ICOM

International Council of Museums

ICOFOM

International Committee for Museology Comité international pour la muséologie

Museology and Techniques

Muséologie – Les techniques au Musée

Museología y Tecnologías

Edited by Hildegard K. Vieregg, Munich/Germany

ICOFOM

Preprints ICOFOM Study Series – ISS 36

Vienna/Austria

August 20-22, 2007

ii

© International Committee for Museology (ICOM/UNESCO) Editorial work: Hildegard K. Vieregg, Munich/Germany Published on behalf of ICOFOM (International Committee for Museology in ICOM/UNESCO), Munich 2007 – ISBN: 978-3-00-025422-2

iii

Contents Preface Part I: Museology, a Field of Knowledge: Museology and Techniques Ago, Fabrizio (Italy): Towards a New Museology in China – Results of a Research Activity 01 (English) Barblan, Marc-Antonio (Switzerland): Engineering Works and Scaled-down Models or Industry Laid Bare 10 (English) Brulon, Bruno C. Soares (Brazil): How the Museum Deals with reality: from Museum Techniques 25 to Ethical Matters (English) Boucher, Louise N. (Canada): La muséification du patrimoine industriel: pour un projet de 32 paysage créatif Abstract (English) Chung, Yun Shun Susie (USA) : Universal Knowledge through Heritage in Science, Technology, 40 and Industry Museums. Case study: Museum of Science and Industry Chicago/Illinois (English) Decarolis, Nelly (Argentina): Museology and New Technologies – a Challenge for the 21st. Century 46 (English) Museología y Nuevas Tecnologías: Un Desafío Para el Siglo XXI (Spanish) 50 Decharneux, Sophie/Gob, André (Belgium): Les techniques au Musée : questions éthiques (French) 55 Harris, Jennifer (Australia) : Obsolescence Overcome ?: Natural History Museums. Respond to 61 History Museums (English) (Abstract (English) Resumé (French) Lengyel, Alfonz (USA and China): Abstract: High Tech natural Science Museum 69 of the City of Jagdaqi (English)

iv

Lima, Diana F.C (Brazil): Muséologie, Patrimoine Universel et Techniques: espace multidisciplinaire. 70 Maranda, Lynn (Canada): Museology, Techniques and the ICOM Code of Ethics (English) 76 Nazor, Olga (Argentina): The Young and Revolutionary: technological Museums (English) 81 Saldaña, Freire Rodriguez (Mexico): Cambio Social, Naturaleza y Tecnología Ser Himano y Museos 84 en el Nuevo Milenio (Spanish) Scheiner, Tereza M. (Brazil): Mousàon and Technè – Reflections of Contemporary Culture 89 (English) Shah, Anita (India): Museology, Responsibility and Techniques (English) 99 Part II: Museums and Universal Heritage Chang, Wan-Chen (Taiwan): The Contemporary Significance and Role 102 of the Universal Museum (English) Davis, Ann (Canada): Think Globally, Act Locally (English) 108 Guelbert de Rosenthal, Eva (Argentina): Museology and the Preservation of Universal Heritage (English) 113 Museología y la Salvaguarda del patrimonio Universal 117 en una Sociedad en Constante Cambio (Spanish) Hernández-Hernández, Francisca (Spain): Retos de Los Museos Cientificos ante el Desarrollo 121 de la Sociedad del Siglo XXI (Spanish) Kossova, Irina (Russian Federation): Cultural Heritage and the Modern Museum (English) 129 Risnicoff de Gorgas, Mónica (Argentina): La Mise en Question du Concept du Patrimoine Universel (French) 133 El Patrimonio Universal, Un Concepto en Cuestión (Spanish) 140 Resumen: El Patrimonio Universal, un Concepto en cuestión (Spanish) Abstract: The Universal Patrimony, a Concept to Consider (English)

v

Xavier Cury, Marilia (Brazil): Toward a Universal Paradigm for Museums – Discussion (English) 147 Por um paradigma universal para os Museums 155 – em Discussão (Portuguese) Part III: Further Contributions Lindauer, Margaret A. (USA): Making Choices, Weighing Consequences: The Pedagogical 164 Limitations of Free-Choice Learning in America on the Move (English) De Carvalho, Rosane Maria Rocha (Brazil): 16 Museum Information and Communication in the Internet and the Virtual Visitor 169 Resumo and Abstract (Portugues/English) Cristofano, Mariaclaudia (Italy) The State of the object in the Italian demo-ethno-anthropological contemporary museology 170 (English) Smeds, Kerstin (Sweden) The Escape of the Object? – crossing territorial borders between collective 172 and individual, national and universal (English)

vi

vii

Preface This edition of ICOFOM Study Series 36 (ISS 36) on the topic Museology and Techniques was prepared by ICOFOM as a scientific contribution related to both the ICOM General Conference 2007 and the ICOFOM Annual Meeting 2007 (August 20-22, 2007) in Vienna/Austria. The ICOFOM Board is very pleased that colleagues of numerous countries in this way actively participated in the preparation of the Meeting. Contributions of the following countries are included: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, India, Italy, Mexico, Russian Federation, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, USA. According to the scientific program of ICOFOM (2004-2007) Museology – a Field of Knowledge “Museology and Techniques” is the third important topic. The publication is divided into three sub-topics:

- Part I: Museology, a Field of Knowledge: Museology and Techniques” - Part II: Museums and Universal Heritage - Part III: Further Contributions.

We appreciate very much that not only museologists but additionally an architect and a researcher on Engineering enriched this volume from their specific perspective. Museums of Natural History, Science Museums, Industry Museums and the techniques themselves in correlation to Museology play an important role. Besides, in some articles the interrelationship between Museology, the techniques, the ethical consequences and the focus to a contemporary culture is discussed. The contributors of the second part consider “Museums and Universal Heritage”, the main topic of the ICOM General Conference 2007. The authors reflect on the one hand the contemporary role of and problems about the Heritage/Patrimoine, and on the other hand they express on the basis of a philosophical approach how the local point of thinking about museums and museology may be connected with a global position. Many thanks to all who contributed to this volume! Hildegard K. Vieregg Munich, July 2007

1

Part I: Museology – a Field of Knowledge Museology and Techniques Towards a New Museology In China - Results of a Research Activity Carried out with the support of Tongji University, Shanghai and ICCROM Fabrizio Ago (Italy) Abstract 1. Presentation The political and traumatic events China encountered since the end of Empire, are hardly making practicable here any comparison with the developments of museology we knew in the West, particularly in the period of taking over colonial empires and later at the end of World War Two. Between the end of XIX Century and the beginnings of the ‘900s (particularly with the creation of the first modern museum, built thanks to the efforts of Zhang Jian, in Nantong) and then at the starting of the new millennium (with the projects of Koolhaas, etc.), we assist, in fact, to an unilateral transmission to China of specific and peculiar concepts of Western museology. By consequence, the commitment in trying to focus on a new tendency of an autonomous and original Chinese museology, along more recent years, had appeard to be extremely exciting. Obviously to reach the goal, it had be necessary to go through a careful historical excursus, focusing on the various and subsequent museological experiences in the Country, gathering related relevant aspects and marking elements. From those considerations started the idea of the research is hereby presented. Through this analysis and comments included in following paragraphs, a picture will be drawn out, that may let understand how an historical excursus over museology in China was essential, and how punctual reflections were deeply needed in this field. 2. Origin of museums in China and related development until the '30s of last Century Since the time of Han dinasty, paintings and calligraphies exalting the memory of men of great worth, were preserved with the purpose to let developing moral virtues of people in admiring them. With Song dynasty, respect deserved to Confucian rites brought to collect ancient bronzes, jades and graven stones. The aim was to let maintaining memory of ancient times. To try to recognize now through those attitudes the appearance in China of the idea of museums, could be debatable. However what is here of interest, is that those acts were finalized to education and virtue, with a marked differentiation in comparison to the Wunderkammern of European Renaissance Princes. Only later, thanks to scientists coming from Europe, it happened that first bowuguan (museums) were created in China. And it didn't deal with imperial gifts collections. The new institutions were in fact Museums of natural history, founded both in Shanghai from the French missionary Han De (or Eude) and later, in 1874, from a British scientist.

2

In 1905 finally, the Chinese literate Zhang Jian, after having created the first Normal School of the country, started to build in Nantong the first true museum of China, a Historical museum that will arrive to exhibit up to 20.000 objects. From a museographic and museologic point of view, it dealt with the application in China of a model, that was essentially European. That was a place where to receive cultured citizens, intellectuals and the social elite, desirous to widen their own knowledge. “Message” of that type of museum was addressed just to visitors, similar to the scientific personnel of the cultural institution, for formation, taste, interests, and therefore in possession of the necessary code to decript the meaning of collections and of their way to be exhibited. In 1919, already under the Republic, it was created in Beijing the Guoli lishi bowuguan (Natural history museum). And in the following ‘20s, inside the Forbidden City it were organized, in the premises of Wuyingdian and Wenhuandian, the first exhibit rooms, showing historical documents, literary collections and archaeological findings. The Imperial palace simultaneously became a place of memory of the past and witness of the deep changes, intervened in the first quarter of the Century. The following period, also known as that of Warlords, and then the one of the Japanese invasion, were certainly not favourable to the development of museology in China. Local nationalism, affirmation of a political legitimacy, brought however to the foundation of new museums. The matter is controversial, about their role of lieux of representation of power, or on the opposite, true museums. Nevertheless, even if statistics of the time are faulting, it is known that the Forbidden City between 1928 and 1934 received over 400 thousand visitors, an unthinkable amount for Europe and for the United States. Again in 1928, the Rules for maintenance of antiquities and for controlling temples and monasteries, were promulgated. In the ‘30s, thereinafter, two important museums saw the light. They were the Zhongyan bowuyuan of Nanjing, created in 1933, and the Shanghai bowuyuan, created in 1937. The Nanjing museum is nowadays organized on a thematic visiting path; at its origin it was however dressed according to a chronological succession. The Shanghai museum was in fact replaced by the new building, that we can admire now. The museums in the country became then 77 and 420 experts, partly managers and partly curators, worked at that time in those institutions. A first sector of research was devoted to these museums of the ‘30s, when the tangible foundations of museology were laid in China. It had been possible to go along the grow up of maintenance techniques, of new exhibitory models (with important apparatuses to support as maps, maquettes, synoptical tables, photos). It had been possible to go along the newly paid attention to visitors, statistics regarding the affluences to museums, etc.. It had been possible to detect nuances of an arising consciousness on cultural identity in China. Particularly designing the relation between that consciousness and a new museum model launched by Nanjing and Shanghai museums in the ‘30s, is undoubtedly of great interest for the history of culture and museology in China. Situation was undoubtedly not easier during Civil war, so much that in the several Provinces the Liberation army had to directly overview, manage and safeguard material heritage, libraries and museums. Their efforts weren’t however strong enough to prevent that, between 1948 and 1949, movable relics, together with books and archives, peculiar symbols of the inheritance and identity of the nation, were transferred to Taiwan. 3. Experiences after World War Two and the Revolution With 1949 a new rule even for cultural heritage began in China. New great buildings designed on Stalinian style replaced the hutong, but at same time some attention was payed to the protection of past testimonies, according to what was defined "the socialist spiritual civilization." Typical, from this point of view, is the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Museum, founded on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the establishment of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, in 1957, Considered at that time as synthesis encountering the new revolutionary feeling, on the one side, and the respect of local expressive minority characteristics, on the other side. The new Legislation fixed norms for the protection of movable tangible relics, as documents or archives, ancient books, paintings and sculptures,

3

findings from archaeological excavations; but unexpectedly didn’t fix any rule for what concerns their assembling and exposing to the public. Few years later, nevertheless, in 1951-52, the Wenwu bianji weiyuanhui (Cultural heritage Committee) was created, with the commitment to manage and protect monuments, libraries and museums. In this scenario the museum was obviously seen as an instrument for conveying revolutionary patriotism to people. The museum went to become therefore organizationally divided in three sections: the first of History, the second consecrated to Revolution (starting from the revolt of the Taipings and from the Movement of May 1919), and the last one devoted to Natural sciences. The whole institution had to be presented as a new interpretation of Chinese history and civilization, with the purpose to exalt the feeling of people and to contribute in justifying the existence of the new Régime. The first museum to be inaugurated according to such criteria was that of Anhui in Efei, in 1953. At same time the interior dressing of the few remaining museums, that had survived to the terrible events of the occupation and of the war, were completely reconsidered. It may be now useful to quote here a passage from Jay Sian, that in 1987 visited the Museum of the Chinese revolution in Beijing. “The Museum sets out to show the process whereby the Chinese people broke free from an oppressive system. To make the point explicit, on entering the museum one is faced in a large marble hall with a huge portrait of Chairman Mao, flanked by rows of red flags, though of a smaller size, are portraits of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. The museum uses relatively few objects, utilizing mainly photographs and documents… Old newsreels with added soundtrack are continually videoed, and a film theatre leads off from the gallery. Of the museum, this is clearly the more popular with Chinese visitors, most of whom appeared to be captivated by their official guide.” Beyond the this statement, obviously based on ideological background, it must be noticed that we are facing here a new and original (for China) presentative system. Museum in fact is changing. The spectacular apparatus has entered to become integrating part of the cultural institution and it will never go out anymore from it. Not always however the ideological element was so strongly present in the museums. Culture enjoyed of free spaces and dignity for its own. Up to Cultural Revolution, another tendency has to be recorded, that to bring the number of museums back to the situation of the ‘30s. The tendency was not however to design and built many new structures, whether to proceed with the renovation and reuse of monumental historical buildings. So the Museum of Art and History of Shanghai, was settled, in 1952, inside the building of a former Bank. The visiting paths were here still strictly organized on a pure chronological way. We notice however in the exhibit apparatus, a reduction of didactic panels whereas explanations appear dramatically contained. If in the museum the ideological element didn't have to enter, the imperative was however that it had not to be let to curators to be free in introducing interpretative or presentative criteria over the collections. Contemporarily we assist to the creation of House-museums. In all latitudes house-museum have ever been important lieux de mémoire, vibrant repositories of the national memory. In a rapidly changing world, even under the Socialist revolution, it was considered that the absolute quietude of the Kong family mansion in Qufu interiors, had to be invested with a national dimension. Going back to the historical events, we see that with Cultural Revolution, the ideological statement of the first two Socialist decades went to its peak. Out of the expressions of heritage commemorating the Revolution or the advent of Socialist Party, both monuments and ancient relics had no anymore reasons to survive and be protected. Not so much was in the power of the Heritage Bureau, face to that situation. They just managed to save form vandalisms some of the most important monuments, for instance walling up the entry to Dunhuang Caves or setting under the control of the Army some museums. Sometimes the population itself went to defend its cultural heritage. In Shanghai the Longhua pagoda was saved by the students of the Normal School, intervened to defend the monument. Or again the population autonomously destroyed objects of less value inside Yuyuan (Jade Rock) Garden, with the purpose to avoid more serious devastations.

4

4. Relevant experiences after the Cultural revolution Since 1978, when China adopted an open-door policy, economic development had been extremely rapid. For what of interest here, population mobility, along with the desire for access to historic and natural sites and to museums, occurred on a scale previously inconceivable. In 1982 the National People’s Congress promulgated a new legislation on the protection of cultural relics, that introduced the concepts of historical, artistic and scientific jiazhi “value” of the relics. It also specified best practices for professionals involved in conservation of cultural heritage. A specific document Wenwu gongzuo shouce concering Conservation methods for museum collections and museology works regulation was even edited. Museology has so entered of full rights into the lawmaking system. A new extraordinary period for the museums was growing up. Statistics in the field are just limited, but in any case from the 349 museums of 1978, they become 618 in 1984, 1013 in 1990, 1982 in 1997 and the goal of having in China 3000 museums is not so far to be reached. For along the ‘80s, exhibition inside the museum became again a matter of quality. The attention to the visitor was marked by some elements considered as crucial by the time: a suitable training for the guides, lectures devoted to schools, stimulous to temporary exhibitions. It is commonly understood that a first period at the end of Cultural Revolution, ends with two important realizations: the History Museum of Shaanxi (of 1992) and the Museum of Shanghai (of 1994), devoted to bring new impulse to museology in China. Although commonly believed that the two museums were innovative for the Country, to a detailed analysis it can be verified that they didn’t so much diverge from other interventions of the ‘80s, and that today is not more possible to consider them acceptable, from a point of view of modern museology. The History Museum of Shaanxi was designed according to the so called Chinese style. With respect to the great development of architecture and of skyscrapers in the whole city, this choice went to the effect, that since the first beginning the complex didn't succeed in presenting itself as that innovative proposal it pretended to be. On the inside, the presentation system, with the showcases of disproportionate dimensions and the display of objects in static sequence, reveals itself to be just an anthological description of collections. The sequence of rooms, just an alternation of spaces without solution of continuity face to commercial areas, the presence of copies put in proximity of old relics, represent almost a lacking of style when comparing this museum to the magic atmosphere of cultural institutions of the ‘30s. The interior dressing, as a whole, doesn't have eventually enough strength and energy to itself as new museological model. At the beginning of the ‘90s we were facing a rising up of a new economic-commercial system and we were facing the related effects on the “consumption” of culture. More adventurous is the architectural concept, from the outside, of the Museum of Shanghai. The structure and materials of the entire buildingare an accomplishment of the most modern technology. The main hall of the museum is covered by an attractive immense dome that remembers the one of Wright in New York, but for remaining spaces organization, with the grand staircase on the left of the entrance and the various balconies, special solutions appear more suitable for a Grand hotel, than for a cultural institution. What is of interests here are in fact museological aspects. The splitting up of various galleries along the 4 floors of the building, could even appear interesting in China during the ‘90s, but to a careful analysis it didn't introduce but just limited innovative design elements wit respect to the experiences of the ‘30s. At the time of its construction visitor's expectations, that had become of mass, were not anymore those of the élites of the beginnings of Century. Yet everywhere inside the complex, inadequate attention to visitors and their expectations may be recorded. The galleries, with entrances most suitable for department stores, don’t show themselves engaging as it would be expected for a museum of so vast importance and hosting so extraordinary collections. The explanatory apparatus is at times lacking in meaning, at times even to much elaborated in iconological analyses of the collection, brings back to the ‘30s, without offering innovative solutions. And, considering that the explanatory

5

apparatus remains so limited, archaeo-guides are certainly not sufficient to modify and enrich impact on visitors. There was the realization of some hundred new museums, after the one in Shanghai, up to the end of this period, that ideally we may consider starting in 1978 and ending in 2002, but no one reached to be of strong enough innovative impact. Particularly afterthoughts on the two quoted experiences, brought China, some years later, to seriously consider the opportunity to refer for the course, to museographs and museologists from abroad. However, as we shall see in next paragraph, that wouldn’t always be a prudent choice. To complete the overview on this period, we have however to mention a newly introduced category of situations that new Legislation assimilated to museums. Those were small cities endowed with strong, local or ethnic features, as Ping Yao or Lijiang, or even cities endowed with an exceptional landscape as Hangzhou. The new legislation was particularly encouraging in this sector. The responsibles had however to manage on one hand the fear that historical or cultural sites would disappear or change completely under pressure from tourism, and on the other the awareness of the considerable economic stakes, since tourism based on cultural and landscaped heritage could generate substantial revenues. The situation and the capacity of the authorities to implement their cultural policy didn’t differ from the one in many countries even in Europe. In China we had however to consider the importance of tourist flows. 700 million of tourists visiting China were scheduled in 1996, 8% of them (50 million) being foreigners. But at same time the 50 million visitors represented the total of tourist flows (domestic and foreigners) in France and Italy together. The situation of museums, we have analyzed, didn’t change so much in this period and didn’t introduce so many innovations. The situation of “sites”, in a short term, revealed itself to be completely different. In fact until now both Lijiang and Ping Yaos kept intact their structures. At the end of the ‘80s full assets were there: a local literate culture, dynamic enterprises, private capitals often associated to the public sector, local authorities with open mind. The reverse of the medal was however not negligible: the standardization of life style, the creation of an artificial environment devoted as a priority just to tourism. Undoubtedly in other countries the situation was not so different. Lets thinks to the small calli of Venice or to the Mont Saint Michel, pervaded of shoddy goods and of hordes of distracted tourists. Beyond said considerations, for the museologue the reorganization and then the evolution of archaeological sites doesn't result of great interest. It may be nevertheless useful to conduct some reflections, at least to gather meanings of changes that in same years were becoming into force in China. For sites, in fact, some particularities may be appreciated, and not only with reference to their qualities at the time they had been introduced into the tourist system, but also their becoming, at least in the 10 following years. However only the situation of the Yuyuan (Jade Rock) Garden of Shanghai, will be here quoted as example. Yuyuan Garden has been restored after the events of the Cultural revolution, and reopened to the public in the ‘80s. It still remains well preserved and restored. It deals with a complex of Ming dynasty, built in the so said style of Suzhou, and is intensively frequented by local population. The matter to stress here is not so much its accessibility or organization of visit tours, absolutely unexceptionable. The question tied rather to the urbanistic development of Shanghai of the last years. First of all, from inside the Garden, the summits of the various skyscrapers of the Bund and of various commercial areas of the city are seen, seriously disturbing the pleasure of the visit. Secondly the Garden is surrounded by modern constructions, immediately adjacent to the complex, apparently built in the same style (of Suzhou), but with dimensions both in plan and in elevation, so consistent, and so marked by strong colours, of so clashing contrast, all devoted to commercial activities. So an innovative and clever solution of the end of the ‘80s appears today compromised, not for inside deficiencies, rather for a lack of coordination with other administrative structures. But the commitment is even to consider this type of situations affecting cultural heritage. In conclusion historic cities and sites enjoyed of a particular legislative protection and, thanks to the ability of the administrations, ended to become presentable, if not as original models original, as situations abreast to the world trend in the sector. What instead remained really

6

to be reformed in China, at the end of the ‘90s, were in fact just the specific museum institutions. 5. Rethinking museums and involvement of famous foreign architects During last decade of the millennium there were, around the world, general expectations of what should be the role of a museum in the twenty-first century: it had to be an outward looking organization, responsive and accountable to its public; it had to be aware that the views and interpretations it was putting foreword through its exhibitions were only one way of seeing the issues and topics that were addressed, and that its audiences were bringing perceptions and views of their own; it had to recognize the need to represent the interest and cultures of all its varied audiences in its collections and in its communications. A general consensus around this perspective was alike general. But when coming to collections, there was no similar general perception of what they were for, and how they could be used. Also in China, in the field of the museums, the need of a complete renewal in the system of presentation of the collections was strongly perceived, so as to allow people to recover their a sense of ownership and cultural identity. From another side we have to consider the spectacular transformation of China in the last decade that is symbolized by its architecture. The booming cities were evolving at a speed that is hard to comprehend, and their skylines have seen a profusion of architectural styles. China’s new wealth and an invasion of Western culture have created a dynamic environment for architecture and construction. This heady push to prosperity has excited and seduced architects from around the world, who grasped this unique opportunity to produce remarkable projects. In Western world an extraordinary effervescence was there, turned to the realization of new museums. Contemporarily the levels of affluence to cultural institutions and the technological developments of the West were truly expected to reach China. It was therefore fulfilled a favorable context for an "invasion" of China from architects specialized in museums’ design. And this is what happened, in fact, during last ten years. Main attention of Western architects was however concentrated on modern art museums. So the programs for which foreigner architects had to be called to China, were concerning that type of museums. Their attention was only, or prevalently, for the scenographic aspects of architecture. By that way it not so important to take care of the collection to be hosted in the premises. The Nanjing museum for Art and architecture, designed by arch. Steven Hall, is truly emblematic of how, for Western architects in China, the concept of architecture is becoming emancipated from the art exhibited in it. The museum in fact: “is formed by a field of parallel perspective spaces and garden walls in black rammed earth over which a light figure hovers. The straight passages on the ground level gradually turn into the winding passage of the figure above. The upper gallery, suspended high in the air, unwraps in a clockwise turning sequence and culminates at in-position viewing of the city of Nanjing in the distance”. The situation don’t change to much with the Modern art museum in Beijing, designed by arch. Arata Isozaki. In a metropolis that aspires to global status, the “economic capital” must be transformed into “cultural capital”, which hopefully will become the measure of the sophistication of that metropolis’ cultural life. For Isozaki it was then necessary to design an universally recognizable icon building, to profoundly transform Beijing and its collective psyche. The design needs here non interpretation effort, for it is remarkably legible. A 100 meter-long and 20 meter-high pink and blue marble wall, which bounds the main edge of the complex, marked by an enormous arc de triomphe, seems to be there just to protect the glazed galleries from the heavily trafficked road. In fact in both cases we are mentioning complexes designed more of all to attract just architects, as visitors. Greater attention must certainly be deserved to the project of arch. Ieoh Ming Pei for his museum in Suzhou, which consists of elegant but simple constructions, basins and yards. The complex is proposing a perfect coexistence between both traditional Chinese architecture and the must updated characters of technology. The black and white pieces of architecture are then reflecting themselves into the water, exactly as in an imperial palace.

7

However, even here, at a deeper analysis, we cannot imagine how modern art collections may be hosted and exhibited in such a sterilized space. In the meanwhile, thanks to those new projects, China can show itself more prestigious. At least its urban impact is like that: the effect of Bilbao is there. But from the point of view of museology no one footstep has been completed in the meanwhile. But there is also another question to be commented. A peculiarity of modern art museums is in fact even the impermanence of the collection. Consider the older type of plastic, such as celluloid, that suffer from severe discolouration with age. Electro-mechanical works are particularly difficult to conserve. Most in general the collection may suffer from built-in obsolescence by virtue of the components included. So from one side impermanence is a central concern for the curator and the problem has to be included as part of the responsibility accepted, when the decision is taken to acquire a specific work of art. However looking at the spirit of China, this characteristic may also become an advantage, whether the future projections of the museum are rapidly changes and continuous new experiences to be offered to the public. In short, the extraordinary effervescence in architecture and urbanism that involved even museums at the end of the millennium, substantially brought laying aside the question of the sense of the museum for Chinese society, for its identity and for the meaning of its related cultural ownership. How collections had to be supposed to be dressed; what had to be the sense of a visiting path; what kind of relationship had to be encountered between real and virtual objects (meant for picking up great consents from Chinese visitors); all of that absolutely still remained an unexplored field. 6. Rising of new Chinese architects designing museums The new legislation on cultural heritage, of 2002 and that took effect from 2005, is introducing innovative concepts for the protection and exploitation of the patrimony. Even just covering in short the most relevant statements would be too much onerous. So by this work only some aspects should be examined, linked to museum management and the entry in the museums of information technologies. Within the scenario drawn by the new legislation, we may eventually better appreciate innovative museum designs by Chinese architects of last years. Chinese projects of last 3-4 years may even be considered as dated pieces of works, however undoubtedly they show themselves to be able to maintain an analytical attitude towards architecture. Between the architects than fleed China to search the “modern” in the ‘80s and that returned to their home country, to grasp the unprecedented opportunities of design and getting projects built, Yung Ho Chang is one of the most prominent. In fact, according to his own declaration, he went back to China with the self-imposed mission to create a contemporary and cultural Chinese architecture. And his project for the Janchuan museum (Sichuan), at present under construction, surely goes to that direction and will also take interesting and innovative elements in the field of museology. We cannot, at same time, forget to note the use of the Chinese term for an exhibition, litterarely zhanshi chenlie, meaning “display or exhibition”, but which includes the broad concept implied in English words “valorisation” and “interpretation”. In fact, with respect to the exuberance and ongoing race of “newness” of Western architects proposals, what we need today, is a new sense for the way to display collections, for the interpretation of the visit experience, for the use of the most sophisticated new technologies. In the Tantai museum (Zhejiang) of 2003, arch. Wang Lu separates the exhibition spaces as volumetric rooms for object, and panel rooms for hanging pictures. The arrangement is based on the idea not only to create an intimate domestic scale, but also to ensure that the museum offers alternatives for the visitor, in order to break away from a linear sequential circulation. Basic concept of the project are, in short, four gallery rooms divided by a cross corridor, so when standing at the centre of the cross, one can choose by himself to enter any of the rooms. By consequence, the usual linear sequence of progressing through the rooms of a museum, is here replaced by an arrangement of open courts and rooms within rooms, which are utilized to provide a choice for he visitor. This concept allows navigation through the permanent exhibit, as an ideal route to let visitor gain an insight Buddhist civilization, as well as a presentation and a continuity to the nearby Guoqing temple on the southern range of Tiantai mountain.

8

In the Luyeyuan Stone sculpture museum of 2002, arch. Liu Jiakun has undoubtedly been indulgent in romanticizing the building’s siting on a river, and introducing linguistic elements as a flying bridge ramp leading to the second level, quite undecipherable and a little mysterious. The gallery spaces are elegantly lit by vertical and horizontal slit openings. The descending journey into the gallery from the second floor, makes the exhibition space feel like an underground treasure house. The resulting galleries include ramps, top lighting, plain but dramatic sequence of spaces, which create a variety of moods, or environments, so appropriate to the displays that the space seems to have been custom-designed for them. It surely concerns a way of introducing visitors in a stimulating and charming environment, that is undoubtedly useful to be studied, discovered and understood in its least details. Even the Han museum (Shaanxi), designed by Tongji University, as visit path is extremely interesting. From galleries, almost dark, that allow appear foreshortenings of sequences of warriors, livestock and transports of Emperor court, and with spaces psychologically narrowed, nevertheless made necessary for the required impact on visitors, to recreate the atmosphere of the graves, the visit ends in the great hall, where the eye can finally space, in light and in an atmosphere of relaxation. The experience of visit to this museum takes to further reflections. Whether in fact we consider again the development of the concept of museum along last Century, and whether we attribute to new technologies the capability to meet Chinese need on spectacular effects, we realize that there is not any need of Disneyland elements. We discover here in fact that the use of a small theatre, where through the use of holograms the life of the Han court of Han dynasty is enthusiastically reconstructed, is sufficient to deeply enhance the visit experience. The educational element on the visitor is of sure impact, while its attention is almost attracted by the funny element of the presentation system. From these three examples, that for a question of space cannot be widened, it is however possible to appreciate, in first place, the research in progress from Chinese architects, addressed to a new museology, founded on visit appreciations not imposed by the institution, but left to free choice of the visitor, as we were facing an interactive system of perception of the museum collections. Liu spaces, conductive to a lively interplay between art and architecture, show then themselves as an important steps toward a new museum typology. But what is mostly of interest, is the wise way by which architectural design derives here from exhibited collections and not collections to have to be inserted in a pre-established container. In third place it is possible to appreciate how simple scenographic stratagems, opportunely delineated, where duly accompanied by technologically advances solutions on virtual reality, can represent an extraordinary and innovative system of attraction for the visitor, in an experience of visit, engaging and certainly not trite. A true situation of “endutainment”, without gliding toward banality and without narcissistic Disneyland effects. Perhaps is not yet time to clearly affirm that we are facing first signals for a new museology in China. But certainly this is a sector that deserves to be even more explored. 7. Conclusions and characteristics of proposed research We have seen how at the beginning a Western model of museum had been imported-imposed to China. This model grew out of aristocratic collections. It was designed to serve high culture and knowledge of the natural world. The same model was exported to many countries under colonial rule and even to China. It was acceptable at the time of Zhang Jian, but starting with the end of the Empire, the related museological presentations started to reveal its inconsistency face a new social organization. But then we have seen how troubles in the history of the Country substantially leaded in modifying the museological approach in China. It is then obvious to wonder whether the appearance, in recent years, of so many Western architects, may be considered, or not, witness of a new cultural imperialism, spreading all over the world and that is somehow involving even China.

9

There is eventually a question on which we have to argue. Nowadays even in the West, but in China the question is really dramatic, tourist flows are becoming so wide, so that we are facing a dilemma that cultural institutions are asked to find a solution for: to make up the quarrel between the expectations of every tourist and enormous flows of them, between quality and quantity, between cultural relevance of the visit experience and commercial aspects. There no need, here, to go into a special close examination on that question. The problem of tourist pressure is particularly heavy in China, but we have non to forget that situation is elsewhere the same, and suitable solutions have often been found, as it is for the Dun Huang Grottos, with rotations in the visits. In conclusion three were fundamentally the sectors on which investigations were drawn up, both on original documents, through surveys on the ground, visits to the museums and interviews with managers and curators, with even harvest, when and where possible, of direct witness concerning architecture of the past and the architects that designed the most recent museums. Arch. Fabrizio Ago Free-Lance Consultant, specialist in museology and museography Viale Pinturicchio, 21 - (00196) Rome - Italy Phone & Fax: +39.06.3201266 Mobile: +39.348.5833645 E-Mail: mail@fabrizioago.It Web Page: http://www.abrizioago.it

10

Engineering Works and Scaled-down Models Or Industry Laid Bare Marc-Antonio Barblan, Switzerland ___________________________________________________________________ Introduction The following remarks are based on a long-standing concern of mine and are related to several interventions in the field of industrial heritage. In view of the advent of new parameters – or the recent emphasis on certain trends – these reflections appear to me of the utmost urgency. On the positive side, there has clearly been a potential increase in the conceptual and spatial field: be it the enlargement of Europe, the increased interdisciplinary and intercultural opportunities, endorsing the idea of the true interconnectedness of our universal heritage, as well as the realisation of the recently recognised status of immaterial heritage. On the negative side, however, we must lament those ever-increasing, contemptible moves to cash in on culture in the wider sense, moves which reduce culture to a mere pretence, in which performance-mode takes over at the expense of critical discourse (this may well explain the casual approach to methodology which is so often the case); therefore the difficulty in constructing a complete picture, a comparative one, incorporating the requisite hierarchical order. Without mentioning the worsening risks to climate and the environment, so much so in fact that water, which will figure prominently henceforth, is threatened in its essence, and will be the disputed prize of future conflicts. In this context, it seems to me that the role of the museum is demonstrably fundamental, while at the same time calling for close interaction. One of the major conclusions, arising from the case studies presented, involves moving from the notion of immaterial heritage to that of the immaterial conservation – by means of technologically advanced models, representations and virtual systems – of a material heritage whose survival may seem highly questionable. Along with other institutions, the museum is no doubt the ideal place where one can imagine the creation of this "alternative heritage" especially when the original installation cannot be preserved or when its sheer size requires a scaled down model in order to include the systems and networks to which it is related. Lastly, the museum is the interface of this intermingling between what is within and without. This allows us to evoke the notion of landscape – in this case, industrial – which we must consider in its ambiguity as an element of our immaterial heritage. Landscape in fact is not a material element simply As for the concept of « second generation of mock-ups » I would like to specially recall here the fruitful discussions, at the start, with Roberto Curti and Carlo Poni on the Bologna hydraulic system, which I later related to the Dixence site and, comparatively, to other parts of the world. Unfortunately, due to lack of space, it has not been possible to reproduce all the desired illustrations, but the reader may consult my previous publications: - Ouvrages d’art et maquettes, ou l’industrie mise à nu. Zürich, Société suisse des Ingénieurs et Architectes, D006/1986, pp.117-139. - "L’industria messa a nudo.Un capitolo di ricerca sulla storia materiale". In: Rivista dell’IBC, Bologna, 1987/1, pp.33-49.

11

- “Hydrodynamica: un partenariat efficace, ou la citoyenneté culturelle de l’entreprise au service du patrimoine industriel”. In: Images du patrimoine industriel. Paris (Cahiers de la section française de l’ICOMOS), 1987, pp.91-96. - Il était une fois l’industrie.Zürich-Suisse romande : paysages retravaillés. Quelques exemples d’occupation industrielle du territoire. Genève, 1984. In-4o, 243p, nbeuses ill. (ISBN 2-88166-000-2). - “A exposição da Central Tejo”. In: Museologia e arqueologia industrial, Lisboa,1991. The translation of quotations into English is ours. bounded by its physical reality. It only exists, as such, through the look of a subject, who, in 'recognising' landscapes, discovers at the same time, his own identity. Notions of the artificiality, subjectivity and historicity of the landscape are elemental. Engineering Works and Heritage: a matter of methodology The Conventional Wisdom There is no need to redefine the term 'industrial heritage'. It may be useful however to remind readers that we consider it to be much like a kaleidoscope: its principal components are to de found in a field unrestricted by time or space. The area defined by those two axes, makes it possible to do away with the obsolete, restrictive and inappropriate notion that only things belonging to a specific period (that is, starting roughly with the English “industrial revolution”) and geographical location (namely, in general, the northern-hemisphere industrialized nations which followed the same pattern of development) may qualify as “industrial”. In addition, two separate levels should be identified within those components. They are the tangible level, composed of buildings, artefacts (machines, tools, products) and documents, and the intangible level, made up of all that relates to the relationship between industrial activities, their geographical impact and population groups. This basic premise makes it possible both to identify a certain number of sub-groups (among them sites and engineering works) – which, however, do not have an independent reality – and to establish the appropriate methods of investigation, action and communication. Stating and restating this concept and, above all, showing what it can lead to, may finally win over those “pockets of resistance” which threaten the formulation of a fully integrated heritage policy. Failure to remove the artificial barriers to our approach and the activities which it implies, means going from bad to worse, as we keep wavering between treating the issue in terms of “monuments and sites” and considering it from the point of view of “technical logic”. Neither of these two one-dimensional alternatives can by itself aspire to reveal the cultural significance of this heritage. To argue otherwise leads to engaging in misguided efforts, the likes of which – achieved at no small expense – are found among recent projects. In the long run, one must unfortunately come to the conclusion that they are but rehashings of old themes with new gimmicks. Engineering and Heritage “In the past, when applied arts and techniques were the product essentially of experience and of closely guarded traditions, builders, who had to both design and complete constructions, gave the strong impression of having supernatural powers. Hence the derivation of the term engineering from ‘genie’ or ‘genius’ to describe both the activity and its product, namely the work itself.” This common dictionary definition considers as belonging to the field of civil engineering all that relates to the design and construction of buildings which are neither defence nor

12

hydraulic or public works projects. This is why, throughout this essay the terms “industrial sites and engineering works” have been chosen to describe that which is our primary concern. Do these achievements constitute a new dimension, a “new frontier” of humanity’s heritage? The answer can be in the affirmative, if we consider the new awareness of our intangible heritage, conservation endeavours, new museums, various international conferences; or it can be negative if reference is made to the conceptual and methodological approaches which were already articulated more than a quarter of a century ago. Industrial sites and engineering works do not, in and of themselves, represent an independent whole. They fall under the general heading of industrial heritage, of which they are an important aspect, as much for their tangible aspects (frequently very substantial) as for their, in many ways, exemplary intangible extensions. Indeed, projects of public works or sites of mineral extraction in most cases involve whole networks (of energy, goods or people) which, while they define – or result from – the geographical development of industry, become important channels for the interaction between industry and society. In this respect, they could even be considered to represent the quintessential industrial heritage. The fact that sufficient attention has not been given until now to such larger entities may be ascribed largely to the conceptual confusion which existed in the approach to what still used to be known as “industrial archaeology”. By mistaking a part for the whole, the “industrial revolution” was overemphasized, even though its “achievements constitute a factor of very limited scope, functionally as well as chronologically” (J.Fernandez-Ordoñez). Engineering Works, Systems, Networks It can be seen at once that this whole, the parts of which are defined by their functional typology, is only partially autonomous. One needs merely to note that industrial sites and engineering works almost always include built components, falling under the general definition of civil engineering, together with actual industrial equipment with specific functions, either operative or productive. Both of these elements belong equally within the general concept of the industrial heritage. For practical reasons, a three-tiered classification has nevertheless been selected: channels and equipment for communications (by land, rail, river and sea, air and space), hydraulic projects and equipment and mineral extraction sites. Whatever illustrative examples come spontaneously to mind, it will be immediately obvious to anyone that these buildings and the sites of which they are part are typically “monumental”. They also form systems, either in part or as a whole, that in turn achieve their full identity only through interaction with networks to which they are connected or contribute to create. As we shall see later on, when we examine the subject further, this factor implies a specific approach from the point of view of understanding, preservation and conservation. For if this heritage is to be recognized, as is both legitimate and necessary, it needs to be given a human, cultural and social dimension, its various degrees of complexity must be publicized, brought into view. In addition, considerations of financial, functional or even methodological order prevent us from systematically advocating keeping these systems in existence. Hence the apparent contradiction whereby ways and means are being sought for the preservation and conservation of technical systems while circumstances may make it unadvisable to preserve their tangible aspects above or below ground, either in part or as a whole.

13

Meeting such a challenge will require that novel methods be found, based on time-proven traditions and using new tools, techniques and languages, so as to devise the most efficient means of both restoring and communication. From Sadd-el-Kafara to Itaipu These two hydraulic sites are separated in time by almost four thousand years. The first, dating back to the ancient Egyptian Empire, is considered to be the oldest known large structure; the later, built on the border between Brazil and Paraguay, lays claim to being, at the beginning of our century, the largest in existence in terms of output capacity. Even if the choice of these two obvious leading examples may be termed arbitrary, they have the advantage of putting the spotlight, at the global level, through time and space, on the rich and many-sided nature of this heritage. Some twenty years ago, a group of Spanish experts articulated certain basic principles, which perfectly reflect our own views: in addition to having a cultural and social dimension, industrial sites and engineering works have had an impact on the aspect of the land itself, on the way Europe looks today, on the gradual definition of the continent’s identity industrial sites and engineering works are always part of a wider space and geographical area the builders themselves are part of a more extended network in terms of space and time: a comparison between the suspension bridges built at different times in countries such as Peru, Madagascar, China, India and Bhutan, among which there is no known direct connexion, suggests that there may exist some form of universal notion of civil engineering, based on primitive intuition. As for activities which are implied by such considerations, we must, above all, manage to fully integrate this heritage into our cultural and socio-economic life by using, or re-using it, in a correct way. We must go beyond the purely archaeological stage to make the works in question function within the context of their original role and of the needs of our times. Consequently, it makes little sense to preserve such works, and to restore them, without the knowledge that, in the final analysis, the best guarantee of survival consists in either keeping them functioning as before or in finding a new role for them. That is why, in this field, research and activity must go hand in hand with an operational and investigative concern that any work of future rehabilitation will take into account historical and cultural factors. This makes it possible to bring out a point which is specific to industrial sites and engineering works within the scope of our industrial heritage, namely that when their preservation is possible and desirable, the critical factor is whether or not they are able to function. Different Problems, Separate Solutions Everyone agrees that, logically (from a geographical or historical point of view) it ought to be possible to choose typical examples to be preserved, while highlighting what could be called their added cultural and social value. These examples can be chosen only after available resources are known, as well as after their impact has been measured in terms of multidisciplinary criteria. By the time it takes to accomplish this (at least to a meaningful extent) a number of potentially interesting examples will have disappeared or been altered beyond recognition.

14

Hence the urgency to encourage – together with the trans-national survey mentioned above – the starting up of these directories in all countries where they do not yet exist. Hence also the need to temporarily and preventively freeze certain projects where emergency situations have arisen. It must also be kept in mind that our changing view of the heritage, albeit a positive one, can present us with difficult choices. We keep from past centuries what has been left to us by time, historical accidents and the nature of things, as well as what we shall be able to preserve for posterity. The situation as far as our contemporary heritage is concerned is quite different, as it is being created and destroyed at an increasing pace. A living concept of conservation must from now on incite us to create a “memory of the present” out of examples whose true historical and cultural relevance will only be measurable in the future. It is no less necessary to establish criteria for selecting such examples, while at the same time clearly acknowledging the risks of judgemental error implied therein. Prior to making recommendations, various forms of action should be examined (be they forms which exist or forms which still need to be defined), so as to select the most appropriate ones. A general remark must be made here and, later on, its practical significance will be examined, after a look at two case studies. It is clear that those who sought to consider “industrial archaeology” as a separate field of study, as opposed to a new way of looking at items located at the interface between various interrelated disciplines, have exposed themselves, and are still exposed, to a contradiction whereby our industrial heritage would consist of only abandoned factories, or those about to be abandoned, and can be protected only by preserving the actual existence of buildings or other artefacts. The definition given above, which is unrestricted by time or space – its necessary anthropological extensions – implies various modes of conservation which can be classified as direct and indirect methods. These can be used simultaneously, whenever the original item is preserved. On the other hand, if the physical preservation of items cannot be guaranteed, indirect methods can be used to create an alternative heritage. Three major considerations, among others, support such an approach. They are: a) the fact that there are elements of the industrial heritage which have been preserved – prior to its “discovery” or independently of it – within traditional heritage institutions (collections, museums, archives, etc.) which are not exclusively industrial in character; conserving this heritage (together with its cultural aspects) presupposes that such items be identified within existing collections and be grouped in a consistent manner, to illustrate different projects. Those might be, for instance, European cross-inventories as comparative study-bases, thematic exhibitions whenever advisable etc. b) that, by its very nature (dimension, volume, weight) and by its extensions (the “shadows” it casts around itself), the industrial item cannot always be preserved intact; to maintain that it should be, rapidly leads to unsolvable material and financial problems, as well as antagonizing potential supporters, while failing to consistently meet the principal aims of assimilation, conservation and communication. c) the fact that the industrial heritage can be characterized, for instance, by the coexistence of alternating tradition and innovation within a past-present-future trend. For this reason, by analogy, the most recent techniques should be used, in addition to traditional methods (which could be modernised), to devise new modes of preservation and conservation which

15

should function as media. These elements will in turn become part of the heritage, as examples and at the same time as works themselves, if not as substitutes for the lost items. The Industrial Heritage: a matter of networks Two Water Systems: Bologna and the Grande Dixence Industrial sites and engineering works, as we have seen, consist not only of what are often very complex technical systems. They also form parts of networks, which they define or into which they fit. Like the industrial heritage, of which they are a part, these networks comprise material aspects (technological, spacial, territorial, for instance). In addition, they in turn imply the notion of streaming – this can never be overstated – of a tangible or intangible order. As we mentioned earlier, water-power constructions and engineering works are not yet considered sufficiently as technical and cultural systems. Within the scope of the present paper, we shall therefore try and fill this void with the help of two examples. Chosen from among many others, they offer, above all, a methodological framework, an operational guide of general interest for the integration, the communication and the enhancement of the industrial heritage. They are all the more relevant whenever the subject at hand – what is being examined, discussed and acted upon – happens to belong to that category of large sites which concerns us. In addition, considering that, as with methods applicable to the history of enterprises, the examples chosen should by themselves make it possible to understand the entire history of the sector under consideration, who would deny that the Bologna water system and the Grande Dixence sites are indeed cases which meet such criteria? We are confronted here with two technological and human ventures which are, each in its own time, at the threshold of the modern era (textile industry, hydroelectric power), perhaps even precursor forms of it. Both are, through a variety of interactions, parts of closely-knit networks which together form an aspect of civilization which in all likelihood should interest all of us, not just those specialized in industry and its history. The Wedding of Water and Silk When, in the early 12th century, the Bolognese undertook to build the Chiusa di Casalecchio – which was to become the main component of the city’s water system and a genuine “Gateway to Europe” – they meant it to provide, in fact, free access to the Adriatic, which had existed in nature, but which hydrographical changes had later obstructed. Located west of Bologna, the installation made it possible to divert the Reno river through the city by the Navile canal. This was an event of considerable economic impact, which led the municipal authorities to reopen a waterway toward Ferrara and the northern Adriatic. The Navile canal was therefore a symbol of Bologna’s opening toward Venice, Europe and the East: a technical achievement, a travel and shipping route, with economic and commercial stakes which almost constantly drew the attention of local and papal authorities. When completed, the waterway followed a course dropping almost a hundred feet, through ten locks, or sostegni, from Bologna to Malalbergo in the Po River valley. To visitors,

16

Bologna therefore appeared as a true “city on the water”, which today seems unusual, with all life taking place around its water system (it has been estimated that the volume of cargo handled by the port reached 100,000 metric tons by 1580). The availability of water led to the appearance of a variety of hydraulic machinery (close to 400 ducts and wheels at the beginning of the 16th century). The diversified traditional milling sites were dominated by the silk mills, a highly sophisticated water-power structure whose secret was closely guarded by the Bolognese. Moreover, technical improvements made in the silk mills gave rise in Bologna to an organization of work which foreshadowed the modern silk mill, well ahead of that of J.Lombe in England (1721), while doing away with domestic workshops. Water and silk came to symbolize the vitality of an important city, ensuring at the same time its prosperity. Soon however, the situation was to reverse itself. The disaster brought about by the outbreak of bubonic plague in 1629, the progressive closing of traditional markets, and the flight of capital toward other activities were factors in a decline, which ended in a total collapse of the industry during the Napoleonic era. By the end of the 17th century, the textile industry (in all of Italy, not just in Bologna) had been almost completely supplanted by agriculture (the region had become a net exporter of raw materials and importer of manufactured goods). The progressive shift in population away from urban areas was to give Italy a predominantly agrarian character which remained unchanged until the end of the Second World War. These events inevitably caused the water system, centrepiece of the industrial structure, to feel the repercussions of such a decline and to fall into disuse. It is however symptomatic that a change in mental attitudes, a sort of collective amnesia (all the more inexplicable since the principal entrepreneurs had fully supported the silk industry, prior to investing in the agricultural sector) preceded the actual collapse of a large number of the structures. As late as 1948, when it stopped being used for shipping, the Navile canal was still operational, so that urban changes during the 1950’s (succeeding those of the end of the 19th century) managed to erase that essential aspect of Bologna’s identity, that which represented its “hydrosilk” activity, only because it had already sunk deep into the oblivion to which it was to be relegated by the collective memory. From the Bisse to the Pressure Pipeline The people of the Swiss canton of Valais have always built what are locally known as bisses, or open wooden irrigation canals, frequently found on the side of mountains, and they certainly built them too in the Hérémence Valley. It appears in fact that seven of them were installed in the area between the 13th and the 19th century, while documents also indicate the presence there of preindustrial operations which used water power: three flour mills with ovens and fullers’ areas attached (the oldest dating back probably to the early 15th century), as well as various sawmills. Unfortunately, nothing remains of these structures, destroyed by successive landslides (in 1951) then by the spillout of an underground lake (1963). The development of electrical power led to other ideas for the use of the Dixence River’s floe. Although an application for a concession was first filed at the end of 1899, it was not until 1927, when the company L’Energie de l’Ouest-Suisse (EOS) purchased the concession and started work there in earnest in 1929, that the first dam was begun at the mouth of the Val des Dix.

17

EOS had been founded some years earlier by Jean Landry (1875-1940), the then president of the Lausanne Engineering School (as well as one of the inventors of the system used in building the dam). In the early days of electricity, after solutions had been found to production problems, the 1891 Frankfurt Electricity Exhibition saw the appearance of a significant new development: Brown and Boveri demonstrated the first transmission of high-voltage power (25,000 volts) over a distance in excess of 100 miles (170 km). The impact of this new technology on the growth of hydroelectrical power stations can be readily seen, in particular on those at mountain sites, with a catchment area and high water fall. Power transmission networks, essential elements in the geography of industry, from then on, systematically integrated different power stations, whose output levels fluctuated widely depending on whether they relied on a river’s flow (and were affected by nature’s course) or were fed by high-altitude reservoirs. At issue was the construction, at an altitude in excess of 2,000 meters, of a hollow dam 87 meters in height (of a type known as Landry-Stucky), and 458.5 meters in length at the crest. Its upstream and downstream walls would be covered by 9,200 cubic meters of quarry stone. A metal bridge supported by pylons anchored to the dam’s recesses would serve to transport and spread the concrete from a conveyor belt combined with a system of movable chutes. The infrastructures on the site (where 1,200 workers and supervisors were employed) were considerable. Two penstocks, with a level drop of 1,750 meters, fed the Chandoline station, built at the same time. In spite of labour problems and of difficulties in the financing of the work’s ultimate stage, the installation was completed at the end of 1935. An official research paper, issued in 1945, concluded that, due to its potential of available energy, the Val des Dix would be an obvious choice for the siting of a huge reservoir at high altitude. This constituted the starting point from which the world’s highest concrete dam would be erected (6 million cubic meters for a height at the crest of 285 meters).For after having considered various alternatives, EOS opted for the building of a new gravity dam downstream from the existing one (so as not to have to interrupt the latter’s operation). The entire project, achieved between 1952 and 1966, covers a distance of 50 kilometers as measured in a straight line, or 125 kilometers in terms of the length of the tunnels. It is divided into three main sections: - water conveyance (intakes, waterworks, head race tunnels) - water storage (Val des Dix lake and dam) - production (two power stations and their conduits) There is no need to describe in more detail the construction work, the considerable importance of which can be readily imagined. The project forms a technical system (which can in turn be divided into several subsystems) characterized by the diversified nature of its functions. The following are some of its main aspects: - the exploitation over several centuries of the Dixence River’s waters, at first to agricultural ends (irrigation bisses), later for preindustrial uses (milling and sawmills) - the probably unequalled size of the catchment area (360 square kilometres) and of the water-supply installations

18

- organizing at such a high altitude a construction project of this size (when fully operational it consumed 30 million kwh annually, enough to supply a city of 20,000), calling for original technical solutions - building within the same valley, some 20 years apart, two successive dams and the impact thereof on a region untouched by economic development and, additionally, the symbolic significance of this perhaps unique instance of “underwater industrial archaeology” constituted by the first Dixence dam (1935) immersed in today’s lake. It should be noted too that this sampling of aspects – restricted to the work accomplished on the site and to its direct repercussions – omits all the “shadows cast” or side effects of the project (in terms of technology, space and geography, as well as industrial, economic and sociocultural impact). These ramifications, both visible and invisible, have a much wider impact, reaching – sometimes creating – new surroundings, so that what may have started as an isolated – albeit unusual – event, ends up changed into an important cultural fact. All the more so, and it is not just happenstance, that the two main phases of this adventure coincide with the great transformations of the 20th century. Bologna in the Middle Ages, the Dixence in the twentieth century: everything seems to set these two cases apart. And yet each of them can teach us much about general principles of understanding, preserving, conserving and enhancing the industrial heritage, in particular when engineering works are its main components. In Bologna the water system which was the very pulse of the city has not only fallen into oblivion but has been seriously damaged by the twin factors of economic development and urban renewal. When it was rediscovered, at the end of the 1970’s, important sections of the projects still remained, however, principally outside the historic center (including the impressive Chiusa di Casalecchio). To the extent that it can be done, the municipal authorities evaluating preservation and conservation measures needed to give new life to this evidence of man’s ingenuity and energy. Here we have the situation of fragile elements disappearing from a system. It ought to show us the urgent need to devise new means of communication, if we wish to preserve such a system and to make it comprehensible. With the proper means, it should be possible to reflect the magnitude of the water-and-silk era of Bologna while preserving its authenticity. At Dixence the situation is altogether different. Here, unlike in Bologna, the entire industrial site and its equipment exist, operate and will continue to function in the future (the Grande Dixence concession will expire in the year 2045). Paradoxically, it is the entire heritage, including the first dam, now immersed in the lake (though visible when the water level is at its lowest) which should incite us to develop new conservation methods. In addition to possible conservation problems which future generations would have to address, the overall magnitude of the project and its sheer complexity could render traditional conservation meaningless. The challenge here consists therefore of devising and putting into work methods of conservation aimed at integrating and presenting not just the industrial site as such, which is in itself technically complex, but also its many ramifications. Being aware of such methods is, in our opinion, a necessary condition for the successful conservation of this heritage. Moreover, the degradation of climatic equilibrium in the Alps, bringing about the increased melting of glaciers, will very likely change our way of looking at things and incite us to open quite abruptly, the whole heritage debate.

19

Scaled-down models: a matter of communication Streaming, systems and models Having reached an advanced stage in our investigation, we must now suggest which methods we believe will ensure conservation. It should be noted at the outset that, as mentioned earlier on the subject of direct and indirect methods and combinations thereof, the assimilation and communication medium described below will itself have an important role, regardless of whether the original item is preserved, be it in whole or in part. Quite simply stated: Should the original item be lost, the medium will become a substitute for it, in addition to having assimilation and communication functions, and will in fact itself, become part of the heritage. Claude Levi-Strauss considers mock-ups (or scaled-down models) as providing a kind of learning process in reverse. While knowledge is generally acquired by proceeding from the particular toward the general, scaled-down models make us understand the whole before we know its parts. But a scaled-down model, he goes on to state, “has an additional aspect: it represents a genuine experiment on the object. And to the extent that the model is artificial, one can now understand how it is made. Grasping the way it is constructed adds a new dimension to its existence (…) In other words, the intrinsic value of the scaled-down model resides in its ability to trade a dimension which can be perceived for one which can be understood.” It should be noted, however, that the sense of perception needs not always nor systematically disappear. Its presence will depend largely on the nature of the original item and on the type of mock-up used. For the model-maker will use his own perception to create the understandable version. As for its users, they may be called upon to use their ability to perceive before being in a position to understand. The two notions of perceivability and understandability are therefore not mutually exclusive but rather complementary, one leading to the other, as the case may be. These obviously constitute the reasons why, traditionally, scaled-down models have played a crucial part in the transmission of techniques and of engineering knowledge in Europe. We wish to demonstrate this by relating briefly the “parallel lives” of three institutions whose collection of mock-ups and models have had a direct bearing on our thinking.

20

Memory of Expertise and Know-how Shortly before the French National Engineering Conservatory (Conservatoire national des Arts et Métiers, CNAM) was founded in 1794, Abbot Grégoire, as rapporteur, held forth as follows, at the Convention: “The creation of a conservatory of engineering which will assemble all newly-invented or improved tools and machines will give rise to curiosity and interest and you shall witness very rapid progress in many fields. Nothing there will be theoretical: practice alone, visible, will be entitled to be represented. (…) I come before you with the means of perfecting our nation’s industry.” Using the collection assembled by the inventor Jacques de Vaucanson, France’s Conservatory was for a long time the only one of its type. It may be remembered that, at the international level, the 1851 universal exhibition at London’s Crystal Palace led to the creation of the science section at the South Kensington Museum some years later, while the Deutsches Museum did not open until 1903. The CNAM’s collection witnessed an almost continuous development. But it became, in 1919, a full-time teaching institution, relegating to a secondary place what was later to become the Musée National des Techniques. Aware of the problems of “monumentality” inherent in the conservation of industrial works and equipment, the founders of the CNAM seem to have dealt with the issue from the very outset. Indeed, some machines were built as scaled-down models in order to conserve the image of what Vaucanson had built full size elsewhere (for example his machine for making organzine silk); small-scale versions of others were made for demonstration purposes; still others were reduced to graphic representation or to three-dimensional mock-ups (gear-cutting machinery) because of problems encountered in taking them apart when the museum changed locations in 1799. Soon after the opening of the CNAM, the Austrian emperor Franz I founded an Industrie Kabinett (later to become Fabriksproduktenkabinett) in 1807. The assembled material remained with the Imperial collections until 1815, when it was transferred to the Polytechnisches Institut upon the latter’s opening. It was then replaced by the Technisches Kabinett which grew until 1840, when Emperor Ferdinand I turned it over again to the polytechnical institute. Similarly, a particularly well-endowed collection of reduced-scale agricultural machinery was assembled by Archduke John at the beginning of the 19th century. All of these collections – which were certainly used in teaching – were taken over by the Technisches Museum für Industrie und Gewerbe. Started in 1918, this institution was the outcome of patient work initiated at the 1873 world exhibition of Vienna. In Bologna, the collapse of the single-industry silk economy at the end of the 18th century undermined the city’s entrepreneurial vocation. Any hope for a social renaissance then became contingent on a change in attitude toward the industrial reality, requiring among other the introduction of technical training. The Istituto Aldini-Valeriani was born and developed within this context. While waiting for technological principles – as articulated by the European polytechnical institutes – to become educational subjects, the Scuole Tecniche Aldini-Valeriani (1844-1860) used scaled-down models of existing machines for the training of students.

21

Most of these models had been left to the local authorities by virtue of a bequest contained in Giovanni Aldini’s will (1834). Other scaled-down models (such as hydraulic wheels and machines) were ordered between 1850 and 1860 from local manufacturers as well as from such renowned international suppliers as the A.Clair firm in Paris. This activity was pursued under a different form at the Gabinetto Aldini (1863-1876). The institution broadened its mechanical sector but was now no longer a school, becoming instead an experimental museum of inventions and discoveries, prior to the first experiments in establishing a “factory-school”, the likes of which remain in existence to this day. Over the years, with no one to look after the model and mock-up collections, they fell into oblivion until a safeguarding and conservation effort finally started in 1977. Its initial stage was marked by the exhibition Macchine, Scuola, Industria of 1980-81. In the course of different stages (notably in 1986, with the realisation of a large model in movement of a silk mill) we ended up in 1997, with the installation of the Museo del Patriminio Industriale in a disused brickworks. The collections of the Museo-laboratorio Aldini-Valeriani will later be transferred. A European typology of models and mock-ups and of their uses during their golden age can be derived from the three examples above, as : - instruments of knowledge - tools for training and developing skills - vehicles for know-how (through the skills needed to make them). Later on, scaled-down models started being used as a substitute for the original item, though this was not their original intended purpose: machines and equipment were reduced in size to facilitate their demonstration and not to replace an original item which was still in existence. Because of the ends to which this type of mock-up – which we may refer to as “first generation” – was used, it possesses characteristics which are one-dimensional . On the basis of an examination of the original item, the aim was to illustrate and explain, with the help of a scaled-down model, the manner in which such a machine or project was constructed and functioned. Tradition and Innovation Engineering works, large machines or equipment thus present a two-sided problem: the issue of their preservation is connected to their being made comprehensible. Preservation problems arise principally from the size of the objects and are reflected at the material and financial levels. Even if conservation problems were to be resolved (can one imagine for a moment that industry or government would be prepared to turn into a museum the acreage used by a cement maker, for instance, thereby removing this portion of land from industrial or other uses?), it would be justified to question whether such conservation would be actually useful. These machines, equipment and sites are, as we have seen, both large and complex and they would have to be activated since they would no longer have a productive function. In such a situation, from a cultural and heritage point of view, how could an outside observer understand how they worked and what they represented? It is for such reasons that we wish to argue in favour of going back to using mock-ups for communication purposes and to developing a “second generation” of scaled-down models. We can indeed agree with André Desvallées:

22

“As soon as the technical aspect (or, for that matter, the historic or ethnographic aspect) is considered to be more important than the object itself, there is nothing wrong with a metamorphosis, with substituting a copy for the original. Using models leads us to the issue of animation as much as to that of conservation (…) are we barred from animating historical collections so as to better transmit what they can teach us? (…) For if science can be explained by demonstration and if technology also needs to be explained, then this holds true as much for ancient science and technology as it does for their contemporary equivalents. And if it appears indispensable that demonstrations of contemporary science and technology be performed with contemporary objects, it is difficult to understand why historical references for these disciplines should not be necessary.” It follows that technical systems should not be considered on the basis of their own internal logic alone. For any object can be integrated into a whole which will give it depth and meaning. This is true in particular of large machines and equipment, of industrial sites and engineering works: each defines broader networks (tangible and intangible) by its very nature and function. Hence the imperative need for substitutes which could also re-create – and render comprehensible – such broader networks. To achieve this, we must invent this “new medium” which will allow us to put into effect, in our field of activity, Claude Levi-Strauss’ statement quoted above: “(…) the intrinsic value of the scaled-down model resides in its ability to trade a dimension which can be perceived, for one which can be understood.” From a “European Knot” toward Wider Horizons In the preceding pages we have attempted, by using two important case studies, to define the nature of the heritage consisting of industrial sites and engineering works, to briefly illustrate some of its aspects and to understand its impact on history, culture and society. By underscoring certain specific conservation problems and related issues of understandability and communication, we have come to plead for a return to the use of mock-ups, to their design and production as well as to their function. Is it not in fact true that scaled-down models represent an area defined by two coordinates representing the characteristics of the industrial heritage: that which traces the progress of tradition and innovation and that which reflects the passage from the past toward the future, by way of the present? Starting from an examination of the educational, physical and historical aspects of mock-ups at the time of their greatest popularity (18th and 19th centuries), we soon ended up arguing in favour of conserving this heritage. This approach then went beyond this initial goal, as the discussion encompassed a wider area and touched on other issues. We came progressively to re-examine the role of scaled-down models under a different angle, as we considered the issues connected with the conservation of entire hydraulic projects, such as those described above, with the preservation of large machinery and industrial sites (which evidently cannot be achieved by a full-scale approach), with the imperative need to consider conservation in terms not only of preservation but also of communication (without which, in our opinion, a heritage policy cannot but remain ineffective). It makes perfect sense, after all, not to remain tied to traditions and the past but to extend these instead toward innovation and the future. No break with them is intended, but quite the opposite, for mock-ups remain perfect communication media, be they of the first generation (with their teaching and educational qualities) or of the second which we are suggesting.

23

As a start, this should not be limited to producing simple scaled-down models. Rather, it would be a matter of integrating technical systems within a series of networks. This could be done either within single integrated models (possibly evolving) or within several separate but combined models. As a second step, the range of materials and techniques being used would have to be broadened. To wood, plastic, metal, etc. should of course be added other materials and media, taking full advantage of the technological opportunities of the day. Such a revitalizing of the medium implies at the outset that a survey be made, at the European level, of what has already been done or can be expected in the future. A program of this kind would have to be conceived, in two stages, if it is to achieve its aim. A first stage would consist of exhibiting principally the Paris, Vienna and Bologna collections, so as to show the evolution which led to the making of scaled-down models for the uses for which they were then designed. The origins of mock-ups would be shown, starting from the life-size original item in its surroundings, with emphasis on the technique and know-how of model makers by showing the production process. This would cover the upstream end of the question. For the downstream end, that which concerns the purchaser and the user, the cultural climate should be recreated to show why this technique was used. The history of the collection would be explained, together with the teaching and educational aims for which the models were used, as well as their role in the development of technology. Without question, the heritage aspect would be present even at this stage, since the mock-ups have become, with time, the only replacements for lost originals. While assembling material for such a project, an inventory could be made – even a cursory one – of existing resources of this type in European countries, which would at the same time have a positive effect on their value and importance. To think of the sad state in which the Bologna collection was, a mere 30 years ago, before it was rediscovered, is to imagine what other secret treasures may be waiting to be brought to light from their perilous obscurity, especially in technical schools, if not in museums or in private collections. The aim of the second stage would be to demonstrate the methodological and practical considerations which favour going back to making models, now with new functions. This would involve creativity and innovation, which would require a cross-cultural approach and cooperation, as much for the nature as for the expression of the message to be delivered. As this is still unexplored territory, a certain number of projects would have to be selected (be they machinery, industrial complexes, sites or engineering works), and the reduction of these to model size would have to be investigated, which would make it possible to take stock of the situation and to draw conclusions applicable to the future. This is certainly a European, if not Alpine, approach, but which – through the perspectives it opens – may, and must apply (taking into consideration the requisite technological, historical and cultural adaptations) to other continents. I think, in particular, of those countries with an extremely ancient contribution in terms of hydraulic engineering works. A heritage which is all the more important since it allows us to follow, through diachronic and spatial depth, the different stages which man has gone through in the management and mastery of water for the production of food, preindustrial and eventually industrial operations. So, it is on this "hydraulic base" that we should then build, for these regions, a true heritage policy; all the more so, since development is rapid and may well bring about irreparable loss, without the requisite distance and hierarchical ordering of objects worthy of safeguard (direct and indirect).

