1935 年前後，台灣作家圍繞在「藝術是大眾的嗎？」這個問題，交錯了多樣複雜的議論，這些思想差異或衝突，主要來自作家們如何把握「文學性」、「大眾性」，並如何回應在文化層次上區分「純文學╱大眾文學」、「知識階級╱大眾」這類被習以為常的結構。對此，這些作家大抵表現出幾種回應方式：1、關注重點非文化啟蒙，選擇專注文學性的探求；2、在文化啟蒙運動脈絡中，承認當下實現大眾化的困難，選擇先精進文學性；3、主張降低文學性，配合大眾創作；4、適度調和純文學與大眾文學，但仍將其視為二個各自發展的戰線；5、反對上述四種方案將「文學性」與「大眾性」視為「上╱下」對立結構的文學觀，主張將常識的「文學性」與「大眾性」內涵予以問題化，創作「文學性＝大眾性」的文學。本文嘗試重新整理這些論爭內容，探討1930 年代殖民地台灣社會裡，在面臨殖民化、近代化、商業化、法西斯化等多重問題的處境下，作家們對於文學的雅俗辯證所體現的複雜思維。

The issue of public ownership of art was a widely debated topic amongTaiwanese writers and authors around 1935. Such discussion generated a diversebody of opinions. The differences in ideology and opinions were the result ofhow the writers and authors define literariness and popularization; differentiatepure literature from public literature, and intelligentsia from the general public.Their responses to this discussion can be summarily categorized as thefollowing:(1) Emphasize literal exploration and ignore cultural enlightenment of thepublic.(2) Recognize the importance of public cultural enlightenment, howeverchoose to focus on advancing their literariness believing the popularization ofart is too difficult.(3) Advocate that writers and authors should adjust and mostly lower theliterariness of their work in accordance to the social and cultural status of thegeneral public.(4) Incorporate pure literacy with public literature to a degree, but stillconsider them as two different categories.(5) Oppose the polarizing opinions of considering “literariness vs.popularization” as opposite constructions of “superior vs. inferior”. Theyclaimed the connotation of “literariness vs. popularization” should be consideredas a problem, and they try to create new literatures that have literary expressioncoexisting with the goal of popularization. The purpose of this study was to realign these discussions and to use it as aprobe into the complex cultural conflicts of 1930s’ Taiwanese colonial society,which faced the situations of decolonization, modernization, commercialization,and fascism. The thoughts and actions of the writers and authors in response tothe “literatiness vs. popularization dabate” during that period provided us aunique perspective of the time.