The 2010 centennial celebration of the Olympic Movement in Serbia was the reason for re-raising the issue of setting up a permanent Olympic Museum exhibition and also reconsidering the legacy exhibits related to the history of Serbian sports. This paper provides an analysis of the development of the Belgrade Olympic Museum since setting up of the first collection in 1947 at the old DIF (State Institute of Physical Culture), through formation of a permanent exhibition at the Faculty of Sport and Physical Education in 1979, on to the last exhibition in London during the 2012 Olympics. Moreover, it highlights the problem of constantly increasing collection deposits, as well as the methods for its long-term solution. Special attention is given to the promotion of the Olympic Museum through the presentation of exhibitions in-house and abroad, as well as the possibility for their presentation to a broad audience through the concept of new museology.
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.
The paper covers the problem of museology as a scientific discipline and its relation to the concept of “new museology”. Starting cases are Museum of Innocence as a model of contemporary museum practice (opened in Istanbul in 2012), and the research of the Museums Association of Great Britain on the public opinion about museums (from 2013). In this respect, research problem described as “modern cultural fictions” arises. By “modern cultural fictions” we recognize imaginative content with cultural value in contemporary world, which can be related with museums or novels. In methodological terms “modern cultural fictions” are heritage of new museology. Thus, the goal of the paper is an interpretation this specific contribution of new museology to museology as a scientific discipline.
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 is a reminder of the hermeneutical problem in heritology which spans from comprehension to interpretation of heritage. The question of perception of the manifestational world, and further the possibility of a dialogue of diverse sciences in contemplating heritage leads to creating a “dialogue” of the modern man with the heritage. By learning about the content of the structure of a cultural asset, the analogue theoretical model is clarified. A special attention is given to the model of the Moebius strip, taken from the mathematical discourse. With its characteristics, unorientability and onesidedness that is tested by imprints on a “single” side of the strip, it responds a stable, material and changeable semantics of the item of heritage, realised in motion through time. This model can offer better understanding and interpretation of the manifestational reality and of the heritage as accumulated past.
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.
This paper is dedicated to posing questions arising from contemplating the concepts of imaginary and virtual museums. Since a virtual museum, as interpreted by Deloche, primarily represents an imaginary museum (as defined by Malraux) it is necessary to establish a relation between these two similar concepts and point to their potential importance for understanding the museum as such. By implicit rejection of the distinction between museology and new museology for being futile in solving museological antinomies, this paper fully submits to the contemplation of the museum and its disciplinary definitions from the position of Deloch’s interpretation of museology as a ‘’philosophical discipline’’.
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.
This essay is on new museology and its essential concepts. The discourse is based on the concept of new museology as a utopian project that emerged as criticism of the, so-called, traditional museum. Although its foundation is usually dated back to 1989, in Peter Vergo’s seminal The New Museology, we are more inclined to date it in the mid-1970s, linking it to broader artistic, social, economic and political movements of the post-1968 world. The idea expressed in this paper is that “the new museology” has not lost its currency, as we believe is shown in Key Concepts of Museology, published by ICOM in French in 2009, and in English 2010.