Recensão: Claire Bishop, "Radical Museology: or What’s ‘Contemporary’ In Museums of Contemporary Art?"

Recensão de: Claire Bishop, "Radical Museology: or What’s ‘Contemporary’ In Museums of Contemporary Art?", Londres: Koenig Books, 2013

To think museology today

In the present text we intend to analyse 5 basic documents that translate the Museological Thinking in our century and that, chiefly, have led professionals of the area to apply this “science” in a less hermetic way and to understand its practice. The option to study and analyse the documents results from the fact that they influence present day museological practice and thinking. It is impossible to speak of museology nowadays without referring to one of these documents, not to mention a few nations that have even modified and/or created specific laws for the management of their preservationist cultural policy. Anyway, we are aware that this text intends only to carry out a preliminary approach to the documents, in the sense that the wealth of its content would allow us to slowx over an infinity of issues that they raise. I specifically refer to the documents produced at UNESCO Regional Seminar on the Role of Museums in Education, which took place in Rio de Janeiro in 1958; at the Santiago Round Table in 1972, in Chile; at the 1rst New Museology International Workshop, in Quebec, Canada, 1984; at the Oaxtepec Meeting, in Mexico 1984; and at the Caracas Meeting in 1992. These are documents elaborated within the ICOM –International Council of Museums. These documents are the result of a joint reflection by professionals who seek the evolution of ideas within their areas of action, recognising that in order to do so it is necessary to leave the cocoon of the museological institutions and try to discuss their conceptual advances with professionals of related areas. It is important to be capacitated to reuse these advances in their areas of action. This is the recognition of the importance of interdisciplinarity for the museological context.

Museology as a pedagogy for heritage

This essay presents some parameters for the study of Museology and its respective contribution for the constitution of preservationist processes, biased towards heritage education. From the decoding of some parameters that delimit this applied discipline’s action and reflection field, the text presents some paradigms, which have stimulated its epistemological construction and have guided its social functions. These paradigms are considered responsible for a new methodological order within the scope of the museum and, further, for the new commitments that these institutions have taken up.

The informal museology

No matter how elementary the level of attention that is paid to contemporary Museology in Portugal, its multifaceted character should nevertheless be acknowledged. It is a site where concepts, attitudes and aims cross, translating not only museology’s general guidelines, but the role and the place that the different actors in the most diverse processes seek to occupy in society, in the affirmation of the shared right to a full citizenship. The different forms of museology that has developed throughout the country, in particular post April 25, vouchsafes the statement that, in parallel with State museums, there came to light hundreds of museological processes by initiative of the cultural and ecological associative movements, in addition to those of the reinvigorated autonomous power. There are tens of thousands of people who, in various ways - more or less elaborated or theorised - find in museology the privileged expression means on issues concerning so many heritages – historical, architectural, linguistic, archaeological or anthropological - within the context of the valorisation and identification of local specificities and competences.

museology and community development in the XXI Century

Each time more, museology professionals are confronted with terms such as community, social inequality, social inclusion and development in their quotidian. Be it in conferences, publications or museum programmes, these are increasingly recurrent terms which, in great part, translate the dynamics of a relationship between museology and community development that has been constructed since the late 60’s. Although it is not new, such relationship has gone through a major bloom in the early 90’s and arrives today as an emerging priority within the world of museology. A first glance on the subject reveals that very different approaches and forms of action share the efforts in endowing museology with a role in community development today. In addition, despite of its growing popularity, it seems to be some misunderstandings on what the work with community development requires and truly signifies, as can be pointed out in a number of assertions originated from the field of museology. Accompanying such a plural environment, discussions and disagreements about to what extend museology is able to claim a role in social change also mark its affairs with community development. People are faced, indeed, with a rather polemic and intricate scenario. To a great extend, language barriers hinder the exchange of information on current initiatives and previous experiences, as well as on the development of concepts, approaches and proposals. Lack of better interactions among the groups of museology professionals and social actors who carry out different works with community development also contributes to making the potential of museology as a resource for development more difficult to be visualised.

The new professional: underdog or expert? New Museology in the 21th century

For a long time, museum’s form and function were impregnated with social exclusion, only accessible for a prosperous and educated minority. It held the monopoly on the past and therefore in a way on the present and the future. However times have changed and different perspectives on museum practices have been taken. In 1989 the British Peter Vergo mentioned as quoted below, a number of possible museologies, including a ‘new’, and therefore presumably an ‘old’ type of museology: “At the simplest level I would define it, as a state of widespread dissatisfaction with the ‘old’ museology, both within and outside the museum profession; and though the reader may object that such a definition is not merely negative, but circular, I would retort that what is wrong with the ‘old’ museology is that it is too much about museum methods, and too little about purposes of museums; that museology has in the past only frequently been seen, if it has been seen at all, as a theoretical and humanistic discipline.” (Vergo, 1989)

Societal development and the traditional museum: Applying New Museology to a different context

The Dapperstreet[1] ...Anything is a lot, when you expect so little Life keeps its wonders hidden To suddenly reveal them in a divine state. I thought about all t Soaking wet, one drizzly morning, Simply happy in the Dapperstreet. The Dapperstreet is part of a neighbourhood often referred to as “East”, situated in the eastern part of Amsterdam. It is a lively and vibrant multi-cultural part of the city. It has a daily market with food from around the world, but is also known worldwide because of the murder on Theo van Gogh, the Dutch film director who was killed there in 2001 because of his critical and provocative statements on the Islam. Thus it can be concluded that it is certainly a neighbourhood with its own problems but, as can be read in Bloem’s poem, a place to call home and long for. [1] Poem by J.C. Bloem, The Dapperstreet (Het Verlangen, 1921). Translation by Davida de Hond.

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

The School of Museology Celje: regular, continuous, topical, quality form of education

At the School of Museology, a project with ten years of tradition, we carry out module-based programmes to educate and qualify different target audiences working in the filed of cultural heritage. Our development and realization of educational programmes and training courses directed at practical applicability, including life-long learning of adults, topic complementarity with related professional and scientific fields, connection with universities offering undergraduate and postgraduate studies of heritages, promotion of theoretical museological discourses raising awareness of the meaning of cultural heritage, firm placement in an international network of related institutions and promotion of international relations with special emphasis on neighbouring countries. We encourage project partnership and cooperate with different domestic and foreign associates in forming and carrying out programmes.

The inclusive process of training in social museology: alternative museology in action in Carapateira, Portugal

Pierre Mayrand is a long-time member of ICTOP and founder of MINOM. He did graduate studies in Montreal and overseas, studying art history with a specialization in architecture and urban planning. In 1970, when the Université du Québec was founded, Pierre entered the teaching profession, participating (as director, professor, and researcher) in the setting up of programs in national heritage, museology and cultural development. He is still active in teaching and project development now as a altermuseologist.

The Baltic Museology School : its role in the professional education system

Due to various reasons museum employees from the Baltic States rarely use the chance to study museology abroad. Therefore the State Authority on Museums of Latvia in collaboration with ICOM-Latvia decided to ―deliver‖ this knowledge, by inviting internationally acknowledged lectors from different countries to widen the scope of takers of this opportunity. Estonian and Lithuanian colleagues are also joining in the project, which is included in the cooperation programme of the Ministries of Culture of the Baltic States.

Education for a new 'museology'

This article provides a critical reading of a curriculum initiative in tertiary education designed to address students who are traditionally marginalised in the Australian tertiary sector. An argument is made that this curriculum approach with its emphases on authenticity, identity, agency and embodied learning addresses issues of the disjunct between access to knowledge, museums and cultural capital. The political work of this curriculum is situated in the new museology. The author draws on Ellsworth's sensation of learning to elaborate the contributions made possible by the curriculum Learning and teaching in public spaces to museum education and tertiary education.

Colonial museology and the Buddhist chronicles of Sri Lanka: agency and negotiation in the development of the palm-leaf manuscript collection at the Colombo Museum

The roles of colonial museums in South Asia have been understood in terms of the dissemination of museology within the British Empire. This has often underplayed the participation of local intellectuals in the formation of museum collections, and thus has not recognized their agency in the creation of knowledge and of longstanding cultural assets. This article addresses this in part through an historical case study of the development of the palm-leaf manuscript collection at the Colombo Museum in nineteenth century Ceylon. The article focuses on the relationships between Government aims, local intellectuals and the Buddhist clergy. I argue that colonial museology and collecting activity in Ceylon ought to be understood as a negotiated process and a number of reasons for this are discussed. This article contributes to an area of museological research that is exploring the roles of indigenous actors in colonial collecting and museum practice in South Asia and broader geographical contexts.