different living standards, eating habits, modes of dress and so on.
In the same way, spiritual aspects such as culture and art are now beginning to display a similar degree of polarization.
At one extreme, creative artists, performers and the audience are moving in a sophisticated, “high-class” direction, and traditional and folk arts are following suit.
Tickets to performances by famous groups and artists can cost upward of NT$10,000, but are still hard to come by.
At the other extreme are the small, unnoticed art and cultural groups that may have to pack it in at any time due to a lack of funds, the unemployed who don’t have the opportunity to experience art and cultural activities and those who habitually watch TV every day and seldom take the initiative to attend such activities.
Currently, the energy and appeal of domestic art and cultural groups is uneven and the public funding available to them is limited.
Most do not have many opportunities to perform. Even if they can join tours organized by social groups and government agencies to perform at schools and communities, it can be difficult for them to get much response from the audience, who prefer famous groups or artists.
In today’s cultural atmosphere, those in art circles know how hard it is to survive on ticket sales alone and they must, therefore, maintain good public relations.
Gaining endorsements from leading artists and getting to know the influential social elite and political heavyweights have therefore become important parts of the arts world. That is the only way to obtain a government contract or sponsorship and thus a chance to move to the other, wealthy, extreme of the spectrum.
Taiwan today thirsts for the political and economic benefits of hosting events with the power of an Olympic Games or a World Exposition.
From the perspective of the arts industry, it is necessary to host large international events and boost the tourism sector while integrating resources, training local talent and improving the standard of living of the Taiwanese public, and doing so would indeed be a step forward.
This does not mean, however, that the scale, content and budget allocation for large activities should be unlimited; there should be standards for evaluation and room for discussion.
For example, what is the value of such activities and what is the connection to local culture? How are the hundreds of millions or billions of NT dollars for the grand openings of such activities budgeted for? Is it really necessary to spend tens of millions of NT dollars to invite great masters of art to perform in Taiwan?
Culture itself is not unchangeable, and it cannot be cloned.
Nor is it a faucet out of which culture flows out automatically and continuously.
There may be many underlying major theories, but it is merely formed by common behavior and the experience concluded from this behavior.
Taiwan’s cultural development is becoming polarized and the public often only has the choice between engaging or not engaging in art and cultural activities.
Those who are interested in spending a fortune do so, while those who are not interested, or cannot afford it, live their lives without art or without the ability to nurture their passion.
This is a cultural misfortune indeed.
To promote cultural affairs, we must have a grasp of the essence of culture and understand the overall environment, as well as possess professional, creative, and practical abilities.
How can we help disadvantaged arts citizens and cultural groups break out of this situation?
Answering this question would be the first step to building a healthy cultural environment in Taiwan.
Chiu Kun-liang is a professor in the Department of Theater Arts at Taipei National University of the Arts.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
After “Operation Absolute Resolve” to capture former Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, the US joined Israel on Saturday last week in launching “Operation Epic Fury” to remove Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his theocratic regime leadership team. The two blitzes are widely believed to be a prelude to US President Donald Trump changing the geopolitical landscape in the Indo-Pacific region, targeting China’s rise. In the National Security Strategic report released in December last year, the Trump administration made it clear that the US would focus on “restoring American pre-eminence in the Western hemisphere,” and “competing with China economically and militarily
RSS