The second “Taipei Public Arts Festival” officially ran from October 2004 to May 2005. Since then those in charge of drafting and implementing policy have found themselves facing numerous problems that first caused delays in the organization of a third and fourth festival, but ultimately led to a discontinuation of the policy.

It is difficult to know which had more impact on the local art/culture community, termination or the problems faced during the execution of the first and second “Taipei Public Arts Festivals.” Regardless of which, it is now four years since the event and debate over the pros and cons of the Public Arts Festivals had long since died down. That is until 2009 when the second “Public Art Awards” presented the second “Taipei Public Arts Festival with an Award for Excellence.” That reignited the debate over whether the festival should be continued and generated much heated discussion on the direction of cultural policy in general. It is hard to say if four years is sufficient time to offer an objective discussion on the issues at hand, but in a country such as Taiwan where cultural fashions come and go at an unbelievable rate, there is much to be said for constant reflection and self-examination.

Professor J. J. Shih has noted that the “Taipei Public Arts Festival” was a highly experimental event, one that underwent both practical strategic and policy revisions from the first to the second event. Despite the fact that the Public Art Fund has not since organized any large scale art festivals, the interaction of art and space and plans for “community art” projects across Taiwan, clearly illustrates the extent to which the awakening of consciousness encouraged by the festivals continues to promote action.

Regardless of the disputes over definitions, spiritual values and operational strategy, Public Arts Festivals invariably always end up focused on the word “festival.” This is a term that immediately implies the regular celebration of an annual harvest, something that used to be intimately connected to the rhythms of agricultural labor and life. Today it is transformed into a modern day activity that involves the cultivation, harvesting, sharing and display of artistic and cultural spiritual life and it is this that provides the foundation of imagination that underpins “Public Arts Festivals.” It is also a channel through which an innovative art and cultural activity can grow and deepen, until at some point in the future it becomes an urban cultural tradition.

Moreover, the utilization of this imagination faces considerable differences of understanding and interpretation in the real world. It could be viewed in terms of spending a government budget, political fireworks, designated the development of new resources for a temporary art exhibition, an alternative channel for general community building or as a reform strategy for a new urban life. In summary, although none of these possibilities offers a full explanation, they can all be used as a reference point. Given this state of constant evolution, the main focus of any discussion on public art festivals is always being revised as part of the operational process towards an altogether more fuzzy supposition. This views public art as a new artistic genre with a strongly public component. It does not take materials used, creative methodology or action as a determinant of art but rather recognizes a creative core focused on benefit to others and such issues as improving the environment and life in general.

Any discourse on public art festivals can be broadly divided into three areas of interest:

1. Relaxation of government procurement and public art regulations:

Before the advent of public arts festivals, much of the public participation in public art was little more than administrative procedure detached from the art itself. This can perhaps best be seen in meetings designed to persuade communities of the benefits of installing art. Whether in the form of a model exhibition, voting, a questionnaire or a raffle, the distance between the artist and public opinion remains the same. The first “Taipei Public Arts Festival” focused on the art, but artistic creation requires a dialogue with people. In contrast, this process ensured that artistic projects were first evaluated and on that basis revisions made to how dialogue was established. This approach proved highly disadvantageous when it came to showcasing the public nature of said art, as neither the artist nor viewers were given time or space to establish a relationship based on mutual understanding. As a result, the second “Taipei Public Arts Festival” chose to focus first on the public nature of the work and only then on art. This change in focus increased administrative space and flexibility, it also established the principle “public first, art second” as a new operational standard for artists. The hope was to be more precise without limiting creative possibilities.

2. Methodological Theory and Revision of the “Public First, Art Second” Approach

A Community Workshop basically borrows from the idea of community empowerment/development. It also represents an attempt to establish an intermediary mechanism connecting local residents and artists. The act of “borrowing” indicates the lack of mature theoretical underpinnings to support community operations. Indeed, most artists had received no training and were psychologically unprepared to be resident in local communities, hence the need to utilize the operational approach of community empowerment/development in the realm of public art. The Community Workshop initially conducted research into history, culture, urban landscapes, ecology and environment, encouraging local participation through step-by-step theme based workshop. They also asked people to reflect in more detail on their lives and living environment. In this way, as artists start to produce work they have a two-way channel through which they can communicate with the local community.

From October 2004 to the end of January 2005, the Community Workshop operated from within a Confucius Temple. From February-May 2005, a new operational model was adopted. After the studio was moved to the Lanzhou Police Station in the later stage, focus turned to urban space and community autonomy in Tatung Culture Park. In this way, earlier community operations were transformed into concrete action such as exhibitions and seminars, enlisting proposals from local residents as to the future of Tatung Culture Park, as preparation for the possible formation of an autonomous cultural park group by local residents.

