wes fowler

This posting, dating back two years, was originally captioned “What is a good mix of touristy and authentic?” It and its original responses can be found by doing a text search on that title.<BR><BR>I found a posting made by a young college student to be most intriguing. She is proposing a three week visit to Europe that essentially includes most of its major cities, none encompassing a stay of more than two days it seems. More intriguing was her desire to see "a good mix of touristy and authentic spots". <BR><BR>I responded to her by suggesting her proposed itinerary was overly ambitious but did not address "touristy and authentic spots" because I'm not sure I know what they are. Is the Tower of London "authentic" since it's been an integral part of England's history for over 900 years or is it "touristy" because of the hordes of visitors it attracts? Is Bath "touristy" and "Blackpool "authentic"? Which holds more appeal? Is a spot authentic if it does not appear in a guidebook or travel literature?<BR><BR>Interestingly enough, a recent study of the British Travel Authority indicated that the most popular, heavily visited tourist attraction in Britain is one I've never seen referred to on this forum in over five years of scanning and responding to postings; it's Beaulieu Abbey. <BR><BR>So, I'm curious. What's "touristy"? Madame Tussaud's, Planet Hollywood and Hard Rock Cafi? Notre Dame, Westminster Abbey and St. Mark's Piazza? What's authentic? If authentic, when does it become touristy? Can one be both? How and why?<BR> <BR>

Mel

Wes--as always, a thought-provoking question. Actually, I was thinking somewhat the same thing last week in Paris...<BR>Everyone says MontMarte is touristy, but can a monument located there, such as Sacre Coeur, rightly fit that description? I'd hope not.<BR><BR>San Chappelle, however, seemed less awe-inspiring this time and more touristy because of all the people sitting around me with an open Rick Steve's book in their laps.<BR><BR>Do we go to certain places to say we've "gone" and not because we truly want to absorb the incredible architecture (Notre Dame) or art (Louvre)? It seems so when you see the hordes passing through so quickly, doesn't it?<BR><BR>I think one could rightly say that places such as these can be both touristy and authentic, but are there places known not for their historical significance (such as the Tower)that have become "must sees" thanks to tourists? (Such as Madame Toussauds or the London Eye.)

curt

I think they go hand in hand. Places become draws to tourists because of their history. People want to see these places they have read about all their lives. I mean, if London did not have the Tower, Buckingham Palace, Big Ben, Hampton Court, and on and on and on, why would anyone go there? Oh you might say for the plays, the pubs, etc, but not really. I can see plays and drink in good pubs at home. What I can not do is visit sites that have played major roles in the history of the world.

Ira

Hi Wes,<BR>Glad to discover that you have returned in good health.<BR><BR>I suggest that a site shifts from 'authentic' to 'touristy' when the majority of people one meets there are from the US.<BR><BR>For some reason, if all of the people at a French site are Germans the site is still authentic.

David

To me what’s touristy is what I was exposed to as a child. Let me tell you going to Bunker Hill Elementary in suburban Indianapolis during the 60’s certainly did not expose me to very much!<BR><BR>This means touristy things are like the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre, the Arc de Triomphe and Notre Dame for Paris. The Tower of London, Buckingham Palace (specifically changing of the guard), Picadilly Circus and Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park for London. Rome is St. Peter’s, the Vatican, Sistine Chapel and the Coliseum. These are the kinds of sites I’ve known about since a child and have wanted to see all my life. They are the first places I plan to see when I visit another country. <BR><BR>As an example that means to me the Musee d’Orsay is not touristy. I “found” the d’Orsay because I am interested in Impressionism. I was not taught in my childhood that the d’Orsay is a must-see, maybe because it was still a train station when I was a child.<BR><BR>After the touristy sites are seen the pressure is off and it’s time for seeing things that are more to the tastes I’ve developed as I’ve grown older. These are not touristy for me no matter how long the lines or how big the crowds. They are the things I truly enjoy doing. Everything from the Museum of Locks in Paris to the mini Egyptian pyramid built in Rome by the Romans. I like mechanical things. The Prado in Madrid to the Zwinger in Dresden to the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam, I like Western art up to the beginnings of the 20th century. I like sitting at an outdoor caf&eacute; and watching the parade of life walk by. I like seeing a performance at the State Opera in Prague. I never had the patience to enjoy those things as a child.<BR>

Snoopy

I mean this respectfully, Wes, but I think that "touristy" is snobbishly meant by those who use it to contrast with "authentic". I heard these specific terms used to describe Tivoli (touristy) and Bakken (authentic) in Copenhagen. I was sitting at the lobby bar in the Radisson Scandinavia and I'd had enough beer to butt into the conversation and ask why they'd described them that way. "Tivoli is full of tourists and Bakken is full of Danes". So I asked them how they'd define Notre Dame or Vatican City, both of which to me seem quite dynamic with regard to who is there at any specific time. In their mind, though they didn't quite put it this way, if it had snob appeal it was authentic and if it had lower class appeal it was touristy.<BR><BR>Something an earlier poster said is also close to my feeling: yesterdays authentic is tomorrow's touristy. (PEOPLE DESIRING TO READ ONLY FACTUAL MATERIAL CAN STOP HERE. THIS IS PURELY SUBJECTIVE OPINION) 50 years ago, people who travelled to Europe were for the most part wealthier than the average traveller today. London was theater and Paris was art, and that was the message brought back by people for whom opera, symphony, and art museums were normal, frequent activity. What we call tourist attractions today, were then simply part of the landscape.<BR><BR>

Wendy

Websters states:<BR><BR>Main Entry: tour·isty <BR>Pronunciation: 'tur-&s-tE<BR>Function: adjective<BR>Date: 1906<BR>: of or relating to tourists : as a : patronized by tourists b : of a type appealing to tourists <BR><BR>But to me touristy is the abdance of businesses specifically seeking out tourist dollars. Eiffle Tower- not touristy, knick knack vendors all over the Eiffle Tower grounds- touristy!<BR><BR>I live in Seattle where all tourists make a point to go to the Pike Place Market. Many people regard this market as touristy. But I do my grocery shopping there and I'm not a tourist so how can this be? Maybe things are both sometimes, maybe there is space for gray!<BR><BR>And why are tourist and touristy such bad words? Let's be more accepting of tourists and less accepting of elitist attitudes!<BR><BR>Great post Wes,<BR><BR>Wendy

Just Another Tourist

I agree with Snoopy that there is a snobbish dimension to this. "If I go there, it's authentic. If other people go there, it's touristy." It's the same with tourist versus traveler "I'm a traveler; everybody else is a tourist."<BR><BR>To me, the only things that are truly touristy are those that are built solely to rake in tourists' money, like the Hard Rock Cafe, or have been literally transformed into tacky "attractions." Authentic sites may be full of tourists, but that doesn't make them touristy per se. Is St. Peter's to be facilely dismissed as touristy because it's full of tourists and has been for centuries? How about the Louvre?<BR><BR>Believe it or not, places like Ste. Chapelle and Brugge and even the Cinque Terre had plenty of visitors for years and years before Rick Steves "discovered" them. Were they touristy back then?

Lexma90

I agree, very thoughtful question.<BR><BR>I would go a bit further than most of the previous poster and say that any site (whether it be a museum or a location) that has many tourists is "touristy." That (to my mind, anyway) does not make it necessarily not worth visiting. It might make it less authentic, though.<BR><BR>The Louvre is not an "authentic" piece of France or being French, it's a museum, the purpose of which is to be visited by visitors (French or otherwise). The ambiance of the Louvre is not changed or destroyed, is it, but the nationality of the visitors? I would say the Louvre, the Arc de Triomphe, the Eiffel Tower, or the Musee d'Orsay or the Uffizi (name your building) aren't touristy or authentic - they are just there (though much-visited by tourists).<BR><BR>A neighborhood, town or city, in contrast, can be touristy if it is frequented by enough visitors from outside that neighborhood as to change the original character of that area. If so, then it's less "authentic." Is the 6th arrondisement in Paris less authentic because of all the foreigners staying there? Possibly so. How about the Cinque Terre? Changed because of all the foreign visitors? Probably. Let's not even discuss Venice - but then, it's been a tourist destination for hundreds of years. Is part of the authenticity of Venice the fact that it's a tourist destination?<BR><BR>Then we consider events that are held solely or primarily for visitors. Do Irish pubs play Irish music for the locals only, or because the pub makes more money because the tourists come to hear the performers? Probably depends on the pub. How about dancing in restaurants in Greece, or the luau in Hawaii - is it touristy or authentic? It depends on who's watching, doesn't it? What about all those high English teas, that the English don't seem to attend, but the tourists really like. Doesn't seem so authentic if the natives aren't doing it. How about those activities or arts that might have died out had it not been for the money to made from tourism relating to that activity. Are they not authentic because they're now produced for the tourist markets?<BR><BR>I wouldn't say, though, that just because something is more low-brow (Madame Tussauds) that it's more touristy. A roadside lobster stand or pound is one of the most authentic things about a trip to Maine, & frequented by tourists and locals. And if a place is full of, let's say, stores that can be found anywhere, it isn't very authentic at all and is very touristy (recent U.S. visits to Pier 39 in S.F. and Navy Pier in Chicago come to mind). But that's my personal pet peeve.

elaine

For me, touristy is something that was created just for tourism, created just for the dollar/pound/euro, and they are usually enterprises where marketing always outweighs quality. Madame Tussaud's, the godawful (imo) London Dungeon, shops that sell mini Eiffel Towers, most of the restaurants around Piazza San Marco, etc. <BR><BR>Let me rush to add that I am not immune from adding my own tourist bucks to the industry, having bought my own fair share of Mona Lisa dishtowels and Queen's Jubilee teacups.<BR><BR>On the other hand, authentic to me means either that the structure or sight or site was originally put there to serve another purpose (The Clink Gaol as oppossed to the London Dungeon, for example) or it was put there mostly or originally to celebrate its own glories and treasures even more than to fight for the tourism euro. Yes, the Louvre and the Orsay and even the Marmottan are enterprises that must take in a goodly revenue and the Orsay sells Monet refrigerator magnets, but at least the treasures they contain are themselves authentically created, independent of today's admission fees and gift shops.<BR><BR>Monet struggled and was thankful to sell his paintings of course, but I'd like to think that the paintings weren't all created just so that they could later look good on calendars.<BR><BR>Like most things in life, this is a subjective topic. Thanks, Wes.

Jen

&quot;a recent study of the British Travel Authority indicated that the most popular, heavily visited tourist attraction in Britain is one I've never seen referred to on this forum in over five years of scanning and responding to postings; it's Beaulieu Abbey.&quot;<BR><BR>I'd like to know how that study was conducted -- that result makes no sense at all.

KT

It's not absolutely impossible that Beaulieu Abbey does receive the most visitors, depending upon how they're counting and what qualifies as a &quot;tourist attraction.&quot; It's a highly commercialized place in a heavily populated area, it has a big automobile musuem that's a popular day out, and it also hosts loads of corporate functions. But since those visitors are mostly British, I guess some people here wouldn't call it touristy!

mimi taylor

Hi Wes, I think part of the problem with &quot;touristy sites&quot; are that they have been photographed so beautifully, its sometimes a letdown.It's like seeing the Mona Lisa for the first time. What a let-down, under glass, roped off,<BR>small! I look for more indigenous things, like Camponiles(the wrought iron steepes that keep the mistral from blowing the peak away. Cadran Soliel, those beautiful sun dials painted on the sides of houses, the fitages,in Normandy, beautiful enalmaled figures, animals or myth to keep the birds from settling on roofs, the ancient chapels in Provence from 13-16 century, The terrific light houses of Normandy and Brittany. So much to see, so little time in one country like France.<BR><BR>

amy

Wes, as soon as you walk into this room, you raise the level of discussion...<BR><BR>A repeated topic on this board is whether the Leaning Tower of Pisa is worth is or not. Some people see the tourists and tacky shops and vote &quot;no.&quot;<BR>Others see past them to the site they most associated with Galileo, and vote &quot;yes.&quot; <BR><BR>Raised to avoid crowds and tourist traps, I now find myself being &quot;la tourista&quot; with abandon in my older age. I admit to having a hoot in Madame Tussaud's. I went back three times on the moving runway to look at the Crown Jewels.<BR><BR>But there is some sort of line there, I guess, for each of us. St. Malo hit me as tacky where Cancale up the road seemed &quot;real.&quot; I can enjoy the Eiffel Tower but have a hard time looking past all the grifters around Sacre Coeur. And don't get me started on London Dungeon--kids scheduled it as part of their participation in our trip planning. Even they consider it to be the epitome of the term tourist trap. <BR><BR>Well, back to the Pisa thing. I seriously thought about avoiding it, and thought, &quot;What the heck...&quot; I loved it. Thought the entire Field of Miracles was a pleasant surprise, was happy to take the leaning picture of the family. Only regret was that I didn't buy the leaning coffee cup others on this board did.<BR><BR>Wes, you type, spell, and write better with two fingers than 99% of us here. Welcome back!

Karen

I live in Minnesota, where the biggest tourist attraction is the Mall of America, and it definately fits the description of existing only for the purpose of separating visitors from their dollars. But that alone doesn't make it touristy to me, and I along with many other Minnesotans visit it frequently for the original purpose of the building. But I would describe it as &quot;touristy&quot; rather than &quot;authentic&quot; because there is no soul in the place, nothing about it will touch your heart. It lacks wonder as a piece of art or a piece of history, and it doesn't have the grandure or peace that is found in nature.

Sue

There have been a lot of good suggestions, such as the snob appeal aspect (&quot;nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded&quot; Yogi Berra supposedly once quipped.)<BR><BR>Then there's the very thoughtful post that if it was once there for an original purpose, it's authentic. Except that even the Vatican acknowledged once that there were an astonishing number of pieces of the true cross floating around Europe at one point in history. So even the medieval tourists of old, the pilgrims, might not have been visiting something authentic. <BR><BR>I think I'd refine the above idea and say that authentic is what was put there to meet the needs of a significant number of local people, not just visitors on vacation. This doesn't rule out entertainment spots like Blackpool, or pubs in Ireland that play the latest pop charts instead of folk music that surely doesn't appeal to every local person's taste. But villages that no longer have any industry other than tourism to keep their economies afloat are at risk of losing their authenticity, at least by this definition.

x

David,<BR>I can't agree with you that things you were exposed to as a child should be labled &quot;touristy&quot;. Perhaps your family or teachers were trying to introduce you to western culture and history, which seem to me to be &quot;authentic&quot;.

David

A very good point, x.

Mike

Good question. I agree with Snoopy in that &quot;touristy&quot; tends to connote a snobbish view of travel. When my wife and I travel, on tours or on our own, we try to put things into perspective and lose ourselves in the places we visit which is not always easy with seas of people around us. We like to take closer than the typical cursory looks in art museums, cultural showcases, and monuments. Some are undoubtedly cheesy and we don’t have to go back, but at least we have first-hand experience so that we are able to judge for ourselves what is worth visiting and what is not.

Janda

Believe it or not,I think Venice is authentic. Walk a few steps away from the tourist areas and you have the real Venice.