ICOM
International Council of Museums
ICOFOM
International Committee for Museology
Comité international pour la muséologie
Museology and Intangible Heritage II
International Symposium, organized by ICOFOM
20th General Conference of ICOM
Seoul, Korea
2004
Complete Edition of the Papers
Edited by
Hildegard K. Vieregg, Brigitte Sgoff, Regina Schiller
ICOFOM Study Series – ISS 33 Supplement
Museums-Pädagogisches Zentrum München
© Museums-Pädagogisches Zentrum 2004
Editorial work: Hildegard K. Vieregg, Brigitte Sgoff, Regina Schiller
Published on behalf of ICOFOM (ICOM International Committee for Museology)
By Museums-Pädagogisches Zentrum München 2004
ISBN of the supplement: 3-929862-98-0
Contents
Preface ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Desvallées, André (France)
Provocative Paper:
La muséologie et les categories de patrimoine immatériel:
Questions de terminologie, à propos de Intangible heritage / patrimoine immatériel et patrimoine
intangible ..................................................................................................................................... 7
Museology and Categories of Intangible Heritage
Issues of terminology: the relevance of patrimoine immateriel and patrimoine intangible in
French, and intangible heritage in English ................................................................................ 11
Braz Botelho, Marilia / Borges, Luiz C (Brésil)
Cosmologie et patrimoine immatériel:
une expérience au Musée d´Astronomie .................................................................................. 15
Cameron, Fiona (Australia)
Contention and the Contemporary World – The Roles of Museums in Global Culture ............ 20
Yun Shun Susie, Chung (USA)
Museums and Intangible Folk Heritage in the Republic of Korea ............................................. 21
Davis, Ann (Canada)
Museology and the Intangible Heritage of Learning .................................................................. 31
Gačnik, Aleš
Ethnological Museology of Intangible Heritage
The Culture of Masking ............................................................................................................. 35
Gob, André (Belgium)
Keeping trace .Immaterial Heritage, Living Heritage, Object Museology: a paradoxical
relationship ................................................................................................................................ 45
Garder une trace. Patrimoine immaterial, patrimoine vivant et muséologie de l’objet: une relation
paradoxale ................................................................................................................................. 47
Lengyel, Alfonz
Intagile Sources of Ancient Chinese Objects
A Spiritual & Material Patrimony ................................................................................................ 49
Mairesse, François (Belgium)
Samuel Quiccheberg et le patrimoine Immateriel ..................................................................... 54
Maranda, Lynn (Canada)
Museology and Intangilbe Heritage – The Museum is the Message ........................................ 62
Nikitina, Nina (Russian Federation)
Intangilbe Heritage of The XXV Century People ....................................................................... 65
Pugliese, Maria (Italy)
Une proposition pour l’art contemporaine : le musée de projets ............................................... 67
Scheiner, Tereza (Brazil)
On Ethics, Museums, Communication and the Intangible Heritage .......................................... 70
Tahan, Lina (Lebanon)
Lebanese Museology and the Responsibility towards Society ................................................. 78
Truevtseva, Olga (Russian Federation)
The Paradigm of Cosmogenesis and Eschatology.
In the Mythopoetical Heritage of the Siberian Peoples .............................................................. 85
Vieregg, Hildegard (Germany)
Refledtion on Intangible Heritage .............................................................................................. 87
Xavier Cury, Marilia (Brazil)
To Search in the Exposition and the Intangibility of the Museums ........................................... 94
Rechercher dans l’exposition et l’immateriélité des musées .................................................... 99
Yang, Hyun Mee (Korea)
In Search of the Role of Museum for preservation of Intangible Heritage in Korea ................ 104
ICOFOM Bibliography Indexée
Museological Working papers ICOFOM Study Series ............................................................. 105
Preface
ICOFOM, the International Committee for Museology, discussed the topic ”Museology,
Tangible and Intangible Heritage” for the first time on the occasion of the Annual
Meeting 2000 held in Munich/Germany and Brno/Czech Republic. Already two years
ago the UNESCO-initiative “Proclamation of Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible
Heritage of Humanity” had been established. It started from the model of a preservation
system of intangible heritage in Republic of Korea and aimed at a world-wide
examining and finding of those Masterpieces. Proposals were given by many states
from all over the world. 2001 the first Proclamation was carried out. As a result a list of
nineteen Masterpieces was declared. In the following years 2002 and 2003 over sixty
member States of UNESCO evaluated and recommended further outstanding
examples of intangible heritage of humanity. 2003 twenty-eight additional Masterpieces
were acknowledged and supplemented to the first choice 2001. All of them relate to
immaterial, aesthetic and ethic values, virtual “reality”, creativity, spiritual heritage,
qualities of art or contemporary methods for art-interpretation. In this concern
“Shanghai Charter”, drawn up after the 7th Regional Assembly of the Asia Pacific
Organisation/ICOM/UNESCO (2002) and “UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding
of the Intangible Heritage” (2003) are a very helpful context because they paraphrase
the “intangible” in regard to theoretical and practical structure.
Wheras ICOFOM tangible and intangible heritage particularly considered with
reference to Museums and Museology, UNESCO defined intangible heritage as a
value itself that could be related to various tangible characters. Although from the
ICOFOM point of view intangible heritage is particularly associated with museums,
monuments, documentation centres and memorial sites – and of course, Museology by UNESCO references and definitions a more varied approach to intangible heritage
was designed. ICOM NEWS 4/2003 “Museums and Intangible Heritage” set
supplementary convincing examples of the “intangible” by introducing various types of
museums. Above all, the “provocative paper” of André Devallées, ICOFOM permanent
adviser and responsible for “Thesaurus Museologicus” starting this edition of ICOFOM
Study Series is of great importance in reference with the terms of the “intangible
heritage”, Museology and Museums.
In reference to museological points of view and particularly to the essays in this issue
intangible heritage may be classified into four criteria:
Firstly, the forms of expression that are closely connected to tangible heritage as e.g.
traditions of communities or customs of peoples. Secondly, individual and common,
cultural, social and creative expressions independent of any physical form – as e.g.
language, literature, oral traditions, dance. Thirdly, symbolic and metaphoric
significance of objects that characterize the tangible heritage as e.g. its phenotype, size
and importance as cultural possession. Fourthly, identity and remembrance not only as
a kind of positive but also of “negative” intangible heritage - particularly in reference to
the heritage of former totalitarian states of 20th century.
However, according to the UNESCO “Convention for Safeguarding of the Intangible
Cultural Heritage” the intangible heritage is imparted from the present to the successor
generation and requires a permanent renewal by communities and groups – in
correspondence with both the historical conditions and the present circumstances.
Thus the role of Museums and Museology is also consisting in the responsibility for
records and transcriptions of the intangible heritage that is – as you might say – in this
way “materialised” and “musealised” independently from time and space.
Munich, September 8, 2004
Hildegard Vieregg
5
Provocative Paper:
LA MUSEOLOGIE ET LES CATEGORIES DE
PATRIMOINE IMMATERIEL
Questions de terminologie, à propos de Intangible
heritage // patrimoine immatériel et patrimoine
intangible
André Desvallées1 – France
Resumé
1) Un premier problème est la traduction du mot anglais « intangible » par le mot français
« immatériel ». Il produit un malentendu du fait que la langue française possède deux
mots : « immatériel » (= qui n’est pas matériel) et « intangible » (= que vous ne pouvez
pas toucher). Les sens sont différents puisque, en français, la matière peut être
« tangible » ou « intangible». Ce qui est « immatériel » ne peut jamais être « tangible »,
en français.
2) D’un point de vue muséologique, « l’immatériel » (en anglais « intangible ») est
seulement l’émanation du matériel : il ne peut exister et être exposé sans témoins
tangibles (artéfacts ou spécimens naturels). La présente campagne en faveur du
patrimoine immatériel provient du mépris des cultures extra occidentales par les
politiques et un grand nombre des gens de musée – particulièrement ce qui concerne la
religion et le sacré, toujours mal compris.
3) Les membres de l’ UNESCO (et peut-être de l’ ICOM) sont atteints d’amnésie et
s’obstinent à nier l’évidence lorsqu’ils redécouvrent le patrimoine immatériel. Les
scientifiques savent qu’il existe toujours quelque chose qu’ils ne peuvent percevoir
jusqu’à ce que quelqu’un en donne l’explication. Les historiens d’art savent que la plus
grande partie de la création est immatérielle. Et, par dessus tout, ce n’est pas la première
fois que les ethnologues enregistrent toutes les manifestations culturelles des différentes
cultures, au sein desquelles nous trouvons les fêtes, les cérémonies, les danses, les
processus de fabrication ou des moments de vie. Je voudrais ajouter que ce n’est pas un
nouveau problème pour ceux qui assurent depuis des années et des années qu’un objet
n’a pas de sens par lui-même.
Non seulement ICOFOM ne semble pas avoir été consulté en vue de la préparation de la
conférence générale de 2004, à Séoul, mais ISS 32, rendant compte des réflexions de sa
réunion de nov.-déc. 2000, à Munich et Brno, est ignoré dans les référence citées dans Les
Nouvelles de l’ ICOM,vol.56, 2003/4 : 8, alors que la publication de la réunion du CIDOC de
sept. 2002, à Porto Alegre, y figure. Au vu des réflexionx publiées, il semble bien qu’une grande
confusion guide les débats sur le thème choisi pour la conférence. Cette confusion a deux
causes principales, qui prennent leur source dans la nouvelle définition de l’ UNESCO de la
Convention pour la sauvegarde du patrimoine culturel immatériel, Paris, le 17 octobre 2003 /
Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, Paris, 17 October 2003 :
1) d’une part un mauvais passage du français à l’anglais (ou inversement), dès les premières
réflexions de l’ UNESCO sur le patrimoine, lequel s’est appelé en français « immatériel » pour
les uns et « intangible » pour les autres, et toujours « intangible » en anglais ; 2) d’autre part
une séparation arbitraire entre ce qui est matériel et ce qui ne l’est pas.
1
Avec le concours de Suzanne Nash pour la version anglaise.
7
Desvallées : La muséologie et les catégories de patrimoine immatériel
1 Le français distingue ‘immatériel’ (= qui n’est pas matériel, c’est à dire qui peut être spirituel,
intellectuel, moral) de ‘intangible’ (= que l’on ne peut toucher, que l’on ne doit pas toucher,
impalpable, inviolable,) alors que l’anglais ‘intangible’ ne peut revêtir les deux sens
(l’impossibilité et l’interdiction). Et, de là, au moins en français, une confusion, dans la mesure
où un objet que l’on ne peut ou ne doit pas toucher ne peut être ‘immatériel’. Qui plus est selon
le dictionnaire Girodet, seules les choses, concrètes ou abstraites, peuvent être ‘intangibles’,
tandis que les personnes peuvent être ‘intouchables’. Seul le Grand Robert ouvre une porte
vers le sens adopté par l’UNESCO en ajoutant le sens de sacré. C'est sans doute cette
ambiguïté possible avec le sens figuré qui a conduit les gens de l' UNESCO à ne pas adopter
en français le terme d’intangible, qui aurait conduit à une confusion avec d'autres termes
touchant à la conservation de la matière ('ce à quoi on ne doit pas toucher' = ‘impalpable’), alors
qu'il s'agit bien, par rapport à notre problème, du patrimoine – 'qu'on ne peut toucher', en effet,
non pas parce qu'on l'abîmerait, mais parce qu'il est 'insaisissable' matériellement, donc
'immatériel'. Et le ROBERT de définir 'immatériel' comme 'non formé de matière', 'n'ayant pas
de consistance matérielle, 'incorporel', 'spirituel' et, par extension, 'étranger à la matière', 'ne
concernant pas la chair, les sens' – ce que le ROBERT & COLLINS traduit presque littéralement
en anglais par ’immaterial ’, et auquel le HARRRAP’S ajoute ’unsubstantial ’. Si 'intangible' était
utilisé en français dans ce sens il nous ramènerait à la matière (interdiction d'y toucher) ce dont
on voulait justement le distinguer. Si les Anglophones perçoivent vraiment le terme 'intangible'
avec un seul sens (WEBSTER’S Dictionary, Oxford Dictionary), et si, en français le terme
'immatériel' n'est pas nécessairement le meilleur, en tout cas, les deux termes ne veulent pas
dire la même chose dans le contexte qui les a fait choisir l'un et l'autre.
Peut-être serait-il nécessaire, pour lever toute ambiguïté de nuancer le mot ‘intangible’ lors de
la traduction en anglais en ajoutant le concept ’unsubstantial' lorsqu'on se réfère au mot
français ‘immatériel’ – compte tenu que 'intangible property' se traduit par 'biens incorporels.' En
traduisant le terme français ‘intangible’ en anglais, on ajouterait ‘impalpable’ ou ‘non-touchable’
(le terme ‘intouchable’ qui existe déjà serait exclu parce que trop chargé de son sens social aux
Indes).
2 Séparer le matériel de l’immatériel suppose ignorer que tout artefact comprend lui-même une
part d’immatériel. Or l’unanimité n’a pas été faite (je me contenterai sur ce point de rapprocher
les textes de l’UNESCO et les contributions de membres de l’ICOM parues dans Les Nouvelles
de l’ICOM, vol.56, 2003/4 et vol.57, 2004/1).
2.1 Constatons tout d’abord que les scientifiques, même en français, rejettent l’utilisation du
terme ‘immatériel’, au bénéfice du seul ‘intangible’, dans la mesure où tout objet
d’expérience scientifique ne peut être que ‘matériel’, même s’il est difficilement perceptible
par les sens humains, et donc ‘intangible’ sans des instruments spéciaux (c’est le cas pour
les sciences naturelles, et, dans son article (NI, 2004/1 : 11), Michel van Praët tient pour
acquis ce rejet, sans même y faire allusion).
2.2 Or, à la différence des musées, la définition de l’UNESCO ne s’intéresse pas au
patrimoine naturel ! Doit-on donc considérer cette définition comme « pré-logique » ou
« pré-cartésienne » et se rattachant elle-même au monde de l’irrationnel. Dès lors, on
pourrait appliquer au patrimoine le constat qu’avait déjà fait, il y a un demi-siècle, le célèbre
physicien français Louis de Broglie et utiliser le terme de ‘transcendance’ pour qualifier ce
qui échappe à la tangibilité : « La Vie nous apparaît sous des aspects opposés : tantôt elle
semble se réduire à un ensemble de processus physico-chimiques, tantôt elle paraît
s’affirmer comme caractérisée par un dynamisme évolutif qui transcende la physicochimie. » (Physique et microphysique 1947:60).
2.3 C’est ainsi que l’on pourrait expliquer que, concernant la forme que revêt le patrimoine
immatériel, la définition établie par l’UNESCO, inclut aussi bien les éléments qui peuvent
être attribués à la transcendance (‘pratiques, représentations, expressions, connaissances,
savoir-faire’) que les supports matériels qui ont pu les générer (‘instruments, objets,
artefacts et espaces culturels qui leur sont associés’). Or, il n’est pas nouveau de
remarquer que, les musées sont pleins d’objets (patrimoine matériel) qui sont des supports
de patrimoine immatériel. Et, en premier lieu, toutes les œuvres d’art plastique, dont la part
la plus originale est justement celle qui échappe à toute évaluation matérielle. Mais tout
8
Desvallées : La muséologie et les catégories de patrimoine immatériel
autant, également par essence, toute œuvre humaine dont le sens ne se lit pas au premier
degré, mais est généré par le contexte dans lequel elle se trouve dans la vie ou lorsqu’elle
est exposée.
2.4 Si l’on considère le texte même de la Convention’ de l’ UNESCO, « les domaines
d’expression couverts » sont un melting-pot qui comprend à la fois : « les langues, la
littérature orale, (mythes, chansons, jeux, généalogies), les arts du spectacle et les
pratiques corporelles (dont les rituels, les sports, le mime), les savoirs et savoir- faire
(relatifs à la nature et à la cosmologie, aux apprentissages, aux pratiques médicinales et
culinaires, à l’artisanat traditionnel, aux techniques de production), les formes narratives
dans toute leur diversité ». En distinguant trois catégories de patrimoine immatériel,
Giovanni Pinna (NI, 2003/4 : 3) a proposé une répartition plus muséologique du contenu
des définitions de l’UNESCO ainsi que quelques compléments à l’énumération :
1) « les expressions, fixées sous une forme tangible, de la culture ou des modes de
vie traditionnelle d’une communauté donnée : rituels religieux, économies
traditionnelles, modes de vie […] (l’opéra Kunqu, en Chine, les marionnettes
siciliennes, la place Jema’a-el-Fna de Marrakech , par exemple) » ;
2) « toutes les expressions individuelles ou collectives dépourvues de forme tangible :
la langue, la mémoire, la tradition orale, les chansons, la musique traditionnelle non
écrite, etc. […] (par exemple le patrimoine oral du peuple Zapara d’équateur et du
Pérou) » ;
3) « les significations symboliques et métaphoriques des objets qui constituent le
patrimoine matériel. Tout objet possède deux dimensions : son apparence physique
– c’est-à-dire sa forme, sa taille, etc. – et sa signification, qui découle de son
histoire, des interprétations qu’il suscite, de sa capacité à servir de lien entre le
passé et le présent, etc. ».
2.5 Et Giovanni Pinna de faire une distinction, dans l’ordre muséal, entre les deux
premières catégories et la troisième. Dans le premier cas, il considère que le patrimoine
immatériel peut être transcrit ou enregistré et se voir alors transformé en patrimoine
matériel – mais ces « expressions culturelles vivantes », par leur matérialisation, se
trouvent alors comme fossilisées, dans l’espace et dans le temps, et cessent d’être
patrimoine. Dans le second cas, il appartient au musée de sélectionner, dans leur contexte
historique et scientifique, les objets à significations symboliques et de les restituer pour un
large public, avec ce même contexte – même si chaque individu en garde sa propre
interprétation, et même si les expressions culturelles non patrimonialisées continuent
d’évoluer.
2.6 Le patrimoine immatériel est tantôt donné comme véritable objet de musée , (Giovanni
Pinna, NI, 2003/4 : 3 ; Michel van Praët, NI, 2004/1 : 11), parfois il est considéré comme
simple documentation (Amareswar Galla, NI, 2003/4 : 4). Il s’agit alors surtout des
‘processus et phénomènes’ (catégorie que l’UNESCO avait placé dans le domaine culturel
lors de sa réunion de mars 2001), liés aux écosystèmes et à la diversité. Mais si le même
point de vue peut s’appliquer aux processus liés aux sciences exactes, aux sciences
appliquées ainsi qu'aux techniques, ces dernières sont plutôt à rattacher au domaine
culturel.
Conclusion
En bref, muséologiquement parlant, l’immatériel ne peut exister qu’en tant qu’émanation du
matériel et sa restitution ne peut qu’être une évocation par des témoins matériels. La présente
campagne pour la protection du dit patrimoine immatériel provient en fait de ce que ce
patrimoine a été largement ignoré, voire méprisé, par une grande partie du personnel politique
– mais le personnel des musées n’en est-il pas le plus grand responsable dont la majorité
agissante a également méprisé, pendant des années, ce qui ne ressortissait pas au ‘grand
art’ ? Et, c’est bien certain, si les témoignages plastiques des cultures non occidentales ont été
dévoyés pour être rattachés au domaine de l’histoire de l’art et des musées d’art, des champs
entiers de ces cultures ont été délaissés, dont les plus importants touchaient au sacré et donc à
l’immatériel.
9
Desvallées : La muséologie et les catégories de patrimoine immatériel
L’UNESCO (l’ICOM également, dès lors qu’il met ses pas dans les siens – serait-il
amnésique ?) nous donne l’impression d’enfoncer une porte ouverte en découvrant un
patrimoine qui, même sous d’autres noms, est familier à la fois aux scientifiques, depuis deux
millénaires et demi qu’ils constatent qu’une part d’irrationnel leur échappe jusqu’à ce que la
poursuite de leurs recherches leur permette d’en résoudre les zones d’ombre, aux historiens
d’art, depuis deux siècles qu’existe l’histoire de l’art et qu’ils savent que l’essentiel de la création
artistique est insaisissable, et aux ethnologues (Yves Bergeron, NI, 2003/4 : 8), depuis près
d’un siècle qu’ils photographient, enregistrent et filment des cérémonies, des fêtes, des danses,
des processus de fabrication ou tout simplement des morceaux de vie. Ce qui est (peut-être)
nouveau, c’est la ‘ré-injection’ dans la vie de ce qui a été conservé (Nguyen Van Huy, NI,
2003/4 : 5), sauf de prolonger toutes ces fêtes folkloriques dans lesquelles baignent l’Europe
occidentale, depuis un siècle et demi. J’ajouterai que ce qui apparaît comme un nouveau
concept n’est pas non plus une nouveauté pour tous ceux qui, depuis un demi-siècle, assurent
que l’objet de musée n’a pas de sens par lui-même, que sa lecture est assujettie à la fois au
contexte expographique qui lui est donné et au point de vue subjectif de chaque visiteur.
10
Provocative Paper:
Museology and Categories
of Intangible Heritage –
Issues of terminology: the relevance of patrimoine
immateriel and patrimoine intangible in French, and
intangible heritage in English
André Desvallées1 – France
Abstract
1) A first problem is that the same word "intangible" exists in both English and French
with different connotations. The translation of the English word ‘intangible’ to the French
‘immatériel' can cause misunderstanding. The French language has two words:
‘immatériel’ (i.e., what is not matter) and ‘ intangible’ (i.e., you cannot touch or grasp it;
you are not allowed to touch it). "Intangible" in French assumes that matter can be both
‘tangible’ and ‘intangible' but this is not so in the English. In French what is ‘immatériel’
can never be ‘tangible’, and in English it is 'intangible' that refers almost exclusively to
what has no material form.
2) From a museological point of view, intangible (in English – and immatériel in French) is
only an emanation of matter: it cannot exist and be exhibited without tangible evidence
(artefacts or natural specimens). The present campaign for intangible heritage derives
from the scorn of non-western cultures by policy-makers – and a lot of museum people
too, who neglected, in particular, the fields of religion and the sacred in favour of 'great
art.'
3) The people at UNESCO (and maybe ICOM) have amnesia when they persist in
denying the evidence, saying that they have now discovered the intangible heritage.
Scientists know that some element has always existed, which they cannot perceive until
somebody explains it. Art historians know that the essential element in creation is
intangible. And, above all, it’s not the first time that anthropologists record expressions of
different cultures, in which we find festivities, ceremonies, dances, manufacturing
process, or simply slices of life. I would add that it is not a new concern for museum
people who have stated for many years that an object does not have meaning by itself.
Not only was ICOFOM not consulted regarding the preparation of the Icom General Conference
2004 in Seoul, but ICOFOM Study Series 32, the preprints of the papers presented at the
Icofom Symposia on Museology and Intangible Heritage in November-December 2000 in
Munich and Brno, were totally ignored in the references quoted in ICOM News, V. 56, 2003, no.
4, p. 8. On the other hand, the CIDOC meeting of September 2002 in Porto Alegre is
mentioned. Looking at the thoughts published on the topic, there is much confusion in the ideas
that guide the discussions on the theme selected for the Conference.
There are two principal reasons for this confusion, and both stem from the new definition of
UNESCO in the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, Paris, 17
October 2003 / Convention pour la sauvegarde du patrimoine culturel immatériel, Paris, le 17
octobre 2003 : 1) A poor translation of the French to the English (or vice-versa) of the original
thoughts of UNESCO on the heritage which is called in the French 'immatériel' by some people,
1
With the collaboration of Suzanne Nash for the English version.
11
Desvallées : Museology and Categories of Intangible Heritage
and 'intangible' by others, whereas it is simply 'intangible' in the English. 2) An arbitrary
separation between what is material and what is not.
1 The French language differentiates between 'immatériel' (that which is not material, that is to
say, which can be spiritual, intellectual, moral) and 'intangible' (what one cannot touch, or
should not touch, impalpable, or inviolable) whereas the English 'intangible' cannot have both
meanings (impossibility, and interdiction). This causes confusion, at least in French, in so far as
an object that one cannot, or should not touch, must have substance and therefore cannot be
'immaterial'. Additionally, according to the GORODET French dictionary, only concrete or
abstract things can be 'intangible' (in the sense that touching them is prohibited), whereas
people can be 'intouchable' (= untouchable). Only the GRAND ROBERT French dictionary
opens a door to the meaning adopted by UNESCO by adding the idea of 'sacred.'
It is undoubtedly because of the possible ambiguity with the figurative meaning in the French
use of the term 'intangible' that UNESCO did not adopt the word in the French. This would have
led to confusion with other terms regarding the conservation of materials (which one should not
touch – 'impalpable'), whereas, with regard to our problem of heritage, we are talking about that
which one cannot touch. Not because one would cause damage, but because it is impossible to
grasp them physically, thus they are immaterial. The ROBERT dictionary (and here I translate
from the French) defines 'immaterial' as 'not made of matter, not having any material
consistence, incorporeal, spiritual,' and by extension, 'foreign to matter, not concerning the flesh
or senses'. The bilingual dictionary ROBERT & COLLINS translates the French 'immatériel' to
the English almost literally by 'immaterial,' to which the bi-lingual dictionary HARRAPS’S adds
'insubstantial'. If 'intangible' were used in French in this way, it would lead us back to matter
(impossible to touch) which is exactly the distinction we want to make. If English speaking
people feel that the word intangible has only one meaning (WEBSTER’S Unabridged Dictionary,
Oxford Dictionary), and if in French the word 'immaterial' is not necessarily the best, in either
case the two terms do not mean the exactly same thing in the context in which one or the other
was chosen.
Perhaps, to remove all ambiguity, it would be necessary to further define the English use of
'intangible' when translating by adding the term 'unsubstantial.' This is necessary with reference
to the French term 'immatériel,' considering that intangible property is translated into French by
'biens incorporels.' One could also add to the English translation of the French 'intangible' the
defining terms 'impalpable' or 'non-touchable' (the existing word 'untouchable' is too heavily
loaded with social meaning in India).
2 To separate the material from the immaterial assumes that we dismiss the fact that artefacts
have an immaterial part to them. People are not unanimous on this point. I will only compare
texts from UNESCO and papers by members of ICOM which appeared in ICOM News, vol. 56,
2003, no. 4, and vol. 57, 2004, no. 1.
2.1 We should first note that scientists, even in French, reject the term 'immatériel' in favour
of 'intangible,' in so far as the object of scientific experiments can only be done with what
has material substance, even if this matter is difficult for human senses to perceive. Thus
'intangible' without special instruments (this is the case for natural sciences, and in his
article, IN, 2004, 1:11, Michel van Praet takes this rejection for given, even though he does
not refer to it.)
2.2 In contrast to museums, UNESCO's definition is not interested in natural heritage. Should
we therefore see this definition as 'pre-logical' or as 'pre-Cartesian', itself attached to an
irrational world? If so, we could apply to heritage the statement already made half a century
ago by the famous French physicist Louis de Broglie and use the term 'transcendance' (=
transcendence) to qualify everything that escapes tangibility. "Life appears to us in opposing
ways: sometimes it seems to be reduced to a cluster of physical-chemical processes, and
sometimes it seems to assert itself in a way characterised as an evolving dynamism which
transcends physics and chemistry." (Physique et microphysique, 1947 : 60).
2.3 Thus we could explain that, regarding the form that intangible heritage takes, the
UNESCOdefinition includes both elements that can be attributed to transcendence (practices,
12
Desvallées : Museology and Categories of Intangible Heritage
representations, expressions, knowledge and skills) and the material supports that
generated them (instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces that are associated with
them). There is nothing new in mentioning that museums are full of objects (material
heritage) which are the support of the intangible heritage. First of all, in these physical
works of art the most original element is exactly what escapes material evaluation. But just
as much, and also by their very essence, in all human works whose meaning is not obvious
in the first degree, understanding is generated by the context in which they are found in life,
or when they are displayed.
2.4 If we examine the text itself of the Unesco convention "the domains of expression
covered" are a melting-pot which includes at the same time "languages, oral traditions and
expressions (myths, song, games, genealogies), performing arts and body expressions
(including rituals, sports, mime), knowledge and skills (relating to nature and cosmology, to
apprenticeship and medical and culinary practices, traditional craftsmanship and production
techniques), narrative froms in all their diversity". In distinguishing between three categories
of intangible heritage, Giovanni Pinna (IN, 2003, 4:3) suggested a more museological
breakdown of the UNESCO definitions, as well as some additions to the lis:.
1) "expressions, embodied in physical form, of the culture or traditional ways of life
of a certain community, for example, their religious rites, traditional economies,
ways of life, folklore […for example…] Kungu Opera in China, Sicilian puppets,
the Jernaa al Fina Square in Marrakesh…";
2) "individual or collective expressions which do not have a physical form:
language, memory, oral traditions, songs and non-written traditional music [.. ]
for example the oral heritage of the Zapara people in Ecuador and Peru…";
3) "symbolic and metaphysical meanings of the objects which constitute the
tangible heritage. Every object has two dimensions: its physical aspect – for
example its shape and size, – and its meaning, which derives from its history,
from the interpretation it receives from others, from its capacity to link the past
to the present, and so forth."
2.5 Giovanni Pinna differentiates, in museological order, between the two first categories
and the third one. In the first case, he considers that intangible heritage may be transcribed
or registered and then transformed into material/tangible heritage – but these 'living cultural
expressions,' through their materialisation, are then fossilised, both in space and in time,
and are no longer heritage. In the second case, museums should select, within their
historical and scientific context, those objects with symbolic signification and return them to
the broad public. These objects should be placed in the same context, even if individuals
keep their own interpretation, and even if the cultural expressions, which have not yet been
absorbed into the heritage, continue to evolve.
2.6 Intangible heritage is sometimes given as a real museum object (Giovanni Pinna, IN
2003, 4:3, and Michel van Praët, IN, 2004, 1:11), and sometimes it is considered to be
documentation (Amareswar Galla, IN, 2003, 4:4). The question is that of 'processes and
phenomena' (a category which UNESCO added to the cultural sphere during its meeting in
March 2001), linking them to ecosystems and diversity. If the same approach can apply to
processes linked to exact sciences, and applied sciences and technologies, the latter
should be attached to the field of culture.
Conclusion
In short, speaking museologically, the intangible can only exist as an emanation of the material,
and its restitution can only be an evocation through material evidence. The campaign today for
the protection of the intangible heritage comes from the fact that this heritage has been largely
ignored, even scorned, by a majority of policy-makers. However, are not museums the most
responsible, where, during many years, the majority of the active personnel also scorned
anything that did not stand out as 'great art'? If material evidence of non-western cultures was
misled to be attached to history of art and to art museums, it is certain that whole fields of
13
Desvallées : Museology and Categories of Intangible Heritage
cultures have been neglected, of which the most important are those touching the sacred, and
thus the intangible.
The people at UNESCO (and at ICOM too, when they follow in the same footsteps – do they have
amnesia?) give us the impression of forcing an open door when they discover a heritage which,
even by any other name, is already familiar. It is known to scientists for two and a half millennia,
who see a dimension that is not rational, which escapes them until the pursuit of their research
allows them to understand the grey areas. For the two centuries that art history exists it is
familiar to art historians, who know that the essential part of artistic creation cannot be grasped.
For more than a century it is familiar to ethnologists (Yves Bergeron, IN, 2003, 4:8), who
photograph, record and film ceremonies and festivities, dances, manufacturing processes, or
simply slices of life.
What is (perhaps) new is the re-injection into life of what had been preserved (Nguyen Van Huy,
IN, 2003, 4:5), except for the continuation of all those folklore festivities that western Europe
bathes in for the last century and a half. I add that what appears to be a new concept is not
something new either for all those who, for the past half-century, state that museum objects do
not have any meaning by themselves. Interpreting the objects is subject to the context of their
display and to the subjective view of each visitor.
14
Cosmologie et patrimoine immatériel:
une expérience au Musée d’Astronomie
Marilia Braz Botelho – Brésil1 & Luiz C. Borges – Brésil2
Le Musée d´Astronomie et de Sciences Corollaires (MAST) situé à Rio de Janeiro est un
espace consacré à la production de connaissances sur l´histoire des sciences et de la
technologie au Brésil. Comme la plupart des instituts-musées, une partie considérable de ses
activités consiste en la conservation, l´étude et l´exposition de collections historiques et
scientifiques. Ce musée propose régulièrement des activités culturelles et pédagogiques dans
le but de promouvoir la science et contribuer au développement de l´éducation scientifique dans
la société. Pour ce faire, des jeux, des activités ludiques, des conférences, des films et des
débats font ordinairement partie du programme mensuel du MAST depuis sa création, il y a une
vingtaine d´années.
La participation de chercheurs et d´astronomes dans ces actions devient de plus en plus
significative, notamment en ce qui concerne la fourniture de bases scientifiques pour le contenu
des activités proposées. Devant des défis conceptuels et pédagogiques, tels que traiter des
sujets liés au patrimoine immatériel, cette collaboration devient encore plus essentielle, en
générant des relations étroites entre les équipes de l´histoire de la science, le service
d´éducation et la muséologie.
L´idée d´approcher des questions liées à la théorie scientifique est apparue grâce à ce
partenariat et à l´occasion de la préparation des commémorations autour de la Semaine
Internatinale des Musées, dont le thème cette année était Musées et Patrimoine Immatériel.
Nous avions compris que les théories sont des produits culturels qui ont une existance
indépendante des formes et des apparats qui sont construits grâce à ces théories. Nous avions
aussi à l´esprit qu´on devait traiter des questions universelles ou du moins pas restreintes aux
procéssus de compréhension occidentale ni aux carcans académiques. Sur ce point de vue,
nous avons alors décidé de choisir le thème de la Cosmologie. En effet, les systèmes d´idées et
de savoirs sur le Cosmos3 peuvent aussi être considérés comme un patrimoine culturel
intangible4.
II fallait ensuite mieux définir notre idée de ce qu´était la Cosmologie, afin de mettre en place un
langage culturel et muséologique. La Cosmologie étant l´étude du Cosmos, son but est
d´expliquer l´existence de l´Univers et de tout ce qui existe. Nous avions donc d´emblée deux
problématiques qui dans l´ensemble nous paraissaient constituer le meilleur chemin pour
atteindre nos buts. D´un côté, il était nécessaire de montrer que l´interrogation cosmologique
existait dans toutes les sociétés humaines, actuelles ou passées. De l´autre, la possibilité
d´atteindre un sens largement diffusé qui oppose le mythe à la théorie5. A partir de ces
éléments de fond, nous avons décidé de présenter quelques exemples de mythes sur l´origine,
car ce sont eux qui expliquent toute la génèse de l´univers. Dans ce sens, nous traiterions sans
distinction les mythes d´origine produits aussi bien dans les académies que ceux qui ne se sont
pas conformés à ces règles. On croyait, d´autre part, que le dialogue entre ces diverses
disciplines permettrait une vision intéressante sur la Science et son intérpretation au musée.
1
Historienne de l´art, muséologue de la Coordination d´Education du Musée d´Astronomie et de Sciences Corollaires à
Rio de Janeiro.
2
Chercheur de la Coordination d´Histoire de la Science du Musée d´Astronomie et de Sciences Corollaires à Rio de
Janeiro.
3
Du grec Kosmos: univers, ensemble de tout ce qui existe.
4
Cf Abreu et Chagas, 2003.
5
Cf. Borges, 2000.
15
Braz Botelho & Borges: Cosmologie et patrimoine immatériel
Nous avons donc décidé de proposer au public une activité temporaire diversifiée qui diffuserait
non seulement les mythes et les théories mais tout un ensemble d´informations et de savoirs –
érudits ou non – qui serait en rapport avec l´existence du Cosmos. L´évènement proposé,
appelé Mythes d´Origine – l´homme et sa compréhension de l´Univers et de la planète où il vit,
serait en même temps une expérience scientifique et culturelle, inédite au musée.
Normalement, les thèmes traités sont plus en rapport avec la science académique, quoique
présentés de façon ludique et interactive. Ce que l´on proposait serait une expérience
conceptuelle, sensorielle et pédagogique dans le but même de déconstruire des savoirs
traditionnels. Ce serait aussi une occasion de présenter des narrations en référence avec la
cosmologie qui jusqu´à alors n´étaient connus que de quelques spécialistes ou des initiés sur le
sujet.
Le commissariat de cet événement était à la charge du linguiste Luiz Carlos Borges qui a
réalisé des recherches sur la cosmologie des indiens guarani mbyá au Musée d´Astronomie. La
coordination et la réalisation ont été à la charge du service d´éducation du musée. La
production d´un CD-Rom pour relater une partie du contenu a été décidée pour une des
activités proposées. La séléction des images et des sons a été réalisée en concertation avec
les équipes impliquées.
Notre but était au départ d´inclure plusieurs versions de la création du monde qui pourraient
représenter un échantillon des questionnements de l´homme face à ses origines. Dans ce sens,
nous voulions présenter côte à côte des narrations scientifiques, bibliques, indigènes, africaines
et asiatiques. Pour mieux les caractériser, ces narrations seraient proposés dans leur propre
langue originale, puis traduites en portugais. Toutefois, la difficulté de récolter des narrations ou
des enregistrements de groupes africains et asiatiques, alliée au peu de temps et de recours
pour les recherches ont limité l´horizon de notre travail. Notre présentation s´est donc limitée à
un exemple de cosmologie scientifique, une de cosmologie religieuse et deux de cosmologie
d´indiens brésiliens. Toutes ces narrations ont été enregistrées live.
Les images qui accompagnaient la sonorisation étaient en rapport avec les représentations de
chaque culture traitée, quoique pas présentées de façon simultanée avec la narration. Une
recherche sur chaque mythe ou théorie a permis une sélection d´images de galaxies, objets,
peintures, dessins, rituels, danses, art rupestre, etc, en relation avec le thème de la cosmologie.
Nous avions d´ailleurs constaté la rareté de cette iconographie, aussi bien dans l´histoire de
l´art occidental1, que dans les cultures indigènes recherchées. Notre proposition consistait à
pousser le public à la refléxion, en dehors de visées scolaires.
Nous attendions que cette lecture puisse produire une sensation de quelque chose de bizarre
tant par le contenu que par la forme. Et d´un autre côté, il y avait la difficulté de transmettre des
concepts et des théories abstraites, avec peu de ressources techniques. Comment par exemple
sélectionner, apprivoiser et présenter des concepts aussi abstraits et ephémères à un public
diversifié de musées ? Comment rendre tangible ce qui est par nature intangible ? Quels
recours utiliser ? Comment diffuser et expliquer des concepts liés à la notion de patrimoine
intangible et en même temps utiliser un langage perméable au public? Autant des questions
auxquelles il fallait faire face avant tout choix de démarche.
Certes, la conception plus large de la notion de patrimoine culturel requiert une ouverture
intellectuelle et de nouveaux référentiels de savoir. Et, dans le cas des narrations
cosmologiques, l´art érudit et l´art populaire, des systèmes de savoir universels et particuliers
se confondaient dans une même thématique de compréhension de l´univers. Par rapport au
type de public, on aurait besoin d´une préparation initiale ou encore de changer des préjugés
ou des idées déjà établies, comme ce serait le cas pour les cultures indigènes. Cet exercice
complexe pourrait aussi être envisagé comme un instrument d´action sociale et intellectuelle.
La thématique choisie a été déclinée en trois activités distinctes mais liées entre elles. Lors de
la première activité ont été présentés des images et des sons du CD-Rom qui décrivaient
quelques-unes des théories et des mythes et des théories sur la création de l´Univers. De la
formalisation religieuse, nous avons sélectionné un fragment biblique du Livre de la Genèse; du
1
La Rennaissance italienne semblent concentrer les rares iconographies de ce sujet, comme c´est le cas pour
MichelAnge et la Chapelle Sixtine.
16
Braz Botelho & Borges: Cosmologie et patrimoine immatériel
domaine philosophique-scientifique, une explication sur la Théorie du Big Bang, la théorie
scientifique la plus aceptée sur l´origine de l´univers; et du champ mythique deux narrations de
groupes indigènes brésiliens, l´une des Guarani et l´autre des Tukâno. Les images étaient
projetées dans la dite Salle Obscure du musée, où est présentée une partie d´une exposition de
longue durée sur des images de secteurs du ciel. L´effet produit par une lumière noire dans une
ambience d´obscurité permet de mettre le spectateur l´impression dans la même situation que
s´il était au centre de l´univers, sans une perspective géocentrique.
La deuxième activité était plus participative et a englobé une dynamique de questions-réponses
sur les planètes et les mythes du système solaire, selon la mythologie gréco-romaine. Plus
destinée au public scolaire, elle a obtenu un grand succès de participation des présents.
Finalement, un cycle de conférences et de débats avec des spécialistes traita de sujets
spécifiques sur la Cosmologie et le patrimoine immatériel. Des thèmes comme la
patrimonialisation des différences, la Cosmologie du XXIème siècle, le darwinisme
cosmologique et le ciel guarani ont été proférés pendant la Semaine des Musées. Le musée
surgit alors non seulement comme un locus où toutes ces activités sont arrivées, mais aussi
comme un lieu de collecte et d´enregistrement de savoirs.
La culture indigène au Brésil est assez vaste et diversifiée avec plus de 200 ethnies parlant
autour de 180 langues. Et quoique le procéssus de déculturation1 des Indiens soit acceléré au
Brésil, les Guarani représente encore aujourd´hui l´une des nations indigènes les plus
importantes du pays. Historiquement, depuis la découverte du Brésil, ils sont en contact avec le
monde des blancs, mais ils restent un exemple de résistance et de sauvegarde culturelle. Il y a
une certaine facilité de contact et de proximité avec quelques-unes de leurs tribus, ce qui a
contribué à la sélection de leurs mythes2. Les indiens Tukâno sont aussi des exemples de
résistance et de développement culturel et politique. Ils habitent le Nord du Brésil, dans la
région de la forêt amazonienne, aux marges du fleuve Uaupés3, où avec d´autres peuples, ils
formèrent um complexe linguistique et culturel sans pair au Brésil.
La narration de la cosmologie Guarani Mbyá a été brève et succinte. L´indien interviewé4 nous
avait juste racconté que l´univers guarani se partageait en ce qui était visible (le ciel, les corps
célestes, les personnes) et invisible (la demeure des dieux). Il a mentionné le nom de quelques
dieux (Tupã, Verá, Karaí, Jakaira) qui habitaient de différentes régions du ciel. Il a expliqué que
du nom de ces régions provient les noms de famille des guarani.
Le récit de l´histoire du monde selon la mythologie des Tukâno a été un peu plus long et
détaillé. L´univers tukâno a été créé par une entité qu´ils appelent "le Grand-Père de l´Univers".
Il aurait créé des êtres-tonnerres qui auraient la capacité de générer d´autres êtres. Quant à
l´humanité elle trouverait ses origines dans un voyage fait par des êtres divins à l´intérieur
d´une gigantesque nacelle-serpent. En arrivant à la surface de la terre, les êtres invisibles ont
débarqué et au moment où ils ont touché le sol, ils ont acquis une forme physique humaine et
une nouvelle identité avec sa propre langue et ethnie.
Entre ces deux narrations, se trouvait une présentation de la Théorie du Big Bang par un
scientifique. Cette théorie soutenue par le prêtre belge Georges Lemaître en 1931 voulait que
l´Univers ait surgi et se soit développé à partir de la desintégration d´un noyau. Elle a gagné en
crédibilité en 1948 avec l´astronome russe George Gamow qui a affirmé que l´état initial de
l´Univers serait un condensé de particules contenant des radiations électromagnétiques. Et
selon lui, il y a treize milliards d´années une explosion aurait eu lieu – l´instant zéro du Big Bang
– et aurait déclenché l´expansion de l´Univers. D´autres théories scientifiques auraient pu aussi
être traitées (dont quelques-unes très discutées récemment5), mais cela aurait allongé la durée
de la projection et cela n´était pas notre but.
1
Transformation d´une culture en une autre, différente de la culture originale.
La tribu des Guarani Mbyá qui a participé des enregistrements se situe dans les proximités de la ville de Paraty Mirim,
dans l´Etat de Rio de Janeiro.
3
Le fleuve Uaupés se situe dans l´Etat de l´Amazonas.
4
Le professeur Verá Mirim de l´hameau de Itatim, dans l´Etat de Rio de Janeiro.
5
Actuellement, le physicien brésilien Mário Novello soutient que l´univers est éternel et en expansion continue (cf
Novello, 2004).
2
17
Braz Botelho & Borges: Cosmologie et patrimoine immatériel
La perception des activités par le public scolaire a été assez variée. Les scolaires
représentaient la majorité du public lors des activités dans la Salle Obscure et dans les
échanges des Mythes du Système Solaire. L´évaluation qualitative de la première proposition
ne serait possible que par l´application systématique de questionnaires. A la fin de quelques
séances, nous avons demandé à quelques participants leurs avis sur les projections. Lors de la
deuxième interaction, la vérification des résultats était immédiate, par l´intermédiaire des
conférencières.
Le sujet des théories cosmologiques selon leurs peuples traité dans la Salle Obscure a reçu
une acceptation mitigée du public. La séquence des narrations (biblique, d´une tribu Guarani,
sur la Théorie du Big Bang et d´une tribu Tukâno), associées à des images aléatoires, en
référence à ces cultures a causé l´impact prévu. Le public en général a été surpris par la
projection. Ce qui confirme que le modèle de reproduction de connaissances, tel qu´il a lieu
dans les écoles a tendance à l´uniformisation et agit de façon à rendre moins nette la variété
des différences. La difficulté de compréhension était encore plus grande, du point de vue du
public non initié, d´autant plus que le CD-Rom manquait d´explications générales de fond. On a
essayé de neutraliser le discours pédagogique traditionnel, tout en montrant qu´une culture ne
peut se superposer à l´autre, ainsi que les formes de savoir.
Face à la réaction du public, nous avons été obligés à refléchir sur nos méthodes d´approche.
Peut-être que l´accent mis sur les couleurs locales1 a dû en partie être un frein à l´acceptation
générale. D´autant plus que la qualité finale du CD-Rom n´a pas été celle souhaitée. Les
enregistrements réalisés in loco avec le récit des indiens ont subi des interférences qui n´ont
pas favorisé la compréhension des mythes.
Quand on a questionné le public plus spécifiquement à propos du contenu du CD-Rom, les
réponses ont été diverses. Quelques professeurs ont apprécié la séquence des théories et des
images et ils ont l´intention de traiter ultérièrement ce sujet dans leurs classes. Ils ont regretté
de ne pas connaître le thème à l´avance pour pouvoir le traiter avec les élèves avant la visite au
musée. D´autres ont été plus intéressés par le contenu des narrations et souhaitaient savoir
plus afin de pouvoir mieux les expliquer aux élèves. Quelques uns n´ont cependant pas
apprécié ou pas compris l´intérêt de la non association entre les images et les sons: "les
dessins n´ont rien à voir acec les narrations", ou "les musiques des indiens sont fatigantes". Les
élèves entre 12 et 14 ans semblent avoir été ceux qui ont le plus apprécié le contexte général
des activités. Quelques-uns ont dit avoir beaucoup aimé les dessins (réalisés par des indiens),
les images et la façon dont ont été expliquées les origines du monde. D´autres (du même âge)
ont préferé les images des étoiles. La théorie qui les a le plus intéressés a été celle des
Tukâno. Ensuite ils sont passés à une autre activité prévue pour les scolaires, appelée Mythes
du Système Solaire.
Le principe de la dynamique des Mythes du Système Solaire était simple et direct. Il consistait
en une brève présentation introduisant la mythologie gréco-romaine, suivie d´un choix entre un
numéro (de 1 à 11) par les participants. Le numéro choisi représentait une question sur une
divinité de cette mythologie à laquelle les participants devaient répondre. Bien que les
questions posées fussent faciles, elles suscitaient maintes controverses. Suite aux réponses du
public, une présentation par Datashow était faite sur la planète et sur son histoire mythologique.
D´autres questions ont aussi surgi, étant donné que l´Astronomie suscite toujours un grand
intérêt de la part du public.
Les conférencières chargées de cette activité ont pu nettement percevoir le vif intérêt des
scolaires2 de l´enseignement fondamental (des 7èmes et 8èmes séries) pour la mythologie
gréco-romaine. Certains élèves (situés entre le 13-14 ans), ont même démontré un tel intérêt et
des connaissances préalables sur le sujet qu´ils semblaient en connaître plus que leurs
professeurs et même plus que les conférencières qui guidaient la visite ! Curieusement,
l´opposé s´est avéré pour les élèves de l´enseignement moyen qui n´ont pas démontré ni
intérêt ni désir de participation aux séances des questions-réponses.
1
2
C’est-à-dire le fait d´avoir enregistré en différentes langues que le portugais.
Aussi bien des écoles publiques que des écoles privées.
18
Braz Botelho & Borges: Cosmologie et patrimoine immatériel
La dernière activité présentée a consisté en un cycle de conférences. Les sujets étant plus
spécifiques, le public participant a été plus restreint aux spécialistes, suscitant néanmoins des
débats pointus. Cet événement a entraîné la proposition de continuer ces débats entre les
chercheurs du musée et ceux des universités, en un partenariat scientifique dans l´avenir.
Conclusion
Il serait intéressant que le Musée d´Astronomie continue dans ce type de recherches, vu
l´intérêt démontré par le public en général. Les autres cosmologies indigènes brésiliennes
mériteraient, elles aussi d´être inclues dans ces recherches. On pourrait certainement récolter
des informations intéressantes et méconnues. La connaissance d´autres formes de savoir
pourrait contribuer à mieux comprendre la formation culturelle du Brésil. Dans ce sens, nous
considérons que l´enregistrement du patrimoine immatériel va à contre-sens des mouvements
de globalisation et d´homogénéisation de la culture.
L´intérêt des élèves et des professeurs de l´enseignement fondamental pour les mythologies
(aussi bien indigènes que non indigènes) a été nettement marqué, lors des activités et
mériterait d´être plus exploité tant dans le champ de l´éducation formelle que dans le champ de
l´éducation informelle.
La recherche de perfectionnement des produits proposés au public ne devrait pas être limitée
aux événements en soi, mais inclure une préparation pour les professeurs et leurs élèves et
une recherche sur des questionnements plus variés.
Références bibliographiques
Abreu, Regina e Chagas, Mário (orgs). Memória e patrimônio: ensaios contemporâneos. DP&A
Editora Ltda. Rio de Janeiro, 2003.
Borges, Luiz C. A fala instituinte do discurso mítico guarani mbyá. Unicamp. Campinas, 2000
(thèse de doctorat).
Novello, Mário. Entrevue à la Revue Isto É: Contramão Premiada, numéro 1807. Pages 7–11.
26.05.2004.
19
Contention and the contemporary world –
the roles of museums in global culture
Fiona Cameron – Australia
Museums now exist in an academic, cultural and social context of contest and controversy. This
situation places museums into new territory, an area few museums are willing to embrace.
Therefore, what potential roles can museums in the 21st century play in this climate of
contestation and as civic spaces?
The focal point of the paper will be an examination of the potential roles and positioning of
museums around contentious topics and sensitive issues drawing on qualitative and
quantitative research findings from the international research project Exhibitions as Contested
Sites – the roles of museums in contemporary society funded by the Australian Research
Council with partners the University of Sydney, the Australian Museum and the Australian War
Memorial. Key questions to be addressed include the following. What is the role of museums as
information resources? Should museums act as provocateurs, leaders of public opinion and
transformative spaces to challenge and change views? Or are museums to be safe civic places
for the exploration of a range of views? Can museums take on a social activist's role, to assist in
the resolution of issues on a personal or political level or should they be places for nonchallenging social experiences? Key themes to be addresses include transformations in
museum authority, expertise, censorship and institutional trust.
Resume
Dr. Fiona Cameron is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in history at the University of Sydney.
Fiona is the Chief Investigator for the Australian Research Council funded project, 'Exhibitions
as Contested Sites – the roles of museums in contemporary society.' She has been working in
the museum profession for 18 years in the curatorial field as a social history curator, consultant
on major exhibition projects in Australia, New Zealand and Singapore and as a lecturer in
museum studies.
20
Museums and Intangible Folk Heritage in the
Republic of Korea
Susie Chung Yun Shun – USA
Abstract
This paper examines the relation between intangible folk heritage, especially ‘holders’ of crafts
and skills, and museums. The case-study country will be the Republic of Korea (ROK) with
focus on one of the sole museums in Korea that began preserving intangible folk heritage in the
early 1970s, the Korean Folk Village. Essential elements to be examined in this paper are: how
the Korean Folk Village has evolved in preserving intangible folk heritage in the Republic of
Korea; the strengths, weaknesses and challenges faced by the Korean Folk Village in
preserving intangible folk heritage; the Korean National Commission for UNESCO’s system for
preservation, management, and communication of intangible folk heritage, which is called,
“Living Human Treasures”; the application of this system in the Korean Folk Village; other
outlets viable for the future of ROK museums and intangible folk heritage.
Key words:
Intangible folk heritage, open-air museums, Living Human Treasures, holders, cultural identity,
ecomuseums.
Museums are institutions that preserve the physical aspect of heritage as well as the intrinsic
quality of it that is defined by human significance. These institutions also must play an important
role in preserving not only three-dimensional objects but ones that are intangible. The focus in
museums and literature on museums has been laid on material culture or the ‘materiality’ of
culture as opposed to ‘intangible’ culture. Moreover, the materiality of culture has emphasized
material ‘high’ culture as opposed to ‘folk’ culture. When it comes to preserving intangible
heritage, museums have preserved and displayed the exotica of other cultures under colonialist,
post-colonialist or neo-colonialist perspectives, especially in museums of anthropology (Ames
1992; Karp & Lavine 1991). Thus, museums should also endeavor to contribute in preserving,
researching, and communicating (van Mensch 1985) the regions own intangible heritage as
opposed to other cultures. What is the significance of intangible heritage in the form of human
beings who carry knowledge of distinctive skills and arts in museums? How are they preserved,
managed and communicated in ex situ settings? In the Republic of Korea, the Korean Folk
Village, which is an open-air museum, has played an important part in displaying the ‘technical
holders’ and their works. This paper will explore the role of the Korean Folk Village and examine
other outlets where exhibition of these holders can be held. There is also a need to look at the
role of these ‘holders’ of crafts and skills in an in situ or original setting and its relation with
cultural identity. Throughout some parts of the world, these holders have been preserved in in
situ settings called, ‘ecomuseums’. It will demonstrate the relation between the social, political,
and economic implications that are connected with both the holders and museums today.
A great deal of importance has been laid on folk material culture (Berger ed. 1992; Schlereth
ed. 1990; Schlereth ed. 1982; Sweeney 1978); but what should also be explored in literature is
the significance of folk ‘immaterial’ or ‘intangible’ culture. The tangible is material and it can be
argued that it is the finished product of an intellectual pursuit. Nonetheless, the material
changes in significance and meaning in its production, circulation, and consumption (Pomian
1990:5). It changes in significance even when it comes into a collection as the researcher, the
curator and the viewer of the material give it social meaning (Pearce ed. 1990; Pearce 1992;
Pearce 1994; van Mensch; Vergo ed. 1997). The intangible is something that is not a physical
21
Chung Yun Shun: Museums and Intangible Folk Heritage in the Republic of Korea
form (Edson and Dean 1994). UNESCO’s definition of the criteria of intangible cultural heritage
is:
The intangible heritage might be defined as embracing all forms of traditional and
popular or folk culture, i.e. collective works originating in a given community and
based on tradition. These creations are transmitted orally or by gesture, and are
modified over a period of time through a process of collective recreation. They include
oral traditions, customs, languages, music, dance, rituals, festivities, traditional
medicine and pharmacopoeia, the culinary arts and all kinds of special skills
connected with the material aspects of culture, such as tools and the habitat
(UNESCO 2003).
According to UNESCO’s guidelines for the preservation of intangible cultural heritage, those
that should be preserved are recommended as follows:
(i) the protection of forms of expression that are in danger of extinction of irremediable
loss. This may mean a loss of significance within contemporary culture, a loss of
historical authenticity in current practice, a decline in the number of people nurturing
this heritage, or a modification in legal status of the heritage that brings about a
diminution in its protection;
(ii) the representative or exceptional nature of the chosen intangible heritage;
(iii) the distinctive characteristics of the heritage reflecting a particular school, region,
minority or ethnic identity;
(iv) the quality of performance or production of a manifestation of cultural expression
(UNESCO 2002).
The intangible has different characteristics than the tangible as the process, procedures, and
methods as well as the recorded or finished product are equally significant. There are the
problematics of authenticity with the intangible heritage when trying to create historical
authenticity from the product (Howard 2003). David Lowenthal has explored the forms of
authenticity and states that its goals are “faithfulness to original objects and materials, to original
contexts, or to original aims” (1997:185). For example when speaking of early music he states
that “In so far as the retrieval of past music requires modern performance, present
circumstances are bound to impinge on original intentions, original scores, original instruments,
original ambiences” (Lowenthal 1997:185). Therefore the intangible bears different meanings
each time it is performed or demonstrated in the form of a dance, music, or woodworking.
Examining the concept of the ‘holders’ of these arts and skills, they are better known as ‘Living
Human Treasures’ and regarded as intangible cultural heritage. This is a concept that is
embraced by Japan, the Republic of Korea, The Phillippines, Thailand, France, Romania, and
The Czech Republic. The concept of Living Human Treasures in the U.S. is recognized by
some Native American tribes but it is closer to an award system rather than a preservation
system. Keith Howard (2003) has examined cultural heritage management of Living Human
Treasures in Korea. He explored the theory of historical authenticity or original form
(wonhyoung) in the Korean system and UNESCO’s system of preserving and managing Living
Human Treasures.
The beginnings of the preservation of intangible heritage in Korea are found in the Cumulative
Research Reports on Important Intangible Cultural Assets from 1964-1985 in 165 volumes
created by the Cultural Asset Committee (Howard 2003). The Korean Cultural Assets
Preservation System was enacted in 1962 under Article 2 of Law 961 which created categories
of Tangible Cultural Assets, Intangible Cultural Assets, Folk-Cultural Properties and
Monuments. The specific categories of intangible heritage in legislation include music, dance,
drama, plays, rituals, crafts, food preparation and martial arts. Technical holders of arts and
crafts receive stipends and they are required to teach ‘primary students’ who receive small
monthly stipends, and are supported by paid ‘assistants’ and ‘future holders’. These holders are
also managed by the city government. They are given stipends to teach and for other activities
such as holding performances or exhibitions. The Korean Living Human Treasures system
follows the UNESCO Guidelines for the Establishment of Living Human Treasures System
(2002). When nominating Living Human Treasures, it is stated that
(i) The degree of skill possessed. From this point of view, professional experience and
training are the most important assets, but the Commission may also assess ties to a
22
Chung Yun Shun: Museums and Intangible Folk Heritage in the Republic of Korea
master teacher, a school, or a region. As time passes, it is recognized that certain
cultural heritages may remain solely in preserved forms, and new assessment criteria
will need to be applied in order to determine relevant links to the past …
In writing and doing research on the Korean system of preserving Living Human Treasures,
Howard finds three problems concerning the system in which one is linked with the concept of
the past and the present. These holders are usually a generation apart from what one can call
“pre-modern times” art or craft, therefore, before the 1894 Choson Dynasty Reform Movement
which called for adoption of Western practices and ideas (Howard 2003:unpaginated). Howard
states that the ‘holders’ have learnt only the preserved forms of the past and that Korea is
conserving something from a “distant past” and trying to “ensure relevance in the new world”
(Howard 2003:unpaginated). Scholars look for historical preservation and authenticity. However,
Korean legislation calls for the promotion of Korean cultural identity. Thus changes made by
contemporary artists are not considered heritage. Nonetheless, Howard praises the workshops
on the Living Human Treasures that Korea has held and considers the system as the
“trailblazer” for UNESCO’s system(Howard 2003: unpaginated).
On the subject of the holders of intangible folk heritage, Howard has observed that the
difference between the Korean preservation system and Japanese preservation system (which
was established before the Korean system) is that the former concentrates on intangible folk
heritage rather than ‘high’ cultural intangible heritage such as those of court or literati culture.
The latter intangible culture is the focus of what is called UNESCO “Masterpieces”, e.g.
Jongmyo jaerae and jaeraeak (Park 2002). Here the definition of intangible folk heritage or in
UNESCO terminology “folklore” needs to be defined: “Folklore (or traditional and popular
culture) is the totality of tradition-based creations of a cultural community, expressed by a group
or individuals and recognized as reflecting the expectations of a community in so far as they
reflect its cultural and social identity; its standards and values are transmitted orally, by imitation
or by other means. Its forms are, among others, language, literature, music, dance, games,
mythology, rituals, customs, handicrafts, architecture and other arts” (Recommendation on the
Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore adopted by the General Conference at its
twenty fifth session. Paris, 15 November 1989).
With this concept in mind, we must examine the state of the Korean system in the preservation,
research, and communication of intangible folk heritage, especially communication which
includes the concept of exhibition, education, and promotion. As of December 2002, there are
108 Living Human Treasures in Korea. There is a transmission center of these Living Human
Treasures and their products in the KOEX Building, Samsongdong, managed by the Korea
Crafts Promotion Foundation. In addition, other promotion takes place in outlets such as
television programs, performance halls, and traditional shops. Other outlets that play a role in
promotion of these holders include museums. Therefore, we must first examine the historical
background of museums in Korea to understand the relationship between holders and
museums.
The following evolution reflects social, political, and economical influences that have shaped the
regional, local, and open air museums in Korea today. One of the initial museums founded was
by the Japanese Government-General in 1915 called, “Museum of the Japanese GovernmentGeneral in Korea” during the Japanese occupation (1910-1945). Excavations led by the
museum shed light on historic sites and moveable tangible artifacts. Artifacts were also
collected from Buddhist temples (Lee N.Y. 1986). Exhibitions were for the cause of “Japan –
Korea One Body” (Won 1986), which was viewed as undemocratic in any sense. More
museums were established regionally in historic cities in liaison to the Museum of the Japanese
Government-General in Seoul. Three of which still remain today are: The National Museum of
Kyongju, The National Museum of Puyo, and The National Museum of Kongju.
After independence in 1945, the division of Korea (1950), and the establishment of the
Government of South Korea in 1953, museums continued to play much the same role as before
independence. The Museum of the Japanese Government General was renamed the National
Museum, combining the collections of the Yi Royal Household Museum, while the branches in
the regions were administered under this museum with a paucity of specialists (Lee, N.Y. 1986).
To this day, the museum has remained the “traditional, centralized and encyclopaedic museum”
23
Chung Yun Shun: Museums and Intangible Folk Heritage in the Republic of Korea
(van Mensch 1993:17) exhibiting 4,500 art and archaeological objects from the Prehistoric
Period to early 20th century in rotation. During the 1960's and 1970's, concentration on
research in archaeology with extensive excavations was the pattern of museums without the
notion of how to efficiently conserve the excavated objects (Kuklib Bakmoolkwanae Heowa Shil
[“The Strengths and Weaknesses of The National Museum of Korea”] 1989). Importance on
regional museums were placed such as on the development of The National Museum of
Kyongju and the formation of new regional museums such as The National Museum of
Kwangju. The regional museums were founded as branches of The National Museum to reveal
and secure the true Korean identity (Kuklib Bakmoolkwanae Heowa Shil [“The Strengths and
Weaknesses of The National Museum of Korea”] 1989; The National Museum of Korea 1995).
The 1970's did realize a trend in the formation of more regional museums; cultural lectures were
set up for the public; and drawing contests of cultural relics were held for children. However, the
permanent displays and temporary exhibitions remained object-oriented and concentrated on
tangible cultural heritage.
In the 1970's, the first open-air museum was introduced in South Korea called the “Folk Village”
that brought houses and structures and intangible heritage that were in situ to a
contextualization of ex situ. Some are replicas of homes from various parts of the region. In the
1980's, the founding of contemporary art museums and galleries was a great trend and the art
market grew as well as the number of artists and commercial art galleries with focus on the
tangible cultural heritage.
The government called the 1990's the “Museum Age” for South Korea. In 1992, a plan was
conceived to establish 1,000 museums by the year 2000 (Lee, K.H. 1993). As many museums
were established in the 19th century in Europe for nationalistic purposes to flatter the country
(Greenhalgh, 1988), so are the museums in South Korea to be founded for the same reasons
(Munwha Minjokae Jakeungshim [“Our Culture’s & Race’s Pride”], 1995). For South Korea, the
goal slightly differs in that it strives to become more modern than the modern nation in the West.
Through the foundation of more museums, the nation believes it will be able to say that it is a
modern state, thus, enabling the nation to compete in the international competition of
economics and politics through these socio-cultural institutions which stand as a symbol of a
modern nation (Kuklib Bakmoolkwanae Heowa Shil [“The Strengths and Weaknesses of The
National Museum of Korea”], 1989). Into the 21st century, there has been more concentration on
the intangible aspects in museums. There are several museums that deal with intangible
aspects, however, there are not so many museums that preserve intangible ‘folk’ heritage. Thus
it is the Korean Folk Village that remains one of the sole museums that continues to preserve
intangible ‘folk’ heritage.
One of the aims of this paper was to examine the relationship between the intangible folk
heritage and the Korean Folk Village. Around the world there are open-air museums with many
of them representing folk heritage. One of the earliest establishments was Skansen in
Stockholm, Sweden and the Arnheim Open Air Museum in Arnheim, The Netherlands. In the
United States, there is Greenfield Village in Dearborn, Michigan where Henry Ford established
an expansive collection of buildings and tools representing America. There is also Colonial
Williamsburg in Williamsburg, Virginia which presents historical buildings in situ as well as those
that have been reconstructed representing the 1700s. These are some museums that have
endeavored to preserve intangible folk heritage. There are more than 250 museums in the U.S.
which display ‘living history’ mostly located in New England (Runyard 1996). This includes Old
Sturbridge Village in Massachusetts. This is called ‘interpretation’ where research is done to act
out the part of the characters’ lives. As this paper will demonstrate, living history is not the same
as the holders of skills and arts.
The Korean Folk Village was established in order to collect and preserve the ancestral spirit and
mind of folk cultural material, to grow as an active learning center for children, and as a tourism
development resource for foreigners in order to introduce Korean traditional culture. The Korean
Folk Village’s functions include to collect, reconstruct, restore, exhibit, perform, preserve, and
instruct Korean cultural policy and to investigate and research the folk cultural heritage and the
folk cultural material, to exhibit, educate, and exchange as a museum where families can also
take advantage of the amusement park, eat traditional food, crafts, and purchase souvenirs at
the markets. Drastic change took place in the history, society, and culture due to the Choson
24
Chung Yun Shun: Museums and Intangible Folk Heritage in the Republic of Korea
Dynasty Reform Movement (1894), Japanese Colonial Period (1910-1945) and the Korean War
(1950-1953). With economic development in 1960 onwards the Cultural Properties
Administration began to take interest in the establishment of the Korean Folk Village and its
management in 1971. During the fourth republic, President Park Chung-hee, who came to
power through a military coup in 1961, started the Saemaul Undong or New Community
Movement in 1971. The Movement would continue even after his assassination in 1979 to raise
the economic status of Korea for the price of democracy of the people by the implementation of
Yushin or Revitalising Reforms. Yushin aimed towards forming one identity, the national
identity. A series of plans were made to develop rural communities:
Clean and trim farm houses, widened and straightened farm and village roads,
consolidated fields, afforested hill and mountains, and the Saemaul (New
Community) factories scattered here and there – all these are the reality of our
farm villages as transformed under the Saemaul Undong...Our aspiration for
construction of an abundant society and a rich and strong fatherland will be
achieved when all the villages of the country take the pattern of these ‘proud
exemplary Saemaul villages’ (Office of the President, Preface, unpaginated).
In consequence, those villagers who protested got their share of their old houses in the form of
an open-air museum called, “Folk Village.” Those who wanted to be nostalgic could go see the
houses there. Clifford states:
Saemaul was a product of the military reformist spirit that animated Park and the men
around him. Away went the thatched roof huts that had dotted the countryside for
centuries. Park considered these roofs too primitive for a would-be developed country,
so he ordered their replacement with corrugated metal roofs and, later, concrete tiles.
The fact that straw was a far more effective insulator against the bitter winters and
steaming summers of Korea did not trouble Park. Metal was modern, and straw was
not. For those villagers who protested, Park offered a sop: the Korean Folk Village
was built near Suwon, a walled city south of Seoul, where traditional houses were
preserved for future generations. Peasants who refused to re-roof their houses had
their traditional roof destroyed by zealous local officials (Clifford, 1994, pp. 94-95).
With the government’s initiative to establish a foreigner tourism industry, the Korean Folk Village
Committee was formed in January 15, 1972. The Korean Folk Village was founded in May 8,
1973 with approval of the Folk Construction Business Plan. Originally with 660,600 sq.m. of
spatial area, the Korean Folk Village was opened to the public on October 3, 1974. By 1999,
282 structures were collected or reconstructed on 726,962 sq.m. of open-air space and 330
staff members employed. Feng shui has been applied to the foundation of the grounds
according to the direction of a mountain, a stream, and the entrance faces south.
The Korean Folk Village is a private museum at the same time a theme park. It is not a place
where it shows the entirety of Korean culture, but a reconstructed village 150 years ago and
was a theme park (Lee 2002).
‘The Style Tradition and the Dream of the Future’ was the idea for a new park concept for the
Folk Family Park opening in April 1997 within the Korean Folk Village. The theme park part of
the folk village includes the Family Park with rides such as Viking Express and Wonder Wheel,
Snow Sleding, and the Korean Traditional Haunted House.
The Contemporary Art Museum or Modern Art Museum is also an extension of the future
experience of the Korean Folk Village. Other museums include the Folk Museum, World
Folklore Museum, and Art Museum. The Korean Folk Village does not receive any funding from
the national government nor from the provincial government. It operates on entrance fees and
museum shops. Unlike other museums, it must direct management for profit. This is related to
the teams as well.
It consists of the executive director, managing director and director and six departments:
General Affairs Team : Financial management, Personnel, Administration; Business Team:
Restaurants, Souvenir Shops; Publicity Team: Publicity and Visitor Management; Management
Team: Facilities and operations; Folk Team: Exhibitions of houses, holders skill places
management, performances, Folk Museum, Museums exhibition and events planning, filming
management, publications and design, network management; Art and science team: World Folk
25
Chung Yun Shun: Museums and Intangible Folk Heritage in the Republic of Korea
Museum, Contemporary Art Museum Exhibition and Events Planning. Research is done by the
folk, and art and science team.
For the Korean Folk Village, the concept of ‘folk’ is very important. There are reconstructed
agriculture specialty shops with a contemporary flair. Theme concepts of the Korean Folk
Village are divided into Traditional Houses, Education & Administration, Livelihood &
Handicrafts, Religion & Ceremonies, Festivals & Entertainment.
Between workshops and outdoor markets serving Korean traditional food, there are 20
traditional skilled crafts persons or holders who make traditional pottery, keys, traditional
baskets, rice scoopers, rice cakes, wooden shoes, mulberry paper, masks, embroidery
needlework, leather brushes, pyrography engraving, grassware, instruments, fans, agricultural
tools, ropes, and furniture. Handicrafts workshops include: Sesame oil mill/ wooden mask
workshop, knot workshop/ embroidery workshop, leather brush painting atelier, musical
instrument workshop/ fan workshop, brassware workshop, and gluten candy workshop. There
are also performances called, “farmer’s music and dance” and “acrobats on a tightrope” twice a
day in the performing arena. During traditional holidays, there are re-creations of customs and
ceremonies such as coming-of-age, marriage, funeral and ancestor memorial (Korean Folk
Village Museum 1997). The Korean Folk Village is also a place where broadcasting is done for
historical dramas, educational programs and overseas publicity. Despite the display of these
workshops and technical holders who have learnt the trade and worked all their lives as
traditional artisans and craftsmen, there are no nominated or registered Living Human
Treasures at the Korean Folk Village. Yet, these technical holders are rare in Korea although
they have not been nominated (Lee 2002). Therefore, the role of the Korean Folk Village has
created a good starting point for the conservation of both tangible and intangible folk heritage as
we have seen it to be a reconstruction of a traditional Korean village 150 years ago. However,
we would like to look at the possibilities of in situ communication of the intangible folk heritage
by the establishment of ecomuseums in Korea.
Ecomuseums are a product of the museum revolution of 1960-1980, with an outcome of
democratization (Renaud, 1992). In effect, ecomuseums are connected with cultural identity,
territory, and in situ preservation (Fédération des écomusées et des musées de société 1996).
Identity is how people see themselves and the territory or the ‘landscape’ that they are
connected to, and in situ preservation of cultural heritage (van Mensch, 1988; 1990; 1993). The
ecomuseum, in the words of Georges Henri Rivière, is “l’environnement : le milieu concret
construit par l’homme” (1973:26). It is, in other expressions, a museum of time and a museum
of space, something that I argue would be appropriate for the preservation and exhibition of
technical holders.
Furthermore ecomuseums save an environment and not create false environments, to protect
and preserve them (Duclos, 1980). For example, they preserve housing traditions (Duclos,
1980). They lay importance to what the people in the villages do for a living connected with the
territory. They serve to tell others the importance of this landscape and their identity to others.
They create the connection between art, industry, economy, and nature. In ecomuseums in
France, agriculture, hunting and fishing, viticulture, woods and forests, irrigation, cheesemakingproducts of their activities in connection with the land are displayed and developed in its state
(Association Française des Musées d’Agriculture 1991:12).
Ecomuseums provide in situ preservation. Time does not stand still. The point of this paper is to
suggest the creation of ecomuseums in areas that have had to go through such traumatic
changes instead of the 19th-century traditional museums in democratizing society at large
connected to the identity and the territory. It is a tool for the government to look ahead, by
looking back at the deprivation of the public audience who was forced to give up their traditions,
and finding ways to save cultural identity in place: in situ.
The identity is not only the beauty of how most museums portray the culture. The dominant has
always seemed to have found what should be displayed and what should not be displayed.
Cultural identities are meshed into one pot. The identities of the colonists were reflected in the
colonial museums. The identities in 19th century traditional museums or open-air museums
exhumed 19th-century values. The open-air museum, a 19th century concept (which actually is
traced back even further to the 18th century ‘Le Jardin Elysée’ in France), created by Artur
Hazelius in Sweden, continues with encyclopaedic motives. The Korean Folk Village was a
26
Chung Yun Shun: Museums and Intangible Folk Heritage in the Republic of Korea
remedy for the villagers whose houses were transformed or destroyed; however, it eventually
became an encyclopaedic open-air museum.
Ecomuseums embrace the beauty and the horror of the real life situation. Once culture is torn
down, it cannot be re-made (cf. P. van Mensch 1986). Ecomuseums do not re-build but
continue the life and develop the identity in relation to the territory and how they live. The
cultural identity in the ecomuseum is distinctly associated with the territory. Ivo Maroević (1988)
and Marcel Evrard (1986) stress self-consciousness as a part of identity placing it in the users’
context. The context is the territory in which one lives. Georges Henri Rivière defines that
ecomuseums portray how the local population sees itself (Rivière 1985:182) trying to find an
explanation in relation to the territory.
The ecomuseum is also called the “museum of space” and “museum of time”. The ecomuseum
is not a normative definition, but an evolutive definition (Rivière 1985). Space and time are not
confined to a building. Space is the territory, the ecology, the environment (Hubert 1987). Time
is the explanation of society (Hubert 1987). The concept of the museum is broadened to include
the architectural, cultural, industrial, and natural (Renaud 1992). An example of an ecomuseum
in the City of Rennes in France is given. The “museum of space” concerns the agricultural field
on which the socio-cultural center is situated show the evolution of the cultivation methods, etc.
in connection with the space. The “museum of time” is a permanent exhibition of the history of
Rennes from the 16th century to the present displayed in a creative manner with an
interdisciplinary approach (Hubert 1987). The ‘museum of space’ and the ‘museum of time’ is
another word for museum without walls or museum without borders. The ecomuseum thus
democratizes the concept of the museum in which ‘space’ and ‘time’ is perpetuated beyond a
building (Desvallées 1983) and thus can serve to promote technical holders.
This brings us back to Howard’s (2003) argument that relevance of living human treasures
whether they have been nominated or registered, or technical holders who have been traditional
craftsmen and artisans all their lives, can be made by connecting past and present via the
ecomuseum. Therefore this paper endeavored to link Living Human Treasures and technical
holders, which are both intangible heritage, with museums in Korea. It demonstrated that an
important outlet has been maintained and managed for Korean intangible folk heritage,
however, a suggestion that more outlets in the form of ecomuseums should be created. Before
development takes place in every part of Korea, the intangible folk heritage especially these
technical holders should have a place in their hometowns or in situ to perpetuate heritage.
Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to the Korea Foundation for supporting me to conduct research and attend the
International Council of Museums General Conference 2004 in Seoul, Korea under the Korea
Foundation Field Research Fellowship; the Reinwardt Academy for allowing me to include
excerpts from my Master’s thesis in which Dr. Peter van Mensch supervised in this article; and
Prof. Gary Edson for giving me guidance on the topic. I am grateful to the following
organizations and museums for their kind cooperation: the Korean Folk Village (Yung Il Park,
President; Joy Sung Lee, Guide); UNESCO Korea (Seong Yong Park, Deputy-Director; Kwon
Huh, Head, Education & Culture Team);
27
Chung Yun Shun: Museums and Intangible Folk Heritage in the Republic of Korea
Bibliography
Association Française des Musées d=Agriculture. (1991). Le Guide du patrimoine rural.
Besançon: Author.
Berger, A. ed. 1992 Reading Matters: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Material Culture.
Transaction Books.
Clifford, M.L. 1994. Troubled Tiger. Armonk & London: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
Cultural Properties Administration, Korean National Commission for Unesco, and UNESCO
1999. UNESCO International Training Workshop on the Living Human Treasures
System. October 13-18, 1999. Seoul:UNESCO Korea.
2000. UNESCO International Training Workshop on the Living Human Treasures
System. November 1-6, 2000. Seoul: UNESCO Korea.
2001. UNESCO International Training Workshop on the Living Human Treasures
System. 18-22 September 2001. Seoul:UNESCO Korea.
2002. Guidelines for the Establishment of Living Human Treasures Systems. Seoul:
UNESCO Korea.
Desvallées, A. 1983. Les écomusées. In V. Sofka ed., Symposium: Museum-territory-society,
pp. 15-16. London: ICOFOM.
Duclos, J.C. 1980. The Camargue Museum, Mas du Pont de Rousty, Arles, France. Museum,
XXXII (1/2), 22-32.
Edson, G. & Dean D. 1994. Handbook for Museums. NewYork: Routledge.
Evrard, M. 1986. The Ecomuseum: Conscience of Lasting, Transitory Expression of Identity. In
V. Sofka ed., Symposium: Museology and Identity, pp. 85-92. Buenos Aires: ICOFOM.
Fédération des écomusées et des musées de société. 1996. En avant la mémoire. Besançon:
Author.
Greenhalgh, P. 1988. Ephemeral vistas. The expositions universelles, great exhibitions and
world=s fairs 1851-1939. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Howard, K. 2003. ‘Living Human Treasures’ from a Lost Age: Current Issues in Cultural
Heritage Management. [online]. [cited 9 January 2003]. Available from World Wide Web:
(http://www.aks.ac.uk/EngHome/files/free8_3_2.htm).
Hubert, F. 1987. L=écomusées après vingt ans. In Ecomusées en France, pp. 56-60. L=Isle
d=Abeau: Agence Regionale d=Ethnologie Rhone-Alpes.
Lee, J.S. 2002. Personal Communication. Korean Folk Village. 27 December 2002.
Lee, K.H. 1993. Korean culture: Legacies and Lore. Seoul: The Korea Herald, Inc.
Lee, N.Y. 1986. Museums in the Republic of Korea. Museum, XXXVIII (1), 30-35.
Lowenthal, D. 1992. “Authenticity? The dogma of self-delusion” In M. Jones ed. Why Fakes
Matter: Essays on Problems of Authenticity, pp. 184-192. London: British Museum Press.
The National Museum of Korea. 1995. Munwha minjokae jakeungshim [Our culture=s & race=s
pride]. Seoul, Author.
28
Chung Yun Shun: Museums and Intangible Folk Heritage in the Republic of Korea
Korean Folk Village Museum. 1997. The Catalogue of the Korean Folk Village Museum. Seoul:
The Korean Folk Village Museum.
Korean National Commission for Unesco, Office of Cultural Properties, UNESCO
1996. A Method to Preserve Intangible Heritage: A Report on the Policy Development
for Preservation Methods of Intangible Heritage. Seoul: Jeongju Communications.
1998. The 1st UNESCO International Training Workshop on the Living Human
Treasures System. October 13-20, 1998. Seoul: UNESCO Korea.
Kuklib bakmoolkwanae heowa shil [AThe Strengths and Weaknesses of The National Museum
of Korea@]. 1989 August. Wolgan misool, 101-108.
Maroević, I. 1986. Identity as a Constituent Part of Museality. In V. Sofka ed., Symposium:
Museology and Identity (pp. 183-188). Buenos Aires: ICOFOM.
Office of the President.
1974. Saemaul [New Village]. Seoul: Author.
1978. Saemaul [New Village]. Seoul: Author.
Park, S.Y. 2002. Personal Communication. UNESCO Korea. 24 December 2002.
Pearce, S.
ed. 1990. Objects of Knowledge. London & Atlantic Highlands: Athlone Press.
1992. Museums, Objects, and Collections. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution
Press, pp. 16-35.
1994. ‘Collecting Reconsidered’. In S. Pearce ed. Interpreting Objects and Collections,
pp. 193-204. London & New York: Routledge.
Renaud, P. 1992. Museums: to know and be known. In M. Cote ed. Museological trends in
Quebec, pp. 115-126. Quebec.
Rivière, G.H.
1973. Le musée: instrument pour la prise de conscience des problèmes de
l=environnement. Museum, XXV (2), 26-44.
1985a. The ecomuseum-an evolutive definition. Museum, XXXVII (4), 182-183.
1985b. Editorial. Museum, XXXVII (4), 184.
Pomian, K. 1990. Collectors & Curiosities. Cambridge: Polity Press. Main Library AM349 .025
1985.
Runyard, S. 1996. “Paying for authenticity”. Museums Journal Vol.96 (2), 32-33.
Schlebecker, J.T. 1982. ‘The Use of Objects in Historical Research’. In T.J. Schlereth (ed)
Material Culture Studies in America, pp. 106-113.
Schlereth, T.
1982. ‘Material Culture Studies in America, 1876-1976’. In T.J. Schlereth (ed) Material
Culture Studies in America, pp. 1-75. Nashville, TN: American Association for State and
Local History Press.
29
Chung Yun Shun: Museums and Intangible Folk Heritage in the Republic of Korea
ed. 1990. Cultural History and Material Culture: Everyday Life, Landscape, Museums.
University Press of Virginia.
Shanks, M. & Tilley, C. 1987. Re-constructing archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Stocking, G.W. 1985. ‘Essays on Museums and Material Culture’. In G.W. Stocking (ed),
Objects and Others:Essays on Museums and Material Culture, pp. 3-14. Madison, Wisconsin:
The University of Wisconsin Press.
Sweeney, J.A.H. 1978. ‘Introduction’. In I.M.G. Quimby (ed), Material Culture and the Study of
American Life, pp. 1-4. New York, NY: WW Norton & Company Inc.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 2003. “Intangible Heritage”.
[online]. [cited 20 January 2003]. Available from World Wide Web:
(http://www.unesco.org/culture/heritage/intangible/html_eng/index_en.shtml).
van Mensch, P.
1985. “Museological Relevance of Management Techniques.” In P. van Mensch (ed)
Management Needs of Museum Personnel, pp. 45-49. Proceedings of the Annual
Meeting of ICOM International Committee for the Training of Museum Personnel at
Leiden, Sept. 24 – Oct. 2, 1984. Leiden: Reinwardt Studies in Museology 5.
1986. Basic papers. In V. Sofka ed., Symposium: Museology and identity. Buenos
Aires: ICOM International Committee for Museology. (pp. 37-39).
1988. Museology and museums. ICOM news, 41 (3), 5-10.
1990. Museology and the environment. In V. Sofka ed., Annual conference 1990:
Museology and the environment, pp. 13-14. Livingstone-Mfuwe: ICOFOM.
1993a. Towards museums for a new century. In V. Sofka ed., Symposium: Museums,
space and power, pp. 15-18. Athens: ICOFOM.
1993b. ICOFOM and the basic parameters in museology. In V. Sofka ed., Symposium:
Museums, space and power, pp. 100-102. Athens: ICOFOM.
Vergo, P. ed. 1997. The New Museology. Reaktion Books Ltd.
Won, T.S. 1986. Development and characteristics of modern Korean painting. Korea Journal,
26 (1), 20-27.
30
Museology and the Intangible Heritage of Learning
Ann Davis – Canada
There is much debate as to the meaning of intangible heritage. Some argue that the term
should refer to the virtual, others that it should encompass the cultural and yet others that it
should mean those aspects of culture, such as song and dance, that are not rendered as
material objects. Each argument has considerable validity. I would like to take the discussion in
another direction and argue that, for museology, one of the most important meanings of
intangible heritage is encoded in museums as learning institutions.
In 1992 the American Association of Museums produced a seminal document clearly
proclaiming that the basic purpose of museums was to be learning organizations. While this
concept has been around for decades, often muddied by the inclusion of entertainment,
Excellence in Equity forcefully but poetically delineated the centrality of learning for museums.
Numerous studies followed, but none as important as Learning from Museums: Visitor
Experiences and the Making of Meaning, by John H. Falk and Lynn D. Dierking, of 2000. Falk
and Dierking boldly proclaim “Learning is the reason people go to museums, and learning is the
primary ‘good’ that visitors to museums derive from their experience.”1 In this increasingly
complex world, people are anxious to find knowledge and meaning and go to museums to do
so. Museums, Falk and Dierking argue, “are places that both children and adults can leisurely
browse to discover the past, present and future of humanity, the natural world, and the cosmos,
where the public can seek and find meaning and connection.”2
But what is learning? Learning from Museums posits that in the past we have erred in trying to
define museum learning too tightly and too restrictedly as that which takes place in schools, or
should take place there. After years of study Falk and Dierking suggest that learning, “a product
of millions of years of evolution”, is “an adaptation that permits an ongoing dialogue between the
whole individual and the physical and sociocultural world he or she inhabits.”3 They identify
three contexts: the personal, the sociocultural and the physical, and add to this time. Learning,
then, is the process and products of the interactions of these three contexts over time, a neverending, fluid process. The purpose of learning is to make meaning and find connections.
Much of the basic belief system in Learning from Museums is common to the work of John
Dewey. Consciously or unconsciously, I suspect that this book is based on Dewey’s beliefs.
Dewey (1859 – 1952), an American philosopher, made groundbreaking contributions to
philosophy, psychology, art history and educational theory. He was especially interested in
museums, working for Albert C. Barnes at the famous Barnes Foundation in Baltimore, and
dedicating his seminal 1934 book, Art as Experience, to Barnes. Dewey was influenced by
Darwinian biology, which accounts for his conception of experience as an interaction with and a
reconstruction of the environment.4
Dewey believed that the interests and habits of people, their situations, influenced how they
chose to live. In writing the Foreword to the 1929 Barnes Foundation collection of essays called
Art and Education, Dewey explained that the method and material contained therein had a
bearing not only on education in the plastic arts but on education in general.5 We might well
paraphrase this to add not only art museums but also all museums. Certainly Dewey’s influence
in education has only grown and grown. Dewey wrote:
1
p. 2.
Ibid.
3
Ibid., p. 10.
4
Philosophies of Art & Beauty: Selected Readings in Aesthetics form Plato to Heidegger, eds. Albert Hofstadter and
Richard Kuhns, (Chicago: The Univerty of Chicago Press), 1964, p. 576.
5
Merion, Pennsylvania, p. 3.
2
31
Davis: Museology and the Intangible Heritage of Learning
For many years, I have thought and taught that experience is an interaction between
the self and some aspect of its environment. Purposeful, intelligent action is the means
by which this interaction is rendered significant. In the course of such action, objects
acquire meaning and the self becomes aware of its own powers, since, by intelligent
control of the environment, it directs and consolidates its own capacities.1
For Dewey intelligent living involved three components, action, emotion and understanding.
Learning then is a difficult undertaking. It involves the activity of the whole personality. When the
self is intelligently adapted to his or her surroundings, these three are in balance. But, too often,
in formal educational institutions, schools, actions are divorced from purpose or meaning; the
acquisition of knowledge is transformed into the amassing of mere information. On the other
hand, in intelligent living facts and principles are so intricately connected with one another that
they become active agents for grasping meaning and enhancing values. This means that our
experience in museums only becomes alive as it is grounded in concrete, lived experience.
Dewey placed a heavy emphasis on the role of social and cultural institutions as agents of
continuing adjustive activity.
More recently Dewey’s ideas about intelligent living were expanded by Howard Gardner in his
theory of multiple intelligences. Gardner rejected the idea that all cognition is the same, or even
restricted to verbal and mathematical skills. Rather he proposed a pluralistic view of mind, one
that recognizes that people have different cognitive strengths and contrasting cognitive styles,
identifying seven intelligences, of which linguistic and logical-mathematical are just two. Any
sophisticated cultural role requires the use of a combination of intelligences to master. Like
Dewey, Gardner firmly attached intelligence, the ability of solve problems, to a particular cultural
setting or community. This, in turn, encouraged Gardner to examine the ways both formal and
informal learning institutions, schools and museums, advance or restrict the development of an
individual’s particular intelligences.2 Here Gardner had special praise for the Reggio pre-school
system, with its emphasis on context and experience.3
Dewey too discarded the limited, compartmentalized theory of cognition, decrying the division
commonly made between mind and body. He rejected the separation of the logical, strictly
intellectual, which terminates in sciences, the emotional and imaginative processes which
dominate poetry, music and the other arts, and the practical doings which rule our daily lives in
business and politics. A full, rich and free life, on the other hand, requires the elimination of the
separation of science, art and practical activity, in favour of the unity of experience and mental
life. 4 For Dewey “knowledge, feeling and volition are all manifestations of the same energies.”5
Repeatedly Dewey asserted that scientific and artistic systems are both involved with the
relationship of life to its surroundings, both involve the same fundamental principles and satisfy
the same fundamental needs. In this holistic vision, if life is to be meaningful, then connections
must be developed between the organism and the environment.
As an aside it is interesting to note that the environmentalists are telling us today that we are in
very serious trouble because we have neglected the big picture, because we are not thinking
and sensing holistically, because we are not linking our habits to effects in nature. Our blind
belief that we will never run out of oil or water, our rejection of climate change, our assumption
that technology will solve all our ills, are symptoms of this disastrous disconnection. One
environmentalist, the Canadian Alanna Mitchell, like Dewey, sees indelible links between people
and nature and, unlike many environmentalists, adds a cultural dimension to the scientific one.
While for Dewey the glue is art, for Mitchell the glue is legends, the stories that explain to us
how our lives work and what our place is thought to be in our mysterious world.6 Mitchell
emphasizes not only the efficacy but also the necessity of actively maintaining and developing
imagination and myths, of legends, to balance and sustain our selves and our world.
1
Ibid.
Howard Gardner, Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice, (New York: BasicBooks), 1993
3
Howard Gardner, The Disciplined Mind: What All Students Should Understand, (New York: Simon & Schuser), 1999
4
“Affective Thought in Logic and Painting”, in Art and Education, p. 96
5
Ibid.
6
Dancing at the Dead Sea, (Toronto: Key Porter Books), 2004.
2
32
Davis: Museology and the Intangible Heritage of Learning
Returning to Dewey, he also underlined this activity. He contended that intelligent life is clearly
participatory rather than passive. And this is a very important point for our understanding of
learning as intangible heritage in museums. Inquiry is a form of behaviour. Dewey suggested
that
An organism has certain basic needs which cannot be supplied
modifies the surroundings; that when the organism is in any
“equilibrium” with its environment, its needs show themselves
desiring activity which persists until the acts thus induced have
integration of the organism and its relation to the environment.1
without activity which
way disturbed in its
as restless, craving,
brought about a new
The special “click’ that occurs between a visitor and a museum object, between a spectator and
a work of art is an activity, an effort on the part of the person. These efforts are valid and
repeated because, as Dewey comments, the contact, the “click” releases “old, deep-seated
habits or engrained organic ‘memories,’ yet the old habits are deployed in new ways, ways in
which they are adapted to a more completely integrated world so that they themselves achieve
a new integration.” 2 To make of museum objects an educational means is the understanding
that the intellectual realization is, in Dewey’s words, “such a deep and abiding experience of the
nature of fully harmonized experience as sets a standard or forms a habit for all other
experiences.”3 Emphasizing the active role of the visitor, Dewey notes:
The perceiver as well as the artist has to perceive, meet, and overcome problems; otherwise,
appreciation is transient and overweighed with sentiment. For in order to perceive esthetically,
he must remake his past experiences so that they can enter integrally into a new pattern.4
In many ways with his emphasis on the visitor’s activity, learning, Dewey anticipated the new
museology. New museology, as Mieke Bal explains, is differentiated from old or plain
museology by the “idea that a museum is a discourse”5, Duncan Cameron’s forum. “…[S]uch a
perspective, “ Bal continues, “deprives the museal practice of innocence and provides it with the
accountability it and its users are entitled to.” Accountability plays a central part in the making of
meaning and value.
In Experience and Nature, Dewey discusses making intelligent life, guiding actions by ideals
towards ends that intrinsically fulfill us. “The characteristic human need,” Dewey claimed, “is for
possession and appreciation of the meaning of things ...”6 Recently in examining Dewey’s
aesthetics, Thomas Alexander explained that Dewey was asserting that the aesthetic
experience and the intelligence exemplified by art are the necessary conditions to achieving a
life of intellectual conduct. Alexander isolated three pivotal thoughts here. First that Dewey
suggested that “human life is guided by a desire to experience the world in such a way that the
sense of meaning and value is immediately enjoyed.” Here is desire propelling motivation.
Second that “our utilitarian obsession with means apart from ends makes us ignorant of the
widespread poverty and emptiness of human experience ...” This is a means first pragmatism
that takes ends as an arbitrarily given. Third:
Dewey claims that in the idea of art we find the moment in which human alienation is overcome
and the need for the experience of meaning and value is satisfied. Through art, in the aesthetic
experience, the rift in the world that frustrates our primordial desire for encountering a sense of
meaning and value is healed.7
Thus we see the link between meaning and value in museums on the one hand and the unified
and fulfilled life on the other hand.
1
“Affective Thought in Logic and Painting”, p. 97.
Ibid., p. 100.
3
Ibid., p. 104.
4
Art as Experience, (New York: Minton. Balch & Company), 1934, p. 138.
5
“The Discourse of the Museum”, in Thinking about Exhibitions, eds. Reesa Greenberg, Bruce W. Ferguson, Sandy
Nairne, (London and New York: Routledge) 1996, p. 214.
6
“The Art of Life: Dewey’s Aesthetics”, in Reading Dewey: Interpretations for a Postmodern Generation, (Bloomington
and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press) 1998, quoted, p. 3.
7
Ibid., pp. 3–4.
2
33
Davis: Museology and the Intangible Heritage of Learning
By making meaning the center in the art museum Dewey was again a leader challenging the
erstwhile norm of beauty. This theme was taken up by André Malreau in his musée imaginaire.
For Malreau the modern museum was one in which value was reorganized. Rather than having
Classicism at the center and everything else marginal to it, deviations from the ultimate, the
museum now had a range of epicenters, organized by type. This enabled comparisons to be
created between types or styles or geography or purpose, and gave value to what Rosalind
Krauss called “so many variants within the field of meaning.”1 With meaning at the core, all the
arts, useful and not useful, native and foreign, court and folk, could find a place in the museum.
Again Dewey was prescient in his interest in the continuity rather than the distinctions between
high and low arts. Malreau’s musée imaginaire then is the exercise of comparisons on the part
of the receiver, democratized through the camera and the book press, as they are today
democratized through the web. Here were “great fictions” made visible, stories about the
collective spirit of human creativity and inventiveness, Mitchell’s legends. And here in the
musée imaginaire the users are able to participate in the writing by creating their own “fictions,”
endless imaginative productions.
Parsing Intangible heritage in museums is a layered and complex matter, open to rich
interpretations and differing approaches. What I have attempted to show is the centrality of
learning as an intangible heritage in museums, one that might be the most important of all.
From John Dewey we learn that people constantly seek meaning and value and that this search
is a fluid, ever-changing and every-developing one. Dewey, along with Gardner, Mitchell and
others, emphasized that learning must be holistic and contextual: it must occur within the
breadth of the environment but is based in the specific culture of the individual. Meaning, then,
is gradually created through a never-ending series of experiments in which a person tests his or
her own self against reality. Learning, and learning in museums, is a participatory activity, a
dialogue that requires engagement and effort. Dewey’s three components of intelligent living –
action, emotion and understanding – are expanded by Gardner’s seven intelligences, opening
an understanding of different forms and styles of learning. Finally Falk and Dierking link theory
and practice by clarifying the central role of personal, sociocultural and physical contexts in
learning as the intangible heritage of museums.
1
“Postmodernism’s Museum Without Walls”, in eds. Greenberg et al., p. 343.
34
Ethnological Museology of Intangible Heritage /
The Culture of Masking in Museums
Aleš Gačnik – Slovenia
Introduction / Definition of Museology, Ethnology and Ethnological Museology
As usual, the problems in science already start with the defining of basic conceptions and
definitions that mark every scientific discipline, its research subject and its mission. That is why I
would like to introduce three ''new'' basic definitions (of museology, ethnology and ethnologic
museology) that in continuation offer us a methodological base for museological understanding
and evaluation of intangible traditions / heritage inside or outside museums, at the very
beginning:
1. Museology is a holistic theory about preservation, research, communication of heritages
and their inclusion into various forms of sustainable development. (Gačnik)1
2. Ethnology is a science about the past, the present and the future of the way of life and
culture. (Gačnik 2003: 29)
3. Ethnological museology is not a science about ethnological museum objects, collections
and museums, but about relations between people and objects and their relationships
to heritage, her preservation, research, communication and development.
(Gačnik 2000: 34)
Introduction to the Ethnological Museology
In the established and developed systems of museology the field of ethnological museology can
be placed inside of special museology or ''other museologies'', something similar happens with
critical museology, experimental museology, comparative museology, new museology
ecomuseology, etc. Peter van Mensch recognizes the tendency to the diversion of special
museology to a series of different museologies, like ''ethnographical museology'', ''historical
museology'', ''artistic museology'', ''literary museology'', ''zoomuseology'',''antropomuseology''
and ''ethnomuseology''.2
Ethnological museology was not appreciated much in the previous developed systems and
structures of museology.3 This is partly understandable, because the leading European
museologists, like the system of studying museology itself, are directed to forming complete
universal methodologies, useful for theoretical and practical work, especially in various
museums and museum like (heritage) institutions. Despite their various classifications and types
''knick-knacking'' in the way of making special museologies would lead them away from forming
basic principles of museological work, which would reflect in the museum practice as an even
greater chaos, non-unificated standards and understanding of documenting, preserving,
researching and communicating heritage. Museology is a common base for all developing
special museologies, just like the fundamental principle of marketing is mostly common to all
scientific disciplines, institutions, economic and non-economic systems, that are occupied with
it.4
1
The definition of museology was first introduced on a lecture called The development of museum – tourist destinations:
example Superegg and The eco-museum of provincial cultures Skorba, to the participants of The Elementary School
of Museology, that took place in Celje and Ptuj between 28th June and 2nd July 2004.
2
Mensch 1992: 64–65, 277–281
3
Stransky objects to the beginning of ethnology or history for the purposes of museums or the other extremity –
ethnological or historical museology. (Stransky 1970:43). A similar opinion came from Sergej Vrišer at the conference
of ethnologists and historians in Maribor (The relationships between ethnology and history, Brochure GSED, 16, 1986:
263).
4
Similar analogies could be found in medicine, advertising, computer science etc.
35
Gačnik: Ethnological Museology of Intangible Heritage
Field of ethnological museology in enlarged developed systems of museology: updated
scheme.
(Mensch 1992: 66, 260)
The museological view of ethnological museology must also be opened from a different
perspective, that is, from the part of ethnology. That view is mostly focused on the so-called
museum practise ethnology, (Brumen 1987: 1) on the state of ethnology and not ethnological
museology in museums. The basic problem that arises from that, is, that ethnologists in
museums think above all like ethnologists and rarely like ethnological museologists, which
indicates the lack of knowledge of aspirations in modern museology and their application in
daily museum practice. There has much been talk of the crisis of museums, for which Tomislav
Šola finds, that the crisis of museums is not a crisis of institutions, but a crisis of motives and
methodology, (Šola 1992: 115-122) as well as the crisis of museological illiteracy.
While searching and discovering the causes for this sort of crisis, ethnology proves co-guilty,
because it does not focus enough on relationships with museology in terms of research and
methodology. The crisis of ethnology in museums will not be solved until we start thinking
museologically and not just ethnologically. The methodology of museology is not a priori
responsible for the incomplete methodological base, some blame also goes to ethnology. The
higher the degree of museological knowledge between the ethnologists, the greater will become
the need for forming special ethnological museology, not merely as a contact point, but mainly
as a section between two scientific disciplines.
The subject of ethnological museology
Resulting from the definition, that ethnological museology is not a science about ethnological
museum objects, collections and museums, but about relations between people and objects
and their terms to heritage, its preservation, research, communication and development.
(Gačnik, 2000: 34), the object of ethnological museology is connected with researching the
objectivity of our life, with the socialization of objects and with studying the relationships
between objects and people. Close to these terms are the thoughts of anthropologist (and
museologist ) Arjun Appadurai, who discusses about the ''social life of things'', and those of Igor
Kopytoff, who talks of the ''cultural biography of objects'' (Kopytoff1986).
Eloquent is the fact that we cannot find the term ethnological museology between numerous
museological terms in the big museological dictionary (Dictionarium museologicum, 1986). On
the other hand, the duty of the modern ethnological museology is not only the concern for the
preservation and display of museum objects, but also the concern for the preservation of
traditional knowledge and wisdom and their inclusion in different forms of social, economic and
36
Gačnik: Ethnological Museology of Intangible Heritage
areal development. Transition from basic (theoretical) to applicative research must be followed
by the transition from applications to system planning and managing sustainable durability,
based on wealth of traditions as an alternative for the future way of life. Transition from
preservation to development on the terms of ethnological museology and heritage is an
invention that must be improved on completely concrete changes of methodology of
(ethnological) museology and innovations administration, organizing etc. heritage institutions.
Ethnological museology, defined in system, structure and methodology, is co-dependent on the
course of development of general ethnology and general museology and the degree of their
connection. Unlike the ethnological museum practice, which is oriented in history, ethnological
museology also looks into the present and future. It is oriented into the future of tradition,
heritage and culture.
A distinctive feature and strategic development direction of ethnological museology is, regarding
all previous world museologies, that it shows itself in terms of pointing out a broadened
understanding of the museological concept, on the transition from traditional museological
direction towards material culture to the one from the field of social and spiritual culture. If a
museum artifact is the essence of traditional museums and museology, then not only objects
form the contents of ethnological museology, but also people, customs and traditions, place and
time. The duties of ethnological museology are not oriented just in preservation of material
testimonies mostly movable heritage, but also in protecting people, knowledge, (traditional) time
and place connected with the biology of customs and traditions.
SAMDOK and ethnological museology
Complete investigation of the present, following the changing if tradition etc. is one of the
current affairs of ethnological museology and has been studied in ethnological and
sociohistorical museums under the patronage of the Swedish system SAMDOK1 since the early
eighties. Their relation to tradition, documenting and investigation of the way of life is unique
also because their researchers give greater attention to the investigation of the present rather
than the past. This system, used mainly in museums, gives the present advantage over the
past, vial over the dying, ordinary over the unusual and typical over the unique! (Cedrenius
1995: 61)
SAMDOK, the system of contemporary documenting of objects and people, is marked by a
internationally recognizable and enforced slogan: ''Collecting today for tomorrow''. This motto,
which is one of the methodological directions in modern ethnological museology, can be
broadened to ''Researching and developing today for tomorrow''. From the standpoint of
ethnological museology the SAMDOK system is the enforced philosophy, a documentary and
research system, that also greatly marked my own view on investigation of masks as an object
of ethnological museology. To the researchers of (traditional) carnival culture it offers a great
base, numerous experience with documenting and investigation of especially modifications,
metamorphoses and innovations, without which our understanding and of the historical heritage
and its further development would be much more difficult. Because the lifetime of numerous
changes and novelties in heritages can be very short, their constant documenting, research and
evaluation is even more important.
Similar systems SAMDOK and neoethnography2 are suitable directives while researching
masks (the heritage of ) masks as an subject of ethnological museology. The processes in the
culture of masks and masking, especially traditional ones, must be studied on a time line
between the past, the present and the future. At discovering modifications, metamorphoses and
innovations we can so help ourselves with the experience of the Swedish SAMDOK system.3
1
2
3
More about the SAMDOK programme in: Nyström, Cedrenius 1982; Maroević 1993: 89, 173; Mensch 1992: 180–181;
Cedrenius 1995; Johnsdotter 1995.
Like the Slovenian SAMDOK we could develop the neoethnographic system, which I discussed in relation with
museology. More about that in: Gačnik 1995.
The charm of studying the universal nature of masks is, that different scientific disciplines can be engaged in their
research, wether they are sociological and humanistic or biological and technical. Every one of them can study a mask
from a specific point of view, in accordance with different methodologies of their branch. The informational potential of
a mask as a complete information is then reduced to its individual components.
37
Gačnik: Ethnological Museology of Intangible Heritage
Ethnological Museology and Masks
In the structure of ethnological museology we must study intangible traditions / heritage, like
masks, inside the following basic categories, as an interlace between material, social and
spiritual culture: the morphology of a mask, customs and traditions, place and time. Every one
of these basic categories must be studied through a prism of modifications (M), metamorphoses
(M) and innovations (I). If you do not observe, document and research the changes and
novelties on every single field, you cannot suitably evaluate the meaning of modern
occurrences because you do not understand them. The studying of MMI in traditional carnival
culture means to study the phenomenon of the mask also on a daily basis. (Gačnik 2000:15)
Basic museological categories on the field of complete preservation, research,
communication and development of intangible heritage. (Gačnik 2000: 44)
On the level of research function of ethnological museology we must study masks (traditional,
carnival) from two closely linked and co-dependent views:
1. museological: forming criteria and methodology of complete protection and presentation
of heritage, preparing applicative and development programmes
2. ethnological: studying the biology and the evolution of the mask in the context of the
complete culture of masks and masking, with special emphasis on the research of MMI
in different time periods
The basic problems and dilemmas with integrated evolution of intangible heritages lie in the
understanding of traditions/heritages as a development process that constantly changes.
Because of that, the relation between the preservation of heritage and its own development is
one of the basic starting-points of ethnological museology. ''Violations'' of masking traditions or
their evolutionary change occur in almost every level (morphology of the object/mask, customs
and traditions, traditionally denoted place and time) therefore this sort of studying must be a
priority research task of ethnological museology. The integrity of the topic demands an
integrated research accession. Otherwise, we can form a disfigured image about a specific
cultural phenomenon, which can cause incorrect expert decisions about preservation as well as
planning further development.
More about different sociological methods (ethnological, historical, psychological, theological…) at studying carnival in:
Fasnacht, Beiträge des Tübinger Arbeitskreises für Fasnachforschung (more authors), Volksleben, 6. Band, Tübingen,
1964.
38
Gačnik: Ethnological Museology of Intangible Heritage
The ''kurent'' mask as an ethnological museological challenge
While studying masks, the incompleteness in the research accession at investigating the
traditional carnival culture shows itself by the fact, that the researchers mostly recognize only
one of the four mentioned changing categories. In the case of the ‘’kurent’’ mask heritage, as
the most dominant traditional carnival figure in Slovenia, the relation of the holders towards
respect to the regional designation of heritage it is often emphasized as a criterion of
‘determination’ or authenticity. For example: ‘kurenti’ or ‘koranti’ from the village of Markovci
near Ptuj are convinced of their superior ‘originality’ just because they respect tradition more
than other groups; they are supposed to appear only in rural areas, in their own and neighbour
villages and on some village ‘fašenk’ carnivals.1 In comparison to them, the urban ‘kurents’ of
Ptuj are denoted as a folkloristic hybrid without any value, because traditional carnival masks
belong only into rural surroundings, not into the urban ones.
With most of the groups we recognize the violation also on all other levels: not only the
unmarried young men are wearing the ‘kurent’ costumes ‘kurentija’, but also married man,
children and even women; their robes are prettier, different from those from previous decades
(materials, method of production); most of the groups occasionally takes part on different events
also in other surroundings and outside the traditionally apportioned time etc. In short, all groups
of ‘kurents’ violate the tradition, although some find it binding or ‘holly’ to appear only in their
own cultural environment, others believe, that only (unmarried) men can wear the ‘kurent’
costume.
More than thirty years ago Niko Kuret, the most important maskologist in Slovenia, thought
about masks as an subject of scientific research and tourism, and all that in a time, when
tourism was ‘kept alive’ by a lot of past time traditions, the contents of which went to ruin long
ago. What we see today is mostly just the hull, form, theatre, living museum, if you will. But
interesting, attractive, still rooted inside the people, it is sooner or later sensational for the
public. The press, film radio, television are interested in it. (Kuret 1969: 7)2 Kuret also notices,
that the ‘folk culture’ is in an obvious defence and that it is changing at the most into a museum
reserve in many ways. (Fikfak 1985: 184)
Similar views as Niko Kuret’s can be found with ethnologist Janez Bogataj, who believes, that
the heritage of carnival masks reveals itself in two ways: as reforming of tradition and as a form
of living museum or a theatre of the past, (Bogataj & Berk & Pukšič 1993:242) where those, who
put on these ‘old’ masks, perform a part of the past in front of us every year. (Bogataj 1998: 17)
In these old costumes they are only actors of the past and in a living way present masks that
are already an item of historical memory of museums. (Bogataj 1998:18).
I emphasize the above critical thoughtes, because they underline important questions of
ethnological museology, connected with changing and evolution of intangible heritage, that I
present on the example of the heritage of masking and its changing. We can ask ourselves the
following strategic ethnological museological questions:
• Is it even possible to preserve the traditional carnival culture (intangible heritage)?
• And if yes, should we even preserve our traditional carnival masks; why, for who and
finally, how?
• What would we like to preserve in our traditional carnival culture: is it individual
creativity and spontaneity, traditional customs and uses (ritualism), traditionally
appointed period of appearance, the place of presentation or ‘just’ the unification and
the image of the mask along with the materials, out of which it was made?
• Which is the image that we want to preserve, that we see as criteria (of heritage,
authenticity): is it the modern image of the mask or the one from 30, 50, 100 and more
1
2
UNESCO reports are directed in the preservation of heritage in the primary cultural surrounding. Dr Janez Bogataj is
among Slovenian ethnologists the most interested in putting these references into effect: The Ptuj carnival should be a
representation of extraordinary wealth of carnival or masking tradition of north-east Slovenia. Addition of anything else
is artificial and verges to trumpery. We would advice tourist workers to include carnival in the ‘primary surrounding’ like
Markovci and nearby villages as well. After all, the understanding of ‘kurent’ or any other mask in this surrounding is
much more comprehensible than in the sphere of ‘theatrical’ appearance on the squares and streets of Ptuj. (Bogataj
1985:42) The questions about integrated preservation, especially moveable and ‘living’ heritage in international
spheres, remain open.
Folklorism in some areas tries to keep alive at least some of the old wealth, even though in unspecific surroundings
and in entirely different circumstances. (Kuret 1984: 48)
39
Gačnik: Ethnological Museology of Intangible Heritage
years ago or is it the one that we do not even know yet, or the one, that will reveal itself
to us in the next 20 years?
Displaying Masks in Museums
If we can be satisfied with the studies of traditional carnival culture in Slovenia and in Europe,
we still cannot be satisfied by seeing the culture of masks and masking in Slovenian and
European museums. Perhaps the museums have always propagated elitistic and urban culture
(Šola 1985:165), that had no room for traditional masks of rural origin. The museums as ‘mirrors
of life’ (Šola 1985: 128), as ‘islands of beauty’, as centers where processes of world rematerialization, the fight against anonymity and the loss of identity take place (Bellaigue 1999),
are the most important institutions connected with preservation, research and communication of
objects and cognition about heritage.
In modern societies museums are challenged from two sides: as guardians of cultural heritage
and as transmitters of culture. (Schouten 1989: 108) A good museum (of masks) is therefore
much more than just a well-guarded collection of documented objects, interesting mostly for the
experts. The more socially needed a good museum is, the greater is its importance. (Hudson
1994: 11) That is why the mission of ethnological museology is connected with methodological
principles, directed into re-establishing such museums that not only illustrate the past, but
create and predict it. A good, even historical museum is oriented into the future, is a generator
of culture, knowledge and learning, for the good of sustainable development. The mission of
such museums is not connected merely with social memorizing, reconstructing of historical
consciousness etc., but also with creating something new, with inventions and innovations on
the field of tradition and their inclusion in various development efforts. Even though the research
object of ethnological museology are not merely museums and museum displays, but also
heritage in the broadest meaning of the word, I must point out the fact, that the culture of masks
and masking is presented very insufficiently and unsuitably in European museums because the
traditional and modern masks are mostly displayed like art sculptures with the emphasis on the
aesthetics. In such settings they do not reflect their uniqueness, besides, we get to know very
little about masking cultures from museum settings.
If we would try to measure the strength of a certain phenomenon on the field on tradition and
culture only with museum settings, we would receive quite sad results and a disfigured image in
the case of masks and masking. We would get the impression that masks are a certain
marginalized object in the history of mankind, mainly beautiful, but still totally unimportant and
as such interesting only to few ‘eccentrics’ and researchers. The blame for such presenting of
masks in museums can be found in research methods of different scientific disciplines, in
deficient museological education of museum workers, in museum collecting and displaying
strategies.
We can learn from the history of masking, that the aesthetic function of masks was not
negligible, but not at all predominant, something that Niko Kuret also drew to attention: As any
creation of folk art, the mask is not intended for itself. It also is subject to a certain function
therefore its aesthetic side is not primary neither for the creator nor for the bearer. (Kuret
1973:113) It is undoubtedly somewhat different now, because rituality is being replaced by
entertainment, grotesqueness, beauty etc. We could say that we are witnesses to a greater and
greater aesthetization of traditional European culture of masking. Aesthetically directed museum
exhibitions of masks only confirm this practice.
At displaying masks in European museums we can notice, that the so-called museographic
academism and museum elitism reveal themselves in emphasizing the aesthetic relation at
displaying material, where the information potential of objects is focused primarily on the
aesthetic level, when masks talk to the visitors primarily with their exterior. This sort of setting
resembles the one of works of art, especially sculptures.
40
Gačnik: Ethnological Museology of Intangible Heritage
The galleristic way of displaying1 masks blurs their multi-meaning, because it makes the
aesthetic of the mask the leading and dominant criterion. Exactly because of the disciplinary
appropriation of the material world, many museum items are known strictly as beautiful objects,
that lost all traces of their own, realistic meaning that they once had, according to their role,
purpose and ambition that created them. (Mensch 1995: 15)
Aesthetic criterion predominates all other functions of the mask, placing them into secondary,
even marginal position and thus creating a very truncated information image of the
mysteriousness of the culture of masks and masking. Probably just the mask as a museum item
most distinctively testifies about the absurdity of this sort of displaying national material. Claude
Levi-Strauss thinks that it could come to a removal of especially non-European collections from
ethnographical museums into art museums. (Wyatt 1994: 3) If so, we can also witness the
removal of all other material displayed in the museums merely through its own aesthetic and
morphological image, weather it is a collection of tools, cars etc.
At the aesthetically emphasized way of displaying material in museums the visitors of the
exhibitions see the world of objects through two dominant criteria: beautiful and ugly. By this
sort of displaying masks all the differences in symbolic and meaning, that distinguish African
masks from European, the carnival splendour of Nice from traditional rural masking tradition of
Bulgarian ‘kukers’ from Pernik etc. are destroyed.
If we have masks of different cultures (on national and international level) in one museum,2 we
must see to it that this diversity will be recognizable in the museum settings. Masks of different
cultures should talk to us in different manners, with different possible experiences. The
universal measure at displaying among other stimulates the creation of monotone museum
atmosphere, by which the colorfulness of local and other masking cultures is reduced.
This can be avoided with the holistic and interdisciplinary approach, proper to ethnological
museology, at researching masks as well as at communication of information and findings in
form of museum displays. By knowing the methodology of ethnological museological and
museum exhibition as a specific (museological) medium we prepare different author poetics
(like in film, theatre), at the same time we create conditions for the jump from creating to
directing exhibitions.
Every museum display is an assembling, an interpretation, is a unique communication that
allows us to manipulate with masks (objects) and thus create and discover new meanings and
comprehensions. At total, museologically theatrical presentation of the culture of masks and
masking we must devote special attention to sound (noise, music) and color.3 Just by using
these two elements we can contribute to creating a different atmosphere of the exhibition, to a
more integrating informative meaningfulness of the musealised atmosphere, which will bring the
culture of masks and masking closer to the museum visitors.
Decisions for the academically and aesthetically oriented collections and museums of masks
and masking are legitimate and necessary. However, they should not become a rule or
guidance at creating new museum exhibitons. Rather, they should be an exception. The fact is,
that traditional European culture of masks and carnivals is not an academic and aesthetic
phenomenon. By doing so we would create an incorrect image of the role and meaning of
masks in the history of world civilizations among the visitors of exhibitions. Aestheticizing
excellently supplements with idealizing reality and fetishizing museum artifacts as seen at the
exhibitions in necrophillic museum atmosphere where the logic of rationality and clinical
objectivity prevails.4 It is time we pass from ethnological galleries of masks to museums of
masks.
1
The galleristic way of displaying in the way of ‘art gallery’ as one of 6 methods of displaying in the history of European
and non-European museums, agrees also Josef Kandert (Kandert 1998: 420).
2
th
This sort of museum direction can be labeled in our part of Europe as the heritage of the 19 century, as heritage of
cultural-historical thinking that strongly influenced the image of traditional museums then and now.
3
More about the use of color in museum presentations in: Gačnik 1991: 5 – 12
4
More about the relations to museum artifacts in: Šola 1985: 123 – 143.
41
Gačnik: Ethnological Museology of Intangible Heritage
Epilogue
So what is it with the recipe for a ‘good’ museum exhibition? Similar as with the recipe for a
‘good’ movie. It is impossible to provide. Nonetheless, it is advisable to build the future of
museums and collections of masks and carnivals on global megatrends for the 21st century, on
the methodology of ethnological museology and on the general standards of EMYE,1 that apply
to all museums apart from particular types, themes, size or location. Among several dispositions
for a ‘good’ exhibition we should mention at least some: the one that protects the visitor, staff,
the building, the artifacts…, the one that is clearly visible and illuminated, that has a nice
appearance and is clean, that stimulates the emotional and the rational, that tells the story on a
simple (not banal!) and sensible way, that stimulates curiosity and imagination…2
And what should a modern museum of masks and masking be like: warm and colorful,
associative, comprehensible, accessible and visitor-friendly. It should not tire and humiliate, but
awake the memory and creativity, imbued by the dimension of the past, by traditional
knowledge and wisdom.3 It should offer us a feeling of connectedness, inclusion into the history
of world civilizations and lead us to thinking about the future. In this sort of museums the
artifacts and collections tell us as much as we ask them!
References
Appadurai, Arjun
1986: Introducton: commodities and the politics of value, v: The social life of things,
Commodities in cultural perspective, Cambridge University Press, str.3-63.
Bogataj, Janez
1985: Po ptujskem kurentovanju (After the Ptuj carnival), Lipov list, 2, str. 42.
1998: Smo kaj šegavi? Leto šeg in navad na Slovenskem (: Are we waggish? The year of
customs and traditions in Slovenia), Mladinska knjiga, Ljubljana.
1999: Mojstrovine Slovenije: srečanja s sodobnimi rokodelci (Masterpieces of Slovenia:
encounters with modern craftsmen), Rokus, Ljubljana.
Bogataj, Janez, Berk, Edi, Pukšič, Janez
1993: Ljudska umetnost in obrt v Sloveniji (Folkart and craft in Slovenia), Ljubljana.
Brumen, Borut
1987: Razvoj etnološkega muzealstva na Slovenskem – zgodovina in možnosti razvoja
etnološkega oddelka Pokrajinskega muzeja v Murski Soboti, diplomska naloga, PZE za
etnologijo, FF, Univerza Edvarda Kardelja v Ljubljani, (The development of ethnological
museological practice in Slovenia – history and possibilities of the development of the
ethnological department of the regional museum in Murska Sobota, degree assignment, PZE for
ethnology, FF, University of Edvard Kardelj in Ljubljana), Ljubljana.
Cedrenius, Gunilla
1995: Sodobna dokumentacija predmetov in ljudi (Contemporary documentation of objects and
people), v: Muzeoforum, Zbornik muzeoloških predavanj, ZMS, Ljubljana, str. 67-76.
Dictionarium Museologicum
1986: ICOM / UNESCO, Budapest.
1
EMYA standards can be found in the answers to the following questions: Of what do the museum's collections
consist? Are the objects included in them potentially interesting to the general public, or only to experts and
specialists? How well are the collections displayed and explained? Is the general atmosphere plesant and friendly?
How much attention is given to the physical comfort of visitors? Are the amenities such as cafés, restaurants and
shops, attractive and of good quality? Do the members of the staff appear to get on well together and to work as a
team? Is the housekeeping good, or is there evidence of neglect and indifference to appearances? What comment
should one make about the museum's public relations and publicity? Does one have the feeling that a strong attempt
is being made to attract visitors? (Hudson 1994: 10–11)
2
From the lecture of F. Waidacher on the international summerschool of museology, course 'C', Brno 1995
3
In this sort of museums the visitor is not merely a passive stroller on a time line that leads us into the past, but active
because in them prevails a concept of active cooperation with the visitors ('discovery room', 'activity area'). (Šola 1985:
182)
42
Gačnik: Ethnological Museology of Intangible Heritage
Fikfak, Jurij
1985: Pogovor z Nikom Kuretom (Discussion with NikoKuret), Traditiones, 14, str. 179-188.
Gačnik, Aleš
1991: Muzeologija in barve / Belo, ki te ljubim belo oziroma bela barvna tradicija v slovenskih
muzejih (Museology and colors/ White that I love you white or white color tradition in Slovene
museums), Zborovanje DMS, Šmarješke toplice, str. 5-12.
1995: Med močjo in nemočjo predmeta / Predmet kot vez med neoetnografijo in muzeologijo,
Razvoj slovenske etnologije od Štreklja in Murka do sodobnih etnoloških prizadevanj, Zbornik
prispevkov s kongresa (Between the strength and the weakness of an object/ An object as a
bound between neoethnography and museology, the development of Slovene ethnology from
Štrekelj and murko to contemporary ethnological efforts, Bulletin of contributions from the
congress), Ljubljana, Cankarjev dom, 24. 10.-27. 10.1995, Knjižica GSED, 23, SED, Ljubljana,
str. 221-229, 312-313.
2000: Človek z masko kot predmet etnološke muzeologije. Doktorska disertacija (A man with a
mask as the subject of ethnological museology. Doctoral dissertation). Oddelek za etnologija in
kulturno antropologijo, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani. Ptuj.
2003: Etnologija regionalnega razvoja, v: Etnologija in regionalni razvoj (The ethnology of
regional development, in: Ethnology and regional development), Slovensko etnološko društvo,
Znanstvenoraziskovalno središče Bistra Ptuj, Ljubljana, Ptuj, 2003, str. 22-42.
Hudson, Kenneth
1994: Fifteen Editions of EMYA, v: New Museums in Europe (1977-1993), Milano. str. 9-13.
Kandert, Josef
1998: Razstave za leto 2000 (Exhibitions for the year 2000), Etnolog, Glasnik Slovenskega
etnografskega muzeja, 8, Ljubljana, str. 417-422.
Kopytoff, Igor
1986: The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process, v: The social life of things,
Commodities in cultural perspective, Cambridge University Press, str. 64-91.
Kuret, Niko
1973: K fenomenologiji maske, Nekaj vidikov (To the phenomenology of the mask, Some
views), Traditiones, 2, Ljubljana, str. 97-119.
1969: Kadar korant vlada (When the ‘korant’ rules), v: Kurentovanje, Ptuj, 16.2.1969, brošura,
Folklorno društvo v Ptuju, Ptuj, str. 6-16.
1984: Maske slovenskih pokrajin (The masks of Slovene regions), Ljubljana.
Maroević, Ivo
1993: Uvod u muzeologiju (Introduction to museology), Zavod za informacijske studije, Zagreb.
Mensch, Peter van
1992: Towards a methodology of museology, doctor's thesis, University of Zagreb, Faculty of
Philosophy, Zagreb.
1995: K metodologiji muzeologije (Towards a methodology of museology), Muzeoforum,
Zbornik muzeoloških predavanj (1993/94), ZMS, Ljubljana,
Stransky, Zbynek Z.
1970: Temelji opče muzeologije (The basis of general museology), MDC, Zagreb, str. 40-73.
1995: Introduction to the Study of the Theory of Presentation, International Summer School of
museology, course C, Brno.
Šola, Tomislav
1985: Prema totalnom muzeju, doktorska disertacija (Towards the total museum, doctoral
dissertation), Univerza Edvarda Kardelja v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, Ljubljana.
1992: Museum professionals – the endangered species, v: Museums 2000, Politics, people,
professionals and profit, Museum Association, London, str. 101-113.
43
Gačnik: Ethnological Museology of Intangible Heritage
Waidacher, Friedrich
1995: Reviewing museum exhibition, International Summer School of Museology, Special
session C on museum communication and education, Brno.
Wyatt, Gery
1994 Spirit Faces, Contemporary Native American Masks from the Northwest Coast, Thames &
Hudson, London.
44
Keeping trace –
Immaterial heritage, living heritage, object
museology: a paradoxical relationship
André Gob – Belgium
The expression “immaterial heritage and the museum” comprises three terms that are not
entirely self-evident and deserve further examination. The question of immateriality throughout
the history of the museum is analysed at length by Maroević (2000). Meanwhile, Deloche (2000)
starts by looking at the immateriality inherent to museum objects only then to turn his attention
to a generalisation of this theme with regard to the virtual. Many authors (Desvallées, 2000;
Jadé, 2004) have repeatedly underlined the semantic problems related to hasty translations:
one should keep in mind that the term “intangible” cannot be used in this context in French. With
regard to the word “heritage”, this was perceived as covering an essentially European concept,
based on the object. Its expansion to include immaterial objects aims precisely to meet the
expectations of non-European cultures and civilisations and to preserve cultural diversity
(Rusconi, 2000; UNESCO Charter, 2003). One need not re-examine these questions as a good
synthesis has recently been produced by Jadé (2004).
To me, it seems that one cannot examine this problem from such a general viewpoint. On the
one hand, one must distinguish between the museum’s functions of conservation and exhibition:
the museum conserves material objects, but through these, it exhibits or should exhibit ideas
and concepts (except when the scope is limited to object museology sensu stricto). On the other
hand, one evades the issue by arguing that there is an immateriality inherent to each museum
object, thus generalising the concept of immaterial heritage, which then turns out to be nothing
more than an empty shell.
I look at things from the restricted perspective that has motivated the actions of UNESCO and
ICOM in this domain – expanding the European conception of the monument (in the classical
sense of the term) to embrace phenomena that do not materialise principally in objects. I stress
that today heritage is what is fundamentally at stake, and by that, I mean living heritage.
Otherwise, only that which has been materialised through the object would exist as heritage.
The following are the questions that arise:
- how do we conserve these phenomena?
- how do we exhibit them?
- how do we avoid fixing, or fossilising living heritage?
These questions shall be discussed with reference to examples.
Following analysis, one is forced to conclude that immaterial heritage in itself cannot be
conserved. One can only try to keep some trace of it. Material or materialised, this may take
many diverse forms: witness accounts, recordings (written, audio, video, digital) objects or
places. Authenticity, which is so important in the European museum conception of heritage, has
hardly any meaning in this case. The traces “revolve around” the phenomenon that one wishes
to guard as heritage, lending images, from different points of view, at a given moment in time.
All of these traces together make up a dynamic representation of the phenomenon and its
evolution. It is through this representation that the phenomenon may be exhibited.
45
Gob: Keeping trace
Finally, one stresses that the museum is not the only, nor even the principle agent for
preserving immaterial heritage. While it may assemble collections of documents that may serve
as a reference, one must try to ensure that these do not become normative in character,
definitively fixing and fossilising the forms of immaterial heritage.
References
Deloche, B. « Le patrimoine immatériel : Héritage spirituel ou culture virtuelle ? », dans ISS 32
(pré-actes), 2000, p. 40–44.
Desvallées, A. « Muséologie et ‘Patrimoine immatériel’ : muséalisation, visualisation » dans ISS
32 (pré-actes), 2000, p. 45–52.
Jadé, M. « Le patrimoine immatériel. Nouveaux paradigmes, nouveaux enjeux. » dans La lettre
de l’OCIM, 93, mai-juin 2004, p. 27-37.
Maroević, I. « Museology and the Intangible Heritage together against the Traditional Museum
or Are we Returning to the Original Museum ?” dans ISS 32 (pré-actes), 2000, p. 84–91.
Rusconi, N. “L’objet muséal et la diversité culturelle” dans ISS 32 (pré-actes), 2000, p. 99–107.
46
Garder une trace –
Patrimoine immatériel, patrimoine vivant et
muséologie de l’objet : une relation paradoxale
André Gob – Belgique
L’expression « patrimoine immatériel et musée » comporte trois termes qui ne vont pas de soi
et méritent examen. La question de l’immatérialité à travers l’histoire du musée est longuement
analysée par Maroević (2000) tandis que Deloche (2000) s’interroge sur la part d’immatérialité
inhérente aux objets de musées pour ensuite l’évacuer au profit d’une généralisation du thème
dans le virtuel. On a souligné à plusieurs reprises (Desvallées, 2000 ; Jadé, 2004) les
problèmes sémantiques liés à des traductions hâtives : on retiendra que le terme « intangible »
ne peut pas être utilisé en français dans ce contexte-ci. S’agissant du mot « patrimoine », il a
été perçu comme couvrant un concept essentiellement européen, fondé sur l’objet. Son
élargissement à des objets immatériels vise précisément à rencontrer les attente des
civilisations et des cultures non-européennes et à préserver la diversité culturelle (Rusconi,
2000 ; Charte UNESCO 2003). Il n’est pas nécessaire de revenir sur ces questions, dont Jadé
(2004) a donné récemment une bonne synthèse.
Il m’apparaît qu’on ne saurait discuter cette problématique d’un point de vue aussi général.
D’une part, il convient de distinguer les fonctions de conservation et d’exposition du musée :
celui-ci conserve des objets matériels mais, à travers ceux-ci, il expose ou est censé exposer
des idées, des concepts (sauf à se restreindre à une muséographie de l’objet sensu stricto).
D’autre part, on « noie le poisson » en tirant argument de la part d’immatérialité inhérente à tout
objet de musée pour généraliser le concept de patrimoine immatériel qui se trouve ainsi vidé de
sens.
Je me placerai donc dans la perspective restreinte qui a motivé les actions de l’UNESCO et de
l’ICOM dans ce domaine, celle de l’élargissement du concept européen de monument (au sens
classique du terme) vers des phénomènes qui ne se matérialisent pas principalement dans des
objets. Je souligne qu’il s’agit forcément de patrimoine d’aujourd’hui c’est-à-dire de patrimoine
vivant. Sinon, il n’existerait plus que matérialisé dans un objet.
Les questions qui se posent alors sont les suivantes :
- comment conserver ces phénomènes ?
- comment les exposer ?
- comment ne pas figer, ne pas fossiliser, le patrimoine vivant ?
Celles-ci seront discutées à travers des exemples.
Au terme de l’analyse, on doit constater qu’on ne peut pas conserver le patrimoine immatériel
lui-même. On peut seulement s’efforcer d’en garder une trace. Matérielle ou matérialisée, celleci peut prendre des modalités diverses : témoignage, enregistrement (écrit, sonore, vidéo,
digital…), objet, lieu… La valeur d’authenticité, si importante dans la conception patrimoniale du
musée européen, n’a plus guère de sens ici. Ces traces « tