Flexible Production of Relation and Its Autonomy: Case Study of Taiwan Micro Culture Business

• Main Authors: Chen Hsuan-Pai, 陳萱白
• Other Authors: Hong-John Lin
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2014
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/6k73ev

碩士 === 國立臺北藝術大學 === 藝術行政與管理研究所 === 102 === In recent years, the small-scale flexible economic activities have become a trend in Taiwan. The micro-economic activities establish its unique business model with creativity as it applies the management style of commercial activities to fixing itself into the society. Meanwhile, it adopts a groundbreaking perspective to deal with the essence of life and culture and liberates itself from the framework in pursuit of maximum profit so as to develop a way of thinking which is more energetic and innovative. Therefore, even though the creativity has been culturally industrialized, it still maintains its autonomy. According to the concept brought up by Theodor W. Adorno, through the standardization and capitalization, the only function of art and culture which still remains is to accumulate capital. The creativity of culture and the autonomy of art are degenerated. Culture and art thus become the homogeneous, effortless, and standardized consumer entertainment which is attached to a Capitalist system. They should stand opposite to the society instead of being defused by the social reality. Meanwhile, Adorno also acknowledges in his aesthetics theory that art, beyond expectation, can maintain its purity as it is removed from the orthodox but yet parochial purpose to be included in the social system. However, Adorno has never elaborated this idea since the academic climate was dominated by Classical Marxism at that time. The thriving micro culture business in Taiwan, which features the characteristics of flexibility and individuality, not only appeals to the non-materialistic value but also transforms the economic activities into real practice to interpret and to reconstruct the relations of production through resistance and autonomy. The constantly varying practice is adopted to resist the market’s mainstream value in Taiwan and to reflect the consumerized creative/cultural economics. The dialectic and self-reflective ideology of non-identity offers a driving force to switch between the autonomy and the society, encouraging a further discussion on the complex unit which is both an aesthetic phenomenon and a social reality that Adorno has never mentioned explicitly. The open choices shed light on an alternative thinking about social multiplicity. The micro culture business, which can hardly be categorized as either art industry or creative industry, accumulates its practical experiences and carries out the knowledge into the practice of everyday life, showing us a spark of hope with its creativity.