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
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS