To better understand the government's policy on cultural preservation and the key issues and difficulties encountered in the implementation of that policy, FCR interviewed Professor Li Chien-lang, who teaches in the Architecture Department at the Chinese Cultural University in Taipei.
Li is considered to be one of Taiwan's foremost experts in the field of cultural preservation. He heads his own Ancient Architecture Research Studio and is a member of the Cultural Assets Committee of the Council for Cultural Planning and Development. Excerpts from the interview follow:
FCR: What is the government's policy toward the preservation of cultural assets, and what are the highest priorities in this area?
Li: The government's policy on cultural assets can be divided into two periods, with the enactment of the Preservation of Cultural Assets Act in 1982 as the dividing line. In the three decades before 1982, government spending on the preservation of cultural assets was relatively limited. For example, in the Department of Civil Affairs under the Ministry of the Interior [which was in charge of maintaining the most important historical sites], only two staff members were charged with responsibilities in this field. After the Preservation Act was passed, the number increased to seven. Evidently, government policy in this area has undergone substantial change in response to public pressure.
Taiwan's economic takeoff in the 1970s enhanced the quality of life, and as people no longer had to worry about acquiring daily necessities, their demands increased. Leisure travel became more popular, but familiar scenic spots such as Alishan and Sun Moon Lake [mountain and lake resort areas in central Taiwan] could no longer satisfy their needs. People began to show a more active interest in temples and other historical places. They took trips to temples around Taiwan and to historical towns such as Lukang, Sanhsia, and Tamsui. Travel agencies encouraged the trend further by offering package tours.
In response to public demand, the government laid down two guidelines for the preservation of cultural assets. The first defines what constitutes a cultural asset, and the second covers the techniques of preservation.
There have been widespread calls for more recent historical sites to be preserved along with those dating back to the Ching dynasty. The Preservation Act has no provisions in this regard. Recent history is as important as ancient history. Cultural relics are testimonies of history, and there is no reason to preserve only the remains of ancient times and ignore those dating back six or seven decades.
After all, what precisely are cultural assets? Do they have to date back to the time when the legendary Panku restored order to the universe? No, they are anything that is not of the present day. They can be anything from the past, perhaps no more than a decade ago; they are not necessarily ancient remains. Thus, we are currently promoting the preservation of folk utensils used no more than half a century ago. Cultural preservation programs should not exclude cultural objects of the modern period, which includes the days under Japanese colonial rule and the early period following Taiwan's retrocession.
Another important consideration is the significance and value of cultural objects. How are these to be determined? Sometimes, the artistic value of a temple is the deciding factor, at other times it is its association with a well-known historical figure. For example, a large rock in Kinmen has cultural value because the general Koxinga once stood on it to speak to his troops before their attack on the Dutch, who were then occupying Taiwan.
The villas in Hsitzuwan and Taoyuan used by the late President Chiang Kai-shek are historically significant as well. Built in the architectural style of the Japanese colonial period, the villas are now vacant and unused. But the furniture and other objects used by the late president have been preserved.
The second policy goal is the improvement of preservation techniques. Previously, a broken leg of an antique table would be removed and replaced by a completely new one. But the antique then loses 20 percent of its historical value. It continues to lose its historical representativeness as more and more parts are replaced. In contrast, the current trend is to repair broken pieces using professional restoration techniques that make the breaks barely detectable. But some critics say that antiques should be left as they are.
This raises the issue of historical value. For instance, if the original version of a book written in the Han dynasty is discovered, however inelegant its print, however tattered and torn, these are of no consequence. The book may not be as elegant as a new, colored reprint, yet it has its value. It is important because it is historical evidence. Despite the argument that relics should be left as they are, there is growing demand that the defective portions be restored in such a way that they closely resemble the original.
FCR: Why are cultural assets classified? How are first, second, and third-class cultural relics ranked in terms of priority?
Li: Cultural assets are anything from the past. For example, man has built a wide-ranging variety of structures down through the ages. These include houses, bridges, dams, tombs, and even roads, such as the Patung Kuan Ku Tao, built in the Ching dynasty to link Taichung and Hualien [in central Taiwan].
Cultural assets are not necessarily just temples. They are evidence of man's activities, which in turn are a testimony of the culture and technical background of a certain period in history. It is for this very reason that they should be maintained in their original state as much as possible. Attempts should not be made to make them look more refined. A bronze tripod in the National Palace Museum, for instance, should not be polished; not even its rust should be removed.
Classification is essential in view of the large number and great variety of cultural relics that have accumulated over the centuries. It makes their regulation, maintenance, and restoration easier. But better standards have to be established. Currently, according to the Preservation of Cultural Assets Act, responsibility for preserving the island's cultural resources is distributed among different government levels. Thus, first-class assets fall under the jurisdiction of the central government, which provides funding and personnel for their preservation. Second-class assets are the responsibility of the provincial government, and third-class assets fall under the county governments.
The lack of a more detailed system of classification is sure to create difficulties in preservation. For example, the Red-beard Fortress in Tamsui is not a first-class asset because it is not considered a part of Chinese history. It was a Dutch settlement in the seventeenth century, when Taiwan was populated primarily by aborigines, and is therefore not considered a national-level cultural site. But assets should be classified on the basis of their special characteristics and value.
Actually, whatever the classification, it makes little difference when it comes to preservation. More funds may be required to repair a third-class asset, which can be a huge monument like the Chao Tien temple in central Taiwan. The renovation of such a massive structure will definitely need a far greater budget than the North Gate of Taipei City, which is smaller in size and simpler in structural design.
FCR: Is the Preservation of Cultural Assets Act well enforced?
Li: Yes, at least in the case of first-class assets, because their preservation is funded by the central government. But cultural assets are not so well preserved at the provincial and county levels, especially the latter. Limited budgets often compel county assemblies to divert funds initially intended for cultural preservation to administrative programs they consider more important, and the central government is unable to meet the many requests from local governments for subsidies.
FCR: Should the architectural structures from the Japanese colonial period be included in the official list for preservation?
Li: Here we are referring to architecture of the modern period, that is, from the late nineteenth century to the end of World War II. Most of the architectural structures built by the Western missionaries in the late nineteenth century have been preserved. These include churches in Tamsui, a seminary and department stores in Tainan, and the British consulates in Tamsui and Kaohsiung.
But Japanese architecture has been neglected. During the colonial period, the Japanese built many government offices, including the Presidential Building, the Taipei Guest House, and the Taipei government offices. They also constructed public transportation facilities, such as the Hsinchu and Taitung railway stations built in 1913, and hospitals such as the National Taiwan University Hospital, and post offices such as the Taipei Post Office.
There was a controversy over a Shinto shrine in Taoyuan four years ago. Scholars and other experts fought successfully against its demolition in hopes of preserving this historical legacy. The elaborate architectural design of the Japanese shrine, unparalleled in the work of the Chinese people here, is enough to prove its worth. Besides, this is the last of the thirty shrines built during the Japanese colonial period that still stands today. The rest fell victim to the strong anti-Japanese sentiment in the early period following Taiwan's retrocession. At the time, one group found it unacceptable to allow any evidence of the occupation to survive because of the suffering by the Chinese people at the hands of the Japanese. But another group claimed that the temples, being historical artifacts, should not be destroyed.
Our failure to set political considerations aside in the past has made it necessary today to call for the preservation of Japanese structures. We recently conducted a preliminary survey of modern architecture in Taiwan in cooperation with a research center in the Graduate School of Production Techniques at Tokyo University. The center is working on a project to compile lists of architectural structures in East Asia. The Japanese list has already been completed, and the center has requested Korea, mainland China, and Taiwan to follow suit.
We have already covered the northern part of Taiwan and have prepared a list of some 170 structures, fifty of which are considered important and worthy of preservation. This list, compiled by academics in the field, has been presented to the Ministry of the Interior for official consideration.
FCR: What is the public's concept of cultural assets? How do we get people to see the importance of preservation?
Li: The public has a vague and inaccurate concept of cultural assets, but this is not surprising. Until recently, not even scholars and other experts in Taiwan had thought much about cultural preservation. People wonder why we are looking back at the past when we should be looking into the future. They question the need for cultural preservation and wonder why artifacts and structures are not moved to a special preservation zone so that high-rises can be built on their original sites.
In addition, some people have the habit of stealing sculptures and other temple decorations. Such conduct should be discouraged and corrected. Hanging calligraphy scrolls and paintings on the wall of your house is all right, but the sculptured parts of a temple are significant only where they originally belong. Such destructive actions are unacceptable.
Some publishing companies have taken the initiative to educate the public. Yuan-liou Publishing Company recently published a book entitled the Sanhsia Guide, which describes the old town of Sanhsia [southeast of Taipei] in depth in simple language. Another one of its titles explains the construction process of a temple. The book guides young readers through the process of selecting and shipping building materials from mainland China to Taiwan, unloading the materials at the harbor and transporting them to the construction site, determining the type of temple to be built, laying the foundation, erecting pillars, painting the temple, and finally, holding the inauguration ceremony. The book is designed to educate young people and help shape attitudes toward cultural assets.
