Public Art
The term “public art” first appeared in the 1930s when the then American president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, launched a public art policy to mitigate the economic depression. NI Tsai-Chin, in his article titled “A Decade of Effort—A Briary Path of Public Art in Taiwan,” mentions that the initiative of public art in Taiwan originated from his introduction of “percent for art” in Hsiung Shih Art Monthly after he returned from a research trip to the US in 1986. However, the article mainly named examples of sculpture. Due to insufficient background information, readers might misunderstand and have an incomprehensive view of public art. The promotion of public art in Taiwan was policy-led, and “public art” was mentioned for the first time in the “Culture and the Arts Reward and Promotion Act” promulgated in 1992. Since then various events and projects formed the primary driving force behind the wave of public art in Taiwan, which include the “Enforcement Rules of the Culture and Arts Reward Act” promulgated in 1993, the “Public Art Demonstrative (Experimental) Project” inaugurated in 1999, the public art book series co-published by the Council of Cultural Affairs (CCA) and the Artist magazine, the public artworks installed along the MRT Red Line, and the “Regulations Governing the Installation of Public Artwork” made with the reference to the “Percent for Art” program launched by the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority (PRA) in Pennsylvania, USA.
CHEN Chi-Nan, who served as the vice chairperson of the CCA, stated in “The Learning Result of the Whole People’s Artistic Taste: A Few Ideas about Public Art” that the publicness of public art “does not only refer to the open characteristics of the placement of artworks but also more discussions about social equality, cultural diversity and participatory democracy. Public art emphasizes on the participatory process rather than its final presentation…It is part of community construction projects.” In the talk, “A Survey of the Public Art in Taiwan,” co-organized by the CCA and the Artist magazine, CHEN Yu-Hsiu, who was the chairperson of the CCA, mentioned that “what public art stresses should be a good environment, which encompasses both ecological and artificial environment.” In Exploring Public Art in Taiwan, NI Tsai-Chin stated that public art “focuses most importantly on constructing the awareness of participation in communal affairs by the members in a community and elevating the aesthetic level in the living situations of the community residents.”
Following the implementation of regulations related to public art and the large number of public art installations in cities, more people began to reflect on and re-examine the issue. In his 2001 article, titled “Institutionalized Public Art—An Inspection of Regulations Governing Taiwan’s Public Art,” HUANG Chien-Ming listed the problems regarding the regulations governing the public art at the time: an unclear definition of the so-called public art and a rigid understanding of artworks, the slippery differentiation between the power and responsibilities between local and central governments, a lack of art professional background and trainings for jurors and related administrative staff, and a lack of the mechanism for subsequent maintenance. In “A Survey of the Public Art in Taiwan” of 2003, discussants pointed out that the policy of public art had been implemented for almost a decade in Taiwan. Although much funding had been poured into the implementation of the policy, the result was somehow less than ideal. The excessive number of public artworks did not reap the result of creating an artistic living environment and instead fostered a myth of public participation. Furthermore, the authoritarian system in the past had led to insufficient engagement in public affairs on the part of the general public. In “What is Good Public Art?,” LIN Chih-Ming points out that the emergence of public art should be based on the publicness and overall planning of space. In “The Era of Post-Public Art” of 2012, CHANG Yu-Yin calls for attention to a needed withdrawal mechanism for public art.
In the Culture and the Arts Reward and Promotion Act, it is mentioned that public art refers to “two- or three-dimensional artworks and art creations using different techniques and media,” which also includes project-based art creations. In 2017, after social housing projects were launched by the government, there have been more project-based public art works being produced in social housing venues. Examples include the Dimension Endowment of Art’s “Living Humanity,” which comprises art initiatives, art residencies and permanent public art installations; the Social Housing of Universiade Athletes’ Village in Linko; and Taichung Social Housing’s “Housewarming Project” and “Small Talk.”
Suggestions for links of artists, curators and art critics--
Artists participated in the public art project for the MRT Red Line, and artists participated in the Public Art Demonstrative (Experimental) Project
References
CHEN Chi-Nan, who served as the vice chairperson of the CCA, stated in “The Learning Result of the Whole People’s Artistic Taste: A Few Ideas about Public Art” that the publicness of public art “does not only refer to the open characteristics of the placement of artworks but also more discussions about social equality, cultural diversity and participatory democracy. Public art emphasizes on the participatory process rather than its final presentation…It is part of community construction projects.” In the talk, “A Survey of the Public Art in Taiwan,” co-organized by the CCA and the Artist magazine, CHEN Yu-Hsiu, who was the chairperson of the CCA, mentioned that “what public art stresses should be a good environment, which encompasses both ecological and artificial environment.” In Exploring Public Art in Taiwan, NI Tsai-Chin stated that public art “focuses most importantly on constructing the awareness of participation in communal affairs by the members in a community and elevating the aesthetic level in the living situations of the community residents.”
Following the implementation of regulations related to public art and the large number of public art installations in cities, more people began to reflect on and re-examine the issue. In his 2001 article, titled “Institutionalized Public Art—An Inspection of Regulations Governing Taiwan’s Public Art,” HUANG Chien-Ming listed the problems regarding the regulations governing the public art at the time: an unclear definition of the so-called public art and a rigid understanding of artworks, the slippery differentiation between the power and responsibilities between local and central governments, a lack of art professional background and trainings for jurors and related administrative staff, and a lack of the mechanism for subsequent maintenance. In “A Survey of the Public Art in Taiwan” of 2003, discussants pointed out that the policy of public art had been implemented for almost a decade in Taiwan. Although much funding had been poured into the implementation of the policy, the result was somehow less than ideal. The excessive number of public artworks did not reap the result of creating an artistic living environment and instead fostered a myth of public participation. Furthermore, the authoritarian system in the past had led to insufficient engagement in public affairs on the part of the general public. In “What is Good Public Art?,” LIN Chih-Ming points out that the emergence of public art should be based on the publicness and overall planning of space. In “The Era of Post-Public Art” of 2012, CHANG Yu-Yin calls for attention to a needed withdrawal mechanism for public art.
In the Culture and the Arts Reward and Promotion Act, it is mentioned that public art refers to “two- or three-dimensional artworks and art creations using different techniques and media,” which also includes project-based art creations. In 2017, after social housing projects were launched by the government, there have been more project-based public art works being produced in social housing venues. Examples include the Dimension Endowment of Art’s “Living Humanity,” which comprises art initiatives, art residencies and permanent public art installations; the Social Housing of Universiade Athletes’ Village in Linko; and Taichung Social Housing’s “Housewarming Project” and “Small Talk.”
Suggestions for links of artists, curators and art critics--
Artists participated in the public art project for the MRT Red Line, and artists participated in the Public Art Demonstrative (Experimental) Project
References
- CHANG, Yu-Yin. “The Era of Post-Public Art—From Being Public to Taking a Bow.” Artco Monthly, no. 232, 2012.1, pp. 110-3.
- LIN, Chih-Ming. “What is Good Public Art?” Artco Monthly, no. 135, 2003.12, pp. 111-113.
- WANG Ya-Ling, CHANG Ching-Wen (compilation). “A Survey of the Public Art in Taiwan.” Artist, no. 338, 2003.7, pp. 144-53.
- NI, Tsai-Ching. “A Decade of Effort—A Briary Path of Public Art in Taiwan.” Artist, no. 333, 2003.2, pp. 164-7.
- HUANG, Chien-Ming. “Institutionalized Public Art—An Inspection of Regulations Governing Taiwan’s Public Art.” Artist, no. 310, 2001.3, pp. 268-95.
- CHEN, Chih-Nan. “The Learning Result of the Entire People’s Artistic Taste: A Few Ideas about Public Art.” Artco Monthly, no. 98, 2000.11, pp. 142-4.
- NI, Tsai-Chin. Exploring Public Art in Taiwan. Taipei: Artist Publishing Co., 1997.
公共藝術Public Art
公共藝術一字的出現，始自於1930年代美國總統羅斯福為挽救經濟蕭條所推出的政策。倪再沁在〈十年磨劍—台灣公共藝術的荊棘之路〉中提到，臺灣公共藝術的倡議，始自於1986年應邀赴美考察返台後在《雄獅美術雜誌》介紹的百分比藝術，但由於該文所舉的範例僅以雕塑為主，在背景資料不足下容易引起讀者對於公共藝術全貌的誤解。公共藝術在臺灣的推行受到政策的影響，1992年的「文化藝術獎助條例」中首次提及「公共藝術」此一項目，自1993年發佈細則至1999年落成的「公共藝術示範（實驗）設置案」、文化建設委員會（以下簡稱文建會）與《藝術家》合作推出的公共藝術叢書、捷運淡水線沿線的公共藝術設置，與參考美國賓州費城都市重建局在1959年所提出的「藝術百分比」方案而設置的《公共藝術設置辦法》，成為公共藝術浪潮在臺灣的主要推力。
曾任文建會副主委的陳其南在其文章〈全民藝術品味的學習成果：對公共藝術的幾點省思〉中提及，公共藝術的公共性含意「［…］絕對不只指涉藝術品放置位置的開放性質，而是還有更多關於社會平等、文化多元、參與式民主的討論。」，公共藝術著重參與過程而非結果呈現，「［…］是社區營造計畫的一部份。」；曾任文建會主委的陳郁秀在文建會與《藝術家》雜誌合辦的「公共藝術在台灣面面觀」座談會中提到「［…］公共藝術著眼的應該是一個良好的環境，它包括了生態環境與人為環境的結合「［…］」；倪再沁在《臺灣公共藝術的探索》一書中提及公共藝術「最重要的還是在於建立社區共同體成員對於社區事務的參與意識，和提昇社區居民在生活情境中的美學層次。」
但隨著公共藝術設置辦法的推行與在城市中的大量設置，也引起了檢討。黃健敏2001年的文章〈法制化的公共藝術—健診台灣公共藝術相關法條〉認為當時的公共藝術相關法規有以下問題：對於公共藝術的定義不清以及對於藝術品概念理解上的僵化、中央與地方政府管理及執行權責劃分不明確、評審及相關行政人員缺乏藝術專業背景及培養機制、缺乏後續管理維護機制。2003年在「公共藝術在台灣面面觀」的座談會上，與會者則指出了公共藝術政策執行近十年：雖然投入大量資金，但沒有積極成效、件數過多且無助於建造藝術化的生活環境、存在著對於民眾參與形式的迷思，且過去的威權體制使民眾普遍缺乏參與公共事務的經驗。林志明〈什麼是好的公共藝術〉一文中提及，公共藝術的出現應該立基於空間的公共性與整體規劃，而張玉音2012年發表的〈後公共藝術時代〉提點了公共藝術應該建立起完善的退場機制。
在文化藝術獎助條例當中，提及公共藝術為「平面或立體之藝術品及利用各種技法、媒材製作之藝術創作」，同時也包括了計畫型的藝術創作。在2017年政府的社會住宅興辦計畫開始後，逐漸出現計畫型的公共藝術在社會住宅中實踐的案例，如：帝門藝術基金會的「藝居—家的進行式」包含了藝術行動、駐地創作與永久設置三大類型，林口世大運選手村社會住宅、台中社會住宅的「暖屋行動」、「家常對話」。
參考文獻
曾任文建會副主委的陳其南在其文章〈全民藝術品味的學習成果：對公共藝術的幾點省思〉中提及，公共藝術的公共性含意「［…］絕對不只指涉藝術品放置位置的開放性質，而是還有更多關於社會平等、文化多元、參與式民主的討論。」，公共藝術著重參與過程而非結果呈現，「［…］是社區營造計畫的一部份。」；曾任文建會主委的陳郁秀在文建會與《藝術家》雜誌合辦的「公共藝術在台灣面面觀」座談會中提到「［…］公共藝術著眼的應該是一個良好的環境，它包括了生態環境與人為環境的結合「［…］」；倪再沁在《臺灣公共藝術的探索》一書中提及公共藝術「最重要的還是在於建立社區共同體成員對於社區事務的參與意識，和提昇社區居民在生活情境中的美學層次。」
但隨著公共藝術設置辦法的推行與在城市中的大量設置，也引起了檢討。黃健敏2001年的文章〈法制化的公共藝術—健診台灣公共藝術相關法條〉認為當時的公共藝術相關法規有以下問題：對於公共藝術的定義不清以及對於藝術品概念理解上的僵化、中央與地方政府管理及執行權責劃分不明確、評審及相關行政人員缺乏藝術專業背景及培養機制、缺乏後續管理維護機制。2003年在「公共藝術在台灣面面觀」的座談會上，與會者則指出了公共藝術政策執行近十年：雖然投入大量資金，但沒有積極成效、件數過多且無助於建造藝術化的生活環境、存在著對於民眾參與形式的迷思，且過去的威權體制使民眾普遍缺乏參與公共事務的經驗。林志明〈什麼是好的公共藝術〉一文中提及，公共藝術的出現應該立基於空間的公共性與整體規劃，而張玉音2012年發表的〈後公共藝術時代〉提點了公共藝術應該建立起完善的退場機制。
在文化藝術獎助條例當中，提及公共藝術為「平面或立體之藝術品及利用各種技法、媒材製作之藝術創作」，同時也包括了計畫型的藝術創作。在2017年政府的社會住宅興辦計畫開始後，逐漸出現計畫型的公共藝術在社會住宅中實踐的案例，如：帝門藝術基金會的「藝居—家的進行式」包含了藝術行動、駐地創作與永久設置三大類型，林口世大運選手村社會住宅、台中社會住宅的「暖屋行動」、「家常對話」。
參考文獻
- 張玉音，〈後公共藝術時代--從公共到退場〉，典藏今藝術，232期，頁110-113，2012.1。
- 林志明，〈什麼是好的公共藝術〉，典藏今藝術，135期，頁111-113，2003.12。
- 王雅玲、張晴文記錄整理，〈公共藝術在台灣面面觀〉，藝術家，338期，頁144-153，2003.7。
- 倪再沁，〈十年磨劍--臺灣公共藝術的荊棘之路〉，藝術家，333期，頁164-167，2003.2。
- 黃健敏，〈法制化的公共藝術--健診臺灣公共藝術相關法條〉，藝術家，310期，頁268-295，2001.3。
- 陳其南，〈全民藝術品味的學習成果--對公共藝術在臺灣的幾點省思〉，典藏今藝術，98期，頁142-144，2000.11。
- 倪再沁，《臺灣公共藝術的探索》，藝術家，1997