Community Art
Kate CREHAN, in Community Art: An Anthropological Perspective, stated that the influence of the anti-war movement in the 60s gave rise to the term “community art,” which was first used by theater, visual art and image workers that co-produced political art projects with residents of communities to advocate social issues of their concern. Community art subsequently spread in the UK in the 1970s. The Arts Council of Great Britain at that time attempted to provide a preliminary definition of community art: “‘Community artists’ are distinguishable not by the techniques they use […], but by their attitude towards the place of their activities in the life of society […]. They therefore differ from the practisers of the more established arts in that they are chiefly concerned with a process rather than a finished product.” However, due to their evasiveness in discussing aesthetic qualities as well as the lack of a fully developed theoretical framework and cultural continuation, community art in the UK was faced with ghettoization in the 80s.
As the martial law was lifted, Taiwan’s community art scene began to unveil after the implementation of cultural policies facilitating “total community construction.” At first, related theorization mainly emphasized on the characteristics of a place and space in terms of understanding community art as neighborhood-based. Since the publication and translation of Nicolas BOURRIAUD’s Relational Aesthetics after 2000, the concept of community art as what brought people together through “a shared idea” began to emerge. Generally speaking, Taiwan’s community art appropriated the concept without developing a specific art movement as an art genre; instead, its approachable qualities have evolved through different social condition and were flexibly integrated with other art genres to formulate the creative methods in individual art practice.
“Treasure Hill” was Taiwan’s first example of keeping historical buildings in the form of a community. The process of preserving the buildings in this community and the living rights of its residents gave births to “Treasure Hill Community Team” (1997) formed by members from the NTU Graduate Institute of Building and Planning, and the temporary “Treasure Hill Commune” (2006) comprising artists, social movement activists, students and community residents. The latter originated from artist LEE Kuo-Min’s residency project, entitled Love Hotel, and employed action theater and performance art to draw the public’s attention towards issues related to forced eviction and cultural heritage preservation. After continuous negotiations of various parties, the Treasure Hill community was eventually preserved and renamed “Treasure Hill Artist Village,” which served as a textbook example of Taiwan’s early community art. Nevertheless, the intervention of the government and commercial mechanism has caused concerns regarding gentrification in the later period.
Currently, there are other on-going community art projects in Taiwan, including “Good toad Studio” based on Toad Mountain in the outskirt of Taipei, “Tree Tree Tree Person” that mainly operates in Datong and Dali Villages in Taroko National Park, and Togo Art Museum co-founded by Tainan National University of the Arts and local residents since 2005.
Reference
As the martial law was lifted, Taiwan’s community art scene began to unveil after the implementation of cultural policies facilitating “total community construction.” At first, related theorization mainly emphasized on the characteristics of a place and space in terms of understanding community art as neighborhood-based. Since the publication and translation of Nicolas BOURRIAUD’s Relational Aesthetics after 2000, the concept of community art as what brought people together through “a shared idea” began to emerge. Generally speaking, Taiwan’s community art appropriated the concept without developing a specific art movement as an art genre; instead, its approachable qualities have evolved through different social condition and were flexibly integrated with other art genres to formulate the creative methods in individual art practice.
“Treasure Hill” was Taiwan’s first example of keeping historical buildings in the form of a community. The process of preserving the buildings in this community and the living rights of its residents gave births to “Treasure Hill Community Team” (1997) formed by members from the NTU Graduate Institute of Building and Planning, and the temporary “Treasure Hill Commune” (2006) comprising artists, social movement activists, students and community residents. The latter originated from artist LEE Kuo-Min’s residency project, entitled Love Hotel, and employed action theater and performance art to draw the public’s attention towards issues related to forced eviction and cultural heritage preservation. After continuous negotiations of various parties, the Treasure Hill community was eventually preserved and renamed “Treasure Hill Artist Village,” which served as a textbook example of Taiwan’s early community art. Nevertheless, the intervention of the government and commercial mechanism has caused concerns regarding gentrification in the later period.
Currently, there are other on-going community art projects in Taiwan, including “Good toad Studio” based on Toad Mountain in the outskirt of Taipei, “Tree Tree Tree Person” that mainly operates in Datong and Dali Villages in Taroko National Park, and Togo Art Museum co-founded by Tainan National University of the Arts and local residents since 2005.
Reference
- Bishop, Claire. Artificial Hells: Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship. Trans. Lin Hong-Tao. Taipei: ARTouch, 2015.
- Lu, Pei-Yi. “Translation of New Genre Public Art in Taiwan and Its Local Transformation.” Art Critique of Taiwan (ACT), no. 47 (2011.07), pp. 76-86.
- Crehan, Kate. Community Art: An Anthropological Perspective, Oxford: Berg Publishers, 2011.
- Community Arts Working Party. Community Arts: The Report of the Community Arts Working Party. Great Britain: Arts Council of Great Britain, 1974.
社群藝術（Community Art）
凱特．克瑞翰（Kate Crehan）在其著作《社群藝術：一種人類學觀點》（Community Art: An Anthropological Perspective）中指出，受到60年代反戰思潮的影響，「社群藝術」一詞首先被歐美地區的劇場、視覺藝術與影像工作者使用，他們與社區民眾共同製作政治性的藝術計畫來支持他們所關心的社會議題，社群藝術運動接續著在1970年代的英國展開。當時，英國藝術協會（The Arts Council of Great Britain）試圖為社群藝術提出初步的定義：「『社群藝術』的特色不在於其技巧[……]，而是在於他們對於其行動在社會生活裡的地位的態度。[……]他們和傳統藝術的創作不同之處，就在於他們關心的是過程而不是完成的產品[……]」。但也因為避談美學品質，與缺乏完整的論述框架、傳承文化，英國的社群藝術在80年代面臨了貧民窟化（Ghettoization）的問題。
隨著解嚴，臺灣的社群藝術隨著「社區總體營造」的文化政策展開。起先，相關論述多以強調地方與空間性質的「社區藝術」作為英文Community Art的翻譯，2000年之後，隨著尼可拉．布希歐《關係美學》（Relational Aesthetics）一書的出版與翻譯，能夠指涉透過「共同理念」凝聚起人群的「社群藝術」開始出現。大致上來說，臺灣的社群藝術借用了Community Art的概念，但並未發展成一特定類別的藝術運動，而是由於其平易近人的性質，隨著社會狀況的改變，靈活地混融其他藝術類別成為創作者實踐的方法。
臺灣第一處以聚落型態保存的歷史建築「寶藏巖社區」，在爭取社區建物保留與原居民居住權益的過程當中，曾經出現以臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究所為主的「寶藏巖社區工作團隊」（1997）與由藝術家、社會運動者、學生、社區居民組成的臨時性社群「寶藏巖公社」（2006）。後者發起於藝術家李國民的駐地作品〈Love Hotel〉，並以行動劇、行為表演等形式喚起社會對迫遷與文化資產保存的重視。在多方折衝下，寶藏巖聚落最後獲得保留，並改為「寶藏巖國際藝術村」，是臺灣早期社群藝術的例子，但後期因為政府與商業機制的介入，引起仕紳化的疑慮。
目前在臺灣持續進行的社群藝術實踐案例還有，2013年開始，位於臺北市近郊蟾蜍山的「好蟾蜍工作室」，以太魯閣國家公園裡的大同大禮部落作為主要實踐地點的「森人-太魯閣藝駐計畫」，以及2005年開始臺南藝術大學與社區居民共同打造的土溝農村美術館等。
參考文獻
1. 克萊兒．畢莎普，《人造地獄》，林宏濤譯，典藏，2015。
2. 呂佩怡，〈「新類型公共藝術」的轉譯與在地變異〉，藝術觀點（ACT），47期，頁76-86，2011.07。
3. 凱特．克瑞翰Kate Crehan (2011).《社群藝術：一種人類學觀點》Community Art: An Anthropological Perspective, Oxford: Berg Publishers
4. Community Arts Working Party (1974). Community Arts: The Report of the Community Arts Working Party. Great Britain: Arts Council of Great Britain
隨著解嚴，臺灣的社群藝術隨著「社區總體營造」的文化政策展開。起先，相關論述多以強調地方與空間性質的「社區藝術」作為英文Community Art的翻譯，2000年之後，隨著尼可拉．布希歐《關係美學》（Relational Aesthetics）一書的出版與翻譯，能夠指涉透過「共同理念」凝聚起人群的「社群藝術」開始出現。大致上來說，臺灣的社群藝術借用了Community Art的概念，但並未發展成一特定類別的藝術運動，而是由於其平易近人的性質，隨著社會狀況的改變，靈活地混融其他藝術類別成為創作者實踐的方法。
臺灣第一處以聚落型態保存的歷史建築「寶藏巖社區」，在爭取社區建物保留與原居民居住權益的過程當中，曾經出現以臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究所為主的「寶藏巖社區工作團隊」（1997）與由藝術家、社會運動者、學生、社區居民組成的臨時性社群「寶藏巖公社」（2006）。後者發起於藝術家李國民的駐地作品〈Love Hotel〉，並以行動劇、行為表演等形式喚起社會對迫遷與文化資產保存的重視。在多方折衝下，寶藏巖聚落最後獲得保留，並改為「寶藏巖國際藝術村」，是臺灣早期社群藝術的例子，但後期因為政府與商業機制的介入，引起仕紳化的疑慮。
目前在臺灣持續進行的社群藝術實踐案例還有，2013年開始，位於臺北市近郊蟾蜍山的「好蟾蜍工作室」，以太魯閣國家公園裡的大同大禮部落作為主要實踐地點的「森人-太魯閣藝駐計畫」，以及2005年開始臺南藝術大學與社區居民共同打造的土溝農村美術館等。
參考文獻
1. 克萊兒．畢莎普，《人造地獄》，林宏濤譯，典藏，2015。
2. 呂佩怡，〈「新類型公共藝術」的轉譯與在地變異〉，藝術觀點（ACT），47期，頁76-86，2011.07。
3. 凱特．克瑞翰Kate Crehan (2011).《社群藝術：一種人類學觀點》Community Art: An Anthropological Perspective, Oxford: Berg Publishers
4. Community Arts Working Party (1974). Community Arts: The Report of the Community Arts Working Party. Great Britain: Arts Council of Great Britain