If I knew how to say/read that in Chinese, I'm pretty sure I would see that phrase everywhere. Most of the city is currently under construction. Or renovation. Or refurbishment. Or somehow covered with scafolding and green netting.
Attempting to visit most of the landmarks and tourist attractions in Beijing currently yields failure due to the amount of construction going on in the city. And basically, they are redoing everything old to look...well, new.
Often since arriving here, I've been disappointed by visiting something that's supposed to be old, only to see a brand new paint job with perfectly laid cement paths. A result of a lack of care or the Cultural Revolution or just years of disuse, many things Chinese fell into severe disrepair. They decided to remedy this by simply rebuilding it.
And this is a dilemma. It isn't often that I encounter tourists or visitors who are interested in seeing perfectly rebuilt representations of what was. When coming to a country as old as China, one often wants to see things that are, well, old.
It's almost impossible. The Forbidden City is rife with bright red and green paint. Almost every temple I've visited has modern glass windows. Even the mountains were made "better" by adding concrete steps up the entire face.
So which IS better? When archeologists are excavating a site, they clean the pottery and art they find, right? They attempt to bring back a certain sheen that these things are thought to have once had. "The Last Supper" by da Vinci is in constant renovation (mostly because of the ridiculous paint mixture that ole Leo thought would be a good idea, but almost immediately started disintegrating). Even churches in older parts of the west undergo certain levels of renovation to maintain their allure. It's almost unheard of to simply let something fall apart for the sake of maintaining the authenticity.
How much is too much? Visiting the Forbidden City does not elicit feelings of stepping back in time. That is what I think is too much. When it looks brand new, it just doesn't have that same luster. It doesn't have that same draw. It doesn't make you think of how things used to be. It just seems cheesy. As much like a tourist trap as anything could possibly be.
When visiting old things, a piece of wood that's hundreds of years old (maybe cleaned a little, but original) is desired. Or paint that is slightly peeling and probably made from lead. Or glass that is rippled and thicker at the bottom.
I just finished watching a documentary made by the BBC called "How Art Made the World". In it, one man traveled around the Western world discussing and sorting out the evolution of art. There were many, many examples of art that is thousands of years old. None of it looked new. Instead, they used computer animation to show what it supposedly would have looked like when new. Admittedly, the animations were astounding.
But if and when I visit some of those places, I'd probably be highly disappointed if that's how they looked today. It's much more fun to try to see through the layers of dirt and grime that accumulated over thousands of years. And to think about how the hand that painted that piece has been dead for longer than any living being in the world today.
