Foreign tourists to Hanoi must see water puppets, in Beijing the eponymous opera, and in Bali the gamelan orchestra. The Republic of Korea, only recently emerging as a significant tourist destination, has struggled to similarly brand one type of performance as, beyond doubt, a necessary part of a local cultural tour. Instead of copying the above model and convincing tourists to see a “traditional” or “authentic” cultural form (albeit of a duration and in a location that draws tourists), in Korea audiences are offered shows that rely on quick pacing, driving beats, and unchallengingly simple storylines. These performances, although promoted as Korean tradition, often conflate different time periods, regional styles, traditionally “high” and “low” forms, and mix in modern and non-Korean elements. Cloaking themselves in a mantle of “Koreanness,” they are more concerned with the creation of an exciting and attractive product than accurate demonstration of Korea arts. This paper examines the touristification and commodification of Korean tradition within the context of these different performances marketed to tourists, particularly focusing on three productions that were regularly shown at tourist venues: The Queen’s Banquet, Ga-on, and Korea: Sim Cheong. This article argues that although tourists seem to be satisfied with the results, the productions are leveraging the tourists’ desire to see a Korean performance only to stray far from the original source material without disclosure. In these shows, what the audience sees is not a performance of Korea’s heritage arts, but rather a spectacular concept of “Koreanness” consistent with the government’s assumption that tradition must be updated to be approachable. By promising to stage tradition but in reality enacting a context-less fusion of styles and genres, these shows spread misconceptions about Korean heritage arts and divert attention and resources from the groups dedicated to preserving those arts. This article concludes with recommendations for integrating these tourist shows more productively into the heritage arts ecosystem.
Foreign tourists to Hanoi must see water puppets, in Beijing the eponymous opera, and in Bali the gamelan orchestra. The Republic of Korea, only recently emerging as a significant tourist destination, has struggled to similarly brand one type of performance as, beyond doubt, a necessary part of a local cultural tour. Instead of copying the above model and convincing tourists to see a “traditional” or “authentic” cultural form (albeit of a duration and in a location that draws tourists), in Korea audiences are offered shows that rely on quick pacing, driving beats, and unchallengingly simple storylines. These performances, although promoted as Korean tradition, often conflate different time periods, regional styles, traditionally “high” and “low” forms, and mix in modern and non-Korean elements. Cloaking themselves in a mantle of “Koreanness,” they are more concerned with the creation of an exciting and attractive product than accurate demonstration of Korea arts. This paper examines the touristification and commodification of Korean tradition within the context of these different performances marketed to tourists, particularly focusing on three productions that were regularly shown at tourist venues: The Queen’s Banquet, Ga-on, and Korea: Sim Cheong. This article argues that although tourists seem to be satisfied with the results, the productions are leveraging the tourists’ desire to see a Korean performance only to stray far from the original source material without disclosure. In these shows, what the audience sees is not a performance of Korea’s heritage arts, but rather a spectacular concept of “Koreanness” consistent with the government’s assumption that tradition must be updated to be approachable. By promising to stage tradition but in reality enacting a context-less fusion of styles and genres, these shows spread misconceptions about Korean heritage arts and divert attention and resources from the groups dedicated to preserving those arts. This article concludes with recommendations for integrating these tourist shows more productively into the heritage arts ecosystem.
(0)
(0)