Incident of the Jing-Mei Human Rights Memorial and Cultural Park
The Jing-Mei Human Rights Memorial and Cultural Park (now Jing-Mei White Terror Memorial Park) used to be the “Jing-Mei Military Detention Center” in Ershizhang, Xindian District. During the martial law period, it was the detention center and military courts for processing political, military and criminal cases. After the Ministry of National Defense transferred the site to the Council for Cultural Affairs (CCA) for renovation in 2007, it was registered as a historic building before the CCA commissioned the Peng Ming-min Cultural and Education Foundation for the operation of the site, which was then renamed the “Taiwan Human Rights Memorial.” In 2008, after the party alternation, “human rights” was removed from the name of the title, and the site was planned for arts and cultural organizations. The change caught the attention of human rights groups; and eventually, “human rights” and “culture” were used to set the tone for the park. The year of 2009 was the 30th anniversary of the Formosa Incident, and the CCA subcontracted various organizations and groups for different events and activities. These included “Democracy Blooms on Formosa: The 30th Anniversary Exhibition of the Formosa Incident and Exhibition of Historical Materials from White Terror Political Cases” organized by the New Taiwan Cultural Research Foundation; “Beyond the Wall—Contemporary Art in Jing-Mei Human Rights Memorial and Culture Park: Wen-Fu Yu Solo Exhibition” by Yu Wen Fu Art Studio; “Time・Memory: Taiwanese Comfort Women Human Rights Film Festival” presented by the Taipei Women’s Rescue Foundation; “Labor Value” planned by the Wintek Corporation Youth Factory Industrial Union and the National Federation of Independent Trade Unions (NAFITU); and “Exhibition of the History, Historical Artifacts and Materials of the Jing-Mei Human Rights Memorial and Cultural Park” by Color Cabinet Design Studio.
Among these events, artist YU Wen-Fu was commissioned to create a public art project – “Beyond the Wall,” for the “Vice Admiral Wang Hsi-Ling’s Special Unit” in the park, which was criticized for celebrating the director of the secret service agency by CHEN Chia-Chun, a human rights worker and family member of White Terror victim, who then vandalized the work several times. After the vandalism, the CCA did not take any active actions. Moreover, due to the controversial tender and administrative procedures of the exhibition series, the incident triggered extensive discussions. In the serial reports, titled “Controversy of the Jing-Mei Human Rights Memorial and Cultural Park” on Coolloud, TANG Huang-Chen stated that because victims and human rights groups were absent from the preparatory consultation meetings convened by the CCA, the events never received any equitable suggestions. WANG Mo-Lin asserted that the issue of White Terror was rendered flattened because the CCA planned the park via “procurements,” and the flattening process was accelerated by the artist’s emphasizing on the work being “devoid of ideologies.” CHEN Chia-Chun’s action against the artwork, and the politically correct and decontextualized political reference both reflected characteristics of the totalitarian regime. Therefore, all three parties had faults in this case. In “Examining Cultural Policy and Its Implementation from the ‘Incident of the Jing-Mei Human Rights Memorial and Cultural Park’: Forum Series of the Jing-Mei Human Rights Memorial and Cultural Park, Part III” included in issue no. 211 of Artco Monthly, discussant SHIH Long-Sheng asserted that the term of each director general of the CCA was too short, and the directors of every office rotated every two to three years. Consequently, the cultural policy was not effectively implemented. TANG Huang-Chen and YAO Jui-Chung believed that procedures of arts and culture-related tenders and the “Government Procurement Act” had to be reviewed. To CHEN Tai-Sung, the power of the CCA was not adequate to deal with the various issues occurring at the time. Therefore, the only solution was to establish a “Ministry of Culture” and perfect the cultural policy so that such problem could be effectively improved.
After the incident of the Jing-Mei Human Rights Memorial and Cultural Park, artists and cultural workers launched a Facebook forum page – “Whom Did the Council for Cultural Affairs Protect?” for more discussions. YU Wen-Fu later was accompanied by family members of White Terror victims to de-install his work before the exhibition was officially ended. After the National Human Rights Museum was established in 2018, the Jing-Mei Human Rights Memorial and Cultural Park was renamed the Jing-Mei White Terror Memorial Park. (Text/Li Kuei-Pi/2021)
Publication Reference:
.Editorial Department of Artco Monthly (compilation). “Examining Cultural Policy and Its Implementation from the ‘Incident of the Jing-Mei Human Rights Memorial and Cultural Park’: Forum Series of the Jing-Mei Human Rights Memorial and Cultural Park, Part III.” Artco Monthly, no. 211, 2010.4, pp. 158-65.
Reference
Among these events, artist YU Wen-Fu was commissioned to create a public art project – “Beyond the Wall,” for the “Vice Admiral Wang Hsi-Ling’s Special Unit” in the park, which was criticized for celebrating the director of the secret service agency by CHEN Chia-Chun, a human rights worker and family member of White Terror victim, who then vandalized the work several times. After the vandalism, the CCA did not take any active actions. Moreover, due to the controversial tender and administrative procedures of the exhibition series, the incident triggered extensive discussions. In the serial reports, titled “Controversy of the Jing-Mei Human Rights Memorial and Cultural Park” on Coolloud, TANG Huang-Chen stated that because victims and human rights groups were absent from the preparatory consultation meetings convened by the CCA, the events never received any equitable suggestions. WANG Mo-Lin asserted that the issue of White Terror was rendered flattened because the CCA planned the park via “procurements,” and the flattening process was accelerated by the artist’s emphasizing on the work being “devoid of ideologies.” CHEN Chia-Chun’s action against the artwork, and the politically correct and decontextualized political reference both reflected characteristics of the totalitarian regime. Therefore, all three parties had faults in this case. In “Examining Cultural Policy and Its Implementation from the ‘Incident of the Jing-Mei Human Rights Memorial and Cultural Park’: Forum Series of the Jing-Mei Human Rights Memorial and Cultural Park, Part III” included in issue no. 211 of Artco Monthly, discussant SHIH Long-Sheng asserted that the term of each director general of the CCA was too short, and the directors of every office rotated every two to three years. Consequently, the cultural policy was not effectively implemented. TANG Huang-Chen and YAO Jui-Chung believed that procedures of arts and culture-related tenders and the “Government Procurement Act” had to be reviewed. To CHEN Tai-Sung, the power of the CCA was not adequate to deal with the various issues occurring at the time. Therefore, the only solution was to establish a “Ministry of Culture” and perfect the cultural policy so that such problem could be effectively improved.
After the incident of the Jing-Mei Human Rights Memorial and Cultural Park, artists and cultural workers launched a Facebook forum page – “Whom Did the Council for Cultural Affairs Protect?” for more discussions. YU Wen-Fu later was accompanied by family members of White Terror victims to de-install his work before the exhibition was officially ended. After the National Human Rights Museum was established in 2018, the Jing-Mei Human Rights Memorial and Cultural Park was renamed the Jing-Mei White Terror Memorial Park. (Text/Li Kuei-Pi/2021)
Publication Reference:
.Editorial Department of Artco Monthly (compilation). “Examining Cultural Policy and Its Implementation from the ‘Incident of the Jing-Mei Human Rights Memorial and Cultural Park’: Forum Series of the Jing-Mei Human Rights Memorial and Cultural Park, Part III.” Artco Monthly, no. 211, 2010.4, pp. 158-65.
Reference
- CHIU, Pei-Ching. “Controversy of the Jing-Mei Human Rights Memorial and Cultural Park, Part I—A Fight between Human Rights and Art? The Government is to Blame.” Coolloud. (https://www.coolloud.org.tw/node/49265)
- SUN, Qiong-Li. “Controversy of the Jing-Mei Human Rights Memorial and Cultural Park, Part II—Wang Mo-Lin: The Taiwan Garrison Command Lives in Chen Chia-Chun’s Mind.” Coolloud. (https://www.coolloud.org.tw/node/49293)
- Contemporary Art in Jing-Mei Human Rights Memorial and Culture Park: Wen-Fu Yu Solo Exhibition. “Yu Wen Fu Art Studio’s Statement Regarding Ms. Chen Chia-Chun’s Vandalism of ‘Beyond the Wall’ at the Jing-Mei Human Rights Memorial and Culture Park.”
- The National Human Rights Museum – Jing-Mei White Terror Memorial Park.
景美人權園區事件(Incident of the Jing-Mei Human Rights Memorial and Cultural Park)
景美人權園區前身為「新店二十張景美軍事看守所」,在戒嚴時期是政治、軍事及治安案件之審訊與羈押場所,2007年經國防部移交文化建設委員會(以下簡稱文建會)進行修繕,公告登錄為歷史建築,文建會再委託財團法人彭明敏文教基金會經營,更名為「台灣人權景美園區」。2008年隨著政黨輪替,園區名稱「人權」一度被捨棄,並規劃由藝文團體進駐,而引起人權團體的關切,最終以「人權」與「文化」最為園區的兩大定調。2009年因逢美麗島事件30週年,文建會將園區不同活動發包與不同廠商,分別是:由財團法人新台灣文化研究基金會籌辦的「民主花開美麗島:美麗島事件三十週年紀念暨白色恐怖政治案件史料展」、委託游文富藝術工作室的「牆外—游文富當代藝術創作展」、由財團法人台北市婦女救援社會福利事業基金會策劃的「時光・記憶:台灣慰安婦女性人權影展」、勝華科技股份有限公司幼獅廠產業工會與全國自主勞工聯盟籌辦的「LV勞動價值精品展」與采薈軒設計工作室策劃的「景美人權文化園區歷史暨文物史料展示」。
藝術家游文富被委託在文化園區「汪希苓特區」所製作的公共藝術作品「牆外」,被人權工作者及白色恐怖受難者家屬陳嘉君指有歌頌情報局長汪希苓之嫌,憤而數度破壞作品。文建會在作品被破壞後並未有積極作為,並因系列展演活動的招標與行政程序引起討論。在苦勞網的「景美人權園區爭議」系列報導中,湯皇珍認為文建會召開的前期諮詢會議當中缺乏受難者與人權團體,一開始就無法獲得公允的建議。王墨林認為文建會以「業務採購」的方式進行園區規劃,致使白色恐怖的議題被扁平化;藝術家強調「沒有意識形態」的作品加速了扁平化的過程;陳嘉君對於藝術作品的行為、講求政治正確且去脈絡化的政治指涉,則反映出了威權體制的特徵,三方皆有檢討之處。在典藏今藝術211期「由『景美人權園區事件』檢視文化政策與施政:景美人權文化園區系列議題座談之三」裡,與談人石隆盛認為文建會當時主委任期過短、各處室處長兩至三年便輪調是造成文化政策無法被有效執行的原因之一;湯皇珍、姚瑞中認為藝文相關的招標程序與「採購法」亟待檢討;陳泰松認為,文建會的權責並無法處理當時所面臨的種種問題,唯有成立「文化部」並健全文化政策才能有效改善。
在景美人權園區事件之後,藝文工作者們在臉書上成立了「文建會保護了誰?」討論專頁,游文富在白色恐怖受難者家屬的陪同下,提前於展期中拆除作品。隨著2018年「國家人權博物館」的成立,景美人權文化園區更名為「白色恐怖景美紀念園區」。(文/李奎壁/2021)
參考文獻
藝術家游文富被委託在文化園區「汪希苓特區」所製作的公共藝術作品「牆外」,被人權工作者及白色恐怖受難者家屬陳嘉君指有歌頌情報局長汪希苓之嫌,憤而數度破壞作品。文建會在作品被破壞後並未有積極作為,並因系列展演活動的招標與行政程序引起討論。在苦勞網的「景美人權園區爭議」系列報導中,湯皇珍認為文建會召開的前期諮詢會議當中缺乏受難者與人權團體,一開始就無法獲得公允的建議。王墨林認為文建會以「業務採購」的方式進行園區規劃,致使白色恐怖的議題被扁平化;藝術家強調「沒有意識形態」的作品加速了扁平化的過程;陳嘉君對於藝術作品的行為、講求政治正確且去脈絡化的政治指涉,則反映出了威權體制的特徵,三方皆有檢討之處。在典藏今藝術211期「由『景美人權園區事件』檢視文化政策與施政:景美人權文化園區系列議題座談之三」裡,與談人石隆盛認為文建會當時主委任期過短、各處室處長兩至三年便輪調是造成文化政策無法被有效執行的原因之一;湯皇珍、姚瑞中認為藝文相關的招標程序與「採購法」亟待檢討;陳泰松認為,文建會的權責並無法處理當時所面臨的種種問題,唯有成立「文化部」並健全文化政策才能有效改善。
在景美人權園區事件之後,藝文工作者們在臉書上成立了「文建會保護了誰?」討論專頁,游文富在白色恐怖受難者家屬的陪同下,提前於展期中拆除作品。隨著2018年「國家人權博物館」的成立,景美人權文化園區更名為「白色恐怖景美紀念園區」。(文/李奎壁/2021)
參考文獻
- 典藏今藝術編輯部整理,〈由『景美人權園區事件』檢視文化政策與施政:景美人權文化園區系列議題座談之三〉,典藏今藝術,211期,頁158-165,2010.4。
- 邱佩青,〈景美人權園區爭議之一—人權與藝術之爭?政府是最大兇手〉,苦勞網
- 孫窮理,〈景美人權園區爭議之二—王墨林:陳嘉君心裡住了個警總〉,苦勞網
- 景美人權文化園區當代藝術創作展—游文富個展,〈游文富藝術工作室針對景美人權文化園區當代藝術展「牆外」作品遭陳嘉君女士破壞事件聲明稿〉
- 國家人權博物館「白色恐怖景美紀念園區」