The ‘not so good’, the ‘bad’ and the ‘ugly’

Crookes, Lee

doi:10.4324/9781315597607-6

Cited by 9 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Next, several scholars have already called for marketing efforts to go beyond traditional imagery of beauty and incorporate a diverse range of aesthetic imagery. Among these are examples in the food and beverage sector (e.g., Hartmann, Jahnke & Hamm, 2021), political marketing (e.g., Marland, 2014), and real estate (e.g., Crookes, 2017). Tourism marketing, on the other hand, continues to focus on romantic imagery of beauty (Kirillova, 2023), which is rooted in the industry since its inception (Tribe, 2009).…”

Section: Practical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond beauty: Ugly and borderline tourism aesthetic experiences

Nasiri,

Kirillova,

Wassler

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tourism and aesthetic experiences are intertwined. This study explores the essence of negative and borderline aesthetic experiences in the context of tourism. To achieve this, Husserl's descriptive phenomenology and detailed descriptions of aesthetic experiences from 28 first-time tourists in Hong Kong are employed. Findings identify and define two types of borderline aesthetic experiences, namely the "beaugly" and the "ugbeaful," as well as the experience of ugliness itself. Borderline experiences involve intricate interplays of pleasure and displeasure, challenging the traditional notion of aesthetics. Furthermore, the findings demonstrate that ugliness does not necessarily equate to a wholly negative experience. This study thus contributes to the expansion of knowledge regarding aesthetic experiences in tourism and offers valuable insights for destination experience design.

show abstract

Section: Practical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond beauty: Ugly and borderline tourism aesthetic experiences

Nasiri,

Kirillova,

Wassler

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This list included 29 larger non-profit housing areas that met at least two of three criteria regarding ethnicity, employment or educational enrolment, and crime (Regeringen, 2010). The 'ghetto' discourse, then, was supplemented with quantifiable criteria and geographic demarcationsa political move that exemplifies how territorial stigmatization might be produced not only through language but also through 'objective' statistical and geospatial data (Crookes, 2017;Sisson, 2021;Uitermark et al, 2017). The result was a 'scientification ' or, what Schultz Larsen (2018: 1144) calls, 'an extensive bureaucratization of territorial stigmatization' that helped empower the government to bring the 'ghetto' into being (see also Birk and Elmholdt, 2020;Fallov and Birk, 2022).…”

Section: From 'Ghettoization' To the 'Ghetto List' In The 2010smentioning

confidence: 99%

Territorial stigmatization and housing commodification under racial neoliberalism: The case of Denmark's ‘ghettos’

Risager

2022

Environ Plan A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relation between racialization and neoliberalism is relatively unexplored in urban geography, especially in the context of social democratic welfare regimes. This article aims to bridge this gap by applying the concept of racial neoliberalism, here referring to a co-constitutive relation between racialization and neoliberalism, to Denmark. Conceiving the country's so-called ‘ghetto’ politics as an expression of racial neoliberalism, the article retraces the development of this politics over the first two decades of the 21st century. I argue that territorial stigmatization and commodification of marginalized non-profit housing areas have been two co-constitutive expressions of racial neoliberalism that have intensified during this historical period. Examining three key policy moments through various grey literature, the article demonstrates how stigmatization has served to justify commodification, while the failure of the latter has been followed by intensified and bureaucratized stigmatization leading to new commodification efforts until culminating in the infamous 2018 ‘Ghetto Law’.

show abstract