A RISKY CONTROVERSY OR A POTENTIAL CONVERGENCE?
ICOM’s proposed new museum definition [Part II]
In this second part of my contribution on the proposed double-barrel museum definition, I thought of exploring the reasons and justifications guiding this proposal. As I did say in my previous blogpost, the discussion on the proposed definition has been rather intense and described as a hotly contested debate by international press such as The Art Newspaper. A handful of national ICOM branches have asked ICOM to postpone the official vote to be in early September, mark time instead and try to revisit the proposed double-barrel definition. So what is the controversy all about?
Let me go on record by stating a fact. The proposed double-barrel definition was the end result of a process happening over months, co-ordinated by the ICOM Standing Committee on the Museum Definition, Prospects and Potentials (MDPP) chaired by Jette Sandahl. The committee explored
“… the shared but also the profoundly dissimilar conditions, values and practices of museums in diverse and rapidly changing societies… [and] addressing the ambiguous and often contradictory trends in society, and the subsequent new conditions, obligations and possibilities for museums.”
A series of videoblogs lately published on ICOM website have featured contributions by some of the organisation’s top brass and expertise, keen on acknowledging the need for change. All blogs published so far share common concerns and opinions about this need. It is immediately clear that to define such a complex international landscape is no mean feat. Jette Sandahl comments specifically about the complexities of the 21st century and the broad challenges and visions for the future of museums. Indeed, museums covered by the ICOM umbrella are vastly different hence difficult to cover by one single definition. Instead, it makes sense, for Sandahl, to define the core and leave the boundaries much more fluid. ICOM Executive Board member María de Lourdes Monges Santos describes the proposed definition in terms of a necessary double-barrel backbone given that as also suggested by MDPP member W. Richard West Jr., the word museum has come to mean different things. West also hints at the fluidity and dynamism of the museum sector which the new double-barrel definition needs to come to terms with and suggests that its context within the ICOM Code of Ethics defines it more akin to an effort to give ethical force and sway to the museum landscape.
A synthesis of sorts has been suggested by the Museum Association of the United Kingdom, stating that the proposed definition
“… aims to retain the “unique, defining and essential unity” of museums in terms of caring for cultural heritage, while recognising the need for them to adapt their values to the challenges of the 21st century, incorporate different world views, address deep societal inequalities, and acknowledge the crises in nature.”
I think the question proposed by Kate Brown on artnews.net holds very well.
“Should museums’ core mission be preserving the world’s cultural heritage, or should they use their collections to promote human dignity, social justice, global equality, and planetary well-being?”
I think there may be an interesting possibility emerging from this controversy which I briefly summarise in two points.
1. I think that the proposed definition is more of a declared ambition than a stock-take of the current global museum landscape.
I don’t think that the double barrel definition is all encompassing to be defined as a definition proper and reactions have been very much indicative in this respect. Some museums might find it a perfect match, others may relate to parts or particular phrases but I find it very hard for all the sector to acknowledge in toto. An ex-member of the MDPP, François Mairesse expressed himself in relatively clear terms with The Artnewspaper about this matter
“A definition is a simple and precise sentence characterizing an object, and this is not a definition but a statement of fashionable values, much too complicated and partly aberrant”
I wouldn’t mind the reference to fashionable values given that there is, in any case, the need to a continuous cycle of review and discussions that needs to take place for such a complex and polyphonic sector. Might be complicated too, but am not too sure whether to call it aberrant.
2. Then why not go for a declaration of principles which would acknowledge the very same polyphonic museum landscape that the ICOM is struggling to define?
In the run-up to the proposed double-barrel definition close to 250 proposals were submitted by the various national committees that form part of ICOM. National definitions have always been the case, even beyond this extensive exercise The United Kingdom Museums Association for one has its very own definition of museum which is, in any case, a variant of the universal ICOM definition. The list of submissions has also been made public by ICOM.
It is not my intention to review the long list of submissions made public at this point in time although a quick read through suggests nuances and subtle variations that reflect the diverse culture ecologies that jointly make up the museum landscape. Why not give more weight to the national submissions and adopt, instead, a set of guiding principles, values or declared ambitions which museums should strive to embrace?
Jette Sandahl does acknowledge the difficulty of finding an all-encompassing definition, the need of an open and fluid process and for the discussion to continue.
‘You cannot define something once and for all’ claims Sandahl. That is so very true… but perhaps a bottom-up approach can keep the sector focused on the challenges ahead rather than end up mired in controverssy about something that all agree is a daunting task to define.
In Short …
I think that rather than go for a definition, ICOM should adopt a declared ambition built on values that have shaped the museum insitution historically and those that it should now aspire to. Recognising and acknowledging the definition proposed by each ICOM National Committee would promote and endorse a more democratic museum landscape, acknowledge the enormous and inherent diversities that shape the museum landscape today and empower the world museum landscape to shape its future ambitions.
The choice of pictures featured here is by Italo-Swiss photographer Christian Tagliavini. We thank him for his consent to be part of the Humanist Museum Project.
