Day 2 // 5 Jan

We started our day at Fulldome.pro, watching a series of films in digital planetariums with a 360 degree visual view. It was fascinating how the fulldome provided such interactive and immersive experience, bringing us into a “new” dimension with the characters in the films. There was only one word that could describe the entire experience: Wow.

Watching the films in the fulldome reminded me of 3D movies, no, they were even better that those. Though I may not be proficient in film making or very much able to appreciate films, it was obvious that with six projectors, the resolution of the film was definitely much better than what we observe in cinemas back in Singapore. Not only so, the projectors were able to fully cover the dome surface with full-colour imagery.

Advancement in technology has brought about such an invention that can engage people in many aspects, from entertainment to educational purposes. What if such a technology were to be incorporated with efforts to preserve heritage in Chiang Mai? Would it be able to better evoke interest in people to learn about the history of Chiang Mai and entice tourists to visit not merely for the beautiful architecture, but also for the sake of cultural literacy where they can learn more about the heritage and culture of another country?

Yet, that being said, how long would the film need to be to fully engage and allow tourists to have a deeper understanding of what the culture and heritage of Chiang Mai entail. After all, just like what our professors mentioned, with over 100 years of history, it is impossible to summarise and allow tourists to fully grasp the extent of the Thai culture, or specifically the Chiang Mai heritage, in a mere 2 or 3 hours film.

After visiting the fulldome, we visited several other museums and the one that left a lasting impression was the Wat Gate Khar Rnam Museum. What made it so special was the fact that this museum was not anything like the traditional museums we see in Singapore – air-conditioned, neatly arranged collections stored behind glass panels to prevent curious visitors from defacing the collections, descriptions beside the collections etc. Rather, the collections in Wat Gate Khar Rnam Museum seemed like they were randomly placed and compacted together. Most of them were also rusty, with brief or no description of the artefacts at all, evidence of the number of generations it was passed down from.

We were told that most of these collections were donated by the locals who felt the need to preserve their heritage, and felt that perhaps the collections had a story to tell, one that should be preserved for the later generations. This is in stark contrast to Singapore. How many of us can say that we are interested in heritage preservation and would want to take part in it? How many of us actually take pride in the heritage of Singapore? Or is the short history of Singapore enough to deter Singaporeans from wanting to preserve our heritage?