The restoration project of Chùa Cầu (Hội An) has been completed after more than 1.5 years of restoration and is expected to open to visitors from August 3. Accordingly, the restoration of Chùa Cầu focuses on three main aspects: Enhancing the general landscape, technical infrastructure; constructing auxiliary works to serve the restoration of the monument; digitizing the monument for restoration work using 3D technology, seminars, and discussions.
However, the new appearance of Chùa Cầu is causing controversy among the public.
Dr. Architect Hoàng Hữu Phê, how do you assess the urgency of the project and what are the important factors in restoring Chùa Cầu?
- Technology is increasingly advancing, making restoration work more meticulously planned.
With a work that has heritage elements that need to be protected and promoted, there are three levels of handling, depending on the importance of the urban situation. The first level is historical preservation, which means keeping it as close to the original as possible, without changing anything.
The second level is enhancement, which means changing it based on its inherent characteristics to suit modern conditions while still retaining the essence of the work.
The third level is completely renewing it.
Hội An is an urban area that plays an important role in tourism. When enhancing, the heritage management board surely has a very strict and clear list of which works to handle at which level. Some things must be kept intact like museum artifacts; if changed even a little, they will lose their value.
But this is a landscape, and Vietnamese folklore has a saying: “We are like newly painted statues / Like newly cast bells, like newly built temples," implying that our country is a tropical country, and natural conditions can destroy materials. And the ancients believed there must be restoration and renewal.
People say leave it for a few days and it will be old and mossy again. In my opinion, that's also acceptable. However, it can also be completely renewed, but the colors, shapes... should not be too contrasting with the old. Everything depends on the classification of the level of handling the monument by the management board.
I think when they created the list of works that need restoration, there was professional evaluation, thorough discussion, and consensus from all parties.
Of course, any change can surprise some people and discomfort others. But most feel this is necessary and done very delicately and methodically.
Some visitors believe that Chùa Cầu after restoration feels unfamiliar compared to before, due to the new, bold, prominent paint, making them feel it no longer has the ancient look of a 400-year-old monument. What is your opinion on this?
- I think this is a matter of time. If Chùa Cầu was not restored, it might not exist anymore.
There are sacred objects that must be kept in their original form; if not, they lose their meaning. But Chùa Cầu is just a part of the scenery. After a few years of exposure to the elements, the temple will return to its old look.
Of course, it is possible to create ancient-looking paint colors. But I think the unit in charge of the restoration has a sufficient budget to carry out this project, and many means, knowledge... they have considered before implementing the current repairs.
Currently, we must weigh between two sides: one is to make it familiar to the eye, and the other is to ensure Chùa Cầu can exist. Everything requires a trade-off; everyone knows it is impossible to return the monument to its 100% original state.
So currently, should we add more paint to make the temple look older, sir? Like the Opera House also had to be repainted to look older and more ancient?
- If you want to make Chùa Cầu look older, it is not too difficult; there are many ways to do it. But in my opinion, after just a few years, Chùa Cầu will naturally look old again. The physical aspect is important, but the intangible value, meaning the significance of the monument, should not change too much. It may seem a bit odd for an ancient temple to look too new, but over time, the temple will quickly look old again.
What should be more concerning is whether they have done it according to the original structure, how the colors contrast.
They can paint it to look old but are not required to. We cannot completely replicate anything; otherwise, we will reach a dead end. We must trade off other things to maintain balance.
In reality, the restoration of such monuments has always been controversial. Those who do it say that obtaining materials to restore according to the old model is very difficult, but the public believes it cannot be too new, too different from the old work. In your opinion, what is the core to evaluate a successful restoration project?
- First, it must fit the surrounding environment. If restored, the structure must be accurate, close to the original materials of the monument. Modern technology can be used to keep it intact but should not transform the monument into something different, distorted from the original.
To always keep the monument in its original color state is very difficult; it must be new at times and old at times. For Chùa Cầu, in my opinion, if the restoration results in colors that resemble the original after some time, it is considered successful.
How to ensure historical, cultural factors, restoration processes of monuments, heritage while minimizing controversies, sir?
- I think controversy is unavoidable. In the past, the Eiffel Tower was opposed when it was built; people said it should be removed because it ruined the city's landscape. But now everything has changed.
In a normal society, perhaps nothing is absolutely free of controversy. Everyone has different thoughts and tastes and their opinions should be respected.
Therefore, restoration projects, and broadly speaking, community service projects, causing some controversy is normal.
Thank you for your insights!
