Suchergebnisse

The five Nordic countries - Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden - share a common cultural history. Four of them are closely related linguistically. Through the ages they have also been politically linked in a variety of combinations, causing both dramatic confrontations and inspiring nationalistic movements not without bearing on the museum history of the countries. The most lasting political unions were those between Denmark, Iceland and Norway (1380- 1814; Iceland stayed with Denmark until 1944) and between Finland and Sweden (1323-1809). In times of aggression from the 'outside' a loyalty between the Nordic countries based on the common history has also appeared and in the years after 1945 formal organisations have been established to promote cooperation in various fields of common interest.

The museum world has undergone radical change since the 1970s. Political and economic pressures have forced its professionals to shift their attention from their collections towards visitors. Whereas in the past the museum tended to be exclusive and elitist, signs of a progressive opening-up and greater accessibility have appeared. A climate of increasing reflexivity within the profession is identified as a 'new museology'. The paper draws on data derived from semi-structured interviews with curators and directors from five local museums. I argue that the movement towards a more visitor-centred ethos can be seen as entailing a corresponding shift in the identity of the museum professional, from 'legislator' to 'interpreter' of cultural meaning. The argument, adapted from Zygmunt Bauman, is that intellectuals are being redefined in a shift from legislator to interpreter. Finally, I argue that this process of transition, as it occurs in museums, is by no means complete. Drawing on Basil Bernstein's seminal work in educational sociology I propose that museums are also resistant to these forces of change.

This article presents the primary theoretical and conceptual framework in which the elaboration of the pedagogical project for the 2010 Museology undergraduate program at the Federal University of Goiás (UFG), Brazil is based. It discusses the amplified concept of a museum, the place of Museology as a discipline of Applied Social Sciences and the specific research content within Museology. A moment of great expansion of the higher education in Brazil provided context for the creation of this programme, through a Federal Government project entitled Program to Support Restructuring and Expansion Plans of Federal Universities (REUNI) and also by the UFG's initiative through its Faculty of Social Science and Anthropological Museum, which has become the main laboratory for the new Museology course. We present the structural concepts of this course as museum, Museology as a Applied Social Science field and other discussions which were important to choose the disciplines offered in the program, if we consider the existence of a General Museology, a Special Museology and an Applied Museology, and also the existence of a museological chain of operation based on cultural heritage safeguard and communication, in opposition to the hegemonial program structure considering preservation, research and communication. In our view, the chain of operation implies the existence of museological applied research integrating it parts (which are documentation, conservation, expography and cultural educational action), and avoid to explicitly mention research because it can be misunderstood with systematic investigation and study of collections, which are also done inside the museum, but belongs to others fields' knowledge, external to Museology. We also try to demonstrate how the UFG's structure of Museology Course has privileged to prepare students for applied research in Museology, avoiding overlapping contents from other knowledge fields which also make researches and interpretations of museum collections. ; Peer reviewed

This final, editorial chapter draws together commonalities across the volume sections and chapters. Noting how experimental museology is set in motion as a way for museums to navigate contingencies brought about by often structural complexities and socio-cultural dilemmas around the world, this chapter highlights three implications that stand out as particularly pertinent when museums navigate these contingencies through holistic approaches. These implications are ethical implications when museum institutions explore new and dynamic forms of collaboration; implications with regard to diversity when museums design novel modes of communication; and democratic implications when museums engage with communities holding divergent affinities and values. This chapter discusses these implications and suggests principles and guidelines for successful change processes when museums enter uncharted territories of experimentation.

From the 1980s, the ethnographic museums came under increased criticism for displaying indigenous peoples as people without history. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, this critique of the exhibiting practices began to make an impact in museums, and the notion that they should exhibit oppressed and silenced groups in society, and thereby act as agents for social change, gradually gained momentum. This development also made its mark in Norway, where several museums began to exhibit the history and culture of ethnic minorities. With this turn, the political situation of the minorities became relevant. The article investigates how the museological and ethnopolitical changes in this period influenced the way museums exhibited minority history. Two exhibitions from this period are analysed: Latjo-Drom – The Romani/Travellers' Culture and History at the Glomdal Museum and Sápmi – Becoming a Nation at Tromsø University Museum. The article discusses how the historical representations presented in these exhibitions can be understood within the contemporary museological and ethnopolitical contexts.

