Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 167

Symposium

MUSEOLOGY AND MUSEUMS


MUSEOLOGIE ET MUSEES
Helsinki - Espoo, Septemberlseptembre 1987

Contents

The art of rnaking c:ommenls


by Vinos Sofka

CompIementary Iist of the contnbutors to the symposium

11

Symposium 1987: Comments and views


on baslcpapers presented ln ISS 12

13

115

Bedekar, Vasant H - Baroda, India 15


Bellaigue, Mathilde - Paris, France 37
Desvalles, Andr - Parts, France 39
Laumonier, Isabel - Buenos Aires, Argentina 43
Mensch, Peter van - Leiden, Netherlands /,7
Miquel i Serra, Domnec & Morral i Romeu, Eullia
- Sant Cugat dei Val1s, Spain 53
Nigam. Mohan L - Hyderabad, India 61
Perrot, Paul N - Richmond, Virginia. USA fl5
Swiecimski, Jerzy - Krak6w, Poland 87
Vartne, Hugues de - Paris, France 97
Zouhdi, Bachir - Damascus, Syria 99

Symposium 1987: Analytic summaries


of basic papers presented in 15512
Vlewpoblt 1 :
The idea of the musewn :
Its birth, development up to today, definltion
Summary by Mathilde Bellaigue

117

Vie.poinl 2 :
The musewn and museology :
a spontaneous or rational relation - or none at ail ?
Summary by Judith K Spielbauer

125

Vtewpobil 3 :
The musewn and development - inside and outside :
trends observed and forecasted
Summary by EulJia Morral i Romeu

133

V~poilll4

:
MuseoIogy and museums : a global analysis
with emphasis on ideas not covered by other viewpoints
Summary by Rosario Carrillo

141

SYl1iposium 1W1: AdditionaI papers


. received after cIosing dates for ISS 12 & 13

Barretto, Mana de Lourdes Horta - Rio de Janeiro, Brazil


Decarolis, Nelly - Buenos Aires, Argentina 161

Kaplan. Aora S - New Yorl<, New Yorl<, USA 165

_ 149

151

COildlllents and vlews.lntervenUons

ICOFOM pubUcatIons

this issue 0I1S5 has been prepared


by Vin Sofka, O'Ialrman of ICOFOM
w1th the assistance
of the Museum of National Antlqultles, Stockholm - Sweden

CIoldns date:

Stockholm August 25, 19frl

171

Sommaire

L'art de faire des commentaires


par VinaS Sofk.a

liste Uliuplmeulaire des amtnbuteurs au conoque

11

CoDoque 19frl: Commentaires et points de vue


sur les mmoires de base prsents dans l'ISS 12

13

115

Bedekar, Vasant H . Baroda, Inde 1)


Bellaigue, Mathilde . Paris, France 37
Desvalles, Andr . Paris, France 39
I..1umonier, Isabel . Buenos Aires, Argentine 43
Mensch, Peter van . Leiden, Pays Bas 47
Miquel i Serra, Domnec & Morral i Romeu, Eullia
. Sant Cugatdel Valls, Espagne 57
Nigam, Mohan L . Hyderabad, Inde 61
Perrot, Paul N . Richmond, Virginia, USA 85
Swiecimski, Jerzy . Krak6w, Pologne fi7
Valine, Hugues de . Palis, France 97
Zouhd~ Bachir - Damas, Syrie 99

Colloque 19frl: Rsums analytiques


des mmoires de base prsents dans 1'155 12
Approche 1:
L'ide du muse :
sa naissance, son dveloppement, sa dfinition
Rsum par Mathilde Bellaigue

Appodle 2:
Lemuse et la musologie :
une rlatton spontane ou rationelle . ou aucune rlation du tout
Rsum par Judith K Spielbauer

"' 21

129

Appiuche 3:
Le muse et le dveloppement - dedans et dehors :
tendences observes et prvues
Resum par Eullia Morral i Romeu

1 37

Appiuche 4:
Musologie et muses :
une analyse globale des ides non traites par les autres approches
Rsum par Rosalia Carrillo

145

Colloque 191rl : Textes supplmentaires

reus aprs l'impression de l'ISS 12 & 13

149

Mmoires de base

Barretto, Matia de Lourdes Horta - Rio de Janeiro, Brsil


Decarolis, Nelly - Buenos Aires, Argentine 161

Kaplan, Aora S - New York, New York, USA 165

151

Commentaires et points de vue, interventions

PubltcatfonsderlCOFOM

Ce mmoio de MSS atprepar


par VinoS Sofka, Prsident de l'ICOfOM
avec l'aIde
du Muse des antiquits nationales, Stockholm - Sude

D a t achev Stockholm, le 25 aoQt 1987

171

The art of making comments

Editorial by Vinas Sofka

There are four amditions for bringing 10 Ihe world mlical views on anolher person's
ideas. AI leasl four, should 1 say. Maybc, someone else wOllld counl up a king lisl of
what is necessary for such a lask . but Ihese four premises came ta my mind just now,
when silling wilh a "bunch" of co!mnenls 'pllecl~.d for the ICOfOM symposium 1987.
Wilh new ones still dropping in, 1reflccted aboul how to reproduce as many as possible
of them for the rapldly approaching meeling. wlthout missing Ihe prinler's definltely
last possible deadHne, and what couId be done ta improve this phase of our symposium
model.

Because everything can be improvcd . including 0111' commenting routines and melhods.
Not only la make il humanly and physically possible for Ihe Edilor la get the texts
reproduced in sorne way, but (irst o( ail 10 ensure Ihat the goals of wriling the comments
could he really achieved. And it is there, as 1(cel il, .just now where the shoe pinches!
ln preparing the past meetings. wc made several improvements of our working
methods for the symposra. Take (or example the "basic papcrs phase-' By long-term
planning of symposia topics, by Iracing Ihe (ramework o( the respective lopic and
brealdng it down into several sublopics, by introducing a provocative-thoughts paper as
a starting point for the work on the topie, wc created conditions for concentrated
reflections on the chosen Iheme. 111c ne1Ct st~p. could be, perhaps, 10 si rive ta increase
personal participation in Ihe symposiull1 process by promoling preparatory work on the
basic papers - and a follow-up afterwards - in rgional Ot national, whichever seems to
he easier, museology working gJ:P-m<s o( ICOfOM. 111is, of course, as a complement to
the individually based presentation o( ideas and views, as done now.
We have also improved our - healing phase -. 'This time, ilLfinland, we will test a
new approach, a composition of earlier separately used methods in a more effective
combination, 1hope. nIe enlarged nucleus of intcresled collaborators in Ihe Committee
makes it possible ta get a greater group involved in Ihe preparations for and carrying
out of the hearing ilself. Thus, the 1iscu:i~Lon leaders, two or three, wUl only
concentrate on leading the discussion in Ihe sense o( snatching up the expressed, or on!y
hinted at, ideas, further develop Ihem, and lead the discussions to conclusions. As an
innovation, three or four "alJ<lly.zJ11iL-gJill.maliz_ers" enler Ihe scene. Maybe you re
member them from London 1983. But Ihere Ihey were alonc, wlthout a discussion
leader taking over, just as later on Ihe discllSsion leaders were without support from a
summarizer.
What is the intention of this new team.col11binillion7
The summarizers will make in Wliting an analysis of ail the papers from an agreed
angle, prior to the symposium hearing. For Finland, the (ollowing viewpoints , expres
sect ln three sub-topics, have been delinealed for the analysls of the topic Museology
and museums:
a The idea of the museum: its birth, development, and definition
o The museum arn:lJn.useo!ogy: a spontaneous or rational ['('laHon - or none al ail ?
o The museum and developmenHnside and oulside: trends observed and (orecasted
The corresponding three analyzing summaries, and a global one> are reproduced in this
issue of ISS which will be distributed at Ihe bcginning o( the meeling. 111ey Jay also the
ground for intraduong the corresponding seclion o( Ihe hearing. Nter having fulfilled
7

thls task, the summalizers parttcipate not only for themselves ln the dIscussion tram
the auditorium, but also see la it lhal all inleresling aspects in lhe basic papers collected
conceming their sub-topic, and especially those of writers nol present, are taken up for
discussion. Supported by the author of the dynamic pnwocative view on Museums in
movement, who also folfows the discussion trorn the gmup of participants, ail together,
with the discussion leaders. they try la forrnulate the conclusions la be drawn al the last
hearing session, before the symposium is c1osed.
lhis Is the background ta that what will happen in Finland but could not more could
be done? How to improve the 'collilllenting phase' in arder la facililate the hearing
and to reach a beller final result ?
The 1987 yeats harvest of basic papers has becn good again: 34 papers received more or
Jess in lime, three additional ones reproduccd in this issue of ISS, and still sorne fi/mly
promised to be brought to the meeting itself. A good result which, however, does not
exactly allow the desirable participation of everybody, the authors as weil as the mem
bershipoflCOfOMand especially of those who regisler for the meetings, ta give views
on the basic papers. The reason is the lillletable, which seems to lIlake problems.
Simply. we need more lime to cany oullhis phase "comme il faut":
TIme to get the.bgslcpaperscollected according to the deadline, reproduccd in ISS
(avoidlng thus the very liring task of making and distributing successively working
copies of ail the papers before they ail have been assembled and could he printed) and
distributed to the authors and those who registered for the meeting (registration by the
deadline belng another weak point in our preparatory system)

o TIme to analyze the papers, ta put down on paper cornmgnt:i on the ideas presented
in them and, extremely importanl, ta get them sent ta the Editor by the deadline.
o TIme to make it possible at leasl for the discussion leaders and now also the summa
rizers to read the comments betore the hearing starts'
Much lime - but not impossible ta manage il. Ta advance the tirst slep for the sym
posium, the sending out of the cal! for papers, should not be a problem. Ali the
members know in advance the tapie of the next symposium and can thus begin
thinking long before the meeting. adapling then only their thoughts to the final
framework stated in the cali. The problem can be more of a psychological nature: Too
much lime in advance does no! always mean that one slarts illlmcdiately to worl<.
Everyone of us knows lhe phenomena - but a campaign, based on our rcsults and ex
plaining why the next lengthy limetable looks as it does and why it should be respected
seemstobenecessary.
This yeaJ's events ilIustrate weil the dilemma and <l description of the course of Ihe
procedure. with ail facts in detail, would make you understand the Editnr's nightmare !
But let us leave this malter now and take up the problem when sitting agreeably
together sornewhere in Scandinavia.

Ta amie baclr. ta my starting statement ta this Editorial:


What are the four thiD&!, necessal)' to carry.-Q.yt "CQI}lIJl(;UJ.1<l.ut" lheSQmmJmti.ng..phasc
and how they can contribute to improving the appli~d SYlllposhtm modJ;)1 7

llme. the most urgent and probably the one easiest to handle, 1already touched above.
And the other ones? [would like ta sum them up as f01l0ws :

InsIght on what is ongolng. In Ihe science of museology in general, and ln the research
work of ICOFOM in particular. On Ihe whole and in detail We have 10 move fOlWaro
by using aIl the experience and knowledge we possess. We have to raise and stabilize
the level of our achievements.

JUl'age to say honestly one's opinion and to give argy'ments for il.
Tolerance to complete finally the list of four "things". We are conscious of the uneven
development of museology in Ihe world, and of the various reasons for il and the
different back&Tounds for meeting the problems in the field of museums or, if you win.
of the heritage. in Ihe world. Dut we are also arter Ihe search 10 finti some common
positions and solulions. To establish and fllrther develop the science of museology is
our aim. We have still much ta do 1
In many parts of lhe world the practica\ demands and prob1ems of the day overshadow.
and moreover, push aside the inlerest for Iheorelical thinking and approaches when
canying oui such lasks. 11lat in spile of Ihe fact, Ihat somelimes a clear lheoT)'. or
museums philosophy. collld facililate life and give solutions 10 the problems that arise.
We must be able to convince. by a wide contact nelwork, of the needformuseology.

Maybe, you wonder with Shakespeare why so Much Ado About Nothing? 1dare ta state
that without written comments, the basic papers we so successfully collect should be less
attractive and useful. especially Ihere where they can help to build up the sdentific
museological base for the museum profession's actions. Il does touch not only the so
called developing world, it can be very near to those living in the technlcally highly
advanced regions. very near ta everyone of us! And il Is always very difficult la dis
seminale in prinling what was saitl ill the discussions, when ail is over and eveT)'body
has left lhe 50 stimulating and encouraging feeling of being togelher for daily troubles in
thelr isolation at home.
And, if you stin wonder, why 1 insist about it now, when it is too late for Finland, then let
me just remind you that we decided about a year ago on the tllpic for the ICOfOM
meeting 1988 and that we a1ready know today, more or 1ess firmly, where and when we
will meel. When you have sorne time free you can thus start reflecting immediately on
Museology and the third world - help or manipulation?' This will he our
symposium tapie, when in November1Dember 1988 we meet in India, after our as
1hope useful and pleasant Annual Meeting 1987 ln Scandinavia.
Vinos Sofka, August 1987

Complement8ry IIst of the contributors ta the symposium


Liste supplmentaire des contributeurs au colloque

BARRE'ITO, Marta de Lourdes Horta


Director of Programme, Ministrio da Cultura, Fundacao Nadonal pr6Mem6ria
Rio de Janeiro, BraZ11
CARRILLO, Rosarto
Artist, museologist and consultant to Spanish museums - Madrid, Spain
DECAROUS, Nelly
Vice Director at the Direcd6n Nadonal de Museos, SecretaIia de Cultura de la Nad6n
Buenos Aires, Argentina
KAPlAN, Flora 5
Director and Assodate Professor of Anthropology and Museum studies program,
Graduate School of Arts and Sdence at New York University
New York, NY, USA
PERROT, Paul N
Director of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts - Richmond, Virginia, USA
SWIECIMSKI, Jerzy
Lecturer of museology at the Jagiellonian University in Krakaw and Nicolaus
Copemicus University in Torun, Head of the exhibition section of the Institut
of Systematic and Experimental 20010gy of the Polish Academy of Sdences
Krakow, Poland
VARINE, Hugues de
Anden directeur de l'ICOM, Charg de mission la Commission Nationale
pour le Dveloppement Social des Quartiers - Paris, France

11

Il , . :

Symposium 1987: Comments and views


on basic papers presented in 15512
Colloque 1987: Commentaires et points de vue
sur les mmoires de base prsents dans 1'155 12

V H Bedekar -

Baroda, India

on Vasant H Bedekar, with sorne additional points

The concepts, obj ectives, forms


are changing and wUl change.

f mu seums havechanged,

This

phenomenon "has creatad problems in determining the COmmon


denominator in the museum fleld.

One knows of museums v.here

only a tiny part of the collections i5 put on display.

In

contrast, there are museums v.h ich as a matter of policy show


everything

acquired~Simi1ar1y, one

hears of a picture gal1ery

ca11ed One-Picture Gallery because on1y a single masterp1ece


is on disp1ay at a time,but it 1s accompanied by well-p1anned
educational inputs.

s.etit

nau

In contrast, we have museum galleries

"ingly overcrowded without any attempts to interpret,

1\

the material.

We now have museums which are practically

activity centres.

Also sorne have stopped respecting the idea

of possessing unique originals.


In the light of such bewildering variations in museums,
in MY opinion, the commonmost role of aIl museums worth that
name should be seen in their objectives, in the1r potentia
lities or abUities, in their infra-structure as "makers of
experience" but with a provi50 that the experience can be
subjected to verification, examination or re-examination, or
authentication in some objective ways, prefera b1y by consult
ing collections" of arti sti cl cul tural/h istoricall scientific/
techno1ogically signiflcant mater1als and the accumulated
documentation concerning them.

This special" "validatable

experiencial" character of thel m~eum ?fferings is the


e5i-f"
sh
differentia which should aIWayS~~S from non-museums.
15

50ch an experience is different from subjective fancies,


flights of imagination, scholarly hypotheses, aesthetic. musings,
etc . Our definition will also not equate museum experience
with Itthingslt but only with "experiences of things lt

Consider

fF~~: ~ original material,as is available in the .;..orld /

if.

twill not be available in differ~~ m~seums to interpret the

"-

7l41-5Ju:.;J1'd--

natural and cultural heritage of manlv Since the number of

museunis is growing, the use wUl have to be done of replicas,


visual aids and electronics to create very relilql., high
fidelitYI simulated experiences of real1 ty, preferllbly using
the available collections as the entry-points.

After ,aIl,

the museum situation is artificial and therefore "make-belieflt


is not incongruous with the objectives.
My definition of the museums as markers of special valida_
table experiences will be fully in harmony with the philosophy
and practices of new museology, with its emphasis on delinking
~

museums from their buildings and insitting on participation of

the entire population in planing and execution of th.eir offer_


~

in9S.

The old obsession with objects and curatorial arrogance

in deciding their uses should go.

But it should be replaced

by pluralistic ph ilosophy, view-po ints and pra ct ices l'oh ich


will ensure that the museum experience will b", meaningful to
1

eU.w!-ocare.
1

In the traditional scheme of things,the ideal l

infinite museum experience was conceived as a hierarchy of


finite experiences ranging from the lowest one,fit for the
layman, to the highest one possible only to the most knowledge
able or speclalists.

This kind of cafetaria of cheap and rich

experiences with ascending price is not the correct model for


a museum.

It is much.more complex situation in which no

channel, grooves ortracks are set.

It is more open-ended.

It is a"possibility of experiences'J as varied and significant,


/
16

as the ,participants would like to have.

The non-formaI,

voluhtary nature of Museum experience, however, is matched by


the structure of the Museum in which the e"emeral experiences
need nct, disappear l1ke the will

-oX-the w,sp.

The keylllOrd

in thls Museum definition is the diversity of pOssible experi_


ences,of diversif1ed themes, for diverse persons,under diverse
circum~tances.

Yet these pluaralistic pOssibilities are an_

tO a matrix

(1\

chored

in which are embedded the weIl documented

collections and other resources.


2.2.1.

Correction is necessary in the last sfntence.

It should

read -'Ehe practlce has broken new grounds when Museum workers
with insights have slved their practical problems intu1t1vely
thus indirectly contr1but1ng to museology".
3.3 . The paragraph ends by stating that, "it 1s a matter of
semantics."

This is because of the general lack of unanimity

about the meaning of museology.


and de

We have score50f definitions

sop
1\

tions rang ing from very narrow to very wide.

It will

not be right to say that Museology 1s like the proverfial


elephant described differently by blind men.
the term means Many concepts to many thinkers.

But certa1nly
Ooly the

broadb.8sed meaning of the terms Museums and museology a!l- be


matched.

.~

10'71.<..

One term understood broadly cannot be used int?ther

term understood narrowly.

...

The tangle will continue till

meanings of the t erms are reasonably clarified by those who


v

either use them for asking questions or for answering questions.


3.4.

Even after going through 15 papers received for my comments,

l still prefer IllY definition of the term museology: "Museology


1s the professional conceptualization and professional co
dification of recommended validated procedures to achieve
objectives of Museum service".

This has three important

17

components.

(a) "Professional conceptualization" includes aIl

possible ideational innovations, which are pragmatically related


to professional museum objectives, potentialities, forms, etc.
(b) Professional codification of recdmmended validated
procedures" makes museology management-oriented, (c) "to achieve
the objectives of museum service" refers to the collective goals
of the museums as a specialized service to the society.
key-word here is the service.

The

In the same paragraphjI have

alsa mentioned thet the fate of museology in a country or


reglon will depend on the extent of conscious definitions of
collective.professionalobjectives.

on Andr Desvalles

This brief paper gives; in a condensed form/ a surnmary of


the many contemporary problems faced by museums and museology.
a...

ParticularlY/~eference

is made to the status of the object \'\hen

it enters into a museum possession.

Its role in the museum

communication as a means of communication.

The use of original

objects is questioned too.


The author wonders how museology can b e certain of its
subject-matter, namely, museums if they are undergoing violent
changes and when their basic functions and contents are not
unanimously agreed upon.
In my opinion, we should have discussion on this aspect.
Often established museums do not change rapidly.

But when new

museums are being set up, very basic innovations and diversifi
cation are incorporated.

l think, the credit for such innovative

choices should go to the progress in Museology wh ich encourage new


ideas and discourages creating stereotypes in museums.
18

If there

would nct have been museologists, the conventional museums would


have bred identical offsprings as stereotypes.

Theproce5s of

selection of the best which i5 relevant for the progress of


profession, is due to the presence of museology.

on Wojciech Gluziriski

After a long discussion, the author concludes on page 7


in the second paragraph from above:

"The result is that

museology is able to reflect only on that which already exists


and lasts, but which, after aIl, undergoes changes as the whole
reality."

+tih~

~anges

The author is certain that museology is incapable of

in Museums or to initiate developments in them.

idea of museology is. very unflattering.

His

He thinlcs of museology

nothing more than a mirI'Or which is incapable of visualizing any


changes in the subj ect-matter it has ta reflect.

l think, this

is not fair appreciation of museology as a source for generating


new ideas v.hich it has been.
Inevitably, the author has ended on a pessimistic note
about the prevailing condition of museology on page la, as not
to be the best.

He gives the reason for the futility of

museology by camparing museology ta ald philasophy as bath pre fer


to present new systems periodically which are attempts to explain
the known reality.

The author feels that the methods of positive

science are not applied in the field of museology which prevents


9aining reliable knowledge.
In my opinion/the author has very preconceived notions aboUt
the creative role of museology or its potentiality to stimulate
new thinking, to provoke new innovations, etc.

Heneeds.to be
19

shov.n the positive side of museology 1rklich is far more than the
passive derivative function of sorne museologists which cannot
be considered as fully representative of the true museology.

on Edward L Hawes
We are grateful to the author for giving us a graphie
account of the living History Museum Movement and the Problems
it poses ta be included in the discipline of museology.

The

reference ta sorne people doubting living history museums as


museums is really thought provoking.

My

own definition of

1\

museums as validatable experience makers having objects as


,1

entry points makes me perfectly willing to accept them as


museums.

But persons with hide-bound museological notions will

have grudges and objections.

A living museum after aIl is an

objective situation, a context and therefore validatable


experience to serve certain specifie interpretive objectives can
take place.

-If offers a model of past- as the author states

on first para on page 6, -not the past as such".

We agree with

him that -no museum presents the past as such but the simulated
past emvironment is very much a museum presentation.

Consider

ing that the pendulum has swung in favour ofactivity-oriented


museum interpretation; participatory programmes, the museums of
living history should claim to be more museumlike in contem
porary meanlng.of the term than the other conventional museums.

on Jouko Heinonen

On page 3, the author, who is worried about the pu rity of

the field of museums and avoidance of the term for misuse ta


20

examples llke the plastic bag museums, thinks that, "OOllections


is the smallest comman denominator.

This is a paradox if

mere collection is the comman character why disqualify plastic


bag museums?

It should be experience-making intentions, ~

ability of museums with the objective of providing validation.


In which case/even plastic bags canbecome worthy museum objects
if they are relevant to a particular activity of making
experience as in a gallery on contempora;ry technology or on the
replacement of natural things with man-made plastic things for
economy in developing countries threatened with degradation of
en vironment.
l ampuzzled by the author's statement on page 4 / last

paragraph .about the dependence of the museums of smaH countri.e s

on international analysis.

l think it is opposite.

It is the

international analysi s which is dependent on small countries'


museum service to be really valid,meaningful, and truly
representative of its international character.

His penultimate

paragraph betrays the prevailing confusion about museum-


museology relationship.

on Gaynor Kavanagh

In my opinion, it appearsan exaggeration .nen on page 2,


the author states that the "concept of the museum has not been
substantially revised in the twentieth century".

While appreciat

ing the march on the part of other media, it is not fair to


underplay the strides taken by museums, at least in the develop
ing country like India, inspite of several constraints.
It is very interesting to read about the financial problems
which British museums have been facing.

The vulnerability of
21

some university museums who se ability i5 now questioned should


be an eye opener to aIl of us.
l am impressed by the pertinent question asked by the author
on page 4, second para from the above, "\'!hen the discipline within
wh ich the museum works moves on, can the museum move on and
evolve wit.h it?"

Also t.he question posed in the same paragraph,

"is there perhap5 a natural life span for museums ?" require
careful consideration for those who wish to relate the forro of
museums with their functions, even after anticipating substantial
changes in both of them.

If the prevailing museology does not

function as a profession watch dog, or if its advise is seen as


cassandra's warning, then museology has failed when its help is
needed most urgent.ly.
Author's stated dilemma on page 5, "Can museum still be
places of integrity in scholarship and Interpretation if the
market place has to be served first?", is at once fr"lghtening
and also betraying lack of professional confidence in winning
public support.

In India, we have very telling instances when

some famous museums were closed down by museum authorities to


solve their problems created by externai forces.

They ult imately

succeeded in preserving the threat to their integrity by sorne


dramatic shock treatment for public awareness and action by
peoplJs representatives.

The credit goes to museum directors who

had ample self-confidence in their institutional worth.


Il

In my

"

opinion, as in the Transactional Analysis, so in the mus eum


society relationship, it is childish to expect a continuing
unconditionally guaranteeed support fr:>m the society, imagining
t.hat society has permanent obligation to take our ca4e.

In my

opinion, here Museology should step in to remind the local,


regional, national museums about their respective roles.

zz

l am very happy to read on page 6, the author's prophecy


that, "Even the dentral, underpinning philosophy that museums

are keeping places for objects may undergo challenge through


pressure on museum space.

e~citement

about new technologies, and

alternate ways of looking at and seeing the natural and human


environment".

Author refers to Davies 1 view that museums should

direct their attention to photography. film and sound recording

C7Wh

tc. only supports my /definition of the museums as "makers of


validatable experience", using whatever original material av.dI
able as entry points.
The author's warning at the end that the museum has value
and place as long as it is alive ta its subject and the people
it serves/ can be applied to museology aiso.

on Isabellaumonier

The most interesting point in this paper is about the


specialization in MuseoIogy.

The author appreciated the desire

expressed by the Argentine MuseoIogy students for more speciali


li

zation but she herseif asks the important question-who can


decide

about~

MJ1

It iSL:asy to offer specialization in MuseoIogy unless


there is a definite demand for it from the profession and a
reasonable quarantee of absorbing specialists in Museology in
suitable jobs.

If there is no such demand, it is safe to train

only -generalists in Museulogy" Ieaving them to deveIop on


N\~

their own'I:pecialization in MuseoIogy.


l also appreciate the author's concern about the manner
and

e~tent

ta which a community can make changes in a mUleum

set-up or attitudes.

It can anit shouid.

But the main issue


23

1s'I are the museums ready to serve the changing demands?


generalizat10n 1s possible.

1/

No

The well-trained and motivated

museologists will weI come changes provided the community fuI fils
1ts own responsibility.

This is not a question of only making

more and more demands without appreciating the difficulties of


the mus eum or without actively participating in museum v.ork.

on Hame Leyten

The author is annoyed because on page

he

states "Each

museum has code of conduct by which visitors have to abide". or


-In many museums it is not appreciated if a visitor whistles,
runs, s peaks loudly or behaves in a manner wh ich could di sturb
the sacred atmosphere of the Temple dedicated to the Muses".
He is alsa not happy that the museum's policy is not determined
by the Society but by the museum authorities.

In the true spirit

of eco-museology he V/ants genuine public participation in


organization decisions.

His conclu.ion, therefore, is that users

of museums make a museum.


Indeed, this is a very thought-provoking approach to

museum-museology relationship.

Ideally, such ;:>ublic-oriented,

public-made museums will never he seen as thrusted on a

communLty.

They will evojve in accordance with the needs,

expectations and aspirations of the potential users.

One wenders how the adninistration and organization of


such museums:are undertaken by constant reference to the public
oplnlns:,without making basic compromises on the matter of safety,
security, conservation, etc., particularly if the community is
not homogeneous and many conflicting groups make different
demands.

It will be simply Utopian to think that social demands

on museums will always he congruous.


24

'

on Lynn Maranda
This paper is very remarkable because l.t .l'las brought the
economical aspect of the museum-museology, into focus. There is
no doubt that the employment possibilities themselves, in no
small measure will make the funding authorities and others
concerned to take a close look at the distinguish ing features
of museums "and those who claim as museologists.
The author .!las aptly described the 'l'oOrk of contemporary
museum as" "multi-faceted endeavours".

After listing many such

new forms, the author has pointed out on page 3 how the managers
of such new institutions easily distance themselves from the
notion of a traditional mu; eum, yet they are viewed by museums
as competitive rivaIs because of their growing popularity?

The

author has analysed the central problem on page 3, lest para_


graph, museology is faced with the polemic on how to
proceed to satisfy the new public demand while maintaining the
values and traditions of the established collections".

Theme

parks, ecomuseums have found effective ways to deal with the


new public but traditional museums continue to falter.
they will continueto do

50

l guess,

until they reconcile with their true

function as experience-makers as l have defined in my paper.


The authors reference to the examples of situation in the
Richmond Nature Park, Richmond Fantasy Gardens and the Richmond
Museum is extremely significant because they have been sucees$
fuI in exhtlarating the publ id!; awareness of the natural and
cultural heritage.

Management abilities to succeed in such areas

requires special museology training

Y>hich cannot be a product

of academic learning of university disciplines covered by museum


collections.

The author advises museum training agencies to

adj ust their efforts to prepare indi vi dual s to manlge new


25

museumlLke lnstltutll00s5as weIl as the traditional museums.


Thi.li is an important rejoinder to those who behave like
museological purists or who philosophise excessively without
relating their thinking to the empirical aspect of museum
organization.

In my opinion, variety, change and diversity add

spice to museum development for the simple reason that the man
who is the user of them love these qualities in his life and
environment.

Let museologists not wear blinkers to pretend that

by not looking around/it will be easier to walk steadily


and straight on a beaten path.

on Domnec Miquel & Eulla Morral

This is really a very fascinating and readable paper.

The

authors have echoes the responses of many of us who feel be


wildered by the efforts of people to complicate museum-museology
relationship.

On page 2, he has ably put in nutshell the

frustrations of museologists v.ho do everyth ing except ask the


basic questions about objectives, aIl the Ume ta king it for
granted that museums are essential in whatever form they are.
Authors annoyance at the absence of museological defini
tions is shared by us.

The most pertinent question

whicb~the

author asks on page 3 is, "Itlere is this object that, according


to $transky, is not a subject of any other domain?"
On page 5, Author has aptly diagnased the problem of modern

musuems.

