Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros48-2IntroductionDefining the museum: challenges a...

Texte intégral

1What is a museum? A permanent institution or a polyphonic space? For profit or not? Open to the public or devoted to serving the interests of a cultural elite? Are museums in the service of societies or committed to social justice? Do they educate their audiences, or do they enhance understandings of the world? Do museums safeguard memories or preserve humanity’s tangible and intangible heritage? What are their main functions and characteristics in the 21st century? All these questions – and many others – have been occupying the minds of specialists and professionals of the museum field in the past years of this century. Nevertheless, some of the questions have been around for a long time, and were first raised when ICOM took on the challenge of defining the museum, right after its foundation in the middle of the 20th century.

2The international debate on an “official” museum definition for the 21st century was once again renewed by ICOM in 2016, after the adoption of the 2015 UNESCO Recommendation Concerning the Protection and Promotion of Museums and Collections, Their Diversity and Their Role in Society (UNESCO, 2015). A Standing Committee on the Museum Definition, Prospects and Potentials (MDPP) was established in January 2017. The new Standing Committee was to define a participative methodology based on working groups, with the ultimate goal to propose new drafts of the museum definition, to be voted on in an extraordinary assembly held at the ICOM General Conference of 2019. If approved, a new definition would be incorporated as an emended text to the ICOM Statutes, acquiring a normative value to the global museum community.

3Considered by ICOM members as the “backbone” of this organisation (ICOM, 2019), the museum definition is a central part of its Statutes and the best known and most replicated museum-related text in the world. Adopted into national law in several countries and guiding public policies for the museum field, the ICOM definition has proven to be the most structural and operational tool for this organisation to express its values and mission around the world. However, the claim for a possible universality of the terms in a standard definition can be seen as the central paradox, considering the known diversity of the museum phenomenon in contemporary societies, which is emphasised in studies that have set the tone for a plural and dynamic museology in the present.

4Considering all the different theoretical and political points of view, we can raise one more question: how can museology and reflexive thinking on the museum contribute to this fruitful but still contentious debate? Such a reflection has been integrated into ICOFOM’s basic concerns with a terminology for museology since the 1970s, as it dedicates its efforts to theorising the museum and museology. Once again, we have invited authors to contribute to this topic in this special issue of ICOFOM Study Series, while a new museum definition is still being debated and this debate is raising some fundamental questions about contemporary museology and the future of museum theory everywhere.

A concept throughout history: some background on the ICOM museum definition

5Since its creation in 1946, the International Council of Museums (ICOM) has concerned itself with the definition of specific terms and concepts for the museum field. In the 1950s, ICOM proposed its own definition for the term “museum” that has proven to be an evolving definition throughout the history of this organisation. At the centre of the debates continuing to the present, the definition has set the tone for most of the theoretical and normative discussions conducted within ICOM specialist committees and affiliated organisations.

6In the late 1950s, while disseminating ICOM’s words and perspectives throughout the world, its first director, the French museologist Georges Henri Rivière, emphasised the importance of a museum definition according to ICOM Statutes. The definition that was put forward in different parts of the world stated that:

“The museum is a permanent establishment, administered in the general interest, for the purpose of preserving, studying, enhancing by various means and, in particular, of exhibiting to the public for its delectation and instruction groups of objects and specimens of cultural value: artistic, historical, scientific and technological collections, botanical and zoological gardens and aquariums, etc.” (Rivière, 1960, p. 12).

7The most traditional idea of the museum was expressed in this text, written as it was by an organisation that essentially comprised museum directors from European countries who conceived these “establishments” (or institutions) in their supposed permanence, and whose primary function was to exhibit their collections of recognised cultural value. It wasn’t long before questions were raised on the functions and character of this museum definition. In the early 1970s, these values professed by museum directors and specialists were contested as ICOM opened its forums to new members from colonised countries.

8In the context of the 9th ICOM General Conference, in France in 1971, by recognising that museums are “theoretically and practically attached to a world (the European world), to a class (the cultivated bourgeoisie)” and “to a certain cultural perspective” (Adotevi, 1992 [1971], p. 122), the African intellectual Stanislas Adotevi, from Benin, marked a moment of great reflection on the role of museums in a so-called post-colonial world. This thinker helped to transform the basis of a political and theoretical debate at the centre of ICOM that had a major role in the amendments of the museum definition that were to come. One year later, within the scope of the renowned Round Table of Santiago de Chile, and motivated by a process that was self-proclaimed as the “decolonisation” of the museum (Varine, 2005), some members of ICOM and UNESCO debated “the role of museums in relation to the social and economic needs of modern day Latin America” (UNESCO, 1973).

9In that same decade, several ICOM committees engaged in the development of a joint terminological research project that was coordinated by CIDOC (the Committee for Documentation, created in 1950) with the involvement of ICOFOM after 1977. This project, whose aim was to establish a terminology for museology according to ICOM standards, was mainly based on the professional reality of countries such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany and the USSR (ICOM, 1972, p. 141), and its results could not apply or even be translated to most other contexts of the world. This was the time when ICOM would acknowledge the challenges of language and cultural background involved in the definition of its core vocabulary on a world scale.

10Despite the difficulties in the work for this broad terminology project involving several international committees, ICOM would propose a new museum definition, which was approved by the representatives of its members in 1974. In some parts, this definition echoes the previous debates in Santiago de Chile:

“A museum is a non-profit making, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, and open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates, and exhibits, for purposes of study, education and enjoyment, material evidence of man and his environment” (ICOM, 1974).

11In 1974, the notion that the museum is “in the service of society and its development” evoked some reactions from certain conservative members, who considered this phrase “an inappropriate politicization of the purpose of museums” (Sandahl, 2019, p. 5). In a way, the neutrality of the definition was being challenged, while some members insisted on the fact that a neutral museum was either possible or even desired. Even though it could be considered progressive, the definition adopted in the 1970s kept the focus on “material evidence” and on the most traditional functions of the museum. The ICOM definition neglected any mention of intangible heritage, disregarding the fact that new experimental forms of the museum were thriving around the globe, among which were the ecomuseums in France (since the early 1970s), indigenous museums in Latin America (since the 1950s) and neighbourhood museums in the United States (since the late 1960s).

  • 1 See Lewis, 2004 quoted by Mairesse, 2011. The interventions in the framework of the debates on the (...)

12Eventually, theoretical studies in museology would reflect on the centrality of museums’ collections of material artifacts, proposing new conceptions of the museum that would impose themselves on ICOM’s established notions. For instance, the British thinker Geoffrey Lewis proposed a definition that was not founded in the building or the institutional character of the museum, but in the broader sense of collecting, conceiving of the museum as “a support of knowledge made of material and immaterial evidence of the cultural and natural heritage of humanity”.1 In this sense, the museum may be thought of as a place, real or virtual, that maintains a variety of elements for the benefit of the public. Such a conception is no longer dependent upon the notion of a collection of material objects. Further discussions in the ICOFOM forums for theoretical debates (in its annual symposia and series of publications) would expose the contemporary trend to perceive museums in more fluid and open terms, regarded by some as a “phenomenon” (Scheiner, 2000), or as a means to “satisfy certain social needs” (Stránský, 1987, pp. 288–289), and which are shaped by human activity.

13These theoretical debates influenced by ICOFOM have allowed museologists around the world to make some critical observations concerning the definition of the museum. In the context of Latin America, for instance, various conceptions of the museum were going to be presented questioning the universalising terms of international debates. Based on the local appropriations of concepts and practices, several authors approached the museum definition as a political statement. For the Cuban museologist Marta Arjona Pérez (1977, p. 35), the museum can be perceived as “an indispensable element of support for social and cultural development” primarily based on educational principles. For the Argentinian Norma Rusconi (2001), museums are “centres of social transformation”; and for the Brazilian Teresa Scheiner (2007, p. 164), the museum is “a phenomenon related to cultural heritage of humanity, an institution created in the service of society to represent and attribute value to this heritage by means of identification, preservation, research and communication of material and immaterial testimonies, in all possible ways”.

14Throughout the years, with ICOM having established relations with institutions that did not necessarily conform to the accepted museum definition proposed in 1974 (among those, art galleries, science centres, cultural centres or even some ecomuseums and cybermuseums), new debates were initiated, considering again the proposition of amendments to the museum definition at the beginning of the new century. In June 2003, the members of the Executive Council, represented by the North American Gary Edson, decided to revise the definition, taking into account an incompatibility of the criteria set for the admission of professionals, institutions and services by ICOM (Edson, 2003, p. 11).

  • 2 See Mairesse, F., Desvallées, A. (2007). Introduction. In F. Mairesse & A. Desvallées (Dirs.) (2007 (...)

15Between 2003 and 2004, in response to the ICOM invitation to re-evaluate the museum definition, several theorists related to different committees would propose new ideas and perspectives for re-considering the terms and concepts in the official text. According to Edson, the words used in a definition “are a means of providing a systematic inventory of the various ideas, […] by imposing understanding on our perception” (Edson, 2007, p. 43). Furthermore, he argued that for a definition to be usable it must “briefly, and in the most precise terms, state what a word means”. Meanwhile, ICOFOM was already working on a terminology project of its own, coordinated by the French museologist André Desvallées, under the name of Thesaurus of Museology. This project was launched in 1993, with the aim of collecting the different perspectives of over 20 key terms in museology, including “museum”.2 In the early 2000s, the committee took on the project of theorising the museum definition in order to respond to ICOM’s demand for a new definition.

16Finally, between June 30 and July 2, 2005, members of ICOFOM gathered in Calgary, Canada, and turned its annual symposium into a forum for a specific academic discussion on the museum definition, raising some theoretical questions and proposing a new text for ICOM’s consideration. According to the ICOFOM members present in Calgary, the first definition for the 21st century should state that:

“The museum is an institution for the benefit of society, devoted to exploring and understanding the world by researching, preserving and communicating, notably through interpretation and exhibition, tangible and intangible evidence that constitutes the heritage of humanity. It is a not-for-profit institution” (Davis, Mairesse, & Desvallées, 2010, p. 12).

17The proposed definition emphasises the roles of researching, preserving and communicating, in reference to the museum model developed and introduced to museology by the Dutch Peter van Mensch (1992) and heavily influenced by the ideas of the Czech Zbyněk Z. Stránský. Furthermore, it was the first time that a normative text to define the museum mentioned the category of intangible heritage. The Calgary meeting also proposed that the museum definition be regarded by ICOM as a work in progress, considering the need for its continuous updates according to developments in the museum field (Mairesse, 2011, p. 312). Despite the ongoing theoretical debates held by ICOFOM members, ICOM would incorporate a new emended definition with considerable small changes in the text from 1974. The definition, approved in 2007 at the 21st General Conference held in Vienna, Austria, and still current, states that:

“A museum is a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for purposes of education, study and enjoyment” (ICOM, 2007).

Contemporary challenges of a disputed definition

18As proven throughout the years since ICOM was created, the museum definition enshrined in its Statutes has different uses that can be defined as either internal or external to this global organisation. The thought-provoking question “why do we need a museum definition, after all?”, posed by several academics over the years, can be answered when we look at the impact of the museum definition inside and outside of ICOM. At first sight, we can identify at least two major effects of the definition: internally, ICOM uses this normative tool to define institutional partners and to admit its members – in other words, the museum definition also determines the definition of ICOM itself, in its body of professionals and institutions. Externally, several countries, in different regions of the world, create rules and establish policies for the museum field using as a parameter the international museum definition that is sometimes even reproduced in national legislation or serves to steer public policy at different levels.

  • 3 This study was published by ICOFOM in the book edited for the symposium Définir le musée du XXIe si (...)

19According to a study conducted by the Canadian museologist and lawyer Michèle Rivet,3 the analysis of national laws allows us to acknowledge the influence of ICOM in many countries, and to see what the countries are actually retaining from the definition. The study shows that the ICOM museum definition is present almost in its entirety in the national legislation of countries such as Brazil and Italy, and is also partially used in the laws of countries such as Belgium, China, Denmark, France, Poland, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden. In several other countries the ICOM definition is used as the basis of cultural policies, codes of ethics or is partially adopted by national institutions and associations – this is the case in Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.

20Today, the current museum definition is considered by many to be obsolete, or overly bound to a hegemonic idea of the museum. Indeed, it still carries, in its core structure and founding values, the traces of a tradition that is rooted in the original ICOM raison d’être as well as in the national legislation of several countries, having survived successive revisions in the light of the new paradigms that have emerged in the museum field. For Jette Sandahl, former chair of the MDPP, in order for ICOM to re-think the museum definition to take into consideration the transformations that have marked the beginning of the 21st century, the consequences of not revising it should also be considered, “not least in the ways museums are perceived to be bound by their allegiances to former centuries” (Sandahl, 2019, p. 3).

21Are we already paying the price of a “permanent” institution that is relentlessly attached to a solemn representation of the past? In other words, are museums evolving in such a way that ICOM risks becoming outdated? If so, how can we deal with all the transformations in museums during the new century in one single definition, set to unify plural experiences and to operate as a standard for museum practice everywhere? And how can we evolve without forgetting our roots and the basic principles of the museum?

  • 4 The publications and resolutions from the ICOFOM symposia are available for public consultation on (...)

22Addressing the great challenge of defining the museum in simple terms for the pluralistic and multicultural museum world, ICOM and the MDPP have implemented a global series of discussions that has been supported by academic and professional debates fostered by ICOFOM. Over the past three years, ICOM’s committee for museology has presented the results of 11 symposia organised in 11 different countries, involving participants ranging from museum professionals and scholars to community members engaged in the development of museums in various and non-hegemonic forms. The ICOFOM conferences have resulted in at least three new publications on the topic of a museum definition, containing some of the problems but also the specific claims from those multiple voices concerned with the museum definition worldwide.4

23Based on the results from this series of ICOFOM events, recent studies have shown that a global definition should consider the different notions of what a museum is across the world and its interpretations in various linguistic and cultural contexts (Brown & Mairesse, 2018). Discussions considered topics on the meaning of being an “institution” or the need for material collections, but most of the presenters in the different countries approached the “social role of the museum”, and several of them presented a critical reading of the museum emphasising its colonial role still present in societies (Brulon Soares, Brown & Nazor, 2018).

24Following the discussions involving ICOM members and professionals from different institutions around the world, the ICOM Executive Board, at its 139th session on July 21–22, 2019, in Paris, chose one proposal from among the texts recommended by the MDPP for debate and deliberation by the ICOM representatives of National and International Committees at the Extraordinary Assembly scheduled for September 7, 2019 in Kyoto, Japan. After considerable thoughtful debate, the Assembly as a body voted to postpone the decision on the proposed definition in order to have sufficient time to more fully consider the implications of the proposed text and to hear the opinions of the members in a transparent and participatory process. Considered as an attempt to break with the past and tradition within the ICOM organisation, the proposed text selected by the Executive Board states:

“Museums are democratising, inclusive and polyphonic spaces for critical dialogue about the pasts and the futures. Acknowledging and addressing the conflicts and challenges of the present, they hold artefacts and specimens in trust for society, safeguard diverse memories for future generations and guarantee equal rights and equal access to heritage for all people.

Museums are not for profit. They are participatory and transparent, and work in active partnership with and for diverse communities to collect, preserve, research, interpret, exhibit, and enhance understandings of the world, aiming to contribute to human dignity and social justice, global equality and planetary wellbeing” (ICOM, 2019).

25Reflecting on the results of two years of extensive debates and the discussions held at the Kyoto Conference, the ICOM community faces the challenge of reaching a consensus on a topic that is considered controversial and, at the same time, crucial for the survival of this very institution in the present century. In order to move forward, ICOM members and representatives must embrace the differences, and try to find ways to compromise. With this goal in mind, from October to December 2019, ICOFOM surveyed its members and other international and national committees on the new proposed definition; the results of the survey are presented at the end of this issue. The present publication aims to give a continuation to the debates at an academic and professional level within the museological community, with the purpose of putting museology at the service of museums.

Towards a(n) (im)possible definition? Contemplating ways to compromise

26Are we trying to define the undefinable? The question raised at the ICOM General Conference of Kyoto in 2019, prompts us to consider the idea that a single definition of the museum might be inconceivable in theoretical terms and unreliable in suiting the different practices and experiences of the museal. Yet there is a consensus among us that a museum definition for the 21st century must be achieved for operational uses, while also attending to a demand from ICOM members and museum professionals who feel the need for a definition that protects their institutions and guides their work, while at the same time defining who they are.

27A definition is all at once the result of an observation, a description, and the affirmation of some values, a utopia. In fact, we may never reach an acceptable definition for the museum that is accurate, precise and strict, because there is not one museum subjected to a definition, and the known models from the past have been sufficiently misused to the point of almost being abandoned by most of the institutions in their set of practices. Against all standardisation, but still in search of a theoretical and normative consensus, ICOFOM is dedicated to the ICOM cause of sustaining a global forum for discussions at different levels in order to achieve a reasonable definition for the present century. In this sense, the theory of the museum and the discipline of museology may help us to find a path to compromise, creating dialogue from disputes and perhaps finding the way to state in a few terms what sustains us as a group of professionals and thinkers in a non-homogeneous field of knowledge and practices. What kind of museum do we desire for the future generations of professionals and museum goers? What kind of museum do we wish to define and pursue?

28Without intending to propose a new text for the museum definition, this special issue of ICOFOM Study Series, number 48, issue 2, addresses the different claims on a new definition, acknowledging the discourses and the dissonances in the contemporary debate. Therefore, we have invited professionals and scholars to submit their proposals according to the following subtopics:

29Operational and structural challenges for a museum definition: approaches on the practical, administrative and legal implications of the use of a new museum definition in different contexts of the world. How does the ICOM museum definition shape practices and local policies by generating standards and rules to define museum work? What institutions are included, from a legal, political and financial perspective, in the category of the “museum”? Which are excluded and struggle to obtain public recognition and funding?