24

Like a Russian Doll What conclusions can be drawn at this stage? a) in spite of some remaining “pockets of resistance” it can be taken for granted that a multidimensional approach unrestricted by time or space has been generally adopted b) considering its actual nature, our industrial heritage calls for a type of conservation which is not restricted to direct preservation but uses, jointly, various methods of investigation, action and communication (which fit into one another like parts of a Russian doll) while developing new media whenever the need arises c) by its very nature, and because of the systems that make it up, and of which it is a part, the industrial heritage needs to be looked at within a trans-national framework which encourages exchanges and debates d) having reached the exploratory stage (started in 1973 with the first international conference at Iron Bridge), we must now give priority to the promotion of projects which are of a multinational nature from the start. To make such projects easier to carry out, they could be limited from the outset, to those involving one or more groups of countries which share a common environment and common traditions. This is the aim of the suggestions presented above. Marc-Antoine Barblan, Historian and Museologist, Gent/Switzerland

25

How the Museum Deals with Reality: From Museum Techniques to Ethical Matters Bruno C. Brulon Soares – Brazil _______________________________________________________________

“If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?”

(George Orwell – “Nineteen Eighty-Four”)1

In 1981, in the second volume of the Museological Working Papers (MuWoP)2 dedicated to Interdisciplinarity in Museology, Anna Gregorová3 stated that Ethics – and ethical problems in general – is one of the disciplines that define the specific relation of Man to Reality studied by Museology. From this moment, the Ethics point of view has been a very important part of the museum theory. Museologists and scholars all around the world have decided to include, in their practices and studies, the ethical matters – encompassing the concerns about moral values and the responsibilities related to the museum work, specially those concerning the ways by which museums relate to society. According to Gregorová, the objects of study of Museology are combined with ethical aspects, such as “questions of moral values”, “creation and influencing or forming of moral value orientations and motivations”. Museology has the role to study the suitable ways of using material and immaterial documents for the development of society, not only in the psychical and informational sphere, but also in the ethical influence over formation of the individual, especially of youth4. Having the Museum in mind, many are the ethical matters involved in its practical work and in the position it takes in the contemporary societies. These matters are more and more becoming part of the discussion of the Museum in present time. The new technologies make the ethical questions even more evident than before they existed in such a large scale. These questions are becoming serious matters in the ways by which the Museum interprets Reality. 1- Museum and Reality

1 ORWELL, George. Nineteen Eighty-four. London: Penguin Books, 2003. p.92. 2 MUWOP: Museological Working Papers/DOTRAM: Documents de Travail en Muséologie. Interdisciplinarity in Museology. Stockholm: ICOM, International Committee for Museology/ICOFOM/Museum of National Antiquities, v. 2, 1981. Org. and edited by Vinos Sofka. Assisted by Jan Jelínek and Gerard Turpin. Printing and binding by Departments reprocentral, Stockholm and Abergs Kontorsmaterial AB, Stockholm, Sweden. 3 GREGOROVÁ, Anna. MUWOP: Museological Working Papers/DOTRAM: Documents de Travail en Muséologie. Interdisciplinarity in Museology. Stockholm: ICOM, International Committee for Museology/ICOFOM/Museum of National Antiquities, v. 2, 1981. Org. and edited by Vinos Sofka. Assisted by Jan Jelínek and Gerard Turpin. Printing and binding by Departments reprocentral, Stockholm and Abergs Kontorsmaterial AB, Stockholm, Sweden. 102f. p.35. 4 Ibidem.

26

Concerning the interpretation of Reality in the Museum, Anita Shah poses the question: how can museological institutions interpret Reality without creating controversy?5 According to her, we as museologists are supposed to try to promote “social harmony and unity in cultural diversity”. I couldn’t help wondering: are we doing it in Latin America? In India – explains Shah – the Constitution has accepted the ethnic and cultural plurality as a fact of reality and therefore “guarantees equality of rights irrespective of caste, creed, sect, religion, gender etc”6. Are all the plurality accepted in the space of the Indian museums as well? Shah poses another question: “Do we manipulate history to achieve our ideals or do we present reality in its true form?”7 Based on this last question, I would add: Is there a way to present Reality in its true, pure form? Or is it always going to be an interpretation? In places like India and Latin America, where the museum audiences are as plural as the culture that surrounds them, how can the Museum present a single ‘true’ face of Reality? And finally, how can we escape creating stereotypes of cultures and societies?

Thus the concern for protection of culture, language, traditions, customs, identity and resistance against oppression and overexploitation should be conspicuously manifest in the museum’s policies, keeping always in mind that the main goal of the museum is to promote global peace and harmony.8

That’s where the ethical concerns are so important in the interpretation of Reality. According to the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums, concerning the interpretation of exhibitions in museums:

Museums should ensure that the information they present in displays and exhibitions is well-founded, accurate and gives appropriate consideration to represented groups or beliefs.9

The ICOM Code of Ethics has been adopted for the first time in 1986, in the General Assembly in Buenos Aires (Argentina); it has been revised in 2001 and again in 2004, and has, since then, culminated in the 2006 version that we have today. Thanks to the ICOM global influence the Code has spread throughout museum professionals in the most different areas of knowledge and countries, and has been translated to at least ten languages. It’s known that the ethos of this document is that of “service to society, the community, the public and its various constituencies, as well as the professionalism of museum practitioners”10. The Code of Ethics is a response from the museological field to an “ethical conscience” that has been growing in the past few years concerning museum practices. In this regard, Scheiner stresses the fact that to clearly identify the new dimensions and limits of Ethics in the Museum and in Museology it’s a challenge that will grow in time. According to her, the Museum, as an agent of social change, may act as a space of creativity, producing knowledge and know-how. But Scheiner adds that this is possible to be done only in an open and democratic way, with the participation of different social groups.

5 SHAH, Anita. The museum as an environment for education and interpretation. In: STUDY SERIES, Paris, ICOM, n.8, 2000. p.16. 6 SHAH, Anita. Ethics and the Transmission of Memory. In: ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR MUSEOLOGY/ICOFOM (29) / REGIONAL ICOFOM MEETING FOR LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN – ICOFOM LAM (15). Alta Grácia, Córdoba, Argentina. 5 / 11 october 2006. Museology – a field of knowledge. Museology and History. ICOFOM STUDY SERIES – ISS 35. 2006. Org. and edited by Hildegard K. Vieregg, Mónica Risnicoff de Gorgas, Regina Schiller. p.457. 7 Id. The museum as an environment for education and interpretation. In: STUDY SERIES, Paris, ICOM, n.8, 2000. p.16. 8 Id, Op. Cit. p.456. 9 ICOM. Code of Ethics for Museums. Paris: ICOM, 2006. p. 8. 10 LEWIS, Geoffrey. Introduction. In: ICOM. Code of Ethics for Museums. Paris: ICOM, 2006.

27

Pour atteindre cet objectif, il faut que chaque société comprenne ce qu'est le Musée et soit capable de situer de façon très claire le rôle de ses musées à l'intérieur de ses systèmes de représentation, en identifiant leurs diverses possibilités d'insertion dans le corps social.11

Shah emphasizes that, in this process of interpretation of Reality, the Museum must take in consideration what the visitors bring with them and will take back12. It is important for us to know that Reality exists, in the first place, inside of each individual and that we are, in the same way, immerged in it. That’s what is implicit when, all over the world, people talk about the Total Heritage and the Total Museum. 2- When techniques become a problem in the representation of Reality If we take in consideration the traditional concept of the Museum as a repository of objects whose meaning – as determines Harris13 – was “self-evident”, we may have the common situation in which all the visitor has to do is to “look at the objects and their meaning would be apparent.” This old-fashioned paradigm of museum communication, when added to the paradigm of the new technologies in which museums use computers, touch-screens, television, cinema and light effects for telling stories, shows that more and more the space for imagination and dreaming is taken away from the audiences. The high technologies, especially in those museums of the rich countries, can be used as a way to make that stories told by museums become very close to a fake image of a reality that no longer exists and that is lost in the past. This “Disneyland style”14 museums make visitors believe that history has been brought to life as it was in the past, thanks to the new techniques that these wealthy institutions have now in their hands. Furthermore, the museums take away from its audience the ability to see through the objects and techniques. All that visitors see is what is right in front of them. Throughout Latin America – even though we are now talking about poorer museums than the ones we mentioned above – many times this same “technique phenomenon” can happen. Sometimes, with the simple mistake of using too much written text to explain the presence of an object, the museographer takes away from the audience all the magic of imagination and discovery. The wrong use of technique, as well as its overuse, can result in a catastrophic use of the objects, which are the main artifacts for museum communication. After the development of new thoughts in Museology, including the movement of New Museology, it has been established, once and for all, that museums need to incorporate a dynamic and holistic process of communication towards their audiences – which, in multi-cultural societies like the Latin American, are plural and diverse. In this context of new and more advanced techniques and with the recognition of a very diverse audience in the global scenery, it is clear that museums are supposed to start

11 “To reach this objective, it is necessary that each society understands what the Museum is and be capable of defining in a very clear way the role of their museums inside their systems of representation, identifying their diverse possibilities of immersion in the social body.” Translated by the author. SCHEINER, Tereza. Muséologie et philosophie du changement. In: STUDY SERIES, Paris, ICOM, n.8, 2000. p.23. 12 SHAH, Anita. Ethics and the Transmission of Memory. In: ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR MUSEOLOGY/ICOFOM (29) / REGIONAL ICOFOM MEETING FOR LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN – ICOFOM LAM (15). Alta Grácia, Córdoba, Argentina. 5 / 11 october 2006. Museology – a field of knowledge. Museology and History. ICOFOM STUDY SERIES – ISS 35. 2006. Org. and edited by Hildegard K. Vieregg, Mónica Risnicoff de Gorgas, Regina Schiller. p. 457. 13 HARRIS, Jennifer. Comments on the Declaration of Calgary – The definition of Museum. In: MAIRESSE, François (Org.). Defining the Museum. Morlanwez, Belgium: Musée royal de Mariemont, 2005. p. 117-123. Unpublished paper. 14 Ibidem.

28

dialogues and not perform a technological monologue. Museums have the role to pose questions and provoke the senses of its visitors so that they can have a whole experience as an active audience and not a passive one. Even though technologies can help the representation of reality in wonderful ways – when carefully used –, we can’t let them make of the museum an authoritative institution to a passive audience. Only in this way museums shall be places for discovery and questions and never shall be sanctuaries of all the answers. 3- Ethics and Techniques defining the Museum Without knowledge of Ethics – in addition to its “scientific methods, categorial apparatus and its creative application”15 – the Museum would remain being considered a repository of objects. With the different scientific disciplines that were considered by Gregorová, and that, according to her, were inevitably involved in the object of study of Museology – among them, Ontology, Psychology, Sociology, Pedagogy and, of course, Ethics – the specific relation of Man to Reality is then characterized. As the mediator of this specific relation, the Museum is now seen through its phenomenological aspect16. It faces a dilemma in trying to define itself17. In fact, Museology is now trying to define the Museum and, in the process, to find its true object of study. The arrival of Ethics in the museum environment brings with it many questions concerning practical work. Museology is no longer restricted to Museography, and as a social science it is supposed to see through the techniques that constitute the museographic work. Reality, in its philosophical meaning, is now an object of museum study and needs to be explained by human sciences, not by technique. The Museum relation to Reality can no longer resume itself in the mechanical documentation of history. Of course the traditional functions of the museum did not disappear. Actually, these functions are, in a certain way, present in all the existent types of museum. It doesn’t look like they are going to be vanishing any time soon, and they shouldn’t. What happens now, however, with the new perspectives in the concept of the Museum, is that these functions have to be examined through a new point of view; an ethical one. The principles we have today in the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums are guidelines based on a concept of Museum that is not yet definite – if it shall ever be – and that is open for discussions. That doesn’t take away the great importance of these guidelines. In the contrary, it means that all the principles must be studied and carefully analyzed so that, perhaps, through these ethical matters we can find out, a little bit more, what a museum really is. 4- The Ethics in the improvement of technique Technique, in its classical assumption – or even in a cybernetic perspective –, as expressed by Baudrillard, is an “extension of the body”. It is, according to him, the functional sophistication of a human organism, which allows it to equal itself to nature and invest

15 GREGOROVÁ, Anna. MUWOP: Museological Working Papers/DOTRAM: Documents de Travail en Muséologie. Interdisciplinarity in Museology. Stockholm: ICOM, International Committee for Museology/ICOFOM/Museum of National Antiquities, v. 2, 1981. Org. and edited by Vinos Sofka. Assisted by Jan Jelínek and Gerard Turpin. Printing and binding by Departments reprocentral, Stockholm and Abergs Kontorsmaterial AB, Stockholm, Sweden. p.35. 16 STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. MUWOP: Museological Working Papers/DOTRAM: Documents de Travail en Muséologie. Museology – Science or just practical museum work? Stockholm: ICOM, International Committee for Museology/ICOFOM; Museum of National Antiquities, v. 1, 1980. Org. and edited by Vinos Sofka. Assisted by Andreas Grote and Awraam M. Razgon. Printing and binding by Departments offset central, Stockholm, Sweden. p.43. 17 HARRIS, Jennifer. Comments on the Declaration of Calgary – The definition of Museum. In: MAIRESSE, François (Org.). Defining the Museum. Morlanwez, Belgium: Musée royal de Mariemont, 2005. p. 123. Unpublished paper.

29

against it, triumphantly18. I ask myself, if technique gives that amount of power, shouldn’t it be used with the same amount of responsibility? That question can lead to think that when the technologies arrive in the Museum, so should do the Ethics. The understanding of ethical matters and the practice of a small amount of Ethics principles will lead to a better and more responsible use of the techniques. Most important, it will establish the limits of this deliberated use, it will guide through a path of choices that won’t destroy the museum responsibilities to Humankind and Reality. A Code of Ethics will always remember that, in the Museum, the object – tangible or intangible – cannot be replaced by technique, even when it needs it as a support to be transmitted. Artificiality can’t be a paradigm of the Museum because of the new technologies. Museologists have to know how powerful technologies can be as an instrument for seduction in the museum space. We also have to know that they can be used as long as not crossing ethical limits. Today, more then ever, the Museum deals with many ethical matters. The need of an ethical approach is becoming, with the growing of an “ethical conscience” everywhere else, one of the priorities in the world of the museums. Maranda makes a reference to the topic when she stresses the fact that

at present, the "ethical conscience" movement has progressed to the point where museums are feeling the pressure being exerted by external forces to perform in ways not compatible with previous methods of operation. The ever-growing debate over who owns the past (whose heritage, or culture, or art is it?) or who has the right or responsibility to preserve it, is fuelling collecting uncertainties within museums.19

The Museum as the owner of heritage, in practice of its traditional functions, is now in a position in which all its responsibilities to the heritage and its care are being questioned. These museum responsibilities – as explains Maranda – are currently being challenged from the outside by those who believe they have a legitimate claim on the material heritage held within. Maranda emphasizes that

the need for a balanced, yet functional, ethical approach has never been greater. Given the current climate, museums which subscribe to the “finders-keepers” school of thought will face stiff opposition not only from the claimants themselves, but also from more accommodating institutions, and in time, from funding agencies.20

As Scheiner determines, in contemporary times the debate concerning heritage and museums is based in three central questions, all of them directly linked to the field of communication21. First, “the social implications of cultural inheritance and the necessity of acceptance of difference”; then, “the enlargement and diffusion of the concept of heritage”; and, at last, the importance of the concept of heritage for the “information society”. All of the three are of the concern of Ethics. If the Museum has the role to mediate the relation between men and heritage, it is responsible for the dynamics that will result from this relation. Museums are responsible for

18 BAUDRILLARD, Jean. Simulacros e Simulação. Lisboa: Relógios D’Água, 1991. p.139. 19 MARANDA, Lynn. Heritage, objects, collecting: the need for an ethical approach. In: STUDY SERIES, Paris, ICOM, n.8, 2000. p.11. 20 Ibidem, p.12. 21 SCHEINER, Tereza. Museum and Museology – Definitions in process. In: MAIRESSE, François (Org.). Defining the Museum. Morlanwez, Belgium: Musée royal de Mariemont, 2005. p. 177-195. Unpublished paper.

30

how this relation is going to occur. Harris22 considers that the Museum has to be a softer institution which allows members of the community to express their emotions towards heritage. In the mediation of this relation the Museum has the duty to express its ethics so that the relation can be whole. That’s what the concept of Total Heritage is about. The Man is integrated in Reality and Reality is integrated in Man.

Interpretation of reality is not as simple as it may seem in the museum context. Here the continuum from experience to meaning and then to understanding is not a gradual one. Past and present experiences, and projected meanings, interact to give a complex understanding. Experience, meaning and understanding are thus closely interconnected. Expectations, projections and identifications are all implicated in the total museum experience. 23

The Museum can’t count only on techniques to be able to improve the concept of the Total Heritage and to fulfill the role to be the Total Museum itself. It will need to take in consideration not only Ethics, but also sensibility, democracy and dynamic communication. And this path isn’t about all the things that can be done, and all the techniques on disposal, it is about how the museum should do it. RÉSUMÉ Dans les refléxions realisées pour Ana Gregorová, l’objet de la Muséologie est l’étude du rapport spécifique Homme - Realité. Comme une des disciplines que présentent une face interdisciplinaire avec la Muséologie et le Musée, Gregorová se rappèlle à l’éthique et aux problèmes éthiques en général. Des points de vue éthiques s’attachent comme l’objet de recherche de la Muséologie, en ajoutant aux problèmes fontamentales de ce champs le problème des valeur morales, de l’influence ou de la formation de l’individu et de la jeunesse. Quand les técniques arrivent au Musée, il faut que les principes éthiques y arrivent aussi. Les musées devraient avoir une déontologie qui s’intégrerait dans leur pratiques et leurs usage des téchnologies avancées pour répresenter la Realité. C’est pour cette raison qu’on doit consideré l’importance du Code de Déontologie de l’ICOM pour les musées. Chaque société doit comprendre ce qui est le Musée et doit être capable de situer le rôle de ses musées à l'intérieur de ses systèmes de représentation24. Le Musée, comme un agent de changements sociaux, peut aussi fonctionner comme un espace de créativité et de decouverte, identifiant les dimensions de ses limites éthiques. Bibliography: BAUDRILLARD, Jean. Simulacros e Simulação. Lisboa: Relógios D’Água, 1991. 201p.

22 HARRIS, Jennifer. Comments on the Declaration of Calgary – The definition of Museum. In: MAIRESSE, François (Org.). Defining the Museum. Morlanwez, Belgium: Musée royal de Mariemont, 2005. p. 122. Unpublished paper. 23 SHAH, Anita. The museum as an environment for education and interpretation. In: STUDY SERIES, Paris, ICOM, n.8, 2000. p.16. 24 SCHEINER, Tereza. Muséologie et philosophie du changement. In: STUDY SERIES, Paris, ICOM, n.8, 2000. p.23.

31

HARRIS, Jennifer. Comments on the Declaration of Calgary – The definition of Museum. In: MAIRESSE, François (Org.). Defining the Museum. Morlanwez, Belgium: Musée royal de Mariemont, 2005. p. 117-123. Unpublished paper. ICOM. Code of Ethics for Museums. Paris: ICOM, 2006. 16 p. MARANDA, Lynn. Heritage, objects, collecting: the need for an ethical approach. In: STUDY SERIES, Paris, ICOM, n.8, 2000. p.11-12. MUWOP: Museological Working Papers/DOTRAM: Documents de Travail en Muséologie. Museology – Science or just practical museum work? Stockholm: ICOM, International Committee for Museology/ICOFOM; Museum of National Antiquities, v. 1, 1980. Org. and edited by Vinos Sofka. Assisted by Andreas Grote and Awraam M. Razgon. Printing and binding by Departments offset central, Stockholm, Sweden. 67p. MUWOP: Museological Working Papers/DOTRAM: Documents de Travail en Muséologie. Interdisciplinarity in Museology. Stockholm: ICOM, International Committee for Museology/ICOFOM/Museum of National Antiquities, v. 2, 1981. Org. and edited by Vinos Sofka. Assisted by Jan Jelínek and Gerard Turpin. Printing and binding by Departments reprocentral, Stockholm and Abergs Kontorsmaterial AB, Stockholm, Sweden. 102p. ORWELL, George. Nineteen Eighty-four. London: Penguin Books, 2003. 355p. SCHEINER, Tereza. Muséologie et philosophie du changement. In: STUDY SERIES, Paris: ICOM, n.8, 2000. p.22-24. _______. Museum and Museology – Definitions in process. In: MAIRESSE, François (Org.). Defining the Museum. Morlanwez, Belgium: Musée royal de Mariemont, 2005. p. 177-195. Unpublished paper. SHAH, Anita. Ethics and the Transmission of Memory. In: ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR MUSEOLOGY/ICOFOM (29) / REGIONAL ICOFOM MEETING FOR LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN – ICOFOM LAM (15). Alta Grácia, Córdoba, Argentina. 5 / 11 october 2006. Museology – a field of knowledge. Museology and History. ICOFOM STUDY SERIES – ISS 35. 2006. Org. and edited by Hildegard K. Vieregg, Mónica Risnicoff de Gorgas, Regina Schiller. p.455-457. _______. The museum as an environment for education and interpretation. In: STUDY SERIES, Paris, ICOM, n.8, 2000. p.16. Bruno César Brulon Soares - Museologist Postgraduate Program in Museology and Heritage/PPG-PMUS - UNIRIO/MAST Research Project: Museology and Societies under Change Subproject – “The New Museum, the ‘Living’ Museum and New Museology: The phenomenon Museum as a mirror for the Latin-American Man”

32

La muséification du patrimoine industriel : pour un projet de paysage créatif Museification of industrial heritage: towards a creative landscape project Louise N. Boucher, Université d’Ottawa/Canada _____________________________________________________________________

Peut-on guérir notre « Planète affolée » de la cécité des hommes, si ce n’est par une prise de conscience des causes et de la nécessité de retrouver par la créativité la liberté fondamentale qui unit en toute fraternité. Fernand Leduc, artiste peintre1

Abstract Within the broad field of technical heritage, industrial heritage calls for consideration. As industrialized societies transit towards an economy based on information technology, communities must determine new uses for de-industrialized spaces. Such sites are often historically significant, but present harshly built landscapes where profit dictated most decisions. Workers were one component of the larger production chain, deprived of the human tendency to be creative. The owners and operators managed these sites with little consideration for esthetics or for the well-being of the employees and the community at large. As a result, de-industrialized sites, even if rich with technical innovations, present dehumanized landscapes. When considering the transformation of such sites into museums, a priority is to humanize the landscape. This humanizing process will involve creativity from which the workers had been deprived, while repeating the same restricted tasks. This process will address contemporary cultural needs to help the community facing the lost of its industry to forge a new future. De-industrialized sites often contain potentially valuable attributes: impressive plant components such as dams, multiple spacious structures, abundant fenestration, and large wall surfaces suitable for artistic installations. Adding creativity and art to such assets opens new museological avenues for defining the uniqueness of a specific industrial site and its universal characteristics. Introduction Répandus dans toutes les régions industrialisées du monde, les vestiges techniques du patrimoine industriel exigent une muséification qui leur soit propre. Le patrimoine industriel matériel se caractérise par la présence d’usines, de machineries lourdes, d’entrepôts et d’autres installations souvent jugées inesthétiques et envahissantes. Le patrimoine industriel immatériel est quant à lui tissé de compétitivité, de difficiles conditions de travail, de luttes ouvrières, d’exploitation abusive de ressources naturelles, mais aussi de grande productivité,

1 Le Devoir : 27 mars 2007

33

de fierté locale, de réussites de l’entrepreneuriat. Devant un site pour lequel la désindustrialisation semble inévitable, on se questionnera sur la façon la plus pertinente de le réaffecter dans l’intérêt de la communauté environnante. Si le site ne rencontre pas les critères d’une préservation intégrale, comme c’est le plus souvent le cas, on réfléchira alors au type de conversion qui conviendrait mieux : logements, ateliers, site historique, musée. Si l’on opte pour une mise en valeur patrimoniale, on tiendra compte des aspects matériels et immatériels ci haut mentionnés, tout en cherchant à assurer la transition de lieux axés sur la productivité vers des lieux plus humanisés. Pour assurer cette transition du technique vers l’humain, l’art et la créativité se révéleront des catalyseurs de choix. L’ère industrielle et la créativité vernaculaire ankylosée L’industrialisation s’est récemment et rapidement répandue à travers le monde. Bien que la révolution industrielle se soit amorcée en Angleterre dès 1750, c’est vers le milieu du XIXe s. que l’on situe l’ère industrielle en Europe et en Amérique du Nord : « The phases of industrial change in North America have a chronological semblance to those of parts of Europe, in that an economy related primarily to mercantile and commercial bases transformed to a highly capitalized industrial basis form the 1860’s. »2 L’Afrique coloniale verra ses ressources naturelles exploitées à grande échelle par le monde occidental, à partir des années 1870. En Russie, l’industrialisation s’installera plutôt au début du XXe siècle en raison, entre autres, de l’écart géographique entre les marchés et de la persistance féodale de la société russe. En Asie, vu l’abondance de la main d’œuvre, les productions de masse se mécaniseront plus lentement, bien que certaines industries, comme celles du textile deviendront mondialement dominantes.3 Au service de l’industrie, le travailleur devient un intervalle entre les machines pour combler ce que celles-ci ne peuvent faire. Avec le taylorisme, tout devient minuté, chaque geste est calculé : « Taylor a préconisé en fait un système de production complet pour résoudre un problème typique de la production diversifiée en petites et moyennes séries, qui était celle de la plupart des industries dans la première moitié du XXème siècle, à savoir la ‘flânerie ouvrière’. »4 Partout à travers le monde où les industries se sont installées, « l’ouvrier comme ‘écrou de la machine’ » 5 se voit directement intégré à l’engrenage de la chaîne de montage dont il doit suivre le rythme effréné; il fait partie intégrante de la Mécanique et est tenu de suivre à la lettre les instructions qui lui sont données. Il devient, en ces lieux, un exécutant privé de toute créativité. Et hors de ces lieux, après dix, douze, quatorze heures de travail par jour, il ne lui reste que très peu de temps pour s’occuper de ses proches et voir à l’essentiel. Alors que jusque-là, de façon universelle, les humains, sauf en situation de servilité extrême, s’accordaient du temps pour orner leurs meubles, leurs vêtements, leurs habitations, leurs accessoires de cuisine, leurs contenants de céramique, qu’ils prenaient également du temps pour créer des contes, des légendes, des mythes, des chansons, ces activités se voient retirées de la population, pour être réservées à des professionnels de ce qui deviendra l’industrie culturelle. Bien que « nous croyons qu’il est de l’essence de l’homme de créer matériellement et moralement, de fabriquer des choses, de se fabriquer lui-même »6, les communautés développent de moins en moins leur créativité vernaculaire pour consommer de plus en plus de produits culturels préfabriqués. L’histoire industrielle voit ainsi le commun des mortels dépossédé de sa créativité. C’est-à-dire, dépouillé du pouvoir de créer, de donner existence. 2 Butlin, 1993 : 246 3 Ibid. : 232-249 4 Freyssenet 2000 : sans pagination 5 Castoriadis, C., citant Marx, 1975 : 197 6 Bergson 2003 : 51

34

L’innovation en entreprise relève surtout d’améliorations techniques augmentant la productivité et demeure le plus souvent le privilège des dirigeants, des ingénieurs ou des designers. La syndicalisation permettra de renverser, jusqu’à un certain point, cette situation : les travailleurs feront preuve de créativité pour améliorer leurs conditions de travail et pour inciter leurs employeurs à accéder à leurs revendications; ils innoveront en matière d’organisation syndicale, de conventions collectives, de santé au travail. Cette créativité fera partie du patrimoine immatériel du site, tout comme la créativité sérieusement ankylosée par le travail à la chaîne, soit la non créativité. Parallèlement à ces réalités, les paysages industriels, parsemés d’installations strictement opérationnelles et de bâtiments servant d’enveloppes aux machines, se révèlent froids, austères, écrasants, bruyants, toxiques. Déshumanisés. La désindustrialisation, la communauté et le devenir À partir des années soixante-dix, l’ère industrielle commence à céder le pas à l’ère de l’information. De nombreux processus de production se voient informatisés, les ressources naturelles se voient épuisées, les productions se voient délocalisées vers l’Asie, et d’autres facteurs entraînent la désindustrialisation en Occident : « In the contemporary global economy, [the causes] lie in a combination of local circumstances and locational adjustment to global conditions. »7 On assiste à une croissance du nombre de sites de production en voie de désindustrialisation. Les fermetures d’usines se multiplient; de plus en plus de communautés se questionnent sur leur site industriel désaffecté en même temps qu’elles s’inquiètent du sort des ex-travailleurs et de la situation économique de leur localité. Ces communautés se voient temporairement privées de ce qui constituait leur quotidien; ce n’est plus le présent qui les préoccupe, mais ce que leur réserve l’avenir. Bien qu’il ne s’agisse pas de la seule avenue à explorer, muséifier les entreprises désuètes fait partie des options à envisager. Si, après analyse, la désindustrialisation semble sincèrement inévitable, et la patrimonialisation souhaitable, c’est en fonction de ces considérations face au devenir, que la muséification sera conceptualisée. La question fondamentale à poser sera alors la suivante : « pour quel avenir […] se souvenir. »8 Une patrimonialisation sensée prendra compte des préoccupations actuelles des populations concernées : « la motivation du choix mémoriel […sera] de tirer de ce passé un capital sur lequel bâtir positivement l’avenir en tenant compte honnêtement de la situation marquant la vie des contemporains. »9 Ainsi, la muséification de l’industriel se fera en fonction d’un devenir orienté vers la « conception d’un ‘centre’, ou ‘polymusée’, qui prendrait en compte le patrimoine industriel non seulement dans ses aspects thématiques et historiques, mais aussi dans son devenir. »10 Nous en arrivons au constat que la mise en valeur des sites industriels demande de les humaniser et de les induire de créativité, dans le respect des contemporains, tout en se souvenant pour l’avenir. Les sites industriels en tant que projets

7 Lee, R. 2006 : 158 8 Létourneau 2000 : 41 9 Ibid. : 29 10 Barblan, M.A. 1985 : 43-44

35

Avec ce regard mémoriel orienté vers le devenir, la reconversion de sites industriels mérite d’être pensée en termes de projets, à l’exemple des réflexions qui ont été faites pour l’avenir des églises : « ‘Choisir des églises’, en effet, aujourd’hui implique que l’on comprenne le patrimoine comme un projet, c’est-à-dire, selon la définition usuelle, comme l’image d’un état que l’on souhaite atteindre, au-delà de l’objet qui se situe devant nous. »11 De tels projets viseront non seulement à préserver et à mettre en valeur un site industriel, mais à améliorer la qualité de vie des populations environnantes : « un projet de remplacement qui apporterait une plus-value au cadre de vie […] »12 Ces projets chercheront à échapper à une civilisation qui privilégie « le primat du rationnel sur l’irrationnel, […] le fonctionnel par rapport à l’imaginaire, le matériel par rapport à l’immatériel. »13 Par leur entremise, on pourra par exemple « investir le site d’une usine fermée pour y proposer des spectacles ».14 On fera appel à de l’interprétation et de la médiation requérant « à la fois rigueur scientifique et créativité, celle-ci étant nécessaire à la prestation accessible de savoirs complexes. »15 On retiendra que les « constructions patrimoniales portent en germe l’organisation de nouveaux […] modes de vie » et qu’elles redonnent « du sens aux territoires ».16 Occupant, de fait, une portion de territoire, les projets de patrimoine pourront être orientés vers la qualité paysagère du lieu «interpellant la vocation créatrice de notre imagination ».17 Nous formulerons ainsi un projet de paysage où, vu l’abondance manifeste de paysages conformistes, l’on reconnaîtra que « la richesse de notre imaginaire [est] muselée ».18 Ce carcan autour de l’imagination nous amènera à rechercher des solutions remontant à la source de notre raison d’être : « Ce projet de paysage devra […] mobiliser une imagination créatrice [… qui] cherche à étoffer notre cadre référentiel en vertu d’une intelligence plus lucide et plus audacieuse [de] notre rôle et notre présence sur terre. »19 Ainsi, la notion de ‘projet de paysage patrimonial industriel’ appelle l’imagination, or : « En étant également le pouvoir d’invention, d’anticipation, d’inspiration, de création d’artefacts, dans l’art, la technique, la science, la politique, l’imagination apparaît aussi comme un défi au temps de la répétition, de l’usure ou de l’oubli, bref comme un anti-destin. »20 Pour les fins de notre propos immédiat, nous retiendrons que l’imagination est pouvoir de création dans l’art et qu’elle peut permettre de changer le cours conventionnel des choses. Avant de poursuivre, nous préciserons que l’imagination inclue dans ses significations les biais qui imprègnent les représentations et qui ont été à la source de racisme, de sexisme et autres faits de domination : « le rôle de l’imaginaire […] est à la racine aussi bien de l’aliénation que de la création dans l’histoire. »21 Pour cette raison, nous préférerons au terme d’imagination, celui de créativité pour mettre l’accent sur les processus de mise au monde qui accompagnent toute production artistique, plutôt que sur les distorsions que l’imagination entraîne lors de processus de représentation. De la créativité et de l’art 11 Noppen, L. 2006 : 294 12 Ibid. : 338 13 Bourdin, A. 1986 : 80 14 Choffel-Mailfert, M.-J. 2002 : 170-172 15 Caillet, É. 1997 : 31 16 Péron, F. 2001 : 23 17 Bédard, M. 2006 : 3 18 Ibid. : 07 19 Ibid. : 11 20 Wunenburger, J.-J.1991 : 123 21 Castoriadis : 186

36

La communauté concernée par une désindustrialisation, peut, sans renier son passé, se percevoir différemment au présent. Elle peut aussi envisager sa destinée autrement que dans la continuité de l’usine; vouloir se forger un nouvel avenir. Devant un patrimoine industriel assez récent, celle-ci ne voudra pas nécessairement revoir l’usine en opération, même à des fins patrimoniales. D’anciennes villes mono-sectorielles autrefois très dépendantes d’un secteur industriel, ont vu leur économie se diversifier, et leur vie, autrefois centrée vers l’usine, s’ouvrir à de nouveaux horizons. Certaines villes ont ajouté l’art et la créativité parmi leurs axes de développement. Elles ont, aujourd’hui, des conseils des arts, des œuvres d’art qui parsèment leur territoire, des compagnies de théâtre, des centres culturels. La mise en valeur de vestiges du passé ne peut ignorer ces nouvelles donnes : « Ce sont les enjeux du maintenant qui doivent déterminer les usages de l’ancien. »22 L’art contemporain et la créativité qui l’accompagne occupent une place de plus en plus importante dans nos villes et régions. Les sites industriels en voie de désaffection offrent de considérables espaces, de grands murs, de vastes édifices pour la prestation d’œuvres d’envergure : sculptures extérieures, murales peintes, installations. Ce faisant, ils peuvent se voir réinvestis de la créativité dont ils avaient été coupés. L’art étant transmetteur de la condition humaine, ces sites peuvent se voir, par son intervention, humanisés : « It is the task of art to humanise technology »23. Les artistes ont par ailleurs été nombreux à investir des manufactures désaffectées pour les transformer en studios de peinture, de cinéma, de danse, la nature du cadre bâti comblant leurs besoins d’expression. Parmi les expériences de muséification de sites industriels qui ont eu lieu à différents endroits de la planète, certaines ont fait appel à des productions artistiques. Au Québec, la Cité de l’Énergie à Shawinigan, présentait, en 2003, dans son ancienne aluminerie, l’exposition du Musée des beaux-arts du Canada intitulée Le corps transformé, qui rassemblait des Degas, Rodin, Picasso autant que des Louise Bourgeois. À Sydney, en Australie, l’ancienne centrale électrique Ultimo, construite en 1902 pour alimenter le réseau de tramways de Sydney, est devenue le Powerhouse Museum, en 1988. Ce musée « that celebrates human creativity and innovation »24 présente des expositions sur la science, l’histoire et le design, dont l’exposition Inspired ! Design across time. Dans l’ouest canadien, Granville Island logeait, en 1930, une centaine d’entreprises. Ce complexe est aujourd’hui devenu un modèle d’aménagement, qui tout en conservant une cimenterie, est « un véritable refuge pour les artistes » où d’anciens hangars ont été transformés en ateliers et en scènes.25 Sans nous étendre davantage sur ces expériences, retenons qu’elles démontrent que l’art et les sites industriels font bon ménage. Il ne s’agit surtout pas de transformer les sites industriels en musées d’art contemporain, sauf en de rares exceptions. Les lieux patrimoniaux sont d’abord et avant tout des lieux historiques où l’accès mémoriel demeure primordial. Chaque site a son histoire propre qui rejoint, en partie, l’histoire industrielle universelle. La créativité ne peut que se fonder sur la biographie26 du site et sur les thèmes historiques fondamentaux : productivité, sens des affaires, compétitivité, fordisme, taylorisme, organisation syndicale, systèmes, réseaux, connectivité, exploitation des ressources naturelles. Il s’agit encore moins de décorer, ni d’embellir ou d’agrémenter un site d’œuvres d’art qui n’auraient aucun rapport avec lui, « art is not mere playfulness »27. Tout geste créatif, toute œuvre d’art respectera le genius loci, en exprimant l’univers émotif et sensitif des lieux : la 22 Létourneau 2000 : 29 23 Nam June Paik artiste en arts électroniques http://www.digitalfestival.dk/modules/content/index.php?id=17 24 http://www.powerhousemuseum.com 25 http://www.granvilleisland.com 26 J’utilise ici le terme de ‘biographie’ pour signifier le vécu de tels sites, tant humain que matériel. 27 Tuan, Y.-F (1993) : 220

37

rigidité du travail à la chaîne, la fatigue des longues heures exigées, le drame des accidents, l’ambition des patrons, la fierté de la collectivité, le stress des entrepreneurs sous la tutelle des institutions financières, l’exploitation humaine, la résistance, la solidarité. On cernera le contexte économique, le lien entre l’entreprise et les marchés mondiaux, l’impact de l’usine sur la localité, les conséquences environnementales, les innovations tant des entrepreneurs que des syndicats. L’agression des sens par le bruit, par la poussière, par les vapeurs chimiques devra aussi être soulevée, comme l’émergence des mouvements syndicaux : « Il y a toute une tradition de la lutte ouvrière depuis le XIXe siècle, mal racontée et mal connue. »28 On rattachera au patrimoine matériel du site (édifices, installations, ponts, barrages, entrepôt, machines, outils, équipements…), son patrimoine immatériel (faits historiques, vécu des entrepreneurs et travailleurs …) et on fera en sorte que tout apport créatif s’appuie sur ces fondements pour que le lieu, sa biographie, son genius loci, son contexte local et universel deviennent source d’inspiration. Inspiration qui pourra venir d’artistes ou encore d’un travail d’équipe entre chercheurs, créateurs et ex-travailleurs, ces derniers étant particulièrement aptes à relater la charge émotive des lieux : « Il existe dans la tête des ouvriers, des expériences fondamentales […] »29. On pourra penser à des interviews individuels, des entrevues participatives, des focus groups et des projets pilotes pour en arriver à des réalisations impliquant artistes, spécialistes du patrimoine et ouvriers. On considérera inviter les ex-travailleurs à contribuer au processus de muséification de leur usine. Celle-ci deviendra alors un lieu autour duquel il est dorénavant possible de rêver, de forger son devenir, de réaliser un projet. Projet où les données historiques se verront muséifiées de façon tant rationnelle que créative. Notre précédent constat devient ainsi : la mise en valeur des sites industriels invite à la formulation d’un projet de paysage patrimonial que l’on humanisera par une induction de créativité artistique fermement appuyée sur l’histoire du lieu et de ses intervenants. Conclusion : pour une muséification créative des paysages industriels Cette muséification tiendra compte qu’à travers le monde, les paysages de sites industriels sont relativement homogènes. Elle fera ressortir l’unicité d’un paysage donné (pour le ‘déshomogénéiser’), tout en abordant les aspects universels de l’ère industrielle. Elle fera d’un tel paysage une création géo-patrimoniale en soi, soulignant le caractère particulier de l’usine et son appartenance à un réseau d’échange plus vaste dont les ramifications s’étendent sur toute la planète. La créativité et l’art, outre de rendre aux populations ce qui leur avait été retiré, permettent d’accéder à une profondeur de la condition humaine que des textes, panneaux, illustrations et plaques commémoratives ne peuvent faire. En favorisant l’ouverture d’esprit, l’art « invites us to shed our egotistical anxieties and enter another world… »30 Si l’humain a la capacité de raisonner, il est aussi fait d’émotions, de passions, d’affectivité, de sensations, que l’art est à même d’exprimer : art can « communicate how one feels to another … »31 Quelles formes prendront les œuvres? Cela dépendra de la biographie, de la personnalité, du genius loci, et de la relation qu’auront les intervenants avec le paysage. Ce sont à partir de ces éléments que prendront forme sculptures, peintures, arts électroniques, littérature, musique, théâtre, performance, opéra, photographie, poésie. Des œuvres déjà produites

28 Foucault 1973 « Pour une chronique de la mémoire ouvrière. » dans Derfert : 1268 29 Ibid. : 1267 30 Tuan, Y.-F. 1993 : 222 31 Ibid. : 221

38

seront considérées, d’autres pourront être commandées. L’essentiel étant qu’elles transmettent le passage du temps avec sensibilité, et qu’elles permettent une compréhension plus profonde, plus vaste, des habituels textes et étiquettes interprétatifs : « Art is thus a means of establishing mutuality – a shared world. […] it is able to bridge the continually widening chasm between past and present. »32 Glissés parmi des textes historiques factuels, nous pourrons, par exemple, rencontrer des passages issus de la littérature :

Mais le mineur n'était plus l'ignorant, la brute écrasée dans les entrailles du sol. Une armée poussait des profondeurs des fosses, une moisson de citoyens dont la semence germait et ferait éclater la terre, un jour de grand soleil. Et l'on saurait alors si, après quarante années de service, on oserait offrir cent cinquante francs de pension à un vieillard de soixante ans, crachant de la houille, les jambes enflées par l'eau des tailles. E. Zola, Germinal.33

Nous préciserons que l’art, comme la créativité, peuvent être utilisés autant à des fins oppressives qu’émancipatrices. L’art a longtemps été au service des classes dirigeantes mais depuis le XXe siècle, il tend à favoriser l’affranchissement des individus et des sociétés. Il va de soi que c’est à cette dernière tendance que nous référons. Nous terminerons en élaborant notre précédent constat : la muséification de sites industriels interpelle des projets créatifs de paysages patrimoniaux qui retracent la mémoire des ouvriers, des entrepreneurs et d’une localité, en tenant compte du devenir de sa population. De tels projets ont le potentiel d’humaniser par l’art, des sites dominés par la technologie en se fondant sur la biographie des lieux, en lien avec les réalités universelles du monde industriel. Bibliographie Barblan, M. A. (1985) Quel musée pour le patrimoine industriel? Dans CNRS : L’étude et la mise en valeur du patrimoine industriel. Paris : CNRS Bédard, M. (2006) Le projet de paysage ou l’opportunité d’un renouveau paradigmatique et identitaire. ÉNITA Clermont-Ferrand : Texte pour la conférence Vers les paysages de demain : outils iconographiques et ressources territoriales. 10-12 avril. Bergson, H. (2003 et 1969) La pensée et le mouvant. Essais et conférences. Paris : PUF. Version numérique de Bergeron, M., Université du Québec à Chicoutimi : http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/bergson_henri/pensee_mouvant/bergson_pensee_mouvant.pdf Bourdin, A. (1986) Exposer les centres anciens : l’histoire en vrai grandeur. Dans Davalon, J., dir. Claquemurer tout l’univers, pour ainsi dire, Paris : Centre Georges Pompidou, 69-81. Butlin, R. A. (1993) Historical geography – Through the gates of space and time. London, New-York, Melbourne, Auckland : Edward Arnold. Caillet, É. (1997) À l’approche du Musée, la médiation culturelle, un concept proche du concept d’interprétation. Dans Dupont D. et Puydebat, J.-M., L'interprétation du patrimoine. Actes du colloque d'Auvers-sur-Oise (France), Paris : Ed. Touristiques européennes, 28-34.

32 Ibid. : 221 33 chapitre sept

39

Castoriadis, C. (1975) L’institution imaginaire de la société. Paris : Seuil. Choffel-Mailfert, M.-J. (2002) La médiation culturelle :Territoire d’enjeux et enjeux de territoires. Dans Schiele, B. Patrimoines et identités. Québec : Éd. Multimondes et Musée de la Civilisation, 141-172. Derfert, D. et al. (2001) Michel Foucault, dits et écrits 1954-1988, vol. 1. Paris : Quarto Gallimard. Freyssenet, M. (2003) Taylorisme : us et abus d’un terme. Paris : La Lettre du CSU, mai, 7-8. Éditions numériques http://csu.cnrs.fr. Lee, R. (2006) Deindustrialization. In Johnston and al. The Dictionary of human geography. Oxford : Blackwell Publishing. Létourneau, J. (2000) Passer à l’avenir. Montréal : Boréal. Noppen, L. (2006) Les églises du Québec : un patrimoine à réinventer. Montréal : Presses de l’UQAM. Péron, F. (2001) Patrimoine culturel et géographie sociale. Dans Faire la géographie sociale aujourd’hui – Les Documents de la MRSH de Caen, (14), octobre, 19-30. Tuan, Y.-F. (2004) Place, art and self. Santa Fe : Center for American Places. Tuan, Y.-F. (1993) Passing strange and wonderful. Aesthetics, nature and culture. Washington : Shearwater Books. UQAM (1996) Téoros - Patrimoine industriel. Montréal : UQAM, vol. 15 (2). Wunenberger, J.-J. (1991) L’imagination. Coll. Que sais-je? Paris : PUF. Louse Boucher PhD Student Ottawa University 60, University Street Ottawa / Canada

40

Universal Knowledge through Heritage in Science, Technology, and Industry Museums. Case Study: Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, IL Yun Shun Susie Chung, USA _____________________________________________________________________ Introduction In accord with the International Council of Museums general conference theme for 2007 on “Universal heritage and museums” and the International Committee for Museology’s theme on “A Field of Knowledge: Museums of Natural Sciences,” this paper examines how universal knowledge is displayed in museums of science, technology, and industry. The Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, Illinois is the case study museum. What exactly is meant by universal knowledge? Does this mean standardization and objectivity of the stories that we tell through heritage in exhibits. The academic stance in this paper is that museums of science, technology, and industry should strive to exhibit universal knowledge through heritage. These museums are very different in the nature of history museums, where nationalism and patriotism may play larger roles. The paper examines a brief development of the museums of science, technology, and industry, formulates what is universal knowledge through heritage, and applies the definition to the case study museum, Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. History of universal knowledge in museums of science and industry Many of the protomuseums and private collections of science, technology, and industry museums in the West developed into cabinets of curiosities during the medieval period through the renaissance. The categorizations of objects were made as artificialia and naturalia. Artificialia included those what we call technological artifacts today. Collections included scientific apparatuses, clocks, and even musical instruments. Also in northern Europe there is the differientiation between the Wunderkammer, the cabinet of curiosities, Kunstkammer, the art gallery, Rustkammer, the arms and armory gallery, and Schatzkammer, the treasury (Bazin 1967). The Wunderkammer included scientific apparatuses as well as ecofacts. During the 18th and 19th centuries, scientific societies such as the philosophical, natural history, and archaeological societies following the Royal Society in England in 1662, were established and collecting and forming museums such as Temporary Museums (Chung 2001). These Temporary Museums were developed to display the many different collections of the members in accord with the meetings that took place in different parts of the region in Europe and the United States (Chung 2001). Early prototypical museums include the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers in Paris established in 1794 where teaching was involved as well as collecting. The Science Museum in London, which was the result of the Great Exhibition of 1851, opened to the public in 1857 first as the South Kensington Museum of Science and Art. Both the Conservatoire and the Science Museum were established to give enlightenment to the arts and sciences. In 1925, the Deutsches Museum in Munich opened to educate in science and technology for the public at large. The Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of History and Technology opened in 1964 and the Air and Space Museum in 1976. According to Alexander: “ The technological exhibits of the Museum of History and Technology and of the Air and Space Museum rank with the Musée National des Techniques-Palais de la Découverte of Parks, the Science Museum of London, and the Deutsches Museum of Munich in combining the history of science and technology with the analysis of ways in which they are applied to contemporary life. Most

41

other modern science centers today emphasize the interpretation of applied science and do not attempt historical treatment. Thus the Smithsonian has the opportunity to develop as one of the unique technical museums of the world” (Alexander 1979: 70). The case study museum, the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago also interprets their objects in a historical context. The Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago was opened in 1933. Julius Rosenwald who was the Chairman of Sears Roebuck & Company was inspired by the Deutsches Museum to establish a museum in Chicago for public science education. Rosenwald restored the 1893 World’s Fair structure, Palace of Fine Arts, into the museum with the idea of hands-on interactive exhibitions. It is considered the oldest science museum in the Western hemisphere (Burcaw 1997). Many science, technology, and industry museums were established during the twentieth century, including those children’s museums whose purpose is to educate children through science and technology exhibitions and programs (Chung 2006). According to the American museologist G. Ellis Burcaw, “The goal of the science museum is to increase knowledge about our physical environment and to disseminate such knowledge to the public. Stated more simply, the museum’s job is education in science. But we are speaking of education based on the study and use of tangible, three-dimensional objects. The objects that should be collected are, quite simply, those objects that can be used by that museum in an educational program.” Burcaw also states that “The International Council of Museums has cautioned against the exploitation of museums for nationalistic purposes and recommends instead emphasis on cultural similarities across political boundaries”. (Burcaw 1997:183). Nationalism in museums has played an important role in nation-building around the world (Boswell and Evans 1996; Kaplan 1994; Sandall 2002). For example the British Museum has collected and displayed the objects from all over the world, not so much on British objects. Although the first collections that formed the British Museum were the natural history collections of Sir Hans Sloane, the Cottonian Library, the Harleian Manuscripts, and later the libraries of King George I and King George II, in 1823 Classical antiquity became the focus of their collecting trend. The British Museum is the example of the collecting of the British Empire. On the other hand, the National Museum of Korea in Seoul, Korea shows the development and stages of the archaeological and art collections of the Korean peninsula. Whereas, nationalism portrayed in the museums of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea are centered on the power of the government and the justification against their enemies, mainly the Japanese and the U.S. The National Museum of Mexico reflects the nation-building and identity: “From 1887, historic-museographic discourse adhered more and more to an official version of Mexican history as put forward in patriatoric teachings…The symbiotic relationships among archaeology, the state, and the museum formed part of the myth of the Mexican origin. In this sense, the museum contributed to an ideological process of sanctifying the history of the fatherland (Deloche 1989:31-69) and, above all, providing a new basis for national identity that included the Prehispanic past together with the War of Independence, 1810-1821 (Hart 1990; Katz 1976, 1988; Powell 1974 cited in Morales-Moreno 179-181). Therefore, nationalism is an element that is part and parcel of the development of museums, especially national museums. In many cases, with science and technology museums, they show the progress of science and technology representing the nation that the museum represents. For example, the Vajdahunyad Castle, Agriculture Museum, Budapest shows the progress of technological advances in agriculture in the Hungary. The question is whether nationalism should be the focus of science, technology, and industry museums. With this purpose in mind, the next sections will explore the connection between science, technology, and industry museums and the educational factor, the use of authentic heritage, and nationalistic interpretation in exhibits. Universal knowledge through heritage Heritage are those records and resources found of nature, sites, objects, people, activities, monuments and buildings, landscapes where a group consensus of significance is made to

42

preserve, research, communicate, and administer it for past, present, and future societies (Ashworth and Howard; Chung under review; van Mensch). Science, technology, and industry museums collect and exhibit both reproductions and authentic heritage. In many science, technology, and industry museums, reproductions are exhibited to show the concept and theme of the exhibition rather than the authenticity and rarity of the object. Therefore, the exhibits lean towards the information scale rather than the object scale (Verhaar and Meeter 1989). Certain authentic and rare objects are acquired, accessioned, and exhibited for purposes of its uniqueness and historical significance to the progress of science, technology, and industry. Indeed, there are unique and rare objects that have been collected and displayed such as the Zephyr and the U-505 in the Museum of Science and Industry of Chicago. These two objects of authentic historically significant artifacts that are extraordinary grand in scale in acquisition, funding, and conservation and restoration. The significance of displaying the authentic artifacts rests in the uniqueness of those artifacts, the technology and history behind them. Indeed, Alexander discusses some of the problems of showing the progress of industrialization and technology in the museums, but not other issues that could be a result from industrialization and technology, such as poverty. In regard to the display of heritage in science, industry, and technology museums, what is meant by universal knowledge of science, technology, and industry? It is knowledge that is communicated for any person regardless of any nationality for the education of science, technology, and industry. Heritage is what we make of it through relevance, and that relevance is the result called knowledge. Although science, technology, and industry museums are developed in a specific place, at a specific time, in a specific nation, science, technology, and industry museums should be geared toward universal knowledge through heritage that all of humankind can appreciate and see the progress as well as the errors made for all of humankind, instead of a nationalist and patriotic approach in interpretation. The mission statement of the Museum of Science and Industry of Chicago is “To inspire the inventive genius in everyone.” The prime focus of the exhibit on the U-505 in the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago is the story of WWII and the significance of the U.S. capturing the U-505. The entire exhibit swells up patriotic and nationalistic interest. First of all, that the U-505 is on the National Register of Historic Places is a nationalistic objective that has been worthy of seen as an object of historical significance that recalls the victory of WWII by the U.S. and the Allies. The historical marker for the U-505 reads as follows:

U-505 Jackson Park, 57th Street and Lake Shore Drive, Chicago When this German submarine was boarded off French West Africa on June 4, 1944, it was the first time since 1815 that the U.S. Navy had captured a foreign warship on the high seas. Subsequently brought to the United States, U-505 provided valuable intelligence about German naval equipment and codes. Now beached and berthed on concrete cradles at Chicago’s museum of Science and Industry, U-505 is a memorial to the 55,000 Americans who lost their lives at sea in World War II.

The U-505 was displayed outdoors in Chicago for fifty years. In 1997, the Museum of Science and Industry of Chicago carried on the project of conservation and restoration of the U-505 inside the climate-controlled museum building. The entire exhibit does not focus on the technology of U-505 but the dramatic story of the capturing of U-505 and the technology of the process of its conservation and restoration by the museum:

Imagine the unique engineering challenges involved in moving the U-505. How do you move a National Historic landmark that weighs as much as three Statues of Liberty and is nearly a city block long? Then, once it is moved, how do you lower it four stories into a new exhibit space?

43

The Museum recruited NORSAR Inc., a company experienced at moving large naval objects, to tackle the project. They appreciated the Museum’s unique circumstances and offered a thorough and creative solution. They positioned the sub on 18 sets of dollies with eight tires each; each tire capable of carrying the equivalent of one small rhinoceros per square inch. Each dolly was designed with individually adjustable hydraulic rams, which meant that the weight of the sub could be maneuvered over uneven surfaces. They were individually controllable for easy (relatively speaking) steering and movement.

Over several days, the team guided the U-505 1,000 feet to its new home—a 75 x 300-foot, 42-foot deep pen. The boat was jacked up and placed on Teflon pads to help minimize friction as it was pushed across the span of the pen on four enormous steel bridge beams. Mighty jacks rose up to greet the sub as it made a two-day, four-story descent to the floor below and was positioned in its new exhibit gallery. Perfectly.

The entire process showcased science in action; Museum guests were able to witness the move as it happened from a special observation deck affording spectacular views of the construction process.

There are sections in the physical and virtual exhibit that focus on the technology of U-505 in German naval equipment and codes for the purposes of war against the Allies during WWII. There is hardly any interpretation that U-boats were technologically advanced at that time. The history of technology of U-505 is the progress that the Americans made in capturing the U-boat in order to learn more about U-boat technology in order to win the war. Other than the statement that American boats were more comfortable than the U-boats, there is no comparison in technology. Indeed, weapons of mass destruction should not be applauded in any way because of the purpose. However, if there are components that we can learn from technology especially in underwater technology as well as the errors that were made in order to improve underwater technology, there is more to be said than the dramatic diorama of American sailors washed ashore off the coast of West Africa. As stated in the Chicago Traveler A Visitor's Guide to The Museum of Science & Industry by Jeffrey Sachs, there are three sections to the U-505 exhibit: first, a multimedia reenactment of the story of capturing the U-505;” the second is the reaching of the vessel; the third is the tour and special effects of the U-505 which is optional. Everyone is encouraged to stand in a queue for the photographers to take a photo of you and your family or friends. At the end of the exhibit, a store awaits you to purchase U-505 exhibit products and the photograph for $20.00. The U-505 store and the almost mandatory photograph-taking is equivalent to the theme park experience at Six Flags over Texas. The patriotic theme park experience is ended (Cannon-Brookes 1991, 1995). The U-505, in conclusion, is a blockbuster theme park exhibit. In comparison with another exhibit in the Museum of Science and Industry, the importance of the streamlined design of the Zephyr is highlighted which was of technological importance by the Chicago Burlington and Quincy Railroad which revolutionized passenger rail service. It was the first diesel-electric streamlined train. This led to other innovations in the industry from transportation to toasters. Also that it was a piece of industrial art:

Instead of painting the train, the Zephyr's designers, Holabird and Root and Paul Phillipe Cret, allowed the corrugated stainless steel exterior to shine through, emphasizing the machine as art. Inside, the passenger compartments were clean and simple--as efficient and functional as the train's

44

performance was on the rails. As much as the Zephyr was a technological innovation, its appearance set the stage for an entire new era of streamlined design.

Therefore, unlike the U-505, is the Zephyr exhibit. This exhibit focuses on the technological advances of this high speed train first of nine “shovelnose” streamlined trains in the 1930s. Of course, the difference in the purpose of the object is very clear in that the U-505 was a weapon of war that the Americans captured and the Zephyr was a passenger-service train; however, the degree in which the universal knowledge of technology is displayed of the two “American” heritage is extreme. The U-505 exhibit’s purpose is to show the grandeur of the capturing, conservation, and restoration of the U-boat. It is not to show the technological advances of the U-boat and the influences it had on underwater technology. When it comes to people who discovered this and invented that, the individuals or groups all have identities, which include national identities. Yet, what we should be stressing is the ingenuity, progress, as well as trials in the development of science, technology, and industry for humankind. Thus, what is also relevant in the exhibit of universal knowledge is the flaws and the processes of science, technology, and industry that it took to make the final result (Latour 1987 ; Shapin & Schaffer 1985). Conclusion This brings us to the conclusion that universal knowledge through heritage in science, technology, and industry museums is the kind of knowledge that any person regardless of nationality can gain in the understanding of the advancements and failures of science, technology, and industry. This was not demonstrated in the case study exhibit, U-505, the Museum of Science and Industry. Not everything in the museums around the world can be considered universal knowledge through heritage. Not all objects are relevant to be acquired and accessioned in museums. Museums should be very careful in choosing such objects to gain status of blockbuster, theme park exhibits. Abstract Museums are places where knowledge is conveyed for purposes of preservation and development of society. Museums preserve, research, communicate, and administrate the microcosm, the collections, of the macrocosm, society. Nationalism plays a significant role in the interpretations in national museums. Science, technology, and industry museums are especially museums that should strive to show both the progress and failure of science, technology, and industry in society in the form of universal knowledge through reproduced as well as authentic heritage. Banal nationalism or patriotism in science, technology, and industry should not be the focus of the interpretation in such museums. This paper focuses on the ethics of exhibiting universal knowledge through heritage in science, technology, and industry museums with the case study on the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. References Alexander, E.P. (1979) Museums in Motion: An Introduction to the History and Functions of Museums. Nashville, TN: American Association for State and Local History. Bazin, G. (1967) The Museum Age. New York: Universe Books. Boswell, D. and J. Evans (eds)(1999) Representing the Nation: A reader histories, heritage and museums. London: Routledge.

45

Burcaw, G.E. (1997) (third edition) Introduction to Museum Work. Walnut Creek, CA: Altimira Press. Cannon-Brookes, P.

(1991) Editorial. Museums, Theme Parks and Heritage Experiences’, Museum Management and Curatorship 10 (4), 351-358.

(1993) Editorial. Tourism and the Museum Industry: Paymaster, Pollutant and Worse? Museum Management and Curatorship, 12 (2), 123-126.

Chung, Y.S.S. (2003) “Prehistoric Narratives in County Archaeological Society Museums in Mid-Nineteenth Century England”, Stanford University’s Department of Classics’ conference on interdisciplinary archaeology from 16 to 18 February 2001. Stanford Journal of Archaeology 1 http://archaeology.stanford.edu/journal/newdraft/contents.html. Chung, Y.S.S. (Forthcoming 2006) “Piagetian Theory and Application in Children’s Museums.”In H. Vieregg ed. Museen Verstehen [Comprehending Museums]. Baltmannsweiler, Germany: Schneider-Verlag Hohengehren. Kaplan, F. (ed.)(1994) Museums and the Making of “Ourselves”: The Role of Objects in National Identity. London: Leicester University Press. Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society, Milton Keynes, Open University Press. Sachs, J. “A Visitor's Guide to The Museum of Science & Industry,” in Chicago Traveler Available on the World Wide Web http://www.chicagotraveler.com/guide-to-chicago-museum-of-science-industry.htm. Accessed October 30, 2006. Sandall, R. (ed)(2002) Museums, Society, Inequality. London and New York: Routledge. Shapin, S. & Schaffer, S. (1985) Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life, Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press. Verhaar, J., and H. Meeter. 1989. Project model exhibitions, Leiden: Reinwardt Acadamie Yun Shun Susie Chung, Ph.D. Associate Professor Museum Studies Program, Humanities San Francisco State University 1600 Holloway Avenue San Francisco, CA 94132 USA Email: yssc_2@yahoo.com

46

Museology and the New Technologies – a Challenge for the 21st. Century Nelly Decarolis - Argentina __________________________________________________________________ 1. INTRODUCTION Two centuries ago, “...the social impact of the Industrial Revolution gave rise to a new era, which evidenced the productive, transforming power of human beings. At that time, prevailing notions were those deeply committed to homo faber and, to a lesser degree, to homo sapiens. This merger of science and technology which took place in the middle of the 19th century tended to reduce social barriers and defend the functional unity of brain and hand.” 1 Nonetheless, the discovery of the true technical philosophy was something reserved to the 20th century, with the advent of contemporary technology, a milestone in our culture’s history. Together with the world of natural events, there has arisen a very vital metacosmos: the technical and technological world. That environment which nowadays surrounds mankind everywhere calls upon us to analyze its role as a social and cultural phenomenon. In all societies, science and technology has its own history, subject to human evolution and interacts reciprocally with other dimensions, open to the freedom of mankind and the rational discourse. Techniques underlie the core of contemporary philosophy: truth, science and objectivity are the premises of knowledge whose presence is crucial to understand our culture. That is how pure science directs attention to objective schemes or laws, while research targeted to action establishes human behaviour standards called rules, which must be studied. When one speaks about techniques and technology, reference is being made to two terms which encompass the same field of savoir-faire but with subtle differences, since technology is a technique to which economic, social and productive structures are added. “The notion of technological society refers to techniques in themselves and to how they are used. Techniques are a discipline designed to ensure the control of mankind over the physical order, through the application of scientifically determined laws.” 2 Techniques have become the new environment in which human beings are forced to exist. Social phenomena are embedded within techniques, in a position which modifies all traditional concepts. It can be said that the relationship with the technological society nowadays defines a new environment in which social phenomena are placed, and that human beings are integrated into that technological process. The application of theory for practical reasons sets forth considerable philosophical issues, which in many cases are not seriously taken into account as, for instance, the effects of technological predictability on human behaviour. Lewis Mumford recalls that an event worthwhile taking into consideration is that the discovery of the Altamira Caves was ignored because paleontologists were not willing to accept that the hunters of the glacier era, whose weapons and tools they had just discovered, could have had an artistic inclination and the necessary observation powers to produce art expressions whose images contained a high degree of abstraction.

1 Jaques Ellul: “El orden tecnológico” in Filosofía y Tecnología. Carl Mitcham and Robert Mackey (eds).Ediciones Encuentro. Madrid 2004. pp.112 /113. 2 Yves R. Simon: “La búsqueda de la felicidad y el ansia de poder en la sociedad tecnológica” in Filosofía y Tecnología. Carl Mitcham & Robert Mackey (Eds). Ediciones Encuentro. Madrid 2004. pp.211/212.

