top of page

Commodification of Heritage

We took a short break from drawing production today and upon one of our friends’ recommendation, we went to visit the Jim Thompson House and Museum. During the first semester of my third-year studies, I have also heard much about this particular architecture from Dr Imran in the module History and Theory of Southeast Asia Architecture.

Upon reaching the house, it was a remarkable sight. The first impression that came to mind was how the place was very touristy. All the employees were putting on traditional Thai outfits and held fans made from bamboo. In the space leading to the Jim Thompson House compound from the ticketing counter were two employees re-enacting the process of making silk for the visitors, mostly tourists, to see. When we pointed a camera at them, they would pose and smile brightly.

Many of the buildings (except the main house) have been refurbished to accommodate current needs for the comfort of visitors. This includes the supply of air-conditioning in souvenir shops, common in most tourist attractions, and the spiritual rebirth of a possibly old storage room into a porcelain exhibition space where the windows are now all sealed up. To enter the house, we had to pay THB 200 and go through a guided tour, which was available in four languages (English, Chinese, Japanese, and Thai). The time we could spend viewing the house was limited and we could not freely explore the different spaces on our own. There was a crafted narrative on how one should explore the house, with the guide playing a part in framing the perception of the house by the tourist. There was a strong emphasis on how the Jim Thompson house is a mix of Thai and English architectural styles. The guide stopped frequently to point out the contrast in styles such as the roof that has a similar style to those seen in Thai temples whereas the floor had checkered tiles, which follows the English style. The authenticity of the Jim Thompson house as a traditional Thai architecture was also emphasised in the pamphlet given to us, “He gained further renown through the construction of this house combining six teak buildings, which represented the best in traditional Thai architecture”. The pamphlet continues to describe the efforts Jim Thompson made the house authentically Thai.

However, there was something about the house which bugged me throughout the guided tour. While Jim Thompson’s intention in creating a space, which relates to both Thai and his roots is clear, in layman terms, it just didn’t feel right for it to be established as a representative Thai house. From my understanding and some sharing from the others who went with me, there are some aspects of the house which do not relate to a traditional Thai house. For example, the layout in which all the rooms are connected without any outdoor spaces and how the living room faces the canal does not apply to common Thai houses. Some of the traditional aspects, as packaged and emphasised repeatedly, seemed too accentuated with efforts in deliberately collecting various Buddhism art of historical value as one of his interests and dismantling and bringing houses from as far as Ayutthaya for the construction of the house.

The value behind the house is well understood. However, how many of the tourists leave with the understanding of how traditional Thai houses are like? Or does it not matter at all in the face of the tourism industry? Through the guided tour alone (and under the premise if I did not have any prior knowledge of the house), I felt like I would have only walked away knowing that the house was a mix of Thai and English architectural styles and how Jim Thompson disappeared without a trace in Malaysia (the information about him disappearing was mentioned four times throughout the English guided tour). Writing this post has also prompted me to think about whether heritage is a natural product or something which was being intentionally constructed by the people. On this note, I wonder how many Thais think of the Jim Thompson house as a reflection of their heritage with its current established status as one of the top tourist attractions to visit. Today was a fruitful day in learning about perceiving heritage from another perspective – something we might not feel as strongly when spending time in the studio.

bottom of page