Cultural Heritage; Achaeology

Thirty years ago, Kenneth Hudson, the grand old figure of the European museum world, said that there are chiefly two qualities that will be demanded of the museums in the future: pluralism of interest and the flexibility of imagination. Today, we cannot but admit that he was right. Even if the diversity of definitions of museum is bigger than ever, there is no doubt that modern museums want to live up to the expectations from new groups of visitors, from cultural policy and a changing society in general. Many museums have left the traditional role of embodying merely a national collective memory and have become a kind of commentators on the present; the museum of the 21st century is supposed to explain the complexity of the world and what it is to be human in this world – in a historical perspective. Museums are changing from being institutions and presenting "institutional" knowledge, to multicultural platforms for negotiations about the past and a future that would be more sustainable. I would like to use the term process-museum, or museum-as-process, and change the term "taxonomy" – the classical art of classification – to "folksonomy", a classification that includes user/visitor aggregation and distribution of knowledge. This means also that museums' focus enlarges a bit from thing- and collection-orientation to visitor- and user-orientation. Now, what is the role of museology in this? What is tradition in museology and where are we going from here? What do we do with the theory we have? How have we brought, and will bring, museological theory and epistemological developments into the museums and their practices? Museology has, for sure, been shaped and debated over the years and decades in interaction with new practices and social experimentation in museums. We have been exploring processes of museality and musealization, the means and ways in which a society selects, exhibits, interprets and administers the tangible and intangible products of culture, with a view to preserving them for posterity. According to Stránsky (just to mention one of the founders of European museology) the task of museology is not to understand reality (e.g. the material) but rather to understand the laws that are steering our actions in reality, in collection, preservation, registration and use. If we'd break down the "traditions" of museological thoughts and concepts from the last fifty years, we'd end up with quite a few definitions and approaches to what museology does, as well as what traditions it has. Here I will mention just a few perspectives. Museology has: • a historical-institutional perspective, including research into the history, collections, exhibitions and artefact concepts of museums 12 Introduction • a didactic perspective, focusing on young people, life-long learning and communication • a communicative perspective, with a focus on strategic communication and exhibition planning in the museum world • a social, economic and sociological perspective, including research into museum economy and social impact (e.g. community museums) as well as the impact of cultural heritage policy. • a philosophical / existential perspective, museum as a phenomenon in modernity • a technological perspective, with research into digital museology or cybermuseology Apart from these perspectives, we have to deal with the great global diversity of cultures and traditions within heritage management, preservation, collecting and collective memory. Consequently, museology and museological research – in dealing with these traditions – has also developed differently in different parts of the world bringing different approaches to the field, geographically and culturally as well as regarding schools of museological thought. Tradition, in this perspective, could be considered as «classical museology» confronted with critical museology socio-museology or the more modern "critical heritage studies". In what respect does there exist anything like "classical" museology, and where? One needs only to mention that the field in East and North Europe is very large and encompasses not only museums but the cultural heritage at large, thus rendering new terms or concepts: mnemosophy or heritology (T. Sôla). E.g. in Sweden, there is actually no conflict or gap between museology/museums studies on the one side and/or heritage studies or critical heritage on the other. All this is real achievement when it comes to development of critical thinking in relation to the phenomenon and development of museums. But – for the practitioner – have we been of any help? Some say that museology has long since become too conceptual – a "philosophie du muséal" – and is no longer dealing with "real things", and that we have broken tradition with museum professionals and museum practice. That theory has left the professionals behind. This pinpoints – one more time – the old "conflict" between theory and practice, where some "practitioners" still think that museums need no theory, only classical "housekeeping skills" for museum management. So the question is: does museology reach the museums? Do museums feel they need museology, and if, how are the theories implemented and turned into practice? The purpose of the Kyoto symposium is to discuss the links between past, present and future in cultural traditions and in museology and what theories we would need in the future to support a sustainable development of museums and heritage. We want to challenge tradition, without abandoning it, but present a critical view Introduction 13 of museological theory and museum practice in relation to traditions, and ponder in what directions museology and museums should be developed in the future. The following sections of analysis were called for when planning the conference: 1. ICOFOM future / past roles: how do our members see ICOFOM's theoretical development and role in the XXIst century / what are the expectations / illusions / possibilities? What is the position of museology in relation to the traditions of Museum Studies and the fast growing field of Critical Heritage Studies. Differences – similarities? 2. Museological theory, past and present, in relation to practice (in museums, exhibitions and heritage sites). How, in what way, do museums implement or use museological theory? Is museological theory useful, and if it is, in what respect? 3. Museological tradition versus global development and new technologies: what role does museology play and what positions does it take in relation to the rapid changes that are taking place, on the one hand in the museum world – e.g. will cyberspace out rule other spaces and materialities – and on the other hand in the world at large in an economic and political perspective (e.g. considering the return to extreme political positions and the "war" of information and knowledge?) 4. Notes on different forms of experimental museology; the role of museology in social experimentation in the development of new forms of museums that challenge tradition, or even reinterpret the concepts of traditional museums. Along what lines and where, do museums develop, for instance, into multicultural platforms for negotiations about the past and a future, thanks to New Museology/Social museology. 5. Museology and the Anthropocene – how can museology reduce the disastrous effect Man has on our planet Earth and our living conditions? How can museology help to bridge the gap between Mind and Matter – the gap that is the reason for the state of mankind right now – the belief that Man is superior to nature and all other creatures?! It is time to leave the conceptual ideas about discourses, "texts" and "objects as texts" and narrations behind, and realize that we and the material world are One whole; we have come into being together with the material world, not apart from it. We are buddies with the material; we wouldn't otherwise be human; we would have achieved nothing without the help of material, tools and objects. We are all subordinated to entropy, death and extinction as well. So what impact should this insight bring to our dealing with museums, objects and collections, with a sustainable future in mind? Many papers in this book, intended as material for discussions on and after the conference, deal with these specific questions while others use these as a takeoff for related perspectives on the future of traditions in museums and museology. ; Papers from the ICOFOM 42nd symposium held in Kyoto (Japan), 1-7 September 2019