"The museum, despite the popular image sorne people have

it 15 speclflcally addressed to them.

The broadest strata of

population are 1eft out, and they survive."

Hence as the author

has polnted out the marginal groups develop their olm solutions.

26

Author'

ideas on the existence of anomalies and attempts

at solutions are thought provaking.

It is clear that author's

presupposition that, "the accepted definition envisages that


the object of museum activities is the material testimony of
man and his surrounding" has led to his doubts about the time
role of museums as makers of experience.

Not appreciating this

Il

cardinal fact has resulted in confusLon about What converts


1/

things into museum objects as he has asked on page 6.

l guess

such confusion wUl prevail untll we clear the theoretical


cobwebs created by excessive philosophising.

The rest of the

article by the author is very erudite but, in rrry op in ion/ full


of statements Yohich in my opinion represent pitfalls to be avoiqJ
by clearer thinking.

Il

on Paul N Perrot

In the first paragraph itself, the author has made fun


of the museologists as spinners of wheels and those who have

never entered the ki.tchen~rofessing to advise the cooks.

He

has, however, asked many profound questions l ike how do we select


from the enormous production of today fOr preservation
tomorrow? and

tfw

the effects of enterprising institutions

whlch entertain and evoke on museums as institutions which


pride ln lntegrity in presentation of reallty?

on Judith K Spielbauer

On the whole, this is an excellent paper which perhaps


echoes the thoughts of the mOst progressive museologists today.
27

It can serve as a good basis for discussion in the seminar in

Helsinki.

Sorne of rny comments onthe papp.r are as under:


l cannot agree with the statement in the first paragraph
that if museology is considered as "the stucly

f museum

institutions and their social context, such a relationship


might concentrate on the maans to an end and not the end
itsalf".

The study, in my opinion, if weIl diractd and taken

to its logical end, should concentrate on both the means as


weIl as on the ends.

In other words, it can deal with the

diverse museum functions, how best to accomplish them and also


the premises as weIl as rationale behind these museum functions.
In the second paragraph, we come across an oversimplifica_
tionwhen the author suggests that for the sake of effective
development of mus eum form and function, it is imperative to
get answers toquestions such as why and how people ascribe value,
or they give meaning to material culture in its broadest sense
and they assign significance to the pasto In my opinion, the
accurate bectt.a.e.
use of the term "imperative" is notLknowing ones culture is
an ongolng task and not necessarily a prerequisite to the
effetive development of museum "form" and function.

50ch a

development 1s, essentially, an evolutionary process requiring


other

im~uts.

It is like putting the horse

befo~e

a cart

became the effectivedevelopment of form and function of museums


is imperative ta encourage and involve community to consider
the questions of value, meaning and significance of its own
pasto

It is more pragmatic to treat the form and function of

a museum as a cause of the process of "know-thy-culture"


through the possibility of personal experiences.

"

In the same paragraph we are presented with a generalizatlon


28

that "the net."orks of meaning, value and significance that bind


the past to the present and give structure to contemporary
perception are not universal but rather culturally specific M,
l think that many societies which have. establLshed museums
are pluralistic.

It will be unrealistic to expect any Mcultural_

ly specifie " networks of meaning, value and significance in


these societies of old world, like those in India, where separate
identities are claimed by aIl segments.

That leaves nothing

which can be called Mculturally specific M acceptable to the


whole society.

Since we have no museums in the service of

speclfic Indian cultural groups, the networks (of meaning value


and slgnificance that bind the past of the individual social
groups to their present) cannot become culturally Mspecific,
In f act, the talk of national integration through Indian museums
is only a part of the national campaign to discourage exclusive
ness ln Interpretation of the past culture.

The author' s

generalizations which appear very neat and t1dy and, for that
reason, tempt1ngly acceptable, require more discussion to be
relevant to museum problems in developing countries with composite
cultures.

On page two, from paragraph third from below, the author


remarks that museums are a pa rt of

il

larger environment and

they respond to al teratl.ons in that environment by reflect ing


the a ttitudes, perspectives, knowledge and philosophy of the
supportlng society.

In IllY opinion, what is more correct to

say ls that what 1s reflected in the museum is what the


dominatlng groups in society want it to reflect.

In theory,

museums aIl over the world are supposed to interpret the


universal natural and cultural heritage.

But the museums

are not yet able to present a realistic panorama of the


threatened heritage not because the concerned museologists
29

are not aware of their obligation to do

50,

but because

perhaps their "Masters' voices" are different.

It is an

admission of failure of professional museologists that


instead of their own attitudes, perspectives, knowledge and
philosophy reflecting in the museums those of the supporting
societies,meaning the power groups in their respective
societies,get reflected.

l wish the fBmUy of museums insists

on reflecting the common cocnerns of the ent.ire family of man


through their offerings.
l am glad the author in the second paragraph from below
has posed thp. hard, but crucial, question in museology whether
~

"the .freque"ntly stated grand, noble ends ':.re but a rationaliza


tion for the self-preservation of existing forms in the face of
changing social pressures or are a true reflection of socio
cul tural needs and basis for formulating future pl an s! "

In

my opinion, without imputing motives, we can safely say that


both explanations are possible because of the compulsions of
peculiar circumstances in which most of the museums get trapped.
Author's formaI definition of museum is quite acceptable
because she emphasizes the term "process",

~nich

flexibility in different areas of museum work.

allows
But in the full

text of the definition it is not very clear what she means by


describing the museum as

historica~structured"or,

rater,

declaring the museuma_s preservational environment within which


people can, among other things, be "supported" by interaction
with the contents and presentation.

What exactly she means by

term "supported?
It is also difficult to agree with the author, on page 5,
when she says that it is conceivable for her that museology
can exist separately from the museum and that the museum can
continue to function without the benefit of museology.
30

l think

we should discoverage such visualization in the first place.


By even accepting such a possibility even in theory of
separation we are encouraging a dualism which does not exist.
Museums and Museology are not separable.

Many of our problems

will vanish if we banish from our mind such a contingency of


separation.
Similarly. i t is not possible to accept the logic of the
author's

sta~ement

on page 6, that,"There is no single museum

form applicable everywhere. simply because every society is


different in the manner in which they assign value, meaning
and significance to the v.orld around them".

This is fallacious.

Museum form can be diverse for many other reasons.

Assignment

of values, etc. by a society/ to the world around it,has impact


o III

4:
many l...lts

0J:

museum functions. But~will not be exclusively

decisive in determining the "form" of the museum.

The genesis

of the form can be traced to many other causes far less subtler.
The author' s generall.zation about the museum form is quI. te
esoteric. certainly far from pragmatism we need in such
explanatl.ons.

Yet the conclusion she has reached namely

"Variability in service to acommon cause is necessary" and,


therefore/ we should not bl indly .1&tate successful exampl es
els~ere/uncrl.tically, is

On page 6, the

autho~

quite acceptable.
has separated three levels of

standardization in museum format.


knowledge.

Her first level is a cornIllOn

But l can't distinguish between her second and

third levels.

She has used the term "preservational requirement"

for the second level.

But her own concept of "Active Integra

I/

tive Preservation eariier on page 4. I.ncludes many sociological

aspects which a~re


repeated in her discussion of the third levei

v
(like I.n the approprl.ate ll.nkages between people and the
preserved pas~.
31

Her statements on page 7 about the existence of standards


determined by the research disciplines needs discussion.

If

ft,

they are directly relatedtmuseum collections and activities

.
\

as claimed by the author, they cannot be dismissed as "only


tangentially" connected to museologicai understanding.

Let

us be clear about these standards if they are to be accepted as


relevant.

on Zbynk Z Stransky

(1)

It is not possible to accept the author' s premise that

always human thinking precedes human creations.


happen.

But, not always.

Yes, it may

Taking only one-sided position in

this makes the author and many others ta give precedence to


museology over museums.
areas artificiaIly.

Aiso it makes them bifurcate the two

Museology and Museums are two names given


~

for the sake of convenience to emphasize two a spects of a single


'-'

human enterpri-se.

Not to realize this will lead to a kind of

Cartesian l:XIalism of Mind versus Body l'klich created havoc in


psychology.

Whatever Olle dOes in museums for improvement and

organization of their service is museology. ",hich in tum, is


solely concemed with the happenings. in museums either in the
past, or in the present or in the future.

The two paragraphs

Nos. land 3 on page 2 should be evaluated from this view-point.


(2)

The author's very persistent effort to divest museums

from museology on page 3 represents tragi-commedy of the


ontemporary museology.

He has very vigo!rously and ably

oxpanded the connotation of the term museology.

But in his

nthusiasm he is carried away beyond the limits imposed dn


disciplines hinged to vocatiqns.
32

We have no business to trans

h~l

C4

.
/4h-h(:J4!.t'h
.
.t
form museo 1ogy loto
p l osaj)1
y" US) ro bb lOg}..

f 'l t S JUS
. t l. f'1_

l~lr!.:

1'\

cation as an independent discipline.

'-

Let PhilOSopflyft'

swallow museology.
In paragraph third from the above; the author rightly
observes that museums offer a specifie way of appropriating
reality.

Even wewill go alongwith him in accepting his state

ment that the subject of museology should be this specifie


relation to reality.

But l cannot subscribe to his view that

there is SOme kind of mysterious

po~ers

in detecting "museality" in things.

which museums possess

We have instances ....nere

objects passionately collected by one generation or individu al


Cur.ators are not held in that esteem by another ones and also
instances v.hen museums have sold their own possessions.

This

kind of professional compulsions and Vicissitudes make mockery


of any attempt ta philosophize excessively and invest aIl
museums objects with a metaphysical property.

Better it would

be to consider museology as a management-oriented discipline


concerned with organizing a specialized service to the community
~pragmatically.

It is this responsibility which differentiates

it from other branches of academic study and 'Iklich delimits its


position within the family of scientific studies and not its
"specifically gnoseological task" as claimed by the author in
paragraph second from below on page 3.
In the last paragraph on the same page) the author wants
Il

us to agree te his view that museum, in the system of museology


to be only one of the possibilities of materializing the specifie
h umao approach . t

. l'l es th a t th ere are


rea l l. t y.1} He lmp

th er

possibilities and therefore museology can get unbinged from


museums.

It is not possible to accept such an abstraction ....nich


"

only overstreches the meaning of one term museology ....nich ought

33

to corelate with the connotation of the accompanying tenn


museum.

The term "Museology" is not wider than the term "Museum"

and no philosophical speculations or jugglery of words should


go unchallenged in museological seminars turning them into
philosophical discussions exclusively.
(3)

For the above reasans, we cannot agree with author's

statements on page 4 in which absurd conclusions are reached.


fOr example, we are advised not to restric ourselves only to
the existence of contemporary museum because museums of today
had ancestors and will have descendants.
form of museums may not be a permanent

Because the present

-,,;(

one~s

not a logical

reason to make the scope of museology of today wider than


museusm as we know them today and as we would like ta change
them for our tomorrow.

Museology is not bound to go beyond

.tt.:..

the framework oft:useum as an institution and it should not.


This 15 also what the author admits in the last paragraph,
"I do not want to say that museology should deal with anything
but the museum", and "we should try to 'museologize' museum
work".

Fine and thankst

Let us be concerned with such

museology even if it cannot solve aIl of the gnoseological


problems as feaxed by the author in the first para on page 5.

------.

50 there is much of interest in this very speculation__ rich


paper and it should warn us of urgency in defining our terms
before it becemes too late.

on Petr Suler

In my opinion, the conclusion of thts paper requires very


thorough analysis in the interest of cl artty of understanding
of museological terms.
34

Ont!l our terms are weIl defined in

acceptable terms. it wou Id appear impossible to agree with this


author's sentence in the last paragraph meaning "there could (be)
museology without the museums", or that the museum is not the
best form for fulfilling the task for collecting and conserving
significant objects.
In the attempt to glorify museology, the author has unfairly
condemned the institution of museums. We should not be hasty
in condemning the museums despite their shortcomings on the
basis of mere theoretically and hypothetically constructed
paradigms of better models of perfect institutions.

I t is such

hast y judgements v.h ich bring bad name ta the discipline of


museology.

35

Mathilde Bellaigue - Paris, France

Comments about the 'first batch of basic papers CBEDEKAR, BELLAI


GUE,
BENES,
DELOCHE,
DESVALLEES, GLUZINSKI, HAWES, KAVANAGH,
LAUAFlONIER, LEYTEN,
NAIR,
PEARCE, 5PIELBAUER, SULER, TRIPP5,
ZOUHOIJ
1.
It seems that for aIL of us there is no question such as

"to be or not to be" concerning the museum,


though our world is

utterly changlng.
Do we,
"museologists", cling to our profes

sion CBEDEKAR:
the identity of the museum profession is gravely

threatened")?!

Let's rather pose the question:


is the museum still necessary?

- if so,
WHY - for it seems that we often know better the HOW

than the WHY - ?

2.
This leads ta the finality of the museum.
1 do agree with
SPIELBAUER C"primary focus:
people,
not obJects"),
LAUMONIER
Cbut let it not be Just words).
The importance and worth of the
abjects is due ta their being "one way in which social activity
is created, defined, and expressed" CPEARCE).
CConcerning that
matter, BEDEKAR and LAUnONIER are right in underlining that ICOM
does not really listen to and help "the have-nots".
ICOfOM does
not care about applying concretely on the field the reflection
it leads,
~ and however,
needs and desires are numerous,
Just
listen to the demands : remember Buenos-Aires ... )
1 don't think
As to involving people as actors in the museum,
that "interactivity"
Cthat new device and fashion in modern
museums) is the way CDE5VALLEES).
It's Just one museographical
trick more.
Acting means the possibility of choosing, deciding
and managing at the core of the problem. And ~bQ ~~cid~2 in th~
~b!.~eum?
We do!

3.
We aIl can but agree that there exists a typology of
museums,
that is,
different kinds of them.
for most of the
communicators,
"kind" means the discipline studied and communi
cated by the museum. Only for a few, the differences in museums
mean .t..J:1.~lJ:. ~.p....litjty I:".l?Alt;.~(;t .tQ tJ,.e b'J.!.')lD !::Q!!!~u-"j.t..Y
lng. g.~
!:.~I:"!:itQE.Y CSPIELBAUER,
LAU/IONIER,
BELLAIGUEJ.
That naturally
leads to the not ions of 9.A.9.Q.ll.A.ty Ci ntegra ted,
who le museum
DESVALLEES, DELOCHE, PEARCE, BELLAIGUE) and Ante~9.jsc~pl~~acL!;Y.
DEVALLEES,
thanks go to him,
is the only one who writes about
the fact that aesthetjcs Cart) is part o( tbat tota~ity; as to
SPI ELBAUER , she tao,
claims for the total individual:
"the
museum process links the individual cognitively, emotionally and
aesthetically".
We know it's difficult to integrate the inner
mystery of the presence of artistic creation among ethnographie
- or whatsoever - facts and artefacts...
That's the reason why
such an important and difficult question should be discussed by
ICOfOM,
avoiding the too easy - but unnatural - separations
existing in between those disciplines and materialised by the
existence of separate international committees - which,
maybe,
never Join? - as weIl as the uneasiness which prevents every
body from dealing with the problem either in reflection or still
more in concrete work ...
37

~.

The time dimension appears in many papers under the charac


ter oF evolution,
change,
process,
links of the past to the
Future, oF duration, moment (BENES, SPIELBAUER, BELLAIGUE). But
only two (OELOCHE and myselF) seem to attach importance to
m~mo'!':'y',
and especially to "living memory" which,
actually,
is
basic to the notion of museum.
"rJaterial collective memory"
(DELOCHE) has to be fostered and stimulated by the museum as a
necessary tool for the future and for action.
On the contrary one should like to make sure that "living his
tory" (HAWES) is Fundamentally something else than a devotion to
the past (we find !Z l:.tn.l~~ this word,
but only once the word
"Future" in HAWES' paper ... ), to theatrical reconstitution, "re
inforcing myths of the simple life" and "its harmonies of man,
nature and community". for that sounds too much like some ideas
prevailing somewhere on the eve of the second world war ...
S.
Theugh at First sight the notion oF return on investment
appears te have nothing to do with our two "manuscripts",
the
warning of KAUANAGH "can museums still be places of integrity in
scholarship and Interpretation if the market place has to be
served first?" must be paid attention to.
Presently in france,
the lessening of the budget for culture leads the cultural
authorities to set Forth the revenue earning capacity of museums
as proeF oF their usefulness and efficiency ...
1 do affirm that
publicity and the number oF tickets sold ll_'!Y~ !}ptJJ!I}R j:g ~t9 l!!..LtJ!
r:~.! g.!!l!!!g!}.!.l:Y. !!Y.J.9P!!'.DJ:. ~D.l. ~!!\!~J:i.Q!l wh i ch - a 1as? can' t be
mass phenomenon (look at the TU ... )
6.
Last but not least,
1 want to point that D.Q.l!!.h.r~ appears
the notion - word - of t!1bql,!,r:.
lsn't it the activity where man
spends the essential part of his time? Mustn't we museologists
feel concerned with it in museums as weIl as in museology ?
Otherwise don't we risk that we and our preoccupations must stay
quite out of the way,
which is already the case for much and
many?

1 wish to point to an errata under my own responsibility in the


English version of my P~~~ Pa.P~r::
in the quotation oF J.
DubufFet (5) please read:
"a device to manage fi.~_E'!.r::\ things ....
when we want to manage unfixed things".

38

Andr Desvalles Quelques brutales

Paris, France
r~flexions

prscandinaves

o~me chaque an~fe PauINperrot nous appo~te le point de vue du


Sage - non point du haut de sa monta;;ne, mais du fond de ::a cui
sine - a moins qu'il ne se fasse dlibremment l'avocat du Dia
ble. C'est pourquoi ( quoiqu'il n'ait crit q~en anglais)
utilisant de faon s_ch~matique s-es propos de bon s~ns,
je m'appuierai sup son texte pour voquer la thse oppo~e, aussi
qchmatiquement, celle de l'cole tchquoslovaque et en par
ticulier d! Anna Gregorovna et de Sbyn~k Z.Strinskj.
Il en est de l'institutionmusale comme de n'importe quelle
institution religieuse. Doit-elle s'adapter au monde prsent,
sans pou~utant renier sa doctrine originelle, ou bien dfendre
jusqu'au bout une application puriste de sa doctrine, quitte
terminer son existence sous forme de groupuscule dans les cata
combes? Les muses en effet ne ~euvent vivre sans public et
sans financements provenant de ce public - ou directement par
les entrf-es, ou indirectement par le biais d'un budget public
d~cid ~ar ses.reprspntants lus. On ne peut don~ penser les
muspes 'en dehors du public.
C'est pourquoi, partir du momen" o le public(et les marchands
de soupe font tout pour cel) ne distingue plus un muse l'an
cienne d'un d'un nisneyland , sinon par la qualit de plaisir
qu'il en retire, c'est bien aux professionnels des mus?es de
s'interroger, sous peine de mort, sur l'avenir de ceux-ci. N'est
ce pas parce que le muse n'a pas su s'adapter son public po
tentiel que le public est pass aileurs ?
Mais les fondements du muse .lui-mme, dans son essence, ont-ils
pour autant chang en passant de la conception du Louvre celle
de Disneyland? La cration de la Citf des ~ciences et de l'In
dustrie de la Villette, mi chemin entre les deux genre~, ne
nous apporte-t-elle pas la preuve du contraire?
Pour faire court:
1) Le refus d'voluer ou de se maintenir dans la tradition
'/
des sources-comme le rappelle de son ct Josef Benes - est
venu de la pesanteur des muses con~ervant des oeuvres origi
39

naIas, et notamment de Beau~:- Arts qui ont ~o'~ tlnue.!CG

. ~0~~'~~rer comme de simples cOllections/ferme" Alo~s m~"


.~ ..'-"

origines partir du moment o il s'es~'vou~u ~U~~i'clue'lc~~~ ~~~

J!;t .
, '"
.
1'.J~0e
- a~
t
destin!'
a
mmoriser
et
exposer
des
t'ai
ts
(
h
li,
"
.
.
..
~ "torlq.lE',
s~ ~ent ~f~ques, esthtiques . ) et non pas seulement il tl""'3'-1
r~ser des objets originaux. Communiquer des connaissances, ~
n'est certainement pas sa const i tuer une c::l"note
et un m':,L..Ir.e
o
n'est pas unesimple col~ection:( cLM.Maure etJ.J Whitlock
. auss~. L. Maranda, I. Laumonier et H. Leyten).
'
malS
2) De ce fait,non seulement on a nglig d'utiliser tous les
mdias modernes, qu'emploient les tablissements la mode, mais
on a mf:le jug inutile ( ce que Paul N. Perrot estime, juste
titre, trs important) d'expliquer par son contexte historique
tout objet musal communiqu au public de notre temps. Du coup
la communication est rompue, compltement rompue: onnst plus
sur la mme longueur d'onde~L. Maranda}.
,

<'

.,

)} ~i l'on veut r.edresser la.situation , il faut corriger les


deux dfauts la fois : a) d'une part rviser la notion que
l'on a gnralement du muse en y acceptant aussi bien ceux qui
n'ont pas d'originaux { muses de moula5es~ de cire, d'hologramme~
que ceux qui n'ont pas d'objets mais mmorisent autrement et
traduisent autrement les connaissances ( au lllme s. av,J-C ,
bibliothques muse et lyce se ~onfondaient).
Sinon aucun pouvoir ne sera dispos financer la conservation
de milliens d'objets conservs par la Smithonian Instutution
ni celle de dizaines de millions de livres conservs dans le
monde. Il n'y aura plus alors - sauf refuge dans les catacombes
besoin de conservareur~ni d'historiens de l'objet, ni de muso
graphes et l'on devra se contenter de la vision euphorisante
de l'histoire telle qu'voque dans les tablissements des mar
chands de soupe.
Heureusement, en m~me temps, tout le patrimoine naturel et cul
turel de la terre sera pass sur'vidodisque J'usage des his
tori.ens et des nomusologuesl} .. Si toutefois ur. mauvais orab e
, .
' t pas dctrulre
.'
. t a nt ~e1'li
flectroma2:netlque
ne v~en
en un ln5
- .
aura ~chappt> la dpradation chimique du papier.

++++
A l'oppos, on peut se demander si la dfinition exten.'.ivc de
la mustfologie, telle que nous la propose nos coll(>6'Ue~ t ... hi:'.J.ues,
4D

et laquelle on ne peut dnier q~'elle correspond ft une r/ali


t6 ppi~t~~ologique et gnosfologique, si cette d~finition
partir du moment o~ elle part de la racine .. mus{e ",ne peut
sembler imp{,rialiste de la part de t:JUt ceux qui c.':aminent la
question de l'extrieur. "La relation de l'ho;nme la rr'alit{,",
mme si elle est surtout appliqu~e "des objets trois di!!len
sions qui sont des tmoins du dveloppement de la nature et de
la socit "ne s'applique-t-elle galement toutes les autress
sciences documentaires? Et si l'on veut aborder la question pra
tique cooone on a pu le faire l'poque o les diffrents rameaux
n'taient pas encore spars, on fait tout simplement de l'ar
chivistique, ou tout simplement de la documentation.
Par contre s'il s'agit de rflchir sur cette "relation de l'hom
me la ralit " dans le prsent et surtout dans le pass, le
musp-e n'tant qu'un truchement parmi d'autres de ce~te relation,
t'l'est-ce pas simplement ce que fait la philosophie matrialiste
en tudiant le champ de l' perception?
Par ailleurs,il est vrai, il est impossible de limiter le champ
d'tude des rapports de l'homme la rdlit naturelle et cul
turelle au seul domaine du muse, car d'une part, les interd
pendances sont trop grandes entre documents igonographiques,
documents c~its, documents imprims et tous les autres tmoins
avant qu'ils ne deviennent "musalia", qu'ilq soient musaliss,
d'autre part des services adinistratifs, qui ont a connatre
du patrimoin~ peuvent exister en dehors des muses ( monuments
historiques,inventaire,fouilles archologiques, ethnographie, )
qui ont tudier les mmes problmes <;le contextualisation.
c'est pourquoi, si l'on veut vraiment donner un nom l'activi
t qui tudie les rapports contextuels,noryseulement des objets,
mais aussi des faits culturels et naturels, avec leur milieu,
jn'situ~ poubune part, et leurs papports avec le public qui les
peroit dans le musf.e, pour une autre part, il faut semble -t- il
. .t .
2douter un terme plus large.rour ]a seconne part de l'actlvl ,
la ~ommunication ou la mdiation, une disci .pline existe df.j:
la spmiotique ou s(;miologie. Pour couvrir 1" ensemblE!, i l fau
Ch0se
drait un tE!rme de forme grecque li partir de 13 rctClne
ou de la racine "patrimoine". r'iar"el .'iauss prO!!OSfll' t 'chl):?6o.;;
. "
logle
ll

Il

41

Isabel Laumonier - Buenos Aires, Argentine


La premire partie des travaux reus semble, engneral, marouer
un consensus sur certains points :
'l) l'ide gnrale est, apparemment, que les muses ont ce$ (ou
doivent cesser) d'tre de simples rservoirs de collections, au
risque de dprir. Que faire pour changer cet tat de choses?
Deux posi tions ont t exposes : ou bien succomber sous 1 eur
poids :

(Deloche, Bernard ~ France) "c'est souvent la nature mme des col


lections Qui interdit leur gestion efficace, aussi dans certains
pays, comme la France, ou les objets de muse sont considers co~
me bien public inalicnable, on prl:ferera les voir pourrir clans
les rserves plutot que de les rendre au circuit commercial
qui favorise sans doute mieux leur exploi tation publioue"
ou bien adopter une soluion pratil1ue ". l' anr;lai se" :
(Kavanagh, Gaynor - En~land) " But in the 1980' s university tef!
ching and research has moved on, as has the support technology
aviable to them The huge natural history collections in museums
are no longer useful to universities" (and, are they for somebody
else?)- "when this point is reached no matter how worthy the
idea of a museum may be steps are taken for its graduaI closure
or disposaI".
b) Les discussions byzantines, les positions pseudo-philosophiques,
corcenant le tournant Qui va Iles collections/muses au muses vi
vants cessent automatiquement face . une situation relle et d'or
dre prat~que : la prsence chaque fois plus envahissante de la tech
nologie :.
(Nair, Dr. S.M.
India) "The modern natural. history musum i.nten
ded to serve an increasingly technological society cannot arford
to ignore the advancements in mass media communication systems and
the formidable competition it has to face with radio, cinema, tele
vi.sion, theatre and the like to attract public response. It has to
consider ways and means of taking advantage of the development in
the fields of audio-visual techniques, electronics and other mass
media methods".
has ar~ed
et ceci ira t1in crecendo tl : t1 Stuart Davies (1085:2q)
.

that twenthieth century objects have no value as evidence and that

43

museums should direct their attention to photorraphy, film and

sound recordin~ joining forces wi th others worki.nr; in these

fields n (Kavvanagh, lb.id.)

c) Quelle est la position de la musologie race


ces chanr;ements?
Et, primo, qu'est-ce la musologie?
(Spielbauer, Judith K. - U.S.A.) "Museology is an applied niscipli
ne and the pnt of application is the enhancement of an indivi
dualns lire through whatver mechanism of substantive preservation
i5 appropriate tothe cul tur!!' s and the individual' s cognitiV)/"e,
emotional, and ae5thetic processes".
Cette discipline ne marche pas toujours seule :
(Hawes, Edward L. - U.S.A.) n Livinp; history museology and the
b:r:oad study of museology ought to be considered as interdisciplines
This interdiscipline should focus on the ways of integratinp;
various researe}}. conceptions and methods n.
Nous voila lomn de la vieille erreur signale par Deloche : n l a
tache habituelle du musologue est d'assurer la conservation et la
prservation des collections n (ib.id.)
Mais.: " que devient la musologie lorsque le muse se gnra
lise comme mmoire matrielle collective? Elle cesse de thoriser
les pratiques de conservation De science des collections, la
musologie devient lgiq-qseinterdisciplinaire n (ib.id.)
AlorsAr6ibislav Sola nous demande : ilIa musologie peut-elle rpon
dre aux questions existentielles de l' insti tution musale? lui of
rre-t-elle un modele de survie?".
Non, dans les cas ou : "we, museum professionals, think that we
know best what the "common public" wants, needs, thinks, apprecia
tes~ This is our responsability, one which cannot be delegated fa
someone else, certainly not to the "public". VIe decide what belonr;s
to the cultural heri tage and what does note We set the criteria for
collecting and preserving the cultural heri tage". (Leyten, Harrie
Rolland)
Et si bien les muses et la musologie ne font pas tOliours un cou
ple heureux, et leurs relations sont parfois tendues (voir "Museo
logy and Museums - Prof. Bedekar, Nros. 1.2:a) " museums are
certainly the only means available to museologyffor realizing its
various conceptual approaches to reali ty Il (i b. id.)

44

Alors, pourquoi ne pas s'appuyer sur la musolop;ie pour trouver


un consensus concernant la fonction des muses? Car : "~Iuseo] or:y
oUf!ht to he able to answer the exi stenti al questi ons of the Museum
as a contemporary institution and in fact Buch shi li ty will he its
justification and its test for survivlll" (P=f. Bedekar, ib.id.).
Si la formation des musologues s'largie, incorpore d'une part la
participation d'autres disciplines, une connai.BBance approfondie
des moyens modernes de communication et surtout si la musolor:ie
accepte le fait d'etre un vhicule pour le changement, sans quoi
"( the museum) will be changed hy others if curators cannot
show the wa,y" (Kavanagh, ih.id.), beaucoup d'obstacles pourraient
disparaitre plus rapidement.
En rsumant

1.- Les muses sont en train de changer oui ou oui.


2.- Les changements dcoulent d'une part de nouvelles ides,
mais surtout advinnent forcment par l'invasion de la tech
nologie.
3.- La musolop:ie peut aider cette tche: il faudrait rev~Tr
les programmes d'tudes, faire un rapprochement vers d'autres
disciplines et "une laboration thorique suppl mentaire "
pour ceux Qui vont s'occuper des muses spcialiss (COMme
le dit Bedekar). Il faudrait surtout insister sur un "esprit
d'humilit" pour savll1ir couter la voix des hritiers rels
de la culture ("But whlll a~e in fact the real hei rs to the
nation's heritage? Is it not the livinr: society? Is it
not the living heirs to state who will receive the mandate,
the trusteeship0 of the nation' s heri tage? ( Leyten, Harrie
op. ci t.)

Pour ma part, tous les documents .reus de l'ICOFOM, les Basic


Papers produits lors de la rencontre
Buenos Aires et maintenant
a Stockholm, nourrissent les discussions et les commentaires de
mes ~levvs du cours de musolo~ie. Le chan~ement, je crois, doit
passer par la.

45

Peter van Mensch -

Leiden, Netherlands

34 Museologists in a train to Helsinki.


First atternpt to analyse their discussion.

Recently one of my children told me a joke:


Two men were sitting in a train. Sa id the one to the other: "Do you know

what time it is?" The other looked at his barometer and said "Twenty

degrees Celsius". "Thank you," said the other, "then we'll have still

ten kilometers to travel".

This seems to me a rather adequate description of the discussions between


museologists at international conferences. Despite the quality of the individual
contributions
there seems to be sorne communication problem.
Level of abstraction, gnoseological starting point and ideological orientation
are among the causes of misunderstanding and divergence of views. This makes
it very difficult ta write a proper analysis which can serve as starting
point for the discussion during the Helsinki-symposium. Certainly Gluzinski
is right in his conclusion where he points at a fundamental defect in our
discussions. We are inclined ta refer to other museologists' theorems and
views, but only to support our own ideas. The proper scientific method should
start with an analysis of each contribution according to its own gnoseological
starting points and ideological orientation. The problem is however that many
contributions are cut outs from more complete theories of which the main
structures are published elsewhere. Each contribution has to be understood
in the context of the complete train of thought of the author. This presupposes
acquaintance with other publications of the author, but very often these other
publications are difficult to find or written in a language that cannot be
understood by the reviewer. This applies for example for Deloche,Gluzinski,
Gregorov, Schreiner, Strnsky and myself. In this respect it is a pitY that
mainly because of lack of funds Strnskys' proposaI for the publishing of a
IfFundamenta Museologica lt series was never realized.
It is also a little bit disappointing that only a few authors refer to
other publications. A simple calculation learns that only 15 authors among
33 refer to other publications. Altogether 63 different titI es are mentioned,
of which 47 can be considered as museological publications. Only 10 different
titles are mentioned that have been published by ICOfOM (especially MuWoP 1
and ISS 10). This, of course, proves nothing. It only indicates a possible
problem concerning the digestion of the fast growing "corpus" of museological
literature.
Nothwithstanding these critical remarks, l much enjoyed reading the presented
papers. It is clear that the opinion that museology should have a much
broader perspective than the institute
called museum is supported by a
majority of the authors. It seems that ICOfOM is playing a central role in
an apparent paradigma-shift in museology. In this respect it is interesting
to compare the contributions printed in MuWoP l and the papers presented at
the Helsinki-symposium.
As the historical development of museology is closely connected with the
historical development of the museum phenomenon, the current paradigma-shift
in museology is related to the recent 'crisis' within the institute museum.
Trends as described in my 'provocative paper' make it clear that the
gnoseological views as developed by Strnsky (and others) offer a better

47

starting point than the 'official' IeOM definition of museology. Most


contributions to the Helsinki-symposium support the view that the museum as
institute is the historical and socio-cultural expression of "a social need
to preserve chosen evidence of the evolution of nature, society, man ... "
(Benes) or "a specifie relation of man to reality" (Strnsky, Gregorovl.
In this respect it is useful to distinguish between institution and
institute (Gregorov). An institution is a structuralistic category that
ernpirically only can be observed as a historical and socio-cultural defined
institute (1 borrow this description from Dutch sociologist Zijderveld).
There seems to be sorne confusion caused by the use of the word museum for
both the institute and the institution. To me the word museum should be
used exclusively for the institute. Cabinets, heritage centres, galleries,
ecomuseums, etc. are other institutes that are the expression of the same
institution. This 'structuralistic category' can be described as the purpose
fuI preservation and use of material evidence of mankind and its environment.
Sorne authors give much attention to the history of museums and/or museology.
Personally l particularly enjoyed reading the contributions of Gluzinski
and Maroevic in this respect. Gluzinskis' summary of museological ideas at
the beginning of this century indicates again the lack of sense of history
in conternporary museology (there are of course sorne notable exceptions, like
Gluzidski hirnself and StrnskYl. Maroevic presented an interesting point of
view as to the current trend of immaterialization. Between the lines he shows
that it is 'admissible' to keep on using the term museology for a science
that transcents the institute called museum.
The historical developrnent as summarized by sorne authors can be characterized
by the key word 'institutionalization'. Institutionalization is the fundamental
antropological process in which individual human behaviour becomes objectified
into fixed, more or less normative patterns of behaviour that can continue to
exist as collective forms independently from acting individuals. As such these
collective forms force the individual on the one hand to act according to
certain rules, but provide him on the other with indispensible stability and
certainty (Zijderveld 1974). Characteristic of the process of institutionali
zation is the development of an existence and regulatity of its own (described
by German sociologists as "Eigengesetzlichkeit" and "Selbstwert"). During the
19th century the process of institutionalization lead to the well-known
traditional museum-modeI. As institute the museum provided a constructed
reality with a specifie identity. From this 'objective' reality the behaviour
of individuals (museum workers and visitorsl was defined. It is interesting
to notice that until recently (and very often still today) museum education
aimed at internalizing the institute by a proces of socializing.
Afore-mentioned "Eigengesetzlichkeit" can be demonstrated in the process of
professionalization and specialisation ('structural differentiation'l. In
relation to these processes we can see that forms, rneans and procedures
gradually start to overshadow contents, ends and ideas. Institutes become
empty forms ("Leerforrnen"). Traditional matter of course runs out; the
question of legitimacy is raised. At this moment three things can happen:
1
2
3

Traditional institutes adopt new tasks in order to re-inforce their


legitirnacy;
Traditional institutes dissolve into a multitude of small scale social
initiatives (the sum total of the socialization of the museum and the
musealization of the society);
New institutes are created on the basis of a new interpretation of the
sarne 'structuralistic category' that stood behind the traditional
institute.

The processes of professionalization and specialization and the distiction


between three basic orientations of current trends as mentioned in the last
paragraph are to sorne extent described in many of the papers presented,
beginning with my own 'provocative papers'. The wording and systematization
might be different. the general pattern seems to be corresponding. The
stagnation in the development of museums, i.e. the loss of legitimacy is,
48

among others, described by Deloche, Kavanagh, Leyten and Nigam. The adoption

or attribution of a new legitimacy is described by Bedekar" Nair and Zouhdi.

The growing diversity of the field is mentioned by Bedekarand Benes, while

Desvalles also described the process of 'dissolving'. New institutional

forms are described by Hawes ('living history museums'), Konar and Masao.

Both African colleagues advocate an africanized museum form. The ecomuseum

is also the result of re-thinking


the museum-concept.

As to the adoption (or attribution) of re-newed legitimacy sorne interesting


remarks have been made by different authors. In the Netherlands 1 have
noticed a graduaI shi ft from a socio-cultural orientation ta a socio-economic
orientation (Van Mensch 19B5). Many municipalities found new local museums
not as contribution to the development of a cultural identity but as contri
bution to the economical development of the community by stimulating tourism.
Heinonen mentions a similar development for Finland and Nigam describes it
for India. Another aspect of the socio-economic orientation is the current
trend of commercialization. Is this a menace of a necessary impulse? (Kavanagh,
Perrot). A third aspect of a socio-economic orientation is mentioned by
Masao and Nigam. "Museums should be aware of the peoples' socio-economic
needs and try to meet sorne of them by way of providing examples. ( .. ) The
argument that these are outside the realm of the museum and that they can
better dealth with by other institutions is in my opinion not valid because
as 1 said earlier, the museum as an institution in developing countries must
play an active role in the development of the country" (Masao).
At this point it is necessary to distinguish between two different views as
to the purpose of museology:
a
b

substantial rationality,
functional rationality.

When museology aims at 'substantial rationality' it tries to understand the


museological phenomena in their historical and socio-cultural contexts. Its
usefulness is primarily heuristic. When museology aims at 'functional
rationality' it tries to develop adequate means (methods, techniques,
procedures) to realize beforehand defined ends. ln addition to this
distinction another distinction can be made as to the aspect of the institute
under concern:
1
2

cultural content,
structural form.

Combined, we get the next matrix:


museological institute
cultural content
substantialJ
rationali ty

functional
rationality

structural form
B

museology

These four approaches (A, B, C and D) do not exclude eachother, nor can they
always be distinguished, but this matrix helps to understand
part of the
communication problems between theoreticians and museum workers. Very often
museology is seen as restricted to approach D. This approach is also called
museography, and is often teached as 'museum studies' ('Museumskunde'). On
the other hand the term museology is sometimes exclusively used for approach
A. In this respect is is remarkable that although the curriculum of the
Reinwardt Academie (Leiden, Netherlands) encompasses aIl aspects of museology,
only courses concerning A (and B) were called museology, while aIl other
courses were called by the name of the different specializations (conservation,
registration, exhibition design, etc.)
49

As ICOFOH is founded especially to develop rnuseological theory, there is a


strong tendency among participants of symposiums to concentrate on approach
A. Many mu~eum workers however seem to expect from lCOfOM unambigeous receipts

about how'to run a museum. They becorne disappointed, even angry, when they join

the commit tee and are confronted with often very abstract discussion about

gnosseological problems. With our discussions in Buenos Aires last year in

mind Laumonier warnes against a too theoretical approach in museology.

Several authors on the other hand stress the impossiblitity to develop

standards that are universally applicable lBedekar, Spielbauer ).

The relationship between A and D is made very clear by Bedekar, Bene, Gluzinski,
and StranskY. "An error is made when we think that a theory which serves
practice should be the theory of practice. l ... ) lt is not the theory of
practice, but the theory of reality lying in the range of practice ... "
lGluzinskil. In addition Bedekar gives a useful overview of the A-D polarity:
"Huseology is related to museums in three ways. Sometimes it follows the
initiative taken by museums in solving their own professional problems
creatively or at least innovatively, secondly, museology quite often generates
ideas,concepts, skills, methods and techniques which ought to be accepted by
museums ( . l. But thirdly, museology does contribute to the efficiency and
effectiveness of museums when the surveys, teachings and researches in the
formaI museology centres get transmitted to students or trainees who are
ready to turn their insights into plans and projects or for updating the
contemporary precedures in mu8eums".
The important relationship between theory and practice through training is
a180 mentioned by other authors (Bene, Laumonier, Maranda). lt is therefore
not surpri8ing that many authors are involved in training programms. At least
three of them lMaroevic, Pearce and myself) are working on a model of
artifact 8tudy a8 corner stone of a museological theory. This reflects the
general opinion that although the primary purpose of museums and museology
is people, their primary purpose is to facilitate the process of preservation
of material evidence of mankind and its environment lSpielbauer). "Elle
(- museology, PvMl determine un ensemble de stratgies spcifiquement
irentes sur l'objet" (Deloche).
Preservation is of course a means, not an end. Where almost aIl authors
agree upon the social importance of preserving heritage, they seem to hold
quite different opinions as to the purposes that should be served by
preservation. l mentioned already socio-economic purposes lHeinonen,
Kavanagh, Masao, Nigam, Perrot). Very outspoken socio-political purposes
can be traced in the DDR (Schreiner). As to socio-cultural purposes mention
has ben made of strengthening national identity lZouhdi), validation and
re-validation of experiences (Bedekar), knowledge and understanding of the
past (Deloche, Hawesl, knowledge and understanding of our present society
(Bellaigue, Rusconi de Meyerl, and raising environmental awareness (Nair).
It is my per80nal view that at this point rnuseology as a scientific
discipline should strive for 'substantial rationality'. Of course l have
outspoken personal opinions, but these are derived from my social and
political views. Aims and purposes of museological institutes should be
defined by the individual people and/or the community concerned, and not
prescribed by museology.
1 realize that much more can be said about the different contributions that
lte before us. 1 am aware of the fact that l did wrong to many of the papers.
1 know that
again l am guilty of the fundamental defect as mentioned by
Gluzinskl. 1 apologize for aIl this, but at the same time l hope that this
first analysi8 has 8harpened my original provocation.

5Q

References:
Mensch, P.J.A. van (1985) Musea, de traditie van de vernieuwing. In: Jaar
vers1ag 1984 van de Stichting Cu1tuurfonds van de
Bank van Neder1andsche Gemeenten. pp. 19-29.
Zijderve1d, A.C. (1974) Institutiona1isering.(Meppe1. 2nd edition).
Zij derve1d, A.C. (1983) Sociologie aIs cu1tuurwetenschap ('s Gravenhage)
Zij derve1d, A.C. (1983) De cu1ture1e factor ('s Gravenhage)

51

Domnec Miquel i Serra & Eullia MarraI i Romeu


-

Sant Cugat dei Valls, Spain

The ideas of the members of lCOK\'l have undergone a healthy developnent


since 1980. At that time, mest of them considered ~1useuns as the central
feature: Museology existed because Museums existed. AImast like an idol
that smuId be worshipped, especially if Wc bear in mind that we work in
~seuns and an aura of scientific association lends prestige to the role
of cultural priesthood. Only a few insisted that we should not confuse
scientific domination with research centres.
The question is to know in what way and how far we have progressed.
Whether this is the result of an intentional and continuous quest or just a
few hastily written memoranda to join in the meeting. Whether we have on the
whole achieved the aims proposed or are wandering around them.

$TRANSKY was

right in his ironical comment that eachindividual has to make his own
personal "discovery" that Museums are not the centre of the universe.
The relationship of men, of society, and of every group of human beings
with the testimony of the past is something that is constantly re-assessed
in accordance with the changing needs of the present.

Museums, those

reserved ABCD institutions, as GWZINSKY calls them, provide a solution to


a problem arising fran the two dimensions of space and time. !.et's say
theyare just a solution, - not the only one, nor perhaps the best one
possible, neither before nor now.
But it is a real solution and around it interests of considerable complexity
have grown up, ranging Fran those of an ideological nature to prosaic
financial and commercial interests which are basically what keep them
going.
The need for suitable responses to the demands of every group of people
is an urgent matter that does not brook any delay. When the pOl..ers that
be are unable to find a satisfactory solution then rebels appear. But
rebellion only brings to light the crisis in the theoretical system
without really improving it, as in fact it continues to be based on this,
which is why very often itbecomes difficult to talk about genuine changes:
a crisis is an excellent breeding ground for sectarianism. This means
that the scientific revolution,

paradi~tic

change, does not lie in

seeing whether the orbits are round or elliptical but in the transition
From a geocentric system to a heliocentric one with aIl the psychological
and practical consequences this entails in everyday life.
1lIUILLER describes how Newton believed that "the basic concepts and laws
of the system can be deduced from experience". However, this is inaccurate.
Einstein said and repeated that theoretical bases !lad to be "freely
chosen". No scientific developnents passively take note of sensorial
information, instead a theoretical framework is uscd with the aid of
53

principles and freely invented concepts.


imagination ends.

Their limit is found where

The validity of this attitude will be shown later

in the resu1ts of the

ex~riment

whether they concur or not. This is

the intuition GLUZINSKY referred to, prior to any analytical abstraction.


Thus, we referred previously to the need to know "in what way" we are
advancing. We have to know if our task !las a minimal content of
scientific discipline or aims to explain the marvellous solution we have
provided in our particular case. We must see that there is research,
even if it can be shawn that it was used mistakenly, or simply a complaint
of not being able to control the situation. We must see whether what
we are doing is extending the protective umbrella to foment rchellion

or not even looking whether it is raining, wc must see whether we are


the spearhead of theory or the trailer that wishes to justify the praxis .

As for Museuns, we must insist on the need for an anthropological

approach to the matter in order to see what roles and functions they
fulfil.

Different roles in a time space system depending on the position

occupied at any given moment and depending on how it is viewed.

lt is

in this aspect that ethics enter into consideration, in the practical


application as in the old example of the knife manufacturer and the
murderer.

To speak of colonialism in the Third World is fairly

important, but it means that only one viewpoint is considered.


Museums generally and by virtue of their own developnent have always
been in the hands of dominant minorities,of thase who have real effective
power. It is possible to colonize in Africa or in Latin America as it
is in old Euripe: there are different cultures and oppressed groups of
humanity everywhere.
Museums continue to he useful instrunents in many ways and not only
for possible ideological control of

tl~

population. There are subliminal

messages which consciously or unconsciously favour cultural consumer


society, pandering to the financial and commercial interest we have already
mentioned.

MusetunS and the Market are the two sides of the same coin.

If ''The Sunflowers" by Van Gogh is worth a fortune, it is because there

are prestigious museums such as the Kroller-Mller that collect them


and guarantee the author and his signature. Bvt this is an exceltion.
When he has no economic resources for purchasing works of art, a person
acqui res "typical" objects, antiques, ethnographie items. The majority
of people in developed countries, following their cultural nOTms, have
"things" in their houses that were bought expressly and these have theiT
parai le! in Museuns.

54

Let's give Museuns a redistributing role that can be used in many


different ways:

from simple prestige derived from their consumption,

collaboration or donation', to social develorrnent. VARINE, quoted by


NIGAM mentions museum objects such as bricks constituting culture.
This appears to us to be the view of a man win has always lived in solid
buildings and still others would perhaps speak of stones, but possibly
a persan who lives in a tent, in a mud hut or in a wooden hut covered
with metal sheeting \oIOuld speak in other terms. We often refer to
hl.lnanity as an abstract and homogeneous \>ho le , taking ourse Ives as IJlOdels
and succumbing to messianic and redeemer-like temptations. It is difficult
for US to admit that there are others who do not think as we do, who
have their own ways. OthelS wh:> do notl.have to be exotic and physically
distant like the Tsembaga-mari or the Ianomamos. Close to us are people
win have other ways of seeing reality, other notions of space and time.
The cult of the relie mentioned by SULER has not ended and it is often
the Museum iteslf that practises it.

Museuns subsist because they are

still useful to certain groups of people and they change inasfar as their
necessities change. Sorne groups of people, not the \>h of society,
and not the wh:>le of humanity either.

55

Domnec Miquel i Serra & Eullia Morral i Romeu


-

Sant Cugat dei Valls, Espagne

La pense des gens de l'ICOfOM a fort evolu depuis 1980. A ce moment-l la


plupart des membres situaient le Muse au centre de la question: il y avait
Musologie parce qu'il y avait des Muses. Presque comme un idole qu'il fa
llait rverer , surtout si l'on considre que nous travaillons dans des Mu
ses, et quelque revtement de scientificit nous attribue plus de prestige
pour exercer notre profession de sacerdoce culturel. Seulement certains mem
bres nous rpetaient qu'il faut ne pas confondre le domaine scientifique a
vec les chantiers d'experimentation.
Mais il faut savoir aussi comme, et combien, nous sommes alls en avant. Si
cette progression est le rsultat d'une recherche voulue et permanente, ou
de quelques ides crites la hte pour venir la runion. Si nous arrivons
aux buts proposs ou nous ne faisons pas d'autre chose que divaguer autour de
ces buts. STRANSKY commente ironiquement le fait que chaqu'un doive "dcou
vrir" par lui-mme que le Muse n'est pas le noyau du monde.
Le rapport de l'homme, de la societ, de chaque groupe humain avec les tmoins
du pass est quelque chose toujours remise en question d'acord aux bsoins du
present qui change. Le Muse, cette institution borne A8CO, comme dit GLU
ZINSKI, est une solution un problme pos dans la double dimension d'espace
et de temps. Une solution, disons nous, mais pas l'unique. ni mme, peut
tre, la plus bonne possible - pour maintenant ou pour autrefois. Mais elle est
la solution relle, autour de lequelle tourne une enorme complexit d'interts
appartenants aussi au niveau idologique qu'au prosaque niveau financier et
commercial -ceux qui, en ralit la soutienent~
La necessit de rponses appropries aux dmandes de chaque groupe humain est
urgente, et elle n'accepte pas du dlai. Lorsque 1es orthodo~ies installes
ne sont pas capables de trouver une solution satisfaisante, les htrodoxies
apparaissent. Mais l'heterodoxie ne fait que rendre vidente la crise du sys
thme thorique. pas la superer -parce qu'en ralit elle continue se fonda
menter en lui. C'est pour a que souvent il est difficile de pouvoir parler
de vrai changement:la crise est unexcellent vivrier pour le sectarisme. On
veut dire que la rvolution scientifique, le changement paradigmatique n'a pas
lieu pour l'action de voire si les orbites sont rondes ou eliptiques, mais par
le passage du systhme geocentrique l 'heliocentrique -avec toutes les cons
quences psichologiques et pratiques que a signifie dans la vie ordinaire~
THUILLER explique que Newton croyait que "les concepts fondamentaux et les
lois de leur systhme peuvent tre dduites de l'experience". Namoins a
57

n'est pas exacte. Einstein di~ et rpte que les fondaments thorique~ doi

vent tre "Iibrment lus". Toute laboration scientifique n'est pas faite

A partir de noter passivement des informations sensorielles; on construit

un cadre thorique A l'aide de principes et concepts invents de manire

libre. Sa limite est ou l'imagination finit. la validit de l'ennonc sera


demontre plus tard. sur les rsultats -concordants ou pas- de l'experimen
tation. C'est l'intuition dont parle GlUZINSKI. pralable toute abstraction
analythique. C'est pour a qu'on a parl plus haut du bsoin de savoir comme
on avance. 11 faut que l'on connaisse si notre travail a le minimum d'le
ments de rigueur scientifique ou si seulement chaqu~un de nous explique la
merveilleuse solution applique son cas particulier. Il faut que nous voyons
s'il y a vraiement de la recherche -malgr qu'on puisse dmontrer qu'elle est
dans un sens erron- ou s'il n'y a qu'une plainte pour ne pas control 1er la
situation. Si on largit le parapluie pour couvrir les heterodoxies sans cher
cher de savoir s'il pleut. Si nous sommes la pointe de la thorie, ou le re
morque qui veut justifier la pratique.

* * *
En ce qui concerne le Muse, nous voudrions insister encore une fois sur le
bsoin d-une approche anthropologique au sujet. pour tenter de savoir quels
sont ses rles et ses fonctions. Rles qui sont divers, dans un systhme espa
ce-temps, selon la place qu'il occupe et le pont de vue duquel on le contemple.
C'est dans cette perspective ou l'ethique trouve sa place: dans l'application
pratique -comme dans l'ancien exemple du fabricant de couteaux et l'assassin~
Parler de colonialisme sur le Tiers Monde est fort important, mais a veut
dire qu'on examine un seul point des coordonnes. les Muses, generiquement et
A travers de son propre developpement on rest toujours prs des minorits do
minantes. de ceux qui possdent le pouvoir rel et effectif. On peut coloni
ser l'Afrique ou l'Amerique latine, de la mme faon qu'on peut le faire dans
la vieille Europe:partout il ya des cultures diffrentes et des gruopes hu
mains opprims.
Le Muse continue tre un outil en plusieurs sens. et pas seulement pour
des possibles contrles idologiques de la population. Il y a des messages
subliminels qui -conscient ou inconsciemment- favorisent un "consumisme" cul
turel qui serve aux interts financiers et commerciaux qu'on a cit plus haut.
Muse et March son les deux faces de la mme monnaie. Si l'on donne aux "H
liantes" de Van Gogh le prix que tout le monde connait c'est parce qu'il y a
des Muses prestigieux comme le Kroller Mller qui les accaparent et avalisen
l'auteur et sa signature. Mais a est exceptionnel. Lorsqu'on n'a pas de capa
cit conomique pour acheter de l'art. on achte des objets "typiques", des

58

antiquits, des pices ethnographiques. La plupart des gens des pays dvelop

ps, d'acord avec ces modles culturels, ont chez lui des "choses" acquises

exprssement qui ont des parallles dans les Muses.

Nous atribuons au MUse un rle re-distributeur dont on peut en tirer du profit


en plusieurs sens: du simple prestige deriv de sa consommation, collabora
tion ou donation, jusqu'au dveloppement social. VARINE, d'aprs NIGAM, par
le des objets de Muse comme des briques qui forment la culture. C'est le point
de vue d'un homme qui a vcu toujours dans des solides maisons -et on pourrait
parler encore de pierres de taille !- mais probablement les gens qui vivent au
dessous d'une tente, dans une cabane de boue et excrement, ou dans une bidon~
ville nous parleraient avec des autres images. Souvent on se refre l'huma
nit comme un ensemble abstract et homogne, prenant nous mmes comme modle,
et on succombe des tentations messianiques et rdemtoristes. Il nous est dif
ficile d'accepter qu'il y a une"alterit" qui ne doit pas nous resulter exoti
que ou fisiquement eloigne comme les Tsembaga-mari ou les lanomamo. Prs de
nous quelqu'un existe qui a des perceptions diffrentes de la ralit, d'au
tres notions du temps et de l'espace. Le culte la relique dont parle SULER
n'est pas fini, et souvent est le mme Muse qui le pratique. Les Muses con
tinuent exister parce qu'ils sont encore utiles des groupes humains dter
mins; ils se transforment au fur et mesure que les bsoins de ceux-ci chan
gent. Les b~oins de certains groupes humains, pas de toute la societ ou,
moins encore, de l'humanit.

59

ML Nigam -

Hyderabad, India

on Vasant H Bedekar

Professor Bedekar regards museology a disclpline


vhlch 18 baslcally concerned wlth recurring museum
problems, pO!3sibllities and solutlons whlch can be
of re1.evance to other museums.
The difficulty however is ln the "relevance to
other museums".

Sometimes the solutions evolved are

so "creative" and "innovative" and have such direct


connection vith particularlsed problems that they
1.ose thelr relevance to other museums.

At other times,

the solutions offered are ahead of times and cannot be


taken advantage of by traditlonal museums due to thelr
own inertla.

Finally the internatlonally accepted pra

ctlces recorded ln organs of agencles like IeOH do not


reach those who need It most due to communication gap.
Vague and 1.ow expectation of rural vlsitors from
state
museums ls not a healthy
of affair elther for
~

museums or for museology.

They need not remain indi

fferent towards the rural people because of the lov


expectations.
In fact, the rural visitors pour into Indian

museums and art-galleries without specifie aim.

As

they go to a nearby temple, a zoo and a part, so do

they come to a museum to enjoy the 'Trip'.

The abstract

Ideas and the symbollc language of the tradltional


61

MUseums pass over the head.

Is 1t not the job of

museology and MUseums or the presnt era to user common


language and make their exhibitions more tangible and
rel.evant to modern issues.

Museum ducational programmes

shoul.d be attractive and in people' slanguage to arOU5e


interest ln them, to make them understand the basic
1ssues of development.
Museol.ogy bas fa1led to devise proper mechanism
vh1ch w11l evolve people's participation, especially of
the rural areas in mseum programmes.

How can llliterate

and semi-1.1terate masses shed off their '10\1' and vague'


1deas and expectatlons unless MUseums enl.1ghten them
of their programmes and prepare them for a 'face to
face' dlalogue.

There ls an increased var1ety of MUseums

today scattered in various parts of the world.

It is

obv1ous that there can not be one set of norms and


practices whicb can be found useful to all. MUseums
of all types in all parts of the vorld.

The require

ments of climatlc, socio-cultural and clientele varia


tions will. vary and the museol.oglsts will have to
evolve ditferent mechanism to cater to the needs of all
such MUseums, irrespectlve of their collections and
geographical. distrlbution.
It must also be noted that museology does not only
deal vith museums a1one.

The MUseums are, no doubt,

the l.aborator1es or IIUseology.

The Museum for practices,

vb1ch arestandardieed vith crit1ca1 analysis and exami


nation in due course of t1me, are tbeorised and included
in museology.

tbe MUseum.

yet, the scope of museology i5 vider than


Its main concern ls the society in terms of

the past, present and future.


62

The objects of materia1

culture preserved in liIuseums are ooly .he means to dis


cover the social traits and patterns of a particular society
v1th1n given space and t1me.

The past must be 11nked vith

the present to shape a better future.

The Museology, aS

a discipline, 18 a potential source for such a discovery.

on Josef Senes

There are variety of museums in the form of diversified


collections in every part of the world.

They differ in

their form, organisational set up, policies and programmes


in view of their political, economic and social conditions.
Their educational and cultural programmes also vary depen
ding

upon their resources and the 9ublic.

museums tend to collect, preserve

3nd interpret the

collections of material culture or nature.


of uniform policy, they endeavour to reflect
and link it

Yet, aIl

with the tendencies of

As a matter
the past

the present.

Hence,

the collection, preservation and interpretation through


exhibitions and research are the universally accepted
functions of museuDS.
AlI the museums need a theoretical basis for their
working which does not confine to

thei~

past experience

alone but, as a result of their constant innovations and


inter disciplinary researches, provide guide lines for
their multiple functions.

Such a theoretical knowledge,

combined with an workable effective mechanism, is known


as museology.

Hence

museology can't be identified

with museum practices alone because it is theory-based,


63

though linked with practice.

The

main function of

museology iS,therefore, to standardise and perfect museum


practices.

Museolo~y

can, thus. be called a philosophically

conceived system of knowledge dealing with the social reality.


It anticipates current practices and for sees new tendencies
in the form of socio-economic changes and the possibilities
of evolving a

new social era.

The rlationship between the museums and museology is


complimentary'to each other. The scope of museology is not
confined to museums alonebut it aims at revealing of the
social reality through its scientifically evolved mechanism.
It has wider horizons.

However, the theories and the

system of knowledge of museology are closely linked


the museum practices.

with

The museums can also exist without

museology but they will be mere warehouses, devoid of


life and blood.

on Andr Desvalles
The beginning of 20th century-has witnessed growth in
the multi-facited museums with different goals and mechanism.
The newly developed approach of Ecomuseums and Community
Museums with branches lay more emphasis on the conservation
of material culture and its interpretation through non-Tradi
tional methods for the benefit of the cross-section of the
society.

The traditional museums on the other hand follow

the object-centered policy where the museum exhibits are


stored within the four walls of a museum and researched
upon to communicate the meaning.

Objects thus, are consi

dered as means of communication and not an end.


64

Exhibition

of museum objects within the weIl planned galleries is the


most powerful method of the Traditional Museums.
The newly developed institutions do not believe in
the policy of exhibition inside the museum.

They mostly

do not use the real objects and try to interpret the


material culture within a given space and time through
their interpretative modes.
This diversity in forms and functions need a change
in the definition of the term 'museum'. The museology
which deals with the concepts and the total mechanism
of museurns, will aiso undergo a change.

The newly

developed institutions, which work outside the four


walls of museum buildings and do not use the permanent
collection of exhibition in their interpretative modes
have larger audience and can raise funds through their
multiple activities.
Thre is no harm in the functioning of both the
types of museums as their main aim is to collect.
document, preserve and interpret the material culture
and thereby know about the people who are responsible
for its creation.

The definition of museurns and

museology will have to be re-examined and re-constru


cted

50

as to include variety of museums and their

functions within its fold.

However. the change should

be wll thought out to safeguard the museum identity.

on Wojciech Gluzhiskl

The author has d1scussed var10us aspects deal1ng


w1th the museum and museology.

The museums are cons1


65

dered to be the dynalDic institutions and their character


and composition must change with the developing society.
Yet, the old traditional museums have not changed to
cope vith the changed circumstances.

The reasons for

baclalardU.ess of oUr museums are not far to seek.

Our

Traditional Museums treat the objects as sacred, re


presenting the values and norms of the past heritage.
It has resulted in the object-or1ented policies which
lays more emphasis on the objects themselves and not on
the people.

Secondly, the museums are also treated as

na treasur,y and a mirror".

They are'treasury' because

they store vhat is most valuable and sacred and thereby


nretlect the vorl,d of

v~ues".

This concept restricts

the scope of Traditional Museums and they work within


the four-valls of their buildings.

Thirdly, the norm1

tivity of Tradition foJ:'1lls a part of their think1ng.


The concept and functions of museology, whicb were
determined during the 19th and early part of the 2th
century, fall short of the aims and objective of modern
museUIIIs.

The relationship between museology and a museum

should be aimed at discovery of the past and its relation


ship vith the present for the development of a better
future.

Museology, if it does not take stock of the

cbanged circumstances, will remain inadequate.

The

inadequac,y of relationship between museums and museo


logy in the present developmental phenomena exists
because the museological theoretical knowledge does
not provide a reliable criterion to distinguish a
museum from the nevly developed institutions whicb
retlect the past in relation to present vith the recent
developmental perspectives.
66

The museology has not been able to cope with new


so~1al

change.

It lacks mechanism wh1ch can prov1de

dynamism to Tradit10nal Museums to cope vith the changed


s1tuation.

Further, museology does not develope gra

dually, like other positive sciences, as it accepts


1ts own assumpt10ns and deduce its own theorems based
on . such assUlllpt1ons.

There is no self-crit1c1sm or

method of self-introspection.
Inter-dise1p11nary approach in museum-research is
probably the only answer to evalua1Je the material culture
known through the MUSeum objects.

Museum objects, w1thout

any relevanee to people who created them, have little


meaning.

What 1s required today of museums and museology

1s to sh1tt the1r object-centered approach to people


centered po11cy to knOW' through their three dimensional
objects the real social and natural reality in all 1ts
developmental spheres.
Let the theor1es of museology which are inadequate
be re-exam1ned and evaluated in relation to the chang1ng
soc1ety and a new mechanism based on the direct exper1ence
of the change be developed to provide a new broad-based
def1n1t10n Of the term 'museum'.

It is not a easy task.

We must also be careful in br1ng1ng out the new defin1- .


t10n and the change in the present theories of museology
so that the 1dent1ty of our MUseums 1s not totaJ.ly changed
or lost.

on Edward L Hawes
The author believes that the Traditional Museums and
museology need a change in view of the changed social cir
67

cumstances.The old concepts and functions of the tradi


tional museums are falling short of the ideals and expe
ctations of the present society. The object

centered

policy of these museums lay more emphasis on the museum


exhibits and not on the people who fabricated them in a
given space and time. Such researches are individualistic
in approach and produce abstract theories which are not
of much use to the people at large. Hence.they should be
named as the "Proto-Museums" or their by-products.
On the contrary. the living History Museums.which
is a recent phenomena in North-America and Europe are the
real museums which represent the present reality and the
limitations inherent in the abilities of museums ta "re
create" them. -They perform almost the same functions.
Yet, they have an edge over the Traditional Museums
because of their meaningful interpretative educational
programmes. The educational programmes through their
participatory modes enable the visitors to learn more
about the life of community of a particular period. They
attract more visitors and also help in enhancing market
oriented approach.
Comments:
There is no doubt that the Traditional Museums.which
are defined in articles 3 and 4 of ICOM definition. have
not lived upto the needs and aspirations of the changing
society.

Their more emphasis on the collections has resul

ted in creating a big information gap between museums and


the public. Their researches, which should have been inter
disciplinary. are more individualistic in nature.

In other

words the Traditional Museums are unable "ta win public


support,to create involvement.to provide depth and relevance".
68

Inspite of this frank admission, it must not be


forgotten that the Traditional Museums possess in their
collection the "real objects", the basic elements of
Culture and of Nature. No Institution without the original
objects, howsoever, popular and potential it might be,.
can claim to be a MUseum in real sense. The replicas, pho
tographs, films and other documents can only suppliment
the "total facts" of life but can not be termed as au
thentic source as the museum specimens.

Hance, the

problem is not to change the form and format of the


Traditional Museums but to make them worthy of their
name. No doubt, audio-visual presentation and apparatus
which demonstrate principles or processes and the graphie
media, howsoever, dramatic and recreative they might
be, can not be termed as museums. The three dimensional
information, display has, more than often proved its
utility.

Hence. the aim of Traditional Museums shuld

be, not to compete with Exhibit Centres for their popu


lari ty and recreative value but to seelc excellence in
its own field.
The Tra.itional Museum in its "real objects" not
only reflects but recreates the past, links it with the
present tendencies to shape a better future.

The sti

mulating, self experience, inner perception and insight


which a visitor can achieve through the examination and
observation of the three dimensional exhibits is not
possible through the verbal modes of interpretation
which is again a second hand information.

69

on Jouko Helnonen
The museums have been closely associated with the
cultural heritage and Nature of a country or the people
of a particular region. The three dimensional exhibits
of a museum bear the testimony of the culture.

This

unique position of museums has added not only to the


prestige of these institutions but has brought good
social recognition to their name. With the result, a
variety of institutions having a similar role of edu
cating

the people through new interpretative modes

have come up in almost every part of the world. AlI


such institutions having parallel aims and almost
similar functions are also claiming to be the museums.
The "Shaving Museum" in Finland and others have come
up to popularise their commercial products in the
market.

It is true that they are also educating

the people about their products yet, the question


remains whether such institutions fall within

the

category of traditional museums.


It is therefore, necessary that the definition
of museums, as provided by rCOM, should be
suitably so as to preserve the identity
traditional museums.

of the

Education is no doubt, one of

the functions of museums.


should be linked

changed

But the identity of a museum

primarily with its collection of real

objects which are capable of recreating the pasto

The

basic aim of a museum should be to create awareness


among the people about the social reality. The museums
50

far had been non-profit making institutions. The

public museums, which were hitherto financed by their


respective Governments, are now facing the financial
70

crisis in view of the new priorities and programmes


adopted by the respective Governments

for the welfare

of the people. The neN type of musewns which are spon


sored by various commercial houses, have enormous
resources because of their commercial value and
market-oriented

the

policy. Yet, their main aim is to

earn profit and their financial resources

can be

taken as investments.
Another challenge, which has come up before the
public musewns, is the keenness of the
establish their

people

to

identity through the musewn objects

which reflect the material culture of thir respective


regions.
1~

Although the idea is good yet, the same

often politicalised as a tool to propogate the

political view-point. It often results in the replace


ment

of the musewn professionals by technical experts

who are .capable of producing dramatic effects in exhibi


tion programmes and better results in market-oriented
policies to raise funds for musewns.
The thrust of tourism, as an industry, is posing
another great problem to the museums working under
Governmental control. The need to develop tourism,which
earns Foreign

Exchange,req~ires

special attractive pro

grammes for the tourists. Consequently,the museums are


developing more amusement programmes at the cost of
museum research and education.
The need of the hour,therefore,is to make the public
museums more effective and result-oriented,devised as
to evokepublic response which would-help them in their
fund-raising campaign. Such programmes must be based
71

on the1rthree-d1mens1onal objects,which differetltiate


them from other commercial institutions and provide identity.
It is, of course, understandable that enjoyment
to public is part of

mus~um

objectives. Yet, this enjoy

ment must be subtle and linked with the museum policy


50

as to give inner satisfaction. The recreative progra

mmes. which fall outside the museum policy and the museum
collection, have no place in a museum, howsoever, lu
crative they might

be.

on Gaynor Kavanagh

The author says that the majority of museums in Briton


are the creations ot 19th century.
and concepts of Victorian era.

They reflect the ideas

The original purpose of

these museums, particularly University museums, was to fur


ther the teach1ng and researcb, the main responsibi11ties
of an University wh1ch a museum 1s attached to.

Whereas the

University teaching and research has moved on with the help


of technology avallable to them, the tunctions of Museums
have not proportionately changed.

Hence, the University

MUseums of Natural. History have become out-dated and more a


l1ab1l1ty to the Univers1ties.

The old 19th century bedrock

1deas of Public Museums are not adequate 1n terms of the


changing society, both for today and tomorrow.
Due to sudden 1ncrease 1n human knowledge, the old con
cepts and 1deas have become out-dated.

Unless they are

rev1sed and made up..to-date, museums will faU short of


peoplels expectations.

The modern Museums must adopt people

. centred approach to gain sympathy and support from people.


72

Should not these IllUseums find, intellectually and practically,


new territory suitable to the changed social Bet up?

or Have

these museums outlived tbeir days and new types of museums


are necessary to cope with the changed circumstances?

There

are the some of the important questions which need be answered


by thetraditional Museums of Great Briton.
The MUseums are today faced with the financial crises.
They have to raise funds for their survlval.

In other worda,

iDuseum must rf.se funds through MUseum enterprise and the sale
of 1deas and new knowledge to the public.

However, the people

w111 pay for admission to these ll!useums only if they are use
fUl to present society.

The present programmes and research

of these pub11c !IIuseums are falling short of people' s expec


tations.

Renee, the museums must shift from the policy of

se1f-aggrendisement to deep and practlcal acceptance that the


public have as much right to be served aS pay for the exis- .
tence of these museums.
The independent sector in Briton Is producing highly
imaginative and innovat1ve institutions which possess both,
the resources and mechanism to break new ground in terms of
new museum forms . For example, Jorvik, the Viking Centre
1n york, the open air museum, Beamlsh and Ironbridge George
Museum have shown the results which the marriage of good
research and commercial monument can produce.

If the tra

ditional museums of Briton have to survive in 21st century,


they w111 .have to be continually revise and redefine their
scope and functions for extra financial support.

They

require a change 1n fom and intend as they move into the


21st century, shedding off their old Victorian Ideals.
A museum bas value and place as long as it Is alive to Its
new aims and the people it serves.

The fom and intent of


73

traditionsl Museums in Britorrniill be changed by others if


the Curators cannot shOW' the vay.

on Isabel Laumonier
It is now universally accepted that the museums,through
their three-dimensional exhibits, educate and enlighten the
people at large about their cultural heritage.

They not only

reflect and recreate the past material culture for the benefit
of the people but they also intend to link the material cul
ture of the past with the tendencies of the present to pro
vide healthy guidelines for the future development. Inspite
of this concept, the majority of museums are still lagging
behind in fulfilling this task. It is because the museums
lay more emphasis on the objects, which are considered to
be sacred for the traditional and cultural values contained
in them, but not on the society which created these objects.
The utility of museum i5 thus, minimised in the absence of
the knowledge about the social set up in which the objects
were produced.
and not the end.

In other words, the objects are ooly means


Hence, the museums should be defined as

institutions which are run by the people and for the


people.
Once it is accepted that the utility of museums in

the present times should be judged in relation to the

services it renders to the society, it becomes evident

that the museum activity should be governed basing on

the needsand aspirations of the people who are the real

heirs of the material culture preserved in museums,

1rrespective of their. nature and character. It, therefore,

74

goes w1thout say1ng that the community reserves the right


to demand a change 1n the policies and programmes of
public museums to suit the

soc~o-economic

changes. More

over, the museum now-a-days charge admission fee from


the public and thereby it is the people who pay for the
existence of musaums. Tt is thus the responsibility of
museums to take the people into confidence in devising
their educational and cultural programmes for the sake
of people which will earn more goodwill and support
for the public museums.

on Harria Laiften
The majority of the big museums in the world were
developed out of the private collections. The owners
of such

collect~ons

were mostly weIl to do intellectuals.

They collected variety of

~are

specimans for their

personal ends. '='hey loje!'e opened only to scholars and


friends of ths collectors.

Late~

such collections were

declared as public institutions and came under


Governmen~

the

control where the bureaucracy had the

right to decide their policies and programmes. The


general public ha r.o rule and even where such colle
ctions were open to

public, the latter was subjected

to various r.ules and conditions.


The power of decision making and control of
these public mU8eums is still in the hands of bureau
crats and administrators who do not want to share
the1r
the

age-old privileges with the common man. With


!'esult, t:le public has no participatory role in
7'>

our museums. The bureaucrats, scholars and specialists


still dominate the public museqms whereas 'the people,
institution~

on whosc funds these public

run, are the

silent spectators.
'With the re'sult, the museums policy today "is not
being developed let alone being determined by society
or its needs, but by the :nl1seums' 9irector, or by the
prestige conscious National Government."

In other

words, it is the museum Director, or its Board of


Trustees or, the Government which determines
"common public should see or acimire".

\~hat

the

l'Ihereas the defi

nition of ICOM provides that the museums have to be


administered in the general interest, and the museum
exhibitions be made for the public, the public museums
have in'reality little to do with the public. Can we
therefore, call these pUblic museums as museums in
the absence of publi interest?

A museum, in the

real sense of the ter:n Ehould be'people-oriented and


its policies and

9rogra~es

:nust be based on the

actual needs and requirements of the society.

The

public interest is therefore, vital for a museum,


irrespect ive of its character and collection .

onS M Nalr
The papel' dslc vith the variouR edueationaI
programmes and services offered by the Na tionaI Museum

ot RaturaI B1storyp
the systemat1c and

New Delhi.
mear~grul

The need for d~velop1ng

aducat10nal programmes

and act1v1t1es relevant to the sr:opc of

Q,

USel1l11

which

1s one of the toremost t9.sk of uodern museuns 1n the


76

BCIlIe of the notable educational programmes of

world.

the Nation&J. MUlleum of Natural H1story, based on the

methods, techniques and


DlUseums

~xperience

of other leading

ot the world, sucb as "the Irlscovery Room Concept,

interactive!participatory exhibita".

An Outreached

Programmes", use of Audio Visual Aide and the "Environ


!Dantal Mucation in t.he Ne.tural Hi13tory Museums" are
doseribed at
progral'Ues~

len~th.

Sucb need-bnsed educat10nal

p.s davised by tbe National Museum of Natural

Ulstory, New

ars vital for the direct involve

Delhi~

ment and participation of the var.lmls age groups and


cross section of the

e~JUanlty.

,C)oornTS:

Thore can bo no two opinlons about the utl11ty ot


the

aforesa1~

educational and cultur.a1 programmes which

prO'l!ido unique opportunity ?or the people to involve


tbemsel.ves iI'. musamt activity.

Yet p the evaluation

of. s~ch programmes from t1me to time are of greater

Qu1t~

importance.

often! the museum educational

programm3f1 are l.oaded

be moro scholaI'ly..

w~d;h

professionalism or tend to

Th'3 timely X'3vision of the

afores::cJ. e:.ucationaJ_ Md cul.tural programmes based


on the

actue~

needs and aspirations of the local

peopl.f: :l.s highly clash'able"

!II

on Susan M Pearce

The paper notes the necessity of formulating nev


musaol.ogical concepts which willbe adequate not ooly
museUQs but

~so

for

for institutions like Heritage Centres.


77

Science Centres and Interpretation Centres of all kind.


These concepts developed into theoretical constructs
could be called

IllU

se01ogy

The author further notes that not only the Museums


but even

~he

kindered institutions, such as the Heritage

centres, Science centres, Interpretation Centres and


Safari Parks, etc. are involvod Yitb
which is IIthat section

or

m~terial

culture

our physical environment that

'ole modify through culturally detemined behaviour ll


Whlle the tangible aspect of material culture is very
well knOlm, the author includes in it non-tangible farms
of expression l1ke oral tradition, music and the perform
ing arts.
Mater1aJ. Culture, has earlier been interpretted in
the context of the h1story of the material concerned out
of the people invol.ed 1n it.

Mother approach Vas to

regard 1t as the product of the intsr-relationship between


environment and social organisation.
that the

artcfR~tes

These

The assumption vas

are mean5 te ar enQ.

apP~oacbes,

which have limitations of being

disc1.pl1ne bound &,d beine dependent upon sociological


perspective have
which

b~11ev~s

recentl~

been challenged by the approach

that 1t 15 tDe artefact in vhich the social

act1vity is created, defined and expressed and 1t is not


vice versa.
The author points out that si.nce Museums deal with
artefacts, the theory has cons1derable, potential and will
have implicat1ono on museology also.
The question 15 whether. sufficient research has been
undertaken into the theoret1cal base of this proposition?
78

15 the theory not merely a hypothesis whlch does not permit


verificavion under controlled conditions?

lslnt the struc

turalist analysis unduly subjective in its cholce of social


elements and their juxtapositioning?
The one advantage of belng inter-disciplinary can be
had even otherwlse by conscious effort.

There canlt be any

objection to utilisation of the potential of this approacb


once lt is Zinally decided whether the artefact influenced
th~

society or vice
Yet~

the

~ersa.

~nclusion

of other institutions such as

Science Centras, Exhibit Centres and Interpretation Centres


of all ldnds and Safari Parl(s, etc. within the field of
museology 1s bound to create more confusion than being
constructivo.

No doubt, the 'aforesaid centres intend through

the1r lnterpretatlve roethods to reflect the past but their


forms i format and functions are soroewhat different than
thoGe of the tradlt!onal museuros which possess the "real
of material culture.

ob~ect:llf

films and

cost~cd c~a~acte.l's

The use of replicas, photos,


will certainly be more ente.l'

ta1n1.ng anel invO},Y9 iilO':"C public but they do not possess the
baf'iC! elemen';s that is the three dimensional exhibits which
p.l'07id6 stlmulating
poss~bl~

t!1c

only

mUSfru::,ul

experlenc~

'~hrougb

and inner perception which ls

the ntudy of the real. objects which

alone possess.

~he

.l'eal problem ls not to

change the .forro and functlon of traditional museums which


have not .l'1sen to people's expectations but to make them
real

e1.f~ctlve

films and

museums, vo.l'thy of their name.

the~tres

The television

also try to educate the masses about the

mate.l'1al culture of the past but a film will ever remain a


fllm and w111 not become a i;elevision.

So also the televi

sion cao not replaca the theatre inspite of their similar


aims and :l.ntentionr..
79

on Judith K Spielbauer

Museologlsts are today struggling to determine the


relationshlp betwee.l'l mus6ums lnd museology.

In view of

the changed socio-economlc conditions of the people, in


creased awareness and outburst of new knowledge due to the
advll.Dced science and tecbnology are posi.ng new problems.
There are numbcr of quostions arising in the minds of
museologlsts.
'MUseum' is

ls the present definition of the term

ad~quate

to define its new functions to fulf!l

the needsof modern public?

lB museology, which was

evolved durlne the second half of the present century,


adequate to define the scope and provide necessary guide
lines to IllUseums?

Should lIluseology confine itself to

MUS6mS or broaden Its scopa to cover various other sim1


lar instltutionR?
It need not be over emphasised that museology,. which
ls the guid1nC force bel1ind aIl types of museums, must also
be made broad-basad whlch should include new Inechanism based
on neu

~cientific

discoveries and the technologieal advanee

ment to modernise our MUseums.

Museology, as a discipline

like lL.'ltm-opology and the humanities need not confine


itself to

InU.seV.lDB

alone but should move with wider pers

pective to caver within its

f~ework

the entire society,

exploring lts past, present and future.

It is also neees

sary to providt:> :t'laxibllity and varlabllilly in matters of


administrative form, collection, orientation and patterns
of cOllllJlunity, :l.ntroductlon so that the regional and national
requl,!'ements of

II1'..1S6U111S

10 dlfferent parts of the world can

also he taken into consideration and various standards and


norms to !Da,1or the utUlty of n1Useums in relation to the
80

public of different types and in different places can also


need different conditions are not over-looked.
Where it is correct to believe that the traditional
museums have

no~

changed to cope with the changed circum

stances, it must also not be forgotten that the museums


have made tremendous development from their "proto-museum
stage- to present day.

There has been a remarkable change

in forms and functions of modern museums yet, the deve


lopment is not enough and the museums of today are still not
people-centered.

The museum researches are fal1ing short

of the multi-disciplinary researches of the Universities


and other s1milar centres.

Rence, it is necessary that the

museums must change, if they have to survive in 21st century.


Museology, as a discipline has evolved

ouv

of the

museum provided answers to the problems of museum profes


sionals.

In order to provide proper guidelines for the

developrnent of museums, museology must provide up-to-date


mechanism wherein concepts of the human-object relationship
relating to the processess of change and continuity in the
social and natural world with a view to understand the
pragmatic meanings lying behindthe museum objects.
Museology, in its own right can develop without museums
yet, the museums are the laboratories for museology to
evolve new concepts and theorems.

The separation between

the two will result in mutual 10ss.

81

on Zbynk ZStrnsky
The museum, at the moment, are the only institutions
which are aiming to provide specifie means to reflect
social reality from people's point of view, which is
an immediate social need. It is here that the museology
gets involved with the museums. Hence, it is not the
museums, the means. which forms the subject of museology
but it is the idea or the need for which museums have
been created and

50

also it is the fulfilment of this

need which should be the subject matter for museology.


It is the realization of the social reality through
the means of museums which

museology deals with and

not with museum organisational norms and techniques.


This is why, museology has a wider perspective and it
can not confine its scope to mseums alone. The museums
are readily available institutions which museology
exploits to fulfil its aim. Had there been other insti
tutions, with similar aims and objective, museology
could have included them also within its fold.
The museums are, thus, the means or one of the
possibilities of materializing this specifie human
approach to reality and

50

they are related to museo

logy. The aim of museology is to define the specifie


relation of man to reality,which satisfies the social need.
Hence,it goes beyond the framework of museums. It deals with
the past,links the past with present to crea te better possi
bilities for future.
It is,therefore,necessary to museologize the museum work
i.eto make the museums more effective and meaningful. It must,
however,be understood

82

tha~

museology can not solve aIl museum

problems. It does not deal directly with the organisational


matters and devices, which will be governed according to the
varied local conditions. Museology does not coyer aIl aspects
of museums or museum worlt.
The author further argues that the relationship of museo
logy with museums exists only on one point,i.e.museology as a
science tends to unfold the social reality and its relation to
man. The museums, which have specimens of material culture,act
as means to help museology in realising this objective. Hence,
the museology is not connected with museums
ctural,

adminis~rative,technical problems

50

far their stru

are concerned. How

and what benefits will museums then derive from museology?


Museums and museology are complimentary to each other.
museology

The

as a science deals with theories as weIl as the

practices which can be applied in museums for fulfilment of


their aims.

If museology has to be developed as a science

then it will not be based on thinking alone but it will have


to provide authentic guidance through approved practices for
the future development of museums.

on Petr SuJer
The MUseum exhibits, irrespective of the nature of
a museuJil collection, are the basic elements of our cul
tural heritage.

The MUseum objects, in other words,

reflect the traits and traditions, myth and phylosophy,


manners and custom of a particular soc lety which they
belong to.

Thus, the museum objects are the slgns vh1ch

have pragmatlc mean1ng.

It 15 the ldea or underlylng

content vhich makes the MUseum object signiflcant.

The
83

museum objects express the concept in a personified form.


It 15 th1s concept wh1ch prompts the society to create
patterns and forms which ultimately become the trade
marks of that part1cular society.

The main concern of

musealogy ls, therefore, the concept, the people, who


used the concept to create patterns or forms and the
environment ln vhich such forms vere created.
Museology vith its fUlfledged mechanism endeavours
to dlscover the total soc1al facts which is known as the
social real1ty.

The museums minus the real objects are

noth1ng but a structural entity consisting of buildings,


staff, f1nanc1al resources and the managing pollcy.

It

1s the objects which relate the museums to museology.


Hence, museology could have ex1sted even without museums.
It must not

h~ever

be forgotten that the museums are

the laboratory for museology.

The innovative practices and

scientific systems developed by the museum curators are


theor1sed and converted 1n a discipline which form the
backbone of 'Museology'.

The scope of museology ls, no

doubt, beyond the four valls of museums but its utillty and
quallty will have to be judged on the basis of the effecti
veness of museums only.

84

Paul N Parrot - Richmond, Virginia, USA


Sorne remarks on the topic
from correspondence.

Museology and Museums

Richmond, April 17, 1987


1 have made several copies oF Peter van Mensch's paper.
It is provocative,
particularly the last paragraph.
1 do not
want to trivialize this paper,
but there is a parallel that
can be made between the dietitian who is concerned with vita
mins and nutrition,
and the cheF who knows how to mix aIl the
ingredients and can deliver a superbly balanced meal. While 1
do not want to oeny,
by any means,
the value oF the nutri
tionist,
when we are dealing with museums w are really deal
ing with "a kitchen oF history",
and 1 see great danger oF an
inFinite spinning oF wheels to have those who have never
entered the kitchen proFess to tell us what it is and,
se
condly, how it should operate philosophically or practically,
1 oFten Feel,
as 1 look at the museological literature,
that the touch stone oF the reality oF objects,
their rela
tionship to the public, and to the societies oF the Future, is
overwhelmed or overlooked.
The "museum" is really an idea,
concerned with the pre
servation of the tactile, its Interpretation and its transmis
sion, and thereFore, 1 have no prablem with such places as the
Evoluan,
iF they have a collection that they nurture,
or
arboreta,
zoos,
etc.,
For they are aIl concerned with pre
servation,
transmission,
interpretation. There is no Funda
mental difference between these and temporary galleries if
these arO aFFshoots oF museums and are related to them,
con
ceptually and administratively,
such as the Whitney.
These
present merely a Facet oF what the central organisation is
involved with.
It is that conceptual integration that se
parate5 such galleries From commercial galleries or ad hoc
fairs which only bring things together temporarily,
and
thereafter dissolve into the mist oF time!
Richmond, June 26, 1987
The only thing that 1 want to add is another caveat
concerning the trivialization oF the museum idea through its
assimilation by commercial enterprises which,
in themselves,
might have some entertainment merit but which,
iF not taken
for what they are - i.e.,
a Form oF entertainment - can be
profoundly misleading.
The presentation oF theme parks, la
Disneyworld, are perFectly acceptable iF we take them For what
they are:
fanciFul evocations which provide distraction but
which have nothing to do with reality in the historical sense.
The ever present danger,
because oF the success of these
enterprises,
is that in our historie houses,
preserved
villages or museum activities,
we give in to the temptation
85

and emulate these examples. Our strength is in the reality of


our abjects and the integrity with which we present them.
And,
especially there are dangers in the manner by which we
select or censer the information that we convey.
The danger
is particularly acute in our attempt at interpreting history
through the historic house or t~e historic village,
whether
this be one preserved in situ or the result of buildingrelo
cations.
We show the architecture, the furnishings, and haVe
delightful hostesses and hosts in period costumes.
"Je evoke a
"never,
never world" through quaintness,
craftsmanship,
and
inventiveness,
but we virtually never examine the darker side
or even refer to it:
the lack of sanitation,
the poverty of
the very poor,
diseases,
infant mortality,
ill-effects of
taxes, etc.
1 am not by any means suggesting that we artificially
crea te the "odours" of the past,
but unless these are clearly
referred ta in text and narration,
or other interpretative
devices, we sre creating a fanciful mirage.
These problems are philosophical and,
indeed, ~re worthy
subjects of museological discussion, but they are also practi
cal.
How do we do it?
How do we establish a mediUm?
What
techniques csn we use?
How do we stimulate Experimentation
and,
returning ta the philosophical question,
is humanity
better served by optimistically ignoring its ills or by con
fronting them?
Do we only accept the landscape as beautiful,
majestic, or poetic and are we better enriched by ignoring the
perpetuaI conflicts represented by the food chain of which we
are now the culminating factor?
Indeed,
these are profound
questions.
Returning to a more practical one, alluded to in Mensch's
paper:
the increasing complexity of the tools at our disposaI
for the study and the preservation of our collections,
the
attendant increase in costs,
the growth of new fields of
interest and lack of resources.
For example,
in the library
world "what kind of co-operative mechanisms should be de
veloped to preserve the printed word of the past,
or indeed
the present,
when we are confronted by tens of millions of
volumes which are 'burning away' from their internaI acids?".
Which of these should be selected for physical preservation in
their present form?
Which should be copied in sorne other
medium and then allowed to turn to dust?
And,
of course, as
was 50 beautifully pioneered by Sweden:
How do we select from
the enormous production of today for preservation tomorrow?
Can there be any definite answers to these questions or
should the diversity in approaches that exists provide the
kind of balance that nature provides through its harsh me
chanism, in spite of us?

