Decoding Anti-Tourism Street Art: The Discourse Between Venetians and the Dirty Tourist

“They burned the bridge then asked why I don’t visit”—unknown

What can members do?

World travel and tourism is an 8.8 trillion-dollar industry promoting the preservation of historical spaces, international relationships, and peace. (Becker2016) Global marketing campaigns entice would-be travelers to spend their discretionary dollars on bucket-list worthy destinations. With an ever-growing middle class, the tourism industry has experienced explosive growth. This growth has served as a foundation of vibrancy for the economically challenged and underdeveloped communities of the world; they have become fertile grounds for global exploration. However, this sprawling growth has consequences in the form of spiritual, cultural and physical degradation popularly known as “overtoursim”. Threatened by their own success, the residents of Venice, Italy have adopted an antagonist sentiment towards tourists. This concept of overtourism has sparked activists and artists alike to respond to their local degrading conditions through politically charged street art. In 2014, Guerrilla Spam, a group of anonymous Florentine artists released Venezia Land, an inflammatory depiction of a tourist; a black and white cartoon styled figure printed on paper and glued to a building west of the Piazza San Marco. Since the work was released, anti-tourism sentiments have grown caustic, sparking large demonstrations devolving in violence and demarketing campaigns aimed at tourists. This begs the question, is Venezia Land by Guerrilla Spama beneficial visual and cultural influence in the dialogue of overtourism? This paper will attempt to examine the effectiveness of this work through the filter of Stuart Hall’s Audience Reception Theory.

Audience Reception: A Theory Debrief

Even though Stuart Hall has been criticized in media studies, his methods have been widely applied and accepted; he is considered influential in this ever-changing field of cultural and media study. Hall’s Audience Reception Theory has been referred to in the context of literature but is more appropriately applied within the context of mass media. Venezia Land not only stands as a work of street art but has been photographed and shared via cell phones and social media. Additionally, stock photography of Venezia Land can be found across several online purchasing websites; it has become a global image with a broad audience, making Hall’s theory of Audience Reception significant for this analysis. Hall’s theory is based in thought on a message being firstly encoded by the producer—or maker— and subsequently decoded by the viewer or audience. Hall says the producer of the message, or encoder, has an exclusive intent in the production and messaging of the image. The decoder, then, is the audience or viewer.

Previously, mass media studies prior to Hall’s work focused primarily on the producer of the work—the artist or maker. However, Hall’s theory flips that focus. Hall’s theory says the audience plays a significant role, if not the most significant role in the success of the imagery. At the heart of Hall’s theory, the decoding process, or audience reception, is where things get interesting. While it might not be difficult to understand why different audiences interpret messages in different ways, according to Hall, we can break this decoding down into three distinct responses, based in audience culture and/or belief system. The first code is the dominant or preferred reading which is in alignment, or congruent, with the encoder’s intention. The second is a negotiated reading; this concludes the audience largely understands the message and might even agree with parts of the message but may have alternative and differing opinions regarding the message. The last code is termed oppositional reading. In this instance, the reader/decoder is in direct opposition to the message; perhaps the audience doesn’t understand the message or cannot relate to the message in a meaningful way. In Venezia Land, Hall’s Reception Theory of encoding and decoding becomes an appropriate model to start a meaningful conversation about the intended audience and therefore overall success of the work. Hall’s theory concludes, without fixed, singular understanding or reception by an audience, the message becomes distorted and therefore cannot be successful (Hall 1973).

Defining style as a means of reception

As a form of street art in a popular location of Venice, Italy, audiences for Venezia Land are varied and diverse. David Maddox for TheNatureofCities.com writes this about urban art culture: “Interest in these art forms as social expression is broad, and the work itself takes many shapes—from simple tags of identity, to scrawled expressions of protest and politics, to complex and beautiful scenes that virtually everyone would say are “art”, despite their sometimes rough locations.”(Bullen 2016). In order to understand the significance of decoding street art messaging, we must first understand the context of street art in relation to the popular terms used interchangeably by an audience. Even though the terms “graffiti”, “urban art” and “street art” are often perceived and relayed by viewers to mean the same idea, they are not necessarily interchangeable by definition. Graffiti is typically based in spray paint with type styling— it is generally a self-taught production and is “tagged” by the creator to signify ownership; ownership of location by a group or individual. While some might argue the context of graffiti is becoming more widely accepted and understood by audiences, historically, graffiti has been rejected, seen as oppositional, and even inaudible by a random audience. Graffiti is almost always illegal; its unsanctioned purpose alone will often generate an oppositional decoding by a viewer. Alternatively, urban art is defined as a broad style of art with a subject matter based within a passion for urban life. As opposed to graffiti, urban art is now considered a genre of the traditional art cannon and is widely understood as a sanctioned form of art—a more “accepted” art form based in hegemony via traditional art institutions. Even with wide institutional acceptance, “urban art” as a genre is negotiated by audiences— some agree with the designation, others, do not. The term “street art”, used to describe such works as Venezia Land, are urban art, but in the form of relatable messaging for mass public consumption; and also interestingly, the creators are classically trained artists. While street art is widely sanctioned in the United States, it is important to note, in Italy, street art is considered unsanctioned work. These differences can create a broad gap in audience reception and as Hall’s theory implies, strongly impacting the effectiveness of messaging.

Decoding Artist Intent

“If you want to talk about the world (and society), that's where you have to be, and not in the intellectual salons to talk. Or, at least, you can do both, but still have the lucidity and simplicity to be comfortable in both contexts.”— Guerrilla Spam (Alessia Tommasini 2019)

In an interview with Arttribune Magazine, Guerrilla Spam explained the collective name was selected for its evocative and impetuous action. The term “Guerrilla”, of course, is used to describe an action often unsanctioned or illegal; with the term “spam” used to signify the delivery without consent— as in Spam email (Alessia Tommasini2019). The brazen street art group originally met as classically trained artists during their college years and began their self-defined “attacks” in 2010, Florence. The collective has evolved over time to include members from all over the world and is collaboratively working with other street art groups in Europe and Africa. The group has expanded their audience base to include educational venues and speaking engagements. However, the artists refrain from ever divulging their age, sex and nationalities as they feel physical appearance is unimportant to the work; the collection adamantly remains anonymous, presumably in part due to their unsanctioned work in and around Europe, but also in part to reduce misconceptions or distortions by audience based in the cultural context and perceived belief system of the collective group. Guerrilla Spam acknowledges the intended messaging of their work which features politically charged discourse involving social issues and the tenable relationship between individuals and the public space (Alessia Tommasini 2019). They consider their overall work performative; an action arguably compared with a flash mob and a strong link to political messaging. Their work has been described as tongue-in-cheek, and thought provoking but also cartoonish, ironic, combative, gruesome and caustic.

Artistic nods come from Salvador Dali and surrealism. Surrealism, at its basic intent is considered dream-like and perplexing, as it is meant to negate assumptions by jolting viewers out of their comfort zone (Alessia Tommasini2019). Guerrilla Spam is also influenced by current political artists such as Blu Street Art, conjuring up propaganda through the use of cartoon characters combined with aggressive messaging. While the collective work features a range of topics, the group also strongly advocates for education. As the collective has progressed over time, their work has evolved for educational intent and the group is currently working in schools, prisons and speaking engagements to further their message. However, the collective has made clear, they want their audience focusing on the production. And, whether sanctioned or not, the content messaging is their main priority. But what is that message? It seems that would be left to the audience, having significant consequences in the dialogue of overtourism. Who is the intended audience and what specific message is being relayed? In alignment with Stuart Hall’s Audience Reception Theory and ideas of message distortion, Guerrilla Spam has selected a method of art making and distribution encoding their work for a limited audience — distorting meaning, ultimately deepening the divide between local residents of Venice and tourists.

The diverse audiences created by the anonymous group are clearly being created with intent— for money? Notoriety? How is this art serving to assist in the dialogue of overtourism? For example— is the art shared in venues for the purpose of educating tourists? Supporting locals? How, then, can this make for productive content in relationship building for the purposes of addressing over-tourism? The elusive nature of intended audience, then, has the ability to distort the message in a broad capacity, further rendering it unclear, and ineffective.

Dueling Artifact Perspectives

Reminiscent of an internet meme, Venezia Land is somewhat sparse and simplistic, drawn on paper (often the day before an “attack”) with black ink only, photocopied and/or tile printed and is simply glued to the exterior wall of a building, canal side, just west beyond the overcrowded piazza of St. Marks Basilica. The black-only ink is intentional and budget friendly. With a stark black on white image and color noticeably absent, it differs significantly from its surroundings and stands out from the colorful signage, flyers and advertisements. The image is approximately 4-5 feet in height (original) and is affixed above eye level, towering over a passerby, on a mixed painted stucco and brick wall. The character is cartoonish and resembles an amphibian-like monster bellowing out of the waters of the Giudecca canal, ironically not unlike a cruise ship tourist making way through the city. The character is potentially a woman (and for the purposes of this paper, I will refer to the character as “her”) with eerie facial features and irregular proportions— the figure strongly resembles cartoons from American TV shows such as Rick and Morty and Futurama. She is drawn to be overweight— which would seem a commentary on the gluttonous eating habits of tourists. Scantily clad in ill-fitting clothing, bare mid-drift, donning a see-through tank top, her hair is topped off with a casual sporting ball cap; clothing generally frowned upon by the local culture and considered disrespectful in many local religious settings. She clings to shopping bags representing global fashion brand logos such as Calvin Klein, Louis Vuitton and Gucci, likely a statement speaking to global consumerism and the marginalization of local merchants. Also on her left is a map. This combined semiology signifies the figure as a brash, ugly and dirty tourist, invading the streets of Venice.

According to the artists, the overall image is not intended for permanence (Alessia Tommasini 2019). The viewer is invited to interact with the street art by adding, destroying or covering the work. The viewer is asked to act; not be passive— it is meant for manipulation and is constantly changing (insert reference). As such, the audience becomes the producer, then, of the message— and depending on initial reception and decoding, can be manipulated and further distorted. Hall’s theory can compellingly be applied: a change in the message can change audience perception, significantly distorting interpretation.

As a tourist myself, I must ask: Do I embody this caricature? Whether or not other tourists pose the same question, many tourists might be able to understand and impart the same degradation and effects overtourism is having on Venice. We can ask, then, is the image doing its work? Awareness is the first step to solving overtourism issues. As we build an awareness on the topic, we can begin to educate about the problem and innovate toward solution. In this sense, we can say the image is performing some work. However, different audiences have different interpretation—and reception. Those opinions can create misinformation, deepening a caustic relational divide potentially impacting the long-term viability of the city. Hall predicts, accurately, our personal experiences affect the decoding process. In other words, our experiences as people from different cultures and different past experiences can shape or influence the way a message is decoded. For myself, the message calls for an introspection as a tourist. For others, such as local residents, the message could be seen as a call to rally by positioning tourists as the “dirty tourist”. This difference in decoding presents a problem in the discourse surrounding overtourism. The gap in understanding widens and grows antagonism between residents and tourists— foiling efforts to improve communication. Hall states, “Before the message can have an ‘effect’ (however defined), satisfy a ‘need’ or be put to ‘use’, it must first be appropriated as a meaningful discourse and be meaningfully decoded.” (Hall 1980).

Location, Location, Location

It has been said, location is everything. And the location and vantage point of the audience for Venezia Land is critical evidence in the theory of audience reception. The location for this work has significant variance depending on audience. The work can be viewed in person, as a photo alongside the renaissance architecture of Venice or canal, or in the context of online media including social media outlets such as Pinterest and Instagram. The audience can touch or manipulate the image in person, photograph the image and also share the image— additionally this image can be found in the annals of stock photography. A quick google search will take the viewer on a journey through social media and online articles addressing overtourism. This leads to the question, is the work seen by the audience it’s intended for? Is the art doing its work in these altering and various locations? What is the response as local inhabitants pass by the artwork? Based on the artwork location, off the Piazza of St. Mark (fig.2), it could be argued the work is meant to rally locals behind the anti-tourism movement, enticing them to join protesters in the streets to deter incoming tourists. Alternatively, the image could be received as abrasive by tourists, or apathy could be the resulting impression. Even tourists, viewing Venezia Land in this somewhat arguably off-tourist location, will have mixed reception of the message. For some, it begs the action to think more deeply about the subject and message for themselves. Many may not know how to respond or how to feel about the image, and as a result, reactions are not only varied but in direct contrast to each other. When viewed online, does the work become a must-see bucket list destination? These are just a few examples of the mixed and distorted resulting interpretations by audiences in varied locations. From location alone, we can see where the decoding process can produce deviations in message. By applying Hall’s theory, we can denote three potential responses; supporters of the artwork (primarily local residents negatively impacted by the effects of overtourism) can be considered practicing the dominant preferred meaning. Tourists understanding the message but call into question other ideas about the image would be practicing negotiated reading according to Hall, and lastly, those particularly offended or felt either apathy or disagreement to the message would be considered oppositional. As Hall indicates, the meaning of the work is not fixed to the message, and what is understood is also created by the viewer as part of the message itself— these varied responses create a shift; one discourse for resident, one for tourist, and yet another discourse for mass media viewers creating distortions in message rendering the work unsuccessful. Further, Hall also points out, the meaning of a message is influenced by how it is circulated. He states, “... the broadcasting structures must yield encoded messages in the form of meaningful discourse. The institution-societal relations of production must pass under the discursive rules of language for its product to be realized” (Hall, 1973).

Conclusions in Decoding

How does Venezia Land by Guerrilla Spam, with seemingly a specific purpose in posing tourists as the “dirty tourist”, come to have so many different meanings to different people? How do we make sense of this controversial piece as a tourist or local resident? Hall’s reception theory assists in understanding the decoding process for audiences. According to Hall, the meaning of a message is not fixed, and distortion occurs as the message is received by unique audiences with their own interpretations and experiences (Hall 1980).

Perhaps there is some intentionality on the part of Guerrilla Spam to create a mixed-message decoding system for this work, however, how, in this context, does the art effectively address the problem? How does a multi-coded message solve issues of overtourism in a city with disintegrating conditions? Rather, I propose Venezia Land creates a divide amongst groups further camouflaging and disguising innovative discourse for a healthier Venice and tourist relationship. While Guerrilla Spam’s intent may be to incorporate humor and support local residents, the work is also clearly cutting, abrasive and defamatory for tourists. The artwork is clearly a commentary on tourists behaving badly. However, tourists are only one facet of a larger problem— tourists are a part what made Venice lively and successful at one time. In a singular sense, Venezia Land seeks to examine the theme of overtourism, and in this way, could be said is doing its work. However, the distortion in reception between residents and incoming travelers only serves to deepen the divide through varied interpretation. Surely the artist’s intent is not to remove tourists altogether as Venice depends on tourism to survive, particularly and especially with declining local population. But we must ask, how does this art bring tourists and locals together for a cause to enhance and improve the local conditions and not alienate one group over another? It can also be said Guerrilla Spam’s intention is to take aim at tourists—but depending on actual audience, degrading visual commentary is a serious misstep in the successfulness of intent when applying Stuart Hall’s Audience Reception Theory.

For a local resident, the artwork confirms tourists themselves are the problem, which also serves to widen cultural gap. Those who respond with a negotiated read may change their minds about their belief system based on perception of alternative reactions in preferred reading or oppositional reading. For example, tourists with a negotiated reading may view an anti-tourist reaction and change their opinion to oppositional support. Preferred reaction groups may further argue, then, the tourists are indeed, the problem. In this sense, the artwork does not work. Rather, it sends a mixed message alienating groups by first, degrading the tourist and secondly bandwagoning local groups into antagonistic protests. Ultimately, these groups need to work together to improve declining conditions, not polarize.

While this artwork draws attention, overall, does it promote positivity for the city? Or divisiveness? To draw on a parallel, it can be said, once the work is seen— it can’t be unseen. Just as social media images live in perpetuity, so does Venezia Land; it will never be erased. I am reminded of the illicit photo of Jennifer Lawrence released online. The image was viewed and shared with a vast unintended audience. When images become part of an unintended audience, we must call into question the responsibility of artists and their role in the educational communication of the larger conversations in overtourism. Hall states decoding is dependent on the audience and their response—this encompasses unintended audiences as well. In terms of anti-tourism sentiments in the piece, it can be said the artwork’s message was not singularly received and alternately, decoded in many unique and varied responses across a multitude of platforms. Due to broad circulation in audience locations, responses are divisional, and the assigned meaning gets lost in the decoding process polarizing groups and further decaying the social and cultural issues. Hall states “What are called ‘distortions’ or ‘misunderstandings’ arise precisely from the lack of equivalence between the two sides in the communicative exchange.” (Hall 1973). Polarizing groups is nonproductive and serves to further widen the gap among locals and tourists. While each group has desired outcomes, whether travel, preserving culture or honoring religious sites, they each have a responsibility in the discourse of overtourism by working together in order to make change and create positivity. Further protests strengthen the ideology that “tourist” is a dirty word and will ultimately undermine the vibrancy of the city.

How does Venezia Land address the growing problem of overtourism? The answer begins with how this art impacts the audience. How does the image impact the viewer or audience? The reactions are varied: shocking to some while apathetic for others. The decoding streams run the gamut from appreciation to annoyance to outrage. With a goal of overturning intellectual apathy, the intent triggers deep analogies and fears within ourselves— however, our society is quickly reaching a point of no return. Audiences with preferred or oppositional reception are caught in difficult dialogue, without regard to alternative perspectives. The discourse is increasingly caustic. And, while Hall does not offer solutions on how to escape the problem, through his Audience Reception Theory, we can better understand how we arrived at the impasse, and further consider our responsibility in the discourse of overtourism.

__________________________________________________________

Bibliography

Alessia Tommasini. 2019. “Quando Street Art è Sinonimo Di Protesta. Parola a Guerrilla Spam.” Artribune. May 7, 2019. http://www.artribune.com/arti-visive/street-urban-art/2019/05/intervista-guerrilla-spam/.

Barbara Maria Stafford. 2001. Visual Analogy : Consciousness as the Art of Connecting. Cambridge, Mass.: Mit Press.

Becker, Elizabeth. 2016. Overbooked the Exploding Business of Travel and Tourism. New York Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.

Blanchard, Sophie, and Romain Talamoni. 2018. “Street Art et Mise En Tourisme de La Métropole Parisienne, Des Festivals Aux Street Art Tours.” EchoGéo, no. 44 (July). https://doi.org/10.4000/echogeo.15663.

Bullen, Pauline. 2016. “Graffiti and Street Art Can Be Controversial, but Can Also Be a Medium for Voices of Social Change, Protest, or Expressions of Community Desire. What, How, and Where Are Examples of Graffiti as a Positive Force in Communities? – The Nature of Cities.” The Nature of Cities. March 23, 2016.

https://www.thenatureofcities.com/2016/03/23/graffiti-and-street-art-can-be-controversial-but-can-also-be-a-medium-for-voices-of-social-change-protest-or-expressions-of-community-desire-what-how-and-where-are-examples-of-graffiti-as-a-posi/.

Connolly, Kate, and Sean Smith. 2019. “A Rising Tide: ‘Overtourism’ and the Curse of the Cruise Ships.” The Guardian. The Guardian. September 16, 2019.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/sep/16/a-rising-tide-overtourism-and-the-curse-of-the-cruise-ships.

Davis, Helen. 2004. Understanding Stuart Hall. London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Diego, Fadda. 2015. “Guerrilla SPAM - A Series of New Pieces — GORGO.” GORGO. February 24, 2015. http://Www.ilgorgo.com/guerrilla-spam-a-series-of-new-pieces/.

Dodds, Rachel. 2019. Overtourism : Issues, Realities and Solutions. Berlin ; Boston: De Gruyter.

Elkins, James. 1995. “Art History and Images That Are Not Art.” The Art Bulletin 77 (4): 553. https://doi.org/10.2307/3046136.

Gelfeld, Vicki. 2018. “AARP Travel Research: 2019 Boomer Travel Trends,” December. https://doi.org/10.26419/res.00263.001.

“Graffiti vs. Street Art.” 2000. Columbia.Edu. 2000. http://www.columbia.edu/~sl3731/graffitiART/.

Hall, Stuart, Jessica Evans, and Sean Nixon. 2013a. Representation. London [Etc.] Sage [Etc]. 2013b. Representation : Cultural Representation and Signifying Practices. London: The Open University/Sage.

Hall, Stuart, and University Of Birmingham. Centre For Contemporary Cultural Studies. 1973. Encoding and Decoding in the Television Discourse : Paper for the Council of Europe Colloquy on “Training in the Critical Reading of Television Language.” Birmingham: Birmingham University.

Hawkins, Rebecca. 2015. “Managing Ethical Consumption in Tourism.” Tourism Management 51 (December): 282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.05.022.

Hay, James, Stuart Hall, and Lawrence Grossberg. 2013. “Interview with Stuart Hall.” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 10 (1): 10–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/14791420.2013.768404.

Hill, Charles A. 2009. Defining Visual Rhetorics. Mahwah, Nj Erlbaum.

https://www.facebook.com/RoselindeBlog. 2017. “How Venice Is Trying to Stop Tourists from Ruining the City • Globonaut.” Globonaut. July 28, 2017. http://www.globonaut.eu/how-venice-is-trying-to-stop-tourists/.

Hughes, Neil. 2018. “‘Tourists Go Home’: Anti-Tourism Industry Protest in Barcelona.” Social Movement Studies 17 (4): 471–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2018.1468244.

“Italy, Where Migration’s Front Line and Art’s Avant-Garde Meet.” 2016. The Economist. January 7, 2016. http://economist.com/prospero/2016/01/07/italy-where-migrations-front-line-and-arts-avant-garde-meet.

Jacobsen, Jens Kristian Steen. 2000. “Anti-Tourist Attitudes.” Annals of Tourism Research 27 (2): 284–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0160-7383(99)00069-9.

Karsten, Matthew. 2019. “Liked To Death: Is Instagram & Social Media Ruining Travel?” Expert Vagabond. October 27, 2019. http://expertvagabond.com/instagram-tourism-impact/.

Kumar, Vijay. 2013. 101 Design Methods : A Structured Approach For Driving Innovation In Your Organization. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

Martins, Marco Martins. 2018. “Tourism Planning and Tourismphobia: An Analysis of the Strategic Tourism Plan of Barcelona 2010-2015 - Munich Personal RePEc Archive.” Uni-Muenchen.De, May. https://doi.org/https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/88203/1/MPRA_paper_88203.pdf.

Meenakshi Gigi Durham, and Douglas M Kellner. 2001. Media and Cultural Studies : Keyworks. Malden: Blackwell.

Milano, Claudio, Joseph M Cheer, and Marina Novelli. 2019. Overtourism : Excesses, Discontents and Measures in Travel and Tourism. Wallingford, Oxfordshire ; Boston, Ma: Cabi.

Mitchell, Thomas. 1994. Picture Theory : Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.

“Overtourism and Its Fateful Attraction.” 2019. Luminosityitalia.Com. 2019. http://luminosityitalia.com/news/Italian-sites-news-on-overtourism.html.

Rose, Gillian. 2012. Visual Methodologies : An Introduction to Researching with Visual Materials. London: Sage.

Sobot, Rita. 2018. “‘Terror of the Seas Tourists Leave!’ Hundreds PROTEST in Majorca at World’s Largest Cruise.” Express.Co.Uk. Express.co.uk. April 9, 2018. https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/943330/Spain-anti-tourist-protest-Majorca-latest-cruise-ship-Symphony-of-the-Seas.

Telegraph.co.uk. 2019. “A Timeline of Overtourism: Key Moments in Global Battle between Locals and Travellers.” The Telegraph. August 21, 2019. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/timeline-action-against-overtourism/.

ThemeGrill. 2016. “Interview with Richard Butler on Sustainability and Tourism Education | Sustainability Leaders Project.” Sustainability-Leaders.Com. October 13, 2016. https://sustainability-leaders.com/interview-Richard-butler/.

UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2019. “UNESCO Launches Culture|2030 Indicators Publication.” Unesco.Org. 2019. https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/2058.

Wood, Brennon. 1998. “Stuart Hall’s Cultural Studies and the Problem of Hegemony.” The British Journal of Sociology49 (3): 399. https://doi.org/10.2307/591390.