Mianzhu’s Nianhua Village and the Rise of Intangible Heritage Tourism

By 2002, the state-led folk art industry was in the midst of reinventing itself by

moving away from the preservation/reproduction of historical works and towards largescale

constructions aimed to appeal to tourists. It was apparent that the Mianzhu Nianhua

Museum in the town’s urban center had largely failed as a heritage attraction; it neither

engaged the local community nor outside visitors. In contrast, a booming tourism

industry was emerging in the naturally scenic rural areas surrounding Mianzhu, where

many ancient sites of cultural importance were being redeveloped for recreation,

including Dujiangyan, Qingchen Mountain, and the Sanxingdui archaeological site.310

Eager to revamp nianhua’s tourism potential, Mianzhu’s officials teamed up with land

developers to build “sites of nianhua history and culture.” The centerpiece project was

the Nianhua Village, an ambitious attraction built at the location of former printshops

from the Qing dynasty. It is not clear what historic structures related to the print trade

remained in the area, as no formal survey or study was conducted before everything was

torn down to begin construction of the Nianhua Village in 2004.

310 These developments in the region were catalyzed by the China Western Development 􀼆􀒆􀕶��􀘿, a

national campaign that began in 2000 to build infrastructure in energy, telecommunications, transportation,

and education, as well as increased ecological protection and foreign investment. In 2000, China also

joined the World Trade Organization (WTO), which marked a new phase of China’s integration with global

politics and trade. For an in-depth analysis of these developments in relation to Sichuan, see Christopher

McNally, "Driving Capitalist Development Westward," China Quarterly, no. 178, (June 2004): 426-447.

The allocation of state funds for the construction of the Nianhua Village was

directly tied to the expansion of China’s heritage bureaucracy, which has been expanding

rapidly towards the identification and management of intangible forms of culture over the

past decade. In 2000, central state authorities launched the “Project to Preserve the

Intangible Heritage of China’s Ethnic Minority Groups” and in 2004, China signed on to

UNESCO’s “Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage,” publicly

aligning its policies with the global prestige of UNESCO. Also in 2004, significant

funding for heritage protection was included in the centralized state budget, sparking the

nation’s largest survey of ICH that would result in the collection of hundreds of

thousands of objects and countless hours of audio and video recordings documenting

about 870,000 items.311 In the rhetoric of the policies, these activities draw on the

heritage discourses and core values adopted by UNESCO, yet the proclamations to

protect and preserve ICH are not always carried out in practice.

Mianzhu’s Nianhua Village is a compelling example of how authorized

discourses around ICH are used to further privilege the tangible assets of heritage over its

intangible counterparts. In maintaining a distinct separation between tangible and

intangible assets, the focus on ICH has not supported a critique of existing policies, but

has further legitimized the state’s expanded role in managing cultural resources that were

once beyond its jurisdiction. Instead of prompting a critical discussion around the social

implications of collecting, isolating, and displaying a community’s cultural objects in a

311 The program lasted from 2005 to 2009. According to incomplete estimates, researchers have visited 1.15

million folk artists and practitioners. With an overall investment of 800 million RMB, they have collected

290,000 items of precious materials and documents, made text records of about 2 billion Chinese

characters, audio records of 230,000 hours, 4.77 million photographs and compiled 140,000 volumes of

general survey studies, covering altogether about 870,000 items of intangible cultural heritage across

China. See Xinhua News Agency, “Protection and Promotion of China’s Intangible Cultural Heritage,”

news release, June 2, 2010, accessed November 5, 2010, http://www.china.org.cn/china/2010-

06/02/content_20171387_2.htm.

museum, the introduction of ICH discourses only spurred a state-led effort to further

expand their activities into the realm of heritage tourism, another sector of the economy

that could be used to promote the nianhua in the state collections.

The promotion of the state’s nianhua collection played a central role in the overall

design and layout of the Nianhua Village, which is adorned with countless painted murals

on the exterior surfaces of the homes, shops, walkways, and gates. Mianzhu’s Cultural

Affairs Bureau worked with investors and developers to contract the murals to a

professional advertising company, essentially outsourcing the visual program of the

entire complex. The murals are almost entirely based on the historic works held in the

Mianzhu Nianhua Museum, along with a few recreations of familiar nianhua themes.

