透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.235.180.245
  • 學位論文

行政與治理之間:從當代文化官僚角色重新看待威尼斯雙年展台灣館

Between administration and governmentality: Taiwan Pavilion, Biennale di Venenzia, on the perspective of the role of contemporary cultural bureaucrat

指導教授 : 黃建宏

摘要


21世紀以來,隨著全球經濟競爭加劇,台灣面臨產業外移與多元文化紛陳的同時,快速地在1990年代「社區總體營造」、「文化觀光」至「城市行銷」等政策基礎上,大舉推動文化創意產業,已然宣告「文化」為經濟、產業規劃的重要前提,更是相對合宜的政治宣稱。在這樣的情況下,國家資源大規模地以「文化」之名遭調度、重分配,「治理性」(governmentality)顯然已轉向「文化治理」(cultural governance)支配邏輯。與此同時,攸關「文化」與「治理」主從關係的課題更不斷地挑戰台灣官僚系統與專業社群間的公私協力夥伴關係(public-private partnerships),尤在重視主觀詮釋的當代藝術展覽中,公立美術館與獨立策展人的分工制度更易於突顯台灣當前文化治理支配邏輯招致的合法性問題。 鑒於上述社會趨勢,以及本研究對「藝術行政」專業的思考,發展以下核心的問題意識:藝術行政與文化治理兩者是否既為共構的生產關係,又為支配-抵抗的權力關係?其中,藝術的主體性於行政與治理系統分別起了什麼樣的作用?為釐清當代藝術行政與文化治理兩者的內在連結,本文以台北市立美術館主辦之威尼斯雙年展台灣館為研究個案,分別從官僚制(bureaucracy)與治理性理論、台灣現代化經驗及官僚系統再現的支配合法性(legitimacy of domination)邏輯,以及北美館1980年代以來展覽與人事發展等路徑,架構攸關威尼斯雙年展台灣館的社會因素。進一步,以從事展覽工作者的實務經驗作為個案分析材料,提出以下結論:一、整體而言,台灣館展覽再現的館方與專業社群之「社群關係」、館方與獨立策展人之「分工關係」,相當程度反映了台灣緊扣著殖民現代性的現代化經驗與當代台灣處於「例外狀態」的政治主權與國際關係。二、為了保持官僚系統的開放並滿足民主政治與專業實踐,同時,適度侷限個體性於系統的實踐空間,細緻而靈活的行政系統便為必要的修補機制。以台灣館展覽而言,全面化的行政系統實則提供策展與行政專業,以至個體性得移轉至行政系統,甚而將其客體化為合法性問題的契機,諸位個體之責任與權力隨之零碎化。三、台灣以殖民現代性為基礎之官僚系統與全面化的行政系統,兩者共同表現於台灣館展覽因「策展委外制度」而合作的展覽團隊中的個體,其如何依其所宣稱之「藝術主體性」實踐專業,即獨立策展人及北美館雙方「專業」邊際的課題。北美館以行政程序及合法性實踐其展覽主辦權、美術館主體性本身,即賦予從事展覽工作的館員受護於機制的可能性,該可能性既得導向館方主辦權、主體性的維繫,亦得具體化為個體性的實踐。

並列摘要


Since the turn of the 21st century, intense competition in global markets has become ever more relentless. With Taiwan’s manufacturing industries continually moving offshore, diverse cultural influences have emerged. Burgeoning from the 1990s, a series of new policies that aimed to promote creative industries, e.g. ‘community empowerment,’ ‘cultural tourism,’ and ‘city marketing’, etc. had already kick-started the ongoing campaign for ‘culture’ as the prerequisite of economic and industrial planning, which could be said to be a rather timely political statement. In this context, domestic resources have been re-distributed at a remarkable scale in the name of ‘culture.’ Allegedly ‘governmentality’ has been largely dictated by the logic of ‘cultural governance’. In the meanwhile, power relations between ‘culture’ and ‘governmentality’ are a recurrent challenge to the public-private partnerships between bureaucratic system and professional communities. Above all, contemporary art exhibitions value the freedom of interpretation. The collaboration between state-funded museums and independent curators often bring to light the problematics of ‘cultural governance’ and its legitimacy. Considering the aforementioned state of affairs, along with the critical viewpoints from the profession of arts administration, the study develops around the principal questions as follows: is the relationship between arts administration and cultural governance a productive synergy as well as power struggle? Moreover, what effect does the subjectivity of art have on both the systems of administration and governmentality? In order to clarify the internal connection between contemporary arts administration and cultural governance, the study takes the Taiwan Pavilion at the Venice Biennial (la Biennale di Venezia) as a case study, referring to theories of bureaucracy and governmentality, whilst examining the legitimacy of domination represented in Taiwan’s experience of modernization, as well as the developing trajectory of curatorial logistics in the Taipei Fine Arts Museum (TFAM) since the 1980s. The objective is to identify the social factors impacting on the Taiwan Pavilion. Subsequently, through further case studies of exhibition production in practice, I put forward a conclusion of three key points. First of all, whilst representing a sense of community between the TFAM and professional communities, as well as a collaborative relationship between the TFAM and independent curators, the Taiwan Pavilion also echoes Taiwan’s experience of modernization, which was intrinsically connected to colonial modernity, and ‘the state of exception’ where Taiwan finds itself in terms of political sovereignty and international relations up to the present day. Secondly, in order to keep the bureaucratic system open and implement effectively democracy and professionalism, whilst containing individual autonomy of practice within the institution, a sophisticated and yet flexible administrative system becomes the necessary, facilitating mechanism. In the case of the Taiwan Pavilion at the Venice Biennial, the all-encompassing administrative system in effect supports the professions of curatorship and arts administration, accommodates individuality under the administrative system, and even objectifies itself as an opportunity of legitimacy. As a consequence, responsibility and power of individuals become fragmented. Finally, Taiwan’s bureaucratic system developed on the basis of colonial modernity and its all-encompassing administrative system are both reflected in the way that individuals in the curatorial teams, due to the outsourcing procedure, proclaim their professional and artistic autonomy. In other words, there is a debate of the boundary of ‘profession’ between independent curators and the TFAM. The TFAM, by means of the administrative procedure, its legitimate role as the exhibition producer and organizational autonomy, provides the possibility for the TFAM team to execute the project, safeguarded by the institution. Above all, it is also a possibility that not only maintains the TFAM’s leading position but also ensures individual expressions can be achieved.

參考文獻


吳乃德(2002)。認同衝突和政治信任:現階段台灣族群政治的核心難題。台灣社會學,4,75-118。
黃俊傑(2006)。臺灣意識與臺灣文化。台北:國立臺灣大學出版中心。
王志弘、沈孟穎、林純秀(2009/04)。族裔公共空間的劃界政治:台北都會區外圍東南亞消費地景分析。台灣東南亞學刊,6(1),3-48。
王志弘(2005b)(2005/09)。秩序、效率與文明素養:台北市「排隊運動」分析。政治與社會哲學評論,14,95-147。
陳建忠(2000/06)。新興的悲哀-論蔡秋桐小說中的反殖民現代性思想。台灣文學學報,1,239-262。

延伸閱讀