| 摘要: | 蛻變自「民俗技藝園區」的國立傳統藝術中心計畫，歷經20多年的觀念提倡、規劃評估、折衝調整，最後以部分委外的方式經營，獲得行政院公共工程委員會第三屆「政府機關團隊」金擘獎，也是政府、文化界與媒體極力讚揚的成功OT案例，並認為，傳藝中心委外經營的模式為公部門文化機構建立典範，未來的文化設施將循此辦理。
研究透過對「國立傳統藝術中心」的政策形成、計畫研擬、做成委外經營的決策，到獲得金擘獎為止，進行整個計畫的溯源與探討，找出做成“委外經營政策”的關鍵點及決策的政經時空背景，對照各階段計畫報告，瞭解呈現的經營模式是否仍能夠秉持原始的設立宗旨、定位、功能，還是在滿足了各種非文化性的期待後，只剩下一個妥協的結果。
研究發現，台灣近年的國域型文化設施發展落入下列困境：執政者意識型態透過文化政策打造國家認同；後期的文化政策缺乏整體目標，偏重個別硬體建設；文化建設淪為綁樁選票的工具、過多的綁樁建設造成政府負擔、企圖藉由「委託民間經營」解決財政困難的窘迫困境、行政革新優於文化設施經營管理專業、定位的曖昧造成計畫方向的搖擺、忽略民間參與公共建設投資興建的基本精神、不瞭解公辦文化設施不一定要透過民營化經營才能活化。
研究最後提出建議：讓文化回歸文化－文化政策應保有其主體性；傳統藝術因脫離生活而凋零，需再回到生活而活化；傳統民俗藝術傳承的觀念與方式被誤導；以育成中心的觀念，扶植傳統民俗藝術文化產業化；認知公私合夥的核心精神，無須排斥民營化與商品化；國域型文化設施的經營模式視目的與定位而異，目前沒有一定可以複製的模式。
雖然藉由民間資金與人才來經營文化設施，以突破預算、擴大建設，本來就是「促參法」的目的之一，並無不妥。但更重要的是“do the right thing，not do the thing right”，如果出發點不是為了促進國立傳統藝術中心研究、保存、傳習、與推廣傳統藝術的功能目標達成，那麼「態度決定高度、格局決定結局」，但是事後要付出的代價會很高。
Evolved from the “North-East Folk Village” project, and over 20 years concept lobbying, physical planning, budget negotiating and project remodeling, the National Center for Traditional Arts(NCFTA) was dividedly operated by government and private company under OT(operate-transfer) system. By winning the award of The Best Government Team of OT/BOT Project, authority was encouraged to set NCFTA as a role model of all public institutes, all the other culture facilities will be instructed to copy this so call success story.
Through the study of the entire development history of NCFTA, this research aims to identify critical decision making points under certain political and economic situation at that time, clarify did the final results meet the original concept of NCFTA which are what people expected, or turn into nothing but a no alternative compromise.
National cultural facilities developed during recent decades in Taiwan all got into a predicaments, they are: under specific political ideology, authority manupulated nation identity through cultural policy; lack of comprehensive plan, cultural policies focused mostly on construction; cultural facility became a deal and compensation for wining election; too many compensations worn out governmental finance; attempted to solve the difficult financial situation through OT/BOT; administrative policy overrode cultural policy; ambiguous orientation caused the uncertainty of the project; disregard the “public private partnership”(PPP) is the key idea of “private finance initiative”(PFI); didn’t recognize revitalization of government-own cultural facilities does not necessarily operated by privatization.
The conclusions of this research are: cultural policy should remain independently－let culture be culture; folk art withered because of disconnecting with real life, shall be revitalized by re-engaging with contemporary; be aware that the misleading of the concept of folk art; incubator model is a feasible way to nurture folk art into cultural industry; possibilities of privatization and commercialization should not be excluded from cultural facility operation and PPP concept should be acknowledged; management model for national cultural facility is depended on its orientation and objective, no certain pattern for imitated.
Using PFI to breakthrough the limitation of budget and to develop national cultural facilities is acceptable, that’s the very idea of the “Act for Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects”. Nevertheless, be remembered that “do the right thing, not do the thing right”. If the purpose to set up NCFTA is not to achieve the original idea of researching, conserving, inheriting and popularizing folk art, than “attitude determines altitude”, the cost will be very expensive and the consequence may not be affordable. |
