Archive for: New Museology Between Theory and Practice

The paper deals with redefinition of the role of conservation in museological system, in accordance with the changes in this field in the last two decades and with the emergence of new museological theory and practice. The author begins discussion with terminological distinction of the basic terms in conservation, considering them as limitations of great importance for the development of the field, and continues with defining the position of conservation and its relation with other functions within the museological system. Among existing models of museum functions, the author opts for CC model of Dutch Reinwardt Academie and uses it as the basis of a museum model proposal that takes the complex of conservation and documentation as the key function of the museological system, if the system is based on the possession of collections. This is tested by comparison of the changes that happened in the museum conservation practice and the consequences of proclaiming new museology. This comparison reveals to what measure the conservation, in theory and practice, adapted to the new museum, while keeping its significance because of the fact that collections remained the principal museum resource, even with new museological phenomena using different means of communication and different approaches to users.

Even though discussions and practices around citizens’ participation in heritage were at their peak during last five years, the ideas about levels and ways of citizen participation through heritage making are by no means recent or unified. These distinctive ideas under the umbrella of “engagement” form a variety of possible, even contradictory frameworks through which the role, rights, privileges, and responsibilities of the citizen and the community are defined in relation to those of the national state, public memory institutions and heritage professionals. They range from those asserting the rights of citizens in dissent and critical thinking towards dominant institutionalized practices, to those advocating participation as an effective way of engaging citizens in consuming authorized heritage discourses. Participation is thus neither good nor bad in acheiving citizens’ rights to heritage, but is driven and influenced by the framework which utilizes it. The proposed paper aims to examine and structure the four key frameworks through which citizens’ participation in heritage making is asserted, in order to shed light on what we are thinking, talking and practicing around participation. The first framework is heritage without institutions tracing back from Marlaux’s imaginary museum performed by every individual, to the ways in which global civic communities perform practices around heritage that challenge dominant politics of heritage. The second relates to group of ideas arround community museums, in which heritage is participatory even in the decision making, but the process is being mediated and curated by the professionals. The third is participatory museum framework in which citizens participate within an institutionalized environment to become more emersed in it, but could (possibly) challenge and shape it by forming their own meanings around musealization. The fourth group is related to critical, discursive museum, derived from critical heritage studies in which professionals are creating civic forums for citizens, thus fostering critical thinking around heritage-making.

This paper presents an attempt at theoretical and critical contemplation of the phenomenon of standing exhibitions in Serbian museums at the start of the 21st century (the concept of the exhibition, conceptual methodology, future of the exhibition) as a raison d’être of the museums and a purpose of their exhistance. Also, the new standing exhibitions, if based on modern postulates, can initiate a process of transforming the Serbian museums from academic into contemporary, and influence the definition of a new role and a new place of the museum in the culture and society of our communities (as a place dedicated to gaining active knowledge and experience as well as a place of entertainment). In order for this to happen, it is necessary: to rethink both the professional actions and the museum materials; to develop a socially engaged museum; to (re)define the old/new missions, visions, purposes and objectives of the museum, its program policy, management, marketing and PR; to re-direct the museum outreach activities towards interpretation, communication and presentation; to observe the museums as “open systems” while drawing conclusions, creating identities, approximating different forms of art, merging heterogenous projects; to connect with the audience and with the non-audience; and to facilitate the reception of art production and exhibitted artefacts of cultural heritage. With their knowledge, expression and vision, the curators and authors (or artists) can equally impact the selection and the manner of presentation/interpretation, and also contribute to the implementation of diverse actions in the museums that can broaden the manner of adopting basic museum themes by turning passive observers into active participants, not only in the museum programs but in the local communities in general.

There are only a few countries in the modern world that have not been established as a result of violence and conflict. Material evidence and oral traditions remained after these events, but science has not yet reached a consensus on whether they should be kept, let alone on how to present and interpret them. This paper deals with the challenges and obstacles that management of such heritage puts in front of the new museology. The emphasis on the personal experience and participation, addressing current, existential issues and hardships, deinstitutionalization, stepping out to open spaces, popularization of the content, decentralization, involvement of the local communities and therefore society as a whole – all of these are elements on which the new museology has been based for nearly half a century. The challenge lies in finding the right balance and ensuring systematic, methodological applications with the introduction of certain standards. So far, the principle – all is possible and nothing is a must – has failed to achieve results. It is up to the museologists to be arbitrators of sorts and to motivate, coordinate and lead local communities in the efforts to preserve each layer of dissonant heritage from oblivion.