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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS