公共藝術獎助政策對視覺藝術生態之影響

The Impacts of Percent for Art Ordinances on the Visual Arts

洪致美(Chih-Mei Hung)

指導教授 ： 黃秉德

共同指導教授 ： 曲德益(Teh-I Chu)

國立臺北藝術大學/文化資源學院/藝術行政與管理研究所碩士班/碩士(2006年)

摘要

公共藝術獎助政策對視覺藝術生態之影響

摘 要
一九九二年七月，「文化藝術獎助條例」立法通過，其中第九條規定鼓勵重大公共工程建設及公有建築以不低於總造價的百分之一設置公共藝術，這項參酌歐美百分比藝術所成立的「公共藝術設置辦法」，使視覺藝術界獲得前所未有的公共資源挹注，對整體生態是一個嶄新的發展契機。
公共藝術既是獎助政策，可說是代表一個民主國家的理想藝術形式。其創作本質及形態來自菁英文化及智識成就是無庸置疑的，但其政策的來源、建構的機制及公眾互動的定位，應具有「美感福利」的社會功能。透過不同機制的操作，對公共藝術「公共性」的解釋亦有所不同。從公共藝術透過政策與贊助制度化，推動委託藝術家進駐為公共空間創作，到陳述公共藝術觀念及實際演進的歷程，其所代表的不止是一種文化概念及文化獎助政策，往往也與城市開發、區域再造、產業振興等有所連結。
「公共藝術設置辦法」的推動將經費資源常態化，隨國家重大工程及新建建築等費用產生，不受教科文年度預算審核的增減而影響；本研究探討這一項政策的制定、資源的運作及操作的機制，對視覺藝術生態是否帶來的影響。對創作人力及工作模式是否產生顯著的變化？藝術贊助提供藝術工作者工作與發表機會，或是應該考量整體環境文化，從全民文化福利的觀點為主；又或者應順應文化創意產業的思潮，將獎助資源成為一種扶植的中介，以促成創作核心更具產業優勢競爭，進而達到提升視覺藝術產業的文化產值？
隨著社區總體營造的開展及公民意識的抬頭，此二者的差異加劇其辯證與討論。這項文化獎助政策透過多年實踐後，文建會針對部份法規進行微調，一方面擴大了參與的藝術媒材形態，牽涉到實質參與的創作人力專業領域轉變為更開放；另一方面在操作程序的修正，亦保留更多當代藝術中的策展機制或經紀角色的介入。本研究以舉辦兩屆的台北市公共藝術節為例，針對策展單位的組織架構、核心競爭力、人力資源配置進行探討，並由大型公共藝術專案操作模式著手，經統計分析對照後，是否改變了工作模式的趨勢，並且朝向文化產業化的思維轉變，以檢視公共藝術施行以來，其獎助的宗旨及目標對象是否轉移。

關鍵字

公共藝術 ； 百分比藝術 ； 民眾參與 ； 文化創意產業

並列摘要

The Impact of Percent for Art Ordinances on the Visual Arts

Abstract
The Statute for Encouraging the Development of Culture and the Arts was passed in July 1992. Article 9 of the said statutes stipulates encouragement of installing public art in major public engineering projects and public buildings at a cost of no less than one percent of the total project construction cost. This “public art installation method” patterned after European and American “percent for art” afforded the world of visual art an unprecedented boost in public resources and represents a new opportunity for development.
The fact that public art is now supported by fund-incentive policies can be said to be an ideal manifestation in a democratic country. Its creative nature and modality are undoubtedly derived from an elite culture and knowledge but its policy source, installation mechanism and positioning in so far as interaction with the general public is concerned, finds basis in the social function of “aesthetic welfare.” Using different means of mechanisms, the way “public character” of public art is interpreted also differs. The use of policy and incentive system to promote artists’ involvement in public art installation, the concepts behind the display of public art, and the actual process of installation represent not just a cultural concept or a cultural incentive policy, but is likewise linked with urban development, zone renewal, as well as the revival of industry development.
The promotion of the public art installation method normalizes the source of funding. As major national projects and new buildings are created, funds for public art are unaffected by fiscal budgets on education, science and cultural endeavors. This paper studies the legislation of this policy, the use of resources and the operating mechanism, and their impact on the development of visual arts. Does it lead to significant changes in creative manpower and working styles? Incentives for the art provide artists a chance for working and showing their creations. Should consideration be made on the overall cultural environment from the perspective of people’s cultural welfare? Should it be that funding sources be taken as a medium for cultivation, in keeping with prevailing ideas in the cultural and creative world, such that creation itself is made to acquire a competitive touch by which the cultural value of the visual arts can be further enhanced?
As communities emphasize overall development and citizen consciousness grows, dialectic discussions of their differences are becoming more enlivened. After years of implementation of the cultural incentive policy, the Council for Cultural Development has worked to adjust parts of the regulations. On the one hand it has expanded the scope of artistic genre and modalities, and adopted a more open attitude in regard to participating artists’ creative realm. On the other hand it has revised operations procedures, while also retaining exhibition planning mechanisms and the involvement of impresarios, a practice common in contemporary art circles. This study cites the holding of the Taipei City Public Art Festival twice in the past to discuss exhibition planners’ organizational structure, core competence, and human resource allocation, as well as the adopted management approach akin to large public art projects. After statistical comparison and analysis, this study probes into whether or not the methods adopted is a departure from the traditional, and whether there has been a shift towards the concept of the industrialization of culture, as a way to look into whether or not the goals and objectives of granting the incentives have changed since the public art policy’s implementation.

並列關鍵字

Public art ； Public participation ； Cultural creative industry

參考文獻

2004《2003年台灣文化創意產業發展年報》，台北：經濟部。

2002〈是藝術也是用具，國改論評〉。台北：財團法人國家政策研究基金會，教文（評）091-071號。

2002〈公共藝術是建築的延伸〉。台北：財團法人國家政策研究基金會，教文（評）091-027號。

2001〈回歸公共藝術本質〉。台北：財團法人國家政策研究基金會，教文（評）091-154號。

2003《文創人力供需調查案報告》，台北：中華經濟研究院。