Across the post-colonial chronology, the cityscape of Hong Kong is homogeneous to another generic metropolis. Abbas suggested an identity crises within ourselves, which we’ve struggled from properly, then selectively, preserve our past; the city is overexposed and oversaturated beyond the scope of vernacular and communal memory. The culture of Hong Kong, whose appearance is accompanied by a sense of the imminence of its disappearance, and the cause of its emergence, 1997, may also be the cause of its demise.
In fact, Hong Kong is hyper dependent to what others define it to be, as much as the beyond inclusivity of various styles and cultures, the city fails to link itself to the retrospective memories, contingent present and the spaces within. There is a mixed composition of real, surreal and hyperreal within the city, then, refers to the idea of Merely Local, Placeless, and anonymous that’ve been discussed during the tutorial session. In the end, there still exists paradox on the proper to decipher and interpret the city’s genetics and prospects. What we’re confronting, either hyper density or generic high-rise from post modern by-products, kills the vernacular organics of our urban landscape; however, without these substances that we all rely on, Hong Kong would again be ruined. And that is why, Hong Kong has always been hyperdependent, else wise, always anonymous.
Bryan Wong Hon Ting 3035574983
Great effort in summarizing Abbas’ argument on cultural disappearance, very well-articulated!