Joon K
Google
I have traveled to more than 20 countries and visited over 100 museums, yet I have never encountered a museum as strange as this one.
The most baffling aspect was that at 11:30 a.m., all visitors were ordered to leave and told to return at 1:30 p.m. Does this mean Laos is a welfare state where staff lunch breaks and naps are treated as the highest priority?
When entering one of the museum buildings, a staff member instructed me to leave my water bottle at the entrance and retrieve it upon exit. However, when we were forced out at 11:30, there was no staff member in sight—and my water bottle had disappeared. It was a fancy bottle that I had purchased deliberately.
Another strange policy was the total ban on photography. It is understandable to prohibit flash photography for paintings, as strong light can damage artworks. Most museums therefore distinguish between sections where photography is permitted and where it is not. Of course, some museums ban photography entirely—but in those cases, the quality of the artifacts is so exceptional that one can at least understand the reasoning.
In this museum in Luang Prabang, however, the most noteworthy exhibits were diplomatic gifts sent from other countries. The genuinely ancient Lao artifacts consisted of only a few rather crude Buddha statues. Aesthetically, they were far inferior to those found in Bangkok or Cambodia. This is not to suggest that the Lao artistic tradition itself is inferior, and I hope this will not be misunderstood. Laos may once have possessed finer works, but they were likely taken abroad or stolen long ago.
If you visit the Bangkok National Museum, you can actually see Lao Buddha statues that are far superior to the ones displayed here.
The rest of the exhibits were relatively modern items used by the royal family.
When I saw that photography was prohibited, I assumed there must be masterpieces inside. Instead, I came to suspect that the museum management simply enjoys exercising control—expelling visitors, confiscating belongings, banning photographs. Was there some satisfaction in sending people out, taking away their property, and enforcing restrictions? It felt less about preservation and more about authority.
There were other shocking details. Following a sign that read “Royal Kitchen,” we discovered that the space is now used as a restroom. The area labeled “Royal Hospital” was being used as soldiers’ barracks. Outdoor exhibition signs had faded in the sun to the point of illegibility and were left unattended. Trash was scattered throughout the grounds.
It may not be that Laos manages its cultural heritage this way because it is poor. Rather, perhaps Laos is poor because it is so morally and institutionally decayed that it would manage its cultural heritage in this way.
Why is there so little visible pride in their own cultural heritage? The cultural assets of a Lao museum are not only Laos’s heritage but part of humanity’s shared heritage as well.
It was, in the end, a deeply bitter and sorrowful experience.
