14 November 2008
Imagine visiting Amsterdam as a tourist without any knowledge about Vincent van Gogh. All the tourist information, websites and books force you to visit Van Gogh Museum by attaching strong words like ‘must-see’; shops in the city-centre exhibit some bright-coloured paintings and portraits of a man printed on various products; many people are carrying around a plastic bag or prism-shaped poster cover with ‘Vincent VAN GOGH MUSEUM’ written in yellow and orange letters against ultramarine blue background. They are all waving hands at you, regardless of your ‘common sense.’
The ‘popularity’ of tourism in today’s world is undisputable. As one of the popular international tourist destinations, Amsterdam received 4.9 million tourists in 2007. Among those, 1.7 million visited the Van Gogh Museum which counted for the third popular attraction (City of Amsterdam, 2008). Aside from the van Gogh’s art or museum itself, tourism constructions around it have been centralized in this paper in the supposition that tourist culture is one of the unique contemporary popular cultures that are formed internationally. Research included various methods: interview, web-search, visiting and photographs. Cultural theories were also put to connect and explain the data. The term ‘souvenirization’ which I coined for applying various theories to ‘popular-culturized’ van Gogh in Amsterdam’s tourism is meant for the cultural practices of tourist culture.
Tourism and Popular Culture
Tourism has its own universe. Compared to ‘Disneyization’ which Bryman introduced in his article to explain that more and more societies are adopting values and strategies of Disney theme parks (1999), tourism universe can be seen as extended version of it in social dimension. Once entering to the theme park, visitor—with limited time and money—has to see, experience, eat and as such by following visitor’s information and signs. Tourism is not different from it except the fact that participants are usually older than Disney visitors. Websites, travel guides and the Van Gogh Museum itself were all advertising the Van Gogh Museum as important place to visit, and this cooperative promotion works as signs to follow. The official tourist website for Amsterdam introduced the Van Gogh Museum as ‘the largest and most renowned institution’ along with Rijksmuseum, Stedelijk Museum, Anne Frank House and the like (amsterdamtourist.nl); travel guide named Eyewitness Travel Amsterdam, for instance, put the Van Gogh Museum as one of the Top 10 unmissable museums & galleries in Amsterdam; part of mission statement from the Van Gogh Museum website described that its purpose is to ‘extend and enhance the reach and appeal of its permanent displays to broad public’ (vangoghmuseum.com) (italicized by the writer). Though the reasons for visiting the Van Gogh Museum can be vary from person to person, it is clear that there exist visible guidelines on what to do, which eventually result in tourist practice or ritual, and even tourist’s frequent movement line (which are separate and different from that of local’s). The Van Gogh Museum has numerous programs and temporary exhibitions along with permanent Van Gogh exhibition, but statistics of visitor information show that only 13 percent of visitors were Dutch nationalities in 2007 implying that the museum is mostly visited by international visitors (number from vangoghmuseum.com). Existence of certain group of people who share the same interests (to see and experience the difference), situation (e.g. limited time), places (hotels and hostels, museums and as such) and identification of ‘being a tourist’ both coming from themselves and others (mainly locals) shows that tourism is indeed popular culture. Although in some sense the tourist group exists only temporary, the cultural practice or ritual and tourism universe remain and sometimes even evolve.
Souvenirized Van Gogh 1: Materialization
Souvenir in definition originally comes from French, denoting an object to memorize from a travel. Thus, souvenir is closely related to tourist culture and tourist behavior despite the fact that there are also tourists who don’t want to participate in buying-souvenir rituals (discussed later in part 3). Visiting and taking photographs in souvenir shops around city-centre area (Dam Square and Rokin) for research made me surprised to realize that there are certainly so many shops mainly for tourists in Amsterdam, not to mention that they all have souvenirs covered up with Van Gogh images and his paintings. It almost gave me impression that they pervade the city’s tourism sector. To get to know about the Van Gogh Museum online shop was also a big shock: 440 Van Gogh-related products—excluding New Arrivals—sold by museum (vangoghmuseumshop.com). Lastly, the museum shop is located at the entrance/exit of the museum which made the shop very crowded. People certainly visit and buy things that makes their ground for business. In one of the three interviews conducted with people waiting in line to get into the Van Gogh Museum, one Indian couple (aged 33, 28) from United Kingdom replied that they will visit museum shop after viewing the exhibition because they always find something interesting—specifically souvenirs which can remind them of the trip. Further asked “is it [buying a product at the museum shop] then no more about art itself but about the place,” interviewee agreed.
Desire to materialize by the act of ‘buying of visiting place’ is constructed in the whole tourism industry. Althusser’s thesis that Ideology has a material existence—understood that even though one can believe that subject is a conscious and autonomous being, that being cannot escape from the material practice in the ideological cycle—is well shown in this tourist cultural example (Althusser, 1971). The ultimate goal of making profit in dominant capitalism society proves itself in material existence: a souvenir.
Souvenirized Van Gogh 2: Reproduction of High Art
Reproduction of van Gogh’s artworks by materialization deconstructs modernist distinction between High Art and Low Art. Van Gogh simulacrum, if we think in Baudrillard’s concept, spreads itself onto house walls, café menus, and daily products such as neckties, pencils, notebooks etc. This procession of simulacra threatens the power of original. It becomes not only high class’s possession but everyone’s since the masses also have knowledge about his works and life and accessibility to the original as well as imitation. Endless reproductions as in forms of Amsterdam souvenir in particular make van Gogh’s name popularized. The answer from the first interviewee (in front of the Van Gogh Museum) for her purpose visit was simply: “Because Van Gogh is famous painter.” Male respondent of white, middle aged couple from U.K. also responded that van Gogh is pretty well known and that van Gogh is part of his general knowledge.
Yet, the quote: When the real is no longer what it used to be, nostalgia assumes its full meaning (Baudrillard, 1983) holds true in this popularized van Gogh case as well. Another Baudrillard’s term, myths of origin, equals people’s desire and belief to see the ‘real’ or ‘truth.’ Nostalgia towards consolidative existence of high art before postmodern era could be found in many tourism contexts. The place where the Van Gogh Museum is located was designated as ‘area of art and culture’ from the city council which is now called the Museum Quarter, according to one travel guide. The Museum Quarter is region where internationally known museums and concert hall, art galleries, and exclusive shopping streets are mingled with (Eyewitness Travel Amsterdam). The Van Gogh Museum promotes itself by promising to show remains of high art or protection of it. People’s response to this attraction can be observed in souvenir shops as well as expensive museum entrance fee (12.50 euro for adult) for ‘protection’—in plural connotation. Souvenirs in Dam Square Souvenirs, a shop which is located literally at Dam Square, Amsterdam’s the busiest central place, make a good example. Among various souvenir ‘themes (e.g. tulips, Iamsterdam logo, character Miffy, Delft porcelain, wooden shoes)’ and items (e.g. mugs, plates, colour pencil kit, bags, magnets and etc), van Gogh products are highly priced in comparison to others. Van Gogh premium price ranged from 55 cent to 14.50 euro more than others depending on the products, but van Gogh products were never cheaper. Also with shop manager’s saying that all themes are sold evenly, it is noticeable that this price gap is filled up and legitimatized by those who are willing to pay more for the great artist or their own nostalgia towards high art.
Souvenirized Van Gogh 3: Differentiation
Even within the pricy van Gogh products, differentiation was emerging. Being ‘official’ and ‘kitschy’ was distinguished. There are two museum shops, one inside of the Van Gogh Museum and one between Van Gogh Museum and Rijksmuseum. The former one is accessible only if you have the ticket for the Van Gogh exhibition (when I asked permission to go inside only for the shop, the guard said that is impossible and suggested to go the other shop) and the latter is situated at Museumplein—the art and culture sector that I mentioned above about the Museum Quarter—which is comparatively the farthest attraction from Amsterdam city centre. This gives some premiums of bringing around a plastic bag or paper poster cover with ‘official’ logo of the Museum. In addition, the Van Gogh Museum online shop was found representing itself as ‘the official online shop’ (vangoghmuseumshop.com). Products were not only about mere reproductions or prints but also included jewelry, lamp and chair etc with relatively unknown painting images or ‘arty’ concepts. A necklace named ‘Necklace ‘Leymus’ in Van Gogh colours’ was being advertised as unique piece made from nature which reflects colours of Van Gogh’s works. It was difficult to identify whether the colours are really from Van Gogh’s paintings or not, but by the price—59 euro, which was the middle price among necklaces—and the notice of ‘temporarily out of stock’ implied a lot about classy or high quality official souvenirs.
On the other hand, van Gogh souvenirs in the shops around Rokin and Dam Square (central part of Amsterdam) area were quite different. As well as the accessibility that every tourist can enter the shop very easily, price range was usually cheaper than official ones. Souvenirs also looked quite ‘kitschy’ in that they used limited number of Van Gogh’s art works (his portraits, The Bedroom, Sunflower etc which are relatively well known); that their condition looked almost like poor imitations; that some were even vulgar, for instance, van Gogh’s self-portrait image smoking joint was printed on the postcard and was put next to the one with a picture of woman with huge breasts. Differences between ‘official’ and ‘kitschy’ show how tourism culture using art concept is divided according to the amount of money tourists carry.
While selective process of targeting specific group of tourist is made mostly from producing side, some tourists also differentiate themselves from others by not participating in this souvenirization process. The first interviewee, 18-year-old Estonian girl who informed that she is attending high school which has a very thorough education in art and culture field, said that the van Gogh one (souvenir) isn’t special during answering about plan to visit the museum shop. Talking with the middle aged couple from U.K. also went similar. Firstly being asked about plan to visit any souvenir shops, the man replied ‘I tend not to go into souvenir shops anywhere I go’ (though a while after he answered that he might go into a museum shop). Woman in the couple added that they are not necessarily looking for buying the van Gogh and especially his sunflowers, since it isn’t right (she was very much critical about the commodification and exploitation of van Gogh, being ubiquitous).
These two differentiation process seem to be critical to confirm that differentiating and identifying in tourist culture are based on the consumption and taste (judging what is official and what is kitschy). Like Bourdieu argued, this cultivated taste along with financial power legitimizes the social differences deliberately (1984). It has to be thought what kind of tourists want to differentiate themselves and who do not care.
Souvenirized Van Gogh 4: Representation of Ethnicity
Souvenir in general has to represent or associate ethnicity to be sold. Souvenirs in Amsterdam proudly relate themselves with the name of Amsterdam or Holland with various ‘concepts’ (e.g. Red Light District, marihuana, tulips, windmills and so on). Van Gogh, in this context, locates itself among those by the existence of the Van Gogh Museum (having originals) in Amsterdam and Vincent van Gogh being Dutch. Many of tourism advertisements were using these facts. Above all, the most out-spoken but at the same time deliberate case was the display of Dam Square Souvenirs (the shop mentioned above in Souvenirized Van Gogh 2). This shop has two window display sections and at the time of the research, display space on the left was wholly devoted to van Gogh. On the three floor shelves which are coloured each in blue, white and red (representing flag of the Netherlands) the ‘official’ van Gogh products were placed. To find out the effect of tourism industry’s effort to associate Amsterdam with van Gogh, a question whether van Gogh comes to their mind if they think about Amsterdam or not was asked to interviewees. Two interviewee groups reported ‘of course’ and ‘yes’ while middle aged couple replied negatively, pointing out that he didn’t spend most of his time in Amsterdam or in the Netherlands.
Living in globalized and postmodern world, the origin of birth, working place and as such might not be a big issue for international tourists. However, what is dangerous about this juxtaposition is that aside from the fact whether it is truth or false, it makes people don’t think about the reality anymore, as Baudrillard put it, simulation threatens the difference between ‘true’ and ‘false,’ between ‘real’ and ‘imaginary’ (1983: 351). Although tourists themselves may aware of the fact that souvenirs are in many cases exaggerated, selected, and traditions of the past that are no longer exist, they purchase them ‘just as souvenirs’ not critically thinking what exactly souvenirs are representing. If people want to buy something ‘real’ that can remind of Amsterdam or the Netherlands, s/he might have to start important questions such as ‘how the Dutch culture is ethnically and racially diverse, depart from the one cultural and popular figure of one white male artist?’ That both tourism industry and tourists seem like inevitably being in need of some ‘ethnicity’ to differentiate from other touristic destinations and experiences is very much questionable.
Tourist Universe and Tourists Inside
The concept of Souvenirization of Van Gogh was used as to figure out the characteristics of tourism culture nowadays. It was very difficult to approach with one coherent theory or analysis, as tourism permeated in many dimensions of our lives already. However, it seems like that tourism is not taken account that seriously as one influential popular culture. Moreover, as souvenirizations (materialization, distinction between high and low art/kitsch, differentiation according to taste and wealth, representation of ethnicity in tourism) become natural that you can expect even beforehand, all those practices can be accepted and continue uncritically with the cause that Tourist Universe is already distorted, false, commodifying, lack of uniqueness and so on. Apart from the pleasures of tourists who found themselves enjoying in the Tourist Universe, contemporary tourist culture should be problematized and at some extent opposed for better universe and culture.
Works Cited
Althusser, Louis. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses.” (1971) Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: A Reader. Ed. John Storey. 2nd ed. Pearson, 1998: 153-164.
Baudrillad, Jean. “The Precession of Simulacra.” (1983) Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: A Reader. Ed. John Storey. 2nd ed. Pearson, 1998: 350-357.
Bourdieu, Pierre. “Distinction & The Aristocracy of Culture.” (1984) Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: A Reader. Ed. John Storey. 2nd ed. Pearson, 1998: 431-441.
Bryman, Alan. “The Disneyization of Society.” The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 1999. (1999): 25-47.
City of Amsterdam. Research and Statistics Economic Development Department. Fact sheet. Number 4a, October 2008. http://www.os.amsterdam.nl/pdf/2008_factsheets_4a.