Privately Managed Public Art Spaces
The earliest examples of privately managed public museums, art museums or art spaces include the Taipei 228 Memorial Museum established for the display, collection and research revolving around the February 28 Incident; Stock 20 - Art Network of the Railway Warehouse Taichung Station (referred as “Stock 20” below); and the Museum of Contemporary Art, Taipei (referred as “MoCA, Taipei” below). The Taipei 228 Memorial Museum was established in 199772, and was initially operated and managed by the Taiwan Peace Foundation commissioned by the Department of Cultural Affairs, Taipei City Government. The city government subsidized partial personnel expenses, and allotted a budget to pay for the events and programs carried out by the museum. However, at the initial period, there were concerns over contract renewal and issues involving the “Government Procurement Act.” In 1999, Stock 20 was planned to be operated by a professional organization as a privately managed public art space. The hardware of the space was supposed to be renovated by the public sector, which would also offer subsidies for utility, personnel, and event expenses. However, the renovation period encountered the 1999 Jiji Earthquake, which caused the opening to be postponed. In May 2000, the operation of Stock 20 was officially transferred to the L’Orangerie International Art Consultant Co., Ltd. (referred as “L’Orangerie” below). Afterwards, the venue underwent another change of operation team and a short period of being managed directly by the Council for Cultural Affairs. In 2006, L’Orangerie once again signed a five-year contract for the operation of Stock 20. The MoCA, Taipei originated from the “Second TFAM” project that was part of the “Grand Art Museum” project launched by the Taipei City Government in 1999. In 2000, it was renamed the “Museum of Contemporary Art, Taipei,” and was confirmed to be a “privately managed public art space.” In June, the project entered an open tender, but the process did not go smoothly. The predicament lasted until October when the president of Acer, Stan SHIH, donated the funding for the opening of the museum. Subsequently, the preparation office was established in May the next year, and the museum presented its opening exhibition – “The Gravity of the Immaterial.” During this period, the museum was a museum operating without a management team. Finally, in July of the year, the Contemporary Art Foundation was formed by private organizations, including the TSMC Education and Culture Foundation, which became the only tenderer of the project and obtained the right of first offer to sign a five-year contract to privately manage of this public art space.
Before these examples, there had already been anthe unsuccessful Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) renovation case of the National Taiwan Museum of Fine Arts (NTMoFA). At that time, because of improper planning and unsanctioned use of the NTMoFA architecture, along with the issue of uncertain source of law, the museum had to terminate the contract with the winning tenderer due to lacking precedent examples for related regulations and funding. Back then, in the forum titled “Difficulties in Renovating the National Taiwan Museum of Fine Arts” moderated by HUANG Qian Fang, the then editor-in-chief of ARTouch magazine, NI Tsai Chin examined the reasons that led to the failure of the BOT project, and expressed his hope of finding viable methods for “privately managed public spaces” based on the international trend of museum management at the time. The article compiled from interviews by the Editorial Office of Artco Monthly published in 2005, titled “Five Years of Experience of an RT Museum—Starting from the Contract Expiration Facing the Operation Team of the Museum of Contemporary Art, Taipei,” reviewed the applicability of a five-year contractual period (which allowed one renewal of contract for a two-year period). In this article, HSIEHN Su Chen, who was the director of MoCA, Taipei at the time, believed that a five-year contractual period was inadequate for a privately managed public art museum because it discontinued the planning of exhibitions, on top of which the frequent change of staff also prevented the accumulation of experiences. Furthermore, a privately managed public art museum was partially responsible for its own profit and loss. As the art museum was “non-profit,” how to maintain the balance between commercial marketing and ideals became a pressing matter to be considered. When the MoCA, Taipei was first established, in his article entitled “Cultural Enterprises Should Avoid Being Shortsighted—It Is Not Appropriate to Outsource the Second Taipei Fine Arts Museum,” HSIEH Tung Shan cautioned the potential issues regarding the “commercialization of cultural enterprises.” However, given the circumstances involving insufficient public budget at that time, a lack of tax incentive, and the shortage of large numbers of sponsorship from the public, long-term corporate support became the first and foremost challenge for privately managed public art museums. In 2008, as the seven-year contract of the privately managed MoCA, Taipei ended, its operation and management was transferred the Taipei Culture Foundation established with the donation from the Taipei City Government.
Reference
Before these examples, there had already been anthe unsuccessful Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) renovation case of the National Taiwan Museum of Fine Arts (NTMoFA). At that time, because of improper planning and unsanctioned use of the NTMoFA architecture, along with the issue of uncertain source of law, the museum had to terminate the contract with the winning tenderer due to lacking precedent examples for related regulations and funding. Back then, in the forum titled “Difficulties in Renovating the National Taiwan Museum of Fine Arts” moderated by HUANG Qian Fang, the then editor-in-chief of ARTouch magazine, NI Tsai Chin examined the reasons that led to the failure of the BOT project, and expressed his hope of finding viable methods for “privately managed public spaces” based on the international trend of museum management at the time. The article compiled from interviews by the Editorial Office of Artco Monthly published in 2005, titled “Five Years of Experience of an RT Museum—Starting from the Contract Expiration Facing the Operation Team of the Museum of Contemporary Art, Taipei,” reviewed the applicability of a five-year contractual period (which allowed one renewal of contract for a two-year period). In this article, HSIEHN Su Chen, who was the director of MoCA, Taipei at the time, believed that a five-year contractual period was inadequate for a privately managed public art museum because it discontinued the planning of exhibitions, on top of which the frequent change of staff also prevented the accumulation of experiences. Furthermore, a privately managed public art museum was partially responsible for its own profit and loss. As the art museum was “non-profit,” how to maintain the balance between commercial marketing and ideals became a pressing matter to be considered. When the MoCA, Taipei was first established, in his article entitled “Cultural Enterprises Should Avoid Being Shortsighted—It Is Not Appropriate to Outsource the Second Taipei Fine Arts Museum,” HSIEH Tung Shan cautioned the potential issues regarding the “commercialization of cultural enterprises.” However, given the circumstances involving insufficient public budget at that time, a lack of tax incentive, and the shortage of large numbers of sponsorship from the public, long-term corporate support became the first and foremost challenge for privately managed public art museums. In 2008, as the seven-year contract of the privately managed MoCA, Taipei ended, its operation and management was transferred the Taipei Culture Foundation established with the donation from the Taipei City Government.
Reference
- Editorial Office of Artco Monthly. “Five Years of Experience of an RT Museum—Starting from the Contract Expiration Facing the Operation Team of the Museum of Contemporary Art, Taipei.” Artco Monthly, November 2005.
- HUANG, Qian Fang. “A Long, Long Way from ‘Disruption’ to ‘Transformation’—About the Quasi-BOT Renovation Failure of the Taiwan Museum of Art.” Artco Monthly, no. 93, June 2000, pp. 55-6.
- HUANG, You Mei. “Forum on ‘Difficulties in Renovating the National Taiwan Museum of Fine Arts.’” Artco Monthly, no. 93, June 2000, pp. 58-66.
- HUANG, Tsai Yun. “Viability Evaluation of Contracting-Out Statutory Agencies.” Artco Monthly, no. 93, June 2000, pp. 67-71.
- About the MoCA. Website of the Museum of Contemporary Art, Taipei.
公辦民營藝術空間（Privately Managed Public Art Spaces）
臺灣最早的美術館、博物館或藝術空間公辦民營案例有以二二八事件的展示、收藏與研究為主的台北二二八紀念館，二十號倉庫—鐵道藝術網路台中站（以下簡稱二十號倉庫）與台北當代藝術館（以下簡稱當代館）。台北二二八紀念館成立於199772年，起初由臺北市政府文化局委託台灣和平基金會經營管理，由市政府補助部分人事費用，並且編列款項支應紀念館的活動執行，但初期在續約問題以及採購法上仍有所疑慮。1999年，二十號倉庫擬有委託專業機構經營的公辦民營計畫，由公部門負責硬體整修，並且補助水電、人事以及活動費用，但因為整修過程中遭逢九二一大地震，延期開幕，在2000年5月正式由橘園國際藝術策展股份有限公司經營（以下簡稱橘園），之後經歷一次經營團隊轉換與短期文建會直接管理，2006年橘園取得二十號倉庫的五年合約。當代館來自於1999年由臺北市政府「大美術館計畫」脫離的「北美二館」，並且在2000年更名為「台北當代藝術館」確立了「公辦民營」的營運模式，並且在同年六月公開招標，但過程並不順利，直到十月由宏碁集團董事長施振榮捐贈開館經費，並且在隔年五月成立了籌備處，策畫開幕展覽「輕且重的震撼」，彼時仍是一座已經開館但沒有經營團隊的美術館。最終在七月由台積電文教基金會等民間團體組成的「財團法人當代藝術基金會」作為唯一投標者的情況下獲得優先議價權，並且簽下五年公辦民營的合約。
在此之前，已經在1997-1999年間發生過國立臺灣美術館BOT（Build-Operate-Transfer）案館舍整建失敗的案例。當時由於美術館建築物規劃失當、違規使用，以及過去法源不清的問題，在相關規範缺乏前例可循以及欠缺資金的狀況下，不得不與得標公司解約。當時由典藏雜誌總編輯黃茜芳所主持的「國美館改建難重重」座談會中，倪再沁檢討了BOT案失敗的原因，並且期望能夠自當時國際上博物館的經營趨勢，找出適切可行的「公辦民營」的方法。2005年在《典藏今藝術》由編輯部訪談整理的文章〈公辦民營美術館的五年經驗—從台北當代藝術館面臨經營團隊約期即將屆滿談起〉當中，檢討了五年約期（可續簽一次，以兩年為限）的適切性：時任館長的謝素貞認為五年約期對於公辦民營的美術館而言過於短暫，無法延續展覽規劃，人事異動過於頻繁也會造成經驗無法累積的問題。此外，由於公辦民營的美術館需自負部分營收，在美術館「非營利」性質底下，如何兼具商業行銷與理想性也是亟待思考的問題。在當代館成立之初，謝東山的〈文化經營事業豈可短視—北美二館不宜內製外包〉曾經提醒過「文化事業商業化」的隱憂，但在當時公部門預算偏低、缺乏稅賦誘因以及缺乏民間大量贊助的情況下，企業界長期的支持已經成為公辦民營美術館的首先要面對的難題。2008年，隨著當代館七年「公辦民營」合約的結束，轉由臺北市政府捐助成立的台北市文化基金會營運。
參考文獻
在此之前，已經在1997-1999年間發生過國立臺灣美術館BOT（Build-Operate-Transfer）案館舍整建失敗的案例。當時由於美術館建築物規劃失當、違規使用，以及過去法源不清的問題，在相關規範缺乏前例可循以及欠缺資金的狀況下，不得不與得標公司解約。當時由典藏雜誌總編輯黃茜芳所主持的「國美館改建難重重」座談會中，倪再沁檢討了BOT案失敗的原因，並且期望能夠自當時國際上博物館的經營趨勢，找出適切可行的「公辦民營」的方法。2005年在《典藏今藝術》由編輯部訪談整理的文章〈公辦民營美術館的五年經驗—從台北當代藝術館面臨經營團隊約期即將屆滿談起〉當中，檢討了五年約期（可續簽一次，以兩年為限）的適切性：時任館長的謝素貞認為五年約期對於公辦民營的美術館而言過於短暫，無法延續展覽規劃，人事異動過於頻繁也會造成經驗無法累積的問題。此外，由於公辦民營的美術館需自負部分營收，在美術館「非營利」性質底下，如何兼具商業行銷與理想性也是亟待思考的問題。在當代館成立之初，謝東山的〈文化經營事業豈可短視—北美二館不宜內製外包〉曾經提醒過「文化事業商業化」的隱憂，但在當時公部門預算偏低、缺乏稅賦誘因以及缺乏民間大量贊助的情況下，企業界長期的支持已經成為公辦民營美術館的首先要面對的難題。2008年，隨著當代館七年「公辦民營」合約的結束，轉由臺北市政府捐助成立的台北市文化基金會營運。
參考文獻
- 典藏今藝術雜誌編輯部，〈公辦民營美術館的五年經驗—從台北當代藝術館面臨經營團隊約期即將屆滿談起〉，《典藏今藝術》158期，頁126-128，2005.11。
- 黃茜芳，〈從「破」到「立」路迢迢—談省美館類BOT整建館舍失敗〉，《典藏今藝術》93期，頁55-56，2000.6。
- 黃友玫，〈「國美館改建困難重重」座談會〉，《典藏今藝術》93期，頁58-66，2000.6。
- 黃彩雲，〈台灣公立博物館公辦民營之可行性評估〉，《典藏今藝術》93期，頁67-71，2000.6。
- 認識當代，台北當代藝術館網站