Art Exhibitions for the Two 100th Anniversaries
Taiwanese art history is going through a turn of the course. The turn is represented especially through the exhibitions on national occasions, such as the 100th National Birthday of the Republic of China’s (ROC, Taiwan) founding in 2011 and the 100th anniversary of the Taiwan Cultural Association (台灣文化協會, TCA) in 2021. The exhibition for the former was the Scenery and Vistas of Taiwan through the Eyes of Artists: A Century of Taiwanese Landscape and Scenic Art (畫家風景—百年風景：一百年台灣行旅) held at the National Taiwan Museum of Fine Arts (NTMFA). The exhibitions for the later were Worldward: The Transformative Force of Art in Taiwan’s New Cultural Movement (走向世界：臺灣新文化運動中的美術翻轉力) at the Taipei Fine Art Museum and Lumière – The Enlightenment and Self-Awakening of Taiwanese Culture (光–台灣文化的啟蒙與自覺) at the Museum of National Taipei University of Education (MoNTUE) in 2021.
TCA was an organization founded by Chiang Wei-shui (蔣渭水) and other Taiwanese intellectuals in 1921, during the Japanese rule. By hosting all kinds of cultural events around Taiwan to spread their ideas of democracy, TCA appealed constantly for equal rights for Taiwanese to participate in politics.
This study reflects on the dates spotlighted for a (re-)orientation of the national narrative. The focus of the study is to discuss in which political and curatorial context the landscape paintings were exhibited, and how the interpretation of the artworks were shifted in response to each of the centenaries. The study drew on the Discourses of Representation by Stuart Hall and the Politics of Exhibitions by Henrietta Lidchi as the references of the “discursive competition”, especially their suggestions for practicing cultural studies within the postcolonial frame.
By referring to Michel Foucault who emphasized that knowledge could be produced only through discursive representation within a dialectic mechanism, Hall suggested to question paintings related to power:
Who commands the center of the picture? Who or what is its subject? Can you tell that knowledge is being produced here? How? What do you notice about relations of power in the picture? How are they represented? How does the form and spatial relationships of the picture represent this? Describe the “gaze” of the people in the image: who is looking at whom? Do you notice anything else about the image which we have missed? (Hall 1997, 54)
To create a dialectic mechanism of art-historical knowledge production, questioning the power-related landscape paintings could include the analysis of their geography, angles, perspectives, vegetation and man-made structures.
Henrietta Lidchi’s (1997) thesis showed that exhibition was a mechanism of meaning production which inevitably mirrored the relations of power, especially between the organizers and the creators of the exhibited objects. She indicated that the denotation of a painting would refer to the first level of meaning derived from a descriptive relationship, while a second level of meaning guided one to look at the image to be understood according to the organizers’ intention. It therefore made reference to a more changeable and ephemeral structure in responding to the circumstances of social life, history, social practices, and ideologies (Lidchi 1997, 164). Applying Lidchi’s viewpoint, this paper analyzes the political and cultural contexts presented in the aforementioned exhibitions.
Before diving into the turn of cultural interpretation regarding national identity, it is necessary to explain the recent power turnovers in Taiwan. The Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) ruling period from 2000 to 2008 was the first time of the power shift since WWII in Taiwan. The Chinese Nationalism Party (Kuomintang, KMT) came to power again from 2008 to 2016 until its second time defeat in the general election by DPP in 2016. The hitherto three times of alternation of ruling power have tremendously influenced the directions and dynamics of cultural developments in Taiwan.
The cultural turn after political power shifts in Taiwan had been a long journey of changing cultural identity. The Nativist Movement (鄉土運動) in the 1980swas Taiwan society’s urge to break through its diplomatic isolation after Taiwan lost its status as the orthodox China and its seat in the United Nations was replaced by the People’s Republic of China. And in the 1990s, policies deemed as Taiwanization and equality between all peoples in Taiwan with different origins were launched by KMT’s President Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) . The goal of Taiwanization was to diminish the influence of western culture as well as the dominance of the Sino-centric ideology (Chang 2004; Chen 2016). The pursuit of Taiwan’s subjectivity (台灣主體性) became a pressing issue for many intellectuals (Lu 2018; Shih 2020, 95-122), and art creations among other cultural activities touching on Taiwan’s subjectivity were endorsed by official policies or grants (Su 2002).
During its first ruling period, DPP emphasized multiculturalism through localizing cultural development, recognizing cultures of different ethnicities and supporting grassroot cultures. Numerous local historical-cultural centers (地方文史中心) were founded, various databases or archives of historical materials were restored, which considerably facilitated the de-centralization and diversification of art-historiographical methodologies (Wu 2013). The new directions were understood as Taiwanization, at the same time de-Sino-centralization; or, in extreme cases, de-Sinicization (de-Sinification) (Hsiau 2012, 279).
Compared with the DPP’s ambition in cultural affairs, KMT provided less sophisticated and foresightful cultural policies. Instead, it emphasized economic growth of cultural industries (Chang 2004). Studies on government fundings for museums among other public cultural institutes and cultural activities showed that, except intensifying Cross-Strait cultural exchanges with China, from 2000 to 2008, during KMT regained the rule, it didn’t alter much of DPP’s earlier course of cultural policies (Shih 2012; Wei 2017, 79; Chen 2019). Nonetheless, the different ethos of cultural politics of KMT and DPP became more apparent after the third time of power shift. KMT is inclined to promote the economic dimensions of culture and to tie Taiwan with China by asserting Taiwan’s cultural origin was rooted in China. Whereas DPP tends to reconstruct the national narrative by emphasizing the past injustice in Taiwan, especially the political oppression over native Taiwanese (Chen 2019, 227). Among many policies, DPP’s re-orientation of Taiwan’s nationalism is the ongoing project of Reconstruction of Taiwan’s Art History (重建台灣藝術史). The Project consists of various initiatives, such as acquiring artworks from dispersed private collections, moving art-historiographical scope from Sino-centric to Taiwan-centric, restoring historical sites, as well as building up and openly displaying art-historical archives (Executive Yuan 2021). The exhibitions for the 100th anniversary of the TCA in 2021 were a substantial part of the Project.
Staged at the venues in national art institutes, these exhibitions were designated by the authorities to demonstrate Taiwan’s cultural achievements as national pride. Naturally, concerns were raised over whether the political purposes of these events would undermine the autonomy of art (Shih 2017). Although curators were aware of the problematic situation in the first place, alternative messages paralleling the expected “national pride” were embedded.
With the aspiration to “Taiwanize” art history, theories of different curatorial practices emerged to rival each other. Discursive competitions came up not without political ambitions, reminiscent of the overlong debates on whether ink art was the National Genre (國畫) from the 1950s to the 1970s. Furthermore, whether ink painting was revolutionary or avant-garde enough to be categorized as contemporary art or not was often discussed with a nationalist undertone. The disputes were mainly about the “orthodox” Chinese-ness conveyed in the genre, which was singled out and utilized for cultural propaganda to legitimize KMT’s regime over Taiwan (Lin 2011, 76-82; Wu 2017, 24-26). Due to the nationalist connotation, debates over ink landscape paintings continued up to date. To emphasize the nationalist symbolism of ink art and to exclude it from contemporary art might be the reason of public’s ignorance of the great variety ink art has developed in recent decades (Xiong 2001; Wu 2017; Pai 2021).
