5. WESTERN AND EAST ASIAN IDEAS ON HERITAGE CONSERVATION

8 November 2025

Based on experience at Gyeongju and previous visits in Seoul illustrating "historic" buildings.

---

Contents

1. A Fundamental Divide in Heritage Conservation
2. Western vs East Asian Conservation Philosophy
3. Why This Difference?
3.1 Material reality
3.2 Buddhist / Confucian concepts
3.3 Colonial trauma
3.4 Shinto concept (Japan, influencing Korea)

4. Examples of Korean Practice
5. The Uncomfortable Truth
6. Where It Gets Problematic
7. Does It Matter?
8. A Clash of Philosophies
9. What Remains Authentic in Gyeongju
10. The Eunpyeong Problem
11. Authentic vs Fake 'Traditional' in Korea
12. The Scale Problem
13. Why This Happens
13.1 Tourism industrialisation
13.2 Real-estate capitalism
13.3 Loss of spatial literacy
13.4 National pride optics

14. Gyeongju’s Specific Failure
15. The Hidden Hierarchy of Conservation
16. Why Scale Matters
17. Composite Materials - The Cheap Shortcut
18. Where Authenticity Survives
19. Gyeongju and Nara Compared
20. The Broader Contradiction
21. Conclusion

─────────────────────────────

1. A Fundamental Divide in Heritage Conservation

A fundamental philosophical divide runs through heritage conservation - and Korea, like much of East Asia, operates on principles quite distinct from the West.

─────────────────────────────

2. Western vs East Asian Conservation Philosophy

Western (UNESCO / ICOMOS standard):
• Original fabric = sacred
• Patina, weathering, scars = authenticity
• ‘Preserve as found’ - minimal intervention
• Replicas = fake, dishonest, theme park
• Value = age + continuity of material

Korean / Japanese / Chinese approach:
• Form + technique + ritual = authenticity
• Material = temporary vessel
• Periodic rebuilding = renewal, not replacement
• What matters: continuous practice of craft, not the wood or stone itself

─────────────────────────────

3. Why This Difference?

3.1 Material reality
• Korea’s wooden temples in humid monsoon climates decay every 50 - 100 years regardless.
• Europe’s stone cathedrals can last a millennium with minimal intervention.
• Pragmatism forced different philosophies.

3.2 Buddhist / Confucian concepts
• Impermanence is accepted - even celebrated.
• The act of rebuilding is itself a living tradition.
• A temple rebuilt fifty times can be more ‘authentic’ than one preserved but spiritually dead.

3.3 Colonial trauma
• Japan’s 1910 - 45 occupation destroyed and looted Korea’s heritage.
• Post-war reconstruction became defiance: “We will rebuild what was taken.”

3.4 Shinto concept (Japan, influencing Korea)
• Ise Grand Shrine: demolished and rebuilt every 20 years for 1,300 years.
• The act of rebuilding using traditional techniques is the heritage.
• Material continuity is irrelevant.

─────────────────────────────

4. Examples of Korean Practice

Bulguksa Temple, Gyeongju - founded 528 AD, now mostly 1970s concrete reconstruction.
Gyeongbokgung Palace, Seoul — built 1395, 90 % destroyed by 1910, rebuilt 1990s–2010s.
Namdaemun Gate, Seoul - burned 2008, rebuilt 2013 using traditional joinery and hidden fire systems.

A classic Korean temple exterior

────────────────────────────

5. The Uncomfortable Truth

Seen through Western eyes, much of Korea’s “heritage” would be classed as reconstruction or replica.
Yet Korea defines authenticity differently - continuity of craft and meaning over material survival.

────────────────────────────

6. Where It Gets Problematic

Use of modern composite materials in “traditional” buildings creates tension:
• Acceptable - traditional techniques, natural materials.
• Debatable - hidden reinforcement.
• Questionable - concrete framed façades.
• Unacceptable - theme-park replicas.