86

Jerzy Swiecimski - Krak6w, Poland


Co~ments

on

sel~ctad

vpcrs

It i9 practically not possible to bild up a

C 0 m l'le t e s y n
the s 1 s of a sample of articles representing different scientific
programmes,diffarant lines or research and theoretical foundations,diffe
1

rent (and somotlmes contradictory) cognitive uttituces or points of vi.w


and finally dlffenent ranges as regards tha objects discussed.Two ways rcm~in
in such cases usually: 1). to formulato individual ",ns.,ers" on oach p"rtic.. l~r
paper and each particular statement <no synthosis is obt.nud in 5uch a C.,ge)
or 2.to make a choioe of probloms,ideaa,stntemen~8,otC.from tmwho~~~a~i_~o
nd tr: to analyse tham according to soma "key" {the synthesis ls in such a
Cise al~ay8 incomplete,soaetlmes avan tragmentary!.
In m~' comments l hava chosen tha. sec 0 n d w.,y.Conseque~tl:l,my comnwuts
are to be treatod only as s o l a c t i v 0 ones.Thoy do not claim to
ombrace tha wholo problamatics of the papors rcceivec.
Most of the comments we t'ind in museolog1cal literaturc rcsult from inaivi
dc:nl interest ot the cOlllDlentators.The probloms,asaertions,maallings atc.'.'li.ich
bocoae the abjects of analyses and cii ticism arc chosen beC"llSC thY rnf
lect -in a positive or negative way- acientific progra"~b and cognitiva
attitllae ot the commen*ator.::iom ot thorn ara tr"ated ',s such which "support"
the cOlll::lentator's poiets of view,the othors as sllch which <Ire contrar.>' to
thClll aod oro th a t 0 r a iotarasting,damalldiog an analysical "::;ns.lor".
Tho problams salacted tor commonts ara rarely "na

,tr~l"

for those uho selact

"lld anylysa them and the commeDts themselves are r"reJy "iIilpersonul";

00

the

contrary they ortan contaie some amount of individual,ovun subjective formu


l"tions which do not claim to become
....... tha "avor-lasting,ReDoral and absolute
truths" and all the more illpiratives1mposod arbitrarly
vo 10" ,a "dogme" givan .tor beliaf.

39 "

-t-

"sic rubeo,sic

Hy commoDts are claiming to bo hold within these rules exactly: they


individual

t!:

~re

am trying to"remain ah:ays mysolf") in the S0nse thut th"y rof

l/tct my tield and programma of museological research al;d aru based on the
statemects l have formulated and published in my papers,lcctures atc.Th"y aru
~ot

"ne.tral" -aspacially uhec thay are critical, becauso

the problems l eci

~;:;-tha :~ola

samplo l recaiv~d

10 papars: those by A.Gregorova ,M.Bel

!algue ,O.Forrellad i Domanch ,J. Heino


" nan,A.O.J{onar,L.Harrenda,M :lnd E.Morral,
~~!!~1~~~lransky and K.~chrein<r.
87

",cd to discuss

\101'0

extremaly axciting for ma and provoled

often Stlonta

_nos,omotional,8van passionato answers.ln othor ~ords my comments do not


clcim ths tit-le of " a bsolute truths" ~lthOUgh they ara basad on r .. search
n.. ..i not only on my "feelingsll'l,on the contrary l traat the," only "S p l' o~
P 0 s a l s which are presented to the Reoders for further possiblo rtiscu~
sion.
So far my initial remarks.And here are the comments:
1.It 15 traofwhen ODe remarks that the tapic proposed for tho ICOFOM '87 Sy~
Fosium is not a ~~_ one {A.Gregorov5>.In fact it appours alreudy,as A.Gregoro
va remorks, on the pages of the first issue of the Museology Horking Papers
d
{1980'l.BesiJeS,some of its eloments can b~ found in the 2 issue of that p:;rio
dic"l,in the materials published on the occasion of the Buonos Aires Sympo
sium,And even in handbooks of museology and various articles and dissertations
from the field of theory of museums.It appears mostly under the forrn of fun
dam~ntal definitions,initiary statemonts 011 which dotailed anulysos are usu
aUy basad.
Ono call say too that the problem of alucidating the

11

t ure

of MUSEUM

(A.Gregorova! is not a novelty eithcr,and- aIl ono can expect in it now i6


only SOrne "ro i'inement" or SOrne correcture of the b3sic concapt,acce_ptcd in
it5 very cor e.Thorefore A.Gregorova is right in her tendency to drQ~ some
boundarias for t~c 0 b j e c t ive - l' a n g e of the notion: MUSEUM,It
is ir,portant especially becausa of the tandency of expancting the meanin~
of thi~ notion beyond traditional range-and embracing 'a multiturte of objp.cts
>:hich
ID use' a l
character is disputable if not lloubtful.Snme ideas clo~a
to this problec oDe can find in the paper by J.Heinonen describing the situa
tion and the trends of development of Museums in Finnland.I do not intand to
discuss,howevar, whather
con cre t e
0 b j e c t ive
l' a n g e
proposed by A.r.egorova should_ ba accepted as a dorinite ono,or whath-r it iSOll
11 a proposal presented for further corrections; soma of the arguments quo
tad by A.regllrova seem to me rdlght,some ot"hcrs (f: aru commdntiup; them bel,w)
r~~h~r doubtful or ~ven wrong.
It is not a novelty too,when one formulates a- statement th"t MUSEUM(un
derstood as an institution or as an objecijis a product of cult~re and,in
the consequence that culturological stidias a-re nGcessary to ~nderstand its
n"ture,eanesis and l'DIa in h~an society ~.~EegOrova>.This statcment can
bo (ouna in mu:;eo!ogical literaturo fl'cqllently x/. ln the conse'lucnce,all we

--------xl Quoting Polish

literature only,one can find this stateill~nt _in the handbook

of m!lseology "U podstaw muzeologii" by Wojciech Gluzinski ~rocl~~: 1980) and 1


at !ost on my publications: ill the hondbook "j,;k"pozycja muzea;Jna j ... ko ut,,6r

88

can expect in this regard is some "refinement" of thu basic idea and concre
"
.
te,detailed dissertaions,the
analyses
of
facts.Musoum
typology
for
inst~nce
----_. "_.. - _... ... and the works clarifying the evolution or genesis.of particular Museum typ~s

-~.~_

"'is~among

.~

the others, the realisation of this concept.

It is trus too ~hen one remarks that tha t hab r y


0 r
mus e u m s

cannot be built up withou~ philosophieal basis.This statlliont was formula~ed

-------.-"....
xl
already several times ln museolaeieal and in philosophy pprs
.A numbcr
of mussol"gieal publications that appeared in racant 10 yaars aro factually
based on philospphy of that or anoth0r typa xxl
3.Somo papers proposed for tho ICOFOM Symposium

havu the

ci"Hact~r

of

pro g r a m mes and formula ta soaa l' ,0 s t u 1 a t a s for the futu


ro~Thasa programmes and,postulatas <or proposaIs) are fOl'mulQtcd as rO bar1s
mus.s u m s ,their f.unction,acUvity,role in the society etc. ,or as re
gDrds tho raalisation of
t h a 0 r o t i c a l qua s t i 0 r. s in
mUl;oology.Reztding, theso postulates and programmes is inspiring.,sinco Avery
i~sa cOllceived creatively
givas
suggestions for concrota,systomatic

-------

architoktoniezno-plastyczny" (Museum Exhibition as a'Work of Arehitcturo


nnd l'lastic-Arts>':lrak6w 1978 <Jagiellonian Universi ty

publt~), "The Theory of

the MlI~eum Exhibition", Amsterdam 1980 ~USEOLOGIA,liu~driga puhl./,Ekspozj'cja


muzoaln8 ja:<o przedmiot pO;;lIania i dzialania t\iorczego .{Musam Exhibition
as an Object of Cognizance and Gre:.ltiva Activi ty) Wroci:'a" ,1984 .(ossolin;uml
ccd the samo in somewhat abbroviatcd version,in Englsh,Amstdrdam 1979 (MUS~
OJ.OGIA,Quad'riga publ.>. and tho latest worka published in the OPUSCULA l!USEALil:A~

xl If to quote only l'olish musological litorature,(not especially rieh),this


aspect can be found for'lnstance in my works: "Musaum Exhibition as a Work
of Art and a Subj ect of "Specifie Aas thotics", Dordrecht-Boston (ANALECTA WJS
S~RLIANA ,Reidal publ> 19'76 or in the "Scientific Informntion Func .ion and 1n
garden's Theory of ~'orms in the Constitution of the Reel Wrld" ibid. 1974.
Th~ book by Wojciech Gluzinski
podstaw muzoologii> is b8scd on struclura
lisr.l &s i ts b'lsic trend.Czechoslovaki on muaoo logi,'al "school" is very pro
minant as regards publications basod of philosophical grounds.1'he sane can
be snid about museology in tho German Damocratic Rapublic .

<U

xxi
It varies according to the country and to its local philosophical tradit
ions or pref~rencea.For Instanca,while in the German Democratie Republic
thooretical museology ls baaad'first of aIl on Marxist philosophy,in Poland
pbenomenology

<in ita post-Husserllan, varsion establishod by Roman Ingardan

"ah llia realism and tha conception of intentiona 1 obj 0CtS> should be cona1
dared aa the laading ono.l'olish thooretical musaology Is based mainly on
phenomenological ~ a a the t i c a and 0 n t o I 0 g y
89

~'ork:

on the 9th"r h.3nd they may evota a feeling of uns'tJst'action,fol'

aIl thase programmes announce something that is still in the sphJre of


conce;:ts and imagination. that ie p13nned, ;'roposea, nceaed, hutdil>d not achie
yet con c r fi t e
t 0 r m of a loi 0 r k \!hich is ':lr.;:~d.Y~Q~n_o
givun
should like to formul .. te hero a."prograllilllatic"
..an:!
_..
.
-for ..evluation.One
_' ._
retJarK ,even to malte an appeal: MOHlli ABOUT l:ONCRE'i'E ACHli>Vr;Ilr;N'l'lf,COlICRETt
WORKSI More about concrets l' e s u l t e,both in pr~ctice ~e.g.in MUSeum

" and in the ory (as dissertaions

design,organization of collectionseetc/
on various m~"aoloeical problm;):dissert~tions which couIn bo noferred
an:!

,
dicc"E~ed ------.-_._.as contributions
to the T1IEORY
OF MUSF.UHS.to
HUSr~OLC(;Y. ~"':
_.. -'.
Sorne postulates sound evidently strange,evon confusing.For instance.whun
onu rea~i that mUEeology sh~ u l d be built up as a science.lt is
Etrange aIl the more .when this postulate is doduced from thu fact that
.~ny Museum vorkers ~practitionors) do not recognize mus e 0 log y
Va

~-

_._

_._-_~_,,--,~.

'"

-_

.-.'

as a domain of thaoretical resaal'ch at 011 anrl accept only praetical l;ork


as val~able and concrete.lt sounds so.as if Bomebody postuloterl that matha
maties or history should bo butlt up as a scionce <sug~esiing that i t does
not sxist yet as such?1 and supported his thesis by a reason th~t people
.. 1;0 are involved in mathematics or history p l' u c t i c a I l Y do not
recognize this domaill as a field of research.
Sinee museologlcal dissertatiolls ~f Many types.aimod at dit'ferent r.oa1s,
ap~lying v&rious methods~ are factually pub l i s h e d.since faculties
of M~sology ~ike that at the University of Leicester or in Brno) fuetually
e x Il s t .~lheD var.ous 'p.,tgraduol studies of museolq;f are fl1ntioning.
~.g.that at the Jagiellonian University.at the University of N~oleus Co
~rnicus~ r simply do not understand the l' e a 8 0 n of this postulute.

5. I am of the

opinio~

that referring concreto museolpgical achievements

;r.;.y become an important factor ~~..l,~_t,8r.l1~~io~~I_~()mmuni cation i!p. the field


of museology and aS a mealls of. closer contacts betwaen purtieulur. spaciolis
ts.I .still .have the feeling -especially "hen l read programmes or ini tbl
cefinitions of muselogical termini- that many spociolists work in Mutusl
i s o l 8 t 1 0 n.The s8me , or nearly the same topics repeat ag~in and
ae~in.receiv~ similar
formulstions and are presentod SOI as if they were
novelths.Museologists undertake themes which are already solved or,at least.
advpnced in other centres of research.Linguistlc ~arrir in publications
is,in my opinion one of the MOSt sori08s -~b~~~clos in-c~mmunicationx/.The

l"c~ of inUr~~~lon <,,01' under-info"mutio~ is the second one .Reudiug sorne

pepers one can have the feeling that museology ia still at its very begin~
ning.thnt it still re-formulatiDlI "from its rootis".A complete:,y \lrong
lt:pressionl
i~fOr-!pstaD~the book announc4d by A.Uregorova / Muzeu a muzejnietvo/

15

known to Polish museum workers and museologists. Since it is pub

90

6.It 15 for Mo,as for a theoretician of musoums,confusine to rcad the stnte


ment that mus e u m

should not become

an

b j e c t

of mu;;eoIOKic1\1

investigation,or it shocild be reduced,at lnast,to a m a a n s, thoueh


which some othar prol:>lems cou Id be grasped.
This statamnt is not a novelty tOOj it appeared,for instnnce in the
ad issue of tha Museoloeical Working Papars ~chreinar).In it5 radical
formul3tuon it sounas so aS if ,a.g. in the thaory of a r t somoho~y
postulated that w 0 r k s
0 far t
should not b,come the objects of
aesthetics or of history of art or,that they should be roduced,at l~ast,
to a m' e d i u m,though "hich sorne 0 the r proble"'~ (e.3.tl)ose of the
relatlon between hu~an cognlzanca and the reality whicll is e press6d in

the works of ar~ could be grasped.


l do not intend,by saying so,to assB~t that the studios on the relAtion
betwoen human consclousness and renlity,expressed in var i 0 u s wcrks
of culture iin particulaz in museums,e.g.in museum collecLions,in muoeum
exhibitions~ is of no value;

it would ho a nonsense if anybody postulnted


the elhlination such atudies eithor from museology or fro", any other cio
'

rn.1in concerlling. cultural works (works of art,works of science etc/.Our


knowledle e.g.
various forms of pep r e sen t i n g reality in
art,is based on such stidies exactly.On the other hand i cannOl im~gine
elililOating
mus e il m ,espcially when we understRnd i t as' a \J 0 r k
--_. '_ .. - ._-_.. _.
of. c u l t ure ~rchitekture of special type and fUl.ction,arr"ngemvnt
-;;f-it~'-i~teri;;:-;~rganizat1lon of ob,Jects i t contains et,) from mua e 0

of

.~._-

log i c a l
r e s e arc h.~he whole typology of musems,as weIl ~s
monographies cievotod
to museum archi tocture ~. devot.:d to this prob
~.
.
lom.The cognizanco of the types of structure hy which p~rticular gro~pe of
museums ~8re at differont historical types chractorized,s weIl the coeni

.8.

zance of the

mec han i s m

mus e urne v b 1 u t ion

/"tho originof Museum species"/ m"y have funJamontal importance for prog

--------lished in Slovat language,it i~ very doubtful whethcr e.r.Polish s~ecioliat


could be able to understand it pre c i s e 1 y,although our two langu~gAs
bolong to the same gr~up and <Ire rolativoly similar II do not ul.'dersbnd
l'or example m y 0 li n articles trns1atcrJ into CZh bllgU::gU!~ Strong~r
barrier appears,whcn o~e tries to read publicatio~s in Yugoslaviall rnu"eolo
gical p.riodicals (e.g.INFOHl~TOLOIA I1USEOLnGICA!: if thoso ~rticls ar~ not
!,rovidea with an t;nglish or French summary,they llllllln a typi<.:al NOMt;l: NUOU!.f
IHth articls pUblishaa in Hngurinn the barrier. i5 a1>s01nt": although thse
;;orks may contain t r e a sur e s of thought anp most intoresting novc.l
ti.s,r'ading them is practically not possible.I am quite aware,tht the same
h~pPO"Stlith PoUsh museological worka when are publishp.a in Polishj for .. ny
foreign sp60ialist t,hoy are praot-ically 10st.'1'he n ,rnb~l' of. ppors uhic are
publishod in "congress languages" is ab,~olutely too s",o11. 1 think that
international asseblies like that which~rganizcd now in Helsinki and
Stockholm would bo a good occasion to talk this proble~ oVr.Dinguistic
blirricr in publications cases that a ereot amount of ci'oativ" \!ork in IJI:lny
c,)unJ,ries ia just w a s t e d or reduced to local sienific"nce.
x Like the monvmental work by Roberto AI>i /1962/ llke books by Z Zygulski/B4)
like innumerable articles in '.he MUSEUM /Unesco / '

91

rn~mir.g,aesir.ning

and furth.r- for

~ealizing

concreto museum solutions.

Theory 1s,in this ease,authenticalfy


i n vol v e d into practice: it
may elucldate the reaturee which appear as the rcsult of crea Live thought
and help,is theoretieal basis,ln

prac.ieal activity.

7. Arriving to more detailed problems,I think tnat probably


from

d Y

a~ong

Natural-History museum workers or museol"giett uo"l,! argree

~ith the stRtement that "sturre~" specimens should aissapear from museum

exhibitions and shoulJ be replaeed by some imnees pl'o~ueed e.g.by hologrc

phy

techni~ue

or by

1 i vin g

specimens in zoologieal aud oot"l,ieal

f!ardens.

First objection is of pUl'ely t e c h n i c a l


ch"rBctet'.I 'Illid sim
pl J ask, h o.w man y contemporary Museums of Naturl I!istory possess
holocraphy and ,in consequence,how Many can r e s i g n from prosenting
oriGin~ 1 .(:'stuffed" and"mQllted':)specimens: mammls, birds, insocts etc
T~e

answer would probably bo that -in MOSt

countries:

,3nd in the

advenced t=cbnclcgicalln:rather rarely.


Second objection ls of educational rG~sons.lt is ecnurallJ

t~a
i:
l'

~ccupt~d

muse'"n~

that

ide n t i t Y of Museums .(in particular of museum uxhibitions)

busad,among oth"l' features, on the fact that museums gnablc d i

e c t

con t a c t

of the vi s i tOI'

.101

i th

r e al,

a u t h

n tic

o b j e c t s.'Ihis contact 1s mainly .!,isu!,l,but,in some cRses .(in thu "han;!s