The debates over landscape paintings in Taiwan could be traced to two types. First, Ink landscape paintings by artists migrating from China to Taiwan after 1949 were largely presented according to their memories of the landscape in Mainland China. Their works were often criticized for being nostalgic and disconnected with reality (Lin 2011). And landscape paintings in association with land ownership, conquering territories, or discoveries and adventures, remained as the focus of colonial studies (Hsieh 2012; Liao 2008; Lo 2002) (Note 1). W. T. J. Mitchell claimed that, starting with the Dutch maritime empire, the idea of landscape was per se conceptualized and was often “alienated” for symbolization through the gaze of land explorers. It explains how Taiwan was first depicted by Dutch colonizers with the then advanced cartographic technology, as well as why landscape genre was closely associated with maps in Taiwan’s art historiography. Regarding the development of landscape paintings in western art history, Mitchell indicated that the genre embodies the expansion of culture and civilization into a natural space. Empires move outward opening up not just a spatial scene but an imagery of development and exploitation (Mitchell 2002, 17; Liao 2008).
The opposite side of the coin of colonialism is Taiwan’s pursuit of subjectivity. And the exhibitions in question provided examples that the symbolism implanted in the landscape paintings in Taiwan has been changed as the political circumstances and people’s awareness change. People identifying themselves as the inheritors of Chinese culture contend that Taiwanese culture is a part of Chinese culture, and people identifying themselves as Taiwanese deny it and insist that Taiwan is an independent entity, politically and culturally (Wang 2014, 40-41; Cabestan 2017, 46-47). The divided identities in Taiwan‘s society were subtly given away in the art events for the two centenaries wherein landscape paintings were curated. Consequently, the interpretation of exhibited artworks, took place under the rule of political party holding opposite political views, is further complicated.
The following section explores the historical-political contexts of the art exhibitions organized for significant historical events in Taiwan. It compares the curatorial statements about the landscape paintings selected for each of these exhibitions, and analyzes the political connotations composed into the art historiography. The ultimate goal of this study is to investigate whether or not there are observable phenomena indicating the politicization of art exhibitions.
The Changing Sociohistorical Conditions of Cultural Policies
The 228 Incident (Note 2) and the sequential authoritarianism until 1987, (Note 3) understood as White Terror, were the causes of the split historical and cultural identities, as well as native Taiwanese people’s denial of the legitimacy of KMT’s regime. After the end of the authoritarian rule, the urge of truth finding and reparations for historical injustices surfaced. Nonetheless, investigations of the past wrongdoings did not put KMT’s regime throughout the Martial Law Period under scrutiny until it lost the presidential election to the opposite DPP party in 2000. Before 2000, few compensations to the 228 and White Terror victims were made. (Note 4) After coming to power in 2000, DPP expanded the scope of reparative policies and redressed the historical oppression through cultural policies (Klöter 2004; Amae and Damm 2011). DPP’s emphasis on multiculturalism and its policy of restoring unrecognized languages, native narratives and local histories kicked off more comprehensive nativism (本土化) in cultures (Wang 2014). These cultural policies were arguably interpreted as DPP’s attempt to “de-Sinicize” (or de-Sinify) the society and polarize Taiwanization and Sinicization (Chang 2004; Amae and Damm 2011, 7-10; Denton 2021).
The KMT’s authoritarian regime in the past is still casting shadow over the society in the wake of Taiwanization. Discourses leaning on postcolonial theories implied that the KMT’s oppressive rule over Taiwan was no different to Japanese colonizers (Huang 2003, 309; Ni 2008, 32; Hsiau 2000 and 2012). On the contrary, believers of KMT’s ideology that Taiwan, as the free China, was the legitimate successor of orthodox China, and saw KMT as the liberator of Taiwan from Japan’s colonialism. Such divided identities were and still are the core issues of the supporters of KMT and DPP, thus decisive for their respective cultural policies.
When the KMT president took office in 2008, the ruling party changed the national language policy and recompiled textbooks taught in schools (Chan 2020). (Note 5) Although there were few changes in culture policies, the curatorial directions in several national museums quietly adapted (Vickers 2010; Denton 2021). (Note 6)
Besides the establishment of the Ministry of Culture in 2012, the most important cultural policy during KMT’s government period was the funding of numerous activities on the occasion of ROC’s 100th National Birthday (建國百年) . Among many events was the ostentatious musical Dreamers (夢想家) about the founding history of the state. (Note 7) Commissioned by the hitherto highest cultural authority, the Council for Cultural Affairs (文化建設委員會) , the musical revealed the authority’s appreciation of nationalist patriotic aesthetics (Cheng 2013, 183). Meanwhile, a great variety of other state-funded activities for the 100th National Birthday showed little to do with the national narrative. KMT inclined to have an event-oriented cultural policy, but showed less attempt to influence the contents through its funding. Conversely, DPP’s cultural policy consistently enhanced nativism and Taiwanization of cultures, through which the Sino-centric perspective of art history was challenged (Chiu 2021).
At the same time, discourse on Taiwan’s geopolitics shifted from continent-oriented to marine-oriented (Vickers 2010: 97; Hsiau 2012, 296-297; Chang 2015, 57). (Note 8) The re-narration dated back as early as the sixteenth century meant to restore Taiwan’s maritime history (Note 9) and its colonized past. The purpose to promote multiple historical views is to repudiate the absolute significance of Chinese culture over Taiwan (Chang et al. 2020; Denton 2021, 22). Besides the newly researched maritime materials supporting the historians’ reinterpretation of Taiwan’s geopolitics, ideas about the South-ness of Taiwan often appeared in recent art exhibitions. Keywords such as “South-ness”, “Global South” or “Austronesia” found in quite a few curatorial statements suggested a reconsideration whether Taiwanese cultures were exclusively originated in China (Lin 2019; Lu 2021). The identification of being in the south of the Pacific Ocean, instead of being marginal to the Chinese mainland or a southern territory of imperial Japan, is an attempt of decolonization rather than a realistic geopolitical awareness of Taiwan’s society. Nonetheless, ambivalent feelings surfaced through the tendencies of Taiwanization, decolonization and de-Sinicization. The exhibition Everyday Life and Landscapes of the Island – Betel Nuts, Bananas, Sugar Cane and Palms (島嶼生活與地景: 檳榔、香蕉、甘蔗、椰子樹) (Figure 1) at the Tainan Art Museum in 2020 scrutinized the “southern identity” with landscape paintings it exhibited. Curator Nobuo Takamori (高森信男) questioned the political connotation behind the artworks depicting Taiwan’s South-ness. He pointed out that, as early as during the first half of the 20th century, landscapes in Taiwan had been drastically changed by Japanese colonizers through modern technologies of large-scale cultivation, in order to meet the demands of colonial industrialization (Takamori 2020, 16). The curator implied that presenting Taiwan with images of tropical and subtropical plants for being the South or Austronesian was actually a confusion. The exhibition questioned the genuineness of the natural scenes in Taiwan represented by the aforementioned nativism of cultures since the 1980s.
Reconstructing National Narrative by Curating Landscape Representations
Another endeavor of re-writing Taiwan’s history was seen in the display of maps in various exhibitions. Taiwan in Map at the National Taiwan Museum in 2007 and Something about Maps -Taiwan History in Map at the National Museum of Taiwan History in 2017 showed maps of the island since the sixteenth century, intending to highlight the island’s links with regions beyond China. And among all the early maps of Taiwan it exhibited, the Ilha Formosa held at the National Palace Museum in 2003 (Note 10) featured a seventeenth-century Dutch map on its catalog cover. In the map Taiwan was laid horizontally, facing toward the Pacific Ocean with its back to China (Vickers 2010, 99). (Note 11) The re-orientation of Taiwan’s historical-geopolitical significance has had impacts on the vision of Taiwan’s art historiography. In 2011, the same map was used as the primary image of an art exhibition celebrating the 100th National Birthday, the Scenery and Vistas of Taiwan through the Eyes of Artists (hereafter: Scenery and Vistas).
In 2022, the exhibition A Song of Seas and Power – The Flow of Labor, Goods and Currents (逐鹿之海—物流、人流、海流) held at the NTMFA also used a map of Taiwan as its primary image (Figure 3). The curator Huang Shu-ping (黃舒屏) explicitly addressed issues about replacing Taiwan’s mainland-centric views with marine-centric views (Huang 2022). The exhibition contextualized the history of Taiwan through artworks demonstrating historical scenes, including paintings celebrating the conquest of the Chinese empire, sea trade between Taiwan and other continents, or the arrival of migrants at Taiwan. Among them were the eighteenth-century work Paintings of War Pacifying Taiwan (平定台灣戰圖) (Figure 4), a series of etching prints depicting Qing Empire’s victorious troops putting down uprisings in Taiwan. (Note 12) Coincidently, the series of prints showing a great resemblance to maps, have been exhibited previously in Scenery and Vistas, under the subcategory of Allegories of Political Desire (政治權力寓示). (Note 13)
The curatorial statement of Scenery and Vistas reads:
The background maps completed in Taiwan gave meticulous detail to the strategic passes, terrains, rocky mountains, villages, houses, enceinte, woods and of course war scenes, (…) these illustrations convey Qing Dynasty’s control over the land as a valuable piece depicting the historical and political landscape of Taiwan at that time (Hsueh 2011, 38). (Note 14)
By juxtaposing maps and landscape paintings, curator Hsueh Yen-Ling stressed how landscape paintings served the colonizers’ exploitation of newly annexed territories symbolically and realistically:
Tracing back the history, the development of Taiwanese art history is intimately linked to landscape paintings. During the Dutch occupation of Taiwan, they drew a great deal of sea charts, maps, and landscape illustrations of Taiwan for practical uses. These materials allow us to reconstruct the early impressions of Taiwan in the seventeenth century (Hsueh 2011, 31).
Hsueh further discussed the same deeds of Japanese colonizers to envision Taiwan as a desired territory annexed for Japanese imperialism (Yen 2000; Hsueh 2011; Liao 2007). The multiple functions of landscape paintings were embodied through the particular role of the officially appointed Japanese artist Ishikawa Kinichiro (1871-1945):
During the Japanese occupation, (Note 15) Japanese rulers opened up people’s eyes to the beauty of this island. Modern or western perspective of landscape was introduced to Taiwan through Japan. Ishikawa Kinichiro’s gesture and representation of Taiwan’s Landscape had a profound impact on Taiwanese painters. (Note 16) Their landscape paintings of local features were mixed with the views from colonial authority, adding more complexity to the seemingly pure paintings (Hsueh 2011, 31). (Note 17)
Ishikawa Kinichiro served the General Staff Office of Imperial Japanese Army as an interpreter, and because of his art specialty, he was dispatched to depict the Barrier Defense Lines (番界) against the aboriginals (Yen 2000; Hsueh 2011, 39). Later he taught painting in pedagogical high schools in Taiwan and often organized plein air painting field trips with his students. Ishikawa Kinichiro eagerly promoted modern western art and advocated official art competitions. (Note 18) According to Hsueh, landscape paintings at that time not only reflected colonizers’ gaze at their new territory in the south, but also initiated modern art in Taiwan. (Note 19)
Hsueh continued elucidating that in the 1970s and 1980s, rivalry between different genres in representing orthodox Chinese-ness for political legitimacy emerged. Although artists from Mainland China expressed their nostalgia through ink landscape paintings, some of them embraced a new identity after seeing the natural beauty in this island and created their art in new styles:
(…) they were touched by the new landscapes and mountains, and sketched their way into real life in Taiwan. They presented the landscapes as the subject matter of local identity (Hsueh 2011, 49).
The pursuit for Taiwan’s subjectivity by painting Taiwan’s landscape became a trend during the times of national crises, such as the isolation in the world community after withdrawing from the United Nations, or when the tension between Taiwan and China was heightened. Art society had no choice but to face the fact that the political climate did affect art themes (Hsueh 2011, 51). Landscape paintings could be artists’ expression of their political attitude. As the curator’s analysis of Lin Hsin-yueh’s (林惺嶽) realistic artworks of Taiwan’s landscapes:
(…) many of his works are realistic, yet their fantastic fineness exudes an epic ambiance. His art profoundly represents the extraordinary beauty of mother nature, as well as his heartfelt depiction of local features. Lin Hsin-yueh’s art not only broadened the scope of landscape painting, but also powerfully animated his interpretation of homeland (Hsueh 2011, 52). (Note 20)
Lin Hsin-yueh (1939~) is also a pioneer art historian who, since the 1980s, makes great efforts to rebuild Taiwan’s art history. In response to the nativism movement, Lin’s strategy to decolonize Taiwanese art is to replace the gaze of colonizers by representing native Taiwan with contemporary plein air painting.
Thirty years before Scenery and Vistas, several artists responded to Taiwan’s political crises by “sketching the way into real life in Taiwan, presenting the landscapes as the subject matter of local identity”. The touring exhibition of the panoramic ink painting in 1981, Formosa Evergreen Scroll (寶島長春圖) (Figure 5-1, 5-2), was initiated to celebrate ROC’s 70th National Birthday. The colossal project of 66-meter scroll was commissioned by the National Museum of History (NMH) to “show the world the beauty of Taiwan’s landscapes” (NMH 2019). After leaving the United Nations, Taiwan was increasingly isolated and the number of countries maintaining formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan, the Republic of China (ROC), dropped dramatically (Tsai 2019). (Note 21) Taiwanese people, no matter with which cultural identity, became gradually aware of the fact that the ROC’s territory covers no more than the island and some offshore islets, and the ambition to resume or to unify with China is no longer realistic. Nonetheless, to overcome the national trauma, ten renowned ink art painters traveled and sketched extensively across Taiwan, and completed the scroll collectively (Minister of Culture 2019).
The scroll had been showcased in several countries and then preserved in the museum’s storage for the next thirty-six years, until it was exhibited again in 2019 at the Tainan Art Museum (TNAM). From today’s perspective, the political messages it meant to carry in the first place, demonstrating Taiwan as the guardian of Chinese culture and portraying Taiwan’s economic prosperity with exquisite ink art, (Note 22) hadn’t been delivered. However, the scroll is, as the researcher of the NMH Tsai Yao-ching (蔡耀慶) stated:
(…) not just a map or a painting, but also the artists’ witness of the entire Taiwan’s landscape at that particular time. It marks the turning point of Taiwan’s art history, since then the art society no longer adopted the colonizers’ gazes, but viewing Taiwan’s native soil with their own eyes (Tsai 2019). (Note 23)
For art historians like Hsueh and Tsai, plein air painting not only kicked off the development of modern art in Taiwan, as the Japanese pioneer artists promoted, but also opened up the path to the decolonization of Taiwan’s art history.
The concept of viewing the landscapes through plein air painting instead of through the colonizers’ gazes, was further extended in the exhibitions of the 100th anniversary of the Taiwan Cultural Association (TCA), the Worldward: The Transformative Force of Art in Taiwan’s New Cultural Movement (hereafter: Worldward) and the Lumière – The Enlightenment and Self- Awakening of Taiwanese Culture (hereafter: Lumière).
One of the curators of Lumière Chiang Po-shin (蔣伯欣) credited the exhibited plein air paintings, created by artists of Japanese colonial time, with an “epistemological significance”:
The new art movement replaced the old practice of painting by imitating the ideas of “plein air painting,” and new visual forms were created for a new epistemology and worldview. Painters began to see local characters by themselves and select meaningful cultural scenes as their themes.
