台灣的廣告與廣告工作者，從1980 年至1999 年的近20 年間，發生了戲劇性的轉型。這個轉型—從體力勞動者生產平凡庸俗的「招牌」，搖身一變成為專業影像文化工作者所產製的具「創意」的「廣告影片」（CF）—並非台灣走入現代社會的必然表現，更不是台灣經濟發展自然演進的過程。相反的，它必須通過正當化過程的「象徵鬥爭」而獲得實現。本文將援引關係取向的概念工具，對廣告工作者在文化生產場域中象徵轉型的機制與策略進行分析。本文強調：廣告在台灣成為被凝視、關注的文化對象並在文化空間獲得象徵地位，是「現代廣告」歷經近20 年逐步在文化場域的正當化過程所帶來的重要結果。廣告被感受、認知為文化領域的重要元素，並具有特定的象徵力量，乃是在文化生產場域中，通過歷史的象徵鬥爭，搭配其場域運作之特定結構性、制度性動力機制，逐步建構、深化而成。在象徵鬥爭的過程中，廣告工作者，成功的建構廣告「創意」與他們群體位置利益的直接聯繫；藉助廣告影片與電影文化類型間選擇性親近的建立，廣告影片成為最具支配性的廣告類型，廣告工作者因而能夠順暢挪用電影已經先前成功取得的象徵成果，在文化空間中依照他們的形象與利益，進行有利其廣告產品之參考架構的轉換。緊接著，他們試圖進一步修改整個社會中文化生產者的理想典範，並準備提供一套新文化世界的運作藍圖：這套社會成就的原則，是基於商業邏輯與文化邏輯間利基整合的精緻加強版。

In Taiwan a dramatic metamorphosis of adverts and ad-makers—from commonplace shopsigns produced by low-skilled manual labors to “creative” cultural works created by professional film-makers—has occurred between 1980 and 1999. This transformation is neither the necessary manifestation of a modern society nor a “natural” consequence of economic development; instead, it takes place only through symbolic struggles within the field of cultural production. In this paper, the relational mode of analysis will be employed to analyze the strategies of the “modern” ad-makers that are engaged in struggles of legitimation within the field of cultural production of contemporary Taiwan. We find that advertising in modern Taiwan was legitimated and valorized through the following mechanisms: First, the changing opportunity space brought about by social and economic change outside the advertising industry provides a necessary condition. The opening up of the market of service industries, the rise of television, the establishment of academic courses and programmes concerning advertising, the increased size of the graduate population, and the international recognition of Taiwanese cinema all facilitated the movement to valorize advertising. Second, the institutionalization of various resources, skills, practices, and organizational arrangements by a range of actors in the advertising industry, consolidated in Taiwan in the late 1980s. In the mid 1980s the coincidence of factors described above created the thrust necessary for a turning point in the valorization of advertising. Third, the new development of the field-specific principles—particularly “creativity”— for evaluating advertisements was fundamental to the symbolic transformation of advertising. “Creativity” thus gradually became the key stake of advertising field. At the same time, ad-makers and their supporters in Taiwan borrowed a fruitful model from a cognate cultural genre—cinema—pioneered earlier by a recognized group of Taiwanese film-makers. By using this model, they have been able to structure the production teams and work processes of advertising, to guide the framework of cultural criticism of advertising, and to shape the perception of advertising.