台灣文物鑑定政策論證

Abstract

本論文從政策的研究角度，針對文物鑑定這項議題，進行「現況分析」、「本質探討」和「政策論證」三個面向的討論。 「現況分析」的部分，第一章透過對相關文獻的耙梳整理，說明文物鑑定研究領域的關心議題與研究面向；第二章回顧台灣歷年來的相關新聞事件和司法判決，整理出台灣文物鑑定發展沿革的概況，並調查台灣目前所擁有的公私立文物鑑定資源，評析台灣發展文物鑑定的條件與挑戰；第三章以美國、英國、法國、澳洲、日本、韓國、中國等七個國家，作為個案比較的對象，討論不同措施的發展背景和優缺點，以及該制度在台灣的適用性。 在「本質探討」的部分，第四章和第五章分別討論文物鑑定的學科本質與公部門介入文物鑑定之必要性。文物鑑定在成為政策議題之前，其學科本身便與其他鑑定領域有著不同的獨特面貌，政策的擬定必須顧及學科的特殊性，才能強化公部門介入這個領域的必要性。 在「政策論證」的部分，本文的第六至十章，分別針對五種常見的文物鑑定政策構想，包括：「文物鑑定專責機構」、「文物鑑定機構認證」、「文物鑑定專家證照」、「文物交易監督平台」與「文物註冊碼」等，進行政策論證的研究。 根據本論文的研究，台灣無論是初期、中期、或近期，民間對於文物鑑定都有強烈的需求。從SWOT的分析，可以看到台灣的博物館、研究機構、古物審議委員會等既有的基礎，以及台灣學界的積極參與，是讓台灣繼續進步的力量；台灣文物收藏風氣頗為普及，藝術市場業者也持續關心這項議題，台灣與鄰近國家的密切互動，都是台灣發展文物鑑定的契機。 從各國制度的比較，發現各國的制度現況呈現出三種趨勢：其一是建立文物鑑定專責機構的需求；其二是藝術市場起步較晚的國家會有要求公部門介入文物鑑定的呼籲；其三是文物鑑定專家普遍缺乏資格審查制度。各國制度的轉化運用，還需配合台灣的國情、市場規模、結合司法制度的調整，才能有效落實。 文物鑑定的學科本質具有發現真實與價值判斷的目的，其方法學是建立在藝術史風格分析法的基礎上，輔以科學風格分析法、科學檢測分析法，來試圖尋求客觀的依據，具有迥異於其他鑑定領域的不同特點。而公部門介入文物鑑定的必要性，是基於文化資產保存、經濟、司法、教育等四類理由，這四個觀點是公部門投入文物鑑定的關鍵論點。 本文所提出的五種政策構想，從各種政策的立論理由與駁斥理由來看，這五種政策的可信度，「高度」者為文物鑑定專責機構與文物鑑定專家證照兩種制度；「中度」者為文物鑑定機構認證與文物註冊碼；「低度」者，則為文物交易監督平台。 文物鑑定專責機構，代表文物鑑定對中立性、安全性與常態性等公權力保護的需求；文物鑑定專家證照，則反映文物鑑定這項專業，需要建立資格審查標準之事實，因此兩者具有高度的可信度。文物鑑定機構認證與文物註冊碼，雖然也分別代表了對標準作業程序、文物交易過程責任與義務之釐清等需求，但是由於這兩項制度牽涉到文物鑑定的人文學科本質、以及違反文物秘密交易的慣例，可能只能達到形式上或理想上的意義，所以只具有中度的可信度。文物交易監督平台，雖然試圖解決業界自律、資訊不對稱等問題，但是卻陷入藝術市場交易的商業難題，僅有低度的可信度。 可信度的高低，反映了這些構想的迫切性；實施期程則建議依照可信度的高低作為優先順序的考量，可信度高度者，可以作為近期先行實施的政策項目。This thesis focuses on three issues of artifacts authentication with policy research viewpoint: “current development,” “essence of artifacts authentication,” and “policy argument.” On “current development,” Chapter One generalizes the research trend through literature review; Chapter Two collects relative news, judicial decisions, and introduces some public and private artifacts authentication resources in Taiwan, to summarize the development history; Chapter Three chooses USA, UK, France, Australia, Japan, Korea, and China for case study of foreign systems of artifacts authentication, to discuss the pros and cons and the applicability to Taiwan. On “essence of artifacts authentication,” Chapter Four and Chapter Five discuss the disciplinary essence of artifacts authentication and the necessity of the government’s leading. Before becoming a public issue, artifacts authentication has its unique features which are different from other authentication fields, and the government should consider these features to propose suitable policies. On “policy argument,” Chapter Six to Chapter Ten propose five different policy claims, including “Specialized Organization of Artifacts Authentication(文物鑑定專責機構),” “Accreditation System of Artifacts Authentication Organizations(文物鑑定機構認證),” “License System of Artifacts Authentication Experts(文物鑑定專家證照),” “Public Platform of Art Market(文物交易監督平台),” and “Register Code of Artifacts(文物註冊碼).” According to this thesis, Taiwan society has strong demand for artifacts authentication since decades ago. The analysis of SWOT shows that there are many social resources including public sectors and private sectors in Taiwan, which could be the basis for the policy development of artifacts authentication. Current situations in other countries show three major trends: the first is the demand for the specialized organization of artifacts authentication; the second is the appeal for the government’s leading, especially in emerging art markets; the third is the lack of qualification system of experts. The disciplinary essence of artifacts authentication is based on the purpose of discovering the truth and art valuation or appraisal, and on the methodology of art historical style analysis, scientific style analysis, and scientific analysis. The necessities of the government’s leading are based on four reasons, including the cultural heritage conservation, economy, judicial, and education. According the policy argument research, the qualifier of the five policy claims are as following: “Specialized Organization of Artifacts Authentication” and “License System of Artifacts Authentication Experts” have “high feasibility;” “Accreditation System of Artifacts Authentication Organizations” and “Register Code of Artifacts” have “middle feasibility;” however, “Public Platform of Art Market” only has “low feasibility.” Policy One and Policy Three have irreplaceable importance and strong demand in artifacts authentication field , so they have high feasibility; Policy Two and Policy Five represent other demands, but they are different from the essence and the tradition of art market, which means middle feasibility; Policy Four will easily fall into the business dilemma, so it only has low feasibility. The feasibility means the urgency of these policy claims, and the thesis suggests that the government could consider the feasibility as the priority of policy.