47

Information and communication technologies (ICTs) are an important challenge for Technical Philosophy. It is enough to recall that 20th century thinking attached great importance to physical objects, believing that techniques would solve the material needs of human beings in different cultures. This approach is not valid nowadays vis-à-vis symbolic technologies, in the framework of which we find the information and communication technologies. Since they operate with signs and not objects, they are a true challenge for Technical Philosophy. Software is a new technological modality which operates with abstract objects: numbers, signs and images; a digital world in which information is handled by electronic means. 2. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES (ICTs) The impact of physical and mathematical sciences on technology has brought about a radical transformation in the whole of the 20th century human environment. There arises the electronic space, a new social space which differs in its structure from any other, having an unprecedented action modality in history, allowing human beings to act remotely (remote control of satellites and aircraft, remote operations, forwarding of computer viruses over telematic networks…). Digitalization and automation of any kind of objects is so strong that is has brought about a true technical and scientific revolution to which Technical Philosophy must adjust. Recalling Dilthey’s words, they could be called the Spiritual Sciences, differentiating natural technologies from spiritual technologies. It is obvious that this infoworld or third environment whose actions are greatly powerful to transform culture, politics and societies, needs a forum for specific philosophical reflection. Today more than ever, it should be borne in mind that techniques are not only actions that transform the world but instead action systems, in which it is necessary to differentiate among agents, objects, relations, functions and structures. IT communication techniques, unlike natural technologies, transform that world of relations which is formal and non substantial. Remotely and in a network, they create new forums where no physical presence of agents is necessary and neither of the objects they act upon. The virtual world has artificial representations, technologically built with the purpose of them appearing as real. The characters underlying these symbolic representations can be called simulators of presence, credit cards or any other means that generate in our minds impacts that seem real through artificial representations. The problem arises when that virtual world affects the categories of space and time, until they manage to transform our own perceptions, our memories and sensations. Human interrelations perilously lose their spatial nearness when human beings acquire the capacity to act remotely in forums where a single action, replicated in a computer, reaches out to millions of persons worldwide as a source of undeniable social power. Every form of life modifies its context. Human beings have become a dynamic element of their own environment, although we do not always know when, where or how changes induced by mankind have taken place. “Technological revolutions have substantially altered collective capacities. Progress generated in fields such as IT, robotics, biotechnology, telecommunications, micro-electronics and other similar areas have brought about essential changes in a horizon of accelerated growth, marked by severe contradictions”.3

3 Kliksberg, Bernardo & Tomassini, Luciano (compilers). Capital social y cultura: claves estratégicas para el desarrollo. Inter-American Development Bank. Fondo de Cultura Económica de Argentina S.A. Buenos Aires.2000.

48

Our science inherits all sciences from the past and goes way beyond the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century, or the Industrial Revolution of the 18th century. Current science and technology have absorbed elements from everywhere, notably China and the great Islam scientists of the Middle Age -such as Omar Khayyam- who in many cases even surpassed the Greek. Technical work comes from the human sphere, the individual and society. Techniques are the way in which workers mobilize the world in the medium run. Daily language uses the word ‘technique’ to refer to industrial production and its products, that is to say, visible phenomena, but it is necessary to reach its essence, the core of techniques: inventions. Everything is implicit therein and the initiative of achieving an invention has become an ethical exercise. In this regard, it is interesting to recall that often times the willingness to make an invention really useful for humanity worthwhile, faces an individual or a group of a certain economic power which it negatively affects, in which case defending such invention becomes an act of admirable courage and can even touch upon one or more individuals’ integrity. “Although we find that techniques provide us with possibilities of looking into the doctrine of ideas that can be introduced into the world of sensitive experiences, we often wonder whether a philosophy based on techniques can provide new light to the metaphysical cosmovision that since the olden days has driven and still permanently drives the spirits. Are techniques, as a materialization of ideas, the school in which humanity intuitively learns how a reality of a different genre powerfully penetrates into the world of research without altering natural laws, multiplying and elevating this world?4 This deep transformation of relational space generates new modalities that develop in that third environment in which human beings communicate over the Internet, with multiple remote actions, without any spatial nearness. Can the impact of ICTs on social forms, whether they are called culture, politics, law or social life, have an impact on the more specific aspects of the human spirit, its memory, desires, and symbols? Biotechnologies and Information and Communication Technologies are a challenge for philosophical reflection and for museums. They entail new categorizations, a change in the conceptual direction, a doing-away with physicalist prejudices and an exhaustive analysis of this new source of power which has become instated in all parts of the globe. CONCLUSION At present time, human beings fulfill a crucial role within Science and Technological development, specially at the border area where museums and new Technologies play an important part in an essential, epistemological worldwide debate. Its foundations and limits are deeply engaged with the interactions of the accelerated rhythm required by information and communication techniques. As these interactions increase, a parallel development arises in its ontic structures, where products, nature, theory and subjectivity transcend. Technology only makes sense through the intervention of human beings because its confines can only be found in their human nature, which can always improve, according to its ontological systems. “Day after day, man tries to go further in his effort to match a glimpse of what is beyond himself, trying to transcend its own nature. Techniques, with their cosmic significance, help human beings creating a new cosmos. Thus, the central problem would concern Philosophical Anthropology and its great questions: man and cosmos, man and the machine and the different stages through which man goes through his historic fate in time and space.” 5

4 Dessauer, F. “La técnica en su propia esfera” in Filosofía y Tecnología. Carl Mitcham & Robert Mackey eds. Ediciones Encuentro. Madrid. 2004. 5 Carl Mitcham y Robert Mackey: Filosofía y Tecnología. Ediciones Encuentro. Madrid 2004

49

Should we put Museology on stage as well? Museology and Philosophy, side by side with Science and Technology, qualify to have a thorough knowledge of the memory of Humanity through research work and studies on the material and immaterial traces of the past … If the museum’s mission is bringing together the communicational, informative, intellectual and sensorial aspects by interrelating and empowering the different realms of knowledge, every individual can have the possibility of critically understanding the world around him, rebuilding his origins and his place in History, identifying present and past realities through the cultural diversity that becomes evident in the boarderless heritage of all peoples, the most outstanding expression of the evolution and development of human beings. “The introduction of modern interactive displays, tactile exhibits and audio-visual aids in the museum generate new interest in presentations, attracting visitors in an environment where tradition and innovation meet. The possibilities are endless and only limited by the imagination of the museum programmer. Although technology is no substitute for imagination, it is impossible to deny that the emerging technologies can offer us multiple alternatives: Even though, it is always necessary to make the scientific precission compatible with the effectiveness of dissemination methods.” 6 The impossibility of establishing a direct relationship with the original object makes an essential difference in the general visit to the museum and specially to the exhibition itself. Even if other interactive variables are applied, in order to determine the representation in a sort of exchange due to the lack of referents suffered by the observer, it must be taken into account that in the digital mise-en-scène, all the presentation is realized within the limited space of a screen, creating forced boundaries which do not exist in the real space. At this stage, it would be important to remember that the conceptual and symbolic thought is always projected on the real cultural product. Visual communication is a central aspect of our lives. Images are necessary for philosophical abstractions and the visual communication is linked to intellectual and emotional experiencies. Therefore, the authenticity of the real object still remains the essential foundation of the relationship between man/woman and reality, which is the essence and the reason for being of contemporary museology. BIBLIOGRAPHY Decarolis, Nelly: “ Museology and presentation: a joint venture of Science and Arts” in Museology and presentation: original / real or virtual? ICOFOM 24th. Annual Symposium and ICOFOM LAM XI Regional Meeting. Cuenca. Ecuador. October 2002. Dessauer, F. “La técnica en su propia esfera” in Filosofía y Tecnología. Carl Mitcham & Robert Mackey eds. Ediciones Encuentro. Madrid 2004. Ellul, Jaques: “ El Orden Tecnológico” en Filosofía y Tecnología. Carl Mitcham & Robert Mackey (eds). Ediciones Encuentro. Madrid 2004. pp. 112/113. Kliksberg, Bernardo & Tomassini, Luciano (compilers). Capital social y cultura: claves estratégicas para el desarrollo. Inter-American Development Bank. Fondo de Cultura Económica de Argentina S.A. Buenos Aires 2000. La Ciencia y la Tecnología en la Vida Cotidiana. Latin American Workshop II. March 1/ 2/ 3, 2006. Centro de Cultura Tecnológica and Red POP. TEC Editions. Córdoba. Argentina.2006. Mitcham, Carl and Mackey, Robert (eds): Filosofía y tecnología.Ediciones Encuentro. Madrid. 2004.

6 Decarolis, Nelly: “ Museology and presentation: a joint venture of Science and Arts” in Museology and presentation: original / real or virtual? ICOFOM 24th. Annual Symposium and ICOFOM LAM XI Regional Meeting. Cuenca. Ecuador. October 2002.

50

Simon,Yves R: “La búsqueda de la felicidad y el ansia de poder en la sociedad tecnológica” in Filosofía y Tecnología. Carl Mitcham and Robert Mackey (eds). Ediciones Encuentro. Madrid 2004. pp.211/212.

Nelly Decarolis President ICOFOM LAM General Director of the Buenos Aires City GovernmentMuseums

51

MUSEOLOGÍA Y NUEVAS TECNOLOGÍAS: UN DESAFÍO PARA EL SIGLO XXI Nelly Decarolis - Argentina __________________________________________________________________ 1. INTRODUCCIÓN Dos siglos atrás, el impacto social de la Revolución Industrial dio nombre a una nueva era y demostró la potencia productiva y transformadora del ser humano. Predominaban entonces las concepciones profundamente comprometidas con el Homo Faber y en mucho menor grado con el Homo Sapiens. “Esta fusión de ciencia y tecnología, producida a mediados del siglo XIX, procuraba reducir las barreras sociales y defender la unidad funcional del cerebro y la mano.” 1 No obstante, el descubrimiento de la verdadera Filosofía de la Técnica estaba reservado al siglo XX con el advenimiento de la tecnología contemporánea que marca un hito en la historia de nuestra cultura. Junto al mundo de los hechos naturales ha surgido un metacosmos lleno de vitalidad: el mundo de la técnica y la tecnología. Ese entorno que hoy rodea al ser humano por doquier invita a analizar su rol como fenómeno sociocultural. En toda sociedad, ciencia y tecnología tienen su propia historia, sujeta a la evolución humana e interactúan con otras dimensiones, abiertas a la libertad del hombre y a su discurso racional. La técnica subyace en el seno de la filosofía contemporánea: verdad, ciencia y objetividad son premisas del conocimiento cuya presencia es crucial para la comprensión de nuestra cultura. Así como la ciencia pura dirige su atención a esquemas objetivos o leyes, la investigación orientada a la acción establece normas de comportamiento humano llamadas reglas, cuyo estudio es fundamental. Cuando se habla de técnica y tecnología, se hace referencia a dos términos que cubren un mismo campo del saber hacer pero que se diferencian sutilmente, ya que la tecnología es técnica a la que se suman estructuras económicas, productivas y sociales. “La noción de sociedad tecnológica se refiere a la técnica en sí misma y a la relación con el uso que de ella se hace. La técnica es una disciplina diseñada para asegurar el dominio del hombre sobre el orden físico a través de la aplicación de leyes determinadas científicamente”.2 La técnica se ha convertido en el nuevo entorno donde el ser humano está obligado a existir y los fenómenos sociales se encuentran inmersos dentro de la técnica en una posición que modifica todos los conceptos tradicionales. Se puede decir que la relación con la sociedad tecnológica define hoy un nuevo entorno donde están situados todos los fenómenos sociales y que el ser humano se encuentra integrado en ese proceso tecnológico. La aplicación de la teoría con fines prácticos plantea problemas filosóficos considerables que muchas veces ni siquiera son considerados seriamente, como es el caso de los efectos de la previsión tecnológica en el comportamiento humano. Recuerda Lewis Mumford, sin ir más lejos, un hecho digno de ser tenido en cuenta, cuando se desechó el primer descubrimiento de las Cuevas de Altamira porque los paleontólogos no quisieron aceptar que los cazadores de la época glaciar -cuyas armas y herramientas acababan de descubrir- hubiesen podido tener la inclinación artística y el poder de observación necesarios como para producir una manifestación del arte cuyas imágenes contuvieran un alto grado de abstracción…

1 Jaques Ellul: “ El Orden Tecnológico” en Filosofía y Tecnología. Carl Mitcham & Robert Mackey (Eds). Ediciones Encuentro. Madrid 2004. pp112 -113. 2 Yves R. Simon: “La búsqueda de la felicidad y el ansia de poder en la sociedad tecnológica” en Filosofía y Tecnología. Carl Mitcham y Robert Mackey (Eds). Ediciones Encuentro. Madrid 2004. pp.211/212.

52

En cuanto al campo de las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación (TIC), plantean hoy un importante desafío a la Filosofía de la Técnica. Baste recordar que el pensamiento del siglo XX acordó gran preponderancia a los objetos físicos, considerando que las técnicas solucionarían las necesidades materiales de los seres humanos en las distintas culturas. Esta posición resulta hoy inválida frente a las tecnologías simbólicas, en cuyo marco se sitúan las tecnologías de la información y las comunicaciones. Al operar con signos y no con objetos, constituyen un verdadero desafío para la Filosofía de la Técnica. El software representa una nueva modalidad de la tecnología que opera con objetos abstractos: números, signos, imágenes. Un mundo digital, donde se manipula la información a través de medios electrónicos. 2. LAS TECNOLOGÍAS DE LA INFORMACIÓN Y LA COMUNICACIÓN (TIC) El impacto de las ciencias físico-matemáticas en la tecnología produce una transformación radical en la totalidad del entorno humano del siglo XX. Surge así el espacio electrónico, un nuevo espacio social que difiere por su estructura de cualquier otro. Su modalidad de acción, sin precedentes en la historia, posibilita a los seres humanos el actuar a distancia (telecontrol de satélites y aviones, tele-operaciones, envío de virus informáticos a través de las redes telemáticas...) La digitalización y la informatización de cualquier clase de objeto cobran tal fuerza que producen una verdadera revolución tecno-científica a la que deberá adecuarse la Filosofía de la Técnica. Recordando las palabras de Dilthey, se las podría considerar Ciencias del Espíritu y diferenciar así las Tecnologías de la Naturaleza de las Tecnologías del Espíritu. Es evidente que este infomundo o tercer entorno, cuyas acciones son de gran potencia transformadora sobre la cultura, la política y las sociedades, requiere un espacio de reflexión filosófica específico. Hoy más que nunca se debe tener en cuenta que las técnicas no son sólo acciones que transforman el mundo, sino sistemas de acción en los que se deben diferenciar agentes, objetos, relaciones, funciones y estructuras. Las técnicas de la comunicación informática, a diferencia de las tecnologías de la naturaleza, transforman ese mundo de relaciones que es formal y no sustancial. A distancia y en red, generan nuevos espacios donde no se requiere la presencia física de ningún agente ni tampoco la de los objetos sobre los cuales se actúa. El mundo virtual cuenta con representaciones artificiales, tecnológicamente construidas con el objeto de producir una impresión de realidad. Los personajes se encuentran por detrás de esas representaciones simbólicas, ya se llamen simuladores de presencia, tarjetas de crédito o cualquier otro medio que genere en nuestras mentes impactos con visos de realidad a través de representaciones artificiales. El problema surge cuando ese mundo virtual afecta las categorías de espacio y tiempo hasta llegar incluso a transformar nuestras propias percepciones, nuestros recuerdos y nuestras sensaciones. Las interrelaciones humanas pierden peligrosamente su proximidad espacial allí donde los seres humanos adquieren la capacidad de actuar a distancia en espacios donde una sola acción, informáticamente replicada, llega a millones de personas en todo el planeta como fuente de poder social indiscutible. “Las revoluciones tecnológicas han alterado sustancialmente las capacidades colectivas. El progreso generado en campos como la informática, la robótica, la biotecnología, las telecomunicaciones, la microelectrónica y otras áreas similares han determinado cambios fundamentales en un horizonte de acelerado crecimiento, marcado por severas contradicciones.” 3 Nuestra ciencia, heredera de las ciencias del pasado, se remonta mucho más allá de la Revolución Científica del siglo XVII o de la Industrial del XVIII. Tanto la ciencia como la

3 Kliksberg, Bernardo y Tomassini, Luciano (compiladores). Capital social y cultura: claves estratégicas para el desarrollo. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. Fondo de Cultura Económica de Argentina S.A. Buenos Aires.2000.

53

tecnología actuales han absorbido elementos de todas partes, notablemente de China y de los grandes científicos islámicos de la Edad Media, que incluso en muchos aspectos sobrepasaron a los griegos -como es el caso de Omar Khayyam… Toda forma de vida modifica su contexto y los seres humanos constituyen elementos dinámicos de su propio entorno, si bien no siempre se sabe cuándo, dónde ni cómo inducen los cambios. La obra técnica procede de la esfera humana, individual y social. Es la manera en que el trabajador moviliza el mundo en forma mediata. El lenguaje cotidiano utiliza la palabra técnica para referirse a la producción industrial y a sus resultados, es decir, a los fenómenos visibles. Pero es necesario llegar a su esencia, al núcleo de la técnica, a la invención... Allí todo está implícito y la iniciativa de corporizar un invento se convierte en un ejercicio ético. En este sentido, es interesante recordar que a menudo la voluntad de poner en el mercado un invento útil para la humanidad puede llegar a enfrentarse con un individuo o un grupo de gran poder económico que se ve perjudicado en sus intereses particulares. Ante esta situación, insistir en el proyecto se convierte en una acción de valentía admirable que hasta podría llegar a afectar, no sólo la supervivencia del descubrimiento, sino incluso la integridad de uno o más individuos... “Si bien la técnica ofrece posibilidades de investigación de la doctrina de las ideas, factibles de ser introducidas en el mundo de la experiencia sensible, nos preguntamos a menudo si una filosofía basada en la técnica puede aportar nueva luz a la cosmovisión metafísica que desde la antigüedad ha movido y mueve aún incesantemente a los espíritus. La técnica, como realización de las ideas ¿es acaso la escuela en que la humanidad aprende intuitivamente cómo una realidad de diferente género penetra poderosamente en el mundo de la investigación sin perturbar las leyes naturales, multiplicándolo y elevándolo?” 4 La profunda transformación del espacio relacional genera nuevas modalidades que se desarrollan en ese tercer entorno donde los seres humanos se comunican por Internet, con múltiples acciones a distancia y sin proximidad espacial. El impacto de las TIC sobre las formas sociales, llámeselas cultura, política, vida social, comunidad, ¿lograrán incidir en lo más específico del espíritu humano, en su memoria, en sus deseos, en sus símbolos…? Las biotecnologías y las tecnologías de la información y de la comunicación, representan un reto para la reflexión filosófica y para los museos. Implican nuevas categorizaciones, un cambio en la dirección conceptual, el rompimiento con los prejuicios fisicalistas y el exhaustivo análisis de una nueva fuente de poder que se ha instalado en todos los rincones del globo. CONCLUSIÓN El ser humano desempeña hoy más que nunca un rol decisivo en el desarrollo de la ciencia y la técnica, en particular en el área de frontera donde las tecnologías emergentes constituyen parte decisiva de un debate epistemológico, capital para nuestra cultura, cuyos fundamentos y límites se encuentran profundamente involucrados en las interacciones que exige el acelerado ritmo que requieren la información y la comunicación. A medida que se incrementan dichas interacciones, surge un desarrollo paralelo en el área de sus estructuras ónticas, donde productos, naturaleza, teoría e intersubjetividad son trascendentales. Sólo a través del ser humano cobra sentido y significado la tecnología, porque el fundamento de sus límites se encuentra en la naturaleza humana, siempre perfectible de acuerdo con sus propios sistemas ontológicos. “Cada día el ser humano procura ir más lejos {…} en un esfuerzo por vislumbrar lo que se encuentra más allá de sí mismo, busca trascender su propia naturaleza. Y precisamente la técnica, con su significado cósmico, le ayuda a crear un nuevo universo {…} el problema

4Dessauer, F. “La técnica en su propia esfera” en Filosofía y Tecnología. Carl Mitcham & Robert Mackey (Eds). Ediciones Encuentro. Madrid. 2004.

54

central le correspondería entonces a la Antropología Filosófica y a sus grandes cuestionamientos, como el hombre y el cosmos, el hombre y la máquina y los diversos estadios por los que pasa en su destino histórico… “ 5 Y por qué no incluir también a la Museología y a la Filosofía, ya que mano a mano con la Ciencia y la Tecnología están calificadas para alcanzar el conocimiento cabal de la memoria de la humanidad a través de la investigación y el estudio de sus huellas materiales e inmateriales en un espacio y en un tiempo más o menos lejanos… Si es misión del museo reunir aspectos comunicantes, informativos, intelectuales y sensoriales, interrelacionando y potenciando entre sí los diferentes campos del conocimiento, también lo es ofrecer a cada individuo la posibilidad de comprender críticamente el mundo que lo rodea, reconstruir sus orígenes y su lugar en la historia, e identificar realidades pasadas y presentes a través de la diversidad cultural que se manifiesta en la herencia sin fronteras de los pueblos, ese legado que constituye la expresión más destacada de la evolución y el desarrollo del hombre sobre la Tierra. Las nuevas tecnologías han originado una verdadera revolución en el amplio horizonte del museo del siglo XXI. Un gran número de actividades altamente innovadoras atestiguan que el museo se está convirtiendo aceleradamente en una interesante combinación de artes, ciencia y tecnologías. “La introducción de novedosas presentaciones interactivas, exhibiciones táctiles y apoyos audiovisuales genera un renovado interés por el museo, atrayendo al visitante hacia un entorno donde tradición e innovación convergen. Las posibilidades son infinitas y sólo están limitadas por la imaginación del programador de museos. Aunque las tecnologías emergentes no son el sustituto de la imaginación, es imposible negar que ofrecen múltiples alternativas {...} Aún así, siempre será necesario compatibilizar la eficacia de los métodos de difusión con el rigor científico.” 6 La imposibilidad de establecer una relación directa con el objeto original marca una diferencia esencial en la visita general al museo y en especial, a la exhibición misma. Aunque en una suerte de trueque por la falta de referente que padece el observador se apliquen otras variables interactivas para determinar la representación, se debe tener en cuenta que en el montaje digital toda la acción se desarrolla dentro del espacio limitado de una pantalla, creando fronteras forzosas que no existen en el espacio real. Llegados a este punto, sería importante recordar una vez más que el pensamiento conceptual y simbólico siempre se proyecta en el producto cultural; que las imágenes son necesarias para realizar abstracciones filosóficas; que la comunicación visual constituye un aspecto central de nuestras vidas, ligada a las experiencias intelectuales y emocionales… Por ende, los valores que están implícitos en la autenticidad de los objetos que atesoran los museos siguen siendo la base esencial de la relación del hombre con lo real, de ese contacto impredecible que constituye la esencia y la razón de ser de la disciplina museológica contemporánea.

BIBLIOGRAFÍA 5 Nicolás Berdiaef: “El hombre y la máquina” (El problema de la Sociología y la Metafísica de la Técnica)” en Filosofía y Tecnología. Carl Mitcham & Robert Mackey. (eds). Encuentro Ediciones. Madrid 2004. 6Nelly Decarolis: “Museología y presentación: un emprendimiento conjunto de ciencia y arte” en XI Encuentro Regional ICOFOM LAM: Museología y presentación: ¿original/real o virtual? Cuenca. Ecuador. 2002.

55

Berdiaef, Nicolás: “El hombre y la máquina (El problema de la Sociología y la Metafísica de la Técnica)” en Filosofía y Tecnología. Carl Mitcham & Robert Mackey. (eds). Encuentro Ediciones. Madrid 2004. Decarolis, Nelly: “ Museology and presentation: a joint venture of Science and Arts” in Museology and presentation: original / real or virtual? ICOFOM 24th. Annual Symposium and ICOFOM LAM XI Regional Meeting. Cuenca. Ecuador. October 2002. Dessauer, F. “La técnica en su propia esfera” in Filosofía y Tecnología. Carl Mitcham & Robert Mackey (eds). Ediciones Encuentro. Madrid 2004. Ellul, Jaques: “ El Orden Tecnológico” en Filosofía y Tecnología. Carl Mitcham & Robert Mackey (eds). Ediciones Encuentro. Madrid 2004. pp. 112/113. Kliksberg, Bernardo & Tomassini, Luciano (compilers). Capital social y cultura: claves estratégicas para el desarrollo. Inter-American Development Bank. Fondo de Cultura Económica de Argentina S.A. Buenos Aires 2000. La Ciencia y la Tecnología en la Vida Cotidiana. Seminario-Taller Latinoamericano. Edicion II. 1/3 marzo 2006. Centro de Cultura Tecnológica de Córdoba y Red POP. Ediciones TEC. Córdoba 2006. Mitcham, Carl and Mackey, Robert (eds): Filosofía y Tecnología Ediciones Encuentro. Madrid 2004. Simon,Yves R.: “La búsqueda de la felicidad y el ansia de poder en la sociedad tecnológica” en Filosofía y Tecnología. Carl Mitcham and Robert Mackey (eds). Ediciones Encuentro. Madrid 2004. pp.211/212.

Nelly Decarolis Presidente ICOFOM LAM

Directora General de Museos Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires Buenos Aires, abril 2007

56

Lestechniquesaumusée:questionséthiques Sophie Decharneux et André Gob

Si vous essayez aujourd’hui de dire à des biologistes qu’une de leurs découvertes est de gauche, ou de droite, catholique ou pas catholique, vous allez susciter une franche hilarité, mais il n’en a pas toujours été ainsi. En sociologie, vous pouvez encore dire ce genre de choses.

Pierre Bourdieu,19971. Ce que Pierre Bourdieu affirme à propos de la science est encore plus vrai de la technologie. Le mot « technique » est souvent perçu comme étranger à toute préoccupation politique ou éthique. Les arguments techniques s’imposent devant toute autre considération, ce sont des « raisons techniques » qui justifient des décisions qu’on ne discute pas, c’est un « gouvernement de techniciens » qui, affirme-t-on, va sortir le pays d’un imbroglio politique. Cette neutralité apparente s’accompagne d’auto-justification. Si c’est techniquement possible, c’est bien. Les considérations d’un autre ordre qui entravent éventuellement la solution technique préconisée sont vues comme des contraintes, voire des obstructions. A l’inverse, le Technology Assessment – l’évaluation des choix technologiques - porte un regard critique sur la place et l’usage de la technologie dans la société2. Qu’en est-il dans les musées ? Y retrouve-t-on cette approche critique qui intègre la technologie dans un contexte plus large ou bien le musée se fait-il l’écho de cette technologie « indiscutable », de surcroît en la renforçant de son autorité à lui ?

Le musée universelle est à l’ordre du jour. La globalisation dont on nous rebache les oreilles pourrait lui apporter une justification renouvelée. Il n’en est rien : au contraire, elle conduit les « nouvelles nations » à contester la suprématie européenne et nord-américaine dont le musée est le symbole. Le thème de l’universalisme, très controversé dans le champ du patrimoine culturel, semble cependant moins faire débat pour ce qui concerne les sciences et techniques.

C’est sous cette triple problématique – technicité, universalité, éthique – que nous voulons analyser la présence des techniques au musée.

Les techniques au musée L’expression « techniques au musée » recouvre deux réalités très différentes. D’une part, la muséalisation du patrimoine technique, mobilier et immobilier ; d’autre part, l’utilisation de dispositifs techniques, notamment des NTIC, les (plus si) nouvelles technologies de l’information et de la communication, dans le musée et spécialement dans l’exposition.

Le patrimoine technique trouve sa place au musée dès la naissance de ce dernier. En même temps qu’il défend le patrimoine culturel menacé par le vandalisme, l’abbé Henri Grégoire

1 Pierre Bourdieu, Les usages sociaux de la science. Pour une sociologie clinique du champ scientifique. Paris, INRA éditions, 1997, p. 16. 2 Le Technology Assessment est né aux Etats-Unis, en 1972, d’une initiative du Congrès. Importé en Europe, il a vu son champ s’élargir au-delà de son objectif initial, celui d’un outil d’aide à la décision politique : « Les pratiques et réalisations européennes ont multiplié les finalités et les fonctions du technology assessment, en conjuguant au besoin d’aide à la décision une démarche plus large d’évaluation ‘sociétale’. » (Gérard Valenduc et Patricia Vendramin, Evaluation des choix technologiques et régions, EMERIT, Namur, 1993, p.12).

57

propose la création d’un conservatoire du savoir technologique, destiné non seulement à en garder une trace sous la forme de machines et de modèles, mais aussi à former les futurs artisans et mécaniciens. Le CNAM – le Conservatoire national des Arts et Métiers – est ouvert à Paris en 1799. A sa suite, de nombreux autres musées conservent et exposent les témoins matériels de la science, de la technologie et de l’industrie : machines, instruments et outils, produits finis. Le patrimoine technique, c’est aussi les sites industriels muséalisés. Les charbonnages désaffectés, les installations techniques, les machines à vapeur, les laminoirs, les centrales électriques, autant de sites dont les qualités architecturales le disputent à la force immédiate de la machine pour donner des institutions muséales souvent remarquables. La nostalgie n’est jamais absente de ces lieux passés, abandonnés puis réhabilités, mais l’objet principal de leur nouvelle fonction, c’est certainement la glorification de la technique. Parfois meurtris par le déclin industriel et la fermeture de leur entreprise, les travailleurs trouvent paradoxalement, dans l’exaltation de la puissance et de la richesse passée de celle-ci, une justification de leurs regrets nostalgiques. Oubliées les heures noires, les conditions de travail difficiles. Oubliées ou refoulées. La fierté du savoir-faire et de la technologie prend le dessus et c’est celle-ci qui est communiquée au visiteur par l’exposition.

L’utilisation de dispositifs techniques, des NTIC en particulier, a connu un développement considérable, tant dans la gestion du musée et des collections que dans l’exposition et ce, quelque soit sa thématique. Même le musée d’art n’ignore pas l’usage des bornes multimédias. La technicité de l’exposition est devenue, en quelques années, un élément central de l’attractivité du musée. Du moins c’est perçu comme tel, notamment par les pouvoirs publics et les sponsors privés qui le financent. Il est quasi impossible, aujourd’hui, de concevoir un nouveau musée ou la rénovation de son exposition sans y prévoir une forte dose de dispositifs multimédias. Ici, c’est la technique qui assure, d’une certaine façon, la notoriété et la réputation de l’institution muséale, au point de supplanter parfois le contenu réel du musée. Cet entrelacement de la technique comme objet et du dispositif technologique comme média, avec toute l’ambiguïté que cela génère parfois, ne s’illustre nulle part mieux qu’au Futuroscope à Poitiers. Ce n’est certes pas un musée. Cette entreprise commerciale se range dans la catégorie des « parcs à thème ». Quel thème, au fait ? Son nom, Futuroscope, fait penser au futur, aux technologies du futur, voire à la futurologie. Il n’en est rien. Si les technologies sont omniprésentes, c’est bien comme moyen, comme dispositifs, et pas comme thème. Les attractions y sont diversifiées, du pur « exercice physique » (Danse avec les robots), aux jeux électroniques (La Cité du Numérique) et à des pavillons consacrés à des thématiques aussi disparates que l’univers galactique, le monde sous-marin, la descente du Nil, la découverte de la région et qui mettent en œuvre différentes technologies de l’image et du son (Imax, Réalité augmentée, projection 3D, quadriphonie…). Il n’y a là rien qui touche au futur, ni même à la science car seul le côté spectaculaire des images est retenu. Les NTIC constituent l’élément commun à toutes ces attractions mais elle ne sont jamais expliquées ni mises en exposition : ce sont seulement des moyens. L’ambiguïté est soigneusement entretenue, cependant, tant en laissant entendre qu’il s’agit d’une forme muséale d’un type nouveau que sur l’objet thématique de celle-ci. Universalité de la technologie ? Le musée technique postule l’universalité. Non pas dans l’un ou l’autre musée emblématique qui, à l’instar du Louvre ou du British Museum dans le domaine culturel, conserverait et exposerait un échantillon significatif des techniques du monde, mais bien dans tous les musées techniques. C’est une même technologie, fondée sur la science et la mécanique européennes3, qui est mise en œuvre à travers le monde dans les réalisations techniques les

3 Européenne signifie ici « d’origine européenne ». Nous préférons ne pas utiliser le terme « occidentale » qui n’a guère de sens dans ce contexte. Toute cette technologie est bien fondée sur les connaissances scientifiques et

58

plus grandioses et les plus impressionnantes et c’est elle qui est présentée au musée, même le plus modeste. Les techniques non européennes4, elles, sont renvoyées dans les musées d’ethnologie ou d’archéologie, même dans leur pays d’origine. Le regard y est tout différent : regard éloigné, dans le temps ou dans l’espace, regard de curieux, tout le contraire de l’affirmation de savoir et de puissance de la plupart des musées techniques. L’universalité de ces derniers est cependant davantage postulée que réelle. Cette affirmation de la supériorité de la technologie d’origine européenne s’inscrit dans l’illusion de la neutralité de la technique, évoquée ci-dessus. En fait, c’est notamment cette technologie qui a permis la colonisation, par les Européens, du reste du monde et son acculturation et elle permet encore aujourd’hui l’impérialisme de certains. La technique doit donc être neutre, sans connotation politique, sous peine de se voir rejetée au nom de l’anti-colonialisme. Neutralité, modernité et efficacité se conjuguent pour asseoir le caractère universel de « la » technique, c’est-à-dire de la technique européenne.

Comment le musée technique gère-t-il cette question ? Le plus souvent, il l’ignore. Son sens critique est là totalement pris en défaut et il s’inscrit pleinement dans l’affirmation d’universalisme. Les autres technologies sont perçues comme des degrés inachevés et moins efficaces du développement technologique et il vaut mieux ne pas en parler. Le gigantesque National Science Museum de Séoul a été créé, très récemment, pour montrer combien la Corée s’inscrit dans le mouvement mondial de développement technologique. On n’y retrouve pas les techniques traditionnelles de la société coréenne. La conviction moderniste, celle qui croit au Progrès par un développement continu des techniques, est encore très vivace dans de nombreux musées techniques, au contraire des musées de science, par exemple. Le cas de Stella Matutina, dans l’île de la Réunion, est exemplaire. Il s’agit d’une ancienne usine sucrière qui a produit, jusqu’en 1978, du sucre de canne et du rhum à partir des plantations locales. Laissée à l’abandon, elle est finalement rachetée par la Région et réhabilitée en musée. C’est le processus technique de transformation de la canne en sucre qui est muséalisé. Les différentes étapes de la fabrication du sucre sont expliquées dans le moindre détail mais on cherche en vain les espaces d’exposition qui parleraient de l’esclavage et des conditions sociales des travailleurs de l’usine et des plantations, alors même que l’essor puis le déclin de l’industrie sucrière coloniale française sont directement liés à l’esclavage et à son abolition. Sans même invoquer des raisons morales, la dimension économique de l’esclavage justifierait qu’on en parle dans l’exposition. La présence des machines comme pièces de collection et leur mise en exposition de façon « objective », neutre – on montre comment elles fonctionnaient – occultent le besoin d’un regard critique. « Le parcours muséographique vous emmène à la découverte des secrets de la fabrication du sucre et du rhum, dans un univers parfumé d’épices et d’essences » dit le site Web officiel du musée5. Et plus loin : « Le lieu est une mémoire. Mémoire d’une époque, d’une technique, mémoire des hommes et des femmes qui ont vécu pendant plus d’un siècle sur ce site et qui sont, depuis 2002, représentés au sein du musée à travers les photographies de Yann Arthus Bertrand. » L’esthétique des photos, comme la prégnance des arguments techniques, masque l’absence de discours sur la condition sociale des paysans et des ouvriers de l’usine, qui serait pourtant si lourdement significatif ici6. La technique masque les questions éthiques

techniques qui se sont développées en Europe au cours des deux derniers millénaires avant de se diffuser sur l’ensemble du globe. 4 Non européenne dans le même sens que ci-dessus. Pour prendre un exemple, le barrage d’Assouan en Egypte fera l’objet d’une exposition « technologique » tandis que les techniques traditionnelles mises en œuvre pour retenir aussi longtemps que possible la crue du Nil et s’en servir pour irriguer les champs seront traitées comme un thème ethnographique. 5 http://www.ac-reunion.fr/pedagogie1/circons/tampon2/SiteEPP/Sites/Stella/stella.htm 6 Sur l’écran esthétique dans les musées techniques – et les autres -, voir Serge Chaumier, « Le retour de l’esthétique », dans A. Gob (éd.), Musées : on rénove !, Art&Fact, 22, Liège, 2003, p. 69-73.

59

Alors que la technologie est un moyen pour le développement de la société, on chercherait en vain le moindre accent sociétal dans la plupart des musées techniques, en particulier lorsqu’il s’agit de sites industriels muséalisés, comme on vient de le voir pour Stella Matutina. Lorsque les conditions de travail sont abordées, c’est souvent sur un mode affectif : à Electropolis (Mulhouse), des témoignages « bon enfant » illustrent la place que la Grande Machine, point focal de ce musée, occupait dans la vie des travailleurs des filatures et de leurs familles. En Belgique, le Bois du Cazier à Marcinelle (Charleroi) évoque la catastrophe du 8 août 1956, jour où 262 mineurs – parmi lesquels 136 d’origine italienne et 95 belges - périrent au fond de la mine dévastée par un incendie accidentel. Dans ce musée cependant, au-delà de ce drame, dont la présentation reste assez sobre, les dimensions socio-économiques de l’industrie et de la technique sont également abordées. Une grande salle y est consacrée, qui fait pendant à huit espaces où sont exposés les différents aspects de l’industrie de la région. Malgré son caractère limité, un tel exemple fait figure d’exception parmi les sites industriels muséalisés où l’accent quasi exclusif sur le fonctionnement technique des installations et la vision purement locale dispensent ou empêchent d’aborder, dans l’exposition, le rôle de la technique dans le système de production et ses effets sociétaux.

Installé dans une ancienne verrerie, le Musée de l’Homme et de l’Industrie – Ecomusée de la Communauté urbaine Le Creusot Montceau-les-Mines aurait pu illustrer, lors de sa création en 1971, une voie alternative. Né au moment où la crise économique frappait lourdement les régions de vieille industrialisation comme le bassin minier bourguignon – et né sans doute de cette crise –, l’Ecomusée du Creusot a expérimenté alors les lignes muséologiques nouvelles tracées par Rivière et de Varine pour mettre en rapport l’espace et le temps, le territoire et l’histoire. Il s’agissait de montrer, par l’exposition mais aussi par les autres activités du musée, comment se sont tissés les liens entre développement économique et industriel et développement social dans la région du Creusot et de pousser le raisonnement jusqu’au déclin des années soixante. Pourtant, là aussi, la dimension sociale est passée sous silence comme le dénonce Patrick Le Nouenne en 19787 : « Quand on visite l’exposition permanente et évolutive présentée au Creusot, L’Espace de la Communauté urbaine à travers les âges, on est surpris […] de n’y trouver aucune mention des conditions de travail des ouvriers, des luttes qui ponctuèrent le XIXe et le XXe siècles. Tout cela est gommé au profit d’évocations techniques, ‘scientifiques’. Et seul l’accent mis sur le paternalisme des Schneider restitue les conditions de la vie sociale, mais non les conditions de travail des ouvriers du Creusot. » Pionnier, novateur, ce musée laisse d’autant plus de regrets : « L’occasion de montrer la population du Creusot ‘acteur’ et ‘sujet’ n’a pas été saisie. » S’agit-il d’un musée technique ? Implanté sur un site industriel réhabilité, tourné prioritairement vers l’analyse et la présentation des industries locales – mines, sidérurgie, verrerie -, il faut le considérer comme tel, même si l’approche muséologique choisie l’apparente à ce qu’on appelle aujourd’hui les musées de société. L’évolution récente de l’Ecomusée du Creusot, qui a gardé son nom alors qu’il n’a plus rien d’un écomusée, accentue la tendance vers un musée industriel classique, où n’est même pas absente la glorification de l’entreprise Schneider, principal sponsor du musée aujourd’hui et principal responsable des fermetures d’entreprise au Creusot hier.

La Fonderie, à Bruxelles - ou plus exactement le Musée de l’Industrie et du Travail créé par cette association en 2002 dans une ancienne fonderie de bronze -, se positionne clairement dans une perspective différente. « Dix objets autour des sept piliers de la halle racontent, dans une première exposition, le programme que La Fonderie souhaite poursuivre dans ses murs : histoire des techniques et du mode de production, des produits et de leurs usages, du procès de travail, des travailleurs, femmes et hommes, migrants et autochtones, de leur vie quotidienne et sociale, hier et aujourd’hui, ici et ailleurs. »8 Pour appliquer ce programme,

7 Patrick Le Nouenne, « Un écomusée n’est pas un musée comme les autres » dans Histoire et Critique des Arts, déc. 1978 (cité d’après Vagues. Une anthologie de la nouvelle muséologie. Macon, 1992, p. 494-515). 8 Jean Puissant, « Editorial » dans La Fonderie s’expose, (Les cahiers de La Fonderie, n° 26), Bruxelles, 2002.

60

deux options ont été privilégiées : pas d’exposition permanente, pas de priorité aux machines et à la technique, bien que le musée soit détenteur d’une riche collection.

Les musées fondés sur des collections d’objets techniques comme les voitures, les trains ou les avions adoptent généralement un regard de collectionneur9. C’est d’ailleurs à des visiteurs passionnés et souvent eux-même collectionneurs que ces musées s’adressent en priorité. L’évolution technique et esthétique de ces engins constitue le fil rouge de ces musées, tandis que les cartels commentent avec force détails les caractéristiques techniques des pièces exposées. Le Musée des Transport à Lucerne en constitue un excellent exemple. Très rares sont les conservateurs qui ouvrent le discours du musée sur les aspects sociétaux de la voiture ou du train. C’est le cas du Musée national de l’Automobile – collection Schlumpf – à Mulhouse, dont le développement prévu pour les prochaines années va dans cette direction.

L’éthique en matière de technique, c’est aussi le Technology Assessment. L’évaluation des choix technologiques peut-elle trouver sa place au musée ? Peut-elle en particulier être évoquée dans un site industriel désaffecté et muséalisé ? Là réside sans doute une des difficultés. Comment aborder cette question, qui, par certains égards, vise à remettre en question la technique et l’industrie qui l’utilise, dans une usine qui a dû fermer ses portes ? « Comme on serait heureux qu’elle tourne encore », pensent sans doute les travailleurs qui y ont perdu leur emploi. Un endroit plus neutre, moins chargé de rancœur et de traumatismes sociaux est sans doute plus adéquat. C’est l’optique que s’est vu assigné, parmi d’autres objectifs, la Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie de la Villette à Paris. C’est ce qu’elle fait, en particulier, à travers de nombreuses expositions temporaires dont le propos vise précisément à solliciter l’attention du visiteur autour de la place et des effets de la science et de la technologie dans la société. Un exemple : la récente exposition (novembre 2006) intitulée Biométrie, le corps identité, explorait les techniques biométriques de reconnaissance, utilisées notamment à des fins sécuritaires et permettait au visiteur, à travers des manips, de concrétiser ces pratiques pour se forger une opinion. « Dès l’entrée de Biométrie, le corps identité, le visiteur peut enregistrer son empreinte digitale et son visage pour être ensuite reconnu dans l’exposition. Ce qui lui permettra d’évaluer lui-même les avantages et les inconvénients de ces techniques de reconnaissance. »10 Rien de spectaculaire dans cette exposition, mais une utilisation adéquate de la technologie pour porter un discours critique. Pour être crédible, l’évaluation des choix technologiques à travers l’exposition doit sans doute être conduite par une autorité indépendante, comme l’est La Cité. Qui peut croire le CNES, le Centre National d’Etudes spatiales français, lorsqu’il affirme que ses expositions ont notamment pour but de s’interroger : « sommes-nous bien en relation avec ce que veut la société ? » ?11

Les expositions-spectacles utilisent abondamment les décors reconstitués et les dispositifs techniques, spécialement les NTIC. Ces dispositifs expositionnels spectaculaires sont mis au service d’un discours d’une banalité, d’un convenu qui serait affligeant, même aux yeux du grand public, s’il n’était masqué en quelque sorte derrière l’écran du spectaculaire. Cet écran dissimule un discours très « politiquement correct », sans aspérité, de façon à n’effaroucher aucun visiteur-client. Noémie Drouguet12 a montré comment toute autre considération muséographique s’efface devant cette alliance du dispositif spectaculaire et du discours lénifiant. Surtout pas d’esprit critique, ici. Le Futuroscope peut à nouveau nous servir d’exemple, où l’on chercherait en vain la moindre réflexion sur la place grandissante des images et du spectaculaire dans la société. Au contraire, le parc en fait son produit d’appel.

9 Les musées qui appartiennent à un constructeur, comme les musées Mercedes ou Peugeot, ont une vision encore plus restreinte. A un regard exclusivement technique et esthétique, s’allie le souci de glorifier l’entreprise. 10 Extrait de la présentation de l’exposition sur le site Internet de la Cité (http://www.cite-sciences.fr/francais/ala_cite/expositions/biometrie/presentation_expo.php) consulté via La Lettre de la Cité n° 21. 11 Communication de Aline Chabreuil, chargée de communication au CNES, lors d’une journée d’étude à La Cité, le 24 novembre 2006. Les actes seront publiés dans un n° spécial de La Lettre de l’OCIM. 12 Noémie Drouguet, « Succès et revers des expositions-spectacles », dans Culture & Musées, 5, 2005, p. 65-90.

61

Le parallélisme que nous proposons entre deux modalités de la présence de la technique au musée peut surprendre. Il se justifie selon nous par les effets identiques que ces modalités génèrent le plus souvent. L’exposition des techniques, comme le recours aux moyens technologiques dans l’exposition imposent comme une évidence un discours dénué de sens critique. Ce n’est certes pas la technique qui est responsable de cet état de fait mais bien l’usage qu’on en fait. Cependant, par son caractère « indiscutable », par son apparente objectivité, la technique constitue un écran idéal pour masquer, même à l’insu du concepteur de l’exposition, les questions éthiques sous-jacentes au propos de celle-ci.

Techniques in the Museum: an ethical issue André Gob, professeur, et Sophie Decharneux, (Belgium) Techniques in the Museum refers to the exhibition of science and techniques as well as to the utilisation of technology in display (e.g. so called NTIC) in any kind of museums. This paper aims to show that, too often, technology, being exhibited or being used to exhibit, represents a screen witch tends to hide the ethical perspectives and the societal role of the museum. Some examples in technical and in other museums will support this proposition.

Séminaire de Muséologie Université de Liège Quai Roosevelt 1b B – 4000 Liège Belgique/Belgium

61

Obsolescence Overcome?: Natural History Museums Respond to Cultural History Museums Jennifer Harris (Australia) ___________________________________________________________________ In Australia a sense of political and social history scarcely existed in the nineteenth century. Bennett (2004) argues that Australia was regarded as being outside of cultural history with its greatest interest for both European and Australian scholars residing in its natural history. In the nineteenth century, growing contact with Aborigines and the discovery of the oddities of the continent’s classification-defying flora and fauna meant that the continent was regarded as “Evolutionary ground zero” (Bennett, 2004: 136-159) - a place in which the background to evolution could be explored and in which the past still seemed to exist as if untouched by the passage of time. Although Australian museums played an active international role in gathering examples of natural history - both in sending specimens back to London and in trading specimens in order to build up local collections (Sheets-Pyenson, 1988: 72-80) - there was little attention paid to collecting material culture for a social history archive. The conception of Australia as being outside of history and time meant that museum development in Australia was dominated by natural history and that cultural history was a much later interest for museums. A core museological issue concerns the exhibition relationship between the earlier displays of natural history and the later representations of cultural history. It would be logical to expect that the flow of influence in Australian museums would be from natural history representation to cultural history representation, and indeed, in earlier cultural history exhibitions the aloof, classifying curatorial voice often dominated. However, a contemporary study of the Western Australian Museum reveals that the opposite flow of influence is now occurring, that is, that the greater impact seems to be emerging from museological developments in cultural history. This is a museological surprise given the long history of the dominance of natural history in Australian museums and indicates profound change. In cultural history museums the impact of post-modern and post-colonial theories can be seen in conceptions of an active rather than a passive audience; a change in the status of the museum from a place of authority to one which listens to its audiences; institutional self-reflexivity; the development of narrative- and ideas-based exhibitions rather than object-based exhibitions; expansion of topics for exhibition; the repatriation of numerous objects and complex, interdisciplinary problematisation of topics. Natural history museums have responded to changing philosophies with massive installation of interactive exhibits which imply an active audience, but they have been a slow to response to other aspects of post-modern and post-colonial theories despite the work of commentators such as Haraway (2004) who argue “There is no boundary between the ‘inside’ and the ‘outside’ of science, such that in one universe social relations appear, but in the other the history of ideas proceeds. Sciences are woven of social relations throughout their tissues.” (Haraway, 2004, first published 1984/85) This paper examines some of the natural history exhibitions in the Western Australian Museum taking it as a representative example of the state of natural history in Australian museums. It argues that the earlier installations bear the hallmarks of nineteenth and early twentieth preoccupations with classification, maintenance of museum authority and an emphasis on providing a good environment for looking at objects, and thereby learning from them. There is a wide variety of types of representation of natural history in this museum revealing a fascinating spread of exhibition logics.

62

The relevance of natural history museums was undermined in the second half of the twentieth century as documentaries and photography showed nature in context and research shifted to universities (Allmon, 2004: 254). This paper argues that in efforts to overcome looming obsolescence natural history exhibitions in Australia have begun to draw on innovations from cultural history exhibitions especially the erasure of discipline barriers and, most significantly, the barrier between cultural and natural history. They are moving successfully towards political engagement with visitors, and at the same time, have begun to relinquish their previous authority, now aiming at partnerships with their audiences. The Mammal Gallery - looking and thereby learning, but with little context The huge, stuffed American bison, today still standing in its nineteenth century display cabinet, was a dominant exhibit in the museum for many years and greeted visitors as they entered the museum. It highlighted the importance of the international museum trade in natural history specimens, a trade which must have seemed especially significant in such a remote place as Perth as specimen trading was one of the ways in which it linked itself to the world of scholarship. It has been many years since the bison has greeted visitors and today it is upstairs in the remaining parts of The Mammal Gallery where its meaning is no longer clear. Many of the specimens in this gallery were collected in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and today the taxidermy specimens of animals including Australian sea lion, llama, walrus, tiger, Eurasian badger, zebra, North American moose and bear are still housed in their original wooden display cases with small text panels. Non-indigenous animals dominate the gallery space. Apart from one case which describes the threat of extinction to Australian animals and another devoted to the birth of kangaroos, there is little information, either scientific or cultural, although Australian animals are great curiosities in the natural history world and important bearers of national identity (Franklin, 2006). Some Australian animals are, however, presented in a show case with suggestions of the bush context in dried grasses and a log. By contrast, the big mammals are presented mostly without any accompanying background scene apart from some rocks to suggest a beach for a Weddell seal. At one end of the gallery are some cases of Australian animals - kangaroo, wallaby, platypus and possum. One of these cases includes a ferocious looking feral cat, a scourge unwittingly introduced by settlers and which is capable of wiping out the native animals of a local water hole. The feral cat offered an opportunity for the museum to demonstrate the complex connections between nature and culture in Australia today. While European Australians are taught to revile the feral cat as a terrible predator of indigenous fauna, there has not been the same response from Aborigines with some groups incorporating the feral cat into their myths and appearing to give it the same status as native animals (Franklin, 2006). The lack of foregrounding of Australian animals and the failure to engage with the huge difference in cultural responses to the feral cat are puzzling aspects of this gallery and show that it has little to do with national identity and current environmental debates. The failure of the museum to discuss the complex cultural responses to the feral cat must be interpreted as a sign that this gallery is still resolutely to be understood as operating within the denotative, classifying mode and avoids contextualisation and wider cultural debates. Given that the exhibition has little information for overseas visitors about famous Australian marsupials one must ask - who is the target audience? The gallery seems to continue to address an imagined local audience as if it were still in the “nineteenth century”, isolated from the rest of the world and wanting to inform itself by looking at mammal specimens from home and far away. One looks in vain for an overall statement which would make this collection into an exhibition with a purpose and a narrative. At the east end of the gallery there is a small panel which aims to yoke together the disparate animals which have been presented with little

63

description. It says: “This exhibition shows something of the great diversity of mammals that can be found around the world today”. As a celebration of diversity, the exhibition could be a discursive link to the nineteenth century ideal of the revelation of divinity through looking at and understanding nature (Yanni, 1999). The lack of contextualising material, despite many changes to the gallery over the past century, supports this interpretation of the museum’s logic. It is also consistent with the concept of the pre-eminence of looking as a nineteenth century mode of museum learning (Allmon, 2004: 259). The object-based approach is declining now that curators foreground interactivity. Recently, science museums have shunned observation as the primary activity and have tried to embed scientific knowledge in hands-on learning (Lewis and Martin, 2006), hence the development of audience-centred discovery spaces – which the Western Australian Museum has also. The centrality of the objects - taxidermy specimens of mammals - is museologically, therefore, what can be seen in The Mammal Gallery. Contemporary focusses on contexts and audiences are absent. The preservation of this historic exhibition offers an opportunity for the museum to reveal the historical methods of museum work itself. By discussing The Mammal Gallery as an example of a nineteenth century exhibit about looking, and about prioritising collecting over exhibiting, the museum has an opportunity for a sophisticated reflection on its own activities. This would be an example of meta-museology - museology about museology - but the Western Australian Museum, like most others around the world, avoids enhancing its exhibits in this self-reflexive way. To a museologist this seems a very rich opportunity to inform visitors about both the world of the objects and museum philosophy, but it does neither. The Woodward Diorama - the realistic and the theatrical The museum moves towards a self-reflexive, contemporary museological mode in its presentation of The Woodward Diorama, a natural history exhibit from 1902 which was moved to a new location in the 1970s. A text panel explains that because of its historical importance it was not dismantled permanently. Placing the construction of the diorama in an historical timeframe differs sharply from most exhibitions which maintain curatorial anonymity and rarely name the historical period of construction. However, despite beginning to discuss the idea of exhibitions having histories, the opportunity to talk about the museological ideas of the diorama is avoided. The diorama contains specimens of birds and reptiles and was designed to give an impression of a realistic environment, however, there is limited space in a diorama and so the animals needed to be placed in unrealistically close proximity with different species feeding their young apparently unconcerned that nearby a carpet python with gaping mouth is attacking a terrified water rat. The attack reveals vestiges of the theatricality of nineteenth century museum exhibition. This is one of the most striking details in the diorama and reveals discursive links to sideshows with their freaks and fierce animals. This discursive element appears in several places in the museum seemingly without curatorial intention because it is so randomly placed. For example, in the web outline of the newest natural history exhibit, Western Australia: Land and People (discussed below), one reads the following: “Be mesmerized by the ten metre video montage of changing images of Western Australian land and people. Be amazed by the ferocious roar from the full-size model of the Carnatuarus dinosaur. “ ( www.museum.wa.gov.au, 11 April 2007) “Be mesmerized” and “be amazed” belong to the ironic circus and side show discourse. There is a long history of museums trying to extricate themselves from this discourse.

64

“For most of Victoria’s reign, men of science tried to keep natural knowledge safe from encroaching theatricality: a stage set would undermine the authenticity of the natural objects, and authenticity was the only reason for museums to exist.” (Yanni, 1999: 30) The tense relationship between high culture and popular culture is explored by Stallybrass and White (1986) who demonstrate the intimate and necessary link between high and popular culture. Even as the curators attempted to create high culture with a serious and realistic scene of animals, in this diorama the dramatic centrality of the carpet python attack reveals the way in which the theatrical emerges despite curatorial intentions to the opposite (see end note 1). The Bankwest Butterfly Gallery - mirroring the divine and an invitation to the visitor to participate The logic of the butterfly exhibit is unmistakeably aesthetic with each exhibition panel being covered in arcs of pinned butterflies which seem to be positioned according to colour. Supporting text panels discuss in very little detail their geographic spread, but with some attention paid to local varieties. Although this exhibit seems dominated by aesthetic concerns, it also does a number of other things - it harks back implicitly to nineteenth century theology, raises anxiety about conservation and invites the visitor to be active. The overwhelming impression is that we ought to be amazed by the beauty of the butterflies. This gallery, although constructed in the early 1990s, therefore, is consistent with the nineteenth century theological vision of creation as practised at Oxford and Cambridge Universities. Yanni (1999) quotes part of an address of the President of the British Association who described “the world’s history written on her ancient rocks... in animal and plant”; he looked forward to a more complete and “glorious hymn to the Creator’s praise” (Yanni, 1999: 62). In the Western Australian Museum it would not be socially and politically acceptable today to connect, explicitly and textually, the religious vision with science but, in calling our attention to the beauty of the insects, the museum draws implicitly on the old religious-museum discourse, and then links it to contemporary anxiety about the loss of habitat and diversity. It says, “Among the most gorgeous of nature’s inventions, butterflies are probably the world’s most popular insects. Instantly familiar, their shape, colours and designs have been used to embellish every type of art and graphic image... as development of land increases to meet human needs, the plight of many butterfly species worsens. Some are on the edge of extinction and many more will join them unless measures are taken urgently. Some Western Australian species are found nowhere else in the world so we have an important role to play in helping to preserve the world’s butterfly heritage.” Discussion of the global conservation crisis is very familiar in museums around the world, but the exhibition goes further than raising anxiety by suggesting that the visitor can help through gardening. “You can help to bring the butterflies back. By planting the right larval foods in your garden you may entice several butterfly species to breed there. For example, the Australian Admiral breeds on introduced stinging nettles or the native Pellitory; the Painted Lady breeds on a variety of native and introduced daises. Wanderer butterflies on cotton bushes and swan plants (Asslepias species).” By inviting the visitor to be active in conserving butterflies, this small panel makes a museological leap from the assumption of passive learning implied by The Mammal Gallery and shows the potential for a museum-visitor partnership in caring for nature. This

65

partnership eliminates the top-down authority which the museum has assumed for so long and offers a way for natural history museums to reconstruct themselves out of obsolescence. An example of how powerful this reconstructed museum could be is demonstrated by a partnership promoted by the Natural History Museum of London in a bluebell study – “Become a bluebell detective”. Invoking the familiar, jokey, popular culture discourse by asking the visitor to become a “detective”, it then goes on to request that the visitor or web browser participate in a study of bluebell characteristics and identification. People throughout Britain are asked to study their local bluebells and report to the museum which will collate and interpret this enormous field study (www.nhm.ac.uk). This study requires the work of many people in the field and the participant fulfils an important task for and with the museum. It shows possibilities for the future of natural history museums in creating partnerships with audiences both within and beyond the museum walls. Western Australia: Land and People - natural and cultural themes come together The Western Australian Museum’s most recent exhibition concerning natural history is Western Australia: Land and People. Constructed in the late 1990s, it differs radically from the object focus of earlier exhibitions. An interdisciplinary approach allows natural and cultural themes to come together. The introductory panel states: “Today Western Australia enjoys a quality of life that is the legacy of industrial and rural development. Yet, serious environmental and social issues demand attention. Looking at our actions in the past may help us to deal with these challenges in the future... our quest for a sustainable future depends on understanding the relationship between the diverse people and places of this state.” The conservation theme demands obviously an interdisciplinary framework, but even more significant are aspects of the exhibition which are derived from post-colonial museology and developments in cultural history exhibitions. Respect for multiple versions of events and determination to allow disparate voices to be heard is a dominant museological theme and a departure from the monologue of the museum as a “voice of truth”. Hence, a map of the continent is covered with Aboriginal place names, and Aboriginal knowledge of the land is exhibited in conjunction with current European scientific theories. We are reminded that the land that the colonists settled was already heavily worked by other people. “The land the English settled was not as God made it. It was as the Aborigines made it.” (Sylvia Hallam, Fire and Hearth, 1975) [see end note 2] Opening the land to European pastoralism with hard hoofed sheep and cattle grazing on fragile top soil is usually a field of scientific interest. But in this exhibit, the natural and cultural themes are merged and pastoralism is considered also in terms of the part that Aborigines played – some resisted while others worked on the cattle stations (farms) where they were subject to strict law enforcement. A photograph from 1900 shows European pastoralists with cattle carcasses, behind them seventeen Aboriginal men stand chained together neck to neck. Some women sit behind the carcasses. One of the white men appears to be smiling at the camera in huge ironic contrast to the misery of the chained men. Here the museum achieves comment on both the impact of European farming methods and the related dispossession and massive suffering of Aborigines. An earlier natural history approach to the impact of European farming would have confined discussion to the observable impacts of sheep and cattle grazing, that is, huge land clearances leading to deforestation, salinity and erosion and relegated the impact on Indigenous people to another exhibition entirely. By connecting the two impacts, the exhibition shows engagement with wider museological and historical issues of representation. This is one of the signs of the museological flow from cultural history to natural history representations.

66

Museum treatment of the rabbit plague also shows the erasure of natural and cultural barriers. The introduction of rabbits for hunting in the nineteenth century was one of the most disastrous mistakes made by colonists, by 1900 rabbits had become a plague. This sorry tale is familiar to Australians who are accustomed to seeing rabbits on most country car drives. However, this exhibition does not restrict itself to biological impacts - crops devoured and water holes left dry - but links ironically the rabbit scourge to contemporary debates about immigration by placing the topic under the heading of “Unwanted Immigrants”. Irony is a method of communicating which achieves two voices at the same time. Perception of the gap between the two voices is achieved by the reader/visitor who is offered a complex, unresolved statement. Although, in this exhibit, the museum does not appear to participate in the heated debate on immigration, it alludes to it through calling the rabbits “immigrants”. Ironic museum comment was scarcely possible in the time before the New Museology (Vergo, 1989) because museums insisted on being denotative and authoritative. Play with irony inverts the old museum stance and opens up the exhibition text to dialogue between audiences and museum. The rabbit theme continues in a photograph of two Aboriginal women trappers. The inclusion of this image widens the issue to include economic impact on Aborigines who began to hunt for rabbits for money, rather than meat or fur. Thus in one small section, the museum has taken a natural history question and pushed it further to include economic and Indigenous themes and has done so also through irony - all features which are rarely if ever found in old natural history exhibitions. The fact that irony is a dominant element of the exhibition reveals the extent to which the museum is open to multiple interpretations. For example, this quote: “Such country was much too good to be idle as a mere hunting ground for wild blacks.” Frank Hann exploring the King Leopold Ranges in Ngarinyin country, 1898. In just over a hundred years social sentiment has changed to the extent that such a statement seems so outrageously racist that it would be likely to distract many visitors from scientific issues of land use. Further, the political impact of naming the “Ngarinyin”, the Aboriginal group from the area of the King Leopold Ranges, suggests a new cultural and political “mapping” which will demand that visitors take account of the many and often contradictory ways of understanding Australia. Conclusion Farnum (2004: 247) argues that one of the ways that natural history museums could rescue themselves from obsolescence is by developing human narratives around natural history themes. Analysis in this paper of Western Australia: Land and People shows the complex meaning effects that can be achieved when natural and cultural themes are explored concurrently. By bringing natural and cultural themes together, museums can draw on rich resources to illuminate issues in complex ways. The survey of one museum undertaken in this paper reveals the variety of ways that natural history has been represented in the past century. It seems that there is a hopeful future for natural history representation. It is likely to be rescued from obsolescence by looking to the examples of cultural history representation, offering multiple points of view and entering into partnerships with its audiences. End note 1: The acceptance of the central, but often suppressed role of theatre in museums, is now visible in many places, most notably in Te Papa, the national museum of New Zealand. End note2 : Ironically, as the museum begins to represent multiple versions of events it chooses moments not to do so. Discussion of the meaning of English arrival is reduced to a

67

single version. For two hundred years this event in 1788 was called “settlement” or “founding of the nation”. Here it is called “invasion” and linked to the dispossession of Aborigines and the imposition of European farming techniques on a land which was not able to withstand them. Although there is now some political correctness in speaking of the arrival of the colonists as an “invasion”, there is still strong resistance to this view of history (Macintyre and Clark, 2003) and both views are current outside the museum. Bibliography Allmon, Warren, 2004, “Opening a new natural history museum in twenty–first century America: a case study in historic perspective”, in Leviton, Alan and Michele Aldrich (eds), 2004, Museums and Other Institutions of Natural History: Past, Present and Future, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco. Bennett, Tony, 2004, Pasts Beyond Memory: Evolution, Museums, Colonialism, Routledge, London. Farnum, John, 2004, “In search of relevance: the museum of the twenty-first century”, in Leviton, Alan and Michele Aldrich (eds), 2004, Museums and Other Institutions of Natural History: Past, Present and Future, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco. Franklin, Adrian, 2006, Animal Nation: The True Story of Animals and Australia, University of NSW Press. Haraway, Donna, 2004, “Teddy bear patriarchy: taxidermy in the garden of Eden, New York City 1908-1936”, in Preziosi and Claire Farago, (eds) Grasping the World The Idea of the Museum, Ashgate Publishing Limited, Aldershot. Leviton, Alan and Michele Aldrich (eds), 2004, Museums and Other Institutions of Natural History: Past, Present and Future, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco. Lewis, Lesley and Jennifer L. Martin, 2006, “Science centres: creating a platform for twenty-first century innovation”, in Genoways, Hugh (ed.), Museum Philosophy for the Twenty-first Century, Altamira Press, Lanham. Macintrye, Stuart and Anna Clark, The History Wars, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne. Natural History Museum London homepage: http://www.nhm.ac.uk, 11 April 2007. Sheets-Pyenson, Susan, 1988, Cathedrals of Science: The Development of Colonial Natural History Museums During the Late Nineteenth Century, McGill-Queen’s University Press, Kingston and Montreal. Stallybrass Peter and Allon White, 1986, The Poetics and Politics of Transgression, Methuen, London. Vergo, Peter (ed.), 1989, The New Museology, Reaktion Books, London. Western Australian Museum home page: http://www.museum,gov.au, 11 April 2007 Yanni, Carla, 1999, Nature’s Museums: Victorian Science and the Architecture of Display, The Athlone Press, London. Abstract: Obsolescence Overcome?: Natural History Museums Respond to Cultural History Museums Jennifer Harris (Australia) Natural history was once the focus of Australian museum work with cultural history neglected. However, as in other nations, natural history museums were threatened with obsolescence as their research was taken over by universities. This paper surveys some exhibitions in the Western Australian Museum examining different museological approaches to natural history. The earliest exhibition remnants are restricted to their objects – taxidermy specimens of diverse mammals. However, later exhibitions reveal a more complex textuality as the museum draws on developments in cultural history - especially innovations associated with the New Museology - to engage with its audiences and present complex, multiple

68

versions of natural history issues and their relationships to cultural history issues. The most recent exhibition, from the late 1990s, shows that, in bridging the gap between natural and cultural history representations, the museum is achieving dynamic representations for natural history and rescuing it from obsolescence. Resumé : Obsolescence vaincu?: les musées de l’histoire naturel répondent aux musées de l’histoire culturel Jennifer Harris (Australie) L’histoire naturel étaient aux fois au centre de travail des musées australiens. Cependant, comme aux les autre pays, les musées de l’histoire naturel étaient menacé avec l’obsolescence comme leurs recherche était cèdé au universitaires. Cet article fait une étude du Western Australian Museum examinant les approches muséologiques à histoire naturel. Le plus anciens des expositions sont limités à leurs objets – les spécimens taxidermies de divers mammifères. Cependant, le plus récents expositions révèle un textualité plus complexe à le musée prends les développements en l’histoire culturel – en particulier les innovations associé avec le Muséologie Nouveau – pour engager leurs spectateurs et montrer les versions de l’histoire naturel et leurs relations à l’historie culturel. Le plus récentes expositions, des années 1990s, montre que faisant les connections entre les représentations naturel et culturel le musée achève des représentations dynamique pour l’historie naturel et commence sauver les musée de l’histoire naturel de l’obsolescence. Prof. Dr. Jennifer Harris 21 Melville Street Claremont Australia 6010, harris.ja@hotmail.com

69

High Tech Natural Science Museum of the City of Jagdaqi (North East China) Alfonz Lengyel (Florida/USA and China) __________________________________________________________________________ Abstract: This proposed paper is in line with the main theme of ICOFOM’s conference in Vienna, (Austria), as to Museology and Techniques, and especially wit its sub-theme: Museology, the Changing Society and Techniques. Indeed the Chinese society from the “hard Communism” to the “Market Socialism” shows remarkable changes, even in its fare North Eastern communities. This is one of the area which was ecologically most devastated by the Mao’s regime, with a total deforestation of the region. The presentation of the paper will be with the aid of a CD projection about the Museum of an ecological city, Jagdaqi, in North East China. During the development several thousand years of Chinese culture the Mountain Range of Great Xing’an, in which area Jagdaqi is located was the home of several nationalities such as Sushen, Donghu, Xianbei and Shiwei in the ancient times. The City of Jagdaqi itself, surrounded by mountains and river, was established only in 1964, as one of the medium size cities in the far North Eastern China. The Administrative Office of the Mountain Range of Great Xing’an District Office located there. It became a political, economical and cultural center for the East Forest Area of the Mountain Range, with a population of 150,000. The Museum is located in the center of the city. Its operating budget secured by the Mountain Range of Great Xing’an Administration and the Forest Management Bureau. The Eco-Museum is specialized for displaying specimens of natural resources of the area, and explanation them with new high techniques the methods for their protection. Utilizing the modern techniques, and artistic methods, an interaction was created between the object and the viewer. The display of objects is presented in a most educative way by the aid of advanced multimedia technologies of light, sound and electronics robotics devices. For example, the displays in large DIORAMA rooms explain and demonstrate the result of changing atmospheric conditions of the forest, wetland, wildlife, to the visitors. The ultimate aim is to raise the visitor’s consciousness for protecting natural resources. Furthermore, to advocate the conceptions of the harmonic development between mankind and nature so that to further build up and ecological balance between the civilized city and the surrounding forests and other natural resources. There are also interactive objects for the visitors to participate, such as touchable multimedia screens, hands-on operating, experimenting, games and other activities. Among them, some of the activities can stimulate visitors’ active thinking. To respect visitor’s own choices, non-guided or guided tour routes are designed. The Museum this way disseminates the result of constant ecological research, and serves the enhancement of the visitors' educational and scientific knowledge. Visitors can have an overall observation of the forest, wetland, wildlife and foliage, mines and waters in the area. It also provides teaching areas for elementary/middle school students and research or lecture places for scholars/experts. Closed circuit television system and digital technology are also used for each exhibition area to show or explain concerning content. In the Zoology Viewing Hall, real objects, garden arts, painting and sculpture with modern High - Tech methods to create in the front of the visitors, a grandiose Mountain, spectacular wetland, rich zoology, and the beautiful large landscape. Visitors can experience the lightening, thundering, raining or snowing in the four-season changes, in addition to it, they able to feel see wild animals in their natural soundings. These robotic animals are moving and sounding like originals.This City was designated as an ecological area for renewing and protecting natural resources. The museum, for the benefit of mankind, well supporting the noble aim: to create an ecological balance in earth. Prof. Dr. Alfonz Lengyel (USA and China) Fudan Museum Foundation, Sarasota, Florida, USA 4206 – 73rd Terrace East, Sarasota, FL 32243, USA

70

Muséologie, Patrimoine Universel et Techniques: espace multidisciplinaire. Diana F. C. Lima __________________________________________________________________________ Abstract: This text focuses the symbolic and multifaceted concept of cultural heritage --- tangible, intangible, culture, nature --- as a social representation of universal heritage. Theoretical aspects join the idea of universal heritage, the role of museums, and diverse human techniques (objects / collections) to multidisciplinary perspective taking place inside Museology field of knowledge.

‘’Ces produits de l’histoire (...) qui portent en eux une signification et une valeur, considerés dans le cadre du flux vivant de l’histoire ne sont que des documents, c’est à dire, des témoignages indirects du passé, donc, succeptibles de plusieurs interprétations. Ce sont des structures historiques qui surgissent et disparaissent, gagnant et perdant de la reconnaissance, et malgré tout, ce sont aussi des objets importants dont la valeur pour ceux qui les reconnaisent semble être quelque chose d’absolu et d’éternel.’’ Arnold Hauser.

Muséologie et Patrimoine: connexions thématiques et pratiques Le territoire de la Muséologie, comme d’autres domaines de connaissance, s’insère dans le modèle des formes culturelles appelées ‘’systèmes symboliques’’ 1 representés par le Mythe/la Religion, la Science, l’Art et la Langue. Les domaines qualifiés de champs regionalisés de la prodution symbolique se réferent aux ‘’manifestations des pratiques et representations culturelles’’ 2 illustrant des aspects de la realité sociale. Étant considérés champs de significations culturelles --- ou um ensemble de messages et biens symboliques socialement ambiantés et transmis --- ils expriment, 3 par l’intermédiaire des formes sociales, les ‘’structures mentales’’ qui régissent les dispositions des groupes en société, c’est à dire, les formes symboliques et les outils interprétatifs qui sont insérés dans les communautés.4 Ils se reportent, donc,‘’aux instruments du savoir et de la construction du monde des objets; et également, à ceux de la communication...” En ciblant l’espace Muséologie, on se trouve face à un profil de ‘’champ hybride’’, 5 au croisement de frontieres disciplinaires, phénomene qui engendre des formations inter-disciplinaires dans l’univers de la connaissance. .6 A sa configuration d’origine inter-disciplinaire, s’ajoûte un comportement tourné vers des mouvements connectifs, postulant l’existence de “zones communes” entre les domaines “de la connaissance (...) dotés de frontières” et ses respectives “communautés productrices de savoir”, qui s’identifient, dans ce cas, à des “communautés hybrides” 7 révèlant “une dynamique de supplément, complément et critique”, 8 formalisant ainsi un espace favorable aux occurences d’ordre

1 MICELI, Sergio. (Org.) Pierre Bourdieu: a economia das trocas simbólicas. São Paulo: Perspectiva, 1986. p. 27-28. (Coleção Estudos). 2 CHARTIER, Roger. A história cultural entre práticas e representações. Lisboa: DIFEL, 1990. passim. (Coleção Memória e Sociedade). 3 Ibidem, p. 5. 4 LIMA, Diana Farjalla Correia. Ciência da Informação, Museologia e fertilização interdisciplinar: Informação em Arte um novo campo do saber. 2003. 358 f. Tese (Doutorado) - Instituto Brasileiro em Ciência da Informação/IBICT, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, 2003. p. 6. Orientadora: Lena Vania Ribeiro Pinheiro. 5 KLEIN, Julie Thompson. Crossing boundaries: knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1996. 281 p. passim. (Knowledge: disciplinarity and beyond) Series editors Ellen Messer-Davidow, David R. Shumway, David J. Sylvan. apud. LIMA, Diana F. C. 2003. op. cit. 6 LIMA, D. F. C. 2003. op. cit., p. 46. 7 LIMA, D. F. C. 2003. op. cit., p. 3. 8 KLEIN, Julie. T. apud LIMA, D. F. C. 2003. op. cit., p. 3.

71

inter-disciplinaire et multi-disciplinaire. Des territoires dotés d’une telle caractéristique composent ce que l’on nomme “l’univers social autonome”. 9 Le champ de production de la connaissance, dans le cadre de la sphère culturelle qui se dessine comme son espace social d’action, s’établit, en raison de son autonomie, conceptuellement et matériellement selon une détermination d’ordre interne, qui répond cependant aux stimulations externes. Et les fonctions de représentation du champ --- de symbolisation --- demeurent à la charge de divers éléments et groupes, ‘’(classes construites comme agents)’’ 10 communautés matérialisées dans les institutions et les professionnels qualifiés, répondant aux modèles qui stipulent les conditions de définition des organismes et de l’accessibilité au métier et la participation dans le milieu spécialisé. 11 Dans la Muséologie, les agents sont assimilés à des professionnels de musées, et dans cet environnement, se trouvent les muséologues. Face à ce panorama d’une zone particulière dans le domaine spécifique de la réalité sociale, identifiée comme champ spécialisé de la connaissance, 12 son “corps d’agents” 13 se consacre aux questions qui expriment des formes culturelles ---“constructions / intéptrètations explicatives du monde (...) espace de lectures, pratiques et représentations culturelles”;14 interprètées sous l’égide du terme et concept Patrimoine, et soumises à la compétence muséologique (processus de légitimation, selon Bourdieu). 15 Dans la perspective thématique du Patrimoine saisi comme “tout objet ou concept jugé d’importance esthétique, historique, scientifique ou spirituelle ” --- ou Patrimoine Culturel --- et “tout objet, phénomène naturel ou concept jugé d’importance scientifique ou de valeur spirituelle par une communauté ”, --- ou Patrimoine Naturel --- 16 on perçoit la présence de termes familiers à certaines catégories et domaines de connaissance en plus ou moins grande échelle. L’allusion à la culture et à la nature signifient, dans ces interprétations, des dimensions qui placent les systèmes symboliques dans lesquels il se trouvent, par exemple: les branches du savoir et les disciplines multiples véhiculées; les croyances et les valeurs qui guident les groupes dans leur trajectoire sociale. C’est pourquoi, le territoire muséologique est devenu un terrain ou transitent les disciplines liées au Patrimoine, puisque elles interviennent de même au sein des espaces physiques muséalisés, soit par des représentations soit par des pratiques qui se réfèrent au contexte d’étude abordé par le Musée, indépendemment du genre selon lequel la forme peut se présenter, et même si la modalité de classement --- traitement --- muséologique est reconnue par le champ: “les musées sont des institutions permanentes sans but lucratif au service de la société et de son développement, ouvertes au public; ils acquièrent, conservent, diffusent et exposent à des fins d'étude, d'éducation et de plaisir, les témoignages matériels et immatériels des peuples et de leurs environnements.” 17 Les caractéristiques indiquées par ce profil institutionnel mettent en valeur le rôle prépondérant joué par les Musées en tant que participants du processus culturel qui déclenche le développement global de la société, quelque soit la pertinence de leur

9 Ibidem, p. 5. 10 BOURDIEU, Pierre. Espaço social e espaço simbólico. In: Razões práticas: sobre a teoria da ação. São Paulo: Papirus, 1997. p. 22. 11 LIMA, D. F. C. 2003. op. cit., p. 6. 12 Ibidem, p. 41 13 BOURDIEU, P. 1997. op. cit. p. 22. 14 CORREIA LIMA, Diana. Farjalla. Social Memory and museum institution: thinking about the (re)interpretation of cultural heritage -- Memória Social e a instituição museu: reflexões acerca da herança cultural (re)interpretada. In: ICOFOM, Simposyum: Museology and Memory. (19), 1997. Rio de Janeiro: ICOFOM, 1997. p. 202-211. (ISS. 27). 15 BOURDIEU, Pierre. O poder simbólico. Lisboa: Difel, 1989. passim. (Coleção Memória e Sociedade). 16 ICOM. Glossaire. Code de déontologie pour les musées. 2006. Disponível em:< http://icom.museum/ethics_fr.html> Acesso em: abril 2007. 17 Ibidem.

72

présence et action dans la vie des peuples, il est ainsi reconnu que les Musées “contribuent à la connaissance, à la compréhension et à la promotion du patrimoine naturel et culturel”. 18 Dans l’environnement qui légitime le Patrimoine aux ‘’signes’’ fondés sur la production matérielle, dans les manifestations de pratiques de groupes, et dans les eléments naturels, les témoignages en virtude de leur qualification de fonctionner comme ‘’indicateur’’ qui signalent l’existence de quelque chose, exigent une confirmation, et sont interprètés comme ‘’significations’’ véhiculés aux “symbologies / signes” exprimant des idées qui peuvent ou non surgir sous la forme de matière physique, constituant des ‘’sens spécifiques (codes culturels) definis et établis, et ayant pour finalité la reconnaissance (décodification) au sein de leur milieu social’’. 19

Il devient possible, à partir de ce panorama qui se considère comme contexte impliquant le Patrimoine et par conséquent, sa thématique, d’identifier la figure de la zone de confluence en rapprochant et liant la pensée et l’áction muséologique et d’autres domaines qui, eux aussi, se tournent vers le même sujet, en le tratant selon ses spécificités à l’exemple de l’Histoire, l’Architecture, la Mémoire Sociale, les Sciences Ambientales, entre autres. Les liasons se font quand on vérifie les collections d’objets divers originaires de la production humaine ou de la nature; les espaces physiques dans lesquels l’ocupation humaine a laissé son empreinte sous de multiples formes et évennements; les terrains sur lesquelles la nature est facteur determinant de formation; les traditions rapportant des aspects des diverses visions du monde qui règnent parmi les hommes; même véhiculés à d’autres terrains/champs de connaissance ils constituent l’objet d’abordage de la Muséologie qui vient à representer les catégories conceptuelles identifiant le Musée. Tous les exemples cités s’articulent et permettent l’integration au Patrimoine en testemoignant de la trajectoire de l’humanité au cours de sa vie planetaire, et a côté des sciences, des arts, techniques/tecnologies. Musées, Tecniques et Patrimoine Universel: entrelaçant une nouvelle perspective conceptuelle. Le Patrimoine est reconnu comme un concepte de caractère polyssémique du à l’utilisation de ce terme par plusieurs champs de connaissance. Et considérant le scénario des languages de la spécialité, 20 ou languages professionnels, il est possible de vérifier qu’au long du XXème siècle,21 ce terme a représenté, dans plusieurs contextes d’application, ce que l’on pourrait définir comme un ‘’élargissement’’ 22 de sa portée conceptuelle, il a incorporé graduellement des élements de (re)ssignification à l’interpretation,23 confirmant

18 ICOM. Code de déontologie pour les musées. 2006. Disponível em: < http://icom.museum/ethics_fr.html> Acesso em: abril 2007. 19 CORREIA LIMA, Diana. Farjalla. 1997. Op. cit. 20 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 – junho 2007. Instituto de Ciência da Informação, Escola Politécnica da Universidade Federal da Bahia. Salvador: UFBA. 15 p. Texte selectionné et entrain d'être publié dans les annales de cette Rencontre. 21 LIMA, Diana Farjalla Correia. Termos e conceitos da Museologia -- Relatório parcial de pesquisa. 2005-2007 Rio de Janeiro: Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UNIRIO). La recherche Termes et Conceptes de la Muséologie, projet permanent de recherche de l’ICOFOM, sous la coordénation genérale, internacionale d’André Désvallés, presente une ramification au Brasil, qui est developpée à l’Université Federale de Rio de Janeiro (UNIRIO), avec une équipe (chercheurs et boursiers) sous la coordénation de Dra. Diana Farjalla Correia Lima. 22“Síl il n’est pas récent, le mot « patrimoine » est bizarrement apparu pour disparaître et réapparaître, cheminant souterrainement dans certains milieux intellectuels, utilisé avec aisance par les uns parce qu’il leur permet de donner un sens plus large au contenu dont ils veulent parler, repoussé par d’autres parce qu’ils redoutent cet elargissement.” DESVALLÉS, Andre. Terminologia Museológica. Proyecto Permanente de Investigación – ICOFOM LAM. Rio de Janeiro: ICOFOM LAM, Tacnet Cultural. 2000. CD. p. 42. 23. FARJALA, Diana, RODRÍGUEZ, 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. 2006. Museo Nacional Estancia Jesuítica de Alta Gracia y Casa del Virrey Liniers. Córdoba, Argentina. Trabalhos Apresentados…. 2006. Munich/Germany, Córdoba/Argentina: ICOFOM/ICOFOM LAM. 2006. p. 244,247. (ICOFOM Study Series - ISS 35).

73

ainsi l’intérêt que ce thème a soulevé en tant qu’objet de recherche, reflettant des variations provenant des intersections entre disciplines. Cependant, il faut reconnaître que la base fundamentale et l’origine de ce terme s’appuie sur le sens du processus culturel de transmission --- héritage --- sachant qu’il consubstantie l’acte de s’approprier des valeurs et pratiques cultureles qui se réalisent au sein des groupes sociaux, s’attachant, ainsi, aux modes de vies exprimés au moyen d’élements de matérialité ou aux formes de manifestations de l’intengible, comme expliqué ci-dessus. Le travail technique-conceptuel mené par la Muséologie qui aborde des élaborations culturelles des nombreuses comunnautés qui entrelacent savoir et techniques derivés des systèmes symboliques, se concentrant sur les collections, mettant en valeur ou ambientalisant des elements et territoires muséalisés, démontre leur eficacité en créant des conditions spécifiques de rapprochement intellectuel et sentimental entre les groupes les plus variés de visiteurs. Il s’agit, dans ce cas, de l’impact causé par la repercussion de la gamme de taches qui soutiennent les fonctions spécialisées du champ et qui formalisent l’existence de toute representation considerée par la catégorie Musée, espace privilégié qui, depuis trés longtemps, démontre être un terrain fértile pour les études sur le Patrimoine. Et de plus, en ce qui concerne l’intersection du répertoire patrimonial des peuples sur le plan muséologique, il faut mentionner en particulier la complexité des activités identifiées par le therme Tecnique(s), donc le sens ancien et général se fait comprendre comme ‘’un ensemble de regles capables de conduire éficacement n’importe quelle activité’’ et ‘’ dans ce sens, ne se distingue ni de l’art ni de la science et ni de d’aucun processus ou opération aptes a obtenir un effet quelconque ; et son champ s’étend autant que celui des activités humaines.’’ 24 Ce concepte de notion de téchnique abrange le sens du therme technologie et, dorénavant quand nous le citerons dans cet article, il intègrera et exprimera la technologie. Les techniques situées dans la sphère des procédés qui matérialisent les connaissances humaines, les savoirs, sans distinguer aucune classe, rendent possible la prodution d’un nouvel environnement culturel et naturel en étroite relation, dans la mesure ou l’on tient compte que l’ensemble des techniques culturelles se raportent, encore, au níveau de compréhension que les groupes donnent, aussi, a leur relation avec l’espace naturel et aux procedures qui lui sont attachées. Dans cette situation, il se dessine pour les techniques, un caractère d’attribuition de valeur, qui les determine, et situe dans la catégorie de Bien (Patrimoine) tout exemplaire matériel ou manifestation immaterielle qui ait la capacité de référencier et illustrer des modéles et attitudes d’insertion de l’humanité dans le monde (pour le bien ou le mal...). Les processus techniques et leurs representants, et les produits qui leurs sont propres, soumis, analisés, et diffusés par les discours muséologiques, en conséquence des interpretations contextualiséss qui leurs sont données, opèrent pour conduire à l’étude de leur environnement culturel de prodution à partir des ‘’vestiges’’ qui comportent dans leurs structures physiques, à la maniére de ‘’témoins’’ qui se reportent a la mémoire des groupes, reflettant les ajustements qui se sont dévoilés comme des solutions interpretatives des perceptions du monde et ses modes de vie corelationnés. Les produits issus de la technologie se rapporte aux formes sociales d’integration et, comme il ne pourrait en être autrement, sont chargés de sens symbolique péculier lié a leurs culture d’origine. Ce Patrimoine des Techniques dérivé des savoirs - respectivement d’ordre tangible et d’ordre intangible – parle du regard de l’homme et du domaine qu’il exerce par son intelligence et son habilité, aussi bien par la diversité des interprétations culturelles que par ses divers moments dans le temps et dans l’espace. De la même façon, cet ensemble produit par l’association du plan des idées et des activités – savoir-faire – determine les différences et les contours des styles de vie considerés dans chaque variante, c’est a dire, par la difference de l’aspect du produit en accord avec le type de besoins et de l’identité des groupes (diversités culturelles), et de façon complementaire, identifié par son contenu conceptuel, comme un élément interprétatif commun aux cultures, une fois qu’il lui est

24 TÉCNICA. In: ABBAGNANO, Nicola. Dicionário de Filosofia. São Paulo: mestre Jou. 1982. p. 905-906.

74

attribué dans le contexte de la communauté, le caractère de reférence de la memoire collective, sens qui se fait remarqué dans les sociétes disparates, pour se consigner alors comme Patrimoine Universel. La presence et permanence d’un concepte qui souligne l’idée de transmission du savoir-faire dans les groupes, ne dépend pas des différences de perception du monde. Il y a un lien de compréhension identique qui les rassemble autour du même concepte. Et l’importance de ce concepte se confirme dans cette l’illustration de base commune, ce qui permet alors d’envisager le Patrimoine comme un processus d’ordre universel, élément culturel qui se fait sentir comme attribut de valeur entre les peuples, cependant, toujours associé à la diversité culturelle. Ce point de convergence permet que le Patrimoine, utilisé comme concept fragmenté par les indicateurs geo-administratifs, idéologiques ou politiques (local, étatique, et nacional); par les catégories attachées aux disciplines / champs de connaissance (historique, artistique, archeologique, etc); par la circonstance de la création (culturel, naturel); ou encore par la constitution et aparence (tangible et intangible); soit compris à partir de son contenu global, quelque soit le Patrimoine Universel, concept qui, dans l’horizontalité de la connaissance, dépasse les champs, s’élargissant et se transformant en marque du processus d’interaction entre les champs, se fixant comme une ‘’marque’’ communne et inscrite dans les cultures sans fissures. L’organisme qui réunit les professionels des musées au niveau mondial, Conseil Internacionnal des Musées (ICOM) déclare que: “le patrimoine universel recouvre aussi bien le patrimoine naturel et culturel et les objets tangibles qui constituent les collections, que les discours, les connaissances et les formes d’expression intangibles qui les accompagnent.“ 25 Enfin, la responsabilité de la Muséologie, en raison du pouvoir de représentation que les Musées exercent face au processus de transmition d’images culturelles, et du transfert de valeurs sociales qui se font véhiculées atravers du model tématique de l’interpretation du Patrimoine, par la maitrise des formes comunicatives et disseminatrices d’informations culturelles, en tenant comptes des propositions de nouveaux moyens d’organisation technique-conceptuelle, actuellement, il se tourne complexe dans le contexte des zones communes de connaissance, independement du processus de muséalisation, que ce soit au musée traditionnel avec ses collections ou dans les modèles d’implémentés sous d’autres configurations (moyens). On s’attend à ce que la présente Rencontre entre agents professionnels concernés par le même thème, serve d’éclaircissement et contribue par des indicateurs, dans cette première décénie du XXI ème siècle, à comprendre mieux les besoins éthiques et culturels des Musées, détenteurs de significations symboliques du Patrimoine Universel.

Références:. ABBAGNANO, Nicola. Dicionário de Filosofia. São Paulo: mestre Jou. 1982. BOURDIEU, Pierre. O poder simbólico. Lisboa: Difel, 1989. (Coleção Memória e Sociedade). BOURDIEU, Pierre. Espaço social e espaço simbólico. In: Razões práticas: sobre a teoria da ação. São Paulo: Papirus, 1997. CHARTIER, Roger. A história cultural entre práticas e representações. Lisboa: DIFEL, 1990. (Coleção Memória e Sociedade). CORREIA LIMA, Diana. Farjalla. Social Memory and museum institution: thinking about the (re)interpretation of cultural heritage -- Memória Social e a instituição museu: reflexões acerca da herança cultural (re)interpretada. In: ICOFOM, SIMPOSYUM: MUSEOLOGY AND MEMORY. (19), 1997. Trabalhos Apresentados… 1997. Rio de Janeiro: ICOFOM, 1997. p. 202-211. (ICOFOM Study Series - ISS 37) DESVALLÉS, Andre. Terminologia Museológica. Proyecto Permanente de Investigación – ICOFOM LAM. Rio de Janeiro: ICOFOM LAM, Tacnet Cultural. 2000. CD. FARJALA, Diana, RODRÍGUEZ, Igor. Patrimônio, herança, bem e monumento: termos, usos e significados no campo museológico. In: ICOFOM/ICOFOM LAM - INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM 25 ICOM. Journée internationale des musées 2007 - Musées et patrimoine universel - Communiqués de presse Disponível em: < http://icom.museum/release.universal_heritage_fr.html>. Acesso em: abril 2007.

75

MUSEOLOGY AND HISTORY: a field of knowledge. 2006. Museo Nacional Estancia Jesuítica de Alta Gracia y Casa del Virrey Liniers. Córdoba, Argentina. Trabalhos Apresentados… 2006. Munich/Germany, Córdoba/Argentina: ICOFOM/ICOFOM LAM. 2006. p. 244,247. (ICOFOM Study Series - ISS 35). ICOM. Glossaire. Code de déontologie pour les musées. 2006. Disponível em: <http://icom.museum/ethics_fr.html>. Acesso em: abril 2007. ICOM. Journée internationale des musées 2007 - Musées et patrimoine universel - Communiqués de presse. Disponível em:<http://icom.museum/release.universal_heritage_fr.html>. Acesso em: abril 2007. ICOMOS. International Council of Monuments and Sites. Disponível em: <http://www.icomos.org/> Acesso em: abril 2007. KLEIN, Julie Thompson. Crossing boundaries: knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1996. 281 p. (Knowledge: disciplinarity and beyond) Series editors Ellen Messer-Davidow, David R. Shumway, David J. Sylvan. apud. LIMA, Diana F. C. 2003. LIMA, Diana Farjalla Correia. Ciência da Informação, Museologia e fertilização interdisciplinar: Informação em Arte um novo campo do saber. 2003. 358 f. Tese (Doutorado) - Instituto Brasileiro em Ciência da Informação/IBICT, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, 2003. Orientadora: Lena Vania Ribeiro Pinheiro. LIMA, Diana Farjalla Correia. Termos e conceitos da Museologia -- Relatório parcial de pesquisa. 2005-2007 Rio de Janeiro: Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UNIRIO). 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 – junho 2007. Instituto de Ciência da Informação, Escola Politécnica da Universidade Federal da Bahia. Salvador: UFBA. 15 p. Texte selectionné et entrain d'être publié dans les annales de cette Rencontre. MICELI, Sergio. (Org.) Pierre Bourdieu: a economia das trocas simbólicas. São Paulo: Perspectiva, 1986. UNESCO. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. Disponível em: <http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php- >. Acesso em: abril 2007 Diana Farjalla Correia Lima. Muséologue. Maître en Mémoire Sociale et Document. Docteur en Science de l’Information. Professeur de L’Ecole de Muséologie e du Master de Muséologie et Patrimoine de l’Université Federale de Rio de Janeiro.(UNIRIO). Remerciements: -- à la Muséologue Cristina Darriet pour la version en français de cette article. -- à Igor Fernando Rodrigues da Costa, élève du Cours de Muséologie e boursier de la recherche Termes et Concepts de la Museologie, pour sa contribution aux références. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro - UNIRIO.--- Brasil. diana@skydome.com. br

76

Museology, Techniques and the ICOM Code of Ethics Lynn Maranda, Vancouver Museum, Canada ___________________________________________________________________ It is assumed that certain museum professionals were disparaged by the lack of consistency in the collecting, exhibiting, storing, and handling of museum objects by various institutions in diverse countries, such that they were motivated to bring in a universal and consistent professional code to regulate, inspire, and ultimately achieve sound museum practices throughout the world. It was because of this disparity in observed professional conduct, that the formative ICOM committee agreed upon a strategic plan to achieve their goals of higher standards and uniformity of sound practice. While focussing on this mission, it is assumed that they laboured to draft the Code making it broad enough to be inclusive so that the vast majority of museums and professional individuals alike would concur with the ideals as set down. Having embarked on this mission, it is assumed that the organizers immediately perceived many initial difficulties and that these road blocks might preclude the mission from getting though to its goal and so, by necessity, they felt compelled to develop and use a language designed to be compliant with various competing factions. However, the downside to this development is that such a language, though inclusive, is also compromising and weakens any potential authority that ICOM might have envisioned. The grammatical structure of the Code lacks a decisiveness to force or dictate a universal professional conduct, nor does it show the resolve to delineate improper and negligent conduct. As such, it is difficult to extract the exact meaning that is to be attached to a variety of professional guidelines. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines “technique” as “a means or method of achieving one’s purpose”. In terms of the paper’s topic, those techniques which ICOM uses to achieve its goals are: affiliation with important organizations (notably, UNESCO); publication of materials (Code of Ethics, etcetera); conferencing; word of mouth; membership granting; education. 1. Brief Analysis of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums The goal of ICOM and its cornerstone, the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums, is the implementation of the ICOM Strategic Plan, with its activities focussing on the following themes as listed in ICOM’s mission statement:

• professional cooperation and exchange • dissemination of knowledge and raising public awareness of museums • training of personnel • advancement of professional standards • elaboration and promotion of professional ethics • preservation of heritage and combatting the illicit traffic in cultural property

Since its inception in 1970 with the issuance of Ethics of Acquisition, the Code has undergone a number of rewrites - the Code of Professional Ethics in 1986, revisions in 2001 and 2004, and finally published in 2006 as the current ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums. The current Code represents a series of guidelines for the moral deportment of museums and their staff by setting forth “minimum standards of professional practice and performance” [Code, opening statement]. It covers subjects deemed germane to the ‘proper’ conduct and functions of museums, such as: collections (their acquisition, deaccession, care); the use of and access to collections as primary evidence; the respectful interface between museum and community. It also sets out the legal requirements for a museum to qualify for a relationship with ICOM, and it generalizes the tenets of professional conduct, including the areas where

77

conflicts of interest might arise. In addition, there is an appreciation of universal heritage, and of work and collaboration with various communities and stakeholders. It is assumed that ICOM perceived that in order to achieve its goals as stated in the Strategic Plan, it needed to enshrine its methods in a Code of Ethics and to write the code in a distinctive style to ensure its effectiveness. Money and its related influence on the affairs of mankind are always of interest, and it is no different in the case of ICOM and the museums which comprise its membership. ICOM requires that its members be non-profit organizations (which means that they cannot operate as a museum and make money) without offering an explanation as to why that should be a necessary condition, as if the reason is quite simply understood by all. Further, museums are not to collect nor gain wealth, yet their collections, by the very nature of their preciousness, continue to gain wealth, and in fact, the very items which museums deem worthy of collection turn out to be those that have the greatest monetary figures attached to them. And yet again, when it comes to the matter of ethics and money, it is seen that the poorer countries have a greater difficulty dealing with buying and selling illicit items, corruption and the professional staffing of museums than do the richer countries. There is an old adage which runs something like this: the most expensive thing we have is morality. Perhaps this thought runs true with the operation of museums as well. 2. ICOM’s Techniques for Achieving the Code A number of techniques have been employed by ICOM for putting the Code into practice. First and foremost of these is membership in ICOM, the over-arching “international organization of museums and museum professionals” [ICOM Mission], at both the institutional and individual levels. Membership brings these two constituents into the influential realm of ICOM and sets requisites for activity and conduct. The Code has been published and has been disseminated in booklet form through distribution to the membership. It is also accessible on ICOM’s website. Dissemination has also been by word of mouth and through conferencing, as well as by such means as “workshops, publications, training, twinning programmes, and the promotion of museums through International Museums Day”. Other methods for putting the Code into practice include its continuous dissemination through and recognition by such bodies as: National Committees, the “fundamental units of ICOM and the principal instruments of communication between ICOM and its members” [Statutes, Article 14.1] of which there are 116; 30 International Committees, the “principal instruments for the work of ICOM and for the realization of its programmes of activities” [Statutes, Article 17.1]; Regional Organizations; and, a range of 15 Affiliated International Organizations. Governing this structure is the General Assembly, the “supreme policy-making body of ICOM” [Statutes, Article 19.1], with the support of an Executive Council, an Advisory Committee, and the Secretariat, being the “Secretary-General and the employees of ICOM” [Statutes, Article 24.1]. A General Conference of ICOM is held every three years and is open to the membership. A close association with UNESCO is one more technique in ICOM’s arsenal for achieving the Code. ICOM undertakes parts of UNESCO’s programme for museums, and the ICOM Secretariat and UNESCO-ICOM Museum Information Centre are both housed at ICOM Headquarters in Paris, France.

78

3. Sufficiencies What are some of the positive aspects or successes associated with what ICOM is doing to promote the Code of Ethics? Sufficiencies fall in three main areas: membership, dissemination/publication, and education. There are some 21,000 members of ICOM scattered throughout 140 countries worldwide and still growing. This fact must be looked upon as a considerable achievement for to involve so many countries and then to be in a position to brag of it means that ICOM is fulfilling this part of its goal. ICOM was successful in establishing an International Museums Day which certainly draws attention to the fact that these institutions exist in most communities in all of these countries. This also provides an annual opportunity for museum professionals to draw the public into their facilities and make them aware of their programmes and other ways in which museums function in “the service of society and of its development” [Statutes, Article 2.1]. By way of events such as this, museums can foster exchanges through dialogue involving multiple voices. Through a network of committees at various levels, ICOM has allowed for the widest possible dissemination of information. Membership in ICOM provides access to 30 International Committees each dedicated to a particular type of museum or specific museum-related discipline. It is at this level that specialist information can be exchanged with colleagues sharing the same interests. ICOM invites membership participation in International Committees and although members can now join as many (formerly, only three) of these committees as they wish, they have voting rights in only one. ICOM disseminates information by way of a number of publications. A quarterly newsletter, ICOM News, keeps the membership up to date on current issues, and the ICOM Study Series, published irregularly, provides a range of short papers focussing on a selected topic. Museum International, a professional museum journal, is published 3-4 times per year by Blackwell Publishing on behalf of UNESCO and ICOM. While this journal has a fee structure separate from that of ICOM, it is available at a special discounted rate to ICOM members. Most International Committees distribute their own newsletters and publish papers specific to their own subject interest. In addition to these, a number of stand-alone publications have emanated from ICOM, including the Code of Ethics for Museums. ICOM has a formal association with and has been granted advisory status by UNESCO, the United Nations Economic and Social Council. Many of ICOM’s programmes are carried out in cooperation with UNESCO. ICOM also houses and manages the UNESCO/ICOM Museum Information Centre. Taken together, all of the above serves the educative purposes of ICOM. ICOM and its network of committees continuously advocate the ideals to which the organization aspires, and this constant repetition educates the membership in the ways of sound museum practice and professional conduct. 4. Insufficiencies Insufficiencies associated with the Code, all stem from the arms-length position that ICOM has to those institutions it would like to influence (perhaps this is the reason ICOM has a Code of Ethics and not a ‘policy of conduct’, where policy is something which is followed, while the Code is something which is meant to inspire).

79

For example, when ICOM, with good intent, encourages a professional approach to collections by stating that “museums should establish and apply policies that ensure that its collections ... and associated information properly recorded, are available for current use and will be passed on to future generations in as good and safe a condition as practicable, having regard to current knowledge and resources.” [Code, section 2.18] without detailing what such records should look like, it can only hope, at best, that ascribed and non-ascribed museum professionals interpret “properly” in the same way. ICOM membership has grown and this, as was stated, is a very positive event because it means that more institutions and professionals have become aware of the organization and have embraced its principles and Code of Ethics. Though more individuals are in support of the Code than were at its inception, there still remains the insufficiency arising from the commitment of these same individuals to an organization where membership is only optional. That is, ICOM membership does not include or exclude professionals with rights or access to their careers, and as such, the organization can only rely upon the good professional wishes of their members and cannot demand a universal compliance to establish acceptable practice. For example, there are many professional organizations that bestow the right to practice their profession upon individuals such as, doctors, lawyers, teachers, who have met specific educational standards and are committed by oath to uphold a stringent set of rules of good conduct. Knowing the history of ICOM and the emergence of the Code of Ethics, it is understandable why this deficiency exists. The lack of a stronger individual commitment, however, still weakens the fabric of a sound universal professionalism. Language The use of the word “should”, which appears throughout the code, really needs qualifiers to determine exactly what kind of conduct is expected from professional practitioners, so they can fulfill the motivational obligations in the writing. That is to say, the word “should” though it acts as a sign post to get the attention of a traveller, leaves the observer puzzled on how best to proceed, for the signage is blank and not providing a detail of direction. A simple enough lack, but without the in-depth specific clarifications of what an institution or individual must do, the Code’s effectiveness to achieve good practice is greatly diminished. For example, when the Code states “museum should establish and apply policies” [Code, section 2.18], what is really required are examples of policy that show a firm objective of how to achieve professional standards. Which is to say, that policies can and do vary and what may be deemed necessary in one circumstance may seem inconceivable in another. So without the demonstrated standard of policy, the syntax of the thought resolves around the notion of the word “should” as a kind of moral inspiration rather than as the content of the thought having professional contextual meaning as a comparison of good conduct. Similarly, the Code extols that “Professional responsibilities involving the care of of the collections should be assigned to persons with appropriate knowledge ...” [Code, section 2.19], and it seems inconceivable that it would be written that such be assigned to someone without appropriate knowledge, and yet we are no further ahead without knowing what that ‘appropriateness’ means. Does it mean, someone who has a doctorate degree in, for example, anthropology, or has worked in the field for 25 years, or has published a book on the subject of, for example, cataloguing? So it is difficult to argue with the intent of the Code’s writing, but it begs the question as to its ability to succeed without really offering a specific defence for what is ‘appropriateness’ as an unequivocal first condition for the establishment of good collection practise. This is then set against a backdrop of insufficient knowledge which by comparison shows what only leads to misuse and mal-practise.

80

Vague and Contradictory Thinking The difficulty in writing a code which is to be used as a kind of moral fuel to ignite good practise is that there is a tendency not only to use language which is generalized, but also to use concepts that are vague and inconclusive. The Code states “the acquisition of objects or specimens outside the museum stated policy should only be made in exceptional circumstances” [Code, section 2.9]. The statement is misleading unless the term “exceptional” is given firm definition. Otherwise, the door is open to collect anything outside of the stated policy whether that is a good idea or not. The Code also states that museums can be repositories of last resort and that it can act as an “authorized repository for unprovenanced, illicitly collected or recovered specimens or objects from the territory over which it has lawful responsibility” [Code, section 2.11]. This is an ‘opting out’ clause which is contradictory to the basic tenet of the Code’s collecting policy. 5. Summary There are ambiguities caused by the general tone of the writing and perhaps imperfections are generated by it. It is seen that the good husbandry of museum collections is courted on the basis of self regulation rather than the enforcement of a strict policy of procedure. It is recognized that there are enormous difficulties in achieving strong uniform policies as (a) there is no mechanism to enforce a policy even on those who have agreed with its principles, to have them abide by those commitments, and (b) in convincing the majority of the world’s museums to join first in the spirit of the ICOM family, and secondly in its practice. The code suggests that there are ‘good’ ways and ‘bad’ ways of collecting yet it is difficult to draw the line of goodness and badness between many common practices such as the public sale of collections. Such practice may benefit both selling and buying institutions. Not all institutions had the advantage of early field acquisition when collecting was more an act of harbouring what was discovered no matter where its location. Again, for those museums who have stuffed their galleries with artifacts, it seems moot that they could counter the illegal export of objects from “the territory over which [they have] lawful responsibility” [Code, section 2.11], and then there is the sensitive issue of returning objects to the places from whence they derived. Nonetheless, it is better to have the Code than not have it and to strive to coalesce professional behaviours on a professional level rather than have museum personnel adhere only to regular employment standards. ICOM’s greatest achievements have been through the techniques of education and through the well-placed conscience of its growing membership, though if the main intent of the Code is to achieve a universally enforced and implemented standard of museum practice, then it could well require an organization that could hold professionals accountable to a specific authority. Lynn Maranda, 5560 Walton Road, Richmond, B.C. V7C 2L9 Canada

81

The Young and Revolutionary: Technological Museums Olga Nazor, (Argentina) _____________________________________________________________________

If, as Democritus said, a single demonstration is worth more than the Persian Kingdom, we can estimate the value of the scientific method in modern times. Those who ignore it completely cannot be called modern. Those who disdain it, will not be truthful, nor effective.

Mario Bunge The onset of technological museums was an inflection point in the development of Museology, imposing revolutionary changes in museological proposals, through the use of innovations that started at the level of Museography and were multiplied with a domino effect, changing the static museological universe, including mentalities and criteria in that change, not only in museological speeches but also in the way of managing collections, involving the audience, and even administrating them. Soon, these new criteria and languages were spread to the rest of typologies and, each of them, according to its own characteristics, used the new resources, bringing new and fresh air to the traditional world of museums. The great innovative contribution of scientific and technological museums was the radical change in the museographical proposals and the celebrities that gave entity to this new proposal were diagrams, models, and scale models. In other words, the new idea, was just the use of the same models and scale models that had slept the sleep of the just for centuries in traditional museums; but this time, as referential pieces in interactive spaces, introducing, once and for all, a constructive pedagogy where the visitor would learn about scientific contents through a private dialectic between subject and object. The change consisted in the innovative use of models, actual-size reproductions of objects and artifacts, drawings, scale models, plots, graphics, schemes, diagrams, formulae, etc. All of them, typical languages of technology, were used with a museographic status to represent objects or systems for their presentation, understanding, or study. His Majesty: The Model The concept of model is very wide and includes the mental image of a concept or experience expressed in graphics, diagrams, plots, scale models, formulae, etc. that are the transfer of our mental image of the object considered and that enables us to represent objects as well as systems or concepts. In technology, the model reproduces or represents the relevant aspects of an object or system we want to highlight, and allows for, in many cases, the study of its behaviour in various operating conditions and to draw conclusions as to its working mechanism without having to construct the object or system and put it under actual operating conditions. Either iconical or symbolical, models are exceptional museographic resources, as they comprise, according to Karl Deusch, four distinctive functions: a) organizing contents, which consists in the ability of making us distinguish forms, guidelines, or structures. b) heuristic function, that consists in the ability of leading us to the discovery of new events or methods. c) predictive function, that consists in its ability of predicting in time or space, certain events, with different levels of qualitative and quantitative accuracy and specification. d) and finally, its measuring function, since the model is linked with the represented object through clear and quantitative relations.

82

Most models simplify reality, but in each of the cases, they are not unique; they change according to what is being described, studied, or analyzed, keeping their representative value (Gay, Aquiles:1999). These characteristics turn it in a museographic resource of wonderful qualities, both discursive and pedagogic. Since the model is the language of technology, it would be obvious that its use would begin with the typology of technological museums. Strategic Partners of Formal Education We may say that there were three stages in the development of technological museums. A first stage in which they were known as “scientific and technical museums”, a second stage of “interactive scientific museums”, and finally, a third stage of “technological museums”. All these stages were closely related to formal education, greatly depending on the teaching of sciences at schools at first, but soon acting as a positive boomerang, and they marked a substantial change in the didactics of the teaching of sciences at schools, thus becoming strategic partners of the classrooms. By the end of the 50's, facing the challenge of the Soviet Sputnik, the western countries developed a policy of scientific education aimed at preparing young men and women as best as possible in subjects as scientific investigation and technologies. As a result of this, all kinds of contests and olympics were popularized in order to stimulate young people capable of carrying out specialized investigations, even from high school. (Fourez:1994) Scientific fairs and exhibitions were born together with these practices, and with them, the scientific museums at schools, and, to a greater scale, the first scientific and technical museums were popularized: the STL (Scientific-Technical Literacy) was launched. The methaphoric condition of the new experience was soon evident both in the classrooms and the new museums, and this was because the transmission of contents consisting in the transmission of results, of concepts, of doctrines, of methods, was instilled in pupils as non-contextualized truths, i.e. without considering the human significances or circumstances that had presided their creation. (Fourez:pág 21) This situation changed by the end of the 60's with the contribution of the educational renewal in Belgium and the Haby Reform in France, where teachers and reformers centered their interest in the importance of being in contact with the global social reality, focusing the pedagogic speech in three closely related subsystems: content/subject/context. This innovation was adopted by the museographical didactics of scientific and technological museums, and the interactive scientific and technical museums were born, a museological/graphical revolution that from the end of the 60's onwards would bring a definite change to the current concepts. The magic recipe was a wise combination of a relaxed audience, that was motivated by the challenge of participating, a mixed collection, composed of museological objects to watch and appraise, and also didactic models to interact with, experience with, and play with, held in a desacralized and flexible space, arranged for the teaching of sciences. Thus, the interactive scientific museums were born as an alternative to the hegemony of the traditional scientific courses given at schools, the lack of interest of pupils in them, and also the cultural need of the general audience to become familiar with the contents and language of sciences, offering a true Scientific and Technological Literacy (STL), participating in informative, recreational and experimental activities. Another innovative proposal was the interdisciplinarity, refuting the old dilemma of teachers who thought that they had to choose between pragmatism (“practical” sense) and theory (“cultural” sense). The script organization was aimed at such practical targets as understanding how an artifact worked, and such theoretical targets, as to the extent to which they tried to get a conceptual and explicit representation of a situation (a rationality islet). In addition, there was also a true aesthetic dimension, in the sense that, along these journeys, the human spirit reveals itself and discovers its own creativity.(Fourez:1994) The third stage corresponds to technological museums. From the 1990's onwards, a hundred years since the beginning of the 20th century, a period in which the technologies that

83

define and are part of the daily life of the global subject were born, it is described in these fascinating monographical museums that tell us about air navigation, communications, computer science, transportation, nutrition, robotics, etc. With a monographical approach, but also with a cross focus with speech axes on a human scale, they deal, from different perspectives, with the universe of a particular technology, usually starting from its historical dimension, thus allowing visitors to see how that technology was born within a human history of which it is also a part. An epistemologic dimension, one that help us understand how sciences are built in our society and how scientists work. And an aesthetic and corporal dimension, one that allows us to enjoy a design or to perceive the body in an interaction with those technological artifacts, as the intelligent site of our human presence. If we had to mention a general weakness of these museums, we might say that, in general, there is a lack of balance between the space (both physical and symbolical) given to the development of the historical evolution of a particular technology and the field of scientifical knowledge that made that development and that technology possible, and also with its level of incidence in the rutine of the average man. This is understandable, since the historical perspective is still very relevant in the conception and design of scripts, and it is a standarized criteria that this guarantees the attraction and acceptance of the audience. An appropiate balance should include at least: A historical axis, emphazising the economical, social, and cultural conditions that presided the development of that technology. An axis related to scientific knowledge, exposing the theoretical principles that would help to understand it. An experimental axis, however not necessarily verifiable, in which the audience would try experimental devices that would help them to undertand their operation. It is highly appropriate to speak about technological museums in this forum of Vienna focused on the Universal Human Heritage kept in museums, since it is the first time in the history of humanity that we can speak of a “global culture”, defined as the set of features shared especially by remote communities that are simmultaneously included by the technological tools that allow them to share their destinies. Bibliography: Aberbuy, Eduardo/Cohan, Adriana “Tecnología” Buenos Aires: ed. Santillana:1998 Bunge, Mario “La ciencia, su método y su filosofía” Buenos Aires: ed. Siglo XX: 1987 Fourez, Gerard “Alfabetización científica y tecnológica” Buenos Aires: ed.Colihue: 1994 Gay, Aquiles “Temas para la educación tecnológica” Buenos Aires: ed.La Obra::1999 Olga Nazor, Secretariat de Cultura de Rosario Rosario / Argentina

84

Cambio Social, Naturaleza y Tecnología Ser Humano y Museos en el Nuevo Milenio Freire Rodríguez Saldaña* (Mexico) __________________________________________________________________ El inicio del tercer milenio ha sido abrupto, acontecimientos se suceden unos a otros en cuestión de segundos, la información circula alrededor de la tierra por la red global, los objetos ahora tienen menor tiempo de vida que el nuestro, los vemos irse cada vez más rápidamente, aunque sea así el ser humano no ha perdido el gozo de mirar piezas magníficamente elaboradas antiguas y contemporáneas; imaginar, sentir (con los 5 sentidos), de reflexionar su mundo y cambiarlo; algunos estos elementos puede encontrarlos en el museo como detonantes de una experiencia cognitiva desde la no formalidad. Hablar de cambio social, implica necesariamente una visión, postura o ideología frente a la realidad, el contexto en el que se desarrolla la dinámica social, define las estructuras, las relaciones, y acciones individuales y colectivas. En el que se enfrentan intereses de clase unos buscando mantener el statu quo y otros buscando cambiar al mundo, bajo la premisa establecida por Paulo Freire de que el cambio es difícil pero posible. En la realidad mexicana, nos encontramos en un proceso interesante, se ha consolidado la política económica neoliberal, que ha traído diferentes consecuencias devastadoras e inhumanas. Entre ellas, podemos mencionar como el campo ha sido ha abandonado privilegiando la importación, incluso del maíz planta que ha sido en buena parte constructora de identidad; otra es la disparidad entre ricos que cada vez lo son más y pobres, que cada vez tienen menos y son un número mayor; en el ámbito de la cultura, es poco el recurso que los gobiernos en turno programan para que se continué con esta actividad que en algunos casos aún sigue utilizada desde el poder. La cuestión financiera, nos refiere de manera directa a la incorporación de tecnología, el costo de los equipos, su instalación y mantenimiento, son muy altos y todavía inaccesibles para la mayoría de los espacios culturales. Aunque esto no ha limitado su cocimiento y utilización, en este sentido se han tenido experiencias valiosas en los diferentes ámbitos de la cultura y las artes. Para los museos mexicanos, y defiriéndonos sobretodo a la red de museos del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, conformada por 113 espacios de la memoria, podemos decir que la incorporación de tecnología se ha dado en solamente pocos museos y sobre todo en las exposiciones de gran formato que han sido parte del ciclo Grandes Civilizaciones, presentadas en el Museo Nacional de Antropología en donde sí se ha incorporado de manera importante la tecnología y por cierto ha sido muy bien recibida por sus públicos. Por otra parte, la museología ha construido experiencias entorno al patrimonio cultural de los pueblos, esto con el fin de revalorarlos, protegerlos y sobre todo entendiendo que el ser * Freire Rodríguez Saldaña. Subdirección de Museología. COORDINACIÓN NACIONAL DE MUSEOS Y EXPOSICIONES DEL INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE ANTROPOLOGÍA E HISTORIA/ freire_rodriguez@inah.gob.mx o huitzilin_79@yahoo.com.mx

85

humano no puede pensarse fuera del mundo sino con él. Este pensarse con el mundo es un primer paso para tomar conciencia de que el mundo natural al que hemos transformado de manera peligrosa, en uno más “confortable” para vivir, pude ser uno mejor, ya que sí podemos no se en que grado, regenerar lo hasta ahora descompuesto por nosotros en la naturaleza, por supuesto podemos cambiar el mundo que hemos construido socialmente. Para los museos el reto es hacer una revisión acerca de cómo se han tomados o no en cuenta estos elementos, a decir, el cambio social, el avance tecnológico y la naturaleza no como el contexto en que se da alguna acción comunicativa sino, el tercer elemento inseparable para tener una visión lo más integral posible del ser, ser humano. Y que implicaciones pueden tener en el mantenimiento de los museos como espacios donde, nos podamos conocer y reconocer, donde podamos construir un nuevo significado al patrimonio e incorporemos a nuestro acervo cultural-intelectual de forma entretenida, de manera no formal conocimientos que generen valores como la tolerancia y el diálogo. Tomando como base que la presencia en el mundo del ser humano se da en el reconocer a otro para conocerte a ti mismo, conciente de este proceso y de la responsabilidad de transformación. En este proceso, el museo juega un papel primordial como educador no formal, aunque socialmente es valorado como extensión de la escuela y por ello para determinada edad, en México este es uno de los aspectos en que tenemos que poner mayor cuidado para poder quitar del imaginario colectivo esta visión del museo. Para no escribir el clásico recorrido de la historia de los museos, comenzando por el templo de las musas o el Teocuitatiapialli, uno de los recintos donde los Aztecas don de se guardaba lo que los españoles dieron en llamar tesoro; hasta la aparición de los museos de arte contemporáneo, podemos preguntarnos si estas instituciones han respondido a las necesidades de la sociedad en sus distintos tiempos y regiones del planeta. La construcción de la repuesta, ha esta pregunta, debe realizarse por supuesto con la claridad de que para entender cada una de épocas de la humanidad en que se van desarrollando las distintas artes y los oficios, con su propia cosmovisión. En cuanto a los lugares para preservar la memoria de la antigüedad, estos cumplían una función sobre todo religiosa, es hasta la apertura pública del Museo de Louvre en Francia que se da inicio a la socialización o difusión popular de las colecciones y del conocimiento intrínseco que estas guardan.

Tras el violento paréntesis a que obligo la Revolución Francesa, las ideas que la animaron propician una etapa decisiva en la formulación y aplicación de un nuevo tipo de museo. En 1971, el Louvre pasó a formar parte de los monumentos de ciencias y artes. Las colecciones de la realeza fueron trasladadas ahí, y un principio desde entonces inamovible fue enunciado: las colecciones deben ser accesibles a todos con un propósito recreativo y educativo.1

Este cambio en el disfrute y gocé estético, privilegio de unos cuantos al disfrute de las mayorías, respondió al proceso revolucionario francés y es así que nace el concepto moderno de museo y lo hace ligado íntimamente a su uso y compromiso social, por ende enfocado desde entonces a cubrir las necesidades de la sociedad, la cual es cada vez más diversa, informada y demandante. Hay aquí una cuestión importante que señalada por Sánchez Vázquez, nos dice “La percepción estética de la obra de arte es característica de la relación entre la producción y

1 P.p. 31 Fernández, Miguel Ángel. Historia de los Museos de México.

86

el consumo (o goce) artísticos que solo comienza a darse a partir del Renacimiento y particularmente en épocas más cercanas a nosotros”2 Por ello vemos como es importante que se promueva el goce estético de la obra, pero lo es más aun el que no se acabe la creatividad del ser humano por reinterpretar su mundo, por expresarlo y comunicarlo, he allí un reto para los museos de arte popular. En México, los museos han sido creados dada la gran cantidad de restos materiales de las diversas culturas que poblaron el país, pero que además se manifiestan actualmente muchas de ellas dada su continuidad cultural expresada en su lengua, su territorio y su conciencia colectiva, rasgos característicos de los pueblos indios. Pero el tomar en cuenta a los actores sociales actuales o las llamadas culturas vivas no se ha dado en los museos de manera democrática, es común hablar del indio muerto, ensalzarlo pero no lo es hablar en un discurso museológico de las condiciones de miseria, explotación, dominación y marginación en que actualmente están inmersos, solo por que nacieron de ese lado de la balanza, en el que nada avanza solo la explotación. Además del gran legado cultural, los museos en México, responden en su motivo de creación a la formación del Estado-Nación, el Museo Nacional formado en el siglo XIX reunió colecciones diversas entre las que sobresalían grandes esculturas que habían estado dando de tumbos por varios lugares desde la época de la conquista española. Además de agrupar colecciones de ciencia naturales como la geología o la biología. Este forma de teatralizar la cultura es criticada por García Canclini, en sus Culturas Híbridas. Del mismo modo, Felipe Lacouture nos dice que no hay museo inocente, entonces vemos como la conformación de museos nacionales se inserta en el teje y maneje del poder y en este sentido se busca la conformación de la identidad y unidad nacional, donde todos somos mexicanos y tenemos una historia en común, dejando de lado la ahora tan mencionada diversidad cultural y las identidades locales. Se crean para ello mitos, héroes, se muestra un historia sin conflicto, lineal, donde las masas nunca son protagonistas; lo contrario a la visión de los vencidos. Este papel del museo, es refrendado y reconocido abiertamente por los profesionales de los museos en la llamada nueva museología, la cual ha tenido gran impacto y ha generando diferentes experiencias en América Latina. La nueva corriente plantea: Conceptos del Nuevo Museo:

- Cada objeto tiene un significado - El significado lo da el Hombre - El objeto deviene símbolo de una realidad - El hecho museológico confronta al hombre con su realidad - La realidad es la totalidad naturaleza-hombre.

El Nuevo Museo:

1. Confronta al Hombre con: Elementos naturales / Seres vivos / Objetos / Monumentos 2. Transforma al museo tradicional: De un edificio hace una región / De una colección hace un patrimonio regional / De un público hace una comunidad participativa. 3. El ecomuseo trata de recuperar: La identidad natural y cultural de los espacios regionales y nacionales a través de las imágenes y memorias colectivas.

2 P.p. 172 Sánchez Vázquez, Adolfo. A tiempo y destiempo.

87

Objetivos del Nuevo Museo: Fomentar la identidad y la conciencia patrimonial de las comunidades que conforman el ecomuseo, mediante su acción conjunta en el rescate, conservación, mejor uso y difusión de su patrimonio natural y cultural, en un verdadero acto pedagógico para el eco-desarrollo. Fomentar el conocimiento de ambos patrimonios, mediante el turismo cultural y social, tanto regional interno como nacional o ajeno a la región. Confrontar al visitante con los objetos culturales y con su realidad natural, en el ámbito y contexto originales, prefiriéndolos a la concentración patrimonial limitante del museo tradicional. Coadyuvar al mejor aprovechamiento del territorio, de los recursos culturales y de los recreativos.3

Y es a partir de estos postulados que se ha ido perfilando el papel que el museo deba tomar para seguirse manteniendo dentro del gusto de las comunidades, pero más allá de eso par ser verdaderos catalizadores del cambio social. Además de lo arriba mencionado, el museo esta obligado en su nuevo contexto de realizar un cambio de actitud y para ello se propone la construcción de una democracia cultural.

"la orquestación de voces y voluntades para crear lo que ha denominado el museo dialogal: un museo integrado a partir de la consulta pública y del diálogo entre los especialistas con la sociedad para crear una democracia cultural desde abajo".4

Desde hace tiempo ya se ha planteado a los estudios de públicos, visitantes o usuarios como una herramienta que pudiera dar salida a un planteamiento museológico acorde con los “tiempos modernos”, por medio de los cuales podemos saber si se esta respondiendo o no a las expectativas de los diferentes públicos. Sirven también como mediadores entre los intereses de los investigadores y los de los públicos; para construir políticas culturales, corregir problemas de planteamiento, museografía o servicios entre otros temas de indagación.

Son muchos los aspectos que se pueden evaluar de una exposición, tantos como preguntas seamos capaces de plantearnos sobre nuestro museo y su funcionamiento. También son diversas y complementarias las perspectivas desde las que puede plantearse…5

En el Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, se tiene gran experiencia en este sentido, desde hace ya más de diez años comenzó un programa de aplicación de encuestas, del cual se derivo el actual Programa Nacional de Estudios de Público, largo fue el recorrido aprendiendo y haciendo, ensayando y corrigiendo los errores. Y es gracias ha estos estudios que nos hemos podido dar cuenta del cambio en las necesidades de información de los visitantes y su opinión acerca de la incorporación de tecnología, entre otros temas de indagación.

3 http://www.ilam.org/ILAMDOC/ILAM_pub/Edit3_Art_VigenciaNM.pdf 4 http://www.cnca.gob.mx/cnca/nuevo/diarias/180500/diamuseo.html 5 P.p. 541. Mikel Asencio y Elena Pol en Museografía Didáctica coordinado por Joan Santacana Mestre y Núria Serrat Antolí

88

Ahora mostramos dos casos considerados para el fin de este escrito como paradigmáticos. Estos son el de las exposiciones Faraón, el culto al sol en el Antiguo Egipto y El Canto a la Patria. 150 Aniversario del Himno Nacional. Exposiciones temporales en las que se han planteado estudios de público. La primera se presentó en el museo Nacional de Antropología como parte del ciclo Grandes Civilizaciones, a partir de marzo de 2005, contó con más de 200 piezas en exhibición que nunca habían salido de Alemania, fue este país quien en intercambio cultural por la muestra Aztecas que se presentó en el Museo Martin-Gropius-Bau de la ciudad de Berlín produjo Faraón, el culto al sol en el Antiguo Egipto. Gracias a ello fue posible que los públicos mexicanos pudieran disfrutar de las piezas que la antigua cultura egipcia produjo. En una visión retrospectiva, podemos decir que fue la exposición mejor organizada, difundida y con un impacto social inimaginable en su momento y difícil de alcanzar en futuras exposiciones, a esta muestra asistieron mas de 600, 000 personas, largas filas de más de tres horas, nos muestran el gran interés o necesidad que existe por gozar estéticamente de las piezas, la gente se maravilla con obras de arte tan bien realizadas y antiguas. Se muestra así como el ser humano esta ávido de este tipo de experiencias y es el museo un espacio ideal para ello, muchos de los comentarios de los públicos visitantes nos dicen que el solo hecho de poder observar las piezas originales es un placer, el cual se potencia al contar con información que de bases para la mejor comprensión de la colección. Y es justo en esta experiencia donde la incorporación de tecnologías se ve, según opiniones del público, como una herramienta básica para cubrir la demanda de nuevas generaciones sobre todo, aunque también son muy bien valoradas por personas adultas. En este sentido se han incorporado en los museos y exposiciones, salas con proyecciones de video, sonorizaciones, instalaciones multimedia y recorridos virtuales entre otros. Tras bambalinas se ha incluido también un amplio abanico de medios tecnológicos para el manejo de colecciones, su conservación, restauración, control en bases de datos. La seguridad y el control del acceso han sido también campos donde ha sido prioritaria la incorporación del desarrollo tecnológico. En cuanto a la información que la exposición ofreció a los visitantes, podemos decir en general que fue la adecuada, logro adecuarse a la sociedad mexicana mostrando tres lecturas de la colección. Dentro de la distribución de las salas, se planteo una que explicara la procedencia alemana de las piezas, el arduo trabajo que represento su investigación y conservación. Y es así que al preguntar al público si habían comprendido por qué estas piezas procedían de Alemania en lugar de Egipto, la respuesta fue diametralmente opuesta a lo esperado, la gran mayoría opino que eran producto del saqueo y que debían devolverlas a Egipto. Del mismo modo, en cuanto a la exposición El Canto a la Patria, montada en el Museo nacional de Historia, en la que se intento mostrar al Himno Nacional Mexicano como un canto de paz, los visitantes opinaron que era un canto de guerra, pero que además no entendían muchas de las palabras que lo conforman. Vemos entonces cómo nos enfrentamos, en la dinámica de la comunicación en museos a una sociedad más crítica por lo que no podemos seguir repitiendo los errores del pasado, al utilizar al patrimonio como un elemento de dominación, sino más bien, por el contrario debe serlo de la liberación. El panorama en México en cuanto a la incorporación de la tecnología y del cambio social tiene entonces que realizarse de manera reflexionada. Para ello vemos como existe una gran efervescencia de cambio en México y yo diría en toda América Latina y los llamados países del tercer mundo o dependientes; y por otra parte vemos como aún existiendo el conocimiento y uso restringido de nuevas tecnologías, estas tienen la gran limitante para su incorporación, del

89

financiamiento. Dada esta situación debe pensarse sobre todo en la incorporación de las demandas y visiones de los grupos de la sociedad, y platear de manara moderada el uso de la tecnología. Esto sobretodo nos puede servir para futuros proyectos como el festejo del Bicentenario de la Independencia y el Centenario de la Revolución, en los que ya se tiene una experiencia histórica acerca del tratamiento de estos temas, sucedida durante el gobierno del controvertido Porfirio Díaz, dictador mexicano, que celebraba el bicentenario de la Independencia justo cuando se gestaba un movimiento revolucionario. Por que otro mundo es posible, el papel que los museos jugaran debe tomar en cuenta su separación del poder para plantear una historia en la que podamos leer sus diferentes interpretaciones para comprender mejor el mundo y transformarlo concientemente. BIBLIOGRAFÍA

• García Canclini, Néstor. Culturas Híbridas. Estrategias para entrar y salir de la modernidad. 1990 Ed. Grjalvo, México, D.F. • Freire, Paulo. Pedagogía de la Indignación. Ed. Morata, S.L. 2001 Madrid. • Fernández, Miguel Ángel. Historia de los Museos de México. Promotora de Comecialización directa S.A de C.V 1987 México. • Santacana Mestre, Joan y Serrat Antolí, Nuria. Museografía Didáctica. Ed. Ariel S.A. 2005 España. • Bellido Gant, María Luisa. Arte, Museos y Nuevas Tecnologías. Ed. Trea S.L. 2001 Asturias, España.

Otras Fuentes

• http://www.cnca.gob.mx/cnca/nuevo/diarias/180500/diamuseo.html • http://www.ilam.org/ILAMDOC/ILAM_pub/Edit3_Art_VigenciaNM.pdf

Freire Rodriguez Saldaña Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes Subdirección de Museología Coordinación Nacional de Museos y Exposiciones Ciudad de Mexico Mexico

89

MOUSÀON AND TECHNÈ – REFLECTIONS OF CONTEMPORARY CULTURE Tereza Scheiner (Brazil)

Prologue

The relationships between Museology and Technique are part of an endless universe of possibilities. They may be approached through a historical understanding of museums, which emphasizes the relevance of collections as products of human labor; through the multiple relationships between museums, Museology and the universe of symbolic references recognized and nominated as ‘heritage field’. Or by approaching the technical aspects of Museology, in which case it must be remembered that, to be effective in the sphere of concrete reality, all wisdom or knowledge needs to be valued by a complex of operational mechanisms that allow ideas to become concrete, as action. This is the dimension where we find Museography1.

It is also possible to speak of Museology and Technique as from the point of view of

other fields of knowledge, such as the Cultural Studies, Engineering, Physics or History of Science: they will show the multiple movements that have been used by humankind, throughout time, to transform natural resources into manufactured objects. We may even use a philosophical approach, that helps to understand and unveil the essence of technique, as related to the essence of culture (and consequently, to the essence of the Museum). This latter seems to be a necessary approach, not only because it enables a better understanding of the specific problems of Museology – not yet sufficiently known by other fields of knowledge – but also because Museology will only be able to develop as a specific field if we try to analyze its problems as from the questions and defies found within the field itself.

Reflections on Technique

In several previous works, I have analyzed the different meanings of the terms ‘heritage’ and ‘museum’. It wouldn’t be excessive to remind that my starting point is the principle that both Museum and Heritage are polisemic concepts which, in all times and spaces, refer to articulated (and mutable) complexes of vestiges and references; and that both museum and heritage exist as from the very act of connecting individuals with cultural experience (thus, in real time). Both are founded in the intangible, even when represented by – or representing – material things. As phenomena, they can only be perceived in process.

A similar movement must be made as we approach the term ‘technique’. Some non-

specialized dictionaries refer technique as the procedure, or complex of procedures, that aim at obtaining a specific result in the fields of science, the arts, or in any other human activity. Technique would imply in the knowledge of the necessary operations to create something – herein included the management of specific abilities, tools and information, necessary to reach desired aims, as well as the capacity of improvisation. In its broadest sense (operational behavior), technique wouldn’t be exclusive of the humane: it could be manifested in the activity of every live being, in the form of specific behaviors which facilitate their relationship with the environment – as a response to the necessity of survival.

1 We understand, by Museography, the complex of methods and techniques that enable all forms of museums to operate, in all that the field of Museology recognizes as ‘the basic museum functions’: collection, research, documentation, conservation, interpretation (with special emphasis to the exhibition). Each one of those techniques will, by its turn, involve specific technical procedures – some of them, developed within the museum field; others (most of them), apprehended and adapted from other fields of knowledge.

90

For the human species, technique appears in relationship with the environment as well – but in this case, under the form of a conscious, reflexive, inventive and fundamentally individual process. Only human beings are capable of mentally conceiving something that may be rendered as reality, transforming technique into technology – the articulated complex of operations by which they interfere in the environment, to transform it according to their interest and will. 2

Let us remember that the term technique originates from the Greek technè, term of a

very wide semantic spectrum, possible to be translated as art, technique, complex of norms and also as the manual capacity of elaborating something according to a norm or rule3. It does not relate to the capacity of executing projects from others, nor to a creativity without rules – but to a specific know how, related to a given method; a theoretical and practical knowledge that results in the realization of a specific work. The meaning applies to manual or to intellectual work – as in the case of Engineering and Architecture.

The analysis of the term technè brings to our memories the existing similarities

between the significance of technique and the significance of art, in Greek culture, where technè (art, dexterity) and logos (word) orientated the discourse about the meaning and aims of the arts. The term technè referred to a specific ability, linked to the use of certain rules – an ‘efficient know how’, in the words of Herodotus; something superior to experience, yet inferior to reasoning, even when making use of it (Aristotle).

We use the term technique (the technique) also with a collective significance,

indicating the wide spectrum of techniques used by human society, in different times and spaces - always linked to a determined know how, built through the accumulation and transmission of concrete experiences. The term technology, though, implies the presence of a scientific dimension, aggregated to the technique. And while the original meaning of technè already involved the presence of a certain theoretical aspect, translated into the concrete world through the efficiency in procedures, the modern concept of technology may be interpreted as a new approach to the subject.

We must remember that one of the traits of Western civilization seems to have been

exactly the incorporation of the need for theoretical knowledge into the domain of practice; it led to the development of philosophy and science. The movement that made philosophers investigate the reasons for human existence and the constitution of the Cosmos, and to postulate logical principles to the questions over which they developed their theories, was the same which led the first mathematicians to search the reasons for the properties of the numbers and figures, by means of demonstration. According to Agazzi, to follow such impulse has effectively given origin to the idea of technè: efficient action which results from the knowledge of the reasons for such efficiency4. In this sense, technè differs from epistéme (theoretical knowledge), as it represents a practical knowledge, devoted to the obtention of concrete objectives. The epistéme refers to the truth of what is known; technique, to its existence. It also differs from artistic experience, more related to aesthesis (sensible pleasure) than to the search for utility and efficacy: art creates works that are necessarily individual; the technique produces useful and impersonal means, either through the use of the body or of the mind.

The concept of technology was developed to designate the operations of the technique, founded in theoretical knowledge. And, while the term already has a pre-figured meaning in the notion of technè, technology, in the sense under which it is presently

2 In "http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%A9cnica". Available in May 2007 3 te/xn-h - art, skill, cunning of hand (Homer, Aeschylus); an art or craft, i.e. a set of rules, system or method of making or doing (Herodotus, Aristophanes); system of rhetoric (Plato, Aristotle). In: Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon of Classical Greek. Available in http://perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/resolveform , May 2007. 4 Agazzi comments that other cultures reached those constructions by means of practical rules of calculation. AGAZZI, Evandro. From technique to technology: the role of Modern science. Fribourg University, 2007.

91

understood, is a consequence of Modern science. The theoretical foundation of the old technè was essentially constituted by philosophical reflection, not necessarily leading to the production of know how: philosophical thinking aims at interpreting and understanding the world. But the use of technique led to a growing and self-supported process of knowledge, which has given rise to new techniques, always put on service of practice. Here is the fundament of technology: the generation of processes of intervention in the world.

The middle Ages promoted an incorporation of meanings between knowledge and the

mechanics of technique: ars mechanica has progressively assumed the characteristics of the concept of technique, as it is understood today. This way of understanding the technique was reaffirmed in the Renaissance, when knowledge developed the idea of human supremacy over nature (regnun hominis) and sciences were structured as instances of precise and detailed knowledge over specific aspects of nature. The structuring of new science fields has incorporated scientific knowledge within the sphere of technique, opening a new dimension for human knowledge: technology – a technique that makes use of scientific knowledge and, for its turn, enables science to have concrete application, through the development of practices and/or scientific mechanisms of dominance of the natural world. Technology would thus be an instance of application of science, founded in cognitive aspects and resulting in practical solutions for existing problems, with the use of technique. Technology develops and affirms itself as a mode of application of technique, associated to the concept of ‘applied science’: while science studies and knows the causes, the technique grants the results.

The use of technology has transformed the ways of living, producing new social subjects, with new and different capacities and abilities. This is a continuous and cumulative process: the introduction of a new technology does not automatically turn obsolete the previous ones, which it usually incorporates. The institutionalization of science, linked to the evolution of technology, has been promoting, through time, a spectacular complex of innovations which grant, under several aspects, the well-being of humankind - to the point where, today, we feel it is not possible to make science without technology, or to develop technology without the use of scientific criteria. A new term has been created to design such consubstantiality: techno-science – which may signify either the use of technique into science or the fecundation of technique by science.

Human society has been living with those achievements in ambiguity: both the

modern idea of ‘progress’ and the concept of ‘development’ derive from technological improvement – with all their positive and negative consequences. We must not ignore the fact that, at each step, humankind incorporates mechanisms that provide better and better life conditions; yet it is necessary to analyze to what extent all human beings can (or wish to) make use of such possibilities. On the other hand, we must remember that some areas of the technical progress are still independent of the advancement of sciences: those which are founded on accumulated empirical knowledge, so important in traditional societies – and part of what is today recognized as the intangible heritage of humankind. Those aspects are today fully recognized by the organized instances of the productive sectors, where researchers observe and analyze, with growing interest, the modus faciendi of the practices derived from Tradition.

Two different ways of living are here defined: one, depending essentially of scientific

and technologic development, and aiming at adapting the natural environment to the wishes and necessities of human nature; in such context, nature can be progressively replaced by artifacts, which become more and more complex and autonomous. Agazzi comments:

“Every new advancement in technology is local (like the piecemeal improvements of traditional techniques), but the impacts and consequences rapidly become global, owing to the numberless

92

and complex ramifications of the technological system. In this way, a great many unintended, unexpected, unforeseeable consequences may result from any new technological realization” 5.

We may thus reach the situation of an artificial world, totally created by human

technology, and independent from nature – an absolute exercise of simulation of reality. This does not signify that the humane has ‘tamed’ nature; but it certainly attests the excellence of the technique, and the human capacity of engendering artifice and living with it. It must be now analyzed to what extent this new world and its ‘creatures’ will be controllable by human society: would this be a new function of techno-science?

The other way of living does not depend from scientific and technologic development,

and tries to adapt humanity to the natural environment, generating techniques which cause lesser aggression to nature and to the ways of being of individuals. The humane is seen as an intrinsic part of nature and not as the species that must dominate the other forms of life, and rule over the a-biotic resources of the planet. Yet, to totally follow or respect nature is a criterion of difficult consecution, since our knowledge about nature is today almost entirely mediated by science.

In both cases, what remains imperative is the necessity of finding ethical means of

articulating nature, science and the technique, allowing human society to benefit from the conquests of techno-science, without putting under risk the heritage represented by the natural resources and by the symbolic references (material and immaterial) of all cultures. It is imperative to remember that life itself (including human life) is part of such heritage, and that the use of techno-science should not put under risk the survival of any species, or the free continuity of any cultural form. For the first time in History, we have in our hands the means to promote adequate conditions of life to all inhabitants of the Earth – but we also dominate the means for the complete destruction of humankind, and even the biotic system of the planet6. And since technology does not have means for self-regulation, it is our responsibility to develop ethical criteria for the use of so much technology.

In such a context, the great challenge is to guarantee not only the survival of the

human gender, defending minimal conditions of existence for all individuals, in all societies, but also the survival of the other living species and natural resources. This is what we know today as ‘ethics of responsibility’: it implies acting ‘in such a way that the effects of your action are compatible with the permanence of an authentically human life over planet Earth’ 7. Such ethics must articulate with public policies of technical control, replacing technical judgement (the use of all possible means to attain a given goal) by ethical judgement (which analyzes the value of actions and their consequences over the physical and social environment).

Such proposal, apparently easy to realize, due to the clearness of the principles it

announces and defends, is nevertheless contradictory, giving rise to a series of paradoxes. Firstly because beyond technique we find the human being, with all his/her limitation – and it is not concretely possible to any individual or society (not even with the help of techno-science) to assure total protection of nature. Even if that was possible, humankind would not be able to survive without a minimum level of predation: all human culture depends of nature to perpetuate. Secondly, because scientific interventions and technological progress generate only a limited amount of power over the environment; the same occurs with the

5 Ibid, in Op. Cit. 6 Examples as the manipulation of the atomic force lead us to imagine if we are ready to understand such phenomena – or if we are seriously risking of destroying the planet. The survival of the human species does not depend only of the adaptation of humankind to the natural environment, but also – and in a growing scale – of the perception that we may develop of our limits, as well as of the balanced use that we make or our potential for self-destruction. 7 JONAS, Hans. Apud JOURDE, François. La Technique.

93

domain of human culture over the planet. Humankind is slowly learning to respect the laws of nature. And last, because human moral is in itself contradictory – we defend some principles because we find them just and correct, yet we frequently act on the opposite way8.

Technique is a powerful indicator of our very special character as humanity. It lies in

the genesis of human culture and of civilization, since it was through the technique that homo faber created the first artifact. Bergson comments that “homo faber has preceded homo sapiens” 9. Intelligence is thus, more than essentially creative (capable of continuously engendering the new), also fundamentally technique – it is what allows the processes of mental anticipation that are in the origins of the conception of each artifact, of each object. The creative process, allied to the capacity of realizing what has been conceived, witnesses the capacity of human intelligence to distance from reality, in order to represent. This is our difference: while the animal is in nature, humans are capable of representing it through a conscious process, which attests the human capacity of generating intentional mechanisms of mediation with the natural environment.

Even if the technique may have a value in itself, being considered by philosophers as

Marcuse and Heidegger not as a cultural instrument, but as a mode of relationship, of unveiling the Being - since it changes the essence of things10, we cannot help admitting that it generates an utilitarian relationship between humankind and the world, creating endless mechanisms of mediation. It also implies the presence of labor, activity that warrants the material transformation of the world, through a continuous movement oriented towards production. The conception or project, which lie in the origin of all techniques, imply in transcend the immediate present, acting in the temporality of the interval that exists between the need (or desire) and its satisfaction11. Produced or conceived with a determinate aim, artifacts and techniques can also be conserved, improved and transmitted to the following generations. They can be simultaneously inscribed in the realm of history of culture and represent, in materiality, the symbolic values impregnated in their trajectory – being thus designated as ‘heritage’.

Heritage, museums, technology: apprehension and representation The relationships between technique, cultural production and the symbolic values designated as heritage has always been object of study of the social sciences, and, since its creation, of Museum Theory. The material products of culture are, as we know, a consequence of technical activity, represented by an endless universe of objects, monuments, documents, inventive processes, productive processes, which constitute very specific maps of occupation of the planet. It is from those references (and their immaterial substance) that we may ‘read’ the ways through which human society has been occupying the planet, and understand how different societies coexist - the infinite and complex relationships that each social group establishes within itself and with other collectivities. The relationship between human society and the natural environment is in the base of all museum interpretation, as well as in all movements of identification, apprehension, study, documentation and conservation developed by museums. Furthermore, it was based on the material (or immaterial) references of heritage that legal and technical regulations, intended to protect and treat the complexes nominated as ‘collections’, were developed. Technique is thus, as we all recognize, deeply related to the development of Museology, of Museography and of museums.

8 HAVAS, Katalin. Contradictions in principles of ethics and contemporary technology. Society for Philosophy and Technology, 1996 9 BERGSON, Henri. Apud JOURDE, François. La Technique. 10 HEIDEGGER, Martin. La question de la technique. In: Essais et conférences, Gallimard, s/d. p. 11 11 JOURDE, François. In Op.cit.

94

We know that all space, territory, place, human activity or product of such activity may qualify as ‘heritage’; what matters is not the guarantee of their materiality, but their modes of apprehension of reality. We have inherited from Modernity the habit of perceiving heritage through iconic references of nature and of culture, recognizable through symbolic instances identified as art, science, technique, religion. Materially represented or not, such references may evoke a ‘past’, perceived as the foundation of the present, giving the sensation that something could exist in permanence, over time and space. Yet in the present, science and technique lead us to apprehend the future as part of the present (potential, virtual future), and the idea of permanence is being progressively overcome.

In the last decades of the 20th century, the popularization of computers as collective

equipments of intelligence has provoked a displacement of interests and perceptions, from the material sphere (objects) to cognitive environments, where what exists are fluxes and interfaces. The roads are open for us to think the world as from processes – not products any more. Physical space is substituted by the space of cognitive functions: collection of information, storage and evaluation of memory, decision, concepts. Informatics intervenes in the processes of constitution of new individual and collective subjects; computers become powerful instruments of seduction, generating the most powerful network of meanings ever created by humankind: the virtual universe. Through the action of computers and of new technologies, the world becomes an immense hypertext12. In those ‘co-possible universes’, time, space and language are invaded by a new harmonic law of things: we perceive the world as a living organism, with a transforming metabolism.

The consequence is a deep existential transformation: this is a world engendered by

new engineering and information technologies, under the growing influence of computer science, integrated with telephony, audio and video systems – in digital meganets of multimedia and hypermedia, which unite the fields of computer science and telecommunications, through integrative chains13. A new cartography redesigns our presence in the world, as from rhizomatic (irradiant) maps, which may contain either fixed points (institutional, governmental, commercial networks), or develop towards the infinite through movable points, reinventing themselves at each search, at each trajectory: the famous ‘virtual addresses’, which connect us with ‘virtual communities’ integrated by persons of the most plural backgrounds and places. Here, the virtual space may occupy the space of dream and of imagination, either by substitution (the computer offers the possibility of a formidable imaginant universe), or by emulation (to imagine or to dream in real time)14. In this new environment, all seems to originate from technique, or depend of it – as if it was not possible, to knowledge, to exist without such mediation. That is what Lévy refers to15, in approaching the importance of computers as agents of memory: knowledge by simulation, which operates the technique, is one of the fundamental dimensions of the transformation of the world.

Humankind has been witnessing these operations with a mixture of wonder and fear. The story is not new: since the domestication of fire or the invention of the wheel, the human animal adores and fears his realizations. Yet technological transformation does not mean, necessarily, subjective change; to attribute value to the new does not mean to imagine the subject beyond History. Thus, what really matters in the virtual universe is not to study 12 Even if our traditional works still remain, we are now mainly messengers, as noted by Serres: we inhabit communicational spaces – virtual spaces, difficult to represent by the traditional codes and systems. SERRES, Michel. Atlas. Lisbon: Inst. Piaget, s/d. 13 This operates through integrative chains. Example of the integrated use of new technologies is the Bluetooth, a system of wireless communication that unifies the fields of computer science and telecommunications, working towards the implementation of the GiI (Global Information Infrastructure), a mega-system of multimedia which operates to interlink the planet through an integrative chain of telephony-video-computer-intelligent TV. 14 In the most advanced experiences of immersion, a ‘virtual body’ transcends the physical body, projecting itself inside the computer. This makes us understand the contemporary tendency towards a ‘religion of the body’… 15 LÉVY, P. The Technologies of Intelligence. The future of Thought in the Era of Informatics. RJ: Ed. 34, 2000. 1993. Introduction.

95

machines and the allegories produced, but try to understand by which means these new apparatuses interfere in human relations, or between humans and the natural world.

Among the new symbolic forms generated by technology, one of the most important

is virtual language, creative synthesis of all the languages known to the present days, articulated and dynamic representation of convergence and plurality. This is the language that we barely start to dominate – through terms such as ‘virtual reality’, which designate environments of synthesis, true simulated universes, inspired in concrete reality. Analyzing the complex of signs which indicate this new approach to reality may be an alternative for the apprehension of this universe; another alternative is to try to analyze the true meaning of the informational networks. Those two movements may evidence that such meaning does not reside in the technical excellence of the nets, but precisely in their capacity of intertwining people: more than instruments that configure data banks, the nets are a powerful instance of communication16 - and they are transforming the virtual environment into a new space of representation.

In 1994, Pierre Lévy already anticipated the constitution of cyberspace as “the new

space for the operation of Humankind”17 - a new instance of communication and thought, which would make emerge a dynamic space of collective subjectivity, with new and totally rich symbolic relationships; in such environment, each subject would behave as ‘an actor giving shape to space’18. Today we already live this reality: new collective subjects are being formed, which develop new sensible, cognitive and affective relations with reality. Under the influence of globalization and of new technologies, human society experiences today new ways of living: a new structure of knowledge develops beyond the pathways open by writing (literacy), beyond language – towards new forms of collective enunciation, which aim at allowing that information and knowledge are universally distributed. This is the real essence of the virtual environment: the almost endless potential for creating and sharing information. This is what will make possible, to a certain extent, to recover the contact with oral culture, relegated to a second plan since the advent of literacy and of the static supports of information. But now, this approach is made in a broader and more complex way.

All such movements demand new criteria of choice in the fields of ethics and of

politics, generating a new polis, where transversal relationships must multiply, as well as new instances of political elaboration and decision, not necessarily subordinated to a center. In this immense space, the horizon of communication would be human society as a whole. This is what is being approached here – a universal society, new utopia which aim would be the construction of plural universes, articulated in networks, where all individuals could think and create together, making possible that the ‘voice of the multiple’19 is heard, truly and for the first time, around the whole planet.

Yet, it would be illusory to imagine the mere presence of technique as an absolute

guarantee of change. We must admit that we are still fundamentally modern, and that we barely elaborate and live such new realities. And the paradox is that, to exist, the virtual world must replicate ‘the real world’ – its existence is thus legitimated by the existence of a world that we already know. That is why heritage appears as one of the great symbolic articulations of contemporary times, no more as the complex of values attributed to the

16 Such capacity is facilitated by technique itself, by the creation of ‘intelligent’ components and miniaturized artifacts, which function in atomic scale – making possible the development of robotics, biotechnology, genetic engineering, virtual reality and other fields that originate from technology. 17 Ibid. The Emergency of Cyberspace and Cultural Change. Conference realized in Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil, October 1994. Available at http://www1.portoweb.com.br/pierrelevy/aemergn.html, Dec. 20, 2003. 18 Ibid., ibidem 19 LÉVY, Pierre. Letter to heraclitus @ philopresocéfeso.gr. Available at http://www1.portoweb.com.br/pierrelevy/aemergn.htmlm . Oct. 20, 2004. p. 3

96

geographic space or to the products of human activity, but as a plural value, to which new meanings are being assigned.

Late Modernity has permitted to think heritage as an instance of articulation between

small singularities (the individual; neighborhoods; local cultures) and the areas of representation articulated under the form of management organisms and official instances of power. It is not by chance that its privileged concepts were the total heritage and the conceptual model of Museum of Territory – represented, in the first decades of the 20th century, by open air museums, and in the last four decades, by ecomuseums. Today, new technologies appoint to new and unexpected relationships, defined in cyberspace: the concept of heritage adheres to the time of machines and appears as a symbolic representation of the media universe.

…In this scenery, how to re-signify heritage? The proposal is to accompany the

contemporary tendencies towards plurality, designating not one, but several heritages – each one corresponding to a specific look, to a different mode of appropriating reality:

a first movement would imply in considering the fabulous symbolic complex already

designated as heritage, based on the appropriation and maintenance of material references of ‘the past’. This is the case of the many existing traditional museums;

in a second movement, heritage will be operated as a value-refuge, through which

past may be convoked by the present, to reinforce the identity anchorage of certain social groups, menaced by globalization. This is the case, among others, of ecomuseums and musealized communities;

the third movement will give emphasis to the cybernetic look, re-elaborating the idea

of heritage through contemporary paradigms: dematerialization, plurality, real time. Here, the heritage field adapts to the new media technologies: electronic references constitute the heritage icons – the virtual documents. The basic movements of the relationship with the heritage will now be: appropriation (capture); memorization (stock); codification (reproduction / recreation); and availability (opening to the world), this latter realized essentially by means of the nets. This would be known as virtual or digital heritage.

This new reality is shaking the traditional canons of heritage management and the

ethics of heritage: questions that are polemic by nature, such as authenticity, reproduction capacity, authorship, potential for use (including exhibition, commercialization and diffusion), as well as the effect over audiences, are today, more than ever, focus of concern and themes for debate – leading to the installation of new legal requirements, new technical recommendations, new terminologies. New codes for apprehension of heritages, new perspectives of instauration of permanence, are also created – influencing everything, including the musealisation procedures.

The virtual networks make possible to apprehend things in plurality, teaching how to

live with instability, speed and change – and allowing criticism to all that is fixed: it is no more possible to conceive things in stability. This new way of being allows re-conceive identities as a process, criticize (or re-institute) the existing social forms, re-analyze knowledge and the role of the humane in the world, understand the role and the space of nature and of the technique as instances of relationship. The codes and mechanisms of control of reality are now given by the systems of information: this is the principle that supports the constitution of the networks as public service (net .com) – and also the logics that lies behind the idea of heritage as archive, so important to the Information Science.

97

We did not exhaust the comparative analysis between heritage and the past; and it is already time to start conceiving a new order of relationships, that projects from the present towards what could be called the ‘heritage of the future’, where heritage is conceived in a context of transformation. To understand the existence of a virtual (or digital) heritage, we must try to understand information as a value – cultural and economic value, able to generate, in the social sphere, new relationships, products and services, and to influence choices and behaviors. We must also understand the virtual environment as a new mechanism of consciousness, where information flows from the future (perspective – plans, maps, notes) to the present (action – instance where we now work and produce) and from here to the past (archive – containing every e-mail, photograph, audio, video, program or address list) 20. The recovery will be possible by accessing the narrative flux of each person or group, shaped by the sum of documents relative to their history. This and other experiences will lead us to believe that, in the present times, the real heritage is information. It is information that influences the mechanisms of memory and, in a certain way, controls oblivion: that which has not been artificially captured, codified, may disappear. No wonder why so many efforts are now being put into the development of methods and policies concerning the intangible heritage…

These are some of the perspectives that we now face, in contemporary Museology. Deeply crossed by technique, it incorporates the paradigms of contemporary times, finding its place in the virtual universe through the arts of techno-science, modernizing its practices and informative contents, developing new possibilities of discourse – and, more important, recreating itself in the Net, under the form of a new representational mode: the Virtual Museum, which conceptual base is information. Here, the virtual is presented under two complementary perspectives: as potential (virtuality in the philosophical sense) and as unveiling of concrete reality, related to the capacity of transformation, of production of new reality 21. Only, in this case, technique does not depend of matter.

And here we are, dignified representatives of the ‘homo faber’, of what humankind better values in its ‘civilizatory’ pathway: the capacity of acting over nature to modify it, to tame its excess, which so easily run out of control… That is why technique so much pleases us: it is the agent that allows us to keep the illusion of dominating the world through logos, of capturing in our hands passion, excess, disorder, demasia.22

We could thus ask: where are the Muses, in the articulated representation of technique? By which ways it will be possible to incorporate the functions that we wish ‘museological’, without loosing the very subtle dimension of the spirit? Well, in the extent where we cease to see the Museum only as an instance of capture, of accumulation, of treasuring the material and immaterial things of the world, and really start to believe in the Museum as an instance of creativity, space of generating the new, beyond the norm and the technique.

We must promote the capture, not only of the technical products that result from logical elaboration, but also of that immaterial essence that resides in all relational experience between the human beings and the outside world. In this eternal game between logos and physis, we should try to find the way of the center, that which allows the materialization of the spirit by means of the technique (without forgetting that it is necessary for everything, even to the arts), and the simultaneous retention of the logic capacity that lies behind all sensorial experience. Reason and emotion, Apollo shakes hand with Dionysus: here lies the essence

20 In GELERNTER, David. The end of the dossiers and work areas. The New York Times, 18.11.2002 21 This is what Lévy would interpret as ‘actual’. LÉVY, P. What is the Virtual? RJ: Ed. 34, 1996. p. 15-25 22 Excess. Availabe at http://dictionary.cambridge.org/results.asp?searchword=demasia. May 07, 2006.

98

of the Museum. Here, the Muses may become present as an expression of Art and of Beauty (memory and inspiration); and Prometheus may, at last, make the synthesis between knowledge, technique and creation: the sharing within know how.

The communicational character of heritage, of museums and of Museology reminds us that all that lies on their sphere may be articulated in the realm of discourse. But, as Ricoeur would say, “narrative is not made only with symbols and writing, but also with action, that may be interpreted as a text” 23. In this new approach to reality, Museology incorporates the interest for the constitution of new ethical parameters – and, aiming at amplifying at universal level the successful experiences of community museums, defines that addressing the individual is the absolute priority in museological practice.

This implies “researching the political pathways of existential opening for contemporary Man, to whom it seems that all has already been approached by technique, or that the future has already arrived” 24. We must remember that the idea of culture itself is an artifact, created by our separation from nature25 - and make an effort to retain, from the universe of the technique, the qualities and possibilities that will allow us to ascend to a real humanism – that will help build new social forms that are suitable to all individuals, in all social groups, without leading them towards totaling, towards massification.

It is through this ‘hermeneutics of action’26 that Museology will be able to find the fundamentals to open up towards new directions, articulating art, science, technique, poetics and philosophy to shape, in synthesis, new instances of elaboration of reality – thus contributing, with its material and immaterial qualities, to help building new and more ethical, more open forms of culture, where societies find a new way of being, founded (as ever) in common knowledge and experiences, but this time truly respecting difference. As Aristotle would say, it is imperative to search for Man beyond and through technique, only possible to apprehend in the human dimension.

Prof. Dr. Tereza Scheiner Postgraduate Program in Museology and Heritage – UNIRIO/MAST, Brazil

23 RICOEUR, P. Soi-même comme un autre. Seuil, 1990. Apud SODRÉ, Muniz. Antropológica do Espelho. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes, 2002. p. 254 24 SODRÉ, Muniz. Op. Cit, p.259. 25 LATOUR, Bruno. Nous n’avons jamais été modernes. RJ: Ed. 34, 1994. p. 102 26 Ibid, in Op. Cit.

99

Museology, Responsibility and Techniques Dr. Anita B. Shah (Hyderabad / India) ____________________________________________________________________________ The museum is a social institution par excellence dedicated to understanding, interpreting and preserving the social fabric of mankind and his environment. In lieu of this definition of the museum it acquires certain important social responsibilities. To shoulder these responsibilities and achieve its objectives it needs certain specific scientific techniques. Museum is a place which is at the same time intimate and civic. It is a place in which the drama of the story of mankind is illustrated and where, the significance, sacrifice, tragedy and destiny of peoples and their conflicts come alive. To make displays or ‘stories’ with least manipulation that endure space and time is not easy. Museology and museum practice entails the conscious enactment of a comprehensive decision making endeavor, which necessitates, on the part of the museologist, to make a never ending sequence of value judgments, especially when they have to work with competing rights and responsibilities. The museologist is obligated to present the truth to the public. But the basic question arises what is ‘truth’? Is it just a perspective or a complete reality in itself? A perspective can change the very meaning of an act. For example, the perception of the fighter plane on a mission of defense is diagonally opposite from the perception of the plane on a mission of destruction. What message does the sword of Tippu Sultan, in a history museum, transmit to the audience? Tippu Sultan was a staunch Muslim; he reigned over the Kingdom of Mysore in South India during the 18th century which was predominantly a Hindu state. His religious policy has been a point of contention among various historians. In short, according to historian H.H. Dodwell, Tippu Sultan was a wily, ruthless king, who ruled South India during a time of great political instability. Now to a peace loving visitor Tippu Sultan’s sword may denote an object of violence, whereas, to another visitor it may denote pride or valor, and may inspire in him or her, feelings of patriotism. On the other hand, an academic scholar may consider the sword as an object that helped the king to pursue his personal ambition for a larger kingdom in order to satisfy his greed for more wealth and power at the expense of the common man’s life. But the sword also represents an object that can protect, mete out justice and is a coveted object of the soldier or the king. From a historian’s perspective the fact that the sword belongs to the famous King Tippu Sultan adorns it with socially and historically significant value. These are examples of how different visitors react differently to the same object. So what is truth and what is the perspective the museologist has to consider? These are important questions that have to be considered with great vigor. In order to interpret reality without manipulating it, the museologist has to deploy certain scientific methods so that the conclusions he or she arrives at remain unbiased and accurate. However, when the history of people is interpreted to remain totally unbiased is an ideal beyond our reach. The museum has at its behest only ‘single frames’ of reality, in terms of objects, tangible and intangible heritage. In order to interpret reality with these ‘single frames’ the museologist has to utilize scientific methods of observation, analysis and review which leads to a scientifically sound body of knowledge. This knowledge has to be communicated to a large audience of varied backgrounds, with the ideal intention of taking the audience to the highest level of assimilation.

1. Observation and study of related data and literature. 2. Processing this data into a coherent and organized whole. 3. Analysis of the material logically and rationally.

100

4. Understanding the social implications of the issues, that is, how it will affect the people whose culture is being showcased and the general public.

5. The final aim of the museologist is to present material that is as unbiased as possible, and lead his audience to assimilate the message he wants to communicate.

The aim is to create exhibitions, especially the permanent galleries that endure time and space. According to the Gestalt Theory of Perception our thoughts are centered on our belief system. We only see what we want to see and believe. Most often we have already made up our minds about what we wish to see and therefore perceive things inherently in the manner that supports our existing belief system. When we are dealing with an issue, we unconsciously form judgments. We then tend to collect facts in support of our judgment. We modify facts of our observation to suit our preconceived notions. Our preconceived notions distort our actual vision of the issue. According to a Japanese legend, a Zen master had to choose his successor. He called his disciples together and drew a black dot on a white board. He then asked his disciples what they saw. Almost all saw only the black dot, except one disciple said ‘what I see is a huge expanse of white in which there is a black dot’. He was chosen as the successor. The disciple chosen as the successor saw the whole picture as it was. The rest of the disciples saw just the black dot. They saw only part of the truth. We tend to see what we are formally trained to see, in the process overlook facts that can be critical in opening up new avenues of understanding the issue at hand. Our perceptions limit us, but we have to consciously make an effort to control the interfering variables using scientific techniques of observation, and strengthen the body of knowledge with logical and rational analysis. Furthermore, an effort has to be made to look at things from various perspectives. Values and criterion are two concepts that support museological judgment. Here, value is regarded as a societal norm, a light that guides individual and collective aspirations; whereas criterion is a standard by which a particular event is assessed. Criteria are grounded in the social values, and for it to be valid it must be grounded in one or many values. In all cases, the formulation of judgments requires the explicit use of criteria. In this context, a criterion may be understood as a standard by which a thing is judged and analyzed. Whether explicitly expressed or not, the validity of the criteria depends upon how well they conform to corresponding human values, which in turn, underpin judgment. Design of museums and the displays should be based on social values. To be valid, a criterion must be firmly grounded in one or more values, in this way will the final presentation be devoid of bias and so will retain its enduring quality. Values are shared multi dimensional principles, always intertwined with one another, situated at the confluence of the psychological, social, spiritual and cultural dimensions of our reality. They constitute the deep foundation of our collective aspirations, expressing our hope for the ideal destiny of all mankind. Closely associated with the values, one always finds the institutions of our society. Such an association exists because institutions are created to protect and facilitate social welfare and are therefore nothing but instruments for realizing people’s valued aspirations, hopes and dreams. The values that are important to us in the museum practice are pursuing truth, respect for ‘other’ cultures, equality ( the belief that all human cultures and peoples are of equal value), unity in diversity, the overbearing desire for peace, harmony, common good, goodness, beauty, hope, compassion, justice etc. These value based criteria will help museologists design museums in terms of inner satisfaction that entails social accountability. And this will offer a concrete means of gauging this satisfaction through criteria that have germinated from society’s professed values and are therefore highly relevant to people at large. The basis of judgment must be done keeping two requirements in perspective; it must as accurately and comprehensively as possible describe and lead people to understanding in a way that contains

101

only a few arbitrary elements while keeping bias at the minimum; and it must propose a method of assimilating this knowledge that is in response to human needs. Thus a museum environment which presents a coherent body of ideas has two dimensions, descriptive and perspective. Museology accepts the contextual characteristics of societies and cultures, without negating the possibility of universal, axiomatic values. It tries to discover the patterns of coherence in the chaotic, uncover creativity in the patterned and draw and lead its onlookers to some conclusive answers. Museology has to deal with competing rights and responsibilities as ambiguities have existed since the emergence of human consciousness. Each point of view carries the germ of its contradiction, and each action triggers a reaction. Every human school of thought bears inherent contradictions. Similarly every human action and event is open to debate, as its interpretation depends upon the perspective of the beholder. Thus the fighter plane can be perceived to be on a mission of defense or on a mission of destruction. Similarly, the sword can stand for the values of justice, patriotism etc and also for the negative aspects like violence and the greed for power and wealth. The museologist thus stands as an onlooker objectively analyzing the events before him represented in the ‘single frames’ (material and non material culture) and takes his audience through the drama of life without being overly judgmental, letting the people decide for themselves whether the plane defends or destroys; whether the sword metes out justice or violates the values of human freedom. In any analysis of society, one cannot fail to notice that social consensus cohabits with contradiction, that emancipation is frustrated by alienation; progress is many a times curbed by injustice or disaster, in sum that this immensely complex world of ours does not evolve in a straight line. However, underneath this chaos, we can discover certain order in the form of culture that speaks out the enduring values and norms of society in eloquent terms. If Museology has to be purposeful and prove its relevance to present society it has to show and guide the museum to integrate individual needs with collective needs, propose harmony in diversity, and innovation with continuity and sustainability. Its technique and expertise lies in striking equilibrium between the competing rights and responsibilities which is a delicate, yet crucial task and therefore must rest on important moral values of society. The museologist’s endeavor to understand the values of the society to which the museum belongs forms the basis of his social accountability, and this responsible attitude will go a long way in creating museums that have an enduring influence over society. Finally, the museum environment should be one which emotionally moves the soul of the visitor towards a sometimes unexpected realization. The museum unfolds the story of man which is not simply a story with a happy or unhappy ending, but an ongoing momentum which structures one’s understanding of the present and the future in relation to the past. Anita B. Shah Researcher Hyderabad / India

102

Part II: Museology and Universal Heritage The contemporary significance and role of the Universal Museum Chang Wan-Chen, Taiwan ____________________________________________________________________ The era of the French Revolution: a debate revolving around the Universal Museum In early 1794, amid the chaotic atmosphere of the Revolution, led by new classicist painter Jean-Baptiste Wicar (1762-1834), certain passionate figures began to advocate rapatriement (repatriation) (Poulot, 2001). The term implied that France, as a free nation, had the right to demand that great works of art from all over Europe, divided by its varied history, be sent to France. L’abbé Grégoire (1750-1831), in his first publication, Rapport sur le vandalisme, asserted the idea of making France the nation of universal art. Because works of genius are the intrinsic property of free culture, they can only exist in countries founded upon freedom in order to be susceptible to interpretation, and cannot be valued under superstitious or despotic régimes, he argued (Poulot, 2001). That summer, Napoleon led the French armies in expeditions that would take in the whole of Europe. The rapatriement movement finally reached its peak in the summer of 1796, when the ideal of the Universal Museum had been realized with the continual transportation to the Louvre of the Apollo Belvedere, Laocoön, and works by Raphael (Schaer, 1993).

While almost everybody basked in the delight inspired by the presence of the renowned works, philosopher and art connoisseur Quatremère de Quincy (1755-1849) in 1796 drafted an indictment against the campaign of plunder, called, Considérations morales sur la destination des ouvrages de l’art, generally known as the, Lettre à Miranda. In this extremely famous historical document, Quatremère de Quincy asserted that museums may only transport materials that preserve works, but they may not ship works of art and, “les sensations tendres, profondes, mélancoliques, sublimes ou touchantes” (“the feelings of tenderness, profund, melancholy, sublime, or of being moved, associated with their very origins”) (Quatremère de Quincy, 1815). He argued that for museums to transport all historic works, to exhibit combined fragments anew, to categorize such fragments in accordance with certain methods and attempt to treat such an exercise as a modern class in the chronicling of art amounted to creating history by strangling art, and thus to writing an epitaph to history. (Quatremère de Quincy, 1815)

De Quincy was here attacking the existence of the Universal Museum, founded as it was on the basis of action by which works of art were taken away from their original environment and, of the concomitant, related belief that the independent value of art works can exceed that which they enjoy in their original environment. But whether his ideas should have been supported is a matter on which opinions differ, and a topic of debate in which the museum world has long been embroiled. Because de Quincy’s criticism struck at the core of the question of whether institutions such as museums should even be established, Lettre à Miranda can be said to be the most critical document in the history of museum studies. The past and present of the Universal Museum Looking at the issue in accordance with the standards of Napoleon’s day, we could say that the Louvre captured the essence of the history of human civilization, and represented it in the Universal Museum. As stated above, the so-called Universal Museum must be founded upon recognition of the value of art works that is the same all over the world, on a belief that is

103

common to all humanity. Works of art can be independent from the environments in which they were completed, with no constraints imposed by the place that gave them life. For this reason, our judgments about such works can concern purely their individual form and style, and need not involve prior knowledge of the environment in which they were created. Artifacts from different times and places, moreover, can be placed in juxtaposition in order to generate comparisons and new interpretations. In this way the ideal of the Universal Museum lies in taking in the outstanding works of each place and time and placing them under one roof to display the most brilliant side of human civilization. Large museums as France’s Musée du Louvre, the United Kingdom’s British Museum, Russia’s State Hermitage Museum, the United States’ Metropolitan Museum of Art, and others whose names are familiar to the ears of the general public, are all classic universal museums. These museums are magnificent in scale, with rich collections, presenting the broad sweep of art’s history and development. They are mostly among the first public museums in history, and have become cultural and spiritual symbols that major cities in any country cannot afford to do without. These museums were mostly founded in the eighteenth century, from the private collections of royal families all over Europe. As art and archaeology developed and the reach of European colonialism expanded, these early museums were further able to expand their collections. Until the early years of the nineteenth century the scope of museums’ collections was confined to Greece, Rome, the Renaissance and classicism. The scope of the Musée du Louvre now embraces the art of Greece, Rome, classical Europe, Egypt, the Middle East and Near East, as well as collections from Islamic civilization. The British Museum’s collection also includes art from the Far East. Awaking and catching up were the museums of North America. In addition to the Peale Museum and Philadelphia Museum of Art, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, established in 1870, opened a brilliant page in American museum history. Unlike their European counterparts, which had long used the various means of diplomacy, economics, war, archaeological research, and so on, US museums in the early days mostly relied on private donations and purchases to gather their collections. The collection scope of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, for example, after almost 150 years of accumulation, includes ― apart from Greece and Rome ― classical Europe, Egypt, the Middle East and Islamic civilization, American painters, Far Eastern art, Africa, Oceania, modern art, even the decorative arts, fashion design, photography, musical instruments, and so on; a more diverse range of artifacts than is to be found in the museums of European countries. Right up to the present, the Universal Museum’s continuing strategies of expansion constantly exert an ever stronger, greater, more beautiful impression. In France, the Grand Louvre of the last twenty years of the twentieth century mapped out new parameters for the museum and integrated it with its surrounding architecture, establishing a symbolic position from which France’s museum world could be navigated, and the greatest mouthpiece for disseminating to the whole world France’s boasts of the advances of its museums (http://www.louvre.fr/). On the other side of the English Channel, the British Museum, in the year 2000, completed its Great Court. This project was also one which set new parameters and physically expanded the museum, substantially extending the exhibition areas and visitor service areas, and creating a new image of the British Museum in the eyes of a worldwide audience (http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/). The US’s Guggenheim Museum, on the other hand, has expanded its international influence by establishing branch museums throughout the world (http://www.guggenheim.org/). The contemporary significance of the Universal Museum With its long history of development, and through the various channels provided by trade, diplomacy, war, field investigations, and so on, the Universal Museum has accumulated a rich collection. Be that as it may, however, it has adopted plenty of controversial means of acquisition, especially, since the nineteenth century, the search and collection of colonial artifacts and their dispatch by the European countries to the colonial motherland for research purposes, or the wanton search for artifacts by aggressor countries in the name of war, and so on. After the Second World War, with the achievement of independence and the strengthening one by one of countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America, cases of requisitions for items to be returned have increased almost by the day. On 12th August 1949, it was declared

104

in the Geneva Conventions that Germany must return to Russia the artifacts that it plundered during the war (Shuster, 2004). At the same time, the collections of Jewish people that the Nazis rooted out all over Europe have been repeated subjects of international litigation. In 1976, Belgium signed an agreement with the People’s Republic of Congo for the return of 114 artifacts from the Musée royal de l’Afrique centrale which can be said to be quite a large-scale example of artifact return, although 20 years later, with the fall of President Mobutu Sese Seko, part of this collection was stolen and lost (Gryseels, 2004). In the face of constant international pressure and requests for the return of artifacts, in December 2002, 19 museums, including Germany’s Bavarian State Museum, Munich, and the State Museums, Berlin, Britain’s British Museum, France’s Musée du Louvre, Italy’s Opificio delle Pietre Dure, Florence, Spain’s El Prado Museum, Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum, Holland’s Rijksmuseum, Russia’s State Hermitage Museum, the Art Institute of Chicago, Cleveland Museum of Art, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, the Museum of Modern Art, New York, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York, the Whitney Museum of American Art, the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, and the Philadelphia Museum of Art together published a Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums. This declaration first expresses the position that the international museum world should stem the flow of artifacts of illegal origin, but holds that artifacts collected by museums in the past should, “be viewed in the light of different sensitivities and values reflective of that earlier era” (www.clevelandart.org/museum/infoCMA206_Mar7_03). This is because artifacts installed several decades ago, and even several centuries ago, in European and US museums, were collected in circumstances very different from those prevailing today. With the passage of time, these artifacts have become integral to the preservation of the museums themselves. Next, the declaration expounds upon museums’ contributions to the advocacy of artifact value. In the middle it states that, “The universal admiration for ancient civilizations would not be so deeply established today were it not for the influence exercised by the artifacts of these cultures, widely available to an international public in major museums” (www.clevelandart.org/museum/infoCMA206_Mar7_03). The declaration also gives the art of ancient Greece as an example, explaining that the fact that Greek art has been preserved in museums throughout the world has emphasized its importance to the whole of mankind and its enduring value to contemporary society. It adds, moreover, that, “…the distinctly Greek aesthetic of these works appears all the more strongly as the result of their being seen and studied in direct proximity to products of other great civilizations.” Finally, the declaration emphasizes that calls to repatriate artifacts have become an important issue for museums. “Although each case has to be judged individually,” it states, “we should acknowledge that museums serve not just the citizens of one nation but the people of every nation.” As “agents in the development of culture,” it continues, museums must, “foster knowledge by a continuous process of reinterpretation. Each object contributes to that process. To narrow the focus of museums whose collections are diverse and multifaceted would therefore be a disservice to all visitors.” (www.clevelandart.org/museum/infoCMA206_Mar7_03) From the above excerpts from the declaration, giving its gist and essence, we can see that the European and US museum worlds are together expressing the need to maintain the existence of the Universal Museum. After the declaration was published, George Abungu, former director general of the National Museums of Kenya, openly opposed the notion that certain museums might designate themselves “Universal Museum.” He asked whether all museums didn’t have a common destiny and vision, and whether the, “Universal Museum,” could call itself “universal” because of its scale, collection and wealth of resources (Abungu, 2004). From the perspective of the course and development of history, however, we can see that the Universal Museum does indeed exist The contemporary controversy over the Universal Museum is a result of the fact that the sources and channels that have supplied their rich collections are frequently associated with complex historical factors. This declaration especially calls for requests for the return of artifacts not to be considered in accordance with a set of standards, but dealt with on the merits of each case and in accordance with the historical background and legality of the process by which they were collected. But should each artifact be scrutinized in this way? No. On this point, Jean-Paul Desroches, Chief Curator at the Musée national des arts

105

asiatiques - Guimet, in an interview on the return of artifacts in the French newspaper, Le Monde, said that to cut parts of buildings or sculptures from ancient sites and to collect and display such cut fragments inside museums was unconvincing (De Roux, 2003). Priority should be given to considering returning such fragments to their original sites, he said. Desroches’s view is rooted in notions of the integrity of historic artifacts, and is at one with the ideas of Quatremère de Quincy of 200 years ago. On the other hand, however, Desroches also believes that it can be difficult to ascertain clearly the provenance of paintings, ceramics, metal ware, and other such transportable items which circulate in art markets. On this point, Peter-Klaus Schuster, director-general of the State Museums, Berlin offers an explanation with an example, saying that a fifth century B.C Athenian earthenware vase might shortly after its manufacture have been exported to Italy, and consequently become a mortuary object belonging to Italian nobles before, in the eighteenth century, being unearthed and sold to the king of Prussia, and finally, in the nineteenth century, becoming an exhibit in a public museum (Schuster, 2004). This being the case, should this vase be returned to Greece, Italy or Germany? Clearly, as far as this example is concerned, the legality of its being held by a German museum would be difficult to overturn, and examples of this sort in fact constitute the overwhelming majority of examples in the collections of all museums. Throughout this declaration each signatory museum’s repeated emphasis on their contributions to the advocacy of artifact value is clearly discernible. First of all, the value of an artifact should transcend its significance to a single people or country, and museums which collect artifacts do not serve merely a single people or country. In fact, if it weren’t for collection and exhibition by museums, artifacts might very well not be perfectly looked after and might during the course of history be destroyed or damaged, and lost to the research and enjoyment of mankind. Chinese artifacts are collected in museums throughout the world, testifying to the importance of Chinese civilization, just as the display of paintings by the Impressionists in public and private collections both inside and outside France testifies to a glorious page in the history of French art. The contemporary role of the Universal Museum The main role of the contemporary Universal Museum lies in advancing mutual understanding and respect between different cultures. The primary task of each museum is to enable ever more people to come into contact with its collection. And apart from the traditional displays and publications, the most effective means of improving the ease with which museum collections can be experienced is to make use of the Internet. A look at the work that museums have done in recent years in respect of Internet content shows that, apart from generally posting information about exhibitions and activities on it, they are beginning to bring the particular features of the Internet fully into play, providing services that one cannot enjoy during an actual visit. One approach has been to digitalize the museum’s collection, and turn it into a searchable database. The British Museum’s Compass system, for example, can consult both the museum’s collection using a keyword supplied arbitrarily by a user and its own index. Another approach is that of France, which has integrated the collections of each of its national museums into one search system, known as Joconde (http://www.culture.gouv.fr/documentation/joconde/fr/pres.htm).This system too can research all artifacts in the collections of French national museums. This kind of database, adopting the principle of opening collections as far as possible, is an extremely convenient tool for researchers and other users with a need to conduct searches. Apart from establishing databases, some museums are going further still and developing collection design as a medium for mutual dialogue. These types of system are even richer in educational properties than those mentioned above, and suitable for browsing and study by the general public. The US Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Timeline of Art History, for example, has highly educational functions, using the artifacts in the museum’s own collection to show series of interconnections between the various cultural areas of the world at different times in history. (http://www.metmuseum.org/). Clearly, without a rich collection, such a scheme could have no attraction. The contemporary Universal Museum is a self-styled bridge between different cultures, with a mission to promote respect for diverse cultures. This role can be illustrated

106

by the example of the Musée du Quai Branly, opened in 2006. The Musée du Quai Branly is a major cultural construction work that has been vigorously promoted by the current president of France, Jacques Chirac. It is a public museum that will present the cultures, art and societies of Asia, Africa, the Americas and Oceania. This museum replaces France’s Musée de l’Homme, established in the early years of the twentieth century, as well as the Musée des Arts d’Afrique et d’Océanie, founded at the urging of André Malraux in the 1960s, bringing together and presenting afresh their two collections of over 40,000 items. The Musée de l’Homme followed the groundwork laid by the nineteenth century World’s Fairs, and was a museum of anthropology. The Musée des Arts d’Afrique et d’Océanie was formed from the older-established Musée des colonies, and the items in its collection are also specimens from the field of anthropology, but Malraux extended the twentieth century French artist’s aesthetic ideal of pursuing the aesthetic value of African and Oceanian artifacts, attempting to upgrade such artifacts to the level of works of art. For this reason, the Musée du Quai Branly’s exhibits include some that are anthropological specimens, and some that are to be seen as works of art; its collection is already an inter-disciplinary one whose tentacles have a greater reach than those of the earlier established great museums. From the concept of the Musée du Quai Branly it can be seen that, in touching on discussion of different cultures, contemporary museums are seeking to cast away their abundant confidence in themselves and, with historical, relative and critical perspectives, slice into the constrained relationship between the self and others. In 2000, heralding the opening of the Musée du Quai Branly, the French government set up an independent exhibition area in the Musée du Louvre to exhibit 120 of the coming museum’s most exquisite items. This exhibit was unprecedented, represented the acceptance of what has traditionally been known as, “Primitive Art,” by the greatest palace of the arts in the French museum world and can be said to have realized the visions of the likes of Pablo Picasso to André Breton. Conclusion The Universal Museum has its conceptual origins in the spirit of broad education of the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century, and remains the highest ideal of the museum profession of every country to this day. The discussion about value, however, with which the Universal Museum first concerned itself, is one about whether artifacts may or may not be separated from their original environment. If artifacts could not leave their original environments, museums could not exist. The contemporary museum seeks through varying displays and methods of interpretation to give consideration to the two almost mutually exclusive concepts of the independent value of artifacts on the one hand and the artifact-as-testament-to-civilization on the other. Secondly, the museum’s concept of interpretation is determined by the effects of its displays. On this point, the contemporary museum is starting to cast away its subjective concept of the self, seeking to ponder and reflect from the perspective of others, and to incorporate into the content of its displays the temporal and spatial changes of artifacts and society. In this way, the contemporary Universal Museum will indeed become a medium and a bridge for promoting mutual understanding and respect between different cultures. Bibliography Abungu, G. (2004). « La Déclaration : une question controversée », Les musées universels, Nouvelles de l’ICOM, vol. 57, n° 1, p. 5. Bazin, G. (1967). Le temps des musées, Liège: Desoer. Bobin, F. (2003). « La Chine exige la restitution de ses antiquités », Le Monde, 29 mars. Bresc, G. (1989). Mémoires du Louvre, Paris : Gallimard. De Roux, E. (2003). « Jean-Paul Desroches, coresponsable du département Chine du Musée Guimet », Le Monde, 29 mars. Godelier, M. (1999). « Créer de nouveaux musées des arts et civilisations à l’aube du IIIe millénaire », Le musée et les cultures du monde. Les Cahiers de l’Ecole nationale du Patrimoine, n° 5, pp. 299-304.

107

Gryseels, G. (2004). « Assumer nos responsabilités actuelles », Les musées universels, Nouvelles de l’ICOM, vol. 57, n° 1, p. 8. Poulot, D. (2001). Patrimoine et musées : l’institution de la culture, Paris : Hachette. Quatremère de Quincy (1815). Considérations morales sur la destination des ouvrages de l’art, Paris. Réédition Paris : Fayard, 1989. Schaer, R. (1993). L’invention des musées, Paris : Gallimard/Réunion des Musées nationaux. Schuster, P.-K. (2004). « Les trésors des cultures du monde dans le musée public », Les musées universels, Nouvelles de l’ICOM, vol. 57, n° 1, pp. 4-5. Chang Wan-Chen Assistant Professor Department of Arts and Design National Hsin-chu University of Education, Taiwan

107

Think Globally, Act Locally Ann Davis (Canada) ______________________________________________________________________ Complex society needs sophisticated principles, mores and methods to act effectively. What might these be for museums considering universal heritage? The problems are virtually insurmountable for any museum that attempts to deal with the breadth and depth of all heritage. Limited resources preclude the systematic and creative collecting, exhibiting and interpreting of the totality of the world’s heritages. The difficulty then becomes what to exclude and how to do that. This paper will suggest one way of considering what responsibility museums have for universal heritage and how museums should carry out that responsibility. These thoughts are built on the work of two important philosophers and social activists: John Dewey and Ursula Franklin. Each was a major twentieth century thinker. (Franklin is still alive.) Each gladly wandered into disciplines beyond his or her own specialty to argue for community, action, unity and change in a pluralistic society. Neither wrote principally about museums, although Dewey analyzed art and aesthetics extensively and Franklin undertook a deep and acknowledged study of Chinese bronzes. Each is primarily interested in social function. This paper then will argue for a social function for museums. Before turning to the main question of museums’ responsibility for universal heritage, it is necessary to try to define that heritage. In this paper universal heritage will not be considered to be the totality of the world’s distinct heritages, the sum of all specific and particular heritages. Rather this essay will consider universal heritage to have two other meanings related to location and characterization. The first meaning centres on the universality and ubiquity of heritage, the recognition that there is heritage everywhere but that there are differences between specific heritages – Polynesian heritage is distinct and different from Inuit heritage, for example. The second meaning concentrates on those general aspects of heritage common to all specific heritages, the recognizable features of history and belief. For the purposes of this paper, then, universal heritage is understood to be ubiquitous and common heritage. History of a Social Role for Museums The concept of a social role for museums is not new. With the French Revolution the private museum collection of the crown, church and aristocracy became the property of the state and all citizens were given access to them. Half a century later, in Britain, the gentry promoted opening museums to labourers as an alternative to taverns.1 In the United States, in 1909, John Cotton Dana, a librarian, advocated, “learn what aid the community needs and fit the museum into those needs.”2 For the most part Dana’s concept did not take hold in museums during the twentieth century despite repeated prodding by the likes of Duncan Cameron and Stephen Weil. The exception was the important eco museum movement, named by Hugues de Varine, but 1 Janes, Robert R. and Conaty, Gerald T. Looking Reality in the Eye: Museums and Social Responsibility, Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 2005, p. 2. 2 Dana, John Cotton. The new museum: Selected writings by John Cotton Dana, William A. Peniston, ed., Newark, NJ: Newark Museum Association, 1999.

108

promulgated and delivered by Georges-Henri Rivière. Eco museums, which attempt to portray civilization in their natural environments, are, according to Rivière, to be a joint creation between the local population and its governing authorities, born of local initiative, acting as a mirror reflecting the local populations and its history. For Rivière the eco museum was a laboratory where theoretical and practical research is conducted in connection with the people and the environment; it is a training centre where specialists study the citizens and their milieu and the population acquires the skills to better face future issues. Given these socially-specific goals, is it any wonder Rivière used to declare “The ecomuseum is not a museum.”3 Simultaneously, and very much related, there developed the 1960’s counter-culture, animated by passionate inquisitors and their seminal books, including Jane Jacobs, Death and Life of Great American Cities, (1961), Rachel Carson, The Silent Spring (1962), Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique (1963) and Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Medea (1964). These thinkers and many others of that generation all called for action. Another activist was David R. Brower, an environmentalist who founded a number of noteworthy environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth. For Friends of the Earth Brower coined the slogan “Think Globally, Act Locally,” a phrase given more prominence by its forceful use in the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. Another seminal thinker is E. F. Schumacher, an economist and philosopher, whose book Small is Beautiful (1973) is often credited with originating many of the ideas associated with sustainable development. Schumaker’s insights centre on how people and their needs can refine complex systems, what has been aptly labeled “citizen science.” It is within this environment that we need to examine museums and museums’ engagement with their publics. Can and should museums embrace citizen science? John Dewey In considering museums’ social responsibility for universal heritage the theories of John Dewey are most helpful. Dewey (1859-1952) was an American philosopher and education reformer who is recognized as one of the founders of the philosophic school of pragmatism. He was particularly interested in education, even going as far as defining philosophy as a general theory of education.4 Education, Dewey argued, is a society’s way of culturally reproducing itself. Or, differently, the theory of education is the theory of what is culturally valuable enough in thought, feeling and action to merit transmission to future generations.5 In this respect a museum may be deemed an educational institution, a social organization that aims to collect and preserve, display and interpret what is culturally and scientifically valuable enough to deserve to be communicated and examined. For Dewey, education was a social function, grounded within a community. Similarly, then, museum work is social developing within a community. Dewey considered the relation of the individual to his or her world to be functional in that people are understood to be an active working unit of organism and environment. From Darwin, Dewey acquired the notion that people must act within their environments, passively adapting to or actively transforming their cultures. “The first great consideration is that life goes on in an environment; not merely in it but

3 www.ecomusee-creusot-montceau.com/rubique.php3?id_rubique=39, accessed 3 April, 2007. 4 Dewey, John. The Collected Works of John Dewey. Edited by Jo Ann Boydston Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1969-1991, Middle Works, vol. 9, p. 338. 5 Jim Garrison, “John Dewey”, Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Education, www.yusst.hr/ENCYCLOPAEDIA/john_dewey.htm, accessed 3 April, 2007, p. 3.

109

because of it, through interaction with it.” 6 This validates past experience and, to Dewey, necessitates the incorporation of past experiences in the classroom or museum. Education should concentrate on problem solving and critical thinking, based on past experiences, rather than on memorization, pedagogical and museological theories popular today but considered radical when Dewey developed them. Dewey explained that, “the living creature adopts its past…. It uses past to inform the present… what Santayana well calls ‘hushed reverberations.’ ”7 In analyzing community, Dewey favoured Hegel’s thesis of primacy of Sittichkeit, from the Latin root sitten or custom. With Sittlichkeit the practices and institutions of the community express those norms central to the construction of members’ identity. This is different from Kant’s Moralität, from the Latin mores, that posits a principled obligation because of participation in a community. Dewey never cared much for Kant’s dualisms, vastly preferring Hegel’s demand for unity, what Dewey saw as Hegel’s synthesis of subject and object, matter and spirit.8 Social institutions and social life, then were developed and reflected in community. Dewey considered carefully the role of the individual within community anxious that the individual would appreciate and recognize existing norms and practices of a culture on one hand, and that the individual would possess artistic and critical abilities on the other hand. This balance between exiting culture and the inquiring individual within that culture was crucial. Dewey’s contention that community defines and houses culture argues for the differentiation of specific heritages based on the distinction of communities. If all communities were the same, if all had the same history, customs and environments, education could be an undifferentiated set of knowledge that would cover the requirement of any student anywhere. But, for Dewey, this was certainly not the case. Rather each different environment required a different way of apprehending it. Having identified the differentiation of communities, Dewey then turned to identify commonalities. Dewey discussed the modern level of organization and presentation under the term Transaction. For him Transaction deals with “multiple aspects and phases of action without any attribution to ultimate, final, or independent entities…”9 The Characteristics of Transactions are wide-ranging and include change, interconnectedness, unity, breadth, expansion, communication and freedom.10 Important considerations are as follows:

- Transaction is inquiry in which existing descriptions of events are accepted as only preliminary and tentative. New descriptions may be added at any time.

- Transaction is inquiry characterized by primary observation that may range across all subject matters.

- Transaction has unity such that no one of its constituents can be adequately specified apart from the specification of all the other constituents.

- Transaction develops and broadens the phases of knowledge. - Transaction concerns both an extension in time and an extension in space, so that

“action” is observable in all things. - Transaction requires the primary acceptance of a common system.

6 John Dewey, “Art as Experience” in Albert Hofstdter and Richard Kuhns, eds., Philosophies of Art and Beauty, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964, p. 587. 7 Ibid., p. 591. 8 Dewey, Collected Works, Late Works, Vol. 5, p. 153. 9 John Dewey and Arthur Bentley, Knowing and the Known, Boston: Beacon Press, 1949, pp. 107-109. 10 Ibid., pp. 121-139.

110

- Transaction is the procedure which observes people talking, writing and using other methods to present their perceptions.

This means that for Dewey all human knowledge consists of actions and the product of actions in which people participate with other people, with animals and plants, as well as objects of all types, in any environment. Ursula M. Franklin There is no indication that Ursula Franklin knows the work of John Dewey, although she may well do because she is a dynamic educator who reads broadly beyond her academic discipline of engineering. Importantly Franklin is a pacifist, firm in her Quaker belief in ethical and non-violent actions, the value of study and discernment to guide decisions. Furthermore she is a feminist, born of her experiences as a woman, a scientist, a university professor, mother, and a member of an embracing woman’s community. In this role she consistently asks questions that are different than those asked by her male colleagues. Franklin was born in Germany in 1921 and spent time as a prisoner in Nazi concentration camps, where she lost members of her family. In 1948 she received her PhD. in experimental physics at the Technical University in Berlin and came to Canada the following year. In 1967 she was appointed to the University of Toronto’s Department of Metallurgy and Materials Science where she focused on the structure and properties of metals and alloys and the history and social impact of technology. Apart from more than a hundred scientific articles, Dr. Franklin is best known for her 1989 Massey Lectures, published as The Real World of Technology (1990 and 1992) and the recent publication of her non-scientific social writings, The Ursula Franklin Reader: Pacifism as a Map, (2006). Franklin has a great interest in community. She is particularly concerned that community, “the common good, … art … friendship and scholarship, … whatever is held in common” is increasingly threatened by “the market considerations of buying, selling and profiting.” “[W]e are in the middle of a market-driven war on the common good.”11 She mourns the political reality that the language of tradition, of community is often simply heard as background noise to market forces.12 With new electronic technologies in particular, Franklin sees a blurring of concepts of space and a threat to the idea of local community. Departing from an analysis of the production of Shang Chinese bronzes, Franklin concluded that the capacity to cast very large bronzes in early China depended on a highly centralized and regulated structure that she labeled “prescriptive.” Prescriptive technologies, externally planned, divide the production process into separate and specific parts in which workers have no room for judgment or experimentation. “Holistic” technologies, on the other hand, are artisanal, used by workers who know and execute every step of the process, requiring judgment, experimentation and a constant gain in knowledge. While prescriptive technologies, which dominate the world today, are often very effective and efficient, they come with an enormous social price, that of compliance, acceptance, a loss of connectedness and the opportunity to experiment.13 And prescriptive technologies diminish community, just what ecomuseums were created to fight. Unity has always been key for Franklin. As a pacifist she rails against the dominance of military or conflict models of evaluation, promoting instead a cooperative system, which is used 11 Ursula Franklin Reader: Pacifism as a Map, Toronto: Between the Lines, 2006, p. 119. 12 Ibid., p. 145. 13 The Real World of Technology, Toronto: Anansi, 1990, revised 1992, revised 1999, pp. 13-19.

111

daily on a small scale. She favours “eco-stress models, models that illustrate the interweaving of global issues in order to emphasize their common roots, and coping models that women have learned from history and nature.”14 In fact Franklin goes considerably farther, declaring that the issue is how to live in one world, since all the environments – the natural, the built and the engineered – are so irreversibly intertwined that there must be a livable world for all or for none.15 But unity does not eliminate the need for diversity. Within unity, Franklin champions diversity, firmly recognizing that “the mutual dependence and stability of components within an ecosystem exist because of, not in spite of, diversities and differences.”16 These thoughts are not far removed from Dewey’s Transaction on unity. Like Dewey too, Franklin supports the need for experimentation and change. Using the Reformation as example, she explains that we know today what is wrong with society, what must be changed, but that we don’t know how change will come. In this uncertainty, it is vital to struggle, “ to hold the vision of justice and peace clearly before us.”17 The world, including the natural world, changes all the time. How changes occur and are managed is important. Referring again to Chinese civilization, Franklin notes that; while Western thinkers strove for order, the Chinese thought of time and change, believing that everything is cyclical. The Chinese then were interested in understanding the dynamics of change, how the various cycles fit together. This cosmology, Franklin contends, merits our attention.18 Parallel to Dewey, Franklin enunciated the principals by which she lives. She outlined them, quoting from the Religious Society of Friends Advices and Queries. Summarized, these are:

- Bring the whole of your daily life under the ordering of the spirit of Christ. - Live adventurously. - In your relations with others, exercise imagination, understanding and sympathy. - Endeavour to make your home a place of peace and happiness where the presence

of God is known. Try to live simply. - Encourage the appreciation of music, literature and the other arts and the

development of a taste that will reject the worthless and base. - Remember your responsibility as citizens for the government of your own town and

country. Do not be content to accept things as they are, but keep an alert and questioning mind.

- Do not … buy what you do not need or cannot afford.19 The museological interest here is not in the institutional religious aspect of Franklin’s belief, for surely museums in multi-faith communities must not focus on one religion. Rather attention should be paid to the values enunciated. Furthermore, although the specifics and the language are very different between Dewey’s Transactions and Franklin’s Quaker Advices, the fundamental tenets are strikingly similar. Museums and Universal Heritage with Dewey and Franklin

14Franklin Reader, p. 110. 15 Ibid., p. 144. 16 Ibid., p. 146. 17 Ibid., p. 127. 18 Ibid., pp. 150-156 19 Ibid., pp. 49-51.

112

Both Dewey and Franklin consider the principles they have enunciated – those of community, action, unity and change in a pluralistic society – to be universal in scope and reach. Each hopes that, with judicious, sympathetic and imaginative application, these principles can and will lead to a better society, one in which the use of holistic technologies will balance the use of prescriptive technologies, a cooperative system will supersede an oppositional model, and diversity will be honoured within unity. This system is built on community, for it is community that gives and makes value, social value, not commercial or financial value. Once the unit is expanded beyond community, individual control and creativity gets lost and prescriptive technologies triumph. Furthermore Schumaker’s citizen science is vital. Involvement and action are most important. In creating ecomuseums, Georges-Henri Rivière recognized the enormous social stresses Dewey and Franklin have analyzed and created a structure to deal with these pressures. Rivière’s lesson must not be lost. Museums dealing with universal heritage must think globally and act locally. Prof. Dr. Ann Davis Nickle Arts Museum University of Calgary/Canada

113

Museología y la Salvaguarda del patrimonio Universal en una Sociedad en Constante Cambio Eva Guelbert de Rosenthal – ICOM, ICOFOM LAM, Argentina ________________________________________________________________________ Nos hemos planteado muchas veces si la museología en si misma es teoría o praxis o ambas a la vez. Hoy sabemos que no podemos separar una de la otra porque ambas conforman el corpus y el alma llevada a la práctica de lo exhibido y de lo resguardado. Este planteo deviene de un paradigma anterior: si es considerada una ciencia o una técnica al servicio del hombre y de su entorno. Decimos que no únicamente acciona con las normativas de una ciencia, sino que interacciona con otras, sin dejar de aplicar sus técnicas en la investigación, en el registro, en la catalogación, en el diseño de exposición, etc. En las conclusiones y consideraciones del II y VIII Encuentro Regional del ICOFOM LAM (1993 y 1999) se destaca el carácter científico de la Museología, la necesidad de definir su status epistemológico, su accionar como disciplina que pertenece al área de las ciencias humanas y que como tal debe fundamentarse en los principios que le proporciona la filosofía 1 Tal como nos dice Dr. Hildegard K. Vieregg2 ”en el contexto de la Museología también surgen cuestionamientos que conciernen a la inspiración, a la espiritualidad y al patrimonio cultural, eventualmente en una palabra cibernética, la asociación entre musealización y visualización, así como modos de proceder en varios países y regiones reflejan la coherencia del patrimonio cultural y las diferentes culturas” Ante los cambios vertiginosos de las últimas décadas, la expansión del proceso de globalización y la evolución tecnológica aplicada a los campos de las ciencias (entre las que se encuentra la museología), de la comunicación, de la difusión, etc. nos cuestionamos:

Cómo influyen los cambios que se producen en la sociedad y en su entorno, en la evolución y desarrollo de la teoría museológica, tomando en cuenta la rápida evolución tecnológica. Y si los mecanismos de abordaje son los adecuados para el momento actual.

Por otra parte que elementos son considerados como patrimonio Universal: las obras de la naturaleza o los bienes culturales.

Todo objeto tiene un currículo y un entorno: fue creado o construido por alguien, con un fin determinado, para un uso pre-determinado, en un tiempo y en un espacio. Bien de uso cultural, artístico o natural, medio o fin alguien seguramente fue su creador, inventor, productor o ideólogo. Toda creación humana por el simple hecho de haber sido creada o producida por el hombre es su patrimonio y forma parte del legado universal. ¿Pero es considerado Patrimonio Universal?.

Sin lugar a dudas los constantes cambios en la sociedad y en su entorno demandan respuestas acordes al momento actual: el aggiornamiento en el abordaje de los contenidos teoréticos y en la aplicación en la praxis de las nuevas tecnologías. El fin a lograr es una mejor clarificación de los temas conceptuales y una lectura semiótica-visual uniforme en el lenguaje, de alcance y difusión global, sin perder de vista el respeto en la diversidad cultural.

1 Los conceptos vertidos en los documentos publicados por el Comité Internacional de la Museología (ICOFOM) constituyen la base teórica fundamental para el desarrollo de la Museología como disciplina científica. El pensamiento Museológico L.A. ICOFOM LAM: “Cartas y recomendaciones 1992-2005”. Comp. Lic. Nelly Decarolis 2 Presidenta de ICOFOM(2004-2007), Texto provocativo: “Museo y patrimonio Universal” Pto. 2.

114

Los mecanismos de abordaje sufren también modificaciones acorde a los ejes de interés de la sociedad que lo demanda. La rápida evolución tecnológica si bien ayuda y agiliza el proceso de integración conceptual necesita también de una alerta constante para no desvirtuar los fines. ”... cada forma de presentación de objetos en las exposiciones temporarias de museos es, en cierto sentido, un proceso de actualización de sus mensajes en la atmósfera virtual del teatro de la memoria actual. Estos objetos están plasmando recuerdos, y el modo (con un enfoque deliberado por parte del autor de la exposición) en que los visitantes los experimenten es siempre un nuevo reflejo del espíritu de la época y un nuevo intento por comprenderlos. Esta relatividad espiritual, en relación con su integración con lo material, es un desafío fundamental en la combinación de la trinidad semiótica de lo material, la forma y el significado del objeto de museo...... Los avances actuales de la tecnología de la información y las verdaderas posibilidades de visualizar muchos de los supuestos sobre la apariencia primigenia del objeto según los datos observados y documentados y sin destrucción física alguna de la evidencia preservada en el material del objeto, han dado lugar necesariamente a nuevos métodos en el modo de pensar la presentación del objeto patrimonial”3. Debemos destacar que si bien dicho objeto es testimonio de su tiempo y producto de la creatividad de un inventor, con un fin determinado, ingresó como parte del acervo del museo, forma parte del legado universal pero sin embargo no es considerado como Patrimonio Universal(ver características4 Si partimos de la base que los museos:

contribuyen a explorar y a comprender el mundo por medio del estudio, la preservación, la transmisión y la difusión del Patrimonio Universal (material e inmaterial).

garantizan la protección, documentación y promoción del patrimonio natural y cultural de la humanidad.5

son el reservorio de la memoria colectiva que da identidad a una localidad, comunidad y/o región. Constituyen el ámbito apropiado para la salvaguarda de valores, objetos, documentos, recuerdos, costumbres, etc. que hacen al universo del hombre y su realidad en el tiempo y en el espacio cultural y natural, de una irreparable pérdida por olvido(deliberado, manipulado o por paso del tiempo). Las acciones que se llevan a cabo para evitarlo, muchas veces resultan insuficientes.

El 16 de noviembre de 1972, la conferencia General de la UNESCO aprobó la Convención sobre la Protección del Patrimonio Cultural y Natural. El principal objetivo fue lograr que los países que lo ratificaran se declararan responsables de la protección de los espacios naturales y culturales de su territorio que por su singularidad poseyeran valores que beneficiaran a toda la comunidad internacional. Paralelamente se subrayó la corresponsabilidad de todos los países en su preservación y se creó un fondo económico para tal fin, para evitar su pérdida por razones de escasez de recursos financieros o humanos adecuados. También se creó la Lista del Patrimonio Mundial. En ella están hoy incluidos más de 600 sitios culturales, naturales o culturales-naturales.6 Para ser incluidos como bienes del Patrimonio Mundial, deben poseer determinadas características. Como ser:

haber ejercido una gran influencia en la historia de la humanidad, al aportar un testimonio único o constituir un hábitat humano tradicional y representativo de una cultura.

Constituir una etapa de la evolución de la tierra, representativa de la evolución biológica, ser hábitat natural de especies amenazadas o poseer una belleza excepcional.

3 Maroevic, Ivo - ¿Qué es lo que estamos presentando en los museos, objetos o ideas? 4 Ver características del Patrimonio mundial. 5 Código de deontología del ICOM para los museos, Art. 1 6 Guía del Patrimonio de la Humanidad. – Edición La Nación, España.

115

Representar muestras significativas y únicas de la relación del ser humano con el entorno natural.

A partir de la Convención de La Haya y las Declaraciones internacionales adoptadas en el ámbito de la UNESCO se ha tratado de concienciar en el ámbito del derecho internacional humanitario y despertar el interés hacia una toma de conciencia sobre la necesidad de protección del patrimonio cultural desde una perspectiva sistémica. 7 Recordando la significación del pacto Roerich de 1935 como instrumento específico para la protección de Bienes Culturales, en caso de conflicto armado, se reconoce que “el patrimonio cultural es un componente de la identidad cultural y de la cohesión social de las diversas comunidades, por lo que su daño o destrucción deliberados pueden menoscabar tanto la paz como la dignidad humana y el respeto por los derechos humanos”. Dichos Bienes son considerados como “el legado del pasado, un activo del presente y la herencia de las futuras generaciones “ de allí la necesidad “de protegerlo y conservarlo como parte de la vida cotidiana, fuente irremplazable de vida e inspiración, punto de referencia y base fundamental del desarrollo económico y social” Que en el caso de daño o destrucción, tanto del Patrimonio cultural como natural, “puede representar una violación del derecho internacional humanitario”8. Nos preguntamos ¿porque se destruye un bien? Por el hecho de obtener una ventaja, por haberse convertido en objetivo militar o bien por ser una expresión de cultura de un pueblo y por ende se puede aniquilar su identidad. No cabe duda que todas y cada una de estas respuestas son acertadas. El Estatuto de la Corte penal internacional establece la competencia con respecto a los crímenes de guerra, genocidio y de lesa humanidad, las violaciones graves a las leyes y costumbres internacionales. El estatuto también contempla lo que atañe a bienes culturales o sea penalizar como crímenes de guerra cuando se dirigen “intencionalmente ataque contra edificios dedicados al culto religioso, las artes, las ciencias o la beneficencia, los monumentos, los hospitales y los lugares en que se agrupa a enfermos y heridos, siempre que no sean objetivos militares...”9 También las convenciones internacionales convocadas por la UNESCO y otras organizaciones no gubernamentales debaten la salvaguarda de los bienes naturales, aquellos que hacen al patrimonio ecológico y cuya destrucción hace peligrar la vida del hombre sobre el planeta. A diario vemos como se siguen produciendo en el mundo ataques organizados de todo tipo y forma de pérdida de valores, bienes y vidas. No faltan los ejemplos de lugares donde las cicatrices de la guerra se unen a una lista de amenazas que pesan sobre su biodiversidad. Obviamente la responsabilidad y la acciones tanto teóricas como prácticas deben ser compartidas por todos los estamentos sociales y organismos, en el proceso de salvaguarda, protección y uso sustentable del patrimonio a fin de que su legado llegue a futuras generaciones. Y en éste proceso la museología tiene un rol sustancial. Bibliografia

7 Embajadora Pataro, María Susana – La Protección de los Bienes Culturales en caso de conflicto armado: “Un desafío y una oportunidad para América Latina y el Caribe” - Seminario Regional, Introducción; Buenos Aires, Enero 2006. 8 Recomendaciones de Buenos Aires, Seminario Regional La Protección de los Bienes Culturales en caso de conflicto armado: “Un desafío y una oportunidad para América Latina y el Caribe” 9 Estatuto de Roma, artículo 8, párrafo 2(b)

116

1. Código de Deontología del ICOM para los Museos. 2. Documento provocativo: Ideas to ”Museum and Universal Heritage”, Dr. Hildegard K.

Vieregg, Presidente ICOFOM. 3. Documento Provocativo: “Museología e interpretación de la realidad: el discurso de la

historia”, Dr. Teresa Cristina Scheiner, ICOFOM LAM, Brasil. ICOFOM Study Series ISS 35.

4. Decarolis, Nelly, Pres. ICOFOM LAM, Argentina: “Museología y presentación: un emprendimiento conjunto de ciencia y arte” – ICOFOM Study Series ISS 33b

5. Decarolis, Nelly, , Pres. ICOFOM LAM, Argentina: “Entre lo tangible y lo intangible” – ICOFOM Study Series ISS 32.

6. Guía del Patrimonio de la Humanidad - UNESCO, La Nación, España 7. La protección de los Bienes Culturales en caso de Conflicto Armado “Un desafío y una

oportunidad para América latina y el Caribe” –Seminario Regional, Buenos Aires, 2005. 8. El pensamiento museológico Latinoamericano – Los documentos del ICOFOM LAM –

Cartas y recomendaciones – 1992-2005. 9. El tráfico Ilícito de bienes culturales en América Latina – ICOM, 1996. 10. Maroevic, Ivo, Croacia – “¿Qué es lo que estamos presentando en los museos, objetos o

ideas?” – ICOFOM Study series ISS 33b 11. Sansón, Andrés, Argentina: “Museo y Museología, una propuesta” – ICOFOM Study

Series ISS 35.

Lic. Eva Guelbert de Rosenthal Ing. Sajaroff 360 Moisés Ville (2313) Argentina T.E. 0054-3409-420110 E-mail: eva_rosenthal@hotmail.com evaguelbert@yahoo.com.ar Directora del Museo histórico Comunal y de la Colonización Judía “Rabino Aarón H. Goldman” de Moisés Ville. Miembro de la Comisión de ICOM Argentina Integrante del ICOFOM LAM - Argroup

117

MUSEOLOGY AND THE PRESERVATION OF UNIVERSAL HERITAGE IN A CHANGING SOCIETY Eva Guelbert de Rosenthal – Argentina We have often discussed whether museology is in itself theory, praxis or both at the same time. At present we know that it is not possible to split one from the other because both make up the corpus and the soul of the object exhibited and preserved. Such discussion stems from a previous paradigm: whether museology is considered a science or a technique at the service of man and his environment. We consider that it doesn’t only work with the rules of a science but it co-works with others, applying its own techniques in research, registering, cataloguing and designing of exhibitions. In the conclusions and considerations of the II and VIII ICOFOM LAM Regional Meetings (1993 and 1999), several aspects are highlighted: the scientific character of museology, the need to define its epistemological status, its functioning as a discipline that belongs to the area of human sciences and, as such, based on the principles provided by philosophy.1 According to Dr. Hildegard K. Vieregg 2 “… within the context of museology, other questionings arise concerning the inspiration, the spirituality and the immaterial heritage. Eventually, in a cybernetic world, the association between musealization and visualization, and in diverse countries and regions, the different ways of action reflect the coherence of cultural heritage within different cultures”. In view of the vertiginous changes of the past decades, such as the expansion of the globalization process and the technological revolution, applied to the fields of science (among which we find museology), we wonder:

♦ How do changes in society and its environment influence the evolution and development of museological theory, taking into account the fast technological evolution? Are the approach mechanisms adequate for the present moment?

♦ What elements are considered Universal Heritage: the works of nature or the cultural property?

♦ Every object has a curriculum and an environment, created or built by someone, with a specific purpose, for a pre-determined use in a given time and space. Property of cultural use - artistic or natural - means or purpose, somebody was its creator, inventor, producer or ideologist. Every human creation, just because of being created or produced by man, becomes his heritage and is part of the universal legacy. But is it really considered Universal Heritage? 10

Undoubtedly, the constant changes in society and in its environment require answers according to the present moment: the updating in the approach of theoretical contents and in the praxis of new technologies. The pursued objective is a better clarification of the conceptual topics and a uniform semiotic-visual reading of language - with a global range - without living aside cultural biodiversity. The approach mechanisms also suffer modifications according to the main points of interest of the demanding society. The rapid technological evolution, even when it facilitates the process of conceptual integration, also needs a constant alert in order not to change the objectives. “Each way of presenting the objects in the at the museums temporary exhibitions is, in a way, an updating process of their messages in the virtual atmosphere of the theatre of present memory. These objects are shaping memories – with a deliberate approach on the side of the author of

118

the exhibition - and the way visitors experience them is always a new reflection of the spirit of the time and a new attempt to understand them. This spiritual relativity, as regards its integration with the material aspect, is an essential challenge in the combination of the semiotic trinity of material aspect, shape and meaning of the museum object… The current advances in information technology and the real possibilities of visualizing many of the assumptions on the primigenial appearance of the object (according to its documented data, without physical destruction) have necessarily made room for new methods in the way of thinking the presentation of the heritage object”.3 It must be highlighted that, even if that object is a testimony of its time and the product of the creativity of man, it becomes part of the museum assets and therefore, of the Universal Legacy. However, it is not considered Universal Heritage (see characterisctics).4 If we asssume that museums:

♦ contribute to the exploration and comprehension of the world through the study, preservation, transmission and dissemination of the Universal Heritage (material and immaterial);

♦ guarantee the protection, documentation and promotion of the natural and cultural heritage of mankind;5

♦ are the reservoires of the collective memory that provides identity to a community and/or region;

♦ constitute the proper environment for the preservation of objects, documents, memories, habits, value, that make up the universe of man and his reality in a cultural and natural time and space, the actions carried out to avoid the irreparable loss due to oblivion are frequently not enough.

On the 16th November 1972, the UNESCO General Conference ratified the Convention on Protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage. Its main objective was to make the signing countries consider themselves responsible for the preservation of the natural and cultural spaces which, due to their uniqueness, had important values for the whole international community. The World Heritage List was also created and nowadays it includes more than 600 cultural, natural or cultural landscape sites, (6) In order to be considered as World Heritage they must bear certain characteristics, such as:

♦ having exercised a great influence in the history of humanity by rendering a unique testimony or building a traditional human habitat, representative of a culture;

♦ constituting a stage in the evolution of Earth, representative of the biological evolution;

♦ being a natural habitat of endangered species or possessing exceptional beauty; ♦ showing a significant and unique relationship of human beings with their natural

environment. Based on The Hague Convention and on the international declarations adopted within UNESCO, it has been tried to create awareness within the scope of humanitarian international law and to arouse interest about the need to protect cultural heritage from a systemic perspective.(7) If we remember the significance of the Roerich pact of 1935 as a specific instrument for the protection of Cultural Property in case of an armed conflict, it is ackonwledged that “…cultural heritage is a component of the cultural identity and of the social cohesion of the different communities, since their damage or destruction may impair peace as well as human dignity and the respect for human rights”. Such property is considered “…the legacy of the past, an asset of the present and the inheritance of the coming generations”. Thus, the need “to protect it and preserve it as part of

119

everyday life, irreplaceable source of inspiration, reference point and fundamental base of the economic and social development”. In case of damage or destruction of the cultural and natural heritage, “it may be considered a violation of the humanitarian international law”.8 Property is destroyed in order to obtain a benefit because it has become a military target or for being a cultural expression and, therefore, its identity can be annihilated. Undoubtedly, each and every answer is right. The Statute of the International Penal Court establishes the competence as regards war and less humanity crimes, genocide, serious violations to international laws and customs. The Statute also refers to cultural property, penalizing war crimes “intentional attacks against buildings devoted to religious cults, arts, science or charity; monuments, hospitals and places where ill and injured people are sheltered, as long as they are not military objectives…” 9 Other international conventions held by UNESCO and other NGO discuss the preservation of natural property as the ecological heritage, whose destruction jeopardizes the life of man and the Planet. We can daily see all types of organized attacks and different ways of losing values, property and lifes in the whole world. There are plenty of examples of places where the scars of war are part of a list of threats that hang over biodiversity. Obviously, the responsibility and the theoretical and practical actions must be shared by all the organizations and social stages in the process of preservation, protection and sustainable use of heritage, so that its legacy can reach future generations. In this process, museology holds a significant role.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. ICOM Code of Professional Ethics for Museums. 2. Triggering document: Ideas to “Museum and Universal Heritage”, Dr. Hildegard K.

Vieregg. ICOFOM President. 3. Triggering document: “Museology and Interpretation of reality: the discourse of

history”, Dr. Teresa Cristina Scheiner, ICOFOM LAM Brazil, ICOFOM Study Series, ISS 35.

4. Decarolis, Nelly, “Museology and Presentation: a joint venture of science and art” – ICOFOM Study Series ISS 33b.

5. Decarolis, Nelly, “Entre lo tangible y lo intangible” – ICOFOM Study Series ISS 32. 6. Guide to the Heritage of Humanity – UNESCO, La Nación, Spain. 7. The Protection of Cultural Property in case of Armed Conflict “A challenge and an

opportunity for Latin America and the Caribbean”. Regional Seminar, Buenos Aires, 2005.

8. The Latin American Museological Thinking – ICOFOM LAM documents – Letters and Reccomendations – 1992-2005.

9. Illicit Traffic of Cultural Property in Latin America – ICOM, 1996. 10. Maroevic, Ivo – “What are we presenting in the museums, objects or ideas?” –

ICOFOM Study Series ISS 33b. 11. Sansoni, Andrés, Argentina: “Museum and Museology, a proposal” – ICOFOM Study

Series ISS 35.

120

1.The concepts expressed in the documents published by the International Committee of Museology (ICOFOM) constitute the fundamental theoretical basis for the development of Museology as a scientific discipline. The Latin American Museological Thinking – ICOFOM LAM: “Letters and reccomendations 1992-2005”. Compiler: Nelly Decarolis. 2. Vieregg, Hildegard . President of ICOFOM (1994-2007). Triggering text: “Museum and Universal Heritage” item 2. 3. Maroevic, Ivo – “What are we presenting in the museums, objects or ideas?” 4. See characteristics of the World Heritage. 5. ICOM Code of Professional Ethics for Museums, Art. 1 6. Guide to the Heritage of Humanity – UNESCO, La Nación, Spain. 7. Ambassador Pataro, Maria Susana - The Protection of Cultural Property in case of Armed Conflict “A challenge and an opportunity for Latin America and the Caribbean”. Regional Seminar, Introduction, Buenos Aires, January, 2006. 8. Reccomendations of Buenos Aires, Regional Seminar “The Protection of Cultural Property in case of armed conflict: “A challenge and an opportunity for Latin America and the Caribbean” 9. Rome Statute, art. 8, paragraph 2 (b) Lic. Eva Guelbert de Rosenthal Ing. Sajaroff 360 Moisés Ville (2313) Artentina T.E. 0054-3409-420110 E-mail: evaguibert@yahoo.com.ar Directora del Museo histoórico Comunal y de la Colonización Judia “Rabino Aarón H. Goldman” de Moisés Ville Miembro de la Domisiéon de ICOM Argentina Integrante del ICOFOM LAM – Argroup

121

Retos de Los Museos Cientifícos ante el Desarrollo de la Sociedad del Siglo XXI Francisca Hernández-Hernández 1 (Spain) _______________________________________________________________ 1. Los museos de ciencias naturales intentan superar su situación de crisis. A lo largo de su historia los museos de ciencias naturales han ido experimentando una profunda crisis que les ha llevado a replantearse los principios fundamentales de la museología científica desde una perspectiva crítica de la cultura moderna. Si analizamos la trayectoria de museos tan significativos como el de Historia Natural de París o el de Ciencias Naturales de Madrid, observamos cómo eran fruto del coleccionismo privado y de los gabinetes de física o de ciencias naturales y que, pese a ello, solían considerarse como centros científicos porque se dedicaban a la elaboración de inventarios y a la profundización de la investigación. Pero pronto entraron en crisis como el resto de museos de historia natural tradicionales y muchos de ellos se vieron obligados a cerrar sus puertas porque necesitaban una profunda transformación de sus instalaciones y una no menos significativa renovación científica, metodológica y expositiva. Será el British Museum de Historia Natural de Londres el que mejor sepa adaptarse a las nuevas necesidades realizando un gran esfuerzo de innovación en sus exposiciones y ofreciendo al público una visión actualizada de sus colecciones. Posteriormente, con la creación del Palais de la Découverte, considerado el primer centro científico europeo que trata de motivar, promover e instruir a los visitantes en el conocimiento de los principios de la ciencia y de la técnica, aparecerán otros muchos museos como el Exploratorium de San Francisco, la Cité des Sciences de París, el Eureka de Helsinki, el Ontario Science Centre de Toronto, el Museo de la Ciencia de Barcelona, la Domus de la Coruña o el Museo de las Ciencias Príncipe Felipe de Valencia, por poner sólo algunos ejemplos, que, aún careciendo de colecciones científicas, tratan de profundizar en la dimensión experimental del aprendizaje. De hecho, tanto el Ontario Science Centre de Toronto como el Exploratorium de San Francisco son considerados como representantes de la teoría de los science centers, instituciones que tienden a identificarse más con un medio de comunicación de masas que con los gabinetes de colecciones de carácter tradicional (Guédon, 1986). Hoy, al hablar de los science centers, es obligado referirse a dichos museos porque se han convertido en verdaderos instrumentos de comunicación, llamados a participar en la promoción de la ciencia y de la técnica, consideradas como dimensiones culturales. Ante dicha situación de crisis los museos científicos han de hacer frente a una nueva etapa de transición que les exige adaptarse a las exigencias de las nuevas tecnologías y crear nuevas relaciones con los visitantes si quieren seguir conservando un papel fundamental como verdaderos centros científicos dentro de la sociedad actual. James Bradburne (1998:71 ss.) está convencido de que es necesaria una renovación en profundidad de dichos museos si pretenden responder a las necesidades de los visitantes que se acercan a ellos. Dichos museos han de apostar, en primer lugar, por un verdadero cambio que esté en consonancia con la aparición de las nuevas tecnologías y con las exigencias de una continua renovación capaces de responder con rapidez y eficacia a los cambios que se van sucediendo dentro de la sociedad. El visitante que se acerca a los museos de ciencias desea participar activamente en cada una de las exposiciones y ponerse al día en las novedades científicas y tecnológicas.

1 Profesora de Museología y Patrimonio de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid. España.

122

Los museos científicos también han de convertirse en centros de encuentro con otras personas, en espacios públicos donde tienen lugar una serie de actuaciones, espectáculos y debates capaces de enriquecer la vida social de los ciudadanos. Visitar un museo científico supone pasar un intervalo de tiempo suficiente para enriquecerse con una serie de actividades y de experiencias directas a través de los objetos expuestos. De ese modo, los visitantes dejan se serlo para convertirse en protagonistas activos que tratan de adaptarse a las necesidades de las nuevas tecnologías, explorando así nuevas formas de aprendizaje. Para ello es imprescindible servirse de los nuevos medios de comunicación, de manera que la ciencia y la tecnología ocupen un lugar apropiado capaz de favorecer y promover las experiencias de aprendizaje, tanto formal como no formal, que tengan en cuenta las características medioambientales que les rodea. Se trata de potenciar el aprendizaje continuo ofreciendo la posibilidad de explorar nuevas formas de conocimiento. Por otra parte, los museos científicos han de tener una visión global, fácilmente accesible a través de la participación virtual en Internet y no han de olvidar tampoco que han de apoyarse en la cultura y prácticas locales, adaptándose a las necesidades y posibilidades de la comunidad. De la misma manera, los objetos que se elijan para la exposición no han de presentarse como elementos pasivos que el visitante simplemente ha de contemplar, sino que han de ser diseñados de tal manera que se conviertan en útiles capaces de fomentar la discusión, el debate y el aprendizaje activo. El visitante se convierte en actor y los objetos de la exposición son concebidos teniendo en cuenta la dinámica individual del visitante, permitiéndole trazar su propio itinerario y ampliar el campo de su actuación. El museo científico contempla los objetos como un medio capaz de ofrecer al visitante la posibilidad de ser protagonista de su propio recorrido, modelando su propia experiencia participativa según las exigencias de cada momento emocional. Como puede deducirse de lo que hemos explicado hasta ahora, vemos que es urgente elaborar unos principios fundamentales que apoyen y sostengan el desarrollo de la museología científica en nuestros días. Sin ellos, resultaría muy difícil superar los malentendidos y las visiones obsoletas de que han sido objeto los museos de ciencias tradicionales. De hecho, constatamos cómo la dimensión museística está experimentando una continua transformación que la empuja a seguir una dinámica sistemática capaz de reestructurar la museología científica a partir de dos aspectos que son fundamentales: la comunicación del conocimiento y del método científico y la apertura incondicional a toda clase de público con el objeto de favorecer el cambio de la sociedad. A partir del análisis museológico y museográfico de la realidad, los museos científicos están llamados a estimular las emociones de los visitantes haciéndoles capaces de comprender lo que están viendo y experimentando y, en consecuencia, de entender la complejidad del mundo en el que nos movemos. Y esto sólo es posible si partimos de la realidad, que siempre es compleja y plural. De ahí que la museología tenga que adaptarse a los lugares y momentos concretos por los que atraviesan las diferentes comunidades y pueblos, que son sus propios protagonistas. Y toda ciencia ha de estar al servicio de la sociedad. 2. La trayectoria de la museología científica A la hora de analizar la trayectoria de la museología científica, podemos afirmar que los museos de ciencias han seguido la evolución del concepto tradicional de museo. Para corroborar esta idea Bernard Schiele (1998:355 ss.) habla de las tres edades del museo. Una primera generación de museos estaría centrada en los objetos y las colecciones, resaltando la herencia cultural de los mismos por su valor intrínseco. Sus exposiciones son ideadas y proyectadas a través de la presentación de los objetos. En este sentido, la exposición se concibe como un dispositivo mediático fuertemente organizado y delimitado y la recepción está abierta a todo tipo de público. Cada visitante realiza la visitan según sus

123

propios gustos personales. La relación objeto-visitante es relativamente libre, como si se tratara de un encuentro con la obra e, incluso, se consigue con conocimiento estético y artístico. El visitante desempeña el papel de observador respecto a lo que se encuentra en la exposición. La museología utilizada es la clasificación, ya sea cronológica o taxonómica, y la exposición, normalmente, carece de explicaciones, siendo el dispositivo de exposición quien propone el significado. De esta manera, la construcción del saber está unido a la apreciación del que mira. Los museos de la segunda generación buscan una relación activa con el saber que se muestra en la exposición. Esto es propio de los museos científicos que actúan como interfaz entre la ciencia y el público, concibiéndose como un lugar de socialización de conocimientos. En Francia, uno de los referentes fue el Palais de la Découverte. Su creación estaba fundada en la idea de difundir la ciencia mediante exposiciones vivas organizadas en torno a las disciplinas fundamentales. Su modelo de mediación eran las clases laboratorio convertidas en exposición-espectáculo con demostraciones que explicaban a un auditorio y donde se invitaba a tocar y pulsar el botón. Estas dos últimas técnicas anuncian la aparición de la interactividad y no hemos de olvidar que estamos hablando de 1937, año de su inauguración. Cuando en 1986 se inaugura la Ciudad de La Villette, ésta supone una gran novedad, intentando mostrar las aplicaciones técnicas e industriales y tratando de aproximar la ciencia al visitante y no el visitante a la ciencia como sucedía en el Palais de la Découverte. En La Villette no se pretende incrementar los conocimientos, sino socializar las ciencias. La museología actúa como mediadora entre lo social y lo científico, pues en estos museos los objetos no poseen una dimensión patrimonial y su función no es otra que favorecer el acceso al saber. Surgen nuevos tipos de objetos museales y nuevas formas de exposición. El papel de los visitantes no es tan pasivo como en los anteriores. Los museos de la tercera generación están consagrados al enriquecimiento de la experiencia en relación al mundo e integran las dos formas museales anteriores. Están atentos a los visitantes y preocupados por la experiencia de la visita, rompiendo con la visión fragmentaria de las disciplinas. Se trata, por tanto, de la reconstrucción de los diferentes medio ambientes del planeta, ofreciendo a los visitantes una visión global u holística. Podemos afirmar que aquí se da un verdadero cambio museológico y está representado perfectamente en el Biodôme de Montreal donde no se exponen tanto animales ni plantas, cuanto representaciones de ecosistemas que permiten tratar el medio natural como un sistema, explicando al mismo tiempo las relaciones que unen a los diversos ecosistemas. Estamos refiriéndonos a un museo sin vitrinas y sin jaulas donde se presenta la dinámica de la vida que es el tema central de la exposición, mostrando la riqueza inmensa del universo. Con ello, el mensaje esencial que nos quiere transmitir el Biodôme es el de la generosidad y fragilidad de nuestro planeta tierra. Estos museos van más allá de la toma de conciencia e intentan ser un punto de referencia para los visitantes. De esta forma, la visita al Biodôme permite modificar ciertas actitudes personales frente al entorno, al tiempo que integran dos tipos de instituciones para formar el primer museo del entorno. Estos centros tienen como misión popularizar la ciencia y constituyen más colecciones de ideas y de principios científicos que de objetos. Destacan por la participación activa de los visitantes y por su carácter interactivo y buscan la acción recíproca entre la exhibición y los visitantes. Además, se basan en tecnologías modernas y en enfoques lúdicos, primando la experimentación. Por eso, poseen un final cerrado y unos resultados predefinidos con anterioridad. Hemos de señalar que han comenzado a aparecer algunos museos de ciencias que se conocen como de cuarta generación. Éstos utilizan tecnologías punta, pero se diferencian de los anteriores en otros aspectos como el énfasis que ponen en la participación creativa de los visitantes, al proporcionarles una experiencia definida por ellos mismos, elegida entre

124

varias opciones. Se trata de las exhibiciones con final abierto que van más allá del tocar y manipular. La exposición les ofrece experiencias enfocadas a la solución de problemas de su vida cotidiana, incluyendo en ocasiones experiencias de animales y plantas. Se trata de foros de análisis y debate social acerca de temas de ciencias y de su influencia en la sociedad. De todo lo dicho, podemos afirmar que los centros de ciencias se formulan alrededor de tres ejes fundamentales:

a) La pretensión de lograr una mayor conciencia en los visitantes acerca del papel y de la importancia que tiene la ciencia en la vida actual.

b) El intento de proporcionar experiencias educativas para que los usuarios comprendan algunos principios científicos y sus aplicaciones tecnológicas.

c) El deseo de acercar la ciencia a toda la población para que se involucre en los temas relacionados con ella.

De todo ello se deduce que la museología que sustenta y fundamenta la razón de ser de los museos científicos no pretende otra cosa que poner en evidencia la necesidad de tener presentes las inquietudes que la sociedad manifiesta ante el desarrollo social y científico y, al mismo tiempo, implicarse responsablemente en la solución de todos aquellos problemas que afectan al futuro desarrollo de la sociedad. La experiencia nos hace ver la gran fragilidad de nuestro mundo y, ante dicha realidad, los museos de la ciencia y de la técnica nos hacen una llamada a la responsabilidad y a la toma de conciencia de que debemos apostar por un estilo de vida más solidario y más ecológico. Nuestro esfuerzo tendrá que ir dirigido a impedir el deterioro ecológico, evitando el aumento de emisiones de dióxido de carbono, eliminando la producción de gases que destruyen la capa de ozono, deteniendo la deforestación de nuestros bosques. Hoy, más que nunca, necesitamos de un Código Internacional de Delitos Ecológicos que trate de evitar que unos países, generalmente los más pobres, se conviertan en el vertedero de los residuos tóxicos de otros pueblos, casi siempre bastante más ricos. El estudio y la investigación nos han de conducir a buscar fuentes de energía alternativas y renovables que ayuden a los países ricos a cambiar sus modelos de consumo y a crear nuevos modelos de ecodesarrollo en los que sea posible armonizar la producción, la naturaleza y el estilo de vida más humano. Y los museos de ciencias nos pueden aportar unas orientaciones bastante precisas y bien fundamentadas sobre cuál debe ser nuestra tarea en los umbrales del siglo XXI. 3. Los museos científicos y el análisis de la realidad La museología científica no se aplica sólo a los museos de ciencias, sino que puede extenderse también a las diferentes colecciones y exposiciones de los museos de historia y de etnografía e, incluso, de los museos del patrimonio industrial. Eso significa que, cuando nos ponemos a analizar cuál es el objeto propio de los museos de ciencias, descubrimos que se da una gran diversidad de concepciones, abarcando desde un elemento cualquiera de la realidad, como puede ser el quark, la selva o determinados animales, hasta la globalización del universo con todos sus elementos constitutivos que las ciencias actuales pueden transmitirnos siguiendo una metodología expositiva de carácter científico. No existe realidad alguna que no pueda ser contemplada, analizada y estudiada por los museos científicos, ya sea desde el punto de vista museográfico o científico. Según Montpetit (1998: 176 ss.), pueden darse tres tipos de museos que dan origen a exposiciones siguiendo diferentes museografías en su forma de diseño. En primer lugar, estarían los museos con un enfoque “ontológico” que se centran en lo real, en su razón de ser y en sus causas. Sus exposiciones, sirviéndose de las distintas contribuciones de las ciencias, presentan un discurso vulgarizado de los conocimientos que tienen que ver con el universo. El discurso narrativo que siguen es de carácter evolutivo, indicando al visitante el camino que le conduce desde la cosmología hacia la aparición de la vida y del ser humano. El visitante entra en contacto con la realidad de las cosas del mundo, ya sean minerales, vegetales o animales. Dado que esta clase de museos tienen su origen en los gabinetes de

125

curiosidades, se centran en especímenes del mundo natural e intentan mostrar realidades de la naturaleza. Esa es la causa de que posean importantes colecciones en las que pueden contemplarse numerosos especimenes, incluso, vivos, orientándose al gran público y a los especialistas. Dentro de este tipo se incluyen los museos de ciencias naturales, los parques zoológicos y los jardines botánicos. En un segundo lugar, se encuentran los museos que tratan de describir la historia de las ciencias y de las técnicas. Su propuesta narrativa presenta un relato coherente, fundamentado en los artefactos y en la evolución de los distintos saberes, incluyendo las distintas ciencias y asumiendo diferentes temáticas como la astronomía o la química. Su objetivo es poner en evidencia cómo las diferentes ciencias y sus aplicaciones han influido en la sociedad tradicional hasta conducirla al desarrollo industrial. Muy cercanos a las exposiciones universales y nacionales, tratan de rememorar los logros de las artes y de las industrias exponiendo la variedad de objetos y las máquinas que los han producido. En tercer lugar, pueden considerarse aquellos museos de carácter epistemológico que tienen como objeto la constitución y el desarrollo del discurso científico. Se dirigen a los visitantes intentando exponerles cómo se construye y funciona la investigación científica, haciéndoles ver que la ciencia es un fenómeno social de gran importancia. Estos museos tienen su origen en los lugares donde se realiza la investigación, como son las salas de anatomía o los laboratorios universitarios. Su discurso es eminentemente epistemológico, tratando de descubrir el porqué de las experiencias y demostraciones, en un intento de presentar las ciencias sirviéndose de un discurso científico adaptado a las necesidades de un público que apuesta por un mejor conocimiento de la realidad y no tanto por la contemplación de unas determinadas colecciones. Nos encontramos, por tanto, ante tres formas de afrontar la realidad siguiendo diferentes pautas museológicas que nos permiten explorar el mundo en que vivimos, sirviéndonos de una reflexión científica serena y atenta a las necesidades de nuestro tiempo. De ahí que los centros científicos utilicen diferentes estrategias para atraer a los visitantes y lograr una mayor participación. Se trata de que, a partir de un concepto o de una idea, se vayan desarrollando una serie de actividades que sean la expresión de lo que se quiere transmitir en las exposiciones, ayudando a los visitantes a comprenderlas mucho mejor. 4. Los museos científicos y su apuesta por la Biomuseología y la defensa del medio ambiente Si en algo se distingue la sociedad del siglo XXI es precisamente por su sensibilidad ecológica y medioambiental. Inmersos en un mundo globalizado descubrimos que nos resulta difícil caer en la cuenta de que nuestra tierra se encuentra en grave peligro de degradación. No es extraño, por tanto, que museos como los de ciencias naturales, científicos, parques naturales, ecomuseos, centros de interpretación, zoos, acuarios, centros de exposición y museos de sociedad se interesen por los problemas relativos a la degradación del medio ambiente, a la habitabilidad del planeta y a la reconstrucción de ecosistemas, a la desaparición de las especies, a la capa de ozono o al problema de los desechos y a la urgencia de su reciclaje. Ya la American Association of Museums (1971), a través Comité Medioambiental, publicó un libro titulado Museums and the Environment: A Handbook for Education, en el que se hacía eco de las experiencias realizadas dentro de los museos en relación con el medio ambiente. En esa misma época surgieron con fuerza los ecomuseos en Francia y el ICOM publicó un número especial de la revista Museum sobre Museos y Medioambiente. A partir de ese momento, museólogos, científicos, ecologistas, biólogos, etnólogos, enseñantes, sociólogos, conservadores y arquitectos tratan de analizar las relaciones existentes entre los museos y el medio ambiente y las implicaciones que aquellos han de asumir a la hora de

126

plantearse los problemas ecológicos y medioambientales (Davallon et alii, 1992). Es decir, los museos entran en una nueva dinámica en la que no son ajenos a una sensibilidad ecológica, están dispuestos a abordar los temas medioambientales utilizando una museografía apropiada y un modo de gestión capaz de hacer frente a los problemas planteados en la conservación del planeta. En la actualidad, algunos autores como Cristiano Silva Cardoso y Rita de Cássia Oliveira Pedreira (2005, 2006) comienzan a utilizar el término Biomuseología para referirse a la necesidad que la sociedad actual tiene de elaborar una base que facilite la construcción metodológica de aquellos campos del conocimiento que tratan de preservar no sólo los objetos o bienes culturales, sino también todos sus agentes, en un intento de trascender la valoración de la cultura material y adentrarse en la realidad social concreta que nos toca vivir y asumiendo la gestión del patrimonio social, cultural y ambiental de las diferentes comunidades. Si bien estos autores elaboran toda su teoría de cara a la realidad brasileña, aquella puede ser aplicada, salvando las distancias propias de cada lugar, a otros países, máxime cuando nuestra sociedad globalizada nos permite corroborar que compartimos las mismas inquietudes, necesidades y urgencias respecto al medio ambiente y a los problemas ecológicos del planeta. Partiendo de un objetivo tecnológico e interdisciplinar dentro de las ciencias humanas aplicadas, no existe impedimento alguno en servirse de otras ciencias como la pedagogía, las ciencias de la información, la administración, antropología, ecología, etnología, geografía, ciencias políticas, biología, sociología, biotecnología, agronomía y economía solidaria, con el propósito de crear en la sociedad una sensibilidad especial que eduque a las nuevas generaciones de cara a la necesidad de articular diferentes maneras de transmitir, adquirir y aplicar los conocimientos desarrollados por las diferentes ciencias a las estrategias administrativas de conservación y preservación de una economía inmaterial fundamentada en el bien de la sociedad. Tanto los que apuestan porque el medio ambiente entre en los museos, como los que se deciden por abanderar una nueva forma de concebir la museología, denominada biomuseología, son conscientes de que los museos han dejado de ser simples contenedores de objetos para convertirse en espacios sensibles a cualquier realidad ambiental, educativa, de género, social, cultural y natural que afecte a las sociedades y a los ciudadanos. En el fondo, se trata de que los museos sean medios eficaces de inclusión social donde toda realidad humana sea acogida en un intento de contribuir a la transformación de la sociedad. Pero para que esto sea así, es necesario que las colecciones no vengan dadas desde fuera, sino que sean las mismas comunidades, instituciones y dinámicas educativas quienes, teniendo en cuenta los aspectos históricos y culturales propios de cada lugar, decidan musealizar aquellos registros que mejor reflejen el sentir y el ser de los pueblos. Ya documentos como la Mesa Redonda de Santiago de Chile (1972), la Declaración de Québec (1984), la Declaración de Caracas (1986) o el Foro Social Mundial de Porto Alegre (2003) coincidían en señalar que los museos no pueden situarse al margen de todo aquello que rodea el entorno de la vida del ser humano. Nada de lo verdaderamente humano y de lo que le rodea puede serle extraño a los museos puesto que el patrimonio más importante que posee la humanidad es la propia vida y, para que ésta posea una auténtica calidad, es necesario preservar el medio ambiente y su dignidad. De hecho, la exposición de los objetos no tendría ningún sentido si no fueran concebidos como expresión y manifestación de la vida del hombre. Son las sociedades quienes deben ponerse a trabajar para promocionar el desarrollo de las personas, siendo conscientes de que no sólo han de valorar el patrimonio tangible, como puede ser el bienestar económico, sino también el patrimonio intangible que se traduce en una mayor autoestima y en la aceptación de uno mismo. El hecho de descubrir que la conservación del patrimonio cultural no puede desligarse de la urgente necesidad de preservar también el patrimonio socio-ambiental nos lleva a buscar una metodología apropiada que sea capaz de asumir ambas realidades, igualmente

127

importantes para el desarrollo integral de las personas. El principio de corresponsabilidad individual y comunitaria nos conduce a elaborar un concepto de patrimonio mucho más amplio en un contexto de cambio como el que estamos experimentando, donde es necesario que se den nuevas formas de sociabilidad y solidaridad entre los diferentes individuos y pueblos. Tal vez, la sensibilidad ecológica y medioambiental pueda unirnos más de lo que han podido hacerlo las ideologías y los sistemas de pensamiento. Sin detenernos en subrayar las polémicas existentes a la hora de defender las posiciones de los conservacionistas y los defensores del medio ambiente o ecologistas, que poseen una significativa ideología política, es preciso recordar que los museos científicos no pueden ignorar que hoy existe una nueva sensibilidad con respecto a temas medioambientales y que éstos han de plantearse nuevas estrategias que den respuesta a los interrogantes que la sociedad se hace en voz alta. Por encima de los grupos de presión, los museos han de estar atentos a este nuevo sentido de la realidad en la que, según Davallon et alii (1992:36), el medio ambiente es el objeto de la investigación científica y de un nuevo saber denominado ecología como ciencia de los ecosistemas y, al mismo tiempo, el centro de posturas políticas, sociales, económicas, mediáticas y simbólicas que le otorgan una entidad social característica. Eso significa que el museo adquiere un papel social, al tiempo que es testigo de la democratización de la cultura y de las consecuencias que esto tiene para el desarrollo de los museos del futuro. Éstos necesitan adaptarse a los cambios científicos, técnicos e industriales, asumiendo un discurso más científico y técnico que responda a los presupuestos ideológicos de la sensibilidad ecológica actual. Y, para ello, ha de realizar una labor educativa que conduzca a una nueva sensibilización sobre los planteamientos que hoy nos hacemos sobre el agua, la energía y las interacciones entre las especies, la demografía con los temas del hambre y de la urbanización, la polución atmosférica, la contaminación de las aguas y las radiaciones. Todas estas realidades, que nos afectan a los seres humanos, han de ser elementos integrantes de la Biomuseología, si pretendemos que los museos contribuyan de forma significativa en la mejora de la calidad de vida. Ahora bien, será necesario elaborar nuevos discursos museográficos a la hora de concebir y presentar las exposiciones sobre el medio ambiente, sirviéndose de todos aquellos elementos didácticos que mejor se adecúen a la transmisión de dicho mensaje ecológico. Los museos han de poner a disposición de los visitantes toda la información disponible sobre los avances de la ciencia en el campo del patrimonio medio ambiental. Sirviéndose de todos los elementos museográficos disponibles, han de intentar presentar los objetos reales de manera que los visitantes puedan percibir la importancia del mensaje que se les desea transmitir: el valor del medio ambiente como “objeto de museo” (Davallon et alii, 1992103). Como ya decíamos en otro lugar (Hernández, 1998:284), el museo no puede vivir de espaldas a la fuerte demanda social sobre el tema medioambiental, y el hecho de que aquél no haya previsto la posibilidad que tenía de verse afectado en su dinámica interna, no le exime de asumir su función social como agente que ha de contribuir a la formación de los ciudadanos en este campo. A este respecto, Hubendick (1972) señala que, desde el punto de vista de la difusión, el museo de ciencias ha de asumir la responsabilidad de explicar al público que lo visita los problemas del medio ambiente y de hacerle ver la urgencia de encontrar soluciones a los mismos. Si el museo tiene una función social, ésta pasa necesariamente por estar atenta a las necesidades y urgencias del momento presente y de buscar la manera más adecuada de ofrecer respuestas que sean validas para ponerlas en práctica. Al mismo tiempo, tendrían que repensar su museografía renovando todos aquellos sistemas de representación que hayan quedado obsoletos y se han de poner a elaborar dispositivos interactivos y a utilizar los soportes tecnológicos que les faciliten su acercamiento al lenguaje de los museos científicos contemporáneos. No en vano, algunos autores opinan

128

que la museología científica, a través de sus exposiciones, en cierto sentido ha inventado el lenguaje característico del marco museístico de nuestros días. La educación de las nuevas generaciones en el respeto a la naturaleza, considerada como una realidad viviente, y la explicación comprensiva de los mecanismos que estructuran la bioesfera ha de conducir a que los niños y los jóvenes comiencen a adaptar sus comportamientos a las exigencias medioambientales respetando la naturaleza, los animales y el entorno. Estaremos contribuyendo con ello a la mejora del mundo y poniendo las bases para garantizar la conservación del patrimonio natural e inmaterial del que somos depositarios. Pero no se puede respetar lo que no se conoce, ni se puede conocer lo que no se ha explicado ni se ha llegado a experimentar en la propia vida. Educar en la sensibilidad ecológica, ejerciendo una adecuada pedagogía del conocimiento, puede conducirnos a crear una cultura de la responsabilidad ante el patrimonio ecológico y medioambiental. BIBLIOGRAFÍA: AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MUSEUM (1971): Museums and the Environment: A Handbook for Education. Arkville Press. New York. BRADBURNE, J. (1998): “Problématique d´une création : Newmetropolis ». En Schiele, B. -Koster, E.H. (Direc.), La Révolution de la Muséologie des Sciences : 39-77. Presses Universitaires de Lyon. Lyon. CARDOSO, C. S. - PEDREIRA, R. C. O. (2005): “Biomuseologia -Preservaçâo da Biodiversidade e da diversidade no cotidiano”. On line http:www.cinform.ufba.br/v_anais/artigos/ritadecassiaoliveirapedreira.html (1 de 13) 19/12/2005. CARDOSO, C. S. -PEDREIRA, R. C. O. (2006): « Biomuseologia ». On line http://www.Arteciudadania.org.br/site/paginas.php ? setor=1 (1 de 7) 12/04/2007 DAVALLON, J. -GRANDMONT, G. -SCHIELE, B. (1992) : L´Environnement entre au Musée. Presses Universitaires de Lyon. Lyon. GUÉDON, J.C. (1986): “La Casa de las Ciencias y las Técnicas de Montreal”. Museum, nº 150:130-136. París. HERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ, F. (1998): El museo como espacio de comunicación. Trea. Gijón. HUBENDICK, B. (1972): “Museums and Environment”. En ICOM, Le musée au service des hommes aujourd´hui et demain . Actes de la 9éme Conférence Génerale de l´ICOM, Paris, 1971 : 39-48. ICOM-Paris. MONTPETIT, R. (1998) : « Du science center a línterprétation sociale des sciences et techniques ». En Schiele, B. -Koster, E.H. (Direc.), La Révolution de la Muséologie des Sciences : 175-186. Presses Universitaires de Lyon. Lyon. SCHIELE, B. (1998): “Les Silences de la Muséologie Scientifique?”. En Schiele, B. -Koster, E.H. (Direc.), La Révolution de la Muséologie des Sciences : 353-378. Presses Universitaires de Lyon. Lyon. Francisca Hernández-Hernández Profesora de Museología y Patrimonio Universidad Complutense de Madrid / Espagne

129

Cultural Heritage and the Modern Museum Irina M. Kossova (Russian Federation) ___________________________________________________________________ Cultural heritage means the combination of ties, relationships, and fruits of the spiritual activity of past historical eras.” An moreover “Cultural heritage is a value category that includes the wealth of man’s past historical experience.” (1, p. 312) When we speak of the world cultural heritage kept at museums, we are referring not to the local heritage, but to the world’s heritage, which includes the heritage of the museums of all countries. The late 20th and early 21st centuries have been marked by heightened attentnion to issues of culture, which is playing an increasingly important role in the life of modern society and the individual, which is embodied both in a number of international documents and in the practical activities of several institutions, including museums. This explains the growing social role of museums, which are involved in processes of cultural development while in the 19th century they still only reflected culture. And as Russian and Foreign experience has shown, the museum is becoming a cultural, research, educational, and even recreational center for a very broad audience.

Our great compatriot Nikolai K. Rerikh (an artist, a scholar, and a humanitarian), aware of the importance of historical and cultural monuments in human development, drafted a cultural protection treaty back in the 1930s which went down in history as the Rerikh Pact and was signed on April 15, 1935 by a number of countries. This was a time when countries had already had the experience of World War I with its irreplaceable losses and sensed the imminence of a new disaster - World War II. That is why Nikolai Rerikh undertook the creation of the world-renowned Rerikh Pact "concerning the protection of cultural values in wartime and peacetime" a few years before the War (4, p. 47). During war and peace the contracting countries obligated themselves to safeguard cultural sites by giving them protection and respect. The Peace Flag became the symbol of the Pact. The basic provisions of the Pact became part of the Hague Convention of 1954, when the international community became more active in support of the Pact. The Rerikh Pact has not lost its urgency and importance today, as evidenced by the International Convention for the Safeguard of the Intangible Cultural Heritage adopted at the 32nd Session of UNESCO in Paris in 2003 (2). "The Peace Flag proposed by Nikolai Rerikh has three connected amaranth spheres in a circle on a white background as a symbol of eternity and unity." (3) It was proposed that the flag be flown at all cultural sites, including monuments, museums, libraries, and so forth, which was supposed to protect them from destruction both in wartime and peacetime, because all cultural sites are the common property of humanity1, and the loss of cultural sites will have a negative impact on the development of civilization and culture. For many years students of cultural heritage focused on its material artifacts. But even the definition given above indicates that cultural heritage is a much broader concept that also includes products of human spiritual activity (“intangible” or “non-material” in English).

130

By the way, the very definition of the word "museum" that was set forth in the ICOM Code of Ethnics and was adopted unanimously in Buenos Aires, Argentina on November 4, 1986 and was supplemented at the 20th ICOM General Assembly in Barcelona, Spain on July 6, 2001 states that: "A museum is a permanent non-profit institution called on to serve society and contribute to its development, is accessible to the broad public, and engages in research and the acquisition, storage, popularization, and exhibition of material artifacts of man and his habitat for the purpose of study, education, and the satisfaction of spiritual needs" (5). At present people have proposed changing this definition so it will include not just the "exhibition of material artifacts of man…." but the intangible cultural heritage, which was the specific theme of the 20th ICOM General Conference in Seoul "Museums and the Intangible Heritage" (6). We might mention that at approximately the same time, the museum department of the Academy of Advanced Education for Art, Cultural, and Tourism Workers held a conference (from September 27 to October 2, 2004) devoted to "The Museum and the Intangible Cultural Heritage", which culminated in a collection of papers with the same title that included both the speeches of the participants in the conference and the work of Russian museologists devoted to the theoretical and methodological aspects of the subject. The collection also included papers by the participants in the conference on their experience of including the intangible heritage in museum work (7). The focus on the intangible heritage and its inclusion in museum work may be considered the emergence of a new conceptual model of a museum which makes it alive while conserving its institutional features, less and less conservative, and more capable of meeting human needs and desires. The growing social importance of the museum has brought it face to face with the problem of maximizing the use of its cultural potential, including the intangible heritage - rituals, rites, traditions, language, oral folklore, crafts, music, customs, and so forth. The significance that has been assigned in recent years to the intangible heritage was not only reflected by the Seoul Conference in 2004 but back in 2003 at the 32nd UNESCO General Conference, which was mentioned above. We should mention that back in the late 1980s and early 1990s Russian museologists (4) noted the urgent need to study and include intangible forms of cultural heritage in different aspects of museum work, including with the audience - museum holidays, clubs, festivals, and so forth. It seems urgent, considering the different aspects of social development, to develop a system for including not just tangible (which has already been done) but intangible heritage in museum activities. In the process:

• preserve the museum with its institutional features, remembering that the word "museum" comes from the word "Muse", a goddess of art, and her mother is Mnemosina, the goddess of memory. And so a museum preserves the memories of people and their intangible thoughts. And it's very important to keep in mind that there is a direct relationship between the intangible and the material. For example, books are tangible culture, while the ideas they express are intangible, and the same is true of several other intangible values - a craft is material, while its techniques and transmission from generation to generation are intangible; rituals are intangible valuables, while the objects

131

used in rituals are material, and so forth; • develop the scientific principles for including the intangible heritage in the life

of a museum in light of its specific features - its staff, location, and the historical and contemporary cultural development of the region, potential and real audience, the system of expositions and exhibits, the museum collection, and finally the museum grounds;

• work with organizations, institutions, and individuals engaged in different aspects of the study, popularization, and knowledge of the traditions and techniques of crafts, rites, ceremonies, and so forth, i.e. the intangible forms of heritage. Find professional partners among them and involve them in the process of museum acquisition of intangible valuables. And even though, as I said above, the intangible heritage is tied to the material heritage by visible and invisible threads, nevertheless the material heritage included in a museum collection already has a long history of existence: methods of accounting and preservation, and the principles of scientific documentation, restoration, and study, which account for the specific features of different categories and kinds of museum objects, have been developed. At the same time the intangible heritage and the museum is a subject that requires study, scientific rules, and a classification system. And a lot has already been done in this regard in particular by Russian museologists1 and practical museum workers, whose work provides evidence of interesting forms of the intangible heritage that are "living" in the museum environment, such as popular games and traditions of mentoring, charity, and so forth. In the process it's important to keep in mind that a museum is a scientific institution and that everything it shows the public in its programs and projects must be not just accurately verified but elicit the trust of the viewer. We will point out that the renowned museologist Kenneth Hudson, who included the first open-air museum on the outskirts of Stockholm, Skansen, in his book Influential Museums, stressed that the "service of the creator of the first of its kind (museum (Arthur Hazelius) was that, before anyone else, he recognized the importance of the serious scientific study of folk life in all its manifestations" (8, p. 13). At the same time we should emphasize once again that the talk at the 21st General Conference in 2007 will be of museums and the world cultural heritage, which is why we need to remember the need to preserve all aspects of the cultural heritage, both material and intangible, to defend, to study, to exhibit and to popularize them. And people, living in the natural and social environment, create things of both material and intangible value, which in combination constitute the cultural property of peoples of different levels of development, mentality, language, and so forth, starting with the most ancient epochs. Thus, the development and role of culture in the modern world have made the museum a socially active institution that preserves and popularizes the cultural heritage that constitutes the property of nations and requires handling with care. In the process we should remember Heising's statement that "the steady development of civilization is ensured by a proper balance between material and spiritual values" (9).

1 See M. Kaulen's article "Tradition's Second Life" // The Museum and Intangible Heritage. - Moscow, 2005. This article considers the problems of addressing the intangible heritage in museums, the criteria for identifying intangible objects of museum importance, several other important aspects of including them in the museum environment, and the methods and forms of the process.

132

Bibliography 1. The Russian Museum Encyclopedia. Moscow, 2001. 2. The International Convention on the Intangible Cultural Heritage. ICOM Information Bulletin. 2004, No. 2, pp. 49-64. 3. Rerikh, N. K. The Flag of Peace. Culture and Time. 2005. No. 4. pp. 8-9. 4. L. V. Shaposhnikova. The Importance of the Rerikh Pact in the Modern World. Culture and Time. 2005. No. 4. pp. 40-51. 5. The ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums. ICOM, France, 2002. - p.46. 6. Museum and intangible heritage. October 2-8 / COEX, Seoul, Korea.ICOM. – Seoul, 2004 7. The Museum and the Intangible Cultural Heritage. A collection of treatises of the "Museum Education" Creative Laboratory. Offices of Museum Practices. Issue 6. Compiled by I. M. Kossova. Moscow, 2005, p. 194 8. Hudson K. "The Social Quality of a Museum". Bulletin of the Open Museums Association. - 1998. - No. 2-3. 9. J. Heising. In the Shadow of Tomorrow. // Homo ludens. - Moscow, 1992. - p. 258.

I. M. Kossova Deputy Director

N. K. Rerikh International Center and Museum Moscow/Russian Federation

133

La mise en question du concept du patrimoine universel Mónica Risnicoff de Gorgas – Celina Hafford ARGENTINA De quoi parle-t-on lorsqu´on dit Patrimoine Universel ? On dirait que le sujet proposé- Les Musées et le Patrimoine Universel- trouve son fondement sur une position humaniste qui vise à la reconnaissance démocratique de la valeur des objets culturels, en dehors du temps et l´espace dont ils ont été, ou sont produits. Si l´on considère ce côté humaniste, les musées, étant des endroits neutres dans un monde en crise, préservent la mémoire des uns et des autres dans un supposé rapport de symétrie. Mais, les musées ont-ils été quelque fois des endroits neutres ? et le Patrimoine, n´est-il pas par hasard, une construction sociale chargée de connotations idéologiques et politiques ? Il faudrait se demander si la notion d´ « universalité » du patrimoine n´est que le reflet des positions hégémoniques où le musée, juge et partie, choisit, une fois de plus, ce qu´il va légitimer et, tout en accordant la reconnaissance d´universalité à certains patrimoines, il les lésine sur leur caractère d´individuel et de conflictuel. Ne sont-ils pas ces mêmes concepts ceux que nous avons mis en question tout au long de 30 ans, à l´occasion des rencontres de l´Icofom et surtout depuis la muséologie en Amérique Latine, dans l´Icofom Lam ? Après une deuxième lecture du sujet dont on va discuter, nous nous demandons ce qu´on veut dire lorsqu´on parle de patrimoine universel. S´agit-il d´un patrimoine que tous connaissent ? que tous acceptent ? Et ces « tous », qui sont-ils ?

Patrimoines et patrimonialisation Si le patrimoine est une construction sociale au moyen de laquelle une société déterminée attribue une signification à certains objets, par un procès symbolique de patrimonialisation, il faut se demander quelle est la validité des critères universels de valorisation. Les procès symboliques de patrimonialisation impliquent une valorisation aussi bien qu´un choix –implicite ou explicite- lié à des procès d´identité et de légitimation. Les différentes réponses aux questions essentielles de l´être humain sont rendues légitimes dans le contexte d´une société déterminée, et cela se produit comment ? Quand on donne une signification à des objets sociaux déterminés, qu´on les utilise d´une manière déterminée et qu´on établit une communication vis à vis d´eux. Voilà la valeur symbolique, la valeur d´utilisation et la valeur de médiation du patrimoine. D´après Davallon, le patrimoine est un procès de filiation inversée, et il définit la patrimonialisation comme l´ensemble de procédés divers, qui tout en formant un dispositif social et symbolique, opèrent cette « filiation inversée »1. Il affirme d´ailleurs, qu´on doit faire une grande attention à la déclaration performative qui institue l´objet en tant qu´un objet patrimonial, parce que c´est au cœur de la source du conflit social où naît la construction sociale du réel, traversée d´une manière permanente et transversale par des rapports de pouvoir2(2). Une société reconnaît la propriété, matérielle ou symbolique de ses patrimoines et la nécessité de les transmettre, soient-ils tangibles ou intangibles, naturels ou culturels, par la voie des motivations qui sont traversées par des implications idéologiques et politiques.

1 Jean Davallon, « Le don du patrimoine », Lavoisier, Paris, 2006(P. 97) 2 Hugo Aguilar »La diversité performative du discours », IICongrès Interocéanique d´études d´Amérique Latine, Faculté de Philosophie è Lettres, Université Nationale de Cuyo, Argentine, 11-13 Sept, 2003

134

D´après Lorenç Prats, le patrimoine “c´est un artifice créé pour quelqu´un dans un endroit et à un moment donné, ayant pour but des fins déterminés, ce qui implique, en définitive, qu´il est, ou qu´il peut être changeant d´une manière historique, par rapport aux nouveaux critères ou intérêts qui déterminent à leur tour, d´autres buts nouveaux dans de nouvelles circonstances3. Les patrimoines existants sont des répertoires activés grâce à des versions idéologiques de l´identité. En effet, le patrimoine n´est pas fixé à jamais, et il présuppose un regard vers nous qui nous permet d´être différent des « autres ». Tel que Tereza Scheiner l´exprime, depuis des considérations chronologiques et narratives de caractère historiographique, on construit le discours de l´Autre à partir d´un regard projeté du centre même4. La valeur de la diversité La reconnaissance que le patrimoine est tel, en tant qu´il appartient d´une manière symbolique et (ou) matérielle à une population et à un groupe social déterminés, nous renvoie presque directement à un concept de multiplicité et diversité des patrimoines. C´est dans cette diversité même où réside la richesse du patrimoine, répondant à de différentes perceptions du monde. C´est ce qui a été revendiqué récemment par la Muséologie d´Amérique Latine5 et par l´Unesco : « La culture acquiert des formes diverses à travers le temps et l´espace. Cette diversité est manifestée dans la singularité et la pluralité des identités caractérisant les groupes et les sociétés composantes de l´humanité. La diversité culturelle, étant une source d´échanges, d´innovations et de créativité, devient pour les hommes si nécessaire que la diversité biologique chez les organismes vivants. C´est dans ce sens qu´elle constitue le patrimoine commun de l´humanité, et qu´elle doit être reconnue et cimentée, afin de bénéficier les générations présentes et celles de l´avenir6. » Le Comité du Patrimoine Mondial a déclaré certains patrimoines comme Patrimoine de l´Humanité et leur a reconnu ainsi une valeur universelle d´exception. De telles déclarations répondent à des motivations politiques et idéologiques aussi, d´une certaine manière elles visent à garantir la sauvegarde de ces patrimoines. Mais, et surtout, elles leur reconnaissent quelques caractéristiques propres à l´être humain. Pour définir une telle déclaration, les critères de valorisation les plus importants utilisés, sont ceux qui relèvent des patrimoines représentant une réponse unique et exceptionnelle à une situation historique déterminée. Ils ne sont pas déclarés patrimoine de l´humanité parce que tout le monde les reconnaît et les accepte comme propres, mais grâce à leur caractère spécifique et unique. Il paraît que c´est justement dans les différences où l´on peut trouver une valeur universelle, vu qu´elles permettent de nous reconnaître dans le « nous » et comprendre les autres depuis leur place. « Peut-on dire alors, que n´importe quel contact, n´importe quelle interaction avec les représentants d´une culture sont des faits positifs ? Y croire ce serait tomber dans les apories de la xénophilie : l´autre n´est pas bon simplement parce qu´il est « autre » ; or, quelques contacts ont des effets positifs, mais pas tous. Le meilleur résultat du croisement des cultures réside le plus souvent dans le regard critique que nous tournons vers nous-mêmes, ce qui n´implique pas la glorification de l´autre7. »

3 Llorenç Prats, Anthropologie et patrimoine, Ariel, Barcelone, 1997. 4 Tereza Scheiner, « Muséologie et interprétation de la réalité : le discours de l´histoire », ICOFOm Study Series ISS35-Muséologie et histoire, Córdoba, Argentine, 2006. 5 Déclaration de Xochimilco 1998, « Musées, Muséologie et Diversité Culturelle » in La Pensée muséologique d´Amérique Latine, Documents de l´ICOFOM LAM Lettres et suggestions 1992-2005. Compilé par Nelly Decarolis, Ed. Brujas, Cordoba, Argentine, 2006 6 Déclaration Universelle de l´Unesco. De la diversité culturelle au pluralisme. Art. 1.doc. Nov 2001 7 Tzvetam Todorov, Les morales de l´histoire, Edt. Paidos, Barcelone, 1993 (pag 116)

135

Nous posons comme postulat qu´il existe quelque part, un patrimoine de l´humanité qui est constitutif de l´homme, non exempt d´implications politiques et de pouvoir, néanmoins, nous ne reconnaissons pas un patrimoine universel compris et accepté par tous. Mise en question du patrimoine universel Selon Aristote, l universel, en tant que général, diffère de l individuel, et se rapportant à une totalité plurielle des objets, il s´oppose à l individuel. Dans la tradition philosophique, on a toujours considéré que l universel est abstrait, en revanche, l individuel est concret. C´est Hegel qui innova cette idée. Proposant que l´universel pouvait être abstrait est concret à la fois, il affirma que l´universel abstrait n´est que ce qui est commun à plusieurs particuliers, tandis que l´universel concret renvoie à la somme des particularités qui donnent sens au concept de cet universel abstrait, et qui l´enrichissent grâce à une présence ontologique définie (les individuels). En un mot, l´imperfection de l´universel abstrait est dépassée et définie avec l´individuel, et c´est ce qui convertit cet universel dans une partie constitutive du réel et du vrai8. (8) La notion de Patrimoine Universel, doit-elle être considérée et validée à partir de la Philosophie ?.Il y a des questions essentielles, inhérentes à la nature de l´être humain que tous les hommes se posent dans de temps et d´ espaces différents. Néanmoins, les réponses en sont multiples et variées, et c´est à travers leur diversité que l´homme(dans ce cas chaque culture dans son rapport espace-temps), se définit finalement, comme un Autre, différent, singulier. Si l´on analyse ce qu´il y a d´ambigu et de contradictoire dans la désignation d´une unité culturelle, particulière et homogène, qui cache de profondes inégalités, on se pose des questions telles que : -Pourquoi parle-t-on, de nos jours, de patrimoine universel ? -D´où naît le besoin de rendre légitimes certains patrimoines, en leur donnant la catégorie d´universels ? -N´y a-t-il pas, sous-jacente, une appréciation inégale des patrimoines ? -Ce n´est pas que cette inclusion, dite démocratique, comme patrimoine de l´autre, est en train de révéler une relation asymétrique sur ce qui est patrimoine et ce qui ne l´est pas ? -Ce même concept ne montre-t-il pas une position hégémonique et de supériorité, vu qu´il s´agit de sauver un patrimoine que d´autres ne sont pas capables de conserver ? -Ce sont les populations et les sujets sociaux des cultures considérées périphériques, ceux qui réclament que leurs patrimoines soient considérés des patrimoines universels ? -Ou bien, ce sont les cultures hégémoniques celles qui ont décidé de donner cette valorisation au patrimoine des Autres ? -Juge-t-on avec la même mesure tous les patrimoines qu´on considère universels ? Qui les rend légitimes ? Qui détient le pouvoir et définit les patrimoines qui sont universels et ceux qui ne le sont pas ? -Quelles sont les sources d´autorité qui rendent légitimes certains référents symboliques ? -Lorsqu´on parle de reconnaissance d´un probable patrimoine universel, rend-on légitime le patrimoine occidental déjà reconnu comme précieux, ou bien est-on en train d´établir une hiérarchie du patrimoine de l´Autre ? -Pourquoi faut-il établir une hiérarchie ? Cette procédure de faire une hiérarchie, que cache-t-elle au fond ? -En quoi consiste la dynamique d´inclusion et d´exclusion des éléments dignes d´être considérés un patrimoine ? -Cette conception de patrimoine universel, n´essaie-t-elle pas de dissimuler la crise de notre temps, de mettre un voile d´égalité là où le patrimoine devrait être un rayon émergeant ?

8 José Ferrater Mora, Diccionnaire de Philosophie abrégé, Ed.Sudamericana, Buenos Aires, 1974 (p.417-418)

136

Selon Lorenç Prats le patrimoine universel tient à la nature même des processus structurés et contrôlés depuis des noyaux hégémoniques9. Ce serait naïf de croire que cette généreuse reconnaissance de la culture de l´autre dans le patrimoine universel, supprime les inégalités entre les métropoles et les sociétés périphériques. Quand on déclare un patrimoine comme universel, pour le protéger, dit-on, et on fait allusion aux arguments de connaissance, de budget économique et de techniques d´entretien, on en dépouille à ses héritiers naturels, qui, finalement, ne le reconnaissent que comme étranger. C´est ce qui arrive à certains musées, éloignés des métropoles, la plupart insérés dans des régions touristiques, et ayant les mêmes caractéristiques que ceux des grands centres, et où ils utilisent des technologies variées pour servir le tourisme international et montrer des patrimoines que les peuples originaires n´auraient jamais exposé, à cause de leur caractère symbolique10. Musées et patrimoines, en prendre parti Les musées, étant des institutions occidentales par leur origine et structure, sont nés dans le but d´accompagner le processus des nations européennes en formation. « Tous ces musées, au fait, contribuaient à célébrer la nation, à célébrer la gloire à la quelle ils apportaient leur concours, donc, au moyen de ces institutions, la nation se rendait un hommage perpétuel à elle même, ainsi, devenait-elle la principale instigatrice de ce culte nouveau, dont elle était à la fois, sujet et objet11. » Dans les pays hors d´Europe, un fait pareil se produit. En 1973, Hughes de Varine disait déjà que « à partir du début du XIXº siècle, le développement des musées dans le monde non européen s´opère comme un phénomène tout à fait colonialiste. Ce sont les pays européens qui ont imposé aux autres pays leur méthode d´analyse du phénomène et patrimoine culturels ; ils ont obligé les élites des pays non européens et leur population à voir leur propre culture avec un regard européen. Les musées de la plupart des nations, alors, sont des créations de la période colonialiste. La décolonisation a été politique, pas culturelle, si bien que l´on peut dire que le monde des musées, en tant qu´institution et en tant que méthode de conservation et de communication du patrimoine culturel de l´humanité, est un phénomène européen qui s´est étendu car l´Europe a produit une culture dominante, et les musées sont l´une des composantes des institutions dérivées de cette culture –là12. » La reconnaissance du musée comme une institution où « ...le discours muséologique est une puissante forme d´interprétation du réel »13, et qui est le siège et l´endroit où l´on met à l´épreuve des réflexions sur la temporalité et la subjectivité, l´identité et l´altérité 14 et que la muséologie « c´est la discipline qui s´occupe des rapports spécifiques entre l´homme et une réalité configurée à partir des différentes visions du monde que chaque société élabore dans le temps et l´espace »15, cette reconnaissance nous conduit à imaginer qu´il y a des concepts et des affirmations qu´on doit viser depuis le champ de l´éthique. Et que le temps est arrivé aux musées de changer de paradigme. Il faut se rappeler que, parmi les attributions non explicites que le musée possède, il dispose de sa puissance d´opérer sur les systèmes de valorisation et de sélection des manifestations culturelles, qui ont comme point de départ des concepts d´exclusion/ inclusion, même si ceux-ci ne s´accordent pas avec les postulations de démocratie et de culture16.(16)

9 Llorenç Prats, op cit 10 C´est le cas de l´exposition des Enfants de Llullaillaco, au Musée de Alta Montaña de la Provincia de Salta, Argentine, sujet discuté au XXIX Rencontre Internationale de l´ICOFOM et XV Rencontre Régionale de ICOFOM LAM « Muséologie et Histoire » Alta Gracia, Argentine. 11 Llorenç Prats, op cit

12 Hughes de Varine, »Les musées dans le monde » Salvat, 1973 13 Déclaration de Bahia, 2003. Musées et Patrimoine Régional en Amérique Latine et les Caraïbes, in « La pensée muséologique d´Amérique latine. Doc D´ICOFOM LAM1992-2005 Compilé par Nelly Decarolis,Cordoba, Argentine 2006 (p. 74) 14 Andreas Huyssen, Op. Cit. 15 Déclaration de Xochimilco, 1998. Musées, Muséologie et Diversité Culturelle(p. 47) 16 Déclaration de Xochimilco, 1998. Musées, Muséologie et Diversité Culturelle(p. 47)

137

Au début de ce troisième millénaire, la discussion sur la responsabilité des musées sur un certain « patrimoine universel », nous invite à réfléchir si, en parlant de Muséologie, on nous demande depuis le musée, de légitimer des positions hégémoniques que nous mettons en question depuis 30 ans. Cette globalisation de la mémoire qu´on nous demande de rendre légitime dans les patrimoines universels, peut-être est-elle une preuve de l´échec de la civilisation occidentale d´exercer l´anamnèse, de réfléchir sur son manque de compétence pour vivre en paix avec les différences et avec les autres, et d´en tirer les conséquences de cette insidieuse relation entre la modernité éclairée, l´oppression sociale et la violence organisée17 ? (17) Nous ouvrons les portes de nos musées au patrimoine des autres, nous leur donnons la catégorie d´ « universels» et au même temps, la société occidentale refuse avec crainte ses héritiers, venant des nations qui ont été colonisées ça ne fait pas très longtemps. Les grands musées affirment leur droit sur des patrimoines déterminés et ils les appellent « universels », tout en brandissant l´argument qu´on peut ou que l´on est en meilleures conditions de les sauvegarder. On ne devrait pas oublier que, grâce à l´incorporation de certains patrimoines, qui dès nos jours ont besoin d´être reconnus comme universels pour justifier leur possession, les musées occidentales se sont légitimés eux-mêmes. « Les collections du British Museum, aujourd´hui, ne constituent plus de butin de guerre, mais une manifestation écrasante de la supériorité de l´esprit anglais et de son énorme œuvre de civilisation et de sauvegarde de la culture, donc, comme Krzystof Pomian fait noter : « voire les objets venant d´autres sociétés ou de la nature, montrent la nation qui les a recueillis, parce que c´est elle qui, au moyen de ses artistes, ses savants, ses explorateurs et aussi ses généraux, a su reconnaître leur valeur et faire les sacrifices nécessaires pour les posséder ». Nelia Dias dit que le Muséum ethnographique des Missions Scientifiques a été créé pour commémorer le travail des explorateurs français, et de cette manière, implicitement, glorifier la nation française18 ». On dirait que ces sujets avaient été déjà dépassés, que la muséologie a adopté une autre position, qu´on avait fait assez de « critiques idéologiques au musée comme agent rendant légitime la modernisation capitaliste et comme un étalage triomphaliste de l´expansion du territoire et de la colonisation19 ». (19) Andrea Huyssen dit que l´un des phénomènes culturels et politiques le plus étonnant des dernières années, c´est le surgissement de la mémoire, préoccupation centrale de la culture et de la politique des sociétés occidentales20 ». Ce sont les musées, nouvelles cathédrales de la modernité, qui viennent répondre à un tel besoin, offrant de visiter la mémoire du monde, présentée d´une manière esthétique dans les rénovées « routes de pèlerinage ». On fait perdre son caractère d´absolu à la mémoire de l´objet présenté, mais aussi aux institutions qui ont réussi à posséder les patrimoines au moyen du dépouillement et de la colonisation. « Bien que le musée produise et affirme un ordre symbolique d´une manière consciente ou non, il y a toujours un reste de significations qui surpasse les frontières idéologiques établies et qui ouvre des espaces pour la réflexion et la mémoire non hégémonique21. Parmi les membres de la communauté muséologique, on voit s´élever un mouvement d´interrogation sur des aspects déontologiques et téléologiques des musées et du patrimoine. De conceptions critiques des musées et de la muséologie mettent en question ceux qui célèbrent le musée considéré « garant de possessions non disputées, comme une caisse forte des traditions et des canons occidentaux, et le siège d´un dialogue appréciatif et pas problématique avec d´autres cultures ou avec le passé ». Les musées, ces espaces privilégiés de communication peuvent offrir « des récits aux multiples significations, dans un moment où, les méta narratives de la modernité, voire celles

17 Andrea Huyssen. A la recherche du futur perdu. Culture et mémoire dans les temps de la globalisation. Fondo de Cultura Económica, Buenos Aires, 2007- 18 Llorenç Prats, op.cit. 19 Andrea Huyssen, op.cit. 20 Andrea Huyssen, op.cit. 21 Andrea Huyssen, op.cit.

138

qui sont inscrites au musée de panorama universel, ont perdu la notion persuasive qu´elles en avaient, dans un moment où il y a beaucoup de gens avides d´entendre et voir d´autres histoires, d´entendre et voir les histoires des autres, moment où les identités sont configurées en négociations stratifiées et incessantes dans le moi et dans l´autre, au lieu d´être fixes et prévisibles au sein de la famille et la religion, la race et la nation 22». Les musées font face à un problème éthique. Il faut que la muséologie réalise une réflexion théorique sur ce qui est en jeu: homogénéité ou pluralité ? Comment y répondre dès nos jours à une telle demande ? Le moment est-il arrivé d´imaginer de nouveaux modèles de musées qui s´accordent à la diversité de patrimoines et encouragent la diversité des regards ? Des musées où les formes d´interprétation et de présentation s´accordent avec l´appréciation que chaque groupe social fait du patrimoine ? Ces nouveaux musées devraient porter un défi à l´imagination et à la créativité, et au même temps devraient être un enjeu sur la compétence des autres pour juger sur la manière dont on veut se voir et se montrer. Ce dilemme éthique est résolu dans de l´approche de nouvelles formes de lecture du réel, parce que dans nos conditions modernes, « le musée semble satisfaire aussi un besoin vital de l´homme de posséder des racines anthropologiques : il permet à l´homme moderne de négocier, et au même temps d´articuler un rapport avec le passé (et ce qui est différent), rapport qui implique toujours une relation entre ce qui est transitoire23 et ce qui est perpétuel aussi. Bibliographie AGUILAR, Hugo, “La diversidad performativa del discurso”, presentado durante el II Congreso

Interoceánico de Estudios Latinoamericanos, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras de la Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, Argentina, 11-13 Septiembre de 2003

GARCÍA CANCLINI, Néstor, Imaginarios Urbanos, Eudeba, Buenos Aires, 1997 DAVALLON, Jean, Le don du patrimoine, Lavoisier, París, 2006 DE VARINE, Hughes, “Los museos en el mundo”, Salvat, 1973 FERRATER MORA, José, Diccionario de Filosofía abreviado, Sudamericana, Buenos Aires,

1974 HUYSSEN, Andrea, En busca del futuro perdido. Cultura y memoria en tiempos de

globalización. Fondo de Cultura Económica, Buenos Aires, 2007 DECAROLIS, Nelly, El pensamiento museológico latinoamericano. Los documentos del

ICOFOM LAM. Cartas y recomendaciones1992-2005, Córdoba, Argentina, 2006 ICOFOM, ICOFOM Study Series ISS 34 – Museology: an Instrument for Unity and Diversity,

Russian Federation, Rusia, 2003. ICOFOM / ICOFOM LAM, ICOFOM Study Series ISS 35 - Museología e Historia: un campo

de conocimiento, Editorial Brujas, Córdoba, Argentina, 2006 PRATS, Llorenç, Antropología y Patrimonio, Ariel, Barcelona, 1997

RODRÍGUEZ, Raúl A., El significado en los objetos sociales, Dirección General de Publicaciones de la Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina, 1996

SCHEINER, Tereza, “Museología e interpretación de la realidad: el discurso de la historia” en ICOFOM Study Series ISS 35 - Museología e Historia, Córdoba, Argentina, 2006

SCHMUCLER, Héctor, Memoria de la comunicación, Editorial Biblos, Buenos Aires, 1997

TODOROV, Tzvetan, Las morales de la historia, Ediciones Paídos, Barcelona, 1993

22 Andrea Huyssen, op.cit. 23 Andrea Huyssen, op.cit.

139

CONVENCIÓN SOBRE LA PROTECCIÓN DEL PATRIMONIO MUNDIAL, CULTURAL Y NATURAL, UNESCO, Noviembre de 1972

DECLARACIÓN DE QUITO: MUSEOLOGÍA, MUSEOS, ESPACIOS Y PODER EN AMÉRICA LATINA Y EL CARIBE, II Encuentro Regional del ICOFOM LAM, Quito, Ecuador, 1993

DECLARACIÓN DE XOCHIMILCO: MUSEOS, MUSEOLOGÍA Y DIVERSIDAD CULTURAL VII Encuentro Regional de Museología del ICOFOM LAM, Xochimilco, México, 1998.

CARTA DE CORO: MUSEOLOGÍA, FILOSOFÍA E IDENTIDAD EN AMÉRICA LATINA Y EL CARIBE, VIII Encuentro Regional del ICOFOM LAM, Coro, Venezuela, 1999

DECLARACIÓN UNIVERSAL DE LA UNESCO SOBRE DIVERSIDAD CULTURAL. DE LA DIVERSIDAD CULTURAL AL PLURALISMO, UNESCO, París, 2001

DECLARACIÓN DE BAHÍA: MUSEOS Y PATRIMONIO REGIONAL EN AMÉRICA LATINA Y EL CARIBE, XII Encuentro Regional del ICOFOM LAM, Salvador – Bahía, Brasil, 2003

El Patrimonio Universal, un Concepto en Cuestión Mónica Risnicoff de Gorgas – Celina Hafford (Argentina) De qué hablamos cuando hablamos de Patrimonio Universal Se diría que el tema que se nos ha propuesto –los Museos y el Patrimonio Universal- se sustenta en una postura humanista, tendiente al reconocimiento democrático del valor de los objetos culturales cualquiera sea el tiempo y el espacio en que fueron o son producidos. Desde esa postura, los museos, ámbitos neutrales en un mundo en crisis, salvaguardan la memoria de los unos y los otros, en una supuesta relación de simetría. Pero ¿han sido alguna vez los museos ámbitos neutrales? Y el Patrimonio ¿no es acaso una construcción social cargada de connotaciones ideológicas y políticas? Cabe interrogarse o por lo menos plantearse si el mismo concepto de “universalidad” del patrimonio no está reflejando posturas hegemónicas en las que el museo, juez y parte, instancia de decisión, elige una vez más que va legitimar y al otorgar el reconocimiento de universalidad a ciertos patrimonios, les escatima su carácter de individual y conflictivo. ¿No son acaso estos mismos conceptos los que hemos venido cuestionando a lo largo de 30 años en los encuentros del ICOFOM y particularmente desde la museología latinoamericana en el ICOFOM LAM? Haciendo entonces una segunda lectura del tema a discutir nos preguntamos qué es lo queremos decir cuando hablamos de patrimonio universal. ¿Un patrimonio conocido por todos? ¿Aceptado por todos? Y esos todos ¿quiénes son? De patrimonios y patrimonialización Siendo el patrimonio una construcción social por medio de la cual una determinada sociedad adjudica significado a ciertos objetos mediante un proceso simbólico de patrimonialización, cabe preguntarse sobre la validez de los criterios universales de valoración. Los procesos simbólicos de patrimonialización implican una valoración y una elección, implícita o explicita, que está ligada a procesos tanto identitarios como de legitimación. Es en el contexto de una determinada sociedad donde se legitiman las distintas respuestas a las preguntas esenciales del ser humano. ¿Cómo? Otorgando significado a determinados objetos sociales, usándolos de determinada manera y estableciendo comunicación a través de ellos. He aquí el valor simbólico, el valor de uso y el valor de mediación del patrimonio.

140

Davallon caracteriza al patrimonio como un proceso de filiación a la inversa y define a la patrimonialización como el conjunto de diversos procedimientos que formando un dispositivo social y simbólico, operan esa “filiación a la inversa”1. También afirma que debemos poner atención particular a la declaración performativa que instituye el objeto en tanto objeto patrimonial. Porque es en el seno de la conflictividad social en donde se genera la construcción social de lo real cruzado de modo permanente y transversal por relaciones de poder2. Las motivaciones por los cuales una sociedad reconoce la propiedad, material o simbólica, y la obligación de transmitir sus patrimonios (tangibles, intangibles, naturales, culturales) están siempre transversalizadas por implicancias ideológicas y políticas. El patrimonio, dice Llorenç Prats, “es un artificio ideado por alguien en algún lugar y momento, para unos determinados fines, e implica, finalmente, que es o puede ser históricamente cambiante, de acuerdo con nuevos criterios o intereses que determinen nuevos fines en nuevas circunstancias”3. Los patrimonios existentes son repertorios activados por versiones ideológicas de la identidad. Porque el patrimonio no está fijado de una vez y para siempre y presupone una mirada hacia nosotros que nos permite diferenciarnos de los “otros”. Como expresa Tereza Scheiner, desde abordajes cronológicos y narrativas de carácter historiográfico, se construye el discurso del Otro a partir de una mirada proyectada desde el centro4. El valor de la diversidad El reconocimiento de que el patrimonio es patrimonio en cuanto pertenece simbólica y/o materialmente a una determinada población y a un determinado grupo social, nos remite casi directamente al concepto de multiplicidad y diversidad de los patrimonios. Es esa misma diversidad, que responde a diferentes visiones del mundo, en la que reside la riqueza del patrimonio. Tal como viene siendo reivindicado desde la Museología Latinoamericana5, y por la UNESCO: “La cultura adquiere formas diversas a través del tiempo y del espacio. Esta diversidad se manifiesta en la originalidad y la pluralidad de las identidades que caracterizan los grupos y las sociedades que componen la humanidad. Fuente de intercambios, de innovación y de creatividad, la diversidad cultural es, para el género humano, tan necesaria como la diversidad biológica para los organismos vivos. En este sentido, constituye el patrimonio común de la humanidad y debe ser reconocida y consolidada en beneficio de las generaciones presentes y futuras”6. El Comité del Patrimonio Mundial ha declarado a ciertos patrimonios como Patrimonio de la Humanidad reconociéndoles un valor universal excepcional. Estas declaraciones responden a motivaciones que, también políticas e ideológicas, de alguna manera pretenden garantizar la salvaguarda de los mismos. Pero por sobre todo les reconocen ciertas características constitutivas del ser humano. Para su declaratoria los criterios de valoración de mayor importancia dan preeminencia a aquellos patrimonios que representan una respuesta única y excepcional a una situación histórica determinada. No son declarados patrimonio de la humanidad porque son

1 Jean Davallon, Le don du patrimoine, Lavoisier, París, 2006 (p.97) 2 Hugo Aguilar, “La diversidad performativa del discurso”, presentado durante el II Congreso Interoceánico de Estudios Latinoamericanos, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras de la Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, Argentina, 11-13 Septiembre de 2003. 3 Llorenç Prats, Antropología y patrimonio, Ariel, Barcelona, 1997 4 Tereza Scheiner, “Museología e interpretación de la realidad: el discurso de la historia” en ICOFOM Study Series ISS 35 - Museología e Historia, Córdoba, Argentina, 2006 5 Ver “Declaración de Xochimilco, 1998 - Museos, Museología y Diversidad Cultural” en El pensamiento museológico latinoamericano. Los documentos del ICOFOM LAM. Cartas y recomendacines 1992-2005, Compilación: Nelly Decarolis, Editorial Brujas, Córdoba, Argentina, 2006 6 Declaración Universal de la UNESCO sobre Diversidad Cultural. De la diversidad cultural al pluralismo, Art.1. En: http://www.unesco.org/culture/pluralism/diversity/html_sp/index_sp.shtml (abril, 2007) - Documento: Noviembre 2001

141

reconocidos y aceptados por todos como propios, sino precisamente por su especificidad y unicidad. Pareciera que es precisamente en las diferencias en las que podemos encontrar un valor universal porque permiten reconocernos en el nosotros y comprender a los otros desde ellos mismos. “¿Podemos decir por ello que cualquier contacto, cualquier interacción con los representantes de una cultura otra son hechos positivos? Esto sería caer en las aporías de la xenofilia: el otro no es bueno por el simple hecho de ser otro; algunos contactos tienen efectos positivos, otros no. El mejor resultado del cruce de culturas es frecuentemente la mirada crítica que volvemos hacia nosotros mismos; de ninguna manera implica la glorificación del otro”7. De alguna manera postulamos que existe un patrimonio de la humanidad constitutivo del hombre, no exento de implicancias políticas y de poder, pero no reconocemos un patrimonio universal entendido por todos y aceptado por todos. Poniendo en cuestión el Patrimonio Universal Según Aristóteles lo universal en cuanto general se distingue de lo individual, y en cuanto se refiere a una totalidad plural de objetos, se opone a lo particular. En la tradición filosófica se consideró siempre que lo universal es abstracto a diferencia de lo particular que es concreto. Hegel innovó radicalmente esta idea. Propuso que lo universal podía ser abstracto y concreto, afirmando que lo universal abstracto es simplemente lo que es común a varios particulares, mientras que lo universal concreto es la suma de particularidades que dan sentido al concepto de ese universal abstracto, enriqueciéndolo por medio de una presencia ontológica definida (los particulares). En otras palabras, la imperfección de lo universal abstracto se supera y se define con lo particular, y convierte a ese universal en parte constitutiva de lo real y verdadero8. ¿Es desde la Filosofía que se plantea y se valida el concepto de Patrimonio Universal? Existen interrogantes esenciales, inherentes a la naturaleza misma del ser humano, que se plantean todos los hombres en diferentes tiempos y espacios. Pero las respuestas son múltiples y variadas, y es a través de la diversidad de esas respuestas que el hombre, en este caso cada cultura en su relación espacio-tiempo, finalmente se define como un Otro diferente, distinto, particular. Al analizar las ambigüedades y contradicciones que se desprenden de la apelación a una unidad cultural, particular y homogénea que oculta profundas desigualdades, se nos plantean ciertos interrogantes: - ¿Por qué hablamos hoy de patrimonio universal? - ¿De dónde surge la necesidad de legitimar a ciertos patrimonios otorgándoles la categoría de universales? - ¿No subyace en el mismo concepto una desigual apreciación de los patrimonios? ¿No está revelando esa supuesta democrática inclusión como patrimonio del otro, una relación asimétrica sobre lo que es patrimonio y sobre lo que no lo es? - ¿No revela el mismo concepto una postura hegemónica y de superioridad por la cual hay que salvar un patrimonio que otros no son capaces de conservar? - ¿Son las poblaciones y los sujetos sociales de las culturas consideradas periféricas las que reclaman que se considere a sus patrimonios como patrimonios universales? O ¿son las culturas hegemónicas las que han decidido otorgar esa valoración al patrimonio de los Otros? - ¿Juzgamos con una misma medida a todos los patrimonios que consideramos universales? ¿Quién legitima? ¿Quién ejerce el poder para definir que patrimonios son universales y cuales no?

7 Tzvetan Todorov, Las morales de la historia, Ediciones Paídos, Barcelona, 1993 (p.116) 8 José Ferrater Mora, Diccionario de Filosofía abreviado, Sudamericana, Buenos Aires, 1974 (p.417-418)

142

- ¿A partir de qué fuentes de autoridad tiene lugar la legitimación de determinados referentes simbólicos? - Cuando hablamos de reconocimiento de un supuesto patrimonio universal ¿estamos legitimando el patrimonio occidental ya reconocido como valioso o estamos jerarquizando al patrimonio del Otro? ¿Por qué necesita ser jerarquizado el patrimonio del Otro? ¿Qué hay detrás de la jerarquización del patrimonio del Otro? - ¿Cuál es la dinámica de inclusión y exclusión de los elementos potencialmente patrimonializables? - Esta concepción de patrimonio universal, ¿no intenta encubrir, poner un manto de igualdad a la crisis de nuestro tiempo, de la que el patrimonio debería ser un emergente? Afirma Llorenç Prats que el patrimonio universal tiene que ver con procesos estructurados y controlados desde núcleos hegemónicos9. Sería ingenuo pensar que este generoso reconocimiento de la cultura del otro en el patrimonio universal elimina las desigualdades entre las metrópolis y las sociedades periféricas. Cuando con argumentos de conocimiento, presupuesto económico y técnicas de mantenimiento, se declara, para protegerlo, a un patrimonio como universal, se despoja a sus herederos naturales que terminan percibiéndolos como ajeno. Es el caso de algunos museos alejados de las metrópolis, generalmente en regiones turísticas, que tienen las mismas características de los los grandes centros y utilizan las más variadas tecnologías para poner al alcance del turismo internacional patrimonios que por su carácter simbólico los pueblos originarios jamás hubiesen exhibido.10 De museos y patrimonios, toma de partidos Institución occidental por origen y estructura, los museos nacen para acompañar el proceso de las naciones europeas en formación. “Todos estos museos contribuían en el fondo a celebrar la nación, a la gloria de la cual aportaban su concurso [de modo que] por medio de estas instituciones, la nación rendía un homenaje perpetuo a sí misma, convirtiéndose así en la principal instigadora de este nuevo culto, del cual era, al mismo tiempo, sujeto y objeto”11. En los países no europeos se produce un fenómeno similar. Ya en 1973 Hughes de Varine enunciaba que “a partir de principios del siglo XIX, el desarrollo de los museos en el resto del mundo es un fenómeno puramente colonialista. Han sido los países europeos los que han impuesto a los países no europeos su método de análisis del fenómeno y patrimonio culturales; han obligado a las elites de esos países y a los pueblos a ver su propia cultura con ojos europeos. Por lo tanto los museos de la mayoría de las naciones son creaciones de la etapa colonialista. La descolonización ha sido política, pero no cultural; por consiguiente, se puede decir que el mundo de los museos, en tanto que institución y en tanto que método de conservación y de comunicación del patrimonio cultural de la humanidad, es un fenómeno europeo que se ha extendido porque Europa ha producido la cultura dominante y los museos son una de las instituciones derivadas de esa cultura”12. El reconocimiento del museo como una institución donde “... el discurso museológico es una poderosa forma de interpretación de lo real”13 y que es sede y campo de pruebas de reflexiones sobre la temporalidad y la subjetividad, la identidad y la alteridad14,y que la museología “es la disciplina que se ocupa de las relaciones específicas entre el hombre y 9 Llorenç Prats, Op. cit. 10 Es el caso de la exhibición de los Niños del Llullaillaco en el Museo de Alta Montaña de la Provincia de Salta, Argentina, que se debatió en el XXIX Encuentro Internacional de ICOFOM y XV Encuentro Regional de ICOFOM LAM “Museología e Historia”, Alta Gracia, Argentina, 2006 11 Llorenç Prats, Op. cit. 12 Hughes de Varine, “Los museos en el mundo”, Salvat, 1973 13 “Declaración de Bahía, 2003 - Museos y Patrimonio Regional en América Latina y el Caribe” en El pensamiento museológico latinoamericano. Los documentos del ICOFOM LAM. Cartas y recomendacines 1992-2005, Compilación: Nelly Decarolis, Córdoba, Argentina, 2006 (p.74) 14 Andreas Huyssen, Op. cit.

143

una realidad configurada a partir de las distintas visiones del mundo que elabora cada sociedad en el tiempo y el espacio”15, nos conduce a pensar que hay conceptos y aseveraciones que deben enfocarse desde el campo de la ética. Y que ha llegado para los museos el tiempo del cambio de paradigma. Cabe recordar que entre las atribuciones no explícitas del museo se encuentra su potencial de operar los sistemas de valoración y selección de las manifestaciones culturales, a partir de conceptos de exclusión / inclusión que no siempre condicen con los postulados de democratización y cultura16. A comienzos del tercer milenio la discusión sobre la responsabilidad de los museos sobre un cierto ”patrimonio universal”, nos invita a reflexionar si se nos está pidiendo legitimar desde el museo posturas hegemónicas que hemos venido cuestionando desde la Museología en los últimos 30 años. Esta globalización de la memoria que se nos pide legitimar a partir de los patrimonios universales ¿no es acaso una prueba del fracaso de la civilización occidental para ejercitar la anamnesis, para reflexionar sobre su incapacidad constitutiva de vivir en paz con las diferencias y con los otros, y de extraer las debidas consecuencias de la insidiosa relación entre la modernidad ilustrada, la opresión racial y la violencia organizada?17. Abrimos las puertas de nuestros museos al patrimonio de los otros, le otorgamos la categoría de universal y al mismo tiempo la sociedad occidental rechaza con temor a sus herederos, procedentes de las naciones colonizadas no mucho tiempo atrás. Con el argumento de que podemos o estamos en mejores condiciones de salvaguardar un determinado patrimonio los grandes museos afirman su derecho sobre esos patrimonios llamándolos universales. No deberíamos olvidar que con la incorporación de ciertos patrimonios, que hoy necesitan ser reconocidos como universales para justificar su posesión, los museos occidentales se legitimaron a sí mismos. “Las colecciones del British Museum, en esta época, ya no son botines de guerra sino una apabullante manifestación de la superioridad del espíritu inglés y de su ingente obra de civilización y salvaguarda de la cultura, ya que como subraya Krzystof Pomian: «incluso los objetos procedentes de otras sociedades o de la naturaleza ilustran la nación que los ha recogido, ya que es ella quien –por medio de sus artistas, sus sabios, sus exploradores e incluso sus generales- ha sabido reconocer su valor y hacer los sacrificios necesarios para obtenerlos». El Muséum Ethnographique des Missions Scientifiques, dice Nélia Dias fue «creado para conmemorar el trabajo de los exploradores franceses y así, implícitamente, glorificar la nación francesa»”18. Pareciera que estos temas ya estaban superados, que la museología había adoptado otra posición, que ya se habían hecho suficientes “críticas ideológicas al museo como agente legitimador de la modernización capitalista y escaparate triunfalista de la expansión territorial y de la colonización”19. Dice Andrea Huyssen que “uno de los fenómenos culturales y políticos más sorprendentes de los últimos años es el surgimiento de la memoria como una preocupación central de la cultura y de la política de las sociedades occidentales”20. A esa necesidad vienen a responder los museos, nuevas catedrales de la modernidad, que ofrecen visitar la memoria del mundo estéticamente presentada en las renovadas “rutas de peregrinación”. Se relativiza la memoria no sólo de lo que se exhibe sino también de las instituciones que llegaron a poseer esos patrimonios a través de la expoliación y la colonización.

15 Declaración de Xochimilco, 1998 - Museos, Museología y Diversidad Cultural , en Op. cit. (p.47) 16 Declaración de Xochimilco, 1998 - Museos, Museología y Diversidad Cultural , en Op. cit. (p.47) 17 Andrea Huyssen, En busca del futuro perdido. Cultura y memoria en tiempos de globalización. Fondo de Cultura Económica, Buenos Aires, 2007 18 Llorenç Prats, Op. cit. 19 y 20 Andrea Huyssen, Op. cit.

144

Pero “por mucho que el museo conciente o inconcientemente, produzca y afirme un orden simbólico, hay siempre un excedente de significado que sobrepasa las fronteras ideológicas establecidas, abriendo espacios a la reflexión y la memoria antihegemónica”21. Crece entre la comunidad museológica un continuo interrogarse sobre aspectos deontológicos y teleológicos de los museos y el patrimonio. Concepciones críticas de los museos y de la museología ponen en cuestión a quienes celebran al museo como “como garante de posesiones indisputadas, como caja fuerte de las tradiciones y cánones occidentales, como sede de un diálogo apreciativo y no problemático con otras culturas o con el pasado”22. Espacios privilegiados de comunicación, los museos pueden ofrecer “narrativas de significado múltiples en un momento en que las metanarrativas de la modernidad, incluidas las inscriptas en el propio museo de panorama universal, han perdido la persuasividad que tenían; en un momento en que hay más gente ávida de oír y ver otras historias, de oír y ver las historias de otros; en que las identidades se configuran en negociaciones estratificadas e incesantes en el yo y el otro, en lugar de ser fijas y previstas en el marco de la familia y la religión, la raza y la nación”23. Los museos enfrentan un dilema ético. Cabe a la museología hacer una reflexión teórica sobre lo que está en juego: ¿homogeneización o pluralidad? ¿Cómo responder hoy a la demanda?` ¿No será el momento de imaginar nuevos modelos de museos, que acordes con la diversidad de patrimonios propicien la diversidad de las miradas? En dónde las formas de interpretar y de exhibir estén en consonancia con la apreciación de los patrimonios que hace cada grupo social? Estos nuevos museos deberían ser un desafío a la imaginación y un desafío a la creatividad y una apuesta a la capacidad de los otros para pensar la forma en que quieren mirarse y mostrarse. El dilema ético se resuelve en nuevas formas de lectura de lo real porque “el museo parece también satisfacer, en las condiciones modernas, una necesidad vital de raíces antropológicas: permite a los modernos negociar y articular una relación con el pasado -y con lo diferente- que es también, siempre, una relación con lo transitorio”24 y lo perdurable.

21, 22, 23 y 24 Andrea Huyssen, Op. cit.

145

Bibliografía AGUILAR, Hugo, “La diversidad performativa del discurso”, presentado durante el II Congreso

Interoceánico de Estudios Latinoamericanos, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras de la Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, Argentina, 11-13 Septiembre de 2003

GARCÍA CANCLINI, Néstor, Imaginarios Urbanos, Eudeba, Buenos Aires, 1997 DAVALLON, Jean, Le don du patrimoine, Lavoisier, París, 2006 DE VARINE, Hughes, “Los museos en el mundo”, Salvat, 1973 FERRATER MORA, José, Diccionario de Filosofía abreviado, Sudamericana, Buenos Aires,

1974 HUYSSEN, Andrea, En busca del futuro perdido. Cultura y memoria en tiempos de

globalización. Fondo de Cultura Económica, Buenos Aires, 2007 DECAROLIS, Nelly, El pensamiento museológico latinoamericano. Los documentos del

ICOFOM LAM. Cartas y recomendaciones1992-2005, Córdoba, Argentina, 2006 ICOFOM, ICOFOM Study Series ISS 34 – Museology: an Instrument for Unity and Diversity,

Russian Federation, Rusia, 2003. ICOFOM / ICOFOM LAM, ICOFOM Study Series ISS 35 - Museología e Historia: un campo

de conocimiento, Editorial Brujas, Córdoba, Argentina, 2006 PRATS, Llorenç, Antropología y Patrimonio, Ariel, Barcelona, 1997

RODRÍGUEZ, Raúl A., El significado en los objetos sociales, Dirección General de Publicaciones de la Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina, 1996

SCHEINER, Tereza, “Museología e interpretación de la realidad: el discurso de la historia” en ICOFOM Study Series ISS 35 - Museología e Historia, Córdoba, Argentina, 2006

SCHMUCLER, Héctor, Memoria de la comunicación, Editorial Biblos, Buenos Aires, 1997

TODOROV, Tzvetan, Las morales de la historia, Ediciones Paídos, Barcelona, 1993

CONVENCIÓN SOBRE LA PROTECCIÓN DEL PATRIMONIO MUNDIAL, CULTURAL Y NATURAL, UNESCO, Noviembre de 1972

DECLARACIÓN DE QUITO: MUSEOLOGÍA, MUSEOS, ESPACIOS Y PODER EN AMÉRICA LATINA Y EL CARIBE, II Encuentro Regional del ICOFOM LAM, Quito, Ecuador, 1993

DECLARACIÓN DE XOCHIMILCO: MUSEOS, MUSEOLOGÍA Y DIVERSIDAD CULTURAL VII Encuentro Regional de Museología del ICOFOM LAM, Xochimilco, México, 1998.

CARTA DE CORO: MUSEOLOGÍA, FILOSOFÍA E IDENTIDAD EN AMÉRICA LATINA Y EL CARIBE, VIII Encuentro Regional del ICOFOM LAM, Coro, Venezuela, 1999

DECLARACIÓN UNIVERSAL DE LA UNESCO SOBRE DIVERSIDAD CULTURAL. DE LA DIVERSIDAD CULTURAL AL PLURALISMO, UNESCO, París, 2001

DECLARACIÓN DE BAHÍA: MUSEOS Y PATRIMONIO REGIONAL EN AMÉRICA LATINA Y EL CARIBE, XII Encuentro Regional del ICOFOM LAM, Salvador – Bahía, Brasil, 2003

El patrimonio universal, un concepto en cuestión (resumen) Mónica Risnicoff de Gorgas – Celina Hafford. ARGENTINA

146

De qué hablamos cuando hablamos de Patrimonio Universal Se diría que el tema que se nos ha propuesto –los Museos y el Patrimonio Universal- se sustenta en una postura humanista, tendiente al reconocimiento democrático del valor de los objetos culturales cualquiera sea el tiempo y el espacio en que fueron o son producidos. Desde esa postura, los museos, ámbitos neutrales en un mundo en crisis, salvaguardan la memoria de los unos y los otros, en una supuesta relación de simetría. Pero ¿han sido alguna vez los museos ámbitos neutrales? Y el Patrimonio ¿no es acaso una construcción social cargada de connotaciones ideológicas y políticas? Cabe interrogarse o por lo menos plantearse si el mismo concepto de “universalidad” del patrimonio no está reflejando posturas hegemónicas en las que el museo, juez y parte, instancia de decisión, elige una vez más que va legitimar y al otorgar el reconocimiento de universalidad a ciertos patrimonios, les escatima su carácter de individual y conflictivo. ¿No son acaso estos mismos conceptos los que hemos venido cuestionando a lo largo de 30 años en los encuentros del ICOFOM y particularmente desde la museología latinoamericana en el ICOFOM LAM? Haciendo entonces una segunda lectura del tema a discutir nos preguntamos qué es lo queremos decir cuando hablamos de patrimonio universal. ¿Un patrimonio conocido por todos? ¿Aceptado por todos? Y esos todos ¿quiénes son? The Universal Patrimony, a Concept to Consider (abstract) Mónica Risnicoff de Gorgas – Celina Hafford. (Argentina) What do we mean when we say “Universal Heritage”? We could say that the proposed topic, museums and universal heritage, is based on a humanistic view which aims at a democratic recognition of the value of the cultural objects, whatever the time and space they were or are being produced in. From this view, the museums, as neutral realms in a world in crisis, safeguard the memory of one and all, in a theoretical symmetric relationship. However, we must ask ourselves: Have museums ever been neutral realms? And furthermore, isn’t heritage a social construction imbued with ideological and political connotations? It is then imperative to question or at least consider if the concept “universality” , with regards to heritage, reflects hegemonic positions by which the museum, as judge as well as part of, and as decision-taker, chooses once again what it will legitimize and, by recognizing certain heritages as universal, curtails their condition of individuality, avoiding, therefore, the inherent varied cultural conflict. We should ask ourselves if these concepts are not the same ones we have been questioning for the last 30 years at the ICOFOM meetings and particularly at the ICOFOM LAM ones. Hence, a second reading of the subject in question would make us ask ourselves what do we actually mean when we refer to universal heritage: Is a heritage known by everyone? Is that heritage accepted by everyone? And therefore we must also ask ourselves, whom to do we refer when we say “everyone”

Monica Risnicoff de Gorgas Dierctora

Museo Nacional Estancia Jesuitica Alta Gracia y Casa del Virrey `liniers

Alta Gracia / Argentina

147

Toward a Universal Paradigm for Museums – Discussion Marília Xavier Cury, São Paulo/Brazil _______________________________________________________________ The Perspective of Museological Communication The theme of the ICOM 2007 debate is “Museums and Universal Heritage: Universal Heritage / Individual Responsibility – Individual Heritage / Universal Responsibility”. The title itself leads us to reflect on the play on words featured in these two approaches which, in our understanding, do not cancel out one another if we consider that heritage is an individual, collective, and universal right, humanity’s conquest in regard to self-awareness and awareness of culture as human work undergoing continuous dynamic construction. On the other hand, from the citizen’s viewpoint, right and duty walk hand-in-hand. This is so because the right of one individual requires the duty of another to guarantee it, and the individual citizen’s duty is to guarantee others’ right to cultural heritage. Cultural heritage features an inherent reciprocity between rights and duties that cannot be ignored. It involves an intersubjective ethic. Heritage is construction, i.e., a value attributed to things – things that we consider tangible or intangible assets. So, once something is designated as heritage (tangible or intangible), it is afforded special attention by museums or by the public. It is the museums’ job to defend its collection heritage nature, and this is an educational act. It is up to the public to interpret the cultural heritage of museum collections, and this implies attaching new meaning to it because all heritage has some meaning attributed to it, and interpretation and meaning are united. Interpreting and assigning new meaning are participative actions, and this is an educational process the subjects of which have conscious participation, i.e., they are agents of their own educational route. It is always well to keep in mind that the process of building up museum collections is a democratic process – the heritage present in any museum context must have common-interest appeal. But even so, its meaning is plural and never hermetic. In any case, the process of building up a museum collection is always political and replete with ideologies, and this is one of the characteristics of museums open to educational exploration. Once people abandon the tendency to see museums and their collections as neutral ground, the museums and their collections begin to take part in the process of attaching new meaning to this heritage and to the cultural dynamics that position citizens as cultural subjects, active subjects, because they not only attribute meanings, but above all, cause this meaning to circulate in their day-to-day environment and within the space of the museum, exchanging and negotiating with others, also subjects. The heritage status of assets is neither unique nor hermetic. In other words, at the same time that it is multiple and fragmented, it undergoes constant transformation. Not only are museums open to such transformation, they take part in it and register it, which is their responsibility: to document the various forms of conceiving the heritage in their care. We might say that this responsibility museums have to document and register conceptions of heritage expands when the museum, within its course, opens itself up to the various visions of the public. We have here a first question for discussion. If the concept of heritage is open, the authoritative stance of museological messages is not fitting. A better solution would be a democratic debate forum regarding museum messages, a debate informed by and related to the heritage. If this were the case, the public’s thoughts should be incorporated to the heritage as an integral part of it. The text that presents the problematic proposed by ICOM for 2007 (available on the ICOM web site) addresses several aspects. In our opinion, the most relevant issues are perhaps

148

those related to the changes that museums are currently undergoing. Actually, a better term than “change” to describe the issue ICOM raises might be “marketing pressure”, and there is no denying that it does exist. Museums have long been aware that they must adjust not only to society’s demands, but also to the transformations that the social and human sciences have been promoting, because these are the sciences that deal with identity and culture, and museums, regardless of typology, are an integral part of the fields of culture and identity. On one hand, museums are moving forward in terms of management and are increasingly perfecting the curatorial process, the chain that drives synergy and makes the whole greater than the sum of its parts. Today, museums have a highly specialized professional orientation model to follow. On the other hand, museology has already attained the status of a scientific discipline which, for museum praxis, is relevant. However, despite these advances and improvements, museums undergo external pressures to which they cannot yield at the risk of losing their institutional identity, which would be an irreparable loss to society. Market pressures, in particular, are very efficient, strong, and camouflaged to involve, seduce, and confuse less experienced museum managers1 and the public. Pressures aim to groom museums in such a way as to lend them a closer resemblance to the entertainment industry. Thus, many museums look like theme parks, and this is objectively manifest in many points. However, the most visible, to our way of thinking, is exhibition, the show “place” 2 of any museum. A museum’s exhibitions tell us a lot about the institution itself. The opposite of the entertainment industry museum (according to the entertainment industry and its professional followers) is the static museum – outdated, monotonous, a place full of old things. These are the two extremes, but considering the conquests that museums and museology have achieved, what points are worthy of reflection when we think of a museum model cast for the contemporary problematic? The museum is an institutional model dating from the 19th century. In that century, museums consolidated their role as cultural integrators. This was achieved thanks to the enculturation of countless cultural forms to make up a national culture. Museums thus assumed a hegemonic stance, which is now questioned due to its excludatory nature. Exclusion is not a museum stratagem, but merely an expression of its hegemonic way of functioning that it should question (CURY, 2005, p. 135-136). The market, in its turn, is the expression of the hegemonic, with no need to question it. Let us consider – what the market does is to include by appealing to the “massive”3. This is so because the popular classes, the people at large, are economically active and serve mercantile demands, a boon to the entertainment industry that needs to uphold – in the eyes of the printed and televised media and paying consumers – an image for its actions, or even long lines, to justify productions funded by public resources obtained by means of cultural tax-incentive laws4. It is quite easy to find museum exhibitions that feature characteristics of the entertainment industry held in or out of museums – or mass museums, those that need a numerous public to fulfill their mission. Blockbuster exhibitions exemplify what we are talking about. So many other expositive manifestations in Brazil that seek the media spotlights use certain elements of mass entertainment – by means of mass appeal – at the same time that they aspire to being a “refined” cultural product – in general appealing to “fetish objects” – as

1 We must recognize that despite the process of professionalization of museums, many institutions still seek to comply with museological standards. Perhaps for this reason we perceive the presence of such disparate levels of professionalization among museums. The least professionalized museums are perhaps those less susceptible to market pressures, to that which we consider unfitting for museums. 2 We use “place” to refer not only to the physical space where the exhibition is held, but methodological “place” for the development of reception research, strategic for museums’ political action to recover the symbolic dimension, the dimension that promotes representations of links among citizens. 3 “Massive” is used here as a technical term that, generally speaking, means a set of characteristics of popular aesthetics – aesthetics that appeal to the masses. 4 Public policies for culture in Brazil are not yet sufficiently mature to duly meet the needs of the area of heritage.

149

hegemonic strategy. The promotion of these exhibitions always features a “different” type of exhibition, live, dynamic. Obviously, each case must be analyzed separately, and it is obvious that even when critiquing these expographic events we cannot deny that they are unparalleled opportunities to understand how the public relates to the exhibition, and consequently, to the museum, considering that the public – at least those who rarely frequent museums – has expectations regarding museological institutions that we are not aware of. Far from judging and/or defending these productions, to researchers in museology these long lines constitute a rare opportunity to gain insight into what these people seek, what they find, and so on, taking into account that this reception can provide the museums with important data regarding its audience, a better understanding of museum visitors and non-visitors. But, leaving museological moralism or purism aside, not all in regard to the entertainment industry is bad, but its aims are not in accord with the heritage proposals they proclaim, above all, communicational quality: the capacity to arouse awareness, encourage questioning and critical thought. What the market cannot do, museums can. Let us see what that is according to Jesús Martín-Barbero (1997, p. 15):

What is it that the market is incapable of doing no matter how effective its simulacrum? The market cannot precipitate traditions, because what it produces “evaporates into thin air” due to its structural tendency toward accelerated and generalized obsolescence, not only of things, but also of forms and institutions. The market cannot create social links, i.e., links between subjects, because these are constituted within sense communication processes, and the market operates anonymously by means of value logics that imply purely formal exchanges, associations of evanescent promises that only engender social innovation since this [innovation] presumes non-functional differences and solidarities, resistances and dissidence, while the other [the market] deals exclusively with profitability (author’s highlight).

So, then, what is the best route? As a proposal, we would say that museums define themselves by means of the narratives regarding the collected heritage elaborated by museum professionals and by the public, both in the quality of subjects of the process. Participation of the corps of museum professionals is ensured. What we must guarantee is participation of the public in this process with the same weight, to better define and balance the relations of power that occur in the transmitter (museum professional) – receiver (public) relationship, and vice versa, since the roles are inverted when the museum begins to listen to what visitors say and incorporate it into the museum’s synergy, and the public, in turn, circulates the museological messages within the confines of its daily life, its routine environment. The museum-going public inevitably constructs a contextual meaning based on what it interprets, tearing down the ambiguous author-reader relationship. This being so, it (the public) uses orality to express its subjectivity. And increasingly – as is the case of people who go to movies and plays, people who read newspapers – they discuss what they have experienced, seen, watched, read, etc., with other receivers. In other words, visiting a museum and interacting with the cultural heritage is an opportunity to “talk” about it, a great opportunity to reconstruct this experience through speech, which constitutes construction of one’s own symbolic identity by re-designing our interior language (ZAVALA, 2006, p. 6). The act of visiting a museum is therefore, at the same time, an individual and collective act that extrapolates the walls of the institution, and so it should be. Therefore, to institute a rule of law governing individual, collective, and universal heritage takes on another meaning, seeing that it comes to be a construction within these dimensions, guaranteeing each of them. The Perspective of Museological Reception

150

To our way of thinking, we can no longer fail to co-relate assessment with museological theory. Museological assessment must be seen in all its dimensions, to two of which we attach priority: assessment at the service of management (to investigate the museum), and assessment that produces museological knowledge (to investigate within the museum). These two approaches are different and it is important that this be the case, because they reach different and non-excluding levels. However, we will deal here with investigation in the museum because of the role it plays in the construction of museological theory, which implies saying that we can no longer neglect facing the public’s role in the construction of museological knowledge. Currently, assessment from the viewpoint of the museum-going public’s is known as reception research, direct influence of the area of communication in the museums, which is quite understandable because in museology, there is the communication sub-area. Although this influence is preponderant, it coexists with other influences such as psychology and education. Nevertheless, the contemporary tendency is for museological assessment, from the reception research perspective, to draw closer to the so-called lato sensu5 cultural studies, which signifies the presence of groups that have different opinions regarding theoretic assumptions, methodological choices and reception concepts, and derive from different disciplinary fields (LOPES, 1993, p. 79). [The concept of] Museums as media remained alienated from the evolution of the form of understanding the communication process and reception research, as we can see in the critique made by Hooper-Greenhill (2001a, [p. 3-4]):

In communication studies, frequently using television as the field for research, the concept of “the active audience” has developed. The transmission model of communication, based on the stimulus/response model of education, assumed the possibility of a universal effect on the targets (receivers) of the message, who were thought to be open to the persuasions of the mass media. Following a range of research studies of these assumed “effects”, it was gradually realised that people were not merely passive absorbers of the media. The media/audience relationship was found to be complex and multi-faceted, mediated by factors external to the technical process of the information transfer. By the 1970s, new explanations were being developed to analyse the media audience, which focused on the range of responses and interpretation in which media audiences actively engaged. In those few museums in Britain which carried out audience research on a consistent basis, it would take until the 1990s to be able to admit that in the development of exhibition that would communicate effectively “the initial emphasis was entirely on the subject matter and the efficient transmission of information, and it was only later that we began to understand and respond to the meaning of a museum visit to the visitor.

And the author carries on with her harsh critique, now pointing out museums’ lag in relation to the advances of reception research in other media:

First, we can see that in terms of concept development, museums have not been in the forefront. Media studies in the 1950s proposed the active audience and the importance of social context in the reception of the message long before we had even begun to study our audience in museums. Our methodology in museums has not paid attention to methods used by communication and cultural theorists, and an over-reliance on behaviourist, positivist methods has failed to reveal the importance of audience decoding. Up till now, we have had, in Britain, no ethnographic studies of museum visitors, [...]. We do need to begin to work in a more reflexive and more open way with audiences, to allow their descriptions of what museums mean to emerge during the research process. (HOOPER-GREENHILL, 2001b, p. 9)

5 Here we refer generically to cultural studies, without taking into account the various existing tendencies.

151

The author mentions, referring to distinct groups, that lato sensu cultural studies were carried out, and that these studies lent enormous contributions to the area of communication with which the area of museums failed to stay apace. An important example was the study featuring the television program “The Cosby Show”. This study brought to the surface the issue of polysemy, the plurality of possible meanings as counter posed to what was denominated in the time of semiotic excess. The author then draws a parallel between this program and museums:

How much potential in museums is there for exactly this semiotic excess, this range of meanings, many of which will be invisible to many audiences, but which exist to be activated when someone with the experience to perceive and decode the message is present? I think the potencial here is enormous and very exciting (idem).

Another issue that Eilean Hooper-Greenhill highlights has to do with the presence of behaviorist studies in museums. Both this author (2001c, p. 11) and George Hein (1998, p. 62-77) point out that these studies barred the entrance of naturalist studies in museums for a long time. Behaviorist studies are developed based on observing people as though they were part of a laboratory experiment. Hein warns that although outdated, this is an approach still used in studies of museum publics. The two authors cited above defend a naturalist approach. Let us see how Hein presents the main differences between the two approaches (idem, p. 69):

Experimental-design Naturalistic Quantitative Atomistic Objective Laboratory model Experimental Hard Confirmatory Explanation Decontextualized Deterministic Analytic

Qualitative Holistic Subjective Real-world based Naturalistic Soft Exploratory Understanding Contextual Responsive Synthetic

However, both state that in applying the naturalistic approach, it is possible to resort to quantitative findings in a complementary manner. Luciana Köptcke (2003) shows us a broader framework regarding the main lines of audience research carried out in museums, always keeping in mind that we are speaking of one model counter posed to the other, and the possibility of classifying various tendencies: - reality x constructivism; - objectivity x subjectivity; - experimental x hermeneutic, dialectic; - with objectives x without objectives. At times, generations are mentioned as a means of attempting to survey evolution in museological assessment. However, if there is consensus regarding the issue, it refers to the need to map the theoretic and methodological origins of the various disciplines that have contributed, up to the moment, to the experience that museums now have in assessment. At the same time, it is essential that we seek – conscientiously and not by repetition – references from other fields, such as communication, to construct a complex framework capable of handling the complexity of the hypotheses of museum reception. Within this proposed perspective, we must abandon studies of a behaviorist nature that are applied in the comprehension of how museums can be a stimulus for modifying behaviors in which visitors are passive beings. These studies, associated to the need of understanding the effects of the expographic elements, stimulate the comprehension of learning as the result of good stimuli. This way of thinking lends support to the intention to attract, hold, or

152

retain visitors’ attention by means of expographic and/or educational resources. These objectives continue to be widely accepted in museological circles. However, other lines began to develop in museums, especially after the proposition of the socio-cognitive models in the 1990s. This model broadens the idea of what the museum-going public experiences, now seeing experience as interaction between the museum context, the visitor’s personal context, and the social context (FALK; DIERKING, 2002). Although behaviorism still inspires many professionals concerned with what they conceive and produce, the socio-cognitive model broadened the references for the construction of hypotheses, for the analysis and interpretation of data based on the public’s point of view. Thus, the focus of the transmitter is gradually shifting to the receiver. Lauro Zavala (1998, p. 82) suggests that prior to constructing hypotheses to be tested, we should seek to imagine what museum visitors themselves would ask themselves upon entering a museum:

The reception researcher, at least during the first stage of his or her work, is not looking for answers but for new questions regarding the visitor’s experience. Most of these questions will be similar to those posed by the visitors themselves about their experiences.

This researcher, as we can see, understands that museological communication is analyzed based on reception. Within the set of questions that he drew up about visitors, we see that they all hark back to reception, and not to exit:

Why do some people go to museums instead of doing something else? Why do they do it when they do, given all the other options on offer for their free time? How do visitors associate other cultural experiences with their experiences in museums? How do they acknowledge the presence of cultural discourses other than their own in the exhibitions? How do visitors incorporate the most general elements of their experiences into the assessments of museums? How do they incorporate socially conditioned expectations and individual experiences, interpretative competencies [...] and cultural contexts (the museographic tradition of the cultural group, region and country)? (idem, p. 84)

If we realize that there is a traditional museum model, and another developing model (and today we live in a transition from one to the other), in assessment there is also the traditional model and the emerging model. The most advanced traditional model sees the public as a subject and seeks to understand the creative forms of participation in the process of museum communication. According to Zavala ([2003], p. 22-23, to do so, advanced traditional assessment can find support from one of three dimensions, namely: - Empiric: ethnographic and centered on specific experience. It seeks the narrative

reconstruction of an experience and aims to survey the main elements of visitors’ experience:

- Effective: sociological and centered on educational effects. Seeks recognition of the ritual and playful dimensions of the experience, said dimensions seen as educational dimensions of each visitor’s experience:

- Contextual: historiographic, centered on the conditions of possibilities. Seeks recognition of specific traditions in which the visitor’s experience fits into a particular cultural context.

At present, media reception research, including that of museums, is working to overcome the old traditions of the theoretic-methodological paradigms of the social and human sciences, seeking the construction of interdisciplinary models, and why not, trans-disciplinary models. To this end, Zavala foresees that the emerging museological assessment model is being constituted based on the integration of the empiric, effective, and historiographic dimensions, because only such integration can lend fundamentation to the museum-visiting experience. This proposition is in accordance with the proposal of the field of communication for reception research, especially with the “modern Latin-American tradition” that is building up an interpretative referential and multi-method framework, since the method no longer supports the investigative hypotheses being created.

153

Köptcke (2003, p. 73) sees himself faced with a multi-method: With the development and discussion of approaches centered on psycho-social learning processes, on discussions about the construction and meaning of museum visits as practices culturally impregnated with meaning and socially determined, the assessment studies seek increasing approximation to the museum-visiting experience. Between innovation and theoretic-methodological bricolage, interested researchers, professionals, and educators develop procedures that require participation of the person observed, including in the course of the visit.

Zavala (1998, p. 84) continues along this line of thinking when he states: The best strategy for studying museum visitors from the perspective of visitors seems to be to use conceptual tools from different methodological traditions, and to ask new questions. Because visitor-studies is still a new field, it is possible to use innovative approaches and ask unorthodox questions.

Luciana Köptcke, coming closer to the emerging model for museums and museological assessment, proposes proactive assessment possibilities with the “construction of assessment situations less asymmetric and more integrated in the routine of the visit in order to potentialize the dialogue between exhibition curators, museum professionals, and the visiting public.” (KÖPTCKE, 2003, p. 64-65). With this proposal, the researcher reaches the meaning of the contemporary communication model that promotes interaction between transmitter and receiver. Final Comments The title of this text is purposely pretentious as a strategy to promote discussions within the realm of ICOFOM that hark back to the definition of Museology and the object of study of this discipline. Thus, we consider that the discussions should stem from Museology’s tendency toward the study of humankind’s relation to reality. Within this perspective, there is much to reflect on if we are to advance. We consider urgent the construction of comprehensive theoretic and methodological capital, understanding that methodology, in that case relative to reception studies, must be improved for the museological field, in view of what ethnography is to anthropology. To finalize, we would say that ICOFOM had years of promising theoretic debates and later shifted to more political discussions. We feel that the time has come to return to the theoretic and methodological issues inherent to the construction of museological knowledge. Selected Bibliography CONSELHO INTERNACIONAL DE MUSEUS. Museos y patrimonio universal. 2 p. Disponível

em <http://www.icom-oesterreich.at/2007/es-thema.html>. Acesso em: 06/04/2007. CURY, Marília Xavier. Comunicação museológica – Uma perspectiva teórica e metodológica

para os museus. 2005. 366 p. Tese (Doutorado em Ciêncas da Comunicação) – Escola de Comunicações e Artes, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo.

FALK, John H,; DIERKING, Lynn D. The museum experience. Washington: Whalesback Books, 2002. 205 p.

HEIN, George E. Learning in the museum. Londres e Nova York: Routledge, 1998. 203 p. (Museum Meanings).

HOOPER-GREENHIL, Eilean. Communication and communities in the post-museum - from metanarratives to constructed knowledge. In: NORDIC MUSEUMS LEADERSHIP PROGRAMME, June 2001a. Copenhagen. Disponível em

<http://www.le.ac.uk/museumstudies/study/materials.htm>. Acesso em: 18 nov. 2004.

154

______. Museums and communication: an introductory essay. In: HOOPER-GREENHILL, Eilean (Ed.). Museum, media, message. Londres: Nova York: Routledge, 2001b. p. 1-12. (Museum Meanings).

______. Education, communication and interpretation: towards a critical pedagogy in museums. In: HOOPER-GREENHILL, Eilean (Ed.). The educational role of the museum. 2. ed. Londres; Nova York: Routledge, 2001c. p. 3-27.

KÖPTCKE, Luciana Sepúlveda. Observar a experiência museal: uma prática dialógica? Reflexões sobre a interferência das práticas avaliativas na percepção da experiência museal e na (re)composição do papel do visitante. In: GUIMARÃES, Vanessa F.; SILVA, Gilson Antunes da. Workshop: educação em museus e centros de ciência. [Rio de Janeiro; São Paulo]: Vitae, 2003. p. 63-85.

LOPES, Maria Immacolata Vassalo de. Estratégias metodológicas da pesquisa de recepção. Revista Brasileira de Comunicação, São Paulo: INTERCOM, v. 16, n. 2, p. 78-86, jul./dez. 1993.

MARTÍN-BARBERO, Jesús. Dos meios às mediações: comunicação, cultura e hegemonia. Tradução de Ronald Polito e Sergio Alcides. Rio de Janeiro: Editora UFRJ, 1997. 360 p.

ZAVALA, Lauro. La tendencia transdiciplinaria en los estudios culturales. 9 p. Disponível em <http://www.google.com>. Acesso em: 26/10/2006. 31.

______. La educación y los museos en una cultura del espetáculo. In: ENCUENTRO NACIONAL ICOM/CECA MÉXICO. La educación dentro del museo, nuestra propia educación, 2., 2001, Zacatecas. Memoria. [Zacateca]: ICOM México, CECA, [2003]. p. 19-

______. Towards a theory of museum reception. In: BICKNELL, Sandra; FARMELO, Grahan (Eds.). Museum visitor studies in the 90s. Londres: Science Museum, 1998. p. 82-85.