on" exhibits) i t can also be _~~.~Y!~~.In other words,the presentution of
l' e ~ l
t h i n g s la the feature which d i f f e r s .~u?eums grom
~~~ othar institutions of educational charactevi

r8al things <in particu


lar,authentic Specim(!ns,"preparates ll / cannot be replaced by irn'lc"s,at laaot
in the exhibitions whieh are subduo to the principlo of pre s'e n
t
l'

t i 0 n.n the .exhibiti~ which are organizcct on the principlo ot


e pra sen t a t ion, some amouht of~resented objects may be sho.n
8

in an i';dil'~ct li',y <,e.g.throUgh imaees,modals etc),but essentially ~~_r_o~


prsent~t~o.'l-.!_l!_P
.. ~_s~_ i b l e. without presnting on mUDCllm displ'lY
;;;~~ 'r~81 objects, in many cases ~n Naturnl History museums/,somo preparn
tos."stuffed" and "m6unted".

---

See: Swiecimaki: Musum Exhibition es a WorK of Art /ANALECTA HUSSER


LUNA/ 1976~

The principls of presentation and representation are clarifi,d too in

a d1ssert!ti.on being nOli published in the OPUSCULA MUSEALIU "Ekspon3J; a

przsdliliot muzealny" /Museum exhibit and Muceum object/./1987.

Some remarks ebout that.. problem can be f0l!nd in' my handbook "Ekspoz:;cja

muzealn~ jako utwr architektoniczno-plastyczny,r /Museum exhibition as

a ~ol'k of architectura and Pl8stic Arts/,Krnkw 1978,Jagiell.Univ.publ.

92

-.

ID other words,museum5 which would be ba5aJ


tboir exhibitions- OD a.. c ces 5 a r y
spBcific~lly "museal" character.

e xcI u 5 ive 1 y

objcct5,"'0~ld

-in

1005e thcir

Thir objection is bascd on s c i p n t i f i c reasuns.If wc agp,rJ6


~hat cOllcc.ing abjects of scientif1c value is one of the mo~L fundamental
principless of
i Dst e a d

im~Gine

a n y tYPd of museum5,one cannat

a museum,which

of authentic things would colle et only th~ir illl<'G"5,e,en

the most "accurate" oncs.This principle pmbraces muscum~ of NDtllr~l Hstory


\00 and museums of this type collcct abjects which
were living things and which -for

or educational roasons- hea

sci~ntific

ta ba kilha,preparea and transformoa into dcad


~veD

p r i mR r i 1 Y

abj~ct~: th~

"FrRp~r~t.,sfl.

in the most moJern and technologicallj advaneed mu.eum& the

r - --"

j u n c-

t i o n bet\leell...s:.~~n:i:.~c.~~Ilection and exhihit~on exists.lJlthollgh


mojern museums do not organize exhibitions conceiv,a ~5 fls=~entific col
lctions aeeessible for brl)ador
ere often put on

aispla~,just

au~ience"

W,scientificRlly-valid si" cim

bocause of thoir

scien~iric value,~s
........
.. -

_---_ -

:n~

d 0

c ume n t s. In many cases su ch specimens ara un-replacQ:.ble by any


acessory
.~~tted.

ObjRct~ {mode 15 ,replicas), b~causo.

the

inform~ Lion

by them depends on their authonticity.Onc cIJnot

tific~lly

thn t is trnns

L,1~gin

valuable Naturnl History exhibition which would bD

ct

v e d

of authontic,scientifically valtd specimens.All l'rUMinent

in aIl

co~ntries

of tan

beca~se

arc organized on this principlo:

baccuse on1y

t h Dr e

we arc

~blG

~o

to

any sci:n
0

P r i
rnuse~ms

are visiting them


s e e

SOmB unique

objects in their r e a 1 i t Y ~nd bo.t_ in an im~g~ <l'hotogr<:.phy,holoCr,,


~hy,model,copy,imitationetc>~ Nothing can rep18ce Lheir authcnticity.
l fully understand

rai

aspect which is ccnnocted vith

lam.K i I I i p g .is always horriblc,but although it

i s

thi~ pi'Ob

horriblo,~c

cannot avoid it in completeing scientific collecLions nbd in mounting


exhibitions. Killing cannot be avoided in m<:.nj oth.r doRins of .our civi

t,- .

lization;e.g.uhen wo produce and wear leath.r shoes,sVitcascs,furs,wi.en we


est m"a1s the nourishiog lIubstnce of "hic!, 1s I!lcat,etc. ',Je

.~c:.cept thi:;

sort of killing,m3Y be,io some cO\JardJt or even hypocriticEil

,,~y,fot" we

"like to torget"

h 0 v

the animaIs we

shot,trRpped,suftocated or dro"ned
s u f t 0 r

use

~.g.foxes

are killod: ho',. they are


in fox furms l,ho'.! thay

before the y d1e ~.g.in traps,for long hours/.We just obtnin:

~)'Tr.is

principle ~)as chsracteristic of troditional musaums,\Jhero scinnti


fic collecLions were not distinguishod from exhibitions.WhRn we encountAr
such exhibitions now,th.y should be considered as
r e l i c s of oid
tradition.Nany contemporary musoums ret3ined such exhibitions Just as a
document ot the pasto

93

l:ather,furs,meat etc and WB are pleased when this materinl is of good

~u~

lity.By collectlng zoological speclmens vr by mounting mucoun: exhibits .("stuf

,
killed,simjlar

jll~~. alil:c.

t"efl" blrds,ID3mm:.ls,mounted insects etc.> kilJing and nsnth ara

Alike is thA suffering of animaIs

dead objcc!s.There 15 no essential difference


whethcr

WG

kill a

tor our

QinnGr.Hu~eum

bird~

is their tr:.nforming into

in the

w a y

Cor a collection or in order ta mak, of it a

dosigner who mounts

6 b t a i n e d: ha obteins already dead preparates


th.y are of good quality.He even

~hcn

m~al

ail exhibition muY act "hypocti

he usually "trics ta forgot" ho>! particul<;r biras or

ticall~''',for

~er&

of killing

r d

a~d

m~l"mdls

is pleased

som, animRls ta ha killeQ

n!t.lough he wOllld not be able to commit this killing by hi,,~:dt: hi5 go"l

'$

to recive a good preparate and to use it for exhibition.Surfe ing and death
of

DU

imagin~tionx/.

animal he ordored to kill are beyond his

Thinklng about thls problem in


r"l;;rk that the

e con

my

criterion~.one

c~n

easily

which is sufferod by NATURIi: throur,l) eliminaling

If Il

somo namb"r of animaIs or plants t'or scientific or educationly pllrposes


is

~!hCrh

t h i n

in proportion to some industry action.,liko fi.hing

tha numbars of kilLd an"imol. are counted in tons p<Jr monih or in

"

"soloctive" hunting which flregulatosfl the "over -populniioll of "Iild-game


in

p~rticulut

ar'aS etc.It.is nothing even in rolHtion


.

to

~ll

kind of

h~ntir.g

orgnniza.d for pleasure and sport, -....:J ,.llich extarminotes animaIs

in many

rerion~

oC

th~

world.

Zoologicol proparat8s presontod in museum exhibitions are


s e r

e d

as documents of our scionce.Although th. proce.ft uf

includes killing,it is unavoidnblo as such.Wc have tu


a necassi ty.
th~~

o.

pre

~ccept

CollMcting of "p1anary",written or printod documents is not

~hich

d i s t i n gui s h e s

rias from musums.There are

rad i c a 11 y

mus e u m Il

obt~iniug

it as

fBature

arch vod and libra

specinlized in collecting docu

ments precisely of that sort: museums of literature are to be enliot.d


her. first of all.In this regard 1 do not aggree with the proposaIs t'ormu
lRt d

b~

h.Gregorova.

9. Any botBnist Rnd any zoologist would not aggre with a statemcnt that
botanical gardens and zoological gardens are institutions of exceptionally
cd~lcative

fUlIction.Hany gurdens bacame ,especially in race nt year s, th~ r-1H

ces

scientific research ls continued in many domains.Their educational

~~ero

-----

6 ' -.,/.(,)

hfi a ~~ra"m designer 1 am absolutely aware of mY\cowardice or


>!hen 1 order to shoot and prepare for ma soma ne~ specimen of a
ma,:,mal: 1 "try not to think" how this animal \1111 bo killed and
be "bIc to commit this killing myslf.I obtain a prepnrate and
;,hen it ls 'Iell Ill:lde.But is there any other way in "hich mu"elim
could be completed?

xl

hypocrisy,
hird or
l 'Iould not
1 am happy
exhibition

function is provniling,of courso,but on the oth,r

h~nd th~r~ ~rc

iD which scientific rosearch is only marginal in relntion to


activity

o~

muocums

educ~tional

even dODs not exist at aIl.

So far my remarks of the papers l receivod.It i5 very difficult to say


in which direction musoums should devolop ln tha futur.,how their rol~
Idll be expaDdlld.It is certain thut maily traditionnl for Ill; will be presor
ved but some now t'orms have ta be created.11ueeum audience from sorne rlozel,s
of years ago cannot be compat.. d 1oI1th the nudience wo roeet ln muaoums
&oday.lt doos not absolutely mesn that our contemporaneity should bo
evaluated as a pro g r e s s ; the chunges we observe in our clvl1ized
~!ords ~the "micro-worlda" 'of museums included!)' is very divo'rslfied and
bring both: positive and negative values.I am of the opinion th~t new
forms should result from cODscious analysis of our culture,especia.ly

------- ...

~----

of the demands of contemporary lUan,his passions,his de~ires,his preferen


ces and interests.Ontthe other hand museum cannot remain a pas s ive
institution: its role is creative,both in sclentific Bnd in

general~y

&ultural ~first of ail artlstic and aesthtic,emotlve Bnd moral) spheroS


l do not believe in "strlctly sclentific" museums,li:l;e in "strictly edu
catlve" ones.Any museum i5 in Ito cssense
ho~

this doma;n develops,what kind of

many-functionul.Futur~ shows

value~

will tt create Dnd what

~lll

be tho participation of museums ln human culture.

x x x

95

Hugues de Varine -

Paris, F'rance

Quelques remarques sur le thme

Paris, le 13 aot 1987

Tu me demandes une "contribution". Je n'ai pas le courage, pendant un t


trr: prturb par da nombreuses activits familiales "', professionnelles et
associatives, de rdiger quelque chose de trs srieux et construit. J'ai quand
mme lu attentivement la texte de provocation de Peter van Mensch, que je trouve
tout fait bon cO>l1l\e introduction, et beaucoup plus comptent que ce que Je
pourrais fournir.
Je voudrais seu13ment l'Avenir Gur certaines de ses ides et
la questioll qui lII'intresse depuis longtemps (depuis 1971 pour
peut-on av::>i!" 'lne l1Ius6ologie sans muse (au sens classique du
entra.ne plusieurs autres q'.lest!ons qui mriteraient une longue
fond:

notamment sur
tre prcis):
terme)? Cela
discussion au

1. L'exposition devrait tre en\'isage seule, comme langage et comme moyen de


politique culture lI" du patrimoine et d'ducation au sens le plus large. A l'Icom,
nous considrions toujours l'exposition comme soit temporaire, soit permanente,
et comme l'une des activits du muse. Mais jamais on ne l'tudiait pour e11e
mme, comme une activit portant sn propre finalit. Je suis de plus en plus
convaincu qce l'exposition est la forme primaire, et que le muse n'en est que la
forme institutionnalise, structure. La drive trs nette de la mission de
prsentation vers la mission de conservation a entrain" une occultation de ce
fait.
2. Comment traiter le .oatrimoine immeuble par destination: monuments et leur
contenu, sites, 1tinrairI'Js 0.t "c hanes u d'tablissements au de points d'intrt,
ensembles naturels et culturels, archives vivantes ou encore utilisables, etc. ?

3. La doctrine des collections publiques inalinables est-elle intangible ? Au


moment o e nombreux pays vendent au secteur priv les plus grandes
entreprises publiques, peut-on accumuler sans cesse dans les muses sans jamais
envisager d "'arbitrage" ? Un muse peut- il vendre et acheter ses collections et
une des activito ..usologiques n'est-elle pas de dcider ce qu'il faut vendre,
et non pas seulement ce qu'il faut acheter ?
4. Peut-on concevoir une musologie et un muse sans acquisitions et sans
collections permanentes, notamment dans le domaine de l'art moderne, de la vie
quotidienne, de l'cologie?
Le ,"use du Creusot, li l'origine, ne devait pas
avoir de collections et devait reposer sur ce qui appartenait aux membres de la
communaut, entreprises ou personnes physiques. J'ai toujours pens qu'il aurait
fallu s'y tenir.
5. Un muse peut-il I1voir, ou n'avoir que, des collections temporaires, en dpt
ou an prot, ou des fragments de collections systmatiquement alinables, non
COmmA un placement spculatif, mais comme une manire de renouveler constamment
la nanire dont on reflte une ralit changeante?
Tout cee!. paut paratre hrtique. Je ne veux nl. rpondre, ni laborer une
thori<l, mais je crois qu'il est sain et fructueux de se poser des questions de
ce geare, de temps Il. autre, pour retirer au systme musologique tabli ce qu'il
peut avoir de trop fig. La musologie n'est pas un3 religion rvle et je crois
qua, comme pour toute instit.ution humaine, il n'est pas une de ses rgles qui ne
doive, de temps li autre, tre remise en cause (quitte d'ailleurs la confirmer
si elle apparat comme fonde et encore valido).

97

Bachir Zouhdi - Damas, Syrie

A .R.. .I_....~

.4

.h"'PIII'1

v~;I_

c":""

,.,... 4. ,~ ._"':~'t4' ~~~ .<...

;;;;"'~fA;);..4,

.,..J"'F

..,.,1 ~

h ' -<.. "flt/-.e-t.

J.;-

.,(.. ~.

c,~,I;1;;., ;G.<!J:.. t~.,...J. to.J: ,.. f"~ ~,,~ .(, A---':'~~~ et./... ~. lit.. .:lft.t...t
. """ 4),._

......... cl..

,~c

~ .,~ A """- of..r-~':-'" ~'f"""A

#J -.".'

".,. ~ ~ ~. tJR."
4o.l..'pM .4.. ~
. . ..( PAIf'"-- '#:'Y'. v,"'.~ SlJt!r~ .,... 1'/1..:..:.4 ......./-.... '+ .t..
t::' . q
, fi..
-'.
<,1
1..
/.. . f
V\I!A~ fl'It:W~1~'r""'" r~~ vu;, 1.~ r;" N'hf!) r-~'
A

1.

.e. tJ...t!...

..,.,;k A..

WI

.,(,:/;",.

f-C'a-.

f-' -.

..,...t

r-~":'"

.-...:. cd

~;tt. ~1 U;..l.", f"M ~:J:.....

..... ,,~J,J.. ~'f'i"h"<./I-. k. ~ ~~ "......;., t~~ .".,(J...~ . ~'''; ~,.,t.:'


'1"-".1 'ln' tJ
/..A.- W\"<.. ...... ~, <l''I~ J ..... _.J..A. ~ .L..'-'o..
f,.;;A A.J:,~ ,...." /.,.,tA-;,....~ ~;,..-:.. J~... ".... ./.
~;,..

4J.r. ,/-,_

il

~.r- ..... ~ ,~ J"..~ .


)J. ,,,,,1. J'A- 'r' " .f;.~ ~+ ,..J

/.iL.," ..J,...

~ ,."...,.;.~.,.....

.t..

~,t..,,- ~.p~'

l!.'l

sur Edw21r L !im'!les

no"".., "it; ;".t4.A~~,."A ~t.I~ """"""'..!'1'f."" ~~ .ti, ~.... :. .. .tAo.:..; ~,~. ~

)l'1,,~ .~~,.~"""".J ii-~ (rJ~ t4.. (.fA,. ~7 l.;.Jf"I1/""""" ,-....~.' - t41... Nt. -flll,...}

~'...l I.~',y... '~

tt. 11-.1. - ' ~:JJ,'r .;. -J.~..... .:, ..t..-t.'


'A..:.., .AJf\; .-4 ",..,1 tf.. 1~ "t..t; ri ~'1'f' ~' Gk.. ~'~ ... ;"'fcAk..,.l-
, tf;, ~ f...tp 4 J...Itt .J ~ ;.,.f;"kf.kt J-i..,.... tU _wm ~ . - ' k
~
'\, ~,l,.;.}""1 ,-",,- C!Jl~ t>J ~.. /-J,''''';' ;'1.. t4 ~1 .....J ~ t-,J.4. ~ Ir\.
..,..)...,;,

1Ia.,~ -J ~,.,.,JI..,..J ~~/.,,<,;: . il? .#'...... ~ ~ 1'!J... {..J ftPt.. .

r:",.J

-4 ".,.,.

t..A.. tL. v; HI
~~.. """" """" tJ....

ft... ~'" ~ ~ '- C(J>M.~~ ~? n--''11 ..; ~:. , if '-

~t.q4."" ~ c,;, s"""~~ ~l ' eAl,,.. ~ fr..


~ ~ ~~f ;, i/1~J~,~ ~Jk "'fk.J~ ~t4.Ji.t'J"- Iv- tt.. fN'J: \ iJ 4
J..j ~ {-t"~.-l,.A';'3 o...-!

ft;

"!.!......11.,.,...I
99

u~

' r p4, H\o..

.Nf ;f't_ _"""~ /4 ~

... ..,."t" m- ....... , ;j~~.~'

X f."l.A.Hf\o. r- "~ 1/7'. III ~ _..,J.

~'N

",.;..; 1'z.."1J<,;.(,

~ """"- /"-

ft.. /tr.J ~. " / ~ III...

.;.I,<-~-<L ~ ("''' ~r-

e '..; '-

sur Alpha 0

4~

".,.. ."....... '. 11 4v.~J ~

"""+' 1</-...6......
t\..4

,J J.M~.~ ~'a'l: "Ir.. ~>":\ tI.J ,;,


M"V)lh

N"

11J,e, /A ~ ~ >4
~-~ ..,j,.".. w~
-'-'f,.,.~.
.",...!

4 "-'

(,.d.

c..

f~'r- .t.. "". or'; .

~(I!'l..,.r

c'.J- """- ~.&. ~ ;";~~i.

l<......(I1'".~.t,

rI'.lJ,.".. tL.. ,)l~ .1..... -. 1-r ~

~.:-!l;'" ,~.p.:J.. ..f ~, 1. ~.},.". . V'tV,,- .... ~

., 41..: J-JdtJ.

Jf

h.I~.".,.t ~I"'"

11-....

"....l"

l'....;.c,,.-,. -s>

J~";' ,-

(""hl' pM .4,.

H..J..: ~./. .y..,..;...Ji~ ~

A.-

..? ..,."'~ . k~ ~.

At. lI'l;.""""~ ,....... .t.,., ~

t';I>..,

~ ;M.c.- ...;..,.;, 4,

.t.. l..k.,;..:.k./;;.- ~;...t., .".

"'- ~._ ,.,.,~. I~ v1':";'~.... "'- ".-:.. 4I-.t. ~..;..I,';'" ~


.e. fk;'e..

h.

r4,.:,..l..

*-...t.

~J. ..r'Y"
L-.L/,Vi

~._~. >-J~ft .A.. f'tf--',.J.~ ~~ .J.. l4./- 4-1

-t.;,e:.....,

tJ".~,., ~ /""''' ~ ,,;,;4.- ~'" (.1- ~). t~l-""'" ~ ~


"- ~;.,{? /... u.k. ,I!~/'N"J..". fA. '1M<I'N'MJ;/;, '/,tle.,.tJ;. , t.11.. v"v-1 .. Wto< ~.1..1,.,..
ihf,JVMI>...f J.., ~'" ~-wf -t.~ d 1':"/'-I.. .)( .I.~ 1e- 1- Jp """'.
t,,, /,.,.. .}.',J"f\-II Ii~~~.,...." l..!.. ce-,,w,,-:,,,.IJ"6'"" .4.. 1...1.,M'A' .{,~,..t;..,. r...lt..t.JL.. -" )
",' ~;',J";rJ {_ . It h,~. J..:J ..... ~1'.... ~,.'1 ~<.J,I:" .tv.J A l'~,j;) e...UwtJ l ,. i

I. f
r.
,1 . Il
t.
.. -,
l
'-:fA:~U"~"" (!.~ "~"'I4't,;J;} !.I-\~""'Yi, "" Wl\t/J't -f'(VI"'\" ~AI""";"'....,

'

o"'P..,..,...~ L f"':H>. ~....i

J' . . .~ /v."-:'

Jl#t.j

'
J'WlooIo"f"'"

"-/J ~

,'1. ~J,~'

M ~'l!v.f!r1.C,,,,,. ;t, (~tJI:-' -1't'~';' d;.;......A .c.A...~ ( ~ -,.) . k ... .w.-:V

~("/l{:'-'.(:M'f;>M.wf "'","",/oN:' '" .;:o+v.',../. ~. w,l.;.) I-~ or... _~


J..,.. ~"'_ j,( ,,(J...;f 4. (,...~ {lM.n..r , . ,. ~ '-' vV..,.;- ~ ~.t, ..t<
Po~;, ./.''UU/'lYo~ <-1,. ~ !..;.r!~"m<e- . G_ ,. P ./.. y~ ~t.IIk c-

.1arI ......".,
1

J'ipQ<f,f s,'l''''".
if

0'

~~

Il'
..,..,
",,'r~ .. 'l

!
(,
~
."
;-,"'II'~.'<:Y''''' , k. / r - ,,1'1.:.- .
J' - -

Ah. q, 1. ...... ....


..:...'~;-""'''- ~,""N'(vo,- $ - ,'UA..f>--.Jfi:.

L l'~ f~ ~...:.{ ~

1',.....

/"

_.'

'.

1_,

--r ""t+-I -. ~ ....... --,.-

f'1J-tf-di-. 4./-,;,.: .. ~

. . . l"A.-:k'...... " ,. ~.,.e-

.4

.4.

.4-.~.

~....J,.".. .; "jY';""'",I,-,..

,ll~k; r_l(,f... ~..j(lJ:l,. t...,. f.{>.-;'.J-. i '17/1.:.w..... Ji. r{Y;.f~ "':~~'v.J,,,,,,, "4.,,..(,pI; r/,/ll
l!-,' ;o-;..i' cirj('KOI-V> ,r., ~t..:,,(; A. r,J).A4, ,; !,;,~ c<!- ;h"""':'. 1.... ~ " / : .
J
I
-CI
...(4..{)-~ , ,

,L,

100

"

1." ....J ~ J~ "- - : . C'..; ""fl~

~ .t-. "".....;,
4c--. t"?.., #~ o-Jp.ll- _ ..:... -1.. +'"1' ~.t.. ~.4..-.J;Ii. d'''-~
1..11# L -..:.. ~ :t~ 1 ;4-,~ :f-. ~"'/elkM' t., 1)$'''~Y>Voo i, r...tJ;.;"d
~.".,.".,..l, ~ "f!"Il-" ... A-f+.. . Ki'" k:o"'~~G ~ ~ "If",.,..,. do.! r-O-. '"' li,:,..
J~,.... 'l~.t... -.:. ...... f'otA\. ~ ,.... .t""..., 4. ~ ,.4.. ~ tf..,t..J.t.'
f'lq.",;-. )CI1N1!I'lt' .4vl.. ~~ ..t.. /fi..(,. "'c1:/ ""'- """ t7' .
f-.

,...'"..."

sur Mathilde Bella/gue

'*"

;.,J,:r>.l;w-:!;. ~t..J... ~ ~~ t4, I;!.~ mw....:.4;-.... li.; ~......t; .


liJ ,.---~:);... ..i . ~ 'rrNt ,,(.. ~ W': '/0'.,) ~ ~ ~ _ -....': .. ;(

11>...,."

,c..;.l..

.,'c.. ~ ~ '1- ""'"

tA. .t.. f"/H/..J'-'I .t.. c...Rf..A.. ,.,.....;, .4 tk.v;/,.Ji- '/,,;(e.-tA,


.1..... .I..-,~ '., J.. ~.4I'.:J..' ~~. 1."- .wt... tI,d , hn0'>AA el' """" .:.J~.4.. v,,"

~ hfV.f.~ ~.:f () ~ . rIll-J,~ cl- IMJ,.~. ..,.A~ ..1- ~, ;'


'S~ __ ~ IJ-"/ . frNMIV" tI'.vJ, i;d- .... .liJ..JA ~';""'~. ":''-fNI~
.1- ~ Il,,,..,'''IN.. G. !VVOI A L: -.;...... , L ~ ~.. "/. e,J~Jt.,... ,.,..' ~
U J)..JI::'. C:-./-,~.?-,,- 'S)1l. 'lt!t.tMQVl ~~ .t.
<-Ji. ~ ~
~,.,.,."J J.t.. ~ I,J,./' el ~~.. :l~~.1 1#.... c.:4.,.L- ~
lt"A .:..

"!fA""'"

(~ . .

.J.,,,,,, /.. l1\oY' ""~

,,4..

...

El slIr Joul<o HO!l1(1N;IU

....'1'1_

~ .:....l~ ~ j)/':. H~.-

""'';:'J,.,.., ,~~,J,."..

>

.;..~

fJII..

4. ~vi- ~J;..t.

,(.., ~ ,(..""..,..,..

i j'-tf..... ""~ ..-1 ~~,-r",'JilJ.:,.. ~ ~J

/uJ~ ,; d.,. '~~-!-7 l'~ .- - " " ' J 1-00 Il.t.u-t Jh'M. 'TL ~ ,;"" N' 'b,.
L .;..~ .1L. t~ '- tI..(Il,~ l~ , - .;. II~I"I-/~ wU 1-.. p- ...,.. Y.NI. .t; J44.
.. f.l.u.,. ~ "f!'1P,;,....t~ I.~ ~ ,.;. f ;J.,....,/. 11... -- t,f,./
fi.... ~/,.,.,..,..,.t.:.t
cJ! ~ . _.,~ ~ t.i~~ ~ J.,....

'1 tJ.. ~ fkJ.?, 7~"'-..~ '. }(

.;, ,""",-.:r.A--f~';' .:~.

~--c.,J

lVl

Ca

f~"o

i...tL

'.

11..n ., ~

I .... ~..

rL ~~~ ~
tI.... ~ J.,.,. -Jf~UYIA (

VA7W'lr- 1-" -

f.:..1.-J. .1.., w.".....

.t.'1rA ~e:".
1 0'1

ra

sur GaynoT Ka\'snBAh

sur Bernard Delcche

102

103

Il

sur Klaus SChrainer

SUT VesEJnt

ri Bedekar

tf.,trVl':'_ ~.JJ.".4 ~ ~4IL ",~ w.f~ ~ /''''''''~ ~ ~,.....


~ ~t~.l.. ~ ".,;J: " 11~".j ~.A~ (...-.- ~ -I,y~ ~:,
. tL. t"fwI.;}l'~ ~c. ..... .; ,.tJI-.,U. Ii- ,-"",w:A. tf... .fAue-i ~ ..;:;
~

fi ~,w.,. , ;/..A;-. f+f,.1J{~~

~ ~;I,-JJ..J,,~
rJJ. ~4 "'~o--. ,J.,-..-..:...J(II- h. I... ~ Id; 4-""t .. ~VV't , ~~
..,LJ. ' - " ' M _ ~;h U'~":e-v.,"- ~-...;.) ...,.J,,:J. c.w. 4... v,J.,.dl, ~
t.J!v.. ;/('1 """1.>1, ,..:. tki\. ,~ .' j...,.cJ,!hv> ).Iltm-~ '''ne';
~_
'1-.1'1} /, 1'~t..t,1 : tf....._ ~ i1Jw. Vl~ " SI)'M0X4."..,...,., .:f~ t.t... ";"IJ..Jv,t< ~
.APi ~~,..,... .;. J/It-";"~ $../1.- ~~ -:"o/;"""~ ~0>w ' iA ~ ~, 41-~
~,
.!",J_"'~/I vh:d. ~ . :t.... ,,~~
"'~~. ~..w... ~~"
W-<.

h'A-U'

/>NVY>'

7/.

~. fi.. .j,~,,,,'1

..

fi

'

#J~~",,~."/~~" J ~ ~ tIA,;;, ~ {~. .


~~...- ~k"", ,,_.~""" "",,1 IJ'M'~. Il ~~ k
L, ..Jl.J'-..M... ,k
~
UP,,J!'1-'"

.wJ

<{..........

/)1. ' - . ,

4<

_!.Ah.:,;l ~, ~~~

41r11iv~, '<~ ~ J ~"

1'''''1 ~~ ..; ~

'!

~"t ~...R'1'

-' ""'-~ 'Ill.. ~:1vo..tul.J.;.I.,,-J.J.vv-<. ~ :. '. ~ -..1


~'c.
~J.*'lI k.. !~~-J "..'<4, -4 .w4 ' t1..".J..." &...,tJ t:;: .t... 4.. t;.
~ l/.... ~c-.'fl.l 'j-wt.'P'r'" ,.; t/...
c.o--.. -v> ~~ wJ;J./,'~,:
'f1.:.-J~1 .. " --t.J (; 1...
~~ 'if ~ li 1'1~ li...
/J...tIc.. ,/ Il,,,,... t,.,..,.,, "-" ~4,;... 4wI~' '. ~ N"... fi.. ~ m.;d~
~
~;W 'if """'-..,.~ " . j) il, d.+ l.6"'~ ",dl. t(.... c1-~) ",;)-11'"..'

(;-..;J(#\.

1l

,.f"...o-

~,", ";,, L. ".~J ~


w Jw.rI~ .... ~!l.C,..j ho....~

104

Il

.......""""'..

....

Ji...".J l'''''''~~~

IV}"

,
r.J
li> Cf".'~ w.tt; iP.l.

,.;

'H~ 1w... ~
~~ 4V~0Yvo't t>4.. ~' tt........l"1'J

~ ~ ~c....

sur Anna Gregorova

105

"" ~ --u ~ ;J ~ ".J... ~


~"N' .-. Jo" I~ ~

. 1.. "",,-:J-r

o(".e

,l, (.

fr'm

j-b4' 14,,/

.t..

hro...

(',1~.,....

f.~ -.r:.:f,'f- .A Ik.".... ~ "4:.1<'


tv.-. t-< ~ rL,
,..:r- "f~.....,f

l{..(;",,.j,.,.. .4.

4"J~ 1A._ .,;./ --:.J..-.t.

~: .. Il

,.(",.....! c,.h

t.....v.4 .tA.. fl"NoM,..

~...t ... ,....~~

4-,..... '.){ ~

,..... . k ,...-:,." q;J~ '" tAIN? ~ ~ ,..... ~ f"" ~ cf ~


........, .4 ~~ ~ .....";e-,,.IC.: .. IL II- rJ' 1 ~ .......... ~ - ~

~ f+..f- f1..!.tt.;.. ........., .y.;;'1-. II'- /l.r;t~ t;f,.. t;A,J .t.-v,..l.. J. . {fI\J ",... -....

m:.,.,.~ ~'..t.. ~ f,,",,- L. .. j)~:l.-' 1. ~4- ~ I.,.


~ .4.. ~
1

d-.,.,.. /.,- .,..

'/'
.J';,'
..... Ar',
tM.'lr.~~::""

li'!

'1"'"

4-~~d-<l1.t. .

su: Josef Bsne~

'1\.

IN. ".

~~

.t. {I,44

~f"""" ~ ....-,L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~. "Il:/;'" ~ ~ <k. (',.,J"GY' ~r.:,.J.. ~ J, ~ ,.,;Jv... .1, M";,t,.' "'-' ~ JJ,,.,.

\lEIlI.rf

"""""'"

.<.. ..... ..,J)~" .!' ~ )~~,. tlty,.,.. j"~/~~ or.. 1...,., {~[:/;, .
.p~. ~ ~ .J- f/i.....tI~ I~ L . ....f-.. !1. ~... L 4l"'~:"""'" ,t.. .,. ~r,1!.L "Je-M.' tf ~
I!.

'-."'>

r.. _ ,1.,

,l,iJ.!'

:..-

~~

~.J"","

.,

-f.'

""';:,~ ,l". {'rX'.,-t'N;Y.. CJ/,.vt", ~ ..... ,. 7"V\.~ "'r~.o..

7l C?ff..r-. ., ..."..~", I~;- ~f';""d;" .6............ ~

~-t f-'-tJ..t,.,...

-v.:.

e'

If';' ...... ~

II~

<-.M'~

.t....

Vi.~

..t-

~ ..

-~.. ~ {'/\,,;,.~.,.J""" ...r.... /k.J'f?Pv1 1 ./'~...IJ.,.. of#- .4. ~


~vf'r--",J1<.-..j""'''''{:, ~.?' .
11..
..
r
.
4<~f--" ",t.~.., ~..:.~ ~ .i _.;~ .... .1 fv.MJ,..,..,.., ~ _~.
],{~:--'
j;.., ~~ ~A_':"..t.. e ,- ~:; ..' .../ . "'/:...~II~J
..-A.'
t,.
f
.
~'I"
'ir"oq-< ..... r-Li.
1,.

. . ~ "'""" .)

f/~!9 . . . la,

7-'

sur Andr Desvalles

107

sur Wojciech Gluzillski

U. ~Ji 1- 'f1i-J ~.;...IIi!>' , ;~

1' ~~ ,MJ t4

~J

Jt..

~ ~ / l1HA- ~

~. tNI~~ el.. ~... ~tt... ~'.


'. fA-}
8f H .. ...:tA ~ ..e.cAw.., IL dddj ~ ~
4w.4t..... ~ '" ~. J1 ~f-. ~ th. f'1J-t.V)u/~ 'd.. ~~~
,; ~". tL. e.t>-tl.'J'-o -1 ~ , . R.t.Vi.,... ,;v..r..i-r- '1 ..td~
-tL. 4",.~ ~~iJ'fIA """"~ h. il, /NA# ~~,.j,.~~ ~,,;jw..

--".,e

~JI#->.J"..i.
MINJc, ~ti

tk w..:J;

11NNJ' -" ,.!/ -J-:j.,), ~ .

;, .. ~,.;~ ~! ~ ~ t4:r.. dw.J .

f#-.L "1..1,- /l-w..J4 ~ tI... ~...J,."...~ .. ""',~lfw~~


.:. tL .,4'r...---~ ,.; h:"'~ e..~.... . ft Ilxn ~ u;"J ...iJ
~ if. ~ ~
t

-4 q.

~.L:.,

-""'4M.

w(l/J

-4

q ; if~;" ~ ,. ~ f ~ ~ tL.. et4t, 1~

1 '1..4, ~ ,wcl.-..

'A

sur Isabel Laumonier


11>....... ."...

.,....u:.. ~

1f1$ "'-

J....c...

.c) \ e... /I~ .

.e <i)~,,,,,,,,

4 , .1'"

D,

.t-

(,.t,.f ,(,-,

~ Il .. '''fi'

''"1 ,~

v';,.;Je..M

L..

f~ -IfMI",.,.,.,..; .. 1. 1~ ~,..

-ri-- ~ r"': ~ ~~-

(J." ~ __...". _ f'l#+

c.. .v.."

e~ J

,:

u... Jo/."'/ ~,;U..: ~

, ,,' ,,, "" ~

~~.I..

.4.,

, '

42 /. ".f...tL.: .... ~_

~ el.,..J .... /l~ "/'AA,. ;,i:".....~....- .

I/~

IVJ;~ 4. H-:...

~ .,.......J;JJ1At.... J,.., 1'1'-:"" .<.. e e..p...l... ,) A, ~

~"V\ (~ (1'-0)

..u4

,;.J~ ~

1"- 14 ,,,

~.

~~ ~.

~ I~ -1..4... ./'- 14.-. ,-' ~ , ~ :


- 1. ,(,...'1"'.,..t.,.... "(,, e ,.;J....J,.,.. ....J~..b...
- lA ~ ~ ~ .('~~''I'" .t .t. I~I'''''' M .........-:..1"1-"
- l. J ~ J'''',.t.".,J..".. 4. ~-..JI~ ,) LI''''''' t t, ~ .
I } "" ..

f1t... 4. fI-,./....r..t. "1' ~..w-. ,,(,.,.{ EA


- Il.. 4 ~ .t- .t..il..vfe-...N> qj...",.~..;J

,- 1"""1-.-.-"'- --..

~' .... ~ JI:'

"

i 1'>

.,........

J ~ ~ 1-
4..-... p.-I...,... {-1";~ M ~
ifv'k,.., ,

- 0...... ~ Ji__ ~ ,.",.}~~-t M ~ .

q~' J ",..,:v.u:J- "''ffl~ .R....

,(", V;,.;.)e..An'

108

L..e..

I!J'-"L ~

.e.. ~ yt-..t ....-.t..t..I-"t<

t... ~~ 1-. ..&... "..".....;.. .q..;....-f .Lor,V\. . .t. ~~ -. 1'-.4.1 A''7'~


.A- __ ~ ,(.~"- /'11-<,1. ~ ..... ~.,."J;;.. .. "<-<-wo..k. ~
~ - - "1r!.-W,"" r~"f"""-'
Ut... ~(If- .. J ~ ~ .<.. ~'*""<\W' .l. (47.. .t.... ~ 04... ~ .
""':''''''f- ~ cl""
M~ lt-- '->L' 14""'" . hw h'f\.~ , &~
...... ~> ,...,~). L ~~ 1~<-.J ~ .f.~I''''' 04. -'-..
~", b.'cI ~ li- ~"""'t4..L.. ~.4" ~ ~ '.....
t;{..:., J.J.. ~ 7-'" .:J e.W.&.1.... ~ - ...... 4.~.~ "'''1f~'''';pv,

.,...... k~i.""",.4

//./"qt:IJ"'1 ..... ~~...J ofA..'>Y> ...... ,(".~,<. ~"

sur Lynn Maranda

~,. ;",.l;,.~ ~.. ~'f-"- ~ ~ 4. L:..uM "'~~ .


tI.. v.-;.:J..,...J. ~t.w";" ~~ ~,-l tt... t.;1lW,'tf'>' 7 ~ ......J if.M. e.v'I...
,-s;o."..."

~.;..J.,,.. Il...J. ~". ~f11 ~..t.-I ~ tU AC-Ll-nlc ~~ will


tI. "...~ 1 (AJ,'~':11.. -;-tt.t. .;, .. j..Jtr'. ..:. tif 4U,',./ ~cJ.N~ ..-/

109

surSM Nair

110

sur Paul N Perrot

P./WI ?.4.. ... -fd"'- ;,t; ~ ..c.. p~ v'".... ~, .; -fr-A. ,,-.. \


'tL. ~ ~ tJ-t 1Id_' fi ~J. .. -~ ~ ~1 tJ... ti.-v,,4'-.Jlfoo

{tJ... ~,/~" ,.~ f!.At,..yt. \t; r.IYJ"';":p.J,.,.. ~ ~f/l.v.:,i dt/~'"

a>1Ct.

,
JI. ~tI<.'

cl. ~~J,.,... ri ~ ,,4 Nt. {<4~ AUlf/4{ .... ~ t-h.

~ III "",LJ
l/1" : /~;.j../ w-;.e-Il~ wL..L ~.t. ~ __ W...,.I..;1
kt,... ~, ~ t4 ..,;JI. 'kA:J, .;. 1/.,. .L.:./fl..',J
:

-u..,

~~. p<N\/,u.. -t.J.v....

~~

MA.

tt... ",-?"v-/(,,... iJ+!

w.(..

...;

li. .~

-4

w../...'d. .......

..J....J I?

l.~;.

7.Il ,
....J,
.

ft .. ~ (- H~IA " l'fENS CH l '%)~. fl0/l.;I- .tJ., tI... ..,:.~ ~~


t,.t, ,.f t - ~
(J... -.."-; ~ IL ~.,..~ ;(&-"J,.-.. , tJ. J

II'\.

..;.~. ,.. ~{;, tl. ~

ri ~ AfJ,., -{ ~ w..e..~ '!~

..
sur Judith K Sp!<:Jlh'uef

~7' ~ .(',t:.;~ tl.v. .-.M..J,lfovo (~ ) tf '" /t..A. ~ ~',./, '


Il- -1I1f--<! 1... ~~ m-c..<. , ft..... ,;( J~,.J 14. ~w-A.. L 4..e.-;,..
Mol.;"" JJ,,/".JJ.. .t.. ~,A-,.e.., ~f/ ~~ . U e,,/ "';'~, , d./.. .<..
ee-.Y~,..JA ... "'f,.,'''-f+-' if ~ 4. ~ Jt...,j,.~ """"- v~ .; """'-

"":rl\..,,.};.tr-- .. f, c..1i',.,lt... .--J(,/t':'J,i, J,l... ~w-h. ~'<I-~

. t.

,Q

"VI

1.

~r...J t..... ~

"
.... ~,:.'
f

~I" S1:...t/.........oA ~';.f!...~-- .J.. ~ ... .L... .1-~1 L ~~.t.... ~,

.J cq.{~ ,__ 1-. .-r-.-..... ."j ,\!-OO ~- , ... "....~.,.. - .

f...,

>FJ'..t-..~ /4.~ ')- -1- ,',of..... " - ~ ........ ~ C().w.. ~ ~ 4,

~~J, j',v./Jl".':",- ~w-.4Ao-' ,.,......;, ..."..... ~ ~ e.- ~.~"..


~ .... ~..........~i ~_: ,,'t"/: -!",d.:J d~ t~..I..-, ~ A t~~ ... .L..........

J- .t....,.q... (;IIfAI!/'~t1"',: ?V~ c..-...,/ ~

.. ~ A- ,J....... ::... '1>((. Sr:~ . .t ~ ~ w 1. tI.:n:.t. tJ.J..~ ~

,~:.J~e-..J1, J.. t.fJYv-~"- , .1.... ~ ,f ~.....A ~'f-4


l'Pt{.

-M.~ f&""-

p .. ,1.. e ~.I'-' .... ~ --JI ttv.- .f~'''''''''

1~' ';4 .-m..~ ~.J ............ h<h,.......... '11'-'~: f.. ~...,J -1',",,-0
4, m-U~o~ 1.A.h. "'f'-- "t... 1~tIK .'
1.. ~~i' ~ ,..,.. ..e.
c.v".... tlvit. 4-U. Il- ~"".t... ~
.t.P ".~

/'~"....v ~ ~"""u.-.

e!,t.

~~~ 1l...I..

,
~~,

~. i e~ ""'~~'~ .t.. e ~,.. ,.t.. ~ ~ .4


("'4"~? th/~;v . t m:~ ,q.:J f,w'~:.L, .e 11'<4 """ ~ " ~
~-.-t.! , "mW1II'\ . - p~J,'(1VI",I~ U<1'4- ';""''''r Jwt...4. ~ ~'.
111

sur Manfred Trlpps

rp~ tJ;. w.f.lt~ ,t:..d.. ri,.. rRi/,(lS ,,(.r,' .. H""'-'" ,;, ..-...~ ~uI i.t . ,

tL. :-.JLA-.. . 4/ ~C.J Jt/luJ, '/1 .. ~;/ J;, ~-..I i ~ ~ ~

t; ~ Tk. J;.~J.t. t"'~I'fr' ,ffV~ ""..J f~ eJ.;).J,.,..... 1fw,.t..r

~ jM-. "r-J',....t.t. JP....IV(\.U, U~ ~dMi,t./) ~ k.-.jr:. .. ~.;/;.".,..

