The 2016 Public Art in Taiwan Annual encompasses, as does all previously published annuals, a compilation of all projects unveiled throughout the year, as well as related statistics (presented in graphs) and analyses of those figures, all of which are extremely useful and valuable to those who wish to conduct research on public art in Taiwan. This year's edition, in particular, includes a chart listing the number of public artworks installed each year from 1999 onwards, offering researchers even better opportunities to delve into the data and analyze it from various perspectives. The theme of this year's Public Art Forum was "Public Art in Schools," which reflects how public art in schools has accounted for approximately half of all projects in recent years. If we were to contemplate how the concepts of "public" and "art" can truly coexist, focusing on public art installed in a specific type of site would likely be conducive to developing a deeper discussion. These two new features of the annual may however also lead us to question: "With so many public artworks around, what kind of world view do they really convey?" and "Is it possible to reset or reactivate public art through artworks placed in educational domains?"

 

Firstly, let's take a look at some astonishing numbers. According to the statistics and analyses for projects disclosed in the annual, in the past ten years, the number of public artworks in Taiwan has proliferated at an average of more than 250 per year. Artworks located in the greater Taipei area number the greatest, followed by those in Kaohsiung and Taichung. However, in the past five years, Taichung has placed first in the number of projects undertaken. Having become the second largest city in terms of population, Taichung has obviously also made great strides in public infrastructure. If we look at the total budget for public art granted on an annual basis, the numbers were approximately NT$490 million in 2016, NT$850 million in 2015, and NT$680 million in 2014. These impressive numbers are far higher than the yearly budget the National Culture and Arts Foundation is able to allocate in support of the visual arts. Therefore, we cannot help but ask what sort of industry ecosystem has been shaped for our art world by public art installed with the purpose of beautifying the public environment and nurturing talent? What sort of talent has been nurtured? And what sort of world view has been reflected? From the relentless criticism and reviews conveyed in the essays of past annuals, the answer seems to be abundantly clear. However, government policies only seem to be able to offer minor possibilities for improvement and the use of atypical art projects in an attempt to create balance and impact, yet these measures rarely bring about any fundamental changes.

 

The most obvious challenge for public art is that people almost always mend inadequacies in the environment that had been created by themselves in the first place by simply add another constructed object in the attempt to reach a solution. In the end, however, a conflicting, unsatisfactory situation still exists between people and the objects in question. A new problem is created while the original problem remains unresolved, which is why the withdrawal and maintenance of public art continues to remain a contested topic of discussion. But the actual fundamental purpose of public art is to shape the environment in which people dwell. It is the habitat of the senses, something to enhance the aesthetics of a space and not just mere decorative objects. Yet in the midst of the continuous transitions and complications of our space and environment, we have also come to realize that space itself is an arena in which politics, the economy, society, aesthetics, and other forces compete against one another. Without a comprehensive, integrated, and friendly production process, it is difficult for public art to be executed in a manner that responds to the needs of the people in a real and substantial way.

 

If we look back at the original purpose of public art, it was to improve upon a public environment that had been made overly rational, dull, and impersonal under the influence of modern architecture. Yet what we are witnessing at this moment is that the Percent for Art Program has actually perpetuated the very doctrines of modernism that its creation was meant to combat: the emphasis on rationality, procedure, compartmentalization, of being excessively visually oriented. Last year, when French anthropologist, sociologist, and philosopher Bruno Latour curated the "Reset Modernity!" exhibit at Germany's ZKM | Center for Art and Media Karlsruhe as a response to modern society's conundrum, he stated that "Modernity was a way to differentiate past and future, North and South, progress and regress, radical and conservative. However, at a time of profound ecological mutation, this compass is running in wild circles without offering much bearing anymore. This is why it is time to reset. Let's pause for a while, search according to procedure for different sensors that can allow us to recalibrate our detectors and our instruments, and to feel anew where we are and where we might wish to go." (website link) But if we are dependent upon public art as if it were a modern charter of constitution, how can it ever be recalibrated and reset?

 

The Harrisons, American ecological artists and husband and wife, have always liked to ask two fundamental questions: "How big is here?" and "How long is now?" One question concerns space, the other time, and they guide us to see the connection between this moment and place in which we exist and our greater environment. What is also reflected is how since public artworks originate from specific public projects, approaches toward their execution are often limited within a specific space and time, and how it is never easy for bigger, more connective imaginative perspectives to emerge from these limitations. Therefore, the question we should ask is perhaps "Can the 'reactivation' of public art begin with 'reconnection'," a connection that links space and time with people living and breathing? From this perspective, relearning becomes the key.

 

Often, we blame the lack of aesthetics in our living space on education, or the lack thereof. Students spend the best part of their day in school. Therefore, if campuses lack aesthetic appeal, students certainly will become indifferent to their surroundings. As a center for learning, can campuses become the primary site for revolutionizing the way we learn, starting with trees and flowers and everyday scenery? Can they help us become more attuned to the influence of light, sound, color, and space on our bodies, emotions, and spirit? Can we become more alert to how the placement of each and every object resets the personality of a space? Through the gaining of these sensory experiences, we will then be able to utilize our capabilities of perception in our daily lives.

 

Meanwhile, through projects such as the Ministry of Education Subsidy Plan for Reconstructing Campus Aesthetics, we may be able to "reset" the installation of public art in schools and campuses. With an appropriate model in place, perhaps we will finally be able to envision new possibilities for public art.