Some people have said that the COVID-19 crisis is a combination of the 2003 SARS outbreak, the 2008 financial crisis and the 1930s Great Depression, but sometimes a crisis might be a turning point.
The 1997 Asian financial crisis turned out to be an opportunity for the rise of South Korea.
The Great Depression made many stock investors jump off buildings, but it also brought then-US president Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, which included the Works of Art Project and Works Progress Administration, where the US government paid artists weekly salaries to make murals, posters and sculptures.
The projects not only allowed nearly 4,000 artists to survive a difficult period, but it also helped those like Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko thrive.
The global arts sector has been hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic and many national governments have proposed relief packages for those in the arts. Last month, curator Hans Ulrich Obrist called on the British government to create a large-scale project — a version of the New Deal — so that British artists can continue to work during the crisis.
In Taiwan, the Ministry of Culture has proposed a bailout plan, but since early last month, people have criticized it because the Taipei Art Creator Trade Union is often excluded from the ministry’s consultation committee.
The union has more than 600 active members from various backgrounds — from arts and cultural workers to administrative and technical personnel. It provides legal consultations, contract templates and other services.
Artists often have an “artistic temperament” and tend not to ask for favors, not to mention fawn over the rich and powerful, so the government might have overlooked the real needs of the arts and cultural sector.
When formulating a bailout plan, the government should also listen to public opinion.
Over the past six years, NT$3.5 billion (US$116.27 million) has been spent on 2,200 pieces of public art, an average of one piece every day. Over the past 20 years, NT$7.5 billion was spent on public art projects, an average of 221 works per year. Having spent so much money, has art really become a part of daily life?
While the SARS prevention experience left a valuable legacy, public art projects seem to have only had a limited influence on the arts in Taiwan.
As the pandemic continues, policy must be adjusted, but what have been the effects of public works of art with sky-high prices? I have seen no in-depth research and statistics, only so-called “public art awards” that keep praising their selection every year, making government policy look good.
The artistic temperament often drives artists away from the tedious bidding and creation procedures required by public projects, so few artists submit projects and many know very little about it.
The result is that those making submissions tend to be the same familiar faces, while it is difficult for young emerging artists in need of help to benefit, adding to the difficulty of introducing new artists.
In the past, the Taipei City Government’s Department of Rapid Transit Systems did not let artists create their own works — they only had to submit a proposal to join a bid.
For example, the creation of public art at the Shuanglian and Xiaobitan MRT stations was carried out by the department based on the plans proposed by the artists who won the bid. The artists would later achieve a lot in their careers: some attracted so many clients that they could hardly handle demand, others became university teachers.
This practice is similar to Roosevelt’s New Deal: subsidizing newcomers rather than established artists. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case.
As the crisis worsens, so does artists’ situations. The ministry has only proposed “subsidies to assist arts operations,” but independent sculptors, painters, playwrights and so on are not “operations” who can provide proof of operations difficulties.
A more practical approach would be to add flexibility to the existing system, and the government should learn from the New Deal as it subsidizes projects.
Lu Ching-fu is a professor in Fu Jen Catholic University’s applied arts department.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
RSS