sustainability

Article Reassembling Heritage after the Disaster: On the Sungnyemun Debate in

Seunghan Paek 1 and Dai Whan An 2,* 1 School of Architecture, Catholic Kwandong University, Gangneung 25601, Korea; [email protected] 2 Department of Architecture, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju 28644, Korea * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +82-43-261-2434

 Received: 9 March 2020; Accepted: 30 April 2020; Published: 11 May 2020 

Abstract: This article explores the changing values of heritage in an era saturated by an excess of media coverage in various settings and also threatened by either natural or manmade disasters that constantly take place around the world. In doing so, we focus on discussing one specific case: the debate surrounding the identification of Sungnyemun as the number one national treasure in South Korea. Sungnyemun, which was first constructed in 1396 as the south gate of the walled city , is the country’s most acknowledged cultural heritage that is supposed to represent the national identity in the most authentic way, but its value was suddenly questioned through a nationwide debate after an unexpected fire. While the debate has been silenced after its ostensibly successful restoration conducted by the Cultural Heritage Administration in 2013, this article argues that the incident is a prime example illustrating how the once venerated heritage is reassembled through an entanglement of various agents and their affective engagements. Methodologically speaking, this article aims to read Sungnyemun in reference to the growing scholarship of actor-network theory (ANT) and the studies of heritage in the post-disaster era through which to explore what heritage means to us at the present time. Our synchronic approach to Sungnyemun encourages us to investigate how the once-stable monument becomes a field where material interventions and affective engagements of various agents release its public meanings in new ways.

Keywords: assemblage; heritage; disaster; actor-network theory; affect; Sungnyemun; South Korea

1. Introduction In this article, we explore how heritage becomes entangled with disasters and thus brings forth new layers of meaning that are not so much derived from a set of preestablished criteria but rather emerge through an assemblage of both human and nonhuman agents, material and immaterial forces and intensities. In doing so, we conduct one case study: the unexpected arson of Sungnyemun (ÕüæYVëH; 崇禮門), one of the most significant heritage sites in South Korea, which has been designated as the number one national treasure (kukbo; 國寶) in 1962 (Figures1 and2). The primary materials that we analyze include a set of debates dealing with its identification as national treasure and related images taken before, during and after the fire. This investigation also enables us to examine how heritage damaged by disasters, either natural or manmade, could bring forth senses of community which encourage us to rethink the values of heritage from multiple perspectives in resonance to changing worldly atmospheres and technicalities. Sungnyemun is one of the eight gates displaced surrounding the castle city, and has functioned as the south gate of Seoul that was constructed in 1396, which is two years before the establishment of Dynasty (1398–1910). Those eight gates were connected to each other by a circular continuous wall, and are usually grouped by four main gates and four smaller ones, respectively, according to their significance and size. Sungnyemun is one of the four main gates, and the others include

Sustainability 2020, 12, 3903; doi:10.3390/su12093903 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2020, 12, 3903 2 of 17

Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 17 (興仁之門) in the east (also called Dongdaemun), (敦義門) in the west, and Sukjeongmun include Heunginjimun (興仁之門) in the east (also called Dongdaemun), Donuimun (敦義門) in the west, (肅靖門) in the north of the city. Sungnyemun was the most important entry point to the city, which is and Sukjeongmun (肅靖門) in the north of the city. Sungnyemun was the most important entry point to also a symbolical axis connected to Palace (景福宮) that was the primary administrative the city, which is also a symbolical axis connected to Gyeongbokgung Palace (景福宮) that was the place of the Dynasty. primary administrative place of the Dynasty.

FigureFigure 1. Sungnyemun 1. Sungnyemunand and its its surrounding surrounding landscape landscape before before th thee 2008 2008 arson arson (Source: (Source: Jung Jung Gu of Gu Seoul of Seoul and authorand author edited) edited) [1]. [1].

Figure 2. The restored setting of Sungnyemun after the arson (Source: Cultural Heritage FigureFigure 2. The 2. restored The restored setting ofsettingSungnyemun of Sungnyemunafter the arsonafter the (Source: arson Cultural (Source: Heritage Cultural Administration Heritage Administration and author edited) [2]. and authorAdministration edited) [and2]. author edited) [2]. Structurally speaking, Sungnyemun consists of upper and lower parts. The lower part is StructurallyStructurally speaking, speaking,Sungnyemun Sungnyemunconsists consists of upper of upper and lowerand lower parts. parts. The lowerThe lower part ispart connected is connected to the surrounding walls and has a vaulted gate at the center; and the upper part consists to the surrounding walls and has a vaulted gate at the center; and the upper part consists of a timber of a timber gatehouse of five bays in the front and two bays on the side [3]. However, as the city was gatehouse of five bays in the front and two bays on the side [3]. However, as the city was severely severely damaged during the Japanese occupation (1910–1945), Sungnyemun as part of the continuous damagedwall became during compartmentalized the Japanese occupation as if it were (1910–1945), an isolatedSungnyemun object. While asSungnyemun part of the had continuous long been wall becameconsidered compartmentalized the number asone if national it were an treasure isolated desp object.ite its While devastationSungnyemun duringhad colonialism, long been another considered the numberdisastrous one event national took place treasure which despite ultimately its devastation urged to rethink during its value colonialism, in toto. It another is an arson disastrous instigated event took placeby a man which named ultimately Chae urgedChong-gi to rethinkon 10 February its value 2008. in toto. The It arson is an arsondestroyed instigated 90% of by the a mantimber named Chaegatehouse Chong-gi and on 10% 10 February of the lower 2008. stone The structure arson destroyed[2]. The repair 90% process of the was timber immediately gatehouse executed, and 10% of but the incident also instigated a nationwide debate as to whether or not the restored gate should still the lowerbut the stone incident structure also instigated [2]. The a nationwide repair process debate was as to immediately whether or not executed, the restored but gate the should incident still also be considered the country’s number one national treasure (Figures 3 and 4). instigatedbe considered a nationwide the country’s debate number as to whether one national or not treasure the restored (Figures gate3 and should4). still be considered the Through an in-depth investigation of the debates and the related materials that unfolded during country’s number one national treasure (Figures3 and4). and after the arson, we aim to explore the shifting value of heritage in an era in which a diverse range Through an in-depth investigation of the debates and the related materials that unfolded during of media prevail. What we mean by “media” is defined in a broad sense, which includes apparatuses and aftermediating the arson, the domains we aim that to are explore both human the shiftingand nonhuman, value ofas well heritage as the in strata an eraof the in everyday which a that diverse rangeare of both media bodily-oriented prevail. What and wevirtual. mean While by the “media” Internet is and defined social innetwork a broad services sense, (SNS) which are includesone apparatuseskind of media mediating enabling the domainsus to have that synchronous are both humanexperience and of nonhuman, everyday incidents, as well asone the still strata finds of the everydaymaterial that evidence are both such bodily-oriented as administrative and documents virtual. While and printed the Internet photographs and social useful. network In addition, services (SNS)we are also one pay kind attention of media to other enabling sorts of technical us to have media synchronous such as survey experience reports, 3D ofscan everyday data, and incidents, BIM (Building Information Modeling), which help to reconstruct a given heritage’s idea and its physical one still(Building finds materialInformation evidence Modeling), such which as administrative help to reconstruct documents a given heritage’s and printed ideaphotographs and its physical useful. structure with precision. Using such media for our investigation of Sungnyemun is important, because In addition,structure we with also precision. pay attention Using tosuch other media sorts for ofour technical investigation media of suchSungnyemun as survey is important, reports, 3D because scan data, judging the value of a heritage that is materially grounded, often designated as “tangible cultural and BIM (Building Information Modeling), which help to reconstruct a given heritage’s idea and its property”, is not entirely based on its historical features but also considers present conditions and physical structure with precision. Using such media for our investigation of Sungnyemun is important, situations, which may be subject to frequent changes. Sungnyemun is a monument standing at the becausecenter judging of the Seoul the value metropolis. of a heritage Its surrounding that is features materially such grounded, as skyscrapers, often roadside designated buildings, as “tangible and culturalother property”, infrastructural is not elements entirely such based as roads, on its electric historical poles, features billboards, but alsoand neon considers signs are present also factors conditions and situations,to consider whichin establishing may be its subject value toin frequentthe urbanchanges. context. TheSungnyemun gate is alsois a amnemonic monument apparatus standing at the center of the Seoul metropolis. Its surrounding features such as skyscrapers, roadside buildings, and other infrastructural elements such as roads, electric poles, billboards, and neon signs are also factors to consider in establishing its value in the urban context. The gate is also a mnemonic apparatus Sustainability 2020, 12, 3903 3 of 17

Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 17 remindingreminding Korean Korean citizens citizens of theof the establishment establishment of of the the Joseon Joseon Dynasty, Dynasty, its its colonization colonization byby JapanJapan in early 20thearly century, 20thSustainability the century, civil 2020 war, the12, x civilFOR (1950–1953), PEER war REVIEW (1950–1953),and the and subsequent the subsequent modernization modernization processes processes from3 offrom the17 the 1960s to the end1960s of to the the century, end of the all ofcentury, which all evoke of which their evoke nationalist their nationalist sentiments sentiments or at least or at off leaster some offer groundssome to reminding Korean citizens of the establishment of the Joseon Dynasty, its colonization by Japan in speculategrounds on theto speculate open relationship on the open between relationship individuals between and individuals the nation and to whichthe nation they to belong which in they one way early 20th century, the civil war (1950–1953), and the subsequent modernization processes from the belong in one way or another. An individual encountering a heritage resource in the present time or another.1960s An to individual the end of the encountering century, all of which a heritage evoke their resource nationalist in the sentiments present or time at least does offer not some necessarily sharedoes the not samegrounds necessarily kind to speculate of experience share on the the same asopen was kind relationship in of the experi past. beencetween However, as individuals was in would the and past. itthe mean However, nation that to whichwould such anthey it experiencemean that such an experience is less authentic than that in the past? Put differently, is our experience of is less authenticbelong in than one thatway inor another. the past? An Putindividual differently, encountering is our a experienceheritage resource of Sungnyemun in the present lesstime authentic Sungnyemundoes not less necessarily authentic share compared the same tokind the of one experi thatence occurred as was inwhen the past. the However,structure wouldwas new it mean in 1396? compared to the one that occurred when the structure was new in 1396? We claim that it is not always We claimthat thatsuch it an is experiencenot always is theless case. authentic We do than not that mean in the to past?devalue Put thedifferently, originality is our of experienceheritage, insteadof the case.claiming WeSungnyemun dothat not judging mean less authentic tothe devalue value compared theof originalityheritage to the one in that ofeveryday occurred heritage, whenlife instead inevitablythe structure claiming requires was that new judging intaking 1396? theinto value of heritageconsiderationWe in claim everyday its that changing it is life not inevitably always nature the (ICOMOS, case. requires We do 1994) taking not mean [4]. into to devalue consideration the originality its changing of heritage, nature instead (ICOMOS, 1994) [4]. claiming that judging the value of heritage in everyday life inevitably requires taking into consideration its changing nature (ICOMOS, 1994) [4].

Figure 3. The plan of Sungnyemun published in the 2006 survey report (Source: Jung Gu of Seoul and Figure 3. The plan of Sungnyemun published in the 2006 survey report (Source: Jung Gu of Seoul and Figureauthor 3. The edited) plan of [1] Sungnyemun. published in the 2006 survey report (Source: Jung Gu of Seoul and authorauthor edited) edited) [1]. [1].

Figure 4. The plan of the restored Sungnyemun after the fire published in the 2013 survey report (Source: Cultural Heritage Administration and author edited) [2]. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3903 4 of 17

Paying attention to the changeability of heritage encourages us to take disasters not just as destructive events in a negative sense but as something that influences its perpetual reestablishments in relation to incidents that are beyond instrumental approaches to the heritage. Here, the term “post-disaster” is understood as a state of disequilibrium, an unstable but hopeful situation, and also a possibility of rethinking familiar things, which becomes public debates and private interactions taking place on both online and offline spaces [5]. Meanwhile, as Tomasz Jele´nskinotes in the contexts of postwar Europe, “resilience” is another term explaining how heritages in post-disaster situations could be moments of rebuilding “traditional images of cities after their mutilation in disastrous events” [6]. Jele´nski’sway of seeing heritage is not unusual, as several heritage studies highlight the interactivity and openness of heritage, as well as the affectivity that arises in post-disaster situations, some of which are reviewed in this article. In analyzing the politics behind the reconstruction of the Royal Castle in the postwar Warsaw, Poland, Ewa Klekot claims that the construction of a monument does not simply end up with its material establishment but is rather “a continuous process carried out via” various forms of practice performed by administrators, architects, visitors, and other agents [7]. In a similar vein, Trinidad Rico notes that reconstructing damaged heritages after disasters deals with contemporary concerns over their authenticities already established. Analyzing the “post-tsunami reconstructions in Banda Aceh, Indonesia, between the years of 2006 and 2011”, Rico argues that concerns with the future wellbeing of the damaged heritage challenge the essentialist viewpoints on heritage and thus bring forth new values that unfold through continual documentations and communications [8]. The kind of value would include not only projects instituted by governments but also a number of disparate “plaques” inscribed with messages such as “Thank You” and “Peace” that are located on a public square within the site [8]. What is highlighted in such an “expanded assemblage of commemoration efforts”, as Rico nicely described it, is “affective atmospheres” as Palu Cloke and David Conradson address on a similar occasion, a series of earthquakes that took place in the city of Christchurch, New Zealand, from 2010 to 2011. They focus on discussing how artists and other members of the community affectively engage with each other in order to generate shared senses of being together, which would challenge those who tend to consider post-disaster recovery simply as a “material and measurable” project [9]. In the meantime, endeavors of generating affective atmospheres become more important in Asian countries such as Japan, China, and South Korea where “materiality is [fundamentally] impermanent” (i.e., heritage structures constructed from wood that is highly susceptible to fire) [10,11]. In exploring the shifting values of heritage in the post-disaster era especially in the East Asian contexts, we propose to conduct the following three bodies of work. The first is to review the key tenets of Bruno Latour’s actor-network theory (ANT), and explore how the theory is still helpful for us to reconceptualize heritage in new ways. Second, we investigate the historiography of Sungnyemun, in particular focusing on analyzing the debates that address how the historic gate should be restored and reconceptualized after the 2008 fire. Our investigation is not merely a historical survey but an attempt to explore its multiple dimensions which bring forth an assemblage consisting of interventions made from the top, bottom and virtually anywhere in differing rhythms and intensities. Third, we go further by attempting to interpret Sungnyemun through a comparative analysis of two crucial survey reports and associated photographs illustrating the structure before, during, and after the 2008 incident, which enables us to explore how the seemingly stable monument put on a pedestal could open up meanings that are fundamentally generative and interactive.

2. Rethinking Heritage through ANT One of the key aspects to understand ANT is the term “actant”, which is equivalent to “actor” but not limited to humans. In defining the term, Latour introduces the example of a “speed bump” that is used to restrict vehicle speed. The following paragraph shows how he understands speed bump as a threshold to explore an actor-networked world: Sustainability 2020, 12, 3903 5 of 17

“In artifacts and technologies we do not find the efficiency and stubbornness of matter, imprinting chains of cause and effect onto malleable humans. The speed bump is ultimately not made of matter; it is full of engineers and chancellors and lawmakers, commingling their wills and their story lines with those of gravel, concrete, paint, and standard calculations. The mediation, the technical translation, that I am trying to understand resides in the blind spot in which society and matter exchange properties”. [12]

