Taipei's Huashan Arts District has been in the news recently. First some Taipei City councilors alleged that events held in the area sometimes involved inappropriate behavior. Figures from the art world repeatedly denied the claim and the row finally subsided. But the area has once again become the focus of media attention as artists protest a plan by the Council of Cultural Affairs to turn the area into a "creativity park." The council plans to establish such parks in six cities as part of its efforts to implement the Executive Yuan's new national development policy.
The key point of the protest is that the Huashan Arts District is already used exclusively by the art world, which can't accept a utilization plan which focuses on design and technological art. They believe that they are being rebuffed by industrialists. The council's explanation was that the district is a vast area totaling seven hectares. The area used by artists accounts for less than two hectares and therefore the industrial and artistic aspects can coexist. Apparently, the explanation has not assuaged the worries of local artists.
Such worries arise because the artists' use of Huashan's land and old winery buildings has never been very realistic. Even though the artists are supported by the council and Taipei City's Cultural Affairs Bureau, they find it difficult to believe that they will have use of the space permanently.
Certainly, there are examples in other countries of idle space being given over to unrestricted artistic use. It is very rare, however, for prime real estate such as the defunct Huashan winery -- located in the heart of the city and having few buildings truly worthy of preservation -- to be allocated for low-level utilization and handed over to artists for the purpose of holding cultural activities.
In the 1990s, countries began to consider economic factors as they developed cultural policy. It is not about viewing culture as an industry and calculating every trifle. It is rather a change of concept -- culture no longer has the sacred aura of a phenomenon to be prompted and enjoyed for its own sake. Rather, it is viewed as a type of service industry in accordance with the norms of democratic society. Its costs and efficiency therefore need to be calculated.
The art world is not used to hearing words such as "cost" from the captains of industry and commerce. Artists believe that the efficiency of culture cannot be measured. It cries out loudly, emphasizing the importance of culture to society and demanding that the government support it without calculating the cost. It believes that culture and the arts have nothing to do with industry and economics and that ne'er the twain shall meet.
But times have changed. Culture and the art, involving, as they do, only a small number of people, cannot demand unlimited support from taxpayers in a democratic society. As they enjoy the support they receive from the state, artists must keep an abacus in their minds. No matter how they calculate, they must produce results that demonstrate that they have not made poor use of the state's good intentions.
The Huashan Arts District is located in a downtown area. Using it for artistic activities that attract small crowds therefore incurs a high opportunity cost. The art world does not like to talk about production value and hates having to calculate money. But let's try to do a rough calculation. Let's suppose Huashan's land area is 5,000 ping (16,500m2) at a value of NT$1 million per ping. Its total value will be NT$5 billion. Should the government provide such space to the art world for low-level, low-volume activities at the cost of NT$5 billion? Perhaps more suitable permanent venues can be found elsewhere in Taipei at a cost of less than NT$1 billion.
Unless the Huashan Arts District can attract large numbers of city residents to its activities, even someone like me -- who knows nothing about bookkeeping -- will feel that it is a waste of state resources. For the same reason, I do not support the creativity park proposed by the Council of Cultural Affairs.
Whether we should have a concentration of creative activities closely related to industry is still open to debate. Such design and research and development work can be conducted at industrial parks across the country. It does not need to be done on prime real estate in a downtown area.
As far as I know, both New York and Los Angeles have sizable garment design industries. Both have venues for exhibitions, which may even be combined with design schools. But such venues are generally located some distance away from downtown areas because -- unlike large-scale retail businesses or popular performance-arts industries -- they do not need downtown locations.
The art world certainly needs space for activities, but it is not reasonable for the government to allocate a piece of highly valuable land and old factory buildings for this purpose. Rather, the government should weigh the value of various activities and provide subsidies through entities such as the National Culture and Arts Foundation (
A large tract of land in the middle of the city is an important resource that belongs to everyone. It can be used for artistic activities, but they have to be events that can be shared with the masses.
The art world may find this unacceptable, but this is the way of the world and they will have to wake up to that fact sooner or later.
Han Pao-teh is director of the Museum of World Religions.
Translated by Francis Huang
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS