Museology and Audience Museologia y el Público de Museos

ICOM

International Council of Museums

ICOFOM International Committee for Museology Comité international pour la museologie

Museology and Audience

Museologia y el Público de Museos

Edited by Hildegard K. Vieregg, Munich/ Germany

ICOFOM

Preprints

ICOFOM STUDY SERIES – ISS 35

International Symposium, organized by ICOFOM

Calgary, Canada June 30 – July 2, 2005

3

Preface

On the occasion of the Annual Meeting of ICOFOM 2004 in Seoul/ Corea, the ICOFOM Board decided to create a “Triennial Working-Programme (2005 – 2007) for ICOFOM. Sub-summed under the “umbrella” “Museology – A Field of Knowledge” - different topics were elaborated: “Museology and Audience” (I/ 2005), “Museology and History (II/ 2006) and “Museology and Natural Sciences” (III/ 2007). In this concern the interdisciplinary aspect – involving Audience, History as well as Natural Sciences- was intended to be developed. Besides, one of the most important ICOFOM projects – “Museum Thesaurus” – an undertaking related to definitions and terms of the Museum is going on in an excellent way – particularly promoted by the Chair of this project, Prof. André Desvallées (Honorary President of ICOFOM/ France) and by François Mairesse (Board Member of ICOFOM and Director of Musée Mariemont in Belgium). The “Transition Project” – particularly mentioned in ISS 33 final version – is under the care of the Honorary President, Prof. Dr. Vinos Sofka/ Sweden, and is at the moment particularly promoted in Siberia/Russian Federation. The Working Program 2005 – 2007 is intended to clarify different subjects: Museology and Audience (2005)

“The audience is the most important aspect of a museum. New museology emphasizes that. Yet theoretically we have not advanced very far in developing and promoting this point of view. Our knowledge is superficial about why people visit museums and downright lacking in why they do not. We know little about how people visit museums, although we are slowly acknowledging that there is more than one way and that no one way is exclusively the right way. We hear more and more about performance measures for museums but we literally do not know what to measure, so we still rely on that oh-so-blunt tool of attendance. The lack of theory is exacerbated when we add the layer of community relevance and community involvement. The 2005 ICOFOM Calgary Conference will start to address these big questions.” The theme “Museology and Audience” asks how museum visitors make sense of their museum experiences. We will examine theoretically free-choice or informal learning and behaviour. The conference will not focus on visitor studies, demographics and statistics. Rather, departing from Falk and Dierking writing in Learning from Museums, we will ask do visitors to museums learn and if so what do they learn and how do they learn? How do visitors make meaning in museums? The theme works with and departs from people, visitors and non-visitors, rather than museum. The theme may be parsed into three subthemes covering the broad theory of making meaning in the context of community and society

- Parsing audiences - Learning contexts such as personal, socio - cultural and physical audience groups

such as tourists, learning challenged, economically challenged, aboriginal, families, etc.

- Non-visitors (Ann Davis)

4

Museology and History (2006)

Museology and History is the second part of the “Trilogy”. It can be related to all periods of time and worked out related to the historic approach of all types of museums. Therefore “Museology and History” takes not only the intended ideas and scientific progress of Historical Museums into consideration. Rather all other types and matters on Museums – included the development of Museums and the status at the moment and in future, the contents and originals as well as the purpose of the Museum at all - can be analyzed in regard to the different spaces of time.

If we are considering works of performing art e.g. in an Art Museum we can ask after the historical background: What are the circumstances in which this work of art originated? How did the spirit of the times influence the artist? Are there historic events that leaded the artist to create precisely this work of art? What about the philosophical background? Not only this: Museums of each type can be examined in relation to both Museology and History. Museology and Natural Sciences (2007)

Museology and Natural Sciences is also a broad field of research. To tell anything definite I would relate to Museums and environments of Techniques, the History of Techniques, Botanical Gardens and Parks, Minerology, Palaeontology etc. The most important for Museology is to check how Natural Sciences influence and return to the theory of Museology and help to verify the interdependences between both of them.

The readers of this volume will be informed about “Museology and Audience”. The Fundamental Paper, created by François Mairesse is the basis for both the publication and the Annual Meeting. François undertook great effort not only in regard to the definitions but also to the explanations that promise the understanding of “Museum and Audience”. If you study the articles contributed by experts world-wide you will realize the variety on the way of tackling “Museology and Audience” and be astonished about the scientific perspective and creativity of ICOFOM members. Hildegard K. Vieregg, June 2005

5

Contents Preface …………………………………………………………………………………. 5 Fundamental Paper: Mairesse, François (Belgium) La Notion de Public (French)………………………………………………………. 7 Summary (English) I Museology and Audience Chung, Yun Shun Susie (USA) The Adoption of Jean Piaget’s Concepts of Child Cognitive Development to Object Awareness in South Korean Museums (English) …… 26 La Adopción de los conceptos de Jean Piaget sobre el desarrollo cognitivo del niño en relación con el conocimiento de los objetos en los museos de Corea del sur (Spanish) …………………………………………………………… 31 Summary (English) Resumen (Spanish) Davis, Ann (Canada) Assumptions, Expectations and actual Gallery Experiences (English)………. 37 Conjeturas, Expectativas y Experiencias Actuales en las Galerías (Spanish).. 41 Decarolis, Nelly (Argentina) Museología, Interpretación y Comunicación: El Público de Museos (Spanish) ………………………………………………………. 46 Museology, Interpretation and Communication: The Museum Audience (English) ……………………………………………………… 51 Desvallées, André (France) Quels musée pour quels publics? (French) ………………………………………… 55 Résumé (French) Summary (English) Devine, Heather (Canada) Towards a Critical Pedagogy for Museums (English) …………………………….. 61 Summary (English) Gorgas, Mónica – de la Cerda, Jeannette (Argentina) A Diferentes Denominaciones, Diferentes Ideologías: Pero Siempre se Trata de la Gente (Spanish) ……………………………………… 69 Harris, Jennifer (Australia) The Emerging Role of the Museum in the Era of the Collapse of Linear Communication Models of Audience Learning (English) ……………. 75 Summary (English) Resumen (Spanish) Le Marec, Joëlle (France) Confiance et maletendus: le public au risqué du musée… (French) …………… 80

6

Maranda, Lynn (Canada) Museology and audience: In Search of Applause (English) ……………………… 85 Schärer, Martin R. (Switzerland) Spectator in Expositions (English) ……………………………………………………. 89 Espectator en Expositiones (Spanish) ……………………………………………….. 92 Scheiner, Tereza C. (Brazil) Museums and Museology: On the Other Side of the Mirror (English) ………….. 97 Shah, Anita B. (India) Museums and Audience (English) …………………………………………………….. 102 Tahan, Lina Gebrail (Lebanon) Bridging the Gap between Museums and their Audiences (English) …………… 104 Vieregg, Hildegard K. (Germany) The Status of Audience between Museology and Science (English) ………………. 109 Xavier Cury, Marilia (Brazil) The Subjects of the Museum and the Public as a Subject (English) ……………. 115

II Appendix Shah, Anita (India) Analyzing Summary – Annual Meeting South Korea, Oct. 2004 (English) ……… 124 Truevtseva, Olga (Russian Federation) The Paradigm of Cosmogenesis and Eschatology in the Mythopoetical Heritage of the Siberian Peoples (2004) (English) ………………………………….. 130

III List of Authors 132

7

La Notion de Public

François Mairesse – Belgique

Cet article est la première version de la section « Public » du Thésaurus de muséologie. Il inclut l’ensemble des notions se rapportant au public des musées, : visiteurs, usagers, audience, études de publics, etc. Le projet du Thésaurus, initié par l’ICOFOM depuis une dizaine d’années, devfrait comprendre une vingtaine de sections, rassemblant l’ensemble des notions les plus importantes de la muséologie. Cette section sera bien entendu réécrite en fonction de l’ensemble des articles rassemblés et débattus lors de congrès de Calgary.

This article is the first version of the section devoted to the “public” in the Thesauerus of museology. This section includes notions such as visitors, audience, visitor surveys, etc. The “Thesaurus project” has been developed by ICOFOM (André Desvallées0 for more than ten years. It should consist of around twenty sections such as this one, in order to present the main museological themes. The section will of course be developed in function of the contributions and discussions that will be held during the symposium in Calgary. PUBLIC. Terme français (lat. : publicus). Equival. en. : public, audience ; sp. : público ; it. :publico ; ge. : publicum, øffentlichkeit. Définition : Etymologiquement, « public » vient du latin publicus qui dérive lui-même de populus : peuple ou population. L’adjectif « public » signifie que l’établissement muséal est ouvert åa tous ou qu’il appartient a tous, qu’il est au service de la société et de son développement. Ce principe le conduit à exercer son activité sous l’égide de l’État ou du moins à être (partiellement0 pris en charge par celui-ci, ce qui l’amène à respecter un certain nombre de règles dont découle son administration ainsi qu’un certain nombre de principes éthiques (voir ces termes). Comme substantif, le « public » désigne l’ensemble des utilisateurs du musée (le public des musées) mais aussi par inférence de sa destination publique, l’ensemble de la population à laquelle chaque établissement s’adresse. Dérivés : publicité, grand public, non-public. Corrélats : audience, people (les gens), le peuple, fréquentation, attendance, visiteurs, communauté, consommateurs, regardeurs, spectateurs. Présent dans presque toutes les définitions actuelles du musée, le public occupe une place centrale au sens de l’institution muséale : le musée est « une institution : […] au service de la société et de son développement, ouverte au public » (ICOM, 1974). C’est aussi une « collection […] dont la conservation et la préservation revêtent un intérêt public en vue de la connaissance, de l’éducation et du plaisir du public’ (Loi sur les musées de France, 2002), ou encore « une institution […] qui possede et utilise des objets matériels les conserve et les expose au public selon des horaiares réguliers » (American Association of Museums, Accreditation Program, 1972 ; la définition publiée en 1998 par la Museums Association a quand à elle remplacé l’adjectif « public » par le substantif « people »). La notion même de public associe étroitement l’activité du musée et ses utilisateurs, voire ceux qui sont censés en bénéficier même en ne recourant pas à ses services. Par utilisateurs, ce sont bien sûr les visiterus – le grant public – auquel on pense en premier lieux, oubliant que ceux-ci n’ont pas toujours joué le rôle central que le musée leur reconnaît actuellement. Lieu de formation artistique et territoire de la république des savants en premier lieu, le musée ne s\est ouvert à tous que progressivement, au fil de son histoire. Cette ouverture, qui a amené le personnel du muée à s’adresser de plus en plus intensément à à tous ses utilisateurs mais également à la population ne fréquentant pas les musées, a conduit à la multiplication des axes de lecture de l’ensemble de ces utilisateurs, dont rendent compte autant de nouvelles applications au fil du temps : peuple, grand

8

public, gros public, non-public, utilisateurs ou usagers, visiteurs, regardeurs, spectateurs, consommateurs, audience, etc. Le musée comme espace public L’ouverture au public, ainsi que le caractère public du musée, constituent l’un des principaux critères que retient Kristoff Pomian pour la différence de ce dernier des trésors religieux et des collections privées, tout en spécifiant que la notion du public, `l’époque des premiers musées modernes (au début du XVIIème siècle) est bien différente de celle que nous retenons aujourd’hui pour s’apparenter, selon les termes de l’Abbé Dubos, à l’ensemble des personnes « qui ont acquis des lumières, soit par la lecture soit par le commerce du monde. Elles sont les seules qui puissent marquer le rang des poèmes et des tableaux, quoiqu’il se rencontre dans les ouvrages excellents des beautés capables de se faire sentir au peuple du plus bas étage »1. Le caractère public de l’institution muséale, au sens de sa gestion par l’État, doit sa fortune à la pérennité que celui-ci est à même de garantir, offrant à toute collection, léguée aux pouvoirs publics, l’assurance d’une certaine durée. Les premiers gestes fondant la notion de patrimoine, la restitution en 1471 des antiquités du Latran par le pape Sixte IV, le legs en 1525 des antiques du cardinal Grimani à la République de Venise, ainsi que le legs des collections de livres et de tableaux de l’Abbé Boisot, en 1694, aux bénédictins du couvent de Saint Vincent et à la ville de Besançon, s’inscrivent dans la perspective de l’ouverture au public, du moins aux amateurs, mais aussi – et peut-être surtout – dans l’espoir que l’ensemble formé ne sera ainsi pas dispersé. Certes, la puissance de l’Église autant que celle des grandes familles italiennes semblent à elles seules garantir une réelle continuité du patrimoine, encore celui-ci reste-t-il soumis aux vicissitudes de la fortune ou des goûts de leurs héritiers et successeurs, le musée personnel de Jules II au Belvédère, ouvert aux artistes, est ainsi fermé par son successeur Pie V. Le cas de l’Abbé Boisot, dont le legs forme ce que l’on a parfois appelé le premier « musée de France » est plus clair, car c’est bien dans le souci d’assurer à son terroir natal, par l’intermédiaire du couvent de Saint Vincent et de la ville de Besançon, la conservation d’une partie de la bibliothèque du Cardinal Granvelle qui avait été dispersée à sa mort et dont il avait racheté une partie des ouvrages. Le testament de Boisot signale clairement son intention d’ouverture « deux fois la semaine à tous ceux qui voudront y entrer » et son intention de voir « les dits livres et médailles aussi bien que les bustes et peintures […] conservés pour toujours », tout en recommandant, « pour l’avantage des gens doctes », qu’un inventaire soit dressé et qu’une copie en soit remise aux magistrats de la ville de Besançon2. Il n’en reste pas moins que la plupart des établissements qui existent, à cette époque (soit au plus une trentaine) sont essentiellement destinés à un public restreint. Jusqu’à la fin du XVIIIe siècle, le public des musées se résume essentiellement aux connaisseurs, aux savants, aux amateurs et aux artistes, à qui la plupart des établissements, qu’ils soient privés ou publics, semblent généralement ouvrir aisément leurs portes. L’entrée au musée est considérée comme un privilège, pour reprendre la formule de Kenneth Hudson3, ce qui se comprend aisément pour les collections privées mais s’observe également au sein des premières collections publiques. Ainsi, si le décret de 1753 fondant le British Museum signale que « toutes les personnes studieuses et curieuses y auraient libre accès », l’entrée demeure interdite aux enfants et nécessite, pour les visites du public, une procédure longue et complexe, ne laissant entrer qu’un nombre très peu élevé de visiteurs, étroitement surveillés et invités à quitter les lieux au plus vite. La question d’une plus grande ouverture au public semble alors hors de propos, les risques qu’entraîneraient la venue des masses au sein de l’établissement semblent trop considérables pour le bénéfice moral que celles-ci pourraient en retirer : « Si les gens ordinaires prennent goût à cette liberté […] il sera très difficile par la suite de les en priver ; il est donc bien

1 POMIAN K., De la collection particulière au musée de l’art, in The Genesis of the Art Museum in the 18th Century, Stockholm, National Museum, 1993, p. 9. 2 1694-1994 Trois siècles de patrimoine public – bibliothèques et musées de Besançon (catalogue d’exposition, 15 octobre 1994-30 janvier 1995), Besançon, Musée des Beaux-Arts, 1994, p. 16. 3 HUDSON K., A social History of Museums, London, Macmillan, 1975.

9

préférable de ne pas les admettre du tout et de n’admettre que ceux qui, selon toute probabilité, se conformeront aux règles et ordres qui pourraient être édictés à cet effet »4. Cette situation n’est cependant pas identique dans tous les musées. Ainsi, certains établissements sont-ils amenés, essentiellement pour des raisons financières, à ouvrir plus largement leurs portes au public. Le traitement du responsable de l’Ashmolean Museum, depuis sa fondation, semble dépendre des droits d’entrée payés par les visiteurs, ce qui amène à moins de sévérité dans la sélection des visiteurs, ainsi, un visiteur étranger, Conrad von Uffenbach, signale en 1710 sa surprise de voir que « les gens touchent à tout sans ménagement, à la manière des Anglais », et que « même les femmes sont admises pour 6 pences : elles se précipitent ici et là, mettent la main à tout, et ne s’attirent aucune remarque du sous-garde »5. Si l’Ashmolean Museum est rattaché à l’Université d’Oxford, d’autres musées sont fondés comme de véritables entreprises commerciales dont l’ouverture au public apparaît, elle aussi, comme nettement plus marquée que celle de leurs collègues reliés aux pouvoirs publics. Aux États-Unis, l’entreprise de Charles Wilson Peale, ouverte à Baltimore à partir de 1786 prospère à tel point que plusieurs succursales sont lancées par ses fils, dont la plus importante s’établit à Philadelphie. A Londres, l’établissement fondé par Sir John Ashton Lever, en 1773, fonctionne selon les mêmes principes, ce qui n’empêche pas ce dernier de s’inquiéter de la composition de son public et de tenter d’en restreindre l’accès: « le public est informé que, étant las de l’insolence des gens ordinaires que j’ai admis jusqu’à présent à visiter mon musée, je suis arrivé à la décision d’en refuser l’accès aux basses classes, sauf si elles viennent munies d’un billet émanant d’un Monsieur ou d’une Dame de ma connaissance »6. L’information laisse percevoir, à l’époque, une réelle ouverture de certains musées à l’ensemble des publics, en ce compris les classes les moins éduquées. Ces précurseurs du Musée Barnum (qui rachète une partie des collections de Peale, une fois la faillite de son musée déclarée) constituent aussi les ancêtres directs des dime museums ou musées de foire, expositions de sauvages, de monstres vivants ou de cires anatomiques, lointains héritiers de la part maudite des cabinets de curiosité. Ces attractions parfois itinérantes (tel le Musée Spitzner) payantes et lucratives s’adressent à un public essentiellement populaire. Dès cette époque donc, l’institution muséale s’ouvre largement à tous les publics, même si les établissements qui les accueillent ne peuvent se concevoir comme appartenant au même univers. Les différences de classes restent très marquées, de même que la séparation des lieux dans lesquelles celles-ci évoluent. Les idéaux égalitaires de la Révolution française vont, pour un temps, tenter de faire voler en éclat ces différences. Des musées et des publics L’ouverture du Louvre, en 1793, semble amener un changement radical de la conception du public des musées. La date du premier anniversaire de la suspension du Roi a été choisie pour faire entrer le public au sein de son ancien palais. Le patrimoine auquel le Muséum central des Arts rend hommage appartient à la nation, soit qu’il ait été acquis par elle, soit par ses anciens tyrans, soit par les conquêtes de ses soldats. Il est donc l’œuvre de tous les citoyens, « libres et égaux » en droit, donc libres de visiter les musées. « La différence essentielle d’avec les collections de l’Ancien Régime porte moins en vérité sur le principe même de l’ouverture aux curieux que sur les modalités réelles de sa visite, qui rompent avec le caractère collectif et rapide du parcours traditionnel dans la demeure aristocratique, l’exhibition des trésors du propriétaire par un cicérone à sa solde»7. La véritable « révolution » du musée démocratique, selon Poulot, serait celle de « l’autonomie du visiteur, et son corollaire, une éthique de la visite personnelle »8.

4 John Ward, conservateur du British Museum, cité par MAC GREGOR A., Les Lumières et la curiosité. Utilité et divertissement dans les musées de Grande-Bretagne à la fin du XVIIIe siècle, in POMMIER E. (Ed), Les musées en Europe à la veille de la Révolution, Paris, Klincksieck et Musée du Louvre, 1995, p. 498. 5 Cité par SCHAER R., L'invention des musées, Paris, Gallimard, 1993, p. 34. 6 MAC GREGOR A., Op. cit., p. 504. 7 POULOT D., L’invention du musée en France et ses justifications dans la littérature artistique, in POMMIER E. (ss. la dir.), Les musées en Europe à la veille de l'ouverture du Louvre. Actes du colloque, 3-5 juin 1993, Paris, Klincksiek, 1995, p. 84. 8 Ibid., p.85. C’est au moins le cas pour les grandes collections d’art. Mais il est à mon sens fort probable que, dans les plus petites collections et dans certains cabinets de sciences naturelles, notamment l’Ashmolean d’Oxford, la visite était laissée autonome.

10

L’ouverture du Louvre marque, pour un temps, l’entrée des masses laborieuses au musée dont on peut apprécier l’ampleur du phénomène à travers les récits de ses visiteurs. « Les jours où le public est admis, on peut y voir des personnes appartenant à toutes les classes, dont le mélange n’est pas sans intérêt. Le rude plébéien brûlé par le soleil, que les événements politiques ont pendant longtemps rendu étranger aux nobles sentiments que la religion et l’humanité inspirent, s’attendrit, les bras croisés, devant les efforts et les souffrances des hommes menacés du déluge, ou ressent une émotion religieuse devant le Sauveur crucifié »9. Peut-être est-ce véritablement à cette occasion, dans des conditions qu’il est difficile d’apprécier à notre époque, que le musée devient véritablement « espace public », lieu de promenade et de rendez-vous. Mais cette situation entraîne inévitablement une réaction de régulation de la part des autorités chargées du maintien de l’ordre. Les deux classes sociales qui avaient le moins de chance de fréquenter les musées prérévolutionnaires étaient les classes laborieuses et la bourgeoisie. Très vite, cette dernière entend régenter l’entrée des premières. Jusqu’au XVIIIe siècle, le musée est essentiellement dépendant du pouvoir religieux et aristocratique, non seulement depuis son invention – le Mouseion – mais aussi lors de l’ouverture des grandes collections d’Allemagne ou d’Italie. La Révolution Française, amenant avec elle un courant de réformes qui se dissémine dans l’Europe toute entière, ouvre la voie à la fin de la prééminence de la noblesse et du clergé. La mort effective du Roi et celle proclamée, de Dieu, ouvrent des perspectives dans lesquelles le musée semble appelé à jouer un rôle de remplacement. Il va devenir progressivement palais et temple, porteur de sens, exposition de valeurs. Son architecture est entièrement imprégnée par les deux références à la Couronne et à l’Église, tels les Musées d’Oxford, le Rijksmuseum d’Amsterdam ou le Natural History Museum de Londres, cathédrales à la gloire de la Nation ou de la Science. Mais de telles infrastructures sont amenées à s’ouvrir, au même titre que l’Église, à l’ensemble des composantes sociales de la Nation afin de les amener à communier dans la même foi, et cette ouverture n’est pas sans poser de nouveaux problèmes. Les propos mentionnés plus haut d’un des conservateurs du British Museum illustrent l’effroi du personnel des musées par rapport aux masses laborieuses : leur entrée dans le temple sera dès lors étroitement surveillée, l’architecture des édifices l’illustre, par ses galeries et postes d’observations ou de surveillance mutuelle, rappelant les familistères, les grands magasins, les parcs publics et d’expositions10. Le phénomène de surveillance au sein du musée ne représente que l’aspect pratique d’un programme plus vaste, centré sur une certaine religion du beau et du vrai. Ainsi, pour Ruskin, la première fonction du musée consiste à « donner l’exemple d’un ordre et d’une élégance parfaite, dans le vrai sens du terme, au peuple qui vit dans le désordre et ignore le raffinement »11. Le peuple est ainsi convié dans ces institutions pour sa propre édification, dans l’espoir de le voir s’attacher aux œuvres de Raphaël plutôt qu’aux pompes de stout ou de guinness. C’est dans cette même perspective et non pour des raisons de profit, de manière à assurer au public une journée aussi agréable que profitable, que les premiers restaurants sont installés au sein des musées, notamment au Victoria & Albert Museum peu de temps après son ouverture. L’ouverture au public, dans les grands musées, n’en demeure pas moins encore relativement restreinte et, pratiquement dès l’ouverture, une séparation nette est effectuée entre les véritables utilisateurs du musée d’une part – les savants et les artistes – et le reste du public de l’autre. L’ouverture du Louvre (comme celle de la plupart des musées d’art) n’est effective, pour tous les publics, que deux jours par semaine, les autres jours étant réservés aux artistes et aux étrangers. Le Muséum central des Arts, ainsi que l’ensemble des dépôts d’œuvres disséminés en France et reliés aux Ecoles centrales (voire gérés par celles-ci) puis aux Académies, présentent clairement l’image d’une institution liée à l’enseignement des arts. Une certaine quiétude y est exigée, à l’instar des bibliothèques, afin de respecter le travail studieux des copistes ; l’entrée du public, dans ces établissements dont on a parfois tendance à oublier les forêts de chevalets qui encombraient les galeries, peut constituer une gêne réelle pour la concentration des artistes. La question de l’instauration d’un droit d’entrée – abordée tout au long du XIXe siècle – est révélatrice des conceptions de l’institution muséale face à ses publics. Le droit d’entrée, lorsqu’il est appliqué certains jours de la semaine (par exemple dans plusieurs musées nationaux britanniques) est essentiellement destiné à préserver la tranquillité des utilisateurs réels du musée, soit les artistes et les savants. Mais lorsque l’on souhaite généraliser l’entrée payante à la presque totalité des jours du musée (nombreux sont 9 Sir John Carr, 1803, cité par GALARD J., Visiteurs du Louvre - Un florilège, Paris, Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1993, p. 32. 10 BENNET T., The Birth of the Museum, London, Routledge, 1995. 11 EVANS J. (Ed. by), The Lamps of Beauty - Writings on Art by John Ruskin, Oxford, Phaidon, 1959, p. 323.

11

ceux qui souhaitent le voir appliqué en France, dont les musées sont pour la plupart gratuits durant tout le XIXe siècle), c’est notamment pour en chasser les vagabonds et les indigents, sensés utiliser les musées comme chauffoirs publics, de même que pour faire payer les touristes visitant sans bourse délier les trésors rassemblés et entretenus par l’État12. Durant les périodes d’entrée libre, les gardiens chargés de vérifier les entrées semblent avoir utilisé, à certaines époques, les mêmes règles discriminatoires (basées sur le code vestimentaire) pour refouler les visiteurs que celles encore en vigueur dans nombre de cercles privés. Assez rapidement, il apparaît que ces premières cathédrales ne semblent pas à même de communiquer à tous, de manière optimale, le culte de l’art et celui de la science. Les habitants trop éloignés de la métropole se plaignent que ce sont seulement les plus riches qui sont capables de se déplacer pour admirer les trésors des musées centraux. Le développement du culte passe ainsi par la dissémination des musées sur l’ensemble du territoire. La constitution en 1801 de 15 musées de province, en France, par le préfet Chaptal, participe de cette première volonté de décentralisation de l’éducation au musée et institutionnalise les déjà nombreuses initiatives se développant un peu partout dans les provinces. Décentralisation d’une part, spécialisation de l’autre : la nouvelle considération pour la diversité des visiteurs engendre une multiplication des musées en fonction des besoins du public. Ainsi, un certain nombre d’institutions nouvelles sont crées, destinées à des catégories spécifiques de la population. Le XIXe siècle est sans aucun doute celui qui a, de la manière la plus large, créé des types de musées en fonction de catégories de publics : pour les prolétaires et les plus humbles, pour les enfants, pour les ouvriers, pour les commerçants. Est-ce pour mieux éloigner le peuple des grandes institutions ou pour lui donner les connaissances nécessaires afin de l’amener à les apprécier, que plusieurs projets de musées destinés spécifiquement aux masses sont développés dans la seconde moitié du XIXe siècle ? Le concept de « Musée Populaire », imaginé dès les années 1860 par le futur bourgmestre de Bruxelles, le libéral Charles Buls, a pour mission explicite d’éveiller le désir d’apprendre, de mettre à la portée de tous les moyens d’acquérir facilement les sciences, répandre des idées claires et précises dans tous les domaines des connaissances humaines : « Le laboureur qui traversera les galeries du musée ne peut manquer d’en sortir pénétré d’un certain respect pour la masse des connaissances possédées par les savants; mais ce seront moins les objets eux-mêmes qui devront le frapper que l’ordre et la science apportés à leur classification, à leur groupement »13. En France, c’est l’institution des musées cantonaux, fondée par Edmond Groult, qui entend relever le défi du musée à destination des classes populaires. « Les Musées cantonaux, comme leur nom l’indique, s’adressent principalement aux populations laborieuses et honnêtes de nos campagnes, trop négligées jusqu’à ce jour. […] Ils sont, dans chaque canton, le résumé plus ou moins complet des connaissances pratiques indispensables dans le siècle où nous sommes14 ». On trouve, dans ces établissements dont le local a souvent été mis à disposition par la municipalité, des renseignements sur l’anthropologie, l’hygiène, l’agriculture, les industries, l’histoire, la géographie ou l’histoire naturelle du pays. On y remarque les reproductions des monuments du canton, des notices biographiques sur tous les hommes illustres de l’arrondissement ; le tableau d’honneur des soldats et marins du canton morts pour la Patrie. Le premier musée cantonal est ainsi inauguré à Lisieux en 1876. L’idée se répand en France, tandis que des initiatives similaires se propagent en Suisse, en Belgique, en Russie, aux États-Unis ou en Angleterre (on parle alors d’educational museums, ceux-ci étant destinés à diffuser une formation de base dans toutes les villes et villages15). Si, la plupart du temps, les organisateurs de ces musées proviennent essentiellement des élites locales, ce sont parfois d’humbles représentants de ces « populations laborieuses et honnêtes » qui, eux-mêmes, s’emploient à créer de tels établissements, notamment à Batz, en Loire inférieure, où un musée est créé en 1878 par un cordonnier illettré16.

12 MAIRESSE F., Le droit d’entrer au musée, Bruxelles, Labor, 2005. 13 BULS C., Un projet de musée populaire, in Revue de Belgique, 6, t. XVII, 1874, p.47. Ce projet ne verra jamais le jour. 14 GROULT E., Institution des musées cantonaux. Lettres à Messieurs les délégués des sociétés savantes à la Sorbonne, Paris : Impr. Motteroz, 1877, p. 4 15 HUTCHINSON J., On educational Museums, in Museums Association, Report of Proceedings with the papers read at the fourth annual general meeting held in London, July 3 to 7 1893, York and Sheffield, Publ. By the Association, 1893, p. 49-63. 16 GROULT E., Propagande patriotique cantonale, La France des musées cantonaux en 1904, Caen : Impr. Valin, 1904, p. 15.

12

Des impératifs similaires entendent fournir au peuple l’instruction nécessaire pour développer de nouvelles habitudes face à certains fléaux sociaux tels les épidémies, se propageant par l’ignorance et le manque d’hygiène. Si certains dime museums de foire insistent, cires anatomiques à l’appui, sur les fléaux causés par les maladies vénériennes, plusieurs établissements de santé créent de véritables musées d’hygiènes destinés à sensibiliser les populations « à risques » des dégâts provoqués par de mauvaises conditions de vie, ainsi que les moyens de les éviter. Les couches sociales les plus basses ne sont pas délaissées par l’institution muséale, mais ce sont cependant surtout les classes laborieuses, ouvrières, qui sont visées par celle-ci. Le développement de l’économie constitue, dès la fin du XVIIIe siècle, un leitmotiv participant à la création de nombreuses collections publiques. Le Conservatoire national des Arts et Métiers est destiné au développement de l’industrie, et donc à la familiarisation des ouvriers ou des apprentis (une école lui est adjointe) avec les inventions et les perfectionnements de l’industrie. De même, la plupart des musées industriels ou musée d’art décoratifs et d’industrie sont créés non seulement pour les antiquaires, mais aussi – et peut-être plus encore – pour les ouvriers d’arts, afin que ceux-ci puissent y puiser leurs sources d’inspiration pour la création de nouveaux modèles. « Le Musée national a pour but de faciliter aux savants l’étude des arts et de l’histoire, de procurer aux artistes et aux ouvriers d’art des idées et des types pour leurs créations. Par le moyen du dessin, esquisses et moulages, il donne la possibilité de s’instruire et de donner des leçons dans les ateliers d’art et d’industrie », stipule le Musée national bavarois de Munich, en 188017. Autres publics, autres musées : celui des commerçants et des exportateurs pour lesquels l’institution des musées commerciaux se développe entre la fin du XIXe siècle et la Première Guerre Mondiale : « Le Musée a pour but de renseigner nos manufacturiers et nos négociants sur la marche des affaires dans les pays étrangers, et de leur faciliter en même temps les transactions commerciales avec les consommateurs et les producteurs de ces contrées »18, décrète le Musée commercial de Bruxelles, fondé en 1881 et considéré comme l’un des meilleurs de sa catégorie. Autre catégorie pour laquelle des établissements spéciaux sont créés : les enfants et surtout les écoliers, lesquels ne sont pas toujours les bienvenus dans les grands musées – le British Museum, par exemple, leur interdit l’accès pendant les premières décennies de son activité. Durant la plus grande partie du XIXe siècle, l’éducation, au musée, est destinée à des catégories spécifiques (les artistes, artisans, les adultes suivant des cours au Muséum, etc.) et non à l’enseignement scolaire. L’utilisation des musées par la jeunesse ou le grand public en général, pour des motifs éducatifs, est cependant déjà soulignée dès 1853 par Edward Forbes, lequel remarque que si de nombreux établissements sont affectés à l’éducation professionnelle, la plupart ne sont pas destinés au grand public (general public) et surtout pas aux enfants, qui pourraient pourtant s’y former de manière efficace par l’étude des objets19. Les propos sont repris avec plus d’insistance par William Flower, précisant qu’outre les savants et les étudiants les plus avancés, il est un autre public auquel le musée se doit de s’adresser, soit une partie de plus en plus importante de la population qui, « sans avoir le temps, l’opportunité ou la possibilité de faire une étude en profondeur de l’un ou l’autre des domaines de la science, s’intéresse cependant à ses progrès et souhaite posséder quelques connaissances du monde qui l’entoure et des principaux faits qui lui sont associé […]20.» Les musées se tournent ainsi, progressivement, vers un public plus large et moins socialement ou professionnellement structuré, amenant une réflexion plus importante sur le rôle de l’éducation au sein du musée (voir ce terme). Les premiers services pédagogiques pour le grand public sont mis au point dans les musées à partir de la fin du XIXe siècle21, un certain nombre d’institutions particulières ou, plus précisément de collections 17 VACHON M., Rapport à M. Edmond Turquet, sous-secrétaire d’État, sur les musées et les écoles d’art industriel et sur la situation des industries artistiques en Allemagne, Autriche-Hongrie, Italie et Russie, Paris, Typographie de A. Quantin, 1885, p. 90. 18 MUSEE COMMERCIAL (Royaume de Belgique), Le Musée commercial – son but et son organisation, Bruxelles, Weissenbruch, 1882, p. 3. 19 Forbes E., cité par GREENWOOD T., Museums and Art Galleries, London, Simpkin, Marshall and Co, 1888, p. 30-31. 20 FLOWER W., Essays on Museums and Other Subjects Connected with Natural History, 1888, reprint, New York, Books for Libraries Press, 1972, p. 14. 21 Il est difficile de signaler une date précise pour délimiter ce phénomène. Des visites guidées sont organisées depuis longtemps dans de nombreux musées, soit en partenariat avec des écoles (les visites sont données par les professeurs), soit par les conservateurs eux-mêmes. Voir TUBBS Mrs, The Relation of Museums to Elementary Education, in Museums Association, Report of Proceedings with the Papers read at the Eight Annual general Meeting held in Oxford, July 6 to 9, London, Dulau, 1897, p. 69-73, ainsi que LOW T.L., The Educational Philosophy and Practice of Art Museums in the United States, New York, Columbia University, 1948, qui donne le

13

spécifiques sont créées, au sein des établissements scolaires ou universitaires eux-mêmes, dans une optique résolument pédagogique. Les liens entre le musée et l’université sont anciens, l’Ashmolean Museum en témoigne ; ceux entre l’institution muséale et l’école se construisent essentiellement durant la seconde moitié du XIXe siècle, pour se généraliser à la fin de celui-ci (bien que certains cabinets de curiosité aient existé dans des écoles tenues notamment par des congrégations religieuses, comme à Halle ou à Bruxelles). L’institution des musées scolaires, a priori pratiquement inexistante en 1850, devient ainsi un lieu commun un demi-siècle plus tard. Le concept des « leçons de choses », pédagogie fondée sur l’observation des objets, déjà envisagée par Thomas d’Aquin ou Francis Bacon, devient l’un des piliers de l’enseignement jusqu’à la Première Guerre Mondiale, un peu partout dans le monde. Le système scolaire initié par Jules Ferry, en France, systématise ce type d’enseignement : lors de l’Exposition universelle de 1878, 148 établissements méritent le titre de musée scolaires ; en 1889, ce nombre est de 13.034 ! Ces musées, situés à l’intérieur des bâtiments scolaires, sont uniquement destinés aux enfants – essentiellement ceux de l’enseignement primaire – et ne sont pas destinés à être visités par d’autres publics. De manière relativement similaire, quelques musées destinés prioritairement aux enfants, tels le Children’s Museum de Brooklyn, ouvert en 1899 ou celui de Boston dont l’activité débute en 191322. Le monde des musées, à la fin du XIXe siècle, présente ainsi une sectorisation souvent très poussée, sans doute à l’image des clivages entre les classes sociales persistant en Europe. Ainsi, le directeur du Musée d’histoire naturelle de Belgique, en 1914, stipule encore que « les explications [du musée] doivent être adaptées à un type unique de visiteurs. [...] Il est clair que ce ne peut être la catégorie la plus nombreuse de la population : celle du citoyen, de tout rang social, dont l’instruction ne dépasse pas le degré des études élémentaires. Car le Musée, instrument de recherche et de centralisation scientifique, ne peut descendre à ce niveau enfantin de la connaissance sans compromettre l’accomplissement de sa fonction et sans sacrifier les besoins, plus élevés, de la Science et des catégories de citoyens mieux partagées au point de vue de la culture générale. [...] Il s’adresse donc au visiteur lettré, d’une culture intellectuelle supérieure, mais non spécialisé en science, et il s’efforce de répondre aux besoins de renseignement de cette importante catégorie de citoyens »23. De tels propos justifient la constitution de nouveaux types d’établissements destinés spécifiquement aux catégories de la population non prises en charge (même si elles y sont parfois tolérées) par les grands musées : musées cantonaux, populaires, scolaires, etc. Il est vrai qu’à cette époque, le suffrage universel est loin d’être généralisé, le suffrage censitaire prévalant encore dans la plupart des pays, les musées semblent refléter, de manière assez cohérente, la conception que seule, une partie du peuple a le droit de diriger les affaires du monde et, dès lors, de bénéficier des institutions conçues spécifiquement pour ses propres besoins. Cette conception d’une séparation des publics n’est cependant pas partagée par tous les musées de manière identique. La plupart des établissements américains témoignent d’une ouverture nettement plus grande vers l’ensemble de leurs citoyens : « ils prétendent faire du Musée une institution véritablement démocratique qui, comme l’Église, la Maison du peuple ou l’École, soit un des foyers où se concentre et s’épure la vie de la cité. [...] C’est ce souci constant de l’éducation populaire qui constitue la principale originalité des Musées américains »24, signale Louis Réau dès 1909. Cet intérêt pour le public s’explique peut-être autant en fonction de principes pédagogiques que pour des raisons pratiques : les musées ne seront valablement financés, tant par l’État que par les mécènes, que s’ils prouvent leur utilité à la communauté dans laquelle ils sont implantés. C’est essentiellement aux États-Unis que se développe le principe du lien entre un musée et la communauté qu’il dessert (voir ce terme), celle-ci ne constituant pas pour autant l’ensemble de la population. Si, en Europe, quelques voix s’élèvent pour demander que les musées

Musée de Boston comme premier musée (d’art) aux États-Unis à avoir instauré un service pédagogique, en 1907 (p. 54-57). 22 Les premiers « children’s clubs » ou « clubs de jeunes » liés au musée sont fondés, aux États-Unis, durant le premier quart du XXe siècle (il s’agit de la Charleston Natural Historical Society, Junior Branch, Charleston ; les clubs suivants sont fondés à Toledo, Brooklyn, Worcester, Boston). Voir WATERMAN MAGOON E., Children’s clubs in connection with museums, in Museum Work, 2, Nov. 1918, p. 49-55. 23 GILSON G., Le musée d'histoire naturelle moderne - Sa mission, son organisation, ses droits, Bruxelles, Hayez, 1914, p.84-85. 24 REAU L., L’organisation des musées - Les musées américains, in Revue de synthèse historique, 1909, t. 19, p.158-159.

14

s’occupent non seulement de leurs usagers habituels, mais aussi de « l’homme de la rue », les réactions générales s’avèrent plutôt hostile à l’égard de ce dernier25. La Première Guerre mondiale marque la fin de la plupart de ces découpages mais aussi celle de nombre d’institutions qui, progressivement, disparaissent du fait de leur inadaptation aux bouleversements initiés dès les débuts du XXe siècle. Les révolutions artistiques secouent le système académique et le rôle joué par la copie des maîtres dans la formation des peintres, les grands musées d’art voient ainsi disparaître une partie de leur public le plus assidu, tandis que l’industrie, poussée par la nouveauté, ne cherche plus avec autant de ferveur ses modèles dans la tradition, amenant une remise en cause radicale du rôle de la plupart des musées d’art décoratifs et industriels. Les modes d’enseignement fluctuent elles aussi, la presque totalité des musées scolaires sont remisés dans les combles, avant de disparaître définitivement ; la plupart des musées commerciaux ferment leurs portes, cédant leur place à d’autres institutions mieux outillées pour aider les exportateurs. Les grands musées, malgré l’abandon d’une partie de leurs publics spécifiques, ne sont pas pour autant prêts de disparaître. L’entre-deux-guerres marque en effet une double révolution qui influe sensiblement sur le rapport du musée avec son public. D’une part, le suffrage universel se propage de manière importante, résultante d’une conception sensiblement plus vaste du public aidée en cela par la diffusion des conceptions américaines du musée en faveur de la plus grande ouverture ; d’autre part, le développement des congés payés marque le début d’un tourisme de masse, influençant sensiblement la fréquentation des musées. Bien que le terme ait été utilisé par Forbes dès la moitié du XIXe siècle, ce n’est qu’à partir de cette époque qu’est véritablement pris en compte de ce que l’on appelle alors le gros public26, les masses, puis le grand public, à savoir « la masse des gens dont les goûts et les idées ne sont pas très précis, qui manque généralement de culture et de finesse d’esprit », selon les Trésors de la langue française. Ce public ne constitue cependant pas une masse informe, la plupart des conservateurs savent qu’il se répartit en un certain nombre de catégories, chacune fréquentant l’établissement pour des raisons spécifiques. Murray, au début du siècle, distingue les étudiants, qui viennent pour un but spécifique et pour obtenir certaines informations, les débutants cherchant à reconnaître ce qu’ils ont appris dans les livres, le plus grand nombre n’ayant pas de but précis, mais tous cherchant à savoir quels sont les objets qu’ils regardent27. Au début des années 1920, les conservateurs du Muséum du Havre différencient « la foule de visiteurs ordinaires ; l’enfant dont il faut éveiller l’esprit d’observation ; l’enfant curieux par lui-même des choses de l’histoire naturelle ; l’étudiant ; l’homme de science28 », chacune de ces catégories attendant un service spécifique de la part du musée. Ces catégories n’en demeurent pas moins fondées sur la seule expérience des conservateurs, l’analyse du public ne repose que sur un fond d’appréciations sommaires émanant des conservateurs et non sur une étude systématique partant des visiteurs eux-mêmes. Le visiteur comme objet d’étude L’intérêt croissant pour des catégories de publics de plus en plus large va de pair avec le désir de mieux le connaître. Des études de plus en plus précises sont ainsi progressivement mises en place afin de mieux comprendre le comportement du visiteur au sein du musée, les raisons de sa visite, et surtout pour tenter de saisir le bagage intellectuel qu’il en retire, ou plus prosaïquement de tenter de mesurer l’aspect éducatif du musée.

25 MANTON J.A., A rambling dissertation on museums by a museum rambler, in Museums Association, Report of Proceedings with the Papers Read at the Eleventh Annual General Meeting, Held in Canterbury, July 9 to 12, 1900, London, Dulau and Co, 1900, p. 65-80. 26 « le public était gênant et, peu à peu, le conservateur, sans s’en rendre compte, a cherché à le déshabituer de ses visites au muséum. Le muséum est devenu scientifique, il est devenu une nécropole d’échantillons n’intéressant plus le gros public » LOIR A., LEGANGNEUX H., Précis de Muséologie pratique, Le Havre, Muséum d’histoire naturelle, s.d. (1922 ?), p. 4. 27 MURRAY (D.). 1904. Museums, Their History and Their Use, Glasgow : James Mac Lehose and Sons, 3 vol. Reprint, Staten Island : Pober Publishing, 2000, vol. 1, p. 262. 28 LOIR A., LEGANGNEUX H., Op. Cit., p. 25.

15

Bien qu’il existe un certain nombre d’expériences antérieures à cette époque29, il n’est pas étonnant de remarquer que l’étude du public ait été essentiellement initiée aux États-Unis. L’une des premières analyses qui rencontre un certain retentissement n’est cependant pas liée à l’éducation. L’article de Benjamin Gilman sur la « fatigue des musées » montre, photographies à l’appui, les difficultés ressenties par un visiteur pour examiner des œuvres d’art30. Le Secrétaire du Museum of Fine Arts de Boston, farouche adversaire des « musées-écoles » et partisan d’une approche essentiellement esthétique du musée, souligne ainsi qu’il ne se désintéresse pas pour autant du public. Selon Daifuku, c’est en 1924, au cours de la réunion annuelle de l’American Association of Museums, que le développement des études du public dans les musées prend son véritable essor. « Clark Wissler déclara que, faute de données vérifiées, on ne pouvait affirmer que les expositions et les programmes organisés par les musées à l’intention du visiteur moyen étaient satisfaisants. Il ajouta qu’à son avis, les conservateurs n’étaient pas qualifiés pour étudier de façon scientifique le « visiteur du musée » »31. Suite à ces déclarations, l’association engage un psychologue de l’Université de Yale, Edward S. Robinson, afin de prouver l’utilité du travail muséal. Les travaux de Robinson comme ceux de son assistant Melton, menés dans plusieurs grandes institutions américaines, débouchent sur la publication des premières études sur les visiteurs32. Celles-ci sont fondées sur la tradition des psychologues behavioristes, courant dominant à l’époque. Ce n’est pas tant l’aspect éducatif que le comportement des visiteurs dans l’exposition qui est étudié, sans que ceux-ci soient pour autant interrogés. Et pour cause, si l’aspect éducatif est fortement revendiqué par les musées, il n’est pas encore présent – de manière durable, par la création de services éducatifs – dans la plupart de ceux-ci33. Car s’il existe quelques analyses sur la validité ou l’efficacité des programmes éducatifs34, le contenu de la plupart des premières études se rapproche de celui de l’article de Gilman et porte sur les méthodes de disposition des objets ou l’ordre de parcours des salles, afin d’améliorer les conditions de visites. Différentes expériences muséographiques sont proposées au public/cobaye dont le temps d’arrêt devant les objets est chronométré. Les chercheurs parviennent ainsi à déterminer le temps d’arrêt maximum en fonction du nombre d’œuvres et de leur disposition, de l’existence ou non de cartels, d’un livret commentant les oeuvres, etc. Ces enquêtes illustrent une première prise de position des musées sinon en faveur de leurs visiteurs, du moins une certaine étude de leur comportement. C’est à cette même époque qu’apparaissent les premiers résultats d’enquêtes statistiques décrivant les caractéristiques socioprofessionnelles du public des musées. Les visées de ces statistiques, sont aussi très différentes. Il ne convient plus de démontrer que le musée est fréquenté par un public nombreux, mais « que les collections sont à la portée de tous » 35, c’est-à-dire, aussi bien des hommes d’affaires que des ouvriers ou des fermiers. Les statistiques permettent en outre de révéler la provenance du public, les moyens de locomotion utilisés, les raisons pour lesquelles les visiteurs sont venus et ce qu’ils ont préféré durant leur visite. C’est seulement au sortir de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale que le rôle pédagogique des musées, mis en exergue par l’ICOM, connaît son véritable essor. Les succès éducatifs obtenus dans les musées des anciens pays totalitaires (Italie, Allemagne) ou du bloc soviétique, dont l’américaine Wittlin36 souligne les performances, constituent peut-être le facteur le plus stimulant du rôle d’éducation démocratique auquel les musées souhaitent participer. Au discours pédagogique classique, partant des œuvres d’art ou des objets de musée, vient s’adjoindre une nouvelle vision du musée comme

29 Entre autres l’étude de FECHNER G.T., Vorschule der Aesthetic, Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1897, que Daifuku cite comme premier exemple d’étude sur les visiteurs (DAIFUKU H. Le musée et les visiteurs, in UNESCO, Administration des musées, conseils pratiques, Paris, Unesco, 1959, p. 79-86). 30GILMAN B.I., Museum fatigue, in The Scientific Monthly, 12, 1916, p. 62-74. 31 DAIKUFU H., op.cit., p. 80. 32ROBINSON E.S., The Behavior of the Museum Visitor. Washington D.C., American Association of Museums. New Series, 5, 1928; ROBINSON E.S., Exit the typical visitor, in Journal of Adult Education, 3(4), p. 418-423, 1931 trad. fr. in Publics & Musées, 8, juillet-décembre 1995, p. 11-19. MELTON A.W., Some behavior caracteristics of museum visitors, in Psychological Bulletin, 30, 1933, p. 720-721. MELTON A.W. Problems of Installation in Museums of Art. Washington D.C. : American Association of Museums, New Series, 14 (269), 1935. Trad. fr. partielle in Publics & Musées, 8, juillet-décembre 1995, p. 21-45. 33 LOW T.L., The Museum as a Social Instrument, New York, American Association of Museums, 1942. 34 Voir par exemple BLOOMBERG M., An Experiment in Museum Instruction, Washington DC., American Association of Museums, New Series, 8(40), 1929; COOKE E., A survey of the educational activities of forty-seven american museums, in Museum News, june, 15, 1934. p. 4-8. 35 KIMBALL F., Musée d’art de Pennsylvanie. Statistique des visiteurs d’après leur profession, in Mouseion, 16, 1930, p. 41. 36 WITTLIN A.S., The Museum, its History and its Task in Education, London, Routledge, 1949.

16

système de communication. Si la prééminence du message véhiculé par les vraies choses (kinetifacts compris) conduit à un nouveau type de muséologie – une muséologie de l’idée, s’opposant à celle de l’objet, selon les propos de Cameron37 – ce principe amène une réelle prise en compte plus du récepteur, soit le visiteur, et donc une étude plus attentive de sa perception des messages diffusés par le musée. A ce premier développement vient s’ajouter le formidable essor que prennent les expositions temporaires. Les méthodes d’évaluation, de plus en plus nombreuses, s’adaptent à ces transformations. Les expositions temporaires, notamment internationales, sont analysées au niveau de leur « impact », leur succès. Plus que le comportement du visiteur, ce sont l’ensemble des informations relatives au public qui sont examinées, ainsi que les connaissances acquises au sein de l’institution muséale. On attribue généralement à Abbey et Cameron la mise au point des premières études systématiques sur les visiteurs formant le public ou l’audience d’un musée38. Si ces études ne sont pas les premières en leur genre, leur appareil méthodologique ainsi que la rigueur scientifique surclassent les tentatives précédentes. Le glissement de l’étude du comportement du visiteur vers l’analyse de l’audience amène immanquablement l’étude plus précise de nouveaux paramètres, non seulement directement liés à l’expérience du musée ou à la caractérisation du visiteur, mais aussi aux moyens de transport et aux sources d’information utilisées ou aux réactions par rapport à la politique tarifaire de l’institution39. L’arrivée de Chandler Screven et Harris Shettel, au cours des années 1960, apporte un renouveau significatif à la pensée évaluative. Leurs principes se basent sur une philosophie précise : l’exposition constitue une forme de media éducatif dont les objectifs sont définis ; l’évaluation estime son efficacité, sa capacité à atteindre les objectifs40. Cette évaluation centrée sur les objectifs (goal referenced approach41) jouit d’une longue tradition dans les milieux éducatifs. Développée depuis les années 1930 par Ralf W. Tyler dans le cadre de ses études nationales, elle a suscité de nombreuses modifications, notamment dans le sens d’une « orientation vers le consommateur »42. Cette dernière approche, proposée par Michael Scriven, amène l’évaluateur à produire un jugement de valeur sur le choix des solutions possibles. Il n’existe pas une seule proposition à tester, mais un ensemble de possibilités pour lesquelles il convient, du point de vue du consommateur (du visiteur), de rechercher la solution la plus efficace. Scriven définit deux fonctions pour l’évaluation : celle-ci est d’abord « formative » (formative approach), consistant à guider les concepteurs d’un projet en leur procurant un feed-back continu sur les réactions des consommateurs potentiels. Ensuite, l’évaluation se fait « sommative »43 (summative approach) une fois le projet réalisé, afin de juger si les résultats obtenus dépassent les réalisations antérieures et permettent de justifier les dépenses supplémentaires nécessaires à leur mise en oeuvre44. Screven et Shettel introduisent les premiers, aux États-Unis, l’approche formative/sommative dans le cadre de l’évaluation muséale. En Grande-Bretagne, les travaux pionniers de Roger Miles, suivis de ceux de Alt et Griggs au British Museum (Natural History) adoptent également – en la transformant – la démarche de Scriven. Il n’est pas inutile de rappeler que ces premiers travaux appartiennent au courant « éducatif » des musées, comme le rappelle Alt, critiquant cette vision : « Shettel appartient fermement à l’école croyant que le rôle principal de l’expôt muséal est éducatif, dans le même sens que la télévision scolaire, les livres et le matériel pédagogique. Ce cadre de référence semble exclure de plus vastes enjeux éducatifs, et Shettel se concentre intégralement sur les fonctions didactiques/pédagogiques de l’expôt muséal »45. Si la réponse de l’évaluateur incriminé nuance

37 CAMERON D., The Museum as a communication system and implications for museum education, in Curator, 11, 1968, p. 33-40. 38 ABBEY D.S., CAMERON D., The Museum Visitor : I. Survey Design, Toronto: Information Services of the Royal Ontario Museum, The Royal Ontario Museum, 1959. 39 CAMERON D., ABBEY D.S., Museum audience research: The effect of an admission fee, in Museum News, 41/3, 1962, p. 25-28. 40 SHETTEL H.H., BITGOOD S., Les pratiques de l’évaluation des expositions, in Publics & Musées, 4, mai 1994, p. 9-25. 41 SCREVEN C.G., Exhibit evaluation: a goal reference approach, in Curator, 19/4, 1976, p. 271-290. Il semble que cette référence soit la première pour laquelle le concept soit utilisé. 42 Sur cette tradition, voir STUFFLEBEAM D.L., SHINKFIELD A.J. Systematic Evaluation, Boston/Dordrecht, Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing, 1985. 43 « Sommatif » est la traduction généralement retenue pour caractérister la summative approach. 44 Le texte de référence de SCRIVEN M. est : The methodology of evaluation, in Perspectives on Curriculum Evaluation, Chicago, Rand McNally, 1967. 45 ALT M.B., Evaluating didactic exhibits : a critical look at Shettel’s work, in Curator, 20/3, 1977, p. 248.

17

quelque peu ces propos46, le jugement de Alt répercute avec pertinence les débats sur la nature du musée dont l’incidence au niveau de l’évaluation n’est pas à négliger. Cependant, si la discussion de fond, sur les objectifs de l’évaluation, n’est pas totalement ignorée, l’essentiel du débat porte prioritairement sur les méthodes et les techniques. Le perfectionnement de la méthode, adaptée au jugement des expositions, tend assez rapidement (en l’espace d’une génération) à former une structure reconnue par la presque totalité des chercheurs. Ainsi, l’« évaluation préalable » (front-end evaluation) est établie lorsque l’exposition en est au stade de projet. Elle vise à recueillir des informations sur des expositions précédentes, sur les publics potentiellement visés par l’exposition, sur le contenu de l’exposition et la manière de l’exploiter. L’« évaluation formative » (formative evaluation) intervient durant la phase de réalisation de l’exposition. Elle vise à confronter les réalisations en cours (exposition sous forme de maquettes ou de réalisations partielles, en laboratoire ou sur le terrain) avec les réactions du public, afin d’y apporter les modifications nécessaires. L’« évaluation sommative » (summative evaluation) est entreprise une fois l’exposition terminée, et confronte celle-ci avec les réactions du public. Cette dernière forme d’évaluation peut intervenir – pour d’autres expositions – durant la phase préalable. Cette procédure en trois volets, parfois accompagnée d’un quatrième dénommé « évaluation corrective » ou de remédiation (utilisée afin d’améliorer l’exposition une fois celle-ci en place), ou d’un cinquième intitulé « évaluation de l’évaluation », de portée plus épistémologique, est utilisée par la majorité des chercheurs actuels. A l’approche centrée sur les objectifs, constituant le courant principal de l’évaluation des expositions, s’oppose l’« évaluation naturaliste » (naturalistic evaluation), représentée par Robert Wolf. Prenant appui sur le système judiciaire américain, il propose une évaluation plus large autorisant la confrontation des objectifs avec leurs partisans et leurs adversaires, en sélectionnant les témoins et en examinant leurs arguments. Wolf poursuit sa réflexion dans le cadre des expositions muséales, en rejetant a priori tout objectif défini à l’avance. Les hypothèses ainsi que le plan d’action de l’évaluation se formeront au cours de l’évaluation, en fonction des interactions entre les différents protagonistes de l’exposition : public, chercheurs ou conservateurs47. Contrairement à l’option centrée sur les objectifs, qui adopte cette position seulement durant l’évaluation préalable, l’évaluation naturaliste conserve une ouverture au changement tout au long de la mise en oeuvre de l’exposition; une position plus ouverte, mais nettement plus complexe à gérer. Les méthodes ou techniques employées par les différentes approches évaluatives dérivent toutes des techniques employées en sociologie, en psychologie, en ethnologie (pour la technique d’enquête) et en statistique (pour le contrôle des résultats). L’objet de l’analyse demeure identique : le public (ou le non-public). Les premières techniques ont trait à l’échantillonnage de l’objet d’étude. Il s’agit, bien évidemment, de définir la population qui sera analysée, c’est-à-dire le nombre de personnes ainsi que la manière de les sélectionner. Un deuxième type de techniques porte sur les procédés de mesures. Celles-ci sont nombreuses et varient selon les objectifs de l’étude. Les mesures d’observation sont utilisées pour analyser le comportement des visiteurs. Les enquêtes par questionnaires, les entretiens particuliers et les entretiens de groupe (focus group) sont conçus pour interroger directement les (non-)visiteurs. La distinction qualitatif/quantitatif intervient pour l’ensemble de ces techniques. Généralement, les grandes enquêtes sont quantitatives, utilisées pour questionner (de manière fermée) l’audience potentielle ou effective des expositions. Les enquêtes qualitatives formulent des questions plus ouvertes mais pratiquées sur un nombre restreint d’individus. Ces dernières sont utilisées afin de vérifier les connaissances acquises ou explorer les connaissances préalables des visiteurs, d’étudier leur comportement dans l’exposition ou de mieux connaître leurs réactions et leurs sentiments face au musée. Parmi les tendances relevées et les recommandations formulées par un comité américain chargé d’explorer le futur des musées, l’ouverture à toutes les couches de la population ainsi que la tâche éducative, réaffirmée comme prioritaire, entraînaient la nécessité pour les musées d’approfondir leurs recherches sur le public et le non-public de ces institutions48, renforcent considérablement le rôle des évaluateurs. Ce phénomène, s’il se manifeste particulièrement en Amérique du Nord et en Grande-46 SHETTEL H.H., A critical look at a critical Look : a response to Alt’s critique of Shettel’s work, in Curator, 21/4, 1978, p. 329-345. 47 WOLF R.L., A naturalistic view of evaluation, in Museum News, 58/6, 1980. p. 39-45. 48 BLOOM J.N., POWELL III E.A., Museums for a New Century. A Report of the Commission on Museums for a New Century, Washington, American Association of Museums, 1984.

18

Bretagne, rencontre un écho de plus en plus fort sur le reste des continents américain et européen. Le développement incessant des contributions sur l’évaluation a conduit progressivement ce secteur à se reformuler sous le concept de visitor studies (études de visiteurs). Ce nouveau concept se définit par son objectif d’interface (d’avocat, selon les termes de Bitgood) entre les visiteurs et les musées. Incluant les techniques d’évaluation, il comprend également des études prospectives, sorte de recherche fondamentale sur les visiteurs, se voulant plus rigoureuse et plus scientifique que les résultats directement applicables des évaluations. Les visitor studies ont bénéficié d’un numéro spécial de la revue Museum International, possèdent leurs propres congrès et associations (Visitor Studies Association), des périodiques qui leur sont entièrement (Visitor Studies – actes des conférences annuelles, Visitor Behavior, Current Trends in Audience Research and Evaluation, ILVS Review – qui publie périodiquement une bibliographie), ou partiellement consacrés (Publics & Musées, puis Culture & Musées). Si le développement des études de publics conduit, à partir de la fin des années 1980, au développement d’un véritable champ de recherche centré sur le public, ses attentes et ses réactions face à l’univers muséal, le mouvement n’en est pas pour autant partagé par tous les membres du personnel du musée. La plupart des spécialistes de la discipline (Allaire, Bitgood, Davallon, Gottesdiener, Loomis, Screven, Shettel, Shiele, Zavala,...) sont universitaires ou indépendants et œuvrent en dehors de l’institution muséale, parfois pour le compte de celle-ci. Quelques unités d’évaluation existent au sein de grandes institutions (Musée de la Civilisation à Québec, Natural History Museum de Londres, Galerie de l’Evolution à Paris, etc.). Souvent isolés dans leurs recherches, nombreux se plaignent du manque de dialogue au sein du musée. Les évaluations ne sont pas suivies des corrections demandées, les avis ne sont pas toujours répercutés au sein de l’établissement49. La conception d’un public actif, dont les avis induiraient – via l’évaluation – des changements au sein du musée, n’est pas acceptée par tous. De manière globale, cependant, les enseignements tirés de ces études et évaluations conduisent à une perception plus fine du public, notamment dans le chef des concepteurs d’expositions. Sans doute cette perception ne résulte-t-elle pas toujours directement d’évaluations préalables ou sommatives liées à l’exposition, mais plutôt d’un ensemble de lectures ou d’enseignements tirés conjointement de l’expérience directe du contact avec les visiteurs, d’études précises et de lectures des rapports d’enquêtes. L’expérience du musée, résumée par Falk et Dierking50, est emblématique de cette nouvelle perception des visiteurs et des enseignements qui peuvent être tirés des études de leurs comportements et de leurs réactions. Ainsi, les auteurs, sur base de leurs analyses, dressent un tableau très hétérogène de l’expérience du musée, chaque visiteur apprenant différemment, interprétant l’information en fonction de ses connaissances, de ses expériences et de ses croyances. Chaque visiteur arrive avec des espérances de visite différentes et personnalise également le message qu’il reçoit, afin de le rendre conforme avec ses connaissances et sa compréhension des choses. Falk et Dierking insistent également sur le contexte global de la visite : la plupart des visiteurs viennent en groupe (famille, amis, visite guidée), ce qui influence radicalement leur perception et leurs souvenirs, mais l’expérience du musée inclut également les surveillants, les guides, bref, tout le personnel et le public du musée (ainsi que l’aspect général du musée, ses infrastructures, etc.). Tous les visiteurs viennent au musée car celui-ci contient des objets hors normes, des vraies choses, mais leur perception de ces vraies choses est également très différente. Le très grand nombre d’objets ou d’expériences auxquels ils sont confrontés au sein du musée les incite à en sélectionner un petit nombre (forcément influencé par la localisation de ces expériences au sein du musée). Visiteur ou acteur ? Si la prise en compte des réactions du public est progressivement intégrée par les éducateurs et les concepteurs d’exposition dans les musées, le rôle joué par les visiteurs reste encore uniquement celui de destinataire ou d’utilisateur des infrastructures muséales. Son droit est identique à celui d’un consommateur classique ; le visiteur n’entre pas dans la catégorie du producteur ou du coproducteur, catégorie réservée aux professionnels du musée. Cette frontière est cependant progressivement franchie durant les années 1960, au sein d’un certain nombre d’institutions muséales, pour la plupart

49 Shettel donne un bon aperçu de ces problèmes généraux dans SHETTEL H.H., Status report on museum evaluation: an introspective retrospective, in ILVS Review, 1, 1, 1988, p. 14-23. 50 FALK J.H., DIERKING L.D., The Museum Experience, Washington, Whalesback Books, 1992.

19

de taille réduite et se voulant expérimentales, soit sur le plan artistique51, soit sur le plan ethnographique. Dans ce dernier cas, la conception d’un public actif, (co-)producteur d’exposition, est à la base de l’évolution qui conduira à la formation des écomusées et de manière plus générale à la nouvelle muséologie. Ce mouvement prend sa source dans les bouleversements engendrés par la Seconde Guerre Mondiale et se développe en parallèle à l’émergence d’une nouvelle génération, issue du baby boom de la fin de la guerre et qui entend jouer un autre rôle au sein de la société, sur la base d’autres valeurs que celles entretenues par les générations précédentes. La génération précédente semble pourtant consciente de ce phénomène de décalage, notamment au niveau du musée et de son public. La recommandation de l’Unesco, adoptée le 14 décembre 1960 en sa onzième session et concernant les moyens les plus efficaces pour rendre les musées accessibles à tous, présente dans leurs grandes lignes les solutions traditionnelles visant à remédier à cet état de fait : mesures visant au développement de la compréhension du public telles que la présentation, cartels, guides, visites guidées, etc. ; heures d’ouverture des musées, qui doivent tenir compte des heures de loisir des travailleurs ; amélioration de l’accès au musée et confort des services annexes, développement de l’entrée gratuite, à tout le moins certains jours et pour les personnes à revenus modestes, les familles nombreuses, les groupes scolaires, etc. Ces seules mesures ne s’attaquent cependant qu’à la couche la plus superficielle de l’institution. On sait les mouvements de contestation qui germent à partir de la fin des années 1960. Ceux-ci conduisent notamment à une remise en question de l’institution muséale, principalement dans ses rapports avec le public. Le musée est ainsi attaqué de toute part. Les artistes (Duchamp, Broodthaers, Oldenburg, etc.) critiquent notamment l’autoritarisme de ses choix52 ; tandis que les responsables des pays anciennement colonisés dénoncent le néo-colonialisme de l’institution, « création d’un âge préindustriel, conservé par les tics des littérateurs et les inhibitions des snobs, le musée est théoriquement et pratiquement lié à un monde (le monde européen), à une classe (la classe bourgeoise cultivée), à une certaine vision de la culture (nos ancêtres les gaulois et leurs cousins, tous grands dolichocéphales blonds aux yeux bleus!). Ce monde est sans doute en train de disparaître, [...] mais le musée demeure encore le lieu de la concentration magique des obsessions poussiéreuses d’une classe qui croit toujours à l’extension de son pouvoir »53. A cette même époque paraissent diverses études sur le comportement des visiteurs de musées, dont celle de Bourdieu et Darbel, évoquant les inégalités encore criantes en matière de fréquentation du musée. « La statistique révèle que l’accès aux oeuvres culturelles est le privilège de la classe cultivée; mais ce privilège a tous les dehors de la légitimité. En effet ne sont jamais exclus ici que ceux qui s’excluent »54. La société offre à tous la possibilité théorique d’accéder aux musées, mais seuls quelques uns en ont la possibilité réelle : ceux dont le niveau d’éducation est suffisant pour décoder le langage des œuvres. Le système scolaire, à l’époque, « en faisant comme si les inégalités de nature, c’est-à-dire des inégalités de dons, et en omettant de donner à tous ce que quelques-uns doivent à leur famille [...] perpétue et sanctionne les inégalités initiales »55. Si le système d’éducation n’est pas repensé, les musées continueront à être des facteurs d’inégalités sociales. La plupart des réactions à ces critiques insistent sur la nécessité d’ouverture du musée aux publics et le renforcement des structures éducatives de l’institution. Encore cette ouverture n’entraîne-t-elle pas automatiquement un changement des méthodes éducatives, la plupart de celles-ci s’inscrivant dans la tradition d’une relation plus ou moins autoritaire, du maître à l’élève. L’éducation – en Occident – connaît cependant un réel bouleversement à cette époque. Les horaires de travail et le renforcement du système social semblent dessiner les contours d’une nouvelle civilisation fondée sur les bénéfices du progrès, l’augmentation des loisirs, mais aussi la nécessité d’une éducation permanente afin d’appréhender les mutations technologiques qui la bouleversent continuellement. D’une certaine manière, encore que bien superficiellement, le programme éducatif tend vers une voie se voulant

51GAUDIBERT P. et al., Problèmes du musée d'art contemporain en Occident, in Museum, XXIV, 1, 1972, p. 5-32. 52 MAIRESSE F., Le concept de « musées d’artistes », in Icofom Study Series, 26, 1996, p. 85-95. 53 ADOTEVI S., Le musée dans les systèmes éducatifs et culturels contemporains (1931), repris dans DESVALLEES A., Vagues. Une anthologie de la nouvelle muséologie, Mâcon, Ed. W. et M.N.E.S., vol. 1, p. 122. 54 BOURDIEU P., DARBEL A., L’amour de l’art. Les musées d’art européens et leur public, Paris, Ed. de Minuit, 1969 (2ème éd.), p. 69. 55 Ibid., p. 107. En Belgique, une étude effectuée à la même époque aboutit à des constats identiques : MARTINOW-REMICHE A., WERY C., Le Musée interdit. Enquête sociologique sur le fait muséologique en milieu ouvrier dans la région liégeoise, Bruxelles, Ministère de la Culture française (Documentation et enquête), 1971.

20

résolument novatrice, orientée vers une plus grande participation des visiteurs à la définition des contenus et des méthodes d’éducation. L’andragogie est au coeur de l’évolution de l’éducation permanente, à destination de tous les publics. Conçue de manière ouverte, l’éducation permanente s’inscrit dans la civilisation des loisirs, mais surtout dans la perspective de donner à tous les chances d’acquérir des connaissances et d’ainsi combler le fossé des inégalités sociales. Des voix s’élèvent, aussi bien au sein du musée qu’à l’extérieur, pour envisager l’éducation muséale dans cette perspective d’égalité entre le guide et les publics. En fait, il ne devrait pas y avoir de « guides » au musée, mais des animateurs qui aborderaient l’œuvre au départ des groupes, donc du public, et non au départ de l’objet. Spécialiste en maïeutique, l’animateur devrait amener les visiteurs à prendre eux-mêmes conscience de leurs émotions, de leur compréhension. Le musée devrait s’ouvrir aux groupements locaux, socioculturels mais aussi politiques. Il devrait être ouvert durant les heures de loisir et non quand les gens sont au travail. « Dans l’état actuel des choses, ils ne peuvent être visités que par des rentiers, des vacanciers et des touristes »56. Ce lieu de discussion, le musée/temple ne le permet pas ; une fonction de forum, ouverte aux débats publics, doit leur être adjointe, sans pour autant se substituer à celle du temple57. Cette revendication du musée comme agent d’éducation permanente, d’ouverture du musée aux communautés, de son rôle social, de son potentiel de conscientisation vis-à-vis des problèmes du milieu rural ou urbain, est également au cœur des principes de la Déclaration de Santiago du Chili, consacrée en 1972 au rôle du musée en Amérique latine58. C’est dans ce contexte particulier que peut être interprétée la position des muséologues rassemblés au sein d’Icofom autour de la question du public. La constitution officielle d’Icofom, en 1977, soit quelques années après les événements évoqués plus haut, ne s’inscrit pas dans le contexte d’un réel intérêt pour le public mais bien pour les objets et pour la muséologie. Si certains muséologues ont pu estimer, de manière provocatrice, que la muséologie peut se passer des musées, on pourrait poursuivre en remarquant qu’elle semblerait aussi, souvent, vouloir se passer des publics. Les principaux thèmes de discussion des premières réunions portent sur la recherche scientifique, les aspects sociologiques et écologiques du musée, la systématique, l’interdisciplinarité, la formation muséale, tandis que les deux numéros de MuWop/DoTram n’abordent pas du tout la question du public. Ces thèmes de travail, familiers aux muséologues de l’Est, semblent contestés par nombre de muséologues occidentaux, notamment parce que plusieurs d’entre eux souhaitent une théorie du musée plus pragmatique et fondée sur la réalité du monde muséal, mais aussi parce que ces réflexions théoriques ne laissent pas de place à l’analyse des problèmes rencontrés par les musées actuels, notamment la question du musée dans ses rapports avec les publics. De nouvelles expériences sont évoquées à cette époque, dont la revue Museum (sous l’influence de Georges-Henri Rivière et de Hugues de Varine) se fait l’écho : écomusée de la communauté du Creusot-Montceau les mines, musée de voisinage d’Anacostia, Casa del Museo à Mexico, etc. Les réunions de 1980 et 1982, organisées par Icofom à Mexico et à Paris, se terminent dans un certain chaos, plusieurs muséologues tentant de concentrer la réflexion muséologique sur ces seules questions, ce que ne souhaitent pas les responsables du comité59. Les protagonistes décident alors, en 1983, d’organiser conjointement deux réunions à Londres, l’une sur la formation professionnelle, la seconde – intitulée Musée-territoire-société – sur l’écologie et les écomusées. Les contributions à ce colloque qui paraissent dans les Icofom Study Series 2 à 4 illustrent bien le rapport entretenu par la plupart des muséologues avec le public durant cette période. A la suite des réflexions de Rivière et de Varine sur les écomusées, les contributions de Mathilde Bellaigue, Gérard Collin, Pierre Mayrand, mais surtout d’André Desvallées, s’inscrivent dans une voie plaidant pour un nouveau rapport entre le musée et la population ; le public du musée s’effaçant – d’une certaine manière – devant des usagers pour qui le musée doit constituer un outil patrimonial de conscientisation et de prise en main de son avenir. « Certains écomusées procèdent d’une critique radicale des rapports entre société et patrimoine, du refus de l’élitisme, de la socialisation et de la valorisation monétaire ; de l’émergence, a contrario, de la priorité donnée aux gestes et pratiques quotidiennes, aux valeurs culturelles spécifiques aux classes dominées »60. Le constat de Jean-Yves

56 HICTER M., Le musée et les loisirs, in Le Musée et son public, Colloque organisé par le C.N.B./ICOM, Bruxelles, 8-10 mai 1968, p.135-136. 57 CAMERON D., Museum, a temple or a forum, in Curator, 14, march 1971, p. 11-24. 58 Museum, XXV, 3, 1973, p. 198-200. 59 MENSCH P. van, Towards a Methodology of Museology, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Philosophy, Doctor’s Thesis, 1992, p. 22. 60 VEILLARD J.-Y., Observations et réflexions, in Icofom Study Series, 4, 1983, p. 9.

21

Veillard souligne la prise en compte, par ces muséologues, de la crise des musées ayant éclaté quelques années auparavant, remettant en cause le caractère élitiste, sacralisant ou néo-colonialiste du musée et de son rapport au public. Le terme de « public », dans cette optique, s’efface au profit de celui d’usager ou d’acteur, dans une perspective de dialogue et de personnalisation des rapports. Les réponses proposées par la nouvelle muséologie entraînent une réaction généralement négative des muséologues de l’Est, notamment celle de Zbynek Stransky. De manière générale, la « nouvelle muséologie » n’est évaluée que comme une réponse possible du musée face à la crise ; l’écomusée formant une catégorie parmi d’autres. Le rôle de la muséologie, pour Stransky comme pour la plupart des muséologues de l’Est, est essentiellement théorique et ne peut s’envisager, au sein du comité, que sur cette base : c’est au niveau de la prise en compte des acquis de l’écologie (comme science) que la muséologie doit pouvoir fonder sa réflexion, et non à partir de l’expérience des écomusées, considérés ici plutôt comme un phénomène de mode que comme une évolution véritable. De telles réactions, mais aussi le refus par le comité d’Icofom de constituer un groupe spécifique sur le sujet ainsi que le souhait par plusieurs des protagonistes de l’écomusée d’une plus grande reconnaissance, sur le plan international, conduisent à la formation du Minom, en 1984, entièrement consacré à la nouvelle muséologie. Un certain nombre de muséologues, tels André Desvallées ou Mathilde Bellaigue, acteurs au sein de la nouvelle muséologie, demeurent cependant fidèles à l’Icofom, insufflant l’esprit de la MNES ou du Minom au sein du comité, tentant de perpétuer la prise en compte du public au sein de la réflexion théorique. Un certain nombre de réunions relatives aux écomusées sont ainsi organisées par l’Icofom, parfois de manière conjointe avec le Minom, notamment en 1985 à Zagreb, en 1986 à Buenos-Aires, en 1992 à Québec, en 1995 à Stavanger61. Les actes des rencontres d’Icofom de 1986 (Muséologie et Identité, ISS 10-11) et 1994-5 (Musée et communauté, ISS 24-25) traduisent encore les différences d’approche entre les partisans d’un débat strictement théorique, parfois abstrait, et les théoriciens de la nouvelle muséologie fondée sur l’expérience concrète. Ces points de vue entraînent des prises de position fort différentes en faveur du public ; Isabel Laumonier souligne ainsi, par exemple, l’écart radical entre la perception du Polonais Wojciech Gluzinski (« le visiteur doit recevoir la connaissance scientifique, qu’il le veuille ou non ») et celle d’un Bjarne Flou (« la participation de la population locale au sujet de toutes les activités du musée est considérée comme un élément de première importance »)62. Sans doute la disparition progressive de plusieurs représentants de la muséologie de l’Est contribue-t-elle à diminuer les antagonismes. Toujours est-il qu’en 1995, lors de la Conférence générale de l’Icom à Stavanger sur le thème des musées et des communautés, les contrastes entre les philosophies du musée apparaissent avec peut-être moins d’évidences. Certes, des différences subsistent. Comme le rappelle Marc Maure, « le nouveau musée ne s’adresse pas à un public déterminé composé de visiteurs anonymes. Sa raison d’être est d’être au service d’une communauté spécifique. Le musée devient acteur et outil de développement culturel, social et économique d’un groupe déterminé. »63 Mais ce type de relation, central au sein de la nouvelle muséologie, s’est également développé de manière consumériste au sein de l’ensemble de l’institution. Le pouvoir des communautés, donc d’une partie du public, voire de l’ensemble du public du musée, a subi une évolution similaire à celle des mouvements de lobbying au sein des organisations nationales ou internationales, conduisant (surtout dans les pays anglo-saxons) d’une part aux mouvements de retour de collections patrimoniales dans leurs milieux d’origine, d’autre part à l’intégration des communautés dans la définition des contenus d’expositions. En corollaire, le pouvoir du public communautaire, lorsqu’il s’oppose au contenu de l’exposition du musée, conduit au phénomène du « politiquement correct » ou à la prééminence de la diplomatie sur le contenu scientifique des expositions, comme le suggère alors Lynn Maranda64. Visiteur et consommateur Cette évolution n’est pas étonnante. Les chocs économiques du milieu des années 1970 ainsi que les renversements de politique qui s’ensuivent amènent de sérieux changements dans la philosophie du musée et de son rapport au public. C’est vraiment à partir de cette époque que débute réellement – avant tout aux États-Unis – l’ère des gestionnaires dans les musées. Insensiblement, le marketing est appelé à se propager au sein du monde muséal, parce qu’il répond autant à la question d’ouverture aux publics qu’aux changements du contexte économique qui s’opèrent. La politique de moindre 61 MENSCH P., Magpies on Mount Helicon ?, in Icofom Study Series, 25, 1995, p. 133-138. 62 LAUMONIER I., La muséologie et l’identité, in Icofom Study Series, 11, 1986, p. 26. 63 MAURE M., La nouvelle muséologie – qu’est-ce que c’est ?, in Icofom Study Series, 25, 1995, p. 129. 64 MARANDA L., Museums and the Community, in Icofom Study Series, 25, 1995, p. 67-71.

22

intervention des pouvoirs publics amène les musées à se repositionner : soit ils voient leurs activités diminuer, soit ils recourent à des sources alternatives de financement, notamment en organisant de grandes expositions temporaires et en développant les recettes commerciales du musée. C’est généralement cette seconde alternative qui est choisie, souvent avec succès. Pour un temps, l’ère des grandes expositions amène donc une certaine euphorie au sein du monde des musées. Non seulement, certains de ces événements dégagent des bénéfices très importants (se chiffrant en millions de dollars), mais en outre, l’institution, longtemps décriée comme élitiste, sévère voire mortifère, obtient ici un regain de popularité manifeste, à en juger par les longues files qui se forment devant les expositions consacrées à l’or des pharaons ou celui des celtes, les tableaux de Van Gogh, de Rembrandt ou de Picasso. De très nombreux grands musées voient également leur fréquentation s’accroître de manière considérable. La commercialisation, outre ses conséquences potentiellement bénéfiques pour les ressources financières du musée, joue en outre en faveur d’une certaine conception du musée dans son rapport au public. La logique commerciale implique que les consommateurs soient satisfaits (sinon ils ne reviendraient pas). Elle offre ainsi une garantie que les activités du musée reposent sur une philosophie qui place le visiteur/consommateur au centre de ses préoccupations. De nombreux responsables de musée en déduisent que, pour asseoir la place du public au cœur du musée, il importe de développer une attitude de marché. La plupart des établissements développent ainsi largement leurs activités commerciales de manière à générer des ressources financières (même si les profits ne sont pas toujours au rendez-vous). Ces fonctions, pour être profitables, nécessitent évidemment l’attraction d’un large public invité au musée par le biais de campagnes promotionnelles. Le perfectionnement de cette philosophie implique un large recours à l’écoute des visiteurs (potentiels), mais dans une optique commerciale, soit celle des études de marché et de l’analyse des besoins du consommateur65. De nombreuses études destinées à améliorer l’aspect éducatif des expositions peuvent ainsi être utilisées de manière plus prosaïque, pour renforcer la fréquentation du musée. Il en va ainsi de l’analyse de l’audience du musée66, du prix à payer dans l’exposition, de la perception par le visiteur des autres institutions culturelles concurrentes ou de la mise au point de « produits à succès »67. L’utilisation renforcée, dans une perspective mercatique, des enquêtes d’évaluation contribue à transformer celles-ci en outil pour la gestion des musées68. Les tendances du marché sont ainsi analysées, afin de mieux comprendre leur impact sur l’expérience du musée69. L’entrée du terme dans les bibliographies du marketing en milieu muséal confirme les nouvelles fonctions de l’outil évaluatif70. Ce passage, en français, de la notion qualitative de public à celle, nettement plus quantitative, d’audience, marque une étape importante dans la réflexion sur la destination du musée71 et son intégration par la pensée économique. Ce phénomène de « cancérisation par l’argent »72, ainsi que ses conséquences sur les relations du musée avec le public, a été approché par l’Icofom à deux reprises, lors des conférences triennales de l’Icom, soit à Melbourne en 1998 – sur le thème de la muséologie et la mondialisation – et à Barcelone en 2001 – sur le thème de la muséologie, le développement économique et social. Si le rôle de la globalisation est surtout analysé du point de vue de la construction des identités et des particularismes, ainsi qu’au niveau de l’évolution générale des cultures, l’effet sur le public des musées est analysé au travers des changements de politique économique (Desvallées), la construction de « marques » globales, telles que celle du Guggenheim (Dolan), le développement du tourisme culturel mondial (Young) et la production de grandes expositions/blockbusters formatées pour s’adresser au plus large public possible (Vitali et Gale). Cette évolution de la relation entre le

65 SHETH J., GARDNER D., GARRET D., Marketing Theory: Evolution and Evaluation, New York, Wiley, 1988. 66 MILES R.S., Museum audiences, in Museum Management and Curatorship, 5, 1986, p. 73-80. 67 GRIGGS S., HAYS-JACKSON K., Visitors’ perceptions of cultural institutions, in Museums Journal, 83, 2/3, 1983, p. 121-125; ALT M., GRIGGS S., A theory of product success, in Journal of the Market Research Society, 28, 3, 1986, p. 235-267. 68 LOOMIS R.J., Museum Visitor Evaluation: New Tool for Management, Nashville, American Association for State and Local History, 1987. 69 CHEN COURTIN D., Current Market Trends and their Impact on the Museum Experience, in Current Trends in Audience Reserach and Evaluation, 15, American Association of Museums, 2002. 70 LEGARE B., Le marketing en milieu muséal : une bibliographie analytique et sélective, Montréal, HEC, Chaire de gestion des arts, 1991. 71 DAVALLON J., Nouvelle muséologie vs muséologie ?, in Icofom Study Series, 25, 1995, p. 153-166. 72 DESVALLEES A., Musée et patrimoine intégral : le futur du passé, in Icofom Study Series, 29, 1998, p. 30.

23

musée et son public s’observe de manière plus précise à partir de l’angle du développement économique et social. « Nous sommes en train de constater les effets de la mondialisation (globalization) qui rend notre nation aussi impuissante ; le populisme fait du tort et nos musées et galeries d’art sont à présent censés plaire, à tout moment, à la population toute entière de sorte que tout doit être organisé comme un jardin d’enfant (dumbed down) »73. Le constat de nivellement lié aux stratégies de marketing global des grandes expositions et des grands musées, tels le Guggenheim (Desvallées, Mairesse, Vierreg) est directement lié à la représentation du public visé – soit le plus grand nombre – dont les études de marché tentent de définir le profil type et les habitudes de consommation culturelle. Ce public semble globalement posséder des caractéristiques relativement similaires, observables par le biais des études effectuées dans la plupart des pays occidentaux : enquêtes sur les pratiques culturelles des habitants d’un pays, études sur le lieu de visite, dénombrement des entrées. Ainsi, les faits relevés déjà voici près de quarante ans, notamment par Bourdieu, se confirment au fil des enquêtes74 : les visiteurs de musées appartiennent traditionnellement aux plus hautes classes sociales et bénéficient d’un niveau d’enseignement élevé, comme cela s’observe pour le public de la plupart des autres pratiques culturelles telles que le théâtre, la lecture ou l’opéra, (mais à l’exception de la visite des zoos et des parcs à thèmes). Les pratiques de visite de musée sont souvent répétitives, ceux qui ont franchi les portes d’un établissement muséal durant les derniers mois ont de fortes chances de réitérer leur geste dans les prochains mois. Parmi la minorité la plus habituée à fréquenter régulièrement les musées, les classes sociales les plus élevées sont nettement surreprésentées, tandis que le profil des visiteurs occasionnels se rapproche plus globalement des caractéristiques de l’ensemble de la population. En forçant le trait, « on peut considérer que le public des musées est constitué pour un tiers d’élèves et étudiants, pour un tiers de cadres supérieurs et d’enseignants et pour un tiers des autres catégories de population »75. Les raisons invoquées par les classes sociales les moins élevées pour ne pas visiter les musées sont que ce type d’établissements ne présente pas d’intérêt ou est ennuyeux, tandis que les non-publics des classes sociales élevées invoquent le manque de temps ou les difficultés de s’y rendre. Les raisons évoquées pour se rendre au musée, quant à elles, sont plus difficiles à saisir et dépendent du type d’institution : apprentissage, distraction, curiosité, esthétisme ou calme, (l’étude, l’éducation et la délectation, selon la formule de l’Icom) l’expérience du musée se conjugue de manière différente, aussi bien en fonction des visiteurs que de la spécificité du musée visité76. La fréquentation d’un musée demeure cependant une pratique très populaire, plus d’un tiers de la population en a visité un au cours des douze derniers mois (mais un quart de celle-ci n’y aurait jamais mis les pieds). Cette statistique s’avère moins élevée que celles relatives à la fréquentation des cinémas et des bibliothèques, mais dépasse celles des théâtres, des événements sportifs ou des parcs à thèmes. La pratique du musée est majoritairement familiale ; les visiteurs sont habituellement accompagnés (d’amis ou de membres de leur famille). La visite d’un établissement muséal est le plus souvent associée soit à un événement, tel qu’une exposition temporaire, soit à un déplacement (touristique) dans son propre pays ou à l’étranger ; nombreux sont ceux qui ne visitent que les musées durant un séjour à l’étranger, tandis que ceux qui les visitent dans leur propre région les fréquentent également hors de leur pays. Les musées de beaux-arts (qui ne sont pourtant pas les plus nombreux) attirent le plus de monde, devant les musées de science ou ceux de société. Bien qu’il existe des types exclusifs de fréquentation, nombreux sont ceux qui pratiquent le panachage. La progression spectaculaire de la fréquentation des plus grands musées a marqué les médias et laisse penser à un engouement général du public pour ces établissements. A titre d’exemple, le Louvre a accueilli plus de 5 700 000 visiteurs en 2003, contre 4 700 000 en 1996, 3 540 000 en 1990,

73 Cameron, cité par DESVALLEES A., Muséologie, patrimoine, changement économique et développement social, in Icofom Study Series, 33a, 2001, p. 35. 74 Voir par exemple MIRONER L. et al., Cent musées à la rencontre du public, Paris, France édition, 2001 ; MUSEUMS, LIBRARIES AND ARCHIVES COUNCIL, Visitors to Museums and Galleries 2004, London, MLA, 2004. 75 DONNAT O., Les publics des musées en France, in Publics & Musées, 3, 1993, p. 31. 76 EIDELMAN J., Qui fréquente les museés à Paris? Une sociographie des publics des musées de France, in Publics & Musées, 2, 1992, p. 19-47. Falk et Dierking résument cependant la motivation pour venir aux musées à l’apprentissage libre (free-choice learning), FALK J.H., DIERKING L.D., Learning from Museums, New York, Altamira Press, 2000.

24

1 590 000 en 1980, 270 000 en 1935, 405 000 en 192377. Cet engouement s’explique moins par l’augmentation du pourcentage de la population intéressée par ces établissements (la proportion est relativement stable depuis une trentaine d’années), mais plutôt par l’accroissement très important du tourisme international (privilégiant la visite des plus grands établissements), le renforcement de la fréquence de visite des publics réguliers, ainsi que l’accroissement général de la population et les transformations structurelles de sa composition (notamment l’augmentation de la scolarisation). Les touristes, dans les plus grands musées, représentent plus de la moitié des visiteurs (66%, actuellement, dans le cas du Louvre). Ce portrait très sommaire des visiteurs des musées laisse apparaître une image relativement connue du public des musées. Ce portrait est-il réaliste pour autant ? La relation au visiteur, dans le cadre développé par la plupart des études de public, est sous-tendue par la logique de marché. Cette logique dont le prototype actuel le plus spectaculaire est peut-être constitué par le Musée Guggenheim de Bilbao, est évidemment présente dans la plupart des grands musées américains ou européens, résultante pragmatique aux désirs de développements des musées et aux restrictions budgétaires des pouvoirs publics. D’où une certaine connaissance du public, attention intéressée, soit directement pour mieux en évaluer les perspectives de rentabilité, soit de manière détournée, afin de perfectionner les expositions pour les rendre plus efficaces et plus attractives. Dans la logique du marché, la relation entre le consommateur et le producteur se termine aussitôt la transaction conclue (mis à part les garanties de se faire rembourser en cas de défectuosité de l’objet de la transaction – à quand les expositions « satisfait ou remboursé ? »). Cette logique caractérise la visite d’un grand musée, le visiteur y demeure aussi anonyme qu’un client de supermarché. Une fois sorti de l’établissement, la relation se dissout (sauf lorsqu’il s’agit de savoir s’il reviendra visiter le musée et de dépenser son argent à la boutique). Quel rapport entre ce portait et l’expérience d’un petit « écomusée » comme celui décrit par Serge Chaumier78 ? Celui-ci, situé dans une commune rurale d’environ 3000 habitants et animé par un groupe d’amateurs soucieux de faire revivre le patrimoine local, au gré des animations diverses organisées tout au long de l’année, attire près de 10.000 visiteurs par an, constituant ainsi une attraction locale importante dans la région. Une fraction du public de ce musée possède, sans doute, des caractéristiques plus ou moins similaires à celles d’autres institutions reconnues, mais peut-on réduire son public à cette image ? Que dire des habitants du village dont plusieurs participent bénévolement au fonctionnement de l’institution et dont la famille, les amis, les cercles de collectionneurs constituent les facettes d’un public autrement particulier ? La relation entre ces catégories du public et le musée est totalement différente de celle qui est entretenue avec des touristes d’un jour, voyageurs sans attache. Si, du point de vue théorique, l’écomusée n’accueille pas de visiteurs (« on reste entre soi ») mais des usagers, quelle relation peut-on tracer entre ce portrait général du public et celui des participants au projet écomuséal ? Que dire des usagers de la « casa del museo », antenne du Musée d’anthropologie de Mexico bâtie dans les bidonvilles ? Que dire des publics du Musée de Niamey au Niger, initié par Pablo Toucet, ou de ceux développés au Mali à l’initiative d’Alpha Oumar Konaré79 ? Que dire des projets de musées développés par les amérindiens, en Amazonie ou en Amérique du Nord, afin de préserver le patrimoine matériel ou immatériel en voie de disparition ? A défaut d’étude des publics, c’est à partir des textes relatant l’expérience et les motivations pour la création de telles institutions que se révèle un portrait des publics visés, totalement différent de ceux fréquentant les grands établissements ou les musées « classiques ». On pourrait tirer des conclusions équivalentes pour les descendants actuels des dime museums du XIXe siècle, par exemple les musées du sexe et de l’érotisme, qui fleurissent un peu partout dans le monde. Force est de constater que la plupart des études de visiteur ne reflètent que le public d’une catégorie spécifique du musée, soit ceux qui sont

77 GALARD J., Visiteurs du Louvre - Un florilège, Paris, Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1993 p. 190. Le tableau comparatif des fréquentations de musées, à l’exposition internationale de 1937, fait état de 280 00 visiteurs (BOUCHER F. et al., La muséographie à l’exposition internationale, in L’amour de l’art, juin 1937, p. 7). A l’époque, plusieurs musées dépassent déjà le million de visiteurs, notamment les Staatliche Museen de Berlin (1,119), le British Museum (1,195), le Musée en plein air de Skansen/Stockholm (1,366) et l’American Museum of Natural history de New York (1,871). Les autres données proviennent du Journal des Arts (22 mai 1998 et 22 octobre 2004). 78CHAUMIER S., Des musées en quête d’identité, Paris, l’Harmattan, 2003. 79 TOUCET P., Le Musée de Niamey et son environnement, in Museum, XXIV, 4, 1972, p. 204-207. ; KONARE A.O., Des écomusées pour le Sahel : un programme, in Museum, 148, XXXVII; 1985, p. 230-236.

25

les plus institutionnalisés et la plupart du temps les plus grands. Sans doute certains services nationaux, tels l’Observatoire des publics en France, au travers d’études sur des établissements de moindre importance (qui ne pourraient se payer, seuls, de telles analyses), offrent-ils la possibilité d’une vue plus large de la relation du monde des musées avec ses publics. Il n’en reste pas moins que les initiatives locales, mineures, souvent non subventionnées par les pouvoirs publics, bref à la marge du système classique des musées, ne sont pas prises en compte dans de telles analyses. En ce début de XXIe siècle, la relation du musée avec le public demeure éminemment complexe. Si, d’un point de vue théorique, les musées « sont créés par le peuple, opérés par le peuple et au service du peuple »80, cela ne signifie pas que tous les établissements soient destinés à tous. Si l’on part du courant dominant, classique, du monde muséal – celui formé par les musées les plus institutionnalisés, les plus grands et les plus populaires – le public reste majoritairement composé par une certaine élite, souvent cosmopolite et orientée vers le tourisme culturel. De nombreux programmes existent pour tenter d’amener les « exclus » (les plus pauvres, les moins valides, les handicapés, les minorités ethniques) à les fréquenter ; l’existence de ces programmes montre, en tout état de cause, que ces catégories ne considèrent pas comme allant de soi que le musée soit fait pour eux. La relation entre les grands musées et le grand public ne doit pas faire non plus oublier que de nombreux établissements continuent à s’adresser aux artistes et aux chercheurs scientifiques, bien que ces derniers se sentent de moins en moins souvent à l’aise au sein de l’institution muséale et que les liens entre le musée et l’université ne sont pas toujours faciles (mais les enquêtes manquent pour vérifier ces assertions). Le public des musées est aussi constitué par des professionnels, de plus en plus nombreux, l’évolution des statistiques de l’Icom en témoigne. Certes, ces catégories sont infimes en face de l’ensemble de la population, mais elles participent encore activement à la construction du rapport entre le musée et les autres publics. D’une certaine manière, les plus grands musées éclipsent peut-être, par leur taille et leur résonance médiatique, l’ensemble des autres rapports entre les musées et les publics. Au travers de l’ensemble du paysage muséal, on peut encore observer l’ensemble des relations qui se sont manifestées durant les siècles qui ont vu se développer l’institution : il existe encore des établissements destinés seulement aux enfants (les musées des enfants), aux étudiants ou aux professionnels (musées d’anatomie et de criminologie), aux érudits (certains musées universitaires ou liés à des sociétés historiques), aux ouvriers ou aux employés (certains musées d’entreprise), voire aux habitants d’une communauté (certains écomusées). Il existe des musées réellement participatifs (de nombreux musées locaux, gérés par des bénévoles), au sein desquels la relation humaine a plus d’importance que l’objet, ce qui amène forcément une autre attitude vis-à-vis du public. Il existe aussi des musées dans lesquels la présence du visiteur est à peine tolérée, et bien sûr des musées lucratifs attirant le public des foires, ou des musées privés à l’usage exclusif de leur propriétaire et de quelques élus. Beaucoup de ces établissements ne s’inscrivent pas dans le cadre strict de la définition de l’Icom, loin s’en faut, mais cette définition est loin de circonscrire l’ensemble du phénomène muséal, et c’est à partir de cet ensemble qu’il convient d’analyser la réception, par le public, de cette relation spécifique entre l’homme et la réalité, passant notamment par les musées.

80 SHAH A., The museum – a social institution of the community, in Icofom Study Series, 24, 1994, p. 61.

26

The Adoption of Jean Piaget’s Concepts of Child Cognitive Development to Object Awareness

in South Korean Museums

Yun Shun Susie Chung – USA____________________________________________________________

Les grandes personnes m’ont conseillés de laisser de coté les dessins de serpents boas ouverts ou fermés, et de m’interesser plutôt à la géographie, à l’histoire, au calcul et à la grammaire. C’est ainsi que j’ai abandonné, à l’age de six ans, une magnifique carrière de peintre... Les grandes personnes ne comprennent jamais rien toutes seules, et c’est fatigant, pour les enfants, de toujours et toujours leur donner des explications. - Le Petit Prince In Europe and America, the “nuclear family” has become an out-of-date word since la fin de ce siècle. Families now “come in all shapes and sizes, including single-parent families, blended families, extended families, and co-parented families”(Dierking 1989: 9). However, for East Asia, particularly South Korea, which I will direct my strategy towards, the extended family still exists and the nuclear family is a recent phenomenon with strong bonds. The principal issue that is discussed nowadays is that more and more women are starting to work either to support the family or eagerly to have a career of their own while the grandmother, the aunt, or even the nursing center or a professional nanny takes care of the child in their place. The newest phenomenon that is taking place in South Korea is the single parent family. According to the Korean National Statistics Office 167,096 cases in 2003 and 59,313 of married couples have the tendency to divorce statistics show. Statistics also show that the number of birth rates has decreased dramatically since 1993 723,934 to 2003 493,471. The Korean government is supporting a child for food. Saturdays are usually half-day work. Families generally tend to spend Sundays for family outings. In most cases, children are the impetus for parents to take them to museums resulting in enjoyment as a social outing for themselves, too (Falking & Dierking 1992). Usually when there is a blockbuster exhibit taking place, they will find the time to go together. At nights, you will find them sitting in front of TV sets conversing about the episode they are watching. Korea is an apartment culture where living space is limited. The apartment building, itself, has no aesthetic value, but only a functional purpose. Cultural outings for the family go beyond the visually aesthetic events (which do not only mean everyone heads toward art museums since the science of aesthetics connotes a meaning beyond art) (Clark 2000). Education for their children is a key factor since the beginning of Korean society: the road to prestige has always been through education. Illiteracy virtually does not exist. Anything that will help them to learn, parents will do, even to move to a better district or if they have the means sending them to a foreign country for better education. At a very young age, education in reading, writing, speaking, and creativity is introduced to the child. Sales representatives soliciting diverse kinds of worksheets for children starting from the age of 18 months that are sent to the homes daily or weekly are found going from door to door or even playgrounds where mother and child are found taking their daily outing. By the age of 3 or 4, the child is sent to institutes for learning how to play the piano or some other subject such as the computer or English as a second language. Cultural education is not distinguished from academic education. Therefore, the informal setting and the formal setting are not viewed separately. In effect, museum visits with the family as well as school groups are characterized as educational learning. There is only one children’s museum in Korea, Samsung Children’s Museum, and one gallery for children in the new National Museum of Korea. Apart from the Samsung Children’s Museum and the Children’s Gallery in the new National Museum of Korea, most exhibits in museums are targeted at adults. There is a need for existing museums to create exhibits that target children and as this paper will examine the importance of museums to cater for under five year-olds. “Il faut quitter avant d’en avoir assez” said a mother to a child in a French museum (Butler & Sussman, 1989, p.35). This example clearly shows the adult as teacher in charge of the child has considerable influence in affecting the child to regard the museum in a certain way through direct teaching and if the adult happens to find the museum as a reverential place where one must make a tour in quietude or even a stuffy place where only certain people in society go to, the child will, in effect, retain such an

27

image (Butler & Sussman, 1989). The adults are the ones who make up the agenda as initiators to come to a museum and who come with their previous stored knowledge. Depending on how old the child is, the adult as interpretor will interpret in a way befits the child’s potential to understand the exhibits. As supporter, the adult will praise the child when the concepts of each object are understood by saying, “Very good!” and boost the child’s confidence. As mediator, the adult will interpret his or her knowledge to the child not only throughout the exhibition but the whole museum experience from orientation to exiting which will include taking the child to the restrooms or even strolling the child in a buggy as also caretaker. In some museums the adult will show the child how hands-on exhibits work as demonstrator. With these concepts as the basis, we will explore the children’s development to object awareness. In order to make programs or adapt exhibits in museums for the child, we must scrutinize their capacity to learn about objects and to what degree they facilitate it. Jean Piaget’s theory of child development have been applied to many museum programs and exhibits and the part that I will discuss is to point out briefly the development of object awareness of the child for us to better understand how we can integrate this information to our creations. By focusing on the cognitive theory of Piaget we can see how the child develops this faculty. In order to understand his theory, Piaget’s concept of the evolution of cognitive organization is directly quoted from Henry W. Maier’s book Three Theories of Child Development. According to Maier, the concept is interpreted by two recurring postulates of Piaget: 1. It is presumed, a priori, that in the organization of effects, causality, space, time, and their interrelationships, definite patterns of intellectual development already exist. 2. The intellect organizes its own structure by virtue of its experience with objects, causality, space, time and the interrelationship of these environmental realities. (Maier, 1988, p. 21) In other words, ”we acquire knowledge to the extent to which we ourselves can discover or make the thing to be learned,” Maier (1988) sums up (p.21). He also includes what John Dewey has written on this subject: We know an object when we know how it is made, and we know how it is made in the degree in which we ourselves make it. (Maier, 1988, p.21) This happens with experience from the commencement of life not something that magically happens the moment the child becomes an adult or some people may account teenage years as the psychological core to adulthood, but it starts from the second the child comes out into this world from the mother’s womb and opens his/her eyes (depending on each case) to feel the presence of the doctor or the nurse, the medical apparatuses, or later, the window full of the family members waving at the child with awe-inspired faces and expressions, shiny objects, the harsh light of the hospital room or it could be the soft light of the mother’s room (not frequent these days)- to the real world where objects and experiences are met and encountered from birth. So why neglect these years as unessential? Because the child does not vividly remember them? Those years are the essence of the adult being today. The influence of those years may be good or bad ones neatly stacked away in one of the drawers to the unconscious mind; as an adult, one behaves upon the objects, people, and the environment according to the items of experience opening them from the drawers time to time and it is valuable in activating long-term memory chunks (Alter 1988). The five phases of Piaget’s (1952) developmental theory deal with the cognitive development of the child which I will elaborate on the first three phases which covers the first seven years of a child’s life, most importantly, in accordance with the concept of objects unfolds. The five phases are: 1. Sensorimotor 2. Preconceptual 3. Intuitive Thought 4. Concrete Operations 5. Formal Operations Sensorimotor Phase

28

The sensorimotor phase is the period of initial development and manifests the first two years of the child’s evolution. The first stage, described as “exercises of reflexes,” is marked by the repetitive experience and rhythmicity during the first month of the child’s life, an important factor in the early care of the child, which may include playing music (singing a lullaby, humming a tune, or turning on the mobile for the child while putting him or her to sleep) for the child at certain hours, taking the child for a stroll, reading a book, going to a museum each week, is just as important as the rudimentary act of choosing to initially breast feed or bottle feed, to use cloth diapers or disposable ones, to hold and cradle the child to sleep or leave him/her alone to fall asleep without the adult’s presence is all a part of repetitive experience and rhythmicity including all the textures, tones, sounds, aroma, taste that goes with each new experience, during the sequential stages of development in stimuli. During the “primary circular reactions stage,” the child starts to learn from the process of interaction with the object rather than from the object itself, then during the “secondary circular reactions stage,” which is a period approximately from an infant’s fourth to eighth month, the object still does not have a branding effect on the child’s cognizance; once the object disappears, it is no longer existent. However, from eight to twelve months, the “stage of secondary schemata,” the child can differentiate the object and the associated situation. The “tertiary circular reactions stage,” which covers twelve to eighteen months, objects and the environment are of particular interest to the child and the object is perceived as separate from the series of actions. In the “invention of new means through mental combinations stage,” the final stage of sensorimotor development, the child discerns objects as distinct entities which is disengaged from his/her will. Preconceptual Phase In the Preconceptual phase, the period from two to four years old, the object and the environment are personalized and subject to be discovered for the child which is why he/she is prone to touch every object in sight especially if it has been “undiscovered.” The Phase of Intuitive Thought During the phase of intuitive thought from four to seven years the child retains his/her perception of even objects that move are living which accounts for fascination in battery-operated toys and for, sometimes, the equal treatment in objects and humans. Not only do we find this information helpful in the use of hands-on exhibits since studies have show they are more popular with the children as a family group, but as an opportunity to divert the notion of the unapproachable, pedestaled object to the touchable, personal one. As a result, this theory tells us that the child is able to realize objects at a very young stage with a clear evidence of the child’s development to perceive objects and understanding them as separate entities. With further research into this subject, museum professionals should adapt programs and exhibits accordingly. Future practice and research of this subject and often underestimated audience is what South Korean museums should be aiming towards. Furthermore, Piaget’s concepts of child development have been bases for the foundation of children’s programs and exhibits in “adult” museums as well as children’s museums. One might say what is the point in observing families in museums and infants; for all that matters, museums are not centres for psychology. But they are more. The museum for a new century plans for infants who will, in turn, become adults in the new century or better yet millennium: a place where more and more families will go on Sundays to encounter(physically), enjoy(socially), and learn(intellectually) (Krug & Weinberg 1996). Therefore, we must view with what capacity these infants learn about the object-oriented environment through their family as teacher, initiator, interpretor, supporter, mediator, caretaker, demonstrator in museums and develop programs and exhibits suitably so that they will retain more, and devise “strategies for presentation that will ensure clear and unambiguous object and concept learning to be able for them to personalize them ”(Falk & Dierking 1992: 131). How can we, in the museum field, make programs and exhibits, the museum environment, in general, to help the family and child facilitate as a positive enjoying as well as learning experience? Selecting appropriate objects and theme taking account that the child has hardly any external myths to draw upon (Alter 1988), through extensive research in coordination with didactics and design, and thorough evaluation, programs and exhibits can be made suitable for the family and child. This question will also be dealt with in relation to the museums in Korea since every culture differs in providing for this audience. “A museum that attends to visitors’ physical needs will be able to address their intellects”:

29

With only one children’s museum in Korea, the rest have insufficient facilities for these VIP visitors (Falk & Dierking 1992:147). Not only must we think of the programs and the exhibits, but the orientation area which should have readily available baby buggies as well as elevators since we see many adults holding them throughout the visit causing double the amount of museum fatigue. Toilet seats for children and facilities to change diapers and even lounge chairs inside the restrooms for breast-feeding mothers should be realized. Attention to sanitation for these children should be heeded. Restaurants should be equipped with high chairs. For labels and written material such as worksheets (which could be sent to homes with a supplementary survey sheet for parents), careful consideration of age and height must be made, and hands-on which usually exist in science or children’s museums must be high probabilities for other kinds of museums as well. Guidebooks for the family to prepare themselves on what to teach the child should be published. Proper colour choices, lighting, materials, etc. are all a part of the integration of the museum experience for the truly layman visitor; thus we must research further into this field. The following are examples of successful programs and projects already conducted in the Western world and should be models for Korean museums: 1. An “adult” art gallery focuses on children under five. The Walsall Museum and Art Gallery created a project called Start in Summer 1995 for the often unincluded audience, three to five year olds. The exhibit is based on the concept of Playscape from the Children’s Museum in Indianapolis and cooperation from family and nursery schools were given through front-end evaluation. It was the first interactive art exhibition made for this audience in an art gallery and aimed towards investigating potentials of the child in encountering art. Adult participation was required but they tried to limit it as much as possible. According to the writer, “art galleries have not concentrated on these youngest visitors; reasons may be a fear of the unknown, an unwillingness to interfere with the aesthetics of the gallery space, a belief that art galleries are adult places for quiet contemplation unsuitable for young children”(Cox & Cox 1995). The results were that children were truly enthusiastic in creating art and talking about it. In two weeks time it was fully booked. 2. Museum gift shop takes their youngest visitors seriously; so should exhibits. A project for colour choices on erasers by children in a museum gift shop was conducted to see what they preferred (Bitgood & Lockey 1995). Not only did it prove that this choice must also depend on the age, the item and the quality of item, but also that the staff did have time for doing visitor studies. Exhibits, as well, should consider the colours that children are more receptive towards. 3. Learning from objects in a museum. The aim for this study was to find the correlation between the visitors’ learning-style and information type in museums (Thompson 1992). They defined the visitors’ learning-style according to the person’s cognitive orientation which was measured as information-processing ability varying from low to high. When a visitor has a low information-processing ability, he/she has difficulty in fully grasping concepts compared to the visitor with a high information-processing ability. Nevertheless, the study proved that highly structured exhibits (ones that have concepts distinctly presented) were more effective for all types of visitors (including under fives). 4. The Piagetian children’s science gallery. In May 1988, the Birla Institute and Technological Museum in Calcutta, India opened up the Birla Children’s Gallery which based its framework from Piaget’s theories by hands-on, mainly physics exhibits “learning by doing” with interaction with objects, focused on 2 to 7 year olds (Bagchi 1992). Although children come with their parents, they are on their own once they enter. 5. A separate gallery for the kids at the National Natural History Museum in Leiden. The National Natural History Museum planned the museum with a gallery for children from 4 to 12 which opened in 1998. It is consisted of a stone baking, a café for animal feeding, and exploring activities to learn about various subjects through hands-on. It was evaluated in the phase of formative evaluation and is a good example for all types of museums in the application of concept planning study, story line testing, formative evaluation, summative evaluation, and critical appraisal.

30

The determinants that make up a child’s museum experience are many: the relationship with the family, their values, the culture, objects and the environment. By scrutinizing these subjects and one more to fathom, their capacity to learn about objects, we can determine what kind of effects we can have on the child, for they are, in fact, receptive and information is unquestionably inputed although the output may not be so obvious. Thus far, the above-mentioned diverse projects should be weighed as prototypes for Korean museums as well as others around the world, and those who are a part of the museum field should doubt no longer about the potentials of these palpitating visitors. References Alter, P. (1988). “Exhibit Evaluation: Taking Account of Human Factors.” Curator, 31, 167-177.

Bagchi, S.K. (1992). “The Piagetian Children’s Science Gallery.” Curator, 35, 95-104.

Bergman, A., Mahler, M.S., & Pine, F. (1975). The Psychological Birth of the Human Infant. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Bitgood, S. & Lokey, L. (1995). “Children’s Color Choices in a Museum Gift Shop. Visitor Behaviour, 2, 10.

Brown, C. (1995). “Making the Most of Family Visits: Some Observations of Parents with Children in a Museum Science Centre. Museum Management and Curatorship, 14, 65-71.

Butler, B.H. & Sussman, M.B. (1989). Museum Visits and Activities for Family Life Enrichment. New York: Haworth Press Inc.

Clark, D.N. (2000) Culture and Customs of Korea. Westport, Connecticut and London: Greenwood Press.

Cox, A. & Cox, M. (1995). “The Under Fives at Walsall Museum and Art Gallery.” Journal of Education in Museums, 16, 4-5.

Dierking, L.D. (1989). “The Family Experience: Implications from Research.” Journal of museum education, 14, 9-11.

Duckworth, E. (1990). “Museum Visitors and the Development of Understanding.” Journal of museum education, 15, 4-6.

Falk, J.H. & Dierking, L.D. (1992). The Museum Experience. Washington, D.C.: Whalesback Books.

Korean National Statistics Office (2003-1970) Vital Statistics.

Krug, K. & Weinberg, C. (1996). “Mission, Money, and Merit: Strategic Decision Making by Nonprofit Managers”. Worldwide Web Accessed on 15 December 2004 (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:TR_pmMaLMS8J:www.sauder.ubc.ca/faculty/research/docs/weinberg/mission-moneyPDF.PDF+Krug,+K.+(1996).+For+whom+do+we+do+our+work.+&hl=en).

Maier, H.W. (1988). Three Theories of Child Development. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc.

Meeter, H. & Verhaar, J. (1989). Project Model Exhibitions. Leiden: Reinwardt Academie.

Montreal Museum of Fine Arts. A Museum Guide for Parents of Curious Children: Learning Together from Objects. Montreal: The Montreal Museum of Fine Arts.

Piaget, J. (1952). The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: International Universities Press, Inc.

Thompson, D. (1992). “Greenglass’ Learning from Objects in a Museum.” Visitor Behaviour, 7: 15.

31

La Adopción de los conceptos de Jean Piaget sobre el desarrollo cognitivo del nino en relación con el

conocimiento de los objetos en los museos de Corea del sur

Yun Shun Susie Chung - USA

____________________________________________________________ Las personas mayores me aconsejaron que dejara de lado los diseños de serpientes boas abiertas o cerradas y que me interesara más bien en la geografía, la historia, el cálculo y la gramática. Es así como abandoné, a la edad de seis años, una magnífica carrera de pintor… Las personas mayores jamás comprenden nada por sí solas, y es agotador para los niños darles explicaciones una y otra vez… El Principito Tanto en Europa como en América, la “familia nuclear” se ha convertido en una expresión pasada de moda desde el fin de siglo. Las familias hoy “vienen en todos los formatos y tamaños, incluyendo familias con padres solteros, familias mixtas, familias extensa y familias co-emparentadas” (Dierking1989:9). Sin embargo, en el este de Asia y particularmente en Corea del Sur, hacia donde dirigiré mi estrategia, la familia extensa todavía existe y la familia nuclear es un fenómeno reciente con fuertes vínculos. El tema principal que se debate en la actualidad se refiere al hecho que más y más mujeres están comenzando a trabajar, ya sea para mantener a la familia o para tener una carrera propia, mientras que la abuela, la tía y hasta la guardería infantil o una niñera profesional se hacen cargo en su lugar del cuidado de su hijo. El último fenómeno que está sucediendo en Corea del Sur es el de la familia con padres solteros: de acuerdo con la Oficina Nacional Coreana de Estadísticas, se registraron 167.096 casos en 2003 y 59.313 parejas casadas se divorciaron. Las estadísticas también muestran que la tasa de natalidad ha decrecido dramáticamente desde 1993, con 723.934 hasta llegar a 493.471 en 2003, si bien el gobierno coreano toma a su cargo la alimentación de un hijo. Los sábados, generalmente se trabaja medio día. Las familias tienden a salir los domingos de excursión. En la mayoría de los casos, los niños impulsan a sus padres para que los lleven a los museos, lo que se convierte en un entretenimiento, en una especie de paseo social para ellos mismos. (Falk & Dierking 1992). Generalmente, cuando tiene lugar una exhibición con mucho éxito de público, encuentran el tiempo para ir todos juntos, pero las salidas culturales para los integrantes de la familia van más allá de los eventos estéticos visuales. Por las noches se los encuentra sentados frente al televisor, conversando sobre el episodio que están viendo. En Corea, el espacio para vivir es limitado. Las casas de departamentos no tienen valor estético, sólo un propósito funcional. La educación de los hijos es un factor clave desde los comienzos de la sociedad coreana. El camino al prestigio ha sido siempre a través de la educación. El analfabetismo prácticamente no existe. Los padres harán cualquier cosa por ayudar a los hijos a estudiar, incluso mudarse a un mejor distrito o, si tienen los medios, enviarlos a un país extranjero para que logren una mejor educación. El niño es introducido a muy temprana edad en la educación para la lectura, la escritura, la conversación y la creatividad. A la edad de 3 o 4 años es enviado a institutos donde aprende a tocar el piano o cualquier otra habilidad como manejar la computadora o aprender inglés como segunda lengua. La educación cultural no se distingue de la educación académica. El marco formal y el informal no se dan en forma separada. En efecto, las visitas a los museos con la familia como así también en grupos escolares se consideran aprendizaje educacional. En Corea sólo hay un Museo de los Niños, el Samsung Children’s Museum y una Galería también para niños en el nuevo Museo Nacional. Descontando las dos instituciones mencionadas, las exhibiciones de los museos están dirigidas a los adultos. Es necesario que se realicen exposiciones para los niños y el objetivo de este documento es precisamente examinar la importancia de los museos para atender a niños por debajo de los cinco años de edad. “Il faut quitter avant d’en avoir assez”, (“Tenemos que irnos antes de estar hartos”) dijo una madre a un niño en un museo de Francia (Butler & Sussman 1989, pág. 35) Este ejemplo muestra a las claras que el adulto como maestro a cargo de un niño tiene considerable influencia para que mire el museo

32

de una determinada manera a través de la enseñanza directa, y si resulta que considera al museo como un lugar reverencial que se debe recorrer en silencio, o bien un lugar asfixiante donde sólo van determinadas personas, el niño retendrá esa imagen (Butler y Sussman 1989). Los adultos, como iniciadores, son quienes compaginan la agenda para ir al museo y quienes además, van con sus conocimientos previos. Dependiendo de la edad, el adulto interpretará de manera conveniente el potencial del niño procurando que comprenda la exhibición. Como apoyo, lo elogiará cuando comprende los conceptos de cada objeto, diciendo “¡muy bien!” a fin de estimular su confianza en sí mismo. Como mediador el adulto volcará sus propios conocimientos en el niño, no sólo a lo largo de la exhibición, sino de la experiencia total del museo, desde que entra hasta que sale, lo que incluirá llevarlo a las áreas de descanso e incluso pasearlo en un buggy a la manera de un celador. En algunos museos el adulto mostrará al niño cómo se manifiestan los objetos de experiencia práctica (hands-on). Con estos conceptos como base, exploraremos el desarrollo de los niños para el conocimiento del objeto. Para hacer programas o adaptar para el niño las exhibiciones de los museos, debemos observar detenidamente su capacidad de aprendizaje en relación con los objetos y saber hasta qué grado se le posibilita hacerlo. La teoría de Jean Piaget sobre el desarrollo del niño fue aplicada en muchos programas de museos; el punto que desearía debatir en esta oportunidad a fin de comprender mejor la manera de integrar esa información a nuestras creaciones, se refiere al desarrollo de la conciencia del objeto en el niño. Focalizando la teoría cognitiva de Piaget podemos observar cómo desarrolla esta facultad. A efectos de comprender mejor el concepto de Piaget de la evolución de la organización cognitiva, su teoría, he citado textualmente el libro de Henry W. Maier “Tres teorías sobre el desarrollo del niño”. De acuerdo a Maier el concepto es interpretado por dos postulados recurrentes de Piaget : 1. Se presume, a priori, que en la organización de efectos, causalidad, espacio, tiempo y sus interrelaciones ya existen modelos definidos de desarrollo intelectual. 2. El intelecto organiza su propia estructura por virtud de su experiencia con los objetos, la causalidad, el espacio, el tiempo y la interrelación de estas realidades del entorno. (Maier 1988:21) En otras palabras, “adquirimos el conocimiento en la medida en que nosotros mismos podemos descubrir o hacer aquella cosa que debe ser aprendida” Maier (1988) resumen (p.21). También incluye lo escrito por John Dewey sobre el tema: “Conocemos un objeto cuando sabemos cómo está hecho y sabemos cómo está hecho en la medida en que nosotros mismos lo hagamos.” Esto sucede con la experiencia desde el principio de la vida y no es algo que sucede mágicamente en el momento en que el niño se convierte en adulto. Algunas personas pueden considerar los años de la adolescencia como el meollo psicológico para el paso a la edad adulta, pero ésta en realidad comienza en el momento en que el niño entra al mundo desde el vientre de su madre y abre sus ojos hacia el mundo real - donde objetos y experiencias se encuentran desde el nacimiento- para sentir la presencia del doctor o la enfermera, el instrumental médico y tal vez más tarde, el ventanal donde asoman los rostros temerosos de los miembros de la familia que lo saludan, los objetos brillantes, la severa luz del hospital o tal vez la suave luz del cuarto de la madre… Entonces, por qué desperdiciar esos años como si no fueran esenciales…? ¿Porque el niño no los recuerda vívidamente…? Esos años son la esencia de lo que será después el adulto. La influencia de esos años puede ser buena o mala; permanece apilada con esmero en uno de los cajones del inconsciente, y ya como adulto, aquel niño, que se comporta en relación con los objetos, la gente y el entorno de acuerdo a su experiencia, cada tanto abre esos cajones para activar trozos de memoria…(Alter 1988)

33

La Teoría del Desarrollo de Piaget (1952) se divide en cinco fases que tratan la evolución cognitiva del niño. Me ocuparé aquí de las primeras tres fases, que cubren los primeros siete años en la vida de un niño y, lo que es más importante, desarrollan el concepto del descubrimiento del objeto. Las cinco fases son:

1. Sensomotora 2. Preconceptual 3. Pensamiento intuitivo 4. Operaciones concretas 5. Operaciones formales

1. Fase sensomotora La fase sensomotora comprende el período de desarrollo inicial y se manifiesta en los primeros dos años de la evolución del niño. La primera etapa, descripta como “ejercicios reflejos” está marcada por la experiencia repetitiva y rítmica durante el primer mes de la vida del niño -importante factor para tener en cuenta el cuidado temprano- que puede incluir tocar música, cantar una canción de cuna, tararear una melodía, girar un móvil cuando se lo acuesta... Llevar a un niño a ciertas horas a dar una vuelta, leerle un libro o ir al museo cada semana, es tan importante como el acto rudimentario de elegir la alimentación materna o la mamadera; usar pañales de género o descartables; acunar al niño en los brazos para dormir o dejarlo dormir solo sin la presencia del adulto. Todo forma parte de la experiencia repetitiva y rítmica. Incluye también texturas, tonos, sonidos, aromas, gustos que acompañan cada nueva experiencia durante los niveles secuenciales del desarrollo con estímulos. Durante la “etapa primaria de reacciones circulares” el niño comienza a aprender a través de la interacción con el objeto más que del objeto mismo. Durante la “etapa secundaria de reacciones circulares”, que abarca aproximadamente el período que va desde los 4 hasta los 8 meses, el objeto todavía no deja marca en el conocimiento del niño: una vez que desaparece, ya no existe para él/ella. Sin embargo desde los 8 hasta los 12 meses, la “etapa esquemática secundaria” el niño ya es capaz de diferenciar el objeto y la situación asociada. La “etapa terciaria de reacciones circulares” cubre de los 12 a los 18 meses. Los objetos y el entorno cobran particular interés para el niño. El objeto es percibido por separado de las acciones. Es la “invención de nuevos recursos a través de las combinaciones mentales”, última etapa del desarrollo sensomotor. El niño ya discierne los objetos como entidades diferenciadas y separadas o independientes de su voluntad. 2. Fase preconceptual La fase preconceptual abarca el período que va de los 2 a los 4 años. El objeto y el entorno se personalizan y están sujetos a descubrimientos por parte del niño, motivo por el cual es proclive a tocar todos los objetos a la vista, especialmente si son desconocidos. 3. Fase de pensamiento intuitivo Durante la fase de pensamiento intuitivo, de los 4 a los 7 años, el niño conserva su percepción de los objetos y hasta considera que aquellos que se mueven están vivos. De allí su fascinación por los juguetes a batería. Muchas veces da igual tratamiento a los objetos que a los humanos. Encontramos esta información útil en lo que respecta al uso de objetos de experimentación personal (hands-on exhibits). Estudios realizados han demostrado que son populares entre los niños que forman parte de un grupo familiar, como oportunidad de desviar la noción de intocable a la de tocable y personal. Ante la clara evidencia de su desarrollo para percibirlos y reconocerlos como entidades separadas, queda demostrado que el niño es capaz de comprender los objetos desde muy temprana edad. Realizando una mayor investigación sobre este tema, los profesionales de museos estarían preparados para adaptar en consecuencia los programas de las exhibiciones. Los museos de Corea del Sur deberían apuntar hacia prácticas e investigaciones sobre este tema y sobre la audiencia, a menudo subestimada. Por otra parte, cabe destacar que los conceptos de Piaget sobre el desarrollo

34

infantil sentaron las bases de la programación de exhibiciones para niños en los museos de “adultos” tanto como en los específicos para ellos. Cuando observamos en los museos las familias con sus niños, deberíamos saber cuál es el propósito que las lleva. El museo para el nuevo siglo deberá ser planeado para los niños de hoy, que serán, a su turno, los adultos del nuevo milenio. Cada vez más, el museo será un lugar donde se reúna la familia los domingos para encontrarse (físicamente), para disfrutar (socialmente) y para aprender (intelectualmente). (Krug y Weinberg 1996). Por lo tanto, debemos ver con qué capacidad el niño adquiere el conocimiento de un entorno orientado hacia el objeto -desde el museo y a través de su familia, convertida a la vez en maestro, iniciador, intérprete, apoyo y mediador- por medio de programas adecuados, con “estrategias de presentación que aseguren un aprendizaje del objeto y su concepto claro y sin ambigüedades y que les permita personalizarlo” (Falk & Dierking 1992:131). ¿De qué manera podemos nosotros, desde el campo de los museos, elaborar programas y exhibiciones que ayuden a la familia y al niño, facilitándoles una positiva diversión al mismo tiempo que una experiencia de aprendizaje…? Seleccionando objetos y temas apropiados, teniendo en cuenta que el niño difícilmente tiene mitos externos a los que recurrir. (Alter 1988); realizando investigaciones intensivas en coordinación con la didáctica y el diseño y a través de la evaluación, tanto la familia como el niño podrán disfrutar de los programas y exhibiciones indicados. El punto a continuación debe ser tratado también en relación con los museos de Corea, dado que cada cultura difiere en lo que ofrece a la audiencia. Se ha dicho que “…un museo que se ocupa de las necesidades físicas del visitante estará capacitado para dirigirse a su intelecto”. Y con sólo un museo infantil en Corea, el resto no cuenta con comodidades suficientes para estos visitantes VIP (Falk & Dierking 1992 : 147). No sólo debemos pensar en los programas y las exhibiciones, también en el área de orientación donde deben estar disponibles los buggies para los pequeños visitantes, como también los ascensores, ya que muchos adultos llevan en brazos a sus hijos a través de la visita, con la consiguiente fatiga de museo... Se deben tener en cuenta especialmente los artefactos de los baños para niños, los cambiadores e incluso la colocación de sillones en los lugares de descanso para las madres que amamantan, todo bajo las más estrictas medidas de higiene. Los restaurants deben estar equipados con sillas altas. En lo referente al material escrito, deberían publicarse guías para la familia a fin de que se mantengan informados sus miembros y las hojas de trabajo podrían ser enviadas a la casa con una encuesta complementaria para los padres. La elección de colores apropiados, luces, materiales, etc. forman parte de la integración de la experiencia del museo con el visitante realmente lego. Por lo tanto deberíamos investigar más en ese campo. Los siguientes son ejemplos de proyectos exitosos llevados a cabo en el mundo occidental que deberían servir de modelo para los museos de Corea. 1. Una galería de arte para “adultos” dirigida a niños de menos de cinco años En el verano de 1995 el Museo y Galería de Arte Walsall elaboró un proyecto llamado Start, destinado a la audiencia menuda y muchas veces excluida que oscila entre los 3 y 5 años. La exhibición está basada en el concepto de Playscape del Museo de los Niños de Indianápolis. Fue la primera exhibición interactiva especialmente realizada para la audiencia infantil en una galería de arte y se proponía investigar el potencial del niño al hacer su encuentro precisamente con el arte. Se requirió la participación de los adultos, procurando limitarla al máximo.”Las galerías de arte nunca se han concentrado en los visitantes más jóvenes. Las razones deben ser el temor por lo desconocido, el deseo de no interferir con la estética del espacio y la creencia de que las galerías de arte son lugares para adultos destinados a la serena contemplación, inadecuados para los más pequeños. (Cox & Cox 1995). Los resultados fueron sorprendentes. Los niños resultaron realmente entusiastas para crear arte y en dos semanas estaban todos los lugares reservados. 2. Tienda de regalos del museo toma en serio a sus visitantes más jóvenes ( lo mismo deberían hacer en las exhibiciones) En la tienda de regalos de un museo se llevó a cabo un proyecto a cargo de los niños, con el objeto de detectar sus preferencias en la elección de colores para las gomas de borrar (Bitgood & Lockey 1995). No sólo se comprobó que esta elección depende de la edad, el item y su calidad, sino también que el staff del museo tenía tiempo sobrado para realizar estudios de visitantes. Se concluyó que los

35

objetos expuestos también deben tener en cuenta los colores, para lo cual los niños son más receptivos que los adultos. 3. Aprendiendo de los objetos del museo El propósito de este estudio fue encontrar la correlación entre el estilo de aprendizaje de los visitantes y el tipo de información que ofrece el museo. (Thompson 1992) El estilo de aprendizaje del visitante se definió de acuerdo con la orientación cognitiva de cada persona, medida como capacidad de información-procesamiento. El estudio probó que las exhibiciones sumamente estructuradas (las que incluyen conceptos claramente presentados) son más efectivas para todo tipo de visitantes (incluyendo aquellos por debajo de los 5 años). La Galería de Ciencias de los Niños de Piaget En mayo de 1988 el Instituto Birla y el Museo Tecnológico de Calcuta, India, abrieron la Galería Birla para Niños en el marco de las teorías de Piaget sobre la experiencia práctica. Fueron principalmente exhibiciones de física “learning by doing” (aprender haciendo) con interacción con los objetos, destinadas a niños de 2 a 7 años (Bagchi 1992) Aunque los niños llegan con sus padres, cabe destacar que una vez que entran deben quedar solos. 5. Una galería separada para los más pequeños en el Museo Nacional de Historia Natural de Leiden, Holanda. El Museo Nacional de Historia Natural se planeó incluyendo una galería para niños de 4 a 12 años, que abrió en 1998. Consistía en un horno de piedra para amasar, un café para alimentar animales y actividades exploratorias para aprender sobre diversos temas a través de la experiencia práctica. Fue evaluada en la fase formativa y se la considera un buen ejemplo para todo tipo de museos en lo que se refiere a la aplicación de estudios de planificación conceptual, evaluación formativa, evaluación sumativa y apreciación crítica. Los factores determinantes que componen la experiencia en un museo de niños son muchos: la relación con la familia, sus valores, la cultura, los objetos y el entorno. Analizando estos temas y algunos más y su capacidad para aprender acerca de los objetos, podemos determinar qué clase de efectos se van a producir en el niño, porque de hecho es muy receptivo y la información ingresada (input) es incuestionable aunque la de salida (output) no sea tan obvia De este modo, los diversos proyectos arriba mencionados deben ser sopesados como prototipos para los museos de Corea y también para otros museos del mundo. Todos aquellos que forman parte de una u otra manera del área de los museos no deben dudar acerca de las potencialidades de nuestros palpitantes y pequeños visitantes. Summary English Given the fact that most public institutions allow children under five to enter free since they are not seen as individuals but bound to a family, focus on the child and interaction with the family will be a fundamental concept in order to study the child as an individual museum visitor, a delicate, undervalued, and untouched subject. In the home and out, 24 hours a day, children, especially under five years of age, are cared for and never do we find them alone in a museum without guidance from an adult. Nevertheless, it does not mean that they are incapable of observing, feeling or thinking on their own, only that they are at a vulnerable stage where learning is through exploring, therefore they must be lead and taught the proper way to explore. Usually we find either the mother, father, grandmother, in general, family members to be the ones in charge of what we call ‘child-rearing’ which incorporates guidance, each moment having a different degree or stage as the child grows. According to Robert S. Sears’ conception of child development, “child-rearing is a continuous process. Every moment of a child’s life that he or she spends in contact with his or her parents has some effect on both his or her present behavior and his or her potentialities for future actions” (Maier 1988:141). This includes values, beliefs, attitudes, and ways of life that the family members will present to the child pertaining to objects, people, and the environment which, in turn, will have affect on the museum

36

experience (Butler & Sussman, 1989). This paper explores the adoption of Jean Piaget’s concepts of child development to object awareness in museums in the South Korea as case study. Resumen Dado que la mayoría de las instituciones públicas permite a los niños de menos de cinco años acceder a ellas en forma gratuita, pues no son vistos como individuos independientes sino ligados a una familia, focalizar al niño en su interacción con dicha familia será un concepto fundamental para estudiarlo como un visitante individual del museo, tema delicado, subestimado y casi intacto. En el hogar y fuera de él los pequeños son cuidados las 24 horas del día, especialmente los menores de cinco años de edad y nunca los encontramos solos en un museo sin la guía de un adulto. Sin embargo, esto no significa que sean incapaces de observar, sentir y pensar por sus propios medios, sólo que están en una etapa vulnerable de sus vidas donde el aprendizaje se realiza a través de la experiencia, motivo por el cual deben ser guiados para aprender la manera correcta de explorar. Usualmente encontramos a la madre, el padre o la abuela -en general a los miembros de la familia- encargados de lo que llamamos child-rearing, que incorpora orientación y guía en todo momento, pero en diferentes grados y etapas a medida que el niño va creciendo. Según Robert S. Sears, la concepción del desarrollo del niño o child- rearing, es un proceso continuo. Cada momento en la vida de un niño pasado en contacto con sus padres tiene algún efecto, tanto en su conducta presente como en sus potencialidades para futuras acciones. (Maier 1988:141). Esto incluye valores, creencias, actitudes y modos de vida que los miembros de la familia presentarán al niño, vinculándolos con los objetos, las personas y el entorno y que a su turno, tendrán efecto en la experiencia del museo (Butler y Sussman, 1989). Este documento refleja un caso de estudio que explora la adopción de los conceptos de Jean Piaget sobre el desarrollo del niño y su conocimiento de los objetos en los museos de Corea del Sur. Translated into Spanish by Nelly Decarolis

37

Assumptions, Expectations and Actual Gallery Experiences

Ann Davis - Canada ________________________________________________________________________________ What do museum visitors want in a visit to a museum? Perhaps even more importantly, what do non-museum visitors want of museums? Can museums understand what attracts and repels visitors? Do museums today shape value, validate identity and impose order? Do museums today continue their traditional functions of yielding pleasure, diversion and status? And, if so, how? How do we discuss the impact of a museum experience? These enormous museological problems provoked this paper, a paper that only succeeds in probing the very edges of a few aspects of these questions, for it is immediately acknowledged that we have many questions but few answers about museum audience.1 This paper, based on work done in a senior undergraduate museum studies course at the University of Calgary, will concentrate on two factors identified by John Falk and Lynn Dierking as fundamental to museum learning experiences.2 In their seminal book, Learning from Museums: Visitor Experiences and the Making of Meaning, 2000, Falk and Dierking isolate eight key factors, or suites of factors, which they think are fundamental to museum learning experiences.3 These are: Personal Context

1. Motivation and expectations 2. Prior knowledge, interests, and beliefs 3. Choice and Control

Sociocultural Context

4. Within group sociocultural mediation 5. Facilitated mediation by others

Physical Context

6. Advanced organizers and orientation 7. Design 8. Reinforcing events and experiences outside the museum.4

While the University of Calgary students examined all eight factors, only two, numbers 7 and 8, will be considered here. The decision to restrict this paper to two and to these particular two, was taken partly on the basis of new information and partly due to space restraints.

I Background

In the 1970’s and 1980’s museums began to study visitors, surveying visitor demographics. These surveys sought to analyze visitation by age, race, education, income level, residence location and other indices. This work identified underserved sectors and helped museums to try to shift their visitor mix toward one more representative of the general population. While government funders promoted these forms of diversity as well as the activity of measuring audience diversity, museums began to try to identify those features which attracted or repelled visitors, “what kinds of displays they

1 For a good overview of the historical and museological background to the problem see Neil Harris, “The Divided House of the American Art Museum,” Daedatus, Summer 1999, v. 128. 2 MHST 433, winter 2005. The members of this class were Kim Biberich, Rochelle Boehn, Jill Collins, Metaxia Georgopoulos, Cory Gross, Yukiko Horibe, Julie Labonte, Emily Lux, Kristian McInnis, and May-Lin Polk 3 Learning from Museums: Visitor Experiences and the Making of Meaning. (Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2000), p. 137. 4 Ibid.

38

found particularly appealing or especially unappealing, what their assumptions, expectations, and actual gallery experiences were like….”5 At the same time museum practice and influence was critiqued by the likes of Pierre Bourdieu, Michel Foucautt and Jacques Derrida, transforming contemporary theories of subjectivity, representation and otherness. Public institutions, such as hospitals, universities, libraries and museums, long laying claim to progressive admiration, were now revealed as “disciplinary devices in an extended class war,” institutions enjoying extraordinary power.6 Aside from specifically privileging certain classes of objects and dignifying their owners, during the twentieth century museums have been identified, Neil Harris claims, as “significant social narrators, codifying modernity, organizing history, subduing nature, and ultimately disciplining their visitors.”7 Donald Preziosi argues that the museum has become an institution “of astonishingly potent and subtle illusion… one of the most powerful factories for the production of modernity,” one of the “premier theoretical machineries for the production of the present.”8

II Methodology

During the winter term 2005, the senior seminar in Museum and Heritage Studies was centred on Falk and Dierking’s book Learning from Museums. Using qualitative research methods, students were to research and present in a seminar and essay their findings on one of Falk and Dierking’s eight key factors in museum learning. Based on the premises of inquiry-based learning, each student had to carry out original research. Each sought ethics approval for using human subjects, isolated a thesis, identified research methods – usually a combination of observations and interviews, devised research questions, conducted the observations and interviews in local museums, analyzed the results and, finally, presented the whole process to class in a seminar and as an essay. Students were encouraged to be as interdisciplinary as possible. The results were extraordinary. Each student was asked to go beyond, to probe deeper than Falk and Dierking had done. Many succeeded. In so doing, they learned a great deal about museums, although they were not always conscious that they were doing so. Specifically they learned that we know very little about museum audiences, their learning and their experiences. Students also discovered how very difficult research is to do. They had subjects who did not turn up, were disinterested or rushed or fundamentally negative. They encountered museums that did not provide the programs they advertised. They often uncovered individual museum visitors who, though educated, were not educated in the specific complexities of museums and simply did not have the words to describe their reactions.9 They often got unexpected results.

III Design

This section is based primarily on the work of Cory Gross, a 4th year student in MHST 433. Always dressed in black, sporting many piercings and long hair carefully gelled to stand straight up, it is not surprising that Cory chose museum design as his research topic. Place is very important in learning. As Tony Hiss explains

We all react, consciously and unconsciously, to the places where we live and work… [O]ur ordinary surroundings, built and natural alike, have an immediate and a continuing effect on the way we feel and act, on our health and intelligence.10

5 Harris, p. 6. 6 Ibid., p. 7. 7 Ibid. 8 Donald Preziosi, “Art History, Museology, and the Staging of Modernity,” in Maurice Tuchman, Parallel Visions: Modern Artists and Outsider Art, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), p. 299-300. 9 For an interesting discussion of the problems of inarticulation in another context, see Malcolm Gladwell, Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2005). Here Gladwell, commenting on taste tests between Coke and Pepsi, points out that most of us cannot categorize and describe two tastes that are quite similar, pp. 184-186. 10 Tony Hiss, The Experience of Place (New York: Knopf, 1990).

39

There is, therefore, a strong correlation between physical space or context and feelings, with a corollary that learning occurs best under conditions of positive affect. As the need to make sense of the environment is an innate quality of all mammalian brains, the design of space in a museum is an important contributor to learning, to the search for meaning.11 Falk and Dierking explain that over the past few decades, exhibition design has undergone a major revolution in both quality and complexity. Exhibitions are no longer just spaces for displaying objects. Now they are environments in which visitors experience history, art, nature or science. Exhibitions, more and more, envelop the visitor in visual, tactile, auditory and even olfactory sensation. But exhibitions are more than just sensory experiences, the design. They are also intellectual experiences. Good design alone does not automatically yield a good experience, for the content, the topic must also appeal.12 To study exhibition design, Cory Gross asked three people to visit two very different exhibitions at the Glenbow Museum in Calgary. Observed by Cory, each person visited both Nitsitapiisinni: Our Way of Life, an ethnographic exhibition exploring the history and culture of the Blackfoot First Nations of southern Alberta, and Many Faces, Many Paths: The Art of Asia, an art exhibition of Hindu and Buddhist sculpture. Gross concluded that, in designing exhibitions, museums designers must start with an understanding of what visitors were seeking when visiting the museum. Museum objects, in and of themselves, are negotiable, as Bourdieu et al demonstrate. In the museum context, artifacts are valuable as instruments for conveying information the visitors want to know and the experience they want to have. Gross concluded that, although real artifacts have an aura imbued by history and authority, it is the meaning or meanings the objects convey which interests visitors more than the objects themselves. Therefore exhibition design must work with artifacts to impart meaning, design and object should be, Gross claims, integrated “so as to holistically engage the visitor and to facilitate authentic learning and understanding.”13

IV Reinforcing Events and Experiences Outside the Museum

Two students in MHST 433 studied this topic, Yukiko Horibe and Jill Collins. Yukiko, a visiting student from Japan, was restrained in class discussions, due to her lack of fluidity in spoken English, yet she clearly followed discussions and determinedly contributed perceptive comments. Jill, a psychology major who delighted in our qualitative rather than quantitative methodology, works in a small country museum and was skillfully able to integrate her museum experience and her psychology studies into this course. The role of subsequent experience in learning is well known. In studying for an exam, for example, good students review their notes and the text book, going over material already presented a second or third time. The greater the number of times material is reviewed, the easier it is to understand and remember it. Falk and Dierking feel it is important “to make learning experiences boundless.” This means, then, that “the experience should continue from learners’ innate interests and experiences and enable them to continue or extend the learning beyond the temporal and physical confines of a single experience.”14 Falk and Dierking discuss a study conducted at the National Aquarium in Baltimore that attempted to monitor what visitors do and retain after their visit to the museum. This study determined that visitors exiting the aquarium had clearly absorbed the central message of conservation, and that their understanding of conservation had clearly been both extended and refined. Over several months the study revealed that changes in visitors’ understanding, knowledge and interests persisted. What was surprising, distressing really, was that though the museums experience connected to visitors’ lives following their visit, the visit typically did not inspire conservation action. As Falk and Dierking noted “It appeared that in the absence of reinforcing experiences, emotion and commitment had generally receded to the baseline levels

11 Falk and Dierking 12 Ibid., pp. 127-129 13 Unpublished essay, p. 24. 14 pp. 130-131.

40

observed when visitors entered the aquarium.”15 Another study, conducted at the Washington Park Arboretum in Seattle, determined that related follow-up activity reinforced some of the concepts presented during the field trip.16 The two case studies undertaken by Jill and Yukiko attempted to follow individual visitors over time, in their cases just a short time, to learn specifically what they do or do not do after a visit. Yukiko looked specifically at visitors’ attitudes toward museum shops, examining why museum visitors visit museum shops. More specifically the case study was designed to investigate whether museum visitors visit museum shops for learning and whether actions in museum shops reinforce learning. Yukiko observed and interviewed three fellow students as they visited The Nickle Arts Museum’s shop and the exhibition Maxwell Bates: At the Crossroads of Expressionism. These three students, all of whom usually visit the shop after a visit to a museum, found it difficult to articulate exactly why they visit the shop. But, under Yukiko’s skillful probing and acute analysis, some interesting reasons emerge. Each student sought specific material related to the exhibition. In this case, they were disappointed because the exhibition catalogue was not in the gift shop. Actually the catalogue was prominently displayed on the front desk and sold well. Perhaps these three participants were too diligent or too narrow in their definition of shop, and did not accommodate purchases from the front desk. The participants articulated that a visit to the museum shop was like a “cushion” or like “desert,” after the exhibition. While museum shops usually try to tie into a museum’s educational goal, this purpose was imperfectly communicated to the participants in the merchandise available. Economy of scale was certainly part of the reason here: The Nickle Arts Museum does not attract enough visitors to make it viable to print special post cards or other merchandise for each exhibition, which typically lasts two months. This study then does not support the thesis that museum visitors visit a museum shop for learning and that museum shop visits reinforce learning.17 Jill Collins was interested in how events that occurred outside the museum may reinforce museum-based learning. Her study involved observing and interviewing five middle-aged people, three women and one couple, all of whom visited a rural museum. One month after their museum visit, each participant was interviewed to determine whether and how new knowledge acquired during a museum visit was re-contextualized into an individual’s schema. Jill determined that, in every case, substantial learning did occur during the visit to the museum. As well, over the next month each participant accessed in some way that learning. Interestingly the source of learning was often lost. Participants remembered information acquired during their museum visit but, in later activities, did not recall where they had learned that information. People incorporate new knowledge into what they already know, and did not think about the source. One participant, for example, learned at the museum that the country singer Wilf Carter is Canadian. In the interview she was able to produce Wilf Carter’s nationality but not her source for that knowledge.18 These three case studies, although very small and restricted in many ways, show that museums still have a great deal to learn about their audience. We need to consider and to research much more carefully why and how visitors visit museums, and what they do before and after their visit. While the research confirms a very strong learning purpose, that learning purpose falls away quite rapidly after the visitor has left the exhibition and is browsing in the museum shop or going about her daily activities.

15 Ibid., p. 202 16 Augustus J. Farmer and John A. Wott, “Field Trips and Follow-up Activities: Fourth Graders in a Public Garden,” Journal of Environmental Education, Fall 1995, Vol. 27, No. 1. 17 Ibid., p. 131 18 Unpublished essay.

41

Conjeturas, Expectivas y Experiencias Actuales en Las Galerías

Ann Davis – Canada

¿Qué es lo que esperan los visitantes en su visita al museo? Quizá, y más importante aún, ¿qué es lo que esperan de los museos los no-visitantes?¿Pueden los museos comprender qué es lo que atrae o repele a los visitantes? ¿Determinan hoy valores, convalidan la identidad e imponen orden? ¿Continúan con sus funciones tradicionales de generar placer, entretenimiento y posición social? Y si es así, ¿cómo lo logran? ¿De qué manera discutimos el impacto de una experiencia de museo? Estos grandes interrogantes museológicos provocaron este documento, un documento que sólo conseguirá su propósito examinando los límites mismos de algunos aspectos de estas preguntas, ya que sabemos perfectamente que existen muchas preguntas y pocas respuestas sobre el público de museos.1 Este artículo, basado en el trabajo realizado en un curso de estudios museológicos de estudiantes universitarios superiores de la Universidad de Calgary, se concentrará en dos factores identificados por John Falk y Lynn Dierking que son fundamentales para las experiencias de aprendizaje en los museos.2. En su libro, Learning from Museums: Visitor Experiences and the Making of Meaning, 2000, de gran influencia en la evolución de nuevas ideas, Falk y Dierking aíslan ocho factores clave o serie de factores que consideran imprescindibles para las experiencias de aprendizaje en el museo3, a saber: El contexto personal

1. Motivaciones and expectativas 2. Conocimientos, intereses y creencias previos 3. Selección y control

Contexto socio-cultural

4. Intervención socio-cultural del grupo 5. Intervención facilitada por otros

Contexto físico

6. Organizadores y orientación avanzados 7. Diseño 8. Fortalecimiento de hechos y experiencias fuera del museo4

Si bien los estudiantes de la Universidad de Calgary examinaron los ocho factores mencionados, aquí sólo consideraremos los números 7 y 8. La decisión de restringir este documento al análisis de dos de ellos, y de estos dos en particular, fue tomada sobre la base de ofrecer nueva información respetando las limitaciones de espacio. 1. Antecedentes En las décadas del 70 y el 80 los museos comenzaron a estudiar a los visitantes sobre la base de encuestas demográficas. Estos estudios buscaban evaluar las visitas por edad, raza, educación, ingresos, lugar de residencia y otros índices. Los trabajos identificaron sectores carenciados y 1 Para una buena apreciación de los antecedentes históricos y museológicos del problema, ver Neil Harris, “The Divided House of the American Art Museum”, Daedatus, Verano 1999, v. 128. 2 MHST 433, winter 2005. Los miembros de esta clase eran Kim Biberich, Rochelle Boehn, Hill Collins, Metaxia Georgopoulos, Cory Gross, Yukiko Horibe, Julie Labonte, Emily Lux, Kristian McInnis, and May-Lin Polo. 3 Learning from Museums: Visitor Experiences and the Making of Meaning. (Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2000), p. 137. 4 Ibid.

42

ayudaron a los museos a encauzar su mezcla de visitantes hacia otra más representativa de la población en general. En tanto que los patrocinadores del gobierno promovían estas formas de diversidad tanto como la medición de la heterogeneidad de audiencias, los museos comenzaron a tratar de identificar aquellas características que atraían o repelían a los visitantes, “qué tipo de presentaciones consideraban particularmente atractivas o de lo contrario poco atractivas; cómo eran sus conjeturas, expectativas y experiencias reales en las galerías…”5 Al mismo tiempo, la praxis museológica y su influencia eran juzgadas por personas como Pierre Bourdieu, Michel Foucault y Jacques Derrida, transformando las teorías contemporáneas de la subjetividad, la representación y la otredad. Instituciones públicas tales como hospitales, universidades, bibliotecas y museos, que desde hacía mucho tiempo clamaban por lograr una progresiva admiración, se revelaban ahora como “modelos disciplinares en una extendida guerra de clases,” y como instituciones que disfrutaban de un poder extraordinario.6 Aparte de privilegiar específicamente cierta clase de objetos y dignificar a sus propietarios, durante el siglo XX los museos fueron identificados -afirma Neil Harris- como “significativos narradores sociales que codifican la modernidad, organizan la historia, someten la naturaleza y, finalmente, disciplinan a sus visitantes”7. Donald Preziosi argumenta que el museo ha devenido una institución “de asombrosa, potente y sutil ilusión… uno de las más poderosas fábricas para la producción de la modernidad”, una de las “primeras maquinarias teóricas para la producción del presente”8. 2. Metodología Durante el período invernal de 2005, el Seminario Superior sobre “Museos y Estudios de Patrimonio” estuvo centrado en el libro de Falk and Dierking Learning from Museums. Aplicando el uso de métodos de investigación cualitativos, cada estudiante debió investigar y presentar en un seminario y en un ensayo, sus hallazgos sobre uno de los ocho factores clave de Falk & Dierking acerca del aprendizaje en los museos. Apoyándose en las premisas de aprendizaje basado en la indagación, los estudiantes debieron realizar una investigación original. Cada uno de ellos buscó aprobación ética por tener que utilizar sujetos humanos; preparó una tesis; identificó métodos de investigación (generalmente una combinación de observación y entrevistas); planeó preguntas; condujo las observaciones y las entrevistas en los museos locales; analizó los resultados y finalmente, presentó todo el proceso para clasificar en un seminario y un ensayo. Los estudiantes fueron impulsados a ser lo más interdisciplinarios posible. Los resultados fueron extraordinarios. A cada estudiante se le solicitó que fuera más lejos aún, que calara más profundamente que Falk & Dierking. Muchos tuvieron éxito. Al hacerlo, aprendieron muchas cosas sobre museos, si bien no siempre eran conscientes de que lo estaban haciendo. Específicamente, aprendieron que sabemos muy poco sobre los públicos de museos, su aprendizaje y sus experiencias. También descubrieron lo difícil que es realizar una investigación. Había sujetos que no podían ser hallados y otros que carecían de interés por el tema, estaban apurados o eran fundamentalmente negativos. Encontraron museos que no proveían los programas que anunciaban y a menudo se toparon con visitantes individuales que, aunque educados, no lo eran en lo relativo a las complejidades específicas de los museos y que simplemente no encontraban las palabras necesarias para describir sus propias reacciones.9 Muchas veces también obtuvieron resultados inesperados. 3. Diseño

5 Harris, p. 6. 6 Ibíd.. 7 Ibíd.. 8 Donald Preziosi, “Art History, Museology, and the Staging of Modernity”, en Maurice Tuchman, Parallel Visions. Modern Artists and Outsider Art (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), p. 299-300. 9 Para una interesante discusión sobre los problemas de inarticulación en otro contexto, ver Malcolm Gladwell, Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2005). Aquí Gladwell, comentando los tests de sabor entre Coke y Pepsi, destaca que la mayoría no puede categorizar ni describir dos gustos que son casi similares, pp. 184-186.

43

Esta sección se basa en el trabajo de Cory Gross, un estudiante de 4to Año de MHST 433. Siempre vestido de negro, con largos cabellos cuidadosamente engominados para mantenerse tiesos y erectos, no es sorprendente que Cory haya elegido el diseño como tema de investigación. El lugar es muy importante para el aprendizaje. Como lo explica Tony Hiss:

Todos reaccionamos, consciente o inconscientemente, en relación con los lugares donde vivimos y trabajamos… Nuestro entorno, tanto construido como natural, posee un efecto inmediato y continuo en nuestra manera de sentir y de actuar, en nuestra salud e inteligencia.10

Existe, por lo tanto, una fuerte correlación entre el espacio físico o contexto y los sentimientos, con el corolario que el aprendizaje es mejor bajo condiciones positivas de afecto. Así como la necesidad de cobrar conciencia del entorno es una cualidad innata del cerebro de los mamíferos, el diseño del espacio en un museo es una importante contribución para el aprendizaje y para la búsqueda de significados11. Falk & Dierking explican que en las últimas décadas el diseño de la exhibición ha sufrido una gran revolución, tanto en calidad como en complejidad. Las exhibiciones han dejado de ser sólo espacios para exponer los objetos. Ahora son entornos en los que los visitantes experimentan la historia, el arte, la naturaleza o la ciencia. Cada día más, las exposiciones envuelven al visitante en sensaciones visuales, táctiles, auditivas y hasta olfativas que son mucho más que simples experiencias sensibles: son también experiencias intelectuales. El buen diseño sólo no reditúa automáticamente una buena experiencia. El contenido y el tema también deben llamar la atención.12 Con el objeto de estudiar el diseño de la exhibición, Cory Gross pidió a seis personas que visitaran dos exhibiciones, muy diferentes entre sí, en el ‘Glenbow Museum’ de Calgary. Bajo la mirada de Cory, cada persona visitó Nitsitapiisinni: our way of life, exposición etnográfica que explora la historia y la cultura de las primeras naciones de Pies Negros del sur de Alberta, y Many faces, many paths: the art of Asia, una exposición de arte escultórico hindú y budista. Gross concluyó que, al diseñar las exhibiciones, los encargados de esa tarea deben comenzar por comprender lo que está buscando el visitante cuando recorre el museo. Si bien los objetos de museo en sí mismos son negociables, como demuestran Bourdieu et al, en el contexto del museo los artefactos son valiosos en su calidad de instrumentos para transmitir la información que desean conocer los visitantes y ofrecer las experiencias que desean incorporar. Gross llega a la conclusión que aunque los artefactos reales poseen además de autoridad un aura imbuida por la historia, más que el objeto en sí mismo, es el significado o los significados que transmite lo que interesa a los visitantes. Por lo tanto, el diseño de la exposición debe trabajar con los artefactos para impartirles significación. El diseño y el objeto deben estar integrados, afirma Gross, “de tal manera que comprometan al visitante holísticamente y faciliten una comprensión y un aprendizaje auténticos.”13 4. Reforzando eventos y experiencias fuera del museo Dos estudiantes del MHST 433 investigaron este tema: Yukiko Horibe y Jill Collins. Yukiko, una estudiante de Japón, limitada en las discusiones en clase debido a su falta de fluidez para expresarse en inglés, pero capaz de seguir sin dificultad las discusiones generales, a las que contribuía con comentarios sagaces y perceptivos y Jill, una psicóloga que encontraba deleite en nuestra metodología cualitativa más que en la cuantitativa, que trabaja en un pequeño museo de campaña y resultó hábil y competente para integrar en el curso su experiencia museológica y sus estudios de psicología. El rol que juega en el aprendizaje la experiencia subsiguiente es bien conocido. Al estudiar para un examen, por ejemplo, los buenos estudiantes revisan sus notas y el libro de texto e inspeccionan rápidamente por segunda y tercera vez el material ya presentado. Cuanto mayor es la cantidad de 10 Tony Hiss, The Experience of Place New York: Knopf, 1990). 11 Falk and Dierking. 12 Ibíd., pp. 127-129. 13 Ensayo sin publicar, p. 24.

44

veces que el material es revisado, más fácil es comprenderlo y recordarlo. Falk & Dierking, precisamente, consideran importante “hacer que las experiencias de aprendizaje sean ilimitadas”. Esto significa que “la experiencia debería continuar a partir de los intereses innatos de los aprendices y permitirles continuar o extender el aprendizaje más allá de los confines temporales y físicos de una experiencia singular”14. Falk & Dierking analizaron un estudio realizado en el Acuario Nacional de Baltimore que pretendía monitorear lo que los visitantes hacen y retienen después de la visita al museo. Este estudio determinó que quienes salían del Acuario habían recibido con claridad el mensaje central de conservación y que su nivel de comprensión acerca de la conservación había sido a la vez amplio y claro. Después de varios meses, el estudio reveló que existían cambios en la comprensión, conocimiento e intereses de los visitantes. Lo sorprendente -y realmente inquietante- fue observar que, si bien la experiencia del museo se conectaba con la vida de los visitantes a partir de su visita, ésta última no les había inspirado ninguna acción conservacionista. Como Falk y Dierking hicieron notar, “…pareciera ser que en ausencia de experiencias reforzadoras, la emoción y el compromiso suelen retroceder hasta los niveles de base observados cuando entraron al Acuario”15. El otro estudio, llevado a cabo en el Jardín Botánico de Washington Park en Seattle, determinó que la actividad conexa de seguimiento refuerza algunos de los conceptos presentados durante el recorrido de campo16. Los dos casos de estudio llevados a cabo por Jill y Yukiko, trataron de seguir a los visitantes individuales a través del tiempo -en este caso sólo por un corto lapso- para observar específicamente lo que hacen o dejan de hacer después de su visita. Yukiko se dedicó especialmente a observar la actitud de los visitantes en relación con las tiendas de los museos, examinando por qué las visitan. El caso de estudio fue específicamente diseñado para investigar si se visitan para aprender y si las acciones en las mismas refuerzan o no dicho aprendizaje. Yukiko observó y entrevistó a tres estudiantes, condiscípulos suyos, mientras realizaban su visita en la tienda del ‘Nickle Arts Museum’ y la exposición Maxwell Bates: En la encrucijada del expresionismo. Estos tres estudiantes, como todos los que usualmente visitan la tienda después de un recorrido por el museo, encontraron difícil expresar exactamente por qué lo hacían. Pero bajo el agudo análisis y el diestro interrogatorio de Yukiko emergieron algunas razones interesantes. Cada estudiante buscaba allí material específico relacionado con la exhibición. En este caso, estaban desilusionados porque el catálogo de la exposición no se encontraba en la tienda de regalos. En efecto, el catálogo estaba desplegado en el mostrador del frente y se vendía muy bien. Tal vez estos tres participantes fueron demasiado diligentes o muy estrechos en su definición de la tienda y no evaluaron las adquisiciones del mostrador. Los participantes dijeron que una visita a la tienda del museo es como un “amortiguador” o como el “postre” después de la exhibición. Si bien las tiendas de los museos tratan generalmente de enlazarse con el objetivo educacional del museo, este propósito no fue correctamente comunicado a los participantes en relación con la mercadería disponible. Ciertamente, la economía de escala fue parte de la razón: The Nickle Arts Museum no atrae lo suficiente a los visitantes como para hacer viable imprimir postales especiales u otras mercaderías para las exhibiciones, que generalmente duran dos meses. Este estudio, por lo tanto, no respalda la tesis de que el público visita la tienda del museo para aprender ni que las visitas a la tienda del museo refuerzan el aprendizaje.17 Jill Collins, por su parte, estaba interesada en la manera en que los eventos ocurridos fuera del museo pueden llegar a reforzar el aprendizaje en el mismo. En su estudio observó y entrevistó a cinco personas de mediana edad, tres mujeres y una pareja. Todos ellos visitaron un museo rural. Un mes después de la visita, cada participante fue entrevistado para determinar de qué manera los nuevos conocimientos adquiridos durante la visita al museo fueron recontextualizados en un esquema individual. Jill determinó que en todos los casos se produjo un aprendizaje sustancial durante la visita al museo. Asimismo, al mes siguiente, cada participante dio información, en cierta manera, de ese aprendizaje.

14 Pp. 130-131. 15 Ibíd.., p. 202. 16 Augustus J. Farmer y John A. Wott, “Field Trips and Follow-up Activities: Fourth Graders in a Public Garden”, Journal of Environmental Education, Fall 1995, Vol. 27, nº 1. 17 Ibíd., p. 202.

45

Es interesante constatar que generalmente la fuente de conocimientos se pierde. Los participantes recordaban la información adquirida durante su visita al museo pero, en actividades posteriores, no recordaban dónde habían obtenido dicha información. Las personas incorporan nuevos conocimientos junto a los que ya poseen, pero no piensan en la fuente. Un participante, por ejemplo, aprendió en el museo que el cantante country Wilf Carter es canadiense. En la entrevista, se encontraba en condiciones de decir la nacionalidad de Wilf Carter pero no la fuente de este conocimiento.18 Estos tres casos de estudio, aunque pequeños y restringidos, demuestran que los museos todavía tienen mucho que aprender sobre su audiencia. Necesitamos considerar e investigar con mayor cuidado por qué y cómo el público visita los museos y lo que hace antes y después de su visita. Mientras por un lado la investigación confirma la existencia de un fuerte propósito de aprendizaje, ese mismo propósito decae rápidamente después que el visitante ha dejado la exhibición y se encuentra curioseando en la tienda del museo o preocupándose por sus actividades diarias. Translated to Spanish by Nelly Decarolis

18 Ensayo sin publicar.

46

Museología, Interpretación y Comunicación:

El Público de Museos

Nelly Decarolis - Argentina _______________________________________________________ El momento crítico de la praxis es seguramente un momento teórico. Paul Ricoeur I. A manera de introducción “Es difícil concebir un universo en que los seres humanos se comuniquen sin lenguaje verbal […] pero igualmente difícil es concebir un universo en que los seres humanos sólo emitan palabras […] En un mundo servido solamente por las palabras, sería muy difícil mencionar las cosas” (Eco: 1992) “El lenguaje verbal se puede definir como el sistema modelador primario (Lotman, 1967) del que los demás lenguajes son variaciones. Es el artificio semiótico más potente que el hombre conoce; le permite traducir sus pensamientos, motivo por el cual hablar y pensar son zonas preferentes de la investigación semiótica. No obstante, existen diferentes modos de producción de signos que presentan un tipo de relación con su contenido que marca diferencias constitutivas con respecto a los signos verbales. Son contenidos expresados por unidades no verbales sino visuales o de comportamiento, transmisibles por artificios no lingüísticos, capaces de abarcar porciones del espacio semántico general que la lengua hablada no siempre consigue tocar. Percepciones estructuradas y descriptibles sistemáticamente como tales o como comportamientos, hábitos, sentimientos que exigen investigaciones más amplias dentro del estado actual de la semiótica ya que se pueden expresar pero no comunicar verbalmente.”1 En este contexto cabe recordar que “...lo que se sabe de la percepción -y especialmente de la visión- demuestra que los notables mecanismos por los cuales los sentidos comprenden el medio son casi idénticos a las operaciones que describe la psicología del pensar y que el pensamiento verdaderamente productivo, en cualquiera de las áreas de la cognición, tiene lugar en el reino de las imágenes […] La acción de “mirar” está compuesta por una serie de acciones interdependientes a través de las cuales se otorga sentido a ciertos elementos específicos […] La percepción visual es pensamiento visual y el papel que le cabe al pensamiento perceptual en las artes y en otros dominios conexos ofrece la posibilidad de una nueva perspectiva respecto al aislamiento y el abandono a que estuviera condenado en la sociedad y en la educación”.2 II. El museo y sus públicos: nuevos paradigmas de comunicación, interpretación y aprendizaje Frente a las nuevas ideas, movimientos, tendencias y orientaciones, el museo puede ser considerado como una verdadera avanzada por su espíritu crítico que lo convierte en no conformista y le da mayor apertura y sensibilidad, allí donde el objeto musealizado “…está abierto como un ‘campo’ de posibilidades interpretativas […] de tal modo que el usuario se ve inducido a una serie de lecturas siempre variables, como constelación de elementos que se prestan a varias relaciones recíprocas.” 3 Se habla mucho de interdisciplinariedad a la hora de abordar críticamente las múltiples dimensiones de la teoría y la praxis museal. Una metodología interdisciplinaria permite tender puentes entre las distintas culturas y reconectar áreas que la investigación tradicional había separado en compartimentos estancos, aún cuando continuasen vinculadas en el devenir histórico. La dimensión crítica del trabajo teórico interdisciplinario logra conexiones imprevistas, pero a la vez necesita abrir 1 Eco, Umberto. Los límites de la interpretación. Editorial Lumen S.A. Barcelona. 1998. 2 Arnheim, Rudolph. El pensamiento visual. Editorial.EUDEBA. Buenos Aires. 1976 3 Eco, Umberto: Obra Abierta. Editora Espasa Calpe Argentina. Argentina. 1993

47

brechas en la superficie de lo establecido, necesita nuevos espacios en busca de la raíz de los problemas que se encuentran en contextos ya dados. La teoría puede cambiar nuestra forma de ver el mundo y hacer visible lo que hasta hoy parecía invisible. Determinadas construcciones simbólicas de la cultura reclaman interpretaciones susceptibles de entrar en conflicto porque, como dice Ricoeur “…la posibilidad de un conflicto de interpretación es intrínseca al proceso mismo de interpretación.” El método interpretativo conjuga distintos puntos de vista y distintas áreas de conflicto y reinterpreta territorios continuamente pre-interpretados. Interpretar es dar forma a un punto de vista, es también realizar una toma de postura abierta a la crítica y al debate. Los múltiples desafíos que plantea la interpretación en el museo son el reflejo de las tensiones existentes entre las diferentes funciones que le son propias y sus roles de mayor alcance. La pregunta es, ¿pueden los museos encontrar un justo equilibrio entre sus diferentes roles? ¿procuran realmente hacerlo…? Gran parte de las experiencias e investigaciones desarrolladas durante los últimos años en el ámbito museal han fortalecido la dimensión pedagógica del museo, sustentada en su poder de convocatoria y comunicación. Como consecuencia, el público ha asumido un protagonismo innegable, dejando de ser un espectador pasivo para convertirse en un actor relevante y hoy asistimos al surgimiento de un nuevo campo de investigación: el estudio de públicos y sus condiciones de aprendizaje a través del museo. Se plantean, no obstante, serios problemas que deben ser resueltos, tanto en el plano de la relación sujeto-objeto (percepción e interpretación) como en el de una estructura adecuada y válida para todo tipo de visitantes. Los cambios sustanciales en la actitud de los museos forman parte integrante de la tan mentada renovación museológica, que se apoya en los múltiples y acelerados cambios sociológicos y tecnológicos acaecidos en las últimas décadas del siglo XX. Es encomiable constatar los esfuerzos que realizan para proyectar sus contenidos en su entorno social y comunitario, respetando la realidad del “otro cultural” y la sensibilidad del público a quien va dirigida la experiencia del museo y por ende su mensaje. En el momento actual, gran parte de la investigación está centrada en el público visitante, cualquiera sea la planificación de las actividades culturales y educativas de cada museo. ¿Por qué la gente va a los museos y por qué algunas personas los evitan? ¿Qué hacen cuando están allí y de qué manera pueden los museos crear impactos a largo plazo en los visitantes? ¿Cuál es la responsabilidad ética de los museos hacia aquellos ciudadanos que no los visitan, los no-visitantes? ¿Cuál es la naturaleza del aprendizaje a través del museo y de qué manera resulta pertinente a su misión? “Visitar museos y lugares similares es una de las actividades más populares para el tiempo libre […] La adquisición de conocimientos responde a dos condiciones determinadas: una compulsiva (cuando se está obligado a aprender); la otra responde a la libre elección (cuando se desea aprender). Esta dicotomía, como muchas similares, no se encuentra siempre bien delineada, si bien separa definitivamente en dos grupos las experiencias de aprendizaje. Uno, responde a la educación obligatoria y sistemática; otro, a la libre elección y es aquí donde la adquisición de conocimientos se realiza sólo por el deseo de aprender, como entretenimiento o cuando se siente el llamado de una motivación interna. Es éste el tipo de aprendizaje que motiva a curiosear en un sitio web de museos o a mirar el Discovery Channel o a viajar a lejanos países para explorar antiguas ciudades, bosques tropicales o arrecifes de coral […] Hoy la gente considera cada vez más necesario y ameno comprometerse activamente y a sabiendas con un aprendizaje basado en la libre elección. Los visitantes de museos aprecian más lo que aprenden a través de la exploración y el descubrimiento de cosas nuevas y otorgan un gran valor al hecho de hacer algo que valga la pena en su tiempo libre.”4 “La mayoría de las personas que van a los museos piensan que la educación es un importante proceso que dura toda la vida y que les permite, tanto a ellos como a sus hijos, ampliar sus horizontes de conocimiento. […] Los individuos que van a los museos han elegido sacar el mayor partido posible

4 Falk, J.H. & Dierking, L.D. The museum experience. Washington D.C.Whalesback Books. 1992.

48

de su concreto interés por un área determinada de la ciencia, la historia, el arte… […] Intuyen que la visita satisfará una necesidad poderosa y personal: la de adquirir más conocimientos sobre un tema particular en un área determinada de su interés. Por otra parte, gran parte de la conducta personal del individuo se ve influida por las experiencias de su temprana niñez. […] Los públicos de museos, ya sean familias, adultos en pareja o personas solas, concuerdan en algunos de sus juicios: 1) el mejor museo es aquél que presenta mayor variedad de material interesante dirigido a grupos de diferentes edades, niveles educacionales y técnicos e intereses personales. 2) los visitantes esperan sentirse, de alguna manera, mentalmente involucrados con lo que ven; en otras palabras, esperan poder conectarse personalmente con los objetos, ideas y experiencias presentadas y a menudo también esperan poder hacer algo más que contemplar los objetos, tal vez hasta llevar a cabo algún tipo de participación física y 3) las personas que visitan los museos en grupo ansían tener la oportunidad de una experiencia compartida…” 5 Falk & Dierking consideran que lo que hace atractiva una visita al museo no siempre es igual para todas las personas: algunos prefieren las experiencias prácticas (hands-on o touching); otros indican el deseo de una presencia humana en las galerías, capaz de proveer explicaciones; muchos se refieren al rol que las nuevas tecnologías pueden desempeñar en relación con el estímulo de la interactividad. Y surge aquí un tema universal: todas las opiniones reflejan de una manera u otra la necesidad de la existencia de una relación recíproca, en la cual se le ofrezcan al visitante posibilidades de elegir, de resultar involucrado y de participar activamente en la experiencia. El público busca exhibiciones interesantes e informativas que concuerden con sus necesidades, sus conocimientos y experiencias previas, pero también tiene otras expectativas, porque no todos los visitantes de museos se acercan con la mera intención de aprender. (Hood and Roberts: 1994) Varios estudios han documentado que, más allá del contenido, los museos proporcionan oportunidades para la interacción social y para escapar de la acostumbrada rutina del mundo del trabajo cotidiano. (Graburn, 1977; Yellis, 1985). Familias, individuos y estudiantes visitan los museos y otras instituciones comunitarias por diversas y múltiples razones que incluyen el tiempo libre, la educación y la curiosidad; los adultos se acercan al aprendizaje con una serie de experiencias y conocimientos construidos a lo largo de toda su vida; en cuanto al público que asiste a los museos y centros de ciencias con preferencia, tiene generalmente la expectativa de encontrar algún tipo de experiencia multimedial. Tales experiencias constituyen, cada vez más, una esperada opción para aquellos visitantes de museos que aprecian el uso de los multimedia porque reconocen que las computadoras, los CD ROM y otras tecnologías son capaces de ofrecer mayor variedad y profundidad en la información recabada, como así también opciones que facilitan sus elecciones para la visita. Pero, del mismo modo que muy pocos son los que leen todas las cédulas informativas o contemplan todos los objetos, no todos interactúan con los elementos de la tecnología. Por un lado, un determinado número de visitantes se entusiasma con la interactividad que provee la computadora. Por otro, muchos visitantes no muestran ningún interés por el uso de la tecnología y prefieren pasar su tiempo contemplando los objetos, ya que suelen usar las computadoras toda la semana en el hogar o en el trabajo. Los grandes usuarios de los medios tienden a ser los visitantes más jóvenes y el género es siempre un factor interesante, aunque no una variable directa cuando se trata del uso de la tecnología. Aunque más varones que mujeres son usuarios directos de la computadora, ambos géneros se encuentran igualmente representados como usuarios indirectos. (Pawlukiewicz, Bohling & Doering, 1989). El modelo de visitante interactivo de los investigadores de museos Falk y Dierking enfatiza que para comprender la experiencia total del visitante, es necesario volver la mirada hacia un dinámico proceso que se produce en la intersección de tres contextos superpuestos, cada uno de los cuales influye en la experiencia de aprendizaje de cada visitante: 1. “el contexto personal, que incluye la experiencia previa del visitante, sus conocimientos, inquietudes, motivaciones e intereses y las expectativas que, en mayor o menor grado, genera la visita al museo en cada uno de ellos;

5 Paris, Scott. Syllabus on “Museum Education and Learning”. The Informal Learning Review 1999-0304-b

49

2. el contexto social que plantea quién es el visitante o con quien entra en contacto, lo cual incluye el personal del museo o bien otros visitantes. Ya que el aprendizaje en los museos es en su mayor parte una actividad social, se destaca la necesidad de investigar el contexto social. 3. El contexto físico se refiere al entorno del museo, la estructura y ambientación del edificio, la disposición de los objetos, los tipos de exhibición, olores, sonidos, perspectivas y servicios tales como baños, cafés y tiendas.” (Falk & Dierking, 1992) En la actualidad, los conceptos sobre teoría del aprendizaje han sufrido importantes cambios. Giran generalmente alrededor de la idea de que los más importantes temas involucrados en un aprendizaje comprensivo derivan del análisis de las acciones del aprendiz más que de la indagación de la naturaleza del sujeto a ser estudiado. Es el estudioso quien elabora significados a partir de su propia experiencia y lo hace de una manera “constructivista”. (George Hein). “La exploración total de los significados que brindan los museos, las posibilidades de aprendizaje que ofrecen las exhibiciones, las innumerables formas en que los visitantes logran dar sentido a sus experiencias, hacen imprescindible ampliar nuestros métodos de evaluación y trabajo realizando más estudios abiertos sobre las experiencias de público, basados todos ellos en investigaciones de campo.” (Geertz, 1983) Sólo o acompañado, el visitante de museos mira y examina los objetos de manera reflexiva en un juego de acciones e interacciones destinado a construir significados que otorgan sentido a las obras expuestas y a la presentación en general. La mirada representa un elemento importante en su actividad, pues le permite percibir el objeto expuesto. Pero la mirada solo puede capturar la superficie, paso previo al descubrimiento y el examen, al “encuentro” profundo con el objeto expuesto que se establece posteriormente y de diversas maneras. III. Conclusión Quedan aún flotando en el espacio del museo preguntas sin respuestas: ¿influye o modifica la conducta del visitante la fuerza de la puesta en escena de la exhibición, parte integral del contexto físico del museo? O tal vez, los mecanismos que diferencian comunicación de significación, aquellos que destacan el otorgamiento de significados en la musealización de los objetos más diversos: lo material y lo inmaterial como conjunción total, en ese mundo-objeto del que habla Roland Barthes cuando dice que “…todos ellos constituyen el espacio del hombre y determinan su humanidad.” En el museo son los expôts y los outils que menciona Jean Davallon6. Los unos, objetos musealizados para ser expuestos; los otros, apoyo de la exposición para presentar, para explicar, objetos pretexto, objetos manipulados de los que hablaba Jacques Hainard 7 desde el Museo de Etnografía de Neuchâtel. Dos tipos de objetos por medio de las cuales el mundo entra en el espacio del museo, ese espacio que el visitante recorre a través del tiempo, un tiempo sin tiempo, que nunca se detiene… La exposición, constituida en texto como todo hecho de lenguaje, es un mundo imaginario donde el objeto, despojado de sus ataduras mundanas, perdida su funcionalidad, instalado en el espacio del museo, se ha convertido en un objeto real que ya no está más en lo real, pero que ofrece al público visitante los recursos necesarios a partir de los cuales realizar su interpretación, única y renovada cada vez. En muchas oportunidades, ese visitante de museos -que suele resultar imprevisible para desesperación del responsable del montaje- realiza el descubrimiento del objeto por sí mismo, absolutamente solo... Este hecho demuestra que al margen de la presentación, ha cumplido poco a poco con una serie de requisitos por medio de los cuales ha logrado producir (o reproducir) el contexto en el cual desarrollar su propia experiencia en forma independiente. La secuencia de acciones y actividades que se manifiestan en el comportamiento del público visitante permite suponer que cuando se detiene delante de un objeto explorando ciertos elementos y no otros; cuando hace una lectura de cierta información y no de otra; cuando desea manipular o no determinadas funciones interactivas, está “construyendo” por sí mismo una nueva mise en scène. En el desarrollo natural de una estrategia de comunicación, el visitante de museos se encuentra frente a un mundo lleno de significaciones -de las cuales cada una es única- Un mundo que podrá

6 Davallon, Jean y otros: Claquemurer pour ainsi dire tout l’Univers. La mise en exposition .Editions du Centre Georges Pompidou. Paris, 1986. 7 Jacques Hainard et Roland Kaehr. Musée d’Etnographie de Neuchâtel, Suisse. 1984.

50

descubrir o no en la medida de sus percepciones, de sus estados de ánimo, de sus fantasmas…Un mundo al que sabe que no pertenece, aunque pueda disfrutar de sus cualidades intrínsecas, de su contemplación, de sus zonas abiertas y de sus zonas ocultas, a veces inabordables como puntos de luz y de sombra... Solo o acompañado, interactuando junto a los suyos o junto a otros visitantes ajenos a su propio mundo con quienes quizá se cruce fugazmente. Cada uno con sus propias vivencias, con su bagaje de conocimientos y recuerdos que lo acompaña a todas partes, con sus expectativas que pocas veces se cumplen por entero, “…por todas partes ve caminos, está siempre en la encrucijada.” (Walter Benjamin) El resultado del intercambio de significaciones, producto de la unicidad de su experiencia en una comunicación basada en un mundo imaginario ‘re-construido’ por cada individuo, marcará una y otra vez el importante rol que el público de museos desempeña en el conocimiento, la interpretación, la valoración, la preservación y la transmisión 8 del patrimonio material e inmaterial de la humanidad. BIBLIOGRAFÍA Arnheim, Rudolf: El pensamiento visual. Editorial EUDEBA, Buenos Aires, 1976.

Baudrillard, Jean: El sistema de los objetos. Ed. Siglo XXI. Madrid 1997.

Davallon, J. y otros: Claquemurer pour ainsi dire tout l’Univers. La mise en exposition. Editions du Centre Georges Pompidou. Paris, 1986.

Debray, Régis: Transmitir. Ediciones Manantial. Buenos Aires, 1997.

Eco, Umberto: Los límites de la interpretación. Editorial Lumen. Barcelona, 1998.

____________ : Tratado de semiótica. Editorial Lumen. Barcelona,1991.

____________ : Obra abierta. Ed.Ariel y Espasa Calpe Argentina, Buenos Aires,1993.

Falk & Dierking: The museum experience. Washington D.C. Whalesback Books.1992.

Guidieri, Remo: El museo y sus fetiches. Crónica de lo neutro y de la aureola. Editorial Tecnos. Madrid, 1997.

Hainard, J. et Kaehr, R.: Compiladores y Editores. Objets prétextes. Objets Manipulés. Musée d’Etnographie de Neuchâtel. Switzerland. 1984.

Hein, Georges: “The constructivist museum” Journal of Education in Museums (16)21-23.

Merleau-Ponty, M.: El mundo de la percepción. Siete conferencias. Fondo de Cultura Económica de Buenos Aires, 2002.

8 “un proceso de transmisión incluye, necesariamente, hechos de comunicación. Lo inverso puede no producirse: el todo primará entonces sobre la parte. Reflexionar sobre el “transmitir” aclara el “comunicar”, pero lo contrario no vale. (Régis Debray , “ Transmitir”. 1997, p.22)

51

Museology, Interpretation and Communication: The Museum Audience

Nelly Decarolis – Argentina

The critical moment of praxis is certainly a theoretical moment. Paul Ricoeur I. Introduction “It is difficult to think of a universe in which human beings communicate without using verbal language […] but it is equally difficult to think of a universe in which human beings only utter words […]. In a world served only by words, it would be very difficult to mention things” (Eco: 1992) “Verbal language can be defined as the primary modeling system (Lotman, 1967) of which the remaining languages are simple variations. It is the most powerful semiotic device known to mankind; it allows to translate his thoughts and, therefore, speaking and thinking are the preferred fields of semiotic research. Nonetheless, there are different ways of producing signs that have a given relation with their contents, bringing about compositional differences with regard to verbal signs. Such contents are stated through non verbal units, either visual or behavioral, which can be conveyed by non linguistic devices, capable of encompassing parts of the overall semantic space that spoken language cannot always approach; structured perceptions which can be systematically described as such or as behaviors, habits, feelings which call for wider research within the current status of semiotics, since they can be expressed but not verbally communicated”1. Within this context it can be recalled that “...what is known about perception -and especially about vision- demonstrates that the remarkable mechanisms through which the senses understand the environment are almost like the operations described by the psychology of thought, and that truly productive thought in any of the areas of cognition takes place in the realm of images […]. The act of “looking” is made up of a series of interdependent actions through which a meaning is given to certain specific elements […] Visual perception is visual thought and the role of perceptual thought in art and in other related domains provides the possibility of having a new outlook with regard to its isolation and abandonment in society and education”.2 II. The museum and its audiences: new paradigms for communication, interpretation and learning. Vis-à-vis the new ideas, movements, trends and orientations, museums can be considered avant-guard in view of their critical spirit which turns them into non conformist entities and provides them with greater openness and sensitivity, in places where the musealized object “…is open as a ‘field’ of interpretative possibilities […] in such a way that the user is induced to different readings, as a constellation of elements prone to various reciprocal relations.” 3 A lot is said about their interdisciplinary nature when the time comes to critically approach the many dimensions of museal theory and practice. An interdisciplinary methodology allows the building of bridges between the different cultures and the reconnection of areas that traditional research has separated into stagnant compartments, even though they continue to be related throughout history.

1 Eco, Humberto: Los límites de la interpretación. Editorial Lumen S.A. Barcelona. 1998. 2 Arnheim, Rudolph. El pensamiento visual. Editorial.EUDEBA. Buenos Aires. 1976 3 Eco, Umberto: Obra Abierta. Editora Espasa Calpe Argentina. Argentina. 1993

52

The critical dimension of interdisciplinary theoretical work achieves unforeseen connections but, in turn, needs to open gaps on the surface of what has been established, and moreover, needs new spaces so as to seek the root of problems in given contexts. Theory can change our way of envisaging the world and make visible what to date seemed invisible. Certain symbolic constructions of culture call for interpretations which can come into conflict because as Ricoeur says “…the possibility of controversial interpretation is intrinsic to the process of interpretation itself.” The interpretative method allows a conjunction of different viewpoints and different areas of conflict and the reinterpretation of territories permanently pre-interpreted. Interpreting entails shaping a standpoint, and it also means taking a stance open to criticism and debate. The many challenges of interpretation in a museum often reflect tensions between their different functions and their outreach roles. The question is whether museums can balance their roles…Should they even try to do so? Most of the experiences and research work carried out during the last few years within the world of museums has strengthened their pedagogical dimension, based on their convening and communication power. Consequently, their audiences have undertaken an undeniable leading role, and are no longer passive spectators but instead relevant actors. Therefore, we nowadays experience the emergence of a new field of research: the study of audiences and their learning conditions through museums. There are, however, serious problems to be solved in the subject-object relationship (perception and interpretation) as well as regarding an appropriate, valid structure for all sorts of visitors. Substantial changes in museum attitudes are part of such a remarkable museological renewal based on several speedy changes, both sociological and technological, which took place in the last few decades of the 20th century. It is worthy to note the efforts they make to project their reality and contents in their social and community environment, respecting cultural realities of the “cultural otherness” and the sensitivity of the audiences at which museums target their experience and message. Most of current research focuses on the visiting audience, whichever the planning of the museum’s cultural and educational activities may be. Why do people go to museums and why do some people avoid museums? What do they do when they are there and what might the long-term impacts of these experiences be? What is the ethical responsibility of museums towards citizens who do not visit museums, towards non-visitors? What is the nature of learning and how is it relevant to the mission of a museum? “Visiting museums and museum-like settings is one of the most popular leisure time activities […] People seem to learn under one of two conditions: compulsory learning (when they have to learn) and free-choice learning (when they want to learn). Like many dichotomies this one is not always clear-cut. It adequately separates learning experiences into two groups: compulsory, systematic education and free choice learning, which is learning just for the sake of learning, learning for fun, learning if and when the internal motivation strikes. This is the type of learning that motivates someone to browse a museum web site or watch the Discovery Channel or travel to foreign countries to explore ancient cities, rain forests or coral reefs […] People today are finding it increasingly necessary and enjoyable to actively and knowingly engage in such free-choice learning. Simply put, people are more and more seeking out free-choice learning opportunities. Museum-goers or museum visitors value learning, exploring and discovering new things and place a high value on doing something worthwhile in their leisure time”.4 “Most of the people attending museums consider that education is an important life-long process and perceive museums as places that allow them and their children to expand their learning horizons. […] Individuals who go to museums have chosen to attend mostly out of a concrete interest in a particular area of science, history, art […] They perceive that the visit will satisfy a strong and personal need they have: to learn more about a particular subject area. It is well known that much of any individual

4 Falk, J.H. & Dierking, L.D. The museum experience. Washington D.C.Whalesback Books. 1992.

53

personal behavior is influenced by early childhood experiences. […] Museum audiences, whether families, adult couples or singles, agree on a few characteristics: 1) the best museum is the one that presents a variety of interesting material that appeals to different age groups, educational and technical levels and personal interests; 2) visitors expect to be mentally engaged in some way by what they see, in other words, they expect to be able to personally connect in some way with the objects, ideas and experiences presented and often expect to do more than just look at the things, perhaps even become physically engaged and 3) people visiting in groups expect an opportunity for a shared experience…5 Falk and Dierking consider that what makes a museum visit engaging is not always the same for all visitors: some refer to hands-on or touching experiences; others indicate a desire for a human presence in the galleries to provide explanations and many refer to the role that media can play in fostering interactivity. Here, a universal theme emerges: all reflect a reciprocal relationship in which the visitor is given choices, makes choices, becomes involved and actively participates in the experience. The public is seeking interesting, informative exhibitions according to their needs, their background and prior experiences, but they also have other expectations, because not all visitors come for the purpose of learning. (Hood and Roberts: 1994) Various studies have documented that beyond ‘content’, museums afford opportunities for social interactions and for escaping from the normal hum-drum of the work-a-day-world. (Graburn, 1977; Yellis, 1985). Families, individuals and students visit museums and community institutions for a variety of purposes, including leisure, education and curiosity. Adults come to the learning with an array of experiences and lifelong constructed knowledge and visitors to science museums and science centers generally expect to encounter some type of multimedia experience. Such experiences are increasingly an expected option for museum visitors who appreciate the use of multimedia, recognizing that computers, CD-ROMs and other technologies can provide both varying degrees of information, as well as options that facilitate visitor choices. But not all visitors interact with all of the media elements in any exhibition, just in the same way that few of them read all the labels or look at all the objects. On the one hand, a number of visitors are enthusiastic about the computer interactives; on the other hand, a number of visitors express no interest in using the interactives at all. They prefer to spend their time looking at the objects themselves because they use computers at their homes or offices all week. Media users tend to be younger visitors and gender is an interesting factor, but it is not a straightforward variable when it comes to media use. Though more men than women are direct users of the computer, both genders are equally represented as indirect users.(Pawlukiewicz, Bohling & Doering, 1989). Museum researchers Falk & Dierking’s model of the interacting visitor stresses that to understand the visitor’s total museum experience it is necessary to look at a dynamic process that occurs at the intersection of three overlapping main contexts, each of which influences a visitor’s museum learning experience: 1. The personal context includes the visitor’s experience and knowledge, concerns, motivations, interests and expectations about the visit to a museum. 2. The social context includes who the visitor is with or who the visitor comes into contact with, including museum staff or other museum visitors. Since learning in museums is largely a social activity, it is necessary to look into the social context. 3. The physical context means the museum environment, the structure and ambience of the building, layout, objects, types of exhibits, smells, sounds, sights and physical facilities such as toilets, coffee store and shop.” (Falk & Dierking: 1992) Actually our ideas about the learning theory have undergone very important changes. These ideas cluster around the notion that the most important issues involved in understanding learning are derived from analyzing the actions of the learner rather than in probing the nature of the subject to be learned; it’s the learner who constructs meaning out of experience in a ‘constructivist’ way. (George Hein). “To fully explore all the meaning-making that can take place in museums, the learning possibilities of exhibitions, the myriad ways in which visitors may make a meaning out of their experiences, we need to broaden our evaluation methods and carry out more open-ended studies through field-based research or ‘thick descriptions’ of visitors’ experiences…” (Geertz, 1983)

5 Paris, Scott. Syllabus on “Museum Education and Learning”. The Informal Learning Review 1999-0304-b

54

Either on their own or accompanied by others, museum visitors look at objects and examine them in a reflexive manner, in a sort of actions and interactions game for building meanings which provide sense to the exhibited works of art and to the presentation overall. Viewing is an important element in the museum visitors’ activity since it allows the perception of the exhibited object. But viewing only captures the surface, which is the step prior to the discovery and examination, to the deep “encounter” with the exhibited object which is subsequently established in different ways. III. Conclusion There are still unanswered questions on museums floating in the air: does the strength of the mise en scène of the exhibition, as an integral overlapping portion of the museums’ physical context, influence or modify the behavior of visitors? Or perhaps are the mechanisms that differentiate communication from meaning those that highlight attaching a meaning to the musealization of the most diverse objects: the material and immaterial as a conjunction of the whole in that world-object that Roland Barthes spoke about when he said that “…all of them constitute the space of man which determines his humanity”. Within the museum, these are the expôts and outils mentioned by Jean Davallon 6 The former are musealized objects to be exhibited; the latter, support the exhibition in order to make a presentation or provide an explanation. These are the pretext objects, the manipulated objects mentioned by Jacques Hainard7 from the Ethnographic Museum of Neuchâtel. Two kinds of objects through which the world comes into museums, that space the visitor visits throughout time, a timeless time which never comes to a halt.... The exhibition, shaped like a text as all language events, is an imaginary world where the exhibited object, with no mundane ties, having lost its functionality, installed in a museum, has become a real object which is no longer in the real world, but instead offers visitors the necessary resources for its interpretation, which is unique and renewed each time. On many occasions, museum visitors who are usually unpredictable -to the despair of whoever sets up an exhibition- discover the exhibited object all by themselves. This fact shows that, regardless of the presentation, they have little by little met a series of requirements through which they have produced (or reproduced) the context to develop their own experience independently. The sequence of actions and activities which appear in the behavior of museum visitors gives rise to the hypothesis that when visitors stop in front of an object, exploring some of its elements, when they read only certain information and when they wish to manipulate only given interactive functions, they are “building” a new mise en scène. Within the natural development of a communication strategy, museum visitors face a world full of meanings -each one of which is unique-. A world that visitors may or may not discover to the extent of their perceptions, of their humor, of their illusions… A world visitors know they do not belong to, although they may enjoy its intrinsic qualities, its contemplation, its open as well as its concealed areas, sometimes unapproachable, as areas of light and shadow. Whether alone or not, either interacting with their entourage or with other visitors alien to their own world, visitors with whom they only meet shortly…. Each and every one with their own knowledge and memories which go with them everywhere, and with their expectations which are very few times fully met, “…they see paths everywhere, but are always at the crossroads. (Walter Benjamin) The outcome of this exchange of meanings, resulting from the uniqueness of their experience in a communication based on an imaginary world which is built around each individual, will over and over again highlight the important role they play in knowledge, interpretation, appraisal, preservation and transmission8 of the material and immaterial heritage of mankind.

6 Davallon, Jean et als: Claquemurer pour ainsi dire tout l’Univers. La mise en exposition. Editions du Centre Georges Pompidou. Paris, 1986. 7 Jacques Hainard et Roland Kaehr. Musée d’Etnographie de Neuchâtel, Suisse. 1984. 8 A process of transmission necessarily includes communication events. The opposite may not happen: the whole shall then prevail over a part. Reflecting on “transmission” can clarify “communication”, but not the other way around. (Régis Debray , “ Transmitir”. 1997, p.22)

55

Quels musées pour quels publics ?

André Desvallées – France

__________________________________________________________________________________________ « Je le crois, et quelque paradoxal que cela puisse paraître, je n’hésite pas à dire que les musées sont faits pour le public. Il vient y chercher, j’en suis convaincu, plus qu’une distraction éphémère, mieux qu’un enseignement de caractère technique. » (Henri Focillon, 1921) De nos jours on répète à l’envi que le service du public doit être au centre des préoccupations des gens de musée. La première mission du musée semble bien, de tout temps, avoir été la conservation et la transmission du patrimoine, en passant par son exposition, qui était son rapport au public. Et pourtant, en dehors des musées de proximité comme les musées de plein air scandinaves et les Heimatmuseet allemands, et à part les préoccupations de quelques rares muséologues belges et français de la fin du 19ème siècle et du début du 20ème, très peu se sont préoccupés du public avant le 20ème siècle. Jusque là, dans l’institution muséale, l’intérêt allait plutôt à la collection et aux objets constituant le fondement de chaque établissement. On sait que les Nord-Américains ont commencé à se préoccuper sérieusement de ce public, au moins pour les grands musées, dès le début du 20ème siècle. L’historien d’art français Louis Réau notait, en 1909, « Ces préoccupations [sont] presque complètement étrangères aux Musées français et allemands » (RÉAU 1909 : 158-159). En Europe il fallut attendre le congrès international d’Histoire de l’art de 1921, à Paris, pour entendre des personnalités comme le muséologue belge Jean Capart faire le maigre bilan des rapports entre les musées et le système éducatif et l’ historien d’art français Henri Focillon proposer de donner au public une place aussi importante qu’aux artistes et aux historiens. En cela, ils ne pouvaient qu’écouter les délégués américains E. Abbot, J.C. Dana et E.D. Libbey (MAIRESSE 1995 : 119 ; ALEXANDER 1983 : 377-411). Depuis lors les études de publics se sont développées dans tous les pays occidentaux et extrême-orientaux. En France elles ont suivi le premier diagnostic effectué par Alain Darbel et Pierre Bourdieu, à partir de 1964 (BOURDIEU 1964), et se sont multipliées et systématisées à partir des années 1980. Parallèlement, pendant les années 1970, alors que l’architecture du musée des Beaux-arts de l’Ontario, à Toronto, le constituait en forteresse par rapport à son environnement urbain, le Centre Georges Pompidou se faisait fort de s’ancrer « résolument dans la vie de la cité » et ambitionnait « de nouveaux rapports aux publics1. » (KREBS et MARESCA 2005 : 8) Qui plus est, partir des années 1990, une catégorie professionnelle a été créée plus spécifiquement adaptée que les guides conférenciers au travail de médiation (CAILLET 2000). Cependant, lorsqu’on parle de public, il est nécessaire de se demander de qui on parle. Population, public, visiteur, regardeur (people, public, audience, visitors, ‘‘looker-on’’) ? Les termes sont nombreux pour désigner tous ceux qui constituent ce public indéterminé. Mais ils n’en précisent pas pour autant ce qui distingue la manière de percevoir et de recevoir de celui ou de celle qui regarde ce qu’on lui montre dans le musée. De nombreuses études ont été faites sur les catégories de public, mais ces distinctions se sont souvent limitées au sexe, à l’âge, à la profession, aux revenu, au niveau d’instruction et à la fréquence de visite. On connaît beaucoup moins les études s’appliquant aux conditions individuelles de la visite : seul ou en compagnie, en famille ou en groupe organisé, en groupe organisé accidentel (sortie organisée à l’occasion d’un congrès ou d’un voyage en groupe) ou en groupe organisé spécialement pour cette visite, en visite libre ou en visite avec conférencier ou médiateur – ainsi que les variations en fonction du genre d’exposition et de sa discipline de départ. Il est bien certain que le rapport à l’expôt ne sera pas le même pour le regardeur cultivé, en visite libre, ou pour l’analphabète qui suivra ses comparses entraînés au musée au cours d’un voyage de groupe

1 « Ses entrées multiples, la gratuité d’accès à la majorité de ses espaces ou ses horaires élargis en soirée. » Dans leur courte rétrospective sur Le renouveau des musées, Anne Krebs et Bruno Maresca soulignent que « Deux dimensions attestent de la primauté accordée à la prise en compte des publics dès la conception du projet culturel ». D’une part la création d’un Service des études et de la recherche « sur les usages et les pratiques des visiteurs du Centre », d’autre part, l’instauration du ‘‘laissez-passer’’, forme d’adhésion pour fidéliser le public, comme le faisaient déjà certains théâtres depuis les années 1950. On sait ce qu’il est advenu d’un certain nombre de ces avancées après trente ans de fonctionnement et différentes réformes, ramenant les entrées à une seule et instaurant un accès payant.

56

(LE MAREC Joëlle. et DESHAYES Sophie 1994 et 1996). Et pourtant (ces études l’ont montré), ce qui compte le plus c’est la manière dont peut se faire l’accès à l’expôt qui est la plus importante ainsi que ce qui est perçu par le regard pour aboutir à l’interprétation individuelle : les formes ? les couleurs ? le sens ? la réminiscence ? ou au contraire la surprise ? (EIDELMAN , GOTTESDIENER et al. 2000) C’est le premier point que je voulais évoquer. Lors de son intervention de 1921, Focillon, qui dirigeait alors les musées de Lyon, suggérait, à l’intention des visiteurs de musées : « Aidons-les donc, non seulement par des étiquettes et par des pancartes, mais par une juste entente de leurs besoins. » (FOCILLON 1921 : 89) Les besoins du public, ce sont à la fois une bonne information, un accueil agréable, un confort de la visite, mais aussi, et sans doute surtout, une expographie claire et un décodage du sens de ce qui lui est donné à voir (CAMERON 1968 et 1971a et b). Si l’on met à part l’insuffisance du mobilier pour le repos physique, le premier handicap que rencontre le visiteur est celui de l’accueil visuel et du « par où commencer ? et « par où continuer ? », ce qui suppose un circuit bien établi et bien signalisé. Le second handicap se situe dans la qualité insuffisante de l’expographie : son regard parviendra-t-il à trouver ce qu’il doit voir, ce qui suppose un parfait éclairage et une absence d’éblouissements, de contre-jours et d’ombre portées des visiteurs eux-mêmes sur ce qu’ils ont à regarder. Le troisième handicap se situe souvent dans la signalisation thématique des secteurs et des unités exposées : on ne rencontre encore que trop d’expositions dont le contenu des notices est ou insuffisant, ou surabondant. Mais combien aussi sont mal disposées, difficiles à lire parce que dans l’ombre ou apposées verticalement trop bas ! C’est seulement une fois remplies ces conditions de bonne visite que le « visiteur » peut devenir « regardeur ». Et c’est à partir de ce moment aussi que l’on doit analyser ce qui se passe entre le regardeur et l’expôt. On peut analyser ses déplacements, son parcours (VERÓN et LEVASSEUR 1983). Ne doit-on pas pour autant mesurer aussi la réception, son intensité, sa durée, tous les éléments de la perception qui vont conduire le regardeur à sa propre interprétation ? * * * En second lieu je voudrais introduire une réflexion sur la nature de l’évolution que le musée est en train de connaître au regard de l’extension programmée de la fréquentation. Le musée n’échappe pas à l’évolution d’un monde qui change. Désormais on voit « les chefs d’établissement […] prendre des mesures qui ont accéléré l’adaptation des musées à la demande des publics » (CAILLET 2000 : 174). Autrement dit :« Il ne s’agit plus de connaître les publics, mais d’anticiper leurs attentes pour justifier des politiques que les établissements conduisent. » (KREBS et MARESCA 2005 : 9) Une meilleure connaissance des attentes du public doit-elle donc entraîner une adaptation du musée pour répondre à ses attentes ? Le grand danger n’est-il pas celui que connaissent les médias audio-visuels avec l’audimat, à savoir le nivellement par le moins-disant culturel ? Et ce danger ne passe-t-il pas surtout par les moyens de médiatisation utilisés ? Cette adaptation a pris plusieurs formes et connu plusieurs étapes. Quelle que soit la palette que nous offrent les musées, il faut remonter aux sources pour savoir si l’on parle toujours de la même chose. En cela, la rétrospective historique que nous offre François Mairesse dans le présent recueil est tout à fait édifiante, qui nous montre comment l’institution s’est progressivement ouverte, des spécialistes aux amateurs, puis à un public plus large, mais toujours sélectionné, pour finir par ne plus imposer de limites autres que, parfois, mais pas toujours, le paiement d’un droit d’entrée. C’est alors que la sélection s’est faite par le public lui-même en fonction de ses propres intérêts, que l’on s’est aperçu que ses origines sociales étaient constantes et que c’étaient les mêmes classes moyennes qui revenaient plus souvent au musée ou visitaient plus d’expositions (BOURDIEU et DARBEL 1966 et toutes les enquêtes sur les Pratiques culturelles des Français depuis 1973). Mais on voit aussi les publics suivre la mode qui les conduit à visiter de plus en plus de musées et d’expositions (surtout d’expositions temporaires, les ‘‘block busters’’). Il semble bien que c’est avec le musée de Beaux-arts que l’intérêt du public est le plus en rapport avec la mode. Non seulement parce que les goûts pour la création artistique sont déjà dépendants de la mode, mais aussi parce que les flux de fréquentation sont également très liés aux modes médiatiques. À témoin le succès des grandes expositions comme celles sur Vermeer, Breughel, Bosch, Goya, Gauguin, Van Gogh, Monet et tous les Impressionnistes. Mais aussi des « journées des musées » ou des « nuits des musées ». Sous un certain angle, on peut donc regretter un certain « trop plein ». C’est ce constat qui, au début des années 1980, dans le cadre de la programmation du Grand Louvre, avait conduit les conservateurs à se demander pendant quelque temps s’il n’était pas préférable de concentrer dans le

57

grand hall du musée les quelques œuvres majeures, comme la Joconde, la Vénus de Milo et la Victoire de Samothrace afin de limiter les bousculades dans les galeries et d’éviter d’en user inutilement les planchers. Il a été conclu par les conservateurs que mieux valait risquer une surabondance des foules dans les galeries s’il pouvait se trouver un seul visiteur, parmi des milliers, qui reçoive la grâce de la découverte muséale et ait la révélation d’un chef d’œuvre de l’art. Argument fort en faveur d’une quête effrénée de public, certes. Mais aussi reconnaissance de ce que la découverte de l’expôt est une affaire individuelle, qui peut être sollicitée, mais qui ne peut être imposée. La communication, voire la communion, reste individuelle. Peut-être peut-on forcer la main d’un consommateur, mais on ne peut former de force un regardeur. C’est pourtant de force que l’on a voulu élargir le volume du public, par les même méthodes de marketing utilisées pour vendre des automobiles ou de la lessive. Pourquoi pas en effet ? mais à deux conditions majeures. La première c’est que, si l’emballage, à savoir les conditions d’accueil et de la lecture des expôts, doivent être améliorés pour que le contenu puisse être rendu accessible à tous et que quiconque puisse y pénétrer, il n’est pas souhaitable que cet emballage soit développé au point de cacher le contenu. La seconde condition est que le contenu lui-même ne soit pas modifié pour faciliter cette accessibilité, par un escamotage partiel tenant par exemple au « politiquement correct », par la disparition d’une mise en perspective multiple. Cette dérive n’est pas tout à fait une nouveauté. En effet, le musée a d’abord été (15ème - 16ème siècles) un lieu où l’on collectait des concepts et des idées pour l’étude. Puis on a donné ces collections à voir en les exposant (à partir du 16ème siècle). Ce n’est qu’à partir de la fin du 18ème siècle (de Mme Tussault au Musée Grévin, du Musée Barnum au Musée Spitzner), avec tous les musées de foire, que l’on s’est engagé dans une formule de musée-attraction, de musée-spectacle, pour aboutir aux parcs à thèmes du dernier tiers du 20ème siècle. Ces modèles de musée ont toujours eu un succès constant auprès du grand public. On peut rencontrer des musées de cire où le public se bouscule, pendant que le musée voisin reste presque vide2. Déjà en 1889, à l’occasion de l’exposition universelle qui se tenait à Paris pour commémorer le centenaire de la Révolution, l’historien et homme politique Jules Simon soulignait que, dans le musée, plutôt qu’une pratique scientifique, le visiteur « cherche surtout à se distraire tout en ne dédaignant pas de s’instruire en s’amusant. » La première étape de l’évolution contemporaine a donc été pour le musée de s’adapter à la société des loisirs en devenant aussi agréable à voir qu’un spectacle. Pour de nombreux musées le toilettage n’était donc pas forcément inutile afin de les rendre agréables à visiter. Mais, en les rendant en même temps amusants, une des conséquences, qui mérite réflexion, a parfois été de modifier leur nature en accentuant leur aspect ludique au détriment de leur aspect pédagogique. Un siècle après Jules Simon, lors des séances officielles de la Conférence générale de l’ICOM de 1989, à La Haye, Neil Postman prenait l’exemple du Centre d’Epcot (Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow), à Orlando, en Floride (USA), lequel se proposait d’apprendre la science et la technique en se divertissant, pour nous montrer que cet établissement, à la programmation duquel il avait lui-même collaboré, ne remplissait pas le rôle éducatif qu’il s’était préalablement fixé en manquant de cet esprit critique que le musée doit garder dans ses missions (POSTMAN 1989 (1994) : 46-48 (424-430). Il semble bien que la Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie de La Villette, à Paris, a évité ces travers, lorsqu’elle a ouvert ses portes vers la même époque. Ce qui est en cause dans ce type de musée ou de centre de science, ce n’est pas la nature des expôts car on imagine facilement qu’une mutation de leur nature ou de leur forme, depuis la cire et le plâtre jusqu’à l’image virtuelle et l’image de synthèse (le public est en grande partie le même) ne touche pas vraiment à l’essence du musée. Ce qui est souvent en cause c’est le niveau intellectuel de ces musées, qui savent distraire leurs visiteurs pendant le temps de leur séjour, mais qui ne leur laissent que peu à retenir une fois dehors. Le musée peut distraire, certes, même si ce n’est pas sa principale mission, mais il doit d’abord transmettre des connaissances et développer l’esprit critique. Pour atteindre le nouvel objectif, les termes du modèle ont été inversés. Là où l’écomusée avait mis ‘‘l’Homme’’ au centre de son projet, le nouveau musée y met ‘‘le Public’’. Mais, devant tous les bouleversements qui s’opèrent sous nos yeux, il est raisonnablement permis de se demander si le balancier n’est pas allé un peu trop loin et si le rééquilibrage entre objets et public n’a pas modifié négativement les relations de ce dernier au musée, et s’il n’est pas même en train de modifier la nature du musée.

2 Je pense, en France, à la ville de Saint-Malo.

58

Un autre exemple de l’influence de la mode sur la conception du musée nous a été donné par Hermann Schäfer, avec la Maison de l’Histoire de la République fédérale d’Allemagne, à Bonn. En 1991, après un sondage sur les ‘‘moyens d’accès à l’information historique’’ qui avaient la préférence des personnes interrogées, les musées d’histoire ayant été placés au huitième rang en moyenne, on en avait déduit que ‘‘ce sondage montre la nécessité d’adapter l’histoire et le musée d’histoire à la société des loisirs afin de rendre la visite au musée aussi attrayante que la vue d’un spectacle.’’ (SCHÄFER 2000 : 98) Un musée-spectacle, donc, mais qui dit spectacle entend d’abord divertissement. Il faut donc que le musée ait un autre contenu que de simplement divertir. C’est d’ailleurs ce que remarquait Schäfer en précisant qu’il s’agit de concevoir ‘‘une institution de transfert des connaissances des scientifiques vers le grand public, ce qui n’est réalisable qu’au gré d’un savant équilibre entre éducation et divertissement.’’ (SCHÄFER : 99) Tout est en effet dans l’équilibre ! Et Schäfer d’évoquer les moyens qui sont retenus pour aboutir à ce résultat : ‘‘Pour ce faire, il faut tenir compte du développement de la société des loisirs vers l’image audiovisuelle et la communication.’’ (SCHÄFER : 99) Autre problème qui vaut d’être développé ! Là aussi c’est une question d’équilibre car, autant les audiovisuels sont très utiles pour apporter le compléments contextuels qui donnent leur sens aux objets, autant le musée ne saurait se transformer en salle de cinéma sinon ce n’est plus qu’une salle de cinéma. Mais l’étape qui a rapidement suivi le remodelage du musée, après la mutation, pour certains, de leur système pédagogique en un système ludique, c’est la primauté qui a partout été donnée à l’efficacité économique, voire au profit, sur l’enrichissement éducatif et culturel. Parfois même les établissements purement culturels ont été mis en concurrence avec ceux dont la finalité est d’abord commerciale. Bien loin est l’intérêt qualitatif qui était porté au public pendant les années 1960-1990, cherchant à savoir pourquoi il ne venait pas au musée. Les enquêteurs et analystes des publics ont été piégés, comme l’avaient été, pendant les années 1960, les sociologues enquêtant pour les industriels. Désormais, en effet, on cherche plutôt à savoir ce qu’il plairait au public de venir voir plutôt que de le former pour qu’il soit apte à voir ce qui existe. « Il ne suffit plus de dénombrer les visiteurs, de connaître les caractéristiques socio-démographiques des usagers, et de se fixer comme objectif le renouvellement et l’élargissement des publics au nom de la démocratisation, mais d’obtenir la légitimation des politiques mêmes des établissements confrontés à la concurrence, à l’accroissement de leurs coûts et à la nécessité de rechercher des financements. Niveau de fréquentation et satisfaction des attentes des usagers viennent largement relayer les notions d’élargissement et de renouvellement des publics. » (KREBS et MARESCA 2005 : 9) Car, en même temps que l’on cherchait à mieux satisfaire le public, à le diversifier de plus en plus, puis à l’étendre au maximum, n’a-t-on pas abouti, la fin justifiant les moyens, à le transformer en simple « consommateur » ? L’apparition du concept de ‘‘tourisme culturel’’ n’est d’ailleurs pas pour rien dans cette transformation. La quête du nombre est souvent devenue une griserie sans limite et a fini, en certains lieux, par être l’unique justification de l’existence du musée. De centre de conservation, d’exposition, de transmission et de recherche le musée n’est-il pas en train de devenir, si on ne l’en préserve pas, un simple lieu de divertissement pour grand public, mis en concurrence par les autorités qui le financent avec les centres de loisirs, les parcs d’attractions et autres « disneylands » ? On avait déjà confondu, à partir des années soixante, les relations publiques avec l’action pédagogique, puis culturelle ; on ne parle plus désormais dans les grands musées que de « marketing », d’ « étude de marché » . L’Icom a même créé un comité spécifique de ce nom : en français, seulement ‘‘Comité des Relations publiques’’ mais en anglais ‘‘Marketing and Public Relations’’ (= MPR). Ce changement d’objectif ne semble donc pas se faire sans dégâts collatéraux. * * * Il est au moins deux catégories de musées (et d’expositions) qui supposent un rapport différent au public. Dans les deux cas il se produit d’emblée une plus grande proximité entre le contenu de l’exposition et celui qui s’en accapare et qui n’est pas seulement visiteur, mais acteur. La première catégorie est l’exposition qui met en œuvre des moyens interactifs. La seconde catégorie concerne les musées de nature communautaire, comme l’écomusée. Mais une grande différence sépare ces deux sortes de rapport au public. Dans le cas de l’interactivité physique, qui s’applique surtout dans les musées et centres de culture scientifique et dans les musées pour enfants, c’est le concepteur qui est le premier acteur et c’est lui qui suscite la médiation entre le contenu qu’il souhaite communiquer et le manipulateur-acteur (TRIQUET et DAVALLON 1993 ; LE MAREC 1993). Dans le cas du musée

59

communautaire, selon l’expression d’Hugues de Varine, « le musée n’a pas de visiteurs, il a des habitants »et il « ne peut pas avoir de conservateurs. Il n’a que des acteurs » (VARINE 1993 : 41et 44). Quelles que soient les méthodes de médiation utilisées, ce sont les habitants qui en font le choix et nous savons bien qu’elles peuvent souvent être réduites au minimum, dans la mesure où ces habitants sont comme partie prenante de ce patrimoine qu’ils se donnent à voir à eux-mêmes. Si un effort de mise en exposition est fait, c’est à l’usage d’un public extérieur à la communauté – des ‘‘visiteurs’’ ! Comme le théâtre, le musée ne peut exister sans public. Mais le public n’est pas la population. Et ensuite la population n’est pas composée que de consommateurs, car le musée ne saurait être considéré comme un magasin et ce qu’on lui offre comme une marchandise. En réalité, l’imposture tient à ce que l’on a confondu population et public, participation aux décisions du musée et consommation, échange de connaissances et encore consommation. Faire l’étude muséologique en partant des visiteurs, et non pas de l’exposition, de ce qu’elle donne à voir et de la façon dont elle est reçue, supposerait que les visiteurs aient conscience de ce qu’ils souhaitent et surtout connaissent à l’avance ce qui peut leur être proposé – ce qui est rarement le cas. Tant qu’il s’agit d’intégrer la population à la programmation d’un écomusée et de mettre en valeur avec elle son patrimoine, il n’y a aucun problème à donner du sens. Par contre, lorsque le public est anonyme et se rend au musée en simple consommateur, comme s’il allait au supermarché (au mieux : au cinéma), il est bien certain que les responsables peuvent difficilement le questionner sur ce qu’il souhaite voir et il leur appartient de faire eux-mêmes le choix de la politique du musée. . Sources ALEXANDER, Edward P., 1983. Museum Masters. Nashville, The American Association for State and

Local History : 377-411. BOURDIEU, Pierre et DARBEL, Alain, 1964. Le musée et son public, Paris, Ministère des Affaires

culturelles. BOURDIEU, Pierre et DARBEL, Alain, 1966. L’amour de l’art. Les musées d’art européens et leur public,

Paris, Ed. de Minuit, CAILLET, Élisabeth, 2000. ‘‘La professionnalisation et les nouveaux métiers des musées, une évolution

internationale’’. Publics et projets culturels. Un enjeu des musées en Europe. Paris, L’Harmattan.: 174-182.

CAMERON Duncan F., 1968. “A view point: the Museum as a communication system and implications for museum education”, in Curator, 11, 1968, p. 33-40. Trad. fr. par R.Rivard in Vagues, t.1, pp.259-270 .

CAMERON Duncan F. , 1971a. “Museum, a temple or a forum”, in Curator, 14, march 1971, p. 11-24. Trad. fr. par R.Rivard in Vagues, t.1, pp.77-98 .

CAMERON Duncan F., 1971b. “Problems in the language of museum interpretation’’. Actes de la neuvième conférence générale de l’Icom, Grenoble, 1971, pp.89-99. Trad. fr. par R.Rivard in Vagues, t.1, pp. 271-288.

EIDELMAN Jacqueline, GOTTESDIENER Hana, PEIGNOUX J., CORDIER J-P., ROUSTAN M., 2000 La réception de l’exposition « La Mort n’en saura rien ». Enquête réalisée auprès des visiteurs de l’exposition du Musée national des Arts d’Afrique et d’Océanie (1999-2000), CERLIS/MAAO, 184p + annexes.

FOCILLON Henri, 1923 (1921) ‘‘La conception moderne des musées’’, Actes du XIème congrès international d’Histoire de l’art. Paris, 26 septembre-5 octobre 1921. Paris, PUF.

KREBS Anne et MARESCA Bruno, 2004 ‘‘Le renouveau des musées. Avant -Propos’’. Problèmes politiques et sociaux, n°910, mars 2005. La Documentation française, pp. 5-12.

LE MAREC, Joëlle 1993.’’L’interactivité, rencontre entre visiteurs et concepteurs’’, Publics et musées, 3, juin1993 : 91-109.

LE MAREC Joëlle. et DESHAYES Sophie 1994 et 1996 Bilans des études muséographiques. Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie, Direction des expositions.

MAIRESSE, François, 1995. ‘’L’idée du musée dans la pensée de Jean Capart. Annales d’Histoire de l’art et d’archéologie, ULB : 119

POSTMAN, Neil, 1994 (1989). ‘‘Pour un élargissement de la notion de musée’’. Icom, Conférence générale de La Haye : 43-50, fr. (41-48, engl.). Repris en français dans Vagues, t.II : 420-432.

60

Pratiques culturelles des Français 1973, 1981, 1989, 1997. Paris, Ministère de la Culture, Service études et recherches.

RÉAU, Louis, 1909. ‘‘Notes complémentaires sur l’organisation des musées. Les musées américains’’, Revue de synthèse historique, t.19, pp.150-159.

SCHÄFER, Hermann, 2000. ‘‘Une conception orientée vers le visiteur’’. Publics et projets culturels. Un enjeu des musées en Europe. Paris, L’Harmattan : 94-102 : 98.

TRIQUET, Éric et DAVALLON, Jean 1993. ‘’Le public, enjeu stratégique entre scientifiques et concepteurs’’, Publics et musées, 3, juin1993 : 67-89.

VARINE, Hugues de, L’initiative communautaire. Recherche et expérimentation. W / MNES, 1991.

VERóN, Eliseo et LEVASSEUR, Martine, 1983. ‘‘Ethnographie de l’exposition’’, Histoires d’expo : un thème, un lieu un parcours. Peuple et culture, CCI, Centre Georges Pompidou : 29-32.

Résumé En quelques mots je voudrais évoquer deux problèmes concernant les rapports entre le public et le musée, et plus particulièrement dans ses expositions. Le premier est l’ignorance dans laquelle nous laissent souvent les études de public quant à ce qui se passe exactement entre le regardeur et ce qu’il voit. Le second problème est la menace de dérive qui pèse sur le musée à partir du moment où l’on ne se contente plus d’étudier les publics : on tend désormais à devancer ses attentes et l’on fait des études de marché pour adapter le musée à sa cible, au lieu d’éduquer le visiteur pour l’élever jusqu’au niveau où le musée peut lui apprendre quelque chose sans ramener pour autant le niveau au ‘‘moins disant’’ intellectuel.

Deux propositions sont faites pour permettre au musée de s’adapter sans trahir sa vocation. La première c’est que, si l’emballage, à savoir les conditions d’accueil et de la lecture des expôts, doivent être améliorés pour que le contenu puisse être rendu accessible à tous et que quiconque puisse y pénétrer, il n’est pas souhaitable que cet emballage soit développé au point de cacher le contenu. La seconde condition est que le contenu lui-même ne soit pas modifié pour faciliter cette accessibilité, par un escamotage partiel tenant par exemple au « politiquement correct », par la disparition d’une mise en perspective multiple. Summary In a few words I would touch on two problems concerning the relation between public and museum and especially in his exhibitions. The first problem is public’s studies leave us in ignorance about the relation between somebody watching and something watched. The second problem is the drift which threatens museum since not only one investigate publics but one tend from now to anticipate their expectations. One do market readings to adapt the museum and his target instead to train the visitor to be educated till the level in which the museum can learn it something and don’t reduce it in the lowest intellectual level. Two proposals are offered to allow the museum be adapted without betraying its mandate. The first proposal: the packaging, reception and reading of exhibits conditions, has to be improved in order to the content can be accessible to all and everybody can fathom inside; but it would not be desirable if this packaging would be develop so that to hide the content. The second proposal: the content itself has not to be altered to make this accessibility easier by avoiding in order to be “politically correct”, by erasing a multiple perspective.

61

Towards a Critical Pedagogy for Museums

Heather Devine - Canada

Visitors to museums do not come as blank slates. They come with a wealth of previously acquired knowledge, interests, skills, beliefs, attitudes, and experiences, all of which combine to affect not only what and how they interact with educational experiences but also what meaning, if any, they make of such experiences.1 Introduction: A Few Case Studies Case Study #1 A group of Aboriginal Elders inform a museum outreach employee that they are prepared to set up an Oka-style road-block if the recreational development around their traditional burial ground is not stopped. Case Study #2 Government archaeologists at a vision quest site are threatened with violence by a group of Native men, who demand that they leave the area, despite the fact that the sacred site is part of a larger cultural site complex administered by government agencies. Case Study #3 A group of Native activists appeal to an untrained museum employee to ‘repatriate’ artifacts from the collections to them. Items are removed from the collections without the knowledge or consent of museum management or the original source community, and illegally transported across the border. Case Study #4 A Native museum visitor is snubbed by the docents when visiting a historic house formerly owned by her ancestors.

Reflecting on Museum Encounters Could these situations have been prevented? Possibly. But the kinds of operational shortcomings that might have been identified, and even corrected, as a result of these encounters will probably not remedy the existential sense of alienation, anger, and sadness experienced by many cultural minorities who visit museums and cultural sites where their lifeways and histories are presented. Over the years I have had the opportunity to accompany different visitor groups and individuals as they come face-to-face with the artifacts, historical landscapes, and written documents that embody their culture. I can remember very vividly sitting on a hillside in Northern Alberta, overlooking a lake, having an informal picnic with band members who were trying to prevent a recreational development from being built around one of their burial grounds. The hillside where we sat was once the site of their summer fishing camp, and the location of the former mission and burial ground. It was a beautiful sunny spring day; the perfect time to visit the former camp. When I commented on the lovely afternoon, and asked the Elder with us how she felt at visiting the site on such a wonderful day, she said “It makes me feel sad”. - Discomfort. Sadness. Anger. Resentment. Frustration. Despair. These are common feelings experienced by cultural minorities in museum environments. They are not the feelings that are conducive to constructive long-term working relationships between museums and source communities.

1 “Museums and the Individual”. In John H. Falk and Lynn D. Dierking, Learning From Museums: Visitor Experiences and the Making of Meaning (New York: AltaMira Press, 2000): 69-89; 87.

62

Healing in the Museum: A Critical Pedagogical Approach Most museum curators are subject-matter specialists in the field where they are expected to carry out their research and exhibition development activities. As such, their intellectual horizons are defined by the theoretical and methodological approaches characteristic of their specialties, whether they be anthropologists zoologists, art historians, botanists, etcetera. Not surprisingly, scholars with advanced training in these disciplines have largely “bought in” to the epistemologies of their specialties. Not only do they believe their professions to be inherently ‘good’, but, not surprisingly, they tend to resent criticism of their work by people they consider to be non-practitioners. When museum audiences (i.e. “stakeholder groups”) possessing specialized understandings or affinities with particular museum exhibitions respond negatively to museum activities, curators, conservators, and other museum professionals feel bewilderment and resentment. In the past, dealing with recalcitrant museum visitors was considered to be the domain of the visitor services personnel, the docents or interpreters that occupy the bottom layers of the museum “food chain”. However, over the last twenty-five years, controversies arising from audience reaction to a few high-profile exhibitions have brought the inadequacies of museum operation into sharp relief. It is clear that the problems with museum exhibitions have their origins much higher in the museum structure.2 My own introduction to the heritage world came twenty years ago, when I was hired as an education officer with the Historical Resources Division of Alberta Culture (now Alberta Community Development). Very quickly I learned the function of educators in this particular domain, dominated by esoteric subject-matter experts. Educators in these environments did not have any meaningful input regarding the development and delivery of educational programs, or the design of exhibitions, for that matter. These were the domain of curators, many of whom were woefully inadequate in dealing with the cognitive needs and sociopolitical concerns of visitors. Educators in these environments were expected to digest and regurgitate the exhibition content in a manner that did not challenge the curatorial status quo. Indeed, they were – and still are – considered to be little more than tour guides, regardless of their professional background. My training prior to entering the cultural heritage world revolved around curriculum development and educational media. In my graduate methods courses, we learned phenomenology, hermeneutics, and other qualitative forms of research designed specifically to assist us in uncovering the lived-world of the learner, and how the learner’s epistemology invariably conflicted with that of mainstream institutions. More importantly, I was thoroughly immersed in the theories of critical pedagogy. What is “critical pedagogy”, you ask?

Numerous definitions of the term are available on the Web, but for our purposes, the definition below is provided as a beginning:

Critical pedagogy' is a teaching approach which attempts to help students question and challenge domination, and the beliefs and practices that support the proposed domination. In other words, it is a theory and practice of helping students achieve critical consciousness. In this tradition the teacher works to lead students to question ideologies and practices considered oppressive (including those at school), and encourage liberatory collective and individual responses to the actual conditions of their own lives. The student must begin as a member of the society (society including religion, national identity, cultural norms, or expected roles) they are cynically studying. After they reach the point of revelation where they begin to view their society as deeply flawed, the next behavior encouraged is sharing this knowledge with the attempt to change the oppressive nature of the society or withdrawal from society.3

2 In the Canadian context, I am referring to the controversies arising out of the Glenbow Museum’s The Spirit Sings exhibition and the Royal Ontario Museum’s Into the Heart of Africa exhibition. See Shelley Ruth Butler, Contested Representations: into the heart of Africa 3 “Critical Pedagogy - Definition of Critical Pedagogy”, in Dictionary.LaborLawTalk (on-line). http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Critical_pedagogy (accessed May 15, 2005). See also “What is Critical

63

In the early 1980s, when I was a graduate student in Education, the leading proponents of critical pedagogy were theorists such as the late Paulo Freire, who believed that any form of education should enable the learner to critically reflect upon the world, and transform the societal structures that created and maintained oppression. Freire described this phenomenon thusly: “conscientization refers to the process in which men, not as recipients, but as knowing subjects, achieve a deepening awareness both of the sociocultural reality that shapes their lives and of their capacity to transform that reality.”4

Paulo Freire believed that education and human rights were inextricable, and that educational activities involve critical action and reflection, or praxis, which in term would empower the pupil to transform the structures of oppression. While the Marxist tone of these theories is very much a product of the Third-World liberation movements of the 1950s and 60s, they are, nonetheless, still relevant today.5

Modern critical pedagogy has expanded the site of educational environments, in order to embrace the many places outside the realm of schools where pedagogical interactions take place. Theorists such as Henry A. Giroux have exhorted educators to look at the broader messages being delivered to students via the mass media, the Internet, and other modes of information transmission:

Like Paulo Freire, Giroux believes that educators need to understand their students and to address the contexts of their everyday lives. As such, he argues for a pedagogy that critically examines the media and other cultural artifacts that shape students' cultural contexts but that are nevertheless frequently ignored in classrooms. The media enacts its own invisible pedagogy, constructing representations of race, class, gender, ethnicity, sexuality, occupation, age, etc. on the screen. A critical media pedagogy seeks to make visible how and why these representations are constructed, to ask whose interests they serve, and to locate sites of resistance to disabling representations and oppressive cultural narratives.6

What are the implications of these theories, when applied to the “hidden curriculum” of museum institutions?

First of all, these theories suggest that cultural heritage facilities and sites (like other forms of mass media) are pedagogical places that construct representations of race, class, gender, ethnicity, and spirituality that generally mirror society’s status quo. Furthermore, they also suggest that the mainstream (i.e. scholarly) perceptions of reality presented by museums may serve to repudiate the world views, the values, and aspirations of some of the communities of learners that they serve. The reaction of minority groups to ‘disabling representations’ and ‘oppressive cultural narratives’ are embodied in the protests, blockades, boycotts and other forms of activism directed against heritage institutions over the last two decades. Such measures are the result of disenfranchised groups that feel they have no avenues to gain power and control over the artifacts that comprise their heritage, and how their cultural values and history are communicated through those objects.

Secondly, critical pedagogical theory suggests that if museum institutions are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem. Such a perspective demands that museums change the way that they do things in order to embark on fruitful relationships with visitors in general, and members of source communities in particular. Fortunately, the theoretical literature in museology is finally beginning to recognize this reality.7

However, some museum administrators subvert this process by making superficial, cosmetic changes to museum practice that do not make substantive changes to the mission and overall functioning of the institution. For example, inviting source community members to participate in exhibition planning committees is mere tokenism if they are not allowed substantive influence (e.g. Pedagogy?” Christy Stevens, “from Critical Pedagogy on the Web (on-line) (2002). http://mingo.info-science.uiowa.edu/~stevens/critped/definitions.htm. Accessed May 15, 2005. 4 See Note 1 of Paulo Freire, “Cultural Action and Conscientization,”Harvard Education Review Vol. 68 No. 4 (Winter 1998), 499-521; 519. 5 See “Cultural Action for Freedom: Editors Introduction”. Harvard Education Review Vol. 68 No. 4 (Winter 1998), 471-475. 6 Christy Stevens, “Henry A. Giroux” from Critical Pedagogy on the Web (on-line) (2002). http://mingo.info-science.uiowa.edu/~stevens/critped/giroux.htm. Accessed May 15, 2005. 7 See Trudy Nicks, “Introduction”, in Laura Peers and Alison K. Brown, eds. Museums and Source Communities: A Routledge Reader (London and New York: Routledge 2003), 19-27.

64

veto power) over elements of collection, conservation, and interpretation. Engaging docents from source communities without involving them actively in the development of programming for different visitor communities is also tokenism. Unfortunately, this is the route that many museums take, because the alternative would involve a radical restructuring of the museum’s decision-making hierarchy and a corresponding reallocation of resources to museum departments (e.g. Educational Services) generally denigrated or ignored altogether by the subject-matter specialists who comprise museum management.

Having said this, there are good reasons for not abandoning standard museum practices, such as those which involve the safety and integrity of museum collections, historical landscapes, etcetera. However, these too, can be examined critically, and altered appropriately to reflect the concerns of source communities.

Much of the distrust between museums and source communities could be eased, or

eliminated altogether, by making the museum more transparent to outsiders. Although some institutions use behind-the-scenes tours to accomplish this goal, on-going education programming in museum practices, designed specifically for members of source communities, and co-delivered with community-based experts, might be a workable solution.

The Museum and Heritage Studies at the University of Calgary, has initiated one such

program for the Fall of 2005. The introductory course in basic museum practice (Museum and Heritage Studies 201) will be offered in an intensive one-week format at the Siksika (Blackfoot) Reserve in Gleichen, Alberta the first week of September. The goal of the course is to provide band members, band councillors, and university undergraduates with a basic knowledge and understanding of museum practice, to serve as a prerequisite for further training in the field. By offering the program on the Reserve, the course instructors can utilize the various historic sites on the reserve as teaching tools. A brand-new interpretive centre, slated to open to the public in the Fall of 1996, will also provide access to Blackfoot ethnographic collections. The ‘best practices’ regarding their care and interpretation, from a Blackfoot cultural perspective, will be presented jointly by Blackfoot ceremonialists and university specialists in museum practice.

Another project, this time dealing with exhibition development, is being pursued by the Nickle

Arts Museum in conjunction with Red Crow Community College on the Kainai (Blood) Reserve. The project consists of the planning and installation of an exhibition of Native art under the co-sponsorship of both organizations. In this scenario, the Curator of Indigenous Heritage at the Nickle Arts Museum will not take sole responsibility for planning the content and interpretive messages of the exhibition. Instead, the curator will act as a facilitator, assisting the development of an exhibition that takes its message, direction and impetus from the Kainai members of the exhibition development team.

The long-term goal here is the establishment of ongoing, democratic pedagogical and

curatorial relationships, which will serve to educate source communities on the elements of museum practice. The hope is that this involvement will not only correct misconceptions about museum operations by making these processes more transparent, but will also bring the members of source communities into the museum profession itself. This cannot take place until culturally-sensitive training initiatives are in place.

Another goal of these joint initiatives is the sensitization of mainstream museum personnel into the contemporary realities of life for many ethnic and racial minorities. The long - term future of ethnographic museums depends on a continuation of collaborative research with indigenous communities and groups, such as those carried out in the projects discussed above. However, working in multi - disciplinary, cross cultural settings is not easy. Museum professionals operating in these capacities are expected to assume a multitude of responsibilities when supervising cross-cultural research and educational projects. As a consequence, it is the ability of museum specialists to carry out these people-oriented functions, rather than their academic skills, which often influence the overall success of cross-cultural partnerships with source communities.

Appropriate interpersonal attitudes, skills, and behaviors are crucial to successful work with

aboriginal communities. Outsiders cannot expect to come into indigenous communities, collect artifacts and sensitive cultural information at will, and leave. Researchers must be prepared to devote the time necessary to establish good interpersonal relationships with the community-based participants in the research, and to demonstrate the flexibility needed to react to the vagaries of daily life in Native communities. Research in Native communities rarely proceeds according to the plans

65

and the time frames envisioned originally. Therefore researchers have to learn to relax and take work interruptions or slowdowns in stride. During these periods, informal interaction with community members can be as valuable, intrinsically, as research tasks. As Murray L. Wax notes in “The Ethics of Research in American Indian Communities” (1991), “What is crucial is participation in the life of the community; being present at gatherings and ceremonials; listening to others and responding in a manner that indicates one has reflectively heard [my emphasis] and giving of one’s self and one’s possessions in the sense of sharing and maintaining reciprocity with one’s peers. These are also keys whereby a stranger gains acceptance.” At the same time, however, museum professionals must be careful to avoid involvement in political factionalism or other elements of reserve life which may negatively affect research. The most successful museum-community partnerships resonate with the qualities of collegiality and respect in aboriginal community settings. The resulting projects, more often than not, are the result of work conducted over several years - the time required, in many cases, for outsiders to gain a degree of acceptance. One notable example of a long - term research partnership is that of Yukon ethnohistorian Julie Cruikshank and her Tutchone Indian partner/interpreters, who have engaged in an extended process of interview, translation, and collaborative interpretation of Native oral discourse over a period of several years, a process documented by Julie Cruikshank in Life Lived Like a Story: Life Stories of Three Yukon Native Elders (1990). According to Cruikshank, her investigations are based on the premis “that life - history investigation provides a model for research. Instead of working from the conventional formula in which an outside investigator initiates and controls the research, this model depends on outgoing collaboration between interviewer and interviewee. Such a model begins by taking seriously what people say about their lives rather than treating their words as an illustration of some other process [my emphasis].” Of course not all museum workers are willing or able to make long - term, field - based research commitments of this nature. Nor do all museum researchers need to do field research; documentary analysis may well suffice depending on the area under investigation. However, all parties benefit from the field work of researchers such as Julie Cruikshank; we owe them a debt of gratitude. The willingness of museum-based specialists to work with other specialists outside the museum in multi-disciplinary partnerships is crucial to the future of research with indigenous groups. The level of methodological sophistication in Native Studies has grown to such an extent that teamwork, or at the least consultation among specialists, has become a necessity. This is particularly true in the field of indigenous history, often called “ethnohistory” because of its multidisciplinary character.

In “Strange Bedfellow, Kindred Spirits” Jennifer Brown suggests that “ethnohistorians are often intellectual free traders; we borrow other people’s methods, concepts, and tool kits, from linguistic, archaeology, geography, and literary criticism, and we thereby enrich our analyses, even if we risk making them more complicated and ourselves more confused. . . what ethnohistory is all about is the crossing of boundaries, of time and space, of discipline and department, and of perspective, whether ethnic, cultural, social, or gender - based.” This can create problems, however, as René Gadacz points out in “The Language of Ethnohistory” (1982). Because the field has become so multidisciplinary, borrowing, as it does from anthropology, sociology, history, psychology and other disciplines, there is the danger that not only terminology, but approaches are being misused, creating problems in research and interpretation.

As the trend towards forming multi-disciplinary research teams continues, we must be able to confront, and to resolve, the inevitable conflicts that arise. Several years ago I participated in a multidisciplinary, community-based, cross-cultural curriculum development project designed to develop instructional materials dealing with aboriginal history (described in “Archaeology, Prehistory, and the Native Learning Resources Project” (1994)]. Key to the project was the acceptance of a developmental framework that respected the perspective of aboriginal people regarding their interpretation of their own history. The textbook committees consisted of Native community representatives, classroom teachers, Native subject matter experts, and curriculum development specialists. In addition, subject matter experts, primarily academics based in museums and universities, were also consulted when deemed necessary. Unfortunately however, this approach, which reflected the curriculum development philosophy identified at the outset, was unacceptable to a few subject-matter experts connected in a peripheral way to the project. In one instance, a subject-

66

matter expert took issue with the development approach, claiming that the members of the steering committees were conducting ethnographic research and, as educators, were unqualified to do so. Our problems with subject-matter experts did not end, unfortunately. An unauthorized critique of a textbook in the draft stages also drew criticism because of perceived historical and ethnographic inaccuracies . Because some steering committees chose to interpret historical and cultural information from the Native perspective (which, in some cases, diverged considerably from the standard ethnohistorical perspective), the material was perceived to be inaccurate. Unfortunately, problems with subject-matter experts are not uncommon in multi-disciplinary settings where lay-people and professionals are required to work as equal partners. This kind of ‘assistance’ from subject-matter experts, if tolerated, has an even more insidious effect on group dynamics in cross - cultural initiatives like the Native Learning Resources Project. When subject-matter experts - anthropologists, historians or whoever - attempt to "validate" content by contradicting and repudiating the folk knowledge of the Native subject-matter expert, it serves to undermine and coopt the dialectical nature of cross-cultural collaborations. To be fair to specialists, however, one must acknowledge the legitimate concerns they express. Subject matter experts might well question the merit of a project where some of the content generated seems to fly in the face of generally - accepted fact. They could argue convincingly that educational materials produced about Natives by Natives may serve to promote the kind of revisionism that perpetuates a whole new set of inaccurate stereotypes, this time from the Native perspective. While this concern may have some validity, it nonetheless does not justify the entrenchment of power and control over the presentation of Native heritage in the hands of non-Native subject-matter experts. I would like to point out that in most cases, differences of interpretation can be resolved to the satisfaction of both parties. What Native people object to most is the fundamental lack of respect exhibited by non-Natives, particularly subject matter experts, towards their opinions and perspectives. The result has been a polemical backlash to cross-cultural research partnerships, epitomized by the attitudes expressed by Wendat historian George Sioui in his book For an Amerindian Autohistory (1992). Sioui implies, first and foremost, that the purpose of Amerindian research is, primarily, a didactic one; that is, to teach non-Amerindians the error of their ways regarding their treatment of aboriginal people. This presupposition immediately renders suspect the underlying motives and ethics of any intended research project, and also calls into question the validity of any historical interpretations arising from such research. Second, Sioui subscribes to the activist truism that all outsiders, particularly non-Natives, are incapable of acquiring the contextual knowledge or cultural nuances specific to aboriginal society required to interpret Native world-view successfully. Therefore, non-Natives are expected to assume a scholarly role that appears to concern itself less with historical research but instead with public education. In Sioui's research scenario, non-Native historians are only there, presumably, to package the completed research for mainstream consumption. I would argue that the research model that Sioui proposes is fundamentally racist in conception, and reflects the same kind of ethnocentrism characteristic of the worst 19th century historiography. This alternative research paradigm does little to encourage researchers or aboriginal people to challenge and alter their respective worldviews. Nor does it encourage the additional skill development required for carrying out competent ethnohistorical research. It appears, instead, to simply accept and maintain two ethnic, methodological solitudes existing side by side in Native Studies. An alternative approach is to develop historical philosophy and methodology courses which explore alternative epistemologies and provide approaches for researching the indigenous past in a manner appropriate to the cultural groups under study. This is not to be considered a form of political appeasement, but should be considered a necessary precurser to doing accurate history. Committed researchers in indigenous studies should be encouraged to develop a familiarity with the contemporary cultures of the groups they wish to study in order to understand the political and social milieu which the historical experiences of these groups has engendered. As a museum professional, it is my responsibility to conduct research which is both thorough and ethical. Can one do both? I believe that the methodological tools of contemporary ethnohistory

67

are sound, and that the ethnohistorical research approaches of the last few decades have served to address many of the controversial issues raised by aboriginal critics. Furthermore, the postmodernist philosophical approaches now being debated in the field of anthropology continue to raise new, important questions about field - based research, textual analysis, interdisciplinary methods which can be applied to historical scholarship.8 In order to practise one's discipline yet truly respect the actors of history, there must exist a state of critical awareness, rather than complacency, in the mind of the heritage professionals. Museum practitioners must realize that their research, that their exhibitions, and their interpretation of indigenous heritage does have a critical influence over how mainstream society views its past and present relations with aboriginal peoples. Native communities are asking that museum professionals acquire, and demonstrate, an accurate understanding of the aboriginal world view in their analyses of indigenous heritage. They are asking for respectful, ethical research practices to be implemented in aboriginal communities. Most of all, they are asking for cultural heritage agencies to acknowledge that there does exist a degree of moral accountability toward the Native subjects of their research, if only in demonstrating that they are willing to adopt the methodological approaches needed to finally "get aboriginal history right". I leave the final word on these matters to Georges Sioui:

When wampums have been offered to all who are touched by history – to all human beings – whether to wipe away the tears that interfere with their vision, to ease their breathing, to render their ears sensitive again, or to smooth the paths of meetings until the beauty of life illuminates the eyes of all and reason, soothed, "comes back to its seat", then shall we be able to listen to and understand Amerindian autohistory.9

Bibliography Butler, Shelley Ruth. Contested Representations: Revisiting Into the Heart of Africa. Amsterdam:

Gordon and Breach Publishers, 1999.

Three Yukon Native Elders. Lincoln: University of Nebrasca Press, 1990.

Devine, Heather. “Archaeology, Prehistory, and the Native Learning Resources Project." Peter Stone and Brian Molyneaux, eds. The Presented Past: Heritage, Museums and Education. London: Routledge Ltd. 1994, 478-494.

Falk, John H. and Dierking, Lynn D. Learning From Museums: Visitor Experiences and the Making of Meaning. New York: AltaMira Press, 2000.

Freire, Paulo. “Cultural Action and Conscientization”. Harvard Educational Review, Volume 68, No. 4, Winter 1998: 499-521.

Gathergole, P. and D. Lowenthal, eds. The Politics of the Past. New York: Routledge, 1994.

Janes, Robert R. and Conaty, Gerald T., eds. Looking Reality in the Eye: Museums and Social Responsibility. Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 2005.

Mihesuah, Devon Abbott and Angela Cavender Wilson, ed. Indigenizing the Academy: Transforming Scholarship and Empowering Communities. London and Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2004.

Peers, Laura and Alison K. Brown, eds. Museums and Source Communties: A Routledge Reader. London and New York: Routledge, 2003.

8 Rosemary J. Coombe. "Encountering the Postmodern: New Directions in Cultural Anthropology". Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 28(2) 1991: 188-205. 9Sioui, Georges E. For an Amerindian Autohistory: An Essay on the Foundations of a Social Ethic. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1992.

68

Simpson, Moira. Making Representations: Museums in the Post-Colonial Era (revised edition). London and New York: routledge, 2001.

Sioui, Georges E. For an Amerindian Autohistory: An Essay on the Foundations of a Social Ethic. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1992.

Stone, Peter G. and Brian L. Molyneaux, eds. The Presented Past: Heritage, Museums, and Education. London and New York: Routledge, 1994.

Van Manen, Max. Writing in the Dark: Phenomenological Studies in Interpreting Inquiry. London, Ontario: Althouse Press, 2002.

Vergo, Peter, ed. The New Museology. London: Reaktion Books, 1989.

Walsh, Kevin. The Representation of the Past: Museums and Heritage in the Post-Modern World. London and New York: Routledge, 1992.

Wax, Murray L. "The Ethics of Research in American Indian Communities". American Indian Quarterly, Vol. XV, No. 4, Fall 1991: 431-456.

Summary Museums have become contested spaces – contact zones - where colonial conflicts play themselves out to the detriment of both museum professionals and indigenous groups. This paper argues that until museum and heritage institutions come to understand the phenomenological experiences of indigenous people in the museum space, they will be unable to bring about the changes needed to develop constructive relationships with indigenous minority groups. This paper further argues that it is not enough to apply educational theories piecemeal in the museum setting. Cognitive theories must be placed in a sociocultural context, and the work of critical pedagogical theorists such as the late Paulo Freire, Michael Apple, and educational phenomenologists such as Max van Manen may offer the best approaches to developing positive educational relationships with “source communities”.

69

A diferentes denominiaciones, diferentes ideologías: pero

siempre se trata de la gente

Mónica Gorgas / Jeannette de la Cerda - Argentina ________________________________________________________

“El hecho museal es una profunda relación entre el hombre y el objeto” Waldissia Russio

Nuestro objeto de estudio La historia de los museos es la historia de las miradas que las sociedades han hecho de sí mismas, es la historia de los paradigmas sociales de cada época y lugar. La historia de las teorías sobre museos y museología es la historia de cómo fue observado e interpretado el museo como fenómeno capaz de producir diferentes efectos socioculturales. Así como los museos no han sido ingenuos a la hora de seleccionar qué objetos conservar y qué ideologías sostener, las teorías museológicas, al escoger su campo de acción y enfoque están también teñidas de ideología; los museólogos no escapan de los contextos culturales y filosóficos de su tiempo y espacio. Cabe reflexionar sobre el porqué del tema que hoy nos ocupa, el porqué ICOFOM elige tratar las bases teóricas o más bien pretende hacer teoría museológica sobre las audiencias de los museos. Por qué y en qué contexto elegimos denominar audiencia a los sujetos de la relación museal. Históricamente, y quizás sobrentendiendo que los museos son instituciones que sirven a grupos sociales más amplios que sus destinatarios directos, las discusiones de ICOFOM se han centrado sobre Museología y Comunidad, Museología y Sociedad, Museología e Identidad. Hoy en Canadá, en el seno de ICOFOM se ha elegido hablar de Museología y Audiencia, focalizando nuestro objetivo en un grupo social más restringido, y considerando a la Audiencia como los públicos reales y potenciales de los museos. ¿Será quizá porque en un mundo cada vez más influenciado por intereses económicos globales estamos supeditando la existencia misma de los museos a su capacidad de atraer públicos cada vez más numerosos? O es que finalmente estamos reconociendo que siendo el museo un fenómeno por el que se produce un encuentro transformador entre el hombre y una realidad específica, hemos dedicado todos nuestros esfuerzos en conceptualizar la musealidad como esa realidad específica (la del objeto) dando por supuesto la del sujeto de esa relación? Si analizamos los esfuerzos realizados para intentar formular un concepto de museo y de musealidad, notamos que el acento ha sido puesto en tratar de definir la clase de ¨realia¨ que constituye el acervo museal. Los objetos fuera de su contexto original, son transferidos al contexto museal. El objetivo del museólogo será explorar sus múltiples sentidos y significaciones. Musealidad es la característica de un objeto material que en una realidad documenta otra realidad: en el tiempo presente es un documento del pasado, en el museo es un documento del mundo real, dentro de un espacio es un documento de otras relaciones espaciales. Así, objetos de un determinado tiempo y lugar pueden documentar diferentes sociedades, al ser testigos de su desarrollo. Objetos de un lugar determinado pueden documentar el tiempo de su origen o el paso del tiempo y del status social que representan. Un objeto usado y descartado puede documentar el tiempo y lugar al que pertenecieron, o algún otro momento del tiempo de principal importancia del que subsisten sólo indicaciones tenues. Musealidad es el valor no-material o significado de un objeto que nos da el motivo de su musealización.1 Pero si la misma naturaleza de la experiencia de museo es la de la relación entre el hombre y una realidad específica ¿no será tiempo de reflexionar sobre el hombre, la contraparte de esa relación? Y

1 Maroevic,Ivo. ICOFOM Study Series1993:96-97

70

no nos estamos refiriendo a cualquier clase de hombre, estamos pensando en un hombre o una mujer puestos en una particular situación: la del museo. Los museos son espacios de comunicación; la significación de sus mensajes podría indagarse a partir de las condiciones histórico-sociales en que éstos se producen. Esta reflexión no puede realizarse sin tener en cuenta la experiencia sociocultural de los visitantes en tanto sujetos activos de la experiencia museal. El primer problema a analizar sería sobre la forma de ese encuentro, desde dónde se lo resignifica, desde qué ideología, es decir desde qué relación con el mundo. Es verdad que los mensajes elaborados por los museos comportan significación, pero ésta sólo se realiza, significa realmente, en el encuentro con el otro, el que la recibe. La capacidad de relacionarse con una realidad específica estará estrechamente ligada a los varios planos ideológicos que conviven en la persona puesta en la situación museal. Aquél, que en nuestro uso cotidiano denominamos genéricamente visitante. La pregunta ¿qué es este visitante? Nos instala en los confines de lo ontológico. Indagar qué es alude obviamente al ser. Hablamos de reflexión crítica y no de técnicas instrumentales. Nos referimos a la preocupación por lo que significa una presencia y no sólo cómo hacerla posible. Sobre los términos que usamos para referirnos al sujeto de la relación museal Si repasamos mentalmente la forma en que denominamos a las personas o grupos de personas que concurren o asisten a determinados sitios relacionados con el patrimonio y su comunicación, no encontramos mayores dificultades, al menos en español, para decir que el que asiste a una conferencia es un oyente, el que participa de una representación teatral o cinematográfica es un espectador, que en el ámbito de las bibliotecas hablamos de lectores, en el de los archivos de investigadores. En el contexto de las empresas u organizaciones que ofrecen servicios públicos, agua, luz, correo, etc., nuestro sujeto se denomina tradicionalmente usuario y a veces cliente, término éste que ha sido tradicionalmente más usado cuando se establecen relaciones comerciales o contractuales. En general todos ellos constituyen el público o públicos de esas instituciones, organismos o empresas. Este trabajo aborda los diferentes nombres que usamos cuando nos referimos a la gente en el contexto del museo: visitantes, audiencia, público, públicos, espectador, usuario, cliente... Creemos firmemente que esos términos no son sinónimos y que su uso no es ingenuo. Sabemos que detrás de los nombres, hay conceptos e ideología. Trataremos de establecer qué ideología está detrás de cada denominación, porque pensamos que a cada término corresponde un diferente concepto de museo. Algunas cuestiones metodológicas El primer acercamiento al tema lo hicimos buscando en libros y revistas especializados diferentes artículos sobre los museos y sus visitantes, tratando de encontrar los nombres con los que los autores se referían a nuestro ¨sujeto¨ de conocimiento y en qué contexto lo hacían. En general, la consulta de la bibliografía correspondiente a los años anteriores a los 90’, nos permitió conocer que los términos más utilizados son visitantes y público. En artículos especializados en el tema de museos y educación, cuando fueron escritos originalmente en inglés, aparece la palabra audiencia y también la de participante, pero más bien como adjetivo que como sustantivo. Ya más recientemente, casi paralelamente a los estudios de marketing cultural, aparece la palabra cliente usada a veces indistintamente con usuario. Se empieza a hablar de clientelizar o fidelizar la audiencia. Algunos autores -y eso lo notamos en artículos sobre investigación o evaluación de públicos traducidos al español- reemplazan unos términos por otros, como para no repetirlos en un mismo texto. Aparece el término espectador, casi siempre en relación a los museos de arte Nos llamó la atención que cuando los estudios de visitantes estaban hechos con fines económicos o políticos, con el propósito de saber qué caminos tomar para aumentar la cantidad de público a fin de engrandecer el campo de actuación del museo y así justificar una mayor obtención de fondos, los

71

términos más usados eran cliente, usuarios y audiencia. El visitante, hasta ayer blanco de intencionalidades o proveedor de datos para encuestas, fue adquiriendo una dignidad de tal envergadura que de casi esclavo pasó a ser casi amo: abandonó su condición de visitante para volverse usuario (cliente)2. En los estudios realizados para medir el impacto de una determinara exposición y así mejorar los canales de comunicación, la denominación usada casi exclusivamente es visitante o públicos, escrito en plural como una forma de denotar diversidad y variedad. A partir de estas lecturas que nos fueron afirmando en nuestra postura, hicimos consultas a diccionarios en castellano, inglés y francés y allí nos dimos cuenta que muchas de las palabras utilizadas son neologismos de reciente uso en idioma español. Visitante como traducción de visitor y audiencia como auditorio ni siquiera figuran en las más recientes versiones de diccionarios en español. La consulta a una enciclopedia temática (en inglés) nos permitió hacer comparaciones. En el capítulo dedicado a Sociología, más precisamente en el apartado correspondiente a Grupos Sociales pudimos leer “La gente que actúa conjunta o concertadamente puede denominarse grupo social... Podemos encontrar un buen ejemplo de acción concertada en la “audiencia” o masa, que actúa conjuntamente sobre la base de un estímulo común, sin interacción entre los miembros.....Otro tipo de grupo es el público, un número de personas que se comunican de alguna forma unas con otras, que tienen un interés común, al que se refieren y que califican según sus méritos y deméritos, pero que no necesariamente llegan a un acuerdo. Los públicos están especializados para su interés común y las discusiones en las que participan son más o menos racionales. Estos grupos sociales son campos de estudio para la sociología que analiza los patrones de comportamiento y la conformación de la llamada “opinión pública”. Más adelante se especifica que las audiencias son grupos de corta vida y en continuo cambio. Aunque el comportamiento de las audiencias implica un mínimo de interacción social entre los miembros, han cobrado importancia en los tiempos del predominio de los medios masivos de comunicación y cuando hay mayor movilidad social. Los autores agregan una consideración de interés “Aunque se han presentado algunas reacciones a este grupo social, nuestra sociedad tiene mucho del carácter superficial y pasivo de las audiencias”. Sobre el público acotan, “es un grupo de discusión grande, en el que los miembros no están necesariamente en contacto unos con otros...El público se comunica en términos de significados y valores establecidos en la sociedad, pero sus miembros no necesariamente aceptan los valores tradiciones y están constantemente creando nuevos valores.” Estas palabras no tienen la misma significación en español, por lo menos en los diccionarios y enciclopedias consultados, pero la acepción anglosajona se ha ido incorporando a partir de un uso cada vez más frecuente en el campo de las ciencias sociales. Así leemos en Schmucler “¨Ser público, insiste M.C.Mata, no es una mera actividad, es una condición que se funda en la aceptación de un rol genérico diseñado desde el mercado mediático que abre sus escaparates para diversificadas elecciones y usos de sus productos, con arreglo a normas y competencias que el mismo provee y que se entrecruzan con las adquiridas por los sujetos en otros ámbitos de la actividad social¨3 Cabría aclarar que audiencia, según la acepción de los diccionarios en español, hace referencia al acto de oír los soberanos u otras autoridades a las personas que exponen o solicitan algo, y que jurídicamente es el tribunal colegiado que entiende en los pleitos o causas de determinado territorio. Para espectador, usuario y cliente los diccionarios consultados en los distintos idiomas asignan acepciones similares. Y en el caso de los dos últimos están generalmente asociadas a operaciones comerciales.

2 Schmucler, Héctor. Memoria de la Comunicación..... 3 Schmucler, ibidem

72

Comentarios finales En una época signada por la pérdida de significación de las palabras, la reflexión sobre la manera en que denominamos al sujeto de la experiencia museal no es un tema menor. Sobre todo, y es bueno recalcarlo, porque detrás de las palabras y de los nombres están los conceptos y las ideas. No se trata de buscar respuestas nuevas a viejos interrogantes, si no de reformular el problema. Cabe preguntarse sobre las condiciones reales en las que los ¨públicos¨ se construyen y sobre los equívocos que surgen cuando se los imagina. Creemos que la clave de la musealidad, debe buscarse en el sujeto que resignifica. Si bien tenemos por un lado objetos polisémicos, la capacidad de relacionarse con una realidad específica estará estrechamente ligada a los varios planos ideológicos que conviven en la persona puesta en la situación museal. Bajo esta perspectiva, los estudios de público que se han venido realizando no son los más aptos para el conocimiento de este visitante como sujeto de la experiencia museal. Es innegable la validez y el rigor científico de los muchos estudios de visitantes realizados con la intención de mejorar el servicio al “público”. Diríamos más, debería ser parte del trabajo responsable de cada museo la búsqueda de datos conducentes a aumentar la cantidad de visitantes y mejorar los sistemas de comunicación e interpretación. Pero no se trata acá de conocer a nuestros “clientes”, para poder ofrecerles lo que mejor los complazca, ni a nuestros “usuarios” para brindarles un servicio satisfactorio y aunque es válido, tampoco se trata de aumentar nuestras ¨audiencias¨. Se trata de comprender mejor el fenómeno museo, la experiencia museal que siempre es íntima y personal, aunque nuestro visitante pertenezca a uno o muchos grupos sociales y que el mismo museo sea una espacio válido de socialización. Para elucidar el problema de la musealidad, sería más conveniente un abordaje filosófico que se pregunte por el ¨ser¨ de nuestro objeto de conocimiento, así como se preguntó sobre el ¨ser¨ del objeto de museo. Durante el acto de incorporación a la Academia de Periodismo, Ernesto Schoo pronunció un discurso en el que nos ofrece un punto de vista desde el espectador, que creemos es digno de tener en cuenta:

” Cada vez que miro un cuadro, aunque lo haya mirado cien veces, o escucho una partitura, o leo un libro, ese cuadro, esa música, ese libro, renacen tan nuevos y frescos como cuando fueron creados. Y nosotros, espectadores, oyentes, lectores, renacemos con ellos. No sólo revivimos, a la manera ‘proustiana’, la experiencia pasada sino que nos abrimos a otra nueva y acaso inesperada. ¿No nos ocurre esto, acaso, con nuestras lecturas de juventud, que al retomarlas años después, cuando llega la hora inevitable de releer, descubrimos que a los 20, 25 años, no habíamos entendido nada, que lo esencial se nos había escapado y que tan sólo ahora apreciamos otros sabores, otros matices, como si se tratara de otro libro? Nosotros hemos cambiado y con nosotros, nuestros autores favoritos. No hay egoísmo en el placer solitario de la lectura o en la contemplación de la obra de arte. Yo, lector, espectador, la estoy compartiendo con quienes la apreciaron antes, cientos o miles de años atrás; y en cada hombre que la apreció o la aprecia hoy, esa obra resuena de una manera distinta, recupera la novedad”.

El museo ofrece a sus visitantes ese perpetuo enriquecimiento del espíritu y de la mente, que ayuda a hacer del individuo una persona, y es eso, más que la cantidad de público que lo visita, lo que justifica su misma existencia.

73

BIBLIOGRAFÍA

Appleton.. Nuevo Diccionario Cuyás. New York, 1989

Asensio, Mikel. Secuenciación del aprendizaje del conocimiento histórico, Aula, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 1993

Bolaños. María, ed. La memoria del mundo. Cien años de museología. 1900-2000.Ediciones TREA, España, 2002

Bourdieu, Pierre et al. El amor alarte. Los museos europeos y su público. Paidós Estética, Buenos Aires. 2004

Deloche, Bernard. “ Museologie et Philosophie”. ICOFOM STUDY SERIES – ISS 31.Munchen. 1999

Déotte, Jean-Louis. Catástrofe y Olvido: Las ruinas, Europa, el Museo. Editorial Cuarto Propio, Chile, 1998

Desvallées, André, “ Museologie et Expologie : Du réel au virtuel”. ICOFOM STUDY SERIES – ISS 33 b.Munchen. 2002

Dujovne, Marta. Entre musas y musarañas, Fondo de Cultura Económica de Argentina, Buenos Aires, 1995

Eco, Umberto: La Estrategia de la Ilusión. Buenos Aires. 1988/6

Fernández, Luis Alonso. Introducción a la Nueva Museología, Alianza Editorial, Madrid, 1990

Fernández, Luis Alonso. MUSEOLOGÍA Introducción a la teoría y Práctica del Museo, Ediciones Istmo, Madrid, 1993

Fontal Merilles, Olaia. La Educación Patrimonial. Barcelona. TREA. 2004

García Blanco, Angela. La Exposición, un medio de comunicación. Ediciones Akal, Madrid, 1999

García Canclini, Néstor. Culturas Híbridas, México, Grijalbo, 1991

Hooper-Greenhill, Hielen. Los Museos y sus Visitantes. Madrid. 1994

Hudson, Kenneth. Museums of Influence, Cambridge University Press, 1987

ICOFOM, ICOFOM Study Series (ISS), publicaciones del Comité Internacional de la Museología en diferentes años.

Lima de Faria, Margarida. “Museo: ¿Educación o diversión? Un estudio sociológico del papel de los museos en un mundo globalizado”, Revista de Museología. Asociación Española de Museólogos. Madrid. Febrero de 2000.

Massachs, Moser Calaf. Comunicación Educativa del Patrimonio. España. 2004

Moliner, María. Diccionario de uso del español. Gredos. Madrid, 1999

Morales Moreno, Luis Gerardo. “¿Qué es un Museo?”, Cuicuilco, vol. 3 Nº 7, Mayo Agosto, 1996, México

Oxford University Press. Oxford American Dictionary. New York, 1980

Plaza y Janés Editores S.A.. Diccionario de Américas. Barcelona, 1993

Rico, Juan Carlos. ¿Porqué no vienen a los museos? Historia de un fracaso. Silex Ediciones. Madrid, 2002

Risnicoff de Gorgas, Mónica.- “La Realidad como ilusión, las casas históricas devenidas museo”. Museum International (UNESCO, Paris) Nº 210 Vol. 53 Nª2 2001

Risnicoff de Gorgas, Mónica.- “Museos y Comunidad: Asignaturas Pendientes”. Conferencia Internacional “Museos, Educación y el Patrimonio Natural, Social y Cultural”. Comité para la Educación y la Acción Cultural del Consejo Internacional de Museos. ICOM-CECA. CUENCA. ECUADOR. Octubre de 1994 (Publicado en las actas de la Conferencia).

74

Risnicoff de Gorgas, Mónica.- “Museums and the Crisis of Peoples’ Identity”. Asamblea General del ICOM en Australia, Septiembre de 1998. Publicado por la Universidad de Camberra para el ICOFOM (Comité Internacional para la Museología) Act 2601, Australia, 1999, ISBN: 0858897490

Riviére, Georges Henry. “La museología. Curso de museología. Textos y Testimonios”, Madrid, Akal, 1993

Rusconi, Norma. “Logos e identidad: retórica y semiología de fin de siglo”. ICOFOM Study Series - ISS 31, Coro, Venezuela, 1999

Rússio, W. “MuWop, Museological Working Papers” Nº 2/1981, Comité International de l\ICOM pour la muséologie, Stockolm, Suede, 1982

Salvat Editores S:A:. Diccionario Salvat. Barcelona , 1907

Salvat y Cº. DiccionarioEnciclopédico Salvat. Barcelona , 1966

Sheldon, Annis. “El museo como espacio de la acción simbólica” en Museum Nº 151, 1986

The Crowell – Collier Publishing Company. . Collier’s Encyclopedia. U.S.A., 1964

UNESCO "Nuestra Diversidad Creativa. Informe de la Comisión Mundial de Cultura y Desarrollo". Correo de la UNESCO, México 1997

White, Hayden. “Historiografía” Cuicuilco, vol. 3 Nº 7, Mayo Agosto, 1996, México

75

The Emerging Roles of the Museum in the Era of the Collapse of Linear Communication Models of Audience

Learning

Jennifer Harris – Australia Debates about the relationships between audiences and museums usually assume that museums hold and, more or less, control knowledge. Discussions focus on the way in which museums make information available to audiences and the sense that audiences make of that information. Although most commentators emphasise the powerful role of the museum in conveying knowledge, some are beginning to respond to the idea of the active audience (Berry &Mayer, 1989; Hooper-Greenhill, 1994; Moffat & Woollard, 1999; Stone and Molyneaux, 1994). Although Hooper-Greenhill (1994: 17-26) argues strongly that museums should incorporate non-linear communication models of audience learning, it is Falk and Dierking (2000) who make the decisive break from former conceptions of museum dominated learning by arguing that audience learning is an event outside the museum’s control. But what is the relationship between audience and museum when the museum does not hold knowledge? What if knowledge must come from outside the museum, from the audience? Decline in museum “authority” in Australia has accompanied the changing value given to other cultural institutions, nevertheless, it has been rare to find the museum institution understood as a virtual non-possessor of knowledge and without the authority based on an assumed claim to knowledge. A recent Western Australian exhibition provided an extreme case in which to observe audience learning in the context of the situation of the museum as a non-possessor of knowledge. I led a curatorial team in Perth, Western Australia in 2004 which highlighted a shift in the conception of learning in a museum. Under the Lap, Over the Fence: Foreigner Production in the Midland Railway Workshops was an exhibition in which the curators did not hold knowledge. All knowledge of the topic came from one audience which also composed the chief part of the total audience. This meant that the curators necessarily had to find all their information from that audience and then exhibit it to the same audience. In a case such as this, conceptions of learning through an exhibiting body need to be reassessed. This paper uses the experience of development of this exhibition to examine what happens when the museum is a non-possessor of knowledge and unable to direct audience learning. It reflects on what can be understood from this in terms of broader museum and audience experiences. It asks first, what could this audience learn when it already possessed an extraordinary depth of prior knowledge? Secondly, this paper asks how could this audience learn in this particular case, when the museum seemed to be restricted to an exhibiting function. In the case of Under the Lap, Over the Fence two issues emerged. The first was that the museum became the learner thus demonstrating that knowledge is able to flow in the opposite direction from that almost always implied by museum commentators, for example those named above, for whom the concept of the active audience is still at a minor stage of being incorporated into theory and practice. The second was that as the teaching role of the museum was altered, the museum’s role as an affirmer of community was highlighted. The museum as a focus of community has been extensively explored (Karp, Kreamer & Lavine, 1992), but in this case the value of the exhibition as a focal point for a community emerged as a crucial function, and significantly this was in the absence of museum knowledge. The term “museum” is used in this paper to designate the bundle of characteristics which we associate with museums: their prestige, authority, knowledge base and role in learning (Hooper-Greenhill, 1992). Although the exhibition took place outside the umbrella of a physical museum building – a common event today noted by Hooper-Greenhill, 1994: 1) - the process of exhibition development had the force of museum authority because it was undertaken by Curtin University of Technology post-graduate museum and heritage students. The teaching of Cultural Heritage has been established at

76

this university for more than ten years and lecturers and students undertake many museum and heritage projects. In addition, the campus has one of Australia’s premier university art galleries. In short, although the exhibition was located outside of a usual museum building, the university’s association with museums meant that the students had available to them the authority and prestige which accompanies museums. The norm of museum authority was supplemented by university authority. - This paper provides a brief background to the exhibition before considering the type of learning available to the audience. The final part of this paper reflects on the altered role of the museum when the audience is the chief possessor of knowledge. Background The exhibition took place on one day, October 24 2004, with an audience of many thousands. It was featured at an Open Day which was used to commemorate the ninetieth anniversary of the Midland Railway Workshops and the tenth anniversary of their abrupt and bitter closure. It focused on the vast complex of workshops which operated from 1904 to 1994 in Midland, a suburb of Perth, one of the biggest industrial complexes in Australia throughout the twentieth century. The exhibition was sited in the Foundry at the heart of the workshops, a place of cathedral dimensions. The title of the exhibition, Under the Lap, Over the Fence: Foreigner Production in the Midland Railway Workshops referred to workshops’ slang: “foreigner”, meaning anything made in the workshops without an official work order and “under the lap” meaning to do something without authorisation. “Over the Fence” referred to the practice of hurling foreigners over the workshop fences where they were later retrieved and taken home or sold for profit. During the ninety years of workshop operation tens of thousands of foreigners were made, the astonishing variety attests to the ingenuity, cunning and collaboration of the workers in the face of some harsh punishments when the culprits were caught. The repressive Victorian atmosphere of the workshops was maintained almost to the day of their closure. A rigid hierarchy between management and workers and a routine of whistles controlling rest breaks and even toilet visits resulted in many workers feeling that they were treated unsympathetically, some men described an atmosphere of worker anger. Tools of all kinds were made, as well as luggage, furniture, toys, jewellery, lamps, kitchen utensils, erotica and even an elaborate “samurai” sword and an ocean going boat. Larger items were smuggled out of the workshops in pieces and assembled at home. Many items were designed to suit the possibilities for smuggling, for example glass louvre slats for windows were usually no longer than the length of a man’s arm from his armpit to wrist – the glass was hidden in a capacious coat sleeve and removed slat by slat from the workshops. More than two hundred objects were assembled for the exhibition, all of which were still in use in the community. This meant that the members of the curatorial team had to make contact with dozens of former workers, interview them, and persuade them to loan their foreigners for exhibition. Not all of the workers who were contacted agreed to talk to the curators, many were still afraid of the repercussions which would follow once their illicit use of work time and work materials became public. How did this audience learn? Complex models of communication (see for example, Fiske, 1982) have informed communication studies in many countries at least since the early 1980s, however, the response of museums to these radically different ways of understanding the generation of meaning has been slower to emerge (Vergo, 1989). There has been a shift in understanding communication. It was first theorised in terms of linear flows of information, from a sender of a message to a receiver of that message. Today it is theorised as interlocking, interactive relationships which enable meaning and this is having an impact on the conceptualisation of learning. Falk and Dierking (2000) demonstrate that learning in a museum is framed fundamentally by the visitor and that the museum’s curatorial intention is secondary in the knowledge/learning process. This, of course, has radical implications for the authority of museums, the status of which has been under steady attack for some decades through the democratic philosophy of the New Museology. Falk and Dierking (2000), and earlier, Dierking (1992) alone, elaborate the varieties of ways of knowing and show that free choice learning rests on personal, socio-cultural and physical contexts

77

and that without understanding of these elements the efficacy of museum learning is imperiled. In Under the Lap, Over the Fence the multi-dimensional flow of knowledge was clear. The audience learnt from the experience of both developing the exhibition and also visiting it; wider family members became involved; memory was triggered. However, the curators also learnt from the audience. During the day of the exhibition the curators remained constantly on site both answering questions and receiving more information from the visitors. Remaining physically present with the exhibition highlighted the strong flow of learning from the audience to the museum. The audience learnt in this free choice environment in the first instance by being interviewed by the curatorial team and lending their foreigners for the exhibition. The event of being interviewed was significant because being interviewed suggested that long working lives of real hardship were validated by a museum. The men interviewed (members of the later audience) were initially surprised to be approached by a museum. This experience is also recorded by Tchen (1992) who describes the humility of Chinese laundry workers when the Chinatown History Museum in New York asked them to participate in a museum project. He comments: “the public representations of what has usually been considered grueling and thankless work has lent a sense of the broader symbolic importance to the workers themselves and their families” (Tchen, 1992: 292). This was the first aspect of learning for the workers from the Midland Railway Workshops - a sense of validation and delight that their pasts were worthy of a museum project. First comments from the men suggesting “how can you be interested in me or that old thing?” very often turned to enthusiastic participation. At the end of the exhibition the man who had made the ocean-going boat came to me with more ideas for pursuing the finding of his long since missing boat and also suggested further avenues for historical research. A second way in which the audience learnt was by talking to each other. This was particularly clear during the exhibition day which attracted thousands of visitors. Falk and Dierking describe the importance of interaction between visitors as one of the primary modes of free choice learning. During the exhibition period of Under the Lap, Over the Fence there were animated conversations around the Foundry. Visitors enriched the exhibition by supplementing its information and talking vigorously to each other about their working lives. For example, in the tough atmosphere of the hidden production of foreigners, workers had adopted the practice of helping each other with the manufacture without necessarily knowing whom they were assisting. It was common for an item, such as a comemmorative plaque or a 21st birthday key (traditionally given to a person on attaining their majority in Western Australia) to be worked on by many men as it passed through the Pattern Shop, Foundry, Chroming Shop, Engraving Shop and Carpentry Shop. When the commemorative item was finally housed in a gift box, it was sent back up the line to the person who wanted it, with few of the people who worked on it knowing for whom they were working. Although the original secrecy surrounding the manufacture of the foreigners was maintained during the development of the exhibition and the publishing of a catalogue, the experience of the exhibition meant that it was possible for men to greet each other and to display their foreigners, both proudly and sheepishly. This led to further discussion and informal explorations of the way in which life had operated in the workshops. Throughout the exhibition day people posed for group photographs with the foreigners behind them. Some of them included the sweep of the exhibition of more than two hundred items which showed their item among so many others. Decades of foreigners had never been assembled before. From these events it can be seen that a third type of free choice learning was based on remembering. The exhibition was necessarily selective in what it interpreted, but acted as a powerful trigger for a stream of memories which filled out the exhibition and flowed back into the lives of the men and their families. Everywhere in the Foundry people were greeting each other and talking about the making of foreigners and workshops’ life. A fourth way of learning became apparent at the end of the exhibition. As the exhibition was a one day event only, there was, of course, much interest that continued after its closure and the return of the foreigners to their owners. In the following months I was approached repeatedly by people wanting catalogues to share with friends. This way of learning was, therefore, based on commemoration, or perhaps better understood as souveniring. The catalogue and photographs of people taken with their foreigners on the day acted as souvenirs to trigger memories. The exhibition clearly offered an important emotional catalyst to its audience. - The exhibition team created five large panels which interpreted some of the background. From these, the audience could learn in a fifth way – a more formal museum method - about the bigger picture of the historical manufacture of foreigners.

78

This had necessarily been hidden because of the atmosphere of secrecy and the tough disciplinary environment. As curators we had been very cautious about making any statements which suggested superior or academic knowledge about the workshops given that we believed that most of what we could learn must come from the workers themselves. No archival research was possible. Being mostly young, middle class women we were acutely aware of the life experience gap between ourselves and the much older men. Although we, therefore, restricted ourselves to the men’s experiences we used one academic point which was almost certainly not available to the men. We used de Certeau’s (1984) description of “la perruque”, the slang French expression for the petty thefts of workshop time and property, in order to discuss acts of resistance in a disciplinary environment. I have outlined this elsewhere (Harris, 2004) and described the curatorial dangers of seizing on de Certeau’s analysis as an easy explanation for workshop transgression. However, this was the only point we made which was not drawn directly from the men. This was the only part of the exhibition which could be seen to use the museum’s traditional “superior” knowledge and authority. I did not hear any members of the audience discuss de Certeau’s insight and do not know to what extent this piece of sociological analysis added to their understanding. Emerging roles for the museum Falk and Dierking argue that the free choice museum environment offers a radically uncontrollable learning scene and one in which all that is learnt cannot be known by the curators. Experience of Under the Lap, Over the Fence confirms their argument. However, the unusual background to this exhibition, in that the curators always knew less than their audience, allows the speculation on audience learning in museums to go further. Following Falk and Dierking, it would seem that the museum must now accept that the content and method of audience learning is somewhat haphazard and that the message which it wishes to convey might or might not reach its target. Is this a tenable position for a publically funded body which has always used education as a raison d’etre? After all, so many debates concerning the disciplinary environment of the museum (for example, Bennett, 1990; Hooper-Greenhill, 1992) assume implicitly that there is a dominant cultural role for the museum. The New Museology has attempted to democratise this role but, before Falk and Dierking, had not addressed the question of the possible collapse of curatorial intent in exhibition. If the museum accepts that it could be simply a conduit for various erratic flows of information and relinquishes its powerful role which was based partly on the assumption that it controlled knowledge, then what more tangible role can the museum assign to itself? The experience of this project suggests that the museum has available two roles which it can grasp firmly. The first is that it can see itself first as a place which does memory work. For this role the museum could prioritise the random association which is often the basis of memory and accept that its role is to enable and to foster the free flow of memory. It could then try to document some of the memories which could be added to the museum archives as knowledge drawn from the community rather than from the academy or the museum. The museum would, therefore, insist on the priority of the audience as a source of knowledge and itself as a facilitator of access to knowledges about any particular theme. This would necessarily lead to the concretisation in the public arena of the reality of the plurality of knowledge – an essential aspect of any society such as Australia’s which has a formal national policy of multi-culturalism in place, but which agonises over the enduring dominance of the old Anglo-Saxon settler culture. The second tangible role of the museum as it acknowledges its loss of control over learning is to be an affirmer of community. Observations of the audience and discussions with individual members during the Under the Lap, Over the Fence exhibition demonstrated that the event had brought people together and helped to consolidate their sense of community. Karp, Kreamer and Lavine (1992) show the vital role of museums in the fostering of the idea of community. The workshops exhibition showed that the loss of control of audience learning could be understood as linked to community. In this exhibition the curators were forced to go to the audience in order to understand anything about the theme of the foreigners. By going to the workers the museum unwittingly acted to reaffirm an old community. This assessment is not intended to diminish the important role of other commemorative acts which occurred at the workshops, however, these other events often acted to deflect attention

79

from the sudden and contested closure of the workshops. This exhibition focused on the bold actions of the men in a repressive workplace and, therefore, implicitly could be interpreted as celebrating their survival. In the faceof thepowerful theorydescribedbyFalkandDierking, that themuseumdoesnotcontrol knowledge or audience learning, there are still significant roles for the museum in widercommunitymemorywork. Bibliography Bennett, Tony, 1990, “The political rationality of the museum”, Continuum, An Australian Journal of the

Media, 3 (1), pp.35-55. Berry, Nancy and Mayer, Susan, (eds) 1989, Museum Education: History, Theory and Practice, The

National Art Education Association, Reston, Virginia. De Certeau, Michel, 1984, The Practice of Everyday Life, University of California Press, Berkeley. Dierking, Lynn, 1992, “Contemporary theories of learning”, The Audience in Exhibition Development,

American Association of Museums, Washington. Falk, John and Dierking, Lynn, 2000, Learning from Museums: Visitor Experiences and the Making of

Meaning, Altamira Press, Walnut Creek. Fiske, John, 1982, Introduction to Communication Studies, Methuen, London. Harris, Jennifer, 2004, “Agency? Resistance?: Foreigner Production in the Midland Railway

Workshops”, paper, Cultural Studies Association of Australia National Conference, Perth, December.

Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean, 1992, Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge, Routledge, London and New York.

Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean, (ed.) 1994, The Educational Role of the Museum, Routledge, London and New York.

Karp, Ivan. Kreamer, Christine and Lavine, Steven, (eds), 1992 Museums and Communities: The Politics of Public Culture, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London.

Moffat, Hazel and Woollard, Vicky, 1999, Museum and Gallery Education: A Manual of Good Practice, Altamira Pres, Walnut Creek.

Stone, Peter and Molyneaux, Brian, (eds) 1994, The Presented Past: Heritage, Museums and Education, Routledge, London and New York.

Tchen, John, (1992) “Creating a dialogic museum: the Chinatown History Museum experiment” in Karp, Ivan, Kreamer, Christine and Lavine, Steven, (eds) 1992

Vergo, Peter, (ed.) The New Museology, Reaktion Books, London. Summary The cultural authority of the museum has been based on the idea of the museum as the site of knowledge. Now, as museums begin to respond to communication research which theorises the audience as active, that authority is being questioned. This paper examines the fundamental shift in the relationship between museum and audience when the museum does not have knowledge, when it must turn to its audience in order to learn. The findings of Falk and Dierking (2000) are confirmed in this paper and this radical situation - of non-possession of knowledge - is found to lead to a reversal. The museum can learn from its audience. This paper argues that as curatorial authority collapses the museum has available two emerging roles: the first is to enable memory work and the second is to affirm community. Resumen La autoridad cultural del museo ha basado en la idea del museo como sitio del conocimiento. Ahora, como los museos comienzan a responder a la investigación de la comunicación que teoriza à la audiencia como activa, se está preguntando esa autoridad. Este articulo examina la inversión fundamental en el relación entre museo y la audiencia cuando el museo no tiene conocimiento, cuando debe consultar con su audiencia para aprender. Los resultas de Falk y Dierking (2000) son confirmados en este articulo y la situación radical de ‘desposeción’ del conocimiento se encuentran à conducir a una revocación en ese relación. El museo puede aprender de su audiencia. Este articulo discute que como se derrumba la autoridad directoria el museo, como un institución tenga disponibles dos propósitos que emergen: el primer es de facilita trabajo de la memoria, y el segundo es de afirmar la comunidad.

80

Confiance et malentendus : le public au risque du musée…

Joelle Le Marec – France

___________________________________________________________________ Il est désormais fort courant d’entendre des déclarations selon lesquelles le public serait au centre des préoccupations et des dynamiques de changement dans les musées. Qui plus est, ce serait au nom des intérêts de ce même public qu’on réformerait le musée, en développant les démarches qualité et la professionnalisation de la communication muséale. Pourtant, ayant moi-même mené de nombreuses enquêtes auprès de visiteurs de nombreux musées depuis seize ans, comment se fait-il que j’ai le pénible sentiment que le musée, loin de se rapprocher des publics, les méconnaît de plus en plus : au sentiment de savoir toujours trop peu de choses à leur sujet, se substitue la dangereuse conviction d’en savoir beaucoup. Mon sentiment est partagé par de nombreux collègues ayant mené des études auprès des public en ayant recours à des entretiens, c’est-à-dire en s’engageant véritablement dans des situations de communication avec des enquêtés. Ce n’est que dans ces conditions que peuvent s’éprouver, à travers la situation d’enquête, certaines dimensions du statut de membre du public. En effet, les visiteurs enquêtés acceptent le statut de représentants de membres du public lorsqu’ils sont interrogés en tant que tels, et attribuent en retour à l’enquêteur le statut de représentant de l’institution muséale. L’entretien d’enquête n’est alors pas simplement un mode de recueil de matériaux discursifs, d’information, que l’enquêteur analyse pour reconstituer a posteriori un point de vue du public. L’entretien est déjà en lui-même, bien souvent, une manière dont s’actualise la relation entre l’institution muséale et ses publics. Entendre ce que disent les enquêtés en prenant en compte la nature de la communication sociale qui est en jeu à travers elle, c’est se mettre en condition d’entendre la manière dont les visiteurs enquêtés se représentent le rapport entre l’institution muséale et ses publics. Les arguments concernant les attentes et les pratiques des publics sont désormais assumés avec assurance par de nombreux professionnels, dont les conservateurs, qui ne se positionnaient guère sur le sujet il y a dix ans. C’est pourquoi je souhaiterais proposer dans cet texte une réponse à quelques-uns des arguments, recensés lors d’une réunion récente et à l’appui desquels les conservateurs font pourtant référence à ce que leur inspirent les nombreuses enquêtes de public qui se développent dans les musées, notamment les approches marketing. « Comment conquérir des non-publics, ceux qui ne viennent pas ? », « Les visiteurs ne viennent pas pour apprendre, mais pour se divertir », « les visiteurs lisent peu et se fatiguent vite », « les visiteurs sont de plus en plus exigeants, de plus en plus difficile à satisfaire, et de ce fait, nous sommes en concurrence avec les industries du loisir », « de toutes façons les visiteurs n’en font qu’à leur tête car ils interprètent en fonction de leurs préoccupations et de leurs centres d’intérêt propres ». Je m’appuierai pour répondre sur les résultats de nombreuses années d’études et recherche1 concernant les représentations et les pratiques des visiteurs d’expositions dans des musées de sciences, des musées d’art, des musées de société. Il s’agit de différents types d’études :

- des études préalables d’attentes et représentations menées en amont de la programmation et de la réalisation d’exposition thématiques à la cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie sur les thèmes de l’environnement, la santé, l’informatique, les énergies, l’espace, la ville, le littoral2,

- des études menées à l’occasion de la conception d’éléments d’exposition, en particulier des textes, et des éléments interactifs à scénarios3,

1 Mes premières enquêtes remontent à 1988, au moment du début de ma collaboration avec le service Etudes et Recherches du Centre Georges Pompidou sous la direction de Jean-François Barbier-Bouvet, pour des études du public de la bibliothèque et des expositions. J’ai ensuite créé en 1989 la Cellule Evaluation à la direction des expositions de la Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie, avant d’intégrer l’enseignement supérieur et la recherche en 1997, en poursuivant des recherches sur les pratiques des publics des musées dans toutes sortes de contextes. 2 Voir Le Marec Joëlle, « Le musée à l’épreuve des thèmes sciences et société : les visiteurs en public », Quaderni, 46, p. 105-122,hiver 2001-2002

81

- d’analyses de visite d’exposition ou d’usages d’éléments d’exposition, - de recherches-développement dans le cadre de la conception de nouveaux dispositifs de

médiation, comme le dispositif « Visite + » à la cité des sciences et de l’industrie4, ou bien le recours à l’audio-guidage par téléphone portable dans le cadre d’une collaboration avec le musée Gadagne à Lyon.

Ont également été réalisées des enquêtes en dehors des espaces muséaux proprement dits, au domicile des personnes par exemple, ou par téléphone, ou dans d’autres locaux, à l’occasion d’analyse des usages de cédéroms co-produits par des musées d’art5, ou de l’exploration de la signification de la visite scolaire au musée6, ou encore de consultations préalables à des projets de musées, comme dans le cas d’un projet de musée des Culture du Monde à Lyon en 2000. Les points communs entre toutes ces recherches menées, dans des contextes très différents est la méthode d’enquête d’une part, mais aussi la manière dont se construit dans toutes ces enquêtes, le statut de membre d’un public, avec ses dimensions sociales, culturelles, et politiques, trop souvent oubliées dans la plupart des études qui pré-constituent le public comme une cible (d’une action éducative, ou d’une démarche marketing), ou comme bien une population considérée somme d’individus singuliers7. Il s’est agi dans tous les cas d’études dites « qualitatives », par entretiens, destinées à recueillir le point de vue des personnes interrogées sur leur propres attentes, représentations, pratiques, expériences. Si chacune des enquêtes menée depuis 1988 est basée sur des échantillons nécessairement restreints, ce sont au total des centaines de visiteurs qui ont ainsi été interrogés de manière approfondie. Ce qui transparaît en dépit de l’hétérogénéité des contextes et des périodes, c’est la remarquable permanence de certaines attitudes et attentes que nous allons détailler plus loin. Ces enquêtes sont caractérisées par une autre aspect, moins technique : la plupart du temps, nous nous sommes intéressés pour ces enquêtes à visiteurs de musées, c’est-à-dire à des personnes qui avaient déjà choisi de se constituer en membres d’un public. Cette caractéristiques des enquêtes nous a souvent été reprochée comme étant une limite, qui ne permettait pas d’avoir accès aux discours, attentes et pratiques de ceux qui ne viennent pas au musée et dont la « conversion » constitue souvent l’enjeu véritable des politiques de public. Les professionnels des musées déclarent ainsi, parfois explicitement, que ceux qui les intéressent le plus sont ceux qui ne viennent pas. C’est là une étrange position, en termes de communication sociale. Quoiqu’il en soit, s’intéresser à ceux qui viennent, c’est aussi restituer un peu de l’intérêt que ceux-là ont choisi de porter au musée, et explorer les raisons pour lesquelles ils ont créé ce lien au musée. Il nous est cependant arrivé de solliciter des personnes en dehors du musée, comme dans le cas d’une étude préalable à un projet de musée des cultures du monde à Lyon en 2000, pour lequel nous avions réuni des groupes de Lyonnais qui pouvaient se sentir concernés par la thématique (membres d’associations intervenant dans le champ de l’interculturel, immigrés résidents, étrangers en séjour en France, lycéens). Dans la mesure où toutes ces personnes se sont constituées volontaires pour participer à cette consultation, nous ne les avons pas considérées comme un public potentiel du futur musée, mais comme un public réel de la consultation autour du projet. Quant aux individus interrogés à domicile sur leurs usages privés des cédéroms de musées, leurs réponses ont montré par contraste à quel point les usages des scénarios interactifs multimédia étaient différents selon qu’on les utilise à la maison, ou dans un espace d’exposition, c’est-à-dire, selon qu’on les utilise en tant que « public » d’un musée, en lien avec la sphère des concepteurs dont on tente de deviner les intentions qu’ils ont eu votre égard, ou en tant que propriétaire seul responsable de l’usage des objets que l’on acquiert.

3 Voir notamment Joëlle Le Marec, « L’interactivité, rencontre entre visiteurs et concepteurs », Publics et Musées, 3, p 91-110, 1993. 4 Voir Le Marec Joëlle et Topalian Roland, « Le rôle des technologies dans les relations entre institutions et publics : peut-on (vraiment) innover en matière de communication ? », Actes de ICHIM 2003, 8 -12 septembre 2003, Ecole du Louvre, Paris. 5 Davallon Jean, Gottesdiener Hana, Le Marec Joëlle. Premiers usages des cédéroms de musées, Dijon : OCIM, 2000 6 Le Marec Joëlle, Rebeyrotte Jean-François « Les relations écoles - musées en contexte exotique : l’interculturel au carré », dans les actes des journées d’étude du groupe médiation de la Société Française des Sciences de l’Information et de la Communication Médiation des cultures. Université Charles de Gaulle, Lille 3, 26-27 mars 1999. 7 Voir Le Marec Joëlle « Le public : définitions et représentations », p. 50-56, Bulletin des Bibliothèques de France, 2. 2001

82

Avant tout, un des résultats les plus marquants de l’ensemble des enquêtes menées est le suivant : être usager d’un musée n’est pas forcément la même chose que d’être membre du public de l’institution muséale. « Comment conquérir des non-publics, ceux qui ne viennent pas ? » C’est ici la manière de poser les questions qui fait problème : « Comment conquérir des non-publics, ceux qui ne viennent pas ? ». Elle est sous-tendue par un ensemble d’associations d’idées implicites : les publics sont ceux qui viennent, et par conséquent, ceux qui ne viennent pas sont des non-publics. Un des objectifs que doit se donner le musée est de les faire venir.

Y a t’il équivalence totale entre le fait d’être membre du public et le faire de venir au musée ? Ceux qui ne viennent pas sont-ils des non-publics ? La fréquentation du musée est-elle le seul mode de relation entre le musée et le public ? Le public est en effet souvent synonyme, dans le sens commun, d’un « pôle récepteur » toujours défini par rapport à un « pôle émetteur » qui fabrique, crée, diffuse une offre destinée à être proposée à des individus dans des conditions déterminées. Ces conditions constituent les individus en « public », éventuellement à leur insu, voire à leur corps défendant : la constitution du public en « cible », la formulation des objectifs en terme « d’impact », ne sont pas des métaphores anodines. Une des opérations les plus fréquemment effectuées pour constituer un ensemble hétérogène d’individus en public comme entité structurée, est la construction du phénomène de l’audience. La mesure de l’audience constitue ainsi en public un ensemble de personnes en fonction de critères nécessairement pré-déterminés en dehors des principaux intéressés. Le « public » ne peut pas être une instance décidant de sa propre définition dans la mesure où il n’existe pas en tant que collectif social préexistant à sa constitution. C’est souvent une instance externe autorisée à constituer ou à définir le public (instance de production comme l’institution qui offre ou bien instance d’analyse comme l’institution de recherche) qui surajoute à tous les statuts explicitement assumés et à toutes les caractérisations sociologiques externes d’un individu, le statut provisoire de membre du public. Cette constitution du public peut être basée sur des données empiriques, mais aussi ne reposer que sur des critères non explicités. La démarche qui crée le statut consiste, pour la définition de la notion de « public », à faire franchir aux individus un accès, réel ou symbolique. Lorsque cet accès ouvre sur un espace physique, la superposition exacte du statut de membre de public et de celui de visiteur est une forme privilégiée de la constitution du public qui favorise un consensus culturel : étant physiquement intégré à l’espace où « ça se passe », l’individu peut en principe être totalement engagé dans le fait de n’être que public pendant un temps donné dans un lieu donné. On pourrait nuancer cette affirmation : dans les situations, il n’est pas rare que les visiteurs enquêtés indiquent dans le fil du discours, au cours de l’entretien, les moments où ils parlent en tant que membres du public, et les moments où ils s’autorisent à « sortir » de ce statut pour émettre une opinion à un autre titre. Dans sa forme la plus explicite, on trouve par exemple : « moi je vais vous dire, personnellement, mais ne le mettez pas dans votre enquête… »). Le statut de membre du public pourrait d’ailleurs presque être vu comme la position d’énonciation consensuelle, presque contractuelle, qui définit l’enquête comme mode de communication sociale : étant interrogée pour une enquête de public, la personne répond en tant que membre du public.

On a en effet accès lors des enquêtes à la manière dont les enquêtés peuvent eux-mêmes se percevoir ou non comme faisant partie du public. Et dans certains pas, certaines de ceux qui sont considérés comme des « non publics », c’est-à-dire des personnes qui ne visitent pas les musées, expriment de manière très explicite et parfaitement compétente, qu’elles ont lien au musée en tant qu’institution publique à forte valeur symbolique, mais qu’elle ne font pas usage du musée comme lieu de pratique culturelle. Ainsi, la plupart des immigrés lyonnais enquêtés pour le projet du futur musée des cultures du Monde à Lyon ne fréquentaient pas les musées et pourtant, ils se sont constitués volontaire pour l’enquête préalable :ils se sentent être « public » de l’institution sans en être usagers. De fait, lors des entretiens, ils ont précisé qu’ils ne fréquenteraient sans doute pas ce futur musée : aller en plein centre ville visiter un musée serait aussi extraordinaire et incongru que d’aller manger au restaurant. Mais le projet les intéressaient très fortement, et ils y investissaient l’idée que ce futur musée serait peut-être un lieu où l’on verrait apparaître dans le patrimoine français des éléments provenant des

83

différentes cultures qui constituent la population « on y verra peut-être nos belles assiettes berbères ». Ils ont donc un sens aigu de ce qu’est le musée comme instance historique, de patrimonialisation, c’est à dire comme institution au sens fort.

Le musée est une institution vivante dans la mesure où elle transmet un héritage de génération en génération, dans un formalisme qui résiste au temps et aux différences de points de vue : Il partage avec la famille, mais à l’échelle d’un collectif plus large, le rôle de transmission d’héritage d’une génération à la suivante. Il est même émouvant que ces personnes aient pu penser que le musée français assumait la patrimonialisation et l’exposition des valeurs d’une communauté immigrée, pour l’intégrer à sa collection alors même que ces personnes ne peuvent guère mobiliser de pratiques effectives du musée qui auraient pu leur servir de modèle pour construire cette représentation. C’est signe que le musée est une institution vivante, mais justement dans la mesure où elle est une référence stable, qui la fait apparaître comme institution morte et dépassée pour les autres. Le musée est une institution patrimoniale qui n’est donc pas nécessairement un lieu de pratique culturelle pour ces personnes-là : il est fondamental que le musée prenne en charge leur patrimoine et réfère à leurs racines, mais pas forcément pour « aller voir », sinon pour que les enfants sachent qu’ils peuvent aller voir. Leurs pratiques culturelles ordinaires quant à elles excluent la visite au musée et d’une manière générale, les déplacements non utilitaires en centre ville. Or, lors de cette même enquête, les étrangers résidents et les membres d’associations culturelles sont apparus quant à eux usagers du musée, visiteurs d’expositions. Ils imaginent le futur musée comme un lieu de pratiques culturelles plus que comme lieu de patrimonialisation.

C’est précisément ce qui fait toute la différence : c’est parce que le musée est lieu de pratique culturelle ordinaire avant d’être le dépositaire d’une collection que les jeunes et les associatifs le voient participatif, capable de donner envie d’y revenir, et débarrassé de ses vitrines poussiéreuses. C’est parce que le musée est une institution patrimoniale vivante avant d’être un lieu de pratique culturelle ordinaire que les immigrés le voient capable de conserver et de donner à voir leurs racines, pour les générations, la visite pouvant rester exceptionnelle sans que sa portée diminue.

« Les visiteurs sont de plus en plus exigeants, de plus en plus difficile à satisfaire, et de ce fait, nous sommes en concurrence avec les industries du loisir » C’est avec l’analyse de l’ensemble des études préalables menées à la cité des Sciences de que nous avons pu constater que les visiteurs mis en situation de membres du public pour l’enquête, révélaient quel était pour eux la nature des relations entre le public et l’institution, et en particulier la confiance très robuste et très durable accordée à l’institution : les visiteurs viennent au musée avec la conviction que l’institution a fait au mieux par rapport au savoir et au patrimoine dont elle est garante, et par rapport à la médiation qu’elle propose. L’institution est jugée a priori compétente du point de vue des savoirs et du point de vue de la médiation, et l’expérience de visite est souvent mise au service de cette conviction. Lorsque les visiteurs sont en difficultés, ou se sentent frustrés, ils prennent sur eux les raisons pour lesquelles la visite s’avère difficile ou frustrante : l’exposition s’adressait à un autre public qu’eux-mêmes, ou bien ils ont peut-être mal compris…Il est très rare que des visiteurs soient mécontents ou non satisfaits d’une exposition, car ils ne cherchent presque jamais à évaluer ce qu’ils visitent. Ils cherchent à le comprendre. S’ils sont mécontents, c’est souvent d’eux-mêmes, ce qui leur permet de maintenir leur confiance intacte dans l’institution. Etrangement, lorsque les résultats concernant le crédit accordé à l’institution muséale ont été présentés dès les années 90 aux concepteurs d’exposition, la réaction spontanée a été de l’ordre du « c’est trop beau pour être vrai ». D’une certaine manière, du point de vue de nombreux professionnels de musées, c’est la présomption de méfiance qui s’impose, comme s’il valait mieux faire le pari, pour réussir son exposition, que le visiteur est a priori méfiant et difficile à satisfaire, dans une logique du « qui peut le plus peut le moins ». Or, dans toute relation de communication humaine, la présomption de méfiance est destructrice, surtout lorsque le fondement de la relation est justement basé sur la confiance. C’est pourquoi les enquêtes de satisfaction opèrent sur un véritable malentendu : un peu comme si, dans une relation amicale, l’un des individus en présence se demandait si son interlocuteur était satisfait des moments passés ensemble.

84

Le public s’en remet avec confiance aux intentions de communication de l’institution, considérée comme ayant de bonnes raisons de faire telle ou telle proposition. Les attentes ne sont pas des attitudes individualisées, cumulatives, définies à partir de ses besoins ou envies propres, même si elles n’annulent pas ces dernières. Elles prennent sens par rapport à l’idée que l’on se fait des missions de l’institution. Au moment de la visite les visiteurs sont souvent en situation de chercher ce que le musée souhaite leur montrer ou leur faire faire. Le sentiment de satisfaction naît également du sentiment de comprendre ce qui est attendu du visiteur, de l’actualisation d’un pacte entre l’institution et le public. Les implications de cette posture sont très nombreuses. Nous nous contenterons d’en donner un exemple, tiré de l’analyse des visites de l’exposition « Cuirs toujours », présentée à la cité des Sciences en 1994. Cette exposition consacrée à la présentation d’une extraordinaire collections de cuirs et aux différentes étapes de traitement de ce matériau, présentait un décalage entre les « promesses » de la partie introductive annonçant une très grande variété de thèmes et d’approches, et les différentes parties de l’exposition, qui ne pouvaient qu’effleurer l’ensemble des thématiques annoncées. De nombreux visiteurs interprètent la partie introductive comme un mode d'organisation, un mode d'emploi proposé de l'exposition, basée selon eux sur "une approche pluridisciplinaire du cuir" ou bien sur "l'évolution du cuir depuis l'animal (nature) jusqu'à ses imitations (culture)". Ce parti-pris entraîne l'adhésion du visiteur, il laisse une impression très positive et durable. Le visiteur reste parfois en fin de compte avec une frustration qui se traduit non par des critiques, mais par des attentes ! L’essentiel de ce qu'ils tirent de cette exposition devient précisément ces attentes, vécues positivement, de manière constructive, comme l'anticipation d'autres visites qui auraient été possibles, et à laquelle celle-ci a ouvert la voie. Les visiteurs y mettent du leur pour adopter une démarche constructive à partir d'un contenu plus potentiel que réel. Ils apportent notamment leurs représentations de ce qu’est une démarche pédagogique pour optimiser la conversion des contenus potentiels en anticipations de ce que l'exposition pourrait potentiellement modifier dans leurs propres représentations « on voit bien comment on pourrait changer de vision sur le thème ». . Nous avons également interrogés des muséologues et des professionnels de la médiation. A la différence des visiteurs « ordinaires », ceux-ci se placent dans une posture d'évaluation, et ne se sentent pas engagés par les objectifs annoncés de l'exposition. Ils refusent de prendre en charge les difficultés d'interprétation et les frustrations causées par la visite, et en recherchent la cause dans le dispositif d'exposition lui-même.

Un des ressorts de la confiance des visiteurs dans les missions institutionnelles réside dans un positionnement des institutions culturelles dans un temps et un espace qui appartiennent à l’Histoire et qui transcendent les enjeux partisans des acteurs sociaux immédiatement contemporains. C’est ainsi que les visiteurs cherchent souvent à définir les missions institutionnelles par rapport à la relation à d’autres institutions ou médias, avec l’idée que le musée est situé hors des pressions du marché. Ainsi, on attend d’une exposition sur l’environnement ou sur la santé qu’elle se situe par rapport aux discours médiatiques - lesquels paraissent souvent suspects. On attend également qu’elle reflète la position d’une institution directement en contact avec les instances du savoir. Plus encore, on s’attend, lorsqu’un thème est traité par l’institution, à ce que celle-ci s’implique dans son propre discours. Conclusion Les rapports entre institutions et publics ne peuvent pas être gérés, du seul point de vue d’une compétence technique et professionnelle particulière, et du seul point de vue interne à l’institution. Ils s’ancrent dans des échelles historiques et dans des espaces culturels et sociaux larges. De ce point de vue, ils suscitent toujours le sentiment d’une paralysante complexité, peu propice à la décision et à l’action. Mais ce qu’ils montrent est cependant très simple fondamentalement : tout au long des enquêtes, aujourd’hui comme hier, les publics enquêtés expriment une foi dans l’institution muséale et dans la qualité de ce qu’on peut en attendre, qui ne ressemblent guère aux visions désenchantés qui circulent souvent dans le milieu muséal. Face aux réactions des visiteurs dans les enquêtes, l’évaluateur a très souvent envie de transmettre un message qui pourrait en substance être le suivant : intéressez-vous aux raisons pour lesquelles ces personnes ont confiance dans le musée, même lorsqu’ils n’en sont pas usagers, Non pas pour que rien ne change, mais tout au contraire, pour fonder la dynamique du changement sur le lien entre l’institution et ses publics.

85

Museology and Audience: In Search of Applause

Lynn Maranda, Canada

The dilemma Some modern museums have been partnered with audiences in a way that has altered the dynamics of their management. This shift of operation perception has targeted their visitors as entertainment consumers who express their likes and dislikes with applause and attendance. This is an unsure relationship for museums have been more comfortable providing thoughtful spectacles, or by parading data for students and opportunities for explorers to uncover patterns of knowledge. Yet more and more museums have been drawn into the competitive world of entertainment and so have been seeking the applause of an entertained audience. Non-traditional The non-traditional museum visitor is a consumer who appears in person to ‘experience’ the products offered by an institution. This visitor attends primarily as a passive recipient, but is prepared to become an active contributor. His/her expectation is normally at the level where payment (where applicable) is made for services rendered - entrance fee in exchange for privilege / right to view exhibits, listen to lectures, and so forth and then to give applause in appreciation. As museums have ‘evolved’ in search of more applause, visitors have been encouraged to participate in interactive programming, becoming both a partner and a stake holder in the museum enterprise. The modern world With the more recent proliferation of electronics and digitalization, the visitor no longer even has to physically walk into the museum, but can easily access many of the necessary resources from a distance. Museum audiences have expanded and now comprise virtually anyone who has ‘access’ to the museum, not only by personal or electronic visitation, but also through such avenues as hearing / reading media reports, attending off site exhibitions and programming, and by making telephone enquiries. Thus the museum’s perception of audience has to range widely and again, much of this ambivalence has to do with its own ongoing explorations of creative programming, providing new reasons, raising heightened expectations and hence, attracting varied visitations. It is extremely difficult to categorize ‘museum psyches’ for each has a personal relationship with its own motivations. Consequently, many museums conduct surveys, classify their visitorship and adjust their product and its delivery accordingly. Of course, for every generality, there are exceptions, most notable, those museums who are constant, self-made, and self-fulfilled, such as the National Archeological Museum in Athens, Greece. For these museums, their exhibition product tends to remain the same, they are well known locally, nationally and/or internationally, and, they have a high visitorship. The desire for museums to find visitor satisfaction at some level, especially when the more traditional approach cannot sustain a large public, propels the managers to spend considerable resource to find and offer new experiences to please an audience which they hope will grow. Exhibitions and programmes can now be enhanced using whatever technology is available and many museums implement these and other schemes to attract audience. While the object, for example, was once the centre of attention in may museums, it too has undergone a transformation from a stand-alone presentation with no embellishments, to where it need not appear at all, being only represented in virtual programming. As a result, the learning experience for the museum audience can range from the viewing of many objects in display cases with minimal information on small labels, to highly sophisticated presentations including fancy lighting, moving images, audio tracks, computer graphics, and other electronic and sensory enhancements. The fascination

86

Museums have become drawn into the dimensions of dramatic presentation, partially attracted by their own ability to offer cerebral or experiential encounters, and partially pulled by the political influence of their own collections. Whatever the cause, there is a fascination to explore realms of social or provocative thought. As such, museums now find themselves in positions of public influence. It is hoped that how the visitor perceives the advanced messages will win more applause and thus enlarge its audience and attendance. The Subjects The subjects that are deemed worthy of presentation are gleaned from just about any source, perhaps initially inspired by in-house collections, but often are results of curatorial perceptions, the cultural and socio-economic background of the community, and even the physical or ‘emotional’ atmosphere of the museum space itself. Nevertheless, the museum consciously strives to box messages into programming which it has judged to be germane, believing that it has a necessity to deliver additional interpretive insight over and above its traditional museum mandate. In this way, it is perceived that the museum will not only fulfill its role, but will also provide ultra-transmissions of new thought and capture those visitors curious to see, learn, and experience. Of course, embarking on the journey of creative interpretation, means that museums also run the risk of skewing the facts to promote particular popular points of view, or becoming involved with idea promotion that looks more like propaganda than science. The Visitor The visitor which the museum courts is not normally a ‘looky-loo’, that is, someone who is just passing through, but rather, an individual with educated tastes who believes in the value of knowledge and is therefore motivated to learn through different experiences. It is just such people that the museum perceives they can attract to their latest offerings. It is thought that these visitors already possess a strong notion that a ‘museum’ is a place which houses knowledge and is therefore an environ where learning can be enjoyable. Many museums spend endless hours and sizeable sums of money grooming these visitors to ‘give them what they want’. Attitudes of taste, however, are elusive and not so pervasive that they can be counted on. It has proven difficult to find permanent acceptance of new ideas, and indeed, many visitors find it hard themselves to articulate exactly what they want. So once it is that museums have started down the road of supplying novel ideas to their public, they have come face-to-face with the improbability of achieving consensus amongst visitors as to what a museum should provide. Does the audience like what they see or not:? Why do it? Why museums want to look for a greater meaning to their existence has perhaps more to do with economics than with long-term common sense. Most museums are notoriously short of financial well-being. Where this is the case, the base root of the ongoing relationship of museum-visitor is primarily economic. Gone are the days when such museums existed for purely altruistic reasons, only devoted to building collections and seeking and disseminating knowledge through research and travel. The constant drive to pull the visitor in, often at any cost, has created patterns of behaviour on the part of many museums that have diverged from the traditional. The necessity of attraction As it is the case that only a narrow segment of the population are ‘museum goers’, museum management is aware of the inherent struggle to attract and keep its audience and so feel the pressure to provide more and more attraction. In addition, it is recognized that museums must consider not only concepts of population size and demographics, but also notions of leisure time and intellect versus entertainment. Human population is increasing and that in itself is an allurement, but that does not always mean greater attendance. So the museum can feel compelled to diversify in order to keep pace with population growth which may have different ideas and thus it is quite easy for management to get themselves and their institutions trapped, striving to win new audiences. They woo. They constantly adjust to meet growing public demand for the fulfilment of leisure time activity. The economic base motivation for such action does not go unnoticed. Museums have even adopted styles which compete directly with other forms of ‘entertainment’, including interactive components,

87

audio/visual presentations, special programming, and even the building of in-house IMAX and OMNIMAX theatres. The consequences of courting audience One consequence is that the use of objects (from museum collections) often shifts from prime focus to the other end of the scale where they may not appear at all. This has created its own dilemma, for without anchoring the museum’s meanings to collections, the museum presenters feel the necessity to rely on distinctive interpretation which is usually attended with embellishments. Over-powered, the object retreats to a secondary role and the interpretive image-messages become supreme having conducted the visitor through a world of idea-experience. It is this, then, which the visitor takes away as the museum experience. Not only have objects been physically removed from their ‘functional’ environments, but also, now ex situ, they have been re-contextualized and new settings created in which they ‘perform’. As a consequence, the museum employs strategies to enliven and enhance the object which have the effect of removing it even further from its ‘reality’. The emphasis being placed on exhibition design (as witnessed by the large sums being paid to specialized design firms which create products as signature pieces) has posed a threat to the object-at-centre stage and has altered the perception which the visitor has of the museum. The museum experience thus becomes more sensory than cerebral, and it is uncertain whether the visitor actually ‘learns’ anything in the end. By subscribing to shaping visitorship through the glitz-it-up methodology, some museums are stretching their mandate into the realm of showmanship and entertainment. This begs the questions: can museums really compete in this sphere?; do they really want to?; should they even try? And a further, more serious question: by redirecting scarce resources, is the museum in danger of neglecting its basic responsibilities? [While this does not mean that the museum cannot create a pleasing atmosphere which the visitor finds conducive to an enjoyable learning experience, the audience will still be discerning of the quality of the product offered. Museums who do not subscribe to this methodology, allow objects to stand on their own merits, with varying degrees of interpretation and/or contextualization. The object is still the focus of visitor attention and the basis for the learning experience. The message is not cluttered with embellishments to make it more ‘attractive’.] A more serious consequence of courting audience has been an extreme reaction to potential loss of museum purpose, for it has even been contemplated that museums cease all cataloguing, labelling, and historical interpretation. Taking a wide swing from tradition and moving in another direction, opposite, it is argued that the museum’s ‘authoritative’ voice, should be countered. The museum philosophy of deconstructionism declares that objects can ‘speak for themselves’, and therefore, informative labels are not necessary because there is no single reality, no correct words of interpretive expression. In this case, the object would stand alone to ‘communicate’ its own ‘authority’, and museum visitors would go away with whatever impression they formulate in their own minds, oblivious of any of its attending documentation. While the museum tinkers with deconstruction theory, is it being responsible to its audience? Is it providing a learning experience in the meantime? Or does it wish that visitors just accept what amounts as the ‘authoritative’ voice of the museum to provide no information whatsoever? Museums do have a cultural responsibility different from audience building Most visitors come to museums primarily to see objects - whether these are theme organized or contextualized or other, may not, in the end, really matter. The focus still remains the viewing of the cultural or natural heritage through museum collections. How the museum presents and markets the product to the community sets the initial stage not only of visitor perception but also of the learning process. Unfortunately, all too often, there is a perception on the museum’s part that the visitorship does not have the intellectual capacity for the comprehension of exhibition texts and labels. An effort is made to reduce (dumb down) textual delivery to a low level common denominator so that anyone (of approximately age 12 reading level) can understand same. In several cases, this has even led non-professional museum personnel to produce textual materials for display galleries. From Experience The stereotyping of the visitorship is also evident in the marketing of several exhibitions recently developed by the Vancouver Museum. Sex, Drugs and Rock ‘n Roll are the headlines on one rack card which promotes three exhibitions: Unmentionables, A Revealing Look at the History of Underwear; Opium, The Heavenly Demon, a very sensitive subject; and The 50s Gallery. The

88

marketing aesthetic portrays: an image of a young woman lounging on what appears to be a piece of furniture, wearing a brassier; a poppy flower; and a jukebox. By ‘sexing’ up the message in the belief that it will entice, the marketing objective here appears aimed at encouraging visitation by sections of the population which more than likely neither do nor would frequent a museum. Unfortunately, for a segment of the museum’s visitorship, this approach proved to be offensive and several school groups in particular did not attend because of it. Another exhibition entitled Reflecting Identities deals with the subject of tourist art. It is about the people who make and buy these objects, the flow of their ideas, expectations and relationships; it is about stories of encounter and acquisition, of cultural continuity and artistic uniqueness. It explores the interface between producer and consumer, reflecting respective and creating new identities through the selling and buying of this genre of symbolic capital, and promotes dialogue involving multiple voices. Unlike most museum exhibitions, it challenges, provokes, and stimulates thought; it does not present the museum’s authoritative voice. Here, the exhibition is being promoted as Commerce Meets Culture in the Search for the Exotic, and the marketing aesthetic is a yellow coloured photographic image of a wall full of ‘exotic’ looking African masks. Originally, the aesthetic contemplated included images from exotica album covers portraying ‘sexy’ women - lounging on floor cushions, standing, behind bamboo curtains, in water near a waterfall, surrounded by ‘exotic’ masks - with such accompanying words as “Voodoo”, “The Exotic Sounds”, and “Primitiva”. Again, all aimed at attracting audience, regardless of how far distant it is from the reality of the exhibition, and for this type of distortion, audience criticism has been received in the past. How some exhibitions are presented and how they are received by groups close to the subject matter is also an area in which the museum stereotypes their audience. Take, for example, the thorny issue of Into the Heart of Africa, the ill-fated exhibition set up by the Royal Ontario Museum, which contained certain images offensive to the African-Canadian community. The museum did not accurately ‘read’ the audience closest to the message of the exhibition and certainly underestimated the outrage that ensued. This must have come as a great shock and unfortunately, the museum’s response was one of indignation and intractability which only served to fan the fires all the more. Had the museum partnered with that community, even in just the interpretive aspects of the presentation, this would not have happened. As it was, the whole experience fell like a house of cards and both the museum and curator became the object of audience disdain. The argument in favour of the museum’s right to maintain “intellectual honesty, scientific and historical integrity, and academic freedom” simply did not apply under the circumstance. Audience passivity can no longer be taken for granted as more and more sectors of the community are demanding a stake in the development and delivery of the museum’s message. As museums holding First Nations, Native American, or other indigenous material culture are all too aware, going it alone carries a growing burden of risk. Slowly, museums are coming to realize that their audiences want their voice heard in the process and are seeking more of a collaborative relationship with the various communities they serve. In Conclusion In their desire to increase audience through innovative programming, museums must be aware that there is the potential threat of losing audience, of losing an already defined supportive public. In other words, taking care when walking in new directions is a good prescription, for audiences are fickle, and if they have turned their heads for a unique experience program, they are equally capable of turning away from a sequel presentation. The public can easily change its attachment to an institution, especially so if an institution is changing its own perception of itself. While it may be desirable on the museum’s part to diversify and be more inclusive, in all of this, if it goes too far, it runs the risk of alienating and, in the end, cutting off its true patrons. It is defeating to a community to have its museum pander to an audience that is not really theirs. What would happen, for example, if opera houses attempted to increase audience by introducing Broadway musicals into their repertoire? How would the opera goers react? Just think of the effect of introducing classical music numbers into the already ‘over-subscribed’ rock ‘culture’!! Rock fans would become alienated and classical music aficionados would not attend in any case because ‘rock’ is simply not their ‘thing’. The quest for the historic essence of human civilization is intrinsic to who we are, and to try to change that would mean the loss of a focal point of our own existence. The museum treads a fine line in its relation with its audience. It governs what it wants its visitors to learn, and how it packages its exhibition and programming experiences will determine how they learn, or if they ‘learn’ at all. Visitors will always ‘make meaning’ in museums, but is it the message the museum wants to send and be received? If these delineations are ambiguous, the visitor will eventually no longer be satisfied and, as the applause and attendance fade away, the museum will be left in a quandary of what to do next.

89

Spectator in Expositions

Martin R. Schärer - Switzerland _________________________________________________________________________ When an exhibition is in the planning stage, the potential visitors are very much in our mind. First of all from the point of view of the exhibition concept: how to get the message across in an intelligible form? What ways and means to use? How to make text panels easy to read? And much more. Then comes the exhibition layout: how best to place objects and texts? What visitor routes to provide? Where should rest points be located? And here too, much much more. All the time, curators and expographers have a kind of cooperative model visitor1 in mind. But once the exhibition has finally opened, things often look quite different. In the harsh light of reality, actual visitor behaviour puts paid to many a beautiful theory. Not only do visitors move differently than expected through the space, they often understand the message differently if at all, and leave with completely different ideas than the authors of the exhibition intended. There is not much we can do about this dilemma, even if visitor evaluation methods are getting more efficient all the time. The museological reason lies in the quite particular position of the visitors – that is to say, in the fact that they are an integral part of the exhibition.2 This is the meaning of the heading "Spectator in expositione", which paraphrases the title of a book by Umberto Eco: "Lector in fabula".3 What he has to say there4, in particular his model for the levels of textual collaboration5, can be applied analogously to exhibitions. To put it very simply, the model says that the observer first perceives the exhibition as an expression, a spatial manifestation. With the help of encyclopaedias (paradigmatic und syntactical structures) and possibly familiar contexts for the “sender” and assumptions as to the type of exhibition, he updates the (or, rather, his) content, which has intensic und extensic components, that mutually affect each other: recognition of contents and structures and their application for individual and collective worlds. The visitors are therefore a major unpredictable factor in any exhibition. They perceive the intended messages (and, naturally, the hidden and unintentional ones as well) in different ways (or not at all) against a background of different individual and social codes.6 For every exhibition, a message with exhibition elements (and possibly accompanying media) is encoded by the author. But the original objects and other exhibits thus positioned (i.e. associated with values) for a quite specific context, a system of non-linguistic signs, do not feature this message directly and above all not in such a way as to be clearly identifiable by everybody who does not have at least a similar sign repertoire (like, for instance, the message on a magnetic tape). Supplementary media such as texts, images, audiovisuals, electronic and interactive programs are used for purposes of elucidation. However, the visitor is always confronted with information and images which he has to understand and integrate.7 He has to do an individual decoding job, which may also lead to quite different “messages”.8 Furthermore, he attributes his own values to the exhibition elements according to his individual and collective biography.9 The individual decoding takes place in the context of the specific situational museum code system, which, as a kind of interpretational setting or sense-building typification element, not only evokes other patterns of behaviour but also lets the visitor interpret what he has seen differently than if he were to

1 Davallon 1999:19 2 The following observations follow Schärer 2003:108ff 3 Eco 1990; Fontanille 1989 4 Eco 1990:83ff 5 Eco 1990:89 6 Cocula 1986:43ff; Hooper-Greenhill 1994:35ff; Rumpf 1995; Świecimski 1979; Niquette 2000 7 Schiele 2001:66 8 Eco 1988:125 9 Dech 2003:45ff

90

see something similar in a different context.10 With reference to the reader, Eco speaks in this context of "existence presuppositions".11 As no unambiguously definable reality exists either in the object or in the observer, an exhibition situation is therefore always open, polysemic. It also contains – differently in every case – a greater or lesser degree of "noise", i.e. elements which are not decodable for certain people. Finally, the authors’ – not necessarily reproducible – intention: instruction, information, elucidation, giving pleasure or attention to the visitor, making him think, must also be taken into consideration. The visitor’s first experience is always immediately associative not discursive, i.e. the encounter is more important than the information take-up. Gazing or admiring12 is in the foreground; intellectual comprehension comes later. Waidacher speaks of "understanding experience".13 Unlike much that is said to the contrary, the museum is not a place of learning but primarily a place of experience. Which does not mean to say that no learning goes on in a museum. It’s just a different kind of learning, that takes place through experience, through a bridge of feeling. Falk/Dierking designate this as "learning-oriented entertainment experience"14, also in the sense of visitor experience attitude. According to Treinen, an exhibition is a poor place of learning because there are usually no instrumental orientations (i.e. didactic provisions)15, although staging means can certainly take on such a function. An exhibition is different for every visitor. The visitor compares (as a rule unthinkingly) his everyday theories, necessary for a selection and an interpretation – i.e. for a subjective understanding, with the objects presented in an exhibition. Eco distinguishes between “interpreting” (with the aim of understanding) and (subjective) "using", as often happens in art exhibitions.16 Letocha summarizes these circumstances: “We consider that the objects in their respective natures participate in the statement of the exhibition, as they can remain autonomous and convey dimensions beyond the content of the exhibition. Consequently they should be seen and placed within the narrative programme of the exhibition, that is to say in a representational sense, in the sense of metonymic or metaphorical figures in the extension of the prime discursive statement, the verbal message of the exhibition. But they also remain active independently of this context and pursue their distinct semiotic function. It is by this structuring process that the exhibition marks itself out and is not to be encompassed in the idea of language. Because it consists of a mediation of several languages which remain operational outside this exhibition… In such a system, the visitor has the leisure to enter into the spatialized narrative programmation by the scenic device of the exhibition, just as he remains free to escape the dogmatic call of meanings of each of the objects co-presented in this ensemble.”17 The freedom of the visitor to go his own way in any exhibition therefore includes a possible resistance to the exhibition – which, however, is not so easy: "Obviously, the visitor can resist this manipulation. He must give proof of energy and show that he already possesses a different reference model, a universe of presumed values which allow him to make his own reading and come to his own judgments on what is placed before him. In other words, he must be competent and sure of his values."18 The visitor’s intellectual freedom is also grounded in the fact that, in an exhibition, we are basically concerned not with objects but with subjective statements on objects and circumstances (attributed values), even if this may not appear to be the case at first sight. Maure describes the changes that take place in the visitor when he comes from the "outside" to the "inside", from "life" into the museum very clearly. "The visitor goes up the steps through the entrance door, crosses the threshold, goes past the reception area towards the exhibits where the scene is set. The visitor leaves the profane everyday life behind him and enters a closed and sacrosanct world of strange meaning where the usual rules no longer apply. What is seen, said and done here must not be understood literally but rather within the inner logic of the museum: 'This is a museum, not the real world.'"19

10 Davallon 1999:34f 11 Eco 1996:133 12 Thürlemann 119ff; Vareille 2000 13 Waidacher 1993:166 14 Falk/Dierking 2000:87 15 Treinen 1994:31; Lepenies 2003 16 Eco 1996:142 17 Letocha 1992:37f 18 Hammad 1987:60 19 Maure 1995:165

91

Véron/Levasseur propose a formula (which, with its untranslatable wordplays, reads beautifully in French): "Because if to exhibit is always to propose, to visit an exhibition is to compose, in both senses of the term, i.e. to combine and to adapt. To adapt meaning to come to terms with, to negotiate. To visit an exhibition is to negotiate one’s relationship with what is exhibited (and hence, necessarily, also with the exhibitor). The latter being, in one way or another an institutional articulator of culture, it is his relationship with the knowledge that the subject negotiates by the intermediary of the exhibition."20 In this connection, Annis describes a kind of seduction by the museum: "The magic which makes museums so attractive lies perhaps in the freedom with which each individual person creates his own spaces there. Museums are much more than the sum of the labels or the layout of the exhibitions; like the objects which are presented in them, they have no meaning [as they certainly do have a meaning given to them by the authors, what I mean is: no meaning perceptible unambiguously by the visitor] but rather receive and reflect the meanings one invests in them."21 Much stronger emphasis must therefore be placed in the beginning on the fact that the visitor is an integral part of the exhibition, which – as an open system – is so to speak created afresh by each individual visit; it takes a visit to the exhibition to generate communication, so that the communication process is concluded. Before that, the exhibition is only a potentiality. This phenomenon corresponds to constitution of the man–thing relationship. Grütter puts it like this: "Not only does the visitor decode the intended statement of the exhibition makers, he also overlays it with his own connotations and associations; he is always producing something new, his own ‘imaginary world’.22 Thus the exhibition visitor is not only a recipient but also the producer of an ever new meaning."23 This is so because perception also takes place – through signs – as a creation of meaning, as Fischer-Lichte shows: "As the meaning of an object depends on perception, the object itself becomes a sign: the mere state of being has no significance. For man to attribute a meaning to it, it must become for him a sign. Because only as a sign, that points beyond itself, can it acquire a meaning."24 So visitors certainly do derive (learning) benefit from their visit to the exhibition. Only in quite a different way, according to the very particular context of the museum. And above all because the learning message may not be immediately understandable, at any rate not (except in specifically didactic exhibitions) like the discourse of a teacher in school or as in a textbook. What the visitor sees, the exhibits, triggers infinitely more personal connotations, which deviate in part or in whole from the intended meanings. Moreover – as in all learning – subsequent processing through reflection and discussion in the personal context of experience plays a distinct role. It is quite possible that the "right" message only comes through much later. The narrow and one-dimensional traditional "sender-message-recipient-learning system" can therefore hardly work because no feedback and corrections are possible and as a rule no checking mechanisms are built in as at school, say. The personal, sociocultural and physical context, Falk/Dierking’s "contextual model of learning"25, are much more significant here than in other learning processes. To sum up: the visitor, who (like the things themselves) is subject to change, never experiences circumstances directly in an exhibition situation. That is why interpretations and values are always conveyed at the same time. It is only the presence of the visitor that brings about the exhibition communication; in this sense, every visitor always makes up the exhibition afresh and differently. Translated by David Pulman, icluding also the the non-English quotations

20 Véron 1991:28 21 Annis 1986:171 22 Heinisch 1987:342 23 Grütter 1992:183 24 Fischer-Lichte 1979:11 25 Falk/Dierking 2000:10

92

Espectator en expositiones

Martin R. Schärer – Switzerland

Cuando una exhibición se halla en etapa de planificación, los visitantes potenciales están siempre presentes en nuestra mente. En primer lugar, desde el punto de vista del concepto de la exhibición: ¿cómo hacer comprender el mensaje de manera inteligible? ¿qué caminos y medios utilizar? ¿cómo hacer que los paneles de texto sean fáciles de leer? y mucho más... Después viene la presentación de la exhibición: ¿cómo situar de la mejor manera posible los objetos y los textos? ¿qué recorridos ofrecer a los visitantes? ¿dónde deben estar localizados los puntos de descanso? y aquí también mucho más... Todo el tiempo, curadores y expógrafos tienen en mente una especie de modelo cooperativo de visitante.1 Finalmente, una vez que la exposición se ha abierto, las cosas suelen ser bastante diferentes. A la cruda luz de la realidad, la conducta real del visitante echa por tierra más de una hermosa teoría. No sólo se desplaza en el espacio en forma distinta a lo esperado, sino que a menudo comprende el mensaje de manera diversa -si lo comprende- y finalmente se va del museo con ideas completamente diferentes de las que hubieran deseado los autores de la exhibición. Aunque los métodos de evaluación de visitantes sean cada vez más eficientes, no hay mucho que podamos hacer respecto a este dilema. La razón museológica reside en la posición bastante particular de los visitantes -es decir, en el hecho que conforman una parte integral de la exhibición2. Este es el significado del encabezamiento “Spectator in expositione”, que parafrasea el título de un libro de Umberto Eco: “Lector in fabula”3. Lo que allí expresa Eco4, en particular su modelo para los niveles de colaboración textual5, puede ser aplicado análogamente a las exhibiciones. Para ponerlo de una manera más simple, el modelo dice que el observador primero percibe la exhibición como una expresión o manifestación espacial; con la ayuda de las enciclopedias, (estructuras paradigmáticas y sintácticas) y posiblemente de contextos familiares para el “emisor” y de premisas tales como el tipo de exhibición, pone al día el contenido o más bien “su” contenido, que posee componentes inténsicos y exténsicos que se influyen unos a otros: reconocimiento de contenidos y estructuras y su aplicación para mundos individuales y colectivos. Por lo tanto, los visitantes son un factor importante e impredecible en cualquier exhibición. Perciben los mensajes deseados (y naturalmente, los escondidos y no intencionales también) de diferentes maneras (o no) contra un fondo donde juegan diversos códigos, individuales y sociales6. En toda exhibición el mensaje es codificado por el autor con la totalidad de los elementos de la presentación, posiblemente acompañados de medios interactivos. Los objetos originales, los exhibits, asociados con valores y colocados en un contexto bastante específico, un sistema de signos no lingüísticos, no muestran este mensaje directamente y, sobre todo, no de tal manera como para que sea claramente identificable para todos aquellos que no tengan, por lo menos, un repertorio similar de signos (como, por ejemplo, el mensaje en una cinta magnética). Los medios suplementarios tales como textos, imágenes, audiovisuales y programas electrónicos e interactivos son usados con propósitos de elucidación. No obstante, el visitante se ve siempre confrontado con información e imágenes que tiene que comprender e integrar.7 Debe realizar entonces un trabajo individual de

1Davallon 1999: 19 2 Las siguientes observaciones siguen a Schärer 2003: 108ff. 3 Eco 1990: Fontanille 1989. 4 Eco 1990: 83ff. 5 Eco 1990: 89. 6 Cocula 1986: 43ff; Hooper-Greenhill 1994: 35ff; Rumpf 1995; Swiecimski 1979; Niquette 2000. 7 Schiele 2001: 66.

93

decodificación que puede también conducir a percibir “mensajes” bastante diferentes8 porque atribuye sus propios valores a los elementos de la exhibición, de acuerdo con su biografía individual y colectiva 9. La decodificación individual tiene lugar en el contexto del sistema específico de códigos del museo el cual, como una especie de marco interpretativo o elemento de tipificación de sentidos, no sólo evoca otros modelos de conducta sino también deja al visitante que interprete lo que ha visto en forma distinta de lo que haría si fuera a ver algo similar en otro contexto10. Con referencia al lector, Eco habla en este contexto de “presuposiciones existenciales”11. Como no existe ninguna realidad posible de definir sin ambigüedades, ni en el objeto ni en el observador, una situación de exhibición es siempre abierta y polisémica. Contiene también -en forma diferente en cada caso- un mayor o menor grado de “ruido” (elementos que no son decodificables para ciertas personas) y finalmente, la intención de los autores -no necesariamente reproducible- que debe ser tenida en cuenta: ofrecer instrucción, información y elucidación; otorgar placer o atención al visitante y hacerlo reflexionar. La primera experiencia del visitante siempre es asociativa y no discursiva. El impacto producido por el encuentro inicial es más importante que el levantamiento de información. Mirar o admirar12 ocupa el primer plano y la comprensión intelectual viene después. Waidacher habla de “experiencia comprensiva”13. A pesar de lo mucho que se dice al respecto, el museo no es un lugar de aprendizaje sino, ante todo, un lugar de experiencia. Lo que no quiere decir que no haya aprendizaje en un museo. Sólo que es una manera diferente de aprender que tiene lugar a través de la experiencia, a través de un puente de sensaciones. Falk & Dierking llaman a esto “experiencia de entretenimiento orientada hacia el aprendizaje” (learning-oriented entertainment experience”)14; también en lo que se refiere a la actitud del visitante frente a dicha experiencia. De acuerdo con lo que dice Treinen, una exhibición es un lugar pobre para aprender porque generalmente no existen allí orientaciones instrumentales (disposiciones didácticas)15, aunque los medios de presentación puedan ciertamente asumir esa función. Una exhibición es diferente para cada visitante que compara (como norma y sin pensarlo) sus teorías cotidianas, necesarias para la selección y la interpretación, para un entendimiento subjetivo con los objetos expuestos. Eco distingue entre “interpretar” (con el propósito de comprender) y (lo subjetivo) “usar”, como a menudo sucede en las exposiciones de arte16. Letocha resume estas circunstancias: “Consideramos que los objetos con sus respectivas naturalezas participan en la afirmación de la exhibición, ya que pueden permanecer autónomos y comunicar dimensiones más allá del contenido de la misma. Por consiguiente, deben ser vistos y ubicados dentro de su programa narrativo, vale decir con un sentido de representación, a la manera de las figuras metonímicas o metafóricas en la extensión de la declaración discursiva primordial, el mensaje verbal de la exhibición. Pero los objetos también permanecen activos independientemente de este contexto y persiguen su señalada función semiótica. Es por medio de este proceso estructural que la exhibición se distingue y no debe ser encuadrada en el concepto del lenguaje, porque consiste en una mediación de numerosos lenguajes que permanecen operacionales fuera de la exhibición... En tal sistema, el visitante tiene la comodidad de entrar (enter) en la programación narrativa especializada por medio del recurso escénico de la exhibición, del mismo modo que es libre de escapar (escape) del dogmático llamado de los significados de cada uno de los objetos co-presentados en este conjunto17. La libertad del visitante de recorrer su propio camino en cualquier exhibición incluye, sin embargo, una posible resistencia a la misma: “Obviamente, el visitante puede resistir la manipulación. Debe dar prueba de energía y demostrar que posee un modelo de referencia diferente, un universo de

8 Eco 1988: 125. 9 Dech 2003: 45ff. 10 Davalon 1999: 34f. 11 Eco 1996: 133. 12 Thürlemann 119ff; Vareille 2000. 13 Waicacher 1993: 166. 14 Falk/Dierking 2000; 87. 15 Treinen 1994: 31; Lepenies 2003. 16 Eco 1996: 142. 17 Letocha 1992: 37f.

94

presuntos valores que le permite hacer su propia lectura y juzgar por sí mismo todo lo que está situado delante suyo. En otras palabras, debe ser competente y estar seguro de sus valores.”18. La libertad intelectual del visitante se basa en el hecho que, en una exhibición, no está básicamente involucrado con los objetos sino con las manifestaciones subjetivas sobre los mismos y las circunstancias (valores atribuidos), aún cuando esto no parezca ser el caso a primera vista. Maure describe los cambios que tienen lugar en el visitante cuando va desde “afuera” hacia “adentro”, desde la “vida” hacia el museo. “El visitante sube los peldaños de la puerta de entrada, cruza el umbral, pasa el área de recepción, encaminándose hacia las exhibiciones, donde está montado el escenario. Deja atrás su profana vida cotidiana y penetra en un mundo cerrado y sacrosanto de extraño significado, donde las reglas de uso no se aplican más. Lo que es visto, dicho y hecho aquí no debe ser entendido literalmente, sino más bien dentro de la lógica interna del museo: “Este es un museo, no el mundo real”. 19 Véron/Levasseur proponen una fórmula (que, con sus intraducibles juegos de palabras, suena magnífica en francés): “Si exhibir es siempre proponer, visitar una exhibición es componer, en ambas acepciones del término: combinar y adaptar. Adaptar significa negociar. Visitar una exhibición es negociar nuestra relación con lo que está expuesto (y por lo tanto también con el expositor). Este último sujeto es, en cierta medida, un articulador institucional de la cultura. Es su relación con el conocimiento lo que negocia el sujeto por intermedio de la exhibición”20. En esta conexión, Annis describe esa especie de seducción ejercida por el museo: “La magia que hace atractivos a los museos descansa, tal vez, en la libertad con la que cada individuo crea allí sus propios espacios. Los museos son mucho más que la sumatoria de las etiquetas o el montaje de las exposiciones; al igual que los objetos presentados en ellos, no tienen significado (ciertamente sí tienen un significado que les ha sido otorgado por los autores; lo que quiero decir es que para el visitante no tienen una significación perceptible sin ambigüedades) más bien reciben y reflejan los significados que cada uno invierte en ellos’21. En un principio, se debe poner mayor énfasis en el hecho que el visitante es parte integral de la exhibición que -como un sistema abierto- es por decirlo así, recreada por cada visita individual. Una exhibición necesita el tiempo que dura una visita para generar comunicación y lograr que el proceso esté concluido. Antes de eso, la exhibición es sólo potencialidad. Este fenómeno corresponde a la relación hombre-objeto. Grütter afirma que “El visitante no sólo decodifica la presentación propuesta para la exhibición por sus creadores, sino también que superpone sus propias connotaciones y asociaciones; siempre está produciendo algo nuevo, su propio “mundo imaginario”22. Por lo tanto el visitante de museos no sólo es un recipiente sino también un productor de significados siempre renovados.23. Esto sucede porque tiene lugar la percepción, que crea significados a través de los signos, como muestra Fischer-Lichte: “Como el significado del objeto depende de la percepción, el objeto mismo se convierte en signo: el mero hecho de ser no tiene significado. Para que el hombre le atribuya sentido, debe convertirse en signo para él. Porque sólo como signo que apunta más allá de sí mismo puede adquirir significado.”24 Es así como los visitantes obtienen beneficios (de aprendizaje) de su visita a la exhibición, pero de un modo bastante diversificado, de acuerdo con el contexto particular de cada museo. Y sobre todo, el mensaje de aprendizaje puede no ser captado inmediatamente, sea como fuere (excepto en las exhibiciones específicamente didácticas) como sucede con el discurso de un maestro en la escuela o con un libro de texto. Lo que el visitante ve, los objetos expuestos, provoca infinitas connotaciones personales, las cuales desvían en parte o en su totalidad los significados deseados. Además, como en todo aprendizaje, el procesamiento subsiguiente a través de la reflexión y el debate en el contexto personal de la experiencia, juega un rol notable. Es muy posible que el mensaje “correcto” sólo llegue mucho más tarde. El estrecho y unidimensional sistema de conocimiento tradicional, “emisor-mensaje- receptor” difícilmente puede trabajar porque no es posible ninguna retroalimentación ni correcciones y no se le 18 Hammad 1987: 60. 19 Maure 1995: 165. 20 Véron 1991: 28. 21 Annis 1986: 171. 22 Heimisch 1987: 342. 23 Grütter 1992: 183. 24 Fischer-Lichte 1979: 11.

95

han incorporado mecanismos de control como en la escuela. El contexto personal, sociocultural y físico del “modelo contextual de aprendizaje”25 de Falk y Dierking, es mucho más significativo aquí que en otros procesos de aprendizaje. Resumiendo: el visitante que (como las cosas mismas) está sujeto a cambios, en una situación de exhibición, nunca experimenta las circunstancias en forma directa. Este es el motivo por el cual las interpretaciones y los valores son transmitidos siempre a la vez. Es sólo la presencia del visitante la que produce la comunicación; en este sentido, cada visitante siempre reinventa la exhibición una vez más y de manera diferente. Translated by Nelly Decarolis References/ Referencias Annis, Sheldon 1986: Le musée, scène de l’action symbolyque. In: Museum 151: 168-171.

Cocula, Bernard/Peyroulet, Claude 1986: Sémantique de l’image. Pour une approche méthodique des messages visuels. Paris.

Davallon, Jean 1999: L’exposition à l’oeuvre. Stratégies de communication et mediation symbolique. Paris.

Dech, Uwe Christian 2003: Sehenlernen im Museum. Ein Konzept zur Wahmehmung und Präsentation im Museum. Bielefeld.

Eco, Umberto 1988/6: Einführung in die Semiotik. München.

Eco, Umberto 1990: Lector in fabula, Die Mitarbeit der Interpretation in erzählenden Texten. München.

Falk, John H./Dierking, Lynn D. 2000: Learning from museums. Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Walnut Creek.

Fischer-Lichte, Erika 1979: Bedeutung. Probleme einer semiotischen Hermeneutik. München.

Fontanille, Jacques 1989: Les espaces subjectifs. Introduction á la sémiotique de l’observateur (discours – peinture – cinéma). Paris.

Grütter. Heinrich Theodor 1992: Geschichte sehen Iernen. Zur Präsentation und Rezeption historischer Ausstellungen. In: Erber-Groiss, Margarete et al. (ed.): Kult und Kultur des Ausstellens. Wien 1992: 178-188.

Hammad, Manar 1987: Lecture sémiotique d’un musée. In: Museum 154: 56-60.

Heinisch, Severin 1987: Ausstellungen als Institutionen (post-) historischer Erfahrung. In: Zeitgeschichte 15: 337-342.

Hooper-Greenhill, Eileen 1994: Museums and their visitors. London.

Lepenies, Annette 2003: Wissen vermitteln im Museum. Köln (Schriften des Deutschen Hygiene-Museums Desden 1).

Letocha, Louise 1992: L’exposition est-elle un langage? In: Viel, Annette/Guise, Céline de (ed.) 1992: Muséo-séduction, muséo-réflexion. Québec 1992: 29-39.

Maure, Marc 1995: The exhibition as theatre – On the staging of museum objects. In: Nordisk museologi 1995, 2: 155-168.

Niquette, Manon 2000: Quand les visiteurs ne sont pas seuls: l’analyse sémiocognitive. In: Eidelmann, Jacqueline/Praët, Michel van (ed.): La muséologie des sciences et ses publics. Regards croisés sur la Grande Galerie de l’Évolution du Muséum national d’histoire naturelle. Paris 2000: 181-198.

Rumpf, Horst 1995: Die Gebärde der Besichtigung. In: Fast, Kirstin (ed.): Handbuch museumspädagogischer Ansätze. Opladen 1995: 29-45 (Berliner Schriften zur Musumskunde 9).

25 Falk/Dierking 2000: 10.

96

Schärer, Martin R. 2003: Die Ausstellung. Theorie und Exempel. München (Wunderkammer 5).

Schiele, Bernard 2001: Le musée des sciences. Montée du modèle communicationnel et recomposition du champ muséal. Paris.

Sweicimski, Jerzy 1979: The museum exhibition as an object of cognition or creative activity. In: Museologia 13: 11-20.

Thürlemann, Felix 1996: La collection de l’art brut: un musée paradoxal? In: Apothéloz, Denis/Bähler, Ursula/ Schulz, Michel (ed.): Analyser le musée. Colloque Lausanne 1995. Neuchâtel 1996: 141-148.

Treinen, Heiner 1994: Das moderne Museum als Massenmedium. In: Klein, Hans-Joachim (ed.): Vom Präsentieren zum Vermitteln. Fachtagung Leipzig 1993. Karlsruhe 1994: 23-36 (Karlsruher Schriften zur Besucherforschung 5).

Vareille, Emmanuelle/Fromont-Colin, Cécile 2000: Les mémoires de la visite. In: Eidelmann, Jacqueline/Praët, Michel van (ed.) 2000: La muséologie des sciences et ses publics. Regards croisés sur la Grande Galerie de l’Évolution du Muséum national d’histoire naturelle. Paris 2000: 199-215.

Véron, Eliséo/Levasseur, Martine 1991: Ethnographie de l’exposition. París.

Waidacher, Friedrich 1993: Handbuch der allgemeinen Museologie. Wien (Mimundus 3).

97

Museums and Museology: on the Other Side of the Mirror

Tereza C. Scheiner – Brazil

You can just see a little peep of the passage in Looking-glass House, if you leave the door (…) wide open:

and it's very like our passage as far as you can see, only you know it may be quite different on beyond.

(…) how nice it would be if we could only get through into Looking- glass House! I'm sure it's got, oh! such beautiful things in it!

(Lewis Carroll – Through the Looking-glass) Introduction The interactions between modernity and the contemporary have been producing, everywhere, new symbolic matrices, as part of the processes of reconstruction of the social tissue. The analyses developed in the past years1 emphasize the hybrid character of such new representations, specially those perceived as ‘cultural’. The insight on how, where and when such interfaces occur is thus an essential step towards the understanding of the interactions between traditional, modern and contemporary cultural dynamics.

In the present days, it is imperative to understand how social practices articulate and which are the discourses established around them, specially in what refers to the narratives on identities and the heritage – those metaphorical entities created by modern discourse, and which are used by human society to give shape and consistence to all that seems ambiguous and incontrollable. The search for security in identities and heritage is, in itself, an ilusional movement: what seems logical, solid and consistent when seen from the outside, in reality is no more than a mere paste up of traces, symptoms and behaviors, a fluid and inconsistent construction, in permanent process of crystallization, fusion and redefinition.

How do the different social agencies elaborate and communicate the idea of heritage, in contemporary times? Which are the views and discourses articulated over such idea? How do such views and discourses contribute to delineate heritage as a new sociopolitical subject, a synthesis between the meanings inherited by Modernity and new, contemporary meanings?

What is the role of museums and Museology, in such context?

1. ON MOSAICS, MIRRORS AND KALEIDOSCOPES The idea of heritage develops, today, in the interfaces between the senses of Modernity and the approaches with sets of signs of diversified origin: signs belonging to the imaginary of traditional societies, recovered by contemporary discourse (nature, identity); signs produced by the symbolic constructor of Actuality (the intangible, the virtual) 2. This idea gives us a clear insight on the fact that there is a social locus for all human groups – it is through the re-signification of the political role of existent symbolic backgrounds that a new form of community will gain shape, by the association of parts through multiplicity and difference. The relationship between society and heritage may be perceived as a mosaic – an assemblage formed by the harmonic disposition of an infinity of fragments, none of which represents the whole: the image unveils exactly from the intentional arrangement of small singularities, each of them appears, in the whole, with its proper form and sense. Thus observed, each assemblage will form an articulated ‘map’ of small significations: we may identify, among the tesserae, those which serve only as framework and background, and those which define the limits of the image; or apprehend the presence of certain colors, certain textures, certain shines. It is just at the intersection between the parts and the whole, between the entire scene and its details that the image truly 1Amongthem,theworksofMarcAugé,Bauman,Barbero,Canclini,Dreifuss,Ianni,Lyotard,Hall,Warnier.2SeeSCHEINER,Tereza.ImagesoftheNo‐place.Communicationandthe‘newheritages’.RJ,Eco/UFRJ,2004.294p.Il.

98

develops and gains sense. A similar phenomenon occurs with pointillist paintings – where the image unveils from the relations of proximity and distance of an immense group of points, which articulate spaces, colors and textures to give meaning and form to the desired representation. Or with kaleidoscopes, where the images are illusory, generated by the movement of small colored fragments; and even if they cannot be seen in totality, we know they are all there, hiding and appearing by means of delicate movements of the hand. What we see is partial: the totality can be only perceived by the presence of a set of mirrors – where, reproduced in several directions, the fragmentary image creates a recognizable ‘whole’, articulated from the junction of mirrored pieces that reflect the combinations between the small colored fragments. And it is exactly in this subtle space of junctions that appears what we recognize as an image.

The mosaic and the pointillist painting teach us to consider the articulations, the edges, in the understanding of a given framework of reality; and remind us that it is the position of each element and the fine sintony in combination that make possible the images to appear. As for the kaleidoscope, it puts us in contact with the mechanisms of symbolic construction, the process that makes images appear, in the intersections between arrangements and movements – a transitional process.

Let us remember that the representations of identity and heritage have an essentially emotional character, impregnated by the symbolic traits of personal and collective memory, which permanently interfere in our ways of seeing, selecting, retaining and interpreting facts. Treated as signs, identities and heritage are the constant object of uncountable narratives, many of which elaborated by museums.

… This is the role of museums in contemporary times: to help us understand the links between society, identities and heritage, starting from the movements which redefine borders and zones of proximity, and making possible the sharing of the most contradictory senses and the most different meanings, in multiplicity and diversity.

In this process, we must identify what is real and what is discourse. If, as mentioned Lyotard3, every discourse may be understood as a metamorphosis of feelings, what makes history is less the set of occurrences in space and time than the new ‘realities’ instituted by those who narrate the facts. In the constitution of narrative strategies, museums have the delicate ethical task of identifying and preserving the real basis of discursive performance, always presenting their narratives in a plural and inclusive manner; and trying to present a clear vision of what is reality and what is interpretation – even if certain narrative forms are intentionally developed to provoke emotional effects in the audience, through sensorial and emotional movements so well studied by Gestalt. Let us remember that museums communicate with society not only through exhibitions: their own existence, their physical form (absolute revelation of the conceptual model of each museum), the spatial relations they develop, the types of collections they receive, the activities and programs they realize, all is part of a complex and constant interpretive/narrative movement, based on heritage and identities. We must also remember that the contemporary ‘ethos’ overlays the tangible heritage references with new, emergent symbolic objects: the natural heritage; the total heritage; the intangible heritage. In such context, the traditional symbols of heritage – the artifact, the monument – are being substituted by the new iconic configurations, over which new discourses are organized. We know that the narrative mechanism operates between the singularity of desire and its occurrence in time and space, ‘between tensorial pellicle and the articulated social body, between the intensity of facts and their unitary regulation’4. It is fundamental, though, to analyze the constitutive elements of such narratives, trying to identify how the different social segments perceive museums and the realities they present. 2. VISITORS AND SYMBOLIC EXCHANGE:

MUSEUMS AS DIALOGUE SPACES

Even if there is a certain consensus about the existence of an active dialogue between museums and society, there is no doubt that, in this relationship, museums remain as the privileged enunciators of the cultural discourse. As such, they are responsible for the elaboration of very specific ‘acts of speech’ 5, that try to reflect the ways and forms by which the different social groups relate to

3Apud SCHEINER, Tereza. Museology, Identities, Sustainable Development: discursive strategies. In: Heritage, Community and Sustainable Development / Museology and Sustainable Development. II International Meeting on Ecomuseums/IX ICOFOM LAM. RJ, Tacnet Cultural Ltd. 2001. p: 46-56 4 LYOTARD, Jean-François. Petite économie libidinale d’un dispositif narratif: le Régie Rénault raconte le meurte de Pierre Overney. In: Des dispositifs Pulsionnels. Paris: Christian Bourgois Éditeur, 1973: p.182 5 See Maingueneau’s comments about the social ritual of language. In: MAINGUENEAU, Dominique. New Tendencies in the Analysis of Discourse. SP: Pontes: State University of Campinas, 3rd. Ed., 1997. p. 20.

99

culture, identities and heritage. The relationship will always be a speculative relation – and in each case, the behavior of actors at each side of the mirror must be defined.

The study of the interactive relations between museums and their audiences is an essential concern for the field of Museology – and must be based in the specific concepts and practices of the field. This is the true focal point of the question. Ironically, Museology is not the strategic focus of the majority of the studies existent on this matter – which specially address the pedagogic background of the relationship between museums and society, with an emphasis on the analysis of behavior of young visitors in the exhibitions of traditional museums, either orthodox or exploratory. Few analyses have been made about the ways and movements by which the different social groups recognize museums as agents of the intercultural discourse. And fewer works have studied the dialogic relations between communities and external visitors, in ecomuseums and other musealized sites.

The necessity of structuring and defining analytical approaches having museum theory as a starting point is thus identified. This is the role of ICOFOM, and the movement that will truly contribute for the enrichment of Museology as a disciplinary field.

In an article published in 19916, we had already approached the specular relation between museums and visitors, reminding that the degrees of immersion in the experience and the forms of relationship differ essentially, according to the conceptual model of each museum7. As it is known, they also differ according to the specific characteristics of the components of each segment recognized, by museums, as their ‘public’: real and potential, occasional and constant visitors; integrated and marginalized visitors; students, tourists, immigrants; elders. Psychology and Sociology also remind us the influence, in such relationships, of individual and group perceptions.

But, which aspects of the relationship between museums and visitors are more relevant to

Museology?

2.1 The individual experience The first point of evidence is that, undoubtedly, the dialogue between museum and visitor is a

thoroughly individual experience: it doesn’t matter the type of museum and which forms of discourse are established; if it receives a daily public of thousands of persons or if it has a scarce visitation; the dialogue will always be the result of handicraft work. Recognizing the importance of individual experience means that each museum has to assume some ethic commitments, such as: preventing the development of narratives which favor the hegemonic values, discourses and points of view of certain categories and/or cultural groups; adopting a multicultural, multilinguistic, historic and socially open approach, that enables each visitor to identify with what is being addressed – either by similitude, or by difference.

…What may we learn from the visitors about individual experience? Well, we may learn that each individual, even the more simple and less trained one, is able to perceive (and positively receive) cultural narratives designed with respect. In 1978, at the Museum of Anthropology, in Mexico city, we grasped a conversation between two children: - Esta es la [vidriera] que más me gusta, pues tiene uma casita igualita a la de mi abuela8. In 1989, visitors cried in an exhibition in La Défense, Paris, about countryless immigrants – a photographic exhibition with no texts, where the incisive images said it all. These are examples which make us understand that, more than logic learning, the relationship with museums deflagrates a process of self-apprehension and of apprehension of the different levels of reality, which may be a powerful help in the recognition of heritages and the affirmation of identities. And this is a visceral process, based in emotions.

2.2 The emotional and subtle dimension of the experience

We must understand that the symbolic exchange between museum and visitor may be direct and logic, but it functions especially well when realized in a subtle way, kindly making use of memory and of emotional intelligence. In this sense, there is a lot to apprehend (and to learn) with the visitors. Widely known (and well studied) are the movements of visitor arrival in museums; the timing of

6 SCHEINER, Tereza. Museums and Exhibitions. Appointments for a theory of feelings. In: ICOFOM STUDY SERIES – ISS Nbr. 19. The Language of the Exhibition. Proceedings of the XIX Annual Conference of the International Committee on Museology – ICOFOM. Edited by Martin Schaerer. Vevey, Switzerland, Oct. 1991. p. 109-113. 7 Traditional Museum – orthodox, exploratory, with live collections; Site Museum – musealized historic and/or natural site, city/village monument, open air museum, Ecomuseum, community museum; Virtual Museum. 8 This is [the glass case] I like most, because there is a small house just like my grandma’s house.

100

visitation; the interest demonstrated by this or that detail, by activities and services offered. But it is the less explicit aspects that we are talking about: a sudden shine in the eyes; small movements around a glass case; the more or less attentive reading of a secondary text; the surprise, marveling or fear with a demonstration or experiment. To look with wide open eyes, is all that we need.

…In 2004, in the new and spectacular Museum of the American Indian, in Washington, D.C., we were delighted to find the photograph of the Director of the museum – not in a privileged place, among the authorities; but discreetly inserted in a small panel, among the members of his tribe. Physically ‘white’, he has a third part of native blood – and the picture in the panel affirms and dignifies his multicultural identity. The presence of the photograph (defining the place of the specialist, in the interface of two different cultural groups; but also dignifying the hybrid nature of the individual) makes us confident that this museum is, after all, in good hands.

This is the primary function of the interface between museums and visitors: the elaboration of the subtle space of connections that will enable each individual to apprehend, at each moment, what will be perceived as an image of reality. In such process, the museum operates as a kaleidoscope, providing the colored fragments that will give shape to the images; but it is up to each visitor to move the parts of the mirror, making the images appear one after the other, thus unveiling their very particular sense. More than learning, the visitor apprehends reality, not only as a framework or scenery, but perceiving the relations between the points, the tesserae, the folds, the filigrees – the small elements which, articulated, give shape and meaning to the whole.

The relationship between museum and visitor may thus be considered as an impressionist experience, where the relationship of apprehension occurs in the very moment of the relation, through movement, permeated by the changing subtleties of light, color and sound which impregnate space and form, with incessantly different and new meanings.

We would thus like to see Museology concerned not with what the visitor learns (priorizing the cognitive domain), but with what the visitor feels (priorizing the emotional domain), in his/her direct experience with each museum. 2.3 Apprehension of the Other as heritage It is necessary that Museology gives a closer and more careful look to the relationships between community museums and their external visitors. Created and developed for themselves, community museums have a clear inwards balance, and in general develop a somewhat uncomfortable and ceremonious relationship with outsiders. They are not interested, a priori, in unveiling to strange eyes the particularities of their everyday life, thus transforming the normal activities of their people into a glass case.

The opening of a community museum to the external public will always imply in a certain degree of ‘objectification’ of the members of such community, with results that may only be evaluated as case studies. The problem becomes specially serious in the heritage sites of tourist interest, which communities have opted for the experience of musealization - specially those inhabited by traditional societies. In those areas, the interfaces may present all kinds and degrees of noises and interferences; or take the form of movements of ‘reinvention’ of heritage, either by reiteration of local and/or regional traditions or by the adoption of practices that have nothing to do with tradition - with the mere aim of performing, for the tourists, whatever may be recognized as such.

The dialogue between community museums and external visitors may demonstrate two different sides of the matter: on the one hand, it may become clear how certain discursive strategies that make use of the narratives of tradition and of heritage have helped assuring the space of some societies in the contemporary context9; on the other hand, the opposition between the extraordinary diversity of the cultures linked to the territory and with local histories, and the globalizing tendencies of the cultural industry in making use of the symbolic production of the so-called ‘traditional’ cultures, put into risk the identitary (sometimes, almost sacred) character of the tangible and intangible production of those groups.

The exponential growth of the tourist activity has been causing serious problems for the musealized communities: to develop as a mercantile instance, tourism develops, based on local iconography and costumes, a set of stereotypes, which help creating false identitary images of such communities. The heritage and the identities are thus transformed into a scenery, a show or iconic discourse – metaphor of their true realities. It is not uncommon that visitors find strange that the 9 The narrative repertory about each one of these groups may use the conceptual matrix which better adjust to the aims of designing the images desired for each case: while historiography and political science address the ‘modern’ nations, ‘traditional’ (or ‘ethnic’) societies are addressed by the anthropologies. See SCHEINER, Tereza. Images of the No-place. Op. Cit, p. 154.

101

communities visited are not as ‘interesting’ as in photographs of promotional folders, or that the activities they see are not as organized, or available, as they expected. In this illusory context, it doesn’t matter if what is presented does not correspond exactly to an ‘original’ or ‘true reality’ : what really matters is the ‘effect of reality’ presented by each complex.

In community museums, it is of utmost importance that external visitors recognize and respect the integrity of the significant complexes which are at the background of each experience: the geographic space; the natural resources (renewable and non-renewable); the humane, with their capacity of occupying the territory and generating wealth; the tangible and intangible objects (processes, symbolic structures) which represent local identities. But, above all, it is important that the specific moment of the interface (relation between the Different) be impregnated with total respect, with total kindness of spirit.

To visit a musealized community is literally to enter in the sphere of the Other. More than a museological experience, it is a movement of mutual recognition: it is the opening of a new gateway – that which may lead us to perceive reality, in a total and thorough manner, without distortions, at the other side of the mirror. And there, we may find a reality very similar to ours: not distorted – only different.

References AUGÉ, Marc. No-places. Introduction to an Anthropology of Super modernity. Campinas, SP:Papirus,

1994

BARBERO, Jesús Martin. From Media to Mediations. Communication, Culture, Hegemony. RJ: Editorial UFRJ, 2003

BAUMAN, Zygmunt. Globalization: the human consequences. RJ, Zahar, 1999

_________. Modernity and Ambivalence. RJ, Zahar,1999

_________ . The Liquid Modernity. RJ: Zahar, 2001

BOSI, Ecléa. The Living Time of Memory. Essays on Social Psychology. SP: Atelier Editorial, 2003. 219 p. Il.

DREIFUSS, René Armand. The Era of Perplexities: mundialization, globalization, planetarization – new challenges. Petrópolis: Vozes, 1997

GARCÍA CANCLINI, Néstor. Consumers and citizens: multicultural conflicts of globalization. RJ: Ed. UFRJ, 1995

__________. Hybrid Cultures: strategies to enter and leave Modernity. São Paulo: EDUSP, 1998

LYOTARD, Jean-François. Phenomenology. Basic Library of Philosophy. Lisbon: Edições 70, 1999. 117 p.

___________ . The Post-modern condition. 6th. Ed. Trad. Ricardo Corrêa Barbosa. Posface by Silviano Santiago. RJ: José Olympio, 2000.

HALL, Stuart. Cultural Identities in Post Modern Times. RJ: DP&A, 1997

IANNI, Octavio. The Era of Globalization. RJ: Civilização Brasileira, 1996

MAINGUENEAU, Dominique. New Tendencies in Analysis of Discourse. Trad. Freda Indurski. Campinas, SP: Pontes: State University of Campinas, 3rd. Ed., 1997. 198 p.

POULOT, Dominique. Patrimoine et Musées. L’institution de la Culture. Paris: Hachette, 2001. 223 p.

SCHEINER, Tereza. On Museum, Communities and the Relativity of it All, in: ICOFOM Study Series no. 25, Symposium Museum and Community II. Stavanger, Norway, July 1995. p. 95-98

WARNIER, Jean Pierre. La Mondialisation de la Culture. Nouvelle Édition. Paris: La Découverte, 2003. 119p.

102

Museums and Audience

Anita Shah - India _________________________________________________________________________________ Every museum has a unique setting, its own 'special' audience and its mission. Every museum has a unique setting owing to its particular geographic location and collection. In order to carry out its mission of communicating its message successfully it must know its audience so as fulfill their needs, aspirations and desires. To know its audience, the museum must first carry out a survey of the demographic variables of the people who visit the museum, and also how it can attract the part of population that does not come to museums. First, people who visit the museum: The museum must know what the visitors are looking for in the museum, and how best their visit can produce optimal satisfaction, so that they will want to repeat the experience. Second, people who do not visit the museum: The museum professionals must know what part of the population does not visit the museum and why? An attempt must be made to attract them to visit the museum through exhibitions and mass media communication systems. It is imperative to involve the whole community in the museum programmers. The museum is a social institution and shoulders the responsibility of 'social' education. A museum that wants to play an important role in society has to accept its role of interpretation reality to its audience, to penetrate its collective conscience to bring about better understanding and experience of reality, to stimulate deep thought and intellectual sublimation. The museum is a specific phenomenon of man's approach to reality. Museology fulfills its role as a specific science by evaluating what impact the museum as a whole can have on the social consciousness of its audience, by creating an environment for the mind to open up to various possibilities. To achieve this end the museum has to play its role as an instrument of social enabler of social education, bridging the gap between various cultures, promoting pluriculturism and instilling the values of tolerance, subtlely changing attitudes, leading the audience towards the goal of accepting cultural diversity as an integral part of the fundamental aspect of reality. The most important role of the museum is its social responsibility. The museum presents an opportunity for creating an informal 'class' for the social education of its audience. By 'social education' I mean that the museum is a place where people can understand and appreciate other cultures. People come to museums mentally prepared to be exposed to novel experiences and an encounter with the 'unknown' to some extent. This unknown factor could be a ' meeting' with aspects and cultural material of 'alien' cultures. How this encounter is presented depends upon how the museologists and education staff and other professionals of the museum handle the cultural material to be displayed. The value of the object is not intrinsic to it, but is highly dependent on the object-subject relation that is brought out by the museologists. The presentation of objects has to be synchronized with the process of musealization of objects. The creation of the museum medium must be based on the scientific explanation of historical, cultural, religious, social and aesthetic values and the decoding of symbolized philosophical concepts attributed by the given culture to the object. At this juncture the museologists also should take into account the assimilation capacity of the average visitor. Success lies in how creatively the museologists present the message to its varied audience, capturing their attention, imagination and eventually piercing their understanding. The success of the educational mission of the museum lies in how well the museum professionals understand their audience. To communicate appropriately with the audience we must also take the help of psychologists, to learn about the attitudes, prevailing prejudices, and stereotypes prevalent in the society the museum caters to predominantly. Social education also encompasses the reality of prejudices, stereotyping which usually arise because of misconceptions. It is the museum environment that can help people to understand each others' cultures better, paving the way to creating an atmosphere of mutual tolerance and acceptance.

103

Involving interdisciplinary methods, using established psychological principles of learning, organizing exhibition spaces in accordance with the span of attention of the general public and Gestalt Theory of Perception can greatly help in making the overall exhibitions, both permanent and temporary exhibitions, more fruitful. The museum in its role as a ‘social educator’ has the power to bring about attitude change, as the arts and crafts of a culture take us into an increasingly vast and secret realm, a realm where we can sense the dreams and fears, the romanticism and privacy, as well as the angst in the depths of the soul of a people. The museum is a place, which offers us a clue to the specific confrontation between the people of a culture and ‘their’ reality. Art of a culture highlights the special spiritual relationship between the people of a culture and ‘their’ world. Success lies in how creatively the museum professionals present this insight to its audience so as to capture their attention, imagination and eventually pierce their understanding. I had the opportunity to study a highly varied sample of visitors to the Salar Jung Museum, Hyderabad and other small museums in South India. I have observed that people from all walks of life visit museums in India. The uneducated rural, the sophisticated urban elite, students, all go to museums, though not regularly. For all visitors museum presents an opportunity to learn about other cultures, societies and also about history. I have observed that art appreciation is an intrinsic part of the human psyche and art has the ability to move people emotionally and psychologically.

104

A Bridging the gap between museums and their audience

Lina Tahan – Lebanon

Introducing the difference between museum professionals and audience In the twenty-first century, the function, role and purpose of museums have evolved and have provided us with a very rich history. From the private cabinets of curiosities that were created in Renaissance Europe to the establishment of the modern national museums that are found in every capital city, we witness a major shift in this evolution, that of a collection first restricted to a certain elite and then open to all sorts of public in order to fulfil national ambitions and show a civic duty. One must note, however, that what has remained constant throughout this museum evolution is that museums are places aimed for the public and that the latter have different ideas about what constitutes a museum. Nowadays, as museums become more dependent upon public funding, attitudes shifted from acceptance of the former elitism, both socially and academically, toward an expectation that the public institutions ought to provide public service (Edson and Dean, 1994: 145). Consequently, the evolution of museums in the 21st century is characterised by an increasing demand for museums to be accountable, both to the general public and to their funding bodies. Museum operation in this new millennium is also distinguished by its gradual professionalism. Professional associations such as the Museums Association in Britain, The American Association of Museums in the USA, and the International Council of Museums (ICOM) have established guidelines and codes of ethics for their members to follow in their respective institutions. These guidelines tend to emphasise the service which museum professions should provide for the public, hence the ICOM Code of Ethics’ 2004 defines a museum as follows: “A museum is a non-profit making permanent institution in the service of society and of its development, open to the public, which acquires, researches, communicates and exhibits, for the purpose of study, education and enjoyment, the tangible and intangible evidence of people and their n” (as quoted in http://icom.museum/ethics.html). The changing definitions of museums over time represent the changing values of contemporary societies. Museums need to become more accessible and relevant to their audiences. Hence, there is a need on behalf of museu professionals to cater to the needs of their visitors. The following paper wishes to explore why museology needs to relate to its public and not exclude them. My aim is to focus the discussion on the binary definition of “we” This definition includes numerous professionals – museologists, curators, anthropologists, archaeologists, technicians, conservators, administrators – who are aware of the theoretical and technical debates within the field of museology, but also members of the ‘general public’ who visit museums with their family and friends for entertainment and education. Throughout the paper, it is argued that museum professionals cannot be members of the general museum-visiting public, because their museological knowledge will always influence their visiting experience and the way they perceive museums as cultural institutions. Indeed, one must bear in mind that there is no one public, but several ones depending upon political orientations, socio-economic status, ethnic background, etc. For the purpose of this paper, it is crucial to recognise that the ways in which museum professionals and audiences conceptualise ‘the museum’ are quite different. Only a discussion that considers both perspectives will render accurate museology as a field of knowledge in this new millennium! Museum structures and their influence on public perceptions

105

The term ‘New Museology” emerged out of a series of ICOM General Conferences, round tables and discussions of the International Committee of ICOM. The International Committee for Museology (ICOFOM) beginning in the late 1970s (Kreps, 2003:9). The New Museology ahs been introduced to differentiate the object-oriented approach which is considered traditional from the so-called community-oriented approach. This is expressed clearly in the “Declaration of Québec” of October 13, 1984: “While preserving the material achievements of past civilisations and protecting the achievements characteristic of the aspiration and technology of today, the new museology is primarily concerned with community development and social progress” (as quoted in Mayrand, 1985: 201). As a result the community-oriented approach is to be considered ‘mission-oriented’ and the ‘new’ museum of the ’New Museology’ movement becomes an institution in the service of social development (Kreps, 2003: 9). Hence, museums remain one of the few places where an encounter between people and material culture takes place and where museologists should take and included the voices of ‘others’. Many museums around the world display their collections such a manner that focuses the visitor’s attention on the artefact, rather than on the meanings and narratives that are generated by the exhibits. For instance, a museum such as the Louvre in Paris presents its material culture in neatly arranged showcases and provides little information beyond an object’s type, material, date, location/site of origin and sometimes the collector’s name. Displaying a collection in such a way may offer a ‘limited’ visiting experience to the public of a museum and can push visitors to think that a museum’s primary duty is the collection and display of artefacts. Depending upon the nature of the collection, a visitor may think that the act of collecting might be either associated with academic endeavour or research or considered as a pastime of the elite. Moreover, visitors may implicitly interpret the purpose of displaying these artefacts in the museum’s attempt to educate the public. For museum professionals collecting, preserving, displaying, researching and educating from behind the glass case have different meanings from those of the public. For example, collecting is not a procedure of gathering and accepting any or all possible types of material remains. In contrast to the haphazard collecting for the cabinets of curiosity, museum collecting in the early twenty-first century is a highly organized practice. Pearce (1990:67) considers collections management to be at the heart of the museum operation, because without collections there would be no broader issues of content and interpretation. At this point, it is the interpretation that should require our attention as museologists because audiences construct meanings within a museum space and those meanings affect the visitor’s perceptions of such a space. In creating an exhibition, a museologist is primarily concerned with interpreting a group of related artefacts and narrating a story to the public. An accurate interpretation will give voice to all the groups who are related to the exhibition’s theme, while at the same time acknowledging the role of the museologist (Alexander, 1979: 196). The designer of an exhibition should also take into account the composition of the likely visiting audience, understanding its ethnic diversity, political orientation, socio-economic status, and level of education, so that the interpretation of the artefacts is relevant and accessible to the group. If a museologist considers the above objectives as crucial in any display, then he/she can educate the public by creating a discourse on a specific theme, rather than didactically displaying objects and labels for passive consumption. Therefore, the public impression of the practices that constitute a museum is based on the information visitors derive from what they see on display. In contrast, visitors may also be affected by the material structure of a museum or its actual physical construction. The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries have witnessed the explosion of neo-classical buildings with Ionic columns and intricately carved friezes. This is true for th British Museum in London that was established in 1753 and the recently completed Museum of Edinburgh in Scotland,. Of course, there are several other examples around the world of such museum construction. In his 1989 survey of the British public’s attitude towards the past and museums, Merriman (1001: 62) found that traditional and ‘official’ museum presentations were more easily comparable in mausolea rather than anything else. Both associations are quite common especially when one sees that museums become like fortresses, bastions or temples of ‘high’ culture. Such architectural constructions may put of visitors from entering the museum space as they can indicate that museums are meant to protect precious artefacts from harm. There is a danger, however, that continuing to use the construction of neo-classical or post-modern architecture can widen the chasm between the museums and their audiences, hence it might reduce the idea of the museum as fortresses that make them less accessible to the public.

106

While many members of the public are simply concerned with the façade of museums, they can also be betrayed by the very name of a museum. For example, the Victoria and Albert Museum is obviously an institution that was founded and supported through the royal patronage of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. Hence, visitors may assume that at he objects put on display in this museum have something to do with royalty, which of course is not the case. Moreover, similar assumptions may be drawn from other museums whose names suggest a specific institutional history to either indicate a strong academic authority or to suggest the influence of a particular donor or patron. Although many visitors may not think of such interpretations, most would categorise the u as a ‘cultural institution’ with all the trappings of organizational hierarchy and tradition that such a label entails. Ways of bridging the gap between the museums and their audiences The ‘new’ museum should be fundamentally concerned with the democratisation of museum practices and participatory approaches. According to the ‘New ‘Museology’ movement, it is a democratic, educational institution in the service of social development and change (Kreps, 2003: 9-10). The policy of a museum should make it clear that community or public participation in the museum is important, not only as visitors, but also as participants in all aspects of museum work, indeed, the idea of museum democratisation is to suggest that the knowledge, skills and experiences of the people for whom museums exist hold as much value as those of museum curators and professionals. Many of the practical aspects of them museum function will continue to be inherent to the definition of a museum into the twenty-first century. The fundamental practices of collections management an display should not remain the only concerns of a museum curator, because communicating messages to the visitors is also crucial if museums are to survive as cultural institutions. /we museologists need to reconsider the relationship between the museum and its visiting public. Moreover, we must strive to alter the perception that such institution s are not meant to be austere temples and must promote the museum as a part of the local community’s resources that can be accessed and engaged in by community members. Ideally, a museum should reflect the values of contemporary society in which it exists, in other words, its practices and institution structures should represent the society’s various publics and their interests (Edson an Dean, 1994: 10). Several museum professionals and researchers have suggested ways to bridge the gap between the museum and the public. Merriman (1991” 122) has several innovative ideas which challenge the traditional conceptions of museum practices and institutional structures. He urges professionals to disassociate a museum with a main building that is a repository of ‘truth; validated by the interests of its staff, who look mainly to their peers for approval (ibid). He suggests several ways in order to achieve this. First, museums can use photography and video to expand the definition of material culture and include intangible cultural heritage representations such as food, music, an dance (ibid: 136). Second, museums should make the reserve collections known and available to the public. Finally, if museums want to show the broad composition of their communities, then they should recruit people of different backgrounds. Thus, the curatorial, educational and warding staff should include ethnic minorities, the disable and people of various religious faiths (ibid: 134). Another approach is that of San Roman (1992; 25), the General Director of the National Museum of Costa Rica, who argues that museums must play a role in the polemics of a country and its socio-economic development. Her efforts were to make museums more relevant and assessable to the Costa Rican public in order to place the museum at the service of the nation, its people., its democratic traditions, and its Constitution of 1948 (Bpylan, 1992: 9). However, the attitude that San Roman adopts for the Costa Rican publics conflicts with the British museums movement of retaining a strictly non-political and non-controversial ‘balance’. As Boylan (1992: 9) further explains this ‘balance’ can show a massive bias in favour of the political middle-class social values. On the other hand, Clifford uses Pratt’s notion of ‘contact zones’ and argues that when museums are seen as ‘contact zones’ “their organising structure as a ‘collection’ becomes an ongoing historical, political and moral ‘relationship’ – a power-charged set of exchanges of push and pull’ (Clifford, 1997: 192). Clifford extends Pratt’s notion of the ‘conflict zone’ to include cultural relations within the same state, region or city (ibid: 204). Museums become the places in which separate communities, present in the same area, interact, to the extent that museums are understood to be interacting with these communities “rather than simply educating or edifying a public, they begin to operate – consciously

107

and at times self-critically – in contact histories” (ibid). Thus, Clifford argues a museum should show the different publics that comprise a community to interact with each other while they are engaged with the museum’s collections and its resources. He urges museologists to move beyond mere consultation with concerned groups about an exhibition after the curatorial vision is firmly in place. He warns that unless this effort is made, and until museums draw a wider range of historical experiences and political agendas into the designing of the actual exhibitions and the collections that are held in trust “they will be perceived as merely paternalistic by the people whose contact history with museums has been one of exclusion and condescension” (Ibid: 207-208). We have tried to suggest some practical ways to bridge the gap between museums and their audiences by taking into account Nick Merriman’s suggestions that are quite practical in comparison with the overtly political ideas of Lorean San Roman and James Clifford1. The three authors share a common denominator, that of challenging the traditional conceptions of a museum. Museums do not have to be temples of material culture, where precious artefacts are put on display for consumption by passive visitors. They have the potential to be tools for social, economic and political change, either on a national level or among different communities in the same regions. This is a rather idealistic role for museums, but it is needed in this new millennium. Unfortunately, this paper must end by questioning whether curators are genuinely interest in engaging the public with museum activities or their recent efforts to make their institutions more accessible and relevant have been motivated by a basic desire for self-preservation. In this regard, museums must work to promote respect and understanding for cultural diversity in all spheres of their activities and should reflect the multiculturalism of their respective communities. Conclusion: the need to cater for the needs of museum audiences The museum as an institution represents concepts, ideas, theories and audiences, through material culture. In this the artefacts come to ‘symbolise’ what is to be represented. Material culture in the museum space is also made to ‘stand in’ in the sense that it is ‘representative of’, a sample, as type specimens or a particular group of people (Tahan, 2004: 209). When people enter the museum, they are not meant to leave their cultures or their identities in the cloakroom, nor are they expected to respond passively to the exhibits; indeed they should interpret museum exhibitions through their prior experiences and the culturally learned beliefs, values and perceptual skills that they bring with them (Karp, 1992: 3). Considering that the museums are spaces in which alternative meaning(s) reside, visitors can actively engage in creating their own understanding and interpretation of exhibits. Adknowledgements I would like to thank the editors of ICFOM Study Series for giving me the opportunity to discuss the topic ‘Museology and Audience’. In particular, I am grateful to Dr. Hildegard K. Vieregg and Dr. Ann Davis. This paper is dedicated to two of my closes friends: Ammara Durrani for her moral support and comradeship and Alexander Keese for his constant care and encouragement. Bibliography Alexander, E. P. 1979. Museums in Motion: An introduction to the History and Functions of Museums.

Nashville: American Association for State and Local History.

Boylan, P. (ed). 1992. Museums 2000: Politics, people, professionals and profit. London: Routledge / Museums Association.

1 It is not possible for us to review all the work of academics and museologists who have discussed extensively museums andtheir visitors. We have selected just a few to give a glimpse of ways of bridging such a gap.

108

Boylan, P. 1992. “Museums 2000 and the future of museums”, in Boylan, P. (ed). 1992. Museums 2000: Politics, people, professionals and profit. London: Routledge / Museums Association.

Clifford, J. 1997. Routes, Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Cnetury. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University.

Edson, G. and Dean, D. 1994. The Handbook for Museums. London: Routledge.

ICOM, 2004. ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums http://icom.museum/ethics.html

Karp, I., Kreamer, C.M. and Lavine,S.D. (eds.) 1992. Museums and Communities. The politics of Public Culture. Washington D.C. and London: Smithsoian Institution Press.

Karp, I. 1992. “Introduction: Museums and Communities: the politics of public culture”. In Karp, I., Kreamer, C.M. and Lavine,S.D. (eds.) 1992. Museums and Communities. The politics of Public Culture. Washington D.C. and London: Smithsoian Institution Press.

Kreps, C. 2003. Liberating Culture: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Museums, Curation, and Heritage Preservation. London: Routledge.

Mayrand, P. 1985. “The new museology proclaimed” Museum 37 (148): 200-201.

Merriman, N. 1992. Beyond the Glass Case: the past, the heritage and the public. London: Leicester University Press.

Pearce, S.M. 1990. Archaeological Curatorship. London, Leicester University Press.

San Roman, L. “Politics, and the role of Museums in the Rescue of Identity”, in Boylan, P. (ed). 1992. Museums 2000: Politics, people, professionals and profit. London: Routledge / Museums Association.

Tahan, L.G. 2004. Archaeological Museums in Lebanon> A State for Colonial and Post-Colonial Allegories. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Department of Archaeology: University of Cambridge.

109

The Status of the Audience Between Museology and Science

Hildegard K. Vieregg – Germany

_________________________________________________________ Introduction Cultural assets and a cultural environment are accompanying circumstances on the daily life. Therefore the slogan ”Education may be considered the foremost purpose of the museum” – embedded in Encyclopaedia Britannica – may be understood in regard to the Museum: The Museum is able to give various inputs to life-long learning, to arouse attention and reflection about those cultural assets and in regard to the mediation of cultural heritage. Life-long learning is not only a matter on the Audience but rather more a topic which as a consequence of globalization is discussed since years on the occasion of scientific symposia by the Committees of International Council of Museums. Therefore in this context the main focus and a particular accent is directed to the status of Museology/the Museum in the process of education – in regard to the Audience. This article is dealing with 1. Historic interrelationship between Museum, Museology and Audience 2. The relationship between Museum and Audience at present time 3. The Museum and the quality of education 4. Mission – Vision - Values 1. Historic interrelationship between Museum, Museology and Audience The Museum is often signified as “institution of a collective and social memory” (Fliedl). Therefore it is an institution of specific qualities as well as a place of learning. Already in the 19th century was a tendency to take the educated classes - teenagers as well as adults - to the Museums. This results from many scientific sources. The Prussian state chancellor von Hardenberg focussed already on the occasion of the Legislative Assembly of the “Museum Vaterländischer Altertümer” (1820), a forerunner of “Rheinisches Landesmuseum Bonn” on the necessity to stimulate the senses concerning the “vaterländischer Boden” and the history of former times1 in order to serve not only the education of the youth but also the historic and museological sciences and the preservation of excellent monuments. (At present important functions of the Museum) In a similar way the Bavarian King Maximilian II. expressed his particular matter of concern regarding to tasks on the education and promotion of artists, craftsmen and particularly the young people. By the end of 19th century several art historians and historians gained in importance on the one hand because of the variety of their ideas in regard to the Museum, and on the other hand to possible target groups of Audience and the quality of Museum visits. Alfred Lichtwark, an excellent representative in the co-operation between Art-Museums and schools developed brilliant ideas in regard to “exercises on closer examination of works of art”2. One of his most important aims was to develop a stimulating atmosphere for the Audience in Museums of different type – particularly the Art Museum. He expounded the ideas on the occasion of “12. Konferenz für Arbeiter-Wohlfahrtseinrichtungen Berlin” in Mannheim (1903) to an interested Audience. On of the most essential ideas of Alfred Lichtwark in order to prepare the Museums for Audience was

1Vieregg, Hildegard: Landes-, Regional- und Heimatmuseen in ihrer Beziehung zur Schule. In: Museums-Pädagogisches Zentrum (Ed.): Museumspädagogik für die Schule. München 1998. S. 51-70. 2 Lichtwark, Alfred: Übungen im Betrachten von Kunstwerken. Nach Versuchen mit einer Schulklasse herausgegeben von der Lehrervereinigung zur Pflege künstlerischer Bildung. Berlin 15-18 1922.

110

to involve the figures of Reform Pedagogy. Those thoughts are explained in different programmatic essays.3 Although these started from the interrelationship between Museum, schools and the public – thea were often declared as the causes for the Movement of Art - they inspired in a high degree the nature and development of Museum and Museology as a whole. The deliberations of Alfred Lichtwark aimed particularly to the development of the capability as to a closer examination of works of art – instead of a subject only explained by a teacher. His intention included much more: the idea to grasp a work of art, to express the expectations, the “reading” of questions, discovering significant points, and besides, the finding out of points specifically by the senses and feelings.4 His aim was to attain an integral approach on aesthetic-cultural education. Another expectation of Lichtwark was a manifold outcome in regard to different groups in society. Philipp Hofmann, a High-school-teacher, developed in an excellent way the co-operation between Museums of Cultural History, schools and other educational institutions. He elaborated a kind of synopsis between the exhibits and the curriculum for different types of museum: Archaeological Museums, Museums of Antique History, Art Museums. In his publication “Systematic notices for Museums in Munich” he inspired teachers and Museum staff in regard to the enlargement of cultural heritage to a broader Audience in interrelationship with schools. This pioneer publication is an example for other educational institutions which deal with potential Audience in Museums, too: seniors, migrants, families ….5 Georg Kerschensteiner, an excellent promoter of the world-wide known “Deutsches Museum” in Munich, dealt particularly with the History of Natural Science and Techniques as museological education. He also created the “Arbeitsschule” – a kind of practical approach to the Museum. In this concern he intended to co-ordinate the intellectual interests of the Audience with practical skills and experimentation – as e.g. in “Deutsches Museum”. These different examples – in regard to an Art Museum (Lichtwark), Museums of Cultural History (Hofmann) and a Museum on the History of Techniques (Kerschensteiner) - make clear how policy in the Reform of Education endeavoured to improve the quality of education by museum visits. In this concern different target groups of the Audience as well as Museums of different typology were involved. Starting from both this knowledge and the necessity to involve all types of Museum related to the Audience, it seems to be a basis-intention to associate the codes of quality related to the contents of Museums with educational efficiency, to work with the Audience in an innovative, co-operative and creative way and to promote also aesthetic education. 2. The relationship between Museum and Audience at the present time Museology provides the scientific background for the Museum also at the present. Museums are scientific and educational institutions at the same time. Exhibits challenge on the one hand presentation, presentation on the other hand the Audience. In this way is intended to put certain contents by exhibits, an adequate context and by adequate media to the visitors. Not to forget: The Museum is also a place of event. (Except: exclusively “entertainment”, “Disneylandisation” and “Guggenheimisation”). Rather a Museum should become to a place of experience by the originals, the authentic era, creative impulses, the inclusion of the visitors, a visitor-friendly presentation and personal dialogue. A possible Audience should invited for visits to a museum according to the individual interest and curiosity – and on the basis of habit. This may be the case e.g. in regard to a Museum of Ethnology or a Museum of World Cultures and concerning the individual knowledge or interest in foreign countries and cultures. Besides the visitor should be guided to new facts, e.g. by support of digital media that enable individual and inter-active experiences additionally to the objects.. Museums are responsible to serve and educate the Audience. Regarded to the typological variety and

3 Lichtwark, Alfred: Drei Programme. Berlin 21902. 4 Lichtwark, Alfred: Übungen im betrachten von Kunstwerken. p. 21 5 Hofmann, Philipp: Pädagogisch-systematischer Wegweiser durch die Münchener Museen, für Schule, Elternhaus und Schüler. Mit einer pädagogischen Einleitung. München 1912./ Vieregg, Hildegard: Kooperation von Schulen und Museen in Bayern – historischer Rückblick. Modell auch für Sachsen ? In: Sächsischer Museumsbund e.V.: Informationen des Sächsischen Museumsbundes, Nr. 19. Dresden/ Weißbach 1999. S. 94-106.

111

the dissemination they are even one of the most important educational institutions which enable life-long learning – also for an un-experienced Audience.6 Besides they are institutions responsible to all groups of society. Therefore it is not sufficient to prepare only scientific information. Rather much more Museums should prepare and present topics and exhibits which can help to gain competence, to promote an ethic way of life, to shape the character and to reflect opinions. While in a contribution related to education by Museums (1999) one could read that Museum- education created particularly the interrelationship between the “Museum and the Real World”, at present times also “the virtual world” has to be included. In so far also the “virtual world” and the “virtual environment” gained importance concerning educational and didactic measures in the Museum. 3. The Museum and the quality of education What makes the quality of education in the Museum? Since several years different scientific reports dealt with the quality of education and learning in Museums. A particular report was dedicated to the so-called key-workers who promoted the quality and particularly guaranteed the contact to the Audience. This was a project financed by EU (European Union) – budget.7 It was dedicated to 1650 museums in six different countries of the Republic of Ireland, Luxemburg, Austria, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom. One of the aims of the research was to exaymine in which way European Museums would realize the role of “keyworkers” in regard to the communication with the public. Another aim was to find out how Museums in Europe are acting additionally to their traditional role in the following face: - concerning the involvement of specific educational institutions and particular target groups - judging the quality of offers in the Museum - educating “keyworkers” in regard to specific tasks in the educational sphere. Keyworkers are meant as professional or free-lanced mediators who are acting as contact between the institution Museum and different groups of adults and youth. “keyworkers” are understood on the one hand as individuals in adult education or social workers (in regard to youth, seniors, women, migrants), and on the other hand as those who are dealing with the Museum in the frame of a profession (“creative artists”) or those who use the Museum for informal processes of learning (e.g. with friends or members of the own family). Particularly, experts on a particular subject – as e.g. specialists, teachers, museum-educators – are meant as “keyworkers”. Those “keyworkers are in a specific way the apparently most adequate “mediators” related to an un-experienced Audience. The quality problem Already in the past an important didactic approach referred to the visit to a Museum not as a singular event. Rather related to a place of life-long learning the Museum is an ideal scene where objects of cultural, artistic, historic and ethnological importance meet as objective evidences of the past. The Audience should become involved in this process of education. In this concern the closer examination of exhibits should be connected with information, objective mediation and interpretation, the recognition of contexts and multi-dimensional ways of experience. Emotional and cognitive recognition and studying authentic objects usually enable a profound strengthened experience and encounter to the object. That challenges on the one hand the quality of “input”, and on the other hand the quality of “exposition”. Finally, the realization is on the responsibility of museum-educators/keyworkers related to the Audience at the same time. Initiated by various methods an individual examination should be reached. In this concern dialogue and discussion as well as interactivity play an important role. Interactivity means different aspects, as e.g. to use ”objects to touch”, to realize an archaeological experiment, to

6 Rump, Hans-Uwe: Museumspädagogik zum Nutzen von Schule und Museum. p. 19. 7 Büro für Kulturvermittlung (Hg.): Museen, „keyworker“ und lebensbegleitendes Lernen. Ergebnisse einer Fragebogenerhebung vom Frühjahr 1999. Durchgeführt im Rahmen des gleichnamigen Projekts, gefördert aus dem Socrates-Budget der EU. Übersetzung aus dem Englischen: Gabriele Stöger. Wien 1999.

112

try techniques, to respond to a work of art by music or dancing – or starting from a work of art to create an individual creative transfer. Interactivity may also be reached by virtual arrangements or methods. However, it is very important to use a certain amount of scope and to shape processes of learning in such a way that available knowledge becomes enriched. Therefore usual habits of learning and perception should be involved. Although Museum educators/ keyworkers almost exclusively plead for personal mediation one should think about a sensible involvement of media according to the aims of innovation and education. In this concern the qualities of input, realization and results are unalienable. The most simple arrangements seem to be information systems for the visitors – so called PDA (Personal Digital Assistant) installations – that supply in the same way authentic documents, graphics, videos and spoken information and above that enable various levels of information and abstraction.8 Starting from this point various thematic and didactic modifications in regard to different target groups are possible to become deduced – not only a “free-lanced” Museum-tour. Deriving from this the quality of learning may be improved probably by a computer-supported information system: This means a museum should enable various possibilities of experience – according to the individual talent and interest of the Audience. In this concern both the “virtual environment” and the interactive approach are a particular opportunity to promote the capability of the educational motivation and finally to play an important role in regard to the increasing quality of learning. Particularly the orientation regarding quality is of great importance because of the esteem concerning all social groups by the museum and the “society of knowledge”. The increasing of quality may probably arouse from the attachment of suitable media that create an interactive and interdisciplinary relationship to the former setting of authentic objects (“originals”). Museums in this concern should be conscious that the evaluation of the increase in quality is not a particular task rather more should be an aim intended continuously. What is accordingly a feature of quality in regard to the Audience – between Science and Museum? - It is an empirical science familiarized with the way of life of the Audience and specific experiences of all target groups of the Museum. - It means the knowledge about the interests of the Audience as well as the social background. - It challenges up-to-date and visitor-oriented attractive kinds of “mediation” – as well in Museum-presentation as by professionals put in charge of the group. - It faces to different individual expectations of the Audience as well as to stimulation and interactive methods. -It focuses on possibilities of theories of action and the capability of a certain Audience.

- It should provide fields of experimentation and examination for everybody who visits a Museum.

- It should also provide interrelationships between the museal, real and virtual world in view of the

circumstances of communication-technologies.

- It should come up to the expectations of a multi-cultural society and enable personality development by the chances of Museums.

4. Mission – Vision – Values

Finally, it is focused on the terms of a marketing-strategy that could be modified regarding to the quality of Museum communication: “Mission – Vision – Values”

Firstly: “Mission” in this concern is defining aims and target-groups of the Museum (e.g. the variety of ethnic groups) and the final result to the social life.

8 Krüger, Antonio: Kleinstcomputer für ein ganz neues Erleben von Ausstellungen. In: Museum Aktuell (Museen im Saarland). Nr. 84. Sept. 2002. p. 3553.

113

Secondly: ”Vision” is directed to guidelines, philosophy and strategy in the future.

Finally: ”Values” signifies the “Ethic catalogue” as a very important manifestation of Museum-Culture.9

Bibliography

Billmann, Hans-Joachim: Multimedia in Museen. Neue Formen der Präsentation – neue Aufgaben der Museumspädagogik. Bremen 2000.

Birker, Karl: Die deutschen Arbeiterbildungsvereine 1840 – 1870. Berlin 1973.

Bitgood, Steve: Variables influencing visitor behaviour. Physical qualities of the exhibit ob-ject/species. In: visitors behaviour. V. 1. 1986. N. 1. p. 5.

Bitgood, Stephen/Roper, James T./Benefield, Arlene (Eds.): Visitor Studies – 1988. Theory, Research, and Practice. Proceedings of the First Annual Visitor Studies Conference. Jack-sonville, Alabama USA 1988.

Bitgood, Stephen/Benefield, Arlene/Patterson, Donald (Eds.): Visitor Studies. Theory, Re-search, and Practice. Volume 2. Proceedings of the 1989 Visitor Studies Conference. Jack-sonville, Alabama USA 1989.

Bitgood, Stephen/Thompson, Donald: How do people perceive museums, parks, and zoos? In: Visitor behaviour. V. 2. 1987. N. 3. pp. 9 – 10.

Böhmert, Victor: Die kulturelle und soziale Tätigkeit des Dresdener Vereins Volkswohl von 1888– 1913. In: Arbeiterfreund /Zeitschrift). 51 Jg. Dresden 1913, S. 392 – 403.

Borhegyi, Stephan F./Hanson, Irene (Eds.): The museum visitor. Milwaukee, Wisconsin 1968. (Milwaukee Public Museum. Publications in Museology 39).

Büro für Kulturvermittlung (Hg.): Museen, „keyworker“ und lebensbegleitendes Lernen. Ergebnisse einer Fragebogenerhebung vom Frühjahr 1999. Durchgeführt im Namen des gleichnamigen Projekts, gefördert aus dem Socrates-Budget der EU. Übersetzung aus dem Englischen: Gabriele Stöger. Wien 1999.

Bunning, Richard L.: „Perspektive on the Museum Role in Community Adult Education“. In: Curator. Vol. 17 (1), March. 74, pp. 56 – 63.

Center of Museum: Lifelong learning/adult Audiences. Source Education Book 1. George Wa-shington University. Washington D.C. 1978.

Collins, Zipporah W. (Hg.): Museums, adults and the humanities. A guide for educational pro-gramming. Washington D.C. 1981.

Cameron, Duncan: Problems in the language of Museum Interpretation. In: The Museums in the Service of Man Today and Tomorrow. ICOM-Report. Paris 1971, pp. 89 – 99.

Draper, L.: Partners in learning: how social ties between visitors enhance exploration of museum environment. In: Western Museums Conference Newsletter 1987 (2), pp. 6 – 9.

Feidel-Mertz, Hildegard: Das aktive Publikum. In: Bimmer, Andreas; Wolzogen, Heinrich C. u. a. (Hg.), Museumsarbeit. Gießen 1980. (Hessische Blätter für Volks- und Kulturforschung 10), S. 38 – 61.

Gemmingen, Ulla v.: Interkulturelle Museumspädagogik. In: Böhle, Reinhart C. Möglichkeiten der interkulturellen ästhetischen Erziehung in Theorie und Praxis. Bericht zum Symposion an der Hochschule der Künste Berlin. Frankfurt/Main 1993, S. 118 – 140.

Grote, Andreas: Arbeiter in die Museen. In: Berliner Museen. 3. Folge. Beiheft 1975. Museums-pädagogik, S. 2 – 4.

Hood, Marilyn G.: Staying away: why people choose not to visit museums. In: Museum News 61 (4) 1983, pp. 50 – 57.

9 ICOM: Code of Ethics for Museums. Paris 2002.

114

Horn, Adrienne: The Adult tour dilemma. In. Nichols, Susan K. (Ed.): Museums Education An-theology 1973 – 1983. Perspectives on informal learning. A decade of Roundtable Reports. Washington D. C. 1984, pp. 87 – 90.

ICOM/ International Council of Museums: Código de Deontología des ICOM para los Museos. Paris 2002. International Council of Museums (ICOM): The Museum in the Service of Man Today and To-morrow. Paris 1972. In: Curator. V. 31. 1988, pp. 166 – 177.

Kuntz, Andreas: Das Museum als Volksbildungsstätte. Museumskonzeptionen in der deutschen Volksbildungsbewegung 1871 – 1918. Münster/ New York 1996. Lichtwark, Alfred: Derselbe: Museen als Bildungsstätten. In: Die Museen als Volksbildungsstätten. Ergebnisse der 12. Konferenz der Centralstelle für Arbeiter-Wohlfahrtseinrichtungen. Berlin 1904. S. 6-13. Lohr, Rita: Adult education and the museum. In: ICOM Education 10 1982/83, pp. 25 – 26.

Nichols, Susan a.o. (Eds.): Museum Education anthology. Perspectives on Informal Learning. A. Decade of Roundtable Reports. Washington D.C. 1984.

Nichols, Susan a.o. (Eds.): Issue devoted to “The adult tour dilemma”. In: Roundtable Repots. 4 (4) 1979.

Otto, Gunter: Kommunikation im Museum. Schmeer-Sturm, M. L.; Thinesse-Demel, H.; Ulbricht, K.; Vieregg, H. (Hg.): Museumspädagogik. Grundlagen und Praxisberichte. Baltmannswei-ler 1990, S. 24 – 36.

Reisig, Gerd: Das Museum als Öffentlichkeitsform und Bildungsträger bürgerlicher Kultur. Diss. Frankfurt 1975.

Riviére, G. H.: Role of Museums in Adult Education for Developing Countries: UNESCO Sympo-sium Organised by ICOM. Malacca, Dec. 14 – 18. 1972. ICOM, Regional Agency. New Del- hi 1873.

Riviére, G. H.: “Role of Museums in Adult Education for Development.” In: News Letter. ICOM Vol. 1 (3) 1973, pp. 37 – 38.

Rüger, Christoph B.: Bundesregierung zum Bildungsauftrag der Museen. In: Museumskunde. Hg. vom Vorstand des Deutschen Museumsbundes e.V. Bd. 53. H.2. Frankfurt 1988. S. 109-112. Sastre, Aagi: Museums, Educational-Innovation and International Co-Operation. In: MUSEUM. V. 41. Nr. 2 1989, pp. 80 – 83.

Schmeer-Sturm, Marie-L.: Museumspädagogik in der Erwachsenenbildung. In: Erwachsenenbildung; 4. 1987, S. 218 – 221.

Seydewitz, Max: Neue Methoden zur Heranführung der Werktätigen an die Schätze der Weltkultur. In: Jahrbuch der Staatlichen Kunstsammlungen Dresden. 1960, S. 39 – 48.

Treinen, Heiner: Das Museum als Massenmedium – Besucherstrukturen, Besucherinteresse und Museumsgestaltung. In: ICOM/CECA. Sektion für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland und West Berlin (Hg.). In: Museumspädagogik. Museumsarchitektur für den Besucher. Hanno-ver 1981, S. 13 – 32.

Vieregg, Hildegard: Gedanken zur Vermittlung von Weltkulturen in ethnologischen Museen. In: Standbein – Spielbein. Bundesverband für Museumspädagogik (Hg.): No. 69, August 2004. pp.4-13.

Vieregg, Hildegard/Schmeer-Sturm, Marie Louise u.a. (Hg.): Museumspädagogik in neuer Sicht – Erwachsenenbildung im Museum. 2 Bde. Baltmannsweiler 1994. Zacharias, Wolfgang (Hg.): Interaktiv. Medienökologie zwischen sinnenreich und Cyberspace. Neue multimediale Spiel- und Lernumwelten für Kinder und Jugendliche. München 2000.

Zacher, Wilhelm: Kunstmuseen Düsseldorf. Das Kunstmuseum und sein Publikum. Grundsätzliche Überlegungen zur museumspädagogischen Praxis. Düsseldorf 1983.

115

The Subjects of the Museum and the Public as a Subject

Marília X. Cury - Brazil

Introduction – The subjects of the museum

We can say that the museological communication is effective only when the discourse of the museum is incorporated by the visitor and integrated to his quotidian in the form of a new discourse. The public of museum appropriate of the museological discourse, (re) elaborate it, and then creates and diffuses a new discourse, and the process begins again, happening that others will take possession of this new discourse, and the whole history will be repeated. It is more than a process, it is a dynamic, and are several the subjects participating of it. The public are some of the various subjects of the museum. In the other end there is the creator of the object − that in the museum acquired a museological status at the time of his insertion in a new symbolic universe − and his users. In the museum there are the subjects, promoters of the musealization − the searcher, the documentalist, the conservator, the museologist and the educator, among others composing the institution human resources. Are subjects all those professionals of museum that actuate collecting, conserving, documenting, and communicating, that participate actively in the construction of the multiples − and sometimes fragmentary − senses being attributed consciously and successively during the object museological trajectory. These actors participate also in the construction of the museological discourse that feeds the discourses of communication.

The public, the author, and the user of the object, and the professional of museum are all subjects, and many times these subjects are far from each other, geographic or culturally; they exist at present or existed in the past and not always they get together, for not always they are physically present in the museum, but all of them are subjects because they participate of the patrimonial object (re)signification and of the circulation of signification (CURY, 2004b, [p. 4]).

To displace the attentions to the reception – that is, to the public − made equally displace our look to all subjects of the process of communication. Though unveiling the public as a subject is of vital importance to the museological communication contemporaneous understanding, I consider also vital to attribute to the professional of museum the same consideration. I understand that the symmetry of roles must be observed in order not to build an image to one in detriment of the other. The museum is a space of numberless subjects, of the past and of the present, from here and from other places, of different cultures, with the same point of view or with diverging and different positions. When admitting that there is a subject, many others appear. A subject is made with his relation with the other, we made subjects of ourselves through the interaction with another subject, this, because the communication provokes the establishment of links and links are only possible with the communication of senses. Better saying, we are not subjects by ourselves and not (re)signify by ourselves, we (re)signify with others, it is a mutual actuation, shared between the public and the museum.

We − creator, producer, user, public, professionals − participate of the museological communication process in different positions, and these positions define how we make ourselves subjects.

The public as a subject

To the public was reserved the role of writer because they participate as creators of the museological discourse. To create and to write supplants the role for quite a long time attributed to the public of readers-decoders, because by reading they interpret and by interpreting they recreate. With relation to this, Cury (2003, p. 49-50) speaks about her experience as coordinator of expositions:

The exposition was meant to demand something from the public: the public should be constantly challenged, invited to effectively participate of the exposition. We have never caught a glimpse of an exposition in which the persons would receive

116

passively the information or would be placed in front of an object without understanding its importance within its cultural and social context. We were sure about longing for an exposition in which the public could have, beyond an active participation, a participative quality in a cognitive dimension.

The exposition and the expositive discourse seemed to be organized in such a way as to make possible to the public the lecture of what was being exposed and that, at the end of visitation, the public could have a set of articulated information concerning the pre-colonial past.

Participative quality in a cognitive dimension means to have the public as readers, and the exposition as a readable text, of which the public, during their visit, could have the comprehension of the whole […].

It was also our desire that the public, after their participation as readers, could have a creative participation, with the purpose of being able to take possession of the Exposition and perceive the possible connections [premeditated in this manner]. The museological project pointed to the possibility of connections among all modules [conceptual]. Starting from the lecture concerning what was being exposed, the public would make the connections, recreating the expositive discourse. With this creative participation, the visitor would no longer actuate as reader and would begin to be author of the exposition and writer of the expositive discourse.

Frayze-Pereira sets off that it is the lecture that makes concrete a work as such and approximates two poles − the emitter and the receiver – and two distinct universes. "In this sense, it is important to know the vision of the spectator with relation to a public exposition of 'art of mad men' [object of study of the searcher], listen the speech of the silent about the silenced and wait for what may be thought about starting from this point" (1987, p. 7). The author puts in evidence that in the act of lecture there is recreation (idem, p. 12). Such being the case, we can say that there are three participations united among them: the lecture, the interpretation, and the recreation. Are three distinct actions occurring successively and they are indissociable: there is no lecture without interpretation (on the contrary, there would be no lecture in fact) and there is no interpretation without lecture (that is what makes possible the interpretation) and the interpretation in itself is recreation. We make here a play of ideas among lecture, interpretation, and creation to reaffirm what was said by Ferrari: "To know how to read today does not implies in decoding words. To know how to read today is to produce sense. This is a process that one learns, but principally, that has to be exercised with critical spirit" (1999: Summary). Ferrari amplifies the play of ideas: units to the lecture and to the interpretation, the (re)signification. These actions are indissociable in the reception realized by individuals-subjects.

For Frayze-Pereira, the public-interpreters interrogate in such a manner as to obtain from a work a more revealing answer for him, the public. He understands that a work has in itself the potentiality to stir up new significations, instead of containing in itself multiple significations that need to be deciphered and discovered by the spectator (1987, p. 209). For the author, "[...] the lecture of a work is task and not deciphering, [...] is instauration of the sense and not mere revealing a signification believed to be already deposed in itself in the work [...]" (idem, p. 213).

Hooper-Greenhill (2001b, [p.9]), celebrated searcher in museology, defends that "Within museums that genuinely consider and plan for the experience of visitors, the concept of meaning-making has rapidly become influential, and there is more of an understanding that meaning is not fixed or singular, but fluid and plural.”

Valente gives emphasis to the figure of the visitor when "penetrating the relation visitor/museum, starting from the significances and representations being processed in it [...]". In fact, relations of production and change of significations are being processed dynamically among several subjects. "The interpretative tendency is centered in the search of significations of social actions that are in the woof of relations" (1995, p. 109). "The importance of the investigation [of reception], therefore, resides in the captation of the several significations attributed to the exposition by visitors" (idem, p. 125).

Anthropology and sociology brought to museums the notion of visiting public as subject, when the professional of museum appealed to these areas to replace the behaviourist posture dominating in the educational, expositive, and, consequently, evaluative processes. For Hooper-Greenhill, the replacement would be inevitable because the behaviourism has its root in the observation of the

117

animal and things reactions while the anthropology and sociology have their roots in the observation of men (1996, p. 81-82).

We know today that the public are subject of their knowledge construction – inclusive in museums −, and, therefore, of their own apprenticeship inside and outside this institution. For that, educative situations are turned to apprenticeship and this occurs with the public experience that, for their qualities, it is an esthetic experience. According to Dewey, an experience of quality is complete and conscious, integrated and delimitated, upright, in such a manner as to reach the consummation. "Such an experience is a whole and brings in it its proper individualizing quality and its self-sufficiency" (DEWEY, 1990, p. 247), and that attends the principles of continuity and interaction proposed by the philosopher, that is, "every experience both takes up something from those which have gone before and modifies in some way the quality of those which come after” connected to their [of the public] previous experiences and that may influence positively their future experiences" (DEWEY1 apud ANSBACHER, 1998, p. 44).

To treat the visit to museums as an experience opens many horizons and discoveries as to the role of the public in the museum institution, in accordance with Eilean Hooper-Greenhill (2001b, p. 8):

Within museums, once the importance of the experience of the visitor is acknowledged, questions begin to be asked about what they have learnt. Frequently, the answers are surprising, and often they are very little to do with learning information. Exhibitions are produced to communicate meaningful visual and textual statements, but there is no guarantee that the intended meaning will be achieved. Visitors to museum exhibitions respond in diverse ways. They may or may not perceive the intended meaning, and perceiving them, they may or may not agree with them, find them interesting, or pay attention to them.

"Visitors use their own strategies of interpretation in order to make sense of the displays they encounter during their museums visits” (HOOPER-GREENHILL, 2001c, [p. 3]). These interpretative strategies are mounted by the public starting from their own repertoire of knowledge, life and values. In interaction with the exposition, the public mobilizes from their experience of life the aspects for their interpretation. One of the ingredients for the interpretation is the public imagination that results of the emotional involving of the visitor with the exposition, mediated by his biography. Following this reasoning it is easy to understand that starting from their cognitive map the public action circulates naturally between the acceptation and the rejection of a discourse. And we cannot deny that to reject is action of a subject as much as to accept.

Nevertheless, the public as subject are plural and creative − because they are not tied to closed interpretative aspects −, and creative − because, when in interaction with the museum, activate their repertoire of life and creates, in Hooper−Greenhill’s conception:

Visitors` processes of interpretation are not singular, but multiple, and they proceed from a range of starting points. According to the role being played by the visitor at the time, (parent, scholar, tour-guide, artist, recluse) different aspects of potential meaning will be mobilized from the materials provided by the museum. Meaning is produced by museum visitors from their own point of view, using whatever skills and knowledge they may have, according to the contingent demands of the moment, and in response to the experience offered by the museum. (HOOPER-GREENHILL, 2001c, [p. 3]).

In this line of thought, Silverstone believes that "the meaning of an object continues in the imaginative work of the visitor who brings to it his or her own agenda, experiences and feelings” (1994, p. 164). In the process of musealization the objects are removed from the commercial circuit and are inserted in a new symbolic universe, suffering several actions of signification by many specialists of museum, principally of the investigator, professional that studies the collections, and of the museologist and of the educator, professionals that formulate the expositive or educative discourses or the communicational discourse. Each one in his position aggregates significance to the musealized cultural patrimony, and for this reason they are curators. This curatorial action proceeds in the process of communication, because "[…] the meaning of an object or of an exhibition is significantly dependent on the ´curatorial` work of the visitor in which objects are reinscribed into a personal culture of memory

1 DEWEY, John. Experience and education. Kappa Delta Pi: Currently available as a Simon & Schuster Touchstone edition, New York, 1938. p. 35.

118

and experience” (SILVERSTONE, 1994, p. 165). In this manner, the public are curators too. We are all curators in different positions: researcher, museologist, educator, and public. Our work, inclusive that of the public, is to learn to be a curator, learn to construct significations starting from an inferential logic.

Hooper-Greenhill (2001c, [p. 6]) also sees the public as curators in face of an experience offered to her. She investigates about which would be the performance of the visitors in the museological communication, and she herself gives the answer:

They are expected to enter fully into multiple learning processes that are designed to enable preferred learning styles to be used, that encourage links to prior knowledge, that encourage personalization of their visit and their response. They are encouraged to act as co-curators of the learning process and often of the display too.

Considering that the interpretation and the (re) signification of an exposition involves the use of the space, Cristina Freire puts in evidence the spatial action of the public-subject in her research. "Such analysis revealed that the reception of works leads to the relation perception/space and implies affective answers that configurate a particular manner of looking" (1990, Summary). In succession the researcher recognizes:

[...] the analysis, founded in the Phenomenology, cuts away in the speeches of the interviewed subjects [the public] themes properly perceptual, connected to look-the-works-in-the-exposition, always with a view to the apprehension of the sense of this look and of the resulting singular visions. That is, it treats about an analysis aiming at apprehending the general without desisting of the particular perspectives [...] in the interior of the sensible experience (FREIRE, 1990, p. 38).

Cristina Freire, in the research of reception she developed, made use of the thematic analysis that places the public as a subject of the research about the dynamic established among the work, the observer, and the local where the work is exposed (FREIRE, 1990, p. 53) and concludes that "there is a relation of co-existence between the space occupied by the work and the space of the spectator" (idem, p. 61). This relation is provoked by the exposition, but defined by the public that perceives two spaces, their space and that of the object, or a unique space, that of the object by which they feel themselves surrounded.

For Veron and Levasseur (1991, p. 40), an exposition is the use of the space by objects and its significations, space that the visitor will recognize by means of a proper walking for examination of what is exposed in terms of objects and ideas organized in the space. The authors suggest: "Du point de vue de la reconnaissance, le sujet visiteur procédera par dé-composition et re-composition de ce réseau d`étalement: il va, pourrait-on dire, se frayer son chemin. Il nous fallaic donc observer les comportements de visite”. I could complete saying that we should observe the public behaviour through the optics of their subjectivity when appropriating themselves of the physic, conceptual, and objectual space.

The spatial reference of Freire and that of Veron and Levasseur are alike, in a big measure, to the convictions of García Blanco (1999, p. 62)

Quizás el aspecto más relevante y el más significativo de este tipo de exposición [que tiene el visitante como referencia] es la ruptura entre el espacio expositivo y el espacio del recorrido, creándose una nueva dimensión espacial, la del espacio imaginario materializado y representado ficticiamente, dentro del cual el visitante es el actor principal.

As for the public interaction and expositive space, Bagnall (2003, p. 88) studied the relation of the public with a patrimonial site. The study was developed starting from the manners how the visitor associated the walking in the patrimonial space to his biographies and knowledge about the site and came to some reflections:

In particular, visitors required that the sites generate emotionally authentic responses. They required a factual certitude that could be employed as a resource, as a form of cultural capital. However, it was a cultural capital that was more fluid,

119

and more related to the everyday lives and life histories of the visitors than Bourdieu2 (1984) would allow.

Bagnall plays with the idea of authenticity. He uses it when making reference to the authenticity of the patrimonial good and to the authenticity of the act of interpreting the patrimony. The authentic interpretative act is legitimated by the public, being respected the individual and social biographies. It is an authentic (re)signification.

The physic capacity of an exposition is appropriated by the public and makes possible that the public interpret in a complex and different manner in relation to other visitors. Furthermore, “[…] that the relationship between visitors and the sites is based as much on emotion and imagination as it is on cognition." (BAGNALL, 2003, p. 87)

To walk through the exposition is to appropriate the space and time. When appropriating the space the public create a proper trajectory (circuit), and the appropriation of the time is expressed in the rhythm of visitation. The forms of appropriation of these two elements are of free-mind of the public. These two elements are constitutive of the exposition and of the interpretation and are essentials for the discursive-expositive narrative presented to the public for discussion. By appropriating the space and time, the public appropriate the expositive narrative and re-elaborates it:

After a visit to a museum, visitors reconstruct the experience narratively. This phenomenon is inevitable, because museum visitors always arrive with specific expectations and have specific experiences (whether museum-related or not). Visitors show specific reactions to the title of the exhibition, to the physical site, to the entrance and to the architecture of the museum building. They decide how to conduct the visit (alone or with others, making stops in order to look at specific objects) and use or ignore the parallel elements offered (guided visits, audio-visual projections). Finally, there comes a time when visitors reconstruct for themselves the museum experience. (ZAVALA, 1998, p. 83)

Following Zavala’s reasoning the visitor expectations, experiences, and reactions are constitutive of the exposition. “Este ideal responde a una configuración del visitante como sujeto activo, parte integrante de la exposición misma, sin el cual no habría exposición y que, en su ínter-actuación con la misma, le da su forma y contenido definitivo.” (GARCÍA BLANCO, 1999, p. 7).

The receptor is subject when making his lecture interpretative, action of the reception. The public-subject’s lecture is made starting from their context of life, of their quotidian. In this manner, the public lecture reveals micro-histories or subtexts and consists in one more version of a partial truth. The museological and expositive discourse is contextualized by itself – the public −, which searches for an inferential reason starting from what is presented, and makes re-lectures of traditions activating their contemporaneous look. The visitor interprets contextually and his interpretation is a reflection, he represents evaluating or he represents critically. He uses the language to think. Creates and/or feeds polemics when diverging and negotiating, is agent of his apprenticeship, acts subjectively and inter-subjectively, dialogically and politically because he socializes the sense, changes the differences (Zavala, [2003], p. 28-31). This is the subject we generically denominate of public.

The public that does not frequent museums, the not-visitor, is also subject, this because he “uses the museum”. The use occurs by the participation in the social construction of whatever is a museum, a construction occurring in the imaginary of this subject, but this imaginary surely gives a social form to this institution. The not-visitor has this participation and as it occurs must be investigated. The form given to the institution by this not-visitor making part of a museum audience could also be investigated. The action of the not-visitor of museums is already gaining space in the researches of audience of museums as in that by Nick Merriman (1997, p. 149-171) and in that by Brian Longhurst, Gaynor Bagnall and Mike Savage (2004, p. 104-124). For these last "the study of museum audiences can therefore indicate more that the processes of visiting per se. In taking this topic seriously, we have perhaps show how museums figure in the popular consciousness of everyday audience activity” (2004, p. 122).

By audience Bagnall (2003, p. 96-97) understands the regular public of museums, more the potential public, conglobating the visitor and the not-visitor. Bagnall explains that the term audience was incorporated by the museological field to follow the present researches of reception in several

2 BOURDIEU, P. Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984.

120

contexts, such as theatre and movie. Then, the visitor and the not-visitor make part of the audience and deserve to be considered in studies of reception, although in different manners.

In consequence, to visit or not visit a museum is a choice. Excluding some possible impediments (distance, financial resources), it is a choice made by the subject. And why did he make this choice? This is a fundamental question for the professionals of museums. To answer it is easy, but the doubt must be in the memorandum of our professional preoccupations. Eilean Hooper-Greenhill (2001a, [p. 5]) ponders about some of the motives of this visitors’ choice:

However, it [the subjectivities of the public] is the meaning constructed from an experience, or the anticipation of such meaning, that informs the decision to visit a museum or to stay away. For many that have not been successful learners, the overt educational remit of museums is not attractive, and for those who do not feel comfortable with formal social structures, the authoritative style of museum buildings and spaces do not offer the comfortable leisure pastime they seek. And for those whose histories are told from a perspective they find alien, the museum represents a space to avoid or to challenge.

The not-visitor subject knows, even if intuitively, that the museum is also his space and that its format must be reviewed. He is subject because he is constantly informing us about this and we have to be opened to his anxieties of citizen.

Referências Bibliográficas

ANSBACHER, TED. John Dewey’s experience and education: lessons for museums.

Curator, New York: American Museum of Natural History, v. 41, n. 1, p. 36-49, 1998. BAGNALL, Gaynor. Performance and performativity at heritage sites. Museum and Society, v. 1, n.

2, p. 87-103, 2003. Disponível em <http://www.le.ac.uk/museumstudies/m&s>. Acesso em: 20 nov. 2004.

CURY, Marília Xavier. Museologia e tolerância cultural. Perspectivas para uma cidadania mundial. In: ENCONTRO ANUAL DO ICOFOM LAM, n. 12. Salvador. 2003. Rio de Janeiro: Tacnet Cultural, 2004. 9 p. No prelo.

______. O projeto museológico da exposição Brasil 50 Mil Anos. In: ENCONTRO DE PROFISSIONAIS DE MUSEUS. A comunicação em questão: exposição e educação, propostas e compromissos. São Paulo; Brasília: MAE, USP: STJ, 2003. p. 45-60.

DEWEY, John. Tendo uma experiência. São Paulo: Abril, 1990. p. 246-263. (Os Pensadores).

FERRARI, Elly Aparecida Rozo Vaz Perez. Leitura de obra de arte contemporânea - o processo de leitura como construção de sentido nas atividades educativas da exposição Cachorros do MAC-USP. 1999. Dissertação (Mestrado em Artes) - Escola de Comunicações e Artes, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo.

FRAYZE-PEREIRA. João Augusto. Olho d'água: arte e loucura em exposição; a questão das leituras. 1987. 352 p. Tese (Doutorado em Ciências - Psicologia) - Instituto de Psicologia, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo.

FREIRE, Maria Cristina Machado. Além dos mapas. Os monumentos no imaginário urbano - um estudo na cidade de São Paulo. 1995. 218 p. Tese (Doutorado em Psicologia Social) - Instituto de Psicologia, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo.

______. Olhar passageiro - percepção e arte contemporânea na Bienal de São Paulo. 1990. 214 p. Dissertação (Mestrado em Psicologia Social) - Instituto de Psicologia, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo.

GARCÍA BLANCO. Ángela. La exposición, un medio de comunicación. Madrid: Ediciones Akal, 1999. 236 p. (Arte y Estética, 55).

121

HOOPER-GRENHILL, Eilean. Communication and communities in the post-museum - from metanarratives to constructed knowledge. In: NORDIC MUSEUMS LEADERSHIP PROGRAMME, June 2001a. Copenhagen. Disponível em <http://www.le.ac.uk/museumstudies/study/materials.htm>. Acesso em: 18 nov. 2004.

______. The re-birth of the museum. In: NORDIC MUSEUMS LEADERSHIP PROGRAMME, June 2001b. Copenhagen. <http://www.le.ac.uk/museumstudies/study/materials.htm>. [13 p.]. Acesso em: 18 nov. 2004.

______. The museum as teacher: the challenger of pedagogic change. In: FOLLOW THE GUIDES? NEW PERSPECTIVES FOR EDUCATIONAL GUIDED VISITS IN ART MUSEUMS, 2001c. Brussels. Disponível em <http://le.ac.uk/museumstudies/study/materials.htm.>. [10 p.]. Acesso em 19 nov. 2004.

______. A new communication model for museums. In: KAVANAGH, Gaynor (Ed.). Museum languages: objects and texts. Leicester; Londres; Nova York: Leicester University Press, 1996. p. 49-61.

LONGHURST, Brian; BAGNALL, Gaynor; SAVAGE, Mike. Audiences, museums and the English middle class. Museum and Society, v. 2, n. 2, p. 104-124, jul. 2004. Disponível em http://www.le.ac.uk/museumstudoes/m&s. Acesso em: 20 nov. 2004.

MERRIMAN, Nick. Museum visiting as a cultural fenomenon. In: VERGO, Peter (Ed.). The new museology. Londres: Reaktion Books, 1997. p. 149-171.

SILVERSTONE, Roger. The medium is the museum: on objects and logics in times and spaces. In: MILES, Roger; ZAVALA, Lauro (Ed.). Towards the museum of the future: new European perspectives. London: Routledge, 1994. p. 161-176.

VALENTE, Maria Esther. Educação em museus: o público de hoje no museu de ontem. 1995. 208 p. Dissertação (Mestrado em Educação) – Departamento de Educação, Pontifícia Universidade Católica, Rio de Janeiro.

VERON, Eliseo; LEVASSEUR, Martine. Ethnographie de l`exposition. L`espace, le corps et le sens. [Paris]: Centre Georges Pompidou, 1991. 203 p.

ZAVALA, Lauro. La educación y los museos en una cultura del espetáculo. In: ENCUENTRO NACIONAL ICOM/CECA MÉXICO. La educación dentro del museo, nuestra propia educación, 2., 2001, Zacatecas. Memoria. [Zacateca]: ICOM México, CECA, [2003]. p. 19-31.

______. Towards a theory of museum reception. In: BICKNELL, Sandra; FARMELO, Graham (Eds.). Museum visitor studies in the 90s. Londres: Science Museum, 1998. p. 82-85.

123

II Appendix

124

ICOFOM Annual Meeting, Oct. 2004

Museology and Intangible Heritage – Analyzing Summary

Anita Shah, India

_________________________________________________________________________________ Human beings are compelled by an innate desire to know and understand the world they live in, and come to terms with the environment, both natural and cultural, that surround them. At the same time reconcile with the unknown fears that threaten their reality. It is this fear of the unknown ‘future’ (that includes the after death phenomena) that propels the human psyche to cast a web of abstractions that will help him ‘slide’ smoothly into the ‘future’. Tangible and intangible heritage is the expression of hopes, aspirations, and emotions and in short all that man experiences. This knowledge gives shape to the collective memory of society and ensures that the future generation has a better chance of survival. It is this collective memory of the society that finds expression in its rituals, traditions, customs, etc and becomes the core philosophy of life that gives meaning to all the actions and behaviors of the people of that society. This is the intangible heritage that we inherit from our ancestors and in our own way interact with it, adding and deleting various aspects and in turn pass it on to the next generation. Thus transmission of heritage, tangible and intangible is a dynamic and continuous process. Reality is always changing in the flow of time. Intangible heritage is that part of reality that is transmitted orally from one generation to the next in the form of values, abstractions, stories, oral traditions, philosophy, meanings expressed through material objects etc. However, there is a very fine line of distinction between tangible and intangible heritage. Globalization and related urban socio-cultural phenomena of melting pot of cultures and the rapid changes overtaking the socio-cultural scenario of various societies many cultures are being threatened with extinction. Furthermore, with people migrating from one place to another at a more rapid pace, social issues of cultural and identity crisis are taking centre stage. Many customs, traditions which survived over the centuries suddenly are facing annihilation. This could lead to ethnic strife and in extreme cases to responses of religious fundamentalism as certain over zealous members of the society rebel against the changes flooding the society. This cultural turmoil can be seen in the present form of ‘Jihad’ that has become a major issue of contention in the world today. Identity crisis interrupts the continuum of smooth passage of heritage from one generation to the next. To preserve for posterity and well being of societies we as museologists have to guard against the obliteration of cultures, both tangible and intangible. It is important to conserve the intangible heritage as it is the basis on which the tangible rests and gives meaning to most our practices and behaviors. To deliberate 0n these issues--------- I present to you my analyzing summary of papers at the 20th General Conference of ICOM at Seoul, South Korea, Oct. 2004. Starting, with the definition of intangible heritage we move along to the different perspectives presented by the museologists from the different parts of the world. Andre Devalles (museologists and museum terminologist, France) has defined the term intangible heritage as it refers in semiotics in English and trying best to find a synonym in French. He says “From a museological point of view, intangible (in English and immaterial in French) is only an emanation of matter it cannot exist and be exhibited without tangible evidence (artifacts or natural specimens). The present campaign for intangible heritage derives from the scorn of non-western cultures by policy makers-and a lot of museum people too, who neglected, in particular, the fields of religion and the sacred in favor of great art.” “Scientists know that some element has always existed, which they cannot perceive until somebody

125

explains it. Art historians know that the essential element in creation is intangible. And, above all, it’s not the first time that anthropologists record expressions of different cultures, in which we find festivities, ceremonies, dances, manufacturing process, or simply slices of life. I would add that it is not a new concern for museum people who have stated for many years that an object does not have meaning by itself. Andre Devalles goes on to elaborate that “to separate the material from the immaterial assumes that we dismiss the fact that artifacts have an immaterial part to them.” Drawing from UNESCO and papers by members of ICOM which appeared in ICOM News, Vol. 56, 2003 Nos. 4 and Vol. 57, 2004 Nos.1------- ‘We should first note that scientists, even in France, reject the term ‘immateriel’ in favor of ‘intangible’ in so far as the object of scientific experiments can only be done with what has material substance, even if this matter is difficult for human senses to perceive.’ ‘In contrast to museums, UNESCO’s definition is not interested in natural heritage.’ Andre quotes French physicist Louis de Broglie and uses the term transcendence to qualify everything that escapes tangibility. ‘Life appears to us in opposing ways: sometimes it seems to be reduced to a cluster of physical- chemical processes, and sometimes to assert itself in a way characterized as an evolving dynamism which transcends physics and chemistry.’ ‘Thus we could explain that regarding the form that intangible heritage takes, the UNESCO definition includes both elements that can be attributed to transcendence (Practices, representations, expressions, knowledge and skills) and the material supports that generated them (instruments, objects, artifacts and cultural spaces that are associated with them). There is nothing new in mentioning that museums are full of objects (material heritage) which are the support of the intangible heritage. First of all, in these physical works of art the most original element is exactly what escapes material evaluation. But just as much, and also by their very essence, in all human works whose meaning is not obvious in the first degree, understanding is generated by the context in which they are found in life, or when they are displayed.’ Andre Devalles quotes Giovanni Pinna

1. ‘Expressions, embodied in physical form of the culture or traditional ways of life of a certain community, for example, their religious rites, traditional economies, ways of life, folklore for example, Kungu Opera in China.’

2. ‘Individual or collective expressions which do not have a physical form: language, memory, oral traditions, songs and non written traditional music-for example the oral heritage of the Zapara people in Ecuador or Peru.’

3. ‘----symbolic and metaphysical meanings of the objects which constitute the tangible heritage. Every object has two dimensions; its physical aspect- for example its shape and size-and its meaning, which derives from its history from the interpretation it receives from others, from its capacity to link the past to the present, and so forth.

According to Andre, Giovanni differentiates in museological order, between the first two categories and the third one. In the first case, he considers that intangible heritage may be transcribed or registered and then transformed into material\tangible heritage - but these ‘living cultural expressions,’ through their manifestations, and then fossilized, both in space and time, and are no longer heritage. In the second, museums should select, within their historical and scientific context, those objects with symbolic signification and return them to the broad public. Andre Devalles concludes ‘speaking museologically the intangible can only exist as an emanation of the material and its restitution can only be an evocation through material evidence…..It is certain that whole fields of cultures have been neglected, of which the most important are those touching the sacred, and thus intangible.’ He further states that ‘museum objects do not have any meaning by themselves. Interpreting the object is subject to the context of their display and to the subjective view of each visitor.’ Andre Devalles has presented a very important concept when he particularly says ‘that objects do not have meaning by themselves.’ In my paper ‘The Different Planes of Reality’ I have also referred that

126

‘objects per-se have no meaning by themselves. ‘It is the people who inject the object with meanings derived from the collective memory of its culture. This ‘investment’ of social milieu in the object transforms it into a social tool of transmission of thoughts, ideas, concepts, experiences etc vital for the society. It is this intangible heritage stored hidden in the object that we as museologists want to study and understand in order to preserve for posterity. In China at the ICOFOM meeting in Beijing 1995 museologists discussing the meaning of objects had deliberated that objects derive meaning from the culture they have been produced. This meaning ‘symbolization’ in the object is the intangible heritage which we as museum experts seek to study, understand preserve and pass on. This symbolization in objects takes a deeper meaning in religious and sacred objects and also historical objects associated with important events in human history. The peoples of the world have strived to protect, preserve these objects because of their religious, social and cultural connotations throughout human history. In short, we can say that intangible heritage is the soul and the tangible heritage its physical body. It is this merging of the soul and the body that gives meaning to life and existence. Moving further this discussion Ales Gacnik, Slovenia states that it is first necessary to introduce three basic definitions of Museology, ethnology and ethnologic Museology. According to Ales Gacnik ‘Ethnological museology is not a science about ethnological museum objects, collections and museums, but about relations between people and objects and their relationships to heritage, their preservation, research, communication and development.’ Ales further states that the horizon of museology should be broadened so as to include ‘the transition from traditional museological direction towards material culture to the one from the field of social and spiritual culture. If a museum artifact is the essence of traditional museums and museology, then not only objects form the contents of ethnological museology, but also people, customs and traditions, place and time. The duties of ethnological museology are not oriented just in preservation of material testimonies, but also in protecting people, knowledge (traditional) time and place connected with the biology of customs and traditions.’ According to Dr. Martin Scharer, Switzerland, intangible heritage in museological terms is ‘Ideas are abstract, intangible, immaterial phenomena that take place inside a person, are of indeterminate duration and lack materiality.’ In contrast ‘Things are concrete, physical, material phenomena of indeterminate duration, existing outside the person which are either found by people in nature or which are made by them and which, together, make up our material heritage.’ Connecting these two aspects of reality at the different planes he says that ‘In order to be communicated, ideas need materiality in the form of things or processes.’ Martin elaborates his point of view connecting intangible heritage explicitly with its expression and manifestation. He says ‘first, let us consider the museologically central dichotomy of things: they have a structural aspect, residing in their materiality, and also a cultural aspect which describes their context. Accepting that the object is mute and therefore requires an explanation, it can be said that-purely on the basis of its materiality - it furnishes no information about its cultural background. Who made it and why? Who used it and in what context? And so on. The answers to such questions lie, not in information and knowledge deriving from the object’s materiality, but, precisely, in its “intangible heritage”. And cultural information is even necessary in order to interpret material aspects of the object such as material, color, signs of wear, etc. Or, to put it another way, an object without information is worthless and, in the final analysis, useless in the context of a museum.’ Martin points to the importance of values associated with objects and the central role they play in interpretation. He says ‘Secondly, it should be pointed out that everything has a utility function (………...intangible elements) as well as associated, or attributed, values, both of which may, however, tend towards zero……….For the man-thing relationship, this duality is constitutive: things are credited with aesthetic or symbolic, recall or informative values which, not being an intrinsic part of the object, are therefore subjective and hence, again, an immaterial aspect of the object.’ ‘Third, and finally, this man-thing relationship takes place on three different levels: real, everyday surroundings, the fictitious, arranged museum world, and the world of personal reality which is rich in object - induced connotations and “takes place” everywhere.’

127

In view of such complexity in the man-thing relationship, it is clear that it is the immaterial dimension, not the material one that is the key- indeed; the latter cannot exist without the former. Gold is only valuable because society has placed value upon it. A national flag is only important because a nation ascribes significance to it. A travel souvenir is only important because the recall value attached to it extends a holiday experience………The material and immaterial dimensions of an object together constitute its museality.’ Andre Gob, Belgium, feels that ‘immaterial heritage in itself cannot be conserved. One can only try to keep some trace of it, material or materialized, this may take many diverse forms: witness accounts, recordings (written, audio, video, digital) objects or places.’ Tereza Scheiner, Brazil brings to focus the symbolic long poles erected at the entrance of villages in South Korea topped by beautiful sculptures of birds. She writes ‘the birds are an unquestionably strong representation of the intangible, and the Sotdae birds, an elegant metaphor of the deepest wish of all human beings: the guarantee of a prosperous and pacific life.’ Tereza raises important issues by speaking that " special emphasis to the intangible, as a strategy for the reassignment of cultural difference-- under the belief that understanding diversity will certainly contribute to the advent of an era of peace and social development. Such effort in reconciling differences reveals a universalistic tendency in trying to find solutions for social crises, building global society that is harmonic and pacific--thus realizing the belief in a world of goodness and justice, where community life is thoroughly possible." This importance of heritage lies: in its quality of symbolic complex founded on the continuity of cultural manifestations, built over values that are essential to the existence of societies. This also is the essence of ethics, “the community effort on the continuity of life and of the human group on the terms of the desire of their founding principles---" a movement that implies the existence of common values, whose defense reassures the continuity of different cultures.' Tereza further points out that culture is always evolving and so “we can thus accept cultural change as a part of reality- no more as a menace, but as a constitutive element of cultural fluxes." She also cautions about the overexposure and overglamourization by the media of rituals and its dangerous implications. She concludes by saying that "It is in the domain of the imaginary, of creation and of affection that heritage gains meaning. This is its true essence --- the creative potency which identifies the existence of the humane. Heritage is, though, as a bird: it only exists in liberty and spontaneity." Lynn Maranda, Canada, raises the point that the paradox of preserving something that was once alive and fluid, is that by encapsulating it, its viability is ultimately terminated." This is most evident when addressing the issue of oral traditions. The cultural value of this tradition is that it is 'oral'. How can an oral tradition be written down and not be changed in so doing? If, however, oral traditions were alive and strong, there would be no need and thus no compulsion to record them. The fact that there is a move to record oral traditions would indicate that they are already either fast disappearing or entirely dead. In any case, the act of recording oral traditions spells its death knell. Under such circumstances, it is no longer an oral tradition and this essential aspect of indigenous cultures is destroyed." According to Lynn Maranda "these are important ethical issues.' She also points to the fact ' how far it is acceptable for the museum, a creation of 'our' society, to constantly want the products of another?' She cautions that the modern museums have ' been a party to the removal and housing of other peoples' patrimony, justify this new imposition into indigenous cultural spheres? Is this really realm of preservation or more closely aligned to interference or appropriation? While many cultures may well approve museum initiatives to preserve their intangible heritage there are those which would be vehemently opposed to such an intrusion.' She further points out that by recording intangible heritage it would be interfering with its original quality and freezing it through media would change it permanently into a tangible product. Hildegard Vieregg, Germany, reflects that in what extent intangible\ immaterial heritage is closely connected to tangible heritage, as well as traditions of communities (festivals) economic traditions (traditional crafts and skills) national customs -- as example in correlation with objects, artifacts, instruments, performances, cultural spaces. In this context ethnological museums and Museums of World Cultures play a particularly important role because they are to be seen in the context of international evaluation. Hildegard points out that “A study of definition and description of intangible

128

heritage leads to the result that the cultural importance is usually considered with reference to a positive development of culture and civilization. In most cases museums present objects in this positive way - even exhibits in several War Memorials or Memorial Museums are presented in an artificial and aesthetic way. Therefore, it seems necessary to focus on examples that elucidate the 'positive' and 'negative' approach to intangible heritage." Above all, the 'Transition Project,' one of the main projects of ICOFOM stands for dealing with 'negative' intangible heritage the conservation and preservation of former Gulag Camps and the remembrance to totalitarian states as intangible and immaterial heritage. But not only the Gulag Camps are affected by this unhappy memory rather former and present totalitarian states all over the world --- even countries where genocide is carried out like in Rwanda. Therefore, the programme 'From Oppression to Democracy' is the basis for the framework of the mission and action of the International Movement -- finally established on the occasion of ICOFOM Annual Meeting 2000 in Brno, Czech Republic. Vinos Sofka, former president and Honorary President of ICOFOM and Permanent Advisor of the ICOFOM Committee drew attention to the people responsible for heritage care to realize the fact that former totalitarian regimes are now history. This also transmits important intangible messages by the kind of memorial sites, written and visual documents etc." Hildegard concludes by saying that 'the role of museums include also responsibility for records and transcriptions of immaterial and intangible heritage which by this way will be both 'materialized' and recorded as immaterial heritage, and musealized independently from space and time." According to Maridia Xavier Cury, Brazil, 'the intangible character is intrinsic to the material heritage preservation, because no object, inside or outside the museum exists by itself, that is to say, without a collection of values and significations to qualify them and qualifying the relations among persons -- and cultures mediated by material culture.' She further states that in her experience - 'it is almost impossible not to mediate about the intangibility, because we are not confronted with it every moment of the curatorial process; acquisition, search, conservation, documentation and communication (exposition and education) of artifacts.' According to the Korean point of view Susie Chang Yun Shun, USA, in her presentation examines the relation between intangible folk heritage and measures the Republic of Korea is taking to preserve protect and perpetuate intangible heritage. The Republic of Korea has initiated and established the Korean Folk Village, which has played an important role in giving public exposure to the 'technical holders' and their works. According to Hyun Mee Yang, Korea, the museums house objects in which 'traditional skills are hidden.' ‘In order to preserve the traditional craft skills, museum has to transfer the tacit knowledge that masters have obtained through the long experiences into the explicit knowledge.' Further in order to preserve intangible heritage, museum has to change its core activity from collecting to organizing knowledge through converting the tacit knowledge into the explicit knowledge. Thus museums can make a living history live in our everyday life rather than in our memory. According to the Indian perspective, presented by Anita Shah ‘India with its kaleidoscopic diversity cannot be fully understood without seeking to understand the intangible heritage that gives meaning to all the various cultures it has given birth to. Symbolization is intricately woven in to the fabric of Indian art, ritual, religion, festivals and in short, all the multi dimensional aspects of life. For example, the sculpture ‘Nataraja’ or the great figurines of Amravati cannot be fully enjoyed without knowing the significance of the postures and the symbols imbedded in them. The great dancing God ‘Nataraja’ can have tremendous aesthetic appeal in the museum but it is essential to know and understand the Vedic philosophy of Cosmo genesis imbibed into it. Nataraja implies that change is life’s only eternal philosophy; to create one has to destroy and from destruction emerge the seeds of creation. One hand in the abhaya posture of benediction portrays Shiva at the vortex of salvation. His other hand intriguingly points to His left foot which is raised, the big toe pointing towards the sky, to mukti or salvation, the ultimate objective of human existence. His other foot suppresses a dwarf demon representing the ego which must be suppressed for deeper realization. Shiva’s matted hair reflects the complexities of existence, washed by the purest source of sustenance, the sacred waters of the Ganges. Purity of intent and morality in existence washes away the most cursed of troubles. Every part of the sculpture is highly symbolic and needs interpretation to grasp its meaning and enjoy in its totality. This intangible heritage is the essence of the Divine Cosmic Dancer – Nataraja.”

129

Furthermore, “it is the Sankhya philosophy of Kapil Rishi which was propagated by Gautama Buddha that spread its tentacles into South East Asia. The great Chinese Travelers Huan Te Sang and Fa Hein who visited India in the 1st centaury BC did not carry much material heritage into China, but the intangible heritage of knowledge, philosophy and the treasure of their rich experiences which had the power to influence and shape future generations in all aspects of life and which in turn formed the basis of the creation of culture that was distinct and unique. Thus it is the intangible heritage that has the power and strength to move and influence the peoples and also in their interaction with each other and in the process creating new material culture. Thus the wheel of progress moves in space and time leaving imprints in the form of tangible and intangible heritage for future generations to read, understand, interpret and take it on further. In short intangible heritage is the soul and material culture the body. Both need each other for their existence and continuation in space and time.”

130

The Paradigm of Cosmogenesis and Eschatology in the Mytho-poetical Heritage

of the Siberian Peoples

Olga Truevtseva - Siberia/ Russian Federation ________________________________________________________________________

The swift and accelerating development of the planet civilization leaves no opportunity for the functioning of the ethnic cultural traditions in those nooks of the planet, where the people have been reproducing the stereotypes of their mode of life and entity, developed before civilized period, for centuries.

The historians of culture, ethnographists, archaeologists, museologists realize the threat of loss of the smallest minorities’ spiritual values, tracing to the global cultures and having archaic character. The reconstruction of the extinct cultures’ fragments, especially their outlook integrity, is the problem for the ethnographist, archaeologist as well as for the specialist in folklore. There is an obvious necessity of the specific museum preservation not only of the material objects, but also of the spiritual culture, if they have the status of sacred values.

The museum folklore keeping means the written fixation of the most fundamental epic codes, mythological texts, magic verbal formulae, versions of apocryphal mythic creation and etc.

The subjects about the birth and fall of the world are of great importance among these questions. Their significance is obvious because of some causes: the comparative analysis of the similar texts allows to determine for the earthy men the general idea on the life’s beginning, to understand the connections between the global and naïve cultures and etc.

The idea of recurrence of the universe development, represented in the myth poetical tradition of the Turkic Siberian peoples, in the capacity of the general sign, supposes the situation of temporary stopping of the habitual man’s existence. The coincidence of Universe cycles is analogous to the biological recurrence of the man’s life and other natural objects. But this analogy is not the only reason for the appearance of cosmogonical and eschatological myths and their folklore versions. The historical memory of ethnos designs in the artistically – figurative version the most dramatic moments of its existence, where the moments of world’s birth and fall are the most important “ points of tension”.

The inspiration of origin as well as the tragedy of end is perceived as one episode in the infinite whole, where the death is an inevitable stage to the new existence, and birth is the first step to death. Moreover, the Altai and Yakut heroic epos contains the signs of archaic beliefs, which are being read through the layers of the latest stratifications. If you try to turn the plot back, the sequence of eschatology elements will reproduce the picture of the world’s birth: the living water is thickening, all the indispensable components of existence are polarizing, the oppositional pairs are uniting, concentrating around the sacred center. The endless great number of derivatives is being generated; the new world began his movement in the striving for the triumph of the new life. The eschatological version presents the disappearance of the land under the water, annulling plurality at the expense of the united one. The fire is an analogue to the water in the plots, describing the world’s death.

The archaic philosophical and mythological systems unite the elements of water and fire. So “Rigveda” calls Agni (God of Fire) as “ born in the water”. The tradition of amalgamation of these elements is characteristic not only of the myth, but also of the folklore, i.e. the water and fire are considered to be the different sides of one substance. The mythological logic united not united, from the logical point of view, phenomena, explaining the endless chain of the earthy and cosmic transformations this way: the death of one thing leads to the birth of the other one, which is opposed in the shape and characteristics. In the Altai and Yakut folklore the border between he peoples’ world and monsters’ world is the fiery sea, where the horse-hair serves as a bridge. The worlds are separated and united simultaneously, and this border is very relative. Its relative character assumes the possibility of the penetration of destructive elements into the middle world, built according to the divine direction and intended for the man.

131

The presence of the border between the worlds in three – layered Universe is taken into account by the shaman mysteries, showing ritual shaman’s visit of the underworld, overcoming of all the dangers and reaching the North Star, where the intermediary between the supreme deity and man lives. Such scheme of journey embodies a number of complicated ideas: firstly, the idea of ephemerality between the worlds; secondly, the idea of the victory over the doubtful temptations of the lower world (which is formal in the myth and literal in epos); thirdly, the idea of principle not destruction of the life in its basic forms (death is fraught with a birth, birth leads to death). The third idea, in my opinion, means the principle correlation of the concepts and phenomena “upper part” and “bottom”, their polysemy.

The category of the opposition « existence – non-existence» is presented in mythical poetics of these peoples as the category of “shown existence” and “non- existence”. The similar situation is evident in the mythological Egyptian plots (the myth about Osiris and the corresponding mystery present both a calendar cycle and finding the dead Pharaoh in Osiris’s status in the way of semantic plan). As for the mythological Greek tradition, the plots about Demetra and Persephone, Aphrodite and Adonis, Ishtar and Areshkigal, Ishtar and Dumuzi, going back to Shumero – Babylonian oppositions, illustrate the polysemy of the categories “ life”, “ death” as “ existence” and “ non- existence”.

The Altai and Yakut epos shows the plot frame of this myths’ category, preserving all the necessary peculiarities of the mythological plots. So, “Maadai Kara” epos includes not only the story about Kogyudei Mergen, descending to Erlik’s world, but the associative information about such chance. The hero’s name speaks for itself: Kogyudei means “good shot”, Mergen is “ a grey (blue) dog”. The second name concerns she-wolf, the Ashin’s original mother, whose underground nature allows the descendant to accustom to the lower world’s mysteries. The first name clears from the epic context, “a living red arrow” (a repeating epithet) is undoubtedly not only the peculiarity of the epic poetics, but it is also the semantic sign of the heroic attribution. The hero of the Yakut epos Yuryunh Uolan with his attribute “a living arrow” is depicted in the similar way. Yuryung Uolan as Kogyudei Mergen can overcome the borders between the worlds, confirming the ides of interpenetration of the constructive and destructive, for the earthy existence, elements, which are interpreted in the divine context as the neutral elements. In the archaic mythologies, cosmogenesis is considered the point of the world’s recreation in the circle of eternal existence after the death of the former world. The moment of the circle’s completion is the moment of the new turn; it stimulates the birth of the new God’s generation (such theogonic generations are characteristic not only of Egypt, Greece, Mesopotamia, but also of the Slav world, of the Siberian peoples, speaking the Mongolian language). The affirmation of the new one is the sequence of the victory over the former one, that is the concept “ chaos” for the myth and “ the world of the dead people” for epos, includes not only the amorphous feature, but also an underground monster. Taking into account these views of cosmogenesis and eschatology on the whole, it is recognized that some “ primary substance” existed in not existed world. The world was being undergone a modification, and Gods gave those shapes to the substance, which were intelligible to the new generations.

The presented paradigm of cosmogenesis and eschatology in the mythical poetics of the Turkic peoples of Siberia is the variant of reconstruction so far as sacred archaic information has been already stated in written form. There is still some doubt; it is our point of view on birth and death of the world, presented by shamans, wise men, and narrators. Collecting out of folklore, preservation of the texts, as museum exhibits become gradually a conscious documentation of the past, a basis for scientific research and for pleasure.

132

III List of Authors Dr. Chung, Yun Shun Susie (USA) Assistant Professor - Heritage Management Museum of Texas Tech University/ Lubbock E-mail: yun‐[email protected] Dr. Davis, Ann (Canada) Director The Nickle Arts Museum/University of Calgary Vice-President of ICOFOM E-mail: [email protected] Prof. Decarolis, Nelly (Argentina) Vice-President of ICOFOM President of ICOFOM LAM (Latin America) E-mail: [email protected] Prof. Desvallées, André (France) Honorary President of ICOFOM Chair of the Project: Museum Thesaurus E-mail: adesval@club‐internet.fr Dr. Devine, Heather (Canada) Curator of Indigenous Heritage/Nickle Arts Museum/ Calgary E-mail: [email protected] Gorgas, Mónica – de la Cerda, Jeannette (Argentina) Director de Museo de la Estancia de Alta Gracia/ Córdoba E-mail: [email protected] Dr. Harris, Jennifer (Australia) Museum Curator/ Member of ICOFOM Board E-mail: [email protected] Mairesse, François (Belgium) Director, Musée royal de Mariemont Member of ICOFOM Board Project : Museum Thesaurus E-mail: françois.mairesse@musee‐mariemont.be Le Marec, Joëlle (France) Ecole Normale Supérieure Lettres et Sciences Humaines/ Lyon [email protected]/ - http//c2o.ens-lsh.fr.

133

Maranda, Lynn (Canada) Curator Vancouver Museum/ Vancouver Member of ICOFOM Board E-mail: [email protected] Dr. Schärer, Martin R. (Switzerland) Director Alimentarium Vevey/ vevey Vice – President of ICOM E-mail: [email protected] Prof. Dr. Scheiner, Tereza C. (Brazil) UniRio/ Rio de Janeiro Member of ICOM Executive Council Member of Ethics Committee of ICOM E-mail: [email protected] Dr. Shah, Anita B. (India) Science and Research on Museology/ Hyderabad E-mail: [email protected] Dr. Tahan, Lina Gebrail (Lebanon) University of Cambridge/ Department of Archaeology/ Cambridge (UK) E-mail: [email protected] Prof. Dr. Truevtseva, Olga (Russian Federation) Altai State Academy for Culture and Art/ Barnaul Secretary of ICOFOM E-mail: [email protected] Dr. Vieregg, Hildegard K. (Germany) University for Philosophy/ Munich Director of Institute for Museum Sciences and Studies President of ICOFOM E-mail: vieregg.hildegard@pc‐future.de Prof. Xavier Cury, Marília (Brazil) University of São Paolo/ São Paolo E-mail: [email protected]

Museology and Audience Museologia y el Público de Museos

Documents

Transcript of Museology and Audience Museologia y el Público de Museos