The true value of creating a work of art lies in the sincerity of the process; there should be no exaggerated or dishonest propaganda. It is absurd for the National Palace Museum to say that the opening of its southern branch in Chiayi County was done without any political considerations.
The opening of a museum refers to the completion and inauguration of its exhibition hall. “Completion and inauguration” means that the construction work has ended and the museum is ready to be opened, while the end of construction work means that all internal and external facilities have been completed and are ready to use. These include exhibition halls, walkways, displays, recreational facilities, offices and restrooms, as well as external elements, such as plants, footpaths, lighting and parking facilities. Only after all these have been completed is it time to determine an opening date.
The shabby and chaotic environment around the museum on opening day raises an important question: What reason did the officials have to open the museum apart from political considerations?
The interpretation of art is subjective. Considering the issue from a traditional feng shui perspective, it can be said that some “political feng shui” was involved in the museum’s opening.
The animal head statues in Beijing’s Old Summer Palace are fire prevention measures that serve as water drainage. They depict low-ranking auspicious animals that are believed to attract good fortune and repel bad luck. Gargoyles that are used for decorative purposes in Western architecture fulfill a similar purpose.
However, the 12 animal head statues that represent the Chinese zodiac at the palace, whose replicas are being exhibited in the museum, are different. They were placed on high pedestals in an arrangement that changes their significance and echoes an image of the Son of Heaven traditional Chinese space arrangement.
The replicas at the museum are displayed in a Chinese-style courtyard and could be interpreted as trapped animals, although the dragon can fly and cannot be controlled. One interpretation is that Taiwan is controlled by Beijing throughout the year, while confrontation between the pan-blue and pan-green camps continues everyday. The Zhimei Bridge at the museum also echoes the Danbi Bridge in the Temple of Heaven in Beijing.
The museum’s opening has caused controversy and officials have been trying to cover its flaws by hiding behind the museum’s architect Kris Yao (姚仁喜), saying that the replicas were a part of Yao’s design and that they are significant contemporary artworks.
However, Yao is known for his good taste — the Water-Moon Monastery (水月道場) in Taipei is proof of that — and he would never have included the replicas in his design. As for the question of whether they can be seen as “public art,” it can be answered by checking a resolution by the branch’s public art installation committee.
After President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Hong Kong actor Jackie Chan (成龍) attended the museum’s opening ceremony, the museum made an explanation about Chan’s donation of the replicas, but it was not convincing.
First, if the donation was made with honest intentions, why did the Jackie Chan Charitable Foundation keep a low profile, avoiding any promotion after the museum accepted the donation?
Second, if Chan thinks that the replicas would help people realize that such “cultural heritage” belongs to the whole world, why does he not have more of them made and share them with other museums around the world?
Last, some of the original animal head statues have never been recovered, so the replicas are copies of artworks whose authenticity are questionable. They are counterfeits with zero collection value.
Why is the museum treating them as works of art despite the criticism?
On Dec. 30, Chen Yi-ting (陳儀庭) and Chen Miao-ting (陳妙婷) allegedly vandalized the bronze dragon and horse heads displayed at the museum, bringing the issue under the spotlight. Politics should honor art and not go beyond it. Making a cultural decision based on political considerations sets the worst example.
After setting such a bad example, the museum should keep a low profile and take people’s advice to carry out the necessary adjustments quietly to make sure the facts are understood correctly.
Yang Chyi-wen is president of the Taipei National University of the Arts.
Translated by Eddy Chang
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS