Day 2 // 5 Jan

The biggest takeaway from today was not from visiting the heritage sites themselves, but rather from the group reflection session we had at the end of the day, where Prof. Walsh shared some really meaningful insights that I would not have thought of.

In response to the fulldome.pro company and what they advocate, Prof. Walsh brought up an interesting question to us: why do we need artificial domes to provide us with immersive experiences when the museums, cultural and heritage sites around us are themselves the real domes of experience? This question really struck me because the whole morning that we were at the company’s office, I was very impressed by what they have been doing, and thought they were great at helping to promote heritage appreciation and conservation. However, looking at it from this new angle, perhaps I had been wrong, and perhaps fulldome.pro is not that much of an impressive company after all.

Although yes, I do agree that companies and technologies like fulldome.pro can help advocate and raise awareness about heritage conservation within the Chiang Mai community, but there is an underlying concern that comes with the increasing use and popularity of such technologies and products. Will their increasing usage and popularity draw people away from the actual heritage sites instead? I’m afraid the novelty and convenience of a dome, or planetariums (much like the IMAX in Singapore), will attract people and do more harm than good for heritage appreciation and conservation in the future. If this does actually happen, would it not mean that the fulldome.pro company is contradicting what their videos are advocating (to preserve heritage)?

What really counts as heritage conservation? Is it just about the intangible aspect of culture, our experiences, or should we also consider the tangible physical spaces that houses these experiences? I think the most important thing for a successful and sustainable conservation is maintaining the balance between both intangible and tangible aspects of culture. Only when we have not neglected one for the other can we say that we have successfully conserved a part of culture.

Contrary to what I thought we were expected to do, Prof. Walsh also challenged us to question the purpose and meaning of the Wat Gate Khar Rnam Museum that we visited after lunch. The museum was created when locals didn’t know what to do with their old keepsakes and artifacts they had at home, and since they found it a waste to throw it away, they decided to donate it to this “museum”. The museum is owned and curated by Mr. Som Vang Rittidaja, and survives mainly through donations from locals and tourists. However, what we were asked to think about was, does this place really serve a purpose? It houses artifacts and protects them from being lost or destroyed, but does it really play an active role in culture or heritage preservation? While we were there I noticed a lack of visitors; for the 2 hours that we were there not one other tourist was spotted. In addition, from our interview with Mr. Rittidaja, it seems like there has been a lack of visitors in recent months. All of the artifacts and keepsakes are accessible any time, but if there is no one there to learn, appreciate and spread the stories and history behind these artifacts, is it really heritage conservation? Pertaining to this museum specifically, Mr. Rittidaja is the sole possessor of the stories and meanings behind each artifact. If he passes on before getting the chance to relay this information, the stories too will disappear with him. When they are no longer accessible, how and where from are we to learn about the culture and history? This was a thought that really lingered in my mind, and I will keep this in mind when visiting future sites; because conservation efforts and commendable results require the interaction and participation of both people and objects or places.

The reflection session tonight with our two professors taught me that we do not have to necessarily like and agree with everything we are told, or everywhere that was planned for us to visit. We are not obliged to genuinely like, understand or agree with the places on our itinerary, or the things we hear from various people. We may come across things that we disagree with, or we find not quite to our liking, but that is okay. Prof. Walsh particularly challenged us by asking us to challenge the program itself, challenge what we have heard and see if we can actually learn more from these questionings.