ISS 37 - The International Council of Museums

ICOM
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF MUSEUMS
ICOFOM
International Committee for Museology
COMITÉ INTERNATIONAL POUR LA MUSÉOLOGIE
Comité Internacional para la Museología
31 st ANNUAL
INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
MUSEUMS, MUSEOLOGY AND GLOBAL COMMUNICATION
MUSÉES, MUSÉOLOGIE ET COMMUNICATION GLOBALE
MUSEOS, MUSEOLOGÍA Y COMUNICACIÓN GLOBAL
CHANGSHA, CHINA
14 – 21 September 2008
ISS 37

ICOFOM Study Series - ISS 37
Evaluation Committee / Comité de lecture / Comité de evaluación
Chair / Président / Presidente André DESVALLÉES
Evaluation team members :
English papers: Ann DAVIS (Canada), Lynn MARANDA (Canada), Suzanne NASH (Suède)
Textes en français: Mathilde BELLAIGUE (France), André GOB (Belgique), François MAIRESSE
(Belgique)
Textos en español: Mónica GORGAS / Elvira PEREYRA LARSEN (Argentina)
Published on behalf of the ICOM’s International Committee for Museology
Edité au nom du Comité international pour la muséologie de l’ICOM
Publicado en nombre del Comité Internacional para la Museología del ICOM
Page make-up / Compaginación / Mise en page André DESVALLÉES
Pemanent Advisor / Consejero Permanente / Conseiller permanent de l’ICOFOM
Chairman of the Evaluation Committee / Président du comité de lecture / Presidente del Comité de
Evaluación
© Published on behalf of ICOFOM (ICOM International Committee for Museology) by Chinese
National Committee of ICOM
ISBN 978-3-00-0254422-2
2

CONTENTS / SOMMAIRE / ÍNDICE
Foreward by Nelly Decarolis, President of ICOFOM 7
Avant-Propos de Nelly Decarolis, Présidente d’ICOFOM 9
Prólogo de Nelly Decarolis, Presidente de ICOFOM 5
Provocative Paper / Communication pour provoquer / Documento Provocativo –
Lynn MARANDA, Vancouver Museum - Vancouver, Canada
REFLECTIONS ON THE TOPICS OF THE ICOFOM SYMPOSIUM 2008 11
RÉFLEXIONS SUR LES THÈMES DU SYMPOSIUM ICOFOM 2008 13
REFLEXIONES SOBRE TEMAS DEL SIMPOSIO DEL ICOFOM 2008 15
Preamble / Préambule / Preámbulo –
SU Donghai, Senior Curator, The National Museum of China - Beijing, China
MUSEUM, MUSEOLOGY : BE CAUTIOUS OF THE TECHNOLOGY DOCTRINE // MUSÉE ET
MUSÉOLOGIE : ATTENTION À LA DOCTRINE TECHNOLOGIQUE // MUSEOS Y MUSEO-
LOGÍA : SEA CAUTELOSO CON LA DOCTRINA TECNOLÓGICA 17
1. MUSEUMS, GLOBAL FORUMS FOR CONTEMPORARY MUSEOLOGY // LES
MUSÉES, FORUM MONDIAUX POUR LA MUSÉOLOGIE CONTEMPORAINE //
MUSEOS, FOROS GLOBALES DE LA MUSEOLOGÍA CONTEMPORÁNEA 21
1.1 Museums, communication agents within cross-cultural understanding // Les
musées, agents de communication dans le cadre d’une compréhension
interculturelle // Museos, agentes de comunicación en el entendimiento
intercultura 21
DUAN Yong, Deputy Director, The Palace Museum, Beijing, China.
CULTURAL DIVERSITY : THE STARTING POINT AND GOAL OF MUSEUMS // LA DIVERSITÉ
CULTURELLE : POINT DE DÉPART ET OBJECTIF DES MUSÉES // DIVERSIDAD CULTURAL :
PUNTO DE PARTIDA Y META DE LOS MUSEOS 23
LIMA Diana-Farjalla Correia, UNIRIO,Rio-de-Janeiro, Brazil.
MUSEOLOGY, INFORMATION, INTERCOMMUNICATION : INTANGIBLE CULTURAL
HERITAGE, DIVERSITY AND PROFESSIONAL TERMINOLOGY IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE
CARIBBEAN // MUSÉOLOGIE, INFORMATION, INTERCOMMUNICATION : PATRIMOINE
CULTUREL IMMATÉRIEL, DIVERSITÉ ET TERMINOLOGIE PROFESSIONNELLE EN
ALMÉRIQUE ET DANS LES CARAÏBES // MUSEOLOGÍA, INFORMACIÓN,
INTERCOMUNICACIÓN : PATRIMONIO CULTURAL INTANGIBLE, DIVERSIDAD Y
TERMINOLOGÍA PROFESIONAL EN AMÉRICA LATINA Y EL CARIBE 29
TANG Jiaqing, Fujian Museum of Modern Chinese History, Fuzhou, China. MUSEUM
AESTHETICS – A CROSS CULTURAL BRIDGE // L’ESTHÉTIQUE DES MUSÉES : UN PONT
INTERCULTUREL // ESTÉTICA DEL MUSEO – UN PUENTE INTERCULTURAL 39
1.2 The global dialogue among communities, an interactive process // Le dialogue
mondial entre communautés : un processus interactif // El diálogo global entre
comunidades : un proceso interactivo 45
DAVIS Ann, The Nickle Arts Museum, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
THE MARKET AND CIVIL SOCIETY // LE MARCHÉ ET LA SOCIÉTÉ CIVILE // MERCADO Y
SOCIEDAD CIVIL 47
2. MUSEUMS AND MUSEOLOGY, CHANGING ROLES // LES MUSÉES ET LA
MUSÉOLOGIE : UN CHANGEMENT DE RÔLES // MUSEOS Y MUSEOLOGÍA :
CAMBIO DE ROLES 57
2.1 Museums, museology and the new information and communication
technologies // Les musées, la muséologie et les nouvelles techniques
d’information et de communication // Museos, museología y las nuevas
tecnologías de la información y la comunicación 57
3

CHANG Wan-Chen,National Hsin-Chu University of Education –Chinese Taipei.
MUSEUMS IN THE INTERNET ERA AND THEIR RELATIONS WITH THEIR AUDIENCE // LES
MUSÉES À L’HEURE D’INTERNET ET LEURS RELATIONS AVEC LE PUBLIC // LOS MUSEOS
EN LA ERA DE INTERNET Y SUS RELACIONES CON EL PÚBLICO 59
HERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ FRANCISCA, Universidad Complutense de Madrid -
Madrid, España. APORTACIONES DE LAS NUEVAS TECNOLOGÍAS AL NUEVO CONCEPTO
DE MUSEO // NEW TECHNOLOGIES CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE NEW CONCEPT OF MUSEUM
// LES APPORTS DES NOUVELLES TECHNOLOGIES AU NOUVEAU CONCEPT DE MUSÉE 71
SCHEINER Tereza, Postgraduate Program in Museology and Heritage, UNIRIO/MAST,
Rio-de-Janeiro, Brazil. MUSEUM AND MUSEOLOGY : CHANGING ROLES OR CHANGING
PARADIGMS? // MUSÉE ET MUSÉOLOGIE : CHANGEMENTS DE RÔLES OU CHANGEMENTS
DE PARADIGMES ? // MUSEOS Y MUSEOLOGÍA : ¿CAMBIO DE ROLES O CAMBIO DE
PARADIGMAS? 81
2.2 Museums, museology and the social impact of informatics // Les musées, la
muséologie et l’impact social des techniques informatiques // Museos, museología
y el impacto social de la informática 91
DELOCHE Bernard, Université Lyon 3 – Lyon, France
VERS LA PRISE DE CONSCIENCE DE L’EXISTENCE D’UN MUSÉE PARALLÈLE // TOWARDS
THE AWAKENING OF THE EXISTENCE OF A PARALLEL MUSEUM // HACIA EL DESPERTAR
DE LA EXISTENCIA DE UN MUSEO PARALELO 93
2.3 The symbolism of the virtual space and a new interpretation of reality // Le
symbolisme de l’espace virtuel et une nouvelle interprétation de la réalité // El
simbolismo del espacio virtual y una nueva interpretación de la realidad 101
BRULON SOARES, Bruno C., Brazil –
THE MUSEUM OF PEOPLE : STRUGGLING WITH THE GLOBAL MYTH // LE MUSÉE DU
PEUPLE : EN LUTTE CONTRE LE MYTHE PLANÉTAIRE // EL MUSEO DE LA GENTE :
LIDIANDO CON EL MITO GLOBAL 103
DOLÁK Jan, UNESCO Chair of Museology and World Heritage - Brno, Czech Republic
A MUSEUM IS THE REALITY // UN MUSÉE EST LA RÉALITÉ // UN MUSEO ES LA REALIDAD 115
2.4 A global vision preserving plural identities/common heritage in a changing
world // Une vision globale préservant des identités plurielles/un patrimoine
commun dans un monde changeant // Una visión global para la preservación de
identidades plurales/patrimonio común en un mundo en cambio 123
HARRIS Jennifer, Curtin University of Technology – Perth, Australia
GLOBALISATION, POST-COLONIALISM AND MUSEUMS // LA MONDIALISATION, LE POST-
COLONIALISME ET LES MUSÉES // GLOBALIZACIÓN, POSCOLONIALISMO Y MUSEOS 125
MARANDA Lynn, Vancouver Museum - Vancouver, Canada
MUSEUMS, MUSEOLOGY AND GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS - WHITHER CULTURAL
DIVERSITY? // MUSÉE ET MUSÉOLOGIE À L’ÉPOQUE DE LA COMMUNICATION
PLANÉTAIRE : UN PAS VERS LA DIVERSITÉ CULTURELLE ? // MUSEOS, MUSEOLOGÍA Y
COMUNICACIONES GLOBALES - ¿UN PASO HACIA LA DIVERSIDAD CULTURAL 133
CAI Qin, Senior Researcher, Zhejiang Provincial Museum, Hangzhou, China
ON THE PRINCIPLES OF THE MUSEUM’S ROLE IN SAFEGUARDING INTANGIBLE
CULTURAL HERITAGE // À PROPOS DES PRINCIPES CONCERNANT LE RÖLE DU MUSÉE
CONCERNANT LA SAUVEGARDE DU PATRIMOINE IMMATERIEL // ACERCA DE LOS
PRINCIPIOS DEL ROL DEL MUSEO EN LA SALVAGUARDA DEL PATRIMONIO INTANGIBLE 139
4

PRÓLOGO
por Lic. Nelly DECAROLIS Presidente of ICOFOM / ICOM
La presente publicación del ICOFOM Study Series Nº 37 reúne una vez más, como es
habitual desde hace tres décadas, reflexiones teóricas de profesionales provenientes de la
museología y de diversas disciplinas conexas como la antropología, la filosofía, la
sociología, la comunicación y las artes.
A través de sus distintas líneas de pensamiento y de la variedad de sus enfoques, los
autores de los documentos que integran esta compilación procuran dar respuesta a
problemáticas que están transformando drásticamente las condiciones de la vida actual: la
globalización y la diversidad cultural en la era de Internet, donde la virtualidad ha generado
innovadoras perspectivas. Es necesario hacer frente a los cambios producidos por esta
revolución tecnológica que se inició a fines del siglo XX; conocer su incidencia en la
evolución del museo, de su entorno y en la concepción de lo real; evaluar al mismo tiempo
sus alcances y el tratamiento con que deberá incorporar las nuevas tecnologías, sin
desvirtuar su esencia ni su filosofía, en la certeza que de este modo no constituyen una
amenaza sino un desafío que ofrece diversas alternativas de interacción.
Una vez más los contenidos seleccionados responden a la convocatoria que año tras año
caracteriza los simposios científico/académicos del ICOFOM. La reflexión gira alrededor de
temas puntuales que constituyen, en sí mismos, los fundamentos teóricos de la museología
contemporánea, base y sustento del accionar del museo en un permanente vaivén que
conjuga la teoría con la praxis.
Los autores que integran esta publicación han debido optar entre dos grandes temas para
sus reflexiones. Dichos temas, que en una primera instancia parecieran antagónicos, no lo
son necesariamente, ya que sus caminos pueden llegar a complementarse e incluso
unificarse en la esperanza de lograr una convivencia armónica en beneficio de las
condiciones de vida de un mundo convulsionado por numerosas crisis.
En el primer tema se invita a rescatar la capacidad del museo para desempeñar un
importante papel como foro global de la museología contemporánea. Su objetivo es
alcanzar procesos interactivos de entendimiento intercultural frente a las certidumbres e
incertidumbres que generan los planteos de la globalización. Asimismo se procura destacar
que los cambios radicales producidos en las sociedades, tanto en lo económico como en lo
político, social y cultural, se verían beneficiados por la aplicación de una nueva ética global
que incorporase, a partir del museo, el respeto por las identidades plurales en su diversidad
étnica, ya sea en sus comunidades de pertenencia o fuera de ellas.
En el segundo tema, los trabajos académicos se orientan hacia una problemática de
candente actualidad: el análisis y la reflexión acerca de los cambios de roles con que se ve
enfrentada la museología como disciplina científica y el museo como hacedor, capaz de
llevar adelante los cambios que exige el acelerado desarrollo de las nuevas tecnologías de
la comunicación y la información en la edad del Internet. Por una parte, el espacio
electrónico se ha convertido en un nuevo e importante espacio social que difiere por su
estructura de cualquier otro, con una modalidad de acción sin precedentes en la historia que
posibilita a los seres humanos el actuar a distancia. Por otra parte, el espacio y el tiempo
llegan a transformar las percepciones, los recuerdos y las sensaciones y plantean un
cambio fundamental en los conceptos filosóficos referidos a dichas categorías.
5

En esta oportunidad, nuestro Comité Internacional es huésped de China a través de la
generosa invitación cursada por las autoridades de la Provincia de Hunan, el Comité
Nacional del ICOM y la Asociación China de Museos y el encuentro anual 2008 Museos,
Museología y Comunicación Global se llevará a cabo en Changsha, milenaria ciudad
histórica donde se presentará esta nueva publicación que incluye -entre otros- trabajos de
nuestros colegas chinos.
Es importante destacar que, con la materialización del ISS 37, el ICOFOM ha dado solución
a un reclamo de larga data: la creación de un comité que -en calidad de jurado- tenga a su
cargo la lectura, evaluación y selección de los documentos a publicar a partir de este año
2008. Bajo la dirección de André Desvallées, figura de vanguardia de la museología
francesa y uno de los más calificados expertos de la museología mundial contemporánea,
se convocaron reconocidas personalidades de esa disciplina y de otras afines, quienes
llevaron a cabo su tarea con objetividad, idoneidad y rapidez ejemplares. Internet facilitó la
labor del comité, y el más estricto anonimato sobre la identidad de los autores fue una regla
ineludible durante la etapa de selección. Nuestro especial reconocimiento a todos los
miembros del jurado por su dedicación, pericia y respeto en el análisis de todos y cada uno
de los documentos presentados; en forma particular, a André por haber aceptado este
desafío.
A los autores de los trabajos presentados, sin excepción, publicados o no publicados,
nuestro agradecimiento por su valiosa colaboración y por haber comprendido la importancia
de un espacio que nació, allá por 1977, como producto de los sueños de un grupo de
visionarios que creyeron en la museología. A partir de ese momento y a lo largo de todos
estos años de investigación y estudio, numerosos miembros del ICOFOM han tenido y
continúan teniendo la capacidad y la fe necesarias para consolidar y presentar la evolución
del pensamiento museológico a través de una producción bibliográfica de características
únicas en su género, que constituye el corpus teórico de una disciplina científica llamada
Museología...
6
Buenos Aires, 29 de agosto de 2008

FOREWORD
Nelly DECAROLIS, President of ICOFOM / ICOM
As in the last three decades, the ICOFOM Study Series No. 37 also includes
theoretical comments made by professionals from the fields of museology and other related
disciplines such as anthropology, philosophy, sociology, communication and arts.
Through different lines of thought and a variety of approaches, the authors of the
documents of this compilation attempt to answer the queries arising from concepts which are
drastically transforming current living conditions: globalization and cultural diversity in the
Internet age, in which virtuality has given rise to new prospects. It is necessary to face the
changes brought about by this technological revolution which started at the end of the 20th
century; get to know its incidence on the evolution of museums, their environment and the
notion of the real, and at the same time, evaluate the scope of the technological revolution
and how museums should incorporate the new technologies without changing their essence
or philosophy, in the certainty that technology is not a threat but a challenge offering several
options for interaction.
Once again the selected contents are the outcome of ICOFOM scientific/academic
symposia held year after year. Reflections included herein refer to specific topics which are
in themselves the theoretical foundation of contemporary museology, the basis and support
of museum-related activities in a permanent flow between theory and practice.
The authors of the papers included in this publication have opted between two broad
topics which, in a first approach, may seem to be opposing subjects but are not necessarily
so. They can complement each other and even become unified in the hope of achieving a
harmonic coexistence to favour living conditions in a world affected by many crises.
The first topic retrieves the museum’s capacity to play an important role as a global
forum of contemporary museology. Its purpose is to set up interactive processes for intercultural
understanding vis-à-vis the certainties and uncertainties of globalization.
Furthermore, an attempt is made to highlight that the radical changes taking place within
societies at the economic as well as political, social and cultural levels will benefit from the
application of a new global ethics which, based on museums, will include respect for plural
identities in their ethnic diversity, either within or outside their communities of origin.
The second topic is covered by academic papers which address a current problem:
analysis and reflection on the shifting roles faced by museology as a scientific discipline and
by museums as entities that are capable of implementing the changes required by the
speedy development of new information and communication technologies during the Internet
age. On the one hand, the electronic space has become a new, important social setting,
different from any other as regards its structure, which allows human beings to act remotely,
in a manner without precedents in history. On the other hand, space and time can transform
perceptions, memories and feelings which bring about a fundamental change in both of the
above philosophical categories.
On this occasion, China will host our International Committee's meeting by kind
invitation of the Hunan provincial authorities, the National Committee of ICOM and the
Chinese Association of Museums. The 2008 Annual Meeting on Museums, Museology and
Global Communication will take place in Changsha, a thousand-year-old city where this
7

publication - which includes, among others, works of our Chinese colleagues- will be
presented.
It is important to underscore that through publication ISS 37, ICOFOM has provided a
solution to a long-standing claim : the creation of a committee to act as a jury in charge of
reading, evaluating and selecting documents to be published as from 2008. Under the
guidance of André Desvallées, one of the most qualified experts of contemporary world
museology and an avant-garde figure of French museology, renowned personalities of this
and other related disciplines were convened and carried out their work with exemplary
objectivity, dedication and promptness. Internet facilitated the committee’s job and allowed
compliance with the unavoidable rule of maintaining the strictest anonymity of the authors at
the selection stage. Our special acknowledgment to all jury members for their dedication,
skill and respect in analyzing each and every one of the papers presented and, particularly,
to André for having accepted this challenge.
Our gratitude to all authors, whether their papers were published or not, for their
valuable contribution and for having understood the importance of our organization which
was created back in 1977 as a result of the dream of a group of visionaries who believed in
museology. As from then and throughout 30 years of research and study, several ICOFOM
members have had the necessary capacity and intent to consolidate and present the
evolution of museological thinking through a unique annual publication that has built the
theoretical corpus of a scientific discipline called Museology.
8
Buenos Aires, 29 August 2008

AVANT-PROPOS
de Lic. Nelly DECAROLIS, Présidente d’ICOFOM
Cette publication de l’ICOFOM Study Series Nº 37, organe de diffusion de l’ICOFOM,
réunit encore, comme elle le fait depuis trois décennies, des réflexions théoriques de
professionnels de la muséologie et de diverses disciplines connexes comme
l’anthropologie, la philosophie, la sociologie, la communication et les arts.
À travers leurs différents courants de pensée et la variété de leurs points de vue, les
auteurs des documents qui composent ce recueil de textes essaient de donner une réponse
aux problématiques qui sont en train de transformer d’une façon drastique les conditions de
la vie actuelle, comme la mondialisation et la diversité culturelle à l’ère de l’Internet, où la
« virtualité » a introduit de nouvelles perspectives. Il faut faire face aux changements
produits par cette révolution technologique qui a commencé à la fin du 20 ème siècle ; il faut
connaître son incidence dans l’évolution du musée, de son entourage et de sa conception
du réel ; il faut évaluer ses effets et le traitement que le musée devra employer pour
incorporer les nouvelles technologies sans dénaturer ni son essence ni sa philosophie,
ayant la certitude qu’elles ne sont pas une menace mais un défi qui offre de différentes
alternatives d’interaction.
Une fois de plus, les textes répondent à l’appel qui caractérise les Symposiums
scientifique/académiques de l’ICOFOM. La réflexion tourne autour de thèmes ponctuels qui
constituent en eux-mêmes les fondements théoriques de la muséologie contemporaine,
base et support de l’action du musée, dans un permanent va-et-vient qui joint ensemble la
théorie avec la praxis.
Les auteurs des textes de cette publication ont dû opter, de leur part, entre deux
grands thèmes pour ses réflexions. Ces thèmes, qui pourraient d’abord paraître
antagonistes ne le sont pas forcément, puisque leurs chemins peuvent arriver à se
compléter et même à s’unifier dans l’espoir d’atteindre une cohabitation harmonieuse qui
apporte des bénéfices aux conditions de vie d’un monde bouleversé par de crises
nombreuses.
Le premier thème invite à récupérer la capacité du musée de jouer un rôle important
en tant que forum mondial de la muséologie contemporaine. Son but est d’atteindre des
procès interactifs de compréhension interculturelle face aux certitudes et incertitudes
provoquées par les questionnements de la mondialisation . Pareillement, ce premier thème
essaie de mettre en relief le fait que les changements radicaux dans les sociétés, aussi bien
sous l’aspect économique que sous l’aspect politique, social et culturel, pourraient tirer profit
de l’application d’une nouvelle éthique mondiale qui, à partir du musée, inclurait le respect
envers les identités plurielles en leur diversité ethnique, soit dans leurs communautés
d’appartenance ou hors d’elles.
Le deuxième thème axe les travaux intellectuels vers une problématique de grande
actualité : l’analyse et la réflexion autour des changements de rôles auxquels doit faire face
la muséologie en tant que discipline scientifique et le musée comme réalisateur, capable de
mener à bien les changements exigés par le développement accéléré des nouvelles
technologies de la communication et de l’information dans l’ère de l’Internet: d’une part,
l’espace électronique est devenu un espace social nouveau et important qui diffère de
n‘importe quel autre par son structure, avec un mode d’action sans antécédents dans
9

l’histoire qui donne aux êtres humaines la possibilité d’agir à la distance. De l’autre, l’espace
et le temps arrivent jusqu’à transformer les perceptions, les souvenirs et les sensations et
proposent un changement dans les concepts philosophiques concernant ces catégories.
À cette occasion, notre Comité International est l’hôte de Chine à travers la
généreuse invitation faite par les autorités de l’ICOM national, l’Association des Musées
Chinois et la Province de Hunan pour effectuer la Réunion Annuelle 2008 Musées,
Muséologie et Communication Globale. Notre remerciement le plus profond à tous ceux qui
nous accueillent si gentiment dans la ville de Changsha, où sera présentée cette nouvelle
publication, qui compte des collègues chinois parmi ces auteurs,.
De même, il est important de souligner très spécialement, qu’avec la présentation de
l’ISS 37, l’ICOFOM s’acquitte d’une demande de longue date : la création d’un véritable
comité de lecture et d’évaluation, chargé du choix des documents pouvant être publiés dès
cette année. Sous la direction d’André Desvallées, un des experts les plus qualifiés de la
muséologie mondiale contemporaine, figure d’avant-garde de la muséologie française,
furent sollicitées des personnalités reconnues de cette discipline et des disciplines
connexes, qui ont travaillé avec une objectivité, une application et une rapidité exemplaires.
L‘Internet a rendu plus facile le fonctionnement, et le plus strict anonymat de l’identité des
auteurs a été la règle incontournable.
À eux tous, et spécialement à André, notre reconnaissance la plus sincère pour le
dévouement dans leur travail, pour l’aptitude et le respect dans le traitement de tous et de
chacun des textes, publiés et non publiés - dans ce dernier cas pour des motifs
règlementaires le plus souvent dûs à des erreurs d’interprétation des thèmes imposés ou
bien aux questionnements théoriques concernant le travail intellectuel qui caractérise
l’ICOFOM).
À tous les auteurs des travaux présentés, sans exception, mon remerciement pour
leur précieuse collaboration et pour avoir compris l’importance d’un espace qui est né en
1977 comme résultat des rêves d’un groupe de visionnaires qui ont cru en la muséologie.
Dès ce moment, et pendant toutes ces années de recherche et d’étude, de nombreux
membres de l’ICOFOM ont eu et continuent d’avoir la capacité et la foi nécessaires pour
raffermir et présenter l’évolution de la pensée muséologique à travers une production
bibliographique, unique en son genre, le corpus théorique d’une discipline scientifique : la
Muséologie.
10
Buenos-Aires, le 29 Août 2009

PROVOCATIVE PAPER
REFLECTIONS ON THE TOPICS OF THE ICOFOM SYMPOSIUM
2008 : Museums, Museology and Global Communication
Lynn MARANDA - Vancouver, Canada
___________________________________________________________________
The world is changing with a rapidity that exceeds any imagination. Communication
is almost instantaneous. Every structure within the communications grid is affected, whether
it be cultural, social, economic, political or otherwise in nature. So too, museums and by
extension, museology, are drawn into the web and many of the ‘sacred’ constructs and
elements are being bombarded by a movement of change the world has hitherto not
experienced.
Can museums/museology withstand the onslaught as some of its most cherished
components are challenged? Can museums continue to be the sole keepers of the world’s
tangible and intangible heritage? At the same time, will museums be able to maintain the
ethical precepts they hold so dear? The very fact that the core of museum work, the
collections, can now be digitized and presented in so many different ways poses a challenge
to the ‘sanctity’ of the object. It now questions the closely held perception of authenticity, and
even calls into question whether the ‘real’ is necessary any more.
Communication by the current electronic means is now so wide-spread and
multifaceted that information and images can easily be appropriated, manipulated, and sent
to the far reaches of the earth within an instant. Think of the potential consequences for the
museum object, from one that is fixed in a finite space, to one that is suddenly mobile in a
space that is virtually infinite. No limits in time or place. Hard to conceive of such an extreme
change in such a short space of time. But how the museum chooses to meet this challenge
will depend largely on how it decides to address the issue.
Yet another ‘new reality’ is securely in place. What does the museum do? Meet it
head-on ? Fight it tooth and nail ? Give in to it ? Become complacent in the hope that the
phenomenon will pass ? Ignore it? Examine ways in which it can work ? Whatever course is
chosen, it cannot be avoided. It is global and it is here to stay and it will evolve into what we
do not yet know at present.
Museums will be compelled to change regardless of approach, or they risk being left
behind as a useful commodity to the publics they serve. They can internalize the rationale
for the route they choose to take or they can reach outward towards the benefits that can be
gleaned. Certainly, museums have their collections which they will continue to process and
preserve for present and future generations. Museums almost religiously safeguard these
materials for use, normally by them for the edification of their publics. But what about their
use by the public at large ? Museums now have the opportunity to be able to disseminate
their collections to their publics on a scale unmatched just a few years ago. Databases, in
which collections information and images are stored, have been developed and made
available to whomever would wish access. The outreach capabilities are almost endless.
11

But, what about the important question of the relationship between globalization and
cultural diversity ? Cultures have undergone change ever since contact with ‘others’. Trading
between different cultural groups and the resultant cultural appropriations have been a way
of life since time immemorial. ‘Unspoiled’ cultures no longer exist and blue jeans and T shirts
are worn even in remote ‘third world’ villages. While evidence of contact and change first
manifests itself in the material culture of a people, this does not necessarily mean that the
structures of that culture will also change in a like manner. Change, however, is as ongoing
as the cultural continuum in which it is reflected. Nothing stays the same. Now, with the
advent of an electronic evolution that challenges anything that has gone before, is there a
fear that the cultures will cease to exist in diverse forms and that cultural annihilation could
be the norm?
It is certain, however, that high-speed communication will afford the rapid dissemina-
tion of information on any subject to wherever and whomever has the economic and
technological capability to receive the same. For museums and museology, is this not an
opportunity to play yet another role, this time in support of the preservation of cultural
diversity through the promotion of cross cultural respect and understanding through dialogue
involving multiple voices ?
The purpose of the 2008 theme and the topics for discussion is to begin to examine
the interface between global communications and museums/museology, and the changes
this phenomenon has already made and will continue to make in our arena of activity. How
will we address this issue ? How can we make it work for us ? Over time, there have been
many other external-originating factors which have caused museums to change their
perspective and ultimately their way of thinking and their mode of operation. True, the
biggest incursion into our comfortable little world has probably been the current electronic
‘revolution’. Will museums adapt to this new stimuli as they have to so many before ? Can
these changes be reflected in the precepts governing museology ? Is there another ‘new’
museology on the horizon? Who knows what the future will hold and where museums and
museology will be even a decade from now ? Rhetorical questions for speculative thought in
a world full of change and yes, uncertainty.
12
Vancouver, Canada
30 March 2008

COMMUNICATION POUR PROVOQUER
RÉFLEXIONS SUR LES THÈMES DU SYMPOSIUM DE L'ICOFOM
2008 : Musées, muséologie et communication planétaire
Lynn MARANDA - Vancouver, Canada
___________________________________________________________________
Le monde est en train de changer à une vitesse qui dépasse notre imagination. La
communication se fait presque à l'instant. Chaque structure dans les réseaux de
communication en est atteinte où ce que se soit: la culture, la société, l'économie, la
politique, etc. Les musées et, par extension, la muséologie son entraînés vers la Web et ils
sont nombreux les constructus et les éléments 'sacrés' a être bombardés par un mouvement
de changement que le monde n'avait pas ressenti jusqu'à nos jours.
Les musées, la muséologie, peuvent-ils supporter le choc lorsque leurs plus chers
composants se trouvent menacés ? Les musées, peuvent-ils rester les seuls gardiens du
patrimoine mondial, matériel et immatériel ? En même temps, les musées, seront-ils
capables de conserver les préceptes éthiques qu'ils soutiennent avec passion ? Le fait
même que l'axe du travail muséal, les collections, puissent aujourd'hui être digitalisées et
présentées de façons tellement diverses, pose un défi à la 'sainteté' de l'objet. On met en
question la perception d'authenticité et on doute même que le réel soit encore nécessaire.
La communication à travers les moyens électroniques actuels est tellement répandue
et elle est si multiface qu'elle permet de s'emparer de l'information et des images, de les
manipuler facilement et de les envoyer jusqu'aux plus lointains confins de la Terre en un
seul instant. Pensons aux effets potentiels d'un objet muséal depuis celui qui se trouve fixé
dans l'espace fini, jusqu'à celui qui, tout à coup, se déplace dans un espace virtuellement
infini, sans avoir de limites ni dans le temps ni dans l'espace. Il est difficile de concevoir un
changement si radical dans une période de temps si courte. Le moyen que le musée
choisira pour faire face à ce défi dépendra en grande mesure de la façon dont il décidera
d'aborder le thème.
Cependant, on trouve une autre 'nouvelle réalité' solidement installée dans un
espace d'action. Que fait le musée ? Lui fait-il face ? Lutte-t-il de toutes ses forces contre
elle ? Cède-t-il ? Devient-il complaisant en attendant que le phénomène passe ? L'ignore-til
? Examine-t-il les formes d'action ? Choisir n'importe quel chemin est inévitable. Le
phénomène est mondial : il est ici pour y rester et il évoluera vers quelque chose que nous
ne connaissons pas encore.
Les musées seront contraints de changer sans qu’il soit tenu compte de leur point de
vue ou, dans le cas contraire, ils risquent d'être laissés de côté comme une marchandise
utile pour les publics qu'ils servent. Ils peuvent internaliser la raison fondamentale du chemin
qu'ils choisissent de prendre ou tirer les bénéfices qu'ils peuvent glaner. Certes, les musées
ont des collections qu'ils continueront de traiter et de préserver pour les générations
actuelles et pour celles qui viendront. Les musées sauvegardent religieusement ces
matériels afin de les utiliser normalement au bénéfice de leurs publics. Mais, que peut-on
dire de leur utilisation par le public en général ? Les musées ont aujourd'hui l'opportunité de
pouvoir diffuser leurs collections vers leurs publics à une échelle inégalée il y a seulement
quelques années. Les bases de donnés où sont emmagasinées les informations et les
images des collections ont été développées et mises à la disposition de n'importe qui
voulant accéder à elles. Les capacités d'atteinte sont presque infinies.
13

Mais, que dire de l'importante relation qui existe entre mondialisation et diversité
culturelle ? Les cultures ont subi des changements depuis leur contact avec 'l'autre'. Le
commerce entre les différents groupes et les appropriations culturelles qui en résultent ont
été un mode de vie depuis un temps immémorial. Il n'existe plus de cultures 'non
contaminées' et les 'blue jeans' et les 'T-shirts' sont portés même par les peuples les plus
lointains du troisième monde. Alors que le témoignage du contact et du changement se
manifeste en premier lieu dans la culture matérielle d’un peuple, cela ne signifie pas
nécessairement que les structures d'une telle culture changeront aussi de la même manière.
Le changement, cependant, est aussi continuel que le continuum culturel dans lequel il se
reflète. Rien ne demeure pareil. Aujourd'hui, avec l'arrivée d'une révolution électronique qui
défie tout ce qui est arrivé auparavant, craint-on que les cultures cessent d'exister dans leur
diversité et que l'anéantissement culturel puisse être la norme?
Il est vrai, cependant, que les communications à haute vitesse seront à même de
diffuser rapidement de l'information sur n'importe quel thème, vers n'importe quel lieu et à
n'importe qui détenant les moyens économiques et techniques lui permettant de la recevoir.
Pour les musées et pour la muséologie, n'est-ce pas une occasion de jouer encore un autre
rôle, cette fois en soutenant la préservation de la diversité culturelle par la promotion du
respect et la compréhension interculturels, au moyen d'un dialogue implquant des voix
multiples?
Le but du thème et des sous-thèmes de discussion en 2008 est d'examiner l'interface
entre les communications mondiales et les musées/la muséologie, et les changements que
ce phénomène a déjà effectués et continuera d’effectuer dans notre sphère d'activité.
Comment allons-nous aborder ce thème ? Comment pouvons-nous agir pour qu'il soit
efficace pour nous? À travers le temps, il y a eu plein de facteurs externes qui ont obligé les
musées à changer leur perspective et même leur manière de penser et leur mode d'action.
Certes, la plus grande incursion dans notre petit et confortable monde a probablement été la
'révolution' électronique actuelle. Les musées, s'adapteront-ils à ce nouvel encouragement
ainsi qu'ils l'ont fait en tant d'autres circonstances ? Ces changements, pourront-ils se voir
répercutés dans les préceptes qui gouvernent la muséologie ? Existe-t-il à l'horizon une
autre nouvelle muséologie ? Qui sait ce que l'avenir nous prépare et même où les musées
et la muséologie seront dans une décennie ? Ce sont des questions rhétoriques pour une
pensée spéculative dans un monde plein de changements et réellement incertain.
14
Vancouver, Canada
30 Mars 2008

DOCUMENTO PROVOCATIVO
REFLEXIONES SOBRE TEMAS DEL SIMPOSIO DEL ICOFOM 2008 :
Museos, Museología y Comunicación Global
Lynn MARANDA - Vancouver, Canada
___________________________________________________________________
El mundo está cambiando con una rapidez que excede toda imaginación. La
comunicación es casi instantánea. Cada estructura dentro de las redes de comunicación
está afectada ya sea en lo cultural, social, económico, político o de cualquier otra
naturaleza. Así también los museos y por extensión la museología son arrastrados a la web
y muchos de los constructos y elementos 'sagrados' son bombardeados por un movimiento
de cambio que hasta ahora no había experimentado el mundo.
¿Pueden los museos/la museología soportar el embate cuando sus más acariciados
componentes se encuentran amenazados? ¿Pueden los museos continuar siendo los
únicos guardianes del patrimonio tangible e intangible del mundo? Al mismo tiempo, ¿serán
capaces los museos de mantener los preceptos éticos que sostienen tan ardientemente? El
mismo hecho de que el eje del trabajo del museo, las colecciones, puedan ser hoy
digitalizadas y presentadas de tan diversas maneras plantea un desafío a la 'santidad' del
objeto. Se cuestiona la percepción de autenticidad e incluso pone en duda si lo 'real' es
todavía necesario.
La comunicación a través de los medios electrónicos actuales está tan extendida y
es tan multifacética que es posible apropiarse y manipular fácilmente la información y las
imágenes y enviarlas hasta los más lejanos confines de La Tierra en un instante. Pensemos
en las consecuencias potenciales para el objeto de museo, desde aquel que se encuentra
fijo en el espacio finito hasta aquel que de pronto se mueve en un espacio virtualmente
infinito. Sin límites en tiempo y lugar. Difícil de concebir un cambio tan extremo en tan corto
espacio de tiempo. El modo que elige el museo para enfrentar este desafío dependerá
ampliamente en cómo decide abordar el tema.
Sin embargo, otra 'nueva realidad' se encuentra firmemente en su lugar. ¿Qué hace
el museo? ¿La enfrenta? ¿Lucha con uñas y dientes? ¿Cede? ¿Se vuelve complaciente en
la esperanza de que el fenómeno pase? ¿Lo ignora? ¿Examina las formas en que puede
actuar? Cualquiera sea el camino elegido, es inevitable. Es global y está aquí para
quedarse y evolucionará hacia algo que aún no conocemos.
Los museos serán compelidos a cambiar sin tener en cuenta su enfoque o de lo
contrario corren el riesgo de ser dejados atrás como mercancía útil para los públicos a
quienes sirve. Pueden internalizar la razón fundamental para el camino que eligen tomar o
alcanzar los beneficios que puedan recoger. Ciertamente, los museos tienen colecciones
que continuarán procesando y preservando para las generaciones actuales y futuras. Los
museos salvaguardan casi religiosamente estos materiales para utilizarlos normalmente
para beneficio de sus públicos. Pero, ¿qué decir de su utilización por el público en general?
Los museos tienen hoy la oportunidad de poder difundir sus colecciones entre sus públicos
en una escala inigualada hasta hace pocos años. Las bases de datos en las que están
almacenadas la información y las imágenes de las colecciones han sido desarrolladas y
puestas a disposición de cualquiera que desee acceder a ellas. Las capacidades de alcance
son casi infinitas.
15

Pero, ¿qué decir de la importante relación que existe entre globalización y diversidad
cultural? Las culturas han sufrido cambios desde su contacto con el 'otro'. El comercio entre
los diferentes grupos y las apropiaciones culturales resultantes, han sido un modo de vida
desde tiempo inmemorial. No existen más las culturas 'incontaminadas' y los blue jeans y
las tshirts son usados aún en los pueblos más remotos del 'tercer mundo'. Mientras que la
evidencia del contacto y el cambio se pone de manifiesto en primer lugar en la cultura
material de los pueblos, esto no significa necesariamente que las estructuras de tal cultura
también lo hagan de la misma manera. El cambio, sin embargo, es tan continuo como el
continuo cultural en el que se refleja. Nada permanece igual. Hoy, con el advenimiento de
una revolución electrónica que desafía todo lo que ha pasado con anterioridad, ¿se da el
temor de que las culturas dejen de existir de diversas maneras y que la aniquilación cultural
sea la norma?
Es cierto sin embargo que las comunicaciones de alta velocidad podrán afrontar la
rápida difusión de la información sobre cualquier tema, hacia cualquier lugar y a cualquiera
que tenga la capacidad tecnológica de recibirla. Para los museos y la museología, ¿no es
ésta una oportunidad de jugar otro rol, esta vez en apoyo de la preservación de la
diversidad cultural a través de la promoción del respeto y la comprensión del cruce de
culturas por medio de un diálogo que involucre múltiples voces?
El propósito del tema y los subtemas de discusión para 2008 es examinar la
interface entre las comunicaciones globales y los museos/la museología, evaluando los
cambios que este fenómeno ya ha producido y continuará produciendo en nuestra arena de
actividad. ¿Cómo nos vamos a referir a este tema? ¿Cómo podemos hacer para que
funcione para nosotros? A través del tiempo, han habido muchos factores externos que han
obligado a los museos a cambiar su perspectiva y hasta su manera de pensar y su modo de
operar. Es cierto, la mayor incursión en nuestro mundo pequeño y confortable ha sido
probablemente la actual 'revolución' electrónica. ¿Se adaptarán los museos a este nuevo
estímulo, así como lo han hecho en tantas oportunidades? ¿Podrán estos cambios verse
reflejados en los preceptos que gobiernan a la museología? ¿Existe en el horizonte otra
'nueva' museología? ¿Quién sabe lo que nos depara el futuro y dónde estarán los museos y
la museología, incluso dentro de una década? Cuestiones retóricas para un pensamiento
especulativo en un mundo cargado de cambios y realmente incierto.
16
Vancouver, Canada
30 de marzo de
2008

Preamble // Préambule
MUSEUM, MUSEOLOGY : BE CAUTIOUS OF THE TECHNOLOGY
DOCTRINE
SU Donghai, Senior Curator, The National Museum of China - Beijing, China
ABSTRACT
The revolution that is going on about the information technology is having a huge
impact on the development of the human society. We shall never underestimate the
influence of the technological revolution, but we should not overestimate its significance
either. If we reach the point of adoring technologies, we are falling into the technology
doctrine and the harming effect of technologies is coming into shape. The most direct harm
of the technology doctrine is the marginalization of the culture. The technology doctrine has
four wrongs. First, technologies are methods and tools instead of purposes. The reason for
museums to exist is decided by the purpose of having them. By adoring technologies,
technologies are placed on top of purposes. Second, the technology doctrine is wrong in
putting the man-made world of the virtual reality upon that of the reality and having the
former adored. Third, the materialized museum is the source of information and the
information on the Internet is of the second hand, which cannot replace the direct touch with
the material. Fourth, the technology doctrine pursues standardization while museums look
for diversity.
The responsibility of museology is to settle the relation between the technology and
the culture in a right way and thus to use the technology properly without being dominated
by it.
RÉSUMÉ
Musée et muséologie : attention à la doctrine technologique
La révolution qui se poursuit à propos des techniques d’information a un immense impact
sur le développement de la société humaine. Nous ne devons jamais sous-estimer
l’influence de la révolution technique, mais nous ne devons pas surestimer non plus son
importance. Si nous arrivons au point d’adorer les techniques, nous tombons dans la
doctrine technologique et l’effet nuisible des techniques se met à prendre forme. La
nuisance la plus directe de la doctrine technologique se trouve dans la marginalisation de la
culture. La doctrine technologique provoque quatre maux. Tout d’abord, les techniques sont
des méthodes et de instruments et non pas des objectifs. La raison d’être des musées est
décidée par l’objectif qu’ils se donnent eux-mêmes. En adorant les techniques, celles-ci sont
situées au sommet des objectifs. Secondement, la doctrine technologique est mauvaise
lorsqu’elle place le monde artificiel de la réalité virtuelle au-dessus de celui de la réalité, en
adorant le premier. Troisièmement, le musée matérialisé est la source d’informations et
l’information sur l’Internet est de seconde main, qui ne peut remplacer le toucher direct avec
la matière. Quatrièmement, la doctrine technologique cherche à atteindre la standardisation
tandis que le musée recherche la diversité.
17