30Theoretical basis of the museum definition, in the past and present: reflections on the theory of the museum that sustains the museum definition and the specific terms and concepts that are used in it. What new concepts or theoretical frameworks should be considered for a definition of the 21st century? What terms and concepts in the current definition might be re-considered or are obsolete?

31Defining the museum profession and its main skills: analysis of the impact of the museum definition on the museum profession, its attributes, and its role in the different cultural and social contexts. Does the definition help the professionalisation of the museum field? In what measure is it connected to capacity building and the training of museum personnel?

32Social uses of the museum definition in community-based experiences: it’s been considered that a single universal museum definition may exclude some experiences and practices based on community action and social experimentation. How might the museum definition help communities to obtain social recognition and to supplant the financial and representational challenges of the present? How should ICOM consider other definitions, based on local knowledge, in order to become more inclusive of other manifestations of the museum?

33The museum definition between promise and prescription: Any definition is a normative text, and thus could be used as a means of excluding phenomena deemed to not fit the defined group. However, a definition is also often used as a collective framework that should be supported but will not necessarily be fulfilled by each element of that defined group. Museological analysis could look back to the last decades to investigate the use of museum definitions in a theoretical or practical way: how have museum professionals and organisations used definitory elements in the recent past?

34For some contemporary historians, the 21st century truly started when the COVID-19 pandemic began to affect the lives of individuals and change social dynamics on both a global and a local scale. The current wave of transformations provoked by the combined public health, economic, and political crisis in 2020 has also evinced some structural changes in the functioning of museums. Some of the authors in this issue will consider the impact of the recent crisis on the conception of a new definition at a time when museums most need basic principles or core values to continue serving threatened societies and democracies.

35In her article, Lynn Maranda questions whether museums are currently being pushed to become “money machines” in a global market that has been shaken by an economic crisis which has exposed social inequalities in different parts of the colonised world. The author addresses the role of a universal definition and its limitations to consider the specific needs of communities in different regions and countries. By analysing the relationship between museums and indigenous populations in Canada and the United States, she shows how local legislation and the power of institutional rules are fundamental to agreement on repatriation and the preservation of indigenous heritage. Maranda calls attention to the relevance of considering local realities when defining specific laws and standards for the cultural field, and she asks how inclusive a museum can be in practice when a single universal definition is applied to different countries and cultural contexts in the postcolonial world. In her analysis, the central challenge should be to promote a more “bottom up” rather than a “top down” conception of the museum and of its place in any society.

36According to François Mairesse and Olivia Guiragossian, if ICOM wishes to present one single definition of value to all its national committees and members, first, it must consider the different ways in which the museum is perceived around the globe. In their detailed analysis of the 269 definitions in response to the ICOM survey in 2019, the authors note, among other observations, the prevalence of terms such as “community” and the adjective “social” that did not appear in the ICOM museum definition proposed last year. In fact, the social dimension of the museum – that is shown to be overrepresented in Latin American definitions – has been overlooked in the MDPP interpretation of the survey. This social character of the museum was stressed in the ICOFOM symposia organised in 2017, and it was emphasised as an important aspect of a museum definition particularly by those participants in the events held in Rio de Janeiro and Buenos Aires, whose papers were published (Brulon Soares, Brown & Nazor, 2018), and resolutions were presented to the MDPP.

37In his critical approach to past definitions adopted by ICOM, Markus Walz shows that more than simply describing a specific phenomenon, these texts, in their unlimited application all over the world, are set to produce the very phenomena they wish to describe. The author also considers the limitations of the ICOM museum definition in its universal pretence, by suggesting that even in the current definition (2007) some statements such as “at the service of society and its development” are value-laden assertions that project to all museums a path to be followed. The author notes some terminological problems when the definition refers to “the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity” while stating the functions of a traditional museum based on material collections. As Walz recalls, the terms “preserving” or “conserving” usually refer to material goods, while “safeguarding” is commonly used to refer to non-material cultural phenomena.

38In order to carefully interpret the current debates, Elizabeth Weiser goes back to the Kyoto extraordinary assembly, where 70% of ICOM representatives voted to postpone a bold and controversial definition of the museum for the 21st century. The author considers that this vote – one of the most argued in the history of this organisation – represented neither a rejection to progress nor a shutting out of voices from the global South. It was maybe the result of a greater diversity of points of view, which is characteristic of a multicultural organisation still struggling to find a common ground between its members – one that may encompass a spectrum of different opinions and perspectives on the museum.

39By considering five different versions of the museum definition presented over time, Weiser focuses on where the points of contention and agreement lie among the ICOM membership. As she recalls, in the past few years, the majority of ICOM members have agreed with the need to update the current definition, based on changes in the museum field since the last century. From this consensus, a commitment was made at the ICOM General Assembly of 2016, in Milan, that a designated group of professionals would take on this task within the broad organisation – the MDPP formed in 2017. From that point on, what was made clear was the great diversity of opinions and political points of view of members and representatives that currently compose this multicultural group of professionals. What could have been perceived as the strength of ICOM as a global organisation, led to internal conflicts that caused the resignation of several members of the MDPP early in 2020. Now, we can only move forward by recognising that ICOM should be about all our differences, our localised voices and various forms of situated knowledge (Haraway, 1988), and not about a claim of universality that should unite us despite it all. Coming from their different perspectives, the authors in this issue call attention to the complexity of the debate that, in several media, is being depicted as a polarisation between conservative and progressive voices – as if an international debate with political and economic implications could be that simplistic.

40Several of the authors in this issue are not afraid of showing that they are not neutral towards the museum definition and its implications in the life of people and the institutions where they act. In her explicit defence of museum education, Milene Chiovatto denounces the internal hierarchies that sustain museums exclusion and the prominence of the expert or curator to the detriment of the visitor experience. She suggests that to promote cultural democracy museums should start changing from the inside out, letting go of the crystallised values and colonial views from the past. Finally, she suggests that a universal vocabulary to translate new values should be discussed in the different settings. As the debates involving terminological issues on “education” and “cultural mediation” show, different meanings can be attributed to the same terms in the diverse cultural and linguistic contexts in which they are applied. Sharing this same concern with vocabulary, Ann Davis argues that a definition should be based on commonly understood terms within a particular group of people and should also consider the different meanings of words in different cultural contexts. At the same time, she states that the terms used in the definition text should be representative of the group of professionals who operate it in practice.

41Thomas Thiemeyer, in his article, asserts his passionate defence of the definition proposed by the MDPP on the eve of the Kyoto General Conference, considering it a turning point for the museum field, and the first time that a completely new text to replace the one adopted in the last century was put to a vote by ICOM. Furthermore, he argues that no apolitical definition of the museum, considering it as an institution that stores and preserves collections, is sustainable in times in which no institution – and certainly no publicly funded institution – can withdraw from its “social responsibility”. He recalls, thus, that the political agenda of the new proposed definition is not only primed with liberalism, but also with postcolonialism – an agenda that has generated great friction within ICOM. According to Thiemeyer, the pivotal question at the centre of ICOM discussions seems to be: is it about a vision for the future or rather the pursuit of minimum standards for cultural policy matters involving museums? To this question, we could even add another one: can we conceive a definition in its operational sense and still make a statement about the future of museums?

42Some of the authors in this issue base their analysis on specific case studies, looking at museum experiences and practices to reframe the very notion of the museum. Alix Ferrer-Yulfo argues for a more open-minded approach to envisioning museums in the 21st century, by presenting the case of Museo del Baile Flamenco as an example of a museum based on Intangible Cultural Heritage that should consider a new approach to the process of musealisation. With a similar purpose, Sara Pastore presents some interdisciplinary paths to the interpretation of museal landscapes, basing her analysis on the case study of the city of Naples. In her attempt to outline a possible framework for the interpretation of the landscape in art museums, the author stresses the intermediary nature of the museum, beyond the mere public institution or business organisation. This approach allows for a post-critical museology, sustained by sociological theory and method, that reconsiders the museum in the light of the political, economic, and social changes of the present time.

43In the context of Canada, Michèle Rivet raises some important points for an international definition considering the history and specific circumstances of two renowned institutions: the Musée de beaux arts, in Montréal, and the Musée de la civilisation in Québec. The author also proposes a non-universal approach to what a museum is, and she argues that local legislation and the governance of museums in different cultural contexts should be considered in any museum definition adopted by international organisations such as ICOM.

44For José Jiménez the environmental aspect is considered central for the museums and peoples of Latin America, notably in the Andean region, where memory is recreated as a result of social and environmental resilience despite geographical isolation. As the author shows, the debate on the Anthropocene, in its multiple environmental and social effects, is a political debate that should be considered when museums ask themselves some basic questions such as “Who is exhibiting and for whom?”. The historical categories and social pacts that define who has the right to use natural resources and who hasn’t constitute a major political bias for museums around the world. However, the exploitation of the environment has a greater impact in certain regions of the world and on certain populations. Based on this debate, Jiménez proposes to define the museum as a space for re-evaluating certain conventions, where history can be read from different perspectives and voices, generating multiple reflections and understandings of the world.

45Alejandra Saladino explores some specific aspects of the museum field in Brazil, and emphasises the political and social character of institutions in the country. The author reflects on how the ICOM museum definition can help local communities by generating rules and standards for museum practice and public policies. Even though Brazilian law includes a museum definition that is similar to the ICOM text from 1974, the author regards the 2019 definition as an important means for the country to continue working under a forward-thinking National Policy of Museums. According to her, the new museum definition should serve as a progressive tool for different governments to define public policies that promote the preservation of life and help them to work for a better future for the different social groups.

46Approaching the context of Mexico, Scarlet Galindo Monteagudo calls attention to the need for specific national laws that state what a museum is and that promote cultural policies to regulate them. In her article, she confronts the importance of a museum definition at a national level, especially in societies marked by structural inequalities and where the exclusion of indigenous populations is a practice of the State. In this sense, Monteagudo argues that a museum definition may help to set the parameters for community museums and indigenous processes that are based on experimental practices and that struggle to be recognised by the State as continuous and sustainable institutions.

47Beyond its resonance in national and local realities, the ICOM museum definition has a global mission. It is a tool for defining the parameters for museum professionals and experts around the world, but also for creating a common ground for international dialogue and compromise. As Emilie Girard states in her article, the ICOM definition has an important role in defining ICOM’s identity in this new century. While centred on the functions of collecting, conserving, researching, and communicating, “museum” refers to a well-known institution and to a very specific professional category. These traditional functions of the museum, with an emphasis on material collections and their conservation, seem to be valued by a majority of ICOM members, as the author demonstrates. By analysing the proposed changes to the museum definition presented in Kyoto, Girard considers the impact of some omissions on the future of professionals and institutions that constitute the ICOM international community.

48But what might happen if we introduce new functions and values to this global “institution”? Are museum professionals – as we identify ourselves at the moment – endangered? Are we losing a well-defined status quo with the new definition of the museum? Or is it just a matter of learning how to share authority with subaltern groups and indigenous populations who should also have the right and the means to make their museums, according to an open, inclusive and prospective museum definition? In other words, are we too scared to let go of our power, as museum experts and creators?

49In many ways, the articles in this issue represent some of the different voices and opinions on the museum definition for the 21st century that have been heard at the recent ICOM debates. At the same time, they provide some possibilities for consensus among members and museum professionals on the basic terms to be included in a new definition. According to these different analyses, some notions are more valued than others. To some of the authors the notion of “research” or “study” is very much a core value for the museum professionals who are part of the ICOM membership and voting representatives today. “Education” is also a central element for a museum definition, as well as stating the “social role” or character of the museum. “Democratisation” and the involvement of “communities” are central points of debate for some who stress the relevance of decolonising the museum. Many of the authors in this issue are critical of the universal pretence of the ICOM definition, and they denounce the political and social function of this operational tool.

50A museum is a power device, made of constant disputes and contestation, permanently evolving to meet the needs of different societies and to translate the cultural claims of specific groups. And that is why it is so hard to define it. A museum definition, as this issue demonstrates, is in itself subject to dispute. To define the museum is, thus, a political task, and one that will determine ICOM’s political place and its relevance to contemporary societies and those of the near future. In this sense, a compromise is not only an international necessity in a time of polarising ideas and political extremisms, it is also the only way to move forward.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Adotevi, S. (1992 [1971]). Le musée inversion de la vie. (Le musée dans les systèmes éducatifs et culturels contemporains). In A. Desvallées, M. O. De Barry & F. Wasserman (Coords.), Vagues: une antologie de la Nouvelle Muséologie (Vol. 1., pp. 119–123). Collection Museologia, Savigny-le-Temple: Éditions W-M.N.E.S.

Arjona Pérez, M. (2019 [1977]). Los museos en la solución de los problemas sociales y culturales. In O. Nazor, & S. Escudero (Eds.), Teoría museológica latinoamericana. Textos fundamentales (Vol. 2., pp. 33–35). Marta Arjona Pérez. Paris: Comité Internacional de Museología, ICOFOM; Subcomité de Museología para Latinoamérica y el Caribe, ICOFOM LAM; Consejo Internacional de museos, ICOM.

Brown, K., & Mairesse, F. (2018). The definition of the museum through its social role. Curator: The Museum Journal, 61, 4, 525–539.

Brulon Soares, B., Brown, K., & Nazor, O. (Eds.). (2018). Defining museums of the 21st century: plural experiences. Paris: ICOFOM.

Davis, A., Mairesse, F., & Desvallées, A. (Eds.). (2010). What is a Museum? Munich, Germany: Verlag Dr. C. Müller-Straten.

de Varine, H. (2005). Decolonising Museology. ICOM News, 3, 3.

Desvallées, A., & Mairesse, F. (Dirs.) (2011). Dictionnaire encyclopédique de muséologie. Paris: Armand Colin, 2011.

Edson, G. (2003). Ensemble définissons le musée. ICOM News / Les Nouvelles de l’ICOM, 3, 11.

Edson, G. (2007). Qu’est-ce qu’un musée? In F. Mairesse, & A. Desvallées (Dir.), Vers une redéfinition du musée ? (pp. 37–48). Paris: L’Harmattan.

Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.

ICOM (1972, September) – Conseil international des musées / International Council of Museums. Suite des rapports des Comités internationaux de l’ICOM pour 1972. ICOM News / Nouvelles de l’ICOM, 25(3).

ICOM (2019). The museum definition. The backbone of museums. Museum International, vol. 71, n. 281–282.

ICOM Statutes (1974), adopted by the 11th General Assembly (Copenhagen, Denmark, June 14, 1974). Retrieved from http://archives.icom.museum/hist_def_eng.html.

ICOM Statutes (2007), adopted by the 22nd General Assembly (Vienna, Austria, August 24, 2007). Retrieved from http://archives.icom.museum/hist_def_eng.html.

ICOM website (2019). ICOM announces the alternative museum definition that will be subject to a vote. Retrieved from https://icom.museum/en/news/icom-announces-the-alternative-museum-definition-that-will-be-subject-to-a-vote/.

ICOM. Development of the museum definition according to ICOM Statutes (2007–1946). Accessed March 1, 2020. Retrieved from http://archives.icom.museum/hist_def_eng.html.

Mairesse, F. (Dir.). (2017). Définir le musée du XXIe siècle. Paris: ICOFOM.

Mairesse, F., & Desvallées, A. (Dir.). (2007). Vers une redéfinition du musée? Paris: L’Harmattan.

Mensch, P. van (1992). Towards a Methodology of Museology. University of Zagreb, Faculty of Philosophy, doctoral thesis.

Riviére, G. H. (1960). Stage regional d’études de l’Unesco sur le role éducatif des musées (Rio de Janeiro, septembre 7–30, 1958). Paris: Unesco, 12.

Rusconi, N. (2001). Museology, Nationalism and Globalization. ICOFOM Study Series, 33, 12–18.

Sandahl, J. (2019). The museum definition as the backbone of ICOM. Museum International, 71, 281–282, 1–9.

Scheiner, T. (2000). Muséologie et philosophie du changement. ICOFOM Study Series, 8, 22–24.

Scheiner, T. (2007). Musée et muséologie – définitions en cours. In F. Mairesse & A. Desvallées (Dirs.), Vers une redéfinition du musée ? (pp. 147–165). Paris: L’Harmattan.

Stránský, Z. Z. (1987). Museology and Museums. ICOFOM Study Series, 12, 287–292.

UNESCO (1973). The role of museums in today’s Latin America. Museum International, XXV(3).

UNESCO (2015). Recommendation Concerning the Protection and Promotion of Museums and Collections, Their Diversity and Their Role in Society. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000246331.

Haut de page

Notes

1 See Lewis, 2004 quoted by Mairesse, 2011. The interventions in the framework of the debates on the museum definition between 2003 and 2004, coordinated by Gary Edson, are recounted in Mairesse, François. Musée. In: Desvallées, A. & Mairesse, F. (dirs.) (2011). Dictionnaire encyclopédique de muséologie. Paris: Armand Colin, p.308–312.

2 See Mairesse, F., Desvallées, A. (2007). Introduction. In F. Mairesse & A. Desvallées (Dirs.) (2007). Vers une redéfinition du musée? Paris: L’Harmattan. pp. 13–20.

3 This study was published by ICOFOM in the book edited for the symposium Définir le musée du XXIe siècle, held in Paris, France, in 2017. Rivet, M. (2017). La définition du musée: Que nous disent les droits nationaux ? In F. Mairesse (2017) (Dir.), Définir le musée du XXIe siècle (pp. 53–79). Paris: ICOFOM.

4 The publications and resolutions from the ICOFOM symposia are available for public consultation on our website https://icofom.icom.museum.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Bruno Brulon Soares, « Defining the museum: challenges and compromises of the 21st century »ICOFOM Study Series, 48-2 | 2020, 16-32.

Référence électronique

Bruno Brulon Soares, « Defining the museum: challenges and compromises of the 21st century »ICOFOM Study Series [En ligne], 48-2 | 2020, mis en ligne le 26 janvier 2021, consulté le 16 avril 2024. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/iss/2325 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/iss.2325

Haut de page

Auteur

Bruno Brulon Soares

Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, UNIRIO

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Le texte et les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés), sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search