815025

research-article2018
TOU0010.1177/1468797618815025Tourist StudiesFranklin

ts
Article

Tourist Studies

Art tourism: A new field

2018, Vol. 18(4) 399­–416
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
for tourist studies sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1468797618815025
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468797618815025
journals.sagepub.com/home/tou

Adrian Franklin
University of South Australia, Australia

Abstract
This article argues the case for art tourism as a new field of tourist studies. At present, art tourism
is currently obscured under cultural tourism’s voluminous bounds – which are as inappropriate
as they are unwieldy and overloaded. More specifically, it cannot adequately contain art tourism’s
distinctive origins, forms of experience and articulation between art worlds, cities and regions
and tourism industries. In part, a more dedicated research field is also needed to keep track of
its rapid growth and development as a primary driver of regional and urban regeneration and for
the much expanded exhibitionary complex it encompasses. As a place-changing vehicle for city
life, art tourism also needs separate forms of data collection to assist in its effective planning and
design. Museums that have historically catered for local art publics now need to relate increasingly
to growing touring art publics. The article sets out the historical and contemporary significance of
art tourism in order to identify the breadth of a new tourism agenda, as well as its connections to
other disciplines including art, architecture, social anthropology, cultural economy, urban studies,
museology, aesthetics and the sociology and geography of art.

Keywords
art museums, art publics, art tourism, Bilbao effect, place-making, urban regeneration

The avant-garde must find a direction in a landscape that no one seems to have yet ventured.

Jurgen Habermas (1983: 5)

Introduction
This article will make the case for a new and growing field of tourism studies that I want
to call ‘art tourism’. Art tourism should be defined broadly as any activity that involves

Corresponding author:
Adrian Franklin, School of Creative Industries, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, SA
5001, Australia.
Email: Adrian.Franklin@unisa.edu.au
400 Tourist Studies 18(4)

travel to see art and would include those people who travel very specifically to see art
somewhere else as well as those who often or occasionally include visits to see art among
other activities during tours, holidays or other trips away from home. As with other fields
of tourism, such as nature or eco-tourism, such activities might be identified at the most
basic level, through annual visitor surveys that reveal the proportion of any given popu-
lation that had engaged in a relevant activity in the previous 12 months. However, I will
also show that art tourism takes place in the cross currents of the multiple platforms of
the art world and a commercial tourism sector that depends on the excess value that art-
ists and art creates in specific sites and places (Ley, 2003; Zukin, 1995). The desire to
see, experience and know art is mostly created in the art world rather than the tourism
industry, although of course, they blur into one another (Bennett, 1995; Foster, 2015;
Smith, 2012). Artists, critics, galleries and a multitude of exhibitionary platforms engen-
der this desire, and the capacity for most people to engage with art in these ways is not
restricted to periods of travel away from home – yet at the same time, the capacity to see
a great deal of desirable art that cannot or rarely moves does involve travel (Jagodzińska,
2018). It will be shown how since classical times art has been identified as an important
self-standing form of thinking, representation and expression, and recognised advances/
discoveries and developments in these techniques have drawn people to visit neighbour-
ing and even very distant cities and regions both as professional artists, architects and
designers (or collectors and exhibitors) or as people seeking self-improvement. I will
show that since the cultural efflorescence in fifth-century Athens (if not even earlier in
Egypt), city and nation states have endorsed and promoted such travel, and how those
models and even those routes were foundational for the Grand Tour and eventual devel-
opment of modern tourism. Subsequently, it is not difficult to make links between this
field of art tourism and the arrival/ordering of modernity itself (Franklin, 2008).
Of course, it is not as if one or more of the above points have been made before now,
and there is certainly an humanities literature on the place of art in the Grand Tour and
mentions of art in histories of tourism (see Caton, 2014; Gretzel and Jamal, 2009; Long
and Morpeth, 2016; Rakic and Lester, 2013; Towner, 1985; Walton, 2005). However,
this has not carried through as strongly into the contemporary period and has not until
very recently been the subject of data collection and analysis separate from ‘cultural
tourism’.

Distinguishing art tourism from cultural tourism

Indeed, it has been argued that some of its special, distinctive and significant proper-
ties have been lost because of its type casting as a form of cultural tourism, a field that
McKercher (2002) scathingly describes as ‘descriptive and unsophisticated analysis’
(p. 29). So, in calling for attention to be given to a field of art tourism, this article
builds on those who have problematised the rather unwieldy category of cultural tour-
ism. Despite research that shows how cultural tourism cannot be treated as a homoge-
neous field/coherent category of visitation, motivation or experience (see Hughes,
1996, 2002), it is still commonly used as a holdall category where properly separate
forms of tourism should be identified, elaborated on and developed. For many research-
ers, such as Hughes (1996, 2002) and Stylianou-Lambert (2011), cultural tourism is ‘a
Franklin 401

heterogeneous market with different characteristics and needs’ (Stylianou-Lambert,

2011: 405). One of the most commonly claimed characteristics of cultural tourism is
the putative orientation of tourists to learning or experiencing at firsthand the cultural
specificity of any given destination. While this is certainly true for many activities
often included in cultural tourism, Stylianou-Lambert (2011) shows that it is certainly
not true for them all, and especially not in the case of visitors to art museums. As a
consequence, Stylianou-Lambert (2011) suggests that ‘research might be more effec-
tive if it separated cultural attractions, and more specifically museums, according to
their subject matter and experiences offered’ (p. 406). For example, Stylianou-Lambert
(2011) shows that the most frequent visitors to art museums ‘do not use the cultural
tourism filter (‘as a way of exploring and learning about other cultures’) as their pri-
mary filter (p. 407). When at an art museum away from home, filters like the ‘profes-
sional’ (museums are part of one’s professional life, and knowledge-oriented
experience), art-loving (‘aesthetic and stimulating object-oriented experiences’) and
self-exploration (self-oriented experiences of exploration and improvement) seem to
be stronger than the cultural tourism filter. And here a strong connection (or spill over)
between art activities that are normative elements of life at home and life away from
home have been found (Kim et al., 2007; Nash, 2001).
The relevance of what I propose to call ‘art tourism’ has been growing in recent years
for at least four reasons: its association with urban and regional regeneration and particu-
larly to what Lorente (2011) called a golden age of art museum building, and Stewart
(2009) has called the rise and rise of urban festivals; the centrality of art, and especially of
contemporary art to contemporary life, culture, design, making and the life-chances of
cities and regions; the growing significance of major exhibitions, events, biennales and
festivals (Seffrin, 2006; Stevenson, 2003) and the generalised hope that tourism and cul-
tural florescence will go a significant way towards replacing the jobs, income, identity
and morale – in other words, the vitality of urban, regional and national life – from lost
manufacturing, industry and trade (Grodach, 2008; Landry, 2012; Plaza, 2000).
Despite this, there is very little focussed attention given to art tourism within tourist
studies. This article makes a case for art tourism to be recognised more in research,
alongside other substantive forms of tourism. In addition to documenting the powerful
connection between art tourism and cultural economy, it does this by stressing the strong
historic connections that art tourism has had with the development of tourism as a reper-
toire of practices (Franklin, 2003), with the development of tourism routes (Barush,
2016) with the development of tourist destinations (Lübbren, 2001).
In the Australia Council for the Arts (2015) report Art Nation report of 2015, ‘art tour-
ism’ is recognised (for the first time) as significant to the art world and the cultural
economy of Australia, as well as growing strongly as a form of tourism over the past
decade. Around 2.4 million international tourists engaged in art tourism in Australia in
2013–2014, and, in the previous 4 years when international tourism to Australia had
grown by 13 percent, art tourism had increased by 19 percent. Internationally, the report
shows that around one-quarter of all international tourists in the United Kingdom, the
United States and Australia visit an art gallery/art museum. Thirty-eight percent of inter-
national tourists to Australia engaged in at least one art activity and 12.5 percent partici-
pated in Indigenous art activities.
402 Tourist Studies 18(4)

Art tourism and the Bilbao effect

Arguably, art tourism was significantly stimulated after 1997, when the Guggenheim
Museum Bilbao (GMB) opened and began attracting 1 million visitors through its doors
every year, of whom 88 percent were international tourists (Franklin, 2016). This was as
unprecedented as it was unbelievable for a rust belt city in an unfashionable corner of
Europe with no track record of tourism (Plaza, 2000). It gave better-situated cities else-
where considerable hope and many saw it as a transferable, tourism-boosting policy field
(Landry, 2012; Rogers and Power, 2000). Since the early 2000s, the so-called Bilbao
Effect became a recognised form of regeneration where the building of new aestheticised
infrastructures, the restructuring of new industries around design and new technologies
and the attraction of new investment and corporate relocations could be catalysed from
the flows of art tourists to a flagship art gallery. In turn, it has stimulated hundreds of
other cities to emulate the Basque innovation. The GMB has even become famous for its
‘policy transfer tourism’, receiving an average of 58 sizable city delegations per year
between 2000 and 2010 from other de-industrialised cities seeking redemption by the
same means (Gonzalez, 2011). Confoundingly, successful tourism-attracting cultural flo-
rescence is not always policy stimulated, and, all too frequently it derives from com-
pletely spontaneous grassroots sources, such as in Manchester (Wynn and O’Connor,
1998), Camden Lock, London (Ley, 1996) and Hobart (Franklin, 2014a; McGarry, 2018)
– in all cases they were stimulated by a nexus of critical thinking, new music, new art
practices and the reuse of new types of space. Nonetheless, the global policy for building
new sources of tourism flows from major new art galleries cannot be ignored as the main
‘big idea’, at least since the late 1990s. Adelaide is among the latest to be seduced by the
Bilbao Effect (Gould, 2016).
However, the choice of a new museum designed by fashionable architect Frank Gehry
and a partnership between key Basque public institutions and a major private art collec-
tion (The Guggenheim Foundation, New York), the GMB was itself based on a series of
changes that Terry Smith (2012) refers to as the extended exhibitionary complex around
the new-found popularisation of contemporary art (see also Bennett, 1988, 1995;
Stallybrass, 2006; Thornton, 2008) – yet again, the impetus here is a product of the art
world rather than the tourism industry (Franklin and Papastergiadis, 2017). A new and
growing configuration of commercial galleries, not-for-profit art spaces, private art
museums, biennales, kunsthalles and more recently art warehouses or depots has emerged
that connects seamlessly with elements of new industries, entertainment, consumption,
festivity and tourism (Bechtler and Imhof, 2014; Harris, 2016).
Tracking a shift from instruction to emotion, galleries, fairs, biennales and ‘other
places of contemporary art’ – including music and art festivals, hotels, public spaces,
cinemas and bars – have become more distributed into the fabric of city and regional life
(Franklin, 2014; Hanquinet and Savage, 2012; Thornton, 2008). It is no longer true that
art museums are funded and largely stocked from the fortunes and collections of local
paternalistic capitalist collectors-cum-moral-entrepreneurs. Nor is it true that their remit
is to deliver an educated, civil and ‘docile’ local public (Martin, 2013). Indeed, much
contemporary art is, by definition unruly, uncivil, excitable, insurrectionary and caustic
(Foster, 2015), a fact that gives Hal Foster a sense that an avant-garde still plays an
Franklin 403

important role. Equally, many new platforms have abandoned instruction in favour of
relationality – its expectation being that audiences can be both receptive and understand-
ing of its relatively open, simple and coded forms of expression (Franklin and
Papastergiadis, 2017). In addition, while often committed very deeply to their local audi-
ences, they are by no means limited to them and often expect a substantial number of
potential visitors – people who want to see their exhibitions – to come from a range of
locations both national and international, short as well as long haul.
Bourdieu (1969) argued that although holidays in the 1960s allowed the ‘least culti-
vated’ individuals to make their first museum visit, tourism cannot alone bring about
long-lasting ‘conversions’. As one opportunity among others for ‘expressing a culti-
vated inclination, cultural tourism, that is, tourism in which museum visiting places a
part, depends on level of education even more than ordinary tourism’. However, since
the massive expansion of contemporary art post-2000, and its insertion into wider
swathes of popular culture and on more exhibitionary platforms, the same relationship
between education and dispositions to art may be changing who successfully engages
with art and through what fields of experience new dispositions are formed. Hanquinet
and Savage (2012) argue that these proliferating art spaces, or what Terry Smith (2013)
called an expanded exhibitionary complex, have begun to generate new dispositions.
In-depth interviews revealed that ‘the more an [art] museum presents itself as a tradi-
tional educational place, the more it will be criticised for its detachment from the spec-
tators, the rest of society and from ordinary life’ (Hanquinet and Savage, 2012: 52).
Contemporary art connected this emergent art public to pressing social, cultural and
political currents of their lives, creating a more dynamic field that made engagement far
easier for more people, globally (Collings, 2001; Harris, 2013). Savage and Hanquinet
(2012) suggest there has been a shift in the nature of cultural capital presaged by what
they call ‘emerging cultural capital’. This concept recognises that such experiences are
both culturalised and aestheticised without being approved of by cultural elites (or elite
institutions), or requiring Bourdieu’s ‘reliance on the scholastic point of view as an
underpinning for theories of cultural capital’ and ‘forms of social distinction’ (Savage
and Hanquinet, 2012: 4). In arts activated cities such as Manchester tourists are signifi-
cant to its success but do not form separate art publics necessarily. O’Connor’s (2000)
analysis of the Manchester’s revival through the 1990s recognised that cultural tourism
may be embroiled in an ‘active consumption’ where ‘the local and global are received,
mixed and commented on’ resulting in the ‘exchange and transformation of ideas,
images, sounds, meaning’ (p. 39, 123).

The Mona effect

The difference that new art museums and art tourism can make to remote regional areas
is well illustrated by visitors to the new Museum of Old and New Art in Hobart, Tasmania,
which opened in 2011 (see also Gibson et al., 2010).1 The impact of Mona on tourism to
Tasmania is significant: according to Tourism Tasmania, the numbers of tourists to
Tasmania indicating they have visited Mona has increased by 30 percent between 2011
and 2014. Positive reports of Mona spread widely around the art world and in the tourism
press, but perhaps none were more significant than Lonely Planet (Franklin, 2014).
404 Tourist Studies 18(4)

According to Adam Bennett, spokesperson for Lonely Planet, the basis of their ranked
lists for top places, cities and countries are based on their pick of where they believed
travellers really should consider visiting, rather than where they are already going; and
here we sense transformation as a core value of art tourism (Platt, 2012: ND). In the 2013
Lonely Planet Guide, Hobart was ranked number 7 in their list of top cities (Platt, 2012).
Being the only Australian city in the top 10 no doubt had a lot to do with Mona being
there, but the further effects it had had on the city through its midsummer and midwinter
festivals was profound, the latter giving it a significant winter season that made viable an
ancillary ring of hip dining and drinking businesses and a new era of major hotel building
(Franklin, 2017b). Aside from its own skills at choreographing and curating cultural
events using top international artists and musicians, with widespread appeal and inclu-
siveness, Mona also provided an opportunity and trigger for the cultural florescence of a
considerable range of cultural industries already in the city and region (McGarry, 2018).
In 2015, MONA was ranked by Lonely Planet as the 20th best place in the world, and the
highest ranked modern art gallery in the world. Setting aside the accuracy, legitimacy or
desirability of such rankings and league tables, they inevitably have an impact on the
changing fortunes and reputations of places. It must be acknowledged, for example, that
it is very rare for new cultural institutions to find themselves held in such esteem or for
such institutions to be in such small towns.
The growth of international tourism to Tasmania grew by 21.8 percent in just 1 year
– the year after their first LP award, between 2014 and 2015. This boost is more than
double the rate of increase of any other state and at least two states declined over the
same period (Tourism Research Australia, 2015). Shortly before MONA opened in
January 2011, Tasmanian tourism was experiencing a downturn, badly hit by the strong
Australian dollar and declining visitor numbers. In December 2011, The Mercury
reported that visitor numbers were down by 20 percent from the same period the year
before to a low of 861,900; hotel nights were down 22 percent and visitor expenditure
was down by 26 percent (Bevan, 2011).
The arrival of Mona in 2011 marked something of a turn around, though the weaken-
ing of the dollar helped. In the year ending December 2014, Tasmania received just over
1 million (1,068,100) visitors. Of this number, 28 percent (300,900) indicated that they
went to MONA. This is an increase of 30 percent on 2011. The 300,900 MONA visitors
spent an average of nine nights in Hobart and spent a total of $611 million ($248 million
on accommodation and $255 million on other items), a 2 percent increase from the previ-
ous year. For the year ending June 2014, 16 percent of visitors (160,000) to Tasmania
reported that they came to Tasmania predominantly to see Mona.

A history of art tourism

One of the key points of this article is that while the contemporary art ecology might
have many new and significant touristic elements, it has remained true for a very long
time that people have had to travel in order to see art; that art is one of the things that
people have always travelled for. And, that art, travel and tourism are co-constitutive
becomings, all of them co-dependent for their viability and growth. Art tourism has
always been stimulated by the relative immobility of art – that for a variety of reasons it
Franklin 405

is ‘placed’, where it was created, or where it is collected together, or where it is dis-

played, where it is traded and where it is embedded in the cultural life of specific cities,
civilisations and peoples. Yet art can, and has, increasingly been collected into thematic
exhibitions travelled to modest and major population centres (Barush, 2016). Despite
this, research on the connections between tourism, art, art museums and other exhibition-
ary platforms is virtually non-existent. Larsen and Svabo (2014: 107) make the point that
museum studies have taken little interest in tourism while tourist studies have largely
ignored tourist experiences in museums. The result is that we know very little about how
tourists and tourism configure with art publics; how tourists relate to art and exhibition-
ary platforms; how the experience of tourism constitutes different forms of experience
compared to local museum-going and even what tourists take from their tours, their
experiences of art or indeed their purchases of art. The concentration of living artists in
tourism destinations and flows suggests that tourists (with purses characteristically loos-
ened along the tourist trail) do buy art reliably, yet we know very little about this (Rakic
and Lester, 2016).
Many public museums have continued to see their role as developing ‘resident’ art
publics in the cities or states that created them, and to whom they are politically answer-
able (and dependent for dwindling funds). Some activists are quite hostile to the notion
of art being exhibited primarily for tourists – along Bilbao Effect lines (Miles, 2013).
Yes, there is acceptance of the need to augment reduced public funding of museums by
commercialising and attracting more tourists, yet this travelling art public is barely rec-
ognised or defined as an entity with different capacities, needs or characteristics (Fraiman,
2014). One of these is surely that tourists seek out art, they consistently seek out and find
artists and their works, wherever they roam.

Art, ritual, religion and travel

If we assume, with Walter Benjamin (see Plate, 2004), that what passes down to us as
‘art’ once belonged to the realm of ritual and religion, then its close association with
travel, tourism and cathartic periods spent away from the everyday begins to make a lot
of sense. Ritual and religious ceremonies typically held at distant sacred sites, particu-
larly those associated with individual transformation, redemption and insight are fea-
tures common to most cultures (Turner and Turner, 1978). From the Lele’s protracted
periods of purification in forests (Douglas, 1966) to the Olympian gatherings of ancient
Greeks and the great pilgrimages of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity
(Barush, 2016; Eade, 1992; Turner and Turner, 1978), the journey itself, its special des-
tinations and itineraries as well as its ritual objects take on significance that exceeds the
conventional aims of most art galleries and museums (Eade, 1992; Turner and Turner,
1978). Equally, as Barush (2016) argues, such travel was instrumental in producing art
publics in early modern and later modern Britain as much as the travel experience itself
prompted new forms of art (e.g. in the works of William Blake). O’Malley argues that
Barush provides

… convincing argument for the artistic process as a pilgrimage, and the finished object as a site
of pilgrimage for others. Thus, devotional practice is reinterpreted in a modern guise through a
406 Tourist Studies 18(4)

close analysis of art and vision. It contributes a much-needed corrective view of the period
1790–1850 in Britain through a fresh consideration of the practice of pilgrimage in all its
manifestations, whether by foot, by reading, by study, or art making. The sacred journey may
well be a traditional concept, but this book articulates why, at this point in history, it became a
dynamic and modern theme in both visual and verbal art forms. (Review quote by Therese
O’Malley, National Gallery of Art, Washington, USA in Barush (2016))

On the road, away from home, ritual travellers are stripped bare of their social status,
rank and reputation and pass through places where they have no standing. Shedding the
responsibilities, concerns, connections and anxieties associated with their social status,
the open road has always offered freedom from social and political constraint, created
spaces of contemplation, exposed travellers to difference and otherness, rendered them
more receptive to new ideas and generated the possibility for new subjectivities to
emerge and be performed.
The reconfiguration of self, the freedom of thought and such critical insights as are
made possible by travel have ever since been universally valued by individuals, proph-
ets, philosophers and artists. This is clear from Shakespeare, whose early comedies were
influenced by the early Grand Tour and ‘are full of young men on the move, keen for new
horizons’ effecting wanderlust among their audiences (Nicholl, 2016: 17–20). In The
Two Gentlemen of Verona, adventurous Valentine chides his stop-at-home friend Proteus
by contrasting the value of travel with the dangers of sedentarism:

Home-keeping youths would have ever homely wits ….

I rather would entreat the company

To see the wonders of the world abroad,

Than living dully sluggardised at home,

Wear out thy youth with shapeless idleness. William Shakespeare (1923: 23)

Or again, in The Taming of the Shrew, where on arrival in Padua, Petruchio accounts
for his travels thus:

Such wind as scatters young men through the

world,

To seek their fortunes further than at home

Where small experience grows. William Shakespeare (1923: 247)

As a practice, travel valued for transformation and personal development has spanned
almost all historical periods and cultural forms, becoming a source of creative interven-
tions with the capacity to disrupt the status quo. As Plate’s work on Walter Benjamin
makes clear, his concepts of art, allegory and experience unsettled ‘the stabilizing reli-
gious concepts such as myth, symbol, memory, narrative, creation, and redemption’ in
order to challenge religious authority and bring about social change. If for Adorno and
Horkheimer (1944) ‘art’ should be a separate domain that could act as a critique of
Franklin 407

contemporary ways of life, as well as sources of utopian ideas, then its transformative
role in modern secular cultures had been preserved, if not augmented or elevated.
However, we know that other eras dominated by cultural florescence and creative
economy also valued art tourism.

Art tourism in the classical world

There is much evidence that travel specifically to visit art and culture was prominent and
even highly organised before the modern period. Yoyotte (1960) described how ‘tourist
graffiti’ dated to 1244 BC has been found in Egyptian tombs that were 1000 years old at
the time of their creation, and evidently opened to public visitation. Equally, Plato’s Laws
detail a typology of travel/tourist arrangements, facilities and organisations in fifth-
century Greece. Among five recognised categories of traveller, two were art travellers
who were to be welcomed and treated hospitably – though not equally. As today, people
of different ranks in Greece travelled and stayed in different classes of accommodation.
Ordinary cultural visitors who travelled to view ‘artistic achievements’ were to be given
hospitality at Temples, with ‘friendly accommodation’, and were to be looked after by
priests. High-status cultural visitors who travelled to visit the ‘unique cultural aspects of a
city’ had to be over 50 and were to be welcome guests of the rich and wise or ‘those charge
of education or those with special virtue’. Tourism was specifically organised to encour-
age and facilitate an understanding, appreciation and further development of the arts and
cultural fields. Every Greek city had teams of proxenoi, individuals appointed as special
hosts to guests from specific other towns (O’Gorman, 2010: 7). Lomine (2005) shows
how elements of Greek art tourism were also present in the Roman Empire by the reign of
Augustus. Most Roman citizens had substantial otium (leisure time) and their social rela-
tions and networks were overlaid by significant ties of hospitality (hospitium). This
required that visitors away from home be accommodated and treated well by anyone with
whom they had such a relationship. As with ancient Greece, art and culture were principle
objects of pleasurable and educational tourism and much of this focussed around three
kinds of site: ‘glorious monuments’ and wonders; Roman temple collections of art, sculp-
ture, stuffed animals, relics and historic objects and ancient Greek and Egyptian art and
civilisation (Horne, 1984). Indeed, the origins of the Western Grand Tour lay in a similarly
formalised and obligatory Grand Tour that was established during the Augustan period,
comprising a trip to Greece via Sicily; then to Asia Minor (especially Troy with whom
Rome had foundational ties) via islands in the Aegean, and thence to Egypt and back to
Rome. This flow of art tourists was substantial enough to have created a numerous and
notorious population of guides who plagued visitors for fees and were frequently deployed
as an object of satirical derision: ‘I was going around the colonades, in the sanctuary of
Dionysus’, said a character in one of Lucian’s satirical sketches, ‘examining each one of
the paintings, and right away two or three people ran up to tell me about them for a small
fee’ (Lucian Amores 8) (Lomine, 2005: 82).

Art and the Grand Tour

Nothing like this systematic facility for art tourism survived the ending of the Roman
Empire. But a version of it was reborn in British Christian civilisation as pilgrimage,
408 Tourist Studies 18(4)

with Cathedrals and their saint’s relics replacing the temple collections of art objects
and antiquities. However, both the Roman tourist and Christian pilgrim share the same
Latin root peregrinare meaning to go abroad, to travel (Lomine, 2005: 71). In 1611,
Thomas Coryat published Coryat’s Crudities, a book about a tour taken from London to
Italy which was well received and influential. At a time before public museums and art
galleries, it documented what was already a relatively well-worn route, when physical
travel to Italy was the only way to experience the art and achievements of the
Renaissance. It reached a wide readership and paved the way for much stronger and
sustained cultural journeys to Italy. Richard Lassels’ The Voyage of Italy of 1670 con-
solidated this as a significant cultural phenomenon in its own right, making the point
that the journey as well as the destination was significant and worthwhile. Like many
books of the seventeenth century, Lassels’ book was narrated persuasively, in the
instructional style, and identified four dimensions of the practice of travel (to Italy) that
delivered self-improvement and advantage to the ‘accomplished, consummate traveller’
– coining the term ‘Grand Tour’, in passing. The Grand Tour combined intellectual,
social, ethical and political qualities with educational experiences – of a sort that were
impossible to obtain by other means. So, between them, Coryat and Lassels did much to
increase normative travel to see art (and collect it) within British aristocratic, but also
artistic circles. Building on Lassels, John Locke’s 1690 Essay Concerning Human
Understanding held that knowledge derived from external sensual stimulation, and that
therefore it was possible to exhaust what might be gleaned from any one environment.
Changes of scene were therefore necessary in order to build an understanding of the
world – with the corollary that to stay put risked arrested mental development. Locke
was widely read and admired and he consolidated the association between travel and
education. Clearly though, the full implication of Locke’s intervention is that travel
should be built into one’s life, as part of the quest for a life well lived, and here was born
the idea of art as beneficial to all and ideally made available to all people – in other
words, an early notion of a travelling art public. Much of this philosophy was influ-
enced by the expansion of the West’s global knowledge base as delivered by the scien-
tific and related collecting expeditions of the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries. Visiting
new aesthetic objects as much as new natures were highly valued experiences, to be
gathered and brought home, to be applied practically in new contexts as much as dis-
played for diversion or copied for commercial innovation. For Campbell (1995), a
Romantic ethic was formed from a novel demand for aesthetic difference, and the
capacity to accumulate and display new objects, designs and art was clearly linked to
the arrival of what he called ‘the spirit of modern consumerism’. Here we see where
along the routes of the Grand Tour it was not sufficient to merely see art. It was accom-
panied by a great desire to acquire it and even copy it. Through Campbell’s romantic
ethic, we can glimpse a powerful developmental connection to modernity.
The main subjects of Grand Tour histories have always been aristocrats who became
increasingly obliged to conduct a Grand Tour of at least 1 year in order to complete their
education and make themselves ready (and sufficiently useful) for court or public ser-
vice. However, it was also true that artists from all cultural fields were prominent among
them. Many artists accompanied aristocratic patrons in order to record their tour (such as
Richard Wilsons, drawings of Italian places visited by Earl of Dartmouth in the
Franklin 409

mid-eighteenth century) or were sponsored to make study trips (e.g. JMW Turner’s trip
to Paris and Switzerland during the Peace of Amiens in 1802), or who undertook travel
independently (e.g. JMW Turner’s tours of Italy in 1818, 1828, 1833 and 1834) (Brown,
2012). Rome, Naples and Venice filled with foreign artists during this period, but, as with
JMW Turner, they also detoured to explore other landscapes and cultures of Europe,
especially as popular culture gained political and social traction in newly emerging
nation states.
The Grand Tour was considered an essential part of the training of all London art-
ists and architects. This is illustrated by the crisis in architectural/art education occa-
sioned by the Napoleonic wars in Europe. It prevented John Soane’s architecture
students at the Royal Academy, for example, from making their necessary fieldtrips
to Rome and Greece where they could encounter and study classical architecture first-
hand. This stimulated the resourceful Soane to purchase several large Bloomsbury
houses in order to build a museum filled with the necessary mix of architectural fea-
tures and decorative/ritual objects, and designed so as to simulate such unmediated
experiences as are found among the ruins themselves (Franklin, 2014a). It was done
so well that it is considered one of the world’s greatest museums – ranked 4 in the
world by The Times newspaper (Campbell-Johnson, 2013 - though it has barely
changed since it opened in 1813).
Painters and architects were not the only artists on the road. The decorative arts were
also transformed by its artists and designers on the Grand Tour. In 1874, for example,
glass designer Harry Powell travelled to the museums of Italy, Germany, Holland and
France to sketch glass vessels from classical, medieval and Renaissance art in order to
produce sketch books for a new range of designs for James Powell and Sons, London
called ‘Glasses with Histories’. He returned many times until the outbreak of war in 1913
(Rudoe, 1996: 36). Josiah Wedgewood was inspired by the popularity of art souvenirs
brought back by grand tourists, which, though numerous were still relative rarities. In
1786, the Duke of Portland lent Josiah Wedgewood a perfect Roman glass cameo vase
(originally found in 1582) to be copied before being deposited in the British Museum. It
took 3 years for a jasperware copy of the Portland Vase to be perfected but thereafter he
created a successful series of jasperware replicas taken from the classical world. Even
stylised ruins were made and eagerly consumed. The original Portland Vase at the British
museum is now part of the so-called London Grand Tour (Barnett, 2010; Sorabella,
2003; https://londongrandtour.wordpress.com/tag/josiah-wedgwood/), a spatially com-
pressed tour around a global city rather than the globe itself.

Mobile artists, art tourism and place-making

There is a clear relationship between the travelling cultures of the artist, the aestheticisa-
tion of landscapes, places and cultures; the creation of touristic desire and the eventual
creation of ‘places’ as tourist destinations. The flows of artists threading through Europe
in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and the flood of works they exhibited back
in their home cities mantled more and more distant and foreign landscapes, places and
peoples with aesthetic and touristic value and desire as well as challenging and changing
existing taste in art, nature, culture and travel.
410 Tourist Studies 18(4)

At the end of the eighteenth century, the paintings of Turner and Constable and the
writing of John Byng resulted from Romantic wanderings into landscapes and places on
the social margins, if not the very edges or borders of the known social world of the
United Kingdom. Turner and Constable and many other artists were initially interested
in the awesome powers of the sea and the oceanic sublime, but in giving so much atten-
tion to the moods of the sea and its shores, they fell upon indigenous fishing communi-
ties, the lone inhabitants of large swathes of coastal wasteland who engaged such forces
as a way of life (Isham, 2004). Turner and Constable led a corps of painters and writers
in documenting their lives but also admiring their lifestyle to the point of immersing
themselves in its culture, spending more and more of their time living simply by the sea
(Franklin, 2014b; Urbain, 2003).
The artistic championing of fisherfolk cultures and their coastal habitus found great
favour among an art-going public in the social centres and created a strong yearning among
salon society to visit the villages and bays of favourite paintings. Art gradually shaped new
touristic practices that emulated the artist’s immersion in coastal life. With a trickle of
wealthy visitors at first, the fishing communities made valuable additional income from
renting out rustic cottages, taking visitors on fishing trips or guiding them around the coast.
Painting and fiction were overlaid with others writings: William Daniell’s popular
Voyage Around Great Britain, a lavishly illustrated eight-volume survey of the British
coast, published in 1818, and Stephen Reynolds’ (1908) A Poor Man’s House, an account
of his life among fisherfolk in the slums of Under Town, close to the beach at Seacombe,
Devon (see Franklin, 2014b). These writers and artists were formative in the use of art in
the project of nation building, especially after the building of a national railway network.
Through art, for the first time, there were also identified places to visit and see and a
sense of connection and belonging to places and cultures that were hitherto unknown and
unknowable. Ewins (2009) and Jolly (2018) demonstrate how art tourism was similarly
implicated in the recovery of Fijian indigenous culture and post-revolutionary Mexican
nationalism, respectively.
After Romanticism and neoclassicism, other art movements (impressionism, tonal-
ism, regionalism, neo-romanticism, Heidelberg School, Aesthetic Movement, Pre-
Raphaelite, abstract modernism and others) also involved travel, though increasingly in
the early to mid-twentieth century this took the form of permanent settlement in destina-
tions, and a diaspora of artists from their previous base in metropolitan centres. Nina
Lübbren shows how, between 1830 and 1914, some 3000 professional artists embarked
on a mass movement away from European cities to the coast and countryside, residing
for varying lengths of time in what became 80 ‘art communities’ (Lübbren, 2001). Artists
‘colonised’ new places for their work and the places so depicted then become desirable
to visitors who knew them first through their depiction in art and as shown in inner city
salons. Examples of these include Newlyn and St Ives in Cornwall, UK; Woodstock,
New York, USA; Montsalvat, Melbourne; and Skagen, Denmark. Most of these have
been very long-lived and self-sustaining since artists gained considerable autonomy by
selling directly into the tourist flows they generated. Many such places then became
regional arts centres with their own museums: Ahrenshoop, Barbizon, Fischerhude,
Katwijk, Laren, Sint-Martens-Latem, Penzance, Skagen, Volendam, Willingshausen and
Worpswede are all significant art tourism places.
Franklin 411

Aestheticisation and tourism-led regeneration of post-

industrial western cities
Contemporary culture-led regenerative strategies and narratives are distinguished by
their claim to novelty; they herald a departure from, and substitute for, the lost life worlds
of industrial civilisation. One by one, cities once dependent on tangible exports of manu-
factured goods aimed to conjure new fortunes from the alchemy of art, culture, design
and economy.
John Urry (1991) was one of the first to notice how, with almost obscene haste, the
offshoring of Western paternalistic and corporate manufacturing prompted the transfor-
mation of redundant industrial capital, plant, architecture and estates into ‘industrial cul-
tural heritage and ‘archaeology’, and thence into museumisation and touristification.
New streams of income and employment had to be found and what was one day the grim,
gritty, industrial quotidian became an aestheticised space for tourists, for cultural educa-
tion – and sought after living spaces (Zukin, 1982).
While Urry’s (1991) observations were mostly confined to the smaller mill towns of
the north of England, the industrial hearts of all major Metropolises were also aestheti-
cally recycled, and the transformations at Camden Lock, London went on to become, by
the 1980s and 1990s, London’s most popular tourist site, giving its name to one of the
many ‘place effects’ that pepper the urban regeneration literature. The Camden Lock
Effect has become an archetype process for the colonisation of former industrial pre-
cincts and districts by the ‘new middle classes’ emerging in the 1970s (Ley, 1996).
Rejecting the boredom, standardisation, social conventions and social/political quietude
of the suburbs that had been championed their parents’ and grandparents’ generations,
the newly enlarged population of university and art school students acclimatised them-
selves to a new life in the livelier, culturally transformative inner city bohemian fringes
vacated by its former working-class occupants. Substantial numbers of former students
stayed on in university cities, such as London, to take advantage of the extensive waste-
lands of low rent or squattable housing and empty industrial buildings and precincts such
as Camden Lock. Artists of all kinds, musicians, crafts workers, fashion designers, art-
ists, graphic designers, film and new media start-ups took advantage of its location close
to one of the world’s most significant arts, media, entertainment and cultural centres as
well as one of the biggest flows of tourism. In addition to providing low-cost start-ups
for young culture industry workers in Camden Lock, New York and Toronto, this new
movement also opened up new retail and market spaces as well as championing new
ways of living in former factories and warehouses. Such places quickly became fashion-
able and visited, and as they also built up their desirability and property value, others
were encouraged to seek out similar opportunities in the major cities, abandoned seaside
towns and third-tier cities down on their luck (Ley, 2003).

Conclusion
A case has been made that art tourism should be taken more seriously by researchers
in tourist studies, but clearly this applies to policy makers and the tourism industry
generally. If they fail to understand that their fortunes depend on understanding the
412 Tourist Studies 18(4)

connections between art and tourism, then the benefits of ‘Bilbao Effect’ investment
strategies could waste scarce public and private funds. For example, in many places,
regeneration strategies and expenditure has been directed at development, especially
luxury hotels and apartment building rather than on the art, with the consequence that
the artists that once drove flows of new tourists were themselves driven out by rising
rents and lack of studio space.
It has also been argued that art tourism has been foundational for the flows of tourism
to great art centres (Rome, Naples, Athens, Paris, New York and London, say), as well as
flows of tourists to places and types of place that had been first apprehended in the form
of art. Here, the relationship between artists colonising new places, spaces architectures
and objects (the Cornish coast, Camden Lock; industrial cityscapes; canals and factory
buildings) and the subsequent flows of tourists to them illustrates the relationality and
orderings of art and tourism – not merely the former establishing the latter, but the former
themselves being inspired to make art as a result of their travel and tourism experiences
(Franklin, 2014b). Hence, the additional claim that they are co-constitutive activities
with profound implications for changing the culture, life chances and character of the
destinations travelled to, a process often referred to as ‘place-making’, though seldom
acknowledging the complexities of art tourism in the process. Because artists and art
identifies and points up the aesthetic and cultural values of different journeys and desti-
nations, they also have the capacity to change the desirability and character of places.
Camden Lock was once an industrial wasteland; Chippendale, Sydney, was until recently
a place taxi-drivers would not go; Mona was built in a suburb in the top decile of social
disadvantage.
Art tourism is also worthy of further research precisely because of its transformative
potential for creativity, pleasure and intellectual and emotional challenges. While tour-
ism is often criticised for its consumerism and shallowness and its association with gen-
trification and corporate culture (Miles, 2013), this article has made the claim for the
exact opposite: a long history of tourists questing for, and finding art and artists and vice
versa. For contemporary art these days, art tourists are willing to travel even further to
the social margins, to remote Japanese islands, wilderness areas of China, islands off
Australia and high desert regions of Texas or Nevada. There are a growing number of
companies that are now entering this market on the back of industry pioneers such as
Martin Randall Travel, which was established in 1988. These include Cox and Kings,
Tate Travels, Ciceroni Travel, ACE Cultural Tours and Holts Tours.
This article suggests a more complex association in which art, artists and art publics,
whether travelling or resident, is worthy of more detailed investigation. The more recent
growth in art tourism suggests that when art is freed from its traditional role as a vehicle for
instruction and improvement in the modern art museums, long criticised by artists, cultural
critics and visitors as ‘mausoleums’, that a livelier response is not only possible but that it
can have consequences for the social and cultural atmosphere around exhibitionary plat-
forms and locations (Franklin and Papastergiadis, 2017; Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 1998).

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Franklin 413

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this
article.

Note
1. The Museum of Old and New Art has been abbreviated to MONA and Mona at different
times and in different publications. Hereafter, I will use the most common form, Mona, except
where it was spelt otherwise in publications.

ORCID iD
Adrian Franklin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3207-0498

References
Adorno, T. and M. Horkheimer (1944) Dialectic of Enlightenment. London: Ashgate.
Australia Council for the Arts (2015) ‘Arts Nation: An Overview of Australian Arts’. Available
at: http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/research/arts-nation-an-overview-of-australian-arts/
Barnett, P. (2010) ‘The London Grand Tour’. Available at: https://londongrandtour.wordpress
.com/tag/josiah-wedgwood/ (accessed 16 August 2015).
Barush, K. R. (2016) Art and the Sacred Journey in Britain. London: Routledge.
Bechtler, C. and D. Imhof (2014) Museum of the Future. Zurich: JRP-Ringier.
Bennett, T. (1988) ‘The Exhibitionary Complex’, New Formations 4: 73–102.
Bennett, T. (1995) The Birth of the Museum. London: Routledge.
Bevan, J. (2011) ‘MONA’s Magic Wins Crowd’, The Mercury, 23 January, 2.
Bourdieu, P. and P. Darbel (1969) L’ amour de l’art. Lês musées d’ art européen et leur public.
Paris: De Minuit.
Brown, D. B. (2012) ‘Joseph Mallord William Turner 1775–1851’, in D. B. Brown (ed.) J.M.W.
Turner: Sketchbooks, Drawings and Watercolours. London: Tate Research Publication.
Available at: https://www.tate.org.uk/art/research-publications/jmw-turner/joseph-mallord
-william-turner-1775–1851-r1141041 (accessed 15 August 2015).
Campbell, C. (1995) The Romantic Ethic and the Spirit of Consumerism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Campbell-Johnston, R. (2013) ‘The world’s 50 best museums’, The Times, 11 May.
Caton, K. (2014) ‘Underdisciplinarity: Where Are the Humanities in Tourism Education?’, Journal
of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 15: 24–33.
Collings, M. (2001) Art Crazy Nation. London: 21 Publishing.
Douglas, M. (1966) Purity and Danger. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Eade, J. (1992) ‘Pilgrimage and Tourism at Lourdes, France’, Annals of Tourism Research 19:
18–32.
Ewins, R. (2009) Staying Fijian: Vatulele Island Barkcloth and Social Identity. Adelaide, SA,
Australia: Crawford House.
Foster, H. (2015) Bad New Days: Art, Criticism, Emergency. New York: Verso.
Fraiman, M. (2014) ‘7 Problems with Toronto’s Music Festival Scene’, The Torontoist, 7
September. Available at: https://torontoist.com/2014/09/7-problems-with-torontos-music-
festival-scene/
Franklin, A. S. (2003) Tourism: An Introduction. London: SAGE.
Franklin, A. S. (2008) ‘The Tourism Ordering: Taking Tourism More Seriously as an Ordering of
a Global World’, Civilisations 57(1–2): 25–39.
Franklin, A. S. (2014a) The Making of MONA. London; Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Penguin.
414 Tourist Studies 18(4)

Franklin, A. S. (2014b) ‘On Why We Dig the Beach: Tracing the Subjects and Objects of the
Bucket and Spade for a Relational Materialist Theory of the Beach’, Tourist Studies 14:
261–85.
Franklin, A. S. (2016) ‘Journeys to the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao: Towards a Revised Bilbao
Effect’, Annals of Tourism Research 59: 79–92.
Franklin, A. S. (2017b) ‘The MONA Effect Building Culture into Cities’, pp. 168–199 in A.
Hoyne (ed.) The Power of Place. Sydney, NSW, Australia: Hoyne.
Franklin, A. S. and N. Papastergiadis (2017) ‘Engaging with the Anti-Museum? Visitors to the
Museum of Old and New Art’, Journal of Sociology 53: 670–86. Available at: http://journals
.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1440783317712866
Hanquinet, L. and M. Savage (2012) ‘Educative leisure and the art museum’, Museum and Society
10(1): 42–59.
Gibson, C., G. Waitt, J. Walmsley, et al. (2010) ‘Cultural Festivals and Economic Development
in Nonmetropolitan Australia’, Journal of Planning Education and Research 29: 280–93.
Gonzalez, S. (2011) ‘Bilbao and Barcelona “in Motion.” How Urban Regeneration “Models”
Travel and Mutate in the Global Flows of Policy Tourism’, Urban Studies 48: 1397–1418.
Gould, K. (2016) ‘Build It and They Will Come: How Investing in Arts Infrastructure Has Spinoff
Benefits for SA in Arts’, The Advertiser, 19 March. Available at: https://www.adelaidenow
.com.au/.../build-it-and-they-will-come.../e2467a489982cf308
Gretzel, U. and T. Jamal (2009) ‘Conceptualizing the Creative Tourist Class: Technology,
Mobility, and Tourist Experiences’, Tourism Analysis 14(3): 471–81.
Grodach, C. (2008) ‘Looking beyond Image and Tourism: The Role of Flagship Cultural Projects
in Local Arts Development’, Planning, Practice and Research 23(4): 495–516.
Habermas, J. (1983) ‘Modernity: An Incomplete Project’, p. 315 in S. Benhabib (ed.) Crossing the
Borders. London: Ashgate.
Harris, A. (2013) ‘Financial artscapes: Damien Hirst, crisis and the City of London’, Cities 33:
29–35.
Harris, G. (2016) ‘Rotterdam Museum to Rent Out Public Space to Wealthy Collectors’, The Art
Newspaper, 9 February, 3–4.
Horne, D. (1984) The Great Museum. London: Pluto.
Hughes, H. L. (1996) ‘Redefining Cultural Tourism’, Annals of Tourism Research 23(3): 707–709.
Hughes, H. L. (2002) ‘Culture and Tourism: A Framework for Further Analysis’, Managing
Leisure 7: 164–75.
Isham, H. (2004) Image of the Sea: Oceanic Consciousness in the Romantic Century. New York:
Peter Lang.
Jagodzińska, K. (2018) Australian Art Museums. Warsaw: Jagiellonian University Press.
Jolly, J. (2018) Creating Pátzcuaro, Creating Mexico: Art, Tourism, and Nation Building under
Lázaro Cárdenas. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Kim, H., C. K. Cheng and T. J. O’Leary (2007) ‘Understanding Participation Patterns and Trends
in Tourism Cultural Attractions’, Tourism Management 28: 1366–71.
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. (1998) Destination Culture: Tourism, Museums, and Heritage. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Landry, C. (2012) The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators. London: Earthscan.
Larsen, J. and C. Svabo (2014) ‘The Tourist Gaze and “Family Treasure Trails” in Museums’,
Tourist Studies 14(2): 105–25.
Ley, D. (1996) The New Middle Class and the Remaking of the Central City. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ley, D. (2003) ‘Artists, Aestheticisation and the Field of Gentrification’, Urban Studies 40(12):
2527–44.
Franklin 415

Lomine, L. (2005) ‘Tourism in Augustan Society (44 BC–AD 69)’, pp. 69–87 in J. K. Walton
(ed.) Histories of Tourism: Representation, Identity and Conflict. Clevedon: Channel View
Publications.
Long, P. E. and N. Morpeth (eds) (2016) Tourism and the Creative Industries: Theories, Policies
and Practice. London: Routledge.
Lorente, P. (2011) The Museums of Contemporary Art: Notion and Development. Farnham:
Ashgate.
Lübbren, N. (2001) Rural Artists’ Colonies in Europe, 1870–1910. Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
McGarry, M. (2018) ‘The Mona Effect: Regeneration in the Dark’, PhD Thesis, School of Social
Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia.
McKercher, B. (2002) ‘Towards a Classi®cation of Cultural Tourists’, International Journal of
Tourism Research 4: 29–38.
Martin, J.-H. (2013) Theatre of the World [Catalogue]. Hobart, TAS, Australia: Mona.
Miles, M. (2013) ‘Art and Culture: The Global Turn’, pp. 19–38 in Grierson and Sharp (eds)
Re-Imagining the City. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Nash, D. (2001) Anthropology of Tourism. Oxford: Pergamon.
Nicholl, C. (2016) ‘Unsluggardised’ Review of Paul Edmonson and Stanley Wells (eds), The
Shakespeare Circle: An Alternative Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge, University Press’,
London Review of Books 38: 17–20.
O’Connor, J. (2000) The Cultural Production Centre in Manchester. Manchester: Manchester
Institute for Popular Culture, MMU.
O’Gorman, K. (2010) ‘Historical Giants Forefathers of Modern Hospitality and Tourism’, pp.
3–17 in K. O’Gorman (ed.) Tourism Giants. Wallingford: CABI.
Plate, S. B. (2004) Walter Benjamin, Religion and Aesthetics: Rethinking Religion through the
Arts. London: Routledge.
Platt, C. (2012) ‘World’s hottest destinations for 2013 contain Aussie surprise’, Traveller, 22
October. Available at: http://www.traveller.com.au/worlds-hottest-destinations-for-2013-con-
tain-aussie-surprise-27tdl
Plaza, B. (2000) ‘Guggenheim Museum’s Effectiveness to Attract Tourism’, Annals of Tourism
Research 27(4): 1055–58.
Rakic, T. and J.-A. Lester (2013) Travel, Tourism and Art. Farnham: Ashgate.
Rakic, T. and J.-A. Lester (2016) Travel, Tourism and Art. London: Routledge.
Reynolds, S. (1908) A Poor Man’s House. London: J. Lane.
Rogers, R. and A. Power (2000) Cities for a Small Country. London: Faber and Faber.
Rudoe, J. (1996) ‘James Powell and the Continental Avant-Garde before 1914’, pp. 54–65 in
L. Jackson (ed.) Whitefriars Glass: The Art of James Powell & Sons. Shepton Beauchamp:
Richard Dennis.
Savage, M. and L. Hanquinet (2012) ‘Emerging Cultural Capital and the Resurgence of Urban
Culture’. Available at: https://stratificationandculture.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/programme
-emerging-cultural-capital-workshop.pdf
Seffrin, G. (2006) ‘Emerging Trends in Contemporary Festival Practice: Exemplifying the
Modern Festival through the Praxis of Boutique Festival Initiation and Management at the
Queensland Performing Arts Centre’, PhD Thesis, Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Shakespeare, W. (1923) The Works of William Shakespeare (eds W. G. Clark and W. A. Wright).
London: Macmillan and Co.
Smith, T. (2012) Thinking Contemporary Curating. New York: Independent Curators International.
416 Tourist Studies 18(4)

Smith, T. (2013) ‘Worlds Pictured in Contemporary Art: Planes and Connectivities’, Humanities
Research XIX(2): 11–25.
Sorabella, J. (2003) ‘The Grand Tour’, in J. Sorabella (ed.) Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History.
New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Available at: http://www.metmuseum.org
/toah/hd/grtr/hd_grtr.htm
Stallybrass, J. (2006) High Art Lite. London: Verso.
Stevenson, D. (2003) Cities and Urban Cultures. Maidenhead; Philadelphia, PA: Open University
Press.
Stewart, C. (2009) The Culture of Contemporary Writers’ Festivals, PhD Thesis, Creative
Industries Faculty, School of Creative Writing and Literary Studies, Drama, Film and TV,
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Stylianou-Lambert, T. (2011) ‘Gazing from Home: Cultural Tourism and Art Museums’, Annals
of Tourism Research 38(2): 403–21.
Thornton, S. (2008) Seven Days in the Art World. London: Granta.
Tourism Research Australia (2015) International Visitors in Australia. Canberra, ACT, Australia:
AusTrade/Government of Australia.
Towner, J. (1985) ‘The Grand Tour: A Key Phase in the History of Tourism’, Annals of Tourism
Research 12(3): 297–333.
Turner, V. and E. Turner (1978) Image and Pilgrimage in Christian Culture. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Urbain, J. (2003) At the Beach (trans. C. Porter). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Urry, J. (1991) The Tourist Gaze. London: SAGE.
Walton, J. (ed.) (2005) Histories of Tourism: Representation, Identity and Conflict. Clevedon:
Channel View Publications.
Wynn, D. and J. O’Connor (1998) ‘Consumption and the Postmodern City’, Urban Studies
35(5–6): 841–64.
Yoyotte, J. (1960) Les Pelerinages (Coll. ‘Sources Orientales’ iii, Paris).
Zukin, S. (1982) ‘Loft living as ‘historic compromise’ in the urban core: The New York experi-
ence’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 6(2): 256–267.
Zukin, S. (1995) The Culture of Cities. Oxford: Blackwell.

Author biography
Adrian Franklin is trained in social anthropology and sociology and has held professorial positions
at the University of Bristol; The Institute of Social Anthropology, University of Oslo; The
University of Tasmania and The University of South Australia. His current research interests
include the ethnographic analysis of festivals, rituals, travels and ‘events’; art museums and art
publics; art tourism; culture-led urban regeneration, urban anthropology and human-animal stud-
ies. He leads the ARC funded project: ‘Creating the Bilbao Effect: MONA and the Social and
Cultural Coordinates of Urban Regeneration Through Art Tourism’. Recent books include The
Making of MONA (Penguin) 2014; Retro: A Guide to the Mid-Twentieth Century Design Revival
(Bloomsbury) 2013; City Life (Sage) 2012.