文化治理基礎設施化的張力與潛能：以地方展演為例

Tensions and Potentials in the Infrastructuring of Cultural Governance with Local Performances as Exa

本文探討文化治理、物質部署與空間配置的關聯，並指出其中蘊含著盈裕、定著和虛耗等多重張力。筆者首先追溯文化物質論、物質文化研究與新物質論的啟示，進而援引晚近基礎設施研究觀點，將文化治理接軌於社會物質性與空間性，提出文化治理的基礎設施化概念。文化治理的基礎設施化介入了生活地景，塑造著文化生活。其次，本文聚焦於地方展演的文化治理，討論以下課題：以政令宣導和美化彩繪為例的疊覆型基礎設施；以專屬或轉生之藝文場館為例的文化建設型基礎設施；以地標、入口意象和公共藝術為例的擬基礎設施化象徵物；以地方藝術節與大地藝術祭為例的文化地景塑造。然而，文化治理的基礎設施化並非牢靠的系統，而是未完成/不完整的基礎設施化，充斥著盈裕與定著的張力。盈裕凸顯文化乃有餘裕而為之，並有所逾越；定著凸顯文化的慣性、秩序化及定錨效果。在盈裕與定著之間，還有具備揮霍、耗損、懸擱、留白、徒勞無功等多重正負意涵的虛耗，既有盈裕之耗損或定著之僵滯，也可能誘發風險或新生機。再者，文化總是意味著替代。於是，文化治理及其基礎設施化經常折衝於歸結為實驗性藝術的盈裕端、凝聚為生活方式的定著端，以及穿梭其中的虛耗而持續擾動，並開啟了地方潛能。

This article explores the relationship between cultural governance, material deployment, and spatial configuration, and points out that there are multiple tensions such as surplus, fixation, and waste. The author first traces the inspiration of cultural materialism, material culture studies, and new materialism, and then cites the perspectives of recent infrastructure studies, connects cultural governance with social materiality and spatiality, and proposes the concept of the infrastructuring of cultural governance. The infrastructuring of cultural governance intervenes in the living landscape and shapes cultural life. Secondly, this article focuses on the cultural governance of local performances, and puts forward the following issues: the overlay infrastructure with government decrees and beautification paintings as examples; the cultural infrastructure with exclusive or reincarnated art venues as examples; pseudo-infrastructure symbols with landmarks, entrance images, and public art as examples; and cultural landscapes with local art festivals and land art festivals as examples. However, the infrastructuring of cultural governance is not a solid system, but an unfinished/incomplete infrastructure, full of tensions between surplus and fixation. Surplus highlights that culture is based on surplus and goes beyond; fixation highlights the inertia, order and anchoring effect of culture. Between surplus and fixation, there are wastes with multiple positive and negative meanings such as squandering, depletion, suspension, blankness, and futility. There is not only the consumption of surplus or the stagnation of fixation, but also the possibility of inducing risks or new vitality. Furthermore, culture always implies substitution. As a result, cultural governance and its infrastructuring are constantly disturbed by the surplus end attributed to experimental art, the fixation end condensed into ways of life, and all kinds of wastes shuttles through them, and open up local potentials.