Gyeongju’s newer projects lean toward the questionable: rapid, cheap, and hollow.

────────────────────────────

7. Does It Matter?

For historians and architects, yes - truth and provenance matter.
For most visitors, a convincing reconstruction can still evoke awe.
For Koreans, the living practice outweighs the original material.

────────────────────────────

8. A Clash of Philosophies

Western conservation values honesty of material and visible age.
Korea values continuity of form and cultural use.
Neither is wrong - but failing to explain the difference confuses outsiders.

──────────────────────────────

9. What Remains Authentic in Gyeongju

• Seokguram Grotto - 8th century, original structure under glass.
• Cheomseongdae Observatory - genuine 7th century stone tower.
• Royal Tumuli -  original earth mounds, interiors reconstructed.
• Anapji Pond -  partial original stonework.

Everything else: largely modern reconstruction.

────────────────────────────

10. The Eunpyeong Problem

Eunpyeong Hanok Village (2014 - 15) is luxury housing in disguise -
wide streets, composite gates, no historic core.
It markets nostalgia without authenticity.

These photos s.10 s.12 emphasise human-scale architecture and narrow lanes.

These show a modern “traditional style” development (luxury hanok-style housing) and a wide road through a heritage zone ! illustrating the contradiction.

────────────────────────────

11. Authentic vs Fake “Traditional” in Korea

Legitimate: Bukchon, Jeonju, and Namsangol Hanok Villages - all preserve historical layouts.
Fake: Eunpyeong and several Gyeongju sites - built for cars, not people.

────────────────────────────

12. The Scale Problem

Traditional Korea: narrow lanes, courtyards, walking pace.
Modern heritage: highways, parking lots, tourist grids.
Authentic form placed in inauthentic space.

A narrow lane in a hanok village (traditional Korean house district)

────────────────────────────

13. Why This Happens

1. Tourism industrialisation - bus access dominates.
2. Real-estate capitalism - “traditional” becomes a lifestyle brand.
3. Loss of spatial literacy - planners ignore human scale.
4. National pride optics - wide boulevards seen as modern prestige.

────────────────────────────

14. Gyeongju’s Specific Failure

Gyeongju today functions as an archaeological park built for vehicles.
The buildings remain, but the living city - its connective tissue - has vanished.

────────────────────────────

15. The Hidden Hierarchy of Conservation

1. Building form and aesthetics
2. Cultural meaning
3. Construction technique
4. Original materials
5. Spatial relationships (rarely)
6. Urban context (usually destroyed)

Rooflines are preserved while the context beneath them is erased.

────────────────────────────

16. Why Scale Matters

Traditional hanok villages offered intimacy and rhythm.
Modern “hanok” estates offer exposure and noise.
Scale, not just material, defines authenticity.

────────────────────────────

17. Composite Materials — The Cheap Shortcut

Real wood gates: ₩5 million and maintenance.
Composite gates: ₩800 k and none.
Authenticity traded for cost and convenience.

────────────────────────────

18. Where Authenticity Survives

In Seoul: Changdeokgung Secret Garden, Seochon, and Inwangsan shrines.
Beyond Seoul: Hahoe and Yangdong Villages, Seonunsa Temple.
These endure through remoteness and modest tourism pressure.

────────────────────────────

19. Gyeongju and Nara Compared

Nara, Japan, preserved pedestrian scale and hidden infrastructure.
Gyeongju prioritised car access.
The buildings may look authentic, but the soul of the city has gone.

────────────────────────────

20. The Broader Contradiction

Korea claims to value tradition yet often destroys the spatial context that gives it meaning.
Architects see space; planners see traffic flow.
The six-lane road through a UNESCO site says it all.

────────────────────────────

21. Conclusion

Korea’s heritage model excels at surface beauty but fails in spatial authenticity.
It preserves the look of tradition while losing its spirit -
heritage as theatre: convincing from afar, hollow up close.

─────────────────────────────