Painters gazed in to the local colors of their native land and customs (…) while selecting specific cultural landscapes as their subject matter. (…) In spite of strict censorship, these artists represented landmarked urban spaces where citizens gathered to discuss public issues. They were to explore whether landscape paintings could demonstrate the resistance of people under colonialism through their portrait of “resistant landscapes”. (Note 24)
Under the interpretation of the curators, paintings depicting places where TCA members held its activities were “resistance landscape”:
Kuo Po-chuan’s (郭柏川) composition focused on the court in front of a temple (Tainan Sacrificial Rites Martial Temple) (台南武廟) , the temple’s Sanchaun Gate, and a lane connecting it. It was where the New Taiwanese Cultural Association was located. The dark red shadow in the middle ground is a subjective depiction of light. Perhaps this is why the reporter of The Taiwan Minpao (台灣民報) claimed that Kuo’s work carried the “symbolism of the art as a combative tool” (Chiang 2022, 142). (Figure 6) (Note 25)
The description see street vendor with his customers, and a man resting in the shade make up the scene of an afternoon of leisure in Tainan (TNAM No. 4299). (Note 26) ms to be contradictory to the text of the Tainan Art Museum (TNAM), where the painting is collected:
The shadow of the temple divides the picture into two parts and creates a vivid interplay between light and shadows. The woman with a sun umbrella strolling around the plaza, the street vendor with his customers, and a man resting in the shade make up the scene of an afternoon of leisure in Tainan (TNAM No. 4299). (Note 26)
Prior to Chiang’s concept of art as a combative tool, the painting Zhenren Temple (真人廟) (Figure 7) by Chen Chih-chi (陳植棋) in 1929 had become an icon of the “resistance landscape”. The painting then appeared in all exhibition catalogs of the four national museums’ commemoration of TCA’s 100th anniversary. After elaborating the painter’s life, art career and his role in TCA, art historian Chiu Han-ni (邱函妮) asserted the irreplaceability of this painting to account Taiwanese people’s persistent pursuit of subjectivity. Chiu was convinced that the temple, located near the headquarters of the new Taiwan People’s Party founded by several former members of TCA, and the painting made shortly after it, was undoubtedly Chen Chih-chi’s statement of his support of the party and its goals (Chiu 2017).
The newly established party headquarters was located at today’s No. 45 Tianshui Road, right next to No. 49 where the temple was. The time when Chen Chih-chi portrayed Zhenren Temple was close to when the headquarters of Taiwan People’s Party was set up. This offers us a key to interpreting this work, including the part that was not depicted in the picture (2021, 29). (Note 27)
Chiu believed that the painting was an action out of Chen Chih-chi’s Taiwanese nationalist consciousness, and the Zhenren Temple under his brushes represented two things. One was people’s determination against colonialism, the other was their awareness of subjectivity. Chiu contended her deduction by emphasizing that the painter’s intention showed in his choice of an abandoned temple in the district frequented by activists (Chiu 2021, 31).
Chiu’s viewpoint of this painting is repeatedly cited. The curator of the Lumière, Chiang Po-shin, also echoed:
In the middle ground, he used layered brushstrokes to form various color blocks, reddish brown or dark green. The ancient temple, the verdant shrubs and the slightly disordered scene are simplified by the painter’s intense brushstrokes, exuding a vibrant momentum. It seems to announce that the headquarters of Taiwan People’s Party is established at the center of Tataocheng (大稻埕), and the fight of Taiwanese people continues (Chiang 2022, 146). (Note 28)
Artworks of past centuries could be interpreted differently by altering context. Intriguingly, Ishikawa Kinichiro’s watercolor painting Overlooking Taipei from the Taiwan Shinto Shrine (從圓山神社眺望台北) (1930) (Figure 8) was exhibited in the events for both of the centenaries, only it was interpreted in the context of opposite views. In the Scenery and Vistas in 2011, the piece was a reminder of the multiple roles of artists as the colonial explorers, adventurers, geographers and promoters of Japanese nationalism. The curator defined the painting as the explicit example of imperialist gaze. It demonstrated a downward view to the surrogate of the highest mundane power, the Government-General House of Taiwan (總督府) , from the symbol of the most sacred power, the Shinto shrine located remotely in the Hills (Hsueh 2010; 2011, 40; 2012). The same piece was loaned for the Worldward in 2021, however, under the subcategory of the Japanese Painters / Educators in Taiwan, (Note 29) it was used to indicate the connection between Japanese art educators and the self-enlightening movements of Taiwanese artists in the 1920s and 1930s.
It seems to be a paradox to juxtapose the artworks of the colonizers and the colonized, especially for the TCA’s 100th anniversary. While some researchers redressed Japan’s role for Taiwan from an oppressor to the precursor of modernity, the others criticized such manner “colonial nostalgia” and ideologically confused (Chen 2016; Huang 2003, 312; Lo 2002, 115-117; Vickers 2010, 101). Or in a broader political context, the nostalgia for the Japanese colonial era is politically driven, a counter to KMT’s Sino-centric narratives (Denton 2021, 5).
Oppressors or enlighteners, the role of Japanese artists during the colonial period had been interpreted differently. In 1986, the exhibition Artworks of Ishikawa Kinichiro and His Students (石川欽一郎師生作品展) , held at the Taipei Fine Arts Museum (TFAM), explicitly counted the importance of his foresightfulness as a pioneer educator of modern art in Taiwan (Hsiao 2009, 26). Art historian Yen Chuan-yin’s (顏娟英) research also recognized Ishikawa Kinichiro’s contribution to Taiwan’s modern art education (Yen 1993, 495-499). Additionally, the exhibition Oil painting in the East Asia: Its Awakening and Development (東亞油畫的誕生與開展) in 2000, endorsed by the director of TFAM at that time, Lin Mun-lee (林曼麗) , solidly affirmed the significance of Japanese artists’ efforts for Taiwan’s modern art (Lin 2000, 14-15).
Was Ishikawa Kinichiro a colonial exploiter or a mentor? His art career is interpreted contradictorily in art exhibitions and catalogs in Taiwan. For example, his painting portraying the Government-General House (台北總督府) (1920) was sorted out for the subcategory Reflection of Japanese Colonialism in exhibition Waves Striking – One Hundred Years of Taiwanese Arts (千濤拍岸—台灣美術一百年) in 2001, to illustrate the curator’s critical viewpoint (Hu 2001). Art historian Liao Hsin-tian (廖新田) pointed out the related purposes of conducting land surveys and plein air painting during the Japanese rule. He indicated that the artworks of the Japanese educator shall be considered as the materialization of the colonizer’s metaphorical language of possession (Andrews 1999, 77; Liao 2007, 45-47; Hsueh 2011).
On the other hand, a tendency in favor of Japanese artists has emerged in recent studies of Taiwan’s art history. The re-narration of the Japanese artists’ influence and the emphasis of their pedagogic achievements in Taiwan have significantly changed the perception of the art audience. Ishikawa Kinichiro’s Riverside (河畔) , sensationally announced to be rediscovered after vanishing for ninety years, was exhibited in Yōga: Modern Western Paintings of Japan (日本近代洋画大展) (hereafter, Yōga) (2017), had greatly increased his popularity (Chien 2017; MoNTUE 2017).
