ENGAGING AND ALTERNATIVE CULTURAL TOURISM?

Abstract

This article develops the concept of ‘alternative cultural tourism’ through an in-depth study of the Prague Fringe Festival (PFF). In doing so, it argues that existing approaches to cultural tourism often fail to differentiate between different forms of culture (i.e. alternative versus mainstream), whilst also interrogating the criteria by which festivals can be understood as examples of alternative cultural tourism. Utilising a combination of both quantitative and qualitative data, involving audiences, festival performers and workers/volunteers, it is asserted that the PFF brings together a diverse mix of cultures, and seeks to create a more participatory and engaging tourist experience. Additionally, its more egalitarian organising structure produces different kinds of work and social relations in the production of art and culture – particularly between various groups working within the festival, but also in the creation of different ideas about audience engagement, performer relations, and engagement with the local community (through the idea of the ‘festival participant’). The article concludes by briefly exploring the potential of alternative cultural tourism to provide more meaningful and sustainable models of urban cultural development.

Keywords:

• alternative
• cultural tourism
• festival
• participant
• social bonding

Acknowledgements

A big thanks to the four directors of the PFF – Steven Gove, Carole Wears, Giles Burton and Angus Coull – for giving me access to the fringe, aiding the carrying out of the survey, and for agreeing to be interviewed. Also, thanks to Carol Gove for being the ‘festival mother’, and the numerous volunteers who helped distribute and collect the surveys. Finally thanks to all the festival participants who kindly agreed to give me their thoughts and views in follow-up interviews and email interviews.

Notes

1. Ironically, St John (2000) defines fringe festivals in particular as ‘vertical arts organisations’ on the basis that they are largely state arts funded, and hence are not independent, a point this paper takes issue with.

2. Although conceived as an ‘audience survey’ the questionnaire sample is in fact made of two sub-groups – i.e. those ‘associated with the festival’ (including volunteers, technicians, directors/producers and performers, 15% of the total) and ‘audience only’ (85% of the sample). However, as all of those in the ‘associated with the festival’ category actually attended performances, they can also be seen as ‘audience’ members. At the same time, as the paper goes on to argue, blurred distinctions between performers, workers and audiences also led to the idea that all groups could be seen somewhat as ‘festival participants’. For purposes of clarity, when referring to the survey questionnaire data as a whole I will use the term audience survey, however when the data is referenced in term of disaggregated data I will refer to the two categories of ‘associated with the festival’ and ‘audience only’.

3. Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted, five during the 2007 PFF, and 15 during the year following the fringe. Of the latter, 14 interviews were conducted by email (email addresses were provided on questionnaires), as face-to-face interviews were impossible due to the dispersal of festival participants around the world post-fringe.