Fieldnote Feb 21 2023 - 11:01pm

當你在搜尋器上打出那魯灣 新竹，會看到標題幾乎都是『全新開放絕美地景遊戲場！「那魯灣文化聚落」玩超快溜滑梯 』等等的文章，當你真正進去這個所謂『文化聚落』後，會發現原來這只是當權者的一種企圖，那魯灣所面臨的困境並非藉由地景遊戲場可以解決，但我發現這是一種政府慣用手法，將完全脫離脈絡的建築蓋在想要宣傳的地點上，當天進入社區後所看到的是兩種截然不同的景色，一方面可以理解政府為什麼需要對當地做重劃，一方面也為部落裡的人感到憂慮，因為這勢必會引發衝突，從歷史的角度來說，所有的政權進入台灣後第一個受到壓迫的就是原住民，雖然時間已來到2023年，關於原住民文化的保存、原住民的生存權益等等仍有很長的路要走。這次來到部落有幾個觀察

1.政府認可的藝術與原住民的創作

老師事前有提到政府拒絕將當地居民的作品放入展館中，從中可見政府仍然是以一個非常商業、上位者的角度在理解藝術以及當地的文化，就我那天在清水模建築中所看到的『作品』，我其實並沒有感受到什麼藝術的成分在其中，充其量只是幾張美美的圖片，Alfred Gell 作為一名人類學家曾提到他認為藝術，應該是要能帶動某種社會關係，『藝術活動的特質不單是藝術家的創作，還有欣賞者的回應』，就這個定義來說政府的做法是失格的，我們在外看到的創作，不應只注意到它在『美學』層面上的成分，更應該關注這個作品為何產生？他們在意的主題是什麼？這個社區的人是不是都對此有共鳴？

2.觀光發展之於部落

台灣其實有非常多的景點是在住家的正門口，之前去到鹿港就發現鹿港老街裡面其實有蠻多的住戶，甚至可以看到他們在曬衣服、吃飯等等，而外面就是川流不息的人潮，非常的詭異，而那魯灣部落也有類似的情況發生，當天離開前有看到一群似乎是地方媽媽團來觀光，但可以感覺得到他們有些疑惑，好像不太確定這到底是個什麼樣的景點，而對於部落的人來說，很多的外地人來到這邊參觀一個不屬於他們的東西，不知道會抱持著什麼樣的心態？

全球化越明顯的時代，或許更能凸顯地方的意義，因為比起國家，我認為地方更能建立屬於自己的認同，國家是一個人造物，可以說是近400年才出現的概念，屬於變動的狀態，我們又要怎麼定義自己的認同在這樣的概念之上呢？

When you google "Naluwan, Hsinchu", you will see titles such as "Newly opened beautiful landscape playground! 'Naluwan Cultural Village' offers super-fast slides" etc. However, when you actually visit this so-called "cultural village," you will find that what you saw on internet was from government perspective. The problems faced by Naluwan cannot be solved by building a landscape playground, but I found that this is a common tactic used by the government to construct out-of-context buildings in locations they want to promote. When I entered the community that day, I saw two completely different scenes. On one hand, I can understand why the government needs to redevelop the area, but on the other hand, I am also concerned for the people in the tribe because this will inevitably lead to conflicts.

From a historical perspective, the indigenous peoples were the first to be oppressed by all regimes that entered Taiwan. Although it is now 2023, there is still a long way to go in terms of preserving indigenous cultures and the rights of indigenous peoples. When I visited the tribe, I made several observations:

Government-recognized art and indigenous creativity

Ms. Kuo mentioned beforehand that the government refused to exhibit the works of local residents in the gallery, which shows that the government still views art and local culture from a very commercial and dominant perspective. As for the "works" I saw in the building that day, I did not feel any artistic components in them. At best, they were just a few beautiful pictures. Alfred Gell, an anthropologist, once stated that art should be able to drive some social relationships. "The characteristic of artistic activities is not only the creation of the artist, but also the response of the audience." According to this definition, the government's actions are disqualified. When we look at these creations, we should not only focus on their aesthetic aspects but also on why they were produced, what themes they are concerned with, and whether the people in the community resonate with them.

Tourism development and the tribe

Taiwan actually has many attractions right at the doorstep of local households. When I visited Lugang before, I found that there were quite a few residents in the old street of Lugang, and I can even saw them doing laundry and having dinner. Outside was a constant stream of people, which was quite weird. Naluwan tribe also has a similar situation where a group of seemingly local mothers came to visit that day, but I could feel their confusion. They didn't seem to be sure what kind of attraction this was. For the people in the tribe, many outsiders coming to see something that does not belong to them, I wonder what kind of attitude they hold towards this.

In an era of increasing globalization, the significance of local identity may be emphasized even more. In my opinion, local identity is more able to be established than national identity because a nation is a human construct and a concept that emerged only in the past 400 years. How could human being come from a concept?