Reminding that a speed bump is often called a “sleeping policeman” in French culture (also in UK and US), Latour suggests how this ostensibly tiny infrastructural element could instigate a social network [12]. The speed bump does not so much directly instruct actions but rather induces a mode of spatial cognition and behavior through a mnemonic technique. It manifests itself through apparatuses such as colored asphalt patterns on the ground and a “slow your speed” sign, which illustrate how a disciplinary system is materially inscribed. The speed bump is a bureaucratic mediator in the sense that it prevents possible accidents and accommodates a nation’s social sustainability. However, one cannot simply assume that those driving automobiles or bicycles would all follow it in the same manner. While someone perceives a speed limit of 10 km/h by looking at the sign properly, some others might pass it through by driving at over 30 km/h. In the latter case, the disciplinary system mediating speed bump is encountered in a rather unexpected way, which offers a way to investigate the disparity between a nation that establishes a rule and individuals who follow it in various situations. If the action of a driver who crosses it at 10 km/h is a normative kind, crossing it at 30 km/h is, according to Latour, “another kind of expression” responding to a given rule. It is difficult to set up a pre-established hierarchy between these two, and a society established according to myriad actions and events is similar to “what is glued together by many other types of connectors” put under the state of fragmentation and fluidity [12,13] (italic original). Latour’s concept (ANT) is a good avenue to rethink the instability of system, discipline, and any kind of thing comprising the world, which is not unrelated to the concept of heritage that we aim to elaborate. According to Julia Bennett who investigates the meaning of place at Bickerton Hill (UK), “ANT provides a flat surface on which to draw out the different themes of the story” [14]. She lists up a range of human and nonhuman agencies in analyzing the hill, which includes “The National Trust, government departments and agencies, big weeds [played here by birch trees], various wild, farmed and domestic animals” [14,15]. When residents participating in a meeting held for the preservation of the hill claim that “[t]he trees also ‘speak up’”, it means their attitude that is attentive more to the entanglement of nature and culture, and human and nonhuman things than the clear-cut separation between them [14]. According to Bennett who applies ANT to her own research, Bickerton Hill is a material to be implemented for project and also a source of nostalgia for the residents. She calls such an unstable entity consisting of thoughts, feelings, actions, and events “heterogeneous assemblages” [14]. Her conception of assemblage reflects a worldview of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, which is similarly detected in the work of Matthew J. Hill who analyzes the Plaza Vieja of Havana. Claiming the notions of “heritage as a ‘mediator’” and “heritage assemblage”, Hill understands heritage not as a mere collection of disparate relics and historic sites but as a resilient field where things are perpetually reassembled and release differing spatiotemporal dimensions. The project’s long-term delay due to the conflicts of opinion between stakeholders moves on and generates unexpected results through the “chain of permissions and refusals, alliances and losses” [16,17]. Meanwhile, Chin-Ee Ong brings a rhizomatic way of thinking into the practice of heritage through his definition of “heritage-scene”. The term “rhizomatic”, also derived from the work of Deleuze and Guattari, means a non-hierarchical, groundless but consistent mode of being, in ways to imbricate more instable but flexible relationships with things scattered around the world. Ong does not distinguish culture from nature that is characterized by its complex network made up of tiny organs. According to him, “heritage-scene” is “an amalgam of inspirations, interactions and negotiations between objects and ideas, stuff and mind and between the community which foment and forge the ritual, performance and objects and their various stakeholders” [18]. In articulating the value of intangible cultural asset such Sustainability 2020, 12, 3903 6 of 17 as a coffee artisan who has worked in the Georgetown area of Malaysia, he proposes to consider all the elements including coffee as raw materials, apparatuses, and places in an integrated way, which can be applied to the kinds of cultural asset that are both tangible and intangible [18,19]. The number of ANT-inspiredSustainability heritage2020, 12, x FOR studies PEER REVIEW has consistently increased in the past decade. According to6 Harrisonof 17 who summarizes such a fashion under the subheading called “Heritage, New Materialities, and New Malaysia, he proposes to consider all the elements including coffee as raw materials, apparatuses, Ontologies”, the ANT method emphasizes “on more symmetrical approaches to understanding the and places in an integrated way, which can be applied to the kinds of cultural asset that are both distributiontangible ofand di ffintangibleerent forms [18,19]. of agency The number across heterogeneousof ANT-inspired networks heritage studies which includehas consistently both human and other-than-humanincreased in the past actors” decade. [19 According]. to Harrison who summarizes such a fashion under the Onesubheading of the crucial called “Heritage, implications New derived Materialities, from theand ANT New approachOntologies”, to heritagethe ANT method studies emphasizes is that the value of heritage“on more is not symmetrical so much judgedapproaches simply to understanding based on a set the of pre-establisheddistribution of different criteria butforms rather of agency constantly reconsideredacross heterogeneous through careful networks investigations which include and both skeptical human and attitudes, other-than-human even if such actors” a process [19]. might, as LatourOne notes, of the perform crucial on implications a “bumpy derived territory” from in the an ANT “agonizingly approach to slow” heritage manner studies [13 is]. that As culturalthe assetsvalue and of a wideheritage range is not of so cultural much judged heritages simply change based overon a set time, of pre-established there are many criteria ways but in whichrather one comesconstantly across heritage reconsidered sites through as part ofcareful our dailyinvestigations lives. While and skeptical the concept attitudes, of heritage even if cansuch be a process established might, as Latour notes, perform on a “bumpy territory” in an “agonizingly slow” manner [13]. As through the collaboration between those working with international organizations such as UNESCO cultural assets and a wide range of cultural heritages change over time, there are many ways in which and ICOMOS,one comes it across also needs heritage readjustments sites as part according of our da toily each lives. country’s While the specific concept cultural of heritage contexts. can be We are also attentiveestablished to through the disparity the collaboration between between cultural those assets working designated with international by laws and organizations their societal such values. Then,as would UNESCO it be and possible ICOMOS, to furtherit also needs speculate readjustments on the meaningsaccording to of each heritage country’s in reference specific cultural to Latour’s metaphorcontexts. of “speedWe are also bump”, attentive Rico to andthe disparity Bennett’s betw “assemblage”,een cultural assets Cloke design andated Conradson’s by laws and “atheirffective atmosphere”,societal values. and Ong’s Then, “heritage-scene”? would it be possible Looking to further at the speculate King Sejong on the monument meanings located of heritage at the in center of Seoul’sreferenceGwanghwamun to Latour’s Squaremetaphor is aof relevant “speed bump”, example Rico in thisand respect. Bennett’s “assemblage”, Cloke and WhatConradson’s makes “affective the Gwanghwamun atmosphere”,Square and peculiarOng’s “heritage-scene”? is first of all its Looking urban formation, at the King a narrowSejong and elongatedmonument spatial located form at that the center was implemented of Seoul’s Gwanghwamun during the Square administration is a relevant of example Oh Se-hoon in this asrespect. Mayor of What makes the Gwanghwamun Square peculiar is first of all its urban formation, a narrow and Seoul (2006–2011) (Figure5). The Square is located at the core of the old Seoul, once a walled city in elongated spatial form that was implemented during the administration of Oh Se-hoon as Mayor of the pre-modernSeoul (2006–2011) era; Gyeongbokgung (Figure 5). The Square Palace isis locatedlocated at at the its core north of alongsidethe old Seoul, the onceBukhan a walledmountain city in in the background;the pre-modern on its southera; Gyeongbokgung is the Palace is locatedstream, at its reinstated north alongside following the Bukhan demolition mountain of ain highway the in 2005,background; which cuts on acrossits south the is the city Cheonggyecheon on the east–west stream, axis. reinstated At the centerfollowing of thedemolition Square, of there a highway is also the monumentin 2005, ofwhich King cuts Sejong across (1397–1450) the city on the who east–west is best axis. known At the for center his contributionof the Square, tothere creating is also thehangeul , meaningmonument the “Korean of King alphabet”, Sejong (1397–1450) which symbolizes who is best one known of the for crucial his contribution components to creating of national hangeul identity, amongmeaning others. the This “Korean monument alphabet”, is which elevated symbolizes on a pedestal, one of the and crucial delivers components a substantial of national impression identity to visitorsamong due others. to its massive This monument scale and is symbolism.elevated on aHangeul pedestal,as and cultural delive heritagers a substantial is recreated impression as a material to visitors due to its massive scale and symbolism. Hangeul as cultural heritage is recreated as a material inscription representing the King Sejong who created the 28 letters of Hunminjeongeum in 1443, a book inscription representing the King Sejong who created the 28 letters of Hunminjeongeum in 1443, a book describing an entirely new system of that is still used. This highly venerated figure is describing an entirely new system of Korean language that is still used. This highly venerated figure a grandioseis a grandiose monument monument that shapesthat shapes one’s one’s bodily bodily encounters encounters within within andand around the the square square area. area.

FigureFigure 5. A 5. bird’s-eye A bird’s-eye view view of Gwanghwamunof Gwanghwamun Square Source: (Source: The The Seoul Seoul Research Research Data Data Service Service and and authorauthor edited) edited [20 [20]]. .

AnotherAnother noteworthy noteworthy point point is is that that the the monument monument is also also used used as as a popular a popular photo photo zone zone for visitors for visitors including tourists (Figure 6). Visitors can cheaply rent hanbok (meaning the traditional Korean dress) including tourists (Figure6). Visitors can cheaply rent hanbok (meaning the traditional Korean dress) under $10 for a couple hours and freely move around and take photographs by standing around the under $10 for a couple hours and freely move around and take photographs by standing around monument. However, what is equally true is that the monument is most often part of the daily the monument.cityscape or However,an object that what one is simply equally passes true by: is that this thekind monument of engagement is most brings often forth part a sense of the of daily cityscapeindifferent or an relationship object that with one the simply monument. passes One by: would this kind not also of engagement dismiss the temporary brings forth structures a sense of built alongside the lower part of the square in commemoration of the recent tragedy of the Sewol Ferry Sustainability 2020, 12, 3903 7 of 17 indifferent relationship with the monument. One would not also dismiss the temporary structures builtSustainability alongside 2020 the, 12 lower, x FOR part PEER of REVIEW the square in commemoration of the recent tragedy of the Sewol7 of 17 Ferry (2014), in which 304 people died. Those structures are located near the monument, and what happens thereafter(2014), is in the which coexistence 304 people of died. the monumentThose structures of King are located Sejong near representing the monument, Korea and as what a country happens having a deepthereafter historicity is the on coexistence the one handof the monument and the civil of Ki societyng Sejong that representing is critical Korea about as its a corruptionscountry having on the othera hand.deep historicity Such a coexistence on the one may hand simply and the be civil an undesirablesociety that is kind critical viewed about from its corruptions the perspective on the of city governorsother hand. and administratorsSuch a coexistence dealing may simply with culturalbe an undesirable heritage, kind but theviewed clash from between the perspective the contrasting of city governors and administrators dealing with cultural heritage, but the clash between the elements could also bring forth positive senses which encourage one to look back how to read given contrasting elements could also bring forth positive senses which encourage one to look back how to heritagereadin given relationship heritage in with relationship changing with moods changing and moods affects. and affects.

FigureFigure 6. The 6. The street street view view of ofGwanghwamun Gwanghwamun SquareSquare in front front of of the the King King Sejong Sejong monument monument (Source: (Source: the the authorauthor [S.P.]). [S.P.]).

ConsideringConsidering such such flexible flexible situations situations of heritage of herita andge theirand intricatetheir intricate relationships relationships with thewith dynamism the dynamism and instability of the city, we claim that heritage consists of many different things, and instability of the city, we claim that heritage consists of many different things, including concepts, including concepts, rules, gestures, affects, and a variety of practices in both material and immaterial rules, gestures, affects, and a variety of practices in both material and immaterial senses. In other senses. In other words, heritage is constantly updated and modified in relationship with a set of words,networks heritage that is are constantly formed at updated the crossroads and modified of certain in institutions’ relationship disciplinary with a set interventions of networks and that are formedvarious at the individuals’ crossroads engagements of certain institutions’with or indifferences disciplinary about interventionsthem. Inasmuch and as one various is not individuals’able to engagementsanticipate withthe kind orindi of variablesfferences influencing about them. the Inasmuchformation of as heritage one is notin adva ablence, to anticipateanything existing the kind of variablesout there influencing in the world the formation could possibly of heritage be a candidat in advance,e for considering anything existingas heritage. out In there this inrespect, the world couldlooking possibly at the be aset candidate of debates for around considering Sungnyemun as heritage. will open In up this ways respect, of speculating looking atheritage the set and of debatesits aroundaccompanyingSungnyemun “scenes”will open that up are ways simultaneously of speculating past heritage and present, and itsmaterial accompanying and discursive “scenes” which that are simultaneouslyconstitute an past expanded and present, horizon materialof meaning, and althou discursivegh such whicha horizon constitute is always an left expanded incomplete, horizon and of ready to be resettled in contact with new things. meaning, although such a horizon is always left incomplete, and ready to be resettled in contact with new things.3. Key Debates of the Sungnyemun Arson 3. Key DebatesThen, what of the areSungnyemun the specific debatesArson that have arisen around the year 2008 when the unexpected arson happened? Before investigating the details, we would like to briefly examine the administrative Then,mechanisms what for are dealing the specific with heritage debates in that Korea. have The arisen first is around the convention the year that 2008 distinguishes when the cultural unexpected arsonasset happened? from cultural Before heritage. investigating A “cultural the asset” details, is definedwe would according like to to briefly the policy examine known the as administrative“Cultural mechanismsHeritage for Protection dealing withAct (2015)”. heritage The in Korea.Act categorizes The first historically is the convention significant that things distinguishes such as culturalnational asset fromtreasure, cultural heritage.treasure, tangible/intangible A “cultural asset” iscultural defined asset, according and natural to the monument policy known according as “Cultural to a set Heritage of Protectionnumbering Act (2015)”.systems so The that Act the categorizesgovernment historicallycan control the significant type, scale, things and number such as of national each asset treasure, in treasure,systematic tangible ways./intangible Meanwhile, cultural the concept asset, of and cultural natural heritage monument is more accordinggeneric and tobroader a set ofthan numbering that of “cultural asset” relatively speaking. According to the National Institute of Korean Language, systems so that the government can control the type, scale, and number of each asset in systematic cultural heritage “includes aspects of science, technology, habit, and norm that are worth inheriting ways. Meanwhile, the concept of cultural heritage is more generic and broader than that of “cultural for next generations, various kinds of cultural assets or styles that are either spiritual or material, all asset”of relativelywhich could speaking. help establishing According the tovalues the National that could Institute be descended of Korean to the Language, society in general” cultural [21]. heritage “includesAccording aspects to this of science, definition, technology, cultural heritage, habit, andeven norm if not thatdesignated are worth according inheriting to the foraforementioned next generations, variousProtection kinds ofAct, cultural includes assets a range or of styles things that that are areeither worth spiritualprotecting or and material, preserving. all of which could help establishingHowever, the values the distinction that could between be descended cultural asset to theand societycultural inheritage general” is not [21 clearly]. According addressed, to this definition,which causes cultural continuing heritage, confusions even if not. There designated are also beliefs according that assets to the designated aforementioned some time Protection ago are Act, includesconsidered a range more of things significant that than are worthnewly protectingdesignated ones, and preserving.because the former are ranked higher than the latter in number. In addition, it is crucial to note the way that national treasure is understood, Sustainability 2020, 12, 3903 8 of 17

However, the distinction between cultural asset and cultural heritage is not clearly addressed, which causes continuing confusions. There are also beliefs that assets designated some time ago are considered more significant than newly designated ones, because the former are ranked higher than the latter in number. In addition, it is crucial to note the way that national treasure is understood, which refers to a type of cultural asset designated through the Cultural Heritage Protection Act. Article 23 of the Act (on the designation of treasure and national treasure) states that: 1. The Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration may designate important cultural heritage as treasures, following deliberation by the Cultural Heritage Committee. 2. The Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration may designate cultural heritage of great importance for humanity and without parallel in history, among treasures under paragraph (1), as national treasures, following deliberation by the Cultural Heritage Committee [22]. The above Article considers national treasure as the most significant cultural designation among others which could be applied to Sungnyemun. However, this categorization is debatable, since it implies that only “tangible” cultural properties are considered for the designation of national treasures. What was thereafter discussed among the public (after the 2008 arson of Sungnyemun as to the issue of re-designating national treasure) was an idea that (meaning the Korean alphabet) could be a new candidate. However, conceptualizing hangul is an even more complex task: it is because each one uses and understands the term “hangul” differently, upon which we discuss further below. There are three different ways of understanding hangul overall. The first is to understand it as an intangible linguistic system. Hangul as an act of speech, which is generated out of one’s pronunciation through his/her oral movement, has a long history that is, however, not fully traceable in essence. For this reason, Hangul is not designated as a cultural asset. The second is to consider hangul as an alphabet, which was created in the year 1443 specifically by King Sejong; “this” hangul is called hunminjeongeum, which is likewise not yet designated as a cultural asset. The third is to understand hangul as a book, which includes the principles of its creation and the user’s guideline. The book is called hunminjeongeum as well, which is designated as national treasure number 70 and was registered under UNESCO world heritage in 1997 (there is only one copy available of “this” hangul as a book format according to the 2008 survey). When Korean citizens argued to replace Sungnyemun as the number one national treasure with hangul, their logic is grounded on its second definition, as an alphabet. However, hangul as an intangible property cannot be a national treasure according to the existing laws. An alternative was then proposed that the third, hunminjeongeum, could be a new candidate for designation as a national treasure. However, one needs to be reminded that national treasure is not exactly the most significant heritage, since there are many culturally valuable things including intangible cultural assets and national monuments but these are simply grouped under different categorizations. There was also a suggestion that Sungnyemun’s devastation could be an opportunity to clear out the uncomfortable history with Japan, given that its nomination was first executed during the colonial period. Put differently, the idea relating Sungnyemun to the colonial past evidences a strong nationalist sentiment which is visualized through this idiosyncratic and fortuitous case. Despite all, we claim that the arson as an actant provoked a crucial opportunity in rethinking the value of heritage no matter how it is treated according to a set of administrative systems. The arson instigated the public debate within which various individuals could speak up and speculate about new ways of thinking about heritage in the present tense. The total amount of money spent for the Sungnyemun restoration is about 24 million dollars (276.6 billion won in Korean currency). Its restoration took place from February 2008 to April 2013. Its details include the restoration of gatehouse and fortresses on both left/right sides, protection against disasters, and an addition of administration building. The construction was processed in consultation with the 2006 survey report published before the arson, which featured the use of 3D scan data and also 3D laser scanning enabling restoration through virtual media. The key principle was to “restore Sungnyemun back to the conditions in the pre-colonial era and thus make it a firm landmark of Seoul, [as well as] taking care of Korean citizens’ senses of loss and self-dignity” [23]. The Cultural Heritage Administration articulated six principles to guide the restoration [23]: Sustainability 2020, 12, 3903 9 of 17

1. Restore the image of the gate before fire. 2. Make best of reusing the existing materials. 3. Restore the fortress and ground back to the original which were heavily distorted and transformed during Japanese colonialism through historic investigations and excavations. 4. Restore the structure by using traditional methods and tools as well as by encouraging specialists to participate in the process. 5. Organize a counseling team for the project which consists of specialists from the academia. 6. Let the Cultural Heritage Administration take responsibilities of financing, technical support, and construction under the central government’s direct management. Despite the fact that the project was completed according to the principles, we are attentive to the debates around Sungnyemun that are still not fully resolved. Sungnyemun was designated as the number one treasure in 1933 and as the number one national treasure in 1962 [24,25]. According to the administrative report published after the arson, “citizens and mass media were highly interested in the disastrous occurrence given its significance as the number one national treasure, although such a numbering system does not reflect the order of significance in itself” [23]. However, situations around the restoration process were not so simple and smooth, owning to a diverse set of opinions that are difficult to move toward a stable consensus. Some issues also arose during the restoration itself. The incident that Shin Eung-soo, the great carpenter who is a specialist of traditional wooden architecture and also designated as an intangible cultural asset in Korea, stole wood materials for his other projects is one fragment of the story [26]. Another case is an unbalanced use of techniques between traditional and modern, which led to a dispute as to the quality and reliability of the gate being restored [27]. Some others pointed to the fact that the destruction of so much of the upper section itself established the loss of its historic value. Debating over the importance of the amount of original remaining structure in making judgments about heritage value is also area-specific to a certain degree, by which we mean that wooden heritages produced in East Asia are fragile and short-lived, and thus the criteria that designate damaged heritages inevitably vary [4,11,28–31]. Moreover, much of the debates is not so much about the restoration process as its result. “The restoration of Sungnyemun”, notes journalist Roh Hyung-suk, “does not make the heritage as a crucial point to help remedying the deep remorse and sense of loss caused by the arson that took place five years ago, as well as putting forward a conversation with the past” [32]. What is implicit in his remark is a critical self-reflection about the recent past that several restoration projects were executed with emphasis on result instead of process. As Roh shows, what has most often been pointed out in national debates is an idea of the nation as an ethnic community, whereas the contrasting issues such as refugees and multicultural communities are relatively ignored. Although it might be an exaggeration to put such social issues and the Sungnyemun restoration on the same plane, we claim that its fire became a vital moment in revealing how strong nationalist sentiments prevail in the country, and how such sentiments guide new public projects into certain directions where senses of hospitality and sympathy are partially considered. In the meantime, we also find Codruta Cuc’s interpretation of the 2008 arson useful in further developing the public meanings of Sungnyemun sparked by someone whose nationality is other than Korean. Cuc argues that trying to research the “origin” of Korea is in fact a byproduct of the reformation era, which refers to the Park Chung-hee administration (1961–1979). According to Cuc, Park’s development strategy that resulted in the compressed modernization process over these decades helped to bring forth an invented tradition, which is a collective identity that can be represented by a phrase such as “we are one” (ulineun hanaya), referring, for example, to the temporary unification of north and south soccer teams prepared for the Olympic Games. The same logic holds true for the case of Sungnyemun [33]. What is worth noticing in Cuc’s argument is an idea that tries to overcome the crude binaries between good and bad, or agreement and disagreement, since her theory identifies that there was no such thing as an ethnically homogeneous nation that the Park regime emphasized, which is no more than a byproduct of bureaucratic and also Confucianism-inspired modernity, and perhaps Sustainability 2020, 12, 3903 10 of 17 biopower that was coined as a way to psychologically cope with the postwar conditions in the latter half of the twentieth century. As she nicely explained, “how a certain heritage appears to the public, is defined, explained, shown, and communicated” in relationship with various agents of power whose capacities or actions are unpredictable [33]. What we would like to add on top of this argument is that the kinds of agent associated with heritage are both human and nonhuman, and dismissing such an extended range would fail to grasp the complexity that unfolds at the crossroads of multiple agential interventions put in relation to dispersed heritages.

4. A Reassembled World through the Sungnyemun Debate Cuc’s critique opens up an avenue to rethink the multiple dimensions of Sungnyemun as a familiar but surprisingly little-known heritage in more flexible ways. Although there was a mutual agreement that Sungnyemun should be restored after the disaster, there was insufficient questioning as to “why” it should be and “how” its process could be meaningful to various groups of people. The project entails a set of agents, including city officials, researchers, salarymen, and shopkeepers who live nearby, and myriad individuals whose voices float around on online and offline spaces. Considering that ANT is attentive to both human and nonhuman agencies as crucial impetuses in shaping the world we live in, various individuals’ actions and their material/immaterial inscriptions, be they institutional or not, human or nonhuman, are likewise crucial to examine. By the same token, such an entanglement establishes what Latour calls a “parliament of things” through which myriad things establish the public sphere that is at once institutional and improvisational [34]. In further articulating this line of thought, in the rest of the article we focus on analyzing the following two issues: first, comparing and contrasting two survey reports of Sungnyemun, which offers a way of reconsidering Sungnyemun to be an assemblage that reflects primary governmental interventions in a systematic way which is, however, porous and opened up for multiple lines of interpretation; and, second, using photographs of the site during and after the fire as thresholds to shape an affective territory, which is put in contrast to another representative space of Seoul to which less attention was usually paid due to its non-monumentality and everydayness. The first is to overview two practically crucial survey reports that were used for, and after, the restoration of Sungnyemun, published in 2006 and 2013, respectively. Survey reports are a widely used research methodology and also kind of raw data that documents given object or building in the most objective ways. Its documentation process is strictly based on an already established set of survey methods. What we are attentive to is, however, not the detailed methods of documentation but its open-ended mode of translation prompted by a set of different actants, which entail a network composed of key players, namely the heritage being documented, investigators, survey report (as a final product), readers, and other related materials. The investigator dives into the already-formed network and has a limited capacity to interact with it, thereby being able to translate given materials according to a set of carefully implemented guidelines. The survey report is also a method of description that usually consists of texts, photographs, and drawings. The object that the report deals with is different from its textual description due to the nature of media and ways of mediation [35]. Whereas readers are provided ways to deal with the report in new ways, its format is quite dry and based on the idea of representation, or a system of signification in which any elements of uncertainty and improvisation are minimized in preference to consistency. While the 2006 survey report is a product made in consideration of possible future restoration, that of 2013 is more focused on a set of technical guidelines that can be immediately applied to and also carefully describe the value of Sungnyemun [1,36,37]. These two reports include an extensive range of numerical data and structural system of the gate, as well as its current state as the designated number one national treasure. However, would reading this kind of rule-governed material necessarily lead to a unidirectional reception? According to Latour’s idea of “technical mediation”, we claim that these survey reports can still be a helpful platform to explore the past, present, and future of Sungnyemun. In claiming the openness of such survey reports, one would take advantage of looking at how each Sustainability 2020, 12, 3903 11 of 17 report is constructed and how it is differentiated from each other. In doing so, reading a table of contents could be helpful, despite the fact that its arrangement of materials may be technically driven and also generic. Titled A Precision Survey Report of Sungnyemun Gate, the 2006 report has the following table of contents: color figures, survey process, history, displacement, architectural style, architectural planning, precision survey of each component, other surveys, conclusion, figures in black and white, plans, and references. It was made for those who want to know the values of Sungnyemun. The report is a medium helping them to understand the gate before the fire, which is to say a stable monument undisturbed by other considerations and thus assumes a closed community that comprises of the main object, investigator, survey report, and readers in a limited sense. What is highlighted is a normative narrative implemented by a bureaucratic agent which is Jung Gu of Seoul (gu means “ward”; Jung Gu therefore means one of the 25 wards comprising Seoul), and its unidirectional delivery of message makes the report mostly instructive. In contract, the 2013 report is slightly differentiated from the previous one due to some reasons. Entitled A Repair Report for the Construction of Sungnyemun Restoration and the Castle Restoration and produced by the Cultural Heritage Administration, the report consists of project summary, a series of construction processes for restoration, and an appendix. The aim of the report is to technically describe the value of Sungnyemun, and to illustrate how successful the repair process proceeded from the start to its completion. Its author focuses on demonstrating that the work team was able to restore the gate to almost exactly its condition before the fire. On the other hand, the reader is in a relatively weak position to follow what is implemented without fully being able to know the minute details about the restoration process. Put differently, the report is filled with all the technical methods and empirical data, which need a careful and professional decoding process. An interesting point to note is the contrast between the number of publications on Sungnyemun before and after the fire. Between 1962 and the 2008 fire, there were only five books and reports on Sungnyemun, but this number increased significantly to more than 30 between 2008 and 2015. Such a change indicates people’s growing interest about the heritage after the incident. The 2006 report was a preparatory kind that was made for an unanticipated point in future, whereas the latter is much more practically oriented so that any elements unnecessary for restoration were removed, which is demonstrated by the simpler arrangement of the table of contents (for instance, a “history” section is not included in the main document). However, this does not mean that the 2006 report is more interactive than the latter; the former is similarly written in a dry tone and follows a rather clichéd structure as if the consideration of readers was almost a byproduct. There is a “network” in the 2006 report, but it is a closed kind so that the number of players instigated by the publication is limited. The 2013 report is likewise dry and difficult to interact with, but, ironically, it became a kind of open-ended platform where important data about restoration are included, which could possibly be extended into new territories through an interaction with other agents. One can find such an extended territoriality by further excavating how photographs of Sungnyemun circulating via media worked as momentums to bring forth various ideas, feelings, and events during and after the fire. Comparing two photographs before/after the fire drawn from two aforementioned reports can be another good point of exploration in this respect (Figures1 and2). In the 2006 photograph, Sungnyemun stands mostly disconnected from the pedestrian walk area as if a monument were put on a pedestal in a museum. What is also noticeable is the greenery consisting of two spatial layers. In addition, if the outer layer made of greenery is accessible to pedestrians, this is not the case for the inner one which is protected by a “Do Not Enter” sign. This seemingly minute detail reflects how it had long been treated as an object not accessible for the general public, which seems unrelated to the arson but might be a factor in it. Meanwhile, the 2013 photograph shows a slight difference, partly because the separation between two strata of greenery is no longer obvious, instead illustrating a widened and paved pedestrian area finished with tiles on the ground. Visitors can relatively freely pass through the vaulted area at the center and move around. In addition, another big difference is that the restoration Sustainability 2020, 12, 3903 12 of 17 of the surrounding castle walls in the lower part was carefully implemented, although still within the given spatial realm. Meanwhile, we find that myriad photographs capturing the moments of condolence for the devastation of Sungnyemun right after the incident, and the ones taken right at the fire scene are crucial materialsSustainability in rethinking 2020, 12, x FOR the PEER meaning REVIEW of heritage in an era characterized by a multitude of Internet 12 of 17 and post-Internet platforms are always in excess (Figures7 and8). The photograph capturing the moment crucial materials in rethinking the meaning of heritage in an era characterized by a multitude of of the fire being extinguished evoked the nationwide, perhaps worldwide, sentiments as circulated InternetSustainability and post-Internet 2020, 12, x FOR platformsPEER REVIEW are always in excess (Figures 7 and 8). The photograph 12 capturing of 17 by variousthe moment media of including the fire being newspapers, extinguished television, evoked the tweets, nationwide, etc. Although perhaps worldwide,Sungnyemun sentimentswas always thereas as circulated acrucial designated materials by various heritage, in rethinking media it including has the likewise meaning newspapers, of remained heritage television, in unnoticed. an era characterizedtweets, A monumentetc. Although by a multitude that Sungnyemun is of grand and symbolicwas always mayInternet mean there and post-Internet somethingas a designated platforms to us, heritage, but are suchalways it has obvious in likewiseexcess (Figures symbolism remained 7 and 8).unnotice and The physical photographd. A monument magnificence capturing that is could the moment of the fire being extinguished evoked the nationwide, perhaps worldwide, sentiments grand and symbolic may mean something to us, but such obvious symbolism and physical also be dismissedas circulated at by any various time media paradoxically including ne speaking.wspapers, television, This way tweets, of speculatingetc. Although Sungnyemun about Sungnyemun remindsmagnificence uswas of always Robert could there Musil’s also as a bedesignated claim dismissed that heritage, monumentsat any it timehas likewise paradoxically “de-notice remained us” speaking. unnotice in thed. courseThis A monument way of of everyday speculatingthat is life [38]. However,aboutgrand suchSungnyemun anand invisible symbolic reminds presencemay us meanof Robert becomes something Musil’s suddenly to claim us, but that visible such monuments obvious when things symbolism “de-notice donot and us” work physicalin the out course properly, of everyday life [38]. However, such an invisible presence becomes suddenly visible when things do or somethingmagnificence critical could happens, also be whichdismissed is at the any case time forparadoxically our example. speaking. Mass This way media of speculating had continuously not workabout out Sungnyemun properly, reminds or something us of Robert critical Musil’s happens, claim whichthat monuments is the case “de-notice for our example. us” in the Masscourse media broadcast the real-time progress of its extinction, and the visual spectacle offered an opportunity for had continuouslyof everyday life broadcast [38]. However, the real-time such an invisible progress presence of its extinction,becomes suddenly and the visible visual when spectacle things do offered thosean who opportunitynot were work not out for usually properly, those interestedwho or something were not in critical theusually monument happens, interested which to in take is the the a monumentcase look for at our the example.to gatetake anda Mass look its media at surroundings the gate probablyand its forhad surroundings thecontinuously first time broadcastprobably in their the for lives. real-time the Sensesfirst progress time of in condolence of their its extinction, lives. Senses and and sympathy theof condolencevisual spectacle unfolded and offered sympathy in resonance an opportunity for those who were not usually interested in the monument to take a look at the gate to theseunfolded kinds in of resonance photograph, to these but kinds looking of photograph, at familiar thingsbut looking anew at is familiar another things parameter anew is that another is worth and its surroundings probably for the first time in their lives. Senses of condolence and sympathy noticing.parameterunfolded Put dithatff erently,in is resonance worth these noticing. to these photographs kindsPut differently, of photograph, instigated these but photographs looking collective at familiar memories instigated things collectiveanew and aisff anotherects memories at the very momentand ofaffectsparameter its ongoing at the that very is disappearance worth moment noticing. of its Put ongoing broadcast differently, disappearance on these media. photographs broadcast Photographs instigated on media. takencollective Photographs during memories the taken fire were mostlyduring documentaryand the affects fire wereat bythe nature,mostlyvery moment documentary which of its lasted ongoing by relatively nature, disappearance which in a short broadcastlasted period relatively on media. of time in Photographs a butshort nevertheless period taken of time helped formingbut aneverthelessduring loose sensethe fire helped ofwere community mostly forming documentary a thatloose prompted sense by nature, of co newmmunity which ways lasted that of relatively seeingprompted in this a newshort familiar ways period of but of seeing time idiosyncratic this familiarbut butnevertheless idiosyncratic helped monument forming a loose that senseis at onceof community near and that far. prompted new ways of seeing this monumentfamiliar that is but at idiosyncratic once near monument and far. that is at once near and far.

