A NEW MUSEUM DEFINITION? [Part I]
A closer look at the International Committee of Museums’ proposal
A few weeks ago, following months of research and public consultation, the International Committee of Museums (ICOM) launched the proposed new double-barrel museum definition. This time around, ICOM went for a major overhaul rather than a cyclical review happening every so often. The discussion on the proposed definition has been, since then, rather intense and described as a hotly contested debate by international press such as The Art Newspaper. A handful of national branches have asked ICOM to postpone the official vote scheduled for early September in order to deliver a “new proposal.” So what is this new museum definition all about and why has it stirred so much controversy?
Let’s start with the first thing that comes to mind … and that, to me, might sound like a very obvious question. Why was there the need to change the current museum definition in the first place?
The need seems to have long been felt, also in view of the sector’s significant developments and the rapid changes that contemporary societies have witnessed over the past decade. Way back in 2014, I did comment, along with others, that the current definition was becoming reduntant in the face of an ever-growing need to decisively relocate the public to the centre of the museum experience and to humanise the museum, particularly the art museum institution …
The definition of museums promoted by the International Committee of Museums describes the museum institution as a ‘non-profit institution at the service of society’. This is a general requirement for museums but rather than being a static and un-reflexive upholder of a tightly bound culture [the humanist museum should aim] to build on the potential synergies and constant interface with the community.’
What I claim here is that museums and their corresponding communities have oftentimes ran adrift. Just being ‘at the service of society’ implies a passive role which does not address the current needs and aspirations of contemporary societies more keen on participatory and engaging access.
Maria Vlachou, Executive Director of Portughese Organisation Acesso Cultura, has recently pointed out, that the current definition
‘… has not served the museum field, and society at large, for a long time now, as many museum professionals have failed to understand that “to acquire, conserve and research” is not an aim, a purpose in itself, bur rather a tool, in order to fulfil the purposes mentioned by the definition.’
Vlachou’s comments refer to collections as a resource and a means to an end rather than an end in itself. In short, putting together a collection and ensuring access over time should not and is not the main objective and mission of museums. Rather, it is the public, its needs and aspirations that collections should be there for, a resource rather than an art history book on display.
Jette Sandahl, chair of the ICOM standing committee for the new museum definition, feels that the current definition is more inadequate rather than wrong. In Sandahl’s own words …
“The museum definition thus seems to need to be historicised, contextualised, de-naturalised and de-colonialised.”
Let us turn to the proposed double-barrel definition. The phrasing used and the key words that can be underpinned can provide us with insight as to whether this definition speaks for where the museum landscape stands today or whether this is more akin to an ambition. The first part reads eloquently well.
“Museums are democratising, inclusive and polyphonic spaces for critical dialogue about the pasts and the futures. Acknowledging and addressing the conflicts and challenges of the present, they hold artefacts and specimens in trust for society, safeguard diverse memories for future generations and guarantee equal rights and equal access to heritage for all people.”
1. ‘… democratising, inclusive and polyphonic’
This I consider to be very much in line with the ambition of a human-experience or human centred museum or, better still, a museum at the service of humanity. I particularly like the word polyphonic, which reminds me of an orchestra with its various components playing a given repertoire. The individual components may just be playing a script, somewhat boring or perhaps incomprehensible when hear in isolation, but harmonious and inspiring when heard together. Questions nonetheless beckon. How much are today’s museums inclusive and polyphonic not only in their programming and events but also in the collections they develop or get entrusted with? How much is the art museum representative of the polyphony of cultures that constitute a given community?
2. ‘… spaces for critical dialogue about past and futures.’
Yet again, this is about the ways and means how museums can and should should aspire to become cultural spaces where publics meet collections and material culture on display. It is within these spaces, at the intersection of these encounters, that new ideas and thoughts about our past and futures are incubated. Sadly, however, this is not so common as one might expect. More often than not, it is the token visit that counts for millions of visitors to museums, and that special encounter with a masterpiece that is oftentimes on a tick-box list of to do’s.
3. ‘… safeguard diverse memories …’
This too is something that museums struggle to engage with. It is a fact that the vast majority of museums, particulary those with national status, strive to safeguard the official memory of the state rather than the polyphonic narratives of a history that should by now be read beyond the victor-victim paradigm. Indeed, when will the memory of the vanquised and that of the victor be celebrated within the same cultural space that is the 21st century museum?
4. ‘… guarantee equal rights …’
I think museums at large are still far from universally acknowledging this valie and giving such a guarantee. Equal rights ambitions have so far revolved around such things as bespoke programming for ‘special needs’ visitors and minority communities. Such guarantees would eventually need to inform what is collected and goes on display, which in the case of national museums is oftentimes in response to the endorsed and institutionalised narrative of the state. Indeed, equal rights would concern not only access but also representation and display. Are museums doing so universally? I doubt it.
The second part of the proposed double-barrel statement is even more ambitious and equally vision-driven.
“Museums are not for profit. They are participatory and transparent, and work in active partnership with and for diverse communities to collect, preserve, research, interpret, exhibit, and enhance understandings of the world, aiming to contribute to human dignity and social justice, global equality and planetary wellbeing.”
5. ‘They are participatory …’
The participatory museum is certainly gaining traction and has been doing so for well over a decade. The European Union has also legislated on Participatory Governance of Cultural Heritage. Indeed, this ambition seems to have much more institutional clout than most of what has been featured in the double-barrel definition. Notwithstanding this endorsement, the level and extent of participatory practice remains uneven across the global museum landscape.
6. ‘…work in active partnerships with and for communities…’
This may be that part of the double-barrel definition which is most tangibly relevant. The vast majority of museums have, indeed, forged partnerships across the cultural spectrum, be they financial, programming or outreach related, educational or otherwise. How much and to what extent these partnerships with and for communities are effective and relevant is a different matter altogether.
7. ‘…contribute to human dignity and social justice, …’
That this part of the definition is politically loaded seems to be immediately self-evident. Human dignity is, indeed, about a person’s intrinsic worth and value within a given society … about being human. This reminds me very much of Neil Postman’s statement
‘As I see it a museum is an answer to a fundamental question… what does it mean to be a human being?’
Social justice is a much more challenging statement for museums, particularly those that are not within full-democracies or instituted by authoritarian governments.
The question beckons … is ICOM’s double-barrel proposal really a possible definition, a declared ambition or a proposed vision?
To be continued …
Our blog posts shall, from now onwards, be intermittently featuring works of art in varied media. The choice of pictures featured here is by Australian photographer Bill Gekas. We thank him for his consent to be part of the Humanist Museum Project.
