Ulmer, and his colleagues in the FRE, propose a new kind of tourism in response to the State of Florida's perception that they need to reinvent its image. Their proposal is both critical (through irony) and serious in that it actually imagines a new way of practicing tourism (what Ulmer calls "solonism"). What do you make of their proposals? How do some of the works we have looked at in class utilize some of these same ideas? I would like us to use Ulmer's provocations as a starting point for our own interventions into tourism - the production of our own tour guide.
I am a bit confused still on the invention of the term solonist. They say it is like a witness but a witness is someone that does no inventing, they simple watch. So does Ulmer want this new tourist to simple watch and be a witness of Florida and essentially America, or does he want the new tourist be an active player, an inventor of the new Florida? Ulmers project proposal of Florida Rushmore seems very American and very egotistical at points. This idea of taking our inner thoughts and faces to create one face, the face of Florida Rushmore is interesting but seems a bit contrived. Personally, I think this whole idea is based around technology too much. What about the land, the surroundings people actually see when they come to Florida. Basically, couldn’t this technological Rushmore be built in any other state, how is it personal to Florida? I think it is important to acknowledge that we need to change the way tourism is going in this country and Ulmer takes an interesting approach to it. He seems to be on the right track in terms of thought process and analysis of the tourist, but its almost something that needs to happen naturally. Can the tourist be controlled?
Good criticisms and questions Erin! To try to get at your questioning of "solonism" we need to unpack Ulmer's insistence on theoria as something more than simply seeing. As he tries to clarify:
"This theoria "did not mean the kind of vision that is restricted to the sense of sight. The term implied a complex but organic mode of active observation--a perceptual system that included asking questions, listening to stories and local myths, and feeling as well as hearing and seeing. It encouraged an open reception to every kind of emotional, cognitive, symbolic, imaginative, and sensory experience." Nor was the travel of a theoros always a response; it could also be a probe."
So, for Ulmer, a witness is not just someone who "takes in" sights, but one who reports back and uses experience to guide the shape of collective identities (like nation states). This doesn't answer your questions about the technological fetishism that can be found in the FRE proposal however. But he does address the specificity of the site of Florida, through the geophysical and symbolic location of the sinkhole. And in terms of "controlling" tourism, the FRE exists in relation to the state of Florida's attempt to do just that using public relations. Remember that the National Park System was constructed (through theory, policy and land use) around ideas of recreation and leisure that shaped one major component of contemporary tourism that didn't exist in exactly the same form before. Tourists didn't make these spaces their own organically.
I thought it interesting that, from reading the article, it seemed the first tourist or theoria, were the only ones with the authority to clarify the truth of a faraway event or spectacle. It reminded me of the legitimacy we put on reporters and hierarchy we have with some news sources over others. I'm particularly interested in learning about a place an it's histories orally, rather through what we're taught to be more legitimate sources (newspapers, journals, historians). I enjoy how oral histories are sometimes imagined and exaggerated depending on the individual's values and perspective. This relates to how the Florida Mount Rushmore becomes a constantly changing imagined portrait, not solely because of the photograph overlays changing, but it also sounded like the landscape onto which it was projected was not such a static landform as the granite at the original Mount Rushmore, but laid upon a sinkhole, which represents a sort of instability and deterioration over time. One thing that I was unclear of was whether or not the project was only imaginary or if it was implemented and if so what sort of archive would they pull the photos from or were the solonists, or tourist required to bring their own photos as a contribution to their cultural invention?
And I sort of agree with your point Erin, that this project doesn't seem very connected to Florida more than it's connected to the rest of American tourism.
When Ulmer writes, “Tourism, then, becomes a “map” to post Columbian America. He is placing tourism into a very specific space, When the idea for the mount rushmore sculpture was changed from showing a history of the west, with Chief Red Cloud central to the monument to “The founding fathers” this concept works well with this map of America as tourist, and clearly shows the ideologies behind changing the project to be the “Founding Fathers” as it calls on a specific audience, for economic growth, while the act of destructing a mountain, and denying the foundation of America. Thus this new project of a projected “mystory” is one that works to oppose the current men whose faces appear on the mountain. As related to class, I think that any sort of alternative tourism that works to recreate this American tradition of tourism becomes critical, but also gives people freedom. In making my own tours I have found it empowering to be able to go onto google maps and create a new tour or a new sight of interest that directs people to something they may not have though about. The tour can be used as a way of empowering communities, giving people information that may help with there health, providing an alternative hisoty ect.
Ulmer comments that “the American national identity is being revised…the tourist as a solonist will travel to see what is to be seen in order to reinvent our national identity.” I have to wonder how influential the tourist or solonist is when assigned the role of reinventing our identity as a nation. Ulmer seems to refer to these preconceived notions as “symbolic inventions” but I can’t help but call many of them generalizations or simply stereotypes that Ulmer credits partly to public relations firms. We have to be careful how we choose to portray or construct this new identity. The desired goal seems to then be to have a critical tourist that will be able to actively construct this identity in a rhizomatic relationship between the tourist and the monument or site. The FRE proposes the idea of Florida Rushmore, which sounds far-fetched. But then, who knows—maybe this could be popular several years in the future? Ulmer brings up the notion of mourning in Freudian psychoanalytic terms, the replacement of one generation after the other that constitutes symbolic identity. Although the Florida Rushmore is a little too technologically dependent, it may prove us wrong as critical tourists and actually lend itself to the national identity in the future as we will inevitably be replaced by another group of tourists in this ever changing America.
As a psychology and philosophy major, Ulmer's article was interesting and confusing for me on several levels. Ulmer adopts several terms that were coined in both of these disciplines for his proposal. The term that I took most issue with and found the most confusing was Ulmer’s use of the term “theoria.” Theoria, in an Aristotelian context refers to a lifestyle in which the actor pulls away from typical personal connections and duties in favor of a life of contemplation. However, this contemplation is not typical either, because Aristotle’s life of theoria demands that the actor is not analyzing things that are tangible. Yet, in Ulmer’s proposal theoria has an extremely tangible connection to institutions and tangible analysis.
The Ulmer reading framed an argument through ironic construction, presenting a seemingly bogus proposal in a very formalized way. By beginning the article with references to the first Miss America pageant and other P.R. strategies, it presented tourism as a gimmicky and economically charged practice. Yet, tourism also has the ability to serve as a monument to the American world, motivated by economics but having a capital that might be social and symbolic. By proposing that the tourists themselves become “monumentalized” via holographic projections, Ulmer is insisting that as tourists we must actively intervene in the making and meaning of tourism. While he did suggest that these images be projected in, for lack of a better term, sinkhole, he is making it obvious that his argument is an ideological one, not literal. Monuments or tourist attractions that are made for strictly capitalistic motives, are inherently void of culture, spirit, and sentiment. I believe that Ulmer feels that in order to have a more complete and valuable tourist experience, we need to be more like “solonists” and become more active in observation, experience, and thinking.
I really enjoyed Ulmer’s proposal, because for half of it I was really buying what he was saying. The subversion of the article is what gave it power. I think by tricking the audience into believing what he is saying, it makes them question other official documents. Although when I first think of the proposal I think of being duped, I think Ulmer also offers a suggestion as to how we can remedy the current state of tourism. As I see it, the modern tourist can be seen as a solonist, in that they travel to monuments, take pictures, and return home to report back to friends and family about what they have seen. In this model, the traveler is merely a reporter. They observe what already exists, and have no ability to interact or change what they are seeing. If monuments are supposed to say something about a particular culture, shouldn’t the people of that culture have a say in the monuments. I think this is what Ulmer is trying to get at in his proposal. The project is not feasible, but the general idea is. The democratizing of monuments reminds me of NASA’s project that is now being called Serenity. Originally they allowed anyone to vote online for what they think the name should be. Steven Colbert told people to vote for Colbert, and the name won. However, NASA went for the second place name. Their original idea, however, is what I think Ulmer is proposing. If something is being constructed to represent a nation, the people should have a say, not just members of a board. On a final note, I read on a few people’s comments that they thought the project was not connected to Florida. This got me thinking about how other monuments may or may not be connected with their locales. The two major US monuments for me are the Statue of Liberty and Mount Rushmore. None of which really relate to their location. There are two other Statues of Liberty in the world, and while they mean different things to the different places they exist, the mere fact that they can exist in different places makes their location less significant. With Mount Rushmore, its about man conquering nature, and perhaps any mountainside would have been fine.
After contemplating on Ulmer's article and listening to other people's opinions on his proposal for tourism in Florida, I have a few thoughts. Ulmer coins many words he uses throughout the proposal. On one hand it brings a certain humor and sarcasm, as well as creativity... coming up with new ways of verbalizing ideas, but on the other hand, it reminds me a lot of our last president. His new vocab was coined as "Bushisms" and definitely not something I found amusing or humorous. Now, Ulmer may be coining words for many reasons, but possibly also to comment on politics and government and how powerful men in high positions can also be of questionable intelligence. He presents a fictitious proposal to the Florida government and within it tangles ideas that are nonsensical as well as some that could potentially be taken seriously. His individual vocabulary can also be looked at as a way of trying to make the people on the Florida tourism board question their own intelligence, internally of course. In addition, after listening to Megan comment on Ulmer's improper use of the philosophical idea of theoria. "Theoria, in an Aristotelian context refers to a lifestyle in which the actor pulls away from typical personal connections and duties in favor of a life of contemplation. However, this contemplation is not typical either, because Aristotle’s life of theoria demands that the actor is not analyzing things that are tangible. Yet, in Ulmer’s proposal theoria has an extremely tangible connection to institutions and tangible analysis. " I would wonder if his misuse is another purposeful choice in turning something inside out in order to make us the reader question what is at stake for him.
I have to acknowledge that I cannot understand this proposal very well. I only got my personal opinon out of general impression. I admit the factor that tourism is related to national identities. National identity is constructed in tourist industry in order to distinguish the palce, shape the local specialty, and impress tourists. But personally, tourism is still a leisure activity. I wonder the "electronic Rushmore" can engage everyone into the contexts. It looks like intellectual, technological, and Narcissist. I don't know how electronic Rushmore can satisfy people who expect to see local's everyday life and sacred nature. I think tourists don't really expect to be critical or knowledgeable. Ulmer also argues make a tourists a place of healing. However, I will not get the sense of healing from the technology.I can only think that promoting electronic Rushmore like promoting contemporary art. If it could be manipulated to become a piece of famous artwork, every one will come to visit it at the sake of fame.