The more in-depth my study of Venice goes, the more difficult I find it to believe, on a personal level, that so many tourists continue to be drawn to this city perpetually mobbed by even increasing throngs of foreigners. Like Davis and Marvin, one can’t help but wonder “what do tourists go there to see”? As San Marco has come to be the key signifier of the terrestrial tourist experience in Venice, so too has Venice come to be the key signifier of the tourist experience on a global scale. I was particularly interested (though not entirely shocked) to learn of the incredibly low percentages of tourists that, while in Venice, choose to engage with the city’s history by attending the Galleria dell’Accademia, the Museo Correr, or even paying admission to the ducal palace. In this sense Venice, the historical seat of commercialism, has gone as far as a place can go in terms of commodifying itself. Tourists now flock there simply to be in the middle of, as Davis and Marvin put it, “the Something Big”. By adding to the masses of humanity that pass through Venice’s streets every year, the tourists are directly participating in the ever mounting value of Venice as a tourist destination. Similar to how a designer handbag is coveted not for its function but rather for its ability to grant status to its carrier, Venice is made attractive by the tourist’s desire to be considered a tourist of the world rather than for its unique heritage or simply for its cultural significance. In many ways Venice has become like the designer shops that now find their homes in the heart of the city; it too is a brand, so commodified that it too has begotten knock-offs, which do little but heighten global desire for the real thing.