In order to draw on international experience, and to open up future channels for international cooperation and information, the CCPD has invited Dr. Jiri Sramek of Czechoslovakia to come to Taiwan to present an intensive seminar and to do field research. Dr. Sramek is director of the State Institute for Restoration in Czechoslovakia, and now serves as a member of the Acropolis preservation technical team of UNESCO.

Sramek, who has a high international scholarly reputation in the field of stone preservation technology, and has studied the preservation of wood materials and analysis of the deterioration of architecture and paintings, was chosen in 1988 by ICOMOS as one of the world's 17 most outstanding people in the preservation of cultural assets. On this trip to Taiwan, he graciously agreed to an interview with Sinorama, and spoke about the idea of global cultural asset preservation, the Czech experience in preserving cultural artifacts, and the artifacts he was able to visit in Taiwan.

Below is an edited version of the interview.

Giving importance to artifacts is the consensus of the whole people:

Q: Some say that the world's artifacts have suffered great destruction in the last half century because of economic development. Taiwan is an example, but even Western Europe is not exempt. But Prague and Budapest in Eastern Europe have, given the stagnation of economic growth, become the most beautiful cities in the world. Do you agree with this viewpoint?

A: The answer is a little bit broader. Czechoslovakia or Czechs were ruled for 300 years by the Austrian-Hapsburg monarchy. Last century the Czechs gained new self-confidence. Of course they wanted to be again independent, and this brought a quite common approach to the monuments among people, because they were aware that to be a nation means having all the attributes of a nation including the monuments. Therefore already in the last century there was a very good approach to monuments among the general public. For example, our people themselves, even very poor people, put up money to build a national museum and national theater in Prague. It is well known the money was collected among almost everybody. Since then, the attitude of people in our country has been very good.

"The only advantage" of the communist system:

But the lack of money, which definitely did exist under Communism, didn't prevent big damage to monuments. It was something like the Cultural Revolution in Red China; what happened in the last forty years never happened before in all Czech history. All the small monuments--generally monuments in the country, the small churches, the small castles--were, well I cannot say destroyed, but they were not well maintained. But people were always aware of it and sometimes even against the government -- especially with regard to churches--they would reconstruct the monument by themselves. So I think part of the success comes from the attitude of the general public toward monuments.

Of course, there is some truth in what you just said. In our country, the only advantage of the communist system was that no new big buildings, modern buildings, were built up after the Second World War in the center of the city. That happened in all Western countries. So it is an advantage. On the other hand, many things were somewhat damaged due to the same system. But sometimes disadvantages appear afterwards as advantages, and I am deeply convinced that the experience of our nation during the past forty years will turn to our advantage, because we know how to struggle, and how to fight for something. I think we have a future, even a future in monuments. I can assure you that if we just have enough financial means, Czechoslovakia will be a world paradise as far as monuments are concerned.

Behind the Lin Gardens:

Q: Besides holding an intensive seminar, these past few days you have gone to Taipei, Lukang, and other places to see cultural artifacts. Based on your long experience in cultural resource preservation, what's your "diagnosis"?

A: Firstly, I still haven't visited much in Taiwan. I have only visited a few monuments, so to make some general conclusion wouldn't be possible at this point. But anyway I'll give you some impressions, not only from what I have seen but also what I was told.

I feel that there is the lack of a center or institution that would be involved and actually could direct the care of monuments from a complex point of view. This means care from the very beginning--from the study to determine whether something is a monument up to the technical preservation, restoration or conservation of the monument. Of course, this is the whole and complex problem of this field. You can't give a complete diagnosis in just a few sentences because the care of monuments is a kind of science and it has all the attributes of science. It is an interdisciplinary science, and this is why also it has to be concentrated in one place such as an institute.

I think that Lin Gardens [a Chinese garden in Panchiao, a suburb of Taipei] showed to me that there is definitely a lack of some general approach to monuments and to the sites on which they are located. It was quite easily seen that just behind the wall of such a nice garden ugly buildings had been put up. The protection of monuments, to repeat, is a very complex thing, and you always have to take into account the overall surroundings. Also, from what I saw of detail work, I have a feeling that perhaps the general knowledge of craftsmen who are doing restoration could be improved. It is perhaps another problem of Taiwan that there are no special training courses nor any high school education in the field. Some mistakes and errors could be avoided if there were.

Revitalizing old temples:

I must say that I also felt a lack of international activity. Sometimes I found that quite generally known things were not known here.

Now I understand this is related to the position of Taiwan in the world. But in my opinion UNESCO or other nongovernmental bodies don't care about politics because their main responsibility is the world's heritage--and you cannot divide the world by political systems because there is only one world heritage. From that point of view I think that there shouldn't be a problem for Taiwan to be officially accepted into all these bodies; but I have to say that this is just my personal opinion.

Of course I also had some very beautiful experiences. For example, the Lungshan Temple in Lukang could be listed as a world class artifact. The quality of the construction, the interior environment, and the primitive construction have all been preserved rather well. In particular, having National Heritage Award winner Wang Kun-shan's nan-kuan troupe inside gave the old temple real vitality; I really loved that.

Building a craftsman training system:

Q: Can you tell us about the situation with regard to preservation of cultural assets in Czechoslovakia today, and especially about education in this area?

A: Czechoslovakia began artifact preservation in the middle of the 19th century, and it has been going on systematically for over 100 years. Currently more than three million movable cultural artifacts like paintings and sculptures are registered under the Institute for the Study of Cultural Resources. There are more than 300,000 fixed locations like castles or churches. Four cities including Prague have even been included in the UNESCO list of cultural assets.

In terms of education, in Czechoslovakia even the basic craftsmen have to pass special courses, because, for example, wood in historical monuments is different from wood in modern furniture, and it is necessary to learn about this. At least this is our experience in our country. These craftsmen have to pass special courses. Also at the secondary school level there are several schools, which mostly specialize by materials. For example, a school whose main course is textiles also offers a class on the restoration of textiles. The same goes for ceramics or glass or metal and so on. Some restorators are graduates of universities. We have universities of fine arts and universities of applied arts. Fine arts is painting and sculpture and applied arts is stone, metal, handicrafts, furniture and so on. I think that the high level of our field is due to quite a good educational system.

Interface of technology and historical objects:

Q: Taiwan is currently planning to set up a center for the study of cultural assets. In your experience, how many and what kind of specialists should be employed?

A: The institutions of this kind with which I am generally familiar have between 100 and 150 people. In such an institution, there must always be art historians, historians, and architects in the field of preservation and in the field of the study of monuments. There must be some scientists like chemists, biologists, microbiologists and so on, who evaluate or assess the state of material, so they can say what materials are composed of. Also, they can date the objects and they can also evaluate the state of deterioration: they have to be able to state which processes led to the deterioration because only by knowing those processes fully can you develop a technique that will stop them.

For example, in 1987 the World Monument Fund called on the whole world to save the stone statues on Easter Island. The statues, made mostly of volcanic rock, had suffered severe damage from salt water, crystallized salt, and wind erosion. To achieve this they even got together with ICCROM to hold an artifacts preservation competition. Together with a Japanese specialist T. Nishiura, we suggested using a krypton 86 scanning method. On the one hand this increased the resistance to erosion, and on the other served as an indicator of the degree of erosion.

Cultural preservation's iron triangle:

Conservation and preservation is an interdisciplinary science, as I noted, and both of the above groups must closely collaborate with conservators and restorers who do the practical work. It is well known that only this triangle can bring success. As for proportions, it depends. If the institute is more oriented to the prese that requires the proclaiming of an object as a monument or making the rules and regulations for the site, and so on. So there should be more architects, historians, and art historians. When the institute is more oriented to the practical conservation of the monuments, of course it should be mostly devoted to studios--that is conservation and restoration studios. These are in general divided by material--a painting studio, a stone conservation studio . . . . But again because it is interdisciplinary, all the fields must be represented in such an institution.

Q: Your Easter Island example makes me curious, because besides Han Chinese people, Taiwan also has many aboriginal people, and archaeological studies suggest that Taiwan is the earliest base for the people of this south Pacific island linguistic group. Do you think there are any special cultural items in Taiwan that might be chosen as part of the "heritage of mankind"? What conditions are there to become such a cultural asset?

A: It's a very simple answer. There are many attributes that make an object a monument: it's art historical value, its historical value, its technical value, but also its national value. Because this is what makes a nation. It is with such a national heritage that the nation grows up. And UNESCO doesn't mean just to list the ancient monuments. As I noticed yesterday, the first record sent into space is also a monument--and that comes from the 1950's. And in the same way, each nation has something so important for it that even from a recent point of view it could be proclaimed as a monument and could be put on the list of UNESCO monuments. For example in my country, three years ago all the change occurred. And in the very place where the students faced the police, there is a very modest plaque, but I think that it is perhaps the most important point for our modern history. Of course I shouldn't ask UNESCO to put this into the UNESCO list, but going back to Taiwan, it is a country rich in history, and definitely there is something that should be taken into account in the world heritage and from that point of view put on the UNESCO list.

[Picture Caption]

Jiri Sramek, a Czech expert in the preservation of historical artifacts, says that it is the two factors of a common consensus among all the people and the lack of economic growth under communism that have enabled Prague to avoid modernization and become the most beautiful city in the world. (photo by Pu Hua-chih)

The key locations and records of the events of modern history are tomorrow's historical artifacts. The photo is of a memorial for the martyrs of the "Prague Spring" by the people of Czechoslovakia after the "velvet revolution." (photo by Arthur Cheng)

The Lungshan Temple in Lukang is simple and elegant, and has the makings of an international level historical artifact. (photo by Arthur Cheng)

A nan-kuan troupe gives the old building new vitality. The photo is of National Heritage Award winner Wang Kun-shan and Dr. Jiri Sramek. (photocourtesy of Yen Ya-ning)

It's hard to reconcile artifacts with rapid economic growth: Behind the lovely Lin Gardens there are haphazardly built modern apartments. (photo by Pu Hua-chih)

The key locations and records of the events of modern history are tomorrow's historical artifacts. The photo is of a memorial for the martyrs of the "Prague Spring" by the people of Czechoslovakia after the "velvet revolution." （photo by Arthur Cheng）

The Lungshan Temple in Lukang is simple and elegant, and has the makings of an international level historical artifact. （photo by Arthur Cheng）

A nan-kuan troupe gives the old building new vitality. The photo is of National Heritage Award winner Wang Kun-shan and Dr. Jiri Sramek. （photocourtesy of Yen Ya-ning）

It's hard to reconcile artifacts with rapid economic growth: Behind the lovely Lin Gardens there are haphazardly built modern apartments. （photo by Pu Hua-chih）