Introduction On the fifteenth of February I attended to my second excursion for the minor Destination Development. This was going to be a tour that was all about 'dark tourism' within Amsterdam. The tour was organized by Karel Werdler who also happens to be our professor at the marketing and managing destinations lessons. You can see him and Phillipa Collin behind that white ghost on the picture above. Now, you might think: Dark tour? Are you doing a tour by night? Are you going to explore some dark places in Amsterdam? No, that is not what this tour is about. This tour is mostly about morbidity and death which, surprisingly seems to be very popular if I have to believe the words of Karel Werdler. The tour and my opinion
I had a lot of expectations of this tour, simply because Karel Werdler was telling us how popular and good it was during the lessons. You could say that he was already creating a strong image around his tour, which he then could amplify during the actual tour. This time, it wasn't as cold as the 'Remember The Good Times' tour, so doing the tour was a lot more pleasant. We started the tour at Dam square, where Karel started his storytelling about the palace that was in front of us. Karel is a natural storyteller, this made it easy to keep listening to the stories he had to tell. I also found that he (might have) put some thought in the length of his stories at each stop that we had. One of the reasons i kept my attention to the tour with every step i took is because I found the information that he gave very interesting and meaningful, with the fun of learning to see the special in the ordinary. Mainly this was because the tour was given in my hometown, I love historical stories and it gave me an opportunity to see my own city through a different mindset. Luckily the stories didn't last very long, which is a good thing, because it keeps the people interested for more and nowadays in our consuming lifestyles, we do not like to listen to hours of stories without a break. So on the storytelling part, I really think he did a great job. As we walked through the streets of Amsterdam, I amazed myself of how many parts of my hometown I still do not know, like the 'free art gallery' and the 'garden of the widows' (not sure if they are really called that way, but that how I remember them). This definitely gave me the feeling that i went to unusual places and visited places that are off the beaten track. Even though I loved the tour myself, there are things to argue about. For example, is it really an typical and authentical activity? Does it really belong to this place and has it a suitable souvenir? No, the tour doesn't have any suitable souvenir, but you'll have to ask yourself if you really want a souvenir that reminds you of death. Yes, these stories are definitely connected to the places that we visited, but does that make it a typical activity? I think this one is open for discussion, but i'm inclined to towards that it is not an typical activity, simply because these stories can also be told in another city which doesn't make it a 'typical thing' for Amsterdam. Although we didn't visit any family or didn't take a real inside look (which is also a bit weird considering that it is a dark tour about death) i still feel like the tour belonged there and that it belonged to the local community. For example, during the tour, we passed trough a courtyard that belongs to a community of widows and other single woman, which gave me the feeling that the tour belonged there. If i look back on the tour and think about the Critical Succes Factors of intangible culture, i notice that the tour contradicts itself in many ways. So does it have a lot of insiders knowledge due to the extended amount of information that Karel gave to us, it belongs to the community as earlier explained and it gives you new ideas about old buildings. On the other hand, it lacks the process of change and has no cultural diversity, but i can imagine that its quite difficult to implement these factors into the main subject of the tour. The tour itself isn't really ethical at all, well one could say that it pays attention to the P of planet because it is a walking tour, but then again.. is this really paying attention to the environment? I could write a further explanation of why it isn't ethical but I think that being ethical, doesn't fit with this kind of tour, no matter how you put it. However, this doesn't have to be an issue as it is not something someone would expect when booking this kind of tour. Also because the tour is about the past, death and its history within Amsterdam, there is little room for a human experience in the sense that there are meaningful encounters with locals who tell personal stories etc. This is really because simply put, all the stories are about death or people who died, so its impossible to implement a human experience within the tour. However, if i'm correct, Karel lives in Amsterdam, so one could say that he is a 'local guide'. All things combined, I definitely think that this tour was a good one. The tour had a strong image, with a unique and clear concept within Amsterdam, because as far as I am aware, I do not know any similar tour. If you look at the way that the tour is set up (small distances, short but interesting stories, historical information, seeing things from a different perspective) its an quite small scale and accessible tour which might be a bit out of your comfortzone, but hey, that's exiting right? Follow, like, pin it, love it.
0 Reacties
Laat een antwoord achter. |
AuthorAnthony Voskuilen, a driven tourism student, football player, brother, son and friend. Determined to achieve greatness on whatever path life sends me. Become wise.
Do you want to read my blogs ? Sure ! Just click on the "read more" button and enlighten yourself. (all written in Dutch)
Categories
Alles
Follow, like, pin it, love it.
|