Figure 7. The photograph of Sungnyemun during the firefighting (Cultural Heritage Administration FigureFigure 7. 7.The The photograph photograph of of SungnyemunSungnyemun duringduring the firefighting the firefighting (Cultural (Source: Heritage Administration Cultural Heritage and author edited [38]. Administrationand author edited and author [38]. edited) [38].

Figure 8. The photograph of Sungnyemun after its fire (Cultural Heritage Administration and author edited [38]. FigureFigure 8. The 8. The photograph photograph of Sungnyemunof Sungnyemunafter afterits its firefire (Source:(Cultural CulturalHeritage Administration Heritage Administration and author and Speculating about Sungnyemun in relationship with its counterpart, for example myriad edited [38]. authormundane edited) [city38]. fabrics, is also critical in thinking the broader range of affectivities of heritage. What is less discussed in the Sungnyemun incident is another almost simultaneous urban project: the Speculating about Sungnyemun in relationship with its counterpart, for example myriad Speculatingredevelopment about ofSungnyemun the pimatgol areain relationship(피맛골 in Korean) with that its is counterpart, not far from where for example the gate is myriad located mundane mundane city fabrics, is also critical in thinking the broader range of affectivities of heritage. What is city fabrics,(Figures is also 9 and critical 10). Those in thinking two sites are the separated broader by range about ten of aminutesffectivities of driving ofheritage. time, the latter What is less less discussed in the Sungnyemun incident is another almost simultaneous urban project: the discussed in(pimatgol the Sungnyemun) being locatedincident towards the is anothernorth, which almost is nearer simultaneous Gwanghwamun urban Square project: and Gyeongbokgung the redevelopment redevelopment of the pimatgol area (피맛골 in Korean) that is not far from where the gate is located Palace. Pimatgolxᅵ }ᆺfis theYJ second-order alley displaced alongside the main street (called ) that was of the(Figurespimatgol 9 areaand 10). ( Thosein two Korean) sites are that separated is not far by from about where ten minutes the gate of is driving located time, (Figures the 9latter and 10). (pimatgol) being located towards the north, which is nearer Gwanghwamun Square and Gyeongbokgung Palace. Pimatgol is the second-order alley displaced alongside the main street (called Jongno) that was Sustainability 2020, 12, 3903 13 of 17

Those two sites are separated by about ten minutes of driving time, the latter (pimatgol) being located towards the north, which is nearer Gwanghwamun Square and Gyeongbokgung Palace. Pimatgol is the second-order alley displaced alongside the main street (called Jongno) that was used for courtly parade during the Joseon Dynasty. It formed the horizontal axis of the medieval Seoul, which cuts across through a vertical axis coming from the Palace down to Sungnyemun. Pimatgol has existed for more than six centuries since the birth of the Dynasty, which is almost the same as Sungnyemun and other large-scaleSustainability historic 2020 sites., 12, x However, FOR PEER REVIEW what occurred is its massive demolition for urban 13 redevelopment, of 17 Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 17 which wasused executed for courtly under parade the during administration the Joseon Dynasty. of the formerIt formed city the mayorhorizontal Lee axis Myung-bak of the medieval (2008–2013), once the CEOSeoul,used offor which Hyundaicourtly cuts parade across Engineering during through the a andJoseon vertical Construction, Dynasty. axis coming It formed whofrom the hadthe horizontal Palace the nickname down axis toof theSungnyemun “bulldozer”. medieval. This is not a preservationistPimatgolSeoul, which has existed cuts claim across for about more through thethan citysixa vertical centuries that axis is since doomed coming the birth from to disappear;of the the Palace Dynasty, down instead, which to Sungnyemunis wealmost aim the to. read the Pimatgol has existed for more than six centuries since the birth of the Dynasty, which is almost the contrastingsame attitudes as Sungnyemun between and those other twolarge-scale heritages, historic which sites. seemHowever, based what on occurred the criteria is its massive administered by demolitionsame as Sungnyemun for urban redevelopment,and other large-scale which historicwas ex ecutedsites. However,under the whatadministration occurred isof itsthe massive former certain agentscitydemolition mayor such Leefor as governmentsurbanMyung-bak redevelopment, (2008–2013), and preservationists.which once was the exCEOecuted of Hyundai Then,under the why Engineering administration would and one Construction,of be the sympathetic former with the disappearancewhocity mayor had the of Lee nicknameSungnyemun Myung-bak “bulldozer”. (2008–2013),that is This rarely isonce not paid the a preservationist CEO attention of Hyundai to claim in Engineering dailyabout lifethe city despiteand that Construction, is itsdoomed administrative emphasis,towho while disappear; had athe more nickname instead, widely-used we “bulldozer”. aim to read everyday This the is contrasting not spacea preservationist attitudes such as between claimpimatgol about thoseis the simplytwo city heritages, that dismissed is doomed which in public to disappear; instead, we aim to read the contrasting attitudes between those two heritages, which debates?seem Instead based of on raising the criteria a moralisticadministered pointby certai ofn agents view, such we as claim governments that the and unusual preservationists. attention given Then,seem based why wouldon the criteriaone be administeredsympathetic bywith certai then disappearance agents such as ofgovernments Sungnyemun and that preservationists. is rarely paid to the nationalattentionThen, why monument’s to wouldin daily one life extinctionbe despite sympathetic its administrative unfolds with the a complexitydisappearance emphasis, while thatof Sungnyemun a is more entangled widely-used that is with rarely everyday the paid strata of the everyday world,spaceattention such whichto as in pimatgol daily is, however,life is simplydespite dismissed notits administrative so much in public stabilized emphasis,debates? butInstead while rather aof more raising latent widely-used a moralistic to extend everyday point into of new kinds of affectivityview,space and suchwe claim discourse. as pimatgol that the is Thesimplyunusual demolition dismissed attention ingiven ofpublicSungnyemun to debates?the national Insteadwas monument’s of a raising tragic extinctiona moralistic event, butunfolds point its ofa extensions view, we claim that the unusual attention given to the national monument’s extinction unfolds a opened upcomplexity new ways that of is seeingentangled that with are the neither strata of groundedthe everyday in world, its originality which is, however, nor fully not so managed much by any stabilizedcomplexity but that rather is entangled latent to with extend the into strata new of thekinds everyday of affectivity world, and which discourse. is, however, The demolition not so much of single agentSungnyemunstabilized from but outside was rather a tragic thelatent heritage-scene.event, to extend but itsinto extensions new It kinds is thusopen of affectivityed a primeup new and exampleways discourse. of seeing encouraging The that demolition are neither us of to explore heritage asSungnyemungrounded an open-ended in itswas originality a tragic field event, nor where fully but multiplemanaged its extensions by agents any open single anded agentup stakeholders new from ways outside of se are eingthe comingledheritage-scene. that are neither together It and bring forthisgrounded newthus a ideas prime in itsand exampleoriginality affects, encouraging nor from fully managed which us to explore its by conceptionany heritage single agent as isan constantlyfrom open-ended outside renewedthefield heritage-scene. where and multiple thus It becomes is thus a prime example encouraging us to explore heritage as an open-ended field where multiple public in aagents fluid and sense. stakeholders are comingled together and bring forth new ideas and affects, from which itsagents conception and stakeholders is constantly are renewed comingled and together thus becomes and bring public forth in anew fluid ideas sense. and affects, from which its conception is constantly renewed and thus becomes public in a fluid sense.

Figure 9. The photograph of Pimatgol before the development (Source: The Seoul Research Data Figure 9. The photograph of Pimatgol before the development (Source: The Seoul Research Data Service FigureService 9.and The author photograph edited) [20]of Pimatgol. before the development (Source: The Seoul Research Data and authorService edited) and [author20]. edited) [20].

Figure 10. The photograph of Pimatgol before the development (Source: The Seoul Research Data Figure 10.FigureServiceThe 10. photographand The author photograph edited) of Pimatgol[20]. of Pimatgolbefore before thethe development (Source: (Source: The Seoul The Research Seoul ResearchData Data Service and author edited) [20]. Service and author edited) [20]. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3903 14 of 17

Meanwhile, it is worth noting that a Korea-based architectural journal entitled Architectural Critics Association (ACA) released a special issue dealing with the recent fire of Notre-Dame Cathedral (on 19 April 2019) and the Sungnyemun case. The issue includes twelve short essays, including the one by the chief editor Lee Jong-geun, who points out that the Sungnyemun restoration was the result of a short-sighted adherence to originality back to its initial settings. Referring to how the damaged Notre-Dame will presumably change through open competitions, also reminding how Eugène Viollet-le-Duc restored the cathedral in resilient ways that are not confined to archeological objectivity, Lee reads the Sungnyemun case as a chronic symptom reflecting the closedness of the Korean society in an intellectual sense [39]. Essays following the editorial are mostly critical in a similar vein, and, in the same way that the previous literature review addresses, propose to take the arson as a moment to rethink the heritage from various perspectives. Those authors aspire to take the case as an opportunity to think otherwise for other heritage sites in better ways. Most of them seem to agree with Viollet-le-Duc’s idea that “heritage is war” in a metaphoric sense that dealing with heritage inevitably entails interventions and reestablishments either conceptually or materially [40]. Related to this idea of heritage, Aron Vinegar argues that Viollet-le-Duc is incorrectly known as a “structural rationalist” despite the subtlety that his restoration is fused with “fact” and “fantasy”, both of which are not separated in a clear-cut manner [41]. Instead, Vinegar explains that Violllet-le-Duc’s childhood exposure to Notre-Dame was vital in conducting the restoration project. Such an exposure remained vague and mostly sensorially driven, such as light penetrating through a rose window and noises of the crowd, but led him to bring forth a proposal that structurally makes sense. That Viollet-le-Duc’s 19th-century restoration partly derived from his private memories and senses thus implies that restoring a heritage such as Notre-Dame before the fire would not necessarily mean to restore the absolute originality back to the present. What is established instead is an assemblage in which multiple origins and meanings are displaced in a rather symmetrical way. Could this seemingly radical but democratic way of thinking about heritage not be a guideline with which to work on the Sungnyemun restoration?

5. Conclusions Although reading heritage through ANT is not completely new in itself given its widespread impacts, we claim that what makes Sungnyemun a relevant case of an actor-networked field as entangled with the post-disaster moods is evidenced at least by the following four aspects: (1) the porosity and incompleteness of heritage administration that could easily provoke public debates; (2) a nationalist sentiment that is not unrelated to Korea’s colonial and postcolonial past and beyond; (3) the impermanence of heritage caused by its fragile materiality (i.e., wood); and (4) the speed and intensity of social networking services generating senses of community in both online and offline spaces. All these four aspects are complexly interrelated, and what unfolds is an idea that reconsiders Sungnyemun from tabula rasa, although the reality is that this incident has almost ended after a loose provisional agreement among the related administrators and professionals that its rigorous technical reconstruction would resolve the debates that unfolded around the supposedly “number one” heritage in Korea. By revisiting what had happened around the incident, not just tracing back its material reconstruction processes but instead excavating a set of debates and issues which might have actually changed its public meanings in new ways, we argue that the 2008 arson is not so much a historical past as a vibrant issue that could still be actualized according to ideas and affects that might be derived from multiple spatiotemporal dimensions. By the same token, David Brett also claims that “history ... is not a fixed entity but an activity” [42]. Our case study elicits how one is able to mediate a heritage such as Sungnyemun not preoccupied with its normative values, instead highlighting how its changing forms may mean to us in the present time and also bring forth an affective community in both online and offline spaces. Sungnyemun has stood in its original place for centuries but its values were not clearly identified. It was designated as a treasure during the Japanese colonial period and lifted up into a national treasure after independence. It has stood as an island in the midst of busy urban environments and played as a monument that citizens most often indifferently pass along. However, the unexpected Sustainability 2020, 12, 3903 15 of 17

fire prompted intense interests in Sungnyemun, which proved that the qualification of the supposedly much venerated heritage is suddenly put into question. In other words, the 2008 incident was a tragic event but also brought forth public discourses from which people began speculating its meanings from variously inauthentic perspectives. However, speculating the meaning of heritage, as several aforementioned scholars address, inevitably starts from here and now instead of its absolute origin back in history. Employing ANT is not an immediately applicable theory but rather a radical claim that Sungnyemun’s authenticity needs to be ever-generated from the present conditions, which would need to consider a number of issues such as post-colonial, post-disaster, compressed modernity, and the ethics of the post-Internet all of which influence the way that we conceive the heritage as part of daily life. Just as restoration is always a destructive process, rethinking the values of heritage is likewise an activity that inevitably accompanies tensions and dissents. Sungnyemun would have stood as it was for centuries without any meaningful investments into it unless the unexpected fire occurred, although the restored gate seems to fade into dismissal again. Last, while this article focuses on reading a single case in great detail, its implications are broad and applicable to other cases within and beyond the country. Analyzing the redesigning plan of Gwanghwamun Square is one possible topic, and rethinking the Notre-Dame fire as an instance of affective atmosphere or cosmopolitanism prompting a coming community is another. Either case would encourage us to perennially redefine what heritage means in changing worlds, and we wish that our study would open up new ways of making relationships with the environments that are still materially grounded but deeply mediatized.

Author Contributions: Both authors closely worked together from beginning to end, but took slightly different roles. The article originally started from D.W.A.’s long-term historical research on Sungnyemun and later expanded through the collaboration with S.P. who redesigned it through the employment of theory. The empirical research on Sungnyemun in Sections2–4 is the result of D.W.A.’s contribution, whereas S.P. focused on interpreting the case in consultation with ANT, heritage studies, and issues of the post-disaster in an international context. All authors have read and agree to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (2017R1D1A1B03028056). Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Jung Gu of Seoul. A Precision Survey Report of Sungnyemun Gate; Jung Gu of Seoul: Seoul, Korea, 2006. Available online: http://www.cha.go.kr/cop/bbs/selectBoardArticle.do?nttId=1694&bbsId=BBSMSTR_ 1021&pageIndex=4&pageUnit=10&searchCnd=tc&searchWrd=%ec%88%ad%eb%a1%80%eb%ac%b8& ctgryLrcls=&ctgryMdcls=&ctgrySmcls=&ntcStartDt=&ntcEndDt=&searchUseYn=Y&mn=NS_03_08_01 (accessed on 8 May 2020). 2. Cultural Heritage Administration (CHA). A Repair Report for the Construction of Sungnyemun Restoration and the Castle Restoration; Cultural Heritage Administration: Daejeon, Korea, 2013. Available online: http://www.cha.go.kr/cop/bbs/selectBoardArticle.do?nttId=27969&bbsId=BBSMSTR_ 1021&pageIndex=1&pageUnit=10&searchCnd=tc&searchWrd=%ec%88%ad%eb%a1%80%eb%ac%b8& ctgryLrcls=&ctgryMdcls=&ctgrySmcls=&ntcStartDt=&ntcEndDt=&searchUseYn=Y&mn=NS_03_08_01 (accessed on 8 May 2020). 3. Rii, H.-U.; Choi, J.-H. Sungnyemun: Spiritual meaning for Koreans. In The 2008 ICOMOS Conference Paper; pp. 1–8. Available online: https://www.icomos.org/quebec2008/ (accessed on 8 August 2019). 4. International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). The Nara Document on Authenticity 1994. Available online: https://www.icomos.org/charters/nara-e.pdf (accessed on 12 August 2019). 5. Anderson, B.; Holden, A. Affective Urbanism and the Event of Hope. Space Cult. 2008, 11, 142–159. [CrossRef] 6. Jele´nski,T. Practices of Built Heritage Post-Disaster Reconstruction for Resilient Cities. Buildings 2018, 8, 53. [CrossRef] 7. Klekot, E. Constructing a ‘monument of national history and culture’ in Poland: The case of the Royal Castle in Warsaw. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2012, 18, 459–478. [CrossRef] 8. Rico, T. Reclaiming Post-disaster Narratives of Loss in Indonesia. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2020, 26, 8–18. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020, 12, 3903 16 of 17

9. Cloke, P.; Conradson, D. Transitional Organisations, Affective Atmospheres and New Forms of Being-in-common: Post-disaster Recovery in Christchurch, New Zealand. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 2018, 43, 360–376. [CrossRef] 10. Dewi, C. Rethinking Architectural Heritage Conservation in Post-disaster Context. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2017, 23, 587–600. [CrossRef] 11. International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). Principles for the Preservation of Historic Timber Structures October 1999. Available online: https://www.icomos.org/en/resources/charters-and-texts (accessed on 12 August 2019). 12. Latour, B. Pandora’s Hope; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999. 13. Latour, B. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2005. 14. Bennett, J. Whose Place Is This Anyway? An Actor-Network Theory Exploration of a Conservation Conflict. Space Cult. 2018, 21, 159–169. [CrossRef] 15. Nimmo, R. Actor-Network Theory and Methodology: Social Research in a More-than-human World. Methodol. Innov. Online 2011, 6, 108–119. [CrossRef] 16. Hill, M.-J. Assembling the Historic City: Actor Networks, Heritage Mediation, and the Return of the Colonial Past in Post-Soviet Cuba. Anthropol. Q. 2018, 91, 1235–1268. [CrossRef] 17. Latour, B. Aramis, or, the Love of Technology; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1996. 18. Ong, C. Rethinking (In)tangible Heritage: Social Constructionism and Actor-Network Theory Approaches. In XVIII ISA—Facing and Unequal World, Challenges for Global Sociology, Yokohama, Japan; International Sociological Association: Madrid, Spain, 2014; pp. 1–13. 19. Harrison, R. On Heritage Ontologies: Rethinking the Material Worlds of Heritage. Anthropol. Q. 2018, 91, 1365–1384. [CrossRef] 20. The Seoul Research Data Service. Available online: http://data.si.re.kr/psearch (accessed on 9 May 2020). 21. National Institute of Korean Language. Korean-Foreign Language Learners’ Dictionary. Available online: https://stdict.korean.go.kr/main/main.do#main_logo_id (accessed on 12 August 2019). 22. Korea Ministry of Government Legislation. Cultural Heritage Protection Act 25 March 2015. Available online: https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?hseq=33988&lang=ENG (accessed on 8 August 2019). 23. Cultural Heritage Administration (CHA). Bringing the Spirit of Sungnyemun; Cultural Heritage Administration: Daejeon, Korea, 2013. 24. The Colonial Joseon Government General. The 1933 Preservation Policy of Treasure, Relics, Scenic Beauty, Natural Monument in Joseon. Available online: https://www.museum.go.kr/modern-history (accessed on 12 August 2019). 25. Cultural Heritage Administration (CHA). Cultural Heritage Protection Act 2012. Available online: http://elaw.klri.re.kr/kor_service/lawView.do?hseq=26478&lang=ENG/ (accessed on 12 August 2019). 26. Lee, D.-K. A Restoration Corruption of Gwanghwamun and Sungnyemun. Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation (26 March 2014). Available online: https://news.v.daum.net/v/20140326132707762?f=o (accessed on 8 August 2019). 27. Kim, T.-G.; Park, H.-M. Continual Sufferings of Sungnyemun. NEWSIS 8 November 2013. Available online: http://www.newsis.com (accessed on 8 August 2019). 28. International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). Charter on the Built Vernacular Heritage October 1999. Available online: https://www.icomos.org/en/resources/charters-and-texts (accessed on 12 August 2019). 29. International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). Principles for the Conservation of Wooden Built Heritage October 1999. Available online: https://www.icomos.org/en/resources/charters-and-texts (accessed on 12 August 2019). 30. International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). Principles for the Analysis, Conservation and Structural Restoration of Architectural Heritage (2003). Available online: https://www.icomos.org/charters/ structures_e.pdf (accessed on 12 August 2019). 31. Roh, H.-S. The Limit of Sungnyemun Restoration and the Absence of Preservation Philosophy. In Presentation Paper for the 2017 Korean Association for Architectural History; Korea Association for Architectural History: Seoul, Korea, 2017; pp. 271–275. 32. Cuc, C. On the Meaning of Heritage in South Korea. Studia UBB Philol. 2013, 58, 185–195. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3903 17 of 17

33. Latour, B. We Have Never Been Modern; trans. Catherine Porter; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1993. 34. An, D.-W. Characteristics and Utility of 3D Scandata for the Development of Survey Drawings in Wooden Architectural Heritage: A Comparison of the Raw Survey Data Used in Survey Drawings. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 2016, 15, 161–167. [CrossRef] 35. Cultural Heritage Administration (CHA). A Survey Report of Sungnyemun’s Control Elements Caused by Fire; Cultural Heritage Administration: Daejeon, Korea, 2009. 36. Cultural Heritage Administration (CHA). A Report of Sungnyemun’s 3D-restorative Process Report; Cultural Heritage Administration: Daejeon, Korea, 2012. 37. Musil, R. Monuments. In Posthumous Papers of a Living Author; Peter Wortsman, trans./Penguin Books: New York, NY, USA, 1995. 38. Cultural Heritage Administration (CHA). A Report for the fire Damage of Sungnyemun; Cultural Heritage Administration: Daejeon, Korea, 2008. Available online: http://www.cha.go.kr/cop/bbs/selectBoardArticle. do?nttId=21298&bbsId=BBSMSTR_1021&pageIndex=4&pageUnit=10&searchCnd=tc&searchWrd=%ec% 88%ad%eb%a1%80%eb%ac%b8&ctgryLrcls=&ctgryMdcls=&ctgrySmcls=&ntcStartDt=&ntcEndDt= &searchUseYn=Y&mn=NS_03_08_01 (accessed on 9 May 2020). 39. Lee, J.-G. Notre-Dame Cathedral and Our Portrait. Archit. Crit. Assoc. 2019, 18, 5–8. 40. Vinegar, A. Chatography. J. Soc. Archit. Hist. 2012, 71, 362–385. [CrossRef] 41. Vinegar, A. Viollet-le-Duc and Restoration in the Future Anterior. Future Anterior 2006, 3, 54–65. 42. Bratt, D. The Construction of Heritage; Cork University Press: Cork, Ireland, 1996.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).