The viewpoint that Japanese artists helped Taiwanese artists to develop self-awareness under the Japanese rule was first hinted by the exhibitions Taiwan Travel Notes (台灣紀行) and Formosa in Formation (台灣製造 製造台灣) organized by Taipei Fine Art Museum (TFAM) in 2014 and 2015 respectively. Both exhibitions selected artworks dated back to the Japanese ruling period. According to the curator Lin Yu-chun’s (林育淳) view, landscape paintings from Japanese artists and Chinese artists were both from foreigners who appreciated Taiwan’s landscape (Lin 2014, 8). (Note 30) She also stated that today, Taiwan’s images in art are ascribed primarily to the colonial time, when the Japanese and Taiwanese artists influenced each other. Lin also thought that there was no stereotypical hierarchy between the colonizers and the colonized in the genesis of modern art in Taiwan (TFAM Press 2015-5-22).
These exhibitions in a public art institute and its interpretation of the power relations between the Japanese and Taiwanese artists have nuancedly changed historical perspective. The curatorial statement of the Yōga reads:
Through presenting the unique, interconnected contexts of artistic evolution in both Japan and Taiwan, the exhibition provides a vantage point for all to review the development of modern art in Taiwan and an opportunity to continuously expand the regional dialogue about East Asian art history through re-contextualizing and re- examining Taiwan’s own historic context (MoNTUE 2017).
In a recent exhibition South Plus (大南方) at the Kaohsiung Museum of Fine Arts (KMFA) (2021-2022), artist Su Yu-hsien (蘇育賢) and other twelve artists repeated Ishikawa Kinichiro’s footsteps during an overnight hike in Mt. Tattaka (塔塔加) , where the Japanese artist had traveled and painted one century ago (KMFA 2021). This project attempted to launch an across-time dialog between contemporary Taiwanese artists and the Japanese artist from equal positions.
South Plus also experimented on the concept of South-ness to imply the ideas that modern art germinated in Taiwan not because of its status as a colony but because of the rich imagination its geographic location offered:
How can the unique spiritual landscape of “the South” be depicted? (…) The revisiting of the concept of “the South” is an escape from the fixed framework of geopolitics on the one hand and also a process of self-rediscovery by exploring the diverse facets of “the South” on the other. Can “the South” really become a kind of thinking / attitude, or an action, a method, or a kind of “State of Mind”? (KMFA 2021)
South Plus as a compound project of artworks and numerous historical materials sought to reestablish Taiwan as a space/ place (Note 31) bringing about encounters of native peoples, colonizers, adventurers, traders, explorers, scientists, photographers, anthropologists, artists and historians. As the curatorial discourse on the photographic works it exhibited:
The South used to be the object gazed at by empires and colonizing powers. (…) During the Japanese colonial rule and its exploitation of resources in Taiwan for WWII, propaganda images of military mobilization in southern Taiwan were created. By looking at these images nowadays, we are intervening how the idea of South-ness was transited to the process of Taiwan’s pursuit for modernity and subjectivity (KMFA 2021). (Note 32)
To the curator and artists, the major issues were no longer about decolonization, de- Japanization or de-Sinicization of Taiwan’s art historiography. Instead of following what had been construed before, with the abstract and undefinable idea of South-ness, art history could be rewritten through the reinvention of Taiwan’s landscape.
Conclusion: Examining Art Historiography in the Art Events for National Centenaries
Setting out from the Scenery and Vistas (2011), the Worldward (2021) and the Lumière (2021) for the 100th anniversaries of two significant years for Taiwan, this study discusses the changing political connotations of art exhibitions of landscape paintings. It scrutinizes how the shifts of ruling power might have influenced the curatorial directions for national events, and how the autonomy of art might be compromised. This study has found that the tendency of reshaping art historiography through curatorial contextualization in art events for significant political dates was unignorable.
Discourse on Taiwan’s art historiography was developed under an extreme political circumstance in a very short period after democratization. The authoritarian regime of KMT from 1949 to 1987 had caused polarized political and cultural inclinations in Taiwanese people. The rivalry of the two political parties, KMT and DPP, which ruled Taiwan alternatingly since 2000, and the opposition in their respective cultural policies, are how each of them fortifies their camps. KMT intends to establish the national narrative for Taiwan as being the orthodox China by reducing the significance of Japan’s role for Taiwan’s modernization. While the DPP inclines to interpret that Taiwanese have resisted oppression all the time, even during the KMT’s regime. The strategy for Taiwan’s society to break away from the narrative of Taiwan being voicelessly colonized and “enslaved” for nearly a century, is to emphasize that the TCA had shaped Taiwanese’s resistance against oppressions and discriminations as early as in the 1920s. This interpretation is enhanced by the viewpoint that Taiwanese artists have fought for equality with their Japanese art educators.
KMT’s cultural policies made little effort to challenge the status quo, and DPP’s project of Reconstruction of Taiwan’s Art History was to rewrite the viewpoints of the past. Although the independence of curatorship was guaranteed, the art exhibitions in the name of TCA’s 100th anniversary still revealed DPP’s ambition and the curators’ enthusiasm to second.
In the wake of reconstruction of Taiwan’s art history, art historian Shih Shou-chien (石守謙) (2020) warned the problems of construing art history based on national narratives. Art historiography endorsed by official resources might outreach further, but its autonomy might be eroded. (Note 33) The art exhibitions for the two centenaries were well-perceived, and had successfully summoned people’s patriotism to the nation they identified with. However, both of the two centenaries were retold. Taiwan was Japan’s colony until ROC’s takeover in 1945, and the entire ROC government retreated from Mainland China to Taiwan after its founding party KMT was defeated by the Chinese Communist Party in 1949. (Note 34) Since ROC did not exist in Taiwan for the first half-century, it is odd to have a KMT version of Taiwan’s art history for the past one hundred years. Meanwhile, although TCA was founded by dissidents who pursued democracy under colonial government, many Taiwanese artists who identified with TCA were deemed as Japanese nationals. They actively participated in art competitions organized by the Japanese government in order to be recognized as equal to Japanese citizens. The ambivalence remained unspoken in the art exhibitions memorizing TCA.
Note1 Landscape Painting for Colonial Studies prospered since the 1970s, such as these of Australian art history, James Gleeson’s Colonial Painters, 1788-1880 (1971) and the Exhibition catalog by Barbara Chapman, The Colonial Eye: A Topographical and Artistic Record of the Life and Landscape of Western Australia, 1798-1914. (Art Gallery of Western Australia, held in 1979)
Note 2 After gaining control of Taiwan in 1945, the Nationalist government rapidly alienated the local population by excluding it from managing political affairs with various discriminatory measures on the pretext of the excessive “Japanization” of the islanders. Against this problematic background, the beating up of a female contraband cigarette vendor by the police on the evening of 27 February 1947 degenerated the following day into anti-government riots in Taipei that rapidly spread to the whole island. Ad-hoc committees were created to negotiate with the authorities, made up mostly by local elites. Whilst discussions were undergoing through these assemblies, riots that started in Taipei rapidly spread to the whole island. Governor Chen Yi (陳儀) requested reinforcements from Nanjing, which arrived in early March. From that moment on and for a little over a month, these troops gave themselves over to violent acts that resulted in between 18,000 and 28,000 deaths, many of them were Taiwanese elites (Stolojan 2017: 27).
Note 3 The Martial Law (戒嚴法) ruled Taiwan from 1949 to 1987. The period of suppressive control is known as White Terror.
Note 4 Since 1998. (Taiwan Association for Truth and Reconciliation 2015 Vol. 2)
Note 5 The archrival of KMT, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) ruled from 2000 to 2008 and from 2016 up to date.
Note 6 Fierce disputes occurred on the south branch of the National Palace Museum (NPM), whose collection once symbolized the inseparable connection between Taiwan and China. Objections came up at times, since the construction period of the NPM’s south branch spanned across the terms of both DPP and KMT (2003 -2015). During its preparatory stage, the collection policy oscillated between Taiwan-oriented or China-oriented, and should it expand its scope to Asian cultures was frequently debated. NPM was also questioned if it intended to de- Sinicize itself (Wu 2022: 368, 383).
Note 7 The Dreamers, the musical narrating the ROC’s centennial history since the republic revolution, drew fierce criticism to its excessive budget. The project was later investigated by law enforcement (Taipei Times 2011). The debates over the Musical were obfuscated with artistic and political biases (Cheng 2013: 178-179).
Note 8 The move was partly the response of the official cultural policy on the New Southbound Policy (新南向政策) initiated by the Executive Yuan since 2016. The policy aimed to reduce Taiwan’s economic dependence on China and to strengthen connections with the countries south of Taiwan (Meesuwan 2018, 46).
Note 9 Dating back to the Netherlands’ occupation of Taiwan from 1624 to 1662.
Note 10 The entire title of the catalogue is Ilha Formosa: The Emergence of Taiwan on the World Scene in the 17th Century(福爾摩沙 – 十七世紀的台灣 . 荷蘭與東亞)
Note 11 Made by the Dutch cartographer Johannes Vingboons (1640).
Note 12 Lin Shuang-wen Incident (林爽文事件) , Taiwan’s civil commotion during 1786-1788.
Note 13 Along with Representation of the Beauty of Taiwan and Its Landscapes (山川之美再現) , Popular Memories of Local Life (生活景象記憶) , Expressions of Cultural and National Identity (本土主體認同) and Reverence for the Land and Environment (土地環境關懷) .
Note 14 Slightly edited by author.
Note 15 The term “occupation” was frequently debated, since Taiwan was ceded to Japan in 1895 after the Qing Empire lost the First Sino-Japanese War to Japan. The KMT inclined to describe the period from 1895 to 1945 as Japanese Occupation, while most historians preferred to use Japanese Rule. The debates arose while the KMT government imposed the use of Occupation for all official documents as well as for textbooks (Wu 2014). Footnote by author.
Note 16 The introduce of western art by Japanese artists was generally marked as the inauguration of the modern art in Taiwan. Footnote by author. Also see footnote 17.
Note 17 Slightly edited by author.
Note 18 The initiates of the Japanese and Taiwanese artists became later the Taiten (台展) and Futen, the Taiwan Fine Arts Exhibition (Taiten) from 1927 to 1936 and the Governor-General’s Art Exhibition (Futen) from 1938 to 1943. https://www.moc.gov.tw/en/information_197_119595.html
Note 19 More about the modernity of art, coming from the West and then defined and introduced by Japanese artists to Taiwan can be read in Lo Hsiu-Chih’s study on Ishikawa Kinichiro (Lo 2002).
Note 20 Translated by author.
Note 21 The ROC left the UN in 1971, and the diplomatic relation with the U.S. ended in 1979.
Note 22 The Ten Major Construction Project (十大建設) completed in 1979, which included six transportation projects, three industrial projects, and one power-plant construction, were depicted alone with the landscapes. The Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall, which was completed in 1980, was also portrayed in the painting.
Note 23 Translated by author.
Note 24 Translation edited by author. The original English translation of the sentences is unclear: The artists constructed visual subjects in the colony through their views of the resistant landscapes informed by the spirit of the public domains of discourse (皆以市民社會的地景為題，探問殖民地地景的可見性).
Note 25 Translation edited by author, the origin translation “the art of the struggle” seems not to conform with the Chinese text.
Note 26 Translated by author. The original text: (…) 廟埕前偌大的陰影將畫面從中一分為二，大膽的構圖所帶來的 光影效果，讓整個畫面更為活絡生動。手持洋傘遮光漫步著的婦人，對應著在陰影處納涼休憩的市井小 民和販賣下午點心的小攤販，輕鬆點出臺南悠閒的午後時光。
Note 27 Slightly edited by author.
Note 28 Slightly edited by author.
Note 29 Along with Art Competitions and Taiwanese Artists (美術競賽與臺灣藝術家) , Modernity and Local Color (現代性與地方特色) , Images of the Modern Woman (現代女性形象) and The Rise of Photography (寫真術興起) .
Note 30 Lin took Gobara Koto (鄉原古統) , Ishikawa Kinichiro, Wu Cheng-yen (吳承硯) and Long Sih-liang (龍思良) as examples.
Note 31 Drawing on Mitchell’s discourse about the difference, a landscape just is a space, or the view of a place. In both the phenomenological and historical materialist traditions of this subject, space and place are the crucial terms, and landscape is taken for granted as an aesthetic framing of the real properties of space and places. Space is a practiced place, and landscape is a conceptualized or symbolized space in context of western cultures (Mitchell 2002: viii-x).
Note 32 Slightly edited by author.
Note 33 By analyzing the development of Lin Yu-shan’s (林玉山) and Chang Dai-chien’s (張大千) artistic styles, which didn’t coincide with the political development, Shih questioned the appropriateness to interpret the genesis of art history in accordance with the political phases (Shih 2020, 100-101).
Note 34 Mainly the officials and soldiers followed Chiang Kai-Shek’s command, it was about two million Mainlanders.
References
Amae, Yoshihisa and Damm, Jens. 2011. “Whither Taiwanization? State, Society and Cultural Production in the New Era.” Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, 40 ( 1 ): 3-17.
Andrews, Malcolm. 1999. Landscape and Western Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chan Mei-hua 詹美華 . 2020. “The Challenge of Teaching High School History Textbooks Concerned with Controversial Historical Issues: Teachers’ Awareness and Interpretation of the Curriculum 高中歷史教科書爭議議題教學的挑戰: 教師的課程覺知與教學詮釋.” Journal of Educational Research and Development 教育研究與發展期刊 , Vol. 16 (2), June: 63-94
Chang Bi-yu. 2004. “From Taiwanisation to De-sinification Culture Construction in Taiwan since the 1990s.” China Perspectives, 56 (November – December): 34-44.
Chang Bi-yu. 2015. Place, Identity and National Imagination in Postwar Taiwan. London: Routledge.
Chang Long-chi et al. 張隆志等 . 2020. Historiography Envisioning an Island History 島史的索求 . Taipei, National Taiwan University Press 國立臺灣大學出版中心 .
Chen Chia-Ling 陳嘉翎 . 2019. National Cultural Policy and the Evolution of National Museum of History 國家文化政策與國立歷史博物館的演化 . Doctoral degree thesis of National Taiwan Normal University.
Chen Man-hua 陳曼華 . 2016. Art and Cultural Politics: The Subject Formation of Taiwanese Art after World War Two 藝術與文化政治: 戰後台灣藝術的主體形構 . Doctoral degree thesis of National Chiao-tung University.
Chiang Po-shin 蔣伯欣 . Catalog of Exhibition: The Creations of Landscape. Lumière – The Enlightenment and Self-Awakening of Taiwanese Culture 光—臺灣文化的啟蒙與自覺展覽圖錄 . Taipei: MoNTUE, 131-160.
Chien Katy Shiu-chih 簡秀枝 . 2017. Myth and Legend – Stories of the exhibition Yōga: Modern Western Paintings of Japan 神性.傳奇 -「日本近代洋画大展」故事多 . https://artouch.com/artouch-column/content-494.html
Chiu Han-ni 邱函妮 . 2017. Chen Chih-chi’s Painting Zhenren Temple 陳植棋《真人廟》. Art History Strolls. https://shorturl.at/IOUZ2
Chiu Han-ni 邱函妮. 2021. Two Zhenren Temples – As a Window on the Art and Lives of Chen Chih-chi and Ni Chiang-huai. Worldward – The Transformative Force of Art in Taiwan’s New Cultural Movement. Taipei, TFAM.
Executive Yuan. 2021. Public, Private Sectors Collaborate on Reconstruction of Taiwan’s art history. https: //ocacnews.net/article/295964
Cabestan, Jean-Pierre. 2017. “Changing Identities in Taiwan under Ma Ying-jeou.” In Taiwan and China – Fitful Embrace. edited by Lowell Dittmer, 42-60. Oakland, University of California Press.
Cheng Fan-Ting. 2013. “Dreamers’ Nightmare: The Melancholia of the Taiwanese Centennial Celebration.” Asian Theatre Journal, 30 (1) (Spring): 172-188.
Colwell, Chip. 2022. “A Palimpsest Theory of Objects.” Current Anthropology, 63 (2): 129-157. Denton, Kirk A. 2021. The Landscape of Historical Memory: The Politics of Museums and Memorial Culture in Post–Martial Law Taiwan. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Hall, Stuart. 1997. “The Work of Representation. Representation.” In Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices edited by Stuart Hall, 13-74. California: Sage.
Hsiao Chong-ray 蕭瓊瑞. 2009. Works from the Taiwan Fine Arts and Taiwan Government Fine Art Exhibitions in the TFAM Collection 北美館典藏台、府展作品檢視 . In The Modernization of Taiwanese Art Before 1945 台灣美術進化歷程: 1945以前 . Taipei, TFAM, 26-33.
Hsiau A-chin 蕭阿勤. 2000. Contemporary Taiwanese Cultural Nationalism. London: Routledge.
Hsiau A-chin 蕭阿勤. 2012. Reconstructing Taiwan – The Cultural Politics of Contemporary Taiwan重構台灣–當代民族主義的文化政治 Taipei: Linking Publishing 聯經 .
Hsieh Shih-yin 謝世英 . 2012. “The New South Paintings and Vernacular Colors in Taiwan Art Exhibitions under the Japanese Rule : Taiwan Identity in the Frame of the Greater East Asia 日治臺展新南畫與地方色彩: 大東亞框架下的臺灣文化認同 .” Journal of Art Studies. 藝術學研究 . 10 (May): 133-208
Hsueh Yen-ling 薛燕玲. 2010. “The Gaze of Empire: Local Colors in Taiwan’s Art under the Japanese Rule 帝國視線:日治時期臺灣美術地方色彩的表裏 .” In The Official Fine Arts Exhibition in Taiwan (1927-1943) during the Japanese Occupation 日治時期臺灣官辦美展 1927 – 1943 圖錄與論文集 . Soka Art Foundation 創價文教基金會 , 214-233。
Hsueh Yen-ling 薛燕玲. 2011. The Scenery and Vistas of Taiwan through the Eyes of Artists: A Century of Taiwanese Landscape and Scenic Art. Taichung: NMTFA.
Hsueh Yen-ling薛燕玲. 2012. Object description of the NTMFA, No. 09700441
Hu Yung-fen 胡永芬. 2001. “Evolution of the Island of Tides and Waves.” Waves Striking – One Hundred Years of Taiwanese Arts. Taipei, Artist Magazine: 26-32.
Huang Chih-huei. 2003. “The Transformation of Taiwanese Attitudes toward Japan in the Post-colonial Period.” In Imperial Japan and National Identities in Asia, 1895–1945 edited by Li, Narangoa and Cribb, Robert, 296-314. London: Routledge.
Huang Shu-ping 黃舒屏. 2022. Curatorial Statement of A Song of Seas and Power – The Flow of Labor, Goods and Currents 逐鹿之海–物流、人流、海流 . https://www.ntmofa.gov.tw/ information_1078_139148.html.
Kaohsiung Museum of Fine Arts (KMFA). 2021. Constructing Historical Pluralism from the KMFA Collection South as a Place of Gathering. https://www.kmfa.gov.tw/English/ ExhibitionDetailE001100.aspx?Cond=221565cc-fdb2-41e8-a050-f416f95d29ec.
Klöter, Henning. 2004. Language Policy in the KMT and DPP Eras. China Perspectives, 56 (November – December): 56-63.
Li Meng-hsueh 李孟學 . 2016. The Paradigm Shift of Painting and Calligraphy Arts in Taiwan – Start with the Controversy over Real Chinese Paintings 台灣書畫的範式轉移-從正統國畫之爭談起 . Journal of Taiwan Museum of Fine Arts 臺灣美術學刊 Vol. 103: 45-60.
Liao Hsin-Tien. 2007. The Beauty of the Untamed: Exploration and Travel in Colonial Taiwanese Landscape Painting. In Refracted Modernity: Visual Culture and Identity in Colonial Taiwan edited by Kikuchi, Yuko,3 9-66. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Liao Hsin-Tien. 2008 (廖新田). Four Discourses of Taiwan’s Art History台灣美術四論 . Taipei, Artouch典藏.
Lidchi, Hennetta. 1997. “The Poetics and the Politics of Exhibiting Other Cultures.” In Representation – Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. Hall (Ed.). California: Sage, 151-222.
Lin Mun-lee 林曼麗. 2000. “The Sprouting and Development of ‘New Fine Art’ in Taiwan臺灣地區「新美術」的萌芽與發展 .” In Oil painting in the East Asia: Its Awakening and Development 東亞油畫的誕生與開展 . Taipei, TFAM: 12-17.
Lin Shiang-chin 林香琴. 2011. “Nostalgic Iconology from 1949 to 1987–Under Political and Cultural Operations in Taiwanese Ink Painting 1949至1987年「鄉愁圖像」-政治與文化運作下之臺灣水墨畫 .” Journal of Taiwan Museum of Fine Arts臺灣美術學刊Vol. 87: 66-85.
Lin Yu-shih 林育世. 2019. “The South or New South in the Consciousness of Diaspora and Identity Production. 南方性?離散意識與認同生產中的新南方.” Tainan, ACT 77 :73-79.
Lin Yu-chun 林育淳. 2014. “Touring Taiwan – Journeys Chronicled in Art 台灣旅行・藝術紀行.” Taiwan Travel Notes 藝術紀行. Taipei, TFAM: 6-17.
Liu Jerry C. Y. 2014. “ReOrient Cultural Policy: Cultural Statecraft and Cultural Governance in Taiwan and China.” In Cultural Policies in East Asia: Dynamics between the State, Arts and Creative Industries edited by Lim, Lorraine and Lee, Hye Kyung, 120-138. London: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Lo Hsiu-chih 羅秀芝. 2002. Ishikawa Kinichiro: The Art Educator of the Japanese Rule Time in Taiwan and Watercolor Creator of Images of the Others石川欽一郎:日本殖民帝國的美術教育者，創造台灣異己意象的水彩畫家. Master thesis of Donghai University.
Lu Pei-yi呂佩怡. 2018. Perspective 複數歷史之必要:全球藝術視角下的台灣展覽史.” In The Renaissance of Cultural Memory: Collected Papers of the Symposium on Reconstructing Art Histories in Contemporary Taiwan 共再生的記憶:重建臺灣藝術史學術研討會暨論壇 . Taichung: NTMFA: 161-186.
Lu Pei-yi 呂佩怡. 2021. Making South: The “South” as a Method in Taiwan Contemporary Curating 製造南 方:「南方」作為台灣當代策展之方法 .” Journal of Taipei Fine Arts Museum 現代美術 Vol. 41 (May): 65-98.
Meesuwan, Sanyarat. 2018. “Taiwan’s ‘New Southbound Policy’ and Its Implications for Thailand.” International Journal of East Asia Studies, 22(1): 42-70.
