Font size: 
Sun raised his suggestion at the annual session of the CPPCC in Beijing last month. He suggested that the city of Jining in Shandong province, where the homes of the ancient sages Confucius and Mencius are located, be listed as a state cultural site, and that a huge budget and supportive policies be granted to promote the city's preservation and development.
According to Sun, this idea had the support of 69 academicians from the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Academy of Engineering; moreover, it had the approval of the central government's National Development and Reform Commission.
However, as soon as this information was exposed, strong objections began to be raised by more than 100 members of the CPPCC and by the public. Sun's proposed budget of 30 billion yuan (over US$4.2 billion) was deemed astronomical, and charges of "cultural chicanery and pomp" were levied against him, as well as complaints that this project would destroy Jining's historical heritage and traditional culture.
I am of the opinion that this kind of giant project has no positive cultural benefits, but only the negative impact of destroying Chinese culture.
On one hand, this concept of cultural development -- blindly pursuing quantitative projects rather than high-quality ones -- goes too far, and can even become counterculture. Many newly built folk villages, traditional gardens and cultural cities -- built for tourists or for film sets -- take up a lot of land but exhibit poor taste.
Such embodiments of "culture" can be seen everywhere. This kind of development is disastrous, however. It is not construction, but destruction. This situation should be given careful consideration.
The real momentum driving these artificial cultural constructions is that they are seen as a measure of political achievement. Nevertheless, great cultural development differs from great economic development. Developing the culture industry doesn't necessarily guarantee great material gains or great profits.
On the other hand, based on the objective stated by Professor Ge Jianxiong from Fudan University, who is a member of the CPPCC and the senior consultant to the Jining project, this "Symbol of Chinese Culture City" would be a totally new city, a national culture capital where many cultural facilities would be built rather than in the capital, Beijing.
Won't this new city include a lot of new buildings? A representative from the office set up to handle this project claimed that it will not damage the original cultural or ecological environment and that cultural relics will be preserved. This however, seems difficult to buy.
From my point of view, maintaining the original appearance of ancient buildings and historical relics means not only keeping each isolated building or relic as it is, but also protecting the surrounding environment. Take the Ming Tombs for example. They were originally a group of 13 historical tombs of the Ming emperors, with lots of open space between them. If new buildings are built in this open space, the environment would certainly change, though the tombs themselves may not. In a broad sense, changing the environment of historical relics equals ruining them.
If those involved in this "Symbol of Chinese Culture City" truly aim to protect historical relics, I would advise that they refrain from putting up new buildings and abandon their "creative" ideas for a symbolic city. This would be the best protection of our cultural heritage.
--
(Tao Dongfeng is a professor in the Chinese Department of Capital Normal University in Beijing. He is also editor-in-chief of the scholarly periodical "Culture Research." This article is translated and edited from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original may be found at http://blog.sina.com.cn/taodongfeng .©Copyright Tao Dongfeng.)
