Tourism and Architectural Simulacra

Nelson Graburn, Maria Gravari-Barbas, Jean-Francois Staszak

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000404203
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Hospitality, Travel & Tourism Industry
• Index: Business

Since its beginnings, tourism has inspired built environments that have suggested reinvented relationships with their original architectural inspirations. Copies, reinterpretations, and simulacra still constitute some of the most familiar and popular tourist attractions in the world.

Some reinterpret archetypes such as the ancient palace, the Renaissance villa, or the Mediterranean village. Others duplicate the cities in which we lived in the past or we still live today. And others realise perceptions of utopias such as Shangri-La, Eden, or Paradise. Replicas – duplitecture – and simulacra can have symbolic meaning for tourists, as merely inspiring an atmosphere or as truly authentic, and their relationship to original functions, for worship, accommodation, leisure, or shopping.

Tourism and Architectural Simulacra questions and rethinks the different environments constructed or adapted both for and by tourism exploring the relationship between the architectural inspiration and its reproduction within the tourist bubble. The wide range of geographical areas, eras, and subjects in this book show that the expositions of simulacra and hyper reality by Baudrillard, Deleuze, and Eco are surpassed by our complex world. Adopting an interdisciplinary approach they offer original insights of the complex relationship between tourism and architecture.

The chapters in this book were originally published as a special issue of the Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change.

Copysites: tourist attractions in the age of their architectural reproducibility

Bauer Bernhard and Canestrini Duccio

ABSTRACT

In this article we focus on those tangible assets that have been copied and imitated for reasons that are linked to tourism. What we call copysites are the replicas of places, buildings and sites that attract visitors interested in cultural heritage (tangible and intangible) and leisure activities, such as, entertainment, shopping, gastronomy etc. We analyse characteristic cases and acknowledge that the creation of copysites has different backgrounds: commercial interests, artistic and aesthetic motives, entertainment reasons, the joy to reproduce forms of success, preservation of the original sites, among others. We focus on who is content with visiting copies of monuments, sculptures, cities or ‘fakelore’ performances. On the basis of our examples we explain how far the principle of visiting replicated sites can be a success formula and why it seems so important for many tourists to see, check-in and tick-off activities and destinations, even if they are ‘almost authentic’.

1. Introduction

Humanity has never travelled so much as in recent years. In 2030 UNWTO predicts international tourist arrivals to reach 1.8 billion thanks to the rise of emerging economies (2012). Every summer we are expected to go on holiday, take paid vacations, leave home and play tourist. As we need tangible evidence of our tourism activity, it is considered appropriate to bring home souvenirs as trophies of our travels (Canestrini, 2001, 2004). In David Lodge's novel Paradise News (1991) the tourism anthropologist Roger Sheldrake, who never goes on holiday, is writing his first book about ‘tourism and the myth of paradise’. His theoretical approach is that ‘people are not really enjoying themselves when they go on holiday, but engaging in a superstitious ritual’ (p. 62). In this article we occasionally refer to Sheldrake's theory on the basis of copysites.¹

We call copysites replicas or imitations of certain monuments or groups of buildings of outstanding universal value that have received global fame through the tourism and marketing industry. Too often such copysites are pejoratively stigmatised as fake buildings and downgraded to be visited by thoughtless tourists who are sight-seeing at the ‘wrong’ spots. The present article studies various kinds of copysites as tourist attractions in the light of the following three hypotheses: (i) historical tourist spots are neither pure nor immutable; (ii) tourism is performance; and (iii) copysites are inherently a business driven idea. Society, travel habits and motivations as well as destination marketing have undergone significant change and development in the last decades. Thus, we deem it relevant to analyse the mentioned hypotheses, in part related to Cohen’s (1988) assumptions, from a contemporary point of view informed by rather recently created attractions as case studies.

Concerning the first hypothesis, we analyse the fact that tourist ‘originals’ undergo constant change. The dynamic processes that are combined with the commodification of assets are further linked to adaptations for our modern consumption and digital communication society. It has become difficult for travellers to distinguish between an authentic site and a copysite, moreover, travellers have different needs and expectations of a certain destination, and so it is delicate to argue whether it is ‘better’ to visit one or the other.

The article is based on the assumption that tourism and its corresponding industries are performances (Canestrini, 2003; Edensor, 2001; MacCannell, 1976). People go on compulsory holidays, travellers are collecting destinations and ‘ticking off’ sights from their must-travel list and the behaviour as a tourist has become routine for those who can afford to travel. MacCannell observed that ‘the term “tourist” is increasingly used as a derisive label for someone who seems content with his obviously inauthentic experiences’ (1973, p. 592). In addition to this, we argue that tourists are not constantly hunting for the ultimate authentic real world, as other scholars have pointed out (Brown, 1996; Ritzer & Liska, 1997). They might rather be ‘collectively gazing’ as Urry emphasises (1990), or carry with them a certain inability to have authentic experiences (Cohen, 1988). There are many tourist types (Cohen, 1979) and various reasons why visitors are enjoying seemingly superficial emotions, ‘fakelore’ performances or obvious replicas. The chosen examples describe cases of different justifications for the motivations of visitors.

Regarding the contested, yet highly relevant concept of authenticity in tourism related research we adopt Wang's (1999, 2000) identification of the three dominant and different approaches to understanding authenticity, which are ‘objective’, ‘constructed’ and ‘existential’. While the latter is ‘activity-related’, the others are ‘object-related’. He observed that tourism is an ‘industry of authenticity’ (2000, p. 71) where the actively-related form of existential authenticity becomes a commodity. What Wang defined as ‘toured objects’ can be compared with the here used term of copysites which are ‘totally inauthentic’ but the ‘existential version is a justifiable alternative source for authentic experiences in tourism’ (1999, p. 365). With the presentation of several examples, this article argues about the justification for the construction of copysites as well as the justification of tourists visiting them.

In our opinion, copysites are commercially driven business activities. Moreover, they are plainly beneficial for the destinations where they were constructed and we intend to contribute to the de-stigmatising such places. We also deal with the controversial issue of commodification of culture in its positive and negative aspects (Bauer, 2014, 2016). Certainly, the de-contextualisation of tangible and intangible cultural heritage is rooted in terms of an anthropological critical approach, while from a practical point of view the advantages of ‘duplitecture’ are undeniable for destinations and its visitors.

We use terms such as ‘tourism product’ and ‘commodity’ when we write about cultural elements, which have been or are in process of being transformed, hence commodified, into consumable and saleable products (Gotham, 2007). In this context we apply Bourdieu's concept of symbolic goods – these ‘(…) are a two-faced reality, a commodity and a symbolic object. Their specifically cultural value and their commercial value remain relatively independent, although the economic sanction may come to reinforce their cultural consecration’ (1993, p. 113). On the one hand, art is produced according to a logic, which is heteronomous with respect to the logic of economic profit. If produced for commercial success it is discordant with the dominant logic of arts. On the other hand, its production is autonomous with respect to the economic field and therefore created for enhancing symbolic capital or prestige. This is valued and its success is determined by the approval of other autonomous cultural producers (p. 39). Appadurai (1986) deals with the significance of such commodities in their socio-cultural contextualisation and in particular with the emergence of their significance for the relation among individuals and groups regarding consumption.

With reference to the social structure of tourism sites, MacCannell (1973) following Goffman (1959) distinguishes between front and back regions of certain destinations. The front region is defined as ‘the meeting place of host and guest’ and presumed a ‘show’ while the back region is a space where only locals have access to and thus defines an ‘intimate’ and ‘real’ part of social life at a destination. In light of Goffman's distinction we argue that copysites and their social spaces are primarily a front region of an alien destination.

2. Copysites and their architectural reproducibility²

When we speak about copysites and try to understand their meaning we might first need to recognise where they come from. In terms of monumental tourist attractions copysites immanently arise from original sites. Such sites of outstanding universal relevance (statuary works, buildings, edifices and architectonical structures) have a historical value and so they recall and represent historical processes. Throughout history original sites have often been subject to change in different manners including visible architectonical modifications (inside or outside), alterations to their initial purpose, adaptations, misunderstandings, political manipulations, modernisations (be it electricity or security measures, access for disabled persons, elevators, etc.), or simply through a process of decay due to missing commitment or financial funds. Therefore, original sites cannot be defined as undiluted or pure forms that have always remained in the same ‘original’ state. They are dynamic structures that are adapted to human longings and needs throughout history.

In relation to historical or modern original sites: we could allege that the Taj Mahal is a copy of an older mausoleum somewhere in India and the Burj Khalifa is a copy of the Empire State Building. Copies and imitations of monumental sites have always existed. Today's remnants of ancient Roman temples and theatres have been copied in early times both from Etruscan and Greek examples. New erections of architectonical buildings have been trying to imitate others. With slight or profound alterations this turned out to be the evolution of architecture and keeps evolving until today: there will always be a higher skyscraper, somewhere, which quotes a ‘twin’.

Some copies have in the meantime become originals in their own right like Michelangelo's David in Florence. The biblical figure of David has been sculptured by many artists (Donatello 1440, Verrocchio 1475, Bernini 1623) but the one by Michelangelo Buonarroti, finished in 1504 is aesthetically said to be the most beautiful artwork and hence more famous than others (although it is criticised that his right hand is slightly larger and not perfectly proportional to the rest of the body). After having spent almost 400 years in front of the Palazzo Vecchio, David was moved to the Galleria dell’Accademia in 1872. Weather and animals contributed to the material degradation of the fragile white marble and conservationists wanted to have him protected with a roof above his head. Thanks to this action the Galleria has become the second most visited museum in Florence in the last decades. In 1910 a replica was erected at the exact former position in Piazza della Signoria. In 1911 another replica of David (in bronze) was put in Piazzale Michelangelo. Today, these replica statues are more commonly visited and photographed than the real David in the museum. They have become almost originals. In this case we actually have a rare example of a historical commodification of cultural heritage. Nobody would regard those copies as fake Davids.

Both concepts, the original and the replica, have been defined and discussed from different points of view across various academic disciplines. We could list numerous conceptual categories and definitions that have been published by scholars in fields such as philosophy (Baudrillard, 1983), semiotics (Eco, 1986), history of art (Schwartz, 1996), social sciences (Benjamin, 1936; Bourdieu, 1993), just to name a few. Each of these disciplines give a contribution to our understanding of what is an original, a copy, a fake, a mimicry, a simulacrum and duplitechture.

In addition to these points of view of academic disciplines, there are cultural differences across the world in the understanding of what is an original and what is a copy. For example, in her book Original Copies, Bosker (2013) discusses the proliferation of copysites in China and claims this to be related to the Chinese concept of replica, which is different from Western perspectives. Bosker argues that in China a well made replica is considered appropriate and trustworthy, as opposed to less valuable than the original. Moreover, according to Fong (1962), there are four different understandings of a replica: mu means ‘to trace’ and heads after an exact replica (also regarding the replication of ruins); lin is the term for a copy or a looser replica; fang means ‘to imitate’ and can be an adaption of an original to the context; tsao m...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Citation Information
• Notes on Contributors
• Introduction: simulacra, architecture, tourism and the Uncanny
• 1 Copysites: tourist attractions in the age of their architectural reproducibility
• 2 What makes Paris being Paris? Stereotypes, simulacra and tourism imaginaries
• 3 Tropical and Eastern Paris: architecture, representation and tourism in Brazil and China
• 4 Simulacra heritagization: the Minyuan stadium in Wudadao, Tianjin
• 5 Seeing is believing: miniature and gigantic architectural models of second temple
• 6 The Musée de la Grande Guerre du Pays de Meaux – a simulacrum of the 1914–1918 war?
• 7 Simulacra architecture in relation to tourism: Charles Rennie Mackintosh in Glasgow and Antoni Gaudi in Barcelona
• Index