The centuries-old sculptures of giants at Wat Umong in Chiang Mai have recently sparked considerable public debate. The before-and-after photos of these ancient artworks, displayed by the Fine Arts Department, have been met with both commendation and criticism. The images unveil the significant changes made during the restoration, which some argue may have done more harm than good. (Photos: Fine Arts Department)
The restoration endeavor aimed at these 500-year-old sculptures, standing two meters tall, was undertaken by the Fine Arts Department, which has since faced a barrage of backlash. Critics accuse the department of making a mess of the historical treasures located in the tambon Suthep of Chiang Mai’s Muang district. Mr. Phanombut Chantarachot, the director-general of the department, defended the restoration efforts on Tuesday, asserting that the work adhered to set standards designed to maintain the sculptures’ original features as closely as possible.
Mr. Phanombut emphasized that the decision to restore the sculptures was initiated by the 7th Regional Office Fine Arts in Chiang Mai. This restoration was not merely about cleaning and bolstering the existing structure but also involved recreating absent components, such as the giants’ arms, to ensure the sculptures’ integrity. Given that Wat Umong remains an active site frequently visited by tourists and Buddhist devotees, maintaining the sculptures’ visual and structural presence was deemed essential.
Nonetheless, images circulated by the media reveal a stark contrast between the original and restored versions of the sculptures, triggering a wave of discontent. Among the critics are the lecturers from Chiang Mai University’s Faculty of Fine Arts, who have voiced their dismay over what they describe as a careless restoration process.
The restoration process was set into motion after a visit by Chiang Mai governor, Nirat Phongsitthithawon, to the temple in April of last year. It was during this visit that he observed the deteriorating condition of the sculptures and subsequently alerted the Fine Arts Department. Despite the noble intentions, the aftermath has raised essential questions about the balance between preserving historical integrity and modern restoration techniques.
This so-called ‘restoration’ looks more like vandalism to me! They should have preserved the original without making such drastic changes.
I totally agree. It’s heartbreaking to see such historical treasures being altered this way.
But if you leave them as they are, they may crumble entirely. Restoration is necessary sometimes.
I understand the need for restoration, but there’s a difference between preserving history and rewriting it.
Restoration often requires this kind of intervention. The Fine Arts Department likely followed international standards.
The new sculptures look so cartoonish! How can anyone think this is okay?
That’s exactly what I thought. They don’t even look like they belong to the same era anymore.
Could it be that they used modern techniques to restore, and that’s why the difference?
Possibly, but modern techniques shouldn’t sacrifice historical accuracy.
They might have had good intentions, but the execution was definitely questionable.
The decision to restore these sculptures was necessary, but the method? Highly debatable.
Indeed. There should be more oversight and consultation with experts before making such decisions.
Absolutely. Transparency and collaboration are key in such delicate projects.
I believe the Fine Arts Department did a commendable job. It’s easy to criticize from the sidelines without understanding the complexities involved.
But don’t you think the drastic change in appearance raises questions about the process?
It does, but unless you are an expert, it’s hard to judge fairly.
You don’t need to be an expert to see that the sculptures have lost their original charm.
The sculptures look rejuvenated. Maybe we just need time to get used to the new look.
Time won’t change the fact that they lost their historical essence.
I think what matters is preserving the intent and spirit of the artwork, and if the new look aligns with that, then it could be seen as a success.
As an art historian, observing conservation standards is crucial. Was there a peer review by experts in this case?
Why couldn’t they leave well enough alone? These restorations often do more harm than good.
Without the restoration, the sculptures could have deteriorated even further. Maybe this was the lesser of two evils.
I agree. It’s better to save what we can rather than let it turn to dust.
I get that, but there had to be a better way than making them look like toys.
I’m more concerned about the lack of transparency in such projects. Where was the public consultation?
Photos don’t always tell the whole story. The on-ground reality might be different.
Pictures can be deceiving, but in this case, the contrast is quite evident and concerning.
Seeing is believing. These pics are enough to make anyone upset.
It’s understandable why the department decided to restore, but their methods could use improvement.
The sculptures look more like Disneyland attractions now. What a tragedy.
I feel like something is lost when historical artifacts get modernized like this.
Everyone seems to be focusing on the negatives. Maybe there are benefits we aren’t seeing.
What about the historical and educational value? Has it been compromised with this restoration?
Potentially, but preserving the sculptures physically might outweigh the downsides.
It should be a balance. Both aspects are critical to the legacy of these artworks.