Critical Museology

Dalla fine del XX secolo, i tentativi di rileggere le collezioni museali sono stati declinati in alcuni casi attraverso narrazioni non lineari che non rispettano le tradizionali categorie della storia dell'arte. L'articolo intende indagare le cause di questa tendenza globale dal punto di vista culturale, sociopolitico e teorico. Queste pratiche si sono avvicinate alle collezioni museali come ad una forma di archivio e sono state sviluppate negli ultimi trent'anni in particolare da diverse istituzioni dedicate all'arte contemporanea, rimodellando gli allestimenti e il loro ruolo istituzionale. Attraverso l'analisi di tre casi studio, il Centre Pompidou di Parigi con la mostra Modernités plurielles (2013-2015), il Van Abbemuseum di Eindhoven con The Making of Modern Art (2017-2021) e il Museo Sztuki di Łódź con Atlas of Modernity (2014-oggi), l'articolo analizza la necessità istituzionale dei musei contemporanei di rileggere e riscrivere la storia della "modernità" e delle loro collezioni nel XXI secolo attraverso l'uso di narrazioni dialettiche. Il rapporto tra l'istituzione, le collezioni e la loro narrazione sarà analizzato come carattere distintivo dell'identità e della missione del museo.

At the present time, the museum scene is increasingly directing its efforts towards the production of critical and ref lexive or even self-ref lexive exhibitions. When transparency, multi-perspectivism, and openness are brought to the forefront, it seems to be in response to the debates of the last decades about the museum as a powerful and contested place of representation: instead of objective and universal narratives that make their embedding in power structures invisible, ref lexive exhibitions open them up to challenge. At the same time, however, these strategies are also committed to the neoliberal paradigm of f lexibilization and permanent self-ref lection and are thus part of the hegemonic order. On the basis of exemplary exhibition analyses, this study will examine how exactly and which types of ref lection are (or should be) made possible and how they operate between critique, opening, and legitimation of the exhibiting institution.

Texto publicado en el libro  "Museología Crítica: temas selectos. Reflexiones desde la Cátedra William Bulock", por el Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes y Literatura y el MUAC, Museo Universitario Arte Contemporáneo. UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2019.

Text published in  "Critical Museology: selected themes. Reflections from the William Bullock Lecture Series", by the Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes y Literatura and MUAC, Museo Universitario Arte Contemporáneo. UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2019.

Libro completo / full book: https://muac.unam.mx/publicacion/museologia-critica-temas-selectos

ミュージアム研究の「展示の政治学（ミュージアムの政治学）」理論についての総覧。

科学や芸術を公に展示するミュージアムという施設にはさまざまな権力構造が絡まりあい、それらの結果として「文化」や「科学」や「芸術」は社会に形を取っている。いかにすればこうした力学を的確にとらえられるのか。こうした観点からミュージアムを研究してきた「展示の政治学（またはミュージアムの政治学）」理論について、日英言語圏を中心に論じた。関心を共有しながらもいくつかの研究領域（discipline）で分けて語られてきた研究群を結びつけるために、次の三つの潮流に体系立てて学説史を整理した。第一に、1980 年代半ばから始まる、ポストモダン文化人類学の流れを受けたポスト植民地主義論的ミュージアム研究。第二に、近代主義思想に関する制度論的研究。第三に、メディア論やカルチュラル・スタディーズの影響下に生まれた、コミュニケーション論的ミュージアム研究である。
本稿を通じて以下のことを明らかにした。第一、第二の議論では、「展示」とは意味を生成するメディアであり、そこには複数の意味が重なっていることが強調された。そして、この理解は研究・現場の双方で強く意識されるようになった。さらに第三の潮流に至り、来館者による展示解釈が、新たな調査対象として前景化する。このことで、対立・協調の過程から生じる展示がもつ意味の重層性について、来館者の観点からも理解すべきとする共通の課題が確認され始めることになった。すなわち、現在の展示の政治学は、受容理論を取り入れることで、論争的な課題を抱える歴史認識論・記憶論の議論を牽引するものになっていると結論づけた。

日本語圏と欧米言語圏の研究相互の関わり合い（や関わり合いのなさ）について日本語で整理することで、ミュージアムや展示について研究する基礎資料としての利用を想定している。

This paper is a historiographic review of the museum studies theory called “politics of display/politics of museum.” It explores the history of museum studies from the standpoint of museum politics: “museum” as a site for power politics and the social dynamics of the relevant actors associated with museums and exhibitions: curators, exhibition designers, educators, museum staff, museum committees, and visitors. This theory considers modern conceptions of “culture,” “science,” and “art”  as social constructs  emerging from these political processes. 

