The Greek participation in the 14th International Architecture Exhibition – La Biennale di Venezia, under the title Tourism Landscapes: Remaking Greece, conceives tourism as “an extrovert activity”, as a vehicle for the social and political, but also the spatial and formal “modernization of Greece”. It associates therefore an economic activity with the architectural production and the ideology of the “neo-Greek identity”, by establishing as their meeting point, what the brief identifies as “tourism landscapes”. This approach prescribes the relation between the local and the – on any occasion – “other” as the necessary precondition that guarantees a perpetually and mutual transformation of the landscape, the matter and consequently the subject and the experience that the latter reproduces.

“If the state commanded all handsome young men to become shepherds, our country would have a lot of couleur locale”

dialogues excepts from the movie

Koritsia ston Ilio [Girls in the Sun] (1968)

We firmly believe that the above approach complies with an array of historical and critical projects, promoted by the architectural discipline during the last two decades, not only within Greece. This politically conservative, conceptual thread proceeds with the simplification and categorization of terms, which then are applied to interpret architectural phenomena with an operative manner and in favour of a precise benefit. The objective is to construct genealogical ties that ultimately justify present practices. The leading characteristic of this historical narrative is the neutralization of the political and social context. This narrative is constructed by a simple, linear sequence of events and architectural projects, while the evaluation of their contribution and significance is carried out in a fragmented manner. In fact, this process does not lack ideology. On the contrary, the reduction of ideological distinctions constitutes a common neo-liberal practice, exemplary of its thinking and particularly critical within the historic narrative of design. Herein appear these categorizations that even and annihilate these distinctions. Historic periodization follows a similar course. The period 1949-1967 is labelled “the spring of Greek architecture”, whereas the military dictatorship “the populist era”, the years 1981-2009 of a profound capitalist and social restructuring are referred to as the “years of euphoria and modernization”, while the so-called “crisis” constitutes a mere “opportunity for reflection”. Accordingly, profoundly different architectural projects, subject to a paradoxical curation, coexist and construct a linear, formless (and bloodless) history.

“My dream is to become the country of great love affairs and, as you know well,

eros brings money”

dialogues excepts from the movie

Koritsia ston Ilio [Girls in the Sun] (1968)

Without further due, in this text we focus on two issues that constitute the central principles of Tourism Landscapes. Amid the archival material, the exceptional texts by researchers of tourism and architecture, and the new projects, both the exhibition and the catalogue are permeated by images of the Greek landscape and “identity”, imposed by the tourism industry in Greece. The idyllic, the primordial, the promise of a nearly “unique experience”, are all unfolded as a carpet upon which architecture is set, whereas every transformation or simple coexistence, by origin carries positive associations. Anew, the narrative is constructed according to the aforementioned process: (modernist) form therefore (social) extroversion, (good) modernism and (reactionary) regionalism, (positive) interaction with the “different”, all social subjects crushed under this problematic and ultimately introvert relation between “us and the others”.

We believe that the “construction of landscape and identity” constitutes an extremely intricate political and cultural operation, which cannot be comprehended through this simplifying twofold relation, which the brief suggests. There exists no “good modern”, “bad regionalism” or “ridiculous kitsch”, yet each one is found as a precondition of the other. The Xenia Motels by Aris Konstandinidis or the Astir Beach in Vouliagmeni, by Vasiliadis/Vourekas/Sakellarios, although essentially distinct projects were employed in a similar manner to the cinematic choreographies before the Acropolis Hill, the postcards depicting donkeys and shepherds, or the intimate close-ups to the furry chest and sensational caftans of Demis Roussos, singing his exportable hits on the stage of the Royal Albert Hall or the rock of Areopagus. Instead, there exists no mythical or idyllic landscape of the Greek tourism, but simply a setting for the production of meaning, ideology and surplus value. How Nelly’s Acropolis does actually differ from the island of Delos as captured by Dinos Diamantopoulos? Let us look back on the diaphanous fabric on the bodies of Paeva, Nikolska and Lascari. Why does the first series of images is considered as “an homage” to the Greek history (and fortunately, from a constantly increasing number of voices, as the epitome of Greek nationalism and fascist ideology of the eternal, ancient Hellenism), while the fist issue of the Greek Playboy is instead regarded as “kitsch subculture?” Similarly, when are the Delos ruins been perceived as the exemplary setting of post-war modernism – with the highly important symposia by Doxiadis – and when do they constitute but a mere background for the naked body of the famous actress? Does there exist a difference between the “Caryatids” by Bresson and these by Christian Dior, and if so in which way?

In our point of view, tourism economy does not distinguish any of the above, as they are equally exploited as valued commodities. The role of the state in the outlining of “national” politics remains crucial and cannot be overlooked, especially at this moment. Previously, the inflow of foreign currency, the support of a large number of activities and forms of labour, constituted the main parameters of survival of a perilous economy, of which the complementary element was the construction industry. Both tourism and the economy related to construction were determined in Greece in light of a very peculiar relation between the public and the private sector; with the former providing regulations, frameworks and models, and the latter “executing” in space, seemingly spontaneously and without any planning in advance. These should constitute issues for a serious debate. Which was the role of the architects and of particular projects during the postwar decades, as to the construction of continuing stereotypes of space and forms of living? What exactly was EOT [Greek National Tourism Organization], how was the state operating through it and which interests was it ultimately accommodating? Which was the role of architecture, design, music and cinema production within this intricate economic and political context? Which was the role of the particular protagonists in each case? At last, how can an archive of this history be produced and curated? How can a contemporary architectural exhibition provide a radical view of the past, instead of being reduced to a platform for holiday packages offered by large tourist corporations, or one for the promotion of the detrimental, almost farcical present state policy on tourism? And what would that mean, not of course for “the future of the tourism industry” in Greece, but rather for the reconstruction of a new spatial and political paradigm?

We perceive the activities of tourism industry as a process for the construction of an illusion, of a distorted and a distorting image of the landscape, the structures and the subjects, which there reside. Tourism produced, first and foremost, a “promise” of a hedonistic relation with the “exotic and unknown”; exactly that is what it trades, especially in places such as Greece. Beyond architecture, we can consider the role of cinema production in the way we interpret this condition, and in the emergence but moreover the reproduction of dominant stereotypes of leisure, forms of life and gender identities. What is perceived as “modern” exists always as the necessary premise of the “local”, and vice versa. Just as in the movie “Girls in the Sun” of 1968, the shepherd only exists and falls in love with Annabel, as her exact opposite, in a similar manner and during the course of the movie, the idyllic countryside, the coastal settlement and the camping lie as the indispensable complementary, yet antagonistic elements of modern Athens.