Authenticity in Authors’ House Museums
Samet Çevik (Bandirma Onyedi Eylül Üniversity, Türkiye)
Literary sites contain provable information, yet personal interpretations and the influence of cultural heritage also shape them. Literary locations serve as a storehouse of historical authenticity and a collection of creative portrayals of various settings or objects (Spooner, 2014). Authenticity is one of the most significant factors for authors’ house museums, which are considered key products of literary tourism. Authentication is “a process by which something—a role, product, site, object, or event—is confirmed as original, genuine, real, or trustworthy” (Cohen & Cohen, 2012, p. 1296). In authors’ houses, authenticity is primarily based on the idea that the object in question had a direct connection or coexistence with the author it represents. Authentic objects in these places are typically those attributed to the author and associated with their lifetime. These objects have maintained a sense of integrity, so even after modifications, their essential qualities remain intact. They are also irreplaceable and hold significant historical value (Hunter, 2015). An author’s house, which encompasses items such as the author’s writing desk, chair, typewriter, pen, manuscripts, letters, various documents, clothing, personal belongings, or symbolic artefacts associated with the author’s life and art, provides literary tourists with the opportunity to feel a profound sense of proximity and connection to the author. It enables them to vividly imagine the author in their home and working environment, while also evoking a sense of nostalgia.
The concept of authenticity in tourism can be divided into two distinct aspects: the authenticity of tourist experiences, also known as authentic experiences, and the authenticity of the objects or attractions being visited (Wang, 1999, p. 351). Furthermore, Wang proposed three categories of authenticity in tourism: objective, constructive, and existential. Objective authenticity refers to utilising the original artefacts within a museum setting, where tourists perceive these objects as they are and recognise their authenticity. As a result, the authentic experience derives from acknowledging these toured objects as truly authentic. There is a definitive, objective criterion used to evaluate authenticity. Constructive authenticity, on the other hand, is the revision of objective authenticity through interpretation. According to Wang, objects or experiences do not possess inherent authenticity; rather, their perceived authenticity results from constructions shaped by points of view, beliefs, perspectives, or influences. Existential authenticity emerges as a distinctive source of genuine experiences in tourism. It encompasses personal or intersubjective emotions that are evoked by the liminal process of tourist activities. Individuals feel a heightened sense of authenticity and self-expression compared to their everyday lives. However, this feeling is not rooted in the authenticity of the objects visited but rather in engagement with extraordinary activities. Thus, existential authenticity signifies a potential state of being that can be actualised through tourist experiences.
The perception of authenticity in authors’ houses is subjective and influenced by a blend of developers’ aims, tourists’ interpretations, and interactions (Herbert, 2001). It is partially shaped by personal commitments, bureaucracy, and economic necessities the place managers face (Fawcett & Cormack, 2001). Thus, authenticity largely depends on the policies and decisions adopted by place managers and should be considered alongside the concept of interpretation. Each literary site, based on its primary goals and the intended message for literary tourists, while also considering the characteristics of potential visitors, makes decisions about interpretation and exhibition and effectively communicates the story behind what is displayed using various interpretive tools. Hunter (2015), who emphasises the relationship between authenticity and interpretation, discusses three different tendencies that can influence a literary tourist’s perception of authenticity in an author’s house. The first is verbal tools such as guides, staff, curators, and audio guides. The second includes written tools such as guidebooks, signs, panels, and labels. The third tendency encompasses contextual tools such as display cases, pedestals, spotlights, roped barriers, alarms, and monitors. Verbal and textual tools are among the most effective ways to create a sense of authenticity for literary tourists seeking an authentic experience, helping them feel that what they encounter is real.
The impact of these tools on creating an authentic experience in authors’ house museums highlights the crucial role of providing information as an essential component of interpretation. In authors’ houses, it is essential to complement objects that serve as tangible indicators of the author’s biography with detailed, engaging information in various languages. This holds particular significance, as Stiebel (2004) pointed out, for literary tourists who doubt authenticity and expect evidence. Utilising personal interpretation tools in these explanations also signifies the “cool” authentication process. The act of “cool” authentication, usually carried out through a singular, explicit, and often formal or official performative act (such as a speech), serves to declare the originality, genuineness, and authenticity of an object, site, event, custom, role, or person, emphasising its distinction from any copies, fakes, or dubious representations (Cohen & Cohen, 2012). The rarely encountered yet most typical example is when, in authors’ houses, if the authors are still alive, the authors themselves or their close relatives, such as a spouse, daughter, or son, guide visitors in the museum. Furthermore, guided tours of authors’ houses can be included in this context. Baleiro (2023) concluded that guided tours and their narratives play a crucial role in shaping the experience of a literary museum, enabling understanding and engagement with the museum, the house, the author, and the historical context.
Literary places make their interpretive decisions based on the adopted forms of interpretation. Fawcett and Cormack (2001) identified three approaches to interpretation: the modernist, rationalist, and eclectic. The modernist approach is particularly favoured in authors’ houses due to its characteristic of leaving no room for ambiguity. This approach emphasises authenticity and nostalgia while also embracing simplicity and elegance. These places make interpretation decisions based on the objective authenticity and constructive authenticity principles proposed by Wang (1999) to emphasise authenticity and nostalgia. It is anticipated that literary tourists will have positive, authentic experiences at authors’ house museums, where objective authenticity is prevalent, as these places exhibit the author’s genuine belongings.
However, Baleiro (2023) pointed out that positive, authentic experiences can be derived from original items, object replicas, and recreated rooms. The decoration of the rooms may not be the same as they were during the author’s period, or the objects may not be original. In places where constructive authenticity prevails, negative experiences are likely to be avoided when decisions are made to evoke the spirit of the place for visitors. As an example, at the Aşiyan Museum in Türkiye, which was the residence of Turkish poet Tevfik Fikret, because some of the poet’s belongings were no longer present, replicas of these items were created to capture the spirit of the place, based on photographs taken by Tevfik Fikret himself. Additionally, efforts were made to restore the different sections of the house to their original state through research using the same photographs and books from that era (Çevik, 2022).
According to MacLeod (2021), the genius loci could be the fundamental aspect that literary tourists seek in authors’ houses, and three components of this concept – the domestic sphere, authors’ tools, and the spirit of the author – should be emphasised by managers of literary places in their interpretation decisions. For literary tourists to feel the spirit of the place and stimulate their imagination, authors’ house museums should allow them to explore authentic objects and, if necessary, replicas.
References
Baleiro, R. (2023). Understanding visitors’ experiences at Portuguese literary museums: An analysis of TripAdvisor reviews. European Journal of Tourism Research, 33, 3305.
Cohen, E. & Cohen, S. A. (2012). Authentication: Hot and cool. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(3), 1295–1314. http://doi:10.1016/j.annals.2012.03.004
Çevik, S. (2022). Authenticity in literary tourism places: The case of Asiyan Museum. In R. Baleiro & R. Pereira (Eds.), Global perspectives on literary tourism and film-induced tourism (pp. 17–36). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-8262-6.ch003
Fawcett, C. & Cormack, P. (2001). Guarding authenticity at literary tourism sites. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(3), 686-704.
Herbert, D. (2001). Literary places, tourism and the heritage experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2), 312-333. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(00)00048-7
Hunter, A. P. (2015). Evocative objects: A reading of resonant things and material encounters in Victorian writers’ houses/ museums. [Unpublished Doctoral dissertation]. University of Edinburgh.
MacLeod, N. (2021). ‘A faint whiff of cigar’: The literary tourist’s experience of visiting writers’ homes. Current Issues in Tourism, 24(9), 1211–1226. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1765996
Spooner, E. (2014). Touring with Jane Austen. Critical Survey, 26(1), 42-58. https://doi.org/10.3167/cs.2014.260104
Stiebel, L. (2004). Hitting the hot spots: Literary tourism as a research field with particular reference to KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Critical Arts: South-North Cultural and Media Studies, 18(2), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/02560240485310151
Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 349–370. https://doi:10.1016/S0160-7383(98)00103-0