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
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US