The murals’ key design elements, such as the placement, colors, and execution of

the murals, were left up to the advertising company, who speedily took to the task

without consulting the residents or shop owners who already lived in the village. The

murals simplify many of the elements in the historical prints by reproducing only the

most basic lines and shapes. The historical prints were thus rendered into a uniform set of

images through the advertising company’s use of standardized lines and colors. This may

be a design strategy to make the prints more legible and graphic so that they function as

highly visible murals to be easily discerned from a distance. In the same way advertising

billboards work, the murals can be seen across the valley and from the main road,

marking out a well-defined set of buildings to be gazed upon as touristic space. For

sociologist John Urry, who has theorized the social relations of tourism, “the tourist gaze

is directed to features of landscape and townscape which separate them off from

everyday experience,” where visual elements may be “objectified or captured through

photographs, postcards, films, models, and so on. These enable the gaze to be endlessly

reproduced and recaptured.”312

As a marketing tool, the placement of the newly painted murals is geared towards

framing the village and heightening its sensual appeal for the touristic gaze, to set it apart

from the ordinary residential areas surrounding it. Their presence thus reflects a new set

of concerns that completely overrides how the images would have been displayed in the

past. For instance, the historic “beautiful maiden” prints that were designed for the

intimate space of the bedroom are blown up as larger-than-life outdoor murals, such as

the three beautiful maiden images painted onto the walls of a courtyard (fig. 72). Two of

the standing figures face one another on either side of the door, suggestive of protective

door deities. A revamped version of the Bicycle-riding Maiden print appears on the wall

of the building on the left, in a bright orange costume and blue cap. The light shades of

color and fine details seen in the historical print are absent here, as the mural painters

opted for contrasting colors and bold lines.

In contrast to the print ephemera and handmade spring couplets seen in various

stages of decay on the household doors in Mianzhu, these murals do not attend to the

spatial and temporal elements of ritual renewal that usually activate the images’

auspicious meanings. Permanent and weatherproof, the murals establish new forms of

engagement with the historic works, as brightly colored billboards, photo opportunities,

or talking points for tour guides and hosts. The murals also direct movement through the

village, which doubles as an outdoor gallery through which visitors engage in leisurely

walks to gaze at the works. While moving through the space, I noted how the enlarged

images of the past appeared frozen in time against the white walls, as if sterilized from

312 John Urry, The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies (London: Sage, 2002), 3.

any association with ritual print ephemera. It seemed as if the museum was simply turned

inside out, so that the small-scale works displayed behind glass were now transposed onto

large, monumental surfaces that guided the viewer from one building to the next. The

Nianhua Village is thus transformed into an outdoor exhibition space for the works inside

the Museum, although the Museum’s spatial and temporal ordering of the pieces and their

written captions are no longer present to provide a sense of nianhua’s historical or

cultural contexts. Instead, the onus is clearly set on the viewer to make sense out of the

new configuration of traditional and modern elements.

On one hand, the Nianhua Village sustains the idea that heritage is tied to the

tangible assets of the past by foregrounding the works in the Mianzhu Nianhua Museum

in its murals. On the other hand, it presents nianhua’s intangible heritage as a temporal

and touristic experience of a historical site, where strategic elements are included to

emphasize the affective experience of moving through, being in, and consuming a

physical place. For instance, the village is equipped with bilingual English-Chinese signs

signs, souvenir shops, and amenities for tourists, all of which signal the urbanization of

the rural in the name of preserving the intangible past (fig. 73). With the many

accoutrements of convenience, the village offers cleanliness, comfort, and legibility to

urban tourists from around the world, signaling Mianzhu’s qualified participation in the

broader circuits of international tourism. As anthropologist Mary Hancock has pointed

out, heritage “is not only that which is lost; it is produced and marketed in the context of

economic development, as tourist product and as gentrifying status symbol.”313

313 Mary Hancock, The Politics of Heritage from Madras to Chennai (Bloomington: Indiana University

Press, 2008), 145.

To further enhance the Nianhua Village’s status as a site of ICH, Mianzhu’s

Cultural Affairs Burean began producing and circulating brochures, posters, and orally

transmitted rhymes to market the project. One of the rhymes goes: “Memorial archways

are erected, public squares are constructed, nianhua murals fill the walls, an inviting

exhibition hall has been built, and every house is busy making pictures” 􀧫􀖥􁂵􀮇􀙘􀀍􀀁􀾩􀖥

􁂵􀜼􀓆􀀍􀀁􀭍􀟂􀴈􀨔􀰺􀀍􀀁􁅚􀦫􀜲􀾩􀖤􀝺􀎽􁁤􀀍􀀁􀡅􀡅􀞼􀞼􀟂􀟂􀪫􀀏314 These singsong rhymes are

reminiscent of the orally transmitted rhymes that were recorded in interviews with elder

printmakers yet they also call up the many state slogans that are repeated in official

discourses. In this context, they are deployed as a slick media campaign to attract more

state funding and tourism to the Nianhua Village. In addition, sculpted rocks inscribed

with Confucian ideals have been added to the site to help narrate the significance of the

village and its murals. Reflecting the propagandistic messages of “social harmony” 􀞄􀽾

􀴠􀟶 that gained popularity in official discourses of the time, these “cultural stones” 􀻓􀟄

􀵆 bear red calligraphic characters such as “filial piety” 􀽭 and “loyalty” 􁇑 (fig. 74).

As a whole, the village presents a vision of ICH that blurs the boundaries between

the residential, commercial, touristic, and political realms. It reflects what A.K.

Ramanujan calls “rurban” space, where urban and rural practices merge and become

continuous at the fringes of an urban center.315 The traditional references in the village

are not based on a close study of Mianzhu’s historic neighborhood, but are rather generic

quotations of traditional architecture such as ceramic tiled roofs with upturned corners,

314 Yin Tianrun 􁂃􀸿􀳎, "Xiaode Shejiantai nianhua cun jianshe" 􀽭􀖣􀴝􀡰􀷻􀭍􀟂􀕨􀡹􀴡􀀁􀀼Filial piety and

virtue: the construction of the Nianhua Village at Shejiantai village􀀾, in Zhongguo Mianzhu nianhua 􁇏􀝓􀫥

􁇰􀭍􀟂􀊦China's Mianzhu nianhua], ed. Yu Jundao 􁂿􀤮􀖡 (Beijing: Zhongyang wenxian chubanshe,

2007), 223-226.

315 A.K. Ramanujan, "Towards an Anthropology of City Images," in The Collected Essays of

A.K.Ramanujan, ed. Vinay Dharwadker (New Delhi: Oxford Press, 1999): 52-72.

double leaf wooden doors, and covered awnings (fig. 75). Some of the larger buildings

are also arranged as siheyuan housing, with a main gate that opens to an inner courtyard

surrounded on all sides by living spaces or print workshops. These traditional elements

are combined with modern features such as brick and concrete walls, glass windows with

steel bars, sidewalks, and parking lots. In between the buildings and on the edges of the

village are farm plots, orchards, and pens filled with chickens and ducks.

In her study of heritage building in Chennai, India, Mary Hancock has

commented on the contradictions of such rurban heritage sites, where “heritage themed

resorts, house museums, and cultural centers call forth the iconic past of the village even

while transforming the villages of the hinterland with the introduction of new commercial

and residential spaces.”316 The Nianhua Village replicates a popular template for heritage

building in China where old structures are torn down and replaced with heritage-themed

recreational areas and shopping complexes. In a recent example that made global

headlines, the Sichuan Oriental Buddha Kingdom Company allegedly destroyed a

number of ancient Mahaoya tombs that date back two millennia while constructing a

replica of a Bamiyan Buddha figure for a Buddhist theme park at Leshan, a UNESCO

World Heritage Site that was to be protected from such activities.317 On a much larger

scale, the construction of the Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River has destroyed

countless historic townships and archaeological sites at a time when heritage protection is

touted as a national priority.318 As capital and development flows into rural areas, historic

316 Hancock, The Politics of Heritage, 175.

317 Reported in Hannah Beech,“The Shock of the New,” Time Magazine, March 2003, accessed December

1, 2011, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,430902,00.html

318 The International Council on Monuments and Sites described the Three Gorges Dam region as the “the

most spectacular example” of the continuous loss of historic heritage as a result of worldwide dam

construction. See Dinu Bumbaru, Heritage at Risk: ICOMOS world report on monuments and sites in

danger (Munich: K.G. Saur, 2000): 10.

sites and naturally scenic areas are undergoing massive construction projects that are

informed by “an interpretation, manipulation, and invention of the past for present and

future interests.”319 These interests are not always in line with protecting the nation’s socalled

cultural heritage although heritage discourses are often invoked to support

urbanizing activities.

In the case of the Nianhua Village, I was not able to get detailed information on

how many homes or what kind of structures existed in the area prior to the building of the

village complex. Residents in the area could only tell me that all the old structures were

torn down in order to build the heritage attraction. Many of the families I spoke to were

not even from the neighborhood; they were recruited from surrounding areas because the

state offered them economic incentives to move into the sparsely populated area, a rather

inaccessible region near the foothills that is a half hour bus ride from the nearest business

district in town. In exchange for moving there, the residents become an essential part of

the entire tourist attraction. Virtually every aspect of life in the village is on view, as

visitors mingle with local residents in their gardens, courtyards, and agricultural work

areas (fig. 76). The result is a surreal environment, where the signs frame real life as

cultural performances. In this situation, authenticity is not only constructed through the

architecture and nianhua murals, but through the physical presence of rural families,

printmakers, and shop owners. Among these “laboring bodies,” moreover, “are visitors

themselves, whose participation in hands-on craft and performance workshops is also

framed as a means by which craft traditions are sustained.”320

319 Selina Ching Chan, "Temple Building and Heritage in China," Ethnology 44, no. 1 (2005): 65.

320 Hancock, The Politics of Heritage, 160.

Laurajane Smith has described this phenomenon as the “heritage gaze,” which is

not always directed to a particular object or event, but to the broader emotional, political,

or cultural affects of a heritage site.321 Drawing on a definition of “affect” as a form of

embodied thinking that may be indirect and non-reflective, Smith argues that the heritage

gaze points to the processes of thinking, feeling, and remembering that shape the

significance of a particular site. Although authorized heritage discourses often position

the viewer in a passive role, Smith points to how viewers play an equally important role

in performing the meaning of a site. The Nianhua Village is not only a staged

environment, it is alive and inhabited by local residents, who move through the site with

wheelbarrows and shovels as they attended to the crops and livestock surrounding the

complex. When visitors arrive, they mingle with the resident farmers and shopkeepers,

bringing capital and a cosmopolitan feel to the village. Although the complex interactions

between the residents and visitors is beyond the scope of this study, it is important to note

that the village’s status as a nianhua heritage site must be continually maintained and

negotiated within the community.

In addition to providing incentives for residents to relocate to the village, the local

authorities also used economic incentives to lure restaurants, businesses, and most

importantly, nianhua printmakers. The only lineage-holding workshop to take up the

offer was the Chen family workshop. In 2007, the entire Chen workshop and extended

family moved to the Nianhua Village, where large living spaces, farmland, and a large

print and painting workshop was provided for them. Heavily promoted by the state,

Chen’s workshop has become the main attraction in the village. In a photo of the entrance

to the workshop, two large door deities are permanently painted onto the two sets of

321 Smith, Uses of Heritage, 56.

double leaf doors (fig. 77). These door deities are not Chen’s creations but reproductions

of a set of door deities on display at the Mianzhu Nianhua Museum. A plaque centered

over the entrance advertises the workshop as “Mianzhu’s folk nianhua workshop” 􀫥􁇰􀫶

􀡗􀭍􀟂􀙘. On either side of the door, two painted couplets read: “In planting, a thousand

Mianzhu peasant families can work the hoe and the brush. Famous in the nation for ten

thousand beautiful works, the more rustic the more glorious they are!” 􀛴􁆱􀫥􁇰􀰤􀡅􀭪􀞼

􁁧􁺐􁁧􀐳􀀍􀀁􁄛􁃣􁇏􀞿􀺣􀤜􀣆􀾰􁄀􀹲􁄀􁀜􀀏􀀁

There is no mention of the Chen family name here, as the sign suggests a large

collective of nianhua producers. In merging together the image of the farmer and the folk

artisan, the sign can be read as a culmination of over twenty years of state efforts to shape

“local flavor” as rustic, rural, and inextricably tied to the land. The term used for “rustic”

is also the character for “earth” (tu 􀹲), a rather derogatory word often used to describe an

uncouth country bumpkin. In this context, it is unabashedly celebrated as a novel or even

sensational aspect of Mianzhu nianhua. Yet even while praising the rustic, the painted

murals and gold calligraphy are not rustic at all but rather sophisticated creations of an

urban advertising team.

Unlike Chen, Li Fangfu refused the offer to join the village although he was under

pressure to do so. In resisting, Li has distanced himself from both the museum and

government projects, including all nianhua promotional activities as well as offers to

collaborate with other workshops and storefronts. During our interviews, he was eager to

explain his reasons, including his determination to maintain full control over his

workshop as well a desire to stay in the urban center of Mianzhu, which he thinks is the

best place for selling his works. The street sign in front of his shop reads: “Self-made,

self-distributing, unique talent of Chinese Folk Art”􁈱􀓁􁈱􀽧􀄒􁇏􀝓􀫶􀡗􁁜􀶌􁁂􀤧 and

deliberately markets his independent status (fig. 78). Li’s defiant stance of autonomy

serves as a powerful foil to the Nianhua Village’s claim on authority. In keeping his

urban workshop, Li offers a competing perspective on what constitutes an authentic

Mianzhu nianhua workshop. In advertising his workshop as a “self-made” and “selfdistributing”

entity, he suggests the absence of an intervening power, such as a

middleman who might take a cut of the profit or a censoring critic who might influence

the creative process.

The Nianhua Village has thus respatialized the politics of the industry and

introduced new rifts and tensions in the nianhua marketplace. The distant location of the

village draws people out of the city, potentially leading people to bypass urban nianhua

shops like Li’s studio, which is nestled away in a non-descript urban neighborhood near

the Mianzhu Nianhua Museum. At the same time, the businesses in the Nianhua Village

enjoy the added advantage of the state’s economic incentives and its official marketing

campaigns that draw clients from near and far. In relocating to the Nianhua Village, the

Chen family workshop is now included in all the official promotional material, which has

boosted his workshop’s fame nationwide. At the same time, his workshop’s presence

offers direct and legitimizing evidence that the building of the Nianhua Village has

indeed supported the preservation of ICH in Mianzhu.

Поиск по сайту: