Some people have said that the COVID-19 crisis is a combination of the 2003 SARS outbreak, the 2008 financial crisis and the 1930s Great Depression, but sometimes a crisis might be a turning point.
The 1997 Asian financial crisis turned out to be an opportunity for the rise of South Korea.
The Great Depression made many stock investors jump off buildings, but it also brought then-US president Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, which included the Works of Art Project and Works Progress Administration, where the US government paid artists weekly salaries to make murals, posters and sculptures.
The projects not only allowed nearly 4,000 artists to survive a difficult period, but it also helped those like Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko thrive.
The global arts sector has been hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic and many national governments have proposed relief packages for those in the arts. Last month, curator Hans Ulrich Obrist called on the British government to create a large-scale project — a version of the New Deal — so that British artists can continue to work during the crisis.
In Taiwan, the Ministry of Culture has proposed a bailout plan, but since early last month, people have criticized it because the Taipei Art Creator Trade Union is often excluded from the ministry’s consultation committee.
The union has more than 600 active members from various backgrounds — from arts and cultural workers to administrative and technical personnel. It provides legal consultations, contract templates and other services.
Artists often have an “artistic temperament” and tend not to ask for favors, not to mention fawn over the rich and powerful, so the government might have overlooked the real needs of the arts and cultural sector.
When formulating a bailout plan, the government should also listen to public opinion.
Over the past six years, NT$3.5 billion (US$116.27 million) has been spent on 2,200 pieces of public art, an average of one piece every day. Over the past 20 years, NT$7.5 billion was spent on public art projects, an average of 221 works per year. Having spent so much money, has art really become a part of daily life?
While the SARS prevention experience left a valuable legacy, public art projects seem to have only had a limited influence on the arts in Taiwan.
As the pandemic continues, policy must be adjusted, but what have been the effects of public works of art with sky-high prices? I have seen no in-depth research and statistics, only so-called “public art awards” that keep praising their selection every year, making government policy look good.
The artistic temperament often drives artists away from the tedious bidding and creation procedures required by public projects, so few artists submit projects and many know very little about it.
The result is that those making submissions tend to be the same familiar faces, while it is difficult for young emerging artists in need of help to benefit, adding to the difficulty of introducing new artists.
In the past, the Taipei City Government’s Department of Rapid Transit Systems did not let artists create their own works — they only had to submit a proposal to join a bid.
For example, the creation of public art at the Shuanglian and Xiaobitan MRT stations was carried out by the department based on the plans proposed by the artists who won the bid. The artists would later achieve a lot in their careers: some attracted so many clients that they could hardly handle demand, others became university teachers.
This practice is similar to Roosevelt’s New Deal: subsidizing newcomers rather than established artists. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case.
As the crisis worsens, so does artists’ situations. The ministry has only proposed “subsidies to assist arts operations,” but independent sculptors, painters, playwrights and so on are not “operations” who can provide proof of operations difficulties.
A more practical approach would be to add flexibility to the existing system, and the government should learn from the New Deal as it subsidizes projects.
Lu Ching-fu is a professor in Fu Jen Catholic University’s applied arts department.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
Despite calls to the contrary from their respective powerful neighbors, Taiwan and Somaliland continue to expand their relationship, endowing it with important new prospects. Fitting into this bigger picture is the historic Coast Guard Cooperation Agreement signed last month. The common goal is to move the already strong bilateral relationship toward operational cooperation, with significant and tangible mutual benefits to be observed. Essentially, the new agreement commits the parties to a course of conduct that is expressed in three fundamental activities: cooperation, intelligence sharing and technology transfer. This reflects the desire — shared by both nations — to achieve strategic results within
It is difficult not to agree with a few points stated by Christian Whiton in his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” and yet the main idea is flawed. I am a Polish journalist who considers Taiwan her second home. I am conservative, and I might disagree with some social changes being promoted in Taiwan right now, especially the push for progressiveness backed by leftists from the West — we need to clean up our mess before blaming the Taiwanese. However, I would never think that those issues should dominate the West’s judgement of Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. The question is not whether
RSS