 |
| (Photo/Xinhua) |
The first branch has at least good intentions. It is common to see the struggle between commercial development and protection of such cultural resources as historic buildings. Commercial development can provide the money for protecting historic buildings, but may eventually lead to physical or spiritual destruction. This dilemma is based on good intentions, but tends to deviate from its original right direction.
The second branch is much worse. In this situation, people value culture, but pay more attention to its economic value. In the eyes of the gold diggers in the thriving cultural sector, it is not good culture or even not culture at all if it cannot immediately produce economic value, so are historic buildings. They cannot care less about whether commercial elements will reduce the cultural value of historic buildings.
The third branch is the worst and most controversial. In pursuit of economic benefits, the flood of "commercialization" can crush any culture. As a result, many historic buildings in the downtown have been dismantled secretly or forcefully, and extensive public cultural resources have become only available to private buyers.
Fundamentally speaking, certain people are still using simple statistics and seemingly grand high-rises to interpret the world. Some of them have gone particularly far in this direction, and actively destroyed the past.
If the "logic" that "culture" is inferior to "commercialization" continues to exist, people who have repeatedly participated in "rescuing" historic buildings will face an increasingly grim situation. Over time, the public and media will become less interested in and less sensitive to such "rescue" campaigns. In order to avoid this situation, culture protectors need to persist, and promote a correct understanding of cultural and commercial development. The only question is: How long will it take?
Landmark building should respect the public's feeling
Feedback
RSS