~ ~ ~ ~,( ~ ln 2{~i1'" ~ 1.;J~ ,I<-~.-.../

tL. ~~t~k .'. '11~ if iL f{;"IP'7 ""U ~


~ ,f.-;"..J

nJ~.L, r.. ~.i&.,J;. ~, ~ ~ ~.....,.k

-0
1t/... V~

.... 7t..~

~ ~ ~tk#~ ~ ~ ~ .. th~~.;. ~~.;..


.f..J .. ~ ~_ -1 ~~ .L./r1' l$Yo~
~ G IL (1.,1....
~ ,;. {J.. ~... 1,.,) , ;fi... 4.' -r.L- f..J tu~) .... ok. L ~ Pve
f""f'I.:f, ~ ti-.-.J ~ j"", ~"j~ ~ : II... ~~ ... -(:frU. <J 4
..;. th 1"- {tk L;iI"J rift.. ~/,,,,,,,, ""''' ~f(~ '. t1,rL.ti stv'l-v..
..,),..fJ...t.I. "'/7 ~ c- f1,,, -/c!.tJ.,c.1 j;,,)<t/Ij ~.Ir ~ ...:. ~~"
HL ""'..... cg-. ~ tJ- Cd>- c.e.,.hJ.. h.. fi.. ~ t1wu..- cJo-. " ~
~'; .t-.-d e-JJ-J.LJ"'t . s r~ ~ ~ ~~ tJ....I wh
W?