his is the first book to analyze and evaluate the development of Lithuanian museology (museum studies) from the latter half of the 18th century into the 21st century. It is based on the extensive research materials, many of them archival, gathered by the author Dr. Nastazija Keršytė during 2012–2014 while doing the research project "Development of Lithuanian Museology in 1752–2012", sponsored by the Research Council of Lithuania (contract LIT-5-16). A stimulus for the writing of this monograph was the opportunity afforded by the government program Lithuanian Museums in 1812–2012 (Lietuvos muziejų kelias 1812–2012 m.), one of the initiatives undertaken in the Year of the Museum in 2012. Unfortunately, Dr. Keršytė died before completing this monograph on 18 May 2016, International Museum Day. As a long-time friend and colleague, I had promised to write an English-language summary of her book.More in PDF. ; .

The Queer Museum examines how relationships between institutions and LGBTQ+ communities function and how they help to define queer museum practice. Analysing what it means to queer the museum in Western contexts, the book builds upon and challenges texts about inclusionary, activist museum practice and discusses the ways in which Othered communities are engaged with and represented. Arguing that an institution's understanding of queerness is directly related to the kind, and extent, of change pursued by the museum, the author clarifies that governance structures, staff hierarchies, funding and relationships to queer communities affect the way queering might be pursued. The analysis looks critically at exhibitions and institutions and particularly forefronts the experiences of museum practitioners. It argues that practical changes that positively affect museums' long-term relationships with marginalised communities are critical. The book also considers the future of the museum by drawing on queer theories of utopia, futurity, failure and amateurism to complicate understandings of the queer museum and its relationship to people and objects. The Queer Museum will be of interest to students and academics in museum and heritage studies, art history and archival studies. It will also be essential reading for museum and arts sector practitioners who seek to do and engage with this kind of work.

This is the narrative of a museum employee working during the period of ongoing change that is taking place in our country, Lithuania. After the restoration of independence, a new market economy strategy and the emergence of a private sector can be noted, both related to the new political view. They resulted from the attempt to return to the global context after half a century of Soviet occupation. The museum space is traditionally related to the protection and representation of cultural heritage. In Lithuania, as in the majority of Eastern European countries, museums and their collections are owned by the state. Our country has 93 museums of which 3 are national, 16 supported by the Republic, 56 municipal, 14 departmental and 4 private. A free market is characterised by selfregulatory laws. Exceptions slowly replace previously valid rules. Two private sculpture parks are examples of such exceptions in the slowly recovering Lithuanian cultural scene: the International European Centre Sculpture Museum, 1993, and the Grûtas Park, 1999, featuring disassembled monuments of the Soviet period. The stories of their creation represent two different models for establishing private museums, which, in a general sense, may be characterized as the strategy of opening and openness respectively. The story of the lattery type of establishment gives more insight into the essence of the changes that are taking place.