La responsabilité de la muséologie est d’installer la relation entre la technologie et la culture
dans une droite ligne et d’utiliser ainsi la technique correctement sans être dominée par elle.
RESUMEN
Museologia : sea cauteloso con la doctrina tecnológica
La revolución informática que se encuentran en marcha despliega su enorme
impacto en el desarrollo de la sociedad humana. Nunca debemos subestimar la influencia
de la revolución tecnológica, pero tampoco sobrestimar su significado. Si llegamos al punto
de adorar las tecnologías, estamos cayendo en la doctrina tecnológica y su efecto
perjudicial comenzará a tomar forma. El daño más directo de la doctrina tecnológica es la
marginalización de la cultura. Dicha doctrina contiene cuatro aspectos negativos: primero,
las tecnologías son métodos y herramientas, no propósitos. La razón de que existan los
museos está determinada por el propósito que los sostiene. Al adorar las tecnologías se las
coloca por encima de los propósitos; segundo, la doctrina tecnológica se equivoca al poner
al mundo de la realidad virtual hecha por el hombre, por encima del mundo de lo real ;
tercero, la materialización del museo constituye la fuente de información y la información en
Internet es de segunda mano, hecho que no permite reemplazar el contacto directo con lo
material; cuarto, la doctrina tecnológica persigue la estandarización mientras que los
museos buscan la diversidad.
La responsabilidad de la museología es establecer la relación entre la tecnología y la
cultura de la manera correcta y, de esta forma, utilizar dicha tecnología debidamente, sin
dejarse dominar por ella.
* * *
Technologies improve as the economy booms, and the revolution that is going on
about the information technology is having a huge impact on the development of the human
society. We shall never underestimate the influence of the technological revolution, but we
should not overestimate its significance either. If we reach the point of adoring technologies,
we are falling into the technology doctrine and the harming effect of technologies is coming
into shape. The most direct harm of the technology doctrine is the marginalization of the
culture and the loss of the cultural value, so there has to be the caution against the
expansion of the technology doctrine. At present the technology doctrine is invading into
museums and museology. Some papers in both the international and the Chinese museum
circles are for the technology doctrine and they describe the information technology to be
decisive in the direction of the development of museums. According to them technologies
seem to be deciding the future and the fate of museums. They even claim that technologies
are changing both the foundation of and the way of the existence of museums. Their points
are exaggerations that do not fit in with the actual situation of museums. I believe that the
technology doctrine has four wrongs :
First, the technology doctrine has reversed the relation between the purpose and the
method. Technologies are methods and tools instead of purposes. It is the purpose that
decides the method, and not the method that decides the purpose. The reason for museums
to exist is decided by the purpose of having them, and technologies are nothing but ways to
pursue the purpose. It is the purpose that decides the fate of today’s museums. Now the fate
of museums is decided upon the realization of its core value and historic mission. In its
strategic plan for the years between 2005 and 2007, the International Committee of
Museums (ICOM) restated the core value and historic mission of museums and it also
realized the social responsibility of museums through a series of real-world actions. This
social responsibility is being extended from traditional museums to the broader scope of
communities. I think that the strategic direction of the ICOM is very right and the theme of
18

this annual convention about museology is good too. It gives us the chance to discuss about
what to do and how to do during the global communication between museums.
Second, the technology doctrine has reversed the relation between the reality and
the virtual reality. The revolution of the information technology has created a world of the
virtual reality and brought about new ways of communication between human beings. In a
way the world of the virtual reality is independent of that of the reality, but it is also rooted in
the latter. Without the world of the reality, there will never be that of the virtual reality. The
technology doctrine is wrong in putting the man-made world of the virtual reality upon that of
the reality and having the former adored. What it is for has been a confusion of the status of
the two worlds. If we do not adore technologies blindly and if we observe the life objectively,
we can come to the realization that technologies should not be placed in a position that is
above everything else. The fact in China is that the 2,400 museums are still the main part of
the museum culture and that digital museums are only a supplemental tool.
Third, the technology doctrine has reversed the relation between the way of
transmission of the information and the source of the information. The Internet is a symbolic
way of transmission in the information age but the transmission through the Internet has its
limitation. Whether to use the way of transmission should be decided upon the request from
the source of the information. In this case the materialized museums are sources of the
information. According to the characteristics of the information of the materialized museums,
there are three ways to transmit the information. First, the direct contact with the material. To
directly observe and even to touch the original artifact is the No 1 way of transmission for the
cultural information of the materialized museums. It is also the best way of transmission. The
information that is gained through touching can be first hand indeed. Second, the
transmission through the media, such as newspapers, magazines, movies, television
channels and books. This way of transmission can result in the loss of the part of the
information that can be only gained through the process of feeling. The third way is the
transmission through the emerging Internet. Because of the development in digital
technologies, this one may be able to provide a more real-life feeling than other forms of the
media. But it cannot replace the first way of transmission because the information that is
transmitted through the Internet has been technically dealt with, and in this way it is of the
second hand. That is why although the Mona Lisa can be watched with a real-life feeling on
the Internet people still go all the way to the Louvre for a look at the genuine piece.
Fourth, the technology doctrine is no good for the diversity of the museum culture.
Museums are the natural platform of the cultural diversity as well as the important cultural
organization to preserve and to display the cultural diversity. But the technical adaptation
has a nature that is contrary to the diversity. The foundation of the technology doctrine is the
digitalization, and the foundation for the digitalization is the standardization. Without a
uniformed formula there will not be the technology doctrine. So, from the point of view of the
cultural characters of museums, the technology doctrine is no good for the diversity and
prosperity of museums. The responsibility of museology is to settle the relation between the
technology and the culture in a right way and thus to use the technology properly without
being dominated by it.
Museums need new technology, but not the technology doctrine ;
Exaggerations about the technology are impairments of the culture.
19

1. MUSEUMS, GLOBAL FORUMS FOR CONTEM-
PORARY MUSEOLOGY
LES MUSÉES, FORUM MONDIAUX POUR LA
MUSÉOLOGIE CONTEMPORAINE
MUSEOS, FOROS GLOBALES DE LA MUSEOLOGÍA
CONTEMPORÁNEA 19
Museums, communication agents within crosscultural
understanding
Les musées, agents de communication dans le cadre d’une
compréhension interculturelle
Museos, agentes de comunicación en el entendimiento
intercultura
21

In Greek mythology, Muses are deities second in number only to the twelve
Titans symbolizing nature and life, which suggests the intrinsic relationship between
the museum and diversity.
In the late 19 th century, when European and American modern museums were
first introduced to China, they were referred to as “public place” (gongsuo), “temporary
dwelling place” (xingguan), “the place where multifarious things are at display”
(wanzhongyuan), “painting exhibition pavilion” (huage), “weapon display building”
(junqilou), “treasury” (jibaolou) , “treasure-collection courtyard” (jibaoyuan), “the place
where many strange things are collected” (jiqiguan) 1 . This confusing naming disunity
had actually sprung from the diversity of museums. Eventually only four similar names
remained: bowuguan (the current Chinese name for museums), bolanguan, boguguan,
and bowuyuan (a name currently adopted for large-scale museums), of which
bowuguan is the most commonly used.
This Chinese translation of “museum” successfully captures two basic features
of the museum: bo, which means diversity and heterogeneity, and wu, or “objects”, on
which the museum has been established and based. The earliest use of the Chinese
phrase, bowu, is found in Zuozhuan, or Zuo Qiuming’s History of the Spring and
Autumn Period compiled around 500 BCE—“On hearing Zichan’s words, the Lord of
Jin said, ‘A gentleman is he who is learned about diversified things’ 2 .
Now that Muses are protectors of art and science, “mouseion” assumes the
meaning of “a shrine for art and science”, which embodies the original intention and
pursuit for the museum. After modern museums were created, Samuel Johnson (1709-
1804), a celebrated man of letters, defined “museum” in his monumental Dictionary of
the English Language (1755) as a place for storing and displaying strange objects
embodying rich knowledge. However, this definition, rather narrow in connotation,
seems mainly to refer to natural museums.
When the International Council of Museums (ICOM) was founded in 1946, it
defined “museum” in its Statutes as follows: “The word ‘museum’ includes all
institutions open to the public, of artistic, technological, scientific, historical or
archaeological collections, including zoos and botanical gardens, but excluding
libraries, except in so far as they maintain permanent exhibition rooms.” Its
classification of “artifacts” shows that museums can be highly diverse.
ICOM revised the definition of “museum” many times in 1951, 1962, 1971 and
1974. Its 1989 definition recently has become the “classic” formulation: “A museum is a
non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to
the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the
heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and
enjoyment.” In this definition the “collected artifacts” of museums achieve its greatest
diversity.
In 2004, ICOM further expanded the scope of artifacts and museums to include
objects related to “intangible heritage” and “digitized activities” that comply with the
1
Wang Hongjun. p.72. The study of museum in China. Shanghai : Shanghai Classics
Publishing House, 2001.
2
The Annotations of the Thirteen Canons. p.2024. Zhejiang Ancient Books Publishing House,
1998.
24

elevant museum criteria. In 2007, ICOM completely deleted the examples under the
definition of “museum”. This act could be regarded as the fulfillment of this process 3 .
ICOM’s constant revision on the definition of “museum” reflects the reality of
“increasing diversity” in the field of modern museums. However, it must be said that the
expansion of the inclusiveness of “museum” has led to uncertainty of its implication,
which has given rise to doubts and divergences within museum circles. As a matter of
fact, attempts to define the connotation of “museum” have caused a split which greatly
weakened ICOM (monuments and sites broke away from ICOM and established the
ICOMOS, International Council on Monuments and Sites) and a threatening though not
dangerous crisis (the impact of the new museology movement).
The close relationship between museums and diversity also lies in the fact that
there is still not a universally acknowledged perfect classification of museums, which,
in most cases, are classified by the type of their collected items. For example, the
Japanese Council of Art Museums has classified museums into 10 types, to wit,
comprehensive, native, fine arts, history, natural history, technology and industry, zoos,
aquariums, botanic gardens and animal, water and plant museums 4 ; the American
Association of Museums (AAM) groups museums under 13 categories and 72 subcategories
such as comprehensive, science, art, history, sports, children’s, companies,
exhibition areas, etc 5 . Besides the common standard concerning artifacts, features of
the places have been introduced in classifying museums, which makes the Americans’
classification appear somewhat disorderly and unsystematic. Many foreign
museologists believe that all the existing museums throughout the world can be
specifically classified into 301 types 6 . This classification, incorporating different
classification standards (such as collections, trades, disciplines and nationalities etc.),
is still not satisfactory.
Whatever the length of its history, the prosperity of its economy, the amount of
its population, the composition of its ethnic groups, the beliefs of religions, each of
nearly 200 countries and regions all over the world has museum-type institutions. The
fact proves from another angle that museum is a concept and practice that could adapt
to pluralism and has universal value.
There is no place where museums can not be found.
II. The Ultimate Mission of Museum: Protection and Continuity of Cultural
Diversity
Museums are essentially a cultural phenomenon concerning “heritage of
humanity and its environment”.
As estimated by scientists, the number of the species living on this planet ranges
between five and one-hundred million. Together these species form an ecological
system in which they are inter-independent. As a result of environmental pollution and
man-made damage, dozens of the species disappear from the world every day. In
1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development passed the
3
See conference documents of the International Council of Museums.
4
Journal of Chinese Museums, “Tables of Basic Information on and Number of Visits to
Japanese Museums in 2000”. July 2002.
5
Wang Hongjun. p.53. The study of museum in China. Shanghai: Shanghai Classics Publishing
House, 2001.
6
Journal of Chinese Museums, “Table of Information on 301 Types of Museums at the End of
the 20th Century”, edited and translated by Shen Yonghua. July 2002.
25

Convention on Biological Diversity to slow down the rate of extinction of endangered
species, to give the earth the best possible protection and to achieve sustainable
development.
The most intelligent of all sentient beings, human beings still differ in a
multitude of ways. Although 99.9% of human genes are of the same, it is the 0.1%
different genes which determine that there are no two exactly same human beings in
the world. Even those allelic humans produced by cloning technology are different in
terms of perception of time and space, consciousness, culture etc.
Obviously, the human race as a whole is of different races and nationalities. By
color of skin, they can be divided into white, yellow, black, brown and other races; by
culture, they may be classified into about 2,070 ethnicities; and by language, they may
be categorized into about 3,500 nationalities.
Throughout human history, hundreds of civilizations and cultures once existed
or exist in this world—according to Arnold Joseph Toynbee’s (1889-1975) statistics, at
least 26 civilizations have imposed their respective significant influences 7 . It is their
fusion, evolution and development which have shaped the world’s present-day cultural
landscape.
In 1971, the Canadian government announced its policy of multiculturalism, and
became the first country which made multiculturalism a basic state policy. And in 1988,
it promulgated and implemented Canadian Multiculturalism Act, which officially
established the legal status of this state policy. 8 Multiculturalism has also become one
of the basic features of the United State—the most typical immigration country. In
2001, at the 31 st conference of UNESCO adopted Universal Declaration on Cultural
Diversity, which asserts that cultural diversity is a basic feature of humanity and “the
common heritage of humanity”. In 2005, in order to further reinforce these concepts,
UNESCO’s 33 rd conference adopted the Convention on the Protection and Promotion
of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.
Humanity, humankind’s living environment and human-created culture have
achieved unity at the level of “pluralism”. Museums, as places keeping the “heritage of
humanity and its environment”, must realize their value in keeping the evidence.
In Greek mythology, Muses’ mother is the Goddess of Memory. In Chinese,
“having rich knowledge of history” (bogu) often comes together with “knowing much on
the present” (zhijin). Museum is the most important medium connecting the past,
present and future. Its ultimate mission is to learn about, protect, develop and carry on
the cultural diversity which is the heritage of mankind and its environment.
In other words, by protecting and developing cultural diversity, mankind is in
effect protecting and carrying on the integrity of humanity. This helps us
comprehensively recognize the past of mankind, build the present of mankind and
explore the future of mankind. It also requires us to advocate pluralism, tolerance,
respect and objective understanding and discard prejudices, narrow-mindedness,
arrogance and subjective conjectures.
7 Arnold Joseph Toynbee: A Study of History. Liu Beicheng and Guo Xiaoling, translators.
Shanghai: Shanghai People's Publishing House,2000.
8 Bureau for External Cultural Relations, Ministry of Culture. “A Report on International Cultural
Development”. Beijing: The Commercial Press, 2005, P.682.
26

In his masterpiece Tolerance, Hendrik van Loon (1882-1944) records many
painful lessons brought about by prejudices and arrogance and reveals that the history
of human progress 9 , in a sense, is mankind marching constantly toward pluralism and
tolerance. Contemporary philosophical research also indicates that the mainstream
thought had been monism since ancient to modern times. However, pluralism had
become the mainstream of contemporary thought. Even those developed countries
with monist religion as mainstream belief adopt the national policy that separates
politics from religion, so as to tolerate plural beliefs and prevent former historical
failures.
In modern times with economic globalization, economic structures of all the
countries all over the world tend to be similar. They share the prosperity and decline of
development, and face the crises of environmental pollution, shortage of energy, etc.
Multiculturalism is also faced with new challenges. Therefore, we need new pluralistic
approaches. We should not only avoid equating globalization with “homo-culturalism”
but also setting up any dichotomy between multiculturalism and universal values (we
human beings share 99.9% of genes after all).
Museums must shoulder heavy responsibilities.
III. Challenges and Opportunities for Chinese Museums
Chinese Museums, which have been based on Chinese history, Chinese
environment, and Chinese people, boast unsurpassed advantages of resources.
China is a country with a long history and a continuous civilization.
Archeologists have divided China’s Neolithic civilization into six periods and summed
up dozens of archaeological cultures. The Neolithic age was followed by the three
dynasties Xia, Shang and Zhou (2,100 BCE-700 BCE) during which “their ritual
systems were different from each other” (according to Shangjun Shu or the Book of
History written during the 4 th century BCE) 10 . The Spring and Autumn and Warring
States periods (770-221 BCE) witnessed a cultural boom famous for the numerous
contending schools of thought. Following the Han dynasty (established in 207 BCE),
although the rulers claimed to “expel all other factions and esteem Confucianism as the
primary”, in fact, Confucianism, Buddhism, Daoism and Shamanism coexisted, which
eventually shaped the mainstream Chinese culture that has lasted till today.
China is one of the largest countries with a highly complicated terrain.
Covering an area of 9,600,000 square kilometers and with an elevation difference of
more than 8,800 meters, it is well-known for its beautiful and highly diverse
landscapes. Regions vary in terms of climate, products and people’s lifestyles. As was
said in two books i.e. Spring and Autumn Annals (Yanzi Chun Qiu) 11 written in the 3 rd
century BCE and Han History (Han Shu) written in the 1 st century, “customs vary from
area to area”.
China is one of the countries with the largest population, the most nationalities
and the most diversified religions. All those diversified and splendid folk and ethnic
cultures make up an integral Chinese culture.
9
Hendrik van Loon.Tolerence. Ze Wei and Jin Cuiwei, translators. Beijing: Shenghuo-Dushu-
Xinzhi Joint Publishing Company, 1985.
10
All My Favorite. p.914. Zhejiang Ancient Books Publishing House, 1999.
11
All My Favorites. p.726. Zhejiang Ancient Books Publishing House, 1999.
27

This historical, geographical and ethnic diversity has laid a solid foundation for
the development of Chinese museums, provided Chinese museums with many
possibilities and demonstrated the strength and potential of Chinese museums in
protection and continuation of the country’s cultural diversity.
At present, Chinese museums number about 2,600 and are still quickly
growing; and these museums cover all the known types in the world, intangible
heritage museums and digitized museums included.
However, we must be aware that Chinese museums still face many problems
such as small absolute numbers and even smaller relative to population, uneven
geographical distribution, unbalanced development of different types of museums,
uncoordinated development of software and hardware, and less than ideal use. For
example, on the one hand, in China on average there is a museum for every halfmillion
people and therefore, in this regard there exists a vast gap between China and
developed Western countries; on the other, most of the Chinese museums receive
fewer visitors on average.
Against the background of economic globalization, Chinese museums are faced
with pressure and even challenges, which are, in essence, the pressure and
challenges confronting Chinese culture. Therefore not only the relevant authorities and
museums but also Chinese society at large must address these pressures and
challenges, seize opportunities and improve Chinese museums as soon as possible.
There may be thousands of political, economic and systematic approaches. In
the final analysis, only one cultural approach will be effective: to make full use of
China’s advantage in multiculturalism to give an edge to Chinese museums. Only in
this way can Chinese museums meet the needs of visitors, survive and fulfill their
ultimate mission.
To be more specific, every museum may forge their own advantages and
characteristics in accordance with their respective aims of establishment, historical
origin, current status, and objective conditions.
Representative national museums should orient themselves towards the world,
improve themselves constantly, carry out communication and dialogue on equal footing
with famous foreign museums and take upon themselves the mission of protecting,
disseminating and carrying on Chinese culture in the international circles.
Relevant authorities may vigorously promote the establishment and
development of local, ethnic, folk, industrial and specialized museums and museums in
disadvantaged areas like living quarters of ethnic groups, remote mountains, and
underdeveloped regions by means of favorable policies, more investment, publicity
campaigns and encouragement.
Under the circumstances of opportunities and challenges coexisting with one
another, informed by traditional wisdom such as “seeking common ground while
preserving differences”, in the not-too-distant future Chinese museum staff are actively
carrying out the practice and research of multicultural museums. They will surely be
able to build a museology with Chinese characteristics and to bring about a Chinese
school of theory appropriate for and conducive to the development of Chinese
museums in international museum circles.
The prospects for museums are bright.
28

MUSEOLOGY, INFORMATION, INTERCOMMUNICATION :
INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE, DIVERSITY AND
PROFESSIONAL TERMINOLOGY IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE
CARIBBEAN
LIMA, Diana-Farjalla Correia– UNIRIO – Rio-de-janeiro, Brazil.
ABSTRACT
Museology and Museum, space for intercultural dialogue, taking Latin America and the
Caribbean as the venue for multiple cultures representative of autochthonous groups and of
population waves which compounded throughout several centuries. The issues regarding
the local language, the language of the areas of knowledge, the natural language and the
documentary language in face of the communication challenge of the providing of, and of the
access to specialized information within the heritage theme as studied by the museums –
Documentation and Museum Information. The new information and communication
technologies - ICTs (Internet as example), widen and make way for reflection on the
possible action of Museums in a Latin American and Caribbean network system thereby
comprising, in their cybernetic environment, a model and action which tends to the
intercultural demand information needs. In keeping with the choice and construction of the
terminology repertory to be used, as to what regards documentary language, the diversity of
expressions relating to cultural traditions. Moreover, establishing a strict stance for the
interpretation and consolidation of words and concepts used in the field of Museology,
therefore, in the realm of what is named professional language, a living example as well, of
the intangible heritage which molds the spaces of knowledge.
RÉSUMÉ
Muséologie, information, intercommunication : patrimoine culturel immatériel,
diversité et terminologie en Amérique latine et dans les Caraïbes
La Museologie et le Musée sont placées en tant qu’espace privilégié pour le dialogue
interculturel, prenant en compte l'Amérique Latine et les Caraïbes comme lieu des multiples
cultures représentatives des groupes autochtones et des arrivéees des populations qui se
sont ajoutées tout au long de plusieurs siècles. Les questions concernant les langues
locales, le langage des domaines de la connaissance qui opèrent comme application
disciplinaire dans le champ muséologique, de la langue naturelle et du langage
documentaire face au défi de la communication pour l'approvisionnement et l'accès aux
informations spécialisées dans la thématique du patrimoine étudié par les musées
(documentation et Information). Les nouvelles technologies de l’information et la
communication NTICs (par exemple l’Internet), engendrent et élargissent la réflexion sur la
performance possible des musées dans le système conçu comme réseau latino-américain
et des Caraïbes, en composant dans cet environnement cybernétique un modèle et une
action qui répondent aux besoins en informations de la demande interculturelle, par la
recherche et la recréation. Dans le choix et la construction du répertoire terminologique, il
faut utiliser un langage documentaire, respectueux de la diversité des expressions relatives
aux traditions culturelles locales. Et, aussi, pratiquer beaucoup de rigueur dans
l’interprétation et la consolidation des termes et concepts utilisés dans le champ de la
muséologie, donc, dans le contexte de ce qu’on appelle le langage professionnelle ou le
langage spécialisé, autant dire exemple vivant du patrimoine immatériel qui configure les
espaces de la connaissance.
29

RESUMEN
Museología, información, intercomunicación : patrimonio cultural intangible,
diversidad y terminología profesional en América Latina y el Caribe
Considerando que el museo es un espacio de diálogo intercultural y teniendo en
cuenta que América latina y el Caribe es un lugar de múltiples culturas, representativas de
grupos autóctonos y de olas poblacionales que se fueron agregando a través de los siglos,
los temas a los que se refiere el presente documento se refieren a cuestiones relativas al
lenguaje local, al de las áreas de conocimiento, al natural y al documental, a la luz del
desafío de la comunicación y del acceso a la información especializada en la temática del
patrimonio estudiada por los museos – la documentación e información del museo. Las
nuevas tecnologías de la información y la comunicación (NTIC, cuyo ejemplo es Internet) –
abren el camino hacia la reflexión sobre el posible accionar de los museos dentro de una
red latinoamericana que comprenda, en su entorno cibernético, un modelo y una acción que
apunte a las necesidades interculturales de información. Todo esto se lograría de acuerdo
con la elección y construcción de un repertorio terminológico que contemple un lenguaje
documental respetuoso de la diversidad de expresiones relativas a las tradiciones culturales
locales. Del mismo modo, estableciendo un riguroso enfoque en la interpretación y
consolidación de los términos y conceptos utilizados en el campo de la museología, en el
ámbito de lo que se denomina lenguaje profesional o especializado, como ejemplo vivo de
la herencia intangible que conforma los espacios del conocimiento.
RESUMO
Museologia, informação, intercomunicação : patrimônio intangivel, diversidade
cultural e terminologia professional em Amercica latina e o Caribe
A Museologia e o Museu posicionados como espaço privilegiado para o diálogo
intercultural, tomando-se a América Latina e o Caribe como local de múltiplas culturas
representativas dos grupos autóctones e das levas populacionais que se foram agregando
ao longo de vários séculos. A questão das linguagens locais, da linguagem das áreas do
conhecimento que operam como aplicação disciplinar no campo museológico, da linguagem
natural e da linguagem documentária frente ao desafio comunicacional do provimento e do
acesso à informação especializada na temática do patrimônio estudada pelos museus ---
Documentação e Informação em museus. As novas tecnologias de informação e
comunicação TICs, a Internet como exemplo, ampliam e dão passagem para refletir acerca
da possível atuação dos museus em sistema em rede latino-americano e caribenho,
compondo neste ambiente cibernético, modelo e ação que atenda às necessidades de
informação da demanda intercultural por pesquisa e recreação. Respeitando-se, na seleção
e construção do repertório da terminologia a ser utilizada, no que concerne a linguagem
documentária, a diversidade das expressões relativas às tradições culturais locais. E,
também, determinando rigor para interpretação e consolidação dos termos e conceitos
usados no campo da Museologia, portanto, no âmbito do que se denomina linguagem
profissional ou linguagem de especialidade, exemplo vivo, também, da herança intangível
que conforma os espaços do conhecimento.
Museology: Open to Intercultural Dialog
* * *
When exploring the countries and cultures scattered throughout the geographical
region known today as Latin America and the Caribbean, a rich mosaic appears, highlighting
similarities and differences. During the past five centuries, the patchwork history of this
30

egion has been recorded through the cultural legacies of traditions bequeathed by our
forefathers.
After the era of the Great Explorations, commanded by the Portuguese and Spanish
crowns that discovered a ‘New World’ (in those faraway days, the boundaries of the ‘known
world’ were marked by shipping routes through the Mediterranean); the heritage of the
autochthonous tribes − today known as indigenous peoples – was enriched by other
elements introduced by waves of new social groups settling in this region. In parallel to the
many different cultures rooted in Europe and Asia, the marked presence of African groups
must be recalled, shipped over by the slave trade until the XIX century.
The quest for harmony between hearts and minds has necessarily been a hard-won
process of permanent construction that is being built up through intercultural dialog,
notwithstanding the many different ways of viewing and dealing with the world adopted by
these social groups.
Within this vast geographical region and the context of its widely-varying cultures, it is
vital to consider carefully the points where links may be established, in order to compose an
interactive design that will underpin (inter)communication through intercultural dialog within
the sphere of museum actions.
Taking the word ‘museum’ as a reference, the universe of Museology is a fertile field
for a wide variety of models that express conceptual categories typifying their many different
representations and practices.
All of them are also firmly rooted in an idea that, although broad-ranging, strives to
qualify a specific configuration whose purpose is to acknowledge the typological
characteristics of other areas as well, whose profiles must be tailored to the needs of the
museum field, bearing in mind the multidisciplinary links that develop in this area.
Many types of museum modes that reflect glimpses of the universe of knowledge
thus allow countless areas of expertise to be explored, of particular interest are those
addressing and specializing in interpretations of cultural expressions.
In museums with a wide variety of nomenclatures and formats in many different
countries, the purpose of fostering communication among cultures has been building up a
solid track record over the years, steadily fine-tuned by professionals specializing in this
field.
Cultural Heritage and Museum Information
Pursuing their roles within societies, museums are developing into areas of
understanding to an increasing extent, effectively responding to all the segments that
constitute the faceless masses known as museum publics. Thus, categorized as institutions
that preserve collective heritages, museums are attempting to perform their activities in ways
that will make them intelligible to visitors exploring their exhibitions, as well as for other users
of their services, especially those linked to information. Particularly outstanding among
these seekers of knowledge are researchers who contact museums for consultation
purposes and in order to explore the legacies enshrined in the collections preserved by
these institutions.
Within this specific context of museum collections, it must now be stressed that this
designation also encompasses what are known as records in museum collections, meaning
documentation that represents the various facets of intangible cultural assets in either texts
or images. Illustrating this point, how can melodies and songs be transcribed, and written or
taped descriptions, as well as pictures of dances and rituals, among other ways of
documenting cultural expressions?
The Social Memory (HALBWACHS, 1990) represented by the many collections found
in museums and similar institutions has long been the territory of Museology, offering fertile
ground for heritage studies.
Over the years, the concept of heritage: "the combined creations and products of
nature and man, in their entirety, that make up the environment in which we live in space
and time” (ICOMOS, 1982) has gradually (and clearly with increasing wisdom) been urging −
31

alongside and with content of identical value − the concept of cultural property (social
memory assets) that are both tangible and immaterial (without physical support). Through
this approach, it has been possible to encompass other intangible expressions of culture.
This consequently paves the way for understanding diversity and accepting others
(different cultures) in a wide variety of mental and physical aspects: as cultural
representations and practices. In earlier days, the artifacts produced by humankind were
the subjects of analysis, while today it is the process itself – resulting in the artifacts and
activities – that are being studied, meaning the community relating its experiences is now
the subject of museology studies.
Similarly, with regard to elements arising from Nature, it has been acknowledged that
the perception that assigned them the same symbolic attributes (BOURDIEU, 1989) −
meaning acknowledgment as natural assets − was undoubtedly the proper identification
resulting from the consideration of a ‘cultural view’. A natural asset or ‘collective memory’
transcends the boundaries of its origin and has become a cultural asset arising from Nature.
In general, and briefly, it might be said that this understanding addresses the
problems raised by new assets that are part of the cultural heritage and also new museum
models. Thus, issues are added, such as the expansion of the operating concept of the
purposes of museums.
(…) “The “intangible cultural heritage” means the practices, representations,
expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and
cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some
cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible
cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated
by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with
nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity,
thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. For the
purposes of this Convention, consideration will be given solely to such intangible
cultural heritage as is compatible with existing international human rights
instruments, as well as with the requirements of mutual respect among
communities, groups and individuals, and of sustainable development.” (UNESCO,
2003)
Based on the understanding of content presented above, it may be affirmed that
museums must handle any type of cultural testimony, which also includes documenting
social processes (endorsements by transformations in aspects of society) with significant
peculiarities, in terms of their representative or symbolic character. Thus, they function as
means of communication, providing at one and the same time contents and sources for
reading and construing the messages from the areas, for both the model and the social
action, in other words meanings are expressed through aspects of cultural practices and
representations.
In the field of Museology, the issue of communication is a recurring topic for analysis,
particularly aspects stressing intercultural matters in which Latin America and the Caribbean
are particularly rich, with a striking presence when the area addresses the diversity of the
countless social groups in this region.
Recalling that
− diversity is highlighted by countless shadings that extent throughout “the universe of
ethnicities, religious beliefs, social classes, stratification and genders − known as ‘minorities’
and their various categories − and, in territorial terms, regional problems that also affect
major urban hubs in many different aspects and meanings.”(LIMA, 1998, 47);
− within the context of the world views developed by social groups, the diversity of cultural
construals in time and space determine differences that delineate life styles, considering
each variant as a common and specific system that is in turn empowered to define and
acknowledge what demarcates the identities of the groups;
− this system consists of symbolic devices, understood as emotional and cognitive schemes
presented in culturally coded ways, meaning particular signs and specific meanings that
establish the identified element as a symbolic component (LIMA, 1998).
32

This component is of the order of tangible formulations of notions, abstract expressions of
experience rooted in perceptible forms, concrete inclusions of ideas, attitudes, judgments,
nostalgias or beliefs” (GEERTZ, 1989, 105).
It must be stressed that, at the level of this paper, there is action (instead of concern).
This process must move ahead, in order to encompass cultural differences related to the
context of heritage issues in any region where they are clearly apparent in settings,
communities, collections of items and the documentation covering expressions of intangible
cultural assets. From the standpoint of museum studies, they have become the subject of
communication processes developed by Museology.
It is thus a matter of returning to the information standpoint – understood through its
characteristics in the scientific area as a field of Information Science, and its specific
practices for communicating knowledge within society.
For the issue in question, this includes elements for construing the multiplicity of
cultural expressions. Thus, considering cultural plurality as a representative cluster of
diverse community groups, their relationships with their physical surroundings and the
existential space that is specific to them, including contact with other cultures, which endows
intangible cultural assets with capital importance.
This circumstance indicates that the subject addressed in this manner can be
considered under the academic denomination of cultural information, with a museum-based
approach. Thus, it may be affirmed that it is quite valid to include the application of
knowledge of Information Science in Museology within the subject of Information in
Museums.
This is the competence (according to the concept presented in the work of Pierre
Bourdieu) exercised by the dimension of culture, strengthening its prerogatives that
legitimizes cultural expressions and assigns them value as community identity benchmarks.
Similarly, this should be understood as Social Memory benchmarks, constituting an
image of belonging, which is a term and concept reflecting the acknowledgment and
inclusion of the individual identified as a member of a specific social group. This
consequently involves the issue of cultural identity: “Heritage is a reality, a possession of the
community, and a rich inheritance that may be passed on, which invites our recognition and
our participation." (ICOMOS, 1982).
The sets of cultural elements expressing construal of world views and their correlated
life styles that build up as social forms of integration are quite naturally endowed with
symbolic significance, also carrying denominations that are specific to the cultures producing
them. When using the term ‘cultures’ it should be recalled that the meaning presented in
this paper reflects the understanding of the groups and also relationships to natural
surroundings, with cultural properties or assets, considered as examples in this natural
category, insofar as they are assets related to the group heritage.
It is within this context that Museology appears as a specialty, alongside other areas
of knowledge and folk wisdom: lore and legend characteristic of the social groups that
generate the expressions analyzed by specialists.
At this stage, an area can be glimpsed that fosters dialog among disciplines and
cultures.
Museums and Intercultural Dialog
The basic theme is taken as being the context of the assets for which the museum is
the appropriate place to activate this mindset in actual practice, whose content is the links
and communications built up among cultures, fostering interaction of knowledge in order to
achieve mutual respect that underpins intercommunity solidarity.
Examining the context of the museum field within the multidisciplinary complex that
houses it and its technical and conceptual functions, the cultural transmission process is
identified through communications, conducted by museums in the role of institutional social
agents.
Communications activities are performed through disseminating cultural information
33

elated to museums (the same as Information in Museums) (REED; SLEDGE; 1988),among
the people in their daily lives, from the standpoint of specialized publics as well as lay groups
that constitute the consumer clientele presenting demands for information.
This information encompasses what is known as either cultural or natural heritage
assets (depending on their type: tangible or intangible), and is modulated according to the
specific field characteristics, acting through:
– museum collections that also include stand-alone items and groupings in musealized
spaces, all in their multiple aspects;
In other words: as presented in the course of this papers, the word ‘collection’ extends to
encompass intangible expressions representing certain manifestations of social processes
that have been recorded in Museum Documentation (ASIST, 2008). In other words, they are
arranged in some kind of systematic order that facilitates data retrieval.
– exhibitions and their messages, communicated in any type of area;
– publications produced in a wide variety of presentations and supports;
– courses and lectures;
– specialized services for researchers, ensuring easy access to sources for study on
aspects of cultural assets related to the collections in the databases that constitute
networked information systems (including the Internet)
If the museum communication process was physically limited to the site of the
institution during the 1980s for people seeking information from the databases, in terms of
automated data systems built up on the collections − regardless of whether they were
researchers or ordinary users with any other type of requirements such as recreation − this
situation changed from the 1990s onwards.
During this period, electronic communications were already ushering in new
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) resources, handled through the
worldwide web. The internet imposed sweeping changes on the relationships between
museums and their publics: researchers, visitors, course students and other people
establishing links with museums or similar institutions, dealing with records related to
intangible heritage assets.
Two of these modifications are particularly striking in the relationship process:
– in terms of demands for information from outside museums, access through long-distance
and direct consultations by logging into museum data systems;
– for agents located within museums, although many of them were already operating
through integrated networks in their cities or regional systems, extending their capacity to
disseminate information at the international level.
Museology and studies undertaken in the field of intangible heritage assets from this
time onwards could not fail to appear in the sphere of intercultural dialogs, allowing ample
access to the contents of museum collections, books and archives. This was true to the
extent that museums, as places of research, have always included libraries and archives in
the technical sections of their structures. Today, many institutions have clustered these two
sectors together into documentation centers or information centers.
It is by pursuing the purpose of acting in depth and with the necessary scope that
testimony can be gathered together in cyberspace that is fragmented by the division of
distributed cultural heritage, stored according to the disciplinary categories that scattered it
throughout the correlated technical sectors of these institutions.
The purpose of this gathering process is to respond to demands seeking information
at two levels.
The first consists of the source of consultation represented by the collection, or
similar, usually studied by Museology, while the latter is traditionally linked to other related
sources, meaning the source of consultation represented by the reference for the study of
the collection. This source or reference is usually found in archives and libraries, fostering
progress along the path of building up knowledge by studying these collections. But it
should not be forgotten that museum collections also contain many elements (items) that
serve as sources for either the collection itself held by a specific museum, or for other
collections held by other museums. More specifically, there are rich possibilities opened up
34

through museum studies of intangible cultural assets and the dissemination of this
information.
Heritage, Museum Terminology, Intercommunication
Modern systems applied through Information and Communication Technologies allow
links to be built up among various collections in different institutions and at different locations
(Internet links).
Controlled vocabulary (including refined thesauri) guide these tasks, identifying the
desired technical categories; the images are an invitation to ‘enter’ computerized areas, with
sound and movement encouraging the process of discovering the electronic world...
The range of resources available to Museology and museums within the information
and communications context unveils vast and even measureless horizons, for the purposes
of specialized research or just for pleasure.
In order to achieve (and maintain) fruitful intercultural dialogs while ensuring that this
really occurs, the text, image or sound databases must be available for access – through
their indexing terms (descriptors). This includes technical terms specific to the areas
illustrating the specialized knowledge applied to the various types of museums as well as to
the denominations specific to each culture portrayed.
Above all, in the geographical region under examination, museums that were once
subject to Spanish and Portuguese rule should be willing to offer bilingual consultation
systems on their websites. They might well opt for English – which seems to be the lingua
franca of today’s world – as an effective way of ensuring access by large numbers of people
on other continents. Thus, they would present either Spanish and English or Portuguese
and English websites. The same procedure that is being proposed here could well be
extended to countries on other continents where Spanish or Portuguese is spoken.
Recalling the comment on the cultural mosaic at the start of this paper, it is perhaps
time to consider a unified data system that integrates museum information throughout Latin
America and the Caribbean. Their contents would be presented through the internet, using
the terminology museology and other related disciplines, while respecting vernacular and
cultural traditions and the specific characteristics of local groups.
It is thus timely to examine the activities and roles of the museum in society as a
repository of the collective heritage.
When examining the possibility of structuring systems from the standpoint of unifying
data on collections and other activities performed by museums, it is necessary to consider –
in view of the links between natural language and documentary language (artificial language
used for documentation purposes) – the ‘youth’ of Museology as a field of knowledge, which
is moving towards maturation and consolidation.
Thus, it is vital that the necessary attention should be paid to theoretical and practical
configuration studies that address consensus indicators, demarcating and establishing clear
terms for use by Museology, in terms of construing concepts, while bearing in mind that
terminological inconsistencies will certainly be perceived. This will be prompted by contents
that often extend beyond the obscure, the varied and the conflicting, in addition to absorbing
expressions from other fields of knowledge without the necessary adaptations and
clarifications in terms of the meaning given for their application.
What is urged here is that studies should be conducted on the use of terms and
concepts in this field, of what is known as the specialty language, an element integrating the
field not only among peer professionals, but which also allows this same field of knowledge
to communicate intelligibly with people seeking information on a globalized planet, thus
fostering intercommunication.
This approach consists of a communication process that transfers information, which
is implemented through disseminating the same terms and concepts, although emphasizing
and certainly not discarding the issue of highlighting the specific characteristics of local
terminologies. This procedure helps museum database users to master this terminology
over time through a process of (re) cognition that is gradually built up.
35

In the field of initiatives striving to present works related to issues of terminology
within the museum context, among other actions, it is necessary to mention (LIMA; COSTA,
2007) the permanent research project conducted by the International Committee for
Museology (ICOFOM) and the International Council of Museology (ICOM) exploring Terms
and Concepts of Museology, which began during the 1990s at the international level 12 .
These efforts spread throughout Latin America thanks to the efforts of the Regional
Organization of ICOFOM Sub-Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean (ICOFOM
LAM) responding to information requirements in the internet era.
In 2003 and 2004, proposals drawn up by ICOFOM and ICOFOM LAM called for the
official inclusion of Brazil in the work under way in South America. In 2004, the Brazilian
branch of investigations into museum terminology became an institutional research project,
registered as an academic activity at the Rio de Janeiro Federal University (UNIRIO) 13 . With
work beginning in 2005, this research project was conducted under the same title: Terms
and Concepts of Museology. It is linked to the Graduate Program in Museology and
Heritage (PPG-PMUS) Master’s Degree which in turn is being implemented through a
partnership between UNIRIO and the Museum of Astronomy and Related Sciences (MAST).
Reflecting on issues involving intercommunication among museums within their
current context, representing a wide variety of disciplines as well as highly diversified
cultures, is crucial for consolidating the mastery of this field, firming up on the horizon of
intercultural dialogs.
In closing, and as set forth in this paper, this prompts timely consideration of the
challenges facing the globalized cybernetic world, examining the possibility of a meticulous
reassessment of the current types of museum information in terms of ideas and types of
action. At the moment, and as is ascertained through field studies such as the project
presented here, reflection is required on the museum circuit, which has moved to the center
of global discussions, focusing on the issue of the right to lawful enjoyment of cultural
diversity and the right to information, which are issues related to social inclusion.
12
André Desvallées, permanent advisor of ICOFOM launched this Project and is now its
International Coordinator
13
The Research Project on Terms and Concepts of Museology – UNIRIO is coordinated by
the author of this paper, Professor Dr. Diana Farjalla Correia Lima. The team consists of
researchers Professor Dr. Tereza Scheiner (UNIRIO) and Professor Dr. Lena Vania Ribeiro
Pinheiro from the Brazilian Science and Technology Institute (IBICT) as well as three
Introduction to Science fellows (students in the Graduate Museology Course) who are
preparing three sub-projects. The Coordinator and researchers are members of ICOM
(ICOFOM and CIDOC).
36

REFERENCES
ASIST. American Society for Information Science and Technology. < http://www.asis.org/>
Consulted: June 2008.
BOURDIEU, Pierre. A economia das trocas simbólicas. Introd. Org. Sel. de Sergio Miceli.
São Paulo: Perspectiva, 1986. (Coleção Estudos)
CAMERON, Duncan. The museum as a communication system and implication of museum
education. Curator, New York, American Museum of Natural History, v. 11, n.1, 1968.
CASTELLS, Manuel. A sociedade em rede. São Paulo: Paz e Terra. 1999. v. 1.
DESVALLÉES, André. 2000. Terminologia Museológica. Proyecto Permanente de
Investigación – ICOFOM LAM. Rio de Janeiro: ICOFOM LAM, Tacnet Cultural. CD-ROM.
FARJALA, Diana; Rodriguez, Igor. Patrimônio, herança, bem e monumento: termos, usos e
significados no campo museológico. In: ICOFOM/ICOFOM LAM - International Symposium
Museology and History: a field of knowledge. Córdoba/Argentina. Munich, Córdoba:
ICOFOM Study Series - ISS 35. 2006. p. 243-250.
GEERTZ, Clifford. A interpretação das culturas. Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara-Koogan,1989.
HALBWACHS, Maurice. A memória coletiva. São Paulo: Vértice,1990.
ICOMOS. 1982. Charter for the Preservation of Quebec's Heritage.- La déclaration de
Deschambault. (Quebec: ICOMOS Canada). .
Consulted May 2008.
LIMA, Diana Farjalla Correia. Museo y diversidad cultural: implicaciones de un espacio
simbólico de poder. In: ICOFOM LAM 98 - Encuentro Regional. Museos, Museología y
diversidad cultural en América Latina y el Caribe (7). 13-20 junio 1998. México DF: ICOFOM
LAM, ICOM México, Museo Dolores Olmedo Patiño. 1998. p. 34-44 Espanhol. p. 45-54
Português.
LIMA, D. F. C.; COSTA, I. F. R. Ciência da informação e Museologia: estudo teórico de
termos e conceitos em diferentes contextos -- subsídio à linguagem documentária. In:
CINFORM (7) Encontro Nacional de Ensino e Pesquisa. Salvador: Instituto de Ciência da
Informação, Escola Politécnica da Universidade Federal da Bahia - UFBA. 2007.
http://www.cinform.ufba.br/7cinform/soac/viewabstract.php?id=32. Consulted June 2008.
MESA REDONDA, Las ventajas de Internet para los museos. Noticias del ICOM. BoletÍn del
Consejo Internacional de Museos. Paris: ICOM, 2003. v. 56, n. 1, p. 24.
MULTIMEDIA Y REDES, Especial. Noticias del ICOM. BoletÍn del Consejo Internacional de
Museos. Paris: ICOM, 1996. v. 49, n. 4.
REED, Patricia Ann, SLEDGE, Jane. Thinking about museum information.. Library Trends,
Champaig/Illinois, 37, (2): 220-231, Fall 1988. Library Trends has become the premier
thematic quarterly Journal in the field of American Librarianship. Library Science Annual.
UNESCO. 1972. Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural
heritage --The General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization meeting in Paris from 17 October to 21 November 1972.
. Consulted: May. 2008.
UNESCO. 2003. Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage: article
2, definitions 1. Paris, 29 September - 17 October 2003, 32nd session.
. Consulted: June 2008.
37

