which makes it quite fun, really.
on a (slightly) more serious note,
one sees singapore in that thriving, living place, full of its past, occupied by a language of her/his/its own. one sees singapore in the concrete of the city, the unwashed grime, the mega malls, the 3am traffic and flowers by the road. the Bangkok skytrain, with its generic and uncontextual station designs, so alike singapore's train stations, built for the sake of building.
the city shows its own understanding of urban planning, and who am i to judge if it's a good one or not. (though a pile of rubble directly opposite one of its most high end malls can't be helping those tourist numbers.) my evaluation of Bangkok has come to me as a whole of sorts, quite unfortunately. i had been drawn away from my focus by the bright lights and smog.
to put it across most simply the walls of Bangkok aren't really structurally different from those in singapore (compositionally though, with regards to concrete, i cannot be sure) except those in Jim Thompson's house. i realised how alike our cities were, how our concrete ceilings meet our concrete walls meet our concrete floors. the fitting together of Mr. Thompson's house had me overwhelmed. i know my documentation of that place is wholly inadequate. blame it on my hopeless sketching and prohibition of photographs.
in hasty conclusion, my hope for a study of differences in the area of my focus did not turn out quite so successful. i would say my study orientated towards how living here in singapore had any contrast to living there. the differences (in my opinion) lie in the Thai's pride and love for his culture, his religion, the way they live from day to day (transport, food, work-wise), how it seems so easy to be content, the way they allow their buildings to fall into rust and disrepair (very rustic) and. the cheap alcohol of course.
it is. exquisite.
bye.
No comments:
Post a Comment