2009 Asia Pacific Creativity Forum on Culture and Tourism

Recently I had the honor of being invited back to Jeju to attend this event. It was a prestigious working roundtable event where a number of high-profile people gathered for three days to discuss new (real) ideas (ideals) for 'perspectives on the challenges and future directions to achieving sustainable tourism through creativity'. Before the event, each person attending was given an extensive questionnaire regarding certain questions related to creativity and sustainability. Here, below, are my responses.

RESPONSES

1-1: Regarding the impacts of creativity on culture and tourism:

Academics and policy makers involved in the tourism industry should not be ashamed to defer to cultural experts concerning cultural creativity. The problem of 'copycats' in the tourism industry is rooted in the often unnecessary urge to 'benchmark' against theoretically similar destinations, even when actual similarities exist only in form and not in content.

Instead, we should look to the observations of Claude Levi-Strauss when he compared the bricoleur to the engineer. In the bricoleur (in reference to the primitive), Levi-Strauss was an ability to construct (in the immediate sense) a system based on what is available locally, rather than (in the sense of the engineer) depending upon an ideal range of materials. In cultural tourism destination development a full assessment of local cultural talent should be implemented before any talk of tourism product is discussed.

Therefore:

• 1) Favor a local assessment of cultural creativity and resources over 'benchmarking',

• 2) Favor a 'bricoleur' approach to tourism product development, using only what is available, and;

• 3) Do not worry about 'copycats' as they can reproduce cultural forms but not content.

The contemporary failure of smaller destinations to promote themselves is based upon their over-dependence on a standardized language of destination image promotion. Creativity in product development as well as in promotion is required to ensure a real paradigm shift takes place.

1-2: Regarding the popularization of creativity in culture and tourism:

There is no need to favor a public oriented culture industry. The perception of a so-called elitist sensibility (in cultural creativity) is based in a general public attitude that fails to recognize the specialized efforts, skills, and knowledge of artists. Artists are the cultural resources of a destination, not the products they manufacture. The greatest risk in cultural commoditization is the cheap souvenir or experience. In Taiwan, tourism guidebooks focus on the introduction of artists and their studios rather than a particular 'type' of local product. With this approach, tourists are able to expect authenticity and quality craftsmanship in the souvenirs or experiences they seek. Therefore, rather than popularizing art, tourism policy makers should be focusing on the:

• 1) protection (with copyrights or patents),

• 2) provision (of space and materials), and

• 3) promotion (through media forms as well as the improvement of physical access by restructuring tour operators' itineraries)

of artists and craftspeople to bring the public into contact with the local culture industry.

Besides, local talent and culture is always there, it is just that many tourism policy makers and developers are looking for development projects that are more 'iconic' or 'massive' because, of course, such projects are more visible and memorable in their scale.

1-3: Regarding the future of creativity, culture and tourism:

By empowering local artists, artisans, craftspeople and people with traditional knowledge with creative spaces, closer community, access to markets and information and by enabling them with "protection, provision and promotion" their creativity will naturally and organically develop into tangible and recognizable forms with their own local flavor. New artists from other places who choose to relocate and reside at a destination should also be welcome to pursue their own work and should be accepted into the community, receiving the same opportunities as local artists. This diversity is very healthy and guarantees a contemporary authenticity to a destination's cultural capital. However, souvenirs and products manufactured abroad (usually for the sake of reducing production costs) should be regulated, properly labeled or outright prohibited. A destination's cultural industry must be based on quality and creativity.

Marketing forms are very important as well, to ensure creative marketing and proper representation of the reality at the destination. The closer destination image promotion comes to the reality at the destination, the better.

Consider destinations such as Thailand or Bali where locally produced products are so culturally iconic and beautiful that a large portion of 'cultural tourists' visiting these places are actually wholesalers or retailers of those products in their home countries.

2-1: Regarding the use of existing cultural assets:

The source of this question or concern is based in the general and fundamental misunderstanding of what cultural tourism is... or at a deeper level, a misconception concerning culture. Chris Jenks' definition of culture is a simple and succinct reply to the general perception of culture as something 'primitive', 'original and pure', or simply 'rustic or traditional' (or even to the opposite perception of culture as the elite forms of the privileged urban class). To paraphrase his thesis, culture is the social process of reproduction. Social forms, traditional knowledge and the like must offer some economic/spiritual benefits to their inheritors. Thus culture is 'reproduced' generationally or adapted to the current shared assumptions about social identity. In this sense, cultural tourism is and ideally, always has been creative tourism. it is the museumification of culture (retirement of cultural forms to venues for display like culture parks) that sucks the real, living authenticity from local culture. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the commercialization of cultural forms. Culture is, by definition, the result of indigenous creativity in adapting to certain natural and economic conditions in the environment.

Therefore, it should be recognized that tangible and intangible cultural assets can be:

• 1) reinterpreted and adapted to contemporary needs and sensibilities,

• 2) augmented or added to by new innovators, indigenous or newcomer, and

• 3) commercialized as long as the highest standards of local manufacture and authentic promotion are maintained.

2-2-1: Regarding the utilization of natural assets in tourism (implementation):

The natural environment is the source of many indigenous cultural forms found at a destination. Originally, climate, geography and the availability of food and materials define the people living in an environment as they must find local solutions to local problems. In this sense, cultural 'purity' is contingent entirely upon physical 'isolation'. Even today, some of the most impressive festivals, events and other cultural forms are best found in remote corners of the earth. Today many places still exist where certain crafts or traditional manufacturing goes on because of the unique qualities of that environment that made that industry viable in the first place. In Taiwan's famous Yinge Pottery Community (Taoyuan County), pottery is still made today as it was hundreds of years ago because of the abundant clay resources and access to water way transportation. What is different today is the additional tourism industry complete with museums, information systems and newer products that suit the tastes of visitors (although the form has changed, those products are still pottery and they are still made by master craftsmen).

What we should be aware of when implementing creative tourism is that the most contrived and least authentic cultural tourism products are those that exist because of planners' total disregard for the realities of the local environment. We must be aware of the destination's environment and its historical effects on the local community. And then we must stay true to that.

2-2-2:Regarding the utilization of natural assets in tourism (climate change):

The environment and its climate has always been changing and the ways in which people react adapt to those changes define culture. Serious changes are occurring these days however, and the scope is unprecedented in modern times. These days UNWTO and other global organizations are recognizing the effects of climate change and the role of tourism as both helpful and harmful. Local action is not enough, and if anything the new paradigm for tourism should be 'local culture', 'global climate'. It is advisable for local governments to consider membership in ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability ) or other environmental organizations to ensure that they are equipped with the proper tools and knowledge in order to do their part in meeting the global crisis.

2-3 Role of the creative class:

The Tourist

The tourist is, of course, selfish and self motivated. However, with the right direction (sensible and tasteful marketing, provision of good information in various forms, the proper design of built environments, proper guidance by tourism operators) from destination stakeholders, the tourist will recognize quality manufacture and artistry and will naturally invest in the destination's cultural creativity. If this turns out to not be the case, then, like New Zealand, (http://www.tourism.govt.nz/strategy/str-update-2003/str-stratupdate-implementation.html) a destination should narrow its focus to strategically target the "Interactive Traveler", in this case a tourist who:

• Consumes a wide range of tourism products and services

• Seeks out new experiences where they can engage and interact with natural, social and cultural environments

• Is keen to share these experiences with others

• Respects the environment, cultural and societal values of others

• Is considered a leader by his/her peers

• Uses technology to enhance their lives

• Values authentic products/experiences.

Tourist Business/industry professionals

In the context of this survey, if local governments were to offer "protection, provision and promotion" for local artists and those with traditional skills, then these tourist businesses would be comprised of a much larger proportion of artists. And with the proper amount of legal and economic support including tax incentives and possibly in many cases the gentrification of stagnant downtowns to provide artist space and access to tourist markets, the artist's own creativity would go a long way to developing a unique sense of place/destination image while strengthening local culture and identity. On another level, tourist businesses which do not conform to a more authentic and local sensibility could be taxed proportionately more. I think that it is important that local heritage sites be something more than just empty buildings toured by visitors -- that in some circumstances, artists are best equipped to give new life to these spaces, enhancing their cultural significance and economic value.

Central Government & Regional and Local Governments

Nations have unique structural relationships between the central and local governments. For example, Korea has a strong central government whereas Taiwan has strong local governments. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. In Korea, funding from a strong central government makes big projects in Jeju like the ICC and the Jongmun Tourism Complex possible. In Taiwan, strong local governments strongly resist the influences and opinions of central government policy makers and thereby save themselves the grief of 'desk reports' and intrusive urban sensibilities that have no currency in the village. Large scale festivals remain true to tradition while gaining widespread notoriety of their own. In other words, there is no simple answer concerning the roles of central or local governments... except that policy makers should recognize that funds should be generously granted to local governments and that the rural ways of doing things require that much of that funding will 'disappear' in 'soft' development such as activities that build community but do not yield 'tangible' results. This is not a bad thing. Sometimes too much infrastructure or 'hard' development is more damaging. Rural tourism development requires money, I think, to build its own infrastructure. And when in doubt, in terms of government intervention, the rule of thumb should always be, "less is more".

Academic Groups

Tourism researchers (academics) these days are at a real disadvantage. The current system in many countries is one that forces tourism researchers to agree with governmental policy makers or to be excluded from their projects or from public funding. In tourism research, development of tourism is favored over community development and market/management research is favored over anthropological approaches. This reduces tourism research to solution-driven and overly functional methodologies that overlook a vast amount of social nuance at a destination or within a market. The tendency to over-value statistical generalizations has led us to a point where the notions of a destination, its image, and the range of possible representations of cultural forms have become lodged in a limited range of rigid categories. We need more case-specific research in tourism addressing cultural/anthropological issues and we need to be vigilant in preventing too many generalizations and too much benchmarking.

NGOs

In their mission statements and vision statements, most NGO's appear to be fulfilling valuable services to destinations and to the tourism industry in general. However, because of certain differences in socio-political status or outlooks their valuable services, experiences and information can be inaccessible to local communities. NGO's and their representatives should work harder to take a pro-active role in the fair and equal dissemination of information to all destinations who need it.

2-4-1: Overcoming barriers to creative development:

1) There is no shortage. There is only a lack of attention given to the value of creative people. Policy makers need to implement systems to ensure that artists and craftspeople and those with traditional knowledge are recognized and their abilities put to use. Creative products and attractions will emerge naturally and organically.

2) There is, invariably, a lack of investment in creativity. The gentrification of old neighborhoods or the transformation of heritage sites into artist guilds or artist studios/storefronts is necessary and government spending should focus on these. The creative sector requires pro-active investments with the trust that creative products will follow.

3) Destination promotion can mitigate the potential lack of market and some measures to encourage or tax operators can help them to change their focus on offering low cost/high profit tours to offering value-added packages. In addition, the market will emerge once a creative base is developed.

4) The cumulative disadvantage of creative locations is that governments are unwilling to invest in something unless there is some level of certainty regarding its feasibility and eventual profitability. However, in the creative sector, this is not always the case. But on the other hand, when one considers the cultural impact of Deep Ellum on the city of Dallas, or the power of local businesses on Westheimer to affect the economy and culture of Houston, there should be no doubt that the careful yet generous support of government can enable a creative location to form, develop and eventually to define a local culture and economy.

2-5: Other issues regarding creativity, culture and tourism:

It seems, in recent years that in tourism planning and development tourism researchers and policy makers have gotten ahead of themselves. Research focusing on descriptive approaches has slowly disappeared from the literature, replaced by strategic and prescriptive articles that focus on the implementation of large products or the development of large projects. It seems that as attention returns to creativity, culture and tourism, our methods should change as well. More case specific and localized research is necessary in order to re-discover culture as it actually is, not as how it should be according to large conceptual models. We should re-invest our faith in local artists and recognize the power of their unique subjective perspectives.

3-1-1: Realizing 'creativity' in culture and tourism:

In terms of industrialization, we should recognize the pragmatics of the system in Taiwan where cottage industry has built a resilient and strong economy. By de-centralizing power, implementing flexible delivery systems, and by human networking, 'creativity' can become a viable resource for tourism.

In terms of politicization, policies should come into effect that recognize the social and economic role of artists and people with traditional knowledge. They should be recognized as cultural opinion leaders and equipped with the proper venues and outlets for the expression of their works as well as their viewpoints. 3-1-2

3-2-1: Global relationships and collaboration:

This year's Asia-Pacific Creativity Forum on Culture and Tourism is an excellent start to address the important issue of culture and creativity. I hope that Jeju continues to host the Forum. Of course more exchange and collaboration is necessary and I would hope that Jeju would focus on more dialogue with Taiwan scholars and artists and more interaction with successful creative culture destinations such as Thailand and Bali and even Nepal would be recommended.

Future agendas for the forum are dependent upon the outcome of this year's forum. Perhaps one suggestion would be to organize next year's forum according to several focused topics and then invite specialists to present case studies specifically related to the topics. I think at this point, the discussion of case-specific scenarios related to creativity and culture in tourism should take priority over the discussion of strategy.

3-3: Final thoughts:

I appreciate this opportunity to participate in the 2009 Asia Pacific Creativity Forum on Culture and Tourism. I hope that this forum will bring the issue of creativity into the spotlight, and help to raise our consciousness of the deeper truths regarding culture as it is manifest in tourism.

It seems that much work is done to unpack the meanings of cultural tourism. And this must be done in order to be better equipped to deal with the issue of "creative tourism". The creative sector is small scale and risky. It will require real energy, sincerity and determination by government officials to see its growth into a tourism sector realized.

I also think that it is time, here in East Asia, to get over some of the stereotypes collectively held concerning the place of culture in tourism. The old forms of cultural tourism -- the culture park or culture village and the festival are not the defining forms of culture that tourists today are (or should be) looking for. Culture is not defined entirely by tradition. Tradition is simply a point of reference. It is time, in tourism, to realize that 'culture' and 'innovation' can be synonymous.