The Community Workshop operated smoothly but was an insufficient creative catalyst for interaction between artists and the public. Moreover, it proved quite difficult to craft a workshop schedule that enabled artists to tap into their creativity. As such, some of the work continued to appear in its original format, drawing first followed by installation. This led many artists to conclude they were receiving insufficient feedback, that they were giving of their own time and energy and learning little from the experience. As a result, the Community Workshop was largely ineffective in bringing artists and residents closer together, but it did maintain its administrative and coordinative functions. On the other hand, other artists moved away from the workshop and sought to make themselves part of the community, thereby establishing a real link to the area, putting down roots and creating truly relevant art.

At this point an important dividing line was drawn concerning the operation of public arts festival in the community. Moreover, it came about not because artists belonged to the temporary “Water Time” run by Luo Hsiu-chih, the permanent work of Chen Juo-chien or any other group of resident artists. Rather it happened because in each different area of responsibility artists focused only on the installation of their own work and reflected on the response of local residents.

Revisions were made to the work interface needed by communities and artists willing to work there. In simple terms, this involved doing whatever was needed as quickly as possible. Although this was very urgent and provisional, it efficiently focused on department of culture staff, organizing a fixed support system at the “Lanzhou Police Station.” Combined with the network of community residents and resources developed by the Community Workshop in its early stages, this offered support to artists working in the community. It also collected, organized, and disseminated information for external consumption. To a certain extent everyone was welcomed as they took up “residence” in local communities and this ultimately led to a clearer connection between public art and the localities in which it was installed.

Only after artists became part of a community and met residents there did it becomes clear the extent to which “community” is a highly abstract concept. Interactions with locals made it clear that there is no one defining outlook or representative. Communities are composites of pre-existing social groupings and individuals who, whilst perhaps not belonging to any specific group, have different ideas about things that can grow into opposition or conflict at any time.

All later stage public art operations were in fact a response to individuals and situations in the community. Artists worked with different groups on different issues, with real people who live in the area not some indistinct abstract “public.” If life itself is noisy and colorful, the art introduced to that area after working with various small groups should naturally be diverse and wide ranging. The greater opening up and flexibility promoted by the “public first, art second” approach enabled later stage connections and revisions in response to the ebb and flow of community opinion, with the genuine possibility of creating meaningful art.

Finally, artwork from all communities was collected at “Lanzhou Police Station” which infused the public arts festival with its own energy. Resources used included the curatorial skills of Wang Pin-hua and Wu Ma-li, as well as exhibitions and performances from local artists. At this point, much debate was devoted to the continued existence of “Lanzhou Police Station” and the inclusion of those community groups working with the Community Workshop in the latter stages as an issue of urban policy. This relationship was quickly terminated following the razing of “Lanzhou Police Station.” This was a great pity, in as much as the strategy of later stage art being introduced to communities had already reached the point of artists taking up residence and had just started to have an impact.

The razing of “Lanzhou Police Station” and setback faced by groups that used public art to participate in urban policy making is generally considered to have overshadowed the second “Public Arts Festival,” not to mention the experimental results from art being introduced to communities and the follow up drive or energy this generated. The importance of these two elements was not evaluated properly at that time.

At this point we also need to discuss a third area of interest that transcends laws and policy. After policy as a whole came to a standstill, there was a need for comprehensive discussion and debate but that never happened. The difficulties faced by the second “Public Arts Festival,” together with the cancellation and lapsing of tenders for the third and fourth festivals, led policy makers to conclude that not only were expectations too high, they simply could not be met from an as yet immature public art environment as well. However, this is a conclusion most definitely in need of further discussion. Whereas the continuation of the “Pubic Arts Festival” itself is not an important topic in it own right, the subject of art in communities, the core values of public art, what experiences were enjoyed and what learned most certainly are important questions. Properly addressing these issues is the only way to ensure the event is meaningful and to determine a course of action for the next stage in the evolution of public art in Taiwan.

3. Organizing and Teaching Theory and Systems

From the dividing line that was drawn during the second attempt at organizing a public arts festival, we need to be honest about the extent to which almost everything that was pre-decided, whether issues or approaches, was later adjusted in light of reality. The ethics and creative view of artists themselves impact whether the works they create are able to establish a degree of interaction with the local environment and people. This is not to judge whether a work is right or wrong, good or bad, but public art differs to other genres and as such requires its own focus and approach. Perhaps this will help to generate new thinking on conceptual development and the nurturing of creative education in a new era.

Is it at all possible that art itself can create a new grand vision for the next century? Throughout the last century the whole world, including Taiwan, Japan, and all other non-western countries and cultures followed western cultural trends. With modernization focused on purity and absolutism we followed suit. When post modernism became popular we quickly embraced rural or cultural images. With the rise of installation and new media art we once again followed. Twentieth century western art was a refined and elitist product of a culture based on individualism and liberalism but with a taste for self-dialectics. At the time, such a course of action was considered unavoidable and we came away with a knowledge system to support that specific definition of art. In this context we are bound to ask, weren’t the laws and even the concept of public art also transferred on mass from the west? Although that is true, the public nature of public art demands that it focus on the locality. How can we expect to find a foundation for discourse and realization if we blindly subscribe to the underpinnings of twentieth century western art? Moreover, if we do not adhere to an existing artistic framework, then it follows that we no longer need to bother whether public art meets a set definitions or artistic nature. With artistic forms such as sculpture, environmental art, landscaping, abstraction, conceptualization, material, media, performance and happening art, all reaching their peak in the twentieth century, there seems little point in public art following an already well-trodden path.

I believe that those artists involved with public art need to detach themselves from that way of thinking. Many art workers have perhaps been trained in western art and guided by the capital markets for a long time. As such, our vision needs to be deeper and broader, beneficial to others and service oriented, it needs to blend with the living environment, combine art and handicraft work and adopt a post-western art perspective with a much longer historical backdrop. This requires a cultural transformation or it will be even harder to achieve. We also need a more open policy approach and the necessary resources.

In April this year, Mr. Fram Kitagawa was invited to speak in Taiwan. Having curated the Echigo-Tsumari Art Triennial 4 times in 12 years, Kitagawa’s experience holds several lessons for Taiwan. First and foremost we hope his visit has a positive effect, in as much as the four triennials remain popular and attract considerable investment. In contrast, in Taiwan, tens of millions of dollars create a pressure cooker environment and a situation where nothing is ever right. Initially, the Echigo-Tsumari Art Triennial was held in a traditional conservative location, attracting much opposition and criticism. But this did not stop its continuation and ultimate success. In comparison, the first and second “Public Art Festivals” in Taiwan were almost universally welcomed by local residents. The problems here in Taiwan have come from the internal squabbling of government departments, policy vacillation and competition between art workers. These rather than public or community opinion are responsible for the difficulties experienced in the promotion of public art in Taiwan.

More recently, National Kaohsiung Normal University and Taipei National University of the Arts have established cross-discipline departments and over the last few years been involved in a number of related projects; Chiayi Tropic of Cancer, Dayi Art Festival, Haian Road Program, Guandu International Outdoor Sculpture Festival etc. The Council for Cultural Affairs also continued to sponsor citizen aesthetics, art in the community and art in space. The hope with these programs is to optimize innovation within a smaller and safer scale. Of course the promotions of events that are small, high frequency and dispersed may be the best approach. Even in rural areas, Taiwan faces the impact of globalization and the agricultural economy is shrinking, whereas for urban areas the more pertinent issues are renewal and ecological preservation. In Taiwan, public art cannot possibly avoid the problem of self-identity and the grafting together of old and new culture. From a spatial perspective, dispersed small-scale promotions are a response to local issues in small areas. In terms of time flow, this focus ensures small-scale achievements do not go unnoticed and this accumulation is something on which policy promoters can build.

In 2005, I wrote a retrospective piece on the first two public arts festivals in which I observed that public arts festivals are “projects on the reorganization of understanding.” The ultimate goal is to use art as a strategy to encourage people to reflect on their shared lives and environmental problems from different perspectives. This process of reflection is of particular importance because its results lead to changes in the objective knowledge groups have about the environment and their attitudes in dealing with it. This creates innovative action, which in turn contributes to the transformation of the environment in which we live.

Generally speaking, an art movement that has no interest in scale or size needs to incorporate art workers from various genres in order to comprehensively address issues or to address the complexity and changeability of the living environment and different social groups. In this way, similarities and differences are mixed together, as it is no longer the work of an individual or an event completed by a single act. Such a movement absolutely has to be collective, a connection between people, something completed together. It is also necessary to learn, as I have previously stated, that public art is about the reorganization of understanding and that cannot be achieved over night or through the organization of a handful of public art festivals and installation projects. Public art is an evolutionary process of constant repositioning, realization, revision and reorganization, as we learn to coexist and search for creative strength and inspiration.