Minister of Culture. 2019. https://www.moc.gov.tw/en/information_197_100553.html.
Mitchell, W. J. T. 1994/2002. Imperial Landscape. In Landscape and Power edited by Mitchell, 5-34. Second Edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Museum of National Taipei University of Education. 2017. Yōga: Modern Western Paintings of Japan. https: //montue.ntue.edu.tw/en/exhibition-yoga/
National Museum of History. 2019. Documentary of Formosa Evergreen Scroll. https:// nmhmade.nmh.gov.tw/baodao/intro.html.
Ni Tsai-chin 倪再沁 . 2008. “The Paragons of Taiwanese Art 100 – Curatorial Statement台灣美術經典一百 – 刻留台灣美術發展 .” Kaohsiung, Art Accrediting 藝術認證 , Special Issue: 30-33.
Pai Shih-ming 白適銘. 2016. “After the Abolishment of Chinese Painting – The Formation of
‘East Asian Cultural Community’ in Ink Paintings in the Postwar Period 廢除國畫之後-戰後台灣水墨畫「東南亞文化共同體」思想之形成 .” Journal of Taiwan Museum of Fine Arts 臺灣美術學刊 , 104: 56-69.
Pai Shih-ming白適銘. 2021. The Crossing Disciplinary Borders of Ink Painting 水墨的跨界與移轉 End of Ink Painting? Forum 水墨結束了嗎 ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1qAbQ6iCCk.
Shih Hui-wen 施惠文. 2012. A Study on Differences of Subsidies Policies of Culture and Art Based on Political Inclination of Ruling Parties – Taking Theatrical Performances as Example政黨的文化偏好對藝文補助傾向之影響—以戲劇類節目為例 . Conference of Association for Taiwan Social Studies台灣社會學研究學會研討會論文 2012/09/22-23
Shih Shou-chien 石守謙. 2020. “The Problems of Constructing A National Art History: Departing from Two Cases of Chinese or Taiwanese Artists 國家藝術史的困擾: 從中國與臺灣的兩個個案談起.” In The Advance of Taiwanese History of Art – The Plural Perspectives of World, East Asia and Modernity 臺灣藝術史進路-世界、東亞及多重的現 代視野 edited by Huang, Lan-hsiang 黃蘭翔 ,95-122. Taichung: NTMFA.
Stolojan, Vladimir. 2017. “Transitional Justice and Collective Memory in Taiwan – How Taiwanese Society is Coming to Terms with Its Authoritarian Past.” China Perspectives, 2017 (2): 27-35.
Su Shian-shioung 蘇顯星. 2002. The Study of the Evolvement of Post-war Taiwanese Cultural Policy – Analysis of Historical-structural Approach 戰後台灣文化政策變遷歷程研究-歷史結構分析 . Master degree thesis of National Tainan University.
Taipei Fine Art Museum 臺北市立美術館. 2015. Press 2022-05-22. https://www.tfam.museum/ Exhibition/Exhibition_page.aspx?id=537&ddlLang=zh-tw
Taipei Times. 2011. DPP Suspects Behind-the-Scenes Deals for ROC Musical. https://www. taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2011/11/02/2003517278.
Takamori, Nobuo. 2020. “Catalog of Exhibition.”In Everyday Life and Landscapes of the Island: Betel Nuts, Bananas, Sugar Cane and Palms. Tainan: TNAM.
Taiwan Association for Truth and Reconciliation 臺灣民間真相與和解促進會. 2015. “Memorization of Historical Trauma. Volume 2 卷二記憶歷史傷痕.” Reports of Transitional Justice in Taiwan from Current Stage 台灣轉型正義階段報告. Taipei, Acropolis.
Tsai, Chia-chiu. 2020. “Landscape without ‘Local Colors’ – Alternative Explorations of Painting in East Asia under Japanese Colonial Rule.” In Memorial Landscapes: World Images East and West edited by Fleckner, Uwe and Yih-Fen Hua, Shai-Shu Tzeng, 217-232. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Tsai Yao-Ching 蔡耀慶. 2019. “Seeing Taiwan Through Their Eyes: Formosa Evergreen Scroll at Tainan Art Museum 用他們的眼睛，看見台灣: 台南市美術館「寶島長春」特展.” Artouch. https://artouch.com/art-views/art-exhibition/content-11276.html.
Vickers, Edward. 2009. “Re-writing Museums in Taiwan.” In Re-writing Culture in Taiwan edited by Fang-long Shih, Stuart Thompson and Paul-François Tremlett, 69-101. London: Routledge.
Vickers, Edward. 2010. “History, Identity, and the Politics of Taiwan’s Museums Reflections on the DPP- KMT Transition. Taiwan: The Consolidation of a Democratic and Distinct Society.” China Perspectives, (3): 92-106.
Wang Li-jung. 2014. “Cultural Difference, National Identity and Cultural Policy in Taiwan.” In Cultural Policies in East Asia: Dynamics between the State, Arts and Creative Industries edited by Lim, Lorraine and Lee, Hye Kyung, 35-52. London: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Wei Chun-ying. 2017. Taiwan’s Cultural Diplomacy and Cultural Policy: A Case Study Focusing on Performing Arts (1990-2014). Doctoral thesis of University of London
Wu Chao-Jen吳超然. 2017. Memories Interwoven and Overlapped. Post-Martial Law Era Ink Painting in Taiwan. Taichung: National Taiwan Museum of Fine Arts.
Wu Chieh-hsiang 吳介祥. 2022. “National Symbols in Cultural Diplomacy—The Changing Strategies and Interpretations of the Taiwan National Palace Museum’s International Exchange 國家符號的文化外交-故宮國際交流展的詮釋與演變 .” In Taiwan’s International Cultural Relations: Culture as A Method 台灣的國際文化關係–文化作為方法 edited by Liu, Jerry C. Y. and Wei, Chun-ying 劉俊裕 魏君穎 , 365-394. Kaohsiung: Chuliu.
Wu Chun-ying 吳俊瑩. 2014. “Japanese Rule or Japanese Occupation? A Review on the Era Name of Colonial Taiwan and Uprooting Japan in Post-war Taiwan 如何稱呼臺灣史上的「日本時代」? 兼論戰後日式紀年與意象的清除與整理.” Taiwan Historica 台灣文獻 65(3): 49-98.
Wu Mi-cha吳密察. 2013. “The Cultural Policies of the DPP in the Eight-Year Ruling Period 民進黨執政八年的文化建設施政.” Conference of New Frontier Foundation 新境界文教基金會研討會 .
Yen Chuan-Ying 顏娟英. 2000. “The Vision of Landscape in the Early Modern Taiwanese Art 近代台灣風景觀的建構.” Taida Journal of Art History 國立臺灣大學美術史研究集刊 , 9: 179–206.
Yen Chuan-Ying 顏娟英. 1993, “Art in Exhibition Halls – The Enlightenment of Art in Modern Taiwan 殿堂中的美術: 臺灣早期現代美術與文化啟蒙 .” Journal of Institute of History and Philology Academia Sinica 中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊 : 469-610. Xiong Yi-Jing 熊宜敬. 2001. “Chinese Calligraphy and Painting in Taiwan of the Past 100 Years. Waves Striking – One Hundred Years of Taiwanese Arts.” Taipei, Artist Magazine: 78- 87.
Reproduced from: Culture: Policy, Management, and Entrepreneurship (文化：政策・管理・新創), Taiwan Association of Culture Policy Studies (臺灣文化政策研究學會)
(Editor in charge: Chen Sih-Yu)
吳介祥（Chieh-Hsiang Wu）( 8篇 )