MUSEUM AESTHETICS – A CROSS CULTURAL BRIDGE
TANG Jiaqing, Fujian Museum of Modern Chinese History - Fuzhou, China
___________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT
Museum aesthetics, a human-centered theory for which comparative research is
applied and museums are interpreted in a modern aesthetic way, is a bridge of cross-culture
understanding and exchange. Firstly, we should put museums into the course of human’s
social beauty, clarify historical relationship among their emergence, development and
people’s pursuit and creation of beauty, so as to reveal the development rules of museums.
Secondly, we should aesthetically position and demonstrate the basic elements and
operation mechanism and clarify the basic connotation and mutual relationship among
content beauty, formal beauty and aesthetic education, so as to uncover their aesthetic
characteristics and working rules. Museums mainly aim to spread the beauty content
(cultural relics) to vast audiences in the form of beauty (display), in order to promote
human’s comprehensive development and to shape perfect personality. Museum aesthetics
will become a theoretical guidance for museum development in the new century.
KEYWORDS: Museum, Aesthetics, Cross-Culture
RESUMEN
La estética del museo – un puente intercultural
La estética del museo – teoría centrada en el factor humano que promueve la investigación
comparativa e interpreta al museo de un modo estético moderno – es un puente intercultural
de entendimiento e intercambio. En primer lugar, debiéramos colocar a los museos dentro
del ámbito de la belleza social del ser humano, aclarar la relación histórica existente entre
su surgimiento, su desarrollo y la búsqueda y creación de belleza, de forma tal de revelar
las reglas bajo las cuales se desarrollaron los museos. En segundo lugar, debiéramos
posicionarnos estéticamente y demostrar los elementos básicos y sus mecanismos de
funcionamiento, y aclarar la connotación básica y la relación mutua entre la belleza del
contenido, la belleza formal y la educación estética, de forma tal que queden al descubierto
sus características estéticas y sus normas de trabajo.
Los museos apuntan principalmente a difundir su contenido de belleza (reliquias culturales)
al gran público en forma de presentaciones estéticas (exhibición), a fin de promover el
desarrollo integral del hombre y moldear una personalidad perfecta. La estética del museo
se convertirá así en guía teórica de su desarrollo en el nuevo siglo.
Palabras clave: museo, estética, intercultural.
* * *
Museums, which symbolize the civilization advancement of human beings, are
developing along with the social, economic and cultural progress. After steeping into the 21 st
century, museums will act as “the emissary of beauty” and transmit natural beauty, social
beauty, artistic beauty, scientific beauty and technological beauty to people, playing an
important role in creating the new century’s civilization.
The museum undertaking in the 21 st century needs guidance of brand-new museology
in accordance with the global cultural trend. However, current museology mainly focus on
research on museum applied technologies and theories and lack originality of research on
fundamental museum theories. It is emphasized that “museology is related to many subjects
39

including humanities, social science, technological science and natural sciences and
features considerable crossing 14 .” Nevertheless, when seeking to open the door of
museology with keys of other subjects, people don’t carry out comparative research on the
museology with other subjects on the basis of the cultural characteristics and development
rules of museums themselves. Therefore, we can say that the genuine museum theoretical
system is to be established. For instance, when theories and methods of applied pedagogy
are used for research on museum education, the idea that “museum education is different
from school education” is taken note of, and opinions such as that “museums feature vast
target education groups, diversified education content and visual education forms” 15 , but we
haven’t gone deep into research and discussion on some significant theoretical issues, such
as how to grasp the characteristics and rules of museum education and how to make
museum education successful. In addition, when facing continuously emerged new-styled
museums, traditional museology becomes so bleak, which can be described as “traditional
museum concepts have failed to include the content of modern museums” 16 .
It is obvious that research on museology has lagged behind the development of
museum undertaking. When facing museum undertaking in the 21 st century, people have to
reconsider the museology retrospectively and makes efforts to seek breakthrough for
research on museology. Being analyzed from the angle of futurology, research direction on
museology in the new century will change in the following four aspects:
1. From research on applied museology to research on theoretical museology
Applied museology is not able to expound the essential traits and development rules of
museums, though they can explain single principles for museum work. Research on
museology in the new century will investigate the museum history, summarize the rules of
museum work, discuss theoretically museums’ cultural traits, and create a distinctive system
of museology from the angle of philosophy
2. From ordinary research to comparative research on museology
Ordinary museology always focus on demonstration and discussion from the angle of
the subject itself, leading to insufficient profundity and extent. Research on future museology
will pay more attention to cross study of multiple subjects, obtain scientific theories regarding
museums from comparison and thus lead museology to a deeper extent.
3. From research of “object-centered” to research of “human-centered”
Nowadays, although the academe has proposed the opinion that museums are
“combination of human and objects” and “human and objects are equally related with each
other” 17 , actual research always are trapped in the “object-centered” fetters. Innovation of
research on museology in the new century lie in extending “human-centered” research,
putting “objects” of museums into the long river of human history for the purpose of
investigation and focusing on humanistic concern. Only we research on museology in a
“human-centered” way, can comprehensive social benefit be achieved for museums and can
development of museum undertaking be vigorously advanced.
4. From traditional museum research to modern museum research
Social development and scientific and technological advancement require that
museums not only display the past but also represent today and future. Traditional museum
aesthetics fail to instruct the practice of modern museums, which requires future museum
aesthetics alter concepts, update consciousness and theoretically explain the practice of
new-styled museums from the angle of modern aesthetics.
114 Basis of Chinese Museology, Shanghai Classics Publishing House, 1995
15 Basis of Chinese Museology, Shanghai Classics Publishing House, 1995
16 Basis of Chinese Museology, Shanghai Classics Publishing House, 1995.
4 The opinion that museums are combination of human and objects was proposed by a
Japanese scholar, which became the basis for post-war theories of museology
40

Four changes in the research direction on museology will drive the historic leap for
practice and theories of museums in the new century. The museum aesthetics is no other
than a theory with modern interpretation of museums, conforming with the “four changes”
regarding research on museology in the new century. Therefore, museum aesthetics is a
bridge of cross-culture understanding and exchange.
Within the rage of museum aesthetics, basing on the outlook of philosophy, people
objectively research on the history, status quo and future of the museum beauty and grasp
the property, traits and development rules of their beauty. By investigating the history of
museums, we can know that the process of museums’ emergence and development is just
the cause of people’s pursuit and creation of beauty. Beauty is developed along with the
social development, while social advancement not only accelerates the creation of beauty
but also invents the museum beauty. The ancients had started collection of natural objects,
labor tools and products closely related to human’s living, and these original aesthetical
activities containing faiths are exactly the bud of museums. The temples of ancient Greece
and Alexandria Municipal Museum, which are called early stage museums, have collected
articles including cultural artworks as well as gems, booties, botanicals and zoos, suggesting
that pursuit of fortune and artistic aesthetics is a motivation for the emergence of museums.
Renaissance from the 14 th to 16 th century in Europe is a great drive for museums, during
which the collection range extended from artworks ancient articles to natural specimens and
folk-custom relics and people paid attention to the value of aesthetics and sciences. The
industrial revolution in the 18 th century made the museum undertaking advanced
significantly. Europe had established a batch of important museums successively. The
Museum Louvre in Paris, which was opened in 1793, created a new era for museum
socialization and was a new symbol for people’s share of museum beauty. In the 19 th
century, the development of scientific & industrial museums enriched and perfected the
content of museum beauty. During this period, various museums about nature, history,
sciences, art and so on were established, making natural beauty, social beauty, artistic
beauty, scientific beauty and technological beauty displayed in museums. For the purpose of
social education, museums started to classify collected articles with the method of display,
push ahead with comprehensive education and leisure activities 18 and spread the museum
beauty. Modern museums feature not only large quantities and fast development speed but
also diversified types and more reasonable layouts. For example, there are 418 museums in
Brazil, of which the museums about history account for 30%, museums about art 22%,
museums about natural sciences 18%, special museums 14% and memorial museums 1%
19 . On one hand, it is the result of human’s all-round pursuit and creation of beauty, and on
the other hand, it suggests that museum education should be in accordance with human’s
comprehensive and harmonious development. Therefore, successful aesthetic education of
museums and comprehensive promotion of people’s moral disposition and cultural quality
are the ultimate goal of museums’ work. Western scholars think that museums are intended
to “educate the country, provide entertainment and enrich life” 20 , and Chinese modern
educator Cai Yuanpei definitely proposed to take advantage of the function of aesthetic
education for museums, invoke ordinary people’s interest in elegancy and nobility and build
ordinary people’s wisdom and morality 21 In the 20 th century, the contemporary trend of
museums’ buildings, equipment and display forms shows museums’ concern about human
beings, and “beautifying society and consummating human” become the subject of
museums’ work and guide the museum undertaking in its future direction. According to
above analysis, we can find that the development of museums and the course of social
beauty tend to converge. Similarly, we can discover the development diversity of various
museums in different countries with the general characteristics of museum beauty; we can
18 “Education and Leisure” is the tenet for some American museums
19 Basis of Chinese Museology, Shanghai Classics Publishing House, 1995
20 The opinion of “educate the country, provide entertainment and enrich life” is the “Three Es”
principle of “Educate, Entertain, Enrich” proposed by western museum scholars
21 Citizens’ Obligation on Education by Cai Yuanpei
41

eveal museums’ development rules. When discussing the essence and characteristics of
museums from the aspect of aesthetics, we can reveal the social function and working rules
of museums. The basic elements of museums include: collected articles, display and
audiences (education), constituting the basic meaning of the museum beauty. Collected
articles are representative and typical practicalities with historical, scientific and artistic
values. According to the opinion that “beauty lies in quintessence”, collected articles are
representative things for natural beauty, social beauty, artistic beauty, scientific beauty and
technological beauty, which is the content and basis of museum beauty. Museums’
collection and protection of relics and specimens are actually human’s pursuit and
recognition of beauty. Display and exhibitions are actually the process of combining relics
and specimens in accordance with certain subjects, sequences and art forms, which actually
are creative activities revealing the museum beauty and embodiment of museums’ formal
beauty. Education of museums actually lies in their aesthetic education activities with certain
forms and approaches, which educates the public in the aspect of thoughts and morality and
spreads scientific and cultural knowledge. In a word, museum work is to transmit the content
of beauty (relics and specimens) to vast audiences in the form of beauty (display). With
colleted articles as the basis, display as the bridge and aesthetic education as the purpose,
museums make the three aspects be related and interplay with each other and embody
museums “human-centered” essence and characteristics, while all other functions such as
scientific research, management and buildings are used to serve the essence and
characteristics.
When grasping the essence and characteristics of museum beauty and realizing the
working direction for the purpose of aesthetic museum education, we can summarize the
development rules of museum beauty. Therefore, museum aesthetics can become the
theoretical guidance of the museum undertaking in the 21 st century.
The foundation of museum aesthetics has epoch-making meaning, which must employ
the weapon of applied philosophy, comprehensively investigate the history of museums,
reveal the essential characteristics and working rules of museums and provide guidance for
the future museum development. Firstly, we should put research on museum aesthetics into
the course of human beings’ social beauty for the purpose of investigation, clarify museums’
emergence and development and their historical relationship with human’s pursuit and
creation of beauty, and accordingly reveal the essential characteristics and development
rules of museum beauty, so as to create an “aesthetic over bridge” for the museum
undertaking in the 21 st century. Secondly, we should aesthetically position and demonstrate
basic factors and operation mechanism, basic connotation and mutual relationship among
content beauty, formal beauty, aesthetic education, and uncover their aesthetic
characteristics and working rules. For example, with regard to research on content beauty,
we should follow the classification of natural beauty, social beauty, artistic beauty, scientific
beauty and technological beauty to analyze the cultural meaning of collected articles,
accordingly broaden the horizon of museum’s collection and provide theoretical basis for
developing new-styled museums. With regard to research on formal beauty, we should
realized the aesthetic position of display work, summarize the principles of display arts and
drive the improvement and advancement of display arts on the basis of bridge function
during creating and appreciating beauty for display. With regard to research on aesthetic
education, we should pay attention to the visual, pleasing and free traits of museum
education, focus on the central task of “promoting human’s comprehensive development and
shaping perfect personality”, realize museums’ education function, summarize the rules of
museums’ aesthetic education, and create a new way for museums’ “human-centered”
essence and characteristics. In addition, with regard to some issues including buildings &
environment and scientific research & management, we should carry out research from the
angle of aesthetics, realize their role in museums, take advantage their aesthetic function
and make them serve creation and transmission of museum beauty. In a word, museum
aesthetics should investigate museums in an all-round way, from objective to microcosmic,
42

from objects to human, from static to dynamic and from exterior to interior, so as to form an
integrate theoretical system of museum aesthetics.
In the new century, museum aesthetics not only is full of livingness and energy like
spring bamboos breaking the ground but also faces challenges and selection, which needs
concern and cultivation from the whole society. Therefore, as transmitters of beauty, our vast
museum practitioners should devote ourselves to practice and theoretical research on
museum beauty in the new century. During the great practice of constructing socialism and
harmonious society, museum practitioners should not only make pioneering efforts with a
dutiful attitude but also study hard for improvement in moral and professional quality and
aesthetic capability, so as to create a new pattern for museum work according the rules of
beauty. We believe that museum aesthetics will move towards the spring of museum
undertaking !
New Aesthetics by Ouyang Zhou, Zhejiang University Publishing House, 1995
43

1.2 The global dialogue among communities, an interactive
process
Le dialogue mondial entre communautés : un processus
interactif
El diálogo global entre comunidades : un proceso
interactivo
45

THE MARKET AND CIVIL SOCIETY
DAVIS Ann, The Nickle Arts Museum, University of Calgary - Calgary, Canada
______________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT
The market and civil society.
There are many communities important to museums and many ways of defining such
communities within today’s global sphere. The two I would like to discuss are the market and
civil society. These two communities, with the addition of a third, government, are central to
the operation all societies, with the emphasis on each of the three being given varying
weights in different countries. These three centres of power are of considerable interest to
and have important impact on museums all around the globe. Over the past few decades
many granting bodies, governments and philanthropists have demanded that museums
operate more like business, more like the market, and have suggested that market forces
should regulate museums. But is this the right approach? Should private, market interests be
separated from public, civil society interests? Are market forces compatible and helpful to
civil society in general and museums in particular? How should these two communities
interact?
This paper is based on the work of Michael Edwards and his fascinating, newly
published book, Just Another Emperor: The Myths and Realities of Philanthrocapitalism.
Civil society is different from the market and those differences must be acknowledged and
protected. Markets work because they stick to a clear financial bottom line. Social
transformation, by contrast, has none of these clear markers. Rather it has many bottom
lines and strategies to reach them, and relies on participants outside the control of any one
group. Unlike the market, as Edwards explains, “civil society is open to more radical
alternatives rooted in completely different visions of property rights, ownership and
governance.” Museums, part of civil society and agents of social transformation, have to
negotiate with markets but keep a clear focus on their civil society community.
RÉSUMÉ
Le marché et la société civile.
Il y a bien des communautés qui sont importantes pour les musées, et bien des
façons de les décrire dans l’environnement mondial d’aujourd'hui. Les deux communautés
dont je souhaiterais débattre sont le marché, et la société civile, auxquelles on peut aussi
rajouter les gouvernements. Ces trois entités sont au cœur du fonctionnement de toutes les
sociétés, et leur mise en valeur respective varie d'un pays à l'autre. Partout dans le monde,
ces trois centres de pouvoir sont, pour les musées, à la fois une source d’intérêt et
d’influence. Ces dernières décennies beaucoup d'organismes de financement, de
gouvernements et de philanthropes, ont exigé que les musées fonctionnent davantage
comme des entreprises, à l’image du marché. Aussi, ont-ils suggéré que ce soient les forces
issues du marché qui désormais doivent régir le fonctionnement des musées. On peut se
demander si cette approche est la bonne? Par définition, les intérêts publics, produit de la
société civile, et ceux du marché, n’ont-ils pas des objectifs contradictoires ? Les forces du
marché sont-elles utiles et compatibles avec les intérêts de la société civile en général et
des musées en particulier.
47

Mon intervention est basée sur le travail de Michael Edwards et de son livre qui vient
de paraître: Just Another Emperor : The Myths and Realities of Philanthrocapitalism. (Un
empereur de plus ! Mythes et réalité du capitalisme philanthropique) La société civile diffère
du marché, et ces différences doivent être reconnues et protégées. Les marchés
fonctionnent parce qu'ils visent un résultat financier clair auquel ils se tiennent. Par contre, la
transformation sociale n'a, elle, aucun objectif précis. Elle viserait plutôt un grand nombre
d’objectifs, avec autant de stratégies pour y arriver. Elle dépend des participants qui
échappent au contrôle d'un groupe quelconque. A l'opposé du marché, nous explique
Edwards, "la société civile est ouverte aux alternatives radicales qui prennent racine dans
des visions totalement différentes des droits de la propriété, des biens et des personnes
morales, et de la bonne gouvernance." Les musées, part intégrale de la société civile et
acteurs de transformations sociales, se doivent de négocier avec les marchés, tout en
gardant à l’esprit que leur mission est de servir leur société civile, au sein de leur
communauté.
RESUMEN
El mercado y la sociedad civil.
En la actualidad existen numerosas comunidades que son de importancia para los museos
y muchas formas de definirlas dentro de la esfera global. Quisiera referirme aquí a dos de
ellas, el mercado y la sociedad civil. Estas dos comunidades, con el agregado de una
tercera, el gobierno, son vitales para el funcionamiento de todas las sociedades y se les
otorga un énfasis cuyo peso varía según los distintos países. Estos tres centros de poder
son de considerable interés y tienen un impacto significativo en todos los museos del
mundo. En las últimas décadas muchos organismos que otorgan donaciones, tanto
gubernamentales como filantrópicos, exigen que los museos operen como empresas
comerciales a imagen del mercado, e incluso sugieren que los museos sean regulados por
las fuerzas del mismo mercado. Pero ¿es éste el enfoque correcto? ¿Debieran estar
separados los intereses privados del mercado de los intereses públicos de la sociedad civil?
¿Son las fuerzas del mercado compatibles y solidarias con la sociedad civil en general y
con los museos en particular? ¿Cómo debieran interactuar estas dos comunidades?
* * *
Este documento toma como base el trabajo de Michael Edwards y su fascinante libro,
recientemente publicado, Just Another Emperor: The Myths and Realities of
Philanthrocapitalism.
La sociedad civil es diferente del mercado y esas diferencias deben ser reconocidas y
protegidas. Los mercados funcionan porque se atienen a una línea de base claramente
financiera. En contraste con lo anterior, la transformación social no posee ninguno de estos
indicadores. Más bien posee muchas líneas de base y estrategias para alcanzarlos y
descansa sobre participantes que se encuentran fuera del control de cualquier grupo en
particular. Como lo explica Edwards, a diferencia del mercado, “la sociedad civil está abierta
a alternativas más radicales, enraizadas en visiones completamente distintas de los
derechos de propiedad, posesión y gobernabilidad”. Los museos, al ser parte de la sociedad
civil y agentes de transformación social, tienen que negociar con los mercados pero al
mismo tiempo mantener claramente focalizada su comunidad, conformada por la sociedad
civil.
There are many communities important to museums and many ways of defining such
communities within today’s global sphere. The two I would like to discuss are the market and
civil society. These two communities, with the addition of a third, government, are central to
the operation all societies, with the emphasis on each of the three being given varying
48

weights in different countries. These three centres of power are of considerable interest to
and have important impact on museums all around the globe. Over the past few decades
many granting bodies, governments and philanthropists have demanded that museums
operate more like business, more like the market, and have suggested that market forces
should regulate museums. But is this the right approach ? Should private, market interests
be separated from public, civil society interests ? Are market forces compatible and helpful
to civil society in general and museums in particular ? How should these two communities
interact ?
This paper is based on the work of Michael Edwards and his fascinating, newly
published book, Just Another Emperor: The Myths and Realities of Philanthrocapitalism 22 .
As the subtitle suggests, Edwards is concerned with philanthrocapitalism, that form of
philanthropy characterized by large donations, backed by the belief that the world may be
saved by revolutionizing philanthropy, making non-profit organizations operate like business
and creating new markets for goods and services that benefit society. Recent people
involved in philantrocapitalism are Bono and his Global Fund, Bill Clinton and Bill Gates. To
study this new brand of philanthropy, Edwards examines in considerable detail the
differences between the approaches of the market on the one hand and civil society on the
other hand. It is these differences that that I find most useful in considering the operation of
museums, a part of civil society. Edwards has both broad and deep experience to back his
study. He has held senior management positions in international organizations such as
Oxfam-GB, Save the Children-UK and the World Bank. He is currently the Director of
Governance and Civil Society at the Ford Foundation, centred in New York City.
Some Definitions
Market
In economics, a market is a social structure that emerged to make possible the
exchange of rights, or ownership, of services and goods. Markets enable services, firms and
products to be evaluated and priced through supply and demand. There are two roles in
markets, buyers and sellers, with at least three actors needed for a market to exist; at least
one actor, on the one side of the market, who is aware of at least two actors on the other
side whose offers can be evaluated in relation to each other. A market allows buyers and
sellers to discover information and carry out a voluntary exchange of goods or services.
Today much debate centres on the freedom of the market, or the extent to which it is
regulated by laws internal or external to a country or jurisdiction. The Chicago School of
Economics, of which Milton Friedman was the best-known proponent, posited that the freest
market was the perfect scientific system. Friedman argued for the elimination of all
government regulation and trade barriers, and for cuts to social spending. A more centrist
point of view was that of John Maynard Keynes, an advocate of interventionist government
policy, who influenced Roosevelt’s New Deal after the 1929 stock market crash. Keynes’
ideas, along with those of his acknowledged successor, the Canadian John Kenneth
Galbraith, led to the creation of social security in the USA, public health in Canada, welfare
in Britain and workers’ protection in France and Germany. The distinction between business
and the state is important in capitalism. Capitalism requires a free market, for capitalism is a
for profit economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled
by private owners, rather than by the state. Within capitalism is found business, a company
operating by market forces, where profit is the determining metric.
Civil Society
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), a German philosopher, identified civil
society as an autonomous self-governing sphere, which can transform individual strivings for
particular advantage into the public good. Broadly speaking, the term was then split to the
22 (New York City: Demos: A Network for Ideas & Action, the Young Foundation, 2008).
49

political left and right. On the left, it became the foundation for Karl Marx's bourgeois society;
to the right it became a description for all non-state aspects of society, expanding out of the
economy into culture, society and politics. A second, related, concept of civil society is
Tocqueville's 23 notion that civil society is an intermediate sphere of voluntary association
sustained by an informal culture of self-organization and cooperation. 24 But then the idea
that there might be this third sector, civil society, existing between market and state was lost
to contemporary analysis. However, by the 1980s, both the term civil society and the
concept were actively revived. At that time the European Union made an attempt to give
institutions of society, sometimes called non-government organizations (NGOs), not just
governments and business, a voice at the policy-making tables in Brussels. The transition to
post-industrial societies was bringing up important questions about social cohesion and
social participation in European counties that are increasingly heterogeneous and diverse.
The London School of Economics Centre for Civil Society defines civil society as
…the arena of uncoerced collective action around shared interests,
purposes and values. In theory, its institutional forms are distinct from
those of the state, family and market, though in practice, the
boundaries between state, civil society, family and market are often
complex, blurred and negotiated.… Civil societies are often populated
by organizations such as registered charities, development nongovernmental
organizations, community groups, women's
organizations, faith-based organizations, professional associations,
trade unions, self-help groups, social movements, business
associations, coalitions and advocacy groups. 25
Robert D. Putnam has argued that even non-political organizations in civil society are
vital for democracy. This is because they build social capital, trust and shared values, which
are transferred into the political sphere and help to hold society together, facilitating an
understanding of the interconnectedness of society and interests within it. 26 Typically
organizations in civil society, like museums, are built on the principles of cooperation,
solidarity and caring, attitudes that are very different from the logistics of business and the
market.
Museums : agents for social change and development
ICOM declared the theme of 2008 International Museum Day to be “Museums:
agents for social change and development.” As befits a global institution seeking to appeal
to big and small, rich and poor alike, this theme is broad enough to incorporate just about
every point of view and certainly encompasses the two communities of market and civil
society. The editorial of the spring issue of ICOM News sought to delineate some directions
for this project, pointing to the need to develop new tools to achieve sustainable
development and evaluate the worth of heritage. “Both movements”, the editor contends,
“depend on a critical reconsideration of the proprietary divisions apparent in the idea of
‘heritage’: one’s ‘own’ or ‘other’ peoples.” Furthermore science and new technologies “can
be perceived of as conflicting discourses and methods” or, “incorporated into new hybrid
23
Alexis de Tocqueville (1805 – 1859) was a French political thinker and historian best known for his
book Democracy in America.
24
John Ehrenberg, “Beyond Civil Society”, New Politics, vol. 6, no. 4 (new series), whole no. 24,
Winter 1998.
25
Centre for Civil Society, London School of Economics (2004-03-01). Retrieved on 8 May, 2008.
26
Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions In Modern Italy, (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1993). Another more recent book by Frances Moore Lappé, Democracy’s Edge: Choosing to Save
our Country by Bringing Democracy to Life, (San Francisco: Jossey-Brass, 2006) also discusses the
market and civil society, although Lappé does not use the term civil society. Lappé is best known for
her iconic 1971 book Diet for a Small Planet.
50

forms, … show that there is no monopoly on innovation and that barriers can be
overcome.” 27 On the topic of social change, articles discuss the importance of eco-museums
and slavery museums. David Fleming, chair of INTERCOM, remarked forcefully that “It is
becoming more and more widely accepted that museum can be powerful engines of social
change, through their educational power. Over time, and in partnership with others, local
museums can help transform communities.” 28 Equally transformative, Peter Friess
suggested that technology can change the processes by which we create exhibitions, while
Roberta Cafuri cautioned that the digital divide is imposing a northern hemisphere growth
model on other parts of the world. 29 While the solutions might vary widely, the authors of
these diverse opinions all agree that there are serious problems in the world that museums
can help to address. These dreadful concerns include famine, poverty, slavery, racism,
disease, violence and drugs, just to name a few. The question then is how to do this? What
system or systems to use? Some see the solution in the market; others think civil society is
the answer.
The market approach
Can the market deal with the social problems of the world? Certainly there are a
number of important attempts. For-profit organizations, including the Gates Foundation and
the Clinton Global Initiative, have made huge investments in global health. As well
pharmaceutical companies are becoming active participants in initiatives to sell drugs at
reduced prices. Another high-profile success story is micro-credit, increasing poor people’s
access to savings, credit and other financial services. On a smaller scale, there are a
number of focused initiatives that are successfully using market methods to benefit society.
These include SunNight Solar, which produces solar-powered flashlights and sells them at a
discount, and One Laptop Per Child, which manufactures and sells cheap computers loaded
with open-source software. 30
As Edwards asks, “What does the evidence tell us” about the success or failure of
these market initiatives? “First, that it is perfectly possible to use the market to extend useful
good and services. Second, that few of these efforts have any substantial, long-term, broadbased
impact on social transformation, with the possible exception of micro-credit.” 31 What
about social enterprises that engage in revenue generating activities? A Stanford Business
School study of environmental NGOs found that “pragmatic” ones, those that engaged in
fundraising, failed more often than “pure” ones, those that did not compromise their
principles to attract revenue or profile. In Canada a survey of human service organizations
determined that organizations that shifted their mission to make money failed. In the US,
both the YMCA and the YWCA got into trouble in the early 2000s by trying to increase their
presence in upscale urban areas and consequently saw their social impact decline. As well
the Nature Conservancy and Habitat for Humanity are being investigated because of various
deals with business. 32 It is not a pretty picture, underlining how difficult it is to blend the
social and financial bottom lines.
Perhaps the answer is technology. And technology has, unquestionably,
revolutionized the speed and methods of information exchange. Thomas Friedman, the New
York Times columnist, in his book The World Is Flat, joyfully proclaimed that the global
playing field has been leveled, that today’s technology allows anyone working anywhere to
participate in the wealth of the market. 33 Through technology, Friedman believes the divide
27
Lysa Hochroth, p. 2.
28
Ibid., “The International Slavery Museum”, p. 7.
29
Ibid., pp. 3 – 5.
30
Edwards, pp. 33 – 37.
31
Ibid, p. 37.
32
Ibid., pp.39 – 41.
33
(New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005)
51

etween the very wealthy and the very poor can be reduced, thus addressing many of the
globe’s systemic problems. Unfortunately his optimism is not universally shared. 34 The idea
that trade and technology can have a leveling effect is an idea with a long history, at least
since the invention of the telegraph and telephone. Professor Richard Florida, recently hired
by the University of Toronto, author of The Rise of the Creative Class, and, published just
months ago, Who’s Your City, suggests Friedman is only partly right. He declares in his
2008 book: “By almost any measure, the international economic landscape is not at all
flat.” 35 He goes on to explain that a lot of really smart people have been tripped up because
they “see globalization as an either–or proposition. It’s not. The key to our new global reality
lies in understanding that the world is flat and spiky at the same time.” 36 While, in this new
book Florida’s thesis concerns the importance of specific locations, cities, the clustering of
economic activity and innovation, something of considerable importance to local museums,
what is more germane to our current discussion is Florida’s documentation of the problems
of market growth and the question of the market’s ability to solve social problems.
If a free market is the best way to solve global social problems, we might assume
that the country with the freest market might be the most prosperous and secure and its
people the happiest, Milton Friedman’s contention. The United States of America, arguably
the world’s most important market economy with great technological resources, bears
examination in this regard. 37 Here flatness has not happened. The reverse is true. Many
claim US society is in decay. Today the disparity between the most wealthy and the poorest
is greater than at any other time since the fall of the stock market in 1929. Thirty-five million
Americans are so poor they do not know where the next meal is coming from. Public
education is, in Bill Gates’ word, “broken”; quality, affordable day-care is virtually
unobtainable; 16% of the population has no medical insurance; 34% of African Americans
and 37% of Hispanics keep their children indoors because they live in dangerous
neighbourhoods. 38 When teaching in Washington, DC, Florida asked his graduate students
from foreign countries where they wanted to eventually settle. He was shocked by their
answers: they all wanted to raise their children outside the United States, claiming that in
their own countries the educational systems were better, the society less materialistic and
there was less pressure to work so there was more time for family. 39
Even if civil society organizations are not businesses, perhaps the market can help
these organization to improve their financial and management capacities. Certainly civil
society organizations, like those in the market, need to have a clear focus for their work, to
have strong learning and accountability mechanisms and the ability to motivate staff and
volunteers, in short appropriate management practices. However the idea that investment in
social action should be cost-effective is too often conflated with a particular market definition
of efficiency. 40 The idea that civil society organizations are not “well run” often comes from a
narrow, market definition of effectiveness, one that is not sympathetic to either the goals or
the operating methodologies of civil society. A recent study by the Nonprofit Quarterly
actually found that non-profit leaders were more effective than their for-profit counterparts on
fourteen out of seventeen markers of leadership, including risk taking, persuasiveness and
34
For a devastating review of The World Is Flat see Edward Leamer, “A Flat World, A Level Playing
Field, a Small World After All or None of the Above? Review of Thomas L. Friedman, The World Is
Flat”, Journal of Economic Literature, 45, 1, 2007, pp. 83-126.
35
Who’s Your City, (Toronto: Random House, 2008), p. 18.
36
Ibid., p. 20.
37
Two recent books, along with Lappé’s mentioned above, are particularly scathing about the current
social problems in the US: Al Gore, The Assault on Reason, (New York: Penguin, 2007) and Naomi
Klein, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, (Toronto: Alfred Knopf Canada, 2007).
38
Florida, pp. 253-259.
39 Ibid., pp. 259-260.
40 Edwards, pp. 43 – 45.
52

vision 41 . Museums certainly have experienced pressures to be more business-oriented, and
granting agencies, including governments and philanthropic organizations, are exerting
increasing control over museums, which has the effect of reducing autonomy and flexibility,
for museums are being forced to spend and report on each donation exactly as prescribed.
Introducing the different logics of civil society and the market in the same organization can
confuse the bottom line, complicate accountability and stimulate mission drift.
Using civil society
Civil society is different from the market and those differences must be
acknowledged and protected. Markets work because they stick to a clear financial bottom
line. Social transformation, by contrast, has none of these clear markers. Rather it has many
bottom lines and strategies to reach them, and relies on participants outside the control of
any one group. Unlike the market, as Edwards explains, “civil society is open to more radical
alternatives rooted in completely different visions of property rights, ownership and
governance.” 42 Market efficiency is not the same as effective human fulfillment, and market
norms do not properly express democratic values, for they do not price real assets such as
the environment and social cohesion. Markets exist to satisfy the needs of individual
consumers who have the ability to pay; civil society exists to meet needs and rights
regardless of people’s ability to pay. “[D]emocracy and civil society …[work] hard to contain
and channel the enormous energies of capitalism and to contain its tendencies to
inequality.” 43
There are examples of philanthropy and funding that really do make a social
difference. One such is the Society for Promotion of Area Resource Centers in Mumbai,
India, that works with slum dwellers to build their capacities to fight for their rights. Another
successful organization is Shack Dwellers International, a global movement that has been
able to secure a place for the urban poor at the negotiating table when policies on housing
are being discussed by the World Bank and other important donors. In the United States,
Make the Road by Walking, which builds grassroots organizations in areas most affected by
injustice in Los Angeles and New York, is another positive contributor. 44
In Canada funding for museums from the federal government comes from two
sources, one a government department, the other an arms-length organization. The federal
government’s Heritage Department, through the Museum Assistance Program, gives grants
that are so prescribed in their accounting methods that my museum recently decided not to
apply for a $100,000 grant that we had a good chance of being awarded. We calculated that
the grant would cost us more to administer than it was worth. 45 On the other hand, the
Canada Council for the Arts, an arms-length organization that can determine its own criteria
for accounting, recently awarded my museum a small grant for translation on the basis of a
two paragraph e-mail and simply requires a similar e-mail once the translation has been
done and the money spent. The first organization, under the control of the present
Conservative government, is instituting market policies to regulate museums; the second
organization, under its own control, is responding to the needs of museums.
Those groups, be they philanthropists or governments, that do effectively support
civil society, are the ones that change the social and political dynamics as needed to enable
41
www.nonprofitquarterly.org, January 7, 2008.
42
Edwards, p. 57.
43
Ibid., p. 59.
44
Ibid., pp. 78-79.
45
This federal government has clearly absorbed the lessons of the Chicago School and wants to
reduce spending to civil society organizations. Recently it cut the allocation to the Museum Assistance
Program, arguing that all the funds had not been granted, without looking at why that might be.
53

whole communities to share in the fruits of innovation and success. Key to success is
respecting the people, the museologists or the marginalized, changing the power relations
and the ownership of assets, so that the recipients are firmly in the driver’s seat. Edwards
concluded
This is why … civil society is vital for social transformation, and why
the world needs more civil society influences on business, not the
other way around – more cooperation not competition, more collective
action not individualism, and a greater willingness to work together to
change the fundamental structures that keep most people poor so that
all of us can live more fulfilling lives. 46
Both Richard Florida and Jane Jacobs, two Americans who moved to Canada, are
also interested in how all can live more fulfilling lives, and, since we are globally increasingly
urbanized, how we can live better in cities. Cities, too, is where most museums are located,
so this discussion is very pertinent to the health of museums. Jacobs was interested in
finding out what economic expansion really is. She determined that it is not just increasing
the volume of economic output, making more. Rather it is also, and more importantly,
differentiation, making things new and different. 47 This differentiation, for Jane Jacobs as for
Joseph Schumpter 48 , turns on innovation, and innovation is the result of a diverse pool of
resources. Famously Jacobs, in her book The Death and Life of Great American Cities,
detailed the pressing need for diversity in cities, diversity of age, race, income, interests,
education, housing, commercial establishments, and heritage. Following her, Florida
documented and quantified the features which Americans feel make cities livable. Florida
identified five factors, two of which lead the list in importance: “aesthetics, physical beauty,
amenities and cultural offerings”, and “basic services, schools, health-care, affordable
housing, roads and public transportation.” 49
Given the prominence ascribed to aesthetics in this list, its position as the most
important factor in making cities livable, Florida goes on to parse this quality. Topping the
pyramid within aesthetics, he identifies physical beauty, such as rugged mountains and
picturesque lakes. Next comes outdoor space, including parks, playgrounds and trails. For
those concerned that their city could therefore not compete with San Francisco or
Vancouver, given the beauty of their natural settings, he contends that the man-made
warehouse districts, historic houses, and “magnificent urban park systems hand-crafted by
great landscape artists” 50 also have very real appeal. As well he records that his survey
found culture and nightlife play a significant role in place satisfaction, with those
communities being strongest that combine traditional high-culture institutions with a vibrant
street life of art, music and theatre. Museums, especially when defined broadly to include
parks, historic houses and old neighbourhoods, thus are central to urban satisfaction.
Some conclusions
Al Gore, in his recent polemic The Assault on Reason, underlined the importance of
separating power and wealth, something he contends is not currently happening in the
United States. He argued persuasively that self-interest must be subservient to the public
good, that the exercise of power can only be undertaken after full and open consultation with
those affected. 51 Using somewhat different language, but meaning the same thing, Michael
46 Edwards, pp. 80-81.
47 See especially her book The Economy of Cities.
48 An economist who predicted the destructive forces of corporatism, Schumpter taught at Harvard
University from 1932 to 1950.
49 Edwards, p. 163.
50 Ibid., p. 167.
51 (New York: Penguin Books, 2007).
54

Edwards explained that the best results in raising economic growth while simultaneously
reducing poverty and inequity occurs when markets are subordinated to the public interest,
when public and private interests are separated. 52 This separation would be done by
government. The market, determining to make money, would do so in service to long-term
goals that favours redistribution and social stability, goals set and monitored by
governments. Edwards sees countries that follow these policies - he names Sweden, the
Netherlands and Canada 53 - as scoring high on social indicators, while those which do not,
like the United States, slipping into more violence and inequality. The US now ranks 42 nd in
the world in life expectancy and, according to Oliver James, “selfish capitalism” has
produced a measurable decline in emotional well being there as well. 54
So what to do? How can the market and civil society communities work together
rather better than has been happening to pursue social transformation? How can museums
contribute to this vital process? The first step both Michael Edmunds and Al Gore agree is to
have a full-throated debate, to ensure that the problems are given appropriate exposure and
the solutions are sough from all stakeholders. As Edwards contends, “Deep rooted
differences about capitalism and social change are unlikely to go away,” so “why not put all
questions on the table and allow all sides to have their assumptions tested?” 55
If we are to change, to do things differently, we must work seriously to that end.
Harvey Weingarten, President of the University of Calgary, gave a speech recently on the
topic of sustainability at the university. In it he detailed that in 2006 the university used 72
million sheets of paper, but that by 2007 this frighteningly large number had been somewhat
reduced to 56 million sheets by installing printers that printed on both sides of the page.
Emphasizing the need to change and the fallacy of a total reliance on technology but the
difficulty in doing so, Weingarten concluded that
I suspect that the magnitude of paper use on many of our big
universities is similar. The irony is that paper use often increases
despite all the new digital technology. A lesson, I suppose, is that if we
are to become more sustainable, it is not just about introducing new
technology. It is also about doing things differently from the way we
did them in the past. This appears to be hard. As John Maynard
Keynes said: “…the difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping
from the old ones….” 56
Edwards outlines specific actions that should be undertaken. He urges an investment
in learning, especially in research and evaluation, surely music to museologists. He seeks a
serious commitment to transparency, accountability, and democracy so that recipients would
have a real voice in governance and program strategy. He urges devolution to promote the
long-term financial independence of civil society and to reduce the costs of application
procedures. All of these actions underline the differences between markets and civil society
and are dependent, to some extent, on the willingness of governments to rebalance
constantly the private and the public good. All these suggestions would be of great value to
museums to help them be more effective agents of social change.
These two communities, the market and civil society, are vital to the effective working
of a democratic, fulfilled society, but it is in their separation that we find strength. When
52
Edwards, p. 51.
53
Regrettably Canada, under the present federal conservative government, is weakening or
abandoning a number of its market constraints and reducing its support for civil society organizations.
54
Edwards, p. 52, quoting Madeleine Bunting’s review of O. James, The Selfish Capitalist, (London:
Vermilion, 2007), in the Guardian, January 5, 2008.
55
Ibid., pp. 83-84.
56
, May 2, 2008, “Sustainable Development: It’s an Imperative, Not an Option”, Sustainable Urban
Development Leadership Summit, from www,ucalgary.ca, May 23, 2008.
55

museums champion innovation and differentiation, while firmly maintaining their values,
those of civil society, then they will promote and advance that social transformation we deem
so necessary. Museums are part of civil society, not part of the market community. But these
two communities need to work together, to cooperate not to compete, to seek collective
action not individualism. To paraphrase Edwards, museums, then, “have nothing to be
ashamed of in not being a business, and everything to gain by re-asserting their difference
57
and diversity.”
57 Edwards, p. 92.
56

2. MUSEUMS AND MUSEOLOGY, CHANGING ROLES //
LES MUSÉES ET LA MUSÉOLOGIE : UN
CHANGEMENT DE RÔLES
MUSEOS Y MUSEOLOGÍA : CAMBIO DE ROLES
2.1 Museums, museology and the new information
and communication technologies
Les musées, la muséologie et les nouvelles
techniques d’information et de communication
Museos, museología y las nuevas tecnologías de
la información y la comunicación
57

