Reform of the Council for Cultural Affairs into the Ministry of Culture
Before the Council for Cultural Affairs (CCA) was established, the central government already had a similar agency in charge of cultural affairs – the Cultural Affairs Bureau, which was established in 1967 and supervised by the Ministry of Education. Later, due to policy ambiguity, incomplete laws and regulations, limited funding, and scattered responsibilities and power, the bureau was dissolved after six years of operation. In 1981, the CCA was established in the form of a committee with the heads of various ministries, committees, and bureaus as the committee members, including the Secretary-General of Executive Yuan, Minister of the Interior, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Defense, Minister of Education, Minister of Transportation and Communication, Minister of the Overseas Community Affairs Council, and Director-General of the Government Information Office, Executive Yuan. The objective was to facilitate communication among the high-level officials in different governmental departments to solve the issue of cultural affairs being scattered in different departments, while forming a consensus and fostering inter-departmental collaboration. However, after the CCA began operating, the effect was less than ideal. In addition, the staff unit set up to offer consultation to the committee gradually became an executing unit. Although the workload and budget did grow every year, the staffing was not able to expand. In 1988, considering that the Executive Yuan had begun amending the Organization Act, the CCA also started looking into making organizational adjustments. During this period, the CCA published the Cultural Administration in Different Countries Series (各國文化行政叢書), which researched into the authorities in charge of cultural affairs in various countries, held the 1st National Cultural Congress (全國文化會議), and put forth the draft of the Organizational Act of the Ministry of Culture. However, because the Organizational Act of the Executive Yuan did not pass at the Legislative Yuan, this version of the Organizational Act of the Ministry of Culture was never put into practice. It was only until 1997, after the 2nd National Cultural Congress was convened, that it was confirmed that the CCA would be reformed into the Ministry of Culture as the central governmental agency in charge of cultural affairs, and other reform proposals were consequently abandoned, including establishing the Cultural Agency, and reinforcing the functions of the CCA.
In her article, “Basic Concept of Preparing to Establish the Ministry of Culture” the chairwoman of the CCA, Huang Pi-Twan, stated that, in addition to passing down cultural legacy, facilitating innovation, and preserving cultural assets, the mission of the Ministry of Culture also included the integration of different cultural affairs scattered in different ministries and governmental agencies, as well as nurturing cultural professionals and providing an alternative diplomatic gateway.
In fact, before the 2nd National Cultural Congress, an article published on ARTouch magazine, titled “Why the Rush to Upgrade to the ‘Ministry of Culture?’—Starting from Policy Implementation and Budgeting by Previous Chairmans of the Council for Cultural Affairs,” already pointed out some doubts about reforming the CCA into the Ministry of Culture—for instance, whether the nation valued culture or not was not necessarily related directly to the existence of the Ministry of Culture, and how to facilitate cultural rooting. Although the decision to reform the CCA to the Ministry of Culture gained the support of most scholars, artists and, cultural workers at that time, there were also skeptical viewpoints regarding the unification of cultural authority. For example, according to Wen Hui-Wen, who was the chairperson of the Performing Arts Alliance, if the governmental personnel appointment system still continued the current civil service system without any adjustments except changing the organizational structure, the establishment of the Ministry of Culture could usher in another crisis in terms of cultural policy. Hsia Chu-Joe, who was professor at the Graduate Institute of Building and Planning, National Taiwan University, believed that, as the structure of the Ministry of Culture appeared, it would be essential to avoid leading cultural development with national ideologies. The head of The Third Studio, Chen Ban, stated that issues of cultural development were often related to the public sector, who should be humbler in dealing with the gathering, challenges, and practice of the art community. Right after the establishment, the Ministry of Culture convened the first-stage 2012 National Cultural Affairs Forum (文化國是論壇), which somehow raised doubts due to the absence of visual arts professionals among the attendees. At that time, Art Emperor organized the press conference – “The Visual Arts Made Disappeared by the Ministry of Culture: Artists, Come Forward!” to call upon the government to take the issue seriously.
References
In her article, “Basic Concept of Preparing to Establish the Ministry of Culture” the chairwoman of the CCA, Huang Pi-Twan, stated that, in addition to passing down cultural legacy, facilitating innovation, and preserving cultural assets, the mission of the Ministry of Culture also included the integration of different cultural affairs scattered in different ministries and governmental agencies, as well as nurturing cultural professionals and providing an alternative diplomatic gateway.
In fact, before the 2nd National Cultural Congress, an article published on ARTouch magazine, titled “Why the Rush to Upgrade to the ‘Ministry of Culture?’—Starting from Policy Implementation and Budgeting by Previous Chairmans of the Council for Cultural Affairs,” already pointed out some doubts about reforming the CCA into the Ministry of Culture—for instance, whether the nation valued culture or not was not necessarily related directly to the existence of the Ministry of Culture, and how to facilitate cultural rooting. Although the decision to reform the CCA to the Ministry of Culture gained the support of most scholars, artists and, cultural workers at that time, there were also skeptical viewpoints regarding the unification of cultural authority. For example, according to Wen Hui-Wen, who was the chairperson of the Performing Arts Alliance, if the governmental personnel appointment system still continued the current civil service system without any adjustments except changing the organizational structure, the establishment of the Ministry of Culture could usher in another crisis in terms of cultural policy. Hsia Chu-Joe, who was professor at the Graduate Institute of Building and Planning, National Taiwan University, believed that, as the structure of the Ministry of Culture appeared, it would be essential to avoid leading cultural development with national ideologies. The head of The Third Studio, Chen Ban, stated that issues of cultural development were often related to the public sector, who should be humbler in dealing with the gathering, challenges, and practice of the art community. Right after the establishment, the Ministry of Culture convened the first-stage 2012 National Cultural Affairs Forum (文化國是論壇), which somehow raised doubts due to the absence of visual arts professionals among the attendees. At that time, Art Emperor organized the press conference – “The Visual Arts Made Disappeared by the Ministry of Culture: Artists, Come Forward!” to call upon the government to take the issue seriously.
References
- Huang, Pi-Twan. “Basic Concept of Preparing to Establish the Ministry of Culture.” RDEC Bimonthly, no. 271, June 2009, pp. 94-6.
- Huang, Kuo-Chen. “Launching the Ministry of Culture-to-Be After the Structure Is Ready—The Council for Cultural Affairs Sets a New Milestone.” NCAF Quarterly, no. 21, July 2001, p. 8-9.
- Yu, Kuo-Hua. “From the Cultural Affairs Bureau to the Council for Cultural Affairs to the Ministry of Culture.” Central Monthly．Wen Hsun, no. 142, August 1997, pp. 29-32.
- Wu, Ting-Yu. “Why the Rush to Upgrade to the ‘Ministry of Culture’?—Starting from Policy Implementation and Budgeting by Previous Chairmans of the Council for Cultural Affairs.” ARTouch, no. 30, March 1995, pp. 201-4.
- “History of the Ministry of Culture.” Ministry of Culture.
- “The Visual Arts Made Disappeared by the Ministry of Culture: Artists, Come Forward!” Yam. https://n.yam.com/Article/20120706606853
文建會改制文化部（Reform of the Council for Cultural Affairs into the Ministry of Culture）
早在文化建設委員會（以下簡稱文建會）成立之前，便曾經有過近似的中央文化專責機構「文化局」，於1967年設置於教育局之下，後來因政策不明、相關法律不全、經費侷限以及職權分散等原因，在運作六年後遭裁撤。1981年成立的文建會以委員會的型態設立，以行政院秘書長、內政部、外交部、國防部、教育部、交通部、僑委會、新聞局等首長為委員，希冀能夠透過部會高層間的溝通，解決當時文化事務分散於各單位的問題，同時凝聚共識、進行跨部門合作，然而實際運作及果卻顯示成效不彰。此外，原供委員會諮詢的幕僚單位，卻逐漸轉變成業務執行單位，以至於業務量及預算雖逐年成長，編制人員卻難以擴充。1988年因行政院調整組織法的考量，文建會也展開了組織調整研究，期間出版了研究各國文化專責機構的「各國文化行政叢書」並舉辦「第一屆全國文化會議」，提出了「文化部組織法草案」，但由於行政院組織法未能通過立法院審議，以至於該版本的文化部組織並未實踐。直到1997年第二屆全國文化會議召開後，中央文化專責機構才從設立文化院、強化文建會的功能等提案中確立將由文建會改制為文化部。
在行政院文建會主委黃碧瑞發表的文章「推動籌設文化部的基本構想」中，認為文化部的任務在文化傳承、發展創新以及文化資產保存外，還需整合過去散置在各部會的文化事務，培養文化專業人才，並且為外交提供另外一個突圍的窗口。
早在第二屆全國文化會議召開前，刊載於《典藏藝術》的文章〈何必急於晉身為『文化部』！--從文建會歷屆主委施政政策與預算編列問題談起〉中，指出了文建會改制為文化部的一些疑慮，如：國家對於文化的重視不一定與文化部的出現有直接關聯，以及如何向下落實文化紮根。文建會改制為文化部的決策雖然獲得了當時多數學者以及藝文工作者的支持，但對於文化事權的統一以及其帶來的影響，也有懷疑的觀點出現，如：當時擔任表演藝術聯盟理事長的溫慧玟認為，如果政府的人事聘用制度仍然沿用公務員體系且未經調整，僅改變組織節構，文化部的成立可能對於文化政策帶來另外一場危機；時任台大城鄉所教授的夏鑄九認為，隨著文化部架構的出現，應該避免以國家意識形態引領文化發展走向；第三工作室負責人陳板認為，文化發展的問題往往與政府部門相關，未來面對藝術社群自發性的集結、挑戰與實踐，更應謹慎謙虛以對。文化部成立之初所舉辦的第一階段「2012文化國是論壇」也因為缺乏視覺藝術類專業人才的參與引起疑慮，當時由非池中藝術網主辦「文化部消失的視覺藝術: 百位藝術人站出來!」的記者會呼籲政府重視此一問題。
參考文獻
在行政院文建會主委黃碧瑞發表的文章「推動籌設文化部的基本構想」中，認為文化部的任務在文化傳承、發展創新以及文化資產保存外，還需整合過去散置在各部會的文化事務，培養文化專業人才，並且為外交提供另外一個突圍的窗口。
早在第二屆全國文化會議召開前，刊載於《典藏藝術》的文章〈何必急於晉身為『文化部』！--從文建會歷屆主委施政政策與預算編列問題談起〉中，指出了文建會改制為文化部的一些疑慮，如：國家對於文化的重視不一定與文化部的出現有直接關聯，以及如何向下落實文化紮根。文建會改制為文化部的決策雖然獲得了當時多數學者以及藝文工作者的支持，但對於文化事權的統一以及其帶來的影響，也有懷疑的觀點出現，如：當時擔任表演藝術聯盟理事長的溫慧玟認為，如果政府的人事聘用制度仍然沿用公務員體系且未經調整，僅改變組織節構，文化部的成立可能對於文化政策帶來另外一場危機；時任台大城鄉所教授的夏鑄九認為，隨著文化部架構的出現，應該避免以國家意識形態引領文化發展走向；第三工作室負責人陳板認為，文化發展的問題往往與政府部門相關，未來面對藝術社群自發性的集結、挑戰與實踐，更應謹慎謙虛以對。文化部成立之初所舉辦的第一階段「2012文化國是論壇」也因為缺乏視覺藝術類專業人才的參與引起疑慮，當時由非池中藝術網主辦「文化部消失的視覺藝術: 百位藝術人站出來!」的記者會呼籲政府重視此一問題。
參考文獻
- 黃碧瑞，〈推動籌設文化部的基本構想〉，《研考雙月刊》271期，頁94-96，2009.06。
- 黃國禎，〈架構成型準文化部啟動—文建會邁入新里程碑〉，《國家文化藝術基金會會訊》21期，頁8-9，2001.07。
- 于國華，〈從文化局、文建會到文化部〉，《中央月刊文訊別冊》142期，頁29-32，1997.08。
- 吳婷玉，〈何必急於晉身為「文化部」！—從文建會歷屆主委施政政策與預算編列問題談起〉，《典藏藝術》30期，頁201-204，1995.03。
- 文化部成立沿革，文化部
- 文化部消失的視覺藝術: 百位藝術人站出來，蕃薯藤