In-

vv.,..J;;.,),'6Y' l-..k.'t---

'-'k

~"1u' ,J.;j~ ~.J,~ ~ vry --.t

~J,~ ~cJj~-k/~ ;1

LI"",

~~~ ~,.,J ~~7

~". t?\~J.e" -./~".. ~ ~ tI..~.J,,~


l

..,.);,.

~..;,..e

"-r- -If~';"J .L;,t~e...t

~~ ,~.
/
'. n~~
u
d. AI ~.L/../
7 ......... /1'-. ...;~

tL. ~ ~C.~fA .w.,.~ ~ ,...,.; 1....

e--{,."..." v.;

tJ.w... e-"1'~'1nte.,/

'i' ~ tntw

~ .... tJ... ~"j"".. ~fkv-. f~ ~.I, . ",.. ",../ I ~


~;Jr~."
th ~ ~ ..:. m--->t~ ~ ~;I,~
-4J.J,~ .

";iL.

~ ;)o((.o.J....,. ~ ~ CHJ ..dl '" Mit-..,:, ~


I~A, ~ ...J,'Iv< '.-./ ~..,J,~
w

112

4- tJ... titNl ;-(:

sur Bachlr Zouhdi

113

Symposium 1987: Analytic summaries


of basic papers presented in 188 12

Colloque 1987: Rsums analytiques


des mmoires de base prsents dans 1'188 12

Viewpoint 1:
The idea of the museum - its birth, development, definition
Summary by Mathilde Bellaigue

117

Approche 1:
L'ide du muse - sa naissance, son dveloppement, sa dfinition
Rsum par Mathilde Bellaigue

121

Viewpoint 2:

The museum and museology

A spontaneous or rational relation - or none at ail?


Summary by Judith K Spielbauer

125

Approche 2:
Le muse et la musologie
Une rlation spontane ou rationelle - ou aucune rlation du tout?
Rsum par Judith K Spielbauer

129

Vlewpoint 3:

The museum and development - inside and outside

Trends observed and forecasted


Summary by Eullia Morral i Romeu

Altmugh it is always difficult to make a brief sUl11TIary, as many


subtleties tend to be lost, we believe that a series of clear facts
becane evident from the 34 basic papers prepared, which in more than
one case coincide exactly with information from other authors.
1. There is no doubt that Museuns are evolving.

There are even several


authors who go back to the origins of Museums (MAROEVIC, SCHREINER,
ZOHUDI) - not a very common thing in ICORJM - in order to inform
us of the "changing permanence" of this multi-faceted phenomenon.

P.van t-ENSCH has made a close examination of the most recent stages.
However, evolution is not the same as adaptation.

And practically

aIl the authors appear to coincide in that it is due to the influence


of external situations that M..1seums adopt different ways of
organizing and introducing themselves. Furthermore, as SCALBERT
points out, an institution is static by nature and only changes if
it is shaken up.
Z. The present situation is an illustration of this aspect and

practically aIl the authors coincide that we are undergoing a


polarization wherein, on the one hand, there are Museums proper
which are recognized as such by everyone, and on the other, a
whole series of initiatives which either under the name of Museum
but with other aims, or with similar objectives but without the name,
are forging ahead and attracting people who in addition to enjoying
what they see often pay for the pleasure. (BF..NES, DESVALLEES,
SPIELBAUER, KAVANAGH, LEYfEN, PEARCE, MARANDA, BEDEKA, HEINONEN,

MIQUEL & MJRRAL).


The former type of centre is subjected to considerable pressure
from the latter and will end up by changing it. This situation
causes division among authors:
sorne protect themselves bhind official definitions, saying that
anything outside is different and cannat be accepted within the
confines "of the Museum".
(BENES, PERROT, HAWES, SCHREINER).
others open their doors, intuiting that everything is really the
same.
(GWZINSKI, KAYANAGH, MIQUEL & MJRRAL, and partly PEARCE and
GRECDROVA)
133

3. Let it he said then that the contributions that allow us to see a


little further are those from MASPD, NlGAM and KOUNARE. Because
we Europeans are accustaned to considering ~1useums as another part of
our history, and this often makes us unaware of their role as "colonizers"
which has developed and is developing more or less explicitly within
society as a whole. But outside our continent, the />Useum has been an
imposition, and is the symbol of the influence of an alien culture.
But when the countries that have undergone this imposition regain their
freedan they do not close the Museums. Because they continj e to be
useful to the new dominant minority within an irrevocable process of
''westernization''. And i t is a fact, as EGCROVA says. "that Museums
are rot the expression of culture but a specific part of that culture".
The usefulness of MJseums, linked to a certain type of society. a1most
imperceptibly became established together with the first "seeds"
distorting for ever more a culture which did not previously require them.
4. Museums within the framework of their different situations have been
considered a good wayof catering for a human craving for security,
(SPIELBAUER'S "integrating active preservation"), for continuity,
and well-being.

These aspects take on more or less importance


depending on the psychological situation in which they are immersed.
When MAROEVIC finds similarities between the "classical sinuosity'
of the Renaissance, Romanticisrn and Postmodemism, it is because
there three situations are linked to the state of mind that is related
to three revolutions that have mest violently affected the western world:
the scientific revolution, the industrial revolution, and the technological
revolution.
AlI this causes Museums to be considered as use fui e:xperience makers
(BEDEKA) to help society in its progress. But KAVANAQ-I warns us:
"Museuns are not innocent creations, born in a moment of intellectual
puritY'. Museums are two-sided. SUlER's comparison is a good illustration:
"relics were the key to understanding the world". But the fact that
there were exhibited on altars gave rise to the establishment of a
vast cOJllllercial network and a whole "industry" of falsification ...
S. The authors do not seern to dare to make a prognosis, but we are of
the opinion that it is possible to glean something fran several of the
contributions.
Our Museums are increasingly more weighed down by the. need for
,
conservation (SCALBERT), partIy due to a not very selective policy
concerning acquisitions, and partly yo highly resrictive legislation
that channels everything considered to be of public ownership into the
MuselJl\s (archeology is a good ex~le of this). Such a handicap brings
us increasingly closer to a deficit situation where internaI obligations
134

ooncerningexternal demands are precisely in the sphere of activities


of an external nature (HElNONEN, FORRELLAD), ei ther ta serve local
politicians or ta attain :the nunber of visitors without which it is
impossible to justify budget increases. This double pressure may lead
ta a new adaptation in the sense that Museums - tmder that name or any
other - becane less places of physical conservation and more places for
the redistribution of a patrimony, in the physical sense also.
'The renting of historical buildings, the lending of works of art,
exchanges, - these could be sone of the tmdertakings of the near future
and have already been put into practice by various centres.
Whatever the case, we should be capable of foreseeing such possibilities.

135

Approche 3:

Le muse et le dveloppement - dedans et dehors

Tendences observes et prvues


Rsum par Eullia Morral i Romeu
Malgr qu'il est toujours difficile de rsumer, parce que ncessairement
beaucoup de nuances disparaissent, je crois qu' partir des 34 basic-papers
prepars on peut dtacher uns serie de traits qui apparaissent clairement,et
que mme.ont men des coincidences trs exactes entre les diffrents mem
bres du Comit.
1).Personne ne doute que le Muse volue. Mme -chose nouvelle l'ICOfOM
il y a plusieurs auteurs qui rculent jusqu'us origines du Muse (MAROEVIC,
SCHREINER,ZOHUDI) pour nous faire rappeler de la "permanence changeante" de
cette figure aux mille faces. P. van MENSCH nous parle aussi des tapes plus
rcentes.
Mais en rlit, on observe qu'on se refre plutt une adaptation qu' une
volution vraiement dite, parce que pratiquement tous les auteurs coincident
sur le fait que c'est justement consquence des situations exterieures que
le Muse prend des manires diverses de s'enoncer et de se prsenter. D'autre
part on doit noter, comme bien dit SCALBERT, qu'une institution est par elle
mme statique, et elle ne change qu' scousses.
2).L'poque actuelle dvient illustrative sur cet aspect. Presque tous ceux

qui ont cri coincident dire que nous vivons maintenant une situation pola

rise o l'on trouve les Muses proprement dits, rconus comme tels par tout

le monde, et face eux toute une srie d'initiatives qui -portant le nom de

Muses mais avec des objectifs divers, ou avec des buts semblables mais sans

le nom- surgissent puissamment et emportent le publique qui s'y amuse et,

mme souvent il paye pour y entrer. (BENES,DESVALLEES,SPIELBAUER,KAVANAGH,LEY

TEN,PEARCE,MARANDA,BEDEKA,HEINONEN,MIQUEL & MORRAL).

Les premiers (les Muses) se trouvent sous une forte pression des autres, qui

bien sur va les transformer. Cette situation divise les auteurs:

ceux qui se protgent derrire les definitions oficielles, en nous prve


nant que tou ce qui en reste au dehors est una autre chose, et qu'on ne
peut pas l'accepter dans l 'horizon du Muse,(BENES,PERROT,HAWES,SCHREINER)
.ceux qui ouvrent portes, avec l'intuition qu'en ralit tout c'est la mme
chose (GLUZINSKI,KAVANAGH,MIQUEL & MORRAL et, partiellement, PEARCE et GRE
GOROV!Il ..
3.) A notre avis, les contributions qui mieux permettent d'avancer un peu plus
au dela sont celles de MASAO,NIGAM et KOUNARE. Parce que les europens sommes
habitus voir le Muse comme un pice de notre histoire, et a nous fait so~
vent oublier son rle "colonisateur" que, de faon plus ou moins explicite,il
137

a jou et joue dans le cadre social. Mais au dehors de notre continent, le

Muse a etune imposition. et il est le symbole de l'ingrence soufferte

, par l'intrusion d'une culture trangre.

Mais lorsque les pays qui ont eu cette ingrence rcuperent la libert,

ils ne ferment pas les Muses. Parce que ceux-ci continuent tre utiles

la nouvelle minorit dominante, dans un processus d-"occidentalisation"

qui semble non-reversible. C'est que. comme affirme GREGOROVA, "le Muse

n'est pas l'expression d'une culture, mais un lement composant spcifique

d'elle mme". L'utilit du Muse. attache un type dtermin de societ,

s'installe de faon presque imperceptible auprs des premires "semences"

qui vont distorsionner jamais une culture qui. autrefois, n'avait pas b

soin de lui (NIGAM).

4).Le Muse, encadr aux situations diverses, a et consider comme une voie
approprie pour faire face aux bsoins humains de suret (le "preservation
active integrant de SPIELBAUER). de continuit, de bonheur. Ces lements
prennent plus ou moins importance d'acord avec l'tat psichologique gneral
dans lequel le Muse est immerg. Si MAROEYIC trouve des parallles entre la
"classical sinuosity" de la Rnnaissance, du Romantisme et de la Post-moder
nit c'est parce que les trois poques sont rlies aux trois rvolutions
qui ont boulevers plus fortement le monde occidentale -scientifique,indus
trielle. technologique.
Tout a fait que le Muse soit vu comme un utile "experience maker" (BEDEKA)
qui aide la societ avancer. Mais KAVANAGH nous alerte: "Le Muse n'est
pas une cration innocente, ne dans un moment de puret intellectuelle" ...
Le Muse a plusieurs faces. La comparaison de SUL ER est. son tour, bien
illustrative :"Ies reliques taient la cl de la comprehension du monde".
Mais le fait qu'elles taient exposes sur les autels des glises motiva la
cration d'un vaste rseau commercial et une "industrie" de fausses ...
5). En ce qui se refre aux pronostiques,. il semble qu'on n'ose gure d'en
parler. Mais en notre opinion, partir de certains textes il est possible
d'entrevoir quelque chose.
Nos Muses sont chaque jour plus crass par les bsoins de conservation (SCA~
BERT)motivs. d'une part, par une politique d'acquis insufisamment selective
et d'autre part par des lgislations trs restrictives qui canalisent vers les
Muss tout ce qU'on considre patrimoine putiliqe -l'archologie est un beau
exemple. Cet crasement leur conduit de plus en plus une situation dfici
taire sur ses obligations internes, face des exigeances exterieures qui se
dirigent. precisement. au terrain des activits temporaires ouvertes au dehors.
Et a,soit pour servir p la politique locale (FORRELLAD,HEINONEN ) ou soit
pour obtenir le nombre de visites sans lequel on ne peut pas justifier des aug
menttions de budget (MIQUEL & MORRAl).
138

Cette double pression, peut tre, peut conduire le Muse vers une nouvelle
adaptation au sens qu'il devienne -sous le nom de Muse ou avec n'importe
quel autre- moins lieu de conservationfisique et plus lieu de re-distri
bution (aussi au sens fisique) du patrimoine.
Les louages de btiments historiques. les prts d'oeuvres. les changes. peu
vent dvenir quelques uns des protagonistes du futur prochain. pratiqus
deja aujour'hui dans certains muses. En tout cas. on devrait tre un peu plus
capable de le prvoir

139

Viewpoint 4:

Museology and museums

A global analysis with emphasis on ideas not covered


by other viewpoints
Summary by Rosario Carrillo

141

Approche 4:
Musologie et muses
Une analyse globale des ides non traites par les autres approches
Rsum par Rosario Carrillo

145

"

Symposium 1987: Additional papers


received after closing dates for IS5 12 & 13

Colloque 1987: Textes supplmentaires


reus aprs l'impression de 1'155 12 & 13

Maria Horta Barretto - Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Basicpaper

MUSEOLOGY AND MUSEUMS: building the road through walking"


The case of Museums and Muscology in Brasi 1 lIIay offer many
good points for the discussion of Lhis symposium topie:
the need for Museology, what are Museums and for whom, in
the contemporary world, would there be a "survival." model
forthese institutions (7), appliable worldwide?
Vou may' think l am going to speak about a different model
of Museums existing in my country, a country which belongs
to the so-called "Third-World" in many aspects and which
may be considered' a "First-World" coun try in many others.
A country which encompasses many different countries in
an almost continental extension
wha t gi vas us already
a framework for discussing. Museology and Museums in Bras i 1.
Would there be a "brazilian museology", developed from this
quite peculiar situation, would wc have found the "solution",
ideal or not to tackle our own problems? Would our museologi
cal problems be different From those of other countries,
would they be comparable to those of other Latin-American
countries, or to the African or Indian problems?
No, we haven't found the "solutions", but at least, l may
say we have started to detect the origin of the problem,
the reasons of it, we are more aware. in recent years, of
the complexity of the museum work and field, and by that,
we think, we are starting to think differently ...
Museums in Brasil are not different at a11 From most of
the museums around the world. Nor is Museology different,
either, in concepts or in practice. Museums exist in my
country before i tself existed as an i ndependent country.
The Portuguese royal collections have been settled as Museums
ln Rio as far as the early 19th century. West-European models
have been brought to the country since that Ume, determining
aIl aspects of its "cultural" life, museums ineluded. Museum
studies were started fi fty years ago a t the Uni versi ty of
Rio de Janeiro. Museology as seen in its old conceptions
as "the study of the history and background of museums,
specifie systems of research, classification. conservation
and education", as P.van Mensch mentions in the introduction
to his provocative thoughts on "Museums in Movement".
l am myself a product of these concepts and academic training
and my career as a museologist in Brasil is not different
From that of many other colleagues. In the past 20 years
l have been working in df.ffernt kinds of institupons,
mainly governmental ones, from a Sound and Image Museum, to
the National Fine Arts Museum, a National Hi.storical Museum,
a Folk Arts Museum. ApparentIy, a very sucees fuI career,
but, indeed, a very frustating one; due to the sensation
that what l had been doing, during these many years of
hard work, had nothing to do with reality outside the museum's
1 51

wi1.11 's. "My" museums were always empty, and even if sometimes
they were crowded, it didn't seem to be for the right reasons ..
One point was ever more elear to me, that could may_be ex

plain those feelings of empt:'ness, of a frui tless journey.

1 myself and the generation of my colleagues, graduated

in the lat~ 60's and early 70's were basically "pure museolo

gists", not n8virig any specifie field of special ization

or background (we were not historians, or art-historians

working in museums, neither anthropologists or 20010gists

working in museums, nor arehaeologists or paleonthologists

in museum workl

Pure "museologists". What were we, by l'Ill means, this large


group of very good practitioners of sorne varied museum techni
cal skills learned at the university and through daily prac
tice, having as subject for our discussions and professional
meetings an area of exploration limited strictly by the
walls of our institutions and by the time-length taken by
an abject, from its arrivaI at the museum's desk until its
arrangement in a storage shelf or exhibition showcase?
This made the whole difference, we could see, From other
museum people we have met in Brasil and around the world,
this made a big difference, if vou want to find one, for
museology in my country, in recent years. We had to find
out what we were, what for, for which reasons... we had
to find a need for museology, to justi$y ourselves as speci
fie professionals, among l'Ill other different specialists
in the cultural field, against l'Ill the cri tics made by these
"spcc:iaUsts", that would claim Museology could not be a
Science but rather simply a diversity of technical skills,
specifie to museum's care. And they could wcll be right,
we must admit, considering our acadcmlc tr'ainlng at the
University... the feeling of a lack of 'J'heory, of basic
principles and of a Philosophy for Museological studies
has always been very elear to us.
Today Museologists are reeognized by Law as a profession
in Brasil, what has not yet happened in most of the eountries
as far as we I<now. A battle was won ln the professional
level. A battle is still to be fought in the eoneeptual
level. We don't know yet what is Museology in Brasil, or
if there is a particular kind of Museology in Brasil. But
we reel we have a challenge to find i t out, and to develop
these thoughts. The feeling is that there is a large field
to be explored, exeavated and studied.
Let's start from the beginnings : What are Museums in Brasil?

To whom are they for?

Working for the National Museums Programme, 1 have tried

to apply the "aecreditation" questionnaires used by the

A.A.M to aeces museums in the USA. After the 10thquestion


naire applied to different kinds of museums in Brasil, from
the big National Museums to small local institutions, 1
Ilad to give \,Ip .. sinee 1 suddenly verifled that no One of
152

lhflm would comply with al] the items mentioned in the forms.

The ,first and basic question was very ciear in my mind.

Would the ICOM definition of Museums be appliable to brazilian

renlity7 Could we ever expect to comply with the international

standards and models? Nevertheless, the modeis we were using

were those of Europe and America. 'l'he universal models,

as everywhere. The first insight had come on the origin

of our museological frustation, on our, untii then, unexplained

disaster. We hav.e been speaking to our public (of no more

than two million 'people per year. out of 130 million brazilian

individuals) in a fore1gn larlguage. llsirlg n foreign 'grammar'

lod special ized 'jargons' to transllli L <ln il IlIIos\; '"soter ic'

message, uncomprehensible to the majorlty of them.

It would be difficult to conclude that these few two million


would be the only among this huge population to have access
to culture and to knowledge, to be cul turally productive
and aware of cultural phenomena. and thus. to be interested
in Museums. It is easy to conclude that the other 128 millions
(more than 2/3 of whom being illiterates) 1.01110 are not listening
to us. or 'needing'us, would not be excluded from the cultural
process, and that,consequently, Culture. in Brasil, is happening
outside museums, despite museums,
far away from them.lf
l.his qreat majority of brazllians who 'ignore' museums are
qenerating cul ture, transmi Lting cul tura 1 proccsses, Lrunsfor'ming
reality through 'culturally dictated behaviours' (as Jam(~s
Deets has defined material culture),and building up the
nation's identity.there is something wrong with museums,
not with the people.
If we think of the collections we have, they would not refer
to more than two thousand people along the five centuries
of l.he country's history and achievements. Where's the 'people'
then? The preserved heritage of this country is the heritage
of a few. The memory of a few. The Pro-Meilloria l'oundation.
to which l work as a museolbgist nowadays, has in the recent
years promoted sorne changes in the cultural conceptions
and activities in the frame of the Federal Government, beind
in charge of administrating and supporting national museums,
historie houses and monuments. The broader vision of Culture
and cultural phenomena proposed by its founder, Aloisio
Magalhi'les,now dead, in the last ten years. has given a major
contribution to cultural studies and cultural action in
the country. Pointing out to the di.versity of cultures in
the whole country. the diversity of many identities against
the idea of one 'national' identi ty and clai.ming the urge
for discovering the cultural lleritage not yet 'sacralized'
by traditional and institutional knowledge. Magalhi'les has
created the National Center for Cultural Reference. an institu
tion now in the structure of Pro-Memori.a Foundation. Defining
the concept of Culture as having two axes -that of production
and that of tradi tion (the Memory of Cul ture. the Cultural
Heritage), and claiming that communiti.es are the best gu~rdians
of their own heri tage,' Magalh1'ies has opene d the way to
new forms of thinking and action in this field, and even
not knowing it or practising it, to 'new museology' in Brasil.
His imprint has marked a turning point ln museological policles
lnd activi ties in the country and provoked many insights
on what and to whom these activities should and could be.

153

The answer to the questions - do we need museoJogical insti

tutions, and what for, in Brasil', was starting' to come to

light.

Trying to answer these questions, l camB to the main basic


ones - what is a Museum, in the contemporary stage of i ts
development as an institution, and what would Museology
be, which contribution could i t bri ng to the development
of Museums and of modern societies? Could it answer the
existential questions of the Museum today, as Tomislav Sola
questions? Does it offers a survival model to it?
In my point of view, without the development of Museology.
there's no survival possibility for Museums in the modern
world. Without Museology, Disneyworlds and Epcotts Centers,
Playfalrs and World Fairs, Beaubourgs and Pyramids. Science
Centers and Discovery Rooms are not at risk, not more lhan
Veloramas, Museons, Biochrons, Evoluons and Shopping Centers ...
Without Museology, Museums are at risk, and they would be
easily substituted (as they are being, nowadays) by aIl
these "wonders" created by contemporary societies to mitigate
the consumistic needs of their members, their i ndi vidual
needs of individual experiences, of Power illusions. of
"fast-food" delights, keeping the pace with the ever increasing
rhythm of scienti fic, .social and pol i tical change in the
present world. Powerful and attractive devices to counterba
lance the lack of collective experiences (substituted by
"crowd" experiences),
the loss of collective and stable
values (substituted by individual and flexible values).
the "robotization" of human action and the "computerization"
of human thinking and feelings ( brought to the "surface"
ievels each time more, while the "deepest" levels are gradually
more distant to the common individual, enclosed behind the
thick walls of Universities and Research Centers. the manipu
lators and controllers of Knowledge and of the access to
it). Places were the Past , the Present and the Future are
presented in a nostalgic, romanticized and "glamourized"
way, and where reality is as stereotyped. sinthesized and
predictable as a TV cartoon series, easily substi tuted by
a totally new program, with new heroes, coming next month ..
(see Eco,U."Travels in Hyperreality",1967)
What can Museology do in this world where "aIl that is sol id
mel ts into Air?" ...
Museology could.be, as 1 think it is, the Art and the Science
of Permanence
the preservation of human values. actions
and behaviours, dreams and achievements along Time and History,
the keeping of Ariadne' s thread to allow people out of the
labyrinth of modernization, to help in the weaving of the
net of cul tural processes and changes that make the pattern
of Humanity in the Past, the Present and the Future.
Museology would then be the Art - and the Science - of Memory,
of "memorization", and the organiza tion and use of these
memories - the Human Heritage, in the service of the modern
man. ln this sense it could perhaps have the most important

154

and specifie role in counterbalancing the paradoxes and


contradictions of modern life. In his book, Marshall Berman

points out thase paradoxes and specifie preoccupations of

modern societies, "moved at the same time by the desire

of change - self-change and of the world around us - and

by the terror of disorientation and disintegration, the

terror of li fe broken into pieces ... " Cl)

The Art of Museology would be that of detecting, collecting,


.storing, . p.reserving and retrieving these communitary and
individual . values and through the reconstruction of this
cultural and historie "puzzle" to promote l.he strenght,
the motivation, and a clearer and broader vision to modern
men in order that he "may change his world into our world",
in order that he "may preserve something 'real', when every
thing around him melts down".
The traditional model of Museums is a modern one, as a pheno
menum brought up to light by the end of the !8th century,
as a result and a reflection of allthat characterizes the
'modern' era, since the end of medieval times : new scientific
discoveries, new ideas about the uni verse, new systems of
work relationships, the growth of urban communities, new
poli tical and social movements, and aIl the consequences
of that.
Museology, nevertheless, is much older, and can be traced
back to the egyptian high-priests and their art of mommification.
What else but 'museology' would they be doing while preserving
the dead bodies from decay and seleeting the best examp!es
of their material and spiritual culture, in order to reeonstruct
as best as possible the life of their princes? So, when
coming back to Earth the souls would find their proper support
to contact back 'reality', By selecting what should be mear
the mommy, the priests would be choosing what was important
to that person, the most meaningful signs of his life and
activities. In former times we must remember, the use was
to bury alive the relatives of the dead persan, his servants
and animaIs. The idea of this barbarie 'pre-historie museology'
has been to put the whole life in a cage. Would this be
in the origin of our 'eco-museums'? This is not the scope
of our investigation now. What we want to say is that by
selecting, preserving and arranging the elements of a person's
life for life the aneient egyptians would be reinstating
their belief in immortality, denying Death and ritualizing
their special relationship wi th rea l i ty and supra-real i ty.
The only difference was that pyramids were not museums and
the 'publ ic' would not need ta go inside them to know what
was going on. They would rather go on, building their pyramids,
sharing the same beliefs, the same ideas, the same natural
and supernatural 'identity'.
Their memory was preserved not for 'Englishrnen to see ... "as
we use to say in Brasil. Rnd thase were not the times of
'comparative museologies' .No wonder thet Museums and Mommies
have until today so much empathy, Lhat eurnLors have mueh
of hlqh-priests and I:hat sorne of t1lP.se insLi Lutions have
mueh of Pyramids, with as many LourlsLs quuiny at thcir
doors as the original ones.

155

If we come to the Greeks and to the origins of their Mouseion,


we may find out some more. The Temple of the Muses - where
nll sorts of human expressions would be celebrated, was
chaired by Mnemosis, the mother of the Muses. Mnemosis;
the greek wor. for Memory, sa ys much more than we may think
nowadays. The multiple meanings of this word for greek scholars
and philosophers since arcaic times have been lost in our
limited vocabulary, but their exploration may give us the
clues.for the basic principles of Museology. These meanings
have been explained in a basic book by Michel Simondon
"La Mmoire et l' Dubl i dans la pense grecque jusqu' la
fin du Vme sicle a.J.C."(2), ill which he explores the
works of Homer, Herodote and Tucydides among others.
One of the chief meanings of Memory, lost today, was that
of the 'memory of action'
the encouragement to action,
throuqh the remembrance of deeds and acts of courage. Through
remembering their own cOUrage ('mmoire de vaillance'),
the soldiers would have the strenght and motivation to fight.
Two other functions of Memory, explored by the author in
ancient greek texts, were the 'cognitive memory'- from personal
and subjective memories to the collective memory of behaviours
and habits, commitments and duties, celebrations and rituals,
and a whole community tradition transmitted through generations
and the kind of 'glori fying evocation', when heroes were
qlorified through remembering their names and action_ the
sort of function performed by the monuments erected in honour
of the braves, and still in usage nowadays (specially in
our museums). Another function or meaning of Memory would
be the 'ereotive' or 'affective memory', through which feelings
(of sadness, joy, hate, friendship, gratitude or love) would
be responsible for creative acts - like poetry, music, dan~
and art or for pure contemplative or introspective experiences.
As 'temples of Memory', wouldn't these be the same functions
possible to Museums, and wouldn't tllis be the rolp. of Museology,
on exploring and excavating the field of collective Memory?
On doing that Museology goes far beyolld Museums
their
speci fic field of demonstration and cornmunica ti on - digg ing
deeply on different disciplines and theories which are in
the roots of its specifie the ory : the theories of Memory,
of Psychology. and Social Psychology, of Anthropology and
Sociology, of Psychoanalisis, of Social History. Cultural
History and of course the more recent studies on Material
Culture.
Being basically a social affair, Museology and Museums are
a Communication affair, and by that we may ex tend the field
and the nature of our theory through the consideration of
the princi ples and theories of Communicati on and P"rcnpt ion.
of Learning and Education. What' s the use of MClllof'Y,
i r
not to be the support to ('lvery human thought, speech and
behaviour? To human communication?
"Memory is the capacity for storing and retrieving information.
1011 thout i t we lvould be unable to see, hear or think. Iole
would have no language to express our plight, and indeed
156

no sense of personal identi ty. In short, loi i thout


we would be vegetables, intellectually dead" (3)

memory,

The seient:iflc studies of Mallloc'y. SLiH'Lod ln Lit(> "ilf'Jy IB'/Os


by the german philosopher f1ennan I.~bbinghilus
. bf'oke away
from the 2000 year-old tradi tion that JneJnory s Lud ies were
the Scope of philosophers and not of scientists, 'l'he psycholo
g1cal ,and physiological studies of human memory have over
the last 100 years given us the clues to understahd the
structure and the organization of tllis vi tai chnracteristic
of l;ho human sflllCies. SenscH'Y Jn0Il10[Y. SIH)f'l;-LoC"fn and long
term memory, episodic ,and semantic memory(developed by Sir
Frederick
Bartlett, "Remembering", 1932),rates of
Iearning,
motivation to learning, Jneaning and memory, visuai imagery,
forqetting ( the loss of information). retroactive interference,
proactive inhibition, emotional factors in forgetting and
storing knowledge,
retrieval cues,
recoilection,
context
and inferences are sorne of the many ilspecLs ilccesscd by
experimental and scientific research of this cOIllPlex collccLion
of interacting systems which compound our mem(H'y, AlI thelll
are important principles and tools for museologioal research
and theory, concerning both individual and collective processes
of remembering, storing information and forgetting. 'J'hese
aspects are also at the basis of Educational theories, since
"Education is what survives when what has been learnt has
been forgotten"(4).
The educationai
function of Museums
way be supported by the se scientific principles.
"Our ability to learn and to remember has llowed us to
develop tools and language, technologies which have in turn
vastly increased our abili ty to store and communicate yet
more information through writing, and subsequentIy films
and televis10n, aIl of which can be regarded as an extension
of the memory'" (5)
Museums too can be considered as an extension of the collective
memory of communities, societies, as a long-term memory
of humankind; They share with human memory the tact of not
being "a single unitary entity ... (but),. ,rather a collection
of interacting systems"(all the Museum functions) ... "which
have in common the job of storing and subsequently retrieving
information"(G).
At this point we could relate Museums to Archives and Libraries,
two other systems of storing and retrieving information.
These are however two single systems of storing and retrieving
written, oral or visual information. which may be compared
to sorne of the many different systems that compound the
complex1 ty of human memory. They feed memory wi th uni ts
of information which are retrieved back as uni ts or ~eries
of units, sequentially and taxonomically arranqed. If the
user wants to retrieve information (knowledge) about a whole
subject or area of knowledge, he would have ta scan through
the system repeatedly, through a seriaI search strategy,
systematically examining each potential field of information,
in of'der !;o bu i 1d up l;he who 1e con tex!; 0 f an even t or
s)Jbject . Librari,es and Archiyes arc l ike computers' memories,
ttley do not provide the meanulgs of the intormation stored,
l.hey do not provide the Context.
157

Museums work differently (despite sorne of thern which still


work more like Libraries and Archives of Things), sto1'ing
and processing information just lil<e hurnan memory does.
They provide the context, the connection, made in our memory
through many different 'inputs' of our sensory memory (visual
memoryoz: 'iconic' memory, tactile m~mory, smell lnd auraI
memories, hactic memory), and they organize these inputs
in semantic structures which generate
'meHling',
giving
a structure to these informations to allow us the understanding
and knowledge of a fact, an event, or the whole world.
Through this process Museuw.s provide meanings, construct
meanings (openin up the discussion on ethical responsibilities)
and support, in a communicative process, the construction
of new meanings for the reality in which we live. It is
not only a matter of categorizing or classifyingour experiences
but of interpreting and understanding thern better.
1 t lI' the task and the r'lle of Museology to study and anitlyse
this process of cultural memorization through Time and Space,
synchronically and diachronically, to understand its complex
i nteracti ve sY3tems, the elements and factors invol ved in
it. And more than that, to provide the tools and mechanisms
through which collective memory may be extended, enriched
/lnd oxercised. This wOllld be j ts main l'ole Rnd spocificity,
onab! ing people and communi ties to express thamsai vos j n
their proper language and to increase their sense of persoRal
or community identicy. To make them 'see' and 'lIoar" reality
better, havinq in their memori.es more references and retrieval
cues; increaslnq their capacity for mal<ing relations, eross
references and extencled connections, wha t wi Il make people
and communities more abLe to understand reality, more motivated
and strong to change it through right action.

Information is stored and sinthesized in Memory as concepts


and siqns which allo~1 it to be retrieved. What is remembered
is what is important to somebody, what is forgotten is what
had no meaning to him. Museology would then also be the
science to study the cO.llection and recollection of those
values, processes, irleas and beliefs, rituais and behaviours,
material and immaterial products created by socloties and
preserved in their memories, because tbey were or are important
to them
because they are specific 'signs' and symbols
for these cultures. Museological 'objects' are, thus, far
more than the traditional
'museum collections',
ranging
From artefacts to Duncan Cameron's 'kinetifacts' (7), From
'naturefacts' and 'bicfaccs',
to Art-facts,
technofacts,
scieneefacts', 'boyfacts' and 'mindfacts', in faet '<0 ail
objects, processes, phenomena and ideas that we could simply
calI 'museofac~s'.
'1'0 analyse the li.fe of the se 's1gns' in society and the
many '1 angunges' constrllcted LhrOllgh the..r use and developrnent,
Museoloqr must borrow the tools of Semiology, another field
of knowledqe recently developed, in arder Ln eXCRvate j ts
own grounds. The t;lcories on Perception and Human Cognition
must also be considered (sin-::e the level of human perception
158

is modified according to the background knowledge -'memory'


of the viewer) as well as those on Psychology, Social Psychology
and Psychoanalysis (see Freud.Jung and Lacan theories on
signs. syrnbols an language), as a support for museological
research. in order to investigate not only how 'signs' are
created and developed but also how they are perceived and
understood by different people and groups of people (see
Berger, John, "Ways of Seeing",1972).
These principles will be useful not only for the analysis
of 'museofacts'. but also for their use in the construction
of the Museum's language and its expression through its
exhibitions and activities.
The exploration and development of aIl these theoretical
and scientifical principles will promote, we believe. a
radical change in Museum studies and practice, and will
contribute as weIl to bring Museology ta the rank of other
humanistic sciences.
Building the road through walking',as said by a latin-american
poet, step by step. would be, to my view, the actual need
for Museology today. not to build up another scientific
'monument' of knowledge. but to throw some lights on this.until
now, unexplored and li ttle known domain of human li fe and
experience on this Earth.
Directioning our intellectual energy to generate museological
theory and principles would be. for me. the only way to
keep our Museums -the 'antennae' or stations for the communica
tion of collective Memory and the transmission of Cultural
Heri tage - turned on. and to avoid the risk of seeing them
fa111ng, definite1y.into darkness ...
But, maybe, you wou1d say, that this is what should happen ...

NOTES:
1) Herman,Marshall . "AlI that is sol Id mnlLs jnLo I\ir' .Port.l~d.
Ed.Schwarcz.Ltda.S.i'au10.19H'l.p.13
2) Simondon.Michel "La Mmoire et l 'Oubl i darls Iii penso
grecque jusqu';' la fin du Vme sicle
H . J.C.'
I.os 1101 los L(,UTes,CoI1ection
d'tudes mythologiques.Paris.1982
3) Baddeley,A1an."Your Memory, ft user's guIde" Penguin Books,1986
Multimedia Publ.UK.1982.p.11
4) Skinner,B.F.,quoted i~ Baddeley,op.cit.p.'l
5) BaddeleY.A.op.cit. p.6
6) Badde1ey,A. op.cit.p.6
7) Cameron. Duncan. "A Viewpoint: Museums as a Communication
system and implications for Museum Education,
Curator.Xl,1/196U
159

Nelly Decarolis -

Buenos Aires, Argentina

Basic paper

The purpoee of thie Symposium is to search for the exiating


relationship between Museums and Museology ; the back~round
that aefi~ea ite existence in t1me~and space, its nature and
its reaeon for being

What came firet, Museuas or Museology? Looking at this


queet1on, our reaction ie unpredictable. At the be~inning,
we think th1s query is childish ; a moment Iater wa discoyer
that it has rema1ned in a corner of our mindj thoughtful at
first and finally perplexed, we 9uddenly doubt

We try to re.ember and associate everything we have Iearned

in our studies of Museology, our research work, the traquent


reading of specialized bibliographical material and our
experiences in this peculiar world--museums--where we are
bound ta live.
The names ot the great institutions, born trom kings',
priests', noblemen's and bourgeoisie'e zeal to collect,come
to our mlnd. Their dilletantism has given rise to the MoSt
yarled collections, the first and fundamental stage in the
life of Museums. Collecting, more or Iess systematicalIy,led
ta the acquisition of the most different objects desired by
man for his aesthetic enjoyment, his yearning for knowledge,
his personal status or as a profitable investment. Indeed,
collections constitute the backbone of the Museum Institution.
They are their origin and their reason for being. Through
them, in full awareness of their significance and message,
man can establish and preserve his identity.
The reflection of his past helps him rein force his present;
this ephemeral present becoming past again in the fraction
of a second--a revived past which will become the heritage
for future generations-
Permanent collections justify the birth of museums' public
life. When man begins to syatematize the different functions
performed by Museums, he finds that behind the applied
techniques, when he classifies, documents, inveetigates,
exhibits and educates, there exista (and l believe has
a1ways existed) a whole body of theory which is the foundation
that supports them. And as man aearches for an answer to
his reason for being, he alao asks himself what is it that
drives hlm to rescue and preserve the evidence of his pasto
Collections firet and Museums later, have always been faith
ful to their corresponding historio period, reflecting manTe
need to tranecend in his urge for immortality. Different
facts, deeply rooted in people's minds frequently altered
the history of mankind. Sudden social and economic changes,
originating from preciee events marked the couree of the
Museum .Institution

,
161

And we wonder which causes brought these changes that

shaped those institutions as we know them. We then ask

ourselves which was the first "bang" thatallowed acceSB

to them by an heterogeneouB public who had been secularly

excluded from those collections, governed and enjoyed only

by"lites".

Did the surrounding world become aware of this awakening?


At the beginning indifferent, curious later and finally
interested Those Museums, colossi of art, archaelogy,
history or natural sciences underwent deep changes. Not
all did it at the same pace: some were slow, others less
so and the rest moved forward under the influence of life's
sweeping drive.
Paced with present reality, we reflect upon the needs of
a permanently changing society which has brought about
continuous transformations. These transformations have
been the principal factor in museums' rapid evolution.
The museum phenomenon is unique in the history of mankind.
Nowadays, what is happening in the museum world, once
considered static? How big is the gap between those adher
ing to traditional Museology and those inclined to participate
in overall changes? Are those changes really so or maybe it
is the necessary evolution from the Museum Institution try
ing to adapt ltself to a rapidly developing world? ls it
possible to determlne tha change taking place here and now
without the historie perspective that allows the judging
of reality without ambiguous influences? Maybe today's
assertions are not valid for tomorrow, because messages
change with times. Definitely, there is something underly
ing aIl dlalectics surrounding the museum event.
Concepts of natural heritage--muaeums, territory and
society-- ecomuseums, local museums, community museums.
etc., open new roads and widen the perspective of present
Museology. This present Museology which turns to traditio~
al museums filling them with refreBhing experiences in
relation to i ta communi ty. "The mi cro-economi c structure
of determined zones enters the museum and becomes fields
of study. The natural and cultural site is a new musal
reali ty"
Even if the media aren't exactly the same, they have some
thing essential in common: to rescue the past and the pre
sent for future generations. The methods may change, but
the ultimate goal is similar. Each one rescues its past
emphasizing different supporting points. We face a radical
change involving the Museum Institution and shaking its
very roota. But the road ia not split. Museology, with
the un1queness implied in ita category of scientific dis
cipline, acqulres unusual force, though it depends which
particular meanlng of science we have in mind; the physical
scientist can repeat his experiments; Museology can never
calI for a repeatect performance of the pasto Museology is
the theoretical basis for aIl museum work. Branches sternming
from the same trunk,maae the tree more luxuriant and beautiful.

162

rs it possible to define what Museology meana? Perhaps it


ls rather ifficult, because Museology is today considered
by many experts a brand-new scientific discipline. Museology
is dynamic, it is always developing and ia not a static
body of knowledge. It is a never-ending se arch for judgments
to obtain experts' universal aasent.
rts aim is to reach a series of points to arrange its find
inga into a theory or generalization, aetting rules or
principles, ordering sets of ideas, methods or ways of
working. We should not forget that "scientific conclusions
are 8acentially partial or temporary: that even the greater
generalizationa are not goals, but starting pointa for fu!.
ther exploration". Although Museology is deeply linked to
museums, it goes much further; it is involved with culture
and society. We can say that Museology is a logically
organized body of scientific facts placing a strong em
phasia ~n laboratory and field work.
Museology atudies the traces left by the paat uaing concepts
and categoriea of the present. It is necessary to learn
how to interpret muaeological objects; not as dead vestigea
of that past, but as living messages adressed to us in
their own language. The symbolic contents of these messages
are not always immediately perceptible. rt 1s necessary to
make thew intelligible.
It 18 the work of Museology to understand and translate the
meanlng of these messages 11hen observing the col ours of a
p~inting, its dosigns and textures, the incision of a vase,
the Qaterials and forms of sculptures, the structure of
cathedrals and monuments, the reading of hieroglyphics and
cuneiform inscriptions. They are the materialization of
the spirit of the paat; living forms, not objects represent
ing dead eventn, but communicating eloquence to those testi
monios of man's cultural life. The understanding of the
paet gives us a new outlook of the future.
There is a phil~sophical interaction in the man-object
relation. Besides, Axiology grants values and significance
to ohjects and at the same time determines the nature of
values thernselves. The acquisition criteria, in their
di:ferent ~anners, are ruled by a code of Ethics and
Profo8sional Deontelogy.
"The dignity of an epoch depends not upon what proceeds
therefrom, but is contained in its very existence each
",poch l:a5 its o~n dignity in itself".
The evolution of museums made it necessary for the under
lying theoretical thought te develop and evolve, achieving
hypotheses and theories: the ory of conservation, of exhibi~,
of documentation, of education
Muaeology allows for the understanding of the underlying
theoretic unity of aIl the functions performed by museums.

163

F1nally, l should 11ke to repeat the words of Mario Bunge,


Argentine epistemologist who said in his book "Ethics and
Science" :
"The search for objective tru'.;h imposes an honest conduct
in the researcher's work, A history book full of lies can
be written, or a political event can be produced without
moral scruplea, but not 50 a true theory. Science i6 then.
net only a productive power, but a moral one", So the
moral code ruling museologieal aetivities must he. Today,
righte FIe not recognized without duties, nor principles
witho~t roaponaibilities, committed not only to present
day men, but also to future mankind",

1 61;

Basicpaper

Flora S K3plan - New York, New York, USA

MuSQolo~y

So~ial

Mu~eum~~

In~titutions,

In rn
in

and

on

~eflection5

~lle

aoundaries of Disciplines,

and Nation-3taie rormation

c~Yli~r pa9~r

the

n~tuTe

mu5eu~s ya3 ~~r.cussed(Kapl~n

interdisciplin~rity in

of

museology and

198'a). ! 4rgued that the emphasis on

traditionat disciplines within museums obscures the common ideas and


v~lu~

the

link~ tno~~

that

who

tc~hniquc~ ~nd go~ls

set of

~orked

of the

may dif1er

1ro~ tMo~~

wi~~in ~h~

mUSQum

of

~h~ rnU5~um.

and

~t11

aw~rds

rese<Z\\"ch end plJbU.r.atioll, ".s i!'i


:nl'\i~'!~i\;"~,.,d

~ft~r

~ll,

r~o~~d

",','!'':!Ur.l'' ,W'O :,:~dic.ated

f;U~~Ll:"i:'~

nAtu!"i':\l and
~o~1p.t~.

T~ey ~r~
t~~e

hum;lni!lrn 01
f>l

mU!30um

d1scip11ne5

hy

don~

"t

th~

,,",orle:, i

produces a

unlv~rsities.

d~dic~t~d t~

~anked

hierarchy

Disciplinary

a!"'e ur.ders'candable and, perhaps,

reproducing

craft guilds of

th~

~refierving,

its~lf.

Univeris1ties

Middle Ag2S.

But

and interpreting the

to the reproduction of knowledge and'

.1':'.

~hu;r n~tu~e interdi~~i~linary,

15 r.:ore th"'l1 the

hou~pd ~nder

lUon

0':

its parts"

one roof to
They are

in l.hich nati.c"','ll

w*'~h

~lso

and rooted in the

!!;<lHan nm,"\!.s$anc!!.

n8~u:-ll ph~n~rniPna 0\"

and Iih",rr;:rJ

Escn disciplina provides a

prp.stige +'0 curatorial and collections

to cC"'.lE>ctir>g,

r~!3pnctiv~ di~c1~~ir.c$.

~mportf.'l'l.:::e

in

ir,

It

uni'/(':IIr5~tie5

w"thin

just1~i~bl~ b~caus~ m~ch

are,

insti~ution.

trom iis own history and current concerns, and these

gO~~5 deriv~rt

bound&\"::s5

there; it isolates the academic from

Cll~

c~rry

engag~d

more than a collection of

out the concerns of their

in a public

~nterprise

of

tur",l resourcOE'S and ""orld heritage ""hether

the pro:lucts of human ileings are cO'lserved, studied,

c::olleaglu-,5 ilnd

publ~c.

Museumfi not only reflect society


165

they have the power to reshape its ideology and actions. Museology, the
accumulated knowledge by which the construction and re-construction of
culture ls

accomplished,give~

the enterpr\se an holistic approach,is

transferable, and en:ists the various disciplines in new ways not


otherwise applied.

Museology is worthy of study, and comprises a

discipline according to international conscnsusCKaplan 19B1b).The museum


is the locus where legitimation of meanings of the symbols of society
takes place; and the means by which this is accomplished is the subject
matter of museology. Both are interdisciplinary in nature as previously
discussed; and both are inevitably intertwined as 1 will now considere

To begin, the museum is

t~e

place where the dialectic between artifact

or group of artifacts and audience occurs. 1 use "artifact" here to mean


not only things made, altered, or used by human beings, but the animate
and inanimate things

~r

phenomena of the natural world. As defined by the

AAm<American Association of Museums),


Museums)

museum

~ust

be

~n

~nd

ICOM<International Council for

established, permanent, nonprofit institution

open to the public on a yp.gular

b~sis.

It

~ust

be staffed, at least in

part, by trainp.d and paid professionals, and it must be dedicated to the


delight and education of t.he public as
"museum" was defined in terms of its

~ell

as scholars. Originally, a

co!lec~ions,

which were to be

conserved and interpreted. To incorporate such places as science and


nature centers and others 'Ji thout permanent coll ec t ions, "museum" was
redefined without that requirement, but with education and interpretation
of collections or phenoml;!na instead.

Permanent or not the notion of the artifactCor group of artifacts) as


1 have defined it here, and its resultant collections are central to the
concept of the museum, and the kind of learning and meaning and affect

166

that 0~cur5 there. The authenticity and quality, the documentation and
interpretation of artifacts in museums sets them apart from other places
where

art1fa~ts

1~arted.

are gathered,

u~ed,

and presented, and where knowledge 15

The classroom, the commercial and corporate gallery, the theme

park, the department store have aIl been utilized; none are museums. Sorne
are nonprofit or sponsor nonprofit exhibitions, and some are highly
profitable. Most of them provide more effective displays to delight
v1ewers and even inform them. But they aIl lack collections and the
commitment to their care, research, and publication, aside from display
and 1nterpretaton; they are not concerned with the "real" thing, its
quality,integrity, and accuracy. : will not discuss the

copy, cast, or

reproduction and their legitimate roles in museums since they require


extensive refinement of terms in historical context that is beyond the
present 5cope of this paper.

Museology i5 predicated on the existence of

artifacts/colle~tions.

It

represents the body of knowledge, theory an'd practice that is found and
transmitted in museums. It goes beyond any single discipline, to provide
an overarching view of the museum as a social institution. In exceeding
)the boundaries of any one discipline, and providing the basis for the
intera~tion

of the many, it shows itse:f a useful and unifying discipline.

As a social institution the museum as it has been defined should be seen


as the product of certain developments. Whereas private collections were
the prerogative of elite groups, royal, ecclesiastical, and intellectual,
museums as we know them t.oday are primarily a late 18th and 19th century
phenomena. They are associated with the spread of wealth and knowledge
beyond the traditional elites of preceding centuries, to broader public
access in what 1 calI a democratizing process. It is noteworthy that the
Fren~h

Revolution allowed a new public to enjoy and wander the glorious

167

halls of the Louvre. The Mexican Revolution of 1910, coming to an end of


fighting by about 1920, produced several exhibitions of folk art that
gathered and celebrated the combination of Indian and Spanish,traditions
".,'
that were uniquely "Mexican." Other examples could be cited, and are
worthyof further research. My intention here is to calI attention to the
importance of theory in museology, and to the view of museums as social
institutions that incorporate politieal, eeonomie, and cultural relations
of a certain kind. That kind is a centralized state, heterogeneous, and
usually in proeess of nation-state formation. The museum in seleeting,
preserving, and presenting those symbols of the knowledge, beliefs, and
values of a society/state represents itself to itself, and in so doing

constructs its culture and ideology that are, in turn, reconstructed by


the process. 1 have characterized the process as democratic because it
ai to di.seminate the knowledge and affective experienee of a society
.eross a wide speetrum of a diverse population beyond any one or several
_lite groups. Likewise, museology by identifying and transmitting a body
of theory, method, and techrique gives aecess and control of such process
in the museum to a comparable speetrum of the population.
The process of museum formation has aeeelerated in the 20th eentury.
Since the 1950s museums have come to play an increasingly important role
in developing eountries. Most of them gained independenee following World
War II, and represent political entities that are more the legacy of
colonialism than the produet of geographieal, ecological, or cultural
coherence. These countries find themselves nation-states as a result of
fate and history, but without the cultural, ideologieal, and emotional
ties to bind them together. Many institutions seek to create such ties,
among them the museum. For example,

following independence from Great

Britain in 1960, Nigeria sought to enlarge its museum system. The present
National Commission for Museums and Monuments will eventually est,ablish a

168

museum in each of the country's nineteen states that have been created.
The stated policy is to collect, preserve, and interpret on the local,
state and national levels in each museum. The goal is to provide a
visible, tangible, and meaningful record of most of the significant 250
ethnie groups that comprise Nigeria. Each ethnie group is placed in the
museum within the boundaries of the nation-state, and in time and space,
i.e. archaeologically, historically, and ethnographically. Such consistent
pre~p.ntation

acrOfiS a broad spectrum of the population, throughout the

country, invites comparison, evaluation, and education.

I~
~useum

Benin City, the capital of Bendel State, Nigeria, the national


occupies the hub of Ring Road,

just across from The Oba's Palace.

Following national museum policy, the first floor is devoted to an


extensive display of the archaeology and history of the Benin
~hih

was centered in Benin City,

kingdo~

from the 12th century A.D., and

dominated most of what is today southern Nigeria from medieval times to


tM~

endof the 19th century. The second floor of the Benin National Museum

~rp'$~nts

a panorama of ethnie groups in Bendel State, including the

Urhobo, IsoKo,

Itsekiri and others. Artifacts of daily and ritual life

including masquerades may provide the only detailed and comprehensive view
of

o~hr

peoples with whom man y may have limited and infrequent contacts.

EacJ~ ~~~nic

And to

group is encouraged to contribute artifacts and information,

com~ent

on the content and meaning of the presentation. The third

1loor of the museum is devoted to the national context, to dominant and


other ethnie groups, and to Key people and eventsin social and political
change. This pattern of interpretation, repeated in every national museum
in Nigeria, modified accordingly in each state and local area, serves to
weld a sense of national identity. It educates by treating the various
ethnie groups with equal respect and attention, within reasonable limitsl

169

and it provides each with the opportunity to be seen and understood by the

others. The museological training of senior and, in some cases(funds


permitting),junior members of staff also cuts across ethnie and
disciplinary boundaries to implement commission policy and to create a
professional corps. The artifact, i.e. collections, that initiates the
dialecti between the museum and the audience is accorded primacy. In
Nigeria the democratizing process and effect of museum formation can be
directly eb5erved aleng with the role of the museum in the emergence of
the nation-state.

Clearly, museums hfiVP. come a long way from the repositories of the Middle
Ages, the "cebinets of curiosities"

and "galleries" of the 16th and 17th

centuries; from the 5elect and cautious admissions of qualified visitors


to collections in

~he

IBth century and the increasingly public character

of such places in the 19th and 20th centuries-- they come to their present
and most important roI es: educators, democratizers, and
knovledge
tho

~nd

cultural identity. It has been my intention here to examine

r~lationshi~

discus~

disseminators of

between museums and museology, and to identify and

some of the relevant concepts and theoretical issues upon which 1

have reflected for some time.

REFERENCES CiTED

Kaplan, Flora 8. (1981a)


Interdisciplinarity in Museums, MUSEOLOGICAL WORf<ING PAPERS,No.2
Stockholm and Paris.
Kaplan,

Flor~

7o~nrd

8. (1981b)

a science of

museolog~l:

comments and a supposition,

MUSEOLOGICAL WORKING PAPERS, No.2. Stockholm and Paris.

170

ICOFOM publications
1 Museological Working Papers - MUWOP
2 !COFOM Study Series - ISS
3 Museological News - Nouvelles musologiques

ICOFOM publications

Museological

~orking

Papere -

I~WoF

* an international debcte review on fundamental problems that concern

aIl museum workers and museums


* la revue de dbat international sur les problmes fondamentaux des
muses et des gens de muse

No 1/1980: Huseology - science or just practical museum work?


la musologie - science ou seulement travail pratique du DUse?
134 pp, price USD 10 - 134 pages, prix USD la
No 2/1982: Interdieciplinarity in rnuseology
l'interdisciplinarit en musologie
200 pp, priee USD 12 - 200 pages, prix USD 12

ICOfOM STUOV SERIES - !SS

preprint~

of symposia and other scientific activities of the IeOH

International Cc~ittee for ~ueeology - IeOrOH

* prprints des s~mpoaia et d'autres activits scientifiques du Comit

internationsl de l'IeOH pour la musologie - ICDrOH

No. 1

No. 2

Joint colloquium London 1983

Hethcdology of museoloqy and professionsl training

with 10 hesic p:?pcr3, 6 coml:1ents and 1 summary, 146 pp.

Colloque .joint Londres 1983

(avec le Comit lntcrnat.de l'ICOH pour la formation du personnel)

MthcdclOQin ~e ~R~ologie et la formation professionnelle

10 m~moi~s d~ ~sse, 6 co~~ntaires et un rsum, 146 p.

Sy~~ziul:1 ~ondon 19a~


- tc~ritory - cociety
Nith R beDic papere and 1 c~mment,

HuseL~

60 pp.

Symposi~ lor.dr~s 1903

flus&'> .. l:e":,,:,itoir.u - t'xit

8 m~moiren GO base et 1 comm~ntaire, 60 p.

No. 3

Addenda ~ t? the London colloquium/symposium 1983


with 1 booic pa~er, 1 co~ment to the symposium, and
2 cnmonta to the colloquium, 31 pp.
Annexa ~ ~u ~ollo~ue/aymposium de Londres 1983
1 m.l0it'fl a3 beoe, 1 cOll'fllenteire au symposium, et
2 commentairea au colloque, 31 p.

No. 4

Addenda ~ te the lond~n symposium 1983


wlth ? ba~ic papera, ; comment, 1 intervention
and 2 su~ot'ies, 36 pp.
Annexa 2 au symposium de Londres 1983
avec 2 mtmoires de oase, 1 commentaire, 1 intervention
~t 7- rLuffi~, 36 ~.

173

No. 5

Addenda J to the London colloquium 1983

with 3 basic papers, 2 commenta, 3 interventions

and 1 summary, 60 pp.

Annexe ) au colloque de Londrea 1983


avec 3 mmoires de base, 2 c~nentaires, 3 interventions
et 1 rsum, 60 p.
No. 6

Symposium Leiden 1984

Collecting today for tOlllOrrow

with 17 basic papers, 161 pp.

Symposium Leyde 1984

Collecter aujourd'hui pour demain

17 mmoires de base, 161 p.

No. 7

Symposium leiden 198~

Collecting today for te-orrow

Comments and views

with J basic pepers and 4 comments, 32 pp.

Symposium Leyde 1964

Collecter Bujourd'hui pour deaain

Commentaires et pointa de vue

3 mmoires de ~ase et 4 commentaires, 32 p.

No. 8

Symposium Zagreb 1985

Originals and subatitutes in -useu.a

with 1 introductory psper and 24 basic pepers, 223 pp.

Symposium Zagreb 1985

Originaux et objets substitutifs dans les .uses

1 rflexion d'ouverture et 24 mmoires de bsse. 223 p.

No. 9

Symposium Zagreb 1985

Originals and substitutea in museums

with 11 comments, 1 introductory reflexions and

5 basic papers, 148 pp.

Symposium Zagreb 1985

Originaux et objets substitutifs dsns les muses

11 commentaires, 1 rflexions d'ouverture et

5 mmoires de baae, 148 p.

No.l0

Symposium Buenos Aires 1986

Huseology and identity

with 1 introductory paper snd 42 basic papers, 347 pp.

Symposium Buenos Aires 1986

la musologie et l'identit

1 rflexion d'ouverture et 42 mmoires de base, 347 p.

No.ll

Symposium Buenos Aires 1986

Museology snd identity

with 15 commente and 1 bssic paper, 100 pp.

Symposium Buenos Aires 1986

La musologie et l'identit

15 commentaires et 1 mmoire de base, 100 p.

Symposium Helsinki-Espoo 1987

Museology and muSetJlBS

with 1 introductory paper and 34 basic papers, 317 pp.

Symposium Helsinki-Espoo1987'

Musologie et muses

1 rflexion d'ouverture et 34 mmoires de base, 317 p.

No.12

175

Huseologlcsl News - Nouvelles _ologlques

newsletter of ICOfOH
bulletin d'informstion de l'lCOfOM
Sinee/depuis 1982, Nos 1-9

Send your order tOI


(nvoyez votre commande

'1

(ditori8! Board Office of ICOfOH


Stltene Hiatoriakl Museum
AUI Or V. Sofka
Box 5405
S - 114 84 STOCKHOLM, Sweden/Sude

17.7

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi