Content uploaded by Philipp Wassler
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Philipp Wassler on Dec 17, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Please cite as:
Nasiri, H., Kirillova, K., Wassler, P. (2023). Beyond beauty: ugly and borderline aesthetic
experiences in tourism: Launching the Annals of Tourism Research Curated Collection on
beauty and aesthetics in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research
Beyond Beauty: Ugly and Borderline Aesthetic Experiences in Tourism
Launching the Annals of Tourism Research Curated Collection on beauty and aesthetics in
tourism
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
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.
Keywords:
Aesthetic experience
Ugly
Beautiful
Borderline experience
Phenomenology
1. INTRODUCTION
Aesthetics is a "branch of philosophy devoted to conceptual and theoretical inquiry into art
and aesthetic experience" (Levinson, 2005, p. 1). Originating from the 18th-century concept
of "taste" as a response to rationalism about beauty, aesthetics has come to encompass various
aspects, including objects, attitudes, judgments, and experiences (Stanford Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy, 2022). Aesthetic experiences can be categorized into pleasant and unpleasant
(Kant, 1790/2007). While the beautiful is determined by sensations of pleasure, the sublime is
characterized by more intense (yet still pleasant) feelings of terror or pain (Trott, 2017).
Picturesque objects lack smoothness; hence, they cannot be considered beautiful, and they are
not classified as sublime because they do not necessarily possess magnificent size and awe-
inspiring qualities (Gilpin, 1794).
Concerned with matters of beauty and taste, aesthetics has also entered the field of consumer
studies. The two are interconnected disciplines that inform product design, branding, user
experience, consumer perceptions, and cultural influences. For instance, fashion could be seen
2
as accepted aesthetic standards within a certain group (Workman & Caldwell, 2007), leading
to distinctions like "high-brow" and "low-brow" tastes (Ahmad, 2014). Aesthetics has been
present in tourism research for over three decades (Andrews, 1989). Tourism experience is
associated with beauty (Kirillova, Fu, Lehto & Cai, 2014), the tourist gaze (Urry, 1992),
through its centuries-long history of romanticizing places (de Botton, 2003). In her review,
Kirillova (2023) highlights that there are two predominant themes in tourism aesthetics
literature, namely consuming aesthetic value and producing aesthetic value. The former refers
investigating judgments, experiences, effects, and sustainability. This encompasses everything
from examining tourists' multisensory experiences (Kirillova & Wassler, 2020) to exploring
the relationships between aesthetics and restorative tourist experiences (Kirillova & Lehto,
2015), and evaluating aesthetic depreciation due to environmental degradation (Salim,
Ravanel & Gauchon, 2021). Producing aesthetic value relates to management perspectives,
e.g. investigating how guidebooks influence aesthetic perceptions (Ely, 2003) or the changing
aesthetic features of a destination based on geographical perspectives (Speake & Kennedy,
2019).
The current state of literature raises questions about how tourists assess the concept of
"beauty" and how it relates to the overall tourist experience. It also prompts inquiries into how
aesthetics intersects with authenticity and sociocultural frames of references in tourism.
Studies suggest that aesthetic experiences are highly diverse, multisensory, and subject to
variation across cultures, although related knowledge is still limited and often based on
neoliberal and market-oriented approaches (see Kirillova, 2023). There is also limited
empirical evidence about the cultural construction of beauty in tourism, and how aesthetic
experiences could influence broader experiences at tourism attractions. Skov (2019) compared
the aesthetic experience to a black box because the mechanisms that convey aesthetic objects
into aesthetic appreciation are still not clear.
Understanding tourism aesthetics in terms of a typology is crucial to trigger desirable
outcomes for both destinations and tourists. Destination aesthetic qualities are viewed as tools
to achieve positive aesthetic judgments (Kirillova et al., 2014), tourist satisfaction (Kirillova
& Lehto, 2015), or the socioeconomic well-being of a destination (Baggio & Moretti, 2018).
However, for a more comprehensive understanding of the aesthetic experience in tourism, it is
important to acknowledge the positive bias within the existing tourism literature (Pratt,
Tolkach & Kirillova, 2019). Scholars have predominantly focused on studying aspects such as
beautiful and scenic landscapes, pleasant environments, well-appointed rooms, and attractive
employees, all with positive connotations (Brown, 2006; Snepenger, Murphy, Snepenger, &
Anderson, 2004; Nadia, Beatrice & Atour, 2021; Warhurst & Nickson, 2007; Getz & Sailor,
1994). The extent to which less pleasant aspects of tourism aesthetics play a role in tourist
experiences remains unexplored.
A related issue is that beauty may be a double-edged sword (Forsey & Aagaard-Mogensen,
2019; Oh, 2022; Tartari, Pedrini & Sacco, 2022) when it comes to destination management:
tourists may appreciate the ugly and the ordinary while devaluing the beautiful. An example
of the former is the complex portrayal of graffiti in urban tourism. While graffiti is seen as
degrading the aesthetic value of city streets, they are also found to contribute to creating the
authentic character of the destination (Dovey, Wollan & Woodcock, 2017). On the other
hand, destination features designed to attract tourists may not be experienced as intended,
resulting in disappointing destination experiences.
3
We term tourist aesthetic experiences located between the beautiful and the ugly as
“borderline experiences." Investigating only the positive side of tourism aesthetics does not
capture the complexity of tourist experiences and may lead to unnecessary beautification of
some areas and devaluation of areas with hidden aesthetic value, which works against
sustainable resource management (Nasiri, 2022). Thus, the lack of insights about borderline
aesthetic experiences creates an incomplete understanding of human experiences in tourism.
Against this backdrop, the present study aims to 1) develop a typology of tourism aesthetics
that accounts for unpleasant and borderline experiences and 2) phenomenologically describe
the essence of these diverse aesthetic experiences in tourism.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Although typically associated with the visual sense, aesthetic experiences are multisensory,
encompassing taste, touch, smell, and auditory elements (Urry, 1999). Like other human
experiences, aesthetic experiences in tourism involve cognition and evoke emotions (Leder,
Belke, Oeberst & Augustin, 2004) as tourists process aesthetic stimuli, as well as relational
and social dimensions (Schmitt, 1999).
2.1 Modes of Aesthetic Appreciation
In addition to multi-sensoriality and dimensionality, aesthetic experiences can be also thought
as multimodal. They can be categorized into pleasant, unpleasant (Kant, 1790/2007), and
borderline. Pleasant experiences encompass encountering ideals of beauty, sublimity, and the
picturesque, while unpleasant experiences are associated with ugliness. Borderline
experiences blur the lines between pleasant and unpleasant aesthetic encounters.
Aesthetically pleasant experiences oscillate between the "beautiful," the "sublime," and the
"picturesque." The concept of beauty has been a topic of debate among philosophers. Plato,
for instance, believed beauty is an eternal and unchanging Form that exists beyond the
physical world (Grube, 1927). For him, beauty is intimately tied to truth and goodness,
manifesting in harmony, order, and moderation. Aristotle, on the other hand, contemplates
that the beauty of an object is defined by its properties. Despite their disagreements on the
nature of beauty, Plato and Aristotle shared a view of beauty as objective rather than merely
subjective. Kant (1790/2007), however, proposed that the judgment of beauty is subjective yet
universal.
The sublime is determined by more powerful (yet pleasant) feelings of terror or pain (Trott,
2017). Burke (1757/1998) defined the sublime as an ideal capable of stimulating thoughts
related to pain or danger, encompassing anything intimidating or dealing with intimidating
objects or functions similarly to terror. This is because the sublime creates the most intense
emotional response that the human mind can experience. Burke (1757/1998) explains that an
object of great dimensions typically evokes the sublime experience, as it causes a
physiological impact on the eyes and nervous system. He highlights that in the sublime
experience, the perceiver's visual system physiologically approaches the nature of what causes
pain. Unlike Burke, who relates the sublime to inherent qualities of an object, Kant
(1790/2007) connects the sublime to subjective meaning-making through imagination and
reasoning. The sublime could be experienced when looking down from the top (e.g., an
observation deck) or at the foundation of a skyscraper.
4
The picturesque and pastoral are other aesthetically pleasant experiences. The picturesque
arose as a middle-ground between the ideal beauty and the terrifying sublime in 18th-century
England. Yet, it has its roots in the idea of the pastoral first proposed by the Roman poet
Virgil, who conceived the pastoral as the landscape between the urbanity of Rome and the
wilderness of marshlands (Knudsen, Metro-Roland & Rickly, 2015). The picturesque evolved
as 18th-century philosophers idealized the appreciation of nature (Todd, 2009). Gilpin (1794)
is credited with the conceptualization of the picturesque as "that kind of beauty which is
agreeable in a picture." Picturesque objects are not smooth, so they cannot be considered
beautiful, and they are not necessarily magnificent in size, awe-inspiring, or terrifying, which
disqualifies them from being considered sublime. In tourism, the picturesque can be
appreciated by admiring intentionally crafted vistas, like an illuminated city skyline or a
viewpoint in a nature-protected area.
Regarding aesthetically unpleasant experiences, extant literature is less wide-ranging
(Thomson, 1992) since they were not extensively discussed by classical philosophers. Cohen
(2013) highlights that in Kant's aesthetic judgment, two kinds of ugliness are considered: pure
and impure ugliness. Pure ugliness results from disinterest, while impure ugliness is a
judgment based on interested displeasure. Interested displeasure arises from the failure of the
ugly object to meet our interests. Impure ugliness can be further subdivided into conceptual
(when the representation of an object goes against the concept that specifies how the object
ought to appear), emotional (when the perception of the ugly is not based on the object itself
but on the negative feelings and emotions associated with it), distasteful (when, although the
object may have an artistic presentation, it is perceived as ugly), and disgust ugliness (when
the ugliness of the object generates disgust). Streets full of litter, for example, are seen as
ugly, as they evoke a sense of disgust in tourists (Kirillova et al., 2014).
Aesthetic borderline experiences—positioned between aesthetically pleasant and
unpleasant—have not been explicitly theorized. However, they could be inferred from
existing literature in philosophy and empirical consumer research. For example, although the
experience of the sublime could be lived as a terrifying occurrence, it is not necessarily
unpleasant (Knudsen et al., 2015). The Kantian notion of impure ugliness also implies that a
negative aesthetic experience arises from objects failing to fulfil the expectations of the
onlooker. An element of decay is often present in the picturesque, adding roughness to
enhance its aesthetic appeal, e.g. old gnarled trees in paintings (Kemp & Rheuban, 1990).
Thus, classically beautiful and picturesque environments at times may be experienced as
unpleasant occurrences.
Hoegg, Alba and Dahl (2010) experimental showed that if customers feel that the aesthetic
features of a product impede its performance, they judge the product as ugly. Even though it
retains its aesthetically pleasing features, the product is no longer experienced as beautiful.
Hagtvedt and Patrick (2014) found that over-aestheticization in product design may cause the
perception of a product to be distasteful and therefore ugly. On the other hand, appalling
content that is depicted pleasantly may elicit mixed emotions (Leder et al., 2004). Brand
(1999, p. 7) calls these interpretations of beauty "this new dark side" that necessitates
explorations of its ethical, societal, and political ramifications. In summary, although without
direct acknowledgment, available literature hints at the possibility of experiences that
transcend pure beauty, ugliness, sublimity, and the picturesque.
5
2.2 Aesthetics in Tourism
Aesthetics is a source of pleasure at a destination; naturally, it is thought to contribute to the
overall evaluation of the travel experience (Barretto, 2013). Considering that the quest for
tourist experiences has evolved beyond the basic needs for rest and relaxation (Kirillova et al.,
2016), aesthetics is one aspect with the potential to deliver a memorable and fulfilling
experience. Understandably, most of the tourism literature has been related to positive
aesthetic experiences in the form of beauty. Beauty is seen as adding value and related to
customer loyalty (Breiby, 2014; Zhang & Xu, 2020), satisfaction (Genc & Genc, 2022; Zhou,
Chen & Chou, 2021), intention to revisit and restorative outcomes (Kirillova & Lehto, 2015),
and the socio-economic well-being of a destination (Baggio & Moretti, 2018). Much attention
is given to aesthetic qualities of destinations, which can be considered as the "inputs" of an
aesthetic experience (Leder et al., 2004). Aesthetic qualities such as harmony, variation,
genuineness, scenery (Breiby, 2014), locale characteristics, scope, upkeep, accord, perceived
age, shape (Kirillova & Lehto, 2015), color (Yu & Egger, 2021), irregularity, roundness,
smallness, creativity (Lee & Yan, 2020), and light (Hauser, Leopold, Egger, Ganewita &
Herrgessell, 2022) have been studied in relation to destination-relevant outcomes.
However, when it comes to understanding aesthetic experiences themselves, as opposed to
their inputs and outcomes, the tourism literature remains limited (Kirillova, 2023). In the
context of rural tourism, Zhou et al. (2021) show that aesthetic experiences are felt as
pleasure, mysteriousness, tech-awareness, and juxtaposed interactivity. Zhang and Xu (2020)
demonstrate that literary knowledge (e.g., poetry, folklore) enhances tourist aesthetic
experiences in nature-based destinations for Chinese tourists. The aesthetic experience has
also been shown to influence responses to certain authentic tourism attractions (e.g., heritage
sites) (Trinh & Ryan, 2016) and to moderate the relationship between existential authenticity
and tourists' satisfaction (Genc & Genc, 2022). Tourists' aesthetic experiences could have a
transformative effect on a destination by rendering a place worthy of aesthetic
devaluation/appreciation through either negative or positive aesthetic representations. Oh
(2022) showcases how tourist experiences that are transmitted through Instagram enable an
ordinary place to emerge as a tourist destination, resulting in its objectification and
commodification.
However, regarding experiences of the ugly and aforementioned "borderline" experiences, the
tourism literature is extremely scarce. Martini and Sharma (2022) shed some light onto this
issue. Focusing on a post-earthquake city in Tohoku, Japan, they find that disaster scenes are
experienced as sublimity, which can have a transformative effect for tourists. It is noteworthy
that, although not explicitly referring to such experiences as borderline, Martini and Sharma
(2022, p.10) essentially investigated the aesthetic experience of fascination with "the
atmospheres of pain." As such, Martini and Sharma’s work underscores the possibility of the
aforementioned borderline experiences that go beyond the sublime. Furthermore, aside from
Knudsen et al. (2015) who applied the typology of aesthetics (beautiful, sublime, picturesque)
to tourism, existing literature was unconcerned with applying, enhancing, or revising the
typology of aesthetics in relation to tourism.
2.3. Phenomenology of Aesthetic Experiences
This study is based on the principles of phenomenology, with the primary phenomenon under
investigation being “tourism aesthetic experiences.” Although phenomenology is not linked to
one specific empirical method, it is a prominent philosophical tradition that has been
6
“applied” methodologically and defined as the study of lived experiences (Kirillova, 2018).
Husserl's descriptive phenomenology supports the idea that universal essences can be
objectively studied through unbiased inquiry to gain a valid understanding of human
experience (Kirillova, 2018).
In Husserl’s phenomenology, there are no subjects and objects because human consciousness
is always “of” something. This “intentionality” of consciousness means that
phenomenologists do not study the subjective experiences of research participants; instead,
they focus on the “of-ness,” or the intentional relationship between a subject and the world
(Vagle, 2014). This intentional relationship constitutes a phenomenon of interest. Taking our
interest in aesthetic experiences, the phenomenologist is interested in neither the subject (the
tourist) nor the object (destination aesthetic features) but in the relationship between the two
as it appears in the tourist’s consciousness. A phenomenological view of tourism aesthetics is
concerned with the conscious level of aesthetic experiences, occurring and transpiring in a
participant’s lifeworld. Although the value of studying the unconscious in the tourism
experience has been acknowledged in the literature adopting the Lacanian psychoanalytic
approach (e.g. Knudsen, Rickly, & Vidon, 2016) as well as aesthetics as an affect (Martini &
Sharma, 2022), the phenomenological perspective on aesthetics adopted in this study assumes
aesthetic experiences appear in human consciousness.
The previous section indicated the potential for aesthetic experiences to transcend traditional
categorizations to reach an unconventional appreciation or intentionality of aesthetics. In this
regard, the concept of borderline aesthetic experiences refers to the idea that the lines between
traditionally defined aesthetic categories can be blurred, leading to a more fluid understanding
of tourism aesthetics. We therefore propose to differentiate between two modes of aesthetic
borderline experiences. The first mode of borderline experiences - “beaugly /bjʌli/" -
encapsulates the notion of beautiful-yet-ugly experiences. These experiences occur when
tourists devalue aesthetically pleasant tourism environments, despite the presence of
conventional features that are typically associated with beauty. In these instances, tourists
may perceive a dissonance between their expectations and the actual experience, leading to a
sense of aesthetic displeasure. An example is a scenic beach within a rocky landscape that is
dotted with litter.
The second concept of "ugbeaful /ʌɡbɪfʊl/" represents the idea of ugly-yet-beautiful
experiences. These experiences arise when tourists appreciate aesthetically unpleasant tourism
environments that lack conventional aesthetic features. Despite the initial appearance of these
places being deemed unattractive, tourists find unexpected beauty and value in their unique
characteristics, leading to a sense of aesthetic pleasure. For example, dilapidated places could
contribute to positive tourist experiences (Alcaraz-Leon, 2022; Martini & Sharma, 2022),
suggesting that environments lacking conventional aesthetic features are not necessarily
experienced as unpleasant. By conceptualizing and exploring these unpleasant and borderline
aesthetic experiences in tourism, tourism researcher can delve into a previously neglected side
of the tourist experience.
3. METHODOLOGY AND METHOD
Epistemologically, researchers are assumed not to be able to maintain an absolute distance
from what can be known because, although the truth is objective, it can be only estimated
(Pernecky & Jamal, 2010). In this case, the phenomenological approach looks at the
“typicality” of experiences, starting from the comprehension of human consciousness.
Ontologically, tourism aesthetic experiences are assumed to be subjective, pointing towards
7
the universal - according to Kant’s theory of aesthetics (Kant, 1790/2007). This does not refer
to concrete objects of the physical world, but rather to intentionality of an experience. Given
this ontology and epistemology, the Descriptive Phenomenological Method in Psychology
proposed by Giorgi (2009) was chosen to guide data collection and analysis.
Giorgi’s (2009) method is based on Husserl’s idea of “transcendental phenomenology”, which
in literature is often contrasted with Martin Heidegger’s “existential phenomenology”.
Transcendental (or descriptive) phenomenology assumes a “neutral pure consciousness”
which transcends the identity of its perceiver (Wassler & Schuckert, 2017), while Heidegger’s
primary condition of existence is “Miteinandersein”, the coexistence with other human beings
which conditions experience in the lifeworld. Giorgi’s descriptive phenomenological method
is based on Husserl’s idea of a “pure essence” of the phenomenon under investigation, which
is largely detached from its “experiencer.” As such, Giorgi’s (2009) method aims to
accurately describe phenomena through their typicality (or essence), based on accurate
descriptions of lived-through events (Wassler & Schuckert, 2017). Although not without
critique (Paley, 2016), this method is of value in tourism research for its rigor and
comprehensiveness (e.g., Kirillova, 2018).
3.1 Data collection
Following Giorgi (2009), sampling was based on respondents “having lived the phenomenon
under investigation” - did the interviewee have aesthetic experiences while engaging in
tourism?). Accordingly, the final sample size -i.e., aesthetic experiences- was determined by
“phenomenological saturation”. When descriptions that were drastically different from the
already obtained data (e.g., untypical descriptions) were encountered, additional data were
collected to either confirm that piece of data by adding a new dimension to the phenomenon
or as being simply atypical, thereby ensuring generality of the data to the experience (Giorgi,
2009).
To recruit participants, we collaborated with an upscale hotel located in Hong Kong to pass
invitation letters to guests upon check-in. Participants needed to be first-time visitors and have
planned at least one day of sightseeing in urban, nature-dominated, or both areas of Hong
Kong. Twenty-eight tourists were involved in the study from April to July 2019 (
Table 1). Participants' ages ranged from 22 to 67 years, and 16 (57%) of the respondents were
men. Nineteen (68%) participants traveled to Hong Kong from long-haul markets (i.e.,
Australia, Brazil, France, Hungary, Iran) and 9 (32%) participants traveled to Hong Kong
from short-haul markets (i.e., Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore). Participants’ length of
stay ranged from 1 to 9 nights.
Before the day of sightseeing, participants were given the working definitions of the
borderline experiences as “feeling when an object/place should be beautiful but you perceive
it as unattractive/unpleasant” (the beaugly) and “feeling when an object/place is not
particularly beautiful but you perceive it as attractive/pleasant” (the ugbeaful). Then,
participants’ lived aesthetic experiences in Hong Kong were captured through in-situ
narratives. Participants were suggested to use their smartphones to document their
experiences in Hong Kong. They could take videos, voiceovers, or photos. These multimedia
records were used to facilitate the subsequent interview at end the of the sightseeing day or
the next morning. Face-to-face interviews consisted of questions based on existing literature
but were mostly focused on the question “What is it like to experience the
ubgeaful/beaugly/ugly?” (see Supplementary material). Interviews in English were 45-110
minutes long and transcribed verbatim. Participants were offered a 500HKD (appx. 64USD)
certificate to be used in any restaurant within the hotel.
8
In phenomenology, a unit of analysis is a phenomenon (an experience in this case), not a
participant (Kirillova, 2018). The data collection was part of a larger project that included
other types of aesthetic experience and thus final sample size consisted of 114 detailed
descriptions of tourism aesthetic experiences, of which 14 experiences of the ugly, 12
experiences of the beaugly, and 16 experiences of the ugbeaful. In Table 1, the numbers 1-6
represent the experiences of the beautiful, the sublime, the picturesque, the beaugly, the
ugbeaful, and the ugly, respectively. Given the study’s scope, this paper reports on the data
for the ugly and the borderline experiences.
Table 1
Background information of the participants
Pseudonym
Country of
origin
Length of
Stay in Hong
Kong
Travel
party
Age
Aesthetic experiences
Robert
Australia
6
Girlfriend
28
1, 2, 3
Sandra
Brazil
7
Solo
40
1, 2, 3
Edward
France
8
Friends
59
1, 2, 3
Mark
Hungary
5
Girlfriend
30
2, 4, 5
Andrew
Iran
6
Solo
38
1, 4
Olivia
Iran
9
Friend
22
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Jessica
Malaysia
5
Friend
34
1, 2, 3, 5, 6
Steven
Netherland
5
Solo
67
1, 2, 5, 6
William
Philippines
4
Students
31
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Angela
Serbia
7
Mother
39
1, 2, 3
Barbara
Singapore
2
Parents
27
1, 2, 3, 5, 6
Linda
Singapore
8
Family
43
1, 4, 5, 6
Skyler
Singapore
2
Spouse
37
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Frank
South Africa
2
Friends
25
1, 2, 3, 5, 6
Anthony
South Korea
4
Wife
32
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Eliza
South Korea
3
Mother
28
1, 2, 4, 5, 6
James
South Korea
4
Friend
32
1, 2, 3
Kevin
Spain
4
Wife
45
1, 2, 3
Eric
Switzerland
4
Solo
37
1, 3
Helen
Thailand
3
Colleague
38
1, 2, 3, 5, 6
Brian
UK
2
Solo
34
1, 2, 3, 4
9
Jessica
UK
4
Family
47
1, 2, 3
Sarah
UK
5
Brother
48
1, 3
Daniel
USA
6
Girlfriend
54
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Jason
USA
1
Partner
55
1, 2
Mary
USA
2
Colleague
35
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Michael
USA
2
Spouse
33
1, 2, 3, 5, 6
Richard
USA
2
Girlfriend
23
1, 3, 4, 5
2.2 Data analysis
Data analysis followed four steps of Giorgi’s Descriptive Phenomenological Method. Step 1
is to get a sense of the whole description. The first author read each transcript to capture the
general sense. In Step 2, she determined the meaning units of each description. That is, she
returned to each narrative, re-read it, and made a mark when a significant shift in meaning
was found. Step 3 transformed meaning units into phenomenologically sensitive expressions.
That is, the raw data were transformed into third-person accounts and were expressed in a
more general way to allow subsequent search for invariant units. The first author transformed
the meaning unites; then the second author validated the transformations. Finally, Step 4 was
to identify the general structure of the experiences, based on the common meaning units
across the experiences in the dataset. The final findings were then discussed by all three
researchers before the crafted general description for each experience was finalized.
4. FINDINGS
This section presents the phenomenological descriptions of the three aesthetic experiences in
tourism, resulting from the empirical data: the ugly, the beaugly, and the ugbeaful. The first
type refers to an unpleasant aesthetic experience, while the latter two are borderline
experiences. Each description consists of general invariant constituents that are common
across a specific type of experience but are also what distinguishes an experience from other
types of similar phenomena. The findings are summarised in Figure 1. We first present the
description and then follow with a detailed explanation and illustration by means of
participants’ quotes.
10
Figure 1 The Negative and Borderline Aesthetic Experiences in Tourism
4.1 The Ugly
The experience of the Ugly is one of the unpleasant aesthetic experiences,
phenomenologically described as:
The experience is lived as a shocking, awkward, and perplexing moment, with an
overwhelming sense of physical and emotional discomfort such as disgust,
apprehension, disappointment, and annoyance. An experiencer feels disrespected by
and disconnected from others, but also feels a sympathetic pity towards them. The
experience is that of regret for having visited a location.
The ugly was experienced as shocking, awkward, and/or perplexing. For example, Frank, on
the first evening in Hong Kong, did not have an Internet access on his cell phone. He felt lost
on the street, and he decided to approach a passer-by to ask for help to find his hotel’s
address. He approached a woman walking with her child, politely as he described, and asked
for the address. However, the woman pulled her child’s hand and walked away without a
single word. The reaction made Frank feel awkward, shocked, and perplexed as if he did
something wrong:“It was just shocking. It was very fast, it was like, like, five seconds or
maybe two seconds of feelings and emotions. Just shocked and surprised.” Olivia, on the
other hand, had similar feelings about certain features of the destination, such as dilapidated
residential buildings (Error! Reference source not found.): “I just was a little shocked and I
just didn't think that maybe... I knew there were so beautiful places [in Hong Kong] because I
have searched before but I was just astonished at the first moment that, wow, this city has this
kind of ugly vision too.”
11
Figure 2 A run-down building (photo: Olivia)
These perplexing moments were connected to physical and emotional discomfort, such as
disgust, disappointment, and annoyance. Physical discomfort manifested in several ways,
among which were the feeling that “you cannot breathe” (Skyler) or you may feel
“claustrophobic” (William). As Skyler walked in a crowded street, he experienced it as a
“busy and congested environment with too many people in the small area who are pushing
you.” Visiting a local night market (Figure 3), William described the sense of overwhelming
discomfort as: “It was overwhelming in that there were too many people because everyone
was kind of very close together and it was claustrophobic.” These examples also demonstrate
the multi-sensoriality of aesthetic experiences, which goes beyond the visual to incorporate
the senses of smell and tactility.
12
Figure 3 A local crowded night market (photo: William)
The experience of the ugly included experiencing the other in terms of disrespect and a lack
of connection, but also in terms of sympathetic pity. Seeing construction workers under the
sun and their disorganized workplace near a tourism attraction (Figure 4) made Mary feel that
it was an “unappealing scene” for a tourist to witness. These experiences also occured when
tourists came across unpleasant scenes that “take away the character of the environment”
(Barbara), in a chaotic environment where it is “so busy and congested and a bit cluttered”
(Skyler) and “less organized” (Michael). In terms of sympathetic pity, Olivia observed torn-
out, tall, old, tiny building apartments on the way from the airport to the city center, which
made it obvious that “poor people must be living there”. She described it as ugly: “…Actually,
you could see that these buildings have been built many years ago, and there was no
reconstruction, maybe we can say no repairing, yes, and also the information, maybe, behind
it, both made me feel so uncomfortable and feel a kind of sympathy for.” Finally, the ugly was
lived as regret (for having visited). Anthony, for example, was irritated by having chosen to
visit a dirty crowded place in hot and humid weather, commented “Maybe you could skip this
in your schedule. You had enough other things that you could do in your time [in Hong
Kong].”
13
Figure 4 Uncovered workers and their disorganized workplace (photo: Mary)
4.2 Borderline experiences
Both types of borderline experiences (the beaugly and the ugbeaful) received empirical
support in the study, although they were notably less common than pleasant aesthetic
experiences.
14
4.2.1 The Beaugly
The essential structure of the experience of the beaugly (beautiful-yet-ugly) is:
The experience is lived as a violation of expectations, as it is initially lived as an
intriguing occasion but, upon closer inspection, as unpleasant and unremarkable. The
experiencer feels overwhelmed, unimpressed, disappointed, anxious, and annoyed. An
individual feels physically uncomfortable, disrespected by, and disconnected from
others, as well as from the environment. Regret for having visited the location and an
urge to leave the place are found.
The beaugly was lived through as a violation of expectations. Participants visited an attractive
place, expecting to enjoy a beautiful location. The feeling of positive expectations prevails in
the experience initially, but upon a closer inspection, the experience feels as unpleasant and
unremarkable, and tourists tend to feel disappointed about the unmet expectations. This
manifests in several ways. For example, Richard experienced the beaugly when viewing an
iconic light show from the window of a luxury restaurant with his girlfriend. He expected an
awe-inspiring moment watching the light show while eating dinner with his loved one.
However, the more he paid attention to the light show, the more he found it to be
unremarkable: “one of those things [that] the more you look at it, the more you kind of think
[like]: Okay! do I like this or do I not.” Similarly, Brian felt that his expectations were not
met when he visited a well-maintained beach in Clear Water Bay, Hong Kong. As he
described, the beach had a post-card view of sand, sea, and jungle on each side, which was
expected to be attractive. However, upon a closer inspection, he saw “the masses of people,
umbrellas, and towels, and food stalls and shops selling some products.”
The experience of the beaugly is related to unpleasant feelings, such as being overwhelmed,
unimpressed, disappointed, anxious, and annoyed. Anthony experienced the beaugly when
visiting a place that was advertised as a hallmark attraction of Hong Kong (A Symphony of
Lights). In that place, he and his wife were waiting for one hour in rainy weather. The seats
got wet, and they had to stand up the whole time in a crowded environment, which was “very
overwhelming”. Skyler experienced a sensory overload when walking on a noise street full of
bright illumination.
Physical discomfort tends to be associated with the beaugly. Andrew, for example, felt
confined by towering skyscrapers located close to each other. He felt “imprisoned, confined,
suffocated” (Figure 5). Participants also lived through the beaugly as having the sense of
being disrespected by and disconnected from others as well as the environment. For example,
Skyler felt intruded by people on the street surrounded by gleaming skyscrapers while Linda
felt disconnected from her travel companions due to her lack of interest in an architecturally
aesthetic shopping mall.
Figure 5 Hong Kong skyscrapers (photo: Andrew)
15
Regret about having visited a site was also part of this borderline experience. Anthony and his
wife waited for one hour in rainy weather to visit a famous tourist attraction (“Maybe
thousands of people were waiting there, earlier than one hour. One hour in the rainy seat),
having concluded that the attraction was not worth the wait. Having experienced a hot sunny,
and overcrowded beach, Brian felt that he wasted his time visiting the location: “It was really
really hot, oppressively hot…no cloud cover whatsoever, beating down sun...” with “the
masses of people” around which made him “want to go and find somewhere else”. He felt
“an urgency to leave and go find a nicer beach” (Figure 6). Overall, in comparison to the
experience of the ugly, participants recognized the professed aesthetic value of visited sites;
however, they experienced these sites as a disappointment and regret for inability to
experience the sites in the intended way.
Figure 6 Overcrowded Beach in Clear Water Bay (Photo: Aeoron, Instagram ID:
@aaronographyhk)
4.2.2 The Ugbeaful
Below is the phenomenological description of the experience of the ugbeaful:
The experience is lived as an unexpected but pleasant feeling of being in a strange,
genuine, and unique moment. This manifests through being pleasantly surprised by the
unexpected combination of authenticity and modernity, of naturalness and artificiality.
The experiencer typically feels intrigued, curious, impressed, and amused. However,
the experience is also lived on the edge of feeling displeased because of sensory
overload. This is accompanied by feeling physically uncomfortable, with a sense of
being connected to others.
An essential constituent of the experience of the ugbeaful is an unexpected but pleasant
feeling of being in a strange, genuine, and unique moment and feeling surprised. This occurs
when experiencing an sudden juxtaposition of authenticity and modernity, of naturalness and
artificiality. In other words, there appears a dialogue between contrasting concepts, such as
16
naturalness and artificiality or past and present (e.g., authenticity vs modernity or vintage vs
modern). This borderline aesthetic experience is not completely positive, but it is aesthetically
pleasant in a unique way.
As Mary walked the street full of luxury brand shops, she observed well-dressed people
waiting in queues to enter luxury boutiques, e.g. Hermes, Chanel, and “leaving the shops with
their hands full of shopping bags.” In the same area, she s encountered an alleyway, which, in
contrast to the luxury surroundings, was “ugly, dirty and old and full of old buildings, but still
attractive.” She described this moment: “I thought it was a cool look, and the fact that,
probably here used to be a nice building. I thought I really like Hong Kong because of that,
the juxtaposition of new and old, and then these alleyways that are just tight. So, to me, it was
objectively kind of ugly, but I thought it looks good.” Likewise, William believed “there is
still a touch of old Hong Kong with the buildings, so it makes you, like, okay, even though it's
in the modernized city, but still you can feel a part of a real story”.
Several feelings accompany this experience. Daniel’s experience of the ugbeaful occurred
when observing what he believed were the affluent elderly residents digging in trash bins for
fun to find items for recycling purposes. This was described as “very awe-inspiring.” The data
also shows that people felt “really happy” (Anthony) and “glad” (Linda) that they have
experienced the ugbeaful and they describe it as “it's still really cool to experience even
though it's not necessarily the most attractive thing to look at” (Richard).
Yet, participants find themselves on the edge of displease rendering this experience
borderline. For example, Richard who was happy to be able to bring his girlfriend to Hong
Kong on vacation, experienced the ugbeaful when they ran into an old and rundown as
opposed to a well-designed street. He saw back alleyways with smaller shops, food stands,
and trash on the sides. The back alleyways had flashing illumination and was extremely
crowded with people, whiel the construction and the scaffolding over the sidewalk limited the
people’s movements (Figure 7). Dodging in and out of the crowds in the hot and humid
weather, Richard explained: “We just kind of wanted to get out of there, wanted to be home,
wanted to get back to the hotel, and just wanted to be out of there. (…) You want to just avoid
all the people.. just want to get out of there and get to open air, and yeah, it’s almost like
you're swimming and you need to reach the surface… It was sensory overload. (…) And it felt
very tense.” The sense of smell emerged as most important. Our respondents described the
experience as “smells like a little stale air-conditioner smell,” which was “a little
unpleasant,” or “it smelled nasty” (Daniel).
17
Figure 7 Bamboo scaffolding (photo: Anthony)
From auditory perspective, Linda described the environment as “noisy and people are just
loud, they are talking loudly”. However, what made it tolerable was being aware that “it's just
a normal thing for Hong Kongers, they talk like, in a big voice” (William). William justified
enjoying the noisy of the ugbeaful as “people were honking the horn and things like that”
which “is pretty typical for a city.” Overwhelmed with loud noises, unpleasant smells, and
crowds, all set in the context of ultra-modern architecture of narrow streets, participants
reflected on such experiences as overall positive believing that “this is what Hong Kong
should be about” (William).
The experience also involved a sense of physical discomfort. For example, Olivia
commented: “Actually, I used to love rain, but, at that time, because the rain is so different
here, it's so intense, and it just feels so uncomfortable and inconvenient.” Despite negative
body sensations, the experience manifests through positive human connection. William
reported that the experience is lived through memorable moments being accompanied by his
twelve students: "It was a very memorable moment, we were enjoying doing something
together no matter it was shopping or whatsoever. We were able to buy things that we could
bring [to our] home [country] at the Ladies’ Market. [My students kept saying] No no no, you
18
have to get this stuff, you have to buy that... Wait! the other stores are selling it, you have to
go there". These moments were marked by the shared joy and camaraderie of William and his
travel companions, as they enjoyed their time together and helped each other navigate
confusing surroundings. This sense shared enjoyment (or challenges) ultimately renders this
boderline experince as positive.
For other participants, the sense of being connectedness involved sharing experiences with
those outside their travel party. Visting the Avenue of Stars of the Hong Kong Film Industry
with his wife, Michael felt “connected to other visitors because I found myself sharing a
similar feeling with others, celebrating movie stars as a common activity.” Barbara, who
came across “a little rundown local” store selling dried seafood, felt connected to the
shopkeeper and other shoppers: “The seller, he looked very kind and patient (…) I think
usually you look at people who sell these things as very impatient, because there are so many
customers, everyone’s asking him something.…I think that is something different, I’ve never
seen it before. You see housewives buying stuff. They were nice, they were calm, and I felt
connected to them.” The positive social component of the ugbeaful ultimately helped the
aesthetic experience register as pleasant.
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Motivated by the lack of attention to the negative and borderline side of aesthetics, this study
aimed to develop a typology of tourism aesthetic experiences and to phenomenologically
describe the essence of these diverse aesthetic tourism experiences. Unpleasant experiences
have been conceptualized and empirically described as the ugly, while borderline experiences
have been identified as the beaugly and the ugbeaful.
Regarding the ugly, the findings underscored the importance of incorporating ugliness into the
theory of tourism aesthetics. While there is no literature on the experience of the ugly in a
tourism context, the findings relate to Kant’s theory of aesthetic judgment. Cohen (2013)
highlights that, ugliness stems out of disinterested (pure ugliness) or interested displeasure
(impure ugliness). The study’s findings show that ugliness in a tourism context arises through
a shocking, awkward, and perplexing moment and is accompanied by physical and emotional
discomfort, hinting towards pure ugliness in a tourism context, which is also supported by
Kant’s aesthetics resonating the characteristics of disinterestedness (Cohen, 2013). In other
words, tourists experienced the ugly due inherently unpleasant features of destination
environments. However, as noted in Frank’s example of older resident running away from
him, interested, or impure, ugliness also has its place in tourism experience: that is, tourists
find an experience ugly exactly because of how it makes them feel, as opposed to another way
around. Such experiences are based on interested displeasure - that is displeasure arising out
of the failure of the ugly object to meet Frank’s interests in the resident helping him.
While the experience of the ugly was overwhelmingly negative, this does not invalidate its
importance in conditioning (dis)satisfaction (Breiby, 2014; Kirillova & Lehto, 2015) and thus
the need to be recognized and managed in tourism. In his reflection on the history of arts,
Rosenkranz (2015, p. 25) writes that “ugliness is an inseparable part of a complete aesthetic
study of beauty and a necessary part of the dialectic of human experience.” This complex
interplay was clear in the description of our respondents where at times, the ugly was
highlighted as a memorable experience. Hence, to exclude the ugly from the realm of tourism
experiences is to disregard a number of human experiences and to overestimate the
importance of positive experiences (Forsey & Aagaard-Mogensen, 2019). Despite the
19
inherently negative nature of the ugly in tourism experiences, its role in shaping overall
aesthetic evaluation of destinations should be acknowledged.
Furthermore, the study confirmed the existence of borderline aesthetic experiences in tourism.
Corroborating with Rosenkranz (2015) and Forsey and Aagaard-Mogensen (2019), such
experiences are experiences located in between pleasure and displeasure. These are
simultaneously disagreeable and fascinating as they can provide a particular kind of pleasure
(and by extension displeasure). Findings indicate that authenticity and realness of hidden
attractions in a juxtaposed context set an effective stage for the experiences of the beaugly and
the ugbeaful. As evident in participants’ narratives, seeing dilapidated buildings, suffering in
hot, humid, loud environments are uncomfortable yet are internalized as pleasant if it is made
sense of as authentic to the destination, which connects borderline aesthetic experiences to the
broader discourse on authenticity in tourism (Rickly, 2022). On the other hand, attractions
designed to impress tourists (like Symphony of Lights in Hong Kong) could be experienced
as ugly despite its objective aesthetic properties.
The beaugly is lived through initial pleasure from visiting an environment that might be
conventionally attractive. However, it is also geared towards negative feeling that brings out
emotional discomfort. The ugbeaful, on the other hand, is ambivalent but geared towards
positive emotions: emotional discomfort is lived as being on the edge of displeasure due to
sensory overload. Sensory overload occurs when individuals are overstimulated by the
environment, rendering tourists unable to process the stimuli, leading to confusion and
discomfort (Malhotra, 1984). Simultaneously, the ugbeaful is experienced as comfort through
the positive emotions of feeling genuine, intrigued, curious, impressed, amused, and pleased -
finding comfort in discomfort. This mode of aesthetic experience highlights the complexity
and richness of aesthetic emotions where an individual can feel negative and positive
emotions simultaneously, while the positive emotions outweigh the negative ones in this case.
This finding emphasizes how aesthetic emotions can be multifaceted and nuanced (Perlovsky,
2014). This result serves as a reminder to avoid oversimplification of aesthetic emotional
responses when compartmentalizing into positive and negative as well as when linking to a
specific stimulus (Ulrich, 1983). A more complex and holistic theory of aesthetic emotions in
tourism is therefore necessary.
Interestingly, experiences of the beaugly also resonate with Kant’s (1790/2007) impure and
particularly with what he calls “disgusting” ugliness that is predicated on tourists’ moral
attitude towards an experienced site. Most vividly this can be seen in the accounts of Mary
who, having experienced a street dotted with luxury shops alongside the alleyway filled with
dilapidated buildings, internalized her experience as pleasant. For a tourist with left-wing
political sensibilities, however, such a site could be experienced as “disgustingly ugly” as its
representation would interfere with the tourist’ value judgment. In this sense, Kant argues,
one needs to “reject the distinction between the representation of the object and the object
itself that I am able to resist the enjoyment of the representation of a disgust.” It seems that
Mary was either able to resist this distinction or her value system did not necessitate her to
resist this distinction in the first place. This, however, points to the impossibility aesthetic
appreciation and experiences transcend moral and cultural boundaries, suggesting that impure
ugliness and the other aesthetic categories that could include it (e.g. ugbeaful, beaugly) is
always value-laden. In this sense, aesthetics could be related to Urry’s (1992) concept of
tourist gaze, which frames the visual consumption of tourism destinations determining which
sites are deemed as appealing or unappealing. Tourist gaze socially conditions the way of
seeing the world, shapes, and structures how destination aesthetics appears in a tourist’s
20
phenomenological lifeworld. The study therefore demonstrates that, being part of tourism
experience, aesthetic experiences can function in the same manner.
5.1 Theoretical implications
At the theoretical level, this study challenges the conventional understanding of aesthetics in
the tourism experience, by shifting the conversation beyond the dualistic (the beautiful vs. the
ugly) view of tourism aesthetics. Viewing boundaries among various types of aesthetic
experiences as fluid and dynamic, as opposed to clearly demarcated, can stimulate a re-
evaluation of traditional aesthetic categories, leading to shifts in a destination's aesthetic value
proposition. Although recently there has been an attempt to explore the sublimity of dark
tourism environments (Martini & Sharma, 2022), the existing body of knowledge tends to
lean towards studying positive aesthetic experiences. Introducing aesthetically borderline
experiences is hoped to help scholars expand their ontological worldview on various types of
aesthetic experiences in tourism and to overcome the positive bias currently dominant in
tourism research. Furthermore, having incorporated aesthetically unpleasant and borderline
experiences into the theory of tourism aesthetics, the study discussed the similarities and
differences among various types. As such, the research contributes to conceptual clarity of
what it means to experience the ugly, the beaugly, and the ugbeaful. At the same time, it
reveals that the concepts of beauty and ugliness in tourism are negotiated, deconstructed and
interpretable, presenting a broader and more inclusive understanding of beauty and ugliness in
this context. Taken together, the study contributes to creating a richer theory of aesthetics that
is more adequate for studying tourism experiences.
5.2. Practical implications
Practical implications to urban development cannot be overlooked, especially when it comes
to aesthetically prioritizing certain districts as attractions over others. In particular, the issue
of tourism destinations calls for a sensitive approach, given the complex intersections among
urban aesthetics, power dynamics, and place-making strategies (Speake & Kennedy, 2019).
Aesthetics (in the sense of beauty) has traditionally been associated with the upper classes,
which could lead to the marginalization of certain neighbourhoods. The cost of beautifying
some areas comes at a significant expense to other areas, as the budget allocated for city
development is redirected to specific neighbourhoods. As a result of the unequitable
distribution of resources, certain districts become more appealing, leading to an increase in
demand for housing and the hike in prices of available housing, further perpetuating the social
divide. Against this background, the study suggests the need to benefit from “the ugliness
premium," particularly as related to the borderline experience of ugbeaful. For example,
tourists could find a site aesthetically fascinating without considering it conventionally
attractive, therefore challenging the imposed aesthetic standards devised by tourism
practitioners that dictate what is "beautiful." It may inspire new ways of appreciating tourism
destinations and, through an aesthetic lens, can also reveal the biases and assumptions that
underpin tourism development policies.
Drawing on the discourses of authenticity, urban developers can incorporate the local
authentic lifestyle of the neighbourhood into destination development and marketing
strategies, rather than focussing on mere “beautification. The communication styles and local
stores' uniqueness can shape the district's identity, showcasing its people's genuine character,
and go beyond typical tourist attractions, offering tourists an opportunity to experience the
authentic features of the city through the aesthetic lens. This reframing is hoped to lead to a
21
more inclusive understanding of beauty and ugliness and fairer distribution of resources in
tourism planning and development.
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). The findings of this study suggest that
a wider approach to aesthetic imagery, incorporating more fluid ideals of beauty into tourism
marketing is a possibility.
5.3. Limitations and future research
This research is not free of limitations. First, during the data collection and analysis, the
researcher did her best to adopt the “natural attitude” through phenomenological reduction
(Giorgi, 2009), that is to suspend all assumptions about the phenomenon. However, a
complete reduction cannot be assured. Further, the research was conducted in the context of
Hong Kong, which, like any other destination, has characteristic aesthetic features. Since
these features are input for subsequent aesthetic experiences, it could have impacted how
aesthetic experiences were described by participants. Finally, Eagleton (1988, p. 327) writes
that “aesthetic” has less to do with arts and beauty and more with “ a whole program of social,
psychical and political reconstruction on the part of the early European bourgeoisie,”
highlighting the interplay of aesthetics and ideology, of aesthetics and power. With
participants hauling from around the globe to experience Hong Kong, this study, which was
based on the Western European aesthetic tradition, did not account for how destination
features may be experienced differently by participants from cultural and intellectual contexts
with different aesthetic framings.
The study leaves much unknown about tourism aesthetic experiences. First, tourism scholars
are invited to associate specific destination aesthetic features to borderline experiences: Are
certain stimuli in the environment more likely to trigger the beaugly/ugbeaful? Second,
researchers should investigate practical solutions that optimize the occurrence of the
experiences of the beaugly and the ugly. A critical look at how borderline experiences are
connected to destination image, tourist satisfaction, and intention revisiting can provide
meaningful policy and management recommendations. This study also did not consider the
experiences of tourists with impaired vision or hearing problems. Such research can extend
our understanding of other important channels of experiencing the aesthetics of tourism
environments and provide implications for accessible tourism. Finally, future research is
invited to study the unconscious levels of aesthetic experiences by means of employing non-
representational methodologies (Kozyreva, 2018).
REFERENCES
Ahmad, R. (2014). Habitus, capital, and patterns of taste in tourism consumption: A study of
western tourism consumers in India. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 38(4),
487-505.
Alcaraz-Leon, M. J. (2022). On the aesthetic appreciation of damaged environments. Journal
of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 80(4), 420–431.
22
Andrews, M. (1989). The search for the picturesque: landscape aesthetics and tourism in
Britain, 1760-1800. Gower Publishing Co. Ltd..
Baggio, R., & Moretti, V. (2018). Beauty as a factor of economic and social
development. Tourism Review, 73(1), 68-81.
Barretto, M. (2013). Aesthetics and tourism. PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio
Cultural, 11(3), 79–81.
Brand, P. Z. (1999). Beauty matters. The Journal of aesthetics and art criticism, 57(1), 1-10.
Breiby, M. A. (2014). Exploring aesthetic dimensions in a nature-based tourism context.
Journal of Vacation Marketing, 20(2), 163-173.
Brown, G. (2006). Mapping landscape values and development preferences: a method for
tourism and residential development planning. International journal of tourism
research, 8(2), 101-113.
Burke, E. (1757/1998). A philosophical enquiry into the origin of our ideas of the sublime
and the beautiful: with an introductory discourse concerning taste; and several other
additions. Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, A. (2013). Kant on the possibility of ugliness. British Journal of Aesthetics, 53(2),
199-209.
Crookes, L. (2017). The ‘not so good’, the ‘bad’ and the ‘ugly’: Scripting the ‘badlands’ of
Housing Market Renewal 1. In Negative neighbourhood reputation and place
attachment (pp. 81-101). Routledge.
De Botton, A. (2003). The art of travel. London: Penguin.
Dovey, K., Wollan, S., & Woodcock, I. (2017). Graffiti as character. In Mapping
Urbanities (pp. 189-207). Routledge.
Eagleton, T. (1988). The ideology of the aesthetic. Poetics Today, 9(2), 327-338.
Ely, C. (2003). The origins of Russian scenery: Volga River tourism and Russian landscape
aesthetics. Slavic Review, 62(4), 666-682.
Forsey, J., & Aagaard-Mogensen, L. (Eds.). (2019). On the Ugly: Aesthetic Exchanges.
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Genc, V., & Gulertekin Genc, S. (2022). The effect of perceived authenticity in cultural
heritage sites on tourist satisfaction: the moderating role of aesthetic experience. Journal
of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 6(2), 530–548.
Getz, D., & Sailor, L. (1994). Design of destination and attraction-specific
brochures. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 2(2-3), 111-131.
Gilpin, W. (1794). Three Essays: On Picturesque Beauty; on Picturesque Travel; and on
Sketching Landscape, London.
Giorgi, A. (2009). The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology: A modified
Husserlian approach. Duquesne University Press.
Grube, G. M. (1927). Plato's theory of beauty. The Monist, 269-288.
Hagtvedt, H., & Patrick, V. M. (2014). Consumer response to overstyling: Balancing
aesthetics and functionality in product design. Psychology & Marketing, 31(7), 518-525.
Hartmann, T., Jahnke, B., & Hamm, U. (2021). Making ugly food beautiful: Consumer
barriers to purchase and marketing options for Suboptimal Food at retail level–A
systematic review. Food Quality and Preference, 90, 104179.
Hauser, D., Leopold, A., Egger, R., Ganewita, H., & Herrgessell, L. (2022). Aesthetic
perception analysis of destination pictures using# beautifuldestinations on
Instagram. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 24, 100702.
Hoegg, J., Alba, J. W., & Dahl, D. W. (2010). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Influence of
aesthetics on product feature judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(4), 419-
430.
23
Kant, I. (1790/2007). Critique of judgement. Oxford University Press.
Kemp, W., & Rheuban, J. (1990). Images of Decay: Photography in the Picturesque
Tradition. In October (Vol. 54, p. 102-133).
Kirillova, K. (2023). A review of aesthetics research in tourism: Launching the Annals of
Tourism Research Curated Collection on beauty and aesthetics in tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 100, 103553.
Kirillova, K. (2018). Phenomenology for hospitality: Theoretical premises and practical
applications. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(11),
3326-3345.
Kirillova, K., Fu, X., Lehto, X., & Cai, L. (2014). What makes a destination beautiful?
Dimensions of tourist aesthetic judgment. Tourism Management, 42, 282-293.
Kirillova, K., & Lehto, X. (2015). Destination Aesthetics and Aesthetic Distance in Tourism
Experience. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 32(8), 1051–1068.
Kirillova, K., & Wassler, P. (2019). Travel beautifully: The role of aesthetics in experience
design. In Atmospheric turn in culture and tourism: Place, design and process impacts
on customer behaviour, marketing and branding (Vol. 16, pp. 153-163). Emerald
Publishing Limited.
Knudsen, D. C., Metro-Roland, M. M., & Rickly, J. M. (2015). Tourism, aesthetics, and
touristic judgment. Tourism Review International, 19(4), 179-191.
Knudsen, D. C., Rickly, J. M., & Vidon, E. S. (2016). The fantasy of authenticity: Touring
with Lacan. Annals of Tourism Research, 58, 33-45.
Kozyreva, A. (2018). Non-representational approaches to the unconscious in the
phenomenology of Husserl and Merleau-Ponty. Phenomenology and the Cognitive
Sciences, 17, 199-224.
Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation
and aesthetic judgments. British journal of psychology., 95(4), 489-508.
Lee, H., & Yan, L. (2020). Selling cute destinations to East Asia. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Insights, 4(3), 282-299.
Levinson, J. (2005). What Are Aesthetic Properties? Aristotelian Society Supplementary
Volume, 79, 191–227.
Malhotra, N. K. (1984). Information and sensory overload: Information and sensory
overload in psychology and marketing. Psychology and Marketing, 1(3–4), 9–21.
Marland, A. (2014). If seals were ugly, nobody would give a damn: Propaganda,
nationalism, and political marketing in the Canadian seal hunt. Journal of Political
Marketing, 13(1-2), 66-84.
Martini, A., & Sharma, N. (2022). Framing the sublime as affect in post-disaster
tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 97, 103473.
Nadia, E. N., Beatrice, C. D., & Atour, T. (2021). The Determinants of Hotel Room Rates in
Beirut: A Hedonic Pricing Model. International Journal of Trade, Economics and
Finance, 12(2).
Nasiri, H. (2022). Aesthetic experiences in tourism: tourists, residents, and destination
aesthetic features. [Doctoral Dissertation, Hong Kong Polytechnic University].
Retrieved from https://theses.lib.polyu.edu.hk/handle/200/11926
Oh, Y. (2022). Insta-gaze: Aesthetic representation and contested transformation of
Woljeong, South Korea. Tourism Geographies, 24(6-7), 1040-1060.
Perlovsky, L. (2014). Mystery in experimental psychology, how to measure aesthetic
emotions?. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1006.
Pernecky, T., & Jamal, T. (2010). (Hermeneutic) phenomenology in tourism studies. Annals
of Tourism Research, 37(4), 1055-1075.
24
Paley, J. (2016). Phenomenology as qualitative research: A critical analysis of meaning
attribution. Taylor & Francis.
Pratt, S., Tolkach, D., & Kirillova, K. (2019). Tourism & death. Annals of Tourism
Research, 78, 102758.
Rickly, J. M. (2022). A review of authenticity research in tourism: Launching the Annals of
Tourism Research Curated Collection on authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research, 92,
103349.
Rosenkranz, K. (2015). Aesthetics of Ugliness : A Critical Edition. Bloomsbury Academic.
Salim, E., Ravanel, L., & Gauchon, C. (2021). Aesthetic perceptions of the landscape of a
shrinking glacier: Evidence from the Mont Blanc massif. Journal of Outdoor
Recreation and Tourism, 35, 100411.
Schmitt, B. (1999). Experiential marketing: how to get customers to sense, feel, think, act,
and relate to your company and brands. Free Press.
Skov, M. (2019). Aesthetic appreciation: The view from neuroimaging. Empirical Studies of
the Arts, 37(2), 220-248.
Snepenger, D., Murphy, L., Snepenger, M., & Anderson, W. (2004). Normative meanings of
experiences for a spectrum of tourism places. Journal of Travel Research, 43(2), 108-
117.
Speake, J., & Kennedy, V. (2019). 'Buying'into the waterfront dream? Trajectories of luxury
property led developments in Malta. Tourism Management, 71, 246-258.
Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2022). The Concept of Aesthetic. Retrieved from
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aesthetic-concept/
Tartari, M., Pedrini, S., & Sacco, P. L. (2022). Urban “beautification” and its discontents: the
erosion of urban commons in Milan. European Planning Studies, 30(4), 643–662.
Thomson, G. (1992). Kant's problems with ugliness. The Journal of aesthetics art criticism,
50(2), 107-115.
Todd, C. (2009). Nature, beauty and tourism. In J. Tribe (Eds.), Philosophical issues in
tourism, (pp. 154-170). Channel View Publications.
Tribe, J. (2009). Philosophical issues in tourism. Channel View Publications.
Trinh, T. T., & Ryan, C. (2016). Heritage and cultural tourism: The role of the aesthetic
when visiting Mỹ Sơn and Cham Museum, Vietnam. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(6),
564-589.
Trott, N. (2017). The picturesque, the beautiful and the sublime. A companion to
Romanticism, 79-98.
Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. Behavior and
the natural environment, 85-125.
Urry, J. (1992). The tourist gaze “revisited”. American Behavioral Scientist, 36(2), 172-186.
Vagle, M. D. (2018). Crafting phenomenological research. Routledge.
Warhurst, C., & Nickson, D. (2007). Employee experience of aesthetic labour in retail and
hospitality. Work, employment and society, 21(1), 103-120.
Wassler, P., & Schuckert, M. (2017). The lived travel experience to North Korea. Tourism
Management, 63, 123-134.
Workman, J. E., & Caldwell, L. F. (2007). Centrality of visual product aesthetics, tactile and
uniqueness needs of fashion consumers. International Journal of consumer studies,
31(6), 589-596.
Yu, J., & Egger, R. (2021). Color and engagement in touristic Instagram pictures: A machine
learning approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 89, 103204.
25
Zhang, Q., & Xu, H. (2020). Understanding aesthetic experiences in nature-based tourism:
The important role of tourists’ literary associations. Journal of Destination Marketing &
Management, 16, 100429.
Zhou, W., Chen, L. Y., & Chou, R. J. (2021). Important factors affecting rural tourists’
aesthetic experience: A case study of Zoumatang village in
Ningbo. Sustainability, 13(14), 7594.