Marília Xavier Cury, Professor in Museology at the Museum of Archeology and Ethnology University of São Paulo

Av. Prof. Almeida Prado, 1466 – São Paulo, São Paulo - BRAZIL

155

Por um paradigma universal para os Museums – em Discussão Marília Xavier Cury, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil __________________________________________________________________ A perspectiva da comunicação museológica O tema em debate no ICOM em 2007 é Museus e patrimônio universal – Patrimônio universal/Responsabilidade individual; Patrimônio individual/Responsabilidade universal”. O título em si já encaminha a reflexão para um jogo entre duas abordagens que, entendemos, não são excludentes, posto que patrimônio é um direito individual, coletivo e universal, conquista da humanidade face à consciência sobre si e sobre a cultura como obra humana em constante construção dinâmica. Por outro lado, na perspectiva cidadã, direito e dever andam juntos, isto porque o direito de um indivíduo é dever do outro em garanti-lo, e o dever cidadão individual está em garantir ao outro o seu direito ao patrimônio cultural. Há uma reciprocidade inerente ao patrimônio cultural entre direitos e deveres que não podemos ignorar. Há uma ética intersubjetiva. Patrimônio é construção, ou seja, atributo valorativo designado a algo, o que consideramos bens tangíveis e intangíveis. Então, uma vez designado patrimônio (tangível ou intangível), algo passa a ter uma atenção especial pelo museu e pelo público. Cabe ao museu argumentar quanto ao caráter patrimonial de seu acervo, e isto é uma ação educativa. Cabe ao público interpretar o patrimônio cultural musealizado, o que implica em ressignificá-lo, pois não há patrimônio sem significados atribuídos a ele e interpretação e significados são unidos. Interpretar e (re)significar são ações participativas, e isto é um processo educativo, cujos sujeitos do processo têm participação consciente, ou seja, são agentes da sua própria trajetória educacional. É sempre bom lembrar que o processo de musealização é um processo democrático, ou seja, o patrimônio inserido no contexto museal deve alcançar um interesse comum. Mas, mesmo assim, seu significado é plural e nunca fechado. De qualquer maneira, o processo de musealização é sempre político e carregado de ideologias e aqui reside uma de suas características a serem exploradas educacionalmente. Uma vez abandonada a visão de neutralidade dos museus e de seus acervos, estes passam a participar do processo de ressignificação do patrimônio musealizado e da dinâmica cultural que posiciona cada cidadão como sujeito cultural, sujeito ativo porque não somente atribui significados, mas, sobretudo, faz circular em seu meio cotidiano e no espaço do museu essa significação, trocando e negociando com outros, sujeitos igualmente. A idéia de patrimônio sobre um bem não é única e fechada, ou seja, ao mesmo tempo em que ela é múltipla e fragmentada, ela se transforma constantemente. Os museus estão abertos a essa transformação e participam dela, além de registrá-la, o que é de sua responsabilidade: documentar as formas de conceber o patrimônio sob a sua guarda. Digamos que essa responsabilidade museal, de documentar e registrar as concepções patrimoniais, amplia-se ao abrir-se às diferentes visões do público na trajetória da instituição. Temos aqui uma primeira questão para discussão. Se a concepção sobre patrimônio é aberta, a postura transmissiva de mensagens museológicas não é cabível e, em seu lugar, melhor se adequa a postura democrática de fórum de debates em torno das mensagens dos museus elaboradas a partir do e sobre o patrimônio. Sendo assim, a fala do público deve ser incorporada ao patrimônio como constitutiva deste. O texto que apresenta a problemática proposta pelo ICOM para 2007 (disponível em seu site) aborda diversos aspectos. Talvez as questões mais relevantes sejam aquelas, ao nosso entender, relativas às mudanças que os museus vêm sofrendo. Talvez mudança não seja a

156

melhor definição para a questão levantada pelo ICOM, e sim pressão mercadológica. De fato, ela existe, não há como negar. Há muito os museus sabem que precisam se ajustar não somente às demandas da sociedade, mas igualmente às transformações que as ciências sociais e humanas vêm promovendo, pois são estas ciências que se ocupam da identidade e da cultura. Os museus, independente de tipologia, fazem parte dos campos cultural e identitário. Por um lado, os museus vêm promovendo avanços no aspecto de gestão e, cada vez mais, aperfeiçoando o processo curatorial, cadeia que opera na sinergia do todo maior que a soma das suas partes. Hoje, os museus têm um modelo profissionalizado de orientação a seguir altamente especializado. Por outro, a Museologia já conquistou o seu status de disciplina científica, o que para a práxis museal é relevante. Então, apesar destes avanços e aperfeiçoamentos os museus sofrem pressões externas às quais não podem se submeter, com o risco de perda de identidade institucional, o que seria uma perda irreparável para a sociedade. Em particular, as pressões do mercado são muito eficientes, fortes e camufladas para envolver, seduzir e confundir gestores de museus menos experientes1 e o público. As pressões são para uma roupagem museal voltada a algo mais próximo da indústria do entretenimento. Assim, muitos museus se assemelham a um parque temático. Isso se manifesta objetivamente em muitos pontos. Entretanto, aquele mais visível, ao nosso entender, é a exposição, “lugar”2 revelador de todo e qualquer museu. Podemos conhecer muito de uma instituição a partir de sua(s) exposição(ões). O oposto do museu inserido na indústria do entretenimento (conforme argumento dessa indústria e de seus profissionais seguidores) é o museu estático, ultrapassado, monótono, local de coisa velha. Nem oito nem 80, mas considerando as conquistas alcançadas pelos museus e pela Museologia, quais seriam os pontos para reflexão quanto a um modelo museal inserido na problemática contemporânea? O museu é um modelo institucional do século XIX. Nesse século os museus consolidaram seu papel de integrador cultural, o que foi conseguido graças à enculturação de inúmeras formas culturais para a constituição de uma cultura nacional. O museu, então, assumiu uma posição hegemônica, o que é devidamente questionada hoje devido ao seu caráter excludente. Ser excludente não é um estratagema do museu, visto que ele apenas é expressão do modo de funcionamento do hegemônico, o que ele deve questionar (CURY, 2005, p. 135-136). O mercado, por sua vez, é expressão do hegemônico, sem precisar questioná-lo. Vejamos, o que o mercado faz é incluir apelando para o massivo3, isto porque as classes populares são economicamente ativas e servem às demandas mercantis, um prato cheio para a indústria do entretenimento que necessita de imagem diante da mídia impressa e televisiva e de consumidores pagantes para as suas ações ou mesmo de longas filas para justificar as suas produções financiadas por verbas públicas obtidas por leis de incentivo à cultura4. Não é difícil encontrarmos uma exposição museológica com características da indústria do entretenimento – dentro ou fora de museus – ou museus massivos – aqueles que precisam de público numeroso para alcançar a sua missão. As exposições blockbuster, por exemplo, são exemplos disto que

1 Temos de reconhecer que apesar do processo de profissionalização dos museus, muitas instituições ainda procuram se enquadrar nas normativas museológicas. Talvez por isso podemos constatar a presença de níveis de profissionalização tão díspares entre os museus. Talvez os museus menos profissionalizados sejam aqueles mais suscetíveis às pressões mercadológicas, naquilo que consideramos impróprio ao museu. 2 Usamos “lugar” para referir-nos não somente a espaço físico onde a exposição existe e se faz, mas “lugar” metodológico para o desenvolvimento de pesquisas de recepção, estratégico para que a ação política do museu recupere a dimensão simbólica, e promotora de representações de vínculos entre cidadãos. 3 Massivo está aqui como termo técnico que, em linhas gerais, significa um conjunto de características da estética popular. 4 As políticas públicas para a cultura no Brasil ainda não amadureceram para atender devidamente à área patrimonial.

157

estamos falando. Tantas outras manifestações expositivas no Brasil, que buscam um destaque de mídia, se apropriam de certos elementos do massivo − por meio de chamadas ao popular −, ao mesmo tempo que almejam ser um produto cultural “requintado” − no geral apelando para o “objeto fetiche” −, como estratégia do hegemônico. A chamada para essas exposições sempre apelam para uma forma diferente de exposição, viva e dinâmica. Obviamente que cada caso deve ser analisado separadamente e é óbvio que mesmo fazendo a crítica a esses eventos expográficos, não podemos negar que são oportunidades ímpares para entender a relação do público com a exposição e, conseqüentemente, com o museu, considerando que o público − diga−se, aquele que pouco freqüenta esta instituição − tem expectativas quanto às instituições museológicas que desconhecemos. Longe de julgar e/ou defender essas produções, para o pesquisador em museologia, essas filas são oportunidade única para o entendimento sobre o que essas pessoas procuram, o que elas encontram, etc., considerando que esta recepção pode trazer aos museus dados importantes sobre a sua audiência, entendendo com isto o visitante e o não visitante de museu. Mas, sem moralismos ou purismos museológicos, nem tudo o que diz respeito a essa indústria é ruim, mas os seus propósitos não são condizentes com os propósitos patrimoniais que pleiteiam, sobretudo, qualidade comunicacional: capacidade de despertar a consciência, estimular questionamentos e pensamentos críticos. O que o mercado não pode fazer o museu pode. Vejamos o que é, de acordo com Jesús Martín-Barbero (1997, p. 15):

Que é que o mercado não pode fazer por mais eficaz que seja seu simulacro? O mercado não pode sedimentar tradições, pois o que produz se "desmancha no ar" devido à sua tendência estrutural a uma obsolescência acelerada e generalizada não somente das coisas mas também das formas e das instituições. O mercado não pode criar vínculos societários, isto é, entre sujeitos, pois estes se constituem nos processos de comunicação de sentido, e o mercado opera anonimamente mediante lógicas de valor que implicam trocas puramente formais, associações de promessas evanescentes que somente engendram satisfações ou frustrações, nunca, porém, sentido. O mercado não pode engendrar inovação social pois esta pressupõe diferenças e solidariedades não-funcionais, resistências e dissidências, quando aquele trabalha unicamente com rentabilidade (destaque do autor).

Pois, então, qual é o caminho? Como proposta diríamos que o museu se define a si mesmo por meio das narrativas elaboradas ao redor do patrimônio musealizado, pelos profissionais e pelo público, ambos como sujeitos do processo. A participação do corpo de profissionais de museus no processo de musealização está garantida. O que temos que garantir é a participação do público nesse processo com o mesmo peso, para explicitar e melhor equilibrar as relações de poder que se dão na relação emissor – profissional de museu – e receptor – o público, e vice-versa, uma vez que os papéis se invertem quando o museu passa a escutar a fala do visitante e incorporá-la em sua sinergia, e o público, por sua vez, faz circular as mensagens museológicas em seu meio. O público de museu inevitavelmente constrói uma significação contextual sobre o que interpreta, rompendo a relação ambígua entre autor e leitor. Assim sendo, utiliza-se da oralidade para expressar a sua subjetividade. E cada vez mais, à semelhança da experiência do espectador de cinema e teatro e do leitor de jornal, discute-se aquilo vivenciado, visto, assistido, lido, etc. com outros receptores. Ou seja, visitar um museu e interagir com o patrimônio cultural é uma oportunidade de “falar” sobre, é uma grande oportunidade para reconstrução dessa experiência a partir do oral, o que é construção da própria identidade simbólica ao refigurar a nossa linguagem interior (ZAVALA, 2006, p. 6). Visitar um museu é, então, uma ação ao mesmo tempo individual e coletiva, que extrapola os muros da instituição, e assim deve ser. Então, instaurar um estado de direito sobre os patrimônios individual, coletivo e universal ganha um sentido outro, visto que passa a ser uma construção nessas dimensões, garantindo cada uma dela.

158

A perspectiva da recepção museológica Ao nosso entender, não dá mais para não correlacionarmos avaliação com teoria museológica. A avaliação museológica deve ser enfrentada em todas as suas dimensões, sendo que duas delas se colocam prioritariamente: a avaliação a serviço da gestão (investigar o museu) e aquela que produz conhecimento museológico (investigar no museu). Estas duas abordagens são distintas e é importante que assim sejam, porque alcançam patamares diferenciados e não excludentes. No entanto, trataremos aqui da investigação no museu devido ao seu papel na construção da teoria museológica, o que implica em dizer que não podemos mais deixar de enfrentar o papel do público na construção de conhecimento museológico. Atualmente, a avaliação na perspectiva do público é denominada de pesquisa de recepção, influência direta da área de comunicação nos museus, o que é bastante compreensível uma vez que na museologia há a subárea comunicação. Apesar dessa influência preponderante, coexistem nos museus outras influências, como da psicologia e educação. Apesar disso, a tendência contemporânea é de aproximação da avaliação museológica, na perspectiva da pesquisa de recepção, dos chamados estudos culturais, no lato sensu5, o que significa a presença de correntes que divergem quanto aos pressupostos teóricos, escolhas metodológicas e concepção de recepção e derivam de campos disciplinares distintos (LOPES, 1993, p. 79). Os museus como mídia ficaram a parte da evolução da forma de entender o processo comunicacional e a pesquisa de recepção, como podemos constatar na crítica realizada por Hooper-Greenhill (2001a, [p. 3-4]:

[...] nos estudos da comunicação, freqüentemente usando a televisão como campo de pesquisa, o conceito "de audiência ativa" se desenvolveu. O modelo de transmissão de comunicação, baseado no modelo de educação por estímulo/resposta, presumiu a possibilidade de um efeito universal sobre o objetivo (receptores) da mensagem, os quais foram considerados como se encontrando abertos à persuasão da mídia em massa. Seguindo uma série de estudos de pesquisa destes presumidos "efeitos", concluiu-se gradualmente que as pessoas não eram meros passivos absorvedores da mídia. Descobriu-se que a relação mídia/audiência é complexa e com múltiplas facetas, intermediada por fatores externos ao processo técnico de transferência de informação. Por volta dos anos 1970, novas explicações foram desenvolvidas para analisar a audiência da mídia, focando-se na série de respostas e interpretações às quais a audiência da mídia está ativamente engajada. Naqueles poucos museus na Inglaterra que realizaram pesquisa de audiência em uma base consistente, ter-se-ia levado até os anos 1990 para se admitir que no desenvolvimento de exibições que iriam efetivamente comunicar "a ênfase inicial era totalmente sobre a matéria exposta e a eficiente transmissão de informação, e foi somente mais tarde que começamos a compreender e responder ao significado da visita a um museu para o visitante".

E autora continua com sua crítica severa, agora destacando o atraso do museu quanto aos avanços da pesquisa de recepção de outras mídias:

[...] primeiro, podemos ver que em termos de desenvolvimento conceitual, os museus não têm estado na linha de frente. Estudos da mídia na década de 1950 propuseram a audiência ativa e a importância do contexto social no recebimento da mensagem muito antes de havermos começado a estudar nossas audiências em museus. Nossa metodologia em museus não prestou atenção a métodos utilizados pela comunicação e teóricos culturais, e uma excessiva dependência de behavioristas, métodos positivistas falhou em revelar a importância da decodificação da audiência. Até o presente momento, não temos tido, na Inglaterra, estudos etnográficos sobre visitantes de museus […]. Não temos necessidade de começar a trabalhar de uma forma mais reflexiva e mais aberta com as audiências, para permitir suas descrições do

5 Estamos tratando de estudos culturais genericamente, sem considerar as diversas correntes existentes.

159

que os museus representam para elas, surgindo durante o processo de pesquisa (HOOPER-GREENHILL, 2001g, p. 9).

A autora menciona, referindo-se à correntes distintas, que estudos culturais, no lato sensu, foram realizados e que esses estudos trouxeram enormes contribuições à area da comunicação, que a área de museus não acompanhou. Um exemplo importante foi o estudo realizado no programa de televisão "The Cosby Show". Esse estudo trouxe à tona a questão da polissemia, de pluralidade de significados possíveis em contraposição ao que foi denominado na época de excesso semiótico. Ela, então, faz o paralelo entre esse programa e o museu:

[...] quanto potencial em museus existe para exatamente este excesso semiótico, esta série de significados, muitos dos quais serão invisíveis para inúmeras audiências, mas que existem para serem ativados quando alguém com experiência para perceber e decodificar a mensagem está presente? Acredito que o potencial aqui é enorme e muito excitante (idem).

Outra questão que Eilean Hooper-Greenhill destaca é quanto à presença dos estudos comportamentais no museu. Tanto essa autora (2001c, p. 11) quanto George Hein (1998, p. 62-77) pontuam que esses estudos barraram por muito tempo a entrada nos museus de estudos naturalistas. Os estudos comportamentais são desenvolvidos a partir da observação de pessoas como se fossem experimentos de laboratório. Hein alerta-nos que, embora ultrapassado, essa é uma abordagem ainda vigente nos estudos de público em museu. Os dois autores acima defendem uma abordagem naturalista. Vejamos como Hein apresenta as principais diferenças das duas abordagens (idem, p. 69):

Abordagem de Laboratório Abordagem Naturalística Quantitativa Atomística Objetiva Modelo de laboratório Experimental Hard Confirmativa Explanatória Descontextualizada Determinística Analítica

Qualitativa Holística Subjetiva Baseada no mundo real Naturalística Soft Exploratória Compreensiva Contextualizada Responsiva Sintética

No entanto, os dois afirmam que na aplicação da abordagem naturalista pode-se recorrer a dados quantitativos como forma complementar. Luciana Köptcke (2003) nos apresenta um quadro mais amplo quanto às principais linhas de estudos de público realizados em museus, sempre entendendo um modelo em contraposição a outro e uma a possibilidade de classificação de diversos tendência: - realidade x construtivismo; - objetividade x subjetividade; - experimental x hermenêutica, dialética; - com objetivos x sem objetivos. Às vezes, fala-se de gerações como uma forma de tentar levantar uma evolução da avaliação museológica. No entanto, se há consenso quanto à questão ele refere-se à necessidade de mapear as origens teóricas e metodológicas das diversas disciplinas que contribuíram, até o momento, para a experiência que o museu tem hoje sobre avaliação. Em paralelo urge buscarmos conscientemente, e não por repetição, referenciais de outros campos como a comunicação, para a construção de um quadro complexo que dê conta da complexidade das hipóteses de recepção museológica. Nessa perspectiva que se propõe, urge abandonarmos os estudos de natureza behavioristas que se aplicam na compreensão de como o museu pode ser um estímulo para a modificação de comportamentos no qual o visitante é um ser passivo. Esses estudos associados à

160

necessidade de entender os efeitos dos elementos expográficos estimulam a compreensão de aprendizagem como decorrência de bons estímulos. Essa forma de pensar dá suporte à intenção de atrair, prender ou reter a atenção do visitante por meio de recursos expográficos e/ou educativos. Esses objetivos continuam a ter grande aceitação no meio museológico. No entanto, outras linhas começaram a ser desenvolvidas no museu, principalmente após a proposição do modelo sociocognitivo nos anos 1990. Esse modelo amplia a idéia do que seja a experiência do público de museu, agora entendendo que a experiência é a interação entre o contexto do museu, o contexto pessoal do visitante e o social (FALK; DIERKING, 2002). Apesar do behaviorismo ainda inspirar muitos profissionais preocupados com aquilo que concebem e produzem, o modelo sociocognitivo ampliou os referencias para a construção de hipóteses, para a análise e para a interpretação dos dados a partir do ponto de vista do público. Assim, o foco do emissor aos poucos vai se deslocando para o receptor. Lauro Zavala (1998, p. 82) sugere que antes de construirmos hipóteses a serem testadas, procuremos imaginar o que o próprio visitante perguntaria a si mesmo ao entrar no museu:

[...] o pesquisador de recepção, pelo menos durante o primeiro estágio de seu trabalho, não está procurando por respostas, mas para novas perguntas sobre a experiência do visitante. A maioria destas perguntas será similar àquelas feitas pelos próprios visitantes sobre suas experiências.

Esse pesquisador, como podemos ver, entende que a comunicação museológica é analisada a partir da recepção. No conjunto de questões que ele formulou sobre o visitante, podemos constatar que todas elas remetem à recepção e não à emissão:

Por que algumas pessoas vão a museus em vez de fazer alguma outra coisa? Por que fazem isso, considerando todas as outras opções a eles oferecidas para seu tempo livre? Como os visitantes associam outras experiências culturais com suas experiências em museus? Como eles reconhecem na exposição a presença de discursos culturais que não os seus próprios? Como os visitantes incorporam os elementos mais gerais de suas experiências as suas próprias avaliações dos museus? Como eles incorporam socialmente expectativas condicionadas e experiências individuais, competências interpretativas (as comunidades interpretativas às quais pertencem e os mercados simbólicos aos quais irão relatar suas experiências) e contextos culturais (a tradição museográfica do grupo cultural, região e país)? (idem, p. 84)

Se entendermos que há um modelo tradicional de museus e um outro emergente (e hoje vivemos uma transição entre eles), também na avaliação há o modelo tradicional e o emergente. O tradicional mais avançado entende o público como sujeito e busca compreender as criativas formas de participação no processo de comunicação museal. Para tanto, a avaliação tradicional avançada pode apoiar-se, segundo Zavala ([2003], p. 22-23), em uma das três dimensões, a saber: - Empírica: etnográfica e centrada em experiência específica. Busca a reconstrução narrativa

de uma experiência e visa levantar os principais elementos da experiência dos visitantes; - De efeito: sociológica e centrada nos efeitos educativos. Busca o reconhecimento das

dimensões ritual e lúdica da experiência entendidas como dimensões educativas da experiência de cada visitante;

- Contextual: historiográficas, centradas nas condições de possibilidades. Busca o reconhecimento de tradições específicas na qual a experiência do visitante se inscreve num contexto cultural particular.

Atualmente a pesquisa de recepção dos meios, inclusive do museu, vem trabalhando para a superação das antigas tradições dos paradigmas teórico-metodológicos das Ciências Sociais e Humanas, buscando a construção de modelos interdisciplinares, e porque não trans-disciplinares. Para tanto, Zavala vislumbra que o modelo emergente de avaliação museológica está se constituindo a partir da integração das dimensões empírica, de efeito e a historiográfica, pois somente essa integração poderá dar fundamentação à experiência de visita a museus.

161

Esta proposição vem a somar com a proposta do campo da comunicação para a pesquisa de recepção, em especial à "moderna tradição latino-americana6" que vem construindo um quadro interpretativo referencial e um múltimétodo, uma vez que o método não sustenta mais as hipóteses investigativas que estão sendo criadas. Köptcke (2003, p. 73) se vê diante da formação de um múltimétodo:

Com o desenvolvimento e a discussão de abordagens centradas nos processos psicossociais de aprendizagem, nas discussões sobre a construção e o significado da visita aos museus como práticas culturalmente impregnadas de significado e socialmente determinadas, os estudos avaliativos buscam aproximar-se cada vez mais da experiência de visita. Entre inovação e bricolagem teórico-metodológica, pesquisadores, profissionais e professores interessados desenvolvem procedimentos que solicitam a participação do observado, inclusive durante o tempo da visita.

Zavala (1998, p. 84) segue nessa linha de pensamento ao afirmar que A melhor estratégia para estudar os visitantes de museus a partir da perspectiva dos visitantes parece ser usar ferramentas conceituais de diferentes tradições metodológicas, e fazer novas perguntas. Devido ao fato de que os estudos do visitante continuam um novo campo, é possível aplicar abordagens inovadoras e fazer perguntas não ortodoxas.

Luciana Köptcke, aproximando-se do modelo emergente de museus e de avaliação museológica, propõe possibilidades de avaliação pró-ativa com a "construção de situações avaliativas menos assimétricas e mais integradas na rotina da visita, para potencializar o diálogo entre curadores de exposições, profissionais do museu e público visitante." (KÖPTCKE, 2003, p. 64-65). Com essa proposta a pesquisadora alcança o sentido do modelo de comunicação contemporâneo que promove a interação entre emissor e receptor. Considerações finais O título deste texto é pretensioso como estratégia para propor discussões no âmbito do ICOFOM que remetam a definição de Museologia e o objeto de estudo dessa disciplina. Assim sendo, consideramos que as discussões devem partir da tendência da Museologia como estudo da relação do homem com a realidade. Nessa perspectiva, há muito o que refletir para avançarmos. Consideramos que urge a construção de um capital teórico compreensivo e metodológico, entendendo que a metodologia, no caso aquela relativa aos estudos receptivos, deve ser aperfeiçoada para o campo museológico, a vista do que é a etnografia para a Antropologia. Para finalizar, diríamos que o ICOFOM teve anos promissores de debates teóricos e, posteriormente, passou a discussões mais políticas. Julgamos que é o momento de voltarmos às questões teóricas e as metodológicas inerentes à construção de conhecimento museológico. Bibliografia CONSELHO INTERNACIONAL DE MUSEUS. Museos y patrimonio universal. 2 p. Disponível

em <http://www.icom-oesterreich.at/2007/es-thema.html>. Acesso em: 06/04/2007. CURY, Marília Xavier. Comunicação museológica – Uma perspectiva teórica e metodológica

para os museus. 2005. 366 p. Tese (Doutorado em Ciêncas da Comunicação) – Escola de Comunicações e Artes, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo.

FALK, John H,; DIERKING, Lynn D. The museum experience. Washington: Whalesback Books, 2002. 205 p.

6 Segundo Lopes (1993), a “moderna tradição latino-americana” tem como expoentes Jesús Martín-Barbero e Nestor García Canclini e está focada na busca de uma teoria compreensiva para os estudos receptivos, que transcenda os dados descritivos já existentes.

162

HEIN, George E. Learning in the museum. Londres e Nova York: Routledge, 1998. 203 p. (Museum Meanings).

HOOPER-GREENHIL, Eilean. Communication and communities in the post-museum - from metanarratives to constructed knowledge. In: NORDIC MUSEUMS LEADERSHIP PROGRAMME, June 2001a. Copenhagen. Disponível em

<http://www.le.ac.uk/museumstudies/study/materials.htm>. Acesso em: 18 nov. 2004. ______. Museums and communication: an introductory essay. In: HOOPER-GREENHILL,

Eilean (Ed.). Museum, media, message. Londres: Nova York: Routledge, 2001b. p. 1-12. (Museum Meanings).

______. Education, communication and interpretation: towards a critical pedagogy in museums. In: HOOPER-GREENHILL, Eilean (Ed.). The educational role of the museum. 2. ed. Londres; Nova York: Routledge, 2001c. p. 3-27.

KÖPTCKE, Luciana Sepúlveda. Observar a experiência museal: uma prática dialógica? Reflexões sobre a interferência das práticas avaliativas na percepção da experiência museal e na (re)composição do papel do visitante. In: GUIMARÃES, Vanessa F.; SILVA, Gilson Antunes da. Workshop: educação em museus e centros de ciência. [Rio de Janeiro; São Paulo]: Vitae, 2003. p. 63-85.

LOPES, Maria Immacolata Vassalo de. Estratégias metodológicas da pesquisa de recepção. Revista Brasileira de Comunicação, São Paulo: INTERCOM, v. 16, n. 2, p. 78-86, jul./dez. 1993.

MARTÍN-BARBERO, Jesús. Dos meios às mediações: comunicação, cultura e hegemonia. Tradução de Ronald Polito e Sergio Alcides. Rio de Janeiro: Editora UFRJ, 1997. 360 p.

ZAVALA, Lauro. La tendencia transdiciplinaria en los estudios culturales. 9 p. Disponível em <http://www.google.com>. Acesso em: 26/10/2006. 31.

______. La educación y los museos en una cultura del espetáculo. In: ENCUENTRO NACIONAL ICOM/CECA MÉXICO. La educación dentro del museo, nuestra propia educación, 2., 2001, Zacatecas. Memoria. [Zacateca]: ICOM México, CECA, [2003]. p. 19-

______. Towards a theory of museum reception. In: BICKNELL, Sandra; FARMELO, Grahan (Eds.). Museum visitor studies in the 90s. Londres: Science Museum, 1998. p. 82-85.

Marilla Cury Docente em museologia

Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia da Universidade de São Paulo Av. Prof. Almeida Prado, 1466 – São Paulo

São Paulo - BRAZIL

163

164

Part III: Further Contributions

Making Choices, Weighing Consequences: The Pedagogical Limitations of Free-Choice Learning in America on the Move Margaret A. Lindauer __________________________________________________________________________

“Transportation is choice and consequences. It’s had an impact on daily life and on the environment. It’s had an impact on work, and it’s been important for immigration and migration,” explained one of the curators of America on the Move (AOTM), the reinstallation of the transportation hall at the National Museum of American History in Washington, DC, which opened in November 2003. The exhibition presents transportation choices that individuals and government agencies in the United States made over the course of 125 years (from 1876 through 2000), which have variously shaped and been shaped by economic, industrial, demographic, and cultural changes that occurred in dynamic relationship to one another. In the U.S. today, ongoing debate over future changes in transportation programs and policies recognizes the far-reaching (sometimes international) economic, environmental, even military and/or diplomatic consequences of past choices.

AOTM curators hoped that the exhibition would prompt visitors not only to appreciate the ways in which transportation history corresponds to various aspects of national history, but also to consider their own individual transportation choices and the consequences of those choices. That’s not say that they expected all visitors to appreciate the complexity of transportation history and/or reflect upon their own lives while in the exhibition. In fact, exhibit development team members did not specify what knowledge visitors ought to glean from the exhibit. In the words of one curator, “We were very clear [during the development process] that we wanted people to learn things. That’s our job. But we were also very clear that we didn’t want to hit them over the head didactically and make them learn anything [in particular], because they come here of their own volition.”

Notwithstanding this implicit endorsement of “free-choice learning” (Falk and Dierking 2000), team members hoped that visitors would engage in high-level cognitive activities—comprehending complex relationships between past events and synthesizing past events and present circumstances. From my interviews conducted during a summative evaluation of AOTM, I can tell you that while visitors lauded the exhibition in various ways, they generally did not engage in the reflexivity that curators had hoped they would. In this paper, I briefly describe the exhibition, and I note the range of outcomes recorded during my summative evaluation. I then offer preliminary suggestions (upon which I hope to elaborate in a future, more detailed paper) for why the exhibit techniques that exhibit developers chose to employ did not foster the kind of audience engagement that curators had hoped for.

The Exhibition

Like transportation, exhibit development fundamentally involves choices and consequences—making choices about what stories to tell and how to tell them while weighing anticipated consequences in terms how those stories will be received. For AOTM, a vast team of curators, educators, and designers made innumerable content choices during the ten-plus years of exhibition planning development—including the articulation of major themes, supporting narratives, and factual information; the selection and acquisition of artifacts; and the fabrication of theatrical settings, interactive components, and content

165

delivery devices such as text panels, multi-lingual audio kiosks, documentary videos, and computer games (Lubar 2004).

Each of the unimaginable number of decisions affected and was affected by the vision of the exhibition as a whole, which is itself extraordinarily complex as it covers 26,000 square feet, includes 340 objects (including a locomotive, streetcar, subway car, bus, several passenger cars, and a few trucks), and features 19 historic settings. The settings are best described as theatrical dioramas of landscapes, streetscapes, transportation depots, and commercial spaces brought to life with cast human figures, hand-painted backdrops, and choreographed sound and light. While employing cutting-edge exhibition technologies, these scenes also represent an enormous amount of historical research to answer such questions as: What kind of shoe would a Chinese laborer wear while working the fields in California in the late nineteenth century? What kind of plants would he be tilling? And what would the labels on the packing crates carrying the fruit he harvests look like?

As one AOTM curator remarked, “You want to be accurate; that’s what being a historian is.” As part of their commitment to accuracy, the curatorial team made a conscientious decision to replace what had been a linear teleological display of advancements in transportation technologies with an exhibition that incorporated transportation into American history writ large, which in turn includes issues of race, class and gender, not as add-ons but rather as interwoven aspects of history. My approach to summative evaluation

I conducted a summative evaluation of America on the Move while I was in residence as a research fellow at the Smithsonian Center for Education and Museum Studies. I was interested in applying interpretivist research theory to the evaluation of a museum exhibition, after studying the history of summative exhibit evaluation and noting the preponderance of positivist and post-positivist research practices and the relative dearth of interpretivist practices (Lindauer 2004). A detailed comparison of positivist and interpretivist research theories and evaluative practices is beyond the scope of this paper, but suffice it to say that whereas positivism focuses on an objective reality (i.e., concrete facts and occurrences that exist outside of human subjectivity) that can be discovered and predicted through statistical analysis of scientifically collected data, interpretivism is based on the premise that, in the social realm, there are multiple realities that cannot be objectively understood or fully predicted partly because they are constantly changing in relationship to one another and also because they are always viewed through a human lens. While the aim of positivist evaluation is to generate reliable and generalizable findings, the aim of an interpretivist evaluation is to provide a multiple-voiced account of the particular ways in which people assign value to their intentions or experiences in a specific context (Jacob 1992).

An interpretivist approach to evaluation was compatible with the education philosophy generally shared among AOTM exhibit development team members. As one curator explained, “There’s not just an audience; there are multiple audiences, people of different ages, different backgrounds, different ethnic groups,” which is not to say that any of these demographic characteristics determine the ways in which people experience exhibitions but rather that each person brings his/her individual background and experiences to an exhibition, including formal and informal educational background; previous museum experiences; other social, cultural, and community experiences; vocational and avocational interests; socioeconomic status; and/or social agenda (visiting alone, with family, or with friends). The demographic diversity of the audience, coupled with visitors’ various social and/or educational motivations for attending an exhibition, will result in a range of outcomes. An interpretivist evaluation sets out to explore this range of outcomes and compares it to the outcomes that exhibit developers hope and/or expect to find.

Educational goals and outcomes

166

In advance of gathering data from visitors, I interviewed thirteen exhibit development team members (curators, educators, and design manager), asking each person to recount his/her role in the project and to describe what he/she would like to know from visitors. In response to these questions, team members described the historical research they felt was important to impart and what they expected and/or hoped visitors would glean from the exhibit. From my analysis of these interviews, I found that team members expressed expectations and hopes for educational outcomes that can be divided into four categories of cognitive skills, which Vygotosky (1978) ranks from basic to complex: 1) recall personal, family, or community histories associated with displayed artifacts; 2) describe factual knowledge gained—which may relate to personal history, transportation history, and/or national history; 3) comprehend complex historical relationships among transportation, communities, commerce, landscapes, and individual people’s lives; and 4) synthesize the ways in which historical relationships are similar to/different from current transportation/societal issues that affect their lives, thereby including an appreciation of human agency in shaping not only past events but also ongoing or future changes in transportation.

It’s important to note that team members did not invoke Vygostky’s terminology, but rather I used Vygotsky’s hierarchical categories as a rubric for data analysis—not because I believe it to be a universally appropriate evaluative measure, but rather because it accurately represents the ways in which AOTM team members talked about a range of potential educational outcomes for this particular exhibition. It’s also important to note that team members did not consider educational outcomes to be the only possible or desirable outcomes. As they remarked, people attend exhibition for various reasons, not all of them educational, and visitors’ different interests, agendas, and previous experiences influence what they get out of a show. However, my summative evaluation focused on educational outcomes because, in the words of one curator, “If twenty percent of visitors or fifteen percent of them just say, ‘Wow that was fun, let’s go back some time,’ that’s okay. . . . [But] taxpayers’ dollars are going not just to entertain people. . . . The reason money gets given to the Smithsonian is because it’s an educational institution, and at some level that’s what you’re supposed to do here.”

From my interviews with AOTM team members, I identified key issues or topics to explore in my conversations with visitors (which I carried out before developing the analysis associated with Vygostky’s assertions). I began each of seventy-six interviews by asking the visitor (or pairs/groups of visitors) to tell me generally what he/she (or they) thought of the exhibition. My intention was to establish at the outset of the conversation that I was interested in hearing about their visits in their own terms (as opposed to pre-determined response categories). Almost all audience members praised AOTM for one reason or another—because it was lively, theatrical, interactive, artifactually rich, or effectively showed technological improvement that, over time, has improved our lives.

Although my interviews with visitors did not follow a pre-determined set of questions, many conversations proceeded more-or-less along a similar sequence. For example, after asking questions that encouraged visitors to elaborate on what they found appealing, I usually asked if there was any place in the exhibit where they lingered longer than at other places. In response, they typically described an artifact, diorama or other exhibit feature that resonated with some aspect of their personal, family, and/or community histories. Sometimes they also reported factual information that was new to them.

Later in the interviews, I asked, “If you were going to describe the exhibit to someone who hasn’t seen it before, is there a theme or idea you would tell them about?” Numerous visitors offered replies indicating that they comprehended the gist of the curatorial theme—that transportation history is entwined with various cultural, economic, industrial or demographic changes. Others suggested that the main purpose was to show change over time, while others replied that they hadn’t thought about themes as they simply enjoyed the displays.

I later asked such questions as “Did the exhibit make you think of ways in which changes in transportation have affected your life?” And, “While you were in the exhibit, did

167

you think about any current issues related to transportation?” Most visitors said no. Indeed, one man explained, “I actually think goin’ in there, kinda helps you forget about current issues and concentrate on a simpler time.” I also asked people if during their time in the exhibit they had thought about both good consequence and bad consequences of changes that have occurred in relationship to transportation. Almost everyone said that they hadn’t thought about consequences, and numerous people noted that, in the words of a woman from Chicago, “The whole evolution [of transportation] is good because it ultimately made people’s lives a lot easier.” A few people did concede that there have indeed been some bad consequences, but, as a man from Baltimore explained, “It [AOTM] makes you realize that the bad consequences are unavoidable. If you want to progress, . . . if you want the conveniences, you have to adapt to ‘em. And then after you adapt to ‘em, you say, ‘Okay, there are some bad consequences.’ And you fix it. And I think we’ve done a good job on doin’ all that.”

The Pedagogical Limits of Free-Choice Learning

My interviews with visitors validated curators expectations that most people would become engrossed in sections of the exhibition that resonated with their own personal, family, and community histories. However the range of actual educational outcomes was narrower than the range of anticipated/ideal outcomes. Remarkably few visitors engaged in the kind of synthesis of past and present that curators had hoped for. While I in no way discount the educational merit that that my summative evaluation ascribed to AOTM, I want to pose a question: Why didn’t more visitors engage in a reflexive synthesis of historic developments and current issues? One answer to this question can be surmised from a study conducted by the Smithsonian Institution Office of Policy and Analysis (2005), during which 149 visitors were tracked and timed as they traversed through AOTM: 76% percent of those visitors spent less than 30 minutes in the exhibition, and the average time was 11:39 minutes. Precious little historical information can be absorbed—let alone applied to contemporary issues associated with transportation—while traversing a 26,000 square-foot exhibition in that amount of time.

These findings, however, still beg the question, “Why aren’t visitors spending more time and becoming more intellectually engaged?” To answer this question, I can offer only conjecture rather than data analysis, as I suggest a relationship between exhibit techniques, pedagogical assumptions, and educational outcomes.

AOTM offers a technologically impressive array of communication technologies, which range from traditional didactic panels and object labels to documentary-style films, audio programs, manipulative devices (crates that can be opened and text panels that can be rotated, spun, or flipped up), immersive environments, and interactive computer games/activities. From a pedagogical perspective, many of these devices have been designed to accommodate different learning styles and multiple intelligences, which have historically been theorized to account for the fact that different people learn different things in any given educational context. However, the theorization of learning styles was also developed to provide a basis upon which teachers might revise teaching techniques or materials in response to (formal or informal) diagnoses of individual students who are not progressing as much as others. The equivalent teacher/learner relationship manifested in a museum setting would enact an untenable degree of personalized attention wherein visitors would be met at the door and asked “What historical knowledge and learning abilities do you bring with you?” and then guided to the didactic and interactive devices that are best suited to that individual.

For visitors to AOTM who are not cognizant of their own learning styles or of the fact that several exhibit components are designed to accommodate various learning styles, the resulting experience is a sight-and-sound extravaganza that sometimes confuses people who are seeking information. For example, one family described how perplexed they were to

168

find audio features that repeated adjacent printed information. The father rhetorically asked, “Do they [the exhibit curators] think we can’t read?”

For all of the opportunities to read text panels, watch videos, listen to narratives, play computer games, manipulate interactive devices, and walk past (or through) reconstructed historical settings, visitors are not invited to participate in a coherent pedagogical program in which they consider the transportation choices they make in their everyday lives, the consequences of which will contribute to future economic, industrial, and cultural developments. In other words, visitors are cast as witnesses to rather than participants in the making of history and the ongoing changes in society.

Margaret Luindauer, Associate Professor & Museum Studies Coordinator Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA

Bibliography Falk J. & Dierking, L. (2000) Learning from Museums: Visitor Experiences and the Making of

Meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press. Jacobs, E. (1992) “Culture, Context, and Cognition.” In Margaret D. Le Compte, Wendy L.

Millroy and Judith Pressle (eds) The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education, 293-335, San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Lindauer, M.A. (2005) “What to Ask and How to Answer: A Comparative Analysis of Methodologies and Philosophies of Summative Evaluation.” Museum & Society 3 (3): 137-152.

Lubar, S. (2004) “The Making of America on the Move at the National Museum of American History.” Curator: The Museum Journal 47 (1): 19-51.

Office of Policy and Analysis, (2005) “Visitor Ratings of Exhibitions at the National Museum of American History,” Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Vygostky, L. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

169

Rosário Caravalho (Brazil) Resumo

Análise das transformações na relação museu e público, a partir dos questionamentos relativos à evolução dos museus, às novas tecnologias e, considerando os museus como sistemas de informação. Estudo das redes eletrônicas de comunicação e informação e o quanto a Internet/Web contribui para a formação de um público virtual e para expandir a visitação in loco às exposições e aos demais setores de informação do museu, de forma integrada. A metodologia compreende o Museu Histórico Nacional como ambiente de estudo, o quadro teórico com autores da Ciência da Informação, da Museologia e da Comunicação e a pesquisa empírica, desenvolvida em duas etapas: análise das mensagens do correio eletrônico de visitantes virtuais do Museu Histórico Nacional para caracterizar o seu perfil e principais demandas de informação; verificação, com base em entrevistas via Internet, do comportamento e da relação entre público presencial e virtual de museu. Como subproduto desta pesquisa e com base nos resultados, é esboçada uma proposta de portal de Museologia e Museus a ser implementado no país. Abstract Analysis of the transformations in the museum and visitors relation, considering the issues related to museums evolution, the new information and communication technologies and museums as information systems. Studies of the electronic communication and information networks, measuring how much the Internet/Web contributes to the formation of a virtual public and to the expansion of museum attendance in loco to exhibitions and to other museum information sectors, in an integrated manner. The methodology comprises the Museu Histórico Nacional in Rio de Janeiro as study setting, the theoretical frame is based on Information Science, Museology and Communication authors; and the empirical research is developed in two sections: the analysis of the electronic messages of Museu Histórico Nacional virtual visitors in order to design visitors profile and main demands for information; knowledge of visitors behavior and the relation between physical and virtual museum attendances, based on interviews through the Internet. As a product of these researches and based on its results, is designed a proposal of Museology and Museums Portal (Website) to be implemented in the country.

170

The State of the object in the Italian demo-ethno-anthropological1 contemporary museology Mariaclaudia Cristofano Abstract presented at the ICOFOM meeting in Vienna, August 2007, at the occasion of the ICOM General Conference 1- Alberto Mario Cirese. The object as a document - In Italy during the seventies experts started defining several theoretical principles of

anthropological museography. The Italian anthropologist Alberto Mario Cirese2 was probably the main character of this change.

- He emphasized the differences between the folkloric object and the objet d’art stressing that, even if there are objects of the folkloric context that are apt to be displayed (ceramics, votive paintings, etc.), the «majority of folkloric museum objects original setting are not walls, pedestals, showcases».

- According to the new museographic conception, the fetish-masterpiece-object was replaced by the “meditation related to it”. In that way the supremacy of the aesthetical dimension, that had prevailed until then in the field of museology and museography, was abandoned for a document-context-oriented dimension.

2- Pietro Clemente. The aesthetical dimension of the anthropological object - At the beginning of the 1980s, a new contribution to the Italian museum conceptions

gradually appeared. This came as the result of the studies and thought of another anthropologist, and disciple of Cirese: Pietro Clemente3.

- Clemente’s museological conception stems from a critique of Cirese’s concept of museum as a place that displays scientific research results. According to Clemente this would lead to a «new elitist tradition of museography, not directed to connoisseurs and experts of “Art” any more, but to students and scholars».

- On the contrary, a museum’s task should be to translate the language of specialized learning «into ways of communication and perception that meet the public’s imagination and competence», while maintaining the strength and depth typical of the

1 The quite recent expression demo-ethno-anthropology nowadays is generally used in Italy to indicate a concept broader than single ethnology or anthropology. The prefix demo- (that comes from the Latin word demos and means people, population) refers to the study of “internal cultural gaps”, such as the study of peoples’ cultural heritage of the western world, and to “demology” (demologia), also called “history of folk tradition” or folklore. The prefix ethno- refers to ethnology, a subject related to the study of “external cultural gaps”, such as the study of non-European population, formerly called “primitive”. Cfr. Alberto M. Cirese, I beni demologici in Italia e la loro museografia in Pietro Clemente, Graffiti di museografia…, cit., pp.249-250; 2 Alberto Mario Cirese was born in Avezzano in 1921. An excellent anthropologist, he can be considered the founder of the Italian anthropological museology. Professor of cultural anthropology first at the University of Cagliari (1957-1971), then at the University of Siena (1971-1973), and finally at “La Sapienza” University of Rome (1973-1992), he is now Professor emeritus at the Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia of “La Sapienza” University of Rome. 3 Pietro Clemente was born in Nuoro in 1942. He was professor of history of folk traditions at the University of Siena. Then he became professor of Cultural Antropology at “La Sapienza” University of Rome, and presently he teaches Anthropology of Cultural Heritage at the University of Florence. He has dealt with the different aspects of popular culture, museography and cultural heritage. Moreover he works together with Vincenzo Padiglione and Vito Lattanzi, in the review Antropologia Museale. Among his publications on museography note in particular: Pietro Clemente, Graffiti di museografia antropologica italiana, Protagon, Siena 1996; Id., Il terzo principio della museografia: antropologia, contadini, Carocci, Roma 1999; Id, “Vent’anni dopo. Alberto M. Cirese scrittore di musei”, La Ricerca folklorica, XX, n.39, 1999, pp.7-23; Id., “La tenacia della ragione. A vent’anni da Oggetti, segni, musei, intervista ad Alberto Mario Cirese” La Ricerca folklorica, XX, n.39, 1999, pp.24-28; Id., Estetica e comunicazione di massa nella museografia antropologica in Museo e cultura, a cura di Jean Cuisenier e Janne Vibaek, Sellerio, Palermo 2002, pp.53-68.

171

academic world. The basic idea is that it is necessary to refer to a mixed mass audience.

- Clemente suggests regaining the aesthetical dimension of the object, which maximizes the appreciation of the object by the visitor.

- To that end, Clemente chose the notion of unitary setting by which the museum becomes a stage, the place of learning and of mass communication, where the message is not intellectually isolated but is received as a complete perceptive experience.

172

The Escape of the Object? – crossing territorial borders between collective and individual, national and universal Kerstin Smeds, Umeå, Sweden ___________________________________________________________________ In this paper I will discuss some consequences and challenges that information technology has brought about in the museum world, and the “nationality” versus “universality” of collections. My point of departure is a set of presuppositions. Firstly, that the museum, as well as museology, is engaged with the sense of Loss and with the problem of collective Experience (Erfahrung) of Time and Reality in western culture, ever since “modernity” entered the scene at the end of the 18th century. The museum is engaged with Absence. It is the House of Lack, seeking to regain and recreate our losses with the aid of objects. Secondly, today a final transition from ontological values – wie es eigentlich gewesen – to phenomenological values has occurred; life and world are explained as culturally and socially constituted phenomena, dependent on the subjective view of the interpreter. Thirdly, in a world that demands all things to be made available to individual experience, the museum institution faces serious challenges and difficulties to survive – to outlive the very historic (industrial) epoch that gave it birth, and which epoch we (the West) now have left behind. Science and technology have also left the territorial Nation State behind and are actively pursuing global virtual networks of knowledge. Human sciences and museums follow – out in the cyberspace, into the universe. * A pre-modern experience (Erfahrung), says Kevin Hetherington in an interesting article, was characterized by a shared topos in which community existed as a knowable whole to its members.1 Experiences in the present were felt to be the same as those in the past: changeless and reproducible – a totality grounded in the past of memory, custom and epic narrative. With modernity and the fragmentation of everyday life came a disruption of the social relations that underpin this common experience, as already pointed out by Walter Benjamin.2 Erfahrung was replaced by modern Erlebnis.3 According to Pierre Nora, with the temporalisation of the past and shift from natural time to historical time, society lost its creative, collective memory – its ‘heritage memory’, manly based on oral history. And with that, out the window went also the collective Erfahrung. The inherited and creative memory was replaced by History, that is written history, which resulted in a narrowing scope of the past and thus total oblivion of some parts of it.4 The new situation is to Nora a “terror of historiographical memory”, a “memory of the state” and a “national memory” with clearly political aims and frames.5

The modern museum was born as a bulwark against the desorienting modernity of contemporary life.6 The museum was a response to the time-problem of modern society, a time-transformer which seeks to fabricate and maintain the collective Erfahrung that was lost. For a couple of hundred years there has been a strong belief that museums can maintain and foster not only national identity but the humanist universality of experience, based on the 1 Kevin Hetherington, ‘Museum’: Problematizing Global Knowledge – Library/Archive/Museum. Theory, Culture & Society 23 (2-3) p. 600. 2 Walter Benjamin, The Storyteller, pp.83-107 in Illuminations. London 1973. 3 In English there is, as far as I know, only one word for both these terms: experience. Hence it might clarify to use the German expressions, Erfahrung being more profound, an in depth and intuitional insight whereas Erlebnis would be a more superficial, quick and random experience. 4 See also Jean-Louis Déotte, Oubliez! Les ruines, l’Europe, le musée. L’Harmattan, Paris 1994. 5 Pierre Nora, Lieux des memoir II, p. 652.; see also Paul Ricoeur, Minne, historia, glömska. Daidalos, Göteborg 2005, pp. 501-503. 6 Hetherington, p. 600.

173

Humboldtian ideal of ‘Bildung’: through a ‘Bildungsprozess’ the individual self transgresses into sociality and obtains universal values. This was an idea that reined the organization of one of the first modern museums, Altes Museum in Berlin, and many national museums in Europe thereafter. In walking thorough the Altes Museum, the visitor could reconstruct the working not only of the Hegelian Weltgeist and historical progression in Time, but especially Wilhelm von Humboldt’s idealistic view of the universally civilizing values of art.7 History could be grasped as a whole. Simply through exposure to art and artefacts the working classes’ minds would be improved. Ever since then public museums have been intertwined with moral ideas and civilizing rituals.8

But, and this is one of my points, the museum never succeeded in fabricating nor maintaining the original kind of Erfahrung - Benjamin’s, or Nora’s creative, chaotic memory in a society living fully in the present, in the “here and now”. Instead, the museum ‘cementated’ the ‘historiographic’ memory and narrative as it was outlined by the Nation State, and has done so till this day. Museums have changed at a remarkably slow pace (if at all) during the last hundred years or so, and one of the reasons for this might be the well known key function to educate and inform people of where they belong, teach them to be cultivated and responsible (and obedient) citizens of the Nation State. No matter what changes in society,9 museums have kept on not only with the national rhetoric, but fabricating – and teaching − ontological values of humanism, civilisation and progress enunciated through narrative orderings of material culture. They have integrated materiality within National Narratives into homogenous ‘Einheitskulturen’. The national narratives have always been presented as objective and unquestioned truths: this is “History as it happened” and this should be communicated to the people, for them to be “enlightened”.

To visualize my point, I have made an overview of what I name exhibition rationalities or ‘systems’, roughly divided into three large groups. So far I’ve been talking mainly about number II. My point here is the shift from System II to III – which will be explained below, and which I think marks an ongoing real shift in museum practices. SYSTEM I SYSTEM II SYSTEM III (or Enlightenment Enlightenment STRATEGY) Prevails Enlightenment out? (closed) (more open) (open) (ca 1750 – and on) (1890/1920 – and on) (ca1990 - and on) Science Taxonomy Science Science Classification Text Text Typology History Stories /histories Objectivity (National) narrative Message(s) Truth Message Interpretation Free of values Truth Poly-vocal (dialogue) One dimensional Normative Reflexivity Exclusive Homogeneity Diversity Aesthetic Authority Without authority Non-textual Education Curiosity

7 Beat Wyss, ‘The Tübingen Conspiracy’ in : Nordisk Museologi 1/1994 ; Hermann Lübbe, ‘Wilhelm von Humboldt und die Musealisierung der Kunst’ in : Bernfried Schlerath (Hg), Wilhelm von Humboldt. Vortragszyklus zum 150 Todestag. Berlin 1986. pp. 169-183. ; Hildegard Vieregg, ‘Wilhelm von Humboldts Ideen zur Bildung des Menschen: museologische, philosophische und pädagogische Betrachtung’, in :Museology and Philosophy. ICOM - International Council of Museums. ICOFOM, International Committee for Museology/ Comite international pour la muséologie. Museology and Philosophy / Muséologie et philosophie. ICOFOM STUDY SERIES – ISS 31. Coro, Venezuela. Nov. 28 – Dec. 04. Museums-Pädagogisches Zentrum, München. 8 C. Duncan, Civilizing rituals. Routledge, London 1995: T. Bennett, Civic Laboratories. Museums, Objecthood, and the Governance of the Social. Open University: Milton Keynes 2005. 9 Apart from political revolutions – then the museum will obediently change ideology too.

174

(ca1825 on):10 Didactics (Didactics) Insight Linear Consensus Subjectivity Chronology Collectivism Individualism Progress Inclusive Erlebnis/Erfahrung “One way” Multi-modal Game Evolution (1870-) (Theatre) Multi-modal Multi-dimensional ‘Landscape’ Folksonomy TAXONOMY Linear Nonlinear POSITIVISM Chronology Non evolutionary DARWINISM Evolution Network Progress “Path Finder” “One way”

POSITIVISM HERMENEUTICS DARWINISM STRUCTURALISM

POST-STRUCTURALISM

These three ‘systems’ – or perhaps ‘paradigms’ – are not to be understood as any finite categories with sharp boundaries in between. They overlap one another and are to some extent intertwined, even today. The terms are key words to help us see the difference, see what, I think, is going on in the museum world.11 The scientific terms under each column indicates only loosely the theories in dominance within the scholarly sciences. The term “folksonomy” in column III will be explained below. Radical individualization Today, the situation is different; the museum paradigms have started to change. The shift in the museums is a slow and somewhat delayed response to the general shifts in Western society during the last 25 years or so: in politics a shift from pure national narrative to multiculturalism and globalization12, in economy a shift from cooperation and classical liberalism to new liberalism and market economy13, in the scholarly field a shift from positivism to hermeneutics, from ontological values to phenomenological values14 and finally a shift from the “age of production” to the “age of information and story telling”.15 According to futurologist Rolf Jensen 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.

This development goes hand in hand with the radical individualization of society, and of knowledge. The Enlightenment ideal of universal humanism that has prevailed for more than 200 years is now on the losing side – as Julia Kristeva anticipated

10 This is about where Michel Foucault’s crucial shift of épistèmes occur. But for my purposes, when investigating the real changes in museal exhibition rationalities, a shift that marks the introduction of Text in exhibitions is more appropriate. And texts and narratives where introduced in a larger scale not until by the end of the 19th century. See Michel Foucault, The Order of Things. An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York, Vintage Books Edition, April 1994. 11 This is an abstraction, meant to visualize a shift that I think is going on, or is to come. So far I don’t know any single exhibition by which to concretize a pure “system” III. But in many exhibitions one can see this trend today. 12 At least a rhetorical shift – in reality nationalism in many countries has only strengthened its grip. 13 Global Capitalism. Edited by Will Hutton and Anthony Giddens ; Manuel Castells ed.:The network society : a cross-cultural perspective. 2004; Manuel Castells, The information age : economy, society and culture. Vol. 3, End of millennium. Oxford, Blackwell 2000. 14 Philip Gardner, Hermeneutics, History and Memory: Interpretation and Fact in Academic Research. Routledge 2006. 15 Rolf W. Jensen, Dream Society. How the Coming Shift from Information to Imagination will Transform your Business. 1999.

175

already in 1993.16 My question is: if ‘System III’ would be fully realized, would Enlightenment then finally be ruled out in museums?

Radical individualization is closely connected to the rejection of universal values, since if there are no objective ‘truths’ it’s up to the individual to establish her own principles and standards. Instead of looking outward for a universal prototype, the individual looks inwards and tries to build up his or hers unique self: In the individualized society the individual must/…/ learn to understand oneself as the centre of events, as an ‘administration office’ for one’s own existence, talents, orientations etc”. If one will survive, one must ignore intellectual games and develop a self-centred world view, which turn the relationship between the individual and society on its head, thinking it in a way which is usable for the individual’s purpose.17 In the realm of pedagogy and learning the Danish social analysts Lars Geer Hammershøj and Lars-Henrik Schmidt have created theories of ‘self-formation’ and ‘self-performance’.18 Self-formation is seen as opposed to the traditional concept of universal ‘Bildung’.19 According to Hammershøj self-formation today takes place on the following conditions: The first condition has to do with the radical individualization process and the second could be named culturalization. These conditions seem to fit in well with the late modern concept of formation of the personality. Firstly, formation of the personality is per definition “without authority” and is therefore interesting in relation to the “self-socialization” of the late modern individual. Secondly, formation is an aesthetic practice of the self, concerned with the unfolding of the personality. This happens today as the individual’s transgression of itself, and the experiences made in various culturalized communities.20 Self-formation is happening in a dialogue with society (self-socialization). The individual and society are not in opposition, but are rather developing and asserting each other in a dialectic manner. Whereas in Bildung the individual (ideally) assimilates the universal values and becomes part of the larger, in self-formation the individual experiences the larger in sociality for then to return to his or her own particularity.21 Vistitor’s value Museums have responded to the individualization and diversification of historical interpretation and to new theories of learning. They have also adapted to the challenges of capitalism and market economy by modifying the concept of “share holder’s value” into “visitor’s value” as a guiding principle of pedagogy and communication. In their approach to visitors, many museums have proceeded from supporting the concept of universal humanistic ‘Bildung’ to modern subjective “self-formation” and “self-performance”. Aren’t we very close to the fulfilment of Walter Benjamin’s prophesy about Erlebnis ruling out Erfahrung?

16 Julia Kristeva, What of Tomorrow’s Nation? Nations without Nationalism. Columbia University Press, New York 1993. 17 Ulrich Beck quoted and translated by Houlberg Rung (see footnote 18); Ulrich Beck, Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Suhrkamp Verlag Frankfurt am Main 1986.. See also Ulrich Beck,’Living our Own Life in a Runaway World. Individualisation, Globalisation and Politics’ in: Global Capitalism, Edited by Will Hutton and Anthony Giddens. New Press, New York 2000. 18 I will thank the researcher Mette Houlberg Rung from Denmark for directing my attention to them; Mette Houlberg Rung, “The National Art Museum as a Platform for Self-formation”. Paper for ‘Setting the Frames: Nations, Sciences and Professionals defining National Museums’, 26-28 February 2007, Linköping University, Sweden; See further L.G. Hammershøj, Selvdannelse og socialitet – forsøg på en socialanalytisk samtidsdiagnose. Danmarks Pedagogiska Universitet, København 2003; Lars- Henrik Schmidt, Selvoverskridelser før og nu. In: I. Vesterdal (ed.) Omdannelser: 11 former. Information, i samarbejde med Hotel Pro Forma and Via. København 2002. 19 A statement the validity of which can be questioned – but not in this context. 20 Hammershøj, p. 443-444; 21 Houlberg Rung 2007.

176

At the same time science and technology have left the territorial Nation State behind and are actively pursuing global virtual networks. Museums and humanist research follow. National narratives are being replaced or paralleled by a multiplicity of storytelling and multiculturalism. What are the consequences for museums? A shift from ‘System II’ to System III – which is more of a ‘strategy’ than a ‘system’. History is falling apart? The national rhetoric is in serious difficulties as differentiated knowledge is making its way with a multiplicity of narratives, stories, histories; local, regional, national, global. A poly-vocal intrusion into the sacred museum space? Yes. People will choose their own history as they find appropriate. But is this a problem? No – not if the museums take this into account and change their paradigms and practices, as far as it comes to access and dialogue – and accept an universalisation of heritage, collections and objects.

The “radical individualization” has also consequences for how exhibitions are organized. Instead of trying to visualize a narrative with the aid of texts and objects laid out linear in the three dimensional room, the exhibition might be organized more like a net-work of knowledge ‘stations’ or resources. At best, it would remind of a carefully designed landscape park or romantic garden, with meandering paths, hedges and clearings, sudden views and surprises, hideouts and thickets, full of allusions to history and mythology of civilisation. At worst it would look like a Bingo hall with game ‘stations’ spread out in a room like cash dispensers or amusement machines (like many Science Centres still are organized). Consciously or not, System III borrows structures and principles from the world-wide-web, and could be named the structuralistic or reflexive exhibition model. There is a mode of reception attuned to browsing. The visitor is allowed to go ‘surfing’ on the information network, not only among objects and contexts in the exhibition space, but on IT-stations and computers. One is permitted to move in-and-out between the ‘real’ world and the virtual world, and the exhibition goes on simultaneously in both. ICT is not only integrated but even innate in the exhibition. 22 In this kind of museum environment the modern museum visitor could be resembled with a ‘path finder’ sniffing and ’hunting’ for interesting quarries, or a modern collector gathering pieces of universal ‘knowledge’ according to his own interests and desires, afterwards to make his own decisions, conclusions and interpretations about the contents. Among provided resources, narratives and contexts, the visitor has but to choose. The visitor can also build his own exhibition − in his head, but sometimes also in making his own exhibition catalogue23 or his own exhibition on the web (by picking objects from the museum’s digitized collections and putting them on display in an “empty room” where ‘glass cases’ are provided).24 And, above all, this mode of organizing exhibitions fits well into the new pedagogy of self-formation. Classical Taxonomy will be shifted to, or paralleled with, “Folksonomy”, a wonderful term used by the San Francisco Museums of Fine Arts, referring to user generated taxonomy, a digital search engine created by the visitors themselves, according to the fancy questions they ask.25

But, consequently, compared to the ‘System II’ the meaning of things can no longer be fixed or collectively understood. Will the museum become mainly a stage for action, a “switchboard” for information and a show room for a pluralistic reality? Some would even call this mode of reception “distracting”, and saying that museums only “become part of the bigger spectacle now to capture the experience “(Erlebnis)”…a spectacle of cultural experiences on a grand scale with corporate sponsorship”.26 Well it would be distracting compared to the classical one-way communication model of ‘stimulus’ and ‘response’ that 22 This corresponds with the development of ICT in museums, outlined by Ross Parry and Andrew Sawyer in their article ‘Space and the Machine. Adaptive museums, pervasive technology and the new gallery environment’ in: Suzanne MacLeod (edit.), Reshaping Museum Space. Architecture, Deisgn, Exhibitions. Routledge, London and New York 2005. pp 39-52. 23 “Make your own catalogue” by choosing art objects from the exhibitions is a resource provided by the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna. 24 For instance on the National Museum’s of Denmark home page you can build your own exhibition / a modern Kunstkammer. 25 See: http://www.thinker.org/gallery/index.asp; On the term ‘folksonomy’ see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomy. 26 Hetherington p. 602.

177

prevailed in the ‘System II’ narrative model of exhibition. It would also be distracting for the ideal of universal Bildung. Musée imaginaire or musée universel? In my opinion we should think differently. It seems that we are eventually carrying out the wish of Hugues de Varine in the 1970’s that “museums should be selective and ‘client-oriented’.27 At stake here is not only Erlebnis but also Erfahrung, though of a new kind. It is a “connecting people” kind of Erfahrung, it opens possibilities to collectively sharing experiences, information and resources with others, with people you choose yourself, locally, regionally, nationally or internationally (e.g. through the CIDOC-CRM)28. We are witnessing new kinds of collectivism −“Gemeinschaft” − which, in my view, in a fascinating way may restore the creativity of memory that was lost more than two hundred years ago.

To cope with the external “technological push” and “users’ push”, both demanding accumulation and aggregation of information on the World-Wide-Web, museums ask new questions and scrutinize their collections and means of interpretation and communication. Intensified research in collections, documentation, aggregation of information, references and “context building” in relation to objects will be of ever more importance in the future. The biggest challenge for the museums is this digitization of objects and contexts. Isn’t technology a threat to the “real” in a situation where objects can be studied better on the web than in the museum reality where the object can be seen only in a dimly lightened and firmly locked glass case? This threat is usually turned down by referring to the appeal of real physical objects, their authenticity. Potentially an object is accessible to every sense; it can be seen, tapped, touched, handled, smelt and even tasted….. But: this cannot (usually) happen in a museum! The eye is the master sense both in museum and on the Web, and in this the museum cannot compete with the Web. The problem of the glass barrier (and dim lights and so on) between spectator and object is very much underestimated. The glass barrier severely restricts the communication potential of objects and artefacts. With very rare or fragile items it would be impracticable to allow items out of the display cases, but with some (most) items it ought to be possible to allow visitors to handle them. Why? Because the authenticity, materiality and ‘bodyness’ of artefacts is the only thing that is left for the museum in the future as we move more frequently in the cyber world of collections and knowledge. Objects can and should be touched.

Otherwise we will soon be there: the Object, helped along by digitization, slips out of the hands of the museum and the Nation State and become universal, global, losing its national particularity. Objects have no nationality. They don’t go to football games. Objects don’t know who they are, unless we tell them…and equip them with national symbolism and mythological paraphernalia….The visitors themselves have today the opportunity to change the very core of museums’ identities by aggregating (on the web)other information linked to the objects, and thus help them to “escape”. And wouldn’t museums too, these old fortresses of the Nation States, take their chance…. escape out the open door and turn into real Universal Museums! So what do we need the colossuses of museum buildings for? Open storages! Neither will we need so many permanent exhibitions anymore – today they are nevertheless too expensive, inflexible and heavy.

It seems appropriate to end this with a citation by Jean-François Lyotard in connection with his exhibition ”Les immatériaux” at Centre Pompidou in Paris 1985. Thus the new technology pursues and perhaps accomplishes the modern project of becoming master and possessor [of nature]. But in so doing it forces this project to reflect on itself; it disturbs and destabilises it. It shows that the mind of Man is also part of the “matter” it intends to master; and that…matter can be organized in machines which in comparison may have the edge over mind.

27 Museum, Vol.XXVIII, No.3, 1976. p.139. And he went on: “All too often present-day museums are regarded by their curators as providing ‘lessons for a homogeneous but perhaps non-existent public, a public which exists mainly in the curator’s mind/…/.” 28 See for instance: Regine Stein et al., Das CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model: Eine Hilfe für den Datenaustausch? Berlin 2005, ISSN 1436-4166, Nr. 31 [accessible on the web. Or google for CIDOC-CRM].

178

The relationship between mind and matter is no longer one between an intelligent subject with a will of his own and an inert object. They are now cousins in the family of “immaterials”.29

Kerstin Smeds, Professor of museology, Department of Culture & Media, Umeå University, 90187 Umeå, Sweden.

e-mail: kerstin.smeds@kultmed.umu.se

29 Jean-François Lyotard,’Les immatériaux’ in : Thinking about Exhibitions. Ed. by Reesa Greenberg, Bruce Ferguson and Sandy Nairne. Routledge, London & New York (first ed.1996).p. 165

179