MUSEUMS IN THE INTERNET ERA AND THEIR RELATIONS
WITH THEIR AUDIENCE
CHANG Wan-Chen, National Hsin-Chu University of Education –Chinese
Taipei.
___________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT
The use and development of new science and technology has promoted
the trend of globalization, and changed the ecology of today’s museums. The
introduction of the World Wide Web, in particular, has been the most pivotal
factor influencing museum development worldwide. The use of the Internet has
not only expanded museum functions, but has also exercised a subversive effect
on the interactive relationship between museums and their audiences. The
subject of discussion in this article therefore is the extent to which museums face
change in their interactive relationship with their audience now that they have
accepted the arrival of the Internet era.
The article first introduces the history and development of museums’
use of the Internet, illustrating how museums, within a very few years, have
rapidly developed museum website installations. Then, it analyzes the nature of
museum website designs and the functions that they provide, and, with the help
of existing research findings about museum website users, illustrates the
relationship between actual museum audiences and museum website visitors.
The article will illustrate that the overwhelming majority of actual museum
audiences and museum website visitors are one and the same people, but that
there are differences between the two categories in their expectations towards
museums and museum websites, and the forms of behavior that they exhibit.
The article will therefore further analyze the question of what people expect of a
museum website and, moreover, how should museums maintain even more
interactive relationships with audiences through websites.
Finally, the article will move from discussion of the websites installed
by actual museums, to an analysis of concepts and classifications of museums
in the virtual environment. This article hypothesizes that in the near future a
virtual museum following the example of Wikipedia will truly break down all
barriers of space, language and culture, and realize the half-century old ideal of
the, “museum without walls.”
RÉSUMÉ
Les musées à l’heure d’Internet et leurs relations avec le public
L’exploitation et le développement de nouvelles technologies ont
accéléré la mondialisation et bouleversé l’écosystème des musées d’aujourd’hui.
L’avènement de l’Internet est l’un des facteurs déterminants de ce grand
bouleversement. En effet, la mise en œuvre de nouveaux procédés
d’information dans des musées a considérablement élargi leurs fonctions, et
transformé de façon radicale leurs relations avec le public. L’article essaie
d’analyser dans quelle mesure ces changements ont modifié et modifieront
59

encore l’interaction entre le public et les musées ayant accepté de vivre à l’heure
d’Internet.
Dans un premier temps, l’article va rappeler l’histoire et le
développement de l’usage de l’Internet par le musée, en illustrant comment la
création de sites web s’est très vite imposée dans le monde des musées comme
un moyen de communication incontournable. L’article examinera ensuite la
conception de ces sites et les fonctions qu’ils proposent. Par une étude
comparative des visiteurs « réels » et « virtuels » basée sur les résultats
d’enquêtes menées par d’autres chercheurs auprès des usagers, l’article mettra
en lumière le fait que la grande majorité des visiteurs virtuels correspondent aux
visiteurs réels, mais que leurs attentes et leurs comportements diffèrent en
fonction du mode de visite choisi. Ceci nous amènera à considérer ce que le
public attend vraiment des sites de musées, afin de montrer comment les
musées pourront le satisfaire en proposant toujours plus d’interactivité dans
leurs relations réciproques.
Enfin, l’article pousse plus loin cette analyse par une réflexion
fondamentale sur le concept même du musée et sur sa classification dans un
environnement purement virtuel. Il serait tentant de croire qu’un musée virtuel, à
l’instar de Wikipédia, pourrait voir le jour dans un avenir assez proche. Ce
musée qui s’affranchirait de toute barrière spatiale, linguistique ou culturelle
serait la réalisation d’une vieille idée datant d’une demie-siècle, celle d’un
« Musée imaginaire ».
RESUMEN
Museos en la era de Internet y sus relaciones con el publico
La explotación y el desarrollo de las nuevas tecnologías han
acelerado la mundialización y trastornado el ecosistema de los museos de hoy.
El advenimiento de Internet es uno de los factores determinantes de ese gran
desorden. En efecto, la puesta en práctica de nuevos procedimientos de
información en dichas instituciones ha ampliado considerablemente sus
funciones y ha transformado de manera radical sus relaciones con el público. El
artículo intenta analizar en qué medida esos cambios han modificado y
modificarán aún más la interacción entre público y museos en la era de Internet.
En un primer momento, el artículo recuerda la historia y el desarrollo
del uso de Internet por parte del museo, ilustrando cómo la creación de sitios
web se ha impuesto rápidamente en el mundo museal como medio de
comunicación insoslayable. Seguidamente, examina la concepción de esos
sitios y las funciones que proponen. Para poder realizar un estudio comparativo
de los visitantes “reales” y “virtuales”, basado en los resultados de encuestas
llevadas a cabo con los usuarios por otros investigadores, el artículo saca a la
luz el hecho de que la gran mayoría de los visitantes virtuales se corresponden
con los visitantes reales, si bien sus expectativas y sus comportamientos
difieren en función del modo de visita elegido. Esto nos llevará a considerar lo
que el público espera efectivamente de los sitios web de los museos, a fin de
mostrar cómo estos últimos podrán darle grandes satisfacciones a través de una
mayor interactividad en sus relaciones recíprocas.
Finalmente, el artículo va más allá de este análisis a través de una
reflexión fundamental sobre el concepto mismo de museo y sobre su
clasificación en un entorno puramente virtual. Se diría que un museo virtual, al
estilo de Wikipedia, podría surgir en un futuro próximo. Ese museo, que liberaría
60

toda barrera espacial, lingüística o cultural, sería la realización de una vieja idea
que data de más de medio siglo: la de un “Museo imaginario”.
* * *
The use and development of new science and technology has
promoted the trend of globalization, and changed the ecology of today’s
museums. The introduction of the World Wide Web, in particular, has been the
most pivotal factor influencing museum development worldwide. The use of the
Internet has not only expanded museum functions, but has also exercised a
subversive effect on the interactive relationship between museums and their
audiences. The subject of discussion in this article therefore is the extent to
which museums face change in their interactive relationship with their audience
now that they have accepted the arrival of the Internet era.
The article first introduces the history and development of museums’
use of the Internet, illustrating how museums, within a very few years, have
rapidly developed museum website installations. Then, it analyzes the nature of
museum website designs and the functions that they provide, and, with the help
of existing research findings about museum website users, illustrates the
relationship between actual museum audiences and museum website visitors.
The article will illustrate that the overwhelming majority of actual museum
audiences and museum website visitors are one and the same people, but that
there are differences between the two categories in their expectations towards
museums and museum websites, and the forms of behavior that they exhibit.
The article will therefore further analyze the question of what people expect of a
museum website and, moreover, how should museums maintain even more
interactive relationships with audiences through websites.
Finally, the article will move from discussion of the websites installed
by actual museums, to an analysis of concepts and classifications of museums
in the virtual environment. This article hypothesizes that in the near future a
virtual museum following the example of Wikipedia will truly break down all
barriers of space, language and culture, and realize the half-century old ideal of
the, “museum without walls.”
The development of the use of the Internet by museums.
The application and development of new science and technology has
promoted the trend toward globalization, and changed the ecology of today’s
museums.
New science and technology integrated by museums includes the
relatively early developed digital archives (at first used in internal management),
distance learning, the making of multimedia exhibits and CDs and so on, but the
pivotal factor that most influenced museum development remains the
introduction of the World Wide Web.
The Internet appeared in 1960’s America, initially serving defense
purposes. In the 1980s it was used to link educational institutions to each other,
but it was not until the 1990s that it became universally available to individual
users. Since considerable research has already been accumulated in the field of
the history and development of media, we can look back quite clearly at the
61

ecent development of the Internet. 58 Even before the Internet appeared,
photography and printing technology had aroused interest in André Malraux’s
concept of the, “museum without walls.” Now that use of the Internet, has
become universal, moreover, we can all the more look forward to a society
without boundaries, completely unlike that of the past. The author consents that
new media, just like old media, should be understood as “a means to organize
and structure knowledge and visitor attention, not as a means of communication
or a set of devices.” 59
Most people in today’s society grew up in an environment in which
such media as television and cinema are everywhere, and are used to
stimulation of the auditory and visual senses. But the Internet is by its nature
extremely different from television or cinema. Television and cinema, for all the
richness and diversity of their output, constitute a passive form of broadcasting,
while the Internet makes communication active and alive. Internet users can
search for information about things that they want to learn about, and fulfill their
wishes of their own accord. Television or cinema audiences, except through
being investigated on camera or by writing letters direct to the production
company, cannot easily make their views known. On the Internet, however,
people can easily (technically and psychologically speaking) and directly convey
their opinions. This is the particular feature of the Internet that facilitates
interaction. The free gathering and exchange of information of all sorts from this
limitless network has quite naturally and automatically become a feature of life
for most people in the world in the past few years. This kind of interactivity,
breaking of barriers, and transcendence of national boundaries, brings the
people of the whole world closer, and is one of the factors promoting the
advance of globalization. What this article wishes to discuss is what level of
change, in terms of the interactive relationship with their audience, is faced by
museums that have embraced the Internet era.
Most museums all over the world, regardless of whether their
museum development policy places more emphasis on their collection or on
their audience, and regardless of the extent to which they are involved in
participating and serving society, have already proactively or reactively installed
websites, and developed on-line museum services. There are some museums
that, satisfied with their rich collection or current state of operations, don’t
understand the necessity for museums to develop on the Internet. As regards
this kind of question, museum staff should not ask themselves, “What do we
need the Internet for?” Rather, they should start from the perspective of the
audience, and wonder, “What will be the effect if we do not develop on the
Internet?” If they do that, the answer will be very clear. From the perspective of
current trends, museums that do not develop on the Internet effectively cut
themselves off from the vast Internet community.
In theory, the current residents of the global village all know that all
government and civilian services already exist on the Internet. In fact, however,
although the integration of museums and the Internet is a relatively recent
phenomenon, the quality and variety of museum websites is astonishing. To be
sure, there is no lack of websites that introduce, assess or report on museums
58 A. Briggs & P. Burke, A social history of the media: From Gutenberg to the Internet,
Oxford: Polity, 2002; D. Edgerton, The Shock of the old: Technology and global history
since 1900, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
59 M. Henning, “New media”, in: S. Macdonald (ed.), A companion to museum studies,
Oxford: Blackwell, 2006, p. 303.
62

on the Internet, but only through the exclusive websites installed by museums
themselves, with actively developed content and services, can the general public
enjoy the rich resources of museums. In France, museums started to install
websites open to the general public only in 1995. Taiwan did so at about the
same time; the first website installed by a museum appeared in 1996 at Taipei’s
National Museum of History. But, within only a few years, the on-line museum
scene had totally changed. In 1999, a report stated that 10,000 museums in
approximately 120 countries had installed websites, and that this increased by
almost one per day. 60 Also, the International Council of Museums (ICOM) from
1996 opted to collate the websites of museums world-wide, using Virtual Library
museums pages (VLmp). 61 Today, VLmp has become one of the most useful
links for exploring the world’s museums. VLmp designer and renowned museum
expert, Jonathan Bowen, has presented research on VLmp users, showing that
the number of person-utilizations of VLmp in August 1994, the month it started,
totaled 3459, and that the number increased at a steady rate thereafter, until by
April 2008 it already exceeded six million. 62 At the same time, research on online
users’ expectations and manner of usage has been moving on apace in recent
years. 63 The nature and magnitude of the Internet audience has already become
another focus of research on museum audiences.
To appreciate the changes and differences that have occurred in just
a few years, we need only compare the rich content of today’s museum websites
with the situation a few years ago, when such websites listed a museum’s basic
information and most recent events in a large-character, clipboard manner
(sometimes adding some of the works from the museum’s collection with
introductory text). We can foresee that, in the future, in line with the forging
ahead of the quality and quantity of on-line services, and the even greater
availability of the Internet, people will develop even greater skills for setting up
their own databases. Also, since this is now an irresistible general trend, the
advance of science and technology (such as the current gradually more
widespread availability of broadband) will very soon make Internet access
quicker and quicker, computer capacity greater and greater, and installations
more and more widespread. And when all museums have their resources on line
and have established more intimate links with each other, we will have a
different museum culture.
The above stated capacity of the Internet for almost instantaneous
interactivity regardless of geographic constraints could offset the shortcomings
and difficulties faced by traditional museums in communicating with their
audiences. Museum staff is gradually experiencing the responsibility to open up
and share resources with society (here meant in the broad sense of, “worldwide
society.”) Perhaps we have all experienced that minute narrowing of
psychological distance that occurs when one makes an enquiry of, or enters into
some transaction or other, with a passenger or guest who is a stranger, or when
one considers communicating by the traditional means of a letter or by e-mail.
The Internet is on the one hand open and instantaneous, while on the other
60
S. H. Madoff, “Where the Venues Are Virtually Infinite”, New York Times, Jan. 10,
1999, sec. 2, p. 41.
61
http://icom.museum/vlmp/
62
Jonathan P. Bowen, “Time for Renovations: A Survey of Museum Web Sites”, in :
Musems and the Web 1999, New Orleans, March 1999. URL:
http://www.archimuse.com/
63
K. Futers, “Tell me what you want, what you really, really want: A look at Internet user
needs”, in: Proceedings Electronic Imaging in Visual Arts (EVA). Paris, Sep. 1997. URL:
http://www.open.gov.uk/mdocassn/eva_kf.htm
63

hand it actually has camouflaged functions, and can, at least to some extent,
establish equality between people among whom in actual, real-life society there
are wide gaps.
Museum staff should perhaps worry about whether the development
of the Internet might strip away people’s desire to visit actual museums. More
and more research, however, indicates that the Internet experience performs the
function of encouraging people to visit museums. Besides, we should not
underestimate basic human nature; that is to expect always through one’s own
senses to confirm in person one’s Internet experiences of contact or study. 64 We
can therefore presume that henceforth humanity will naturally separate the
visiting of museums into two categories of experience: the virtual and the actual.
The virtual experience is a kind of process of establishing a database, while the
actual visit can be used to verify the effectiveness or otherwise of that database.
Virtual visits transcend national boundaries, while actual visits are constrained
by the geographical space in which one is located. Since people always wish to
verify things for themselves, museums can even develop policies to design
websites of superior quality to attract their audiences to visit in person.
Museum audiences and museum website visitors.
According to a recent study, the overwhelming majority of visitors to
museum websites are also members of the museum audience. 65 This study also
indicated that over 60% of museum website visitors believe museum websites
should provide the same portfolio of services as the actual museums, but an
even greater number ― over 80% of those interviewed ― said that they hold
different expectations of on-line museums than of actual museums. This is not in
fact a self-contradictory result, because what people understand is intrinsically
different from the way they behave. But as far as the previous point is
concerned, the issue meriting further attention is that: If museum websites are
supposed to provide the same services as actual museums, should there be a
model for an ideal museum website? One study in support of precisely such a
proposition argues that the ideal museum website should faithfully reflect
museum missions and functions. 66 Among the seven items listed by that study
as necessary attributes of museum websites, technical competence and visitor
information clearly received the greatest emphasis. 67 This point illustrates the
complexion of the typical museum website.
Almost all museum websites include the museum’s basic information
and event news. The study cited above also showed that numerous museum
visitors look for information on-line to plan their visit before visiting the museum,
and conduct further study on-line after their visit. In this respect especially,
museums and their websites complement each other. The National Palace
Museum (NPM) ― which boasts the most extensive website set-up of all of
64
Jean-Louis Déotte, “Le musée comme banque de données”, Le musée, l’origine de
l’esthétique, Paris : L’Harmattan, p. 394.
65
P. F. Marty, “Museum websites and museums visitors: digital museum resources and
their use”, Museum Management and Curatorship, vol. 23, no. 1, 2008, pp. 81-99.
66
D. D.M. Mason & C. McCarthy, “Museums and the culture of new media: an empirical
model of New Zealand museum websites”, Museum Management and Curatorship, vol.
23, no. 1, 2008, pp. 63-80.
67
These attributes are “technical competence”, “visitor information”, “market
segmentation”, “mission, education”, “income generation”, “attractions and exhibits” and
‘relationships”. See ibid.
64

Taiwan’s museums ― follows the commonly seen, “tree and branch,” design
structure, and uses the homepage as its starting point, conducting the visitor to
web-pages deeper within the site. 68 The current homepage of the NPM shows
the principal characters from the most recent animation created by the museum.
This animation has received much praise from around the world. The NPM
intends to use this animation to free itself from the old-fashioned image that it
has traditionally conveyed, and to narrow the gap between itself and the younger
generation. A cursory visit to the website shows that it provides up-to-date news
and information about the collection, exhibitions, its calendar, educational
activities, the membership system, the museum shop, and so on. Also, in line
with most museum websites, the NPM’s web pages all consist mainly of text,
with pictures only as visual aids. When visitors browse the website, what they
are mainly doing is reading; the only difference is that the Internet uses
hyperlinks, while books use page numbers. Most of the information, moreover, is
there to explain, supplement or extend the museum’s real-world activities.
Another issue is that if the same museum audience holds different
expectations of actual museums and online museums, even adopting different
behavior in respect of each, then we should further consider what these
expectations are. How does the behavior differ? The study by Marty, referred to
above, indicates that museum website visitors expect singular experiences that
cannot be duplicated in the real world. What he means by singular experiences
is experiences that the actual museum cannot deliver. Examples would be
information about exhibitions that have already finished, or behind-the-scenes
activities, such as the process of restoration, or, more importantly, items from the
museum’s collection that cannot be displayed in its actual exhibition space.
The NPM has begun to make part of their permanent collections
available via the Internet for research and educational purposes. As we can see,
for presenting the permanent collection, the NPM selects some works from each
category and the users of the web can only accept the “offers” of the museum
passively and don’t have the right to research their wants. This is to say, in fact,
that the NPM has not yet provided a so-called “database.” Most of the capital for
a museum database comes from a rich collection of artifacts, but whether a
museum should place all of the items from its collection on the Internet is of
course determined by the quantity of such items and by the museum’s policy.
The British Museum’s approximately 300,000-item collection database search,
for example, enables users to search by theme, era, and collection number and
so on. 69 Among the works for which searches can be made on the Internet, there
are some for which, for copyright reasons or other reasons, photographs do not
exist, but the Internet has already brought tremendous convenience to
researchers. The British Museum says that the work of digitizing its collection is
still underway and that it expects the remaining 140,000 items to finish being
placed on-line at the end of 2009. By 2011, moreover, the museum will also
have placed on-line its records of conservation treatment and scientific analysis
and historic files and records, thus providing even clearer explanations of the
archive photographs and historic images of the collection.
Sometimes a museum will make an exclusive database using
important items from its collection. France’s Musée Guimet, for example, is
collecting a set of over 6000 top quality Chinese ceramic items. This set of
ceramics is the collection of Ernest Grandidier, from the late nineteenth and
68 http://www.npm.gov.tw/
69 http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/search_the_collection_database.aspx
65

early twentieth centuries. Grandidier in 1894 donated his collection to the Musée
du Louvre, but later, in 1945, the French government transferred it in its entirety
to the Musée Guimet. The latter in 2001 exhibited the collection anew, and, at
the same time, commenced a project to digitize its database. 70 This collection,
because of its size, however, has never been able to be exhibited in full. In fact,
the items exhibited to date are far inferior to those remaining in the museum’s
storerooms. For this reason, being able to search on-line is extremely significant.
Currently, what has been collected in the database remains partial, but the
information for each item is relatively complete. Especially important is the fact
that most artifacts have many detailed pictures attached to their database
entries, items which one cannot otherwise observe even by visiting the museum.
The method and effort of the British Museum are undoubtedly the
models that all museums should follow. But the achievements of the British
Museum are confined to that museum alone. If the resources of many museums
could be combined, the results would be all the richer. France's Joconde system,
for example, incorporates national artifacts within a database. 71 This system,
created under the direction of the French Museums, Ministry of Culture, entered
planning in 1975, and, as of March 2008, already had over 360,000 works online,
with approximately 20,000 related pictures. These works come from 282
museums in such diverse fields as archaeology, art, anthropology, history,
science and technology, and so on. A search of the Joconde system frequently
brings in an accidental harvest. Because this is an inter-museum system, one
search will identify together all collected works with a common theme or artist
but held by other museums, thus extending its research tentacles to a range that
users have previously not known. Basically, each work has extremely detailed
information attached to it, including, apart from basic information, relevant
exhibition information and publication records. This author believes that this kind
of system is the most helpful to researchers, because it enables them completely
of their own accord to search for the information they need, rather than passively
accepting what the museum provides.
If the installation of a database is mainly to serve researchers and
experts, then further to use collection items to create educational programs
amounts more especially to an exercise of museums’ responsibility towards
young people, students and the general public. I would like to give, here, a few
examples that I consider quite good. First, museums with rich collections, like
New York s Metropolitan Museum of Art, are especially capable of creating such
excellent study resources as Timeline of art history. 72 The Metropolitan Museum
of Art has also designed a series of courses that can be studied interactively,
and are suitable for use in private study or in parent-child interaction.
The overwhelming majority of on-line classes are created to
complement museums’ special exhibitions. This is often the case in other
countries too. Very few, however, are for exhibitions designed for the Internet.
Via the Internet, we can also create a new form of exhibition in which not all the
works included are actually shown at one physical location. The online
exhibitions of the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF), for example, include
previous actual exhibitions as well as exhibitions especially designed and
created for the Internet. 73 These exhibitions differ from most websites that
70 http://www.guimet-grandidier.fr/html/4/index/index.htm
71 http://www.culture.gouv.fr/documentation/joconde/fr/pres.htm
72 http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/splash.htm?HomePageLink=toah_l
73 http://expositions.bnf.fr/usindex.htm
66

introduce exhibitions in two major respects. Firstly, they adopt a linear reading
mode, with the intention of echoing our experience of visiting an actual
exhibition. Secondly, their web-pages consist mainly of pictures ― just as when
we visit an exhibition we are mainly attracted by the works ― rather than of the
text that clearly characterizes most websites.
In this era in which information development and scientific and
technological techniques are taking off, a website that is not constantly updated
and maintained will very quickly appear outdated, and it will become redundant
much more quickly than an actual museum. Perfect maintenance requires a
sufficiency of funds, a grasp of new technology, an understanding of user
circumstances and needs, and ongoing use of the museum’s resources In fact,
currently museums all over the world attach a shared importance to the Internet,
but that is one thing and actual investment of manpower, equipment and funds
quite another. In February 1997, the National Gallery in Washington, activated a
website, very quickly realized the importance of website maintenance, and drew
up three development objectives: One: To enable Internet users to find the
National Gallery’s website easily. Two: To enable users quickly to find
information of the sort that they are seeking. Three: To prompt users, once they
have finished using the website, to wish to revisit it at a later date. 74 These three
objectives could be supplied for reference to all museums hoping to develop the
ideal website.
Research of Bowen previously cited also shows that 74 percent of
Internet users wish to be able to search on-line for information about new
exhibitions, and that 87 percent wish to be able to view related pictures. 75 Also,
52% of Internet users wish to be able to download museum’s pictures. Indeed,
websites that lack pictures find it difficult to retain the interest of people used to
receiving information from the media, but museums need not put high-quality
pictures on the Internet, and could thus avoid affecting transmission speeds and
downloading for use that infringes their copyright. Also worth noting is the fact
that website homepage transmission speeds are too slow, and cause people to
lose patience and abandon their effort, with the result that their very first attempt
ends in failure. What merits museum staff’s attention is that the purpose of
installing a website lies in the promotion of education, not in advertising.
Whether a website provides services that are diverse and take the user’s
imagination into account will determine the levels of satisfaction with which it is
received. The homepage should clearly indicate the website’s structure and
services available to users. The audience, for example, could be informed about
the museum’s location and the public transport that serves it, current exhibitions
and activities, with information about special exhibitions especially plentiful and
excellent. Children could look for games designed for them, and teachers could
look for supplementary teaching resources or guided tour services, and even
download a teacher’s manual, and researchers or students could enter the
museum’s database, ask questions of museum research staff by means of
opinion exchange areas, and even purchase publications or merchandise online.
When people are unable to visit a museum in person for reasons of
transportation, economics, geography, time (the Internet is open 24 hours a day)
or whatever other reason, the feasibility of these activities, makes them all the
more compensatory and precious.
74 N. B. Johnson, “Tracking the Virtual Visitor: A Report from the National Gallery of Art”,
Museum News, March/April, 2000, pp. 42-45, 67-71.
75 Jonathan P. Bowen, “Time for Renovations: A Survey of Museum Web Sites”, Op. Cit.
67

Striding towards the museum websites of the virtual society.
As museum websites become parts of digitized and interactive
search systems, scholars are starting to be concerned about the issue of
museums’ loss of materiality. I wish to conclude by especially raising the concept
of what is known as the virtual museum. If the work of the traditional museum
has mainly been to conserve, collect, exhibit and communicate about cultural
assets and to establish cultural identification, then the virtual museum can
perhaps perform the function of connecting the past with the society of the
future.
There could be three forms of virtual museum. 76 The first type of
virtual museum doesn’t exist in actual society, but it possesses the structure of a
museum. A website about the artist Vermeer, for example, could be included in
this type. 77 This website provides information about the artist, and pictures of all
of his works. This information explains the artist’s life and creations, in the same
way as the website of a traditional museum. 78 But this website presenting
Vermeer also provides designs for educational activities and explanations of
exhibition planners’ thinking, which is also to say that what stands out about this
website is not simply that it exhibits Vermeer’s works but also that it retains
different means of explanation of works. Another special aspect of it is that it
incorporates all of Vermeer’s works, which no actual museum could do.
The second type of virtual museum is created completely by
computer artists. Through software and application languages, a computer artist
can design a virtual environment and let people play in it. There are currently
already many computer artists who have created what is known as New Media
Art, but one computer artist might also use media created by computers to call
into question or criticize museums, or to design an ideal, dream museum. In this
kind of museum, all the functions of an actual museum could be duplicated, to
the extent that exhibited works could also be well-known, actually existing works.
But it would be different from an actual museum in its virtual environment and its
strong interactive interface. Although I am unable to provide an existing
example, one can imagine that a virtual museum of this sort might greatly satisfy
all the curiosity about museums shared by the audiences of actual museums.
Audiences could visit the institutions or works that they are currently prevented
from visiting by all the temporal and physical obstacles of the current era, or gain
experiences that are unimaginable in the real world. This type of museum would
possess an interactivity that has not yet been completely explored.
Finally, the third type of virtual museum also does not yet exist, but its
appearance is foreseeable. Some museums, such as New York’s Metropolitan
Museum of Art and the Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco, let website visitors
select works to set up their own digital collection. 79 This situation is a little like
being able to place items in a “shopping basket” when purchasing on-line. But
we can especially presume that one kind of virtual museum might be created
76 M. Kruse, Museums, galleries, art sites, virtual curating and the world wide web,
dissertation presented for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy, The Ohio State University,
1998.
77 http://www.ballandclaw.com/vermeer/
78 For example, the Picasso Museum in Paris. http://www.musee-picasso.fr/
79 J. Bowen & S. Filippini-Fantoni, “Personalization and the web from a museum
perspective”, in: D. Bearman & J. Trant (ed.), Museums and the Web 2004, Canada:
Archives & Museum Informatics. Available from http://www.archimuse.com/
68

and maintained completely by Internet users, very much in the manner of
Wikipedia. This museum will possess all the functions of an actual museum,
collecting artifacts and holding exhibitions, as well as all kinds of educational
activities, but the difference between it and the second type of museum will be
that all of its activities will be open for Internet users to take part in and
administer. Internet users could decide by means of mutual discussion or voting
whether a certain work should be collected, or how a work should be explained,
in the way a curator usually does. The experience of Wikipedia tells us that the
establishment and maturation of the Internet community brings us a mechanism
with which we can examine ourselves. 80 As a result, the reliability of this sort of
virtual museum has not yet achieved the absolute levels enjoyed by the
traditional museum (although it will seriously challenge those levels). Any person
can take part in maintaining this virtual museum, regardless of his/her age,
profession, (he might perhaps even be a member of museum staff) location or
user language. Wikipedia even has multi-lingual versions. In this virtual museum,
audiences of different languages could easily consider differences between
different cultures and traditions in the interpretations of works. If what I am
imagining transpires, then we can look forward to a museum without walls that
truly smashes barriers of space, culture and language.
Even though the greatest feature of museums is that they possess
artifacts. But we should also recognize that museum artifacts that lack
explanations also lack life. The Internet enables museums to collect and exhibit
artifacts and information for the purposes of explanation, and to reach vast
potential audiences. Current museums all profoundly appreciate the truth of the
argument that they are intimately intertwined with the Internet and that the
Internet can bring huge changes to museums. Of course there are still countless
museums all over the world, especially small-scale museums with few resources
that still have not set up their own websites. Alternative schemes might be
realized by the private sector or government providing assistance, or integrating
the museums within particular areas to set up shared websites. But the rise of
the Internet does not mean that it is about to replace actual museums. Its
function should be to encourage people or to trigger their motivation to visit
actual museums. Finally, the practical use of science and technology is a matter
for people. Museums should make use of the features of the Internet to develop
their whole range of functions, without limiting themselves solely to Internet
development.
80 C. Vandendorpe, “Le phénomène Wikipédia: une utopie en marche”, Le débat,
numéro 148, janvier-février 2008, pp. 16-30.
69

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bowen, J. P. (1999) “Time for Renovations: A Survey of Museum
Web Sites”, in : Musems and the Web 1999, New Orleans. URL:
http://www.archimuse.com/
Bowen J. & Filippini-Fantoni, S. (2004). “Personalization and the web
from a museum perspective”, in: D. Bearman & J. Trant (ed.), Museums and the
Web 2004, Canada: Archives & Museum Informatics. Available from
http://www.archimuse.com/
Briggs, A. & Burke, P. (2002). A social history of the media: From
Gutenberg to the Internet, Oxford: Polity.
Déotte, J.-L. (1994). “Le musée comme banque de données”, Le
musée, l’origine de l’esthétique, Paris : L’Harmattan.
Edgerton, D. (2007). The Shock of the old: Technology and global
history since 1900, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Futers, K. (1997) “Tell me what you want, what you really, really
want: A look at Internet user needs”, in: Proceedings Electronic Imaging in
Visual Arts (EVA). Paris. URL: http://www.open.gov.uk/mdocassn/eva_kf.htm
Henning, M. (2006). “New media”, in: S. Macdonald (ed.), A
companion to museum studies, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 302-318.
Johnson, N. B. (2000). “Tracking the Virtual Visitor: A Report from the
National Gallery of Art”, Museum News, pp. 42-45, 67-71.
Kruse, M. (1998) Museums, galleries, art sites, virtual curating and
the world wide web, dissertation presented for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy,
The Ohio State University.
Madoff, S. H. (1999). “Where the Venues Are Virtually Infinite”, New
York Times, Jan.10,1999, sec.2, p. 41.
Marty, P. F. (2008). “Museum websites and museums visitors: digital
museum resources and their use”, Museum Management and Curatorship, vol.
23, no. 1, pp. 81-99.
Mason, D. M. & McCarthy, C. (2008) “Museums and the culture of
new media: an empirical model of New Zealand museum websites”, Museum
Management and Curatorship, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 63-80.
Vandendorpe, C. (2008) “Le phénomène Wikipédia: une utopie en
marche”, Le débat, n° 148, pp. 16-30.
Chefs-d’œuvre de la collection Grandidier du Musée Guimet. URL :
http://www.guimet-grandidier.fr/html/4/index/index.htm
Collection Database Search of the British Museum. URL:
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/search_the_collection_database.aspx
Joconde – Catalogue des collections des Musées de France. URL :
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/documentation/joconde/fr/pres.htm
Musée national Picasso Paris. URL : http://www.musee-picasso.fr/
National Palace Museum. URL: http://www.npm.gov.tw/
Paintings of Vermeer. URL: http://www.ballandclaw.com/vermeer/
Timeline of Art History of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. URL:
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/splash.htm?HomePageLink=toah_l
Virtual Exhibitions of Bibliothèque nationale de France. URL:
http://expositions.bnf.fr/usindex.htm
Virtual Library museums pages. URL: http://icom.museum/vlmp/
70

APORTACIONES DE LAS NUEVAS TECNOLOGÍAS AL NUEVO
CONCEPTO DE MUSEO
HERNÁNDEZ Francisca Hernández, Universidad Complutense de Madrid -
Madrid, España.
___________________________________________________________________
RESUMEN
Aportaciones de las nuevas tecnologías al nuevo concepto de museo
En el mundo moderno se observan dos tendencias destinadas a coexistir. Por un
lado, existe una fuerte inclinación a proteger la propia identidad y las características que
ésta encierra. Por el otro, los medios masivos nos presionan hacia una clara uniformidad
que destruye las identidades culturales personales. Enfrentando esta realidad, los museos y
la museología se encaminan hacia la apertura de nuevos espacios donde las ideas, las
experiencias y los métodos de trabajo puedan subrayar cuáles son nuestros miedos,
nuestras dudas, nuestros anhelos y deseos, cara a cara con las nuevas tecnologías
emergentes. Por lo tanto, exponer las realidades que los museos y la museología tienen
que enfrentar nos ayudará a comprender mejor la forma en que las sociedades construyen
su discurso, se enfrentan a la realidad y contestan sus cuestionamientos.
Por otra parte, los museólogos todavía se preguntan hasta qué punto las nuevas
tecnologías deben influir en la vida y en la dinámica de los museos. Es evidente que los
museos se irán organizando cada vez más con la utilización de redes de computación.
Atravesarán una metamorfosis que los hará más accesibles a los ciudadanos del mundo,
sin necesidad de que los visiten físicamente. El concepto ‘museo’ tendrá que ser redefinido,
ya que no podrá aplicarse más a una localización donde los objetos son almacenados y
conservados. Su rol ya no será el de almacenar colecciones de objetos, sino más bien
colecciones de conocimientos de diferente tipo que serán difundidas universalmente.
¿Significa esto que ha llegado el fin de los museos tradicionales? ¿Estamos distorsionando
el concepto clásico de ‘museo’ sin saber hacia dónde nos dirigimos? A fin de responder
estas preguntas debemos alegar que el concepto de museo no es fijo ni incapaz de
evolucionar. Todo lo contrario, creemos que el futuro de los museos puede encontrarse en
su habilidad para adaptarse a la realidad del mundo moderno. De este modo es posible
comprender las emergencias de un nuevo tipo de museo virtual o museo on line.
Sin embargo, ¿cuál es el papel del nuevo museo virtual? Principalmente, un rol
educativo que debe ayudar a difundir la idea de preservar la herencia cultural. En una visita
virtual, los visitantes pueden encontrar reproducciones de las piezas originales, como así
también reconstrucciones virtuales de cosas que no existen en la realidad. Esto es un signo
de que las ideas sobre lo no existentes, pueden materializarse y volverse casi tangibles en
un museo virtual, en el cual también contemplamos obras de arte sin ningún tipo de barrera
física. Debemos asumir los desafíos que presenta este mundo moderno y encarar el futuro
de los museos con entusiasmo e imaginación. Sólo así seremos capaces de humanizar la
cultura haciéndola universal sin excluir las características individuales de la identidad de
cada comunidad.
Palabras clave : Nuevo concepto de “museo”, nuevas tecnologías, globalización,
universalidad, identidad, memoria cultural, museo virtual.
71

ABSTRACT
New technologies contributions to the new concept of museums
In the modern world, there are two trends, which are bound to co-exist. On the one
hand, there is a strong tendency to protect one's identity and the cultural characteristics that
it embodies. On the other hand, mass media push us towards a clear uniformity, which
destroys cultural personal identities. Facing this reality, museums and museology are bound
to open new spaces where ideas, experiences and working methods that could underscore
which are our fears, doubts, longings and wishes vis-a-vis the new emerging media
technology can be expressed. Therefore, by exposing the realities that museums and
museology have to face, this will help us better understand the way that societies construct
their discourse, they way they face reality and answer their questions.
On the other hand, museologists are still wondering about to what extent these new
technologies must influence on the life and dynamics of museums. It is evident that
museums will more and more organize themselves by using computer networks. They will
undergo a metamorphose that will render them more and more accessible to the world
citizens without the need of physically visiting them. The concept of "museum" will have to
be re-defined since it will no longer apply to a location where objects are stored and curated.
The role of museums will no longer be storing collections of objects as much as collections
of different types of knowledge which will be universally disseminated. Does this means that
the end of traditional museums has arrived? Are we distorting the classical concept of
'museum' without knowing where we are going? In order to answer these questions, we
have to claim that the concept of "museum" is not fixed and unable to evolve. On the
contrary, we believe that the future of museums can be found in their ability of adapting to
the reality of the modern world. Thus, the emergence of a new type of virtual or "online"
museum can be understood.
However, which is the role of the new virtual "museum"? Chiefly, an educational role,
which should help spread the idea of preserving cultural heritage. In a virtual tour, visitors
can find reproductions of original pieces, as well as virtual reconstructions of things that do
not exist in reality. This is a sign that irreal non-existent ideas can materialize and become
tangible in a virtual museum, where we also look at art pieces without any physical barrier.
We must, therefore, assume the challenges that this modern world presents and face the
future of museums with enthusiasm and imagination. Only thus will we be able to 'humanize"
culture by making it universal, and without excluding the individual identity features of each
community.
Key-words : New 'museum" concept, new technologies, globalization, universality, identity,
cultural memory, vitual museum
RÉSUMÉ
Les apports des nouvelles technologies au nouveau concept de musée
On observe dans le monde moderne deux tendances destinées à coexister. D’un
côté, il y a une forte inclination à protéger la propre identité et les caractéristiques qu’elle
renferme. De l’autre côté, les médias nous poussent vers une claire uniformité qui détruit les
identités culturelles personnelles. Pour faire face à cette réalité, les musées et la muséologie
s’acheminent vers l’ouverture des espaces nouveaux où les idées, les expériences et les
méthodes de travail puissent souligner nos peurs, nos doutes, nos souhaits et nos désirs
face aux nouvelles technologies émergentes. Il faut donc exposer les réalités que les
musées et la muséologie doivent envisager pour qu’elles puissent nous aider à mieux
comprendre la façon selon laquelle les sociétés construisent leur discours, font face à la
réalité et répondent à leurs questions.
72

D’ailleurs, les muséologues se demandent encore jusqu’à quel point ces nouvelles
technologies doivent avoir influence sur la vie et sur la dynamique des musées. Il est évident
que les musées feront leur organisation chaque fois plus souvent à l’aide de réseaux
d’informatique. Ils subiront une métamorphose qui les rendra chaque fois plus accessibles
aux citoyens du monde, sans qu’ils aient besoin de les visiter physiquement. Le concept
musée devra être redéfini étant donné qu’il ne pourra plus être appliqué à une localisation
où les objets sont emmagasinés et conservés. Le rôle des musées ne sera plus celui
d’emmagasiner des collections d’objets, mais plutôt des collections de différents types de
connaissances qui seront répandues universellement. Est-ce que ça veut dire que la fin des
musées traditionnels est arrivée? Déformons-nous le concept classique de musée sans
savoir vers où nous nous dirigeons? Afin de répondre à ces questions nous devons affirmer
que le concept de musée n’est ni fixe ni incapable d’évoluer. Tout au contraire, nous
croyons que l’avenir des musées peut se trouver dans leur habilité pour s’adapter à la réalité
du monde moderne. C’est ainsi qu’on peut comprendre l’apparition d’un nouveau type de
musée virtuel ou musée online.
Cependant, quel est le rôle du nouveau musée virtuel? Principalement, un rôle
éducatif qui doit aider à répandre l’idée de préserver l’héritage culturel. Lors d’une visite
virtuelle, les visiteurs peuvent trouver des reproductions de pièces originales, de même que
des reconstructions virtuelles de choses qui n’existent pas dans la réalité. Cela est un signe
qui montre que les idées sur ce qui n’existe pas, peuvent se matérialiser et devenir presque
tangibles en un musée virtuel dans lequel nous pouvons contempler aussi des chefs
d’œuvre sans aucune barrière physique. Nous devons accepter les défis que le monde
moderne nous pose et envisager l’avenir des musées avec de l’enthousiasme et de
l’imagination. Seulement ainsi, nous serons capables d’humaniser la culture en la faisant
devenir universelle sans exclure les caractéristiques individuelles de l’identité de chaque
communauté.
Mots clés: Nouveau concept de musée, nouvelles technologies, globalisation, universalité,
identité, mémoire culturelle, musée virtuel.
* * *
1. Globalización, universalidad e identidad de la memoria cultural.
Nos encontramos inmersos en un mundo globalizado donde intercambiamos toda
clase de bienes y de servicios que hacen sentirnos dentro de un extraordinario mercado
cultural mundial. En él tenemos la posibilidad de adquirir nuevos conocimientos e ideas que
se van incrementando a medida que nos sumergimos en el mundo virtual y descubrimos
que estamos ante un fenómeno de diversidad cultural que se pone de manifiesto en la
pluralidad de identidades. Nunca como hoy hemos estado dominados por un mundo
globalizado y, al mismo tiempo, hemos sentido con mayor fuerza el deseo de conservar
nuestra propia identidad cultural.
Adentrarnos en el misterio del ser humano es descubrir que, a la vez, es único y
diverso y que en él se dan tanto la unidad como la diversidad. Por eso, la museología y los
museos han de estar atentos a la diversidad cultural que se pone de manifiesto en cualquier
sociedad humana. No se dan sociedades humanas sin una cultura propia, individual y
específica, a pesar de que nos movamos todos dentro del marco de la globalidad y
universalidad del ser humano.
Podemos afirmar que la globalización nos abre a un proceso polisémico que, por
una parte, nos evidencia que los conceptos de cultura y de la propia identidad van unidos a
los derechos humanos que se traducen en las ideas de tolerancia, respeto, equidad e
73

igualdad y, por otra, los medios de comunicación de masas nos llevan a asumir la tendencia
a la uniformidad que conlleva implícita la destrucción de las identidades culturales
individuales. Eso significa que nuestra sociedad ha de hacer frente a las realidades globales
nacionales y locales, asumiendo un compromiso con la pluralidad que se da en la relación
del ser humano con la cultura y la naturaleza y que se traduce en las diferentes
manifestaciones del patrimonio tangible e intangible, material e inmaterial. Constatamos, por
tanto, que hoy estamos asistiendo a un enfrentamiento entre globalización e identidad que
está modificando de algún modo nuestra forma de concebir el mundo y las relaciones entre
las personas.
Los museos han de estar dispuestos a abrir nuevos espacios donde puedan
compartirse ideas, experiencias y métodos de trabajo que nos permitan explicitar cuáles son
nuestros deseos y aspiraciones, nuestras dudas y nuestros temores ante la nueva realidad
que nos presentan las nuevas tecnologías de la información y de la comunicación. Es
evidente que hoy hemos avanzado mucho en la gestión y difusión de los contendidos de los
museos, pero es preciso seguir progresando en el establecimiento de nuevas dinámicas de
trabajo interdisciplinar. En las sociedades multiculturales se da una progresiva organización
en redes que puede contribuir a la difusión y consolidación de un nuevo concepto de museo
más abierto, más amplio y más plural y, al mismo tiempo, facilitará la reafirmación de una
nueva cultura museística capaz de dar sentido a las diferentes singularidades e identidades
locales y nacionales.
De este modo, la globalidad, la sociedad de la información y el resurgimiento de la
propia identidad están contribuyendo a que la persona realice un ejercicio de introspección
en un intento de recuperar su memoria histórica como forma de sentirse más cercanos al
tiempo y al espacio que les ha tocado vivir y que les hace sentirse seguros de su propia
identidad, evitando caer en una dinámica tan amplia y tan global que le impide manifestarse
tal como es. Por eso, habrá que ponerse a la tarea de construir una memoria que sea, al
mismo tiempo, global y heterogénea, capaz de asumir la pluralidad cultural y evitando por
todos los medios sucumbir a una homogeneización de las culturas, en un intento de emular
los procesos de homogeneización económica que se están dando en el mundo actual.
Ante esta situación, hemos de preguntarnos si la museología puede jugar o no un
papel importante a la hora de reflejar tensiones y conflictos que vive nuestra sociedad, si
puede o no ser un espacio de diálogo donde se respete y reconozca la diferencia y la
diversidad, en un intento de solucionar dichos conflictos sociales. Ante un mundo
globalizado, la museología está llamada a proteger y conservar los rasgos esenciales de las
diferentes comunidades que representan su identidad cultural.
No obstante, hemos de destacar que la globalización ha tenido diversas
consecuencias para dichas comunidades, puesto que algunas identidades locales se han
fortalecido, mientras que otras se han ido desintegrando y un tercer grupo ha contribuido a
la formación de unas identidades nacionales que se van debilitando poco a poco. En
general, podemos decir que existe una confrontación entre identidades locales y
globalización, en un intento de construir nuevas identidades locales y globales. Desde
nuestro punto de vista, las diferentes comunidades deben afirmar su identidad local
recuperando todos sus registros tangibles e intangibles con el objeto de conservar su
memoria y la conciencia colectiva como un patrimonio vivo que han de transmitir. Todo este
vivo y variado patrimonio está adquiriendo una dimensión económica debido a la presencia
del turismo cultural, que es necesario potenciar y dinamizar, porque la museología tiene un
compromiso respecto al patrimonio que ha de convertirse en fuente de desarrollo y de
progreso para las comunidades locales.
Es necesario, por tanto, repensar la museología y los museos desde una dimensión
fenoménica, siendo conscientes de que existen diferentes formas de presentar la realidad
74

museal según se opte por uno u otro sistema de pensamiento propio de la sociedad en la
que nos movemos. El museo es una realidad plural que pretende dar respuesta a las
diferentes manifestaciones del individuo y de las sociedades. No es extraño que la identidad
del museo sea múltiple y se adapte a las coordenadas del espacio y del tiempo, al ser
considerado no tanto como un producto cultural cuanto como un proceso en continuo
cambio que es capaz, al mismo tiempo, de representarse a sí mismo y a la realidad que lo
circunda.
Por eso, descubrir las diferentes realidades con las que ha de trabajar la museología
y los museos nos servirá para conocer mejor la manera en que determinadas sociedades
construyen su propio discurso y se sitúan ante el mundo que tienen delante de sí y que han
de interpretar para ser capaces de responder a sus interrogantes. De ahí ha de surgir un
nuevo estilo de vida más pluralista, donde ya no cabe reivindicar la supresión de una cultura
sobre otra, sino que entre todas se apuesta por la creación de una nueva identidad capaz
de incluir a todos sin excepción alguna.
2. Las Nuevas Tecnologías de la Información y Comunicación y el cambio del
concepto de museo
Ante el nuevo contexto del resurgimiento y desarrollo de las tecnologías de la
información y la comunicación, los museólogos no dejan de preguntarse en qué medida
éstas han de influir en la vida y en la dinámica de los museos. Está claro que los museos,
cada vez más, van a intentar organizarse sirviéndose de las redes informáticas y van a
experimentar un gran desarrollo virtual que les va a hacer más asequibles a cualquier
ciudadano del mundo sin que, necesariamente, tenga que acudir físicamente a los lugares
donde se encuentran ubicados. Eso significará que los organizadores de los museos, al
programar los servicios de comunicación e interpretación museológica, ya no estarán
ubicados en un único lugar o edifico, como tradicionalmente ha venido sucediendo, sino que
estarán diseminados por todos los espacios virtuales. Y esto no será así sólo por seguir
unas estrategias territoriales o de gestión, sino por un nuevo concepto de museo y de
cultura museal.
En efecto, hoy más que nunca, es necesario redefinir el concepto de museo porque
ya no nos basta con considerarlo como un lugar donde se clasifican y depositan los objetos.
La función del museo ya no consistirá tanto en formar colecciones de objetos cuanto en
elaborar colecciones de conocimientos que sirvan para ser transmitidos universalmente. Si
durante mucho tiempo los museos tradicionales han tratado de servir a sus propias
comunidades locales desde los espacios concretos en los que se encontraban, hoy están
llamados a convertirse en procesos dinámicos que pondrán de manifiesto los flujos y las
experiencias de todas aquellas personas que se encuentren conectadas a la red. Todos
sabemos que una de las funciones principales de los museos ha sido la de administrar sus
colecciones, pero hoy vemos que su tarea primordial ha de ser la de gestionar la
información que proporcionan los objetos y que nos clarifican cómo fueron la vida, las
costumbres y el pensamiento de quienes los fabricaron. Solo así, sirviéndose de una nueva
articulación y proyección virtual de los museos, será posible que el conocimiento del pasado
pueda ser transmitido de manera dinámica, accesible y actualizada para las personas que
viven en el presente.
Pero ante este contexto de transformación virtual y de comunicación en red, muchos
se preguntarán si no estaremos contribuyendo a la desaparición definitiva del museo. Si los
museos virtuales tienen la capacidad de aportarnos una gran cantidad de información sobre
sus contenidos, sin necesidad de tener que visitarlos físicamente, ¿no estaremos
contribuyendo de manera indirecta a que el público deje de visitar los museos?, ¿perderán
su razón de ser los museos nacionales y locales frente al fenómeno global de la nueva
cultura museal que tiende a la generalización universal?, ¿hemos de dejar los parámetros
75

que durante mucho tiempo hemos utilizado a la hora de ordenar y presentar los discursos
museográficos o tendremos que buscar otros nuevos?, ¿perderá todo su valor la
concepción cronológico-lineal del museo tradicional frente a los archivos digitales que, con
su exhaustiva información de textos e imágenes, nos permiten programar nuestra visita al
museo de forma personalizada? En definitiva, ¿no estaremos desvirtuando el concepto
tradicional de museo sin tener claro con anterioridad hacia dónde nos dirigimos dentro del
campo museal?
Tratando de responder a estas preguntas, hemos de aceptar que el concepto de
museo no es algo inamovible, fijo e incapaz de evolucionar. Por el contrario, el museo es
una realidad viva, dinámica, abierta y con capacidad creativa. Somos conscientes de que la
idea de museo ha ido evolucionando a lo largo del tiempo y, en consecuencia, no debemos
pensar que está cerrada para siempre. Al contrario, opinamos que el futuro del museo se
encuentra en su capacidad de adaptación a las nuevas realidades del mundo actual. Eso
significa que el museo no puede vivir de espaldas al influjo que Internet y las nuevas
tecnologías están ejerciendo en nuestra sociedad. De ahí que podamos afirmar que está
surgiendo un nuevo concepto de museo: el museo virtual o museo on-line. A través de él,
se pone a disposición de todos los públicos posibles, sin ningún tipo de limitación temporal
o geográfica, unos determinados contenidos materializados en imágenes digitalizadas y en
explicaciones teóricas sobre los mismos, sirviéndose de un entorno gráfico que resulta muy
atractivo y que, al mismo tiempo, permite una navegación cómoda y fácil sirviéndose de los
diferentes hipervínculos que nos llevan de un museo a otro sin movernos de casa. De este
modo, podemos asegurar los contenidos incluidos en la red, al tiempo que nos permite
renovarlos periódicamente y modificar su diseño.
En segundo lugar, hemos de advertir que las características de los museos reales y
virtuales son diferentes y debemos exigirles que nos proporcionen experiencias distintas.
Ha de quedar fuera de toda duda que el contacto directo con los objetos o colecciones de
un museo real es una experiencia radicalmente diferente por su valor vivencial y existencial.
En el museo real no sólo contemplamos las obras expuestas o experimentamos
determinadas leyes físicas o sensoriales, sino que nos adentramos en un ámbito donde
podemos observar el entorno, analizar el contexto, variar el recorrido de la visita, criticar la
museografía utilizada o simplemente detenernos a contemplar extasiados un cuadro que
nos ha llamado especialmente la atención. Se trata de vivir el museo, de humanizarlo y de
sentirlo como una realidad que está ahí y nos interpela, nos cuestiona y nos invita a salir de
nosotros mismos para tener una experiencia estética que nos ayude a repensar el futuro
con creatividad e imaginación. Esto es importante no olvidarlo porque el ser humano ha de
tratar de vivir la vida pensándola, asumiéndola y transformándola desde la realidad concreta
que le toca vivir, siendo consciente de que una cosa es la vida real y otra, muy diferente, la
realidad virtual. He ahí la función humanizadora e integradora del museo real que hemos de
tener siempre presente.
Pero también es verdad que los museos virtuales han tratado de ofrecer al visitante
internauta una experiencia virtual irrepetible e inimaginada apenas hace unos años. Entre
los museos virtuales hemos de distinguir, al menos, dos tipos diferentes. Por una parte, se
encuentran los museos virtuales que poseen un interfaz presencial, es decir, que cuentan
con un edificio arquitectónico construido en un determinado lugar. Corresponden a los
museos reales y en ellos el visitante va seleccionando y pasando páginas para visualizar
diferentes imágenes relacionadas con alguno de los temas expuestos en los museos reales.
Al visitante se le ofrece una base de datos bastante amplia en la que puede encontrar
descripciones de las piezas, el mapa de las diferentes salas, los horarios y actividades
propias del museo. Digamos que se trata de un trasvase del museo real a una web que
Internet nos ofrece para poder acceder a él y que nos presenta y nos transmite la
información de forma lineal y sin que sea necesario interactuar demasiado mental y
emocionalmente.
76

