The disappearance of architecture in Hong Kong due to different representations, preservations and more is discussed. Abbas believes that films in Hong Kong causes reappearance in architecture, from the rebuilding of Repulse Bay Hotel due to a film set to Hong Kong directors portraying Hong Kong stories with spatial characters from Hong Kong. To me, the identity and history of a place is usually determined by whoever is in power, like how the “placeless” buildings in Hong Kong are actually the most vocal but lacks identity. Perhaps art forms including film is a way for ordinary citizens to give our own cultural identity a reappearance. Local films and art are actually getting a reappearance in Hong Kong due to increased awareness on local creators and wanting to support them. I hope with the mass support of people in Hong Kong, Hong Kong’s identity and culture can make a strong reappearance.
Hoi Ching, Liu 3035820291
You show a good understanding of Abbas’ text. I am hoping that you could elaborate your keypoints more so that they are more convincing. For instance, you could give more examples to support your point on how film causes reappearance, and how those in power could control the history of a place. Moreover, you stress a lot on ‘reappearance’, but what is disappeared? Or, what is the difference between reappearance or appearance?