To shape this historiography derived from scholarly works mainly in English and Japanese, this paper narrates these discussions in three roughly chronological currents: 1) the trend of post-colonial museum studies and postmodern anthropology since the 1980s; 2) the tendencies of institutional analyses in the critique of modernism; 3) the tide of communication studies in museum fields, which was strongly influenced by cultural studies and media studies.

In the first and second trends, museums and displays became considered as political sites and complex assemblages that constitute a web of meaning. Throughout these trends, this understanding of how to interpret museums was common in both practical and theoretical fields. As the third stage goes, communication studies focused on the receptive aspect and museum theory focused on the visitor’s experience in the meaning-making process. As a result, it is nearly inevitable for museum scholars to discuss museum politics without mentioning receptions at museums. Through analyzing these three movements, this paper uncovers the historical path of increased significance on reception theory in recent museum politics.

Tomando como punto de partida la revisión que la museología crítica opera sobre el
concepto de museo, sus discursos y narrativas, este texto explora las posibilidades
que al respecto ofrece el medio digital, así como los discursos que actualmente se
están desarrollando en este nuevo escenario

The book is a recollection of many lectures on critique of museum theory and practice. Kenneth Hudson liked the list of "sins" at one occasion in Brno. More than 15 years latter I thought that two reasons still existed to turn the notes and slides into a book: first, if there is a science of heritage profession (heritology or mnemosophy) it needs to offer self analysis, a critique; secondly, a "glossary" is always a useful reminder of the past wrong doings and warning for the present or future. Ignorance and folly always lurk there to impose disguised in many forms, - especially if there is no obligatory professional training... I knew that the critique will not make me very popular. However, the book has been translated into Spanish, Russian and Latvian, and published in tiny print runs.

It has been offered freely accessible for quite a while, like all other things I do, at https://www.mnemosophy.com/the-vault but Academia.edu is a better place for it.

The very successful The Best in Heritage conference in Dubrovnik (since 2002) was ever an excellent occasion for learning how the best among us overcome the traps of lack of understanding...

Museum Theory is the first volume of a four volume set of International Handbooks of Museum Studies. Edited by myself and Kylie Message, the book is organised around the central idea of conjunctures – between theory, practice and context. It therefore looks at ideas about museums, the relationships between various disciplines and knowledge production in museums, and at practice -the latter in terms of the application of theory in museum contexts as well as thinking about practice as a form of 'doing theory'. Contributors come from many different countries. They include early career scholars as well as internationally renowned figures and they come from practice as well as academia. The range of museums discussed is also wide and from around the world.

The essays collected together here each explore a concept that o ers the potential to think and do museum and heritage practice otherwise – that is, to think and do museums and heritage differently from the ways in which they have more recently or more usually been done. This ‘otherwising’ is thoroughly anthropological. It draws from a disciplinary approach that seeks to explore diverse ways of doing and thinking – to
learn from other ways of being wise – in order to rethink, re-do, and transform, what might otherwise be taken for granted or unexamined.

A finales del siglo XIX y comienzos del siglo XX las comunidades indígenas en diferentes países de América Latina enfrentaron una nueva arremetida que pretendía transformarlos y apoderarse de sus tierras y sus recursos. Buena parte de los estados nacionales, recientemente creados, establecieron convenios con los misioneros católicos con el objetivo de civilizar a los indígenas. Durante las décadas que estuvieron a cargo de las misiones, los frailes de diferentes órdenes religiosas produjeron una serie de registros visuales y escritos que componen una amplia documentación. Algunos de tales registros se encuentran actualmente en archivos nacionales e internacionales, y, en términos generales, las comunidades indígenas no han tenido acceso a ellos. El presente artículo da cuenta de una experiencia de investigación colaborativa en la que las imágenes del archivo misional son intervenidas por parte de diferentes personas de los pueblos inga, kamëntsá y arhuaco y resignificadas para la elaboración de una exposición museal.

At the end of the 19th century and the early 20th century, indigenous communities in different Latin American countries faced a new onslaught that sought to transform them and steal their lands and resources. Many of the newly national states, established agreements with Catholic missionaries with the objective of civilizing indigenous communities. During the decades, they were in charge of the missions, the friars of different religious orders produced visual and written records that formed an extensive documentation. Some of these records are currently in national and international archives, and generally, indigenous communities have not had access to them. This article shows an experience of collaborative research in which different people from the Inga, Kamëntsá and Arhuaco communities made an intervention on the mission archives images and re-signified them to create a museum exhibition.

ICOM China and Museums Association of China requested the keynote speech on the ICOM's offered theme: I readily responded as China represents not only the grand culture but also a civilization in its own right. My Chinese experiences, be it from lecturing over-there or receiving their awarded projects in Dubrovnik (at The Best in Heritage conference) where always rewarding and it needed a gesture of thanks.

What I have to say is much explained in other texts on this site and my own www.mnemosophy.com where the video version of this lecture is recorded.

Please consult another, vast text on museums in China:
"Museums and public engagement, four decades of changing concepts and strategies in China"

El 12 de noviembre de 1979 fue inaugurado el Museo Universitario de Antropología (MUA) en la planta baja de la Torre II de Humanidades de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM). El proyecto original proponía la creación de un museo sencillo, hecho en casa, con la participación de la comunidad universitaria y dirigido a los estudiantes-futuros profesionistas con la finalidad de comunicar la investigación antropológica y promover la conservación del patrimonio cultural. Aunque la historia del MUA es breve, los planteamientos que le dieron origen coinciden con aquellos desarrollados por la museología crítica y que hoy constituyen materia de debate en los museos contemporáneos. Tomando como referencia las posiciones epistemológicas y prohibiciones metodológicas propuestas por Anthony Shelton para la Museología Crítica, así como un análisis sobre la importancia de los museos universitarios en la actualidad, este artículo tiene como principal objetivo presentar un breve recorrido histórico centrado en los años de formación y auge del mua (1979-1985) y destacar sus fundamentos como parte de las reflexiones vigentes en la museología contemporánea.

http://www.revistas.inah.gob.mx/index.php/cuicuilco/article/view/16231/17285

The English edition of the book “Eternity does not live here anymore – a glossary of museum sins” (Zagreb, 2012) is written in a rather self-ironic tone, relaxed and polemical in character and deliberately "naive," as I overtly claim in the Introduction. It is very much intentionally idealistic. After decades of international lecturing on critique of theory and practice, having collected some scattered notes and texts, I have felt tempted to put these together in one volume and add necessary clarifications.
As with any criticism, it hurts the best those whom it neither describes nor concerns and who certainly do not deserve it, and it enrages the others who recognize themselves in it. But, as I was never very successful in gaining sympathies, I guess it was logical that the book happened. It seems to have been, at the time of the publishing, the only book entirely dedicated to the critique of museums. 

I was ever very keen to contribute to the usable science that would serve museums and, apparently, all other public memory institutions. It was always a difficult task to offer a theory that would be equally relevant to the West and the East to (as I claimed in a lecture in India) - stand equally the challenges of desert storm and the tropical rain.

In the world of diversity and inequality this critical glossary for some will serve as a reminder of past mistakes, but for most of the world (alas) it will be a warning upon the problems, mistakes and dilemma waiting for them in trying to improve the activities of museums and other heritage institutions.

In the meantime, the book was published in Spanish, Russian and Latvian language. I have made it available to all interested readers  ( https://www.mnemosophy.com/the-vault ) but academia.edu site is well frequented by the student population which remains my favourite audience.

I intend to offer the book in chapters as the readers might be reluctant to download the entire book and so would be able to deal with the reading more easily, deciding if the rest would interest them at all.

Being equipped with photographs and diagrams, it might be a good read for other colleagues in public memory institutions and, probably, even to some readers generally interested by the rising importance of heritage in the contemporary society.

(Excuses to the readers: I have been able to offer only the version prior to printing and prior to the last turn of language editing)

I greet the benevolent reader!

“Alterity” describes a state of being other or different and has become an integral element of postcolonial criticism. The symposium approaches the term both from an artistic and anthropological perspective and asks: What comparisons, relationships, and standards does the construction of alterity imply?

Is alterity a relational and situational concept? How are differences manifested? Anthropologists, curators, art historians, and philosophers not only discuss how the concept can be utilized and mobilized in artistic practice, but also shed light on criticism and rethinking of it.

With contributions by Emmanuel Alloa, Khadija Zinnenburg Carroll, Hamid Dabashi, Martin Holbraad, Nora Sternfeld, Clio Nicastro, Bonaventure Soh Bejeng Ndikung, Elizabeth A. Povinelli, Nigel Rapport, Alya Sebti, Rupert Stasch, Julian Warner, and others.

Organized by Jonas Tinius (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) and the Centre for Anthropological Research on Museums and Heritage (CARMAH) as a guest at Haus der Kulturen der Welt and in cooperation with SAVVY Contemporary and Dis-Othering

https://www.hkw.de/en/programm/projekte/veranstaltung/p_143155.php (detailed programme to follow)

This article provides the philosophy with which I implemented the IGRMS museum charter for fulfilling its objectives of salvage, integrated display and a new community museum movement. In six years of my tenure, between 1994-2000, I geared the museum to above 100 initiatives all over the country for promoting the movement of museums for demuseumization of community habitats. In the present paper, an attempt has been made to situate the ethos, display and activities of the Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya (National Museum of Mankind), Bhopal in the background of recent trends in the museology discipline. The emphasis is more on open air exhibition as well as linking the Museum to the communities. Documentation and dissemination of traditional arts and crafts as well as traditional knowledge system provide a good database for the cause of alternative development strategies and thus provide background for appreciating culture as an input in development.

Me  propongo  reflexionar  en  este  artículo  sobre  la  responsabilidad  social  que  tienen  hoy  en  día  los  museos  con  vistas  a  fomentar  la  creación  y  apoyar  a  las  comunidades  artísticas  a  través  de  la realización  de  exposiciones  colaborativas  en  «co-producción».

Egy olyan embertani-régészeti kiállítás áll cikkünk középpontjában, amely sokrétűen kapcsolódik Szegedhez, Csongrád megyéhez, a szegedi Móra Ferenc Múzeumhoz, a Szegedi Tudományegyetem Embertani és Régészeti Tanszékeihez, s nem csupán jelenünkben, hanem az elmúlt közel 120 év kutatástörténetében is szoros szálak fűzték össze e két tudományt. A kiállításkoncepció kialakítása közel két évet vett igénybe, ennek során temérdek ötlet, megvalósíthatósági szempont, újabb kutatási eredmény, valamint számos már elhunyt vagy még élő személy ide kapcsolódó egyéni története merült fel. Ezek közül elsősorban azokat kellett kiválogatnunk, amelyek a múzeum szempontjai és a látogatói közönség érdeklődésének képzeletbeli metszetébe esnek.

FIVE YEARS AFTER THE BOOK WAS PUBLISHED, IT IS A PLEASURE TO SEE THAT POSITIVE CHANGES TAKE PLACE AND THAT EUROPE IS COMING OF AGE. WE INCREASINGLY WITNESS THE RETURN OF CULTURAL GOODS AND, AS A WONDERFUL EXAMPLE, A SCHEME OF MAJOR EUROPEAN MUSEUMS BY WHICH BENIN WILL WILL ENJOY THE RIGHT TO ITS HERITAGE.

The English edition of the book “Eternity does not live here anymore – a glossary of museum sins” (Zagreb, 2012) is written in a rather self-ironic tone, relaxed and polemical in character and deliberately "naive," as I overtly claim in the Introduction. It is very much intentionally idealistic.

As with any criticism, it hurts mostly those whom it neither describes nor concerns and who certainly do not deserve it, and it enrages the others who recognize themselves in it. I was never very successful in gaining sympathies. It seems to have been, at the time of the publishing, the only book entirely dedicated to the critique of museums. 

It was always a difficult task to offer a theory that would be equally relevant to the West and the East to stand equally the challenges of desert storm and the tropical rain.

In the world of diversity and inequality this critical glossary for some will serve as a reminder of past mistakes, but for others it will be a warning upon the problems, mistakes and dilemma waiting for them.

In the meantime, the book was published in Spanish, Russian and Latvian language. I have made it available to all interested readers  ( https://www.mnemosophy.com/the-vault ) but academia.edu site is well frequented by the student population which remains my favourite audience.

So, I am offering the book in chapters as the readers would be able to deal with the reading more easily, deciding if the rest would interest them at all.

Excuses:
- Lacking means, the book has remained in Globish, which we, the foreign speakers sustain, but....
- I have been able to offer only the version prior to printing and prior to the last turn of language editing)

I greet the benevolent reader!

What is heritage crime and who perpetrates it? Who are its victims? What are the implications for those victimized? For the perpetrators? For society at large? Taking a critical approach to both heritage and crime, contributors to this cutting edge interdisciplinary session explore the emerging field of heritage crime studies.

It was a call from ICOM China to deliver a short, 15 min introductory speech to their annual meeting at the occasion of International Museum Day. Of course I could not say no. Aware that that was not an the circumstance for a long, innovative speech, I decided to serve my hosts best with a choice of a few slides and some basic ideas. The original was a video clip shown to the audience and these here are the notes I have used to produce it.

Traditionally, museums have often been considered the temples of culture, places where objects and collections stored are of great importance for a particular community, society or people and even the whole of humanity. Museum institutions have been trying to distance themselves from this image for decades, moving the focus from the objects to the visitors. This transformation occurred as the awareness of the social role of museums began to change, by which museums are no longer the absolute authority and their task not merely that of the “divine” study of museum “dogmas”, but rather they acquire a participatory role, making each individual a creator of meaning and values. This transition is perceived as a positive step in the development of museological thought and activity, but one that is also often criticized because it puts the position of museums and their experts and scientists in particular fields in a precarious position. Should museums allow their authority, considered to be based on scientific principles, to be questioned by visitors, that is, laypeople? In that regard, the position of museums can be viewed through the prism of the church and its respective position in society.

Topic: The training and professional development of museum staff What are the essential qualities that make a good museum professional in present day museum world? The ideal (museum) professional is a devotee of his/hers (museum) specialization but with a strong sense of belonging to a wider whole. Are dermatologists, gynecologists or pulmonologists distinctive professions? No, they are occupations, specializations within the medical profession and exist by the arguments of medical science. So, I if you accept the comparison, I would say, that talented, noble and responsible curators can exist as the result of a happy coincidence, but no job let alone a profession can be founded upon such fortuity. But talent and devotion helped by seminars, symposia and practice, create however, many good professionals. They have a broad insight into their basic academic discipline and deep interest in understanding of the world around them. Only from that can they provide the users of their museums with a needed, correct, honest product. What are some changes compared with the past standard? Alas, there has never been an international standard, which is both, good and bad. Generally, the changes are great and beneficial: more and more future curators receive some kind of professional training but it has to become obligatory and,-good. Our conference in Dubrovnik is part of that collective effort in learning (at least) by the best examples (www.thebestinheritage.com). However, this partly spontaneous process is not what any profession would consider as strategy for its future. The disastrous fact is that probably 80% of curators working in museums have received only their specialist academic training and no specific education for the public service they run. What kind of young talent is most likely to shape the future of the museum? I am afraid that the future of museums will increasingly depend upon holders of power. But we have to master as much of our mission as possible. The young, talented, scientifically well trained, educated for the heritage profession and devoted to public good might assure us some chances. Privatization, commodification and commercialization are destroying professions. I hope some countries and cultures will know how to retain public services and prevent delivering the society unconditionally to the profit predators. We need to have young curators who will finally establish a profession. Societies thrive on professions and they have been created for that. A good memory on what values humanity is founded will be the condition for survival of the mankind when casino capitalism finally pushes the world into the abyss of artificial intelligence, cyborgs and hybrid human beings. We desperately need the memory of quality, of basic values and virtues of humanitas. We need those with a mission,-who want the world get better,-if that does not sound obsolete in this cynical and hypocritical world. The public can learn only from those whom it loves; on the other hand, to be loved one must love first.

What follows is a AI generated summary, but let me just say that the text has been published in the book edited by Simon J. Knell "Museums and the future of collecting" (1999). The two texts however differ slightly by size and by title (the one in the book is titled as: Redefining collecting) but only this one (probably the version preceding the publication) remains in a downloadable form.

At the beginning was the idea, concept, a need. Collection followed. First museum-like establishments were but visitable collections. A modern museum institution developed in the last two hundred years is largely circumstantial and reflecting its immediate protagonists: that tradition does not oblige us to take the museum institution as the final and only answer to the set of needs that created it. Moreover, those needs are severely changed and extremely complex, implying the drama of the post-historical society. Yet, we are witnessing the unprecedented flourishing of museums and their deepest conceptual crisis, at the same time which is, obviously paradoxical. Why would that be the case? As the needs for protective mecahnisms against the degradation of life become more dramatic, more museums are created to serve the purpose. Yet, what the profession(s) creating them can offer is very much inadequate and burdened with the seemingly unavoidable tradition. The "tough" part of the problem is easily seen in collections as they increasingly demonstrate two major inconveniences: the increasing cost of acqusition, care and maintenance and their physical growth. There are significant developments, dilemma, and rising questions which dramatize the theme beyond strict professional concerns. Many feel that we ought to face ultimate questions. "Growth is an inherent part of the mission of most museums"(Wilcox, 1995) 1. It is still unquestioned starting point of the discussion. But, it will be shatered soon. Ten or more years ago the limits of the physical growth of collections were not so obvious to majority of museum professionals. Museology as set of headlights on the profession's vehicle was supposed to help: if we don't have this device we seem to be driving in the dark, seeing ahead only what we bump into.

En este proyecto realizamos una comparación de las web de los Museos de Pedagogía, Enseñanza y Educación (MPEE) y los Centros de Documentación del Patrimonio Histórico-Educativo (CDPHE) situados en el territorio español, a fin de poder determinar si cumplen con los requisitos necesarios para poder denominarse virtuales. A saber, que además de cibermuseo, establezca conexiones con otras instituciones museales y cumpla con la premisa de ofrecer un aprendizaje interactivo Vs. uno estático. Tras realizar en análisis mediante una comparación webgráfica (basada en la Teoría Fundamentada en los Datos) se ha llegado a la conclusión de que las webs de los MPEE y de los CDPHE se limitan a ser meros portales informativos y que en muy pocos casos llegan siquiera a ser cibermuseos. Finalmente, se ha procedido a enumerar una serie de criterios con el objeto de realizar una propuesta para establecer un Museo Virtual de Pedagogía, Enseñanza y Educación (MVPEE) de calidad: mejorar la interactividad integral, ofrecer apps…

Once again, the same abstract.... Many find downloading entire book discouraging, so I offer it in chapters.

The English edition of the book “Eternity does not live here anymore – a glossary of museum sins” (Zagreb, 2012) is written in a rather self-ironic tone, relaxed and polemical in character and deliberately "naive," as I overtly claim in the Introduction. It is very much intentionally idealistic. After decades of international lecturing on critique of theory and practice, having collected some scattered notes and texts, I have felt tempted to put these together in one volume and add necessary clarifications.
As with any criticism, it hurts the best those whom it neither describes nor concerns and who certainly do not deserve it, and it enrages the others who recognize themselves in it. But, as I was never very successful in gaining sympathies, I guess it was logical that the book happened. It seems to have been, at the time of the publishing, the only book entirely dedicated to the critique of museums. 

I was ever very keen to contribute to the usable science that would serve museums and, apparently, all other public memory institutions. It was always a difficult task to offer a theory that would be equally relevant to the West and the East to (as I claimed in a lecture in India) - stand equally the challenges of desert storm and the tropical rain.

In the world of diversity and inequality this critical glossary for some will serve as a reminder of past mistakes, but for most of the world (alas) it will be a warning upon the problems, mistakes and dilemma waiting for them in trying to improve the activities of museums and other heritage institutions.

In the meantime, the book was published in Spanish, Russian and Latvian language. I have made it available to all interested readers  ( https://www.mnemosophy.com/the-vault ) but academia.edu site is well frequented by the student population which remains my favourite audience.

I intend to offer the book in chapters as the readers might be reluctant to download the entire book and so would be able to deal with the reading more easily, deciding if the rest would interest them at all.

Being equipped with photographs and diagrams, it might be a good read for other colleagues in public memory institutions and, probably, even to some readers generally interested by the rising importance of heritage in the contemporary society.

(Excuses to the readers: I have been able to offer only the version prior to printing and prior to the last turn of language editing)

I greet the benevolent reader!

Zwei Ausstellungsbesuche in Pandemiezeiten: Unsere beiden Autorinnen besuchen vor Ort mit Maske und zu Hause im Netz die Ausstellung "Ich sehe was, was Du nicht siehst" des Stadtlabors des Historischen Museums Frankfurt. In ihrem zweistimmigen Artikel legen sie ihre Erfahrungen nebeneinander und sind überrascht von den Ergebnissen.

This chapter analyses monumentality along two axes: centrality as a spatial horizontality and as a vertical temporality. We take the rebuilding of the Berlin Stadtschloss, or City Palace, and its overarching conceptual framing as the Humboldt Forum, as a case study.Built on the cleared-up remains of the previous City Palace and the German Democratic Republic’s parliamentary building, the Palast der Republik, the Palace has become a projection screen for reconstructed and appropriated universalisms and centralities of Germany’s and indeed the Global East’s past, thus echoing the topographical and psychoana- lytic heuristics for describing Berlin’s role in European imagination and socialist history more broadly.1 The Forum functions as a conceptual frame, espoused for the multiple institutions contained within the rebuilt Palace. It claims to contain a link to universalism by rewriting Prussian imperialism as a Humboldtian cosmopolitanism that allows it to encom- pass, in supposedly progressive and horizontal gestures, all the cultures of the world. Housing selected sections of the vast collections of the Museum of Asian Art and the Ethnological Museum, among other insti- tutions and collections, it presents itself as a forum for seeing into, and encountering, the world, from Berlin. At the same time as it thus proposes a horizontal expansionist cosmopolitanism, it is also built on a vertical temporality, a deep historical recurrence of centrality illustrated by the fact that the Forum emerges on the remains of several previous centres of power, including the previous Prussian Stadtschloss and the socialist Palast der Republik. These two axes, along which we discuss aspects of the ongoing reimagining of heritage for Germany’s cosmopolitan futures, serve as potential lenses to take a closer look at the notion of centrality in twentieth-century urban space and the future of past heritage.

'Phantom Palaces: Prussian Centralities and Humboldtian Horizontalities’ (with Khadija von Zinnenburg Carroll), in: Jonathan Bach and Michal Murawski. Eds. Re-Centring the City. Global Mutations of Socialist Modernity. London: UCL Press. (Open-access), pp. 90–103.

LINK: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10089953/1/Re-Centring-the-City.pdf

Die AG TidA wird wieder eine Sektion auf der nächsten MOVA/WSVA-Tagung in Chemnitz (29.3.-1.4.2016) ausrichten und wir suchen spannende Vorträge zu u.a. folgenden Fragen:

Welche Theorien und Konzepte liegen implizit und explizit den Ausstellungsnarrativen archäologischer Museen zu Grunde? Welche und wessen Geschichte wird mit welchen Mitteln erzählt? Ist archäologische Theorie für das Praxisfeld Museum überhaupt relevant? Sollen/dürfen/müssen wir die theoretischen Vorannahmen für die Besucher_innen explizit machen? In welchem Verhältnis steht die archäologische Theorie, die auf die Inhalte fokussiert, zur Museumstheorie die die Form der Präsentation und die Besucher_innen (Akquise, Partizipation, Inklusion, Evaluationsverfahren, Public Engagement etc.) im Blick hat. Wie können Ausstellungen aussehen, die die Diskussion um theoretische Konzepte im Fach Archäologie und aktuelle gesellschaftsrelevante Themen wie Migration, Postkolonialismus, Ethik etc. mit einschließen und das Museum damit zum offenen Diskursraum archäologischer und kulturhistorischer Theorie sowie sozialpolitischer Realitäten werden lässt?

Wir hoffen auf Eure Teilnahme und Interesse und bitten Euch auch, das CfP an Kolleg*innen weiterzuleiten.

Anthropology and its institutions have come under increased pressure
to focus critical attention on the way they produce, steward, and manage cultural
knowledge. However, in spite of the discipline’s reflexive turn, many museums remain
encumbered by Enlightenment-derived legitimating conventions. Although anthropological
critiques and critical museology have not sufficiently disrupted the majority
paradigm, certain exhibitionary projects have served to break with established theory
and practice. The workshop described in this article takes these nonconforming “interruptions”
as a point of departure to consider how paradigm shifts and local museologies
can galvanize the museum sector to promote intercultural understanding and dialogue
in the context of right-wing populism, systemic racism, and neoliberal culture wars.

Digital spaces (e.g. organizational websites, fanzines, blogs, electronic repositories and social media) are, potentially, rich empirical terrain in which sport narratives may be (re)presented, mobilised and challenged. Sport organizational websites also offer ideal platforms to voice and disseminate sport history content to wider audiences. Drawing on the context of New Zealand's participation in the Olympic movement, and the national Olympic Committee's recent efforts to embrace historical thinking, we consider the confluence of oral and digital approaches. More widely, the paper examines how sport organizations might utilise oral histories and digital spaces to engage audiences more effectively with critical understanding of the past. To note, progressive shifts in museum and heritage studies have advocated ideological and institutional redirection, critical reflection and radical departures from traditional representational practices. In these processes, the promotion of oral histories have been identified as a key means to these ends (notably, in re-orientating the construction of historical narrative and democratising knowledge ownership). While sport historians have echoed this ethos, sport organizations have been slower to realise connections between oral history, narrative making and public heritage praxis. Presenting vignettes constructed from interviews with sport participants, this paper considers these intersections and possibilities.

Lectio Magistralis Venerdì 12 aprile ore 17.00 Sala delle Colonne Ingresso libero La Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Moderna e Contemporanea ha il piacere di presentare una lectio magistralis tenuta da Jesus Pedro Lorente e Stefania Zuliani, in conversazione attorno a temi cruciali per le esperienze dei musei di arte contemporanea e la museologia critica di nostri tempi. Due voci della museologia europea si confrontano dunque su questioni che segnano il contemporaneo dibattito sul museo: la responsabilità della curatela, la pluralità delle narrazioni espositive, l'accessibilità, il rapporto tra museo e spazio urbano, le prospettive del post-storia, il coinvolgimento della comunità. Un discorso complesso e naturalmente provvisorio che si alimenta di esperienze e riflessioni multidisciplinari, aperto al contributo dell'arte, alle trasformazioni epistemologiche e alle urgenze del presente.

It is a chapter from a recently published book (limited edition, Zagreb). Since 1982 when I proposed heritology, I experienced discouragement, busy time and a war to witness... So the book waited. Although heritology, gained some momentum I always felt that I should push it as far as possible out of the "comfort zone"...  In 1987 I tried to propose a new neologism mnemosophy because it is linguistically compact and  well founded in understanding of the role of memory in the societal contract. "Mnemosophy, an essay on a science of public memory" is a wayward and dishevelled book, an act liberated from temptations of career and from attempts to acquire admiration of many. Mnemosophy must stand for a responsible, ethical knowledge, able to neutralize the threats  and guide us into harmonious development. It is not a scientific book by the form but may be by the argumented call it proposes for the further exploration of the role of public memory in any society. The world in trouble needs usable responses. A new profession with its science might be the solution. The proper time for it was some three decades ago, but, intentionally naive, I still propose both. In fact, like ever, future is always here if we can recognize it. United heritage occupations, like in medicine, may form a profession that could assume responsibility for the entirety of heritage. The reality that (seemingly) dismisses the state but surely destroys public services in favour of extensive privatisation speaks very much against this proposal, so this is why book may have additional symbolic sense. Collective experience, stored in memory(-ies) and heritage has finally become an open political question.

This is a paper published by ICOM-Spain in Spanish. It is a lecture from their symposium held in Bilbao in 2010. A believer in art and creativity I have taught my students that one day there will be still another applied art, - that of heritage communication. It is not against the attachment to science which should remain our guarantee of integrity. But, communicating is an art and since science itself is also subjective to an extent, - we have to face the challenge. Therefore, intentionally developed creativity in our discourse can hit both our targets, - to be relevant and useful on one side and effective and amusing on the other. Curators and artists will have to develop a proper flexibility and fight their egotist isolation becoming two sides of this necessary responsibility.