My guess is that thirty years from now, when Taiwan will be enjoying even greater social stability and prosperity, we will be able to attain the level of cultural preservation in Japan. The state of cultural preservation is an index of a nation's level of development. The more technologically advanced a country is, the better its assets are preserved. Some of the best cultural preservation is carried out in Japan, Germany, and the United States.
FCR: Based on your practical experience, what are the major technical difficulties in repairing and maintaining cultural relics?
Li: Elaborate repair techniques have become increasingly important. What used to be simple problems have become complex issues now that damaged or broken parts are repaired instead of being wholly replaced. Another interesting development is the movement away from replacing a ruined part with a completely different type of material. According to the Preservation of Cultural Assets Act, repair materials should resemble the original as closely as possible. For example, if an original pillar is made of Fuchow fir, it is better to use the same type of wood to repair it.
We are also faced with the age issue. There will always be some difference, since fir obtained in the year 1990 will be different from that used a hundred years ago. Our responsibility is to reduce this gap as much as possible. The use of cement in place of wood will completely write off the historical value of a relic in one stroke. People one hundred years from now would be misled into believing that cement was widely used during the Ching Dynasty, creating historical confusion.
FCR: How can we cultivate experts in the maintenance and preservation of cultural assets?
Li: We are in a very bad situation here. No university in Taiwan offers courses in art preservation. The only course that may in some way be associated with cultural preservation is a brief introduction to the history of Chinese architecture, which covers the entire history of China from the earliest historical myths right up to the present day.
Another serious problem is the unavailability of craftsmen. Cultural sites were seldom renovated in the past, and over the past twenty years or so most temples have been built of cement. Craftsmen did not have a chance to practice their art, and they did not see the need to train apprentices. Take carpenters, for example. The great masters of the 1960s are about to retire, but no young craftsmen are available. The mainland has the same problem. The atheistic nature of Communist rule did not permit the construction of temples, so the Chinese Communists paid scant attention to the restoration of cultural sites, many of which were destroyed during the Cultural Revolution.
It is essential that measures be taken for future improvement. Unless the apprentice system can be revived, which is unlikely at the present time, the only thing we can do is to concentrate on academic research. It is hoped that people in academic circles will help push through plans to examine and record the numerous methods of Chinese architectural construction that are unknown to the outside world. Also, a series of records and materials could be compiled and included in the curricula of vocational senior high schools. At least some of the graduates of these schools could enter the field of cultural preservation.
As part of these in-depth investigations, scholars should interview aging masters and record their history. Their skills, and techniques in using tools, selecting materials, and mixing paint, should be recorded as well. Details about paint mixtures are especially important, because the masters do not readily reveal their craft secrets. Photographs should also be taken as evidence. Books thus compiled will ensure that crafts and arts are passed on to future generations.
FCR: What types of materials are currently used in the maintenance of cultural assets?
Li: This is yet another major problem. Some of the materials we need are available on the mainland, but currently their import is banned. For example, the color of some of the bricks baked in Taiwan is not quite right. I had the opportunity to visit a kiln in Fukien Province, where ancient firing techniques are still being used. The bricks are just right for some of the structures here. I predict that we will be able to purchase bricks from this kiln within the next five years.
FCR: What is your opinion on our exchanges with the mainland regarding cultural preservation?
Li: This is a very important issue. While we can travel across the Straits, professionals on the mainland are still not permitted to visit Taiwan. In my exchange of views with experts on ancient and modern architecture during my visits to the mainland, we found that both sides of the Straits share the same problems.
Neither Taiwan nor the mainland has adequate funding, although we are in much better shape. Also, in mainland China, only the restoration of major national cultural assets is required to meet high standards. Defective parts are carefully repaired, which is more difficult than replacing them. It is like darning clothes, each stitch being made to resemble the original as closely as possible. The professional handwork also raises the cost of repairs.
But for cultural assets at the local level, the mainland continues to replace entire parts. The substitution of a new pillar for a dilapidated one raises the age issue. A Ming dynasty temple can hardly be considered three hundred years old if some of its pillars were erected only recently. The site of the temple may have a special historical background, but the new pillars take away some of this significance.
But once mainland authorities realize that a specific site, such as the Great Wall, draws tourists, they immediately earmark a budget for its renovation. Peking's totalitarian rule makes sure that something gets done if it wants it done. But in Taiwan's democratic society, public opinion and public priorities have to be taken into consideration.