Otros museos virtuales tratan de reproducir de forma mimética la misma vida del
mundo cotidiano, intentando eliminar los límites físicos del mundo real que no existen en el
virtual. Son los museos creados en el ciberespacio que tratan de desarrollar aquellos
aspectos que se aproximan más al observador del objeto de estudio y de los contenidos
informativos sobre determinados temas. Para ello, se crean puertas virtuales que nos
permiten entrar en un museo virtual que es el reflejo exacto de lo que sucede en la realidad,
el marco de referencia del sujeto, al igual que sucede con la pintura figurativa. Podemos
darles el significado que queramos y priorizar dicho significado frente al significante como
hacía el funcionalismo.
No obstante, el museo virtual no debe convertirse en una mera exposición que trata
de atraer a los visitantes a las instalaciones físicas o de potenciar las ventas on-line, sino
que su objetivo fundamental ha de ser el de dar a conocer las grandes obras de arte a un
público cada vez más amplio y plural. Además, desde el punto de vista didáctico, será
posible iniciar a los jóvenes alumnos en el conocimiento de las diversas escuelas, períodos
y estilos, mostrándoles sus fondos y explicándoles sus características. Y todo ello desde el
aula, sin tener que trasladarse al museo. Evidentemente, esta será una primera fase de
contacto con la realidad museal a través de la red informática, que servirá de preparación
para, llegado el momento adecuado, poder acercarse a las obras y ser capaces de entablar
un contacto directo con ellas, ya sin intermediarios innecesarios.
Por otra parte, hemos de destacar que, mientras que para mantener un museo real
es preciso contar con grandes inversiones para costear las infraestructuras, el personal
especializado y la adquisición de fondos, un museo virtual tan sólo necesita disponer de un
espacio en un servidor web, un pequeño equipo informático encargado del diseño y
mantenimiento del sitio y otro que se encargue de los contenidos. Por supuesto, existe el
problema de la adquisición de imágenes que deberán ser adquiridas respetando los
derechos de propiedad de las instituciones que las custodian. En todo caso, estos museos
virtuales, creados sin interfaz de los museos tradicionales, favorecen la creación e
información de diferentes historias relacionadas con los protagonistas, con los objetos
artísticos o con los debates que sobre ellos se realizan, al tiempo que rompen las barreras
del tiempo y del espacio, sin que tengamos que preocuparnos por los horarios de visita, la
necesidad de guardar silencio o de cumplir unas determinadas directrices que nos vienen
impuestas desde fuera. El visitante entra en el museo sin salir de su espacio geográfico y lo
visita siendo consciente de que posee un referencial común en un espacio sin límites ni
barreras: el ciberespacio.
Estos museos virtuales, creados digitalmente, poseen un funcionamiento en el
ciberespacio y no necesitan de una “arquitectura presencial” en la que existan salas,
recorridos, techos o paredes. Podemos afirmar que son pura creación que se revela y
desarrolla en el ciberespacio. El observador deja de ser sujeto pasivo y se implica en la
consecución de unos objetivos en los que cuenta clarificar la memoria colectiva, apuntando
hacia un nuevo museo que responda a las exigencias y a los sueños de la comunidad
universal. Para ello, habrá que estar atentos para recibir de forma abierta, dinámica y crítica
todas aquellas aportaciones del arte y sus creadores, siendo conscientes de que el público
se convierte en co-autor y partícipe en la dinámica creativa, mediante la utilización de las
diferentes redes de arte virtual que atraen su atención y le impelen a participar activamente.
Inmersos en la democracia de la tecnología, los conservadores de museos del siglo
XXI no deben obviar la importancia de incorporar al público en la elaboración del nuevo
concepto de museo global y en sus actividades comunitarias. No es tiempo de
conservadurismos institucionales, sino de abrirse a un diálogo sincero y cordial con las
nuevas tecnologías de la comunicación porque, querámoslo o no, los museos han de dirigir
su mirada hacia una web semántica donde las nuevas tecnologías tienen mucho que
77

aportarnos. El museo virtual está llamado a describir la historia del arte, de sus creadores y
del público que lo contempla, pero también ha de conservar, estudiar y difundir el arte virtual
que surja de su propia actividad cibernética. Las posibilidades del museo virtual son
impredecibles y se escapan a nuestra imaginación, pero lo que es seguro es que aquél está
llamado a realizar lo que ningún otro museo será capaz de conseguir jamás: la
universalidad de su exposición.
3. El nuevo museo, llamado a interpretar la realidad desde el simbolismo del espacio
virtual.
A medida que nos adentramos en el nuevo concepto de museo, descubrimos que un
aire fresco va invadiendo el campo museal y nos lleva a pensar que, ante la continua
repetición de los mismos esquemas que nos encontramos en la vida real, surge un deseo
de revitalización de los museos donde éstos dejen de ser “muertos vivientes” para
convertirse en espacios vivos, capaces de asumir la realidad con todas sus consecuencias.
Los museos no está muertos, como tampoco lo está el arte y la poesía, pero necesitan un
espacio de libertad donde puedan expresar la vida que late dentro de ellos. Para ello,
necesitan que desaparezcan las actitudes despóticas y poco democráticas que, en
ocasiones, entorpecen en su interior la libertad de acción y dificultan la actividad creativa de
los artistas y del público. De hecho, los artistas van, poco a poco, despojándose de los
modelos existentes y tratan de crear entornos virtuales que les posibiliten alumbrar un
nuevo arte más abierto, más libre y más dinámico. De tal manera que podríamos
preguntarnos si podemos distinguir con facilidad qué es el arte cuando nos estamos
refiriendo al mundo virtual. Es indudable que el mismo concepto de arte se comienza a
cuestionar porque ya no sabemos si se refiere a las obras expuestas o a la recreación que
de ellas se hace. Y, por otra parte, se nos plantea el dilema de saber quién es el que las
contempla, si la persona que entra en el museo virtual y simbólico o una recreación de la
misma.
El ser humano es capaz de visualizar en la mente realidades inexistentes e, incluso,
distinguir sus diferentes comportamientos aún antes de que se hagan realidad. Nuestra
mente es capaz de diseñar formas y mecanismos que nos permiten saber con antelación
cómo se van a comportar cuando se materialicen en un determinado objeto. Eso significa
que, cuando nos adentramos en el museo virtual, estamos siguiendo el mismo esquema y
aceptamos acercarnos al mundo intangible e inmaterial, conscientes de que es otra forma
de ver la realidad. No se trata de trasvasar el mundo real al mundo virtual, sino de
adentrarse en un mundo diferente que nos permite caminar juntos en la visita al museo
virtual, al tiempo que nos enriquecemos mutuamente mientras navegamos al unísono en la
red.
Si algo quiso enseñarnos Malraux con su museo imaginario era que existen otras
muchas alternativas al museo tradicional y que, por tanto, el museo en sentido amplio ha de
concebirse como un proceso dinámico, abierto y creativo que tiene lugar más allá de un
tiempo y un espacio claramente diferenciados y bajo múltiples formas de expresión. El
museo es por naturaleza plural y posee una gran capacidad creativa que le permite abrirse
a cualquier realidad que rodee al ser humano y, al mismo tiempo, le capacita para
transformar el significado de los objetos y obras de arte con los que se encuentra y
relaciona. Y es precisamente el nacimiento del mundo virtual quien ha puesto de relieve
que, al igual que en el museo imaginario, la fotografía, el cine y el video eran instrumentos
que contribuían a la difusión de las obras de arte, también en el museo virtual, a través de
las imágenes digitales, acerca las obras al internauta y las hace presentes en cualquier
lugar del mundo de forma individualizada y sin tener que moverse de la propia casa.
Todo es posible gracias al espacio virtual que no necesita de la materialidad de los
objetos para hacerlos presentes, sino que los imagina y recrea manipulando el ordenador.
78

De este modo, podemos llegar, incluso, a representarnos un museo sin objetos materiales
porque es la misma virtualidad la que los reconstruye y les da vida en la imagen que los
ilustra, representa, interpreta y expone en la pantalla. Adquieren movimiento y vida propia
no sólo los objetos, sino también el mismo museo considerado como continente, y el
espectador se convierte al mismo tiempo en creador de sus propias representaciones
mentales, capaz de generar nuevas imágenes tratando de desafiar a la propia realidad
espacio-temporal, adentrándose en el mundo de lo imaginario e intangible en un intento de
alcanzar la inmortalidad y la esencia misma de las cosas.
Pero, ¿qué función están llamados a desempeñar tanto el museo imaginario como el
museo virtual? Una función eminentemente educativa y concienciadora de la necesidad de
conservar el patrimonio cultural. El visitante virtual es invitado a entrar dentro de un espacio
simulado en el que se le exponen los diferentes itinerarios que puede recorrer haciendo clic
en un simple ratón de ordenador. En la visita se pueden encontrar tanto reproducciones de
obras originales como reconstrucciones digitales que, en muchos casos, no existen en la
realidad al igual que no existen los paneles donde las vemos expuestas. Es la señal de que
lo irreal e inexistente puede tomar cuerpo y materializarse en la ficción digital del museo
virtual, donde se nos permite aprender a mirar las obras de arte sin ninguna clase de
barreras físicas.
Una vez más, hemos de insistir en que los museos virtuales no están para suplir al
museo real, sino para enseñar a mirar las obras de otra manera, para sensibilizar al
visitante, para educarle y motivarle de cara a que aprenda a valorar el patrimonio cultural y,
por supuesto, a ser imaginativo creando su propia idea de museo. Sería interesante hacer
un estudio sobre la frecuencia de las visitas que el público hace a unos y otros museos para
poder comparar las incidencias más significativas que pueden darse, tanto en el ámbito de
las colecciones como en el de las tiendas y compras que los internautas hacen de los
objetos del museo a través de la red. De hecho, en el Museo de Arte Thyssen Bornemisza
de Madrid se han realizado cinco millones de visitas virtuales y sólo un millón de visitas
reales. Eso significa que estamos ante una nueva forma de acercarnos y experimentar el
museo. Éste se universaliza y su contenido puede difundirse por cualquier lugar del mundo.
El objeto pierde su dimensión sagrada y simbólica y se convierte en una realidad virtual que
podemos contemplar, manejar y manipular desde nuestro ordenador. Una nueva forma de
entender la museología y los museos está siendo alumbrada y no podemos mirar para otro
lado añorando un pasado que, sin duda, fue glorioso, pero que ya no existe y,
posiblemente, no vuelva a repetirse jamás.
Nos toca, por tanto, asumir los nuevos retos que el mundo actual nos presenta y
estar dispuestos a afrontar el futuro con entusiasmo y generosidad. Ello conllevará ciertos
riesgos, pero estamos seguros de que, si sabemos responder con creatividad estando
atentos a los deseos de la sociedad de nuestro tiempo, tanto la museología como los
museos se verán enriquecidos y valorados por el aprecio y la consideración de un público
cada vez más amplio y más plural que lo fue en tiempos pasados. La democratización de la
cultura y la posibilidad de acceder al conocimiento de las obras de arte es un logro del que
debemos enorgullecernos porque el principal objetivo de la museología no es otro que el de
acercar los museos y sus obras al público que quiera contemplarlo. Si las nuevas
tecnologías de la comunicación e información nos sirven como herramientas para conseguir
dicho propósito, no vemos por qué hemos de tener cierto miedo a asumirlas e integrarlas
dentro de los museos. Lo importante es que todo ello nos sirva para humanizar un poco
más nuestro mundo y para descubrir que todas las manifestaciones de la cultura, por muy
diversas que sean, nos enriquecen y nos ayudan a comprender a los demás. Tal vez sea
ese el verdadero simbolismo que hemos de descifrar cuando nos adentramos en el mundo
virtual: que el ser humano, por encima de las diferencias, está llamado a ser protagonista de
su propia existencia desde la libertad, el compromiso y la solidaridad.
79

MUSEUM AND MUSEOLOGY: CHANGING ROLES – OR CHANGING
PARADIGMS ?
Prof. Dr. SCHEINER Tereza, Postgraduate Program in Museology and Heritage,
UNIRIO/MAST – Rio-de-Janeiro, Brazil
ABSTRACT
Museology is today perceived in process, and as constituted in the interfaces
between the existent fields of knowledge and social practices. It gains force and significance
through the study of the Museum, as social phenomenon and cultural representation. Some
of these concepts have not been properly developed by museum theory : despite the efforts
and production of some theorists, there remains a difficulty in apprehending the Museum
beyond its institutionalized form, and the object as intangible reference. The source of such
difficulty is the inappropriate relationship made between the paradigms of Modernity and the
new ideas about Museum and museology, which can only be explained and understood
within the framework of contemporary thought. The answer to this dilemma remains in the
capacity of assuming that contemporary knowledge is the epistemic foundation of
Museology. To better address these challenges, Museology must try to consolidate itself as
a scientific discipline, reinforcing its methods, re-defining its goals and opening to plural
interfaces with other fields of knowledge. Some issues must be urgently addressed : 1) The
place of Museology in contemporary knowledge ; 2) The relationship between Museology
and Communication Theory ; and 3) The role of Museology as a vehicle for intercultural
dialogue.
Keywords : Museum; Museology ; Communication ; Trans-disciplinary approach ;
Intercultural dialogue.
RÉSUMÉ
Musée et muséologie : changements de rôles ou changements de paradigmes ?
La muséologie est comprise aujourd’hui comme un domaine en constitution,
construit en interface entre les champs disciplinaires existants et les pratiques sociales. Ce
domaine gagne force et signification à travers les études sur le Musée, comme phénomène
social et représentation culturelle. Certains de ces concepts n’on pas été encore bien
développés par la théorie muséologique : même avec les efforts et la production de certains
théoriciens, il reste encore difficile d’appréhender le Musée au delà de sa forme
institutionnalisée, et l’objet comme référent immatériel. Cette difficulté se base dans la
relation impropre qui se fait entre les paradigmes de la modernité et les nouvelles idées sur
le Musée et la muséologie, qui ne peuvent être comprises que dans le cadre de la pensée
contemporaine. La réponse à un tel dilemme réside dans la capacité à assumer que la
pensée contemporaine est la vraie base épistémique de la muséologie. Pour mieux aborder
la question, on doit essayer de consolider la muséologie comme discipline scientifique, en
renforçant ses méthodes, en redéfinissant ses objectifs et en ouvrant des interfaces pluriels
vers d’autres champs de la connaissance. Quelques questions doivent être rapidement
approchées : 1) la place de la muséologie dans la pensée contemporaine ; 2) la relation
entre la muséologie et la théorie de la communication ; 3) le rôle de la muséologie comme
véhicule du dialogue interculturel.
81

Mots-clés : Musée. Muséologie. Communication. Approche transdisciplinaire. Dialogue
interculturel.
RESUMEN
Museos y museologia : ¿roles cambiantes o paradigmas cambiantes?
La museología es percibida hoy como un proceso constituido por las interfaces entre
los campos del conocimiento y las prácticas sociales existentes. Cobra fuerza e importancia
mediante el estudio del museo, tomado como fenómeno social y representación cultural.
Algunos de estos conceptos no han sido debidamente desarrollados por la teoría de la
museología. A pesar de los esfuerzos y la producción de algunos teóricos, aún permanece
la dificultad de aprehender al museo más allá de su forma institucionalizada y del objeto
como referencia intangible. La fuente de tal dificultad es la relación inapropiada existente
entre los paradigmas de la modernidad y las nuevas ideas sobre el museo y la museología,
las cuales sólo pueden ser explicadas y comprendidas dentro del marco del pensamiento
contemporáneo. La respuesta a este dilema reside en la capacidad de asumir que el
conocimiento actual es el fundamento epistemológico de la museología. Para abordar mejor
estos desafíos, debe tratar de consolidarse como disciplina científica, reforzando sus
métodos, redefiniendo sus metas y abriéndose a interfaces plurales con otros campos del
conocimiento. Algunas cuestiones deben tratarse con urgencia: 1) el lugar de la museología
dentro del conocimiento contemporáneo; 2) la relación entre la museología y la teoría de la
comunicación y 3) el papel de la museología como vehículo para el diálogo intercultural.
Palabras clave: museo, museología, comunicación, aproximación transdisciplinaria, diálogo
intercultural.
* * *
Museology is today accepted as being founded in three central issues: the social
relevance of cultural heritage and the necessity of acceptance of difference; the enlargement
and diffusion of the concept of heritage; and the importance of the concepts of museum and
heritage to the information society. Always in movement, perceived in process, museology
constitutes itself in the interfaces between the existent fields of knowledge and social
practices – and gains force and significance through the study of the museum, as social
phenomenon and cultural representation.
Nevertheless, some of these concepts have not been properly developed by
museum theory : despite the efforts and production of some theorists, there remains a
difficulty in apprehending the museum beyond its institutionalized form, and the object as
intangible reference. The source of such difficulty is the inappropriate relationship made
between the paradigms of modernity and the new ideas about Museum and museology,
which can only be explained and understood within the framework of contemporary thought.
The answer to this dilemma remains in the capacity of assuming that contemporary
knowledge is the epistemic foundation of museology, a discipline that gains shape and
develops as from the 1960’s.
Assuming museology as a product of contemporary thought implies in assuming that
the concepts of object, museum and heritage are founded in the perception of the
immaterial; and that the perception of material culture with all its representations, so
important to the history of traditional museums and to museum practice, must be re-oriented
to fit this new framework. This is a very difficult movement, considering that we have, behind
us, centuries of epistemic distance between “science and philosophy, human and natural
82

sciences, ethics and politics 81 ”; and that, to align the ideas of Museum and museology to a
concept of knowledge based in the epistemology of complexity, we must review our own
history, our own academic experience – and develop an articulated approach of ‘complex
reality’ that emphasizes the importance of trans-disciplinary approach.
To better address contemporary issues related to social, political and ethic
developments, museology must try to consolidate itself as a scientific discipline, reinforcing
its methods, re-defining its goals and opening to plural interfaces with other fields of
knowledge. Some issues must be urgently addressed :
1) The place of museology in contemporary knowledge
Much has been said about the place of museology in the system of knowledge and
about its characteristics, limits and possibilities either as a science or as a set of practices
concerning museum work. The first articles by the founders of museum theory are now
widely known and have given way to hundreds of academic papers, as well as to many
discussions in the area. Yet much is still to be done, if we want to seriously establish and
consolidate museology as an academic field of study.
First of all, it is imperative to make a deep and complete review of the production
already existent in the field of museum theory – identifying the paradigms and sources of
knowledge that lie behind the works of each one of our theorists; and trying to understand
what ideas and/or situations have motivated such production. Some partial reviews made in
the 80’s, based in the production of ICOFOM papers 82 , have led to interesting perceptions of
the relationships between the fields/areas of origin of authors and ideas developed. But we
must recognize that they did not lead to a systematic and methodological approach of the
production in our field: that is still to be done. We must do research on us – on our own
production. No field of study will ever reach maturity without some kind of acknowledgement
of its own production; and that includes bibliographic and bibliometric analysis and similar
methodologies, which provide better understanding of the frequencies and distribution of use
of terms, ideas and references – as well as of the trends and movements which motivate
citations and the choice of authors for references. Museology may not be only a discipline in
the field of information science (and I strongly believe it is much more than that), but it does
need to organize the information it generates and spreads, according to the international
standards of the ‘organization of knowledge’.
The studies on terms and concepts of museology are a good example of what may –
and must – be done in the field. We all reckon the importance of terminology studies for the
constitution of a ‘museological language’, articulated as from the debates around the terms
‘museology’, ‘museum’ and related ones. The first papers by ICOFOM members, organized
81 ELZRIK, Mariza Faerman. Dialogar com o Mistério do Mundo: a aventura da complexidade em
Edgar Morin. In: Estudos Leopoldenses, Série Educação. UNISINOS, Vol. 1. No. 1 julho/dez. 1997. p.
49-64
82 See papers by SCHEINER, Tereza. Museus e identidades (museums and identities). In: Apolo e
Dioniso no Templo das Musas (Apollo and Dionysus in the Temple of the Muses). Master
Dissertation. RJ: ECO/UFRJ, 1997. p. 117- 122; and VAN MENSCH, Peter. Untitled. In: [ANNUAL
CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR MUSEOLOGY / ICOFOM, 8]; October
1986, Buenos Aires [Argentine]. Symposium Museology and Identity - Colloque La Muséologie et
L’Identité. Comments and views – Commentaires et points de vue. Coord. Vinoš Sofka. Stockholm:
International Committee for Museology / ICOFOM; Museum of National Antiquities, Stockholm,
Sweden. (ICOFOM STUDY SERIES – ISS 11). 1986. Org. and edited by Vinoš Sofka. Reprint and
edited by Martin R. Schärer. Contributors and ICOFOM reprint in charge of Anita Shah. Hyderabad,
India. 1995. Book 3. p. 37-40, English. An organized reference of authors involved in the ICOFOM
production was also done by Martin Schärer in the 90’s, which provided some very interesting data for
posterior studies.
83

y Sofka 83 ; and the recent papers organized by Desvallées and Mairesse 84 are among the
classics in this trend. Yet such studies need to be implemented, especially outside Europe –
and outside the boundaries of the French language. Some research experiences developed
in Latin America illustrate what can be done in this area: the Argroup project, in Argentina,
with studies developed in Spanish; and the Brazilian project “Terms and concepts of
museology” – which has been performing systematic work, in Portuguese, on specific terms
such as museum ; museology ; muse ; heritage (patrimony) ; virtual – have both produced
and published documents that are important for the field of museology, not yet properly
acknowledged by the peers, in and outside the region.
It is also imperative to develop a wide map of theoretical tendencies, that makes
possible to understand the real ‘frameworks of thought’ in our field - much beyond the dozen
articles that have been elected by some peers as ‘representative’, in the past 35 years, thus
remaining iconized as the ‘ultimate sources’ in museological thought. Even considering the
importance of such articles to the development of theoretical museology, much in their
contents is now outdated and needs to be revised; in many cases, they have already been
revised, yet revisions were not properly acknowledged.
Studies in theoretical museology have proven that our field has a strong
philosophical background, as well as very deep roots into the social and political sciences.
Most analytical studies about the interfaces between museology and other fields have
privileged the visions of sociology and anthropology – perhaps due to the fact that both fields
(first anthropology, and then sociology) were in development and consolidation in the 19 th
century – the period widely recognized as ‘the century of museums’. It is not by chance that
ICOFOM was created by an anthropologist and that many of the scholars who contributed to
the development of museum theory come from that field. Sociology, by its turn, has deeply
influenced the development of museums in the second half of the 20 th century, leading to the
concepts of the ‘new museum’ and ‘new museology’.
Some of these ideas remain untouched, as if socio-cultural analysis did not change
itself, and could still be developed without taking into consideration the contemporary
paradigms. Concepts such as ‘ecomuseum’, ‘new museum’ and ‘site museum’ 85 are now
under revision in different countries – but a comparative analysis of such studies must be
urgently made, or we will be repeating each other’s ideas over the next decades. A recent
conference on ecomuseums, realized in Guiyang Province, in China 86 , has unveiled a
vigorous and engaged theoretical production on the subject, by Asian colleagues. 87 Such
ideas must be compared to those in other regions, especially with Latin America, where
there is a considerable literature on the matter.
83
See SOFKA, Vinos (Org.) MUWOP 1 and 2; and ISS 1 to 5; 12; 13.
84
See DESVALLÉES, André. (Org.) Terminologie de la Muséologie. ICOM/ICOFOM. Paris: 1999.
Preprints. 280p. CD ; MAIRESSE, François (Org.). Définir le Musée. Defining the Museum.
Morlanwez, Belgium: Musée Royal de Mariemont, 2005; and MAIRESSE, François; DESVALLÉES,
André. (Dir.) Vers une redéfinition du musée? Avant-propos de Michel Van Praët. Paris : l’Harmattan,
2007. 225 p.
85
In French, musée de terrain, musée de site, or musée de territoire
86
Communication and Exploration. International Ecomuseum Conference. Guiyang, China, June 1-6,
2005.
87
One of the papers presented states: “ecomuseum practice has spread to many countries.
However, the undeniable fact is that the development of the ecomuseum movement in the world is not
as inspiring as the founders and the advocates might have expected. The concept of the ecomuseum
has led to heated arguments and variations in practice. These arguments and difficulties need to be
researched and ecomuseum practice evaluated (…) constructive and critical attitudes to these issues
are essential, because outright support or blind condemnation is not helpful to the development of
ecomuseums. It is important to face up the truth and pursue the possibility of the link between
idealism and reality”. HUANG Chun, Yu. A crucial issue for ecomuseums: the link between idealism
and reality. In: Communication and Exploration. Guiyang, China – 2005. Documenti di Lavoro di
Trentino Cultura. Coord. Editoriale Maria Pia Flaim. Trento: Asessorato della Cultura, 2005. p. 43-45
84

As for the philosophical source, although it has influenced the development of
museum theory from the beginning 88 , it has been seriously investigated only from the 90’s.
Some important papers and books have already been produced and published concerning
these relationships 89 ; but there is still an immense work to be done in this area.
It has long been considered that museology is inter-disciplinary in its origins; yet it
must now be perceived within the framework of trans-disciplinary studies, under which a set
of parameters, approaches and procedures adopted by the different areas of knowledge are
examined, in order to make clear where, when and how they ‘fold’ over each other. Let us
not forget, the trans-disciplinary experience leads “to the reinvention of scientific and
intellectual activities 90 ”, promoting collective intelligence through the cooperation of
specialists from different disciplinary fields. In the last decades, the new technologies and
the information / communication industries have promoted a spectacular outgrow of existing
disciplinary fields – more than 10.000 in the 1990’s and many, many more in the present
days. 91 An over-multiplication of publications and academic papers increased the collections
of archives and libraries everywhere. No one is able to accompany what goes on inside
each discipline or specialty field.
In such context, sharing knowledge became more than a necessity – became a
strategic behavior. From at least three decades already, specialists have been joining efforts
in multidisciplinary projects, summing forces yet keeping their individuality, in the pursuit of a
common ground for action. Museology is one of those fields, and has grown out in the
interfaces between disciplines such as anthropology, sociology, history, art, chemistry,
physics, philosophy and new fields, such as cultural studies, computer sciences and
information sciences. It must now develop towards the growth of collective intelligence,
identifying issues that must be approached and developed in common with other fields,
generating collective knowledge that transcends all those disciplines. As already mentioned
in previous works 92 , trans-disciplinary topics must be addressed and designed as a neuronal
net, an open system without hierarchy and which produces crossed references of all kinds,
in all directions – making possible a fertile and innovative approach of the issues related to
museology and heritage, in the crossroads between art, science and technology.
Trans-disciplinary studies will
reinvent the intellectual, generating a true moral conversion towards
knowledge, founded in the ethics of socially shared responsibility,
and aiming at the promotion of a new humanism (…) the condition is
to search [the new total intellectual] not in the individual, but in the
group or collectivity 93 .
88 See STRANSKY, Z.; GREGOROVA, A. and others. MUWOP 1-2 and ISS 1-10.
89 See DELOCHE, Bernard. Museologica. Contradictions et logique du musée, 2è. Ed. Mâcon :
W/MNES, 1989 ; SCHEINER, Tereza. Museology and the Third Millennium: the philosophy of
change. In: Museology. ICOM / ICOM STUDY SERIES No. 8. Paris: ICOM, 2000; VIEREGG,
Hildegard (org.). Symposium Museology and Philosophy. Colloque Muséologie et Philosophie.
Coloquio Museología y Filosofía. Museologie und Philosophie. [21 Annual Conference of the
International Council of Museology / ICOFOM]. Coro, Venezuela. 28 November – 04 December 1999.
Coord. Tereza Scheiner and A. Reyes. Munich: International Committee for Museology / ICOFOM;
Museums-Pädagogisches Zentrum, Munich, Germany. ICOFOM STUDY SERIES – ISS 31. 1999.
90 DOMINGUES, Ivan. Apresentação. In: Conhecimento e Transdisciplinaridade II. Aspectos
metodológicos. (Knowledge and Trans-disciplinarity II. Methodological Aspects). Belo Horizonte:
Editora UFMG, 2005. p. 27
91 DOMINGUES, Ivan. In Op. Cit., p. 28.
92 SCHEINER, Tereza. Images of the Non-place. Communication and the New Heritages. Doctoral
Thesis in Communication and Culture. RJ: ECO/UFRJ, 2004.
93 Ibid. In Op. Cit., p. 31
85

Very interesting studies are under way under such tendencies, and they have been
trying to identify and map the interfaces between disciplines related to museology, as well as
some common issues now under debate. Some of these studies were initiated in Europe, in
the late 1990’s, by theorists such as Ivo Maroevic. Others are being developed outside
Europe 94 , and still need to be recognized and considered in our international community.
2) The relationship between museology and communication theory
Museum theorists must recognize the importance of communication theory to the
constitution of the field, re-examining its influence under the paradigms of contemporary
thought. Due importance has been attributed to Peirce and the studies about the sign; some
works have also considered the influence of Russian scholars of the 1930’s, who
approached culture as a semiotic system – a textual system, oriented towards collective
memory and which perceives, gathers and diffuses information, in constant movement and
change. Ideas of scholars like Bakhtin, who developed a dialectic idea of language that led
to the concept of discursive genders - discursive forms that relate to the infinite spheres in
the use of language, articulating them through modelization processes that define infinite
possibilities of message production, in the specific times and spaces of each culture; or
Ivanov, who defined culture as information, and cultural codes as semiotic systems, have
influenced the development of theoretical thoughts in museology, as from the 60’s,
especially in what refers to: a) interpreting museums as agents for social development; b)
perceiving museums as discursive instances (leading to the development of a ‘museological
language’); c) understanding museums as inserted in the semiosphere.
These ideas and their influence over museum theory must now be reviewed and reanalyzed.
The concept of cultural codes as semiotic systems should remain as a central
perspective in theoretical museology : it helps understanding how different cultures create
and develop different types of museums – all of them specific representations of the
Museum phenomenon (this one, a philosophical concept). It also helps understanding that
museality is not a specific quality of any object (either tangible or intangible), but an
attributed value - a fluid value, attributed to specific references of reality and based in the
perception that different social groups develop of such reality, through specific relationships
with space, time and memory, according to their world visions and systems of thought. As
an attributed value, the perception of museality may thus change over time and space,
according to the ways by which each society refers to reality. And, if the concept of
museality is in continuous change, so it is the concept of Museum.
Research on Theory of Communication will also make clear the extension of the
interfaces with other fields of knowledge that, from the 19 th century, have influenced the
development of museums and museology. Among many other examples, we may remind
the ideas of Stuart Mill on the economy of the fluxes, the mechanics of operations of
intelligence and the perception of society as organism – which led to the concept of network;
or the ideas of H. Spencer about communication as an organic system. Theory of
communication, in its interface with sociology, will also help understanding the importance of
the concept of ‘public’ to western society and its relationships to the development of a
‘museological language’ – as well as the importance of the study of the relationships
between social groups and the development of the different media 95 .
94 Some of these studies are being developed in Brazil, by specialists in the field of Information
Science – generating important publications and academic debates. See PINHEIRO, Lena Vania
Ribeiro; GONZALEZ DE GÓMEZ, Nélida; LIMA, Diana Farjalla Correia.
95 See School of Chicago – 1910/1940 and the Mass Communication Research works - 1930/1960.
86

The analysis of museum publics has enabled the perception of specific dynamics of
relationship between visitor and museums; which, by their turn, have led to the perception of
the museum as place of encounter, a place that only gains significance when the observer
meets the thing (object / monument / culture / natural or cultural process) that is to be
observed. Here, the museum becomes a metaphoric experience – developed in the
encounters between the visible and the speakable, presented as evidence:
Formal Logics dedicates to make concepts portray the sense of things, in their
variability, richness, historicity, humanity and semantic field. The signs perceive
things as inside a system or linguistic code. The metaphor founds new codes and
brings new perspectives over things, which imply in new ways of knowing them.
Instead of asking for the ‘being’ [the soul] of things, as in traditional metaphysics, the
metaphor will ask for what is between them – their similarities, and the sense they
acquire for us… 96
The last decades have made possible to approach the museum as a semiotic system
- where sets of objects, mediated by the complex museological language, acquire and define
significance. And, if the realm of significance is not other than the world of language,
museum objects may also be considered symbolic objects, significant units in the museum
discourse. Communication theory must thus investigate the limits and possibilities of the
museum as a significant system, identifying the different plans of content that effectively
contribute to link each sign to its cultural context – and the ways by which such processes
occur.
Museology may approach the Museum either as a paradigm, a representation or an
event. As a paradigm, the idea of Museum would be linked to a historicized society, where
knowledge is under a framework of political dominance, based on the concepts of reason
and truth – a world that has survived through social exclusion and manipulated discourse.
This approach has lost significance since the 19 th century has developed the experience of
diversity, opening up to the perceptions of relative time, space and matter: since then, it has
been acknowledged that the Museum has more than one single face, and that the museum
discourse may be contradictory, unexpected and plural. As representation, the idea of
museum is linked to human experience as Absolute: here, what matters are humanized time
and space. Yet ‘modern’ thought reminds us that to represent implies to have the ‘present’
as an absolute condition, generating a movement of permanent retreat towards the past,
which will then be re-actualized as origin, and re-presented as narrative. The present would
thus exist always in connection with the past – justified and signified by the past. To
represent, it is also necessary to select references, and consequently to exclude. A
challenge is herein installed: how to re-present in multiplicity, avoiding the tendency to
believe that the world is what remains from that which passed, and to project the museum
onto the sphere of absolute neutrality ?
Let us thus examine the possibility of conceiving the Museum as an event –
thoroughly linked to the irruption of the new, not needing to exist as pre-established form,
representation in time or presence materialized in space. An event that may be
simultaneously one (that which exists) and many (how and where it exists) - able to be
presented under simultaneous, different forms; able to exist in many spaces, in synchrony
with different times – even with real time. As an event, the museum may detach from the
relational chain established by the cognitive systems and become part of a new relational
chain that incorporates simulation, but seduction as well. Similar to a fractal, it may be
infinitely unfolded, each ‘fold’ containing the same characteristics of the original, each image
multiplying in a virtual space.
96 BRANDÃO, Carlos Antonio Leite. A traduzibilidade dos conceitos. Entre o visível e o dizível. In:
DOMINGUES, Ivan. Op. Cit, . p. 53
87

As an event, the Museum may become part of a new process of truth, where it is
possible to imagine situations other than consecrated opinions and knowledge; and to
accept knowledge in potency, opening up to a new ethics, directed not to a ‘better world’, but
to a world where a new humanity, immerse in virtuality, paradox and contradictions, finds a
proper place to live.
3) The role of museology as a vehicle for intercultural dialogue
Only believing in the Museum as an event, a place for encounter, a spontaneous and
democratic process it will be possible to act museology as a vehicle for intercultural
dialogue, giving opportunity to difference of expression, in an atmosphere of thorough social
and cultural respect. That is the main ethical duty of museology in the present days: to
analyze the existent gaps between museum practice and museum theory, indentifying
where, when and why ideas and proposals waste out in the domain of discourse. On the
other hand, it must be observed and analyzed when, where and why innovative practices
may be considered truly ‘museological’, thus contributing to reinforce Museology as a
disciplinary field.
The idea of developing museums for intercultural dialogue is being long addressed
by policies in the museum field, and its spirit is represented in the ICOM Strategic Plan. The
importance assigned to this issue is reflected in the work of ICOM CCTF - Cross Cultural
Task Force, a group of specialists devoted to stimulate, enhance and multiply opportunities
of discussing and acting towards inclusiveness in museums. A first International Conference
on the Inclusive Museum was realized in Leiden, Netherlands, in June 2008, with hundreds
of participants from different world Regions - and other conferences and meetings are
already scheduled, with the same intent. Each member of CCTF addresses these issues
according to his/her own cultural and professional reality, and the sum of efforts is intended
to contribute for the global dialogue in the museum field.
Among the proposals presented in plenary at the mentioned event 97 , the following
ones make use of museum theory as a framework for action :
a) understand heritage not as a totality, but as a multiple, able to generate news
forms of universality and fraternity;
b) promote the sharing of knowledge, authority and responsibility over the symbolic
memory and the cultural production of different social groups, stimulating
participation in the processes of recognition, establishment, musealization and
use of references that each of them recognize as ‘heritage’;
c) recognize the cultural significance of the past, not only as a source for actions in
the present, but in mediation with the present: the past is not something that has
passed away, but something that is contained within the present;
d) incorporate new technologies, perceiving the museum as a hypertext, an event, a
space of possibilities – and being open to new methods for documentation,
preservation and interpretation of diversity;
e) encourage innovation and creativity, having in mind that the communicational
process does not end in real time, yet extends into a reflexive process – a
thoroughly individual movement;
97 SCHEINER, Tereza. Some thoughts on museums, inclusiveness and Museology. Ideas presented
in the I International Conference on the Inclusive Museum. Leiden, Netherlands, June 10, 2008
(unpublished).
88

f) emphasize the importance of imagination and creativity, recognizing the evident
emotional character of heritage and the strong links that exist between the idea of
heritage and our relationships with the many ‘worlds’ within and around us
Let us not forget, an inclusive museum must have inclusive professionals, able to
establish new forms of dialogue with the public – ready to participate in new experiences
and to see things as they really are; able to cope with change and to develop new practices.
In such a context, it remains our responsibility to establish new perceptions and
develop new significance to Museology, working the tensions between past and present,
tradition and innovation, individual and collective action, theory and practice. It is up to us to
be the translators of meanings that will make museums able to cope with the demands of
this new century. That is why we defend a trans-disciplinary approach to Museology: it will
enable us to add to concepts, images and methods, “a performance, a way of use, a
quantum that deciphers experience, giving it significance” 98 . Yet we may not let theory be
limited by practice : as Adorno used to say, “it is precisely those theories not conceived to be
applied which have a better probability of being fruitful in practice” 99 .
89
Rio de Janeiro, June 2008.
98
BRANDÃO, Carlos Antonio Leite. A traduzibilidade dos conceitos. Entre o visível e o dizível. In:
DOMINGUES, Ivan. Op. Cit, . p. 93
99
ADORNO, Theodor. Marginal notes on theory and praxis. Apud DOMINGUES, Ivan. Op. Cit, p. 98.

2.2 Museums, museology and the social impact of
informatics
Les musées, la muséologie et l’impact social des
techniques informatiques
Museos, museología y el impacto social de la
informática
91

VERS LA PRISE DE CONSCIENCE DE l’EXISTENCE D’UN
MUSÉE PARALLÈLE
DELOCHE Bernard, Université Lyon 3 – Lyon, France
_____________________________________________________________________
RÉSUMÉ
La culture qu’a transmise le musée depuis deux siècles est née dans le bassin
méditerranéen (Egypte, Israël, Grèce, Rome) et elle sert principalement à diffuser et à
maintenir les valeurs de l’Occident. Aujourd’hui, si le musée est en train d’être
concurrencé par les nouveaux médias, ce n’est pas parce que la cyber-visite pourrait
remplacer la visite physique, mais parce que ces médias ont aussi favorisé
l’émergence d’une autre culture à la fois plus internationale et plus diversifiée. Ce
« musée parallèle » est une vitrine sans bâtiments, sans collections et sans institution ;
c’est assurément le vrai musée virtuel. Le musée traditionnel ne disparaît pas, mais il
tend à se transformer en observatoire critique de la vie sociale. Son rôle nouveau
consiste à poser des questions et à agir sur les mentalités.
ABSTRACT
Towards the awakening of the existence of a parallel museum
The culture which the museum has transmitted for two centuries was born in the
Mediterranean basin (Egypt, Israel, Greece, Rome) and it is mainly used to diffuse and
maintain the values of the Occident. Today, if the museum is being competed with by
the new media, it is not because the cyber-visit could replace the physical visit, but
because these media also supported the emergence of another culture at the same
time more international and more diversified. This “parallel museum” is a window
without buildings, collections and institution ; it is undoubtedly the true virtual museum.
The traditional museum does not disappear, but it tends to be transformed into critical
observatory of the social life. Its new role consists in raising questions and acting on
mentalities.
RESUMEN
Hacia el despertar de la existencia de un museo paralelo
La cultura que el museo ha transmitido durante dos siglos nació en la cuenca del
Mediterráneo (Egipto, Israel, Grecia, Roma) y ha servido para difundir y mantener los
valores de Occidente. Hoy en día, si el museo se ve forzado a competir con los nuevos
medios, no es porque la visita cibernética pueda reemplazar la visita física, sino
porque estos medios también favorecen la emergencia de otra cultura internacional y
diversificada. Este museo paralelo es una vitrina sin edificios, sin colecciones y sin
institución. Es, sin lugar a dudas, el verdadero museo virtual. El museo tradicional no
desaparece, pero tiende a transformarse en un observatorio crítico de la vida social.
Su nuevo rol consiste en plantear preguntas y actuar sobre las mentalidades.
* * *
En quoi les NTIC (Nouvelles technologies de l’information et de la
communication) tendent-elles à modifier le rôle social du musée ? A première vue, la
question paraît manquer de pertinence, tant les musées sont éloignés des NTIC, qui
n’offrent à leurs yeux qu’un petit intérêt de mise en valeur des collections au même titre
que les techniques d’éclairage, les vitrines ou les guides imprimés. Pourtant ces
93

nouvelles technologies ont un impact social si important qu’elles sont en train de
menacer ou tout au moins de concurrencer sérieusement les musées institutionnels.
Mais cela, personne ne le dit parce que personne ne le voit.
Car, avant d’être une institution chargée d’abriter des collections dans un
bâtiment, le musée est d’abord une fonction 1 2 . Et cette fonction relève de la
communication dont elle est une spécification en tant que transmission. La
transmission, qui est une communication non interactive dans le temps plutôt que dans
l’espace 3 , a pour contenu la culture, c’est-à-dire ce qui fait de chacun de nous un être
humain. Mais on doit constater qu’il y a d’autres moyens d’exercer la même fonction de
transmission : d’une manière générale, les médias ont toujours joué ce rôle, ce fut le
cas de l’imprimerie à la Renaissance, de la presse écrite au XVII e siècle, puis plus tard
de la radio et de la télévision, aujourd’hui ce sont le multimédia et le réseau mondial
d’Internet qui s’en chargent. Or chaque média se trouve solidaire de certains contenus
culturels, aussi l’apparition d’un nouveau médias tend elle à bouleverser l’ordre
social 4 , car le média n’est pas un simple canal indifférent à ce qu’il véhicule dans la
mesure où il contribue aussi à produire les contenus transmis. Ainsi, la télévision ne
s’est pas contentée de diffuser des images animées accompagnées du son, mais elle
a promu une culture de l’image, qui a façonné les manières de penser et d’agir de la
société actuelle. Dans ce contexte, non seulement le musée est un moyen de
transmission daté historiquement, mais il se trouve associé à des contenus culturels en
partie abandonnés, en tout cas sérieusement relativisés. Avec les NTIC les outils de
production et de diffusion de la culture se sont déplacés au profit des nouveaux médias
qui tendent à générer d’autres contenus culturels. Voilà le phénomène dont il faut
tenter de mesurer l’ampleur et la portée.
Reprenons donc l’interrogation initiale de Lynn Maranda dans son texte de
présentation du thème de cette année : « Les musées peuvent-ils continuer à être les
uniques gardiens du patrimoine mondial, matériel et immatériel ? Au même moment,
sont-ils capables de conserver les principes éthiques qui leur sont si chers ? 5 » Ces
deux questions sont en effet les seules qui méritent aujourd’hui d’être posées.
I - Le caractère relatif de la culture transmise par le musée
Pendant deux siècles le musée a servi à véhiculer la culture, il ne semble
d’ailleurs pas avoir connu d’autre destination, toutefois la culture qu’il transmettait et
qu’il continue encore de transmettre était une culture dominante, certes, mais
particulière et géographiquement située, celle de l’Occident. Les nouveaux médias
informatiques nous ont enfin permis d’en mesurer le caractère tout relatif et de prendre
des distances par rapport à elle.
En parallèle avec l’école, depuis ses origines officielles, c’est-à-dire depuis sa
fondation sous la Révolution française, le musée était un rouage majeur de
conservation et de diffusion de la culture. Le couple école/musée remplissait alors,
dans un contexte laïc, les fonctions dont l’Église catholique avait eu le monopole
durant près de deux millénaires : la distribution des savoirs (domaine intellectuel, par
1 B. Deloche, « Définition du musée », dans F. Mairesse et A. Desvallées (dir.), Vers une
redéfinition du musée ? Paris, L’Harmattan, 2007, p. 100.
2
3
R. Debray, Introduction la médiologie, Paris, PUF, 2000, p. 15.
4
Régis Debray explique que l’imprimerie a détrôné les clercs et, plus récemment, la télévision
aboli le privilège des enseignants, ibid., p. 47.
5
L. Maranda, « Can museums continue to be the sole keepers of the world’s tangible and
intangible heritage? At the same time, will museums be able to maintain the ethical precepts
they hold so dear ? » Reflections on the topics of the ICOFOM symposium 2008 : Museums,
Museology and Global Communication. Ci-dessus : p. 13.
94

les universités et les collèges) et celle des images (domaine sensible, par les tableaux
et les sculptures des églises). Les moyens avaient changé, les contenus s’étaient
déplacés : au dogme et à la morale chrétienne se substituait le nouveau dogme
humaniste du citoyen libre et responsable, à la fois sujet et législateur (Rousseau,
Kant). Tandis que l’école formait le citoyen en lui apprenant à lire et à écrire, en lui
transmettant l’histoire et la géographie, c’est au musée que revint le soin d’éduquer par
l’image en montrant des thèmes édifiants grâce à ces médias que sont les tableaux et
les sculptures, accrochés à des cimaises, placés dans des vitrines ou posés sur des
socles.
Église
(monopole du savoir
et des images)
avant 1789 de 1789 à 1990
École
(monopole du savoir)
Musée
(monopole des images)
Si l’on admet assez volontiers cette filiation historique, en revanche on oublie
un peu trop facilement que l’esprit des contenus véhiculé par ces deux institutions est
resté globalement le même que celui que transmettait l’Église, car le dogme du citoyen
libre et responsable est le fruit d’une histoire et les valeurs qui s’y trouvent associées
sont toujours celles de l’Occident chrétien à la constitution desquelles ont contribué
tant l’Égypte ancienne (découverte de l’individualité spirituelle selon Hegel) qu’Israël
(conquête du monothéisme) ou la Grèce (naissance de la démocratie) et même Rome
(élaboration du droit). Ces valeurs forment une unité cohérente et forte, centrée sur le
respect dû à la personne humaine, que l’on désigne depuis la Renaissance sous le
nom d’humanisme.
C’est Malraux qui a, le premier, explicitement établi le lien entre le musée et
l’humanisme 6 . C’est lui qui a insisté sur le fait que le musée ne transmet pas des biens
matériels, car non seulement les objets qu’il conserve ont perdu leur valeur vénale en
devenant inaliénables mais on a découvert également que les collections ont toutes
une dimension symbolique impalpable et par là même immatérielle. Un tableau de
Vermeer ou de Van Dyck n’est en aucun cas réductible aux matériaux qui le
composent (toile, châssis, pigments) et pas davantage à sa valeur d’assurance, car
son intérêt pour nous vient de ce qu’il porte avec lui une certaine vision du monde,
celle de la Hollande ou de l’Angleterre du XVIIe siècle, qui a contribué à faire de nous
ce que nous sommes. Notre culture occidentale est d’abord un héritage symbolique,
elle est donc immatérielle par définition, en dépit de la matérialité des supports sur
lesquels s’appuient les valeurs morales transmises.
Ce que l’on oublie trop souvent, ou que l’on feint de ne pas voir, c’est que, en
sélectionnant soigneusement les témoins à transmettre (les œuvres d’art, les
découvertes scientifiques, les produits de la technique, mais aussi la belle nature dans
laquelle l’homme se reconnaît), les musées ne font rien d’autre qu’assurer la survie
des valeurs de l’Occident, c’est-à-dirfe une hégémonie spirituelle. Toutefois l’entreprise
6 « Le musée est un des lieux qui donnent la plus haute idée de l'homme. » A. Malraux, Le
musée imaginaire, Paris, Gallimard, 1965, p. 10. On sait par ailleurs que c’’est de Malraux que
l’on a dit qu’il était « la voix de l’Occident » (G. Suarès, Malraux, la voix de l’Occident, Paris,
Stock, 1974).
95

est beaucoup moins innocente et désintéressée qu’il n’y paraît, car la diffusion de la
culture occidentale s’est toujours accompagnée d’intérêts économiques. Ce qui était
vrai déjà lors de la colonisation de l’Afrique l’est encore aujourd’hui lorsque nous
tentons de faire passer une leçon sur les droits de l’homme au moment même où nous
signons des marchés qui se chiffrent en millions de dollars. Seulement aujourd’hui le
mécanisme, impossible à dissimuler, apparaît enfin au grand jour. Et le musée fait ainsi
partie d’un « pack » dans lequel les valeurs morales servent d’alibi ou de caution à des
intérêts beaucoup moins avouables. Jadis on pouvait mener une démarche caritative
plus ou moins désintéressée sans réellement comprendre les enjeux économiques qui
s’y trouvaient associés, aujourd’hui c’est impossible. En effet, l’incroyable rapidité des
moyens de communication par les NTIC et sa conséquence qu’est la mondialisation
ont révélé cette subtile contradiction et contraignent à s’interroger sur l’opportunité ou
même la possibilité de maintenir un musée conçu selon le modèle d’une courroie de
transmission morale destinée à favoriser des intérêts très matériels. Tel est la triste
réalité de l’ethnocentrisme.
Ce qui ne signifie d’ailleurs pas que l’on doive pour autant renoncer aux droits
de l’homme, car le problème du droit à la nourriture, à la liberté, à la dignité, à
l’instruction et au travail se pose aujourd’hui de manière scandaleuse pour des
milliards d’êtres humains, et il est inconcevable de feindre de l’ignorer. Simplement, il
faut s’y prendre autrement pour conduire les autres civilisations à la découverte de ce
que l’on peut considérer comme la grande contribution humaine de l’Occident.
II - La concurrence des autres moyens de production et de diffusion de la culture
Les NTIC ont donc aidé à découvrir le caractère tout à fait relatif et fragmentaire
de la culture ainsi transmise, mais elles ont fait beaucoup mieux puisqu’elles servent
actuellement de points d’appui à l’élaboration d’une autre culture, elle-même diffusée
par ces nouveaux supports. En un sens, même si cela a de quoi choquer, leur
omniprésence a fait qu’elles sont devenues aujourd’hui l’équivalent d’une religion,
notamment parce qu’elles apportent une réponse à tout (elles disent ce que l’on peut
savoir, ce que l’on doit croire, ce qu’il convient de faire : la connaissance, le dogme,
l’éthique, etc.). Cependant la période école/musée, qui n’aura duré en tout qu’à peine
deux siècles, semble aujourd’hui en voie d’être abandonnée au profit d’un nouveau
monopole, certes différent (car non fondé sur l’autorité divine comme à l’époque de
domination de l’Église) et plus diversifié (car les réponses sont multiples), mais sans
doute tout aussi puissant dans ses effets sur la vie sociale.
École
(monopole
du savoir)
Église NTIC
(monopole du savoir (nouveau
et des images) monopole global)
Musée
(monopole
des images)
avant 1789 de 1789 à 1990 depuis 1990
Que se passe-t-il aujourd’hui ? Si la réponse est globalement simple dans son
principe, elle se révèle complexe dès que l’on tente de comprendre quel est l’impact du
phénomène observé depuis deux décennies sur les musées.
96

Il est d’abord bien évident que ce qu’on appelle à tort le « musée virtuel » pour
évoquer le cyber-musée n’occupe qu’une très petite place dans la révolution culturelle
à laquelle nous assistons. D’une part, il faut rappeler que le musée virtuel n’a rien à
voir avec le cyber-musée, puisqu’il s’agit d’un simple abus de langage hérité du
discours des journalistes. En effet le « virtuel », qui désigne ce qui est « en
puissance » par opposition à ce qui est en « acte » (Aristote), n’a pratiquement rien à
voir avec les prouesses électroniques, l’informatique, la numérisation, l’image de
synthèse, la photographie numérique et le monde des machines à information. Pour
être net, lorsqu’on parle de « musée virtuel » c’est le plus souvent le cyber-musée qui
est visé sous une désignation totalement inadéquate du point de vue philosophique.
Inutile de revenir sur cette question déjà abordée à diverses reprises dans plusieurs
publications 7 . D’autre part, le phénomène du « musée en ligne » ou du cyber-musée,
malgré son caractère toujours spectaculaire pour le grand public, n’est qu’un
épiphénomène face au problème tout à fait actuel de la concurrence des médias.
Mettre les collections sur Internet, organiser des parcours de visite à l’écran, au lieu de
la classique visite physique, ne change guère les choses même si l’on simule le
grincement des parquets sous les pas des visiteurs. Désormais, le public n’a plus à se
déplacer ni à suivre les traditionnelles longues files d’attente des musées
institutionnels, car, après avoir inséré un Dvd dans sa machine ou choisi un site de
musée sur Internet, il lui suffit de quelques clics de souris pour orienter sa cyber-visite
dans une direction ou une autre. Mais, quant au fond, rien n’a vraiment changé tant on
s’efforce de faire que les contenus exposés soient toujours les mêmes : les mêmes
tableaux, les mêmes séries de céramiques ou de bronzes. Le cyber-musée donne la
fallacieuse impression d’un changement radical, alors qu’il ne s’agit que d’une
modification du mode d’accès aux collections. Ce n’est donc pas là que réside l’impact
social des NTIC.
Mais la vraie concurrence est ailleurs. Les nouveaux médias ne se réduisent
pas à des instruments que l’on pourrait mettre au service de n’importe quel contenu à
transmettre, parce qu’ils produisent eux-mêmes de nouveaux contenus capables
d’engendrer des effets également nouveaux. Quelle est la différence entre l’ancienne
culture et celle que diffusent les NTIC ? Il est manifeste que les jeunes d’aujourd’hui ne
vont pas « surfer » sur Internet et n’achètent pas des Dvd pour retrouver le Louvre ou
l’Ermitage, le Metropolitan Muséum ou les Guggenheim, pour voir la Joconde ou les
frises du Parthénon, mais qu’ils cherchent dans ces nouveaux médias non seulement
de nouveaux contenus (vedettes de la chanson ou du cinéma, etc.) mais également de
nouveaux rapports avec les contenus, ce que précisément les anciens modes de
diffusion de la culture ne leur apportaient pas, notamment ce que j’appelle
« l’interactivité non linéaire » 8 . A la différence du musée, qui exclut presque toute
forme d’interactivité, les NTIC proposent sans cesse à la fois des réponses aux
questions et des choix à faire par l’opérateur. Dans ce contexte, il n’y a plus de
parcours contraint puisque chaque sujet construit lui-même son cheminement. Dès
1967, McLuhan avait souligné la faiblesse du musée traditionnel marqué par la
prédominance du visuel et des processus contraignants et proposé l’idée d’un musée
non linéaire sans fil conducteur ni « story line » d’aucune sorte 9 .
Cette culture véhiculée par les nouveaux médias est bien loin d’être une
absence de culture ou même une sous-culture, elle est également loin de déstructurer
l’esprit comme on l’a dit parfois (Corinne Welger-Barboza), mais elle procède
différemment de notre culture traditionnelle. Elle substitue à la classique stratégie de
planification (réalisation d’un programme préconçu) une démarche tactique qui permet
7
B. Deloche, Le musée virtuel, Paris, PUF, 2001, p. 219 sq., et La nouvelle culture, Paris,
L’Harmattan, 2007, p. 160 sq.
8
B. Deloche, La nouvelle culture, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2007, p. 158.
9
M. McLuhan, H. Parker et J. Barzun, Le musée non linéaire, tr. fr. par B. Deloche et F.
Mairesse avec la coll. de S. Nash, Lyon, Aléas, 2008.
97

une adaptation à chaque situation nouvelle. Ainsi le public se trouve-t-il au contact de
modèles renouvelés : ce ne sont plus les saints et les héros, les prouesses de la
technique ou la belle nature, ces traditionnels thèmes des musées qui inspiraient la
crainte, le respect ou l’admiration. Car désormais ce que ce musée d’un nouveau
genre nous montre n’est rien d’autre que nous-mêmes. La mutation avait été amorcée
pas les musées d’anthropologie qui avaient fait descendre les expôts du ciel sur la
terre pour nous montrer enfin des choses voisines de notre quotidien (les sabots du
paysan auvergnat du XIXe siècle ou l’habitat du paysan roumain, etc.), mais
aujourd’hui il n’y a plus même la distanciation du temps ou de l’espace : ce que je vois
n’est ni ancien ni exotique, c’est mon présent actuel, celui même dans lequel je vis.
Ainsi, par Internet, je me trouve moi-même le héros d’une histoire (ex. l’usage de la
webcam). C’est mon identité propre que je retrouve avec seulement la mise à distance
que procure l’image ou même la vision de l’autre comme un autre moi-même (grâce à
la téléréalité).
En un sens, les nouveaux médias constituent de fait une sorte de musée
parallèle. Un musée sans collections (sauf si l’on considère comme des collections la
quasi-infinité des sites Internet et de leurs contenus), un musée sans visite (sauf si l’on
assimile le parcours de l’internaute à une visite de musée), mais un musée qui
transmet une culture propre, c’est-à-dire originale et neuve, complexe et diversifiée. A
ce titre, ce musée sans le nom représente la concurrence la plus sévère qu’ait jamais
rencontré le musée traditionnel, puisque cette culture nouvelle est en passe de
supplanter celle dont s’était nourri le musée jusqu’ici.
III - Les nouvelles fonctions du musée : observatoire interactif de la vie sociale et
levier d’action sur les mentalités
Face à cette mutation dans le processus d’élaboration et de diffusion de la
culture, mutation sociale sans précédent depuis l’invention de l’imprimerie, le musée
est-il condamné à disparaître ? Il est bien évident que l’institution que nous
connaissons n’est pas appelée à s’effacer brutalement et que l’on ne rayera pas de la
carte le Louvre ou le British Museum, le Prado ou la Pinacothèque, les Offices ou Pitti,
car il est fréquent que les anciennes figures d’un phénomène coexistent avec
nouvelles, c’est ainsi que l’imprimerie n’a pas évincé l’écriture manuscrite, que la radio
et la télévision n’ont pas tué la presse écrite. Simplement le média-musée a perdu sa
portée de média dominant et son impact social se trouve du même coup
considérablement réduit. Ainsi compris, par une sorte de mise en abyme, le musée se
trouverait réduit à une sorte d’objet de curiosité, considéré comme étant lui-même un
témoin du passé au moins autant que comme un gardien des témoins du passé. En
France, le Museon arlaten, ce musée de la Provence fondé à Arles par le poète
Frédéric Mistral, est en cours de restructuration en tant que témoin des musées d’une
certaine époque, à ce titre il est lui-même devenu un objet de musée. Voilà qui illustre
la fin d’une époque. La question est de savoir si tout l’avenir du musée peut se
ramener à cela.
Il semble au contraire qu’on assiste à de réelles tentatives de mutation de
l’institution elle-même. Après divers essais de renouvellement et d’adaptation illustrés
notamment par la nouvelle muséologie des années 1980, certains projets de musées
semblent enfin abandonner l’idée de lutter contre la concurrence des nouveaux
médias, car les moyens inaugurés par la concurrence sont trop puissants et la bataille
pratiquement perdue d’avance. La culture vivante d’aujourd’hui évolue en marge du
musée et ses nouvelles figures sont fort éloignées des valeurs de l’humanisme sur
lesquelles reposait l’institution que nous connaissons. Et même si, dans ce domaine
comme dans beaucoup d’autres, il subsiste toujours quelques fossiles à côté des
figures nouvelles, l’avenir du musée ne semble pas être indéfectiblement lié à
l’intégrisme réactionnaire. Dès qu’il renonce à être le temple et le gardien de la
98

civilisation, le musée se découvre une nouvelle fonction. Abandonnant toute forme
d’immobilisme, il endosse désormais le double rôle d’observateur de la vie sociale et
même d’acteur.
1) Observatoire de la vie sociale d’abord, car il n’est pas possible d’être un
acteur efficace sans avoir au préalable observé attentivement le milieu social. Et ce
milieu social se traduit d’abord par des questionnements. D’où une nouvelle
exploitation des collections et la multiplication des expositions temporaires consacrées
à des questions d’actualité plus ou moins brûlante, comme le sont l’euthanasie, les
OGM, les épidémies de sida, de vache folle ou de grippe aviaire, etc. Mais ce sont
également les nouvelles relations familiales (familles monoparentales, mariage des
homosexuels, etc.), les nouveaux comportements de la jeunesse (nouvelles conduites,
nouveaux rapports sociaux, nouvelles manifestations collectives, etc.), en grande
partie générés par les modèles que fournissent les NTIC. Le phénomène des médias
technologiques n’y échappe pas comme en témoignait l’exposition sur « Les
immatériaux » organisée à Paris au Centre Pompidou dans les années 1980 : le
musée exposait alors certains des problèmes posés par l’irruption de l’informatique
dans la vie sociale. De ce point de vue les musées de société renvoient à la société
des images d’elle-même et lui permettent ainsi de se réfléchir. Toutefois cet
observatoire ne fournit pas une simple image fidèle de la société, il joue un rôle critique
en suscitant des questions sur ce qui semble à tous relever de l’évidence, en
confrontant le public aux contradictions de la société contemporaine ; c’est le rôle qu’a
joué le Musée d’ethnographie de Neuchâtel (Suisse) pendant un quart de siècle sous
la houlette de Jacques Hainard.
2) Acteur également, dans la mesure où l’on découvre que le musée n’est pas
seulement un conservatoire d’objets, même immatériels, mais qu’il peut aussi servir de
levier en vue d’une transformation des relations sociales. C’est déjà dans cette
perspective que l’écomusée avait été conçu au cours des années 1970. Le public ne
visite plus les collections pour elles-mêmes, mais il découvre à travers la sélection qui
en a été faite le message qu’on tente de lui faire passer. Les collections cessent alors
d’être des témoins sacrés du passé pour devenir les supports intuitifs et sensibles d’un
discours plus ou moins complexe que l’on tente de lui faire passer. De ce point de vue
aussi, le Musée d’ethnographie de Neuchâtel a joué un rôle exemplaire en renonçant
au culte de l’objet pour aller chercher les expôts dans la vie quotidienne (par exemple
au supermarché). La présentation des objets nourrit alors un faisceau d’interrogations
destinées à déstabiliser le visiteur en le contraignant à renoncer à ses idées
préconçues et à se défaire de ce que Jacques Hainard à Neuchâtel puis à Genève
(Suisse) appelle « la pensée ordinaire ». On pourrait dire des choses comparables à
propos du projet de Musée des civilisations de l’Europe et de la Méditerranée que
développe aujourd’hui Michel Colardelle à Marseille, une des premières expositions
destinées à préfigurer le nouvel établissement avait pour titre « Parlez-moi d’Alger » et
visait à transformer le regard que les Marseillais portent sur cette ville-miroir de l’autre
côté de la Méditerranée. Ainsi l’institution sert-elle de médiation dans la résolution de
certains problèmes sociaux tels que la coexistence des cultures. Le musée ainsi
réinterprété tend à devenir un puissant outil de transformation des mentalités.
Conclusion : le renouveau de la muséologie
Mutation radicale s’il en est, car le musée ne peut plus fonctionner comme
avant, il doit se défaire de ses vieux vêtements : non seulement les expôts, mais la
relation qu’entretient le visiteur avec eux, les parcours, les messages véhiculés, tout a
changé ou est en train de changer. C’est ainsi que la mondialisation nous oblige à
poser autrement les problèmes, car nous ne pouvons plus continuer à sauvegarder
notre culture en feignant d’ignorer qu’il existe d’autres cultures, d’autres modes de vie,
d’autres mentalités.
99

Ces nouvelles fonctions contraignent à faire des choix éthiques qui engagent la
muséologie. En effet, une fois les sacro-saints dogmes de l’Occident relativisés, il ne
s’agit pas de soumettre le musée à un nouveau dogme pour servir la pratique d’un
nouveau culte (pas davantage celui de l’islam que celui du stalinisme). Il s’impose donc
de savoir à quelles fins on va faire servir ce puissant levier d’action sur la vie sociale 10 .
Or ces fins ne sauraient être imposées de quelque manière, elles doivent au contraire
faire l’objet d’un consensus entre les cultures. C’est là précisément que la muséologie
trouve enfin son véritable rôle : elle n’est ni une science ni une simple pratique de
métier, ce qui était l’objet du débat d’ICOFOM publié dans MuWoP en 1980. Sa seule
mission concevable est, semble-t-il, de s’interroger sur les fins auxquelles on doit
soumettre le musée. Voilà pourquoi je pense qu’elle n’est rien d’autre que l’éthique du
musée, c’est-à-dire une discipline philosophie de fondement et de choix : savoir ce que
l’on va faire, pourquoi et comment on veut le faire 11 . C’est tout.
10 L’Ecole du Louvre avait précisément organisé en mars 1983 un séminaire intitulé Quels
musées, pour quelles fins, aujourd’hui ? Paris, La Documentation française, 1983.
11 B. Deloche, Le musée virtuel, p. 130-145.
100

2.3 The symbolism of the virtual space and a new
interpretation of reality
Le symbolisme de l’espace virtuel et une nouvelle
interprétation de la réalité
El simbolismo del espacio virtual y una nueva
interpretación de la realidad
101

102

THE MUSEUM OF PEOPLE : STRUGLING WITH THE GLOBAL
MYTH
BRULON SOARES Bruno C., Museologist, Master in Museology and
Heritage, PPG-PMUS – UNIRIO/MAST - Rio-de-Janeiro, Brazil.
_____________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT
The advanced system of transportation and communication conquered by
modern technology caused the powerful effect of making men and women lost in
space. A big part of this scenery that is being sold to us by contemporary times is built
of myths. In this context, we observe that the representation of identities has always
characterized the organization of human groups in time and space and has always
been one of the biggest parts of the museums’ role. Observing the non-place, as a
space where social relationships happen in a truly independent form from the local, it’s
possible to perceive a rich universe of human representations that were connected to
the conceptions of culture and society of the social groups. The dynamic of
globalization has always existed with the human race ; the most important for
Museology is that it calls the attention to the very origin and foundation of the Museum,
emphasizing the images the individuals create of themselves in the ‘global’ world.
Key-words: Museum, Museology, Globalization, Identity.
RÉSUMÉ
Le musée du peuple : en lutte contre le mythe planétaire
Le système avancé des transports et de la communication que les technologies
modernes ont conquises a eu comme grave conséquence de faire que les hommes et
les femmes soient perdus dans l’espace. Une grand partie de ce décor qui nous est
vendu à notre époque est constitué de mythes. Dans ce contexte nous pouvons
observer que la représentation des identités a toujours caractérisé l’organisation de
groupes humains dans l’espace et le temps et a toujours été l’une des parts les plus
importantes du rôle des musées. Dans l’observation du non-lieu, en tant qu’espace où
les relations sociales arrivent de manière vraiment indépendante du local, il est
possible de percevoir le riche univers des représentations humaines qui étaient reliées
à la conception qu’ont les groupes sociaux de la culture et de la société. La dynamique
de la mondialisation a toujours existé avec la race humaine ; le plus important pour la
muséologie, c’est qu’elle attire l’attention sur l’origine et les fondements du Musée,
accentuant les images que les individus créent pour eux-mêmes dans le monde
‘global’.
Mot-clés: Musée, Muséologie, Mondialisation, Identité.
RESUMEN
El museo de la gente : lidiando con el mito global
El avanzado sistema de transportes y comunicaciones conquistado por la
tecnología moderna tuvo el poderoso efecto de hacer que hombres y mujeres se
perdiesen en el espacio. Gran parte de este escenario que nos vende la
contemporaneidad está formado por mitos. En este contexto observamos que la
representación de las identidades ha caracterizado siempre la organización de los
grupos humanos en el tiempo y el espacio y constantemente ha sido una de las
103

facetas más importantes del rol desempeñado por los museos. Al observar el no lugar
como un espacio donde las relaciones sociales se dan en forma verdaderamente
independiente de lo local, es posible percibir un rico universo de representaciones
humanas que se hallaban conectadas al concepto de cultura y sociedad de los grupos
sociales. La dinámica de la globalización siempre ha existido en la condición humana;
lo más importante para la museología es que atraiga la atención hacia el origen y los
fundamentos del museo, poniendo énfasis en las imágenes de sí mismos que crean
los individuos en el mundo ‘global’.
Palabras clave: museo, museología, globalización, identidad
RESUMO
O museu de pessoas : lutando com o mito global
O avançado sistema de transportes e comunicação conquistado pelas
tecnologias modernas ocasionou o poderoso efeito de tornar homens e mulheres
soltos no espaço. Grande parte deste cenário que nos é vendido pela
contemporaneidade é constituído de mitos. Neste contexto, observamos que a
representação das identidades sempre caracterizou a organização dos grupos
humanos no espaço e no tempo e sempre constituiu uma das mais importantes faces
do papel desempenhado pelos museus. Ao observar o não-lugar, como espaço onde
as relações sociais se dão de forma verdadeiramente independente do local, é
possível perceber um rico universo de representações humanas que se ligam às
concepções de cultura e sociedade dos grupos sociais. A dinâmica da globalização
sempre existiu com a raça humana; o mais importante para a Museologia é que ela
chama a atenção para a própria origem e fundamentação do Museu, enfatizando as
imagens que os indivíduos criam de si mesmos no mundo ‘global’.
Palavras-chave: Museu, Museologia, Globalização, Identidade.
* * *
“Your attention, please. For a security matter, if your bags are unattended, they
will be removed and destroyed.” Those were the words I heard repeatedly during the
long five hours waiting for my next flight in Heathrow, London. The unfilled time made
me observe, in the biggest airport of the world, the intense traffic of people, in an
endless non-place. Many were those running against time, while others, like me, waited
for the time to run. Everyone was very different, but in an incoherent search to seem
the same. The line with people waiting for the flight to Nairobi crossed itself with the
one where there were the passengers to New York. So many similar gates, leading to
such different places. On the indescribably uncomfortable benches, many people were
waiting for the time to pass faster. The dissatisfaction with the non-place was palpable
and the lack of everything that constitutes the ‘self’ for each one of those people was
easily perceived.
Nonetheless, all the diverse identities were being seen there, coexisting. Each
one passing, running or without any rush, were bringing with them the solid home – or
its invaluable miss – symbolically represented by the luggage dragged along and under
the constant care of the eye and the hands, menaced by the warn that nervously
repeated itself: if they were left alone, they could be removed and destroyed. Little by
little, each person started firmly holding their bags, the piece of home that identified
them and that, suddenly, was menaced to perish in the non-place; to disappear.
Today, we deny the identities for the cosmopolitan ghost. Truthfully, we are still
tribal, local and familiar beings in our essence, even though we are – some of us –
trying to cover it all with the mask of the transitory existence of human beings in a world
104

that claims to be global, and it is disseminated the idea of a future in witch it’s going to
be shared by all. Even if this mask actually existed as a true reality among few, there is
no way to predict that it would become a truly universal phenomenon.
We are constantly flying in search of the earth to land. We search the way back
home or something to bring with us and enrich it. We look for the familiar, the group
that is common to us. Even those who migrate look for the memory of the home that is
gone. The cosmopolitan world is filled with the nostalgia of the identities that have been
lost in the air. Everyone hopes, deep inside, to come back to sleep on its own pillow,
back to be among their equals. Everyone of us, anybody who today has been fighting
against a world that is dangerous to the existence of the identities that have always
defined the organization of human groups in time and space – and that have always
been one of the biggest parts of the museums’ role –, are, in fact, looking for the
definition of our own selves submerged in this infinite universe of undefined
representations.
1. Five hours in Heathrow: discovering the myths
In the taciturn environment of Heathrow, while some of the groups organized
themselves according to the common places of origin, others were identified
ethnically 12 , or by race, assuming an imagined ethnicity – the black people originated
from the most diverse regions of the world shared the same space in the openness of
the airport. Black women were divided according to the identity that prevailed, either as
a black person or as a woman. This way, the organization of people in the space of the
airport was defined by each one’s imagination of the common origin – which revealed
to be completely delusional. Everyone searched, even if subconsciously, the
relationship with the ‘same’ in the mirror of identities. Among this imagined geography,
traced by people themselves in the lobby of the airport, the only ones who exhibit some
kind of true happiness were those who brought with them the home almost entirely, the
family or parts of it.
Even inside, submerged in a universe of lost bodies that could only wait for the
departure and nothing else, I could find out that the non-place was expanding itself
through the place in which it was inserted. Not very far from there, in Heathrow, the
local community protests irrupted against the possibility of one more expansion of the
airport. The authorities tried to stop the crowd with violence.
The advanced system of transportation and communication conquered by
modern technology caused the powerful effect of making men and women lost in
space. Millions of people start moving about in accelerated ways, deserting the rural
areas and the smaller towns to follow the big city lights. The word “metropolis” is no
longer big enough 13 , today sociologists are already studying the problem of
“megalopolis”.
Now everything and everyone became movable. All the structures are menaced
and vulnerable to an extension never before seen. This “footlooseness” – as
Schumacher name the phenomenon – is the more serious, the bigger the country.
Producing megalopolis in rich countries, it also produces, as consequence, an
increasing number of people, who, having become footloose cannot find a place
anywhere in society. In the poorer countries this phenomenon produces mass
migration into cities, mass unemployment, as well as the threat of famine, as human
12 The term “ethny” was introduct in 1896 by Vacher de Lapouge. In his book “Economy and society”, Max
Weber shows that the ethnic group distinguishes itself from race indicating that it’s based on the belief of a
common origin. (JEUDY, 2005. p.39).
13 SCHUMACHER, E. F. Small is beautiful: economics as if people mattered. New York: Harper
Perennial, 1989. p.72.
105

life is drained out of rural areas. The result, according to Schumacher, is a “dual
society” 14 without any inner cohesion, subjected to a maximum political instability.
Nevertheless, a big part of this scenery that is being sold to us by contemporary
times is built of myths. The idea of a global village, as if the instant dissemination of
news actually informed people, is more about the myth of the “shortening of distances”,
making proliferate the notion of contracted time and space, as if the entire world was
“reachable to the hand” of all 15 . Even if such notion existed in potency, would it really
be possible in a fragmented world? How can we guarantee that so many peoples
without access even to electric power could be interested in leaving their origins to join
this make-believe village? The way it is suggested by Milton Santos, this is only a
made-up idea that is delivered to all of us, established by the fantasy of the advanced
technique, built to make us believe in a world that doesn’t exist. The concept of the
global village reveals how supposedly easy it is to communicate with whoever is far
away, as if the communication with neighbors was nearly inexistent.
In the real villages, therefore, the exactly opposite happens. I ask, though, if we
lost our connection with the tribe. At the moment when the internet started to become
popular, all we could think about was how wonderful it would be to be able to connect
ourselves with the whole world. In Brazil we were seduced by the idea of Brazilians
fraternizing with Japanese people in the space of the electronic web. The truth, though,
is that today we use this tool, many times almost exclusively, to speak with neighbors
and family. The ‘corner communities’, the bar, have moved to the computer screen.
‘Globalization generates localization’. As Acselrad 16 puts it, the collapse of spacial
barriers doesn’t mean that the significance of space is decreasing. Faced with the
delocalized spacial logic of the states, the local is subordinated to the global. As
cosmopolitan as we can be, for as much time as we can spend flying in airplanes
around the world, there is a moment when it becomes necessary to think about the
place for landing.
Santos 17 doesn’t let us forget that the places are what rationalize the global
world. In every place of the planet, it’s clear that local life manifests itself as an answer
and a reaction to globalization. The local means a possible dynamic of communication
that can happen either from people to people, or from people to things. It is, as
Bellaigue suggests it, a refined, detailed and touched communication, of a plurality of
senses 18 . It is in this local communication that acts the majority of the museums.
In the end of the XXth century, politics and even scientific authorities started
referring to the notion of identity (or identities) as if it was something definitive, easily
perceived and communicable, translatable; this way everything would be easy for
museums. The ethnography museums have multiplied, which not always has been
something positive. We have seen, in the last years, the successive creation of local
museums, open-air museums and ecomuseums around the world 19 . This means, in
fact, an answer to the current need for ‘roots’ and to the real identity crises produced by
14
Ibidem, p.75.
15
SANTOS, Milton. Por uma outra globalização. Do pensamento único à consciência universal. Rio de
Janeiro: Record, 2002. p.18.
16
ACSELRAD, Henri. Sustainability and Territory: Meaningful Practices and Material Transformations.
p.37-58. In: BECKER, Egon & JAHN, Thomas (editors). Sustainability and the social sciences. A crossdisciplinary
approach to integrating environmental considerations into theoretical reorientation. London /
New York: Zed Books, 1999. p.44.
17
SANTOS, Milton. Op. cit. passim.
18
BELLAIGUE, Mathilde. TERRITORIALITÉ, MEMOIRE ET DEVELOPPEMENT. L’écomusée de la
communauté le Creusot / Montceau-les-Mines (France). In: SYMPOSIUM MUSEUM, TERRITORY,
SOCIETY: NEW TENDENCIES/NEW PRACTICES. ISS: ICOFOM STUDY SERIES. Londres, ICOM,
International Committee for Museology/ICOFOM, n. 2, p. 4, Aug. 1983.
19
Ibidem.
106

wars, colonialism, neo-colonialism, totalitarian regimes, economic potencies
dominating the poorer countries, disparity of classes inside nations, etc.
In the true anthropological origin of our societies, there was a genuine
territoriality, according to which the habitants belonged to what belonged to them. A
strict relationship created the sense of identity, founded in the fact that the community
was limited in space. In present time, though, in the attempt to believe in social
structures independent from place, the very notion of tribe independent from space is,
then, disseminated.
Anthropologically speaking, a tribe is a group of people united in a single social
and political system, sharing a common set of beliefs and values. Mitchell calls
attention to the fact that we use the word 'tribe' in the sense to denote the group of
people who are linked in one particular social system 20 . But, according to the author,
when we talk about tribalism in urban areas, we refer not to the linking of people in a
patterned structure – a tribe – but rather to a sub-division of people in terms of their
sense of belonging to certain categories. There is no necessary correlation between a
tribal structure on one hand and tribalism, in the sense implied on Mitchell’s works, on
the other. The one is a system of social relationships; the other is a category of
interaction within a wider system. This way, it is possible to think on the tribalism
phenomenon in the global world, as a mechanism of connection with the local and one
of resistance to the cosmopolitan ghost. Nonetheless, to point tribes – in the classic
anthropological sense –, seems to be one more illusion of a world that wishes to be
simpler then it truly is.
Once I observed the non-place – as a space where social relationships happen
in a truly independent form from the local – I could perceive a rich universe of human
representations that, in a peculiar way, were connected to the conceptions of culture
and society of the social groups that make themselves represented. Each individual,
lost in the ethereal space of the airport, forged for themselves an imaginary place of
origin, generating, this way, cultural representations of their own ‘selves’. It was
expressed the constant human search for a stable origin in the global world, a search
for the imaginary home, that we never desired to leave. Waiting for five long hours in
the giant airport, I found out a museum of people organized according to the
representation that each one created of themselves. If the primordial Museum is the
one that is created in the merge of the conscience and the subconscious, in the
moment when the individuals recognize their own selves inserted in the world, as
Scheiner suggests it 21 , then I was before a real museum, culturally inhabited by people
who whish to be recognized in the middle of the most diverse and arbitrary
representations.
Considered a Caucasian in my own nation, defined in many places, by other
Caucasians, as Latin or even Hispanic, I was, definitely, out of place. Little by little,
more and more black people came to sit together and I could see that the white people
were organized in the other side of the lobby. It seems that I was the only one there not
to understand the logic of group organization in that place full of signification. I
discovered myself in an imaginary ghetto from which I quickly had to leave, because
there wasn’t a single group there with which I could relate. In a world where all the
references are being lost, the biggest and heaviest luggage we carry is the one that
compose the imaginary identifications that define ourselves in space. This was what I
could observe in Heathrow.
20
MITCHELL, J. C. The Kalela Dance. Manchester University Press, 1956. Disponível em:
www.era.anthropology.ac.uk/kalela/. p.30.
21
SCHEINER, T. C. Apolo e Dionísio no templo das musas. Museu: gênese, idéia e representações na
cultura ocidental. 1998. Dissertação (Mestrado em comunicação) – Programa de Pós-Graduação em
Comunicação e Cultura. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro/ECO, Rio de Janeiro, 1998. p.41.
107

2. Museums and communities in the global world
To speak of museums and globalization certainly means to speak of people.
Even though, for some time the community museums have been a paradigm in
Museology, considered by many as the best example of how the Museum must deal
with a diverse reality, we know today that any museum can be the diversity it wants to
see represented for the human communities. The matter for all the museums is, at first,
to discuss the very concept of ‘community’ – one more myth for museologists, coined
by globalization – and how it’s been approached in contemporary world.
Communities can be thought as something that is constituted in the relationship
between people and their commons, in every possible way, as well as between them
and the natural and social environment in which they live. It’s about the idea, very well
known in Anthropology, of social group, defined in the ethnographer’s look on
determined group of people, in the recognition of identities in time and space. The term
‘group’, as explains Lucy Mair, has special meaning in the social anthropologists’
language. It doesn’t mean any reunion of people; it’s about a “corporate community
with permanent existence” 22 . In other words, it means a reunion of people with
common interests and rules that attach the laws and duties of its members to each
other and to these interests.
The notion of ‘community’, in the majority of the assumptions, possesses a
sense of good thing 23 ; the term gives the idea of a comfortable and cozy place. In a
community everyone is well understood, everyone listens to who is close, which relates
this concept to the idea of security 24 . Bauman says that, actually, we never find in any
self-proclaimed community the pleasures that we dreamed of. According to this author,
at the moment when the community becomes an object of contemplation and exam of
its own self, when it starts to “verse on its own singular value”, it means that it’s dead, it
doesn’t exist anymore.
In contemporary time, since we start having information that travels in high
velocity, independent from its carriers in time and space, the frontier between ‘in’ and
‘out’ cannot be established in a rigid way anymore. This may be one of the reasons
why more and more communities diversify themselves and fall into the indefinable
dynamic of ephemerid. According to Bauman 25 , “communities come in many colors and
sizes”, and as they need to be defended to survive and to appeal to their closest
members so that they can assure their survival with its individual choices, we can see
that current communities are constantly been postulated: more projects then reality,
“something that comes after and not before the personal choices”. Fragility and
transition are what define these communities of occasion, and they are what give
sense, in a globalized space, to the representations that we create of ourselves.
2.1 Convenience Museums
As Eric Hobsbawm observed it, “the word ‘community’ has never been used so
indiscriminately as in the decades when the communities in the sociological sense
became difficult to find in real life” 26 . The truth is that men and women look for groups
to be a part of, in a world in which everything is in constant transition. It’s this search for
an identity, though, that leads all individuals through the path of forced changes in the
conception of their own ‘selves’ so that they can belong to a certain profile. We mark
and change our own flesh: tattoos and silicon prosthetics work like labels so that each
22
MAIR (1982 apud CAMPOS e SANZ, 2004, p.14).
23
BAUMAN, Zygmunt. Comunidade. A busca por segurança no mundo atual. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge
Zahar, 2003. p.7.
24
Ibidem, p.9.
25
Id. Modernidade Líquida. Rio de Janeiro: Ed. Jorge Zahar, 2001. p.194.
26
HOBSBAWM (1998 apud BAUMAN, 2001).
108

person can be identified in the group, as a way to symbolically reinsert the own body in
the cultural sphere.
Communitarism, according to Bauman, promotes an evident kind of home that
“for the majority of people is more of a nice fairy tale than a matter of personal
experience” 27 . The shared identity brings with it the illusion of the home, of the
common origin that is so searched as a way to be protected from the ghosts that can
be found outside, where live the ontological uncertainties. Nonetheless, there is no
identity that isn’t constructed. The contemporary communities tend to be volatiles,
ephemerals and directed to a ‘unique purpose’. Their duration is short, even though it’s
“full of sound and furry”.
The term, proposed by the author, that better illustrates these ‘new’
communities is “cloakroom community”, which well captures some of its characteristic
signs. Bauman explains that the audience of a concert dresses to the occasion,
obeying a code distinctive from the one they daily follow. This act, in the same time that
separates the visit as a ‘special occasion’, also makes the audience seem more
homogenous than in life outside the theater; and it’s the presentation that brings
everyone to that place, as different as they may be in their daily lives. But before
entering the auditorium, they leave their overcoats or capes, wore on the streets, in the
cloakroom of the theater house. If during the presentation all the eyes are on the stage
and everyone’s attention is directed to the same short term cause, after the curtains
are closed the audience take back there belongings in the cloakroom and, “as they
dress their street clothes again, they return to their mundane roles” dissolving
themselves a few moments later in the diverse crowd that fills the streets of the city.
Cloakroom communities, also known as “carnaval communities”, need a
spectacle that appeals to interests that are similar to different individuals and that rejoin
them during some time in which other interests – that separate them instead of unite –
are temporarily left aside. Those are communities quickly dissolved in the post-modern
scenery, which can last a fraction of a second according to the instant interests.
In a context in which the identities are built and dissolved in the velocity of the
changes in collective interests, and the permanence in the group happens according to
a momentary convenience, how can the museums adapt themselves to these
changes? The illusion of a shared identity that can be given by the spectacle of
cloakroom communities doesn’t last much longer than the excitement of the
performance.
Would it be a ‘convenience museum’, directed by the spectacle of instant
identities, the only kind capable of surviving the new times? The way I could observe at
Heathrow airport, today the sense of the communities is expressed in the existing ‘with’
at the present moment in which everyone is alone. In contemporary communities
prevail the being black with other black people, or being woman with women, etc., not
in the classic tribal sense, but only in the name of a circumstantial need. The tribe here
is delusional and dissolvable.
I ask, therefore, – and these are questions the museums should be asking –
who is, in the so called global world, only black, or woman, or homosexual, or Latin
American… – these are pure communities, imagined communities, and their short term
is defined by their own incapacity to survive the real world. These are masks wore by
their own supporters that don’t constitute real complex identities, and to think of the
contemporary museum this way doesn’t mean to think of these disposable masks, but
of the real people hidden behind them.
27 BAUMAN, Zygmunt. Op. cit. p.197.
109

2.2 Crossed communities
The term ‘syncretize’, in its semantic root, means to unite in face of a common
enemy 28 , as it has been taught by history. This etymologic example let us think of
crossed cultures in the sense of the necessity of the ‘other’ for the perception of
diversity. Diversity, though, cannot be defined as a simple product of the external eye.
Cultures are susceptible to be mixed. All cultures are hybrids. Nonetheless, this
cannot result in the foundation of a new ideology originated from globalization.
Gruzinski remembers that the phenomenon of mixtures doesn’t imply, however, the
character of novelty that is usually attributed to it 29 . All the cultures either were or are
being mixed all the time. According to the author the notion of merged races – phrasal
that implies a mixture of beings as well as a mixture of imaginaries – brings to the
thinking a confusion of concepts and ideas.
The comprehension of the mestissage is connected to intellectual habits that
tend to prefer the monolithic agglomerations in instead of intermediary spaces. These
spaces ‘in between’ – created, for example, in the New World by colonization 30 – make
appear and develop new ways of thinking, in which the vitality resides in the capacity of
transfiguration and generation of criticism to what is established as supposedly
authentic.
Hybridation has a long path in the Latin-American cultures. When the mixed
races appear in America on the XVIth century, it brings along the confluence of
distinguish temporalities (the one from the Christian western culture and the one from
the Amerindian worlds). It transcends linearity. Making realities relative, mixtures loose
the aspect of a disorder and become a fundamental dynamic 31 . In post-colonial
America, the relationships between “winners”, “losers” and “collaborators” – all coming
from very different universes – generate consequences of unprecedented complexity.
Despite the confusion that characterizes this so called “mixed thought”, it is already
possible to know how the cultural identities are being formed in Latin America.
Gruzinski remembers that the phenomenon of mixtures has converted in a daily
reality 32 , watchable on the streets and everywhere; multiform and omnipresent, it
associates beings and forms that were, a priori, not destined to be close together.
It is this crossed cultures scenario, impossible of being ignored in every corner
of the world, especially in the era of accelerated communication, that is – in a realistic
or a delusional way – the subject of most of our museums. Communities, in the old or
the new sense, are being created, intercepted, transfigured, destroyed and rejoined
again in high speed. Many community museums, ethnographic museums, or even
virtual museums are incapable of capturing the essence of the modern identities and
their transformation in time. These museums will exist as forms of struggling against all
the global myths, responding to the forces of the human will for permanence – and
that’s where it lies their huge importance.
3. Identities in process: for a museum in movement
The thing that has been transforming the modern identities since the end of the
XXth century, according to Stuart Hall 33 , is a framework of structural changes that has
been fragmenting the cultural landscape of class, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, race and
28 The origin of the term comes from the island of Crete when, in the XIIIth century, in the fury of a
‘globalization’, it was invaded by the Venetian Empire. MORRIS, Jan. The Venetian Empire. A sea
voyage. London: Penguin Books, 1990. p.75.
29 GRUZINSKI, Serge. El pensamiento mestizo. Barcelona: Biblioteca del presente. Paidós, 2000. p.18.
30 MIGNOLO (1995 apud GRUZINSKI, 2000, p.45).
31 GRUZINSKI, Serge. Op. cit., p.60.
32 Ibidem, p.43.
33 HALL, Stuart. A identidade cultural na pós-modernidade. Rio de Janeiro: DP & A, 2006. p.11.
110

nationality, which in the past used to give solid localizations to social individuals.
Today, even our personal identities are being shaken once the conception that we
have of our selves as integrated subjects is relative 34 . The stable “sense of the self” we
had for granted, that before could exist, has been definitively revealed as something
unreachable. The idea that identities are historically defined and not biologically implies
the notion of a subject that assumes different identities in different moments. And these
identities aren’t necessarily unified to a coherent ‘self’.
Once the modern societies became more complex, they acquired a more
collective and social form 35 . It’s born, then, a more social notion of the subject. The
individual is seen as something localized and “defined” in the interior of the big
structures of modern society. The “rational individualism” of the Cartesian logic soon
would be questioned by Sociology. The complexity of the social structures where
individuals lie, then, would only be perceived later. This process results in the
conception of a contemporary subject in possession of a transitory identity,
disconnected from any axis, divided between the contractions of the ‘self’, in a constant
struggle to be culturally inserted in a world as unstable as the individual capacity to
comprehend itself.
Furthermore, the perception of such subjective complexity isn’t restricted to
individuals, and it spreads itself to every kind of social group. The truth, though, as
Canclini puts it, is that in multiethnic and multicultural nations as the Latin Americans,
we can question the existence of a cultural unification that we are forced to see with
eyes trained to analyze uniform social structures as it was desired to exist in modern
times. According to this author, there are not even hegemonic classes as efficient to
eliminate the differences or completely subordinate them 36 . All cultures are defined in
the frontiers, and, this way, they “loose the exclusive connection with the territory, but
gain in communication and knowledge”.
In the current context, cultures and identities are perceived as processes, flows
– and are defined according to other cultures and other identities. They are constantly
being transformed. Cultural identity is expressed as a consequence and not as an
object in itself: it is the immediate social consequence of the identification of a subject
or group with its culture and heterogenic products, and the development of the social
historic conscience. The identity is the culture internalized in subjects, subjectively
appropriated under the form of a conscience of the self in the context of a limited field
of shared significations. The human dignity and cultural identities are built in the
quotidian, from the valorization of traces that define each individual to themselves and
in their relationships with the world 37 . This is the great problem generator of the
discussions involving ethnographic museums which, throughout a definitive and
objectivity view of human groups, create simulacrums of identities, interpreting people
from small fragments of their culture, building identities based in delusional images.
The museum that tries to capture fixed images in the middle of this
inexhaustible flow of cultural identities that is everywhere, is committing a fatal mistake.
Museums must, on the contrary, join the flow, let them go with it and transform
themselves in the measure of the transformation of the very identities they desire to
transmit. If the whole globe is a single museum of people working in a constant process
of transformation and re-signification, it’s the duty of all kinds of museum to join it,
reinventing themselves everyday, because that has always been the nature of
34 Ibidem, p.12.
35 Ibidem, p.29.
36 CANCLINI, Néstor García. Culturas Híbridas. São Paulo: Universidade de São Paulo, 2006. p.274.
37 SCHEINER, T. C.. Museologia, identidades, desenvolvimento sustentável: estratégias discursivas. In:
ENCONTRO INTERNACIONAL DE ECOMUSEUS (2) / ENCONTRO DO SUBCOMITÊ REGIONAL DO
ICOFOM PARA A AMÉRICA LATINA E O CARIBE (9). Comunidade, Patrimônio e Desenvolvimento
Sustentável / Museologia e Desenvolvimento Sustentável. Coord. PRIOSTI, Odalice M., PRIOSTI,
Walter V., SCHEINER, Tereza. Santa Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. 17 / 20 mayo 2000.
111

communication; global or local, it is powerful as it touches diversity – and this is no
novelty to the world.
Globalization, good or bad, all we know is that there is no such thing as an
equal globalization for all the people in the ‘globe’. The term ‘global’ denotes not only a
universal phenomenon, but also something that establishes a homogenous dynamic,
something that happens in the exact same proportion to everyone on Earth. This is,
evidently, make-believe. In an upside-down world, the capitalistic economy is defined
by the burden of foreign debt, as well as the violent inflationary processes and the
tendency to strong income disparity 38 . Culturally, the organization of this world has
fallowed the hegemony of neo-liberal economics: according to Reboratti, “globalization
has meant that hamburgers are consumed in Lima and doughnuts in Recife, but it has
not made ceviche popular in New York or feijoada in London”.
In instead of producing a homogenous planet, globalization is constantly
generating diversity and complex scenarios in an unstoppable motion. This dynamic
that has always existed with the human race, arrives in modern times full of myths and
fantasies. But the most important for Museology is that it calls the attention to the very
origin of the Museum, invented by people’s desire of celebrating themselves and of
seeing their images culturally represented, emphasizing that the images the individuals
create of themselves can be perceived as masks they wear – and masks are always
being removed and replaced. Everyone is daily making their own Museum, a result
from the human experiences in the world, where every single person is the soul object
and subject of creation.
In a world that proclaims itself global, there is no reason for museums to remain
as individual islands of content, “each a repository of idiosyncratic processes and
expertise” 39 . Museums cannot continue to be the sole keepers of the world’s heritage,
when even the concept of heritage has been shaken by globalization itself. The
Museum should be able to provide the empowerment of the human groups, so that
they can express themselves in the language of their living culture – and this is the role
of a museum committed with global communication. And this culture, as Hugues de
Varine puts it, is rooted in a dynamic heritage that is undergoing a constant process of
transformation and creation 40 . The actual heritage with which the Museum must be
compromised is the change itself and how it affects people. The phenomenon Museum
has already taken as many forms as we thought it was possible and, everyday, it is
getting even more dynamic then it was to begin with. Well, that’s what I could notice
while waiting to fly once more.
112
Rio de Janeiro, June, 2008
38 REBORATTI, Carlos E.. Territory, Scale and Sustainable Development. p.207-222. In: BECKER, Egon
& JAHN, Thomas (editors). Sustainability and the social sciences. A cross-disciplinary approach to
integrating environmental considerations into theoretical reorientation. London / New York: Zed Books,
1999. 336p. p.213.
39 FRIESS, Peter. The tech virtual: digital democracy in exhibit design. ICOM NEWS. N. 1, 2008. p.3.
40 DE VARINE, Hugues. The museum as a social agent of development. ICOM NEWS. N. 1, 2008. p.5.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
ACSELRAD, Henri. Sustainability and Territory: Meaningful Practices and Material
Transformations. p.37-58. In: BECKER, Egon & JAHN, Thomas (editors). Sustainability and the social
sciences. A cross-disciplinary approach to integrating environmental considerations into theoretical
reorientation. London / New York: Zed Books, 1999.
AUGÉ, Marc. Não-lugares. Introdução a uma antropologia da supermodernidade. Campinas, SP:
Ed. Papirus, 2005.
BAUMAN, Zygmunt. Comunidade. A busca por segurança no mundo atual. Rio de Janeiro:
Jorge Zahar, 2003.
______. Modernidade Líquida. Rio de Janeiro: Ed. Jorge Zahar, 2001.
BELLAIGUE, Mathilde. TERRITORIALITÉ, MEMOIRE ET DEVELOPPEMENT. L’écomusée de la
communauté le Creusot / Montceau-les-Mines (France). In: SYMPOSIUM MUSEUM, TERRITORY,
SOCIETY: NEW TENDENCIES/NEW PRACTICES. ISS: ICOFOM STUDY SERIES. Londres, ICOM,
International Committee for Museology/ICOFOM, n. 2, p. 4, Aug. 1983.
CAMPOS, M. D. e SANZ, J.. Antropologia educacional. Vitória: Núcleo de Educação Aberta e à
Distância (nead) - Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo, 2004.
CANCLINI, Néstor García. Culturas Híbridas. São Paulo: Universidade de São Paulo, 2006.
FRIESS, Peter. The tech virtual: digital democracy in exhibit design. ICOM NEWS. N. 1, 2008.
GRUZINSKI, Serge. El pensamiento mestizo. Barcelona: Biblioteca del presente. Paidós, 2000.
JEUDY, Henri-Pierre. Espelho das cidades. Rio de Janeiro: Casa da Palavra, 2005.
HALL, Stuart. A identidade cultural na pós-modernidade. Rio de Janeiro: DP & A, 2006.
MITCHELL, J. C. The Kalela Dance. Manchester University Press, 1956. Disponível em:
www.era.anthropology.ac.uk/kalela/.
MORRIS, Jan. The Venetian Empire. A sea voyage. London: Penguin Books, 1990.
REBORATTI, Carlos E.. Territory, Scale and Sustainable Development. p.207-222. In: BECKER,
Egon & JAHN, Thomas (editors). Sustainability and the social sciences. A cross-disciplinary approach
to integrating environmental considerations into theoretical reorientation. London / New York: Zed Books,
1999. 336p.
SANTOS, Milton. Por uma outra globalização. Do pensamento único à consciência universal.
Rio de Janeiro: Record, 2002.
SCHEINER, T. C.. Museologia, identidades, desenvolvimento sustentável: estratégias
discursivas. In: ENCONTRO INTERNACIONAL DE ECOMUSEUS (2) / ENCONTRO DO SUBCOMITÊ
REGIONAL DO ICOFOM PARA A AMÉRICA LATINA E O CARIBE (9). Comunidade, Patrimônio e
Desenvolvimento Sustentável / Museologia e Desenvolvimento Sustentável. Coord. PRIOSTI,
Odalice M., PRIOSTI, Walter V., SCHEINER, Tereza. Santa Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. 17 / 20 mayo
2000.
______. Apolo e Dionísio no templo das musas. Museu: gênese, idéia e representações na
cultura ocidental. 1998. Dissertação (Mestrado em comunicação) – Programa de Pós-Graduação em
Comunicação e Cultura. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro/ECO, Rio de Janeiro, 1998.
SCHUMACHER, E. F. Small is beautiful: economics as if people mattered. New York: Harper
Perennial, 1989.
. VARINE, Hugues de. The museum as a social agent of development. ICOM NEWS. N. 1, 2008
113

114

A MUSEUM IS THE REALITY
DOLÁK Jan, UNESCO Chair of Museology and World Heritage
Brno, Czech Republic
ABSTRACT
A museum is the reality
The purpose of this document is to raise the issue about the place museums and
museology have vis-à-vis a changing world. Are we really living a sort of revolution caused
by the Internet or just an acceleration in the dynamics of development?
The new information and communication technologies (ITCs) are rejected by some
people, unquestionably admired by others, but impossible to deny by all. On the basis of
Jean Baudrillard’s and Kerstin Smeds’s works, the document presents an analysis not only of
the way in which technology impacts on the life of museums, but also the benefits it provides
to specific issues related to collections, mainly the exhibition as such. It emphasizes that
ITCs are only a vehicle to support, in a greater or lesser degree, the efforts made by a
museum in its task of conveying knowledge, but they are never able to enrich history in itself.
In this respect, in the article by Peter van Mensch published in the Nordisk Museologi
(Nordic Museums) review, this is thouroughly analyzed and doubts are presented about
projects oriented to a documentation which comprise personal stories and memories where
the collective memory only gathers summaries of private statements.
Following Jean Baudrillard’s thought, it is supported in this context that civilization has
lost three basic pillars for its own existence : reality, history and diversity, and an analysis is
presented about the way of having access to ‘fictions of reality’ which are experienced within
this virtual hyper-reality. It is also mentioned that information excesses do not allow the
creation of a truthful picture of the circumstances and ‘fictions of reality’ become ambiguous
signs that hinder the differentiation of reality from virtuality.
The main axis of this document is the verification of truth within the framework of a
museum’s activity in its role of interpreting, presenting and transmitting the museological
heritage as a real legacy for future generations.
RÉSUMÉ
Un musée est la réalité
Le but de ce document est de mettre en relief la place qu’occupent les musées et la
muséologie face à un monde en changement. Sommes-nous vraiment en train de vivre une
sorte de révolution provoquée par l’Internet ou seulement une accélération des dynamiques
du développement ?
Les nouvelles techniques de l’information et de la communication (NTIC) sont
rejetées par certaines personnes mais elles sont incontestablement admirées par d’autres ;
or, il est impossible de nier leur importance. Sur la base des travaux de Jean Baudrillard et
de Kerstin Smeds, l’article présente une analyse non seulement de la manière dont la
technique influence la vie des musées, mais aussi sur les bénéfices qu’elle apporte au
115

secteur propre des collections, et spécialement celui des expositions. L’article met l’accent
sur le fait que les NTIC sont seulement un véhicule pour soutenir, à différents degrés
d’intensité, les efforts faits par un musée dans le but de diffuser les connaissances. Mais il
souligne qu’elles n’ont pas la capacité d’enrichir l’histoire.
À cet égard, dans un article signé par Peter van Mench, et publié dans la revue
Nordisk Museologi (Musées Nordiques), cette idée est analysée en profondeur : on y
exprime des doutes sur des projets qui tendent vers la production de documents traitant
d’histoires personnelles et de souvenirs où la mémoire collective ne réunit que des résumés
de témoignages privés.
Poursuivant la pensée de Jean Baudrillard, on considère dans ce contexte que la
civilisation a perdu trois piliers fondamentaux pour sa propre existence - la réalité, l’histoire et
la diversité - et on présente une analyse sur la manière d’accéder aux «fictions de la réalité»
pratiquées dans cette hyper-réalité virtuelle. On mentionne aussi que les excès d’information
ne permettent pas de créer une image vraisemblable des circonstances et que «les fictions
de réalité» deviennent des signes ambigus qui empêchent de distinguer la réalité de la
virtualité.
L’axe principal de ce document est la vérification de la vérité dans le cadre de
l’activité muséale et dans son rôle d’interprétation, de présentation et de transmission du
patrimoine muséal, véritable héritage pour les générations à venir.
RESUMEN
El museo es la realidad
El propósito de este documento es plantear la preocupación sobre el lugar que
ocupan el museo y la museología frente a un mundo en cambio. ¿Vivimos realmente en una
especie de revolución originada por Internet o sólo se trata de una aceleración en la
dinámica del desarrollo?
Las nuevas tecnologías son repudiadas por algunos, admiradas sin cuestionamiento
por otros, pero imposibles de negar. Apoyado en trabajos de Jean Baudrillard y Kerstin
Smeds, en el documento se analiza no sólo la manera en que la tecnología afecta la vida de
los museos, sino los beneficios que aporta a temas específicos referidos a las colecciones,
en especial a la exhibición. Destaca que las mismas son tan sólo un vehículo para apoyar,
en mayor o menor grado, el esfuerzo del museo, capaz de ayudar al conocimiento pero
nunca de enriquecer a la historia como tal.
Al respecto, se analiza detalladamente el artículo de Peter van Mensch, publicado en
la revista Nordisk Museologi (Museos Nórdicos), poniendo en duda proyectos dirigidos a la
documentación de historias y recuerdos personales en los cuales la memoria colectiva
cuenta tan sólo con resúmenes de declaraciones particulares.
Siguiendo el pensamiento de Jean Baudrillard una vez más, se considera en este
contexto que la civilización ha perdido tres pilares básicos para su existencia: la realidad, la
historia y la diversidad y se analiza la forma de acceder a los ‘simulacros de la realidad’ que
se vivencian dentro de la hiper-realidad virtual. Los excesos en la información impiden crear
un cuadro fehaciente de las circunstancias y ‘los simulacros’ se convierten en signos
ambiguos que no permiten diferenciar la realidad de la virtualidad.
El eje principal de este documento es la verificación de la verdad en el marco de la
actividad del museo, en su tarea de interpretar, presentar y transmitir el acervo museal,
como un verdadero legado para las generaciones del futuro.
116

* * *
When we open the pages of newspapers and, in particular, of the specialized press,
including philosophical or museological coverage, we learn relatively quickly that we live in a
time of revolution (social, technical, economic, environmental….). Forecasts for the next few
years are for the most part pessimistic - not a novelty in itself since the last truly satisfied
philosophers, with a few exceptions, were Voltaire and company. So we are introduced to an
extraordinarily dark future of crises, global and worldwide, of course. Umberto Eco calls
these super pessimistics “the harbingers of the Apocalypse”. And sometimes the opinions of
the best minds on the planet remind us of news items from commercial television channels.
The more bloody and shocking the content, the better the reports sell (or is it the
philosophies?). In addition to this, more modest voices are almost lost in the ether. But
whether a dark future or a complicated but measurable progress lies ahead, where is
nowadays the place of museums and -by extension- of museology? Are we truly going
through a revolution of some kind, or is it only an acceleration in the dynamics of
development?
I have always tried to be modern; perhaps, according to some theoreticians, I became
post-modern and soon I will apparently be trans-modern (based on the presentation of a
colleague at the May conference "Museology in the 21 st century: problems of studying and
teaching" which took place in St. Petersburg). Is this just the desire to present one’s own
importance, i.e. living the revolution? On the other hand, those who are evidently unable to
produce evidence for their revolutionary nature speak about themselves as the “lost
generation”. And is there really any value for oneself in being concerned with such matters
anymore? Let's leave to the psychologists the answers to those questions.
The sense of the post-modern emphasis on irreducible diversity -the original meaning
of the word was suspect, doubtful, perverted- is not so much the fact of plurality as a radical
defence of the “extraordinary” against the universalist demands of knowledge, the model of
which is a modern idea of science. Clearly, the most expressive desire to “do it differently” is
to be found in art. As the Swedish sculptor Claes Oldenburg writes: “I am in favour of an art
which can do more than sit on its backside in a museum”. Therefore, art seeks to free itself of
the traditional norms and values of which the museum is the depositary.
This image differs only slightly from that offered by the world of modern media, in
which the reality of reality is dispersed. Reality itself is nothing but an intricately organised
medium in which information constantly comes to life and dies. The witness is not the one
who holds to some global perspective in his discourse on the world; on the contrary, the
witness is the one who asserts his local vision of the world and carries responsibility for it.
Without any doubt, from the end of the Second World War at the latest, mankind has
moved into a more dynamic phase of its development. In a certain way, the world is
becoming a global village. Often, but more slowly, museums have been able to react to these
developments, in order to adapt to the situation and to respond to the questions put forth by
mankind here and now. Despite the efforts of many museums, the museum world (to say
nothing of the world of museology) rarely gets involved in world-shaking issues such as the
problems of minorities, cultural identity, cross-cultural communication, and neither in the
imminent issues of environmental development. Quite simply, we seldom get involved in the
present – we mainly focus our role in detecting findings only little related to today’s life. And if
we grasp a truly “live topic”, we often fail to present the final products at its best, so that we
lose to other sharper “communicators”.
Another extreme is, however, a “topical approach at any cost”, such as may be
observed in the archaeological exhibition in Stockholm History Museum, which included
117

something defined as “unidentified objects of the 20 th century”. Is this contribution of
archaeology the way that provides answers to today’s questions?
If we speak about dynamic development, I somewhat hesitate to use the word
“revolution” – all around the world, since the end of the Second World War, since the
collapse of the colonial system as well as the fall of the Iron Curtain, technology has been the
main actuator. Cursed by some, uncritically admired by others, but undeniable to everyone.
How does this dynamic development in technology (revolution, if you wish) affects the life
and work in a museum? The first important helper was a simple typewriter. For me,
personally, the Museum of V. I. Lenin in Prague, which I visited sometime in the mid-1980s,
was almost a revolution of technology itself with its nearly 30 video projectors connected to
TV screens. We learned how to work with computers, almost can’t communicate now other
than by e-mail, browse the Internet daily and find new and better museum websites. In this
respect, technology is most welcome and highly beneficial. I cannot think of situations where
technology would hinder administrative communication, filing, conservation, protection,
promotion, information, etc. An exhibition is a different matter. Technology, particularly the
latest such as the 3D presentation, is naturally welcome in this area as well. Some
exhibitions could not even be organised without the latest technology, e.g. the presentation
of the remains of a Viking house “Reykjavik 871+ -2”. In this respect I would like to draw
your attention to the interesting ARCO system international project (WIZA : 2008).
Technology, however, must remain a vehicle of museum efforts; it must not become
their objective. It is not an impressive show that we strive for. Technology must not
overshadow a museum exhibit, making it a useless accessory, a mere artifact as it may have
unfortunately been in Polish Hniezdno.
In a recent conference, a 3D projection enthusiast praised these innovations as
“history enriching”, inviting to participate in “historical picnics”. Various means of technology
may help us understand some aspects of history but by no means can they be “history
enriching.” Otherwise we would really get into some sort of virtual, artificial world where, for
example, the blockade of Leningrad may be presented as a “historical picnic”.
This evokes the fundamental theoretical formulations of the late French philosopher
Jean Baurdrillard. In Baudrillard’s opinion, our current civilisation has lost the three key pillars
of its existence: reality, history and diversity. Reality was destroyed by the loss of link
between the sign and the object. Information technology, created to make communication as
effective as possible, has actually resulted in satiety of information, which we are less and
less able to assemble in order to create a comprehensive picture. The link between the
object and the sign has dissolved into a tentative play among signs themselves, continuously
generating new layers of signs. The world is thus falling into a sort of reality, more real than
reality, i.e., hyper-reality. This hyper-reality consists of simulacrums – signs which are
ambiguous in terms of whether and to what extent they relate to reality and to what extent
they are pure virtuality. Simulacrums have been created by people but they live their own
lives independent of their creators. It is grotesque that this murder of reality happened as a
result of our efforts to improve our awareness of the world and ourselves. The loss of a
historic thread is compensated by turning to previously lived, emotion-filled experiences
which we strive to revive, trying to find ourselves within them.
This also relates to museum culture. Kerstin Smeds is right in asking: “Are we then
going to witness total anarchy of narratives and meanings in cyber-space? Subcultures,
subjective beliefs, conspiration theories? Will the “real“ world cease to be real and turn
entirely virtual, spiritual? Remains to be seen [..]. Is the futurologist Rolf Jensen right in
saying that we have already left the information society behind and are now entering the
‘dream society’ where the best story is what counts and what will make the money, and the
future?” (SMEDS : 2007)
118

When science lets us peep into something which we had been unaware of, thus
disclosing human ignorance, we often respond by anti-science, making space for widereaching
amateurism. The often observed efforts for “democratisation of culture”, for moving
cultural heritage from “dry academic corners” are, in fact, just an aggressive attack against
any scientific approach in our work. The recent opinion poll regarding the new 7 Wonders of
the World is just a sad example (DOLÁK : 2008).
The industrialisation and never-ending pressures for financial profits of the museum
culture has turned it into a mere entertainment. Then it may seem irrelevant what people do
for their entertainment. However, museums should play a role of cultural institutions,
irreplaceable by others. Quite simple, museums pursue activities which cannot be pursued
by any other institutions. Non-museum activities are then those that may be done by
someone else. However, this is an extreme simplification of a very complex issue into just
two sentences. Supporting museum culture, however, must be based on its own knowledgebased,
scientific platform.
When is then modern technology beneficial for museums, monuments, etc., and
when is it misleading?
We welcome the possibility of special numeric codes accompanying standard
descriptions enabling visitors to gain more information using their mobile phones and Internet
access. Visitors themselves may then decide how much information they need (van Mensch
2005). Should these codes be added to funny, humorous or otherwise slick information? If
this information is clearly differentiated from the serious information (i.e. may be omitted as
required) - why not? However, this information, observations, etc, must be clearly
demonstrable, i.e. historically truthful, honest in terms of history methodology.
If we try to find a single-word equivalent to the word museum, we might come up with
“memory” or “collection.” This collection may be managed, marketed, conserved, exhibited
as well as used for various educational, entertaining or other activities. A collection
represents a museum’s effort; the type of collection determines (may determine) the typology
of the museum. This is, in my opinion, today’s crucial issue. What does a museum shelter
and what doesn’t? ICOM Mission Statement issued for the ICOM General Conference in
Vienna in 2007 states quite clearly: “But collections still remain (at) the core of basic
knowledge, competition and value of a museum.” And what should we understand by the
term ‘collection’?
Let us look at some examples of creating museum collections. Denmark experienced
a true craze at the occasion of the wedding of Denmark’s crown prince in 2004. Museum
documentation of this event was very thorough. Eight museums, two archives and two
university departments decided to co-ordinate a scientific project documenting the day “in the
public, private and virtual space.” (PEDERSEN : 2008). Everything was documented “from
dinner plans and costumes to trash from the streets.” Using the Internet and e-mails, large
collections of photos and video-recordings of the family celebration were created. We cannot
but praise highly our Danish colleagues for this holistic approach to the event. With regard to
the clearly defined “topic” I would even agree with recording personal testimonies, even
though they are verifiable to a certain extent.
According to some writers, there are two types of memory. Museums and similar
institutions gather and protect the so-called "historical memory" but in addition to this there is
the so-called “collective memory by groups of people themselves”. Then “...modern
technology appears to provide new possibilities to increase access and interpretation, but
also to bridge the gap between historical memory and collective memory, without the
collective memory being alienated (stolen) from those memories themselves“. (VAN
MENSCH: 2005, p.17). In his wide-ranging article, Peter van Mensch describes some uses
119

of modern technology which I would however divide into beneficial (incontrovertible) and
others somewhat controversial. (VAN MENSCH : 2005). Sometimes in my view this is rather
thin ice, i.e. a narrow boundary between good and evil. Let’s look at some approaches which
try to capture, preserve and publish personal stories, the memories of specific individuals.
We cannot be against the “Imagine Identity and Culture” project in Amsterdam, in
trying “to highlight the culture and identity of migrants as seen from their own perspective“.
This can only be done with difficulty using traditional museum approaches (especially three-
dimensional documentation).
New information was certainly provided by the “Brussels Belongs to Us” project and
the “Amsterdam Memory of the East” project. Of a similar nature are the “Canadian Location
is Everything” project or the “Amsterdam Emotional City Plan” which records personal
responses divided into eight emotions and 18 themes. The “Amsterdam Trading Places”
project gathering personal responses directly insists that not only the place, the people and
the buildings are important in a description of personal memories. “Maybe the heavy rain
makes you remember how lost you where at the city, walking alone. Or the sun was so
hot…“ (VAN MENSCH : 2005, p. 19). We collect all of this as our legacy to future
generations! We should similarly check out the “Yellow Arrow” project
(www.yellowarrow.org), the “Italian Slow City” project and others. Anyone who wishes to do
so can go to the History Museum in Stockholm to store his "personal memories”. As an
example we can find an urn there with the ashes of a recently deceased young man. Is this
about the urn, about the ashes or about the notion that young people at the beginning of the
21st century died in tragic circumstances? How is it possible to generalise this notion? Are
these approaches really suitable for a museum? Are all these attempts at cultural biography
or psychogeography really revolutionary changes (paradigms for museum work) worthy of
being followed in other parts of the world? From personal experience I know that, in practice,
the most is said by those who do not have too much to say because they know little. Does
this element not turn up into many (all?) thesauruses preserving today’s responses? In
addition I do not believe that a simple totalling up or summary of a few personal responses
will lead us to some kind of corresponding form of collective memory. I consider the term
collective memory a concept under which the memory of an individual is defined as a
phenomenon, a term for which the social milieu is paramount (e.g. family, religious group or
even nation). The individual identifies himself with those events, personalities, etc.,
considered important by the group where he belongs. Collective memory tends to be used by
a group for various purposes, but it always unifies and disregards everything which might
isolate the individual.
In considering the so-called Social Software, it is as if we even longed for a direct
telephone connection with the one who has lodged his personal memories and the one who
wishes to share them with him, comment on them and so on (VAN MENSCH : 2005). Let us
try to look at the problem from the other side. Nowadays, many, mainly young people, share
sensitive information about themselves and those close to them on the Internet. This can
however be misused and distributed on-line in a context of which they have no inkling. We
are coming into conflict (indeed a legal conflict) between freedom of expression and the
protection of privacy. In public (on the Web) we have no privacy, as it is shown by the sad
story of the Canadian boy Ghyslain who recorded himself on video fighting as Darth Maul
against an imaginary enemy. His spiteful fellow classmates uploaded these recordings on the
web, complete, with lighting and musical effects. The boy, now known as the Star Wars Kid,
became an unwillingly Internet “celebrity” laughed at by all for his clumsiness; the boy ended
up in psychiatric care. This unfortunate video was in fact seen by over 7.5 million visitors to
You Tube.
120

Another example is 25 year-old Jessica, writing her personal blog, in which she describes
her intimate activities with her boyfriend. It turned out as you might expect, her boyfriend
sued her.
Solove adapts the Internet to the teenager, not only by the length of its existence to
date. He is impudent, ill-disciplined, fearless, unscrupulous, always testing and often failing
to consider the consequences of his behaviour.
Great freedom can be both a blessing and a curse (KOČIČKA : 2008). I would remind
all users and promoters of emotional maps that all our emotions when placed outside our
head can be misused and that the privacy must be protected from others.
Museums sometimes want at any price to have pubertal acne and dive into uncharted
waters.
The thing which worries me in this connection from the point of view of museology is
the truthfulness, the creation of a true legacy for future generations, capturing today’s true
nature, verifiability, truth, in short reality. Let us continue to check out in our work whether we
are on the ground of reality or just making Baudrillard’s simulacrums.
We must not “see the mission of museum culture only in the visualisation of
phenomena attractive to and welcomed by people, regardless of their truth or falseness, but
on the contrary: to defend truth and by using collection thesauruses to form, cultivate a
treasury of memory in the interests of cultural growth and the improvement of humanity…”
(STRÁNSKÝ: Museums in the Context of Cyberculture, unpublished text held by the author
of this article). A museum is, in my opinion, a reality above all. Then anything which departs
from this space is not only not museum-like, it may even be an outright anti-museum.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BAUDRILLARD, Jean. Amerika. Miroslav Petříček jr.. Praha, Dauphin, 2000. p. 159.
BAUDRILLARD, Jean. Dokonalý zločin. Alena Dvořáčková.
Olomouc: Periplum, 2001. p. 180.
BAUDRILLARD, Jean. Rozhovory s Baudrillardem. Petr Mikeš. Olomouc: Votobia, 1997.
p. 179.
DOLÁK, Jan. Cultura do patrimonio e sua conservacao. Um olhar contemporaneo sobre
a preservacao do patrimonio cultural material. Rio de Janeiro: Museu Histórico Nacional,
2008. p. 218-230.
KOČIČKA, Pavel. Privacy, a public matter. (Reviews of Solove, D.J.. The Future of
Reputation, Gossip, Rumor and Privacy on Internet, Yale University Press, New Haven and
London 2007, 247 pp.).
MF Dnes. 3.5.2008, no. 2008, p. D8.
PEDERSEN, Lykke L.. Celebrating in the public, private and virtual space : Contemporary
study of the Danes and the Crown Prince´s Wedding in 2004. Connecting Collecting.
Stockholm: Nordiska Museet, 2008, pp. 34-38.
SMEDS, Kerstin. The Escape of the Object? : Crossing borders between collective and
individual, physical and virtual. Unpublished text in the author´s possession.
STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Zbyslav. Museums in the context of cyberculture. Unpublished text
in the author’s possession.
VAN MENSCH, Peter. Annotating the environment Heritage and new technologies.
Nordisk Museologi. 2005, no. 2, pp. 17-27.
WIZA, Wojciech R.. ARCO system – a universal solution for virtual museum. Heading
Towards a Modern Museum, Varšana 2008: Pre-conference proceedings from the
Conference of the same name held on 6-7 March 2008. 2008.
121

122

2.4 A global vision preserving plural identities : common
heritage in a changing world
Une vision globale préservant des identités plurielles : un
patrimoine commun dans un monde changeant
préservant des identités plurielles
Una visión global para la preservación de identidades
plurales : patrimonio común en un mundo en cambio
123

124

GLOBALISATION, POST-COLONIALISM AND MUSEUMS
Jennifer Harris, Curtin University of Technology – Perth, Australia
ABSTRACT
Globalisation in museums emerges from a long history of their engagement with
diverse cultures. Contemporary debates about globalisation need to be understood as
emerging from post-colonial issues about allowing the lives and voices of others to be
represented in the museum space. The central element of globalisation is intense
interconnectedness made possible by worldwide communication technology. It should be
understood in museums, therefore, not as something radically new, but as offering an
intensification of the processes of dialogue that were begun some decades ago as museums
responded to post-colonial challenges. This paper examines the twin globalising forces of
homogenisation and local resistance to it by looking at the example of the famous Benin
Bronzes from West Africa and their recent exhibition in Paris at the Musée du Quai Branly.
The bronzes were exhibited in an aesthetic framework rather than in political and historical
contexts and provoked much criticism. If museums wish to respond to globalisation they
need to respond to such criticisms and see them as a positive and potentially productive
opportunity.
RÉSUMÉ
La mondialisation, le post-colonialisme et les musées
Dans les musées la mondialisation émerge d'une longue histoire de leur implication
avec différentes cultures. On doit comprendre les débats contemporains sur la
mondialisation comme découlant des questions post-coloniales qui se posent sur le fait de
savoir si l’on peut représenter la vie et la voix des autres dans l'espace muséal. L'élément
central de la mondialisation est une intense interconnexion qu’a rendue possible la
technologie de communication mondiale. Il devrait donc être compris dans les musées, non
pas comme quelque chose de radicalement nouveau, mais comme offrant une intensification
des processus de dialogue qui avaient commencé plusieurs décennies auparavant, lorsque
les musées avaient répondu aux défis post-coloniaux. Le présent papier examine les deux
forces de la mondialisation formées par l'homogénéisation et par la résistance locale qui s’y
oppose, en examinant l'exemple des célèbres Bronzes du Bénin de l’Afrique de l'Ouest et
leur récente exposition à Paris au Musée du Quai Branly. Les bronzes ont été exposés dans
un cadre esthétique plutôt que dans des contextes politiques et historiques et ont provoqué
de nombreuses critiques. Si les musées veulent répondre à la mondialisation, ils ont besoin
de répondre à de telles critiques et de les considérer comme une occasion positive et
potentiellement productive.
RESUMEN
Globalizacion, poscolonialismo y museos
La globalización en los museos proviene de la larga historia de su compromiso con las
diversas culturas. Los debates contemporáneos sobre la globalización deben ser
comprendidos como emergentes de cuestiones poscoloniales que permiten que las vidas y
voces de los otros sean representadas en el espacio del museo. El elemento central de la
globalización es la intensa interconectividad que hace posible la comunicación mundial de la
tecnología. Por lo tanto, deberá ser entendida en los museos no como algo radicalmente
125

nuevo, sino como un ofrecimiento de intensificación de los procesos de diálogo que
comenzaron décadas atrás cuando los museos respondieron a los desafíos poscoloniales.
Este documento examina las dos fuerzas de la globalización, constituidas por la
homogeneización y la resistencia local que se le opone, examinando el ejemplo de los
célebres Bronces de Benin del África Occidental y su reciente exhibición en París, en el
Museo del Quai Branly. Los bronces fueron exhibidos en un marco estético fuera de los
contextos políticos e históricos, provocando muchas críticas.
Si los museos desean dar respuesta a la globalización, deben responder también a tales
críticas y verlas como una oportunidad positiva y potencialmente productiva.
* * *
An extraordinary exchange took place during the ICOFOM meeting at the ICOM
conference in Vienna in August 2007. An impassioned plea from a Benin delegate for the
Benin Bronzes (C16-C19) to be returned to West Africa was met by a vigorous refusal from
French delegates who argued many things including that the bronzes were too fragile to
travel and, finally, in an exasperated tone: “the French people wish to see them too”. They
suggested that, in Africa, photographs could be substitutes for the famous sculptures which
were taken by the British in a punitive expedition in 1897 from Benin City amid huge general
destruction. They have been exhibited in the British Museum and other museums
throughout Europe. The French delegates’ argument took no account of the role of important
objects in forming national identity, fostering local pride and attracting a tourist industry, nor
the long debate on the morality of the removal of objects of cultural heritage significance from
their original locations. 1
That such an encounter should take place at the University of Vienna in a room filled
with people from countries including Canada, Australia, Germany, Brazil, Argentina and the
USA was a sign of the global aspect of the contemporary museum world. The international
exchanges, in which the museological problems of one country were found to be very similar
in another, proclaimed the global preoccupations of museums. The refusal of the French
delegates to listen to the arguments of the African, however, was the most remarkable
aspect of all. It was remarkable not because it was politically rash, indeed untenable, to
insist on the ownership rights of a western former colonising power, but because it was 2007
and most of the museologists present that day thought that debate on these issues had
already become very sophisticated during the previous thirty years as museums began to
relinquish authority and open to debates on post-colonial responsibility (Clifford & Marcus,
1986; Karp & Lavine, 1991; Karp, Kreamer & Lavine, 1992; Pearse, 1995; Vergo, 1989).
This is not withstanding the sentiments and unacknowledged politics of the 2001
“Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums: ‘Museums Serve Every
Nation’” (Karp et al., 2006, 247). This document restated the museum power status quo,
asserted the rights of major museums to retain their huge collections acquired from other
cultures and attempted to ignore the politics and history of collection.
In the light of that moment in Vienna, this paper reflects on globalisation in the postcolonial
museum space. It argues that, for museums, globalisation emerges from a long
history of engagement with the diversity of world cultures and does not represent a radically
new era. Despite globalisation’s homogenising force it does not threaten the museum’s preeminent
role in caring for original objects nor suggest that the museum’s existence is under
threat. This paper works from the position that elements of globalisation have been
1 The claims to ownership of the Benin Bronzes are complicated by the fact that the modern nation of
Benin, formerly Dahomey, is not the place where they were made; they were made in what is now part
of Nigeria.
126

perceivable in museums since colonisation and museum collection began, indeed that
museums were among the leading institutions which forged those global connections
(Sheets-Pyenson, 1988). The contemporary understanding of globalisation as instantaneous
communication and massive worldwide interconnectedness must be understood as an
intensification of the former, colonising, reality of museums. This paper looks at the way that
museums can be understood in terms of globalisation as places where the power of western
cultural imperialism is maintained and where it is simultaneously resisted. The discussion is
illustrated by looking at the example of the contested Benin Bronzes and their exhibition in
Paris at the Musée du Quai Branly.
Globalisation and museums
The great interconnectedness of the world which is enabled by communication
technologies is popularly and disapprovingly understood as a force for homogenisation – the
“’Americanisation’, ‘Disneyfication ‘ and ‘McDonaldisation’ of the planet” (Sofield, 2001: 105)
producing a sameness that is found in so many parts of the world. Homogenisation is
understood to be a negative force because it demolishes cultural diversity. An opposite
effect of globalisation, however, is perceived in a movement towards maintaining diversity,
expressed as “localisation”, fragmentation of culture (Allen & Sakamoto, 2006: 2;
Featherstone, 1995; Sofield, 2001) and the acceleration of hybridisation (Milward, 2003: 80;
Trouillot, 2002: 9), leading in some cases to the collapse of political systems, for example,
Yugoslavia. It leads to cultural clashes that are focussed on asserting identity against the
force of homogenisation. International travel shows us readily that although we can buy a
McDonald’s hamburger in so many cities of the world, to buy one in Paris is very different
from buying one in Taipei where our fellow diners are different and the world outside the
restaurant is very different. In fact, those moments of engaging with such global products
are also the moments of perceiving difference.
In Vienna, during that Benin-French exchange, we were faced with some important
questions. Were we witnessing a debate which could be styled as a “relic” from a bundle of
issues concerned with the rebalancing of rights after the withdrawal of many colonising
powers from their colonies? In other words, could we ignore this exchange as an
embarrassing vestige of former debates? Or, was it possible that the clash we were
witnessing was symptomatic of both on-going post-colonial preoccupations and, at the same
time, the abrasive clash described by Karp et al. (2006) as a museum expression of
globalisation? Were globalisation issues in the museum institution emerging from on-going
post-colonial encounters?
Debates on the moral role of the museum in the post-colonial era have resulted in the
rewriting of many museum vision and mission statements in order to reposition museums as
places of cultural encounter and cultural protection, rather than as perpetrators in the cultural
despoilation of conquered indigenous peoples. Before globalisation was grappled with by
museums there were some decades during which the New Museology and responses to
post-colonial challenges were implemented in many parts of the world. Many museums now
insist on a rhetoric of reconciliation that repositions museums as sites of dialogue where
exciting cultural discoveries are daringly imagined (Vergo, 1989; Karp & Lavine, 1991).
Rethinking the mission of the museum has been aimed especially at finding new
approaches to the representation of marginalised people. Hence, women are more
extensively represented, everyday life is celebrated and people who have been colonised are
consulted about their artefacts. In some cases, contested objects and skeletal remains have
been returned to indigenous people and, in some museums, the presence on the staff of
indigenous and colonised peoples is mandatory. In addition, and crucially for the French
example, many non-western objects have been re-valued, their knowledge value expanded
127

from a purely ethnographic interest to encompass a new “art” status. In some cases, they
have been re-designated as art works only. (This problem is discussed further below.)
Although there are thousands of examples of artefacts still being held by western museums
that were acquired in dubious circumstances during the colonial era, the debates have been
fully aired. Many museums by late 2007 had made substantial gestures towards rectifying
historic wrongs. In Vienna, that day, we were forced to rethink the role of the museum in an
era of post-colonial response and globalisation.
In the volume of museum essays, Museum Frictions: Public Cultures/Global
Transformations, Karp et al. (2006) argue that the world of museums has changed
substantially since its companion volumes (Karp & Lavine, 1991; Karp, Kreamer & Lavine,
1992) appeared and that “international and global connections have become central today to
the circumstances of museums and other display institutions (Szwaja & Ybarra-Frausto,
2006: xii).
“The range of museum roles, definitions, and cross-institutional relations entails
conjunctions of disparate constituencies, interests, goals and perspectives. These
conjunctions produce debates, tensions, collaborations, contests, and conflicts of many
sorts, at many levels – museum frictions that have both positive and negative outcomes…
these frictions play out as museum-generated social processes and globalizing processes
intersect and interact.” (Kratz & Karp, 2006: 2)
Fulfilling a dream to repair the damage of the colonising years has become a
constant theme of museums as they grapple with their past complicity in the colonising
process. As museums have moved to cultural inclusiveness and the removal of hierarchies,
the unwritten assumption has been that acrimony would be reduced; in many cases this
appears to have been the case. An outstanding example is the Museum of Anthropology in
British Columbia which has created itself as a centre of dialogue between various Canadian
indigenous peoples. The twin forces of globalisation, however, homogenisation and local
fragmentation, have continued in many other cases to aggravate the very cultural wounds
that rethinking the museum was intended to soothe. The globalising force to homogenise is
described by Birkett (2006) as necessarily and continuously resisted. Globalisation “lives -
like any system - on its resistances, with an inherent potential to create new and diverse
identities, forms and values” (Birkett, 2006: 47). She is optimistic: “resistance involves
reimagining the culture of everyday life in forms that will bring the global and the local into
new configurations” (Birkett, 2006: 62). Resistance, therefore, is central to globalisation. It is
a sign of the inherent globalisation clashes enabled by the spectacular communication of
modern technology and it leads to friction between different cultural groups.
In France, the relocation of ethnographic objects to the Pavillon des Sessions inside
the palace of The Louvre in April 2000, was a forerunner for the new museum, Musée du
Quai Branly which was to be dedicated to non-European art. It seemed to be a moment in
which the desire to repair historic colonial wrongs reached an important landmark.
Significantly, it had reached an aesthetic landmark; non-European art was declared to be
artistically equal. The French President of the time, Jacques Chirac, enthusiastically
supported the entry of non-European arts into The Louvre, saying “’there is no more of a
hierarchy of arts than there is among peoples’ and calling it ‘deeply shocking and regrettable’
that three-quarters of the world’s humanity was unrepresented in the Louvre” (Price, 2007:
36-37).
This quote reveals Chirac’s desire for a museological expression of the equality of
peoples and art works, but he fails, most ironically, to see that he perpetuates the centuries
old hierarchies by privileging The Louvre as the most important destination for the great
works of non-French people. Ultimately, therefore, in this particular museolgical logic, it is
the French, through The Louvre museum curatorial system, who decide what is great art.
128

