Urbanities,
Vol. 3
·
No 2
·
November 2013
© 2013
Urbanities
30
Conclusion
The study of the relationship between the artwork and aesthetic ideal of Manrique and the
development of tourism in Lanzarote has proved to be complex. Thanks to his aesthetic
‘programme’, sustainability and environmental conservation were turned by Manrique into a
‘brand’, deeply interconnected with the image of Lanzarote, to the extent that it is impossible
to refer to the former without implying the latter. In this sense, Manrique proved to be a
pioneer in what has been later called ‘place-branding’. I have taken up Urry’s theorization of
the tourist gaze and I have considered how this gaze becomes objectified. The tourist gaze is
created through the selection of certain relevant elements and is planned prior to the tourism
experience by tourism specialists. The tourist often can only conform to it because of two
main factors: first, the anticipation that reading dedicated magazines, guides, brochures, etc.
has created. These readings are always patchy and voluntarily full of gaps, in an attempt to
hook the reader, but also to keep an aura of mystery on their subject. The tourist, therefore,
must be interested in following the directions given in order to satisfy his curiosity, and must
accept the validity of the information provided. The second factor, which can also be
considered a consequence of the first one, is that people visiting a place for the first time
cannot count on previous knowledge about the experiences that are awaiting them. Since the
tourist cannot base his judgments on previous knowledge, he is more eager to adapt to the
reality that tourist guides, cultural brokers and middlemen present to him.
In the case of Lanzarote, this aspect poses a further problem, that of defining whether
the tourist experience can be considered as ‘authentic’, due to the nature of the development
occurred on the Island, regulated by the ideals of Manrique and by the regulations of the
Island’s Council.
In an attempt to define ‘authenticity’ in relation to the tourist experience Reisinger and
Steiner suggested that Heidegger’s phenomenology would be useful because according to him
‘what is cannot be other than it is.’ (Reisinger, Steiner 2005:78). This affirmation accords
with the fact that the tourist can often only conform to the gaze he is provided with because
the travel experience cannot be replicated – including the case of recurring tourists – and a
term of comparison that would help to discriminate the ‘authentic’ from the ‘staged’ doesn’t
exist. The tourist’s experience is always authentic.
It was maintained that it is hard to achieve a coincidence between branded places and
real places, since positive aspects of the place – in relation to the brand that one is trying to
create – are going to be enhanced, while negative aspects will be left out. As a consequence of
that, the question whether Lanzarote can be considered as more or less authentic than other
places should probably be posed in different terms. If we agree that authenticity is in the eye
of the beholder, and that the choice of travelling to Lanzarote is the consequence of a
marketing action which is aimed to pre-select the tourists according to preferences, beliefs,
etc. then worrying about what is actually authentic in Lanzarote is pointless, because the
Island does nothing else than fulfill those expectations that have been promised.
Lanzarote cannot be compared to other places, such as Las Vegas, where
reproductions of monuments and life styles are the norm. The difference lies in the fact that
while in Las Vegas we can see copies, which could technically be compared anytime with
