Memory and power : two movements

The institutions that work with the preservation and diffusion of cultural heritage - be them archive, libraries, museums, art galleries or cultural centres - present a certain discourse about reality. To understand this discourse, composed by sound and silence, by fullness and emptiness, by presence and absence, by remembrance and forgetting, an operation is implied, not only with the enunciation of speech and its gaps, but also the comprehension of that which causes to speak, of who is speaking and of the point whence one speaks. Preservation and destruction, or, in another way, conservation and loss, walk hand in hand in the arteries of life. As suggested by Nietzsche (1999, p.273), it is impossible to live without loss, it is entirely impossible to live avoiding destruction to play its game and drive the dynamics of life on. However, by means of a kind of tautological argument, one often justifies preservation by the imminence of loss and memory by the threat of forgetting. Thus, one ceases to consider that the game and the rules of the game between forgetting and memory are not fed by themselves and that preservation and destruction are not opposed in a deadly duel, but instead they complement one another and are always at the service of subjects that build themselves and are built through social practices. To indicate that memories and forgettings can be sown and cultivated corroborates the importance of working towards the denaturalisation of these concepts and towards the understanding that they result from a construction process also involving other forces, such as: power. Power is a sower, a promoter of memories and forgettings.

CARTA DO RESTAURO 1972, MINISTÉRIO DE INSTRUÇÃO PÚBLICA GOVERNO DA ITÁLIA, CIRCULAR Nº 117 DE 6 DE ABRIL DE 1972

Através da circular número 117, de 6 de Abril de 1972, o Ministério da Instrução Pública da Itália divulgou o Documento sobre Restauração de 1972 (Carta do Restauro, 1972) entre os directores e chefes de institutos autónomos, para que se atenham, escrupulosa e obrigatoriamente, em todas as intervenções de restauração em qualquer obra de arte, às normas por ela estabelecidas e às instruções anexas, aqui publicadas na íntegra.

Günter Strauss e a Colecção de Minerais do Museu Mineiro do Louzal

Günter Strauss is Ph.D. in geology from the University of Munich in 1965. He is a German living by long time in Spain. Naw he is a SAPEC High Advisser His doctoral thesis, submitted in 1965, with the title "About the Geology of the Province of pyrite Southwest of the Iberian Peninsula and its oil fields, especially in the pyrite mine Louzal - Portugal" Systematized the term" Iberian Pyrite Belt ", called for the deposits of iron ore cuprífera, rich in sulfur and other metallic minerals, which occurs between the rivers Sado and Guadalquivir, where they settled several mining complexes, of Louzal, Rio Tinto, through Castro Verde, Santo Domingo and Tharsis. Local mining tradition with an ancient where today seeks to preserve the legacy and memory of mining through measures to enhance equity. The result of work carried out Louzal then formed the basis of geological and documentary collection that has survived and has been proposed for cultural units under the activities of the mining museum Louzal. The richness and importance of this collection, consisting of several hundred documents, geological samples classified, minerals and cartography, comes from its presence Situ"In its state of preservation, that despite the various threats it is still within reach of their preservation, and the relative rarity of such collections, with the units of mining production. This communication aims to reveal the contribution of Mr Strauss for the formation of this collection and submit his proposal for cultural units, with the hope that those responsible for safeguarding them understand the need for its preservation and dissemination. So discuss the scientific and professional way Günter Strauss, a geologic formation of the estate of Mines Louzal, and the draft musealization proposition.

Transformative museology

“…we have to take into account the fact that museology and museums are two completely different things.” Martin R. Shärer[1] In the 20th century, growing populations produced a growing body of heritage. The transmission of this heritage to succeeding generations coalesced into three major modern institutions: universities, library/archives and museums. Traditional systems of social and cultural memory had become overloaded and therefore evolved conceptually. This evolution took place within the primary context of a naturally occurring museology through the process I call museogenesis. The term museogenesis refers to the origin and development of museological thought in a specific cultural context. By museological thought, I refer to ideas and theories surrounding the parameters of “the natural and cultural heritage, the activities concerned with the preservation and communication of this heritage, the institutional frame-work, and society as a whole” (Mensch 1992). This broadly inclusive definition relates museology to another broadly defined concept: cultural context. By cultural context, I refer to the “webs of significance and systems of meaning which is the collective property of a group” (Geertz 1973). [1] ICOFOM Study Series – ISS 34, 2003, ISS 34_03.pdf, p.7