台灣社區影像的政治與美學──以拍攝美濃的社區影像（1999-2009）為例

The Politics and Aesthetics of Community Documentaries in Taiwan: A Case Study of Meinung’s Community Documentaries from 1999 to 2009

本文的焦點擺在一個較少受到注意、但已逐漸成型的當代台灣新紀錄片類型―社區影像（community documentary）。它的攝製過程與主要訴求，是希望社區居民用影像來記錄在地故事，藉以喚起居民對於社區的重視、記憶與認同，並且，試圖呈現平民觀點、累積地方價值。這一方面是受到1994年「社區總體營造」這個國家文化政策的主導，積極推動地方基層催生「公民社會」的力量，建立地方主體性；另一方面，則是不可忽略幾乎與此時期同時出現的「全景學派」（1988-2006），在當代台灣新紀錄片的創作理念與美學表現上，所擘劃出的另類思考及發展脈絡。並且，「全景學派」與當時提倡「用影像做社造」之間，也具有高度的互動關係。因此，在這樣的時代背景與社會情境下，本文討論的重點集中在兩個部份：透過國家文化政策大力推動的「社區總體營造」，以及「全景學派」所引領的紀錄片運動，分別對於日後台灣社區影像的政治與美學造成哪些影響效應？而我們如何實際透過這些拍攝美濃的社區影像（1999-2009）在主題、目的與論述觀點上的轉變，來進一步思索當社區影像成為國家文化政策的在地實踐時，究竟是潛藏著豐富的地方自主意識，或是正面臨著另一種危機？

The emphasis of this study is on community documentary, a less focusedbut gradually formed into a new type of contemporary Taiwanese documentaryfilm. In the process of filmmaking, the main purpose of the communitydocumentary is to encourage community residents to record their stories, toform their concerns, memories and identity and, moreover, to accumulate localvalues and represent community residents’ viewpoints. In 1994, “CommunityEmpowerment” had become the government’s cultural policy to activelygenerate the force of “civil society” for constructing local subjectivity. At thesame time, “Quanjing Xuepai” (1988-2006) appeared and provided alternativethinking and development context on creative ideas and aesthetics performanceof contemporary Taiwanese documentary films. Furthermore, “QuanjingXuepai” was highly interactive with the “Community Empowermentwith Videos”, which was promoted by the government at that time. Thus,based on the background and social circumstances, this study mainly discussestwo parts. First, what effects on politics and aesthetics of Taiwan’s communitydocumentaries would be after the “Community Empowerment” was promotedby the government and documentary movements was guided by the“Quanjing Xuepai? ” Second, how we through the transformations of subject, purpose, and viewpoint of the community documentaries taken in Meinungfrom 1999 to 2009 further contemplate that it is a local’s strong subjectiveawareness or another crisis, when the community documentary becomes localpractices of the government’s cultural policy.