The issue of public ownership of art was a widely debated topic among Taiwanese writers and authors around 1935. Such discussion generated a diverse body of opinions. The differences in ideology and opinions were the result of how the writers and authors define literariness and popularization; differentiate pure literature from public literature, and intelligentsia from the general public. Their responses to this discussion can be summarily categorized as the following: (1) Emphasize literal exploration and ignore cultural enlightenment of the public. (2) Recognize the importance of public cultural enlightenment, however choose to focus on advancing their literariness believing the popularization of art is too difficult. (3) Advocate that writers and authors should adjust and mostly lower the literariness of their work in accordance to the social and cultural status of the general public. (4) Incorporate pure literacy with public literature to a degree, but still consider them as two different categories. (5) Oppose the polarizing opinions of considering “literariness vs. popularization” as opposite constructions of “superior vs. inferior”. They claimed the connotation of “literariness vs. popularization” should be considered as a problem, and they try to create new literatures that have literary expression coexisting with the goal of popularization. The purpose of this study was to realign these discussions and to use it as a probe 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 to the “literatiness vs. popularization dabate” during that period provided us a unique perspective of the time.