中文提要 本論文嘗試從藝術政治的角度來探討1983至1994年間北美館展覽特徵與內含之國族認同論述的變遷。本文乃關照展覽作為「藝術機構之物質性發言」所陳述之國族認同論述，不從簡化的二分極化或者進化的結構，而從一個大的文化藝術政治的範疇，來對照觀察這個特殊的現代美術館與當代藝術的發展，了解其中互動關係的脈絡。 本文的觀察是，首先，北美館展覽特徵的轉變向我們說明了，我們印象中北美館的代表性形象，透過展覽發言的累積所被我們認識的這個具有「類人格」特質的「官方性格」，是其中很重要的一個部分。而且這個官方性格也同我們一樣，得面對來自內外的壓力，不斷地在有意識無意識之間思索著自我的內涵與外貌間的對應，掙扎地反覆於過往習得的集體性自我認知與重新發現的個人的自我內容之間，確認與否定的過程不斷地進行著，顯於外者則為我們所觀察到的一些展覽中採複合性觀點或做出不一致表述的行為。因此，雖然北美館逐漸地亦加強對國內藝術界與社區服務等面向的行動，展現出其由「官方美術館」到「公共美術館」無論在展出性質、服務對象與角色扮演上的轉變；然而面對民間激烈且熱情地要求對自我認同重新定義的權利與表述的自由，作為官方的一分子，顯然這個時期的北美館其實傾向採取與中央一貫的立場和較保守的態勢，但然不放棄以保留彈性空間的辦法繼續維持主流的領導地位。 其次，北美館藉由展覽呈現出官方認可之藝術的集體自我樣貌，但同時由於作為一個官方的藝術機構，必須考量台灣民主自由社會的現實，作出回應，並且傳達出官方治理國家之承諾與責任。但另一方面，北美館館內的每個人員也同時身為社會的一分子，其個人認同不斷地尋求內容的確立又同時不斷地有新的改變。這些細微的變動皆可能會影響到美術館甚至整個政府的認同論述構成。但是對於這種改變必須特別地去理解官方文化藝術機構的背景與限制，因為其不僅相對地並沒有民間任何一個個人或團體來得自由，且還必須考慮到自己的社會示範與領導地位，以及更深層的整個國族建構藍圖。因此，以一種折衷而模糊的態度來解決民主化的壓力，這確實是現實壓迫的結果，但不可否認的，也同時是經過思考，為維持或創造某種權力關係的選擇。 Abstract This thesis attempts to discusses the changes of the exhibitions held by Taipei Fine Arts Museum（TFAM） in 1983-1994 and the included discourses of national identity. It mainly concerns the politics of art in the modern art museum in Taiwan. This thesis assumes the exhibitions to be “the material speech of an art institution”. Meanwhile, they present narratives about national identity on behalf of the art institution where they are held. Refusing any arbitrary or oversimplified polar evolution structure, this thesis suggests the changes of the exhibitions of the TFAM need to be understood in a bigger context of culture and contemporary arts. This thesis found that the character we know about the TFAM from exhibitions is a crucial part of the whole representative image of it. Like any of us, this character has to face both inner and outer pressure. He has to repeatedly contemplate about the learned collective self and the newly investigated one, being irresolute when about to make any affirmative or negative statement. That helps to understand the inconsistency or changes observed from the exhibitions of TFAM. The TFAM showed its efforts and tried to transform from an “official” art museum to a “public” one, but it still chose to follow the government order to be relatively conservative when making its plan for art. In the meantime, it also chose to hold a resilient space to keep being a leading component in the mainstream of contemporary art society. The changes of the exhibitions show us that the TFAM, being an official art institution, was responsible for presenting the collective self-image approved by the government. Moreover, it had to respond to the reality and democratic progress of Taiwan society and simultaneously convey the commitment and responsibility of government. That is why the statements about national identity presented in the exhibitions in this period were so obscure and vague. Besides, the people working in the TFAM are still part of the society, whose personal identity might constantly changes with living experience and time. These subtle changes might influence the identity of the whole government institution. But we have to consider the particular background and constrain of official art institutions, for they are put on more restraints as an art model and leader for the society in the bigger plan of state building. Hence, the vague attitude about national identity might be a result of reality force, but undeniably it could be a choice as to maintain or create specific relationship of power.
