What would happen if a cultural and creative park became a grocery park? During the Legislative Yuan’s review of draft amendments to the Act for the Development of the Cultural and Creative Industries (文化創意產業發展法), Ministry of Culture officials were asked whether a women’s shoes sale at Taipei’s Huashan 1914 Creative Park constituted a cultural and creative event. The answer was “no,” with the ministry saying that the park should be better used.
Similarly, Songshan Cultural and Creative Park operates more like a department store. Why have such cases occurred for so long?
The government hands over its cultural and creative parks to businesses to run as build-operate-transfer (BOT) projects, but these businesses often forget about the art and focus on profit. They compete for profitable business and forget about cultural and creative affairs.
This is a result of the government’s inadequate supervision and direction, which should be based on a clear definition of what can be called cultural and creative.
No wonder legislators demanded that the government distinguish between cultural and creative affairs and other affairs, and that academics have called for it to restrict the scope of what it considers cultural and creative affairs so it can stop shooting in the dark when it comes to BOT deals.
Prior to the administration of President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) taking office in May 2016, the ministry was planning to redefine the concept, but nothing has happened since then.
The cultural and creative industries in Taiwan are more complex than in the UK, seen as the birthplace of such industries. The British creative industries include 12 sectors, while Taiwan has 16.
The UK excludes the cultural sector from the creative industries, because according to its definition, creative industries are “those industries which have their origin in individual creativity, skill and talent, and which have a potential for wealth and job creation through the generation and exploitation of intellectual property,” so the cultural sector does not belong here.
The cultural sector — the “cultural facility for exhibiting and performing industries” — is included in Taiwan. It consists of seven sectors, including art galleries, museums and concert halls. Due to the wide scope, it seems almost anything can be interpreted as being part of the cultural and creative industries and therefore can be allowed in cultural and creative parks.
These days, even a TV cooking show can be labeled as part of the cultural and creative industries.
The government should lead the efforts to correct this situation.
Cultural and creative parks are indirectly managed by the ministry, which last month hosted the annual Creative Expo Taiwan, which could have offered an opportunity to correct its mistaken image of such parks. Unfortunately, the expo was akin to a grocery fair. The Japanese version of the expo’s Web page proclaimed that the expo was perfect for buyers interested in Taiwanese groceries and product design.
Similar exhibitions in Taiwan are too numerous to count, such as the Taiwan Design Expo, the Taipei World Design Expo — licensed by International Design Alliance — and the 100 Years of Taiwanese Design Exhibition.
The quality of the Creative Expo Taiwan did not surpass those events, not surprising given that its third edition in 2012 was criticized for the uneven quality of its participants.
Perhaps it is time for the government to step back and let the private sector take over.
As participants from Beijing once said, although each designer at the expo was outstanding, the event failed to build strong and powerful brands. The ministry should focus on branding.
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) once said during a legislative question-and-answer session that the creative expo would be canceled if the ministry was unable improve it the following year.
The expo is to be divided into two parts, one the responsibility of the culture ministry and the other of the Ministry of Economic Affairs. However, what is really needed is a centralized authority and cooperation between all agencies.
In the UK, economic affairs in the creative industries are the sole responsibility of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. As it has left manufacturing era behind, the UK has been focusing on creativity as the core of British culture. This has now even become part of its national identity. Today, British creative industries employ more people than other industries.
South Korea is trying to catch up with the UK, and the hallyu, or “Korean Wave,” is quickly gaining strength. South Korean dramas The Great Jang-geum and My Love From the Star have generated earnings of about NT$90 billion (US$3.02 billion) each.
Lu Ching-fu is a professor in Fu-Jen Catholic University’s Department of Applied Arts.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers