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
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS