Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros8Dossier thématiqueThe injunction to share photograp...

Dossier thématique

The injunction to share photographs: A form of participation that benefits the public or the institution?

Sébastien Appiotti
Traduction de Kaylen Baker
Cet article est une traduction de :
L’injonction au partage photographique : une forme de participation profitable pour le public ou pour l’institution ?  [fr]

Résumé

Mobile applications, (data)vizualisation participation flat screens, so-called “immersive” scenographic units for visitor’s photographic staging: this article seeks to understand the interests of cultural institutions that underlie the multiplication of devices for encouraging photographic participation in recent years. Based on doctoral research carried out at the Galeries nationales du Grand Palais between 2013 and 2017, I will question the role of the injunction to public participation by showing that it seeks to support the digital communication strategy of an institution that favours the use of digital platforms.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

  • 1 Pierre Bourdieu, Luc Boltanski and Robert Castel, Un art moyen. Essai sur les usages sociaux de la (...)

1Democratizing photographic practices in society is not new, as Pierre Bourdieu demonstrated in his analysis of photography’s role in validating the family, as a unit and identity.1 Nevertheless, the state of photographic equipment and practices has vastly changed with the arrival of digital technology. In recent years, digital cameras and now smartphones have completely transformed our relationship to art exhibitions through photographic practices. The increase in image production among museum and gallery visitors is the starting point of my article.

  • 2 André Gunthert, “La photo au musée, ou l’appropriation,” L’Atelier des icônes, 2011. [Online] https (...)
  • 3 Tony Bennett, The Birth of the Museum. History, Theory, Politics, New York, Routledge, 1995.

2Photographic practices among the public seem to fall into two conflicting camps: in the first, photography is seen as a right, a popular activity of appropriating artwork.2 The other, conjuring up the “aesthetic shock” of Malraux’s imaginary, considers photography to be an obstacle which prevents a direct relationship with artwork, and devalues photography as a narcissistic, recreational pastime. Considering this context, cultural institutions appear to be caught in a vice, both acknowledging and even stimulating these practices, while on the other hand reigning in the visitor’s body and behavior3 by imposing limits – even banning picture-taking.

3In this article, I will examine this first perspective. For indeed, certain cultural institutions have begun to develop strategies that encourage photographic participation among their visitors.4 Some cultural (and entertainment) sites are even, by nature, designed around and for photography, such as the Museum of Ice Cream5 (Los Angeles) or Mad Dimension (Paris), self-described as “the insta-worthy, pop up museum.”6 In public museums and around historical monuments, certain spaces are equally dedicated to photographic practices: they stage the public’s presence through the use of mirrors, (Coliseum, Rome), and often encourage visitors to share their photos on social media platforms (Oceanographic Museum, Monaco; Renwick Gallery, Washington).

  • 7 Yves Jeanneret, “La place des transformations médiatiques dans l’évolution des musées. Une probléma (...)
  • 8 Joëlle Le Marec, “La participation. Pour un retour au politique en muséologie et dans le domaine s (...)

4At the same time, several researchers in the last few years7 have observed a surge in the development of digital facilitation in cultural institutions. Joëlle Le Marec notes a reconfiguration in museums which has expanded and changed the nature of participation: “The expansion of participation into a museography that involves the visitor but is void of any political dimension is recent: it coincides with the development of digital-based approaches.”8

5This transformed participation goes hand in hand with an alliance between certain cultural institutions and social media platforms, on which visitors are supposed to post and share their photographs. These two types of social players collaborate around what is presented in the discourse as a celebration of ordinary creativity, though it is used simultaneously to promote the institution while giving platforms access to cultural content.

6What are an institution’s underlying interests in devices that encourage photographic participation? And with this context in mind, what is the role of the injunction to participate in the institution's communication strategy?

  • 9 Sébastien Appiotti, Photographiez, participez ! Cadrage du regard et pratiques photographiques au f (...)
  • 10 Yves Winkin, Anthropologie de la communication. De la théorie au terrain, Paris, Seuil, 2001.

7This article is based on research from my doctoral studies9 covering a group of temporary exhibitions from the Réunion des musées nationaux – Grand Palais (RMN – Grand Palais). Within this group, I have chosen to examine the way in which these so-called “participatory” devices materialize in situ, inviting the public to photograph their surroundings and themselves and possibly share their images on social media platforms. An ethnographic study, based on participant observation and communication anthropology10 was conducted across five exhibitions:

  • Dynamo. A Century of Light and Motion in Art (2013), a selection of modern and contemporary artworks exploring concepts of space, light, motion, and vision;

  • Empires (Monumenta 2016), an unusual installation by Huang Yong Ping in the nave of the Grand Palais on themes of trade, globalization, and power struggles;

  • Rodin. L’exposition du centenaire (2017), a centenary retrospective on French sculptor Auguste Rodin and his heirs;

  • Mexique (2016-2017), dedicated to Mexican avant-garde artists from the first half of the twentieth century;

  • Rouge. Art et utopie au pays des Soviets (2019), featuring specific art forms produced in tandem with Russia’s communist society project.

  • 11 Jean Davallon, “Le pouvoir sémiotique de l’espace,” Hermès, no. 61.3, 2011, p. 38‑44. [Online] http (...)
  • 12 Dynamo (2013), Jean Paul Gaultier (2015), Hergé (2016), Rodin (2017) and Joyaux (2017).
  • 13 Emmanuel Souchier, “L’image du texte pour une théorie de l’énonciation éditoriale,” Les Cahiers de (...)
  • 14 Alexandra Saemmer, Rhétorique du texte numérique. Figures de la lecture, anticipations de pratiques(...)
  • 15 Yves Jeanneret and Emmanuel Souchier, “L’énonciation éditoriale dans les écrits d’écran,” Communica (...)

8I selected these exhibitions for my research group based on specific criteria: location (the RMN – Grand Palais), the presence of at least one “participatory” photographic device (mobile application, photo booth, etc.), and several types of museology.11 The consistency in location and in the use of a participatory device allowed me to analyze in particular the possible influence of museography on the public’s photographic practices. In certain mobile applications12 made for visitors, I also analyzed what specifically counts as editorial enunciation13 namely, the discreet traces often left behind by mobile application developers when conceiving of these devices. My socio-semiotic approaches14, combine Peirce’s pragmatic semiotics with a French semio-pragmatic approach of digital writings.15 This allowed me to understand the constraints and technical bearings of the screen pages studied, and to connect my analysis to the social context of production. By this, I mean understanding design practices and representations of the public and their participation, thanks to semi-structured interviews carried out with professionals from three of the institution’s departments (communication, facilitation, and digital content). Lastly, I should specify that while my doctoral research involved direct observation of the public’s photographic practices, in this article I have focused rather on how the public is socially represented and modelized, within the exhibition as well as in the interviewees’ social discourse.

  • 16 Jean Davallon, L’Exposition à l’œuvre. Stratégies de communication et médiation symbolique, Paris, (...)

9First, drawing on a theoretical framework using the exhibition as media,16 I will discuss the double reconfiguration of photographic practices and participation among the contemporary public. Next, based on the aforementioned set of exhibitions, I will analyze the RMN – Grand Palais’s strategies for structuring and stimulating photographic participation.

The exhibition as a media for analyzing the reconfiguration of public participation and practices

The exhibition, a socio-symbolic apparatus

  • 17 Jean Davallon, L’Exposition à l’œuvre. Stratégies de communication et médiation symbolique, Paris, (...)
  • 18 Jean Davallon, L’Exposition à l’œuvre. Stratégies de communication et médiation symbolique, Paris, (...)
  • 19 Umberto Eco, Lector in fabula ou La coopération interprétative dans les textes narratifs, Paris, Gr (...)

10In the introduction to L’Exposition à l’œuvre (2000), Jean Davallon draws a close parallel between the elements of an exhibition and those of media. In particular, the researcher invites us to understand the exhibition as “a mode of receiving” heritage objects that interact with the public within a space. The exhibition is defined here as a composite that the visitor experiences physically.17 Its social practices are meaningful, whether they are expressed as contemplation, participation, rejection, or adherence to a value system. As a socio-symbolic apparatus,18 the exhibition intentionally arranges objects inside a space, which become key to interpreting a text, subsequently actualized by its recipient.19 This actualization is similar to a creative, dynamic act of interpretation, which effectively creates a new text, involving the public in its production of meaning. In our case, for example, it could cover everything between distant contemplation and the public’s photographic practices.

  • 20 Yves Jeanneret, “La place des transformations médiatiques dans l’évolution des musées. Une probléma (...)

11In 2019, researcher Yves Jeanneret expanded on this definition of the exhibition as media, by placing the exhibition, a strategic media, at the heart of other media productions (posters, catalogues, facilitation devices, etc.). He calls these tactical media, with the understanding that they are “less the object of cultural practice than its accessories.20 Analyzing tactical media within the exhibition is essential to this article, in order to understand how the mechanisms of mediatization are at play, both in the public’s social practices and in the definition of participation.

Liberalizing picture-taking within the exhibition

12Since 1979, a ministerial decree on internal museum regulations in France has stipulated the public’s proper behavior when wishing to take a photograph: on one hand, the practice is authorized in permanent collections and must respect security rules and the conservation of artwork; on the other hand, it is forbidden in temporary exhibitions. In reality, this decree conceals a diverse number of situations within cultural institutions: some partially prohibit photography (Louvre Museum, 2005) some entirely (Orsay Museum, 2010-2015). Other institutions, on the contrary, have explicitly encouraged these same practices, such as the RMN – Grand Palais, beginning in 2013.

  • 21 Tous Photographes! La charte des bonnes pratiques dans les établissements patrimoniaux, Ministry of (...)

13This regulatory framework was updated in 2014 by the Ministry of Culture, with the establishment of the Tous photographes charter.21 This charter calls for a paradigm shift: faced with conventional arguments (artwork security, visitor comfort, copyright, etc.) which aim to corral the public into a contemplative, distanced visit around the displays, this charter offers an alternative set of values shaping new ways of visiting. Article 3 of the Tous photographes charter is particularly interesting to analyze for this reason. It includes a graphic representation, in the form of a black camera overlayed with a pink @ symbol.

Figure 1

Figure 1

Symbol from Article 3 of the Tous photographes charter.

Ministry of Culture, 2014.

14This Internet symbol seems to link the camera to the Web, allowing for shared content (in the depicted directional arrows). The phrasing of Article 3, moreover, suggests the same: “Visitors may share and disseminate their photos and videos, especially on the Internet and social networks, within the framework of the legislation in effect.” Through photography, the visitor is offered a chance to participate, based on an injunctive approach directly linked to the Web and social media platforms.

Participation, a criterion for evaluating institutional modernity

  • 22 Alexandre Delarge, “Avant-propos,” Le Musée participatif. L’ambition des écomusées, Paris, La Docum (...)

15The call for public participation within exhibitions is not, however, new. In fact, since the 1960s, French “social museums” and “new museology” have made participation an essential part of their mission,22 specifically providing opportunities to citizens for political involvement in the life of the institution. If the use of museum participation seems to be more frequent than before, it is notably because these participatory initiatives have been designed in direct relation to institutions’ digital communication strategy.

  • 23 Sandri, Eva, LImaginaire des dispositifs numériques pour la médiation au musée d’ethnographie, doc (...)
  • 24 Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture. Where Old and New Media Collide, New York, New York University (...)
  • 25 Tim O’Reilly, “What Is Web 2.0. Design patterns and business models for the next generation of soft (...)
  • 26 Philippe Bouquillion and Jacob Matthews, Le Web collaboratif. Mutations des industries de la cultur (...)
  • 27 Gustavo Gomez-Mejia, Fragments sur le partage photographique. Choses vues sur Facebook ou Twitter,(...)

16The dissemination of digital facilitation devices within museums also results in the projection of digital imaginaries,23 stemming from participatory fan culture24 and what has been called the “Web 2.0.”25 In both cases, these imaginaries promote user activity, the ability to create content,26 and circulate it online. From this perspective, photographic practices align several outcomes: they offer an activity to the public, and potentially stimulate participation through sharing on social media platforms. Furthermore, it is interesting to note with Gustavo Gomez-Mejia that a contemporary semantic shift has occurred, moving from the taking of photographs to an injunction to share them – a “softly spoken command (every Internet user must know how to ‘share’).”27

  • 28 Jean Davallon, Introduction. Le public au centre de l’évolution du musée, Culture & Musées, no. 2 (...)
  • 29 Bernard Schiele, L’invention simultanée du visiteur et de l’exposition [1992], Le Musée des scien (...)
  • 30 Sarah Labelle, La Ville inscrite dans la société de l’information.” Formes d’investissement d’un o (...)
  • 31 Joëlle Le Marec (2007) and Yves Jeanneret (2019) have each respectively demonstrated the importance (...)
  • 32 Alexis, Lucie, Appiotti, Sébastien and Sandri, Eva, “Présentation du supplément 2019 A: Les injonct (...)
  • 33 Joëlle Le Marec, Ce que le “terrain” fait aux concepts. Vers une théorie des composites, research s (...)

17This participatory reconfiguration takes place specifically in the context of a managerial turn28 and communicational turn29 in museums. As a result of this double turn, new injunctions are emerging and spreading,30 contributing to the metamorphosis and modernization31 of cultural institutions. By injunction, I mean “varying degrees of accompaniment—from the smallest suggestion to the most imperative command—and suggestions meant to stimulate and elicit practices,”32 which can be analyzed as a composite33 (Le Marec, 2002) through the tangible (exhibition, devices) and the intangible (discourse, representations, the shaping of practices).

18It was amid this context—that of cultural institutions’ changing relationship to photographic practices and participation —that my fieldwork at the RMN – Grand Palais unfolded.

Supervising participation, stimulating photograph sharing

The Galeries Nationales: opening the Grand Palais to major exhibitions

  • 34 Jean-Miguel Pire, “Malraux contre l’éducation ou contre l’Éducation nationale? Brève généalogie d’u (...)

19The Réunion des Musées Nationaux – Grand Palais is a public institution created in 2011 through the merger of two state cultural institutes: the RMN (1895) and the Grand Palais (1900). The Grand Palais is located in Paris’s 8th arrondissement, perpendicular to the Avenue des Champs-Élysées, near Les Invalides and the Place de la Concorde. This highly symbolic site was built for the 1900 Paris World Fair, and some of its spaces were reconfigured into the Galeries Nationales du Grand Palais (GNGP, 1962-1964) on the initiative of André Malraux. Through the GNGP, Malraux’s conception of cultural democratizing policies could be applied. For the Minister of Cultural Affairs, it was indeed important to “foster a direct relationship between the public and the artwork.”34

20Thus, the GNGP do not have permanent collections, unlike most museums. Rather, the galleries operate according to a calendar of temporary exhibitions, with guest curators and partner institutions. This particularity entails a constant renewal of expographic, museographic, and scenographic discourses.

21With this context in mind, it seems there has been a shift in perspective regarding participation and photographic practices, starting with the exhibition Dynamo in 2013.

Dynamo, a prototype of the “participatory” exhibition

  • 35 Émilie Flon, Gaëlle Lesaffre and Anne Watremez, “Les applications mobiles de musées et de sites pat (...)

22In 2014, based on a study of sixty-seven mobile applications from cultural institutions, Émilie Flon, Gaëlle Lesaffre and Anne Watremez35 identified the major trends and “facilitation forms” that characterize them. These software tools were then grouped into families of functionality: “Display,” “Audioguide,” and “On-site facilitation.” Within this study set, only two mobile applications seemed to draw on “innovative” technologies in an experimental way: BlinksterCP (Musée National d’Art Moderne) and Dynamo.

  • 36Dynamo, l’application mobile gratuite pour smartphones,” RMN – Grand Palais. [Online] https://pres (...)

23From April to July in 2013, the Dynamo exhibition allowed for experimentation through new digital media devices, provided by the telecom service provider Orange and the RMN – Grand Palais’s digital department. The Dynamo exhibition made it possible to “develop a classic example of a participative application to be used before, during, and after the visit.” (Multimedia Project Manager, RMN – Grand Palais). In the press kit for the mobile application, it is stated that “this application, consistent with the artists’ approach, invites the visitor to get involved with their creations, allowing for an enriched and participatory experience with key works in the exhibition.”36

  • 37 Near Field Communication (NFC) is a communication protocol allowing for the exchange of information (...)

24Two technological solutions were tested within Dynamo in relation to this mobile visitor application. One is structured around NFC museum tags37 that allow for the transmission of content (audio, text, images, videos) when a visitor passes his smartphone near the work. The other centers on photographic, written, and auditory participation.

  • 38 Allard, Laurence, “Remix Culture: l’âge des cultures expressives et des publics remixeurs?,” in Act (...)

25As illustrated on the screen-page below (fig. 2), the accompanying institutional text – “découvrez postez mémorisez partagez” (discover post memorize share) – is structured around four injunctions to action, two of which involve circulating and sharing the photographs taken. Moreover, the discourse establishes a strong link between sharing and memory. On this same screen-page, an interactive play button is accompanied by the caption: “Votre carnet de visite” (your visitor’s guide). This tool is able to count the number of works recorded in the guide and those that have been shared in photographic form with other exhibition visitors. On a second screen-page (fig. 3), the injunction to share photographs materializes as hyperlinks. Thus, this screen-page’s editorial enunciation activates the semiotic “interpretants” of users familiar with social media platforms and injunctions on expressiveness.38

Figure 2

Figure 2

A screenshot of the Dynamo application home page.

RMN – Grand Palais/Orange, 2013.

Figure 3

Figure 3

A screenshot of the contribution screen (visual, auditory, or written) based on artwork saved in the Dynamo visitor’s guide application.

RMN – Grand Palais/Orange, 2013.

26The visitors’ photographic contributions are then mediatized and displayed on a “contribution wall.” This impressive device, located on the exit wall of the exhibition, allows visitors to (data)visualize submitted contributions.

27Since 2013, Dynamo has become the prototype for a new aesthetic art experience, shaping the types of roles that public photographic practices can have. The Dynamo application’s editorial enunciation structures the exhibition visit around four key elements: memory; photography; perspective; participation. Within the software, the application designers encoded the hypothesis that a visitor can use photography to construct a subjective relationship, a new text, and an interpretation around the artwork.

Online and on-site participation: the same injunction to share photographs

  • 39 Denise Jodelet (ed.), Les Représentations sociales, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 1989.

28In light of the analyses and prototype features that emerged through Dynamo, new questions arise: why are designers (both digital project managers from service providers and the RMN – Grand Palais staff) shaping a model participatory public figure? What are the commercial interests, professional pretensions, and social representations driving this modeling? To answer these questions, I analyzed the designers’ social representations of the public,39 in the interviewees’ social discourse, in the analyzed exhibitions, and in material gathered from digital writings.

29Following Dynamo, other mobile applications designed by the RMN – Grand Palais explicitly encouraged the public to share photographs. Several factors corroborate this. First, interface design: multiple mobile applications (Jean-Paul Gaultier, 2015; Hergé, 2016; Joyaux, 2017) included the presence of injunctive screen pages which encouraged sharing on social media platforms. Second, respondents’ discourse: in these, the injunction to participate through photographic sharing circulated widely. In the following statement, the head of the digital division at the RMN – Grand Palais closely associates photography practice, the use of the participative module Photo bullée (the Hergé application), and the sharing of these photos on the Web and on social media:

  • 40 Illiès L, “Avec ses expositions d’automne Fantin-Latour, Hergé et le Mexique, la RMN joue la carte (...)

30Concerning photography, through our application the public will be able to insert speech bubbles from famous comic books into their photos and bubble in, or “cartoonize” their photos, before sharing them.40

31This same set of ideas is echoed by a colleague running the Education division, who believes visiting a cultural site should be a shared prescriptive opportunity:

When I go to a cultural place, it’s rewarding. And I want to share it, to say to others, “come and experience what I did, it was great,” or, on the contrary, “I didn't like it so much, so come and see it too, and then you can tell me what you thought of it” (Head of the Education team at RMN Grand Palais).

32This incentive to share photographs also arises in the exhibition. In fact, some devices (photo booths, flat screens displaying visitor participation, etc.) are found in the Galeries Nationales.

  • 41 Olivier Le Deuff, Folksonomies. Les usagers indexent le Web, Villeurbanne, Presses de l’ENSSIB, 200 (...)

33A hashtag is provided for each exhibition, using the model #ExhibitionName (#ExpoRodin). This hashtag aggregates digital content published by visitors on social media platforms, according to a logic that originally stemmed from folksonomy.41 Then, an injunctive rhetoric is implemented in the exhibition to invite sharing of this same content: “Share #ExpoRodin.” This discourse is accompanied by Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter logos. Lastly, for some exhibitions, these injunctions to share are complemented by permanently installed flat screens, allowing visitors to view Internet user participation in real time.

  • 42 Eliseo Verón, La Sémiosis sociale. Fragments d’une théorie de la discursivité, Saint-Denis, Presses (...)

34This device combines a production grammar42 with exemplification through a visual trace. The following photograph of the flat screens from Empires (Monumenta 2016) is one concrete example. It features the following accompanying words: “Suivez et partagez votre expérience de visite #Monumenta2016 #HuangYongPing Share your experience of your visit #Monumenta2016 #HuangYongPing.” The first flat screen allows visitors to view digital media content proposed by the RMN – Grand Palais. The second screen allows visitors to view the exhibition’s themed Twitter livestream, and any potential contribution they may have made using the hashtag.

Figure 4

Figure 4

Flat screens for viewing Twitter participation, Empires, Monumenta 2016.

RMN Grand Palais, 2016, Sébastien Appiotti ©.

35One last type of device completes the visitor’s incentive to photographic participation. These are so-called “immersive” scenographic items inviting visitors to put themselves into the scene, then take their picture (or have it taken), and finally to share their picture on digital social networks. During my fieldwork, this strategy was used four times in the GNGP:

36– In the Seydou Keïta exhibition (2016), with an immersive wax exit passage inviting photographic sharing on Instagram;

37– In the Hergé exhibition (2016), with a wall of human-sized characters from the Tintin comic book. In the exhibition brochure,43 this apparatus is presented as: “THE WALL OF SELFIES. Photograph yourself in front of a wall of Hergé’s characters and share your images on social networks. #ExpoHergé.”

38– In the Mexique exhibition (2016-2017), audiences were given a cubic space called Tiny Room, to use for photographic practices.

39– Lastly, in the exhibition Rouge. Art et utopie au pays des Soviets (2019), the RMN’s digital division chose to integrate a series of twenty exhibition-themed GIF-stickers into Instagram, allowing audiences to decorate their photographs in line with the exhibition’s theme. These digital stickers were accompanied by a wall at the end of the exhibition, repeating the graphic and aesthetic codes of a propaganda poster. Thus, one could read both “Proletarians of all countries, unite!” in Cyrillic, and, nearby, an injunction to be creative on Instagram, then choose to share a message in an Instagram story.

Figure 5b

Figure 5b

Scenography #ExpoRouge, Rouge. Art et utopie au pays des Soviets

RMN – Grand Palais, 2019, Sébastien Appiotti ©.

Participation traces, an important attentional issue

40Participatory mobile applications, flat screens displaying social media streams, hashtags, social media creation tools, immersive scenographies: how can we explain the shift in the last few years from prohibition of visitor photography to a strong, multifaceted incitement?

  • 44 Appiotti, Sébastien and Sandri, Eva, 2020. “‘Innovez!’ ‘Participez!’ Interroger la relation entre m (...)

41In a previous article, I demonstrated how the RMN – Grand Palais wished to be identified as a specialist in cultural engineering, technological innovation, and cultural participation.44 To do this, the RMN – Grand Palais notably makes its exhibitions available as incubation grounds for so-called “innovative” digital devices, and organizes fairs around the convergence of art, culture, and new technologies (Salon Art#Connexion in 2018). In doing so, the RMN – Grand Palais is seeking to reposition its institutional image around movement, modernity, and the intersection of arts and industry. In this context, public photographic participation takes on an importance greater than the attempt to engage visitors through activity.

  • 45 Yves Jeanneret, “La place des transformations médiatiques dans l’évolution des musées. Une probléma (...)
  • 46 Yves Jeanneret, “La place des transformations médiatiques dans l’évolution des musées. Une probléma (...)

42For Yves Jeanneret, this institutional repositioning is part of an “inversion in the relationship between media and museums [...] [aimed at] shifting mass-market facilitation tools first sought out by the museum as tactical media into the position of strategic devices.”45 Similarly, the devices framing public participation are part of this inversion, not only reinforcing the exhibition’s mediatization, but also changing the cultural institution’s social role. This latter effect turns the institution into a playground of experimentation around content “likely to intensify uses, flow, and traces.”46

  • 47 Noémie Couillard, Les Community managers des musées français. Identité professionnelle, stratégies (...)
  • 48 Yves Citton, “Rebonds sur les thèmes de la journée,” in Conference “La fabrique de la participation (...)

43In her dissertation devoted to the professionalization of cultural institution community managers, (2017), Noémie Couillard shows how, within the same period, both in France and internationally, museums have developed photographic contests to accompany and stimulate public participation, by investing in different digital platforms, such as Flickr, Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. This evolution goes hand in hand with a greater interest in the metrics and traces of participation than in the participation itself, concerning the same institutions.47 According to Yves Citton, if the photographic policy within institutions has shifted from prohibition to active encouragement, it is also because institutions need these photographs to be taken, shared, and circulated. I argue that this need for “attentional traces”48 contributes to designers’ socio-technical representations of the visitors, whose reconfigured cultural practices push the institution to offer picture-sharing tools on social media platforms. These representations seem particularly applicable at the RMN – Grand Palais, even though the data collected on this subject by its Research and Marketing Team suggest the opposite. Between 2013 and 2016, only 3% of GNGP visitors declared having used their cell phones to share content (textual or visual) on social media platforms related to the exhibitions they visited. Ideas that connect the museum visit to software-tools usage and platform content-sharing thus remain rather rhetorical, aimed at convincing an audience (the board of trustees, the media, etc.) of the institution’s repositioning related to activity, modernity, and photographic sharing.

Conclusion

44I have shown in various ways how the RMN – Grand Palais delivers a “pro-photography” rhetoric to its public, a rhetoric whose injunctive modalities and representations I have delineated by contextualizing characteristics of socio-technical apparatuses (mobile applications, devices encouraging photography) conceived by this institution, with scenography that endeavors to frame the practices. Visitor photographic practices are indeed invested with a series of beliefs and hopes by social actors, notably linked to participation and sharing on social media platforms.

  • 49 Marie Cambone, “L’expérimentation SmartCity à la Cité internationale: une réactualisation du paradi (...)
  • 50 André Gunthert, L’Image partagée. La photographie numérique, Paris, Textuel, 2015

45At the heart of this investigation, I identified a major concern in the institutional repositioning of the RMN – Grand Palais: the “re-actualization”49 of participation is here based on a “photographic shift”50 associating online circulation and sharing across social media platforms. This repositioning accompanies a proposed alternative aesthetic experience around cultural objects. But above all, it transforms the concern to stimulate public activity into a global injunction to participation. This injunction benefits the institution while directly supporting its digital communication strategy.

  • 51 Serge Proulx, “L’injonction à participer au monde numérique,” Communiquer, no. 20, 2017. [Online] h (...)
  • 52 Gustavo Gomez-Mejia, “Fragments sur le partage photographique. Choses vues sur Facebook ou Twitter, (...)
  • 53 Dominique Cardon and Antonio Casilli, Qu’est-ce que le digital labor ?, Bry-sur-Marne, INA Éditions (...)

46Furthermore, Serge Proulx describes the current expansion of participation as an illusion and a “semantic ruse,”51 to the extent that its rhetoric is currently exploited to benefit commercial interests. Indeed, the various analyzed exhibitions and devices, when put in relation with the interviewees’ social discourse, indicate the RMN’s high level of interest in photographic sharing. For Gustavo Gomez-Mejia, the repeated use of “sharing” as a value on the Web and social media platforms “euphemizes and adds hype to the production and distribution of content across networks.”52 Indeed, under the guise of celebrating the audience’s viewpoints and subjectivity, we should also ask if this injunction to share might encourage a particular form of digital labor53 within the exhibition. The role of exhibition audiences’ photographic sharing is an unexamined issue which begs the question: does the public participate in the exhibition’s outreach, communication, and even sponsorship, in the form of visual prescriptive micro-labor?

47As the RMN – Grand Palais begins restoration work and a large-scale redevelopment through 2025, the injunctions to participate, found both in normative discourse, and in the design and materialization of devices, seem to be a promising critical approach to studying the making of and contemporary reconfiguration of participation. This approach appears to be equally effective for better understanding museum’s and exhibition’s contemporary representations and the imaginaries within the wider dynamics of cultural industrialization, commodification, and rationalization.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Alexis, Lucie, Appiotti, Sébastien and Sandri, Eva, “Présentation du supplément 2019 A: Les injonctions dans les institutions culturelles,” Les Enjeux de l’information et de la communication, no. 20.3, 2019. [Online] https://lesenjeux.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/2019/supplement-a/00-presentation-du-supplement-2019-a-les-injonctions-dans-les-institutions-culturelles-ajustements-et-prescriptions [accessed 13 February 2021].

Allard, Laurence, “Remix Culture: l’âge des cultures expressives et des publics remixeurs?,” in Actes du colloque Pratiques numériques des jeunes,” Paris, CSI/Ministry of Culture and Communication, 2009.

Appiotti, Sébastien, Photographiez, participez! Cadrage du regard et pratiques photographiques au fil des mutations du Grand Palais, doctoral thesis, Saint-Denis, Université Paris 8, 23 June 2020. [Online] https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-03185227 [accessed 20 April 2021].

Appiotti, Sébastien and Sandri, Eva, 2020. “‘Innovez! Participez!’ Interroger la relation entre musée et numérique au travers des injonctions adressées aux professionnels,” Culture & Musées, no. 35. [Online] https://doi.org/10.4000/culturemusees.4383 [accessed 13 February 2021].

Bennett, Tony, The Birth of the Museum. History, Theory, Politics, New York, Routledge, 1995.

Bouquillion, Philippe and Matthews, Jacob, Le Web collaboratif. Mutations des industries de la culture et de la communication, Grenoble, Presses Universitaires de Grenoble, 2010.

Bourdieu, Pierre, Boltanski, Luc and Castel, Robert, Un art moyen. Essai sur les usages sociaux de la photographie, Paris, Minuit, 1965.

Cambone, Marie, “L’expérimentation SmartCity à la Cité internationale: une réactualisation du paradigme de la participation dans le secteur patrimonial,” Les Enjeux de l’information et de la communication, no. 17.3, 2016. [Online] https://lesenjeux.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/2016/supplement-a/04-lexperimentation-smartcity-a-cite-internationale-reactualisation-paradigme-de-participation-secteur-patrimonial/ [accessed 13 February 2021].

Cardon, Dominique and Casilli Antonio, Qu’est-ce que le digital labor?, Bry-sur-Marne, INA Éditions, 2015.

Chaumier, Serge, Traité d’expologie. Les écritures de l’exposition, Paris, La Documentation française, 2012.

Citton, Yves, “Rebonds sur les thèmes de la journée,” in conference “La fabrique de la participation culturelle. Plateformes numériques et enjeux démocratiques,” 2020. [Online] https://youtu.be/YTBSUhJUNEY [accessed 14 February 2021].

Couillard, Noémie, Les Community managers des musées français. Identité professionnelle, stratégies numériques et politique des publics, doctoral dissertation, Avignon, Université d’Avignon-Pays de Vaucluse, 29 June 2017. [Online] https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01715055 [accessed 20 April 2021].

Davallon, Jean, “Introduction. Le public au centre de l'évolution du musée,” Culture & Musées, no. 2.1, 1992, p. 10-18.

Davallon, Jean, L’Exposition à l’œuvre. Stratégies de communication et médiation symbolique, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2000.

Davallon, Jean, “Le pouvoir sémiotique de l’espace,” Hermès, no. 61.3, 2011, p. 38‑44. [Online] https://www.cairn.info/revue-hermes-la-revue-2011-3-page-38.htm [accessed 13 February 2021].

Delarge, Alexandre, “Avant-propos,” Le Musée participatif. L’ambition des écomusées, Paris, La Documentation française, 2018, p. 7-13.

Eco, Umberto, Lector in fabula ou La coopération interprétative dans les textes narratifs, Paris, Grasset, 1985.

Flon, Émilie, Lesaffre, Gaëlle and Watremez, Anne, “Les applications mobiles de musées et de sites patrimoniaux en France: quelles propositions de médiation?,” La Lettre de l’OCIM, no. 154, 2014. [Online] http://journals.openedition.org/ocim/1423 [accessed 13 February 2021].

Gunthert, André, “La photo au musée, ou l’appropriation,” L’Atelier des icônes, 2011. [Online] https://histoirevisuelle.fr/cv/icones/1416 [accessed 13 February 2021].

Gunthert, André, L’Image partagée. La photographie numérique. Paris, Textuel, 2015.

Gomez-Mejia, Gustavo, “Fragments sur le partage photographique. Choses vues sur Facebook ou Twitter,” Communication & langages, no. 194.4, 2017, p. 41-65. [Online] https://www.cairn.info/revue-communication-et-langages1-2017-4-page-41.html [accessed 13 February 2021].

Illiès, L, “Avec ses expositions d’automne Fantin-Latour, Hergé et le Mexique, la RMN joue la carte de l’humour et des selfies,” CLIC France, 2016. [Online] http://www.club-innovation-culture.fr/expositions-Rmn-automne-2016/ [accessed 15 February 2021].

Jeanneret, Yves, “La place des transformations médiatiques dans l’évolution des musées. Une problématique,” in Le Marec, Joëlle, Schiele, Bernard and Luckerhoff, Jason, Musées, mutations…, Dijon, OCIM, 2019, p. 97-123.

Jeanneret, Yves and Souchier, Emmanuël, “L’énonciation éditoriale dans les écrits d’écran,” Communication & langages, vol. 145, no. 1, 2005, p. 315. [Online] https://www.persee.fr/doc/colan_0336-1500_2005_num_145_1_3351 [accessed 13 February 2021].

Jenkins, Henry, Convergence Culture. Where Old and New Media Collide, New York, New York University Press, 2006.

Jodelet, Denise (ed.), Les Représentations sociales, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 1989.

Labelle, Sarah, La Ville inscrite dans “la société de l’information,” Formes d’investissement d’un objet symbolique, doctoral thesis, Neuilly-sur-Seine, Université Paris IV Sorbonne/Celsa, 2007.

Le Deuff, Olivier, Folksonomies. Les usagers indexent le Web, Villeurbanne, Presses de l’ENSSIB, 2006. [Online] http://bbf.enssib.fr/consulter/bbf-2006-04-0066-002 [accessed 13 February 2021].

Le Marec, Joëlle, Ce que le “terrain” fait aux concepts. Vers une théorie des composites, research supervision thesis, Paris, Université Paris 7, 2002.

Le Marec, Joëlle, Publics et musées. La confiance éprouvée, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2007.

Le Marec, Joëlle, “La participation. Pour un retour au politique en muséologie et dans le domaine ‘sciences et société’” in Delarge, Alexandre (ed.), Le Musée participatif. L’ambition des écomusées, Paris, La Documentation française, 2018, p. 25‑36.

Merleau-Ponty, Claire, “Quelles scénographies pour quels musées? Introduction,” Culture & Musées, no. 16.1, 2010, p. 201206. [Online] https://www.persee.fr/doc/pumus_1766-2923_2010_num_16_1_1571 [accessed 13 February 2021].

Noual, Pierre, L’Être et l’avoir de la collection. Essai sur l’avenir juridique des corpus artistiques, doctoral law thesis, Toulouse, université Toulouse 1 Capitole, 14 November 2016.

O’Reilly, Tim, “What Is Web 2.0. Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software,” oreilly.com, 2005. [Online] https://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html [accessed 13 February 2021].

Pire, Jean-Miguel, “Malraux contre l’éducation ou contre l’Éducation nationale? Brève généalogie d’une occasion manquée,” Colloque Malraux, l’art, le sacré. Actualités du Musée imaginaire, 31st March-1st April 2016, Paris, INHA, 2016. [Online] https://chmcc.hypotheses.org/2319 [accessed 13 February 2021].

Proulx, Serge, “L’injonction à participer au monde numérique,” Communiquer, no. 20, 2017. [Online] http://journals.openedition.org/communiquer/2308 [accessed 13 February 2021].

Saemmer, Alexandra, Rhétorique du texte numérique. Figures de la lecture, anticipations de pratiques, Villeurbanne, Presses de l’ENSSIB, “Papiers,” 2015.

Saemmer, Alexandra and Tréhondart, Nolwenn (eds.), Livres d’art numériques. De la conception à la réception, Paris, Hermann, 2017.

Sandri, Eva, L’Imaginaire des dispositifs numériques pour la médiation au musée d’ethnographie, doctoral thesis, Avignon, Université d’Avignon-Pays de Vaucluse, 2016. [Online] https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01513541 [accessed 20 April 2021].

Schiele, Bernard, “L’invention simultanée du visiteur et de l’exposition” [1992], Le Musée des sciences. Montée du modèle communicationnel et recomposition du champ muséal, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2001, p.117-140.

Souchier, Emmanuel, “L’image du texte pour une théorie de l’énonciation éditoriale,” Les Cahiers de médiologie, no. 2.6, 1998, p. 137‑145. [Online] http://www.cairn.info/revue-les-cahiers-de-mediologie-1998-2-page-137.html [accessed 15 February 2021].

Verón, Eliseo, La Sémiosis sociale. Fragments d'une théorie de la discursivité, Saint-Denis, Presses Universitaires de Vincennes, 1987.

Winkin, Yves, Anthropologie de la communication. De la théorie au terrain, Paris, Seuil, 2001.

Haut de page

Notes

1 Pierre Bourdieu, Luc Boltanski and Robert Castel, Un art moyen. Essai sur les usages sociaux de la photographie, Paris, Minuit, 1965, p. 35.

2 André Gunthert, “La photo au musée, ou l’appropriation,” L’Atelier des icônes, 2011. [Online] https://histoirevisuelle.fr/cv/icones/1416 [accessed 13 February 2021]; Pierre Noual, L’Être et l’avoir de la collection. Essai sur l’avenir juridique des corpus artistiques, doctoral law thesis, Toulouse, Université Toulouse 1 Capitole, 14 November 2016.

3 Tony Bennett, The Birth of the Museum. History, Theory, Politics, New York, Routledge, 1995.

4 Sébastien Appiotti, Photographiez, participez ! Cadrage du regard et pratiques photographiques au fil des mutations du Grand Palais, thèse de doctorat, Saint-Denis, Université Paris 8, 23 June 2020. [Online] https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-03185227 [accessed 20 April 2021]; Noémie Couillard, Les Community managers des musées français. Identité professionnelle, stratégies numériques et politique des publics, doctoral dissertation, Avignon, Université d’Avignon-Pays de Vaucluse, 29 June 2017. [Online] https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01715055 [accessed 20 April 2021].

5 Museum of Ice Cream. [Online] https://www.museumoficecream.com/ [accessed 15 February 2021].

6 Mad Dimension – Manoir de Paris. [Online] https://www.maddimension.fr/ [accessed 15 February 2021].

7 Yves Jeanneret, “La place des transformations médiatiques dans l’évolution des musées. Une problématique,” in Joëlle Le Marec, Bernard Schiele and Jason Luckerhoff (eds.), Musées, mutations…, Dijon, OCIM, 2019; Joëlle Le Marec, Publics et musées. La confiance éprouvée, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2007.

8 Joëlle Le Marec, “La participation. Pour un retour au politique en muséologie et dans le domaine sciences et société,’” in Alexandre Delarge (ed.), Le Musée participatif. L’ambition des écomusées, Paris, La Documentation française, 2018, p. 36.

9 Sébastien Appiotti, Photographiez, participez ! Cadrage du regard et pratiques photographiques au fil des mutations du Grand Palais, doctoral thesis, Saint-Denis, Université Paris 8, 23 June 2020. [Online] https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-03185227 [accessed 20 April 2021].

10 Yves Winkin, Anthropologie de la communication. De la théorie au terrain, Paris, Seuil, 2001.

11 Jean Davallon, “Le pouvoir sémiotique de l’espace,” Hermès, no. 61.3, 2011, p. 38‑44. [Online] https://www.cairn.info/revue-hermes-la-revue-2011-3-page-38.htm [accessed 13 February 2021].

12 Dynamo (2013), Jean Paul Gaultier (2015), Hergé (2016), Rodin (2017) and Joyaux (2017).

13 Emmanuel Souchier, “L’image du texte pour une théorie de l’énonciation éditoriale,” Les Cahiers de médiologie, no. 2.6, 1998, p. 137‑145. [Online] http://www.cairn.info/revue-les-cahiers-de-mediologie-1998-2-page-137.htm [accessed 15 February 2021].

14 Alexandra Saemmer, Rhétorique du texte numérique. Figures de la lecture, anticipations de pratiques, Villeurbanne, Presses de l’ENSSIB, “Papiers, ” 2015; Alexandra Saemmer and Nolwenn Tréhondart (eds.), Livres d’art numériques. De la conception à la réception, Paris, Hermann, 2017.

15 Yves Jeanneret and Emmanuel Souchier, “L’énonciation éditoriale dans les écrits d’écran,” Communication & langages, vol. 145, n° 1, 2005, p. 3‑15. [Online] https://www.persee.fr/doc/colan_0336-1500_2005_num_145_1_3351 [accessed 13 February 2021].

16 Jean Davallon, L’Exposition à l’œuvre. Stratégies de communication et médiation symbolique, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2000.

17 Jean Davallon, L’Exposition à l’œuvre. Stratégies de communication et médiation symbolique, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2000, p. 11.

18 Jean Davallon, L’Exposition à l’œuvre. Stratégies de communication et médiation symbolique, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2000, p. 27-28.

19 Umberto Eco, Lector in fabula ou La coopération interprétative dans les textes narratifs, Paris, Grasset, 1985, p. 66-72.

20 Yves Jeanneret, “La place des transformations médiatiques dans l’évolution des musées. Une problématique,” in Joëlle Le Marec, Bernard Schiele and Jason Luckerhoff (eds.), Musées, mutations…, Dijon, OCIM, 2019, p. 100.

21 Tous Photographes! La charte des bonnes pratiques dans les établissements patrimoniaux, Ministry of Culture, 2014. [Online] http://www.culture.gouv.fr/Espace-documentation/Documentation-administrative/Tous-photographes-!-La-charte-des-bonnes-pratiques-dans-les-etablissements-patrimoniaux [accessed 15 February 2021].

22 Alexandre Delarge, “Avant-propos,” Le Musée participatif. L’ambition des écomusées, Paris, La Documentation française, 2018, p. 8.

23 Sandri, Eva, LImaginaire des dispositifs numériques pour la médiation au musée d’ethnographie, doctoral thesis, Avignon, Université d’Avignon-Pays de Vaucluse, 2016. [Online] https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01513541 [accessed 20 April 2021].

24 Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture. Where Old and New Media Collide, New York, New York University Press, 2006.

25 Tim O’Reilly, “What Is Web 2.0. Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software,” oreilly.com, 2005. [Online] https://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html [accessed 20 April 2021].

26 Philippe Bouquillion and Jacob Matthews, Le Web collaboratif. Mutations des industries de la culture et de la communication, Grenoble, Presses Universitaires de Grenoble, 2010, p. 5-6.

27 Gustavo Gomez-Mejia, Fragments sur le partage photographique. Choses vues sur Facebook ou Twitter, Communication & langages, no. 194.4, 2017, p. 41-65. [Online] https://www.cairn.info/revue-communication-et-langages1-2017-4-page-41.htm [accessed 13 February 2021].

28 Jean Davallon, Introduction. Le public au centre de l’évolution du musée, Culture & Musées, no. 2.1, 1992.

29 Bernard Schiele, L’invention simultanée du visiteur et de l’exposition [1992], Le Musée des sciences. Montée du modèle communicationnel et recomposition du champ muséal, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2001.

30 Sarah Labelle, La Ville inscrite dans la société de l’information.” Formes d’investissement d’un objet symbolique, doctoral thesis, Neuilly-sur-Seine, Université Paris IV Sorbonne/Celsa, 2007.

31 Joëlle Le Marec (2007) and Yves Jeanneret (2019) have each respectively demonstrated the importance of the “modernist” injunction and the requisition within the “injunction to transform [the] museum” (Yves Jeanneret, La place des transformations médiatiques dans l’évolution des musées. Une problématique,” in Joëlle Le Marec, Bernard Schiele and Jason Luckerhoff [eds.], Musées, mutations…, Dijon, OCIM, 2019, p. 101).

32 Alexis, Lucie, Appiotti, Sébastien and Sandri, Eva, “Présentation du supplément 2019 A: Les injonctions dans les institutions culturelles,” Les Enjeux de l’information et de la communication, no. 20.3, 2019. [Online] https://lesenjeux.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/2019/supplement-a/00-presentation-du-supplement-2019-a-les-injonctions-dans-les-institutions-culturelles-ajustements-et-prescriptions [accessed 13 February 2021].

33 Joëlle Le Marec, Ce que le “terrain” fait aux concepts. Vers une théorie des composites, research supervision thesis, Paris, Université Paris 7, 2002.

34 Jean-Miguel Pire, “Malraux contre l’éducation ou contre l’Éducation nationale? Brève généalogie d’une occasion manquée,” Colloque Malraux, l’art, le sacré. Actualités du Musée imaginaire, 31st March-1st April 2016, Paris, INHA, 2016. [Online] https://chmcc.hypotheses.org/2319 [accessed 13 February 2021].

35 Émilie Flon, Gaëlle Lesaffre and Anne Watremez, “Les applications mobiles de musées et de sites patrimoniaux en France: quelles propositions de médiation?,” La Lettre de l’OCIM, no. 154, 2014. [Online] http://journals.openedition.org/ocim/1423 [accessed 13 February 2021].

36Dynamo, l’application mobile gratuite pour smartphones,” RMN – Grand Palais. [Online] https://presse.rmngp.fr/dynamo-lapplication-mobile-gratuite-%E2%80%8Bpour-smartphones/ [accessed 15 February 2021].

37 Near Field Communication (NFC) is a communication protocol allowing for the exchange of information between two devices within a very short distance of each other. Its market distribution is currently ensured by credit cards, electronic payment terminals, and smartphones equipped with NFC chips.

38 Allard, Laurence, “Remix Culture: l’âge des cultures expressives et des publics remixeurs?,” in Actes du colloque “Pratiques numériques des jeunes,” Paris, CSI/Ministry of Culture and Communication, 2009.

39 Denise Jodelet (ed.), Les Représentations sociales, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 1989.

40 Illiès L, “Avec ses expositions d’automne Fantin-Latour, Hergé et le Mexique, la RMN joue la carte de l’humour et des selfies,” CLIC France, 2016. [Online] http://www.club-innovation-culture.fr/expositions-Rmn-automne-2016/ [accessed 15 February 2021].

41 Olivier Le Deuff, Folksonomies. Les usagers indexent le Web, Villeurbanne, Presses de l’ENSSIB, 2006. [Online] http://bbf.enssib.fr/consulter/bbf-2006-04-0066-002 [accessed 13 February 2021].

42 Eliseo Verón, La Sémiosis sociale. Fragments d’une théorie de la discursivité, Saint-Denis, Presses Universitaires de Vincennes, 1987.

43 Exhibition brochure for Hergé, RMN – Grand Palais, 2016. [Online] https://www.grandpalais.fr/pdf/Depliant_Herge_fr.pdf [accessed 15 February 2021].

44 Appiotti, Sébastien and Sandri, Eva, 2020. “‘Innovez!’ ‘Participez!’ Interroger la relation entre musée et numérique au travers des injonctions adressées aux professionnels,” Culture & Musées, no. 35. [Online] https://doi.org/10.4000/culturemusees.4383 [accessed 13 February 2021].

45 Yves Jeanneret, “La place des transformations médiatiques dans l’évolution des musées. Une problématique,” in Joëlle Le Marec, Bernard Schiele and Jason Luckerhoff (eds.), Musées, mutations…, Dijon, OCIM, 2019, p. 111.

46 Yves Jeanneret, “La place des transformations médiatiques dans l’évolution des musées. Une problématique,” in Joëlle Le Marec, Bernard Schiele and Jason Luckerhoff (eds.), Musées, mutations…, Dijon, OCIM, 2019, p. 112.

47 Noémie Couillard, Les Community managers des musées français. Identité professionnelle, stratégies numériques et politique des publics, doctoral dissertation, Avignon, Université d’Avignon-Pays de Vaucluse, 29 June 2017. [Online] https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01715055 [accessed 20 April 2021].

48 Yves Citton, “Rebonds sur les thèmes de la journée,” in Conference “La fabrique de la participation culturelle. Plateformes numériques et enjeux démocratiques,” 2020. [Online] https://youtu.be/YTBSUhJUNEY [accessed 14 February 2021].

49 Marie Cambone, “L’expérimentation SmartCity à la Cité internationale: une réactualisation du paradigme de la participation dans le secteur patrimonial,” Les Enjeux de l’information et de la communication, no. 17.3, 2016. [Online] https://lesenjeux.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/2016/supplement-a/04-lexperimentation-smartcity-a-cite-internationale-reactualisation-paradigme-de-participation-secteur-patrimonial/ [accessed 13 February 2021].

50 André Gunthert, L’Image partagée. La photographie numérique, Paris, Textuel, 2015

51 Serge Proulx, “L’injonction à participer au monde numérique,” Communiquer, no. 20, 2017. [Online] http://journals.openedition.org/communiquer/2308 [accessed 13 February 2021].

52 Gustavo Gomez-Mejia, “Fragments sur le partage photographique. Choses vues sur Facebook ou Twitter,” Communication & langages, no. 194.4, 2017, p. 41-65. [Online] https://www.cairn.info/revue-communication-et-langages1-2017-4-page-41.html [accessed 13 February 2021].

53 Dominique Cardon and Antonio Casilli, Qu’est-ce que le digital labor ?, Bry-sur-Marne, INA Éditions, 2015.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 1
Légende Symbol from Article 3 of the Tous photographes charter.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/hybrid/docannexe/image/1975/img-1.png
Fichier image/png, 26k
Titre Figure 2
Légende A screenshot of the Dynamo application home page.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/hybrid/docannexe/image/1975/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 50k
Titre Figure 3
Légende A screenshot of the contribution screen (visual, auditory, or written) based on artwork saved in the Dynamo visitor’s guide application.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/hybrid/docannexe/image/1975/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 58k
Titre Figure 4
Légende Flat screens for viewing Twitter participation, Empires, Monumenta 2016.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/hybrid/docannexe/image/1975/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 232k
Titre Figure 5a
URL http://journals.openedition.org/hybrid/docannexe/image/1975/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 58k
Titre Figure 5b
Légende Scenography #ExpoRouge, Rouge. Art et utopie au pays des Soviets
Crédits RMN – Grand Palais, 2019, Sébastien Appiotti ©.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/hybrid/docannexe/image/1975/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 52k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Sébastien Appiotti, « The injunction to share photographs: A form of participation that benefits the public or the institution? »Hybrid [En ligne], 8 | 2022, mis en ligne le 21 avril 2022, consulté le 27 mai 2022. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/hybrid/1975 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/hybrid.1975

Haut de page

Auteur

Sébastien Appiotti

Laboratoire Cemti, Université Paris 8

Sébastien Appiotti is a doctor in Information and Communication Sciences at Cemti laboraty (Université Paris 8) and teaches at Avignon Université. His research is at the crossroads of anthropology, museology and socio-semiotics, and focuses on the knowledge of cultural audiences and their practices, the design and reception of digital devices, and the practices and circulation of the photographic image. In 2020, he published “Innovate! Participate! Interrogating the relationship between museum and digital through the injunctions addressed to professionals” in the journal Culture & Musées, no. 35.

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Revue Hybrid

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search