Future Directions and Post-Earthquake Reconstruction

The acknowledgement of living nianhua practices, in its various embodied forms,

holds profound implications for future research in regards to China’s rapidly developing

countryside. In particular, this study demonstrates the high-stakes involved in folk art

research methodologies, especially the uncritical separation of the archive and the

repertoire. If folk art discourses and authorized heritage discourses continue to isolate the

material archive as a static body of collectible objects and commodities, the attendant

repertoire of embodied activities will be inevitably relegated to the past and marginalized.

There is an urgent need for greater critical discussion around the celebrated notions of

tangible or intangible “folk art heritage,” especially in terms of how China’s evolving

ritual industries are shaped by these discourses.

As large sums of money are allocated for heritage protection and revival, it

becomes increasingly urgent to acknowledge the local contestations of meaning that

occur in the nationally recognized “folk art centers” of rural China. In this study, I

critiqued the involvement of international agencies such as UNESCO and other heritage

foundations that have been working with the central Chinese government to implement

the protection of intangible cultural heritage. Most significantly, I have found that the

alignment of national and international agencies has legitimized ever-greater forms of

state involvement in cultural activities with little or no protection afforded the local

communities that rely on such goods for their livelihood. This is one area that desperately

calls for greater research in China, as state leaders in Beijing continue to expand the

“largest heritage bureaucracy on the planet.”339

A key problem is the removal of works from local communities, which may be

profoundly destructive to those who rely on such works for their livelihood. In the case of

Mianzhu nianhua, few records document the processes by which existing state

collections were formed although many elders have lamented the loss of precious lineage

documents. The on-going expansion of folk art collections in China runs the risk of

repeating past mistakes unless critical awareness is raised around the role of prints,

paintings, and other ritual goods in maintaining family lineages and other forms of

knowledge transmission. Unless these problems are addressed, the national heritage

revival will play a hand in destroying the very traditions it seeks to protect.

The speed at which the heritage industry is growing in China has left the critical

scholarship struggling to keep up. There is a great need for research that deals with the

intersecting activities of UNESCO programs, the Chinese heritage bureaucracy, and local

communities. In Robert Shepherd’s important study of heritage building activities in

Tibet, he unmasks UNESCO’s seemingly neutral and depoliticized language by

discussing how its aim to preserve the ‘universal’ heritage of the past entails “strenuously

ignoring the political realities of the present.” Shepherd’s study stresses the need to

examine the political and institutional agendas that fuel the partnership between

UNESCO and the Chinese state, often at the expense of local entities:

Far from being either a global project beyond politics or simply a technical effort

aimed at preserving fragile examples of cultural diversity, the UNESCO World

339 Geremie Barme, ed., "A Tale of Two Lists: An Examination of the New Lists of Intangible Cultural

Properties," China Heritage Newsletter 7 (2006), accessed December 21, 2011,

http://www.chinaheritagequarterly.org/features.php?searchterm=007_twolists.inc&issue=007.

Heritage Program is deeply political, given that it explicitly assumes World

Heritage status to be an issue for states and not local communities.340

As thousands of new heritage sites are being constructed in China today, there is a great

need to situate these developments in their local, national, and global spheres. Shepherd’s

observation certainly resonates with the nianhua revival activities discussed in this study.

However, I have focused primarily on local contestations of meaning and much work is

needed here in regards to connecting the dots with larger trends in heritage building

around the world.

In the wake of the massive May 12, 2008 earthquake that struck Sichuan, these

issues hold profound implications for the reconstruction efforts in Mianzhu. Located less

than 100 kilometers from the epicenter in Wenchuan, Mianzhu suffered severe damage

from the earthquake. Countless buildings were leveled and many lives were lost, altering

the very fabric of life in the region. When I finally communicated with my contacts in

Mianzhu, I was relieved to hear they were unharmed although many had lost their homes

and were forced to live in government provided tents or temporary housing.

In the weeks that followed, friends and colleagues updated me on the damage at

the Nianhua Village and the storage facilities at the Cultural Relics Bureau. Over half of

the structures at the Nianhua Village were so severely damaged that they would have to

be rebuilt (fig. 85). The families that lost their homes and workshops were relocated to

temporary shelters while reconstruction efforts got underway. The Mianzhu Nianhua

Museum was not badly affected and its collection remained intact. The city has since

340 Robert Shepherd, “Cultural Heritage, UNESCO, and the Chinese State: Whose Heritage and for

Whom?” Heritage Management vol. 2, iss 1 (Spring 2009): 55-80.

made the decision to revamp the entire area as news of the earthquake immediately

attracted a steady flow of donations, investments, and media coverage.

According to a recent 2011 announcement released by Mianzhu’s city

government, an astonishing sum of 16 billion yuan has been raised from state agencies

and private investors to rebuild the Nianhua Village, which has been upgraded by to a

high level “AAAA” tourist attraction under the revised rating system of the China

National Tourism Administration. The money will go to the reconstruction of the

Nianhua Village, which will include an “ancient street of Chinese nianhua ” and three

heritage museums based on different themes.341

As these grand developments unfold, it is an opportune moment to involve the

local community in the revitalization of the nianhua industry. More than ever, it is a vital

time to approach nianhua as a dynamic and living entity rather than a fossilized remnant

of the past controlled by a few elites and officials. The earthquake’s destruction of

nianhua’s tangible assets inevitably puts the spotlight on the great wealth of embodied

nianhua knowledge that rests with the people of Mianzhu. This study has only scratched

the surface of this topic and much research is needed in regards to the oral, performative,

theatrical, and lineage-making practices involved in the transmission of nianhua skills

and knowledge. As long as the heritage building industry maintains a sharp distinction

between tangible versus intangible forms of heritage, it will fail to acknowledge and

support the living traditions it proclaims to protect. The idea of a living nianhua archive

attempts to move past these binary constructs in order to create a space where more

voices can participate in defining the meaning and value of nianhua in the contemporary

341 Cited in Mianzhu nianhua cun yinglai 16 yi touzi “􀫥􁇰􀭍􀟂􀕨􁂄􀦟􀀒􀀗􁁡􀹧􁈧” [Mianzhu nianhua village

attracts 16 billion yuan in investment] Takung Pao 􀕶􀜄􀐑, August 3, 2011.

marketplace. This study offers a working model in this regard and it is my hope that it

will inspire researchers to engage more directly with the living communities that produce

and use nianhua on a daily basis.

Поиск по сайту: