The notion of Greek picturesque of interior spaces in tourism facilities: stereotype or authentic image?

 

ZOE GEORGIADOU

Department of Interior Architecture, Decoration and Design, Technological Educational Institute of Athens, Greece

 

 

ABSTRACT

Creating interior design stereotypes is a common, widespread, reoccurring procedure in tourism facilities. The established stereotypes are easily acceptable by the potential visitors, as they modulate their expectations of their tourist destination, visualize its characteristics, and portray expected identities that however are more often than not- far away from an authentic experience.

Nevertheless, these trends show that visitors are able to customize their experience of stay while also reinforcing cultural tourism. Also, they have formed a new approach to tourism development focused on sustainability, reduction of the environmental footprint, experience of journeys. However, some fields are dissociated from these goals. Interior design is one of these fields as it carries the visual ideas of “picturesque”, “locality”, “tradition” and “decoration”.

This paper refers to the illustrative dimensions of interior spaces and their contribution to the formation of “Greek” identity, especially in areas of traditional local settlements, such as the Cycladic islands. The idea of authenticity in its simplest definition describes the meaning of “construction that is made or done in the traditional or original way, or in a way that faithfully resembles an original”. And authentic is “something that is real or true”, as authenticity is exactly this quality.  International evolutions concerning the preservation of traditional buildings and settlements have formed a whole set of regulations, laws and commitments that do not seem to be implemented in host interior spaces, although they claim the opposite, that is to say they conceptualize the envelope’s interior as an “authentic” environment.   This issue is not new. In 1976 Dean Mac Connell, verbalized his thesis about “dialectic of authenticity” stating that tourism gradually alters the significance of touristic destinations, and deforms the host community. Michalis Nikolakakis (2015) notes “in reaction to this tendency, tourist destinations have staged themselves in such a manner as to seem to preserve their authenticity”.  What is promoted as authentic, what meanings are presented in the images of host interior spaces, what are the aspects that compose the narration about “Greek local identity” and how these could affect the expectations and the experiences of tourists?    

These are the questions analyzed in the present paper, by describing the term “authenticity” in touristic interior spaces with reference to bibliography and an attempt at defining their qualitative characteristics.

Key Words: authenticity, picturesque, interior spaces, tourism facilities, architectural identity, interior design.

 

 

WHAT IS AUTHENTICITY?

Authenticity in its simplest definition means the “construction that is made or done in the traditional or original way, or in a way that faithfully resembles an original”^[1]. Something authentic is “something that is real or true”, as authenticity is exactly this quality[2].  Etymologically authentic comes from the Greek term «αυθεντικός» which describes something “genuine, veritable, original, and real”.[3] 

Jean-Jacques Rousseau stated that “authenticity” referred to the personal integrity of people who are by nature what he termed “noble savages”[4]. Heidegger equated authenticity with Being so that authenticity is linked with creativity[5]. The concept of “authenticity” was at first used in relation to objects in museums so that tourists could differentiate between false objects and the real thing (Trilling, 1972)[6]. 

When Dean Mac Connell (1999) stated that “authenticity” is an important key topic for tourism development, he connected it with the desire of a tourist to experience the real life of the places visited[7], a rather complicated meaning. In fact if we ask a cook “what is authentic” he/she would probably focuses on the local cuisine, a singer would answer traditional music, a story- teller would provide an oral story and an architect would define the term as the cultural built environment. The material and intangible heritage of a community define the local identity, differentiate the region from other regions and describes the context and diversity of this community. The experiences of a tourist are commonly produced by a sort of open social space accessible to all visitors, often based on regular organized tours. Mac Connell argued that tourists present themselves at places of social, historical and cultural importance. Urry (1990)[8], based on Foucault (1975)[9], presupposes that sightseeing and “the gaze[10] of tourists for them is based on a narcissistic subject within which there is a deterministic fit between the self and society”[11].  Mac Connell (2001)[12], introduces a second gaze that looks for the hidden content and forms the tourist’s cultural experiences based on unexpected everyday events. This second gaze knows that predetermined sightseeing cannot fulfill the ego’s demands for completeness and self-sufficiency, but looks for gaps that will help to reveal the truth of local culture. The content of the first gaze is connected with the facile view of a touristic attraction, while the second gaze offers these elements that will transform it into a cultural experience. Between the first and the second gaze lies the sense of authenticity. According to C. Michael Hall (2006)[13], “Authenticity is derived from the property of connectedness of the individual to the perceived, everyday world and environment, the processes that created it and the consequences of one's engagement with it”. And “in-authenticity or fakery is identified essentially as an attempt to replicate meaning”.  

All the above references show how complicated the nature of the term is- in relation to the conventional meanings as defined in the literature (interpretation of content, objective and constructive, symbolic content), as well as relating to alternative meanings such as those stated by Ning Wang (1999) of “existential” authenticity[14]. According to Wang “objective” authenticity is connected with the origins, whilst “constructive” authenticity refers to the authenticity projected on tour objects, by tourists in terms of their imagination, expectations, preferences, etc. “The “existential” authenticity refers to a potential existential state of Being- that is to be activated by tourism activities”. 

According to the Nara Document on authenticity (1994)[15], in the chapter “Values and Authenticity” concerning conservation and preservation of Cultural Heritage (article 9): “Conservation in all its forms and historical periods is rooted in the values attributed to the heritage. Our ability to understand these values depends in part on the degree to which information sources of these values may be understood as creditable or truthful. Knowledge and understanding of these sources of information in relation to original and subsequent characteristics of the cultural heritage, and their meaning, is a requisite basis for assessing all aspects of authenticity”.  Key definitions are described in this article such as “truthful” and “creditable” as significant information sources in the characterization of authenticity, and also in the ability of the visitors to perceive their meaning, in order to understand authentic cultural heritage. This document generalizes the term “authenticity” in all parts that make up the cultural heritage, including art and its qualifications, and recognizes that “It is thus not possible to base judgments of values and authenticity within fixed criteria. On the contrary, the respect due to all cultures requires that heritage properties must be considered and judged within the cultural contexts to which they belong” (article 11). But it also states that “depending on the nature of the cultural heritage, its cultural context, and its evolution through time, authenticity judgments may be linked to the worth of a great variety of sources of information. Aspects of the sources may include form and design, materials and substance, use and function, traditions and techniques, location and setting, and spirit and feeling, and other internal and external factors. The use of these sources, permits elaboration of the specific artistic, historic, social, and scientific dimensions of the cultural heritage being examined” (article 13).

Space is one of the most important aspects in the construction of cultural experience, as it contributes to the authenticity of experience, and is connected with the material heritage. Bruner (1994)[16], stated four senses of space authenticity, according to the case study of New Salem- a reconstructed historical village of 1930 and outdoor museum. The first one is characterized as “authentic reproduction”, referring to authenticity of verisimilitude that is to say that the reproduced object resembles the original. The second is based on “genuineness”, that is to say that the village appears as real. The third sense is originality versus copying.  And the last sense is related to authority, that is to say the village is authentic, because an authority has authenticated it. Thus, space is this vulnerable element, on which many critical thoughts concerning its ability to preserve its characteristics throughout a tourist development procedure have been verbalized. Michalis Nikolakakis[17] (2015), notes that according to Mac Connell (1976) tourism has led to the gradual profanation of tourist destinations, a fact that has transformed the receiving community and “in reaction to this tendency, tourist destinations have staged themselves in such a manner as to seem to preserve their authenticity”. And Helen Maistrou (2004) states that “the consequences of tourism development grow to be especially severe for these cases where tourism accompanied with various forms and volumes, comprises the main expedient for the financial development of a region and constructs its evolution on the “direction” of a decorative promotion of the historical and cultural content of the place”[18].

 

GREECE AND SANTORINI ISLAND

In Greece with the successive territorial registrations throughout history, cultural tourism represents a motivated instrument for overall development that was embedded in the Greek economic policies[19], shyly at first and as a national goal during the post war period[20]. Many districts both on the mainland and the islands, which were characterized by their folk architectural tradition were suggested as settlements for tourism development.[21] Among them Santorini[22] in the Cycladic islands complex gradually became a primary tourist destination, and the traditional settlement of Oia a prominent option. The island is affected by its active volcano, which provides certain constructive materials such as Thiraic volcanic earth, pumice, red and black stone, as well as by its lack of wood.  Santorini flourished during the modern period at the end of 19^th century, based on viticulture and transit shipping. The traditional architecture of Oia gained its specific characteristics based on the social hierarchy. The inferior classes continued to house themselves in cave constructions with features of “picturesque” and “organic” configuration, as these are defined by Dimitris Filippidis (2010)[23], while the upper classes lived in monumental buildings with neoclassical elements. Filippidis connects the term “picturesque” with the aesthetic categorization of the irregular and non-finished (incomplete), which as a value played a significant role in creation. On the other hand “organic” is used as a characteristic referring to natural forms. In 1956 a large earthquake changed the island’s prospects of development, since the state aimed at rebuilding the destroyed settlements (1958-63), although the natives seemed to reject the pre-existing traditional forms. Through the programme “Preservation and Development of Traditional Settlements in Greece” (1975-1995) the GNTO succeeded in restoring many traditional cave houses for tourist accommodation. This fact changed the development’s orientation in Santorini and converted the island into a primary tourist destination. Filippidis (2010) claims that this transformation “is materialized under the same conditions of all Greek territories, that is to exploit the historical past as a illustrative construction, connected with the unique landscape”.[24] During this procedure the sight of the Caldera from a secondary (following the cave houses) characteristic became the primary tourist value, something reflected in the contemporary environment.

Pictures 1, 2: Oia Santorini, preserved houses through the programme “Preservation and Development of Traditional Settlements in Greece” (1975-1995) GNTO. Source: Collective, (1984). GNTO Programme 1975-1985. Athens: GNTO publications, p. 135 & 146.

Pictures 3, 4: Oia Santorini, preserved interiors through the programme “Preservation and Development of Traditional Settlements in Greece” (1975-1995) GNTO. Source: Collective, (1984). GNTO Programme 1975-1985. Athens: GNTO publications, p. 144 & 165.

 

The traditional cave house of Oia was based on a primitive construction of the 19^th century, integrated into the extrusive rock, greenless and treeless natural environment. The difficulties in construction and the lack of water modulated these primitive houses to be built inside the rock- that was easy to burrow, and the use of supplementary building parts coming out of the cave construction, depended on the economic conditions. The poorest the house was, the most cave–like it was. The part of the settlement consisting of simple cave houses was located on the cliff of the Caldera, and in order to be protected by the south wind, high walls built at the house’s façade. The caves housed mostly sailors and the crew in general, since the captains obtained bigger houses in the inner part of the settlement, protected by the winds. The houses hanging in the Caldera were based on space economy in order to serve basic human needs, plain decoration, environmental sustainability, collection of water into underground tanks, use of local materials and limited use of precious rare materials such as wood. The cave functions as regulator for the local climate conditions-wind, hot and cold weather. The rocky ground and the steep cliff made the houses follow the ground’s curves, in a linear manner, and produced the required harmonic co-existence, based on the respect of the inhabitants for their natural environment. The typology is based on space succession: from the main room-“sala” to the back where is the bedroom, which is lit and ventilated by the front room. The wall between them has the same openings, as the façade. The kitchen is a small room connected to the sala and the toilet is outside the house, in the yard. Concerning the interior spaces, George Varveris (1981:60)[25] refers to the absence of adornment, attributing it to the lack of wood, and characterizes the cave house “without ornaments” and “plain”. “There is not fireplace in the room, that is filled with plates and other decoration. There is no elevated wooden  bed -or the “onta” which decorates so beautifully the sleeping corner. So the cave house of Santorini has its own form and expression. Its acquaintance does not give the impression of picturesque or charming, but rather surprises and obtrudes the visitor with its simplicity and peculiarity”. Thus it is not only the lack of wood, but also poverty that could provide only absolutely necessary things. Everything else was curved in the volcanic rock, fixed and integrated in the plasticity of the structure.

Picture 5: Oia Santorini, Theodosis cave house plans. Source: Collective, (1984). GNTO Programme 1975-1985. Athens: GNTO publications, p. 165.

 

 The configuration of the settlement of Oia is based on the aesthetic content of “picturesque” with irregular and incomplete, open to intervention, forms, developing as part of the surroundings. In the traditional architecture of Oia we can recognize all these factors connected with the climate conditions, as described by Amos Rapoport (2010): the adaptation of the local conditions and natural environment, social and human needs, structure and culture of the local community, materials and constructive techniques based on the land.

 

  

Pictures 6, 7: Oia Santorini before the GNTO programme. Source: Collective, (1984). GNTO Programme 1975-1985. Athens: GNTO publications, p. 151 (left). The typical cave house of Santorini. Source: Michelis, Panagiotis, A., (edit.) (1981). The Greek Folk House: Student projects. Athens: NTUA Publications. P. 47 (right).

 

However, the way of living gradually changed and the local community faced a natural disaster that destroyed structures for needs that had already changed. Rapoport (2010)[26], mentions that as soon as a culture or way of living changes, its expressive forms lose their meaning and content. He adds that many artifacts preserve their prestige, even though their creative civilization has disappeared, and the forms of the houses and settlements can be used, even if their embodied meanings have been differentiated to a high degree.

 

HOTELLING IN OIA 

Oia, Imerovigli and Fira -all sited in the Caldera, are described as primary destinations in many sites on favorable touristic destinations.

“On the northern tip of Santorini, 12 kilometers up the coast from Firá, Ía (Oia) is a picture-perfect village of whitewashed houses, several of which have been converted into chic little boutique hotels with infinity pools, overlooking the caldera… Oia is especially known for its stunning sunsets, which attract visitors from all over the island each evening through summer …Formed by the massive volcanic explosion that blew the center out of the island some 3,600 years ago, the caldera is the sea-filled volcanic crater that remained...”[27]

And “Santorini is considered to be the most sought after place for a romantic getaway in Greece, since there are not many places in the world where you can enjoy exquisitely clear waters while perched on the rim of a massive active volcano in the middle of the sea! The island has a growing reputation as a “wedding destination” for couples not only from Greece but from all over the world. A trip to Santorini with the other half is a dream for anyone who has seen at least one photo of the island’s famous Caldera and exchanging kisses beneath Santorini’s famous sunset is the ultimate romantic experience!”[28]

The Caldera with its view is the first point of attraction and the form of the cave houses the second, as both are connected with the sense of picturesque and are carriers of the local identity. It is already mentioned that the cave houses are inventions of the social and economic circumstances. Many cave houses have been preserved and conserved, adapting their use to boutique hotels or guest houses. Ultimately the use is the same- a house, even if temporal, and with this tradition is recreated. This cultural asset could be used as an open, active, experiential museum.

Thirty five years later looking through the Internet for accommodation in Santorini the picture seems to be replicated as exactly the same – a tourist settlement calling the visitor to participate in the phantasmagorical scenery: cave houses, or cave-like houses, facing the Caldera, swimming pools and Jacuzzi in the yard, in a waterless island,  vaults with “pure” whiteness in their interiors, cement based floors, curved geometry of the built in furniture and bathrooms, hidden lighting in the bottom of the built-in beds, branded furniture in a glossy interior. What has intervened?

Pictures 8, 9: Andronikos Hotel-Santorini, Designers KLab Source: dezeen, https://www.dezeen.com/2016/07/24/klab-andronikos-hotel-santorini-greece-interior-design-curved-arches/ retrieved 03-05-2017.

 

Pictures 10, 11, 12: From the left to the right: Panorama, Oias View, Oia Mare. Source: Hotel sites.    

Pictures 13, 14, 15: From the left to the right: Hotel Thira, Porto Fira, Ifestos Villa. Source: Hotel sites.  

 

If we refer to the first period of Oia’s tourism development through the preserved cave houses, under the supervision of the GNTO^[29] we find out that «the goal of the architectural intervention was the re-habitation, promotion, and restoration of the settlement and selected buildings with their initial picturesque and authentic vitality”. The attempt was focused on evaluated, abandoned houses, that had worthwhile folk architectural characteristics (humble mostly and not captains’ houses), and were preserved in order to be used as host spaces, and also accompaniment buildings with supportive functions, that could motivate the settlement’s re-habitation (for example weaving workshops in cooperation with ΕΟΜΜΕΧ) and construction of infrastructures (water tank, sewerage systems). During this procedure the public and the private space continued to operate as a unified entity, preserving the local identity of the settlement that served its inhabitant first and second its visitors, who could experience a genuine temporal inhabitation. GNTO’s advertising posters with the title Hellas, used pictures of everyday life, paintings by well-known painters (such as Spyros Vasileiou and Panayiotis Tetsis), or graphic representations of traditional settlements. The Greek culture, the sea entrancement, the whitewash geometry of the Cycladic islands consist of the main asset for the tourist development of small islands, without putting them apart from everyday qualities and their authentic expression. The first and the second tourist gaze introduced by Mac Connell co-exist easily, as the unexpected everyday events- the gap for the hidden content that forms the cultural experiences, are revealed, whilst the first gaze is not predetermined. Architectural interventions in the interiors were based on the conservation of the building’s envelope authentic elements as well as the functional configuration with the least possible modifications mainly the transformation of small storage rooms into bathrooms. The destroyed parts were restored to their previous forms using documentation in the form of oral testimonies, photographic or other archive material. The humble image of these guesthouses is completed by a series of wooden furniture items designed with the simplicity of traditional Greek pieces as iron or wooden beds, stools and seats. These wooden elements stand humbly, besides traditional structural elements such as whitewashed walls and domes, semicircular window arches, alcoves, armoires, etc. The evident interventions concern confined electricity and lighting installations. The sense of “authentic reproduction” and its “authentication”[30] by the GNTO services is supported by the evaluation of various information sources that included the use and function, tradition and techniques, spirit and sensation and other internal and external aspects[31].

During the last thirty five years the transition to the post modern period, globalization, the international life-style, the changes in the means of transportation and the domination of the internet and social nets, have homogenized the tourist product and led to a different phase in tourist development as the preponderant option of the country’s economical policies, that however seems to navigate to a sort of underdevelopment or to a “tourist paradox” as aptly noticed by Nikolakakis (2015)[32]. The personalization of the vacation in the sense of self-fulfillment, experience and “good living”, is organized by the gaze and formed as desire and image. Thus, Mac Connell’s first tourist gaze is predetermined before seeing the real image, and all the values that the tourist seeks for, are based on the beautification of a cultural environment, which is supposed to carry these local characteristics re-creating the illusion of “the local tradition”. Aris Konstantinidis in his book “Two Villages from Mykonos” refers to the superficial relation of the man-lover who is not really interested in the folk architecture, but is interested in “steeling” its forms. Thus, transferring shapes of the past, devoid of their creative need, he sends up in a sort of decorative scenery[33]. The interiors of the cave houses in Santorini (as boutique hotels or guest houses now) are visually repeated as identical design stereotypes or as variations of scenes of opulence and luxury. These houses are transformed into private settlements, disconnected from their shell since when devoid of their covering dome or local traditional forms, these characteristics are constructed in order to illustrate the expected “Greek picturesque”. But the uncritical and infertile replica of the past folk culture is not authentic rather it is based on the poetry of others[34]. Luxury is supported by branded furniture, private pools and Jacuzzi, always facing the Caldera. The private interiors- images framed into a completely touristic settlement- the supreme fantasy that narrates the personal history of the couple kissing over the Caldera, facing the sea and the sunset. Daniel, J., Boorstin’s (1964) view, that the modern tourist does not seek for authenticity, seems to be extremely topical. On the contrary he is fully aware that he is part of an illusion, made just for him and in-authentic. The tourist in fact embracing this illusion seeks for in-authenticity, that is to say he seeks for the pseudo-construction.

 

SYNOPSIS

According to ICOMOS^[35] the principles for promoting and managing tourism in ways that respect and enhance the heritage and living cultures of the host communities, so as to encourage a dialogue between conservation interests and the tourism industry are that “conservation should provide well-managed opportunities for tourists and members of the host community to experience and understand the local heritage and culture at first hand; the relationship between heritage places and tourism is dynamic and should be managed in a sustainable way for present and future generations; conservation and tourism planning should create a visitor experience that is enjoyable, respectful, and educational; host communities and indigenous people should be involved in planning for conservation and tourism; tourism and conservation activities should benefit the host community, improving development and encouraging local employment; tourism programs should protect and enhance natural and cultural heritage characteristics”^[36]. Authenticity is a key element for the application of these principles and the designation of local identities meaning.

When looking at this process in Oia Santorini, a case of Greek traditional village, based on the aesthetic content of “picturesque” with irregular and incomplete, open to intervention, forms, we can see how tourist development affects vigorously the genuine attributes of the settlement-cultural, environmental, societal, functional and morphological. Gradually, the social structure and the sense of authenticity of the host community were critically altered with the reconstruction of the village for reasons and needs other than those of its original creation. Although Rapoport states that the forms of the houses and settlements can be used, even if their embodied meanings have been differentiated and their creative civilization has disappeared, the re-habitation process has lost its authentic components: a new idiom of an artificial identity, versus the local traditional one, has been formed. The involvement of the host community and indigenous people in planning for conservation and tourism seemed to have been successful during the GNTO program “Preservation and Development of Traditional Settlements in Greece”(1975-1995), when there was public funding and supervision. It seems also that as soon as individuals began to fund the remaking of their own cave houses as boutique hotels, handling interiors according to their sense of the “attractive image of tradition” and the notion of Greek picturesque, these interior spaces were disconnected from their authentic characteristics, and became susceptible elements that were easily altered. Public architecture in contradiction to private architecture, according to Konstantinidis allows for the transmission of authentic ideas and the expression of a “true architecture”^[37].

Over the last two decades tourism trends have focused on globalization, cosmopolitan reality, international life style, opulence, good-living culture, and these through internet promotions and social nets to produce sentimental images and illustrations of space that feed dreams, fantasies, mirages and illusions. But the critical issue of authenticity is still essential. Interior spaces devoid of their shell become vehicles for portraying an inauthentic identity into the traditional cave houses of Santorini (and conclusively into any traditional construction). This identity is activated through recurrence of stereotypes – use of “local” materials, sculptural forms, curve-geometry, white-washed domes and walls, sophisticated furniture, etc. So Mac Connell’s first tourist gaze is not followed by his second gaze of an authentic inhabitation experience that promotes the perception of the local cultural heritage. And the “objective authenticity” becomes a sort of “subjective authenticity”[38] and display the design provided by the tourist industry as determinant of the experience.

Although Santorini and the Caldera are favorable destinations and hotel accommodation is satisfied in boutique hotels or luxury guest houses, it seems that the visitors are not aware of authenticity and the indigenous people are focused on presenting the heritage of the host community as an illusion. So even if tourism benefits financially the host community, and encourages the local employment, it does not seem to improve development and does neither protect nor enhance natural environment and cultural heritage characteristics. Community’s everyday life as vivid culture is absent. And here lies an open question about space: under these circumstances how then is authenticity possible at all, if the interpretation decline in the direction of stereotypes and clichés?

During a period of forty five years the biggest undertaking of Greek economy, tourism development has “frustrated the promise for inter-cultural communication, the expectation to contribute to the showcasing of the country’s cultural heritage and social expectations to contribute to the reduction of inequality vis-a-vis the other European economies. Greek society finds it impossible, to ascribe any positive meaning to it-self through tourism, yet it is condemned to persist in this effect”^[39]. 

 

 

REFERENCES

• Boorstin, Daniel. (1961). The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. New York: Harper and Row.
• Boyle, David, (2004). Authenticity: Brands, fakes, spin and the lust for real life. London: Harper Perennial.
• Bruner, Edward, M. (1994). Abraham Lincoln as Authentic Reproduction: A Critique of Postmodernism. American Anthropologist 96: 397-415.
• Chritcley, Peter, (2003). Autonomy, Authenticity and Authority: The Rational Freedom of Jean- Jaque Rousseau. [e-book] Available through Academia website https://mmu.academia.edu/PeterCritchley/Books     
• Cohen Erik, (2007). Authenticity in Tourism Studies. Apres la Lutte. Tourism Recreation Research, Vol. 32 (2), pp.75-82.
• Daniel, Yvonne, P., (1996). Tourism Dance Performances: Authenticity and Creativity. Annals of Tourism Research Vol. 23, pp. 780-797.
• Dean Mac Connell, (2001). Tourist Agency, Tourist Studies, London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage Publications, London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi, Vol. I (I), pp.23-37.
• Foucault, Michael (1975). The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception. New York: Vintage.
• Frangou, D., Geogiadou, Z., Marnellos, D., (2015). The habitation experience as a means of promoting the local cultural heritage. 1rst International Conference on Experiential Tourism, Santorini, 9-11 October 2015.
• Georgiadou, Zoe, Fragkou, Dionissia, & Chatzopoulos, Panagiotis, (2015). The development of the tourist model in luxury hotels: the case of Amalia Hotels in Greece, in the Proceedings of the International Conference, on Changing Cities II: Spatial, Design, Landscape & Socio-economic Dimensions, Porto Heli, Peloponnese, Greece, June 22-26 2015, pp. 1531-1542.
• Georgiadou, Zoe, Fragkou, Dionissia, & Dimitris Marnellos, (2015). Xenia Hotels in Greece: Modern Cultural Heritage, A Holistic Approach. Journal of Civil Engeeniring and Architecture, February 2015, Vol. 9 (2), pp. 130-141.
• Goffman, Erving, (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday & Co. Inc.
• Goulding, Christina, (2000). The commodification of the past, postmodern pastiche, and the search for authentic experiences at contemporary heritage attractions. European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 (7), pp. 835 – 853.
• Ilinka, Terziyska, (2011). Authenticity as a Tale: Tourism in Architectural Reserves. 14-07-2011
• Kelleher, Michael, (2004). Images of the Past: Historical Authenticity and In-authenticity from Disney to Times Square. CRM Journal, Summer edition; 6 - 19.
• Le Corbusier, (1986). Art Decoratif d’ Aujourd’Hui. Champs, Flammarion.
• Mac Cannell, Dean, (1973). Staged Authenticity: Arrangements of Social Space in Tourist Settings. American Journal of Sociology Vol. 79 (3), pp. 589-603.
• Mac Connell, Dean, (1999). The Tourist: A new Theory for the Leisure Class. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
• Michelis, Panagiotis, A., (edit.) (1981). The Greek Folk House: Student Projects. Athens: NTUA Publications.
• Nicolaidis, Angelo (2014). Authenticity and the tourist search for being. African Journal of Hospitality.  Vol. 3 (1) - (2014). Open Access- Online @ http//:www.ajhtl.com.
• Nikolakakis, Michalis, (2015). “The tourist paradox: On the history of Tourism in Greece, from 1950 to the Present Day” in Aesopos, Yannis, (edit.), (2nd edit.). Tourism Landscapes, Remaking Greece. Athens: Domes editions. Pp. 38-51.  
• Olsen, Kim, 2007. Stage Authenticity: A Grand idée? Tourism Recreation Research, Vol. 32 (2), pp.86-89.
• Pearce, Philip, L., & Moscardo Gianna, M., (1986). The Concept of Authenticity in Tourist Experiences. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, Vol. 22 (10), pp.157-174.
• Phillipidis, Dimitris, (1982). Santorini, in Greek Traditional Architecture. Athens: Melissa. Pp.145-178.
• Rapoport, Amos & Filippidis, Dimitris (2010). House Form and Culture. Athens: Melissa Publications.
• Reisinger, Yvette, & Steiner, Carol, (2006). Reconceptualising Object Authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 33 (1), pp.65-86.
• Taylor, John, P. (2001). Authenticity and Sincerity in Tourism, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 28(1), p.p. 7-26.
• Trilling, Lionel, (1972). Sincerity and Authenticity. London: Oxford University Press.
• Uriely, Natan, (2005). The Tourist Experience. Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 32 (1), p.p. 199-216.
• Urry, John, (1990). The tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies (Theory, Culture and Social Series). London: Sage.
• Urry, John, (1995). Consuming Places, London: Routledge
• Varveris, George, (1954-55). Houses of Santorini, in Michelis, Panagiotis, A., (edit.) (1981). The Greek Folk House: Student projects. Athens: NTUA Publications.