Admission of artefacts to The Louvre functions, therefore, as a form of imprimatur. On one
hand, therefore, statements such as Chirac’s appear to abolish the art hierarchies imposed
by Europe but, on the other hand, they are simultaneously imposed as strongly as they ever
were because it is still Europe, in this case France, which is deciding what will or will not be
considered great enough for entry into the European museum system.
The movement of non-European art into The Louvre was a moment that was both an
act of post-colonial reconciliation and also of globalisation as western imperialism asserted
its rights to choose the great works of non-European peoples who could be permitted into the
European art system. The western imperial choice was an example of the persistence of the
powerful and old homogenising European vision of art. Simultaneously, however, as the
homogenising vision of Europe was being reinforced, it was also being strongly resisted as
many commentators criticised the decision to display the works first and foremost as
aesthetic objects and to demote their ethnographic contexts. Chirac’s decrying of the
previous absence of non-European art in The Louvre had indeed signalled the dominance of
the aesthetic terms under which these art works would move into the Pavillon des Sessions.
Ethnographic information was made available in nearby rooms, but was secondary to their
aesthetic status decreed by The Louvre. The works, therefore, were presented with little
foregrounding of their historic, social and cultural contexts which were the very aspects of
exhibition which were being fought for around the world in the post-colonial museological
environment.
The opening in 2006 of the Musée du Quai Branly reinforced The Louvre’s 2001
insistence on the exhibition of non-European works in terms of their aesthetic qualities.
Artefacts, therefore, are sometimes displayed at odds with their original meanings or even
artistic intentions (Price, 2007: 147). Price cites, for example, a cape which was worn by its
original owners with stripes running horizontally and which in the Musée du Quai Branly was
exhibited with the stripes running vertically because the museum display case was intended
for an object that was more vertical than horizontal. The new museum virtually refused to
discuss the often dubious and frequently violent backgrounds to France’s acquisition of non-
European works. As Price (2007: 172) says, this topic was “handled most selectively” with
limited ethnographic material available (Price, 2007: 163). In clinging to old forms of
museum authority and limiting contextual political and historical material, the new museum
has functioned as an outstanding case for highlighting the clash of cultures that is inherent in
globalisation.
Dialogue and clash
When the Musée du Quai Branly opened it emphasised that the museum was a place
of dialogue. It could be seen, therefore, as enabling a core aspect of globalisation, intense
communication. Examination of reactions to the huge exhibition of the Benin Bronzes
reveals that it is one thing to state the value of dialogue and quite another for those outside
the museum to agree that you have achieved it. The negative reaction to the exhibition
indicates that the use of the word , “dialogue”, as a principle to which the museum aspires,
could be understood somewhat ironically in the context of globalisation. Where does
dialogue connect with globalisation? What is the essence of globalisation? It is intense
interconnectedness producing unprecedented communication through new technologies.
The communication tends to both homogenise and fragment; to lead to an imperial cultural
centre and break, at the same time, into discrete and also hybrid cultural differences. It is
crucial to note that communication in the form of dialogue, that is speaking, listening and
answering each other is a major principle that underlines post-colonial attempts at re-thinking
the philosophy of museums.
129

The intention to enable dialogue was undercut in the exhibition of the Benin
masterpieces by imposing a western aesthetic framework on the display. The bronzes were
displayed in bare, white painted surrounds, a most familiar style of western exhibition which
is designed to strip away material implicitly declared extraneous and distracting. The
intended result is that the viewer is able to focus on the pure aesthetic qualities of the work.
This is a problematic aesthetic, even for western art, as the provision of contexts clearly
assists in wider interpretation of the works. To exhibit art works as if they sprang fully formed
from a neutral space is to deny almost every aspect of the works except their form. Form,
however, also has a history, and knowing that background also enriches the viewing
experience.
Insisting on western aesthetics when exhibiting non-western artefacts reveals the
homogenising force of globalisation in museums. This style of aesthetics can be difficult for
viewers to identify as the stripped back display space appears to be devoid of cultural
markers. Until quite recently it was easy for museums to perpetuate this common aesthetics
of display because the cultural markers of the producing, western, culture were disguised
beneath the apparent neutrality of white space. The exhibition of the Benin Bronzes was
somewhat at odds with the aesthetic of the main part of the Musée du Quai Branly with its
serpentine “river” path for visitors moving through the exhibits which are displayed mostly in
a conservatorially protective semi-darkness. The display of the bronzes in their white
surrounds has been, however, replicated, in countless examples in western museums. In
many cases artefacts which were functional have had their functionality stripped from them
by the museum process as they are exhibited as art objects. The absence of context is the
effect of the white space; it nullifies the significance of the histories of the objects.
The era of globalisation is not a new moment for museums. What we can say,
however, is that this is a time for museums of the intensification of the post-colonial
experience and the intensification of communication and dialogue. In the light of the
example of the Benin Bronzes in Paris, the word “dialogue” seems unintentionally ironic.
Dialogue about the bronzes has not been confined to their aesthetic values nor seems to
have taken place within the museum space. The intention of good will in the post-colonial
museum is now confronted with the totalising communication possibilities of globalisation
and, therefore, an intensification of critique from outside the museum profession. This is the
dialogue that globalisation, with its amazing communication technologies, has made
possible. In 2007 and into January 2008, as buses moved around Paris plastered with
posters advertising the exhibition Benin: Five Centuries of Royal Art, criticism of the event
grew. Given the era of globalisation, the web was, of course, one of the primary places for
protest. Below are some examples of the resistance that is as much a part of globalisation
as homogeneity.
“These precious items are stolen goods. It cannot even be argued that they are the
spoils of war – no war was declared by the British before they carried away these treasures.
While many will marvel at the splendour of this exhibition in Paris, it is sobering to consider
just how many of the visitors to the Musée du Quai Branly will give the rightful ownership of
these priceless exhibits a second thought.” (Williams, 2007)
“…the aesthetic view point prevailed over ethnological presentation and historical
depth…most of the materials and objects relating to life at the Benin Royal court, the national
attires of the Edo, their dances and festivals were no longer visible. The videos and pictures
which explained the process and creation of the bronze objects and the artists at work were
left out.” (Opoku, 2007)
The curatorial decision made by the Musée du Quai Branly to decontexualise and
depoliticise the sculptures has, in effect, been no different from the long history of the
exhibition of the Elgin Marbles at the British Museum where the beauty of the works is
130

highlighted, but the on-going requests from Greece for their return all but ignored. Ironically,
it is the French who refer to this long running museum scandal in their word for the removal
of cultural heritage from its source, “elginisme”, but who seem not to perceive themselves
having done the same thing by continuing to restrict the flow of information in the museum
and thereby ignoring the politics of the objects and their often violent acquisition.
Museum responses to globalisation
Many museums have rushed to respond to globalisation by installing banks of
computers, establishing web sites and creating virtual exhibitions. Many analyses of
globalisation in museums are confined to comment on these technical areas which seem to
threaten the centrality of the importance of the “real” object in collection and exhibition in
museums. The role of the museum visitor in this highly technical world is celebrated
because the visitor has an enormous information choice. If museums do not, however, also
examine the impact of globalisation’s tensions then the museum institution is going to be
very slow in responding in a sophisticated manner. It needs to deal with the cultural manner
of representation rather than focussing almost exclusively on the impact of technical
elements.
Forces of globalisation expose the vulnerability of many museums as they are
uncertain how to respond to this new round of debates about exhibition and communication.
For many it must seem that the apparent demolition of hierarchies of cultures was a sufficient
moral and political response to post-colonial challenges. The Musée du Quai Branly
continues to sell the catalogue of the highly aestheticised Benin Bronzes without comment,
long after the criticisms began. It seems like a form of institutional paralysis not to respond to
the radical democracy of global communication that continues to open the museum world to
scrutiny.
Gurian (2007) argues that a practical response by museums to globalisation ought to
be relinquishment of authority and the assumption of the role of “knowledge brokers”. I add to
this that museums need to grasp the tensions that are magnified by globalisation’s
connection to post-colonialism. The tensions should be investigated because it is only in
these expressions of dissatisfaction and indeed, anger, that museums can begin to identify
moral approaches for their growing disparate audiences. Museums are not going to find
answers by looking to the ranks of their culturally homogenous staff. The institutions need to
speak to those who made the artefacts or to their descendants. By doing so the moments of
tension and clash made so loud by globalisation can be made museologically productive as
the museum confronts them.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ALLEN, Matthew and Rumi Sakamoto, eds, Popular Culture, Globalization and Japan,
London and New York, Routledge, 2006
BIRKETT, Jennifer, “(En)countering globalisation: resistances in the system”, in Stan
Smith, ed, 2006, Globalisation and its Discontents, Essays and Studies, 2006
CLIFFORD, James and MARCUS George E., eds, Writing Culture: The Poetics and
Politics of Ethnography, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1986
Declaration of the Importance and Value of Universal Museums : “Museums Serve
Every Nation” in Karp et al., 2006: 247.
FEATHERSTONE, Mike, Undoing Culture: Globalisation, Postmodernism and Identity,
London, Sage Publications, 1995
131

GRIFFITH, Tom, Hunters and Collectors: The Antiquarian Imagination in Australia,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996
GURIAN, Elaine Heumann, “Introducing The Blue Ocean Museum: an imagined
museum of the nearly immediate future”, paper, International Council of Museums, Vienna,
August 18-25, 2007
KARP, Ivan and LAVINE Steven D., eds, Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics
of Museum Display, Washington and London, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991
KARP, Ivan, KEAMER Christine and LAVINE Steven D., Museums and Communities :
The Politics of Public Culture, Washington and London, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1992
KARP, Ivan and Corinne Kratz, Lynn Szwaja and Tomás Ybarra-Frausto, eds,
Museum Frictions: Public Cultures/Global Transformations, Durham and London, Duke
University Press, 2006
KRATZ, Corinne and KARP Ivan, “Museum frictions: public cultures/global
transformations” in Karp et al eds, Museum Frictions: Public Cultures/Global
Transformations, Durham and London, Duke University Press, 2006
MILWARD, Bob, Globalisation? Internationalisation and Monopoly Capitalism:
Historical Processes and Capitalist Dynamism, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and
Northampton, Mass, USA, 2003
OPOKU, Kwame, “Benin in Paris: triumph of the asetetic (sic) over the ethnological”
AFRIKANET.info 12 October 2007, retrieved on the web 3 June 2008 at
http://www.afrikanet.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=771&Itemid=117
PEARSE, Susan, On Collecting: An Investigation into Collecting in the European
Tradition, London and New York, Routledge, 1995
PRICE, Sally, Paris Primitive: Jacques Chirac’s Museum on the Quai Branly,
University of Chicago Press, 2007
SHEETS-PYENSON, Susan, Cathedrals of Scienec: The Development of Natural
History Museums During the Late Nineteenth Century, McGill-Queen’s University Press,
Kingston and Montreal, 1998
SOFIELD, Trevor, “Globalisation, tourism and culture in southeast Asia” in Teo, Peggy,
Chang, T.C. and Ho, K. C., eds, 2001, Interconnected Worlds: Tourism in Southeast Asia,
Oxford, Pergamon, 2001
SZWAJA, Lynn and YBARRA-FRAUSTO Tomás in Karp et al., 2006
TROUILLOT, Michel-Rolphe, “The perspective of the world: globalization then and
now”, in Mudimbe-Boyi, Elisabeth, ed. Beyond Dichotomies: Histories, Identities, Cultures,
and the Challenge of Globalization, New York, State University of New York Press, 2002
VERGO, Peter, ed. The New Museology, London, Reaktion Books, 1989
WILLIAMS, Stephen “Benin: glorious treasures” New African December 2007, retreived
on the web 3 June 2008 at
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5391/is_200712/ai_n21300739/pg_1
132

MUSEUMS, MUSEOLOGY AND GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS :
Whither Cultural Diversity?
Lynn Maranda, Vancouver Museum - Vancouver, Canada.
_____________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT
Museum, museology and global communications : Whither Cultural Diversity?
In this age of “globalization”, given the rapidity with which the world is changing,
thanks to the advent of the “computer age”, and the fact that world-wide communication is
now almost instantaneous, it is difficult to imagine how peoples will be able to retain their
cultural distinctiveness. What are the challenges and what role can museums play in the
scheme of things?
Museums are a product of the ‘age of discovery’ and have been comfortable in that
role. This can not persist, however, in light of the current trend toward instantaneous
communications on a global scale. This does not mean that the museum would no longer
be the essential repository for objects from extant and, yes, extinct cultures. What it does
mean is that the museum needs to become more in tune with modern times, and to achieve
this, there needs to be a shift in ideology to allow for the contemporaneousness of
museological thought and action. This means that the museum must shed its proclivity for
what it considers to be ‘real’ or ‘authentic’ cultures and accept the fact that cultures change
and out of these are born hybrids which themselves are as diverse as the milieus from which
they originated. The opportunity for museums to address cultural assimilations and the
tangential or hybrid cultures that arise from competing ideas provides the museum with new
ground to explore.
RÉSUMÉ
Musée et muséologie à l’époque de la communication planétaire : Un pas vers la
diversité culturelle ?
La mondialisation, l’avènement de l’âge de l’ordinateur, des temps de communication
internationaux toujours plus courts… autant de facteurs qui accélèrent les changements
dans le monde. Comment, dans ce contexte, les peuples sont-ils à même de garder leurs
caractéristiques distinctives ? Les musées peuvent-ils relever ce défi et par là même jouer un
rôle dans cet environnement ?
Les musées ont été la vitrine de l’âge des découvertes, rôle qui leur convenait à
merveille. Cependant, à l’heure où la communication mondiale se fait dans l’instant, ce rôle
d’illustration n’a plus de raison de perdurer. Cela ne veut surtout pas dire que les musées ne
se voient plus confier la conservation des objets issus des cultures existantes et bien
entendu des cultures éteintes. Ce que ces changements impliquent, c’est que les musées se
mettent en phase avec leur époque, notamment en révisant leur base idéologique,
permettant ainsi à la muséologie dans sa forme comme dans son action, de rentrer dans le
monde contemporain. Mais ce qui est surtout implicite, c’est que la muséologie se défasse
de ce qu’elle considère comme « vrai » et « authentique », qu’elle accepte que les cultures
aient toujours une base hybride, aussi diverse que les milieux dont elles sont issues. Cette
possibilité pour les musées d’être la nouvelle vitrine de l’assimilation culturelle et des
nouvelles cultures tangentielles ou bien hybrides qui en naissent est une chance à saisir, un
terrain à explorer.
133

RESUMEN
Museos, museologia y comunicaciones globales : un pas hacia la diversidad cultural
Dada la rapidez con la que el mundo está cambiando en esta época de globalización,
gracias al advenimiento de la ‘era de la computadora’ y al hecho de que en la actualidad la
comunicación mundial es instantánea, es difícil imaginar cómo harán los pueblos para
conservar sus diferencias culturales. ¿Cuáles son los desafíos y cuál el rol que juegan los
museos en este esquema?
Los museos son un producto de la ‘era del descubrimiento’ y se han desempeñado
cómodamente en ese rol. No obstante, esto no puede persistir a la luz de la actual tendencia
hacia las comunicaciones instantáneas a escala global. Esto no significa que el museo deje
de ser el depositario esencial de los objetos de culturas aún existentes e inclusive extintas.
Significa que necesita ponerse a tono con los tiempos modernos, para lo cual es menester
que se produzca un cambio de ideología que permita la contemporaneidad del pensamiento
museológico y su accionar. Asimismo, esto significa que el museo debe desprenderse de su
inclinación hacia lo que considera culturas ‘reales’ o ‘auténticas’ y aceptar el hecho de que
las culturas cambian y que de ellas nacen híbridos que, en sí mismos, son tan diversos
como el entorno que los originó. La oportunidad para los museos de abordar asimilaciones
culturales y culturas tangenciales o híbridas surgidas de la competencia de ideas, les brinda
un nuevo medio ambiente a explorar.
* * *
In this age of “globalization”, given the rapidity with which the world is changing,
thanks to the advent of the “computer age”, and the fact that world-wide communication is
now almost instantaneous, it is difficult to imagine how peoples will be able to retain their
cultural distinctiveness. This is of concern especially since the impetus for the electronic
evolution has originated from the centres of world power, those ‘dominant’ cultures whose
citizens can socially and economically afford to ‘buy into’ and ‘play’ in this arena. Museums
may wonder that the cultural individuality they have so long endeavoured to preserve through
their collections, will start to meld to produce a ‘global culture’, devoid of unique identities.
Through the ever accelerating globalization movement, are cultures heading towards a
metamorphosis and eventual solidification into one identifiable composite (a realization of the
concept of the “global village”)? What are the challenges and what role can museums play in
the scheme of things?
The following image is offered as a starting point for this discussion.
This Associated Press photograph appeared in the “World” section of the Vancouver
Sun newspaper on Wednesday 31 May 2000. The sur-caption reads: “New Guinea natives
catch TV news on visit to town”, and the sub-text reads: “Hunting for News: Villagers
holding bows and arrows and traditional spears and headdresses on Enarotai Island [in
Enarotali?] in West Papua New Guinea [also known as Irian Jaya] look out of place as they
arrive in a local town to watch TV news broadcasts, believing they had gained independence
from Indonesia, which has ruled for more than 30 years. However, independence was not
granted by Jakarta.”
134

The question here is whether cultures, such as represented here, can withstand the
onslaught not only of the television technology, but also of a new one that can now reach into
virtually all corners of the world, one that will continue to evolve into what is not yet known.
Yet, as a consequence of the new technology’s effort to maximize the capabilities of instant
communication, to inter-connect peoples on a world-wide basis, and to truly achieve the
reality of the ‘global village’, it would appear that all roads would ultimately lead away from
cultural individuality and towards cultural amalgamation.
While examining the incongruity expressed in the image above which juxtaposes two
realities – one which could be identified as ‘indigenous’, and the other, ‘western’ – it would
seem that this encounter between two extremes (which may very well not have been the
first) is appearing to have little, if any, culturally-based affect, the one on the other. The
important factor at work here is one of time. What there is about this image that makes these
human figures distinct, are the circumstances and the degree or measurement of time
separating the two realities and the level of contact between both.
From the beginnings of human habitation on earth, and in particular, since the large
migrations out of Africa some 50,000 years ago, peoples have constantly moved from one
place to another. The process of migration has allowed peoples originally holding common
beliefs to diverge many times resulting in new ideas developing along separate lines. That
movement away from a commonality has embodied a period of time often stretching several
thousands of years.
Throughout history, the process has been (and will continue to be) that peoples have
migrated. Differences have been created due to the separation of peoples and the time over
which they remain apart. Migrations allow for the opportunity of groups of peoples having
different cultures to ‘bump’ into each other. Such contacts between peoples result in cultural
exchanges and the transference of cultural ideas. The degree of impact seems contingent
on the time and distance between occurrences.
Looking again at the image above, the disparity of time and circumstance is evident
between these two distinct cultural entities or forces, impacting on and conflicting with each
other. This is a graphic example of what has always gone on whereby one group of people
has lived separate from others in both time and place. Both cultures have taken very
135

disparate migratory routes with one leading to isolation with little or no contact with other
cultures along the time spectrum.
While cultural evolution may take place over thousands of years, contact with an idea
may result in an instantaneous change. Contact between different cultures allows for the
transference of ideas. Some ideas have been found to be more advantageous in the course
of existence and these have ‘won out’, thus leading to the replacement of the ‘old’ with the
‘new’. The questions becomes: how long will it take for the ‘aboriginal’ to ‘catch up’ to the
‘western’, as one thing seems certain, the roles will never be reversed – the ‘western’ will not
be aspiring to be ‘indigenous’.
Culture, loosely defined as the aggregate of the behaviour of a peoples, is influenced
by many factors, including language, ideology, ethos, material tradition, learned behaviour,
transmitted traits, and so forth. All these go to create and maintain a culture. They transmit
a sense of identity to all members of the group – a sense of “who we are”. In addition,
cultures have a locality, a physical place which is part of this identity – a place “where we
live” or “from where we come”. Nevertheless, in spite of this, all peoples are basically the
same: they have a penchant for selecting and utilizing what is best for the survival of
themselves. So too with whole cultures.
When early European explorers first made contact with ‘aboriginal’ peoples in various
parts of the world, it did not take long before iron and steel were incorporated into the
manufacture of tools and weapons, replacing parts made from culturally modified natural
materials of local origin. While the material traditions of a culture may signal the first
observable consequences of contact with ‘others’, the composite of ‘cultural identifiers’ of a
peoples is a ‘bond’ which enables cultures to maintain distinctiveness.
Immigrant populations, for example, mainly of European descent, in Canada and the
United States, live in close proximity with First Nations and Native Americans. These
aboriginal peoples, while appearing, through their day-to-day life styles, to have been fully
assimilated by the dominant European-based ‘culture’, still maintain a cultural core which is,
in fact, undergoing a period of steadily increasing re-assertiveness through waves of cultural
resurgence and artistic Renaissance. While this is not the same as it was traditionally, it has
adapted itself to forms by which these peoples exert and re-affirm their identity. These
cultures are not ‘dead’ as is so often thought – sadly, a belief to the perpetuation of which
museums have contributed. They have, due to many super-imposed challenges and
upheavals not of their own making, simply changed and adapted for the sake of survival.
Today, the very real presence of the cultural continuum provides ample evidence of living
peoples cultures, albeit in forms estranged from what it they once were.
If in truth globalization is causing the alteration and indeed, loss of cultural traits for
many peoples world-wide, it is because people are being confronted with new opportunities
which they adapt to better their lives. To this end, it is only natural that they would choose
that course which will bring an improvement. While assimilation of new ideas has always
taken place, in this age of the electronic evolution, human interaction and communication on
a global scale is faster and more invasive than ever. Change and assimilation are taking
place at a rapidly accelerating rate. It is this increase in the time factor of ‘bumping’ that is
the basis of the alarm that is being sounded and the concerns being expressed by such
organizations as museums.
The museum is a registry of what was. While this is an important task, this
conservation cannot keep peoples in the past, especially if they (museums) hope to co-exist
in the ‘real world’. As cultures are so quickly assimilating ‘world culture’, it means that the
role of ‘discovering’ new peoples is virtually gone. The inheritors of these ‘new peoples’
should now be the focus of museological endeavour, even though perhaps museums are
reluctant to accept this role. Why should they not? Museums treat cultures as if they are
136

fixed in a specific timeframe, in some cases occupying an almost fanciful place in the past.
Museums would see the two men in the image above as points of interest and the objects
from their material tradition which they wear and carry as worthy of collection. The interface
between the men and the surroundings in which they find themselves apparently would hold
little or no interest for museological study, with such being left to the work of anthropologists
and sociologists. The perception is that museums deal with a sense of purity, and not the
hybrid resulting from assimilation. Museums need to accept this as it is representative of the
cultural continuum. While numerous cultures have been declared ‘extinct’, there are so
many others that have simply morphed into their surrounding milieu. These cultures have
not ‘died’. but rather live in the inheritors who continue to maintain their identity, an identity
tied to that of their ancestors. Is this not worthy of museological study?
There is a stereotypical belief or myth that ‘authentic cultures’ are ‘frozen in time’, do
not change, and can be visited and observed without interference. Very often, museums and
their encased displays perpetuate this notion. Today, this myth is also reinforced by the
tourist industry. As indigenous peoples increasingly take control of the marketing of their
‘old’ culture and environment, they have learned to use this misconception to their
advantage. By staging special performances for travelers and producing distinctive objects
for sale, indigenous peoples also develop stereotypes about ‘the other’, and set boundaries
on the ‘consumption’ of their culture.
Museums are in a dilemma and may find themselves in the same position as the two
men in the above image. As museums are ultimately the same, representing another
element in the transfer of cultural ideas, they may expose themselves to what is an older
cultural concept, as the notions of museum and the latest, contemporary modern world are
themselves incongruous. Museums are a product of the ‘age of discovery’ and have been
comfortable in that role. This can not persist, however, in light of the current trend toward
instantaneous communications on a global scale. How can the museum, normally perceived
as being locked in the past, meet this new reality in order to become and stay relevant and
useful to the publics they serve? What can museums do so that the notion of its value to the
community does not disappear? What is the museum going to be?
This does not mean that the museum would no longer be the essential repository for
objects from extant and, yes, extinct cultures. What it does mean is that the museum needs
to become more in tune with modern times, and to achieve this, there needs to be a shift in
ideology to allow for the contemporaneousness of museological thought and action. This
means that the museum must shed its proclivity for what it considers to be ‘real’ or ‘authentic’
cultures and accept the fact that cultures change and out of these are born hybrids which
themselves are as diverse as the milieus from which they originated. This would be a big
step for museums to take, to overcome their resistance to letting go and to become what
they had never before imagined.
The opportunity for museums to address cultural assimilations and the tangential or
hybrid cultures that arise from competing ideas provides the museum with new ground to
explore. How is it possible for the two realities in the above image to come together? While
‘western’ cultures have not entirely seduced those that are still considered ‘indigenous’, it is
inevitable that this will happen and the overarching factor in all of this is time. Museums can
do much to counteract the ‘romanticized’ view of survival in ‘indigenous’ communities and
address the issues of place, time, circumstance and the changes cultures are undergoing,
especially in light of the global communications technology currently at work.
Over time, each culture develops in response to circumstance and adapts to new
ideas in their own way. It is these differences that will continue to constitute what is diverse
among peoples. How the museum chooses to deal with this is open to debate, but if the
museum still wants to include cultures as part of their collecting, research, exhibition,
137

publication, education purpose, then it needs to move forward and recognize not only the
cultural continuum, but also the framework in which change takes place. It needs to concede
to the hybrid and acknowledge the value of its study and musealization. This would be a
very important role for the museum to undertake, for if it does not perform this task. it runs
the risk of being supplanted by an new type of institution which will do so.
Perhaps the trickiest challenge for the museum would be that which has been its
primary focus – the collections. How can the museum continue to fulfill its mandate in this
area if material cultures blend to become ostensibly the same as that of the visitor? What is
there that the museum can offer that can continue to be seen as unique? While this is not an
easy question to answer, museums might do well to look to the study and presentation of
cultures on a diachronic basis. This would allow for the past manifestations of a culture to be
shown not only as stops along the continuum, but also as changing in relation to influences
outside of its commonality.
As the material culture changes and melds with that of the more dominant influences,
much of that which falls in the category of ‘hybrid’ can be collected and displayed. In addition
to this, there are the other aspects of cultures which are highly collectable and these are
those comprising the intangible heritage of a peoples. Here, the essential core of the
lifeways and thought processes of peoples can be found. While these evidences appear
only in an intangible form, they need to be converted to a tangible medium in order to be
preserved. This is the paradox of intangibility – once it is collected in its tangible form, it is no
longer ‘intangible heritage’. This is particularly the case with peoples where the transference
of cultural information is only through oral traditions. Once the information has been
recorded, the oral tradition, fundamental to so many cultures, no longer exists. This can be
extremely intrusive and museums may wonder if these actions may be contributing to and
indeed hastening the annihilation of cultural diversity.
Nevertheless, this is an area of collecting that is open to museums that had formerly
focused only on the tangible products of a culture. Collecting in this area would allow for
knowledge to be gained in respect of the cultural continuum and the changes that occur in
this process. This knowledge is a vital link in the history of mankind and museums can
safeguard this as it has with its material culture collections. It may also provide an important
insight into the transferring processes occurring in the image above.
With the incursion of the current electronic evolution, museum are now able to
disseminate information globally and thus become essential purveyors of important data on
cultures and whatever changes that occur. Museums holding diverse collections can readily
contact counterparts worldwide for relevant information outside of their own area of
immediate source material. This global sharing of information can allow the museums to
retain a strong presence not only in their traditional arena of influence, but also in the ‘real
world’. Museums can, with the incorporation of the voice of ‘indigenous’ peoples, thus serve
as informed intermediary between cultures in transition and the publics they serve.
Whither cultural diversity? As the answer to this question lies in the future, it can only
be addressed through speculation and the projection of current trends. The closer the shift
towards the realization of the concepts of ‘world culture’ and the ‘global village’, the harder it
will become to distinguish the uniqueness of peoples. Since the advent of the electronic
evolution and its power to break down the barriers of space and time in respect of global
communications, assimilation of ideas outside of the commonality which peoples hold, have
taken on a life of their own and are now both invasive and unstoppable. Will cultural
distinctiveness be swallowed up by this frenzied rush? Possibly. But who knows? How long
will it be before one of the realities in the image above catches up with the other? Whatever
the consequence yet to come, museums need to find a niche through this transition and the
constructs of museology will be compelled to adapt accordingly.
138

ON THE PRINCIPLES OF THE MUSEUM’S ROLE IN SAFEGUARDING
INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE
CAI Qin, Senior Researcher, Zhejiang Provincial Museum, Hangzhou, China
ABSTRACT
Because of the specific characteristics of intangible cultural heritage, the museum has to
adopt a different approach from that adopted to deal with tangible cultural heritage, comply
with the two principles. First, “Lower-class perspective”. Museums’ work on intangible cultural
heritage is closely related with common knowledge, ideas and beliefs. In other words, the
museum practices must undertake a “downward revolution”. Second, “Regional experience”.
A complete concept of cultural heritage does not mean the integration of all elements of
intangible cultural heritage into museological practices. On the one hand, museum resources
are limited; on the other, although elements of intangible cultural heritage exist and are
transmitted at certain times and in certain spaces, showing a trait of thin distribution.
“Customs differ even within walking distances,” yet they reveal a spirit of national solidarity
nonetheless. Then, how to adopt the principles mentioned above throughout a museum’s
practices in that regard? The following two topics should be discussed: balance between
tangible and intangible cultural heritages, and balance between integrity and vitality.
RÉSUMÉ
Du fait des caractéristiques spécifiques du patrimoine culturel immatériel, les musées ont
besoin d’adopter une approche différente de celle utilisée pour aborder le patrimoine culturel
matériel en observant deux principes.
Le premier, la perspective de la classe ouvrière. Le travail des musées, sur le patrimoine
immatériel est en rapport étroit avec le savoir commun, ses idées et ses croyances.
Autrement dit, les pratiques des musées doivent entreprendre une révolution qui commence
par en bas. Le second, l’expérience régionale. Un concept complet du patrimoine immatériel
ne signifie pas l’intégration de tous ses éléments aux pratiques muséologiques. D’une part,
les ressources du musée sont limitées ; de l’autre, même si les éléments du patrimoine
culturel existent et sont transmis en certains moments et dans des espaces déterminés, ils
montrent la particularité d’une distribution peu convaincante. «Les habitudes diffèrent même
si elles existent à quelques pas de distance». Cependant, elles révèlent un esprit de
solidarité nationale. En ce sens, comment adopter les principes cités ci-dessus à travers les
pratiques du musée? Pour obtenir des réponses, ont devrait débattre les thèmes suivants :
l’équilibre entre les patrimoines culturels matériels et immatériels et l’équilibre entre l’intégrité
et la vitalité.
RESUMEN
Acerca de los principios del rol del museo en la salvaguarda des patrimonio intangible
En virtud de las características específicas de la herencia cultural intangible, los museos
necesitan adoptar un planteamiento diferente de aquél utilizado para abordar el patrimonio
cultural tangible observando dos principios.
El primero, la perspectiva de las clases trabajadoras. El trabajo de los museos sobre el
patrimonio intangible está estrechamente relacionado con el saber común, sus ideas y sus
creencias. En otras palabras, las prácticas de los museos deben emprender una revolución
desde abajo. El segundo, la experiencia regional. Un concepto acabado de patrimonio
139

intangible no significa la integración de todos sus elementos en las prácticas museológicas.
Por una parte, los recursos del museo son limitados; por otra, aunque los elementos del
legado cultural intangible existen y son transmitidos en ciertos momentos y en determinados
espacios, evidencian la peculiaridad de una distribución poco convincente. “Las costumbres
difieren aún estando a pocos pasos de distancia”. Sin embargo, revelan un espíritu de
solidaridad nacional. En este sentido, ¿cómo adoptar los principios antes mencionados a
través de las prácticas del museo? Para lograr respuestas se deberían debatir los siguientes
temas: el equilibrio entre los legados culturales tangibles e intangibles y el equilibrio entre la
integridad y la vitalidad.
* * *
Since the 1990s, the world community of cultural heritage has extended the concept of
cultural heritage from tangible heritage to intangible heritage (non-material heritage), which
makes the concept more complete and substantive. In 1997, the UNESCO established a
protective system for “Masterpieces of Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity”. The first
list of intangible cultural heritages, including China’s Kunqu opera, was proclaimed in 2002.
The complete concept of cultural heritage brings intangible cultural heritage into the
museological practices. As one of the most important heritage institutes, museums do not
restrict their practices on the collection, preservation, research and presentation of exhibits,
but reveals the information and value system of the whole cultural heritage via either tangible
(material) way or intangible (non-material) ways. In 2001, the General Conference of the
International Council of Museum (ICOM) added intangible heritage to the definition of
“museum” for the first time, declaring “Museums and Intangible Heritage” as the theme for
the ICOM General Conference held in Seoul in 2004. The 7 th Asia Pacific Regional Assembly
of ICOM held in Shanghai in October 2002, with an aim to promote “new heritage concept
and modern museums,” affirmed in their Charter “Museums, Intangible Heritage and
Globalization” (Shanghai, 2002) that “the voices, values, traditions, languages, oral history,
folk life and so on are recognized and promoted in all museological and heritage practices,’
and recommended museums as ‘facilitators of constructive partnerships in the safeguarding
of this heritage of humanity.’ Thereafter, the world community of museums had a clearer
recognition and understanding of cultural heritage,, and as an indispensable institute, the
museum is playing a crucial role in the preservation, collection, research and presentation of
intangible cultural heritage.
Bringing intangible cultural heritage into the scope of museological practices is a
challenge to the conventional role of museum. Prominent in the safeguarding of material
objects, the museum has seen a noteworthy transformation to meet the demands of
preservation, collection, research and presentation of intangible cultural heritage. Recently,
the world museum circle has been trying to grasp the function of museums in safeguarding
intangible cultural heritage from both theoretical and practical aspects.
According to the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage
adopted by the UNESCO at its 32nd General Conference on October 17 th , 2003, “intangible
cultural heritage” means the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as
well as the instruments, objects, artifacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that
communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural
heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is
constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their
interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and
continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. The “intangible
cultural heritage,” as defined in the Convention, is manifested inter alia in the following
domains:(a) oral traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of the intangible
cultural heritage; (b) performing arts; (c) social practices, rituals and festive events; (d)
140

knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe; and (e) traditional
craftsmanship.
The General Office of the State Council promulgated the Recommendations on
Intensifying the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage on March 26 th , 2005. According to
Article 2 of the attached Provisionary Measures on the Application and Identification of
National Intangible Cultural Heritage Masterpieces, “Intangible cultural heritage refers to
great varieties of cultural expressions that are passed down by people of all ethnic groups for
generations (e.g. folk customs, performing art, traditional knowledge and skills and related
instruments, objects, artifacts, etc.) and cultural space.” As is defined in Item 2, Article 3, “the
scope of intangible cultural heritage covers: 1) oral traditions and languages as vehicles of
culture; 2) traditional performing art; 3) folk practices, rituals and festivals; 4) folk traditional
knowledge and practices related to nature and universe; 5) traditional handcraft skills; 6)
cultural space related to the above-mentioned expressions.” Compared with Convention for
the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, here “cultural space” is included in the
content of intangible cultural heritage. According to item 1, Article 2 of the Provisionary
Measure, “cultural space refers to the venues of public traditional cultural activities or the
period of time when certain events regularly take place, which gives it both spatial and
temporal meanings.”
It is obvious that intangible cultural heritage varies in type and expression, being one
with different cultural components. For example, the “five-kilometer red dowry procession” is
among the first masterpieces of intangible cultural heritage of Ningbo, Zhejiang. The “fivekilometer
red dowry procession” is a nuptial ritual in the Ningbo and Shaoxing areas of
Zhejiang. In ancient times, during the bridal procession, local people always carried a bridal
dowry along with the wedding sedan beating drums and gongs to enhance a wedding's
festive atmosphere. It is said that a bridal procession could be as long as five kilometers. The
dowries were wrapped in red including all the daily necessities for ancient Chinese, like
cabinets, toilet kettles, wine vessels, basin stands, and dressing cases, which featured a
combination of engraving, plastic modeling, gold depicting, lacquer painting, color filling and
other techniques and other expressions of folk craftsmanship, such as small wood sculpture,
lacquer works, barrel sculpture, bamboo sculpture, bronze works and tin handicrafts. The
masterpiece “five-kilometer red dowry procession” includes not only such delicate
instruments and other crafts, but also the whole process and space relating to the marriage
as well as the wish for happiness by local residents.
Because of the specific characteristics of intangible cultural heritage, the museum has to
adopt a different approach from that adopted to deal with tangible cultural heritage. Material
collections in museums bear different information associated with them, and to deal with
these physical objects in essence means to collect, preserve, study and present the
information embedded in them. In this sense, intangible cultural heritage has always been a
part of museum practices. However, the recognition and understanding of this information
are far from enough in dealing with intangible cultural heritage, because the museum works
only emphasize places of excavation, time, pattern and size rather than handcraft skills,
historical background and cultural concept connected with the collections. Take presentation
for example. Most exhibits in museums are visible and tangible. Intangible information is
mainly transmitted through oral presentations by interpreters or with explanatory words,
videos and computer demonstrations as aids, which tends to destroy the integrity and interinterpretation
of cultural heritage. Furthermore, there exists a tendency of “elitism” in the
conventional museological practices. Cultural relics applicable to museum practices are
usually those of prime value, but the complete cultural heritage concept requires that objects
of museum operations not be limited to traditional elitism and historical events, but also
address the daily life and customs of ordinary people and to discover great historical
proposition from the dispersed “low-class history.”
141

2. Balance between integrity and vitality
Intangible cultural heritage, originally an integral whole, has been fragmented to some
degree over time, but from the perspective of museums, intangible cultural heritage should
be put back as much as possible into the original context of past life and cultural
transmission wherefrom it arises, so as to make sure that the objects to be collected,
preserved, studied and displayed are no separate bits and pieces. The idea of integrity is
meaningful on two levels: (a) authentic integrity in scope. Intangible cultural heritage of
different systems, information types and carriers should all be incorporated into museum
practices without any alteration; (b) integrity in cultural concept. While individual elements of
a given intangible cultural heritage ought to remain intact, the maintenance of its cultural
conceptual entity is all the more important no matter what cultural system each of them
belongs to. Integrity is imperitive for museums in their safeguarding of intangible cultural
heritage. Therefore, when people want to protect any given heritage, they must protect its
general eco-environment, including political, economic and cultural conditions, as well as
human thought, values and demands.
From pregnancy and birth to its later development in different periods, intangible cultural
heritages have assumed various characteristics of those periods, each of which has added
new dimensions to such heritages, like new creations, new mien and new representive
figures. Many elements of an intangible cultural heritage can be regarded as having to do
with “heritage” only because history is difficult to recover with life moving on or be restored to
its “original” state. In this sense, the recognition of the integrity of the heritage’s original state
and meaning ought to be based on the development of history. A salient feature of intangible
cultural heritage lies in the diversity of its origins, its coexistence with reality, and its
inseverable tie with ordinary people. Therefore, there is another meaning in vitality: intangible
cultural heritage, like anything, is in a constant process of development and evolution;
intangible cultural heritage is bound to be passed down through generations so long as
wisdom or life experience remains alive; whereas its cultural kernel should continue to be
respected, its potential for development is equally unignorable.
Integrity means keeping the original forms, meanings and functions of today as well as of
yesterday. It is a self-contradictory fact that vitality is deconstruction of objects, or to be more
frank, the destruction of integrity. Digital technology, however, provides a better choice for
the balance between integrity and vitality. In this way, the original forms of intangible cultural
heritage can be preserved through digital means and holographical information storage or
retrieval made easier. Therefore, digital technology is the best way to keep the original form
of intangible cultural heritage for younger people. Besides, people will have a clearer
understanding of human vitality. Despite changing ideas, values and life styles in this
revolutionary age, intangible cultural heritage will retain its role in the construction of national,
emotional identification and a harmonious society.
144