5.0 Tourism, Arts and Cultural Heritage

Russian literary and linguistic traditions as well as collaboration between institutions and business.

The Year of Language and Literature built on two of the UK’s principal soft power assets, language and literature to increase people-to-people and institution-institution contacts (McPherson et al,

2017).

The UK/Russia Year of Culture set out to develop a new relationship between the two countries

using art and culture as a vehicle to showcase future collaborations and opportunities. By the end of

the 2014 it was estimated that the programme had reached nearly 1 million people through face-to-

face encounters, performances, exhibitions and festivals and a further 11.4 million through social

media, publication and broadcast (British Council, 2015). Though artists alongside other groups and

organisations considered that the event had been a significant success, the question of whether or

not soft power change was also generated is less easy to address. Notably, many events were

cancelled as a direct result of the strained political relationship between the UK and Russia. These

ongoing tensions also meant that forging follow-up relationships after 2014 was challenging. It was,

however, anticipated that the bilateral Russia UK Year of Language and Literature would present the

next opportunity for the two countries to further their partnerships, developing the evident

grassroots positivity and goodwill, which had persisted in spite of political difficulties. The UK

continued to target the cultural diplomacy opportunities for increasing trade, investment and

educational opportunities for Britain that were generated in association with the arts. The work in

the development of English Language in Russia allowed for in-depth engagement with educational

partners; books and e-learning materials were branded as part of the Year of Culture in a range of

cities outside the main top two (British Council, 2015).

Tourism – and tourism with an arts and cultural heritage perspective in particular – can prove a

significant draw for a country, attractive to visitors curious to see for themselves the cultural

highlights about which they have previously read. Such tourism can be generated on the basis of

cultural heritage (i.e. built heritage) and arts heritage (i.e. visits to sites known through literature).

Interestingly, the foci of such attention do not always coincide with the image that the domestic

population (and state) wish to project about themselves and, the ideas and values that are central to

their self-image. Light (2007, 2000) discusses the contrasting priorities of tourists to post-communist

countries and the local populations in the countries they visit (also see Cosma et al, 2007). While, on

the one hand, recognising that tourism provides ‘one way in which a country can present itself to its

visitors […] through the promotion and interpretation of its national heritage’ which affords a

platform for the narration of the “national’ story presented so as to affirm and reinforce national identity and self-image […] [making] the presentation of national heritage […] an ideological process’ (Light, 2000:158), it is also clear that this process does not inevitably yield positive results. Light’s analyses of tourism in post-communist Central and East Europe reveal an interesting paradox which

has occurred, whereby the artefacts and constructions that are attractive to the Western gaze do

not coincide with those which the domestic audience wish to promote as signifiers of their

contemporary, post-Communist identity (Light, 2000). Where travellers to Central and East Europe

may have a particular interest in the relics of the communist past, locals are concerned to question

and reject the ‘legitimacy of communist interpretations of national pasts’ (Light, 2000:158). Yet, it is also notable that ‘to discourage or deny tourist interest in the legacy of communism is both to miss out on a valuable source of foreign revenue, and to miss the opportunity to present an important

part of the ‘national story” (Light, 2000:159). There is, however, a genuine risk of undermining post-

communist efforts at national reconstruction associated with attempts to retain such emblems as

tourist sites (Light, 2000:159). Light analyses three approaches to the problematic he identifies –citing examples in Germany, Romania and Hungary. It is notable that while the artefacts in question (i.e. communist statuary in Hungary, the Berlin wall in Germany) are retained/conserved, they are also moved and/or marginalised. For example, in Berlin, ‘fragments of the Wall have been retained,

both as memorials [satisfying local demands herein] and to satisfy tourist interest. Foremost among

these is the ‘East Side Gallery’, a 1.3km stretch of the Wall, located about 4km from the centre of the city. In September 1990 this was designated as an open-air art gallery to which 118 artists

contributed 106 paintings (Light, 2000:163). While the gallery is a popular tourist attraction it is not

well maintained; the weather and souvenir hunters having wrought significant damage (Light,

2000:164).

Notably, Light is discussing the perception and influence of art in a very specific, post-communist

context. One in which tourists’ preconceptions and interests have played a not insignificant role in shaping the 'curatorial' choices made with regard to which elements of heritage are preserved and

displayed. This is not the only way in which nations and their citizens can display their cultural

artefacts and heritage. In his analysis of the significance of the 1957-59 touring exhibition of

Masterpieces of Korean Art for South Korean national identity and cultural diplomacy, Jang (2016)

relates the framework within which the exhibition was curated, noting its role in addressing ‘one of the most urgent issues for [the] fledgling country [of South Korea which] was to discover the nation’s cultural identity and internalise it domestically and give publicity to it on the international stage’ (Jang, 2016:456). As the exhibition was to tour the United States, American experts were involved in

the selection of works to be displayed, notably ‘they preferred artefacts which could show

differences from other Asian cultures, namely Chinese culture, and therefore demonstrate the independence of Korean culture’ [to American audiences] (Jang, 2016:461).11 Although the Korean

role in curating the exhibition was subject to American oversight, the show served to ‘secure a cultural identity for Korea on the world stage […] by explaining to US citizens that Korean culture has a particular characteristic and independence from Chinese or Japanese culture’ (Jang, 2016:466). The future director of the National Museum of Korea observed at the time that ‘the outcome of the project couldn’t be achieved by even 200 diplomats’ noting its importance both internationally and

domestically (Jang, 2018:466, quoting Choi Sunu speaking in 1957) where it served to define and

consolidate a South Korean sense of cultural identity (Jang, 2018).

Muyard (2009) outlines the contemporaneous evolution of Taiwanese national identity and, of new

and distinctive directions in Taiwanese ceramic art which, he argues, ‘emerged as a beacon of Taiwan’s contemporary national culture through the creation of the Yingge Ceramic Museum in Taipei County’ (Muyard, 2009:391). Taiwanese culture is not alone in its exploration and

contemporary foregrounding of a strong link between national identity, history, culture and ceramic

art (i.e. Liu & Cao, 2014; Kinchin, 2015; Gasparian, 2016; Popper, 1983). Kinchin (2015) charts the

renewed interest towards the career of Hungarian ceramicist Margit Kovács, noting the consistent

popularity of ceramic art in Hungary and its attendant exploitation by the state; for example, Admiral ‘Horthy12 invested heavily in cultural diplomacy throughout the 1930s. Ceramics, and the

crafts in general, both traditional and modern, proved an effective weapon in the government’s propaganda arsenal, attracting critical acclaim in a string of domestic, international and touring

exhibitions […] [Furthermore,] [a]s part of a policy to maintain an imaginative hold on the nation’s heritage and identity, Admiral Horthy’s regime exploited the sense of a living bond between pottery, the soil from which is was made’ (Kinchin, 2015:169).

Nowadays, the Museum established to celebrate the work of Margit Kovács remains a popular

tourist attraction (Kinchin, 2015:162). The exhibition of ceramics, both nationally and internationally,

has formed a significant element of a ‘showcasing’ approach taken in a number of countries with established art/craft ceramic profiles. The exhibition of ceramics both nationally and

internationally – has formed a significant elements of a ‘showcasing’ approach taken in a number of countries with established art/craft ceramic profiles. For example, Popper (1983) examines the

development of Dutch ceramic art and the evolution of its international profile. Gasparian (2016)

examines the ways in which glazed architectural ceramics can – and have – placed and utilised in

11 Thus, some of the nuances of the evolution of a distinctly Korean discourse were overlooked. 12 Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary between World Wars I and II.