Reflections: Heritage conservation field school in Songkhla (2016) and Yogyakarta (2018)

The first time I participated in heritage conservation field school was back in 2016 in Songkhla, Thailand. Since then I always thought that the experience gained during the conservation field school is invaluable to those who participated as well as those who get a hold on to the books published after each field school. Therefore, in my opinion, the field school should be an essential part of the academic curriculum. Due to other educational programs, I missed the chance to go through the entire four weeks of the program. I felt that it was a wasted opportunity for me that I did not get the full exposure of the program. Fortunately, I had another opportunity to participate in this year’s field school in Kauman, Yogyakarta. And unlike in 2016 when I only joined for two weeks in Songkhla, this time, to participate for the entire duration of the field school.

Before the start of the field school, I was more prepared, at least mentally, compared to Songkhla and expected different types of challenges that I might face during the field school. To begin with, one of the most challenging aspects of the field school is time management. What most of us misunderstood about the field school is that because it is organised overseas and in the “field” during the semester break, we tend to take it casually compared to a typical design studio in the school. The impression that most of us have on field school is to have more fun with a lesser workload. However, what most of us did not realise is that the amount of workload that needs to be completed is equivalent to a regular design studio or other regular fourteen weeks module workload in a significantly shorter amount of time. Thus, is it imperative that the schedules for the program drawn in detail before the trip and that it should be followed strictly so that the field school can be more enjoyable with adequate work-life balance. Another challenge for these overseas field schools is the language barrier. The essence of the conservation is not just the place but the people

themselves and to understanding their needs and aspirations. If we cannot even understand their language, how can we even expect ourselves to fathom the needs of the people, especially within the short period? Fortunately, the field school participants usually consist of students from local universities too. The students from these local universities play a significant role in hearing the stories of the locals and translating them so that the rest of us can have a better understanding.

To be able to have a more profound knowledge of what I have learnt and experienced during the recently concluded Kauman field school, I will be comparing the experiences of Kauman to that of Songkhla field school in 2016. Although the objectives of the two fields school is relatively the same, which is the conservation of tangible and intangible aspects of the chosen communities, the process itself is somewhat different.

During Songkhla field school, the approach was mostly focused towards documenting and identifying the tangible and intangible aspects of the community through community mapping. Initially, I was not sure about how the character or identity of a place could be captured and mapped out literally, on a piece of the map. Nevertheless, the process started with students breaking up into groups and were assigned to take a short walk along the streets of Songkhla old town while mapping different kinds of stores, significant places, buildings, nodes, etc. which is the usual way of mapping. It wasn’t until the next day when I started talking to locals at their homes, shops and restaurants, with the help of the students from the local university, that I truly understand the purpose of community mapping. I realised that the community mapping is not as simple as mapping out the buildings, shops, houses and nodes. It is the mapping of identity, culture and characteristics of the place through human activities and their daily rituals. To truly understand the place is to understand the people. The people of Songkhla were amiable and helpful to our simple questions like “how long have you been living here” or “how long have you been running this business?” actually leads them to talk about their family, lives, hopes and dreams for the future. These types of conversations not

only allows us to have a peek into their everyday lives but also will enable us to understand the relationship between Songkhla as a place and the people themselves.

All necessary information that is to be mapped out were gathered directly from the people, unlike the usual exercise where we observe from afar and make biased assumptions based on our observations, experiences and expectations, and in turn, dictating what the place should become. Moreover, the information was recorded on different mediums from pictures to voice recordings to videos to capture as many characteristics of a place as possible from various perspectives.

On the other hand, for this year’s Kauman field school, the interaction with the locals was rather minimal. This could be mainly due to the different objectives of the two field schools. Unlike Songkhla, one of the aims here is to establish guidelines for conservation of Kauman’s heritage and ultimately propose design interventions based on these guidelines. All these are to be done within a week (excluding the time for measured drawings). The challenge here is that all these design interventions and guidelines were based on our findings and observations of the community from the first three days in Kauman.

At first, I was quite doubtful about whether we could achieve the given task in such a short period. Knowing that the results not only have to contain the possible rules and regulations for the future development but it also needs to reflect the history, traditions and culture of Kauman. Although I would say that we somewhat achieved our goal at the end of the day, I believe that there is a lot more information that could have been used to formulate the guidelines that are more purposeful. The difference from Songkhla here is that most of the information came from lectures from representatives, historic documents from authorities and quick tours around the community. What is lacking here, in my opinion, is the proper interaction with people. Without this, I felt the information that can only come from the hearts and minds of the people are not gathered and their voices not heard. However, if given enough time for the interaction with the people, I believe that more comprehensive guidelines could have been developed. The three design interventions seem to

make up for what is lacking. It helps justify the intention of the proposed guidelines. It was proof that the guidelines are not extracted from thin air but are tested and grounded in these interventions.

On the whole, I felt that the approach towards conservation for Kauman is more meaningful in a sense that at the end of the field school, we are leaving something substantial behind for future of the Kauman and its people. This is not to say that Songkhla’s approach was not meaningful or valuable. The amount of time we spent with the locals in Songkhla could have resulted in something more than just community mappings for people to see and appreciate. With the information that we had, we could have proposed specific intervention like in Kauman for example, master plan, design interventions, design guidelines, etc. I felt that to develop something substantial for the locals and authorities to use or adapt the information in the future was significant as few people might be able to understand the information gathered via mapping of the area, but most layman might not know how to use it effectively. Developing conservation and design guidelines, and subsequent design interventions might allow them to understand the broader purpose of the entire field school. Also, it can be seen as a way to give back to the community that helps us to make this happen.

The common activities between the two field schools were the measured drawings where we were tasked to measure every nooks and cranny of an old building. The only difference is that during Songkhla field school, the computer-aided drawings were done in Singapore and were given two weeks to complete after the measurements were done in Songkhla whereas, for Kauman field school, both measurements and drawings were done within two weeks which makes it rather tough to complete. However, for this part of the activity, I felt that the method used in Songkhla’s was more efficient and meaningful mainly because the measured drawings during the final exhibition in Songkhla was presented in multiple sketches which are simple and can be done within a few hours or a few days depending on the size of the sketch. Moreover, the sketches seem to be more “alive” and can tell more stories than computer-aided drawings lacking the hand-drawn touch.

If there were to be future field schools, the appropriate programs and approaches from both field schools should be combined. For example, more time should be allocated for the interactions and communications with the locals so that the participants can have a better understanding of the place. With this understanding, they could create interventions and guidelines for the people to adopt and practice. Digitized drawings should be done after the final exhibition so that could be done the participants have more time to produce drawings that are up to standard and ready for publishing. The measured drawings for the final exhibition should be presented in multiple sketches so that is it efficient and can sort of “speak out” to the audience. Having said all these, I do understand the implications behind such recommendations such as time, cost and skill required to produce “exhibition worthy” sketches. Nevertheless, it is something that we should aim to achieve to create a more comprehensive experience for the participants as well as for the community.

To conclude, the lessons I have learnt from the two field schools are invaluable. These experiences it not something I could learn from regular design studios or electives or even from overseas exchange programs. During my journey in architecture school, this is one of the only few programs that genuinely offers an immersive experience that deals with real-world issues. On top of that, it is a once in a lifetime opportunity for some of the students from different universities and countries with various language and cultural background, to meet, bond and exchange experiences. I hope that this program could become the essential part of the academic curriculum in the future so that the future generation of students can appreciate and understand what does it take to conserve the cultural heritage of a place.