I'm just a tourist. If you're a cynic, that statement might imply a superficial curiosity about one's surroundings but to be fair, do we ever consider how formalized tourism instructs us to assess our surroundings?
Architectural tourism usually falls within the experience of seeking out ruins from hundreds to thousands of years old while visiting within the confines of a prescribed set of restrictions. In other words, tourism is passively experienced on someone else's terms. Partially this is due to the value placed upon ruins -- further damage or decay is considered a bad thing -- and partially this is due to value placed upon anything created so long ago that we can romanticise its purpose. Yes, perhaps I'm a cynic.
(Certainly some tourists seek architecture which doesn't fall into the category of 'ruin' but I'd suspect this is the exception to the rule. Frank Lloyd Wright as one of the first 'rock star architects' probably helped start this trend and recent works by Frank Gehry and Daniel Libeskind continue to fuel it.)
Nevertheless, architecture as a focal point for tourism tells us that while well known and popular buildings draw large crowds of people, so do the everyday structures of common life. As long as they're sufficiently old. For every ancient temple there are vast numbers of houses, shops and apartment complexes to be seen. Just a few blocks from the Colosseum in Rome sits Trajan's Market and while it is seen as an important example of ancient architecture, its fundamental purpose was that of a shopping mall. If we see shopping malls today as just an example of day-to-day consumerism, why should we think that a 2,000 year-old shopping mall should be regarded as a tourism-worthy architectural attraction complete with stories, pamphlets and statistics? Time has a way of making anything interesting.
The ruins of Trajan's Market, Rome, Italy
When it comes to tourism and architectural ruins, the quality of the ruin and the function of the place do not seem to have a large bearing upon the importance proclaimed. Age seems to be the trump factor and something that is older or less understood is more likely to be preserved in its found state. What surprises me is the public's appetite for visiting pre-packaged crumbling ruins versus the desire to visit modern ones (say, buildings from one, two or three generations previous). The favoured idea of the ruin has been implanted in our minds ever since we had our first school history lesson -- Egyptian and Greek structures epitomized the idea of ancient times and tourism of them has been ongoing for centuries. If such considerable resources are extended towards preserving crumbling ruins, why do we as a society turn a blind eye to the decay of more modern structures?
One could consider that tourism is as much about marketing as it is about genuine learning. Could there not be a market for, say, turn of the century power plants or am I too naive to believe that people may want to understand how their world functions and was created? The wholesale cultural dismissal of something because it is not yet old enough leads to an environment where ancient elements are considered sacrosanct but those recently forgotten are cast away.
Failed businesses on the highways to tourist destinations, Arizona, United States
Tourism itself can also be the generator of places we ignore.
As a place rises up to the status of tourist destination, structures are created to support it. Gas stations, tourist offices, gift shops, visitor centers -- all find their place relative to the destination. The permanence of their construction reflects the strength of the attraction.
When popularity shifts in a negative direction these places may find themselves struggling for survival. At various points along the highway leading to the Grand Canyon (the southern rim) you'll find a number of roadside stops to buy jewelry and tourist souvenirs. As you get closer to the destination the density of these markets intensifies and as you move further away you encounter the remains of ones no longer in business.
While I personally would be hard-pressed to defend the architectural value of these tourist-support structures, I wonder if my opinion would differ if I learned they were two thousand years old rather than twenty.
Personally, I prefer the
Personally, I prefer the newer ruins. A large part of why that is, is due to the fact that they're not tourist destinations (although those that frequent these sorts of places could argue successfully otherwise, but that's another argument for another day). What the newer ruins lack is the guides, the velvet ropes, the rules about where you can and cannot stand, the interpretive centres, the plaques. It's the mystery that attracts me - figuring out what machinery was used for what purpose, how it all worked, without the benefit of an admission fee and a minimum wage tour guide explaining it to me, and definitely without the 'interpretive centre,' an abomination that flies against everything that educational tourism should be about.
The thing about many 2,000 year old ruins is that they're a packaged experience, meant to be consumed. By default, there's no chance for solitude, introspection, or even just wandering around, thinking about what the place was, how it worked, what went on there. It's The Learning Channel brought to life. 'Modern' ruins, while consumed by many people in the same way, at least offer the chance of a deeper experience, whether that's gaining a deeper appreciation for history, or even just what you learn about yourself while crawling around a dark, dirty, unsafe structure, wondering if you're going to get caught, whether the catwalk is going to hold, what exactly that noise was.
Occasionally, most commonly with churches, architectural tourism can offer some of this, if only because 300 year old churches are the most likely buildings to still be in use for their original purpose, and wandering into an old cathedral while worshippers are praying at the altar saves the need for the place to offer a packaged guide to what you're seeing - it's right there, still happening, in front of you.
From a modern standpoint, newer 'ruins' are less likely to become tourist destinations, because ownership of the properties can be traced, and with ownership comes liability. It's unfortunate, since the frivolous lawsuit has become the lastest spectator sport, but it's what likely keeps most buildings, like power plants, from becoming anything other than a liability as far as the owners are concerned.
Call me a pessimist, but I think I'm a realist - I don't think the majority of people are interested in learning anything, old or new, just simply in taking the photo to prove that they were there. Been there, done that - the world is a checklist for the modern tourist. Whether a turn of the century power plant were converted to a tourist attraction or not, either way, most people aren't truly interested in learning anything of substance or value, or at least in learning anything that may challenge their personal values or beliefs.
Sorry, I think I kind of lost my original point in there somewhere (there was one, I swear), hopefully someone else will post something and I'll find it again. =)
I don't think you're being
I don't think you're being cynical. I think there is an overpowering novelty that comes with being able to visit a place that's older than, let's say, 500 years old. Regardless of how interesting the architecture might actually be, the fact that something of that vintage is still standing is probably interesting enough for most people. It's like when you hear about someone who's lived to be 125 years old. Who cares if they lived a mundane life? They're 125 years old. That alone makes it a decent story. If newer ruins don't get the same level of attention, it's because it's not so much the aesthetics of decay that are of interest to people so much as it the symbolism (for lack of a better term) that comes with places and things that are centuries old.
That said, even with the all the velvet ropes and whatnot that come with ancient ruins, I think it's still possible for people to have introspective experiences and to be left with a sense of wonder. The same way that some people will actually get moved by movies starring Tom Hanks, there are those who will have what they consider rich and deep experiences in even the most superficial settings. Like Jon, I prefer the sorts of places where I can do as I please, but at the same time, often wish I wasn't so jaded (?)to the point where I can no longer enjoy certain types of pre-fabricated experiences the way others can. *sobs*
As for the preservation of modern ruins vs ancient ones, I think we are starting to have a bit more foresight than we used to. While they're not always successful, we are seeing attempts to try and protect some of the relatively newer buildings from the 70s and I'm sure it won't be long before architecture from the 80s gets deemed unique and worth protecting, too. I don't think this would have been the case forty or fifty years ago, when the attitude was that anything old was only standing in the way of progress.
Perhaps this novelty people
Perhaps this novelty people have (at least here in North America) is that visiting old ruins is something 'neat', because they are not that many buildings which are even more then 300 years old here. I would guess with that line of reasoning that would mean europeans who are surronded by countless old buildings monuments and ancient ruins would have less interest in them, and just a superficial judgement -- I would say that's true. If you see something everyday, I doubt you would take notice of it.
Andrew brought up an interesting point about symbolism. This makes me think of religion. Somehow churches are both places of worship and places people visit. There usually very ornate and are created for the simple function of worship -- with not much *other* functional use. Its a sort of fabricated novelty, which looks beautiful, sometimes gawdy and which is unable to serving any other purpose.
Seeing as how I'm quite cynical myself, I would say that I would enjoy a guided tour of the ruins in greece, or petra, but would never for a second consider vegas (except for sign graveyard) or florida a place to visit for tourism. In the book I'm reading "The Canadian Power Company Story" the book starts out with a overview of the town and how it's at a crossroads for deciding how to intregrate industry with the natural beauty of the area, --and -- how to prevent the town from becoming a gawdy tourest trap.
I believe at the turn of the century Niagara Falls made some very good decisions about how to create an asthetic industry, but failed dismally in the tourism sense. Many people now just go for the Casinos and the wax museums and everything has gotten so tacky in the areas around the casino ,I totally avoid it when I'm there. But if you go there, you'll see its the busiest part of teh city. Now I think Toronto Power is so much more interesting -- but I think the type of people Niagara falls already attracts is going to fail to apperciate this type of building. Ibelieve it could be turned into an interetsing museam (and I believe it opertaed as one for a brief period in the 1970's) but I don't think ther eis enough to sustain it. Most people are satisfied with seeing the generator turned waterfountain in the casino, and leave it at that. *highly cynical tone of voice*
Do you think maybe our view
Do you think maybe our view of tourism is scewed by modern throw-away society? Maybe this explains the awe given a 2,000 year old mall or bath house? And education/experience. My family members included a cement finisher -- an artisan of his day -- and several carpenters. So my eye was trained from an early age to notice the "gingerbread" on Victorians, and the wonderful 'carvings' on olde buildings.
If we are only educated (formally and informallly) to notice "ancient stuff" then, well we miss the beauty of rust and corrosion that Kendall shows in his galleries. Today I looked again at the Stoplight pic and thought, Nature overtaking Man-made items. Teach your children to notice all things, and maybe they will have more appreciation for all things.
You know the premise that the pendulum swings from one extreme to the other? Barring the world blowing up itself, I wonder it our Super-Consumer Gotta-Have-it-Now-and-Throw-Away-the-Package will be replaced in a generation or two by Slow-Food eating and Re-use Everything kids.
I found your POTD immensely
I found your POTD immensely enjoyable and it's great to see you're back with a totally fresh idea.
I've traveled the world,
I've traveled the world, and, I belive the best place for the coolest abandoned buildings would be...
Montevideo, Uruguay
Matt -- http://digitalartphotographyfordummies.blogspot.com--sold all over England.