The most impressive concept I have read is ‘disappearance’ and ‘preservation’. Before reading, the word ‘disappearance’ was just ‘something is missing. However, when I have read the examples in the reading, I changed my mind. In the book example, disappearance represents changing the use of a building to another, which changes the building from military use to a museum. In the example Flagstaff House, the building was originally for British military use. For instance, it was the headquarters of the British military or a residence for the commander of the British forces. However, now it is totally different. It becomes a museum to house a magnificent collection of Chinese teaware. It is the change of period, which was previously a colonial space. Also, Hong Kong now become the financial center, which is a great place to show the Chinese culture. However, the building has still preserved its original appearance. Only the function of the building has changed.
CHEN Chi
UID: 3035835650
I appreciate your description of Flagstaff House as an example to support the idea of how disappearance is not always literal and physical. Besides describing the preservation of its appearance and subsequent changes to its function, why do you think this particular building was given such a treatment, and what are the possible implications when it comes to the broader topic of collective and historical memory?