Settlement of Treasure Hill
The name “Treasure Hill” originates from a nearby homonymous temple. The Treasure Hill Guanyin Temple has been a local religious center since the 18th century. After the Nationalist government was moved to Taiwan, the temple became a center around which a settlement comprising illegal buildings and architectural structures built by different ethnic and social groups due to its nearness to downtown Taipei City and convenient transportation. In July 1980, the status of the area of Treasure Hill was included in the designated lot for Taipei City’s no. 297 park, and was changed from being part of a water source protection area into a water front exclusion area by Xindian River. Subsequently, the Taipei City Government initiated a demolition and relocation plan that was announced in 1993. In 1995, after inhabitants’ repeated petition for postponing the demolition. A couple of years later, the city’s Department of Urban Development commissioned National Taiwan University’s Graduate Institute of Building and Planning (GIBP) for the planning of the area. In 1999, considering the fact that most inhabitants hoped for a resettlement in the place, the city government decided to transform the area into a “settlement park” as the new direction for the planning. LUNG Ying-Tai, the then director of the Department of Cultural Affairs, proposed the idea of transforming Treasure Hill into “a village of Arte Povera.” In the thesis, titled “Squatter Settlement and Wealth Accumulation: Taking Treasure Hill in Taipei City as an Example,” the author thus describes the status quo of Treasure Hill: “The mode of survival created by the inhabitants of this community of illegal buildings, as a matter of fact, reflects precisely the insufficiency of this country’s public expense, which also becomes a form of response from the inhabitants as a class of minority.”
However, in 2001, the city government re-initiated the demolition and relocation plan and triggered a new wave of protests. The “GIBP Treasure Hill Action Group” comprising mainly students and members of the “Building and Planning Research Foundation” attempted to intervene by means of inviting artists to organize film festivals to re-coagulate the public life of the residents. According to them, Treasure Hill at the time was “a hillside settlement…self-created by diverse groups, including old veterans, Taiwanese inhabitants, residents migrating from other urban and rural regions, foreign migrant workers, and students.” In 2003, the Organization of Urban Re-s (OURs) attempt at subcontracting the planning project from the Department of Cultural Affairs and proposed the idea of producing a “symbiotic art residence,” where artists and inhabitants could live together and share the space. In the foreword to Treasure Hill as an Art Experiment: Documentation of the Global Artivist Participation Plan, it is stated that “every art action, for Treasure Hill, has been a restoration of the physical space and shaped the consciousness of the art community…We are not organizing art festivals at Treasure Hill, but instead are empowering Treasure Hill to produce its own art.” In 2004, the status of Treasure Hill was finally and officially registered as “Historical Gathering Habitation” because of its uniqueness.
Because of the distinctive characteristics of Treasure Hill, its early arts residency program had encountered various issues. For example, the residency period was too short for artists to deeply integrate into the local community. Their projects were overly informed by humanitarian concerns while lacking an understanding of relevant social structures and contexts. Furthermore, the imagination outlined by their art projects or works involving the “participation” of local residents were homogenous. In his article of 2006, titled “The Blind Men and an Elephant: Gentrification at Treasure Hill,” LIN Hong-John warned that Treasure Hill was undergoing a process of gentrification at the time based on Western experience of arts residency in society. He argued that government-led “socialness of art” would not only lead to ineffective social practice of art, leaving it with a mere form that lacked substance, but would also reduce the possibility for original inhabitants to speak up during the development of disadvantageous areas and the process of gentrification. In the meantime, the middle-class marginality of artists could affect the artists in residence as well.
In October 2010, the Treasure Hill Artist Village entered operation by the Department of Artist Village Operation of the Taipei Cultural Foundation and was joined with the Taipei Artist Village, which was converted from the old office building of the Maintenance Office, Taipei City Government on Beiping East Road by the city government’s Department of Cultural Affairs, with the objective to establish an international art network through art residency programs.
References
However, in 2001, the city government re-initiated the demolition and relocation plan and triggered a new wave of protests. The “GIBP Treasure Hill Action Group” comprising mainly students and members of the “Building and Planning Research Foundation” attempted to intervene by means of inviting artists to organize film festivals to re-coagulate the public life of the residents. According to them, Treasure Hill at the time was “a hillside settlement…self-created by diverse groups, including old veterans, Taiwanese inhabitants, residents migrating from other urban and rural regions, foreign migrant workers, and students.” In 2003, the Organization of Urban Re-s (OURs) attempt at subcontracting the planning project from the Department of Cultural Affairs and proposed the idea of producing a “symbiotic art residence,” where artists and inhabitants could live together and share the space. In the foreword to Treasure Hill as an Art Experiment: Documentation of the Global Artivist Participation Plan, it is stated that “every art action, for Treasure Hill, has been a restoration of the physical space and shaped the consciousness of the art community…We are not organizing art festivals at Treasure Hill, but instead are empowering Treasure Hill to produce its own art.” In 2004, the status of Treasure Hill was finally and officially registered as “Historical Gathering Habitation” because of its uniqueness.
Because of the distinctive characteristics of Treasure Hill, its early arts residency program had encountered various issues. For example, the residency period was too short for artists to deeply integrate into the local community. Their projects were overly informed by humanitarian concerns while lacking an understanding of relevant social structures and contexts. Furthermore, the imagination outlined by their art projects or works involving the “participation” of local residents were homogenous. In his article of 2006, titled “The Blind Men and an Elephant: Gentrification at Treasure Hill,” LIN Hong-John warned that Treasure Hill was undergoing a process of gentrification at the time based on Western experience of arts residency in society. He argued that government-led “socialness of art” would not only lead to ineffective social practice of art, leaving it with a mere form that lacked substance, but would also reduce the possibility for original inhabitants to speak up during the development of disadvantageous areas and the process of gentrification. In the meantime, the middle-class marginality of artists could affect the artists in residence as well.
In October 2010, the Treasure Hill Artist Village entered operation by the Department of Artist Village Operation of the Taipei Cultural Foundation and was joined with the Taipei Artist Village, which was converted from the old office building of the Maintenance Office, Taipei City Government on Beiping East Road by the city government’s Department of Cultural Affairs, with the objective to establish an international art network through art residency programs.
References
- LIN, Hong-John. “The Blind Men and an Elephant: Gentrification at Treasure Hill.” Artco Monthly, no. 169, 2006.10, pp. 148-53.
- CHANG, Li-Pen. “Urban Governance and Cultural Strategies of Social Movements: The Treasure Hill Resistance Movement in Taipei City.” Chung Wai Literary Quarterly, vol. 33, no. 9, 2005.2, pp. 109-42.
- KANG, Min-Jay. Treasure Hill as an Art Experiment: Documentation of the Global Artivist Participation Plan. Department of Cultural Affairs, Taipei City Government, 2005.
- SHIH, Mi. “Squatter Settlement and Wealth Accumulation: Taking Treasure Hill in Taipei city as an Example.” Master thesis, Graduate Institute of Building and Planning, National Taiwan University, 2000.
寶藏巖聚落(Settlement of Treasure Hill)
寶藏巖名稱來自於鄰近廟宇「寶藏巖」,為十八世紀以來的信仰中心,在國民政府遷台後因靠近台北市中心,交通便利,逐漸成為不同移民族群聚居的違章建築聚落。1980年七月,寶藏巖從水源保護地劃入臨水區的「297號都市公園」,因涉及新店溪臨水禁建區,臺北市市政府展開拆遷計畫,並於1993年公告拆遷。1995年在居民不斷地陳情下暫緩拆除,兩年後開發局開始委託臺灣大學建築與城鄉所(以下簡稱城鄉所)進行規劃案。1999年市政府考量多數居民希望能就地安置,決議以「聚落公園」做為新的方向,時任文化局長龍應台提出將寶藏巖規劃為「貧窮藝術村」的構想。〈違建社區與財富累積:以台北市寶藏巖社區為例〉這篇論文,認為當時的狀況為「違建社區居民的生存型態,其實正展現了國家公共支出不足的部分,也呈現出其身居弱勢階級位置上的因應之道。」
但市政府在2001年再次恢復拆遷與居民異地安置引起新一波的抗爭,以當時參與的學生與城鄉發展基金會作為主要成員的「城鄉所寶藏巖行動小組」,試圖透過邀請藝術工作者介入,以舉辦影展等方法重新凝聚居民的公共生活,他們形容當時的寶藏巖「[…]是一處由老兵、台籍原住戶、城鄉移民、外籍勞工、學生等多元族群集體自力營造出的山城聚落,[…]」。2003年專業者都市改革組織(以下簡稱OURs)透過爭取文化局的規劃案,提出讓藝術家與居民共同生活、共享空間的「共生藝棧」,在《藝術實驗寶藏巖:GAPP 全球藝術行動者參與計畫實錄》的序言中,認為「[…]每一次的藝術行動對於寶藏巖來說,都是一次實質空間的修復與藝術社區意識的打造……不是在寶藏巖辦藝術季,而是讓寶藏巖生產出藝術。」,2004年寶藏巖由於其獨特性被正式登錄為「歷史聚落」進行保存。
寶藏巖早期的藝術進駐計畫由於場所的特殊性,面臨不同的問題,如:駐村期過短使藝術家無法深入社群、藝術計畫充滿人道主義式的關懷但對社會結構及背後脈絡了解不深、對於社區居民「參與」藝術創作的想像過於單一等。2006年林宏璋在文章〈瞎子與象:仕紳化的寶藏巖〉中,則透過歐美藝術進駐社會的經驗,提出寶藏巖可能正處於仕紳化(gentrification)的警醒,認為由官方主導的「藝術社會性」,將導致藝術的社會實踐徒具形式,並且使開發弱勢地區、中產階級化過程中,不但弱化了原居民發聲的可能性,同時由於藝術工作者的中產邊緣屬性,也有可能連帶地影響駐地的藝術工作者。
2010年10月,寶藏巖國際藝術村正式由財團法人臺北市文化基金會藝術村營運部營運,與原臺北市政府文化局於北平東路養護工程處辦公室舊址成立的「台北國際藝術村」連結,藉由藝術進駐計畫,建立跨國網絡。
參考文獻
但市政府在2001年再次恢復拆遷與居民異地安置引起新一波的抗爭,以當時參與的學生與城鄉發展基金會作為主要成員的「城鄉所寶藏巖行動小組」,試圖透過邀請藝術工作者介入,以舉辦影展等方法重新凝聚居民的公共生活,他們形容當時的寶藏巖「[…]是一處由老兵、台籍原住戶、城鄉移民、外籍勞工、學生等多元族群集體自力營造出的山城聚落,[…]」。2003年專業者都市改革組織(以下簡稱OURs)透過爭取文化局的規劃案,提出讓藝術家與居民共同生活、共享空間的「共生藝棧」,在《藝術實驗寶藏巖:GAPP 全球藝術行動者參與計畫實錄》的序言中,認為「[…]每一次的藝術行動對於寶藏巖來說,都是一次實質空間的修復與藝術社區意識的打造……不是在寶藏巖辦藝術季,而是讓寶藏巖生產出藝術。」,2004年寶藏巖由於其獨特性被正式登錄為「歷史聚落」進行保存。
寶藏巖早期的藝術進駐計畫由於場所的特殊性,面臨不同的問題,如:駐村期過短使藝術家無法深入社群、藝術計畫充滿人道主義式的關懷但對社會結構及背後脈絡了解不深、對於社區居民「參與」藝術創作的想像過於單一等。2006年林宏璋在文章〈瞎子與象:仕紳化的寶藏巖〉中,則透過歐美藝術進駐社會的經驗,提出寶藏巖可能正處於仕紳化(gentrification)的警醒,認為由官方主導的「藝術社會性」,將導致藝術的社會實踐徒具形式,並且使開發弱勢地區、中產階級化過程中,不但弱化了原居民發聲的可能性,同時由於藝術工作者的中產邊緣屬性,也有可能連帶地影響駐地的藝術工作者。
2010年10月,寶藏巖國際藝術村正式由財團法人臺北市文化基金會藝術村營運部營運,與原臺北市政府文化局於北平東路養護工程處辦公室舊址成立的「台北國際藝術村」連結,藉由藝術進駐計畫,建立跨國網絡。
參考文獻
- 林宏璋,〈瞎子與象:仕紳化的寶藏巖〉,典藏今藝術,169期,頁148-153,2006.10。
- 張立本,〈都市治理與社會運動的文化策略:台北市寶藏巖違建運動〉,中外文學,33眷9期,頁109-142,2005.2。
- 康旻杰等,《藝術實驗寶藏巖:GAPP 全球藝術行動者參與計畫實錄》,台北市政府文化局,2005。
- 史宓,《違建社區與財富累積:以台北市寶藏巖社區為例》,國立臺灣大學建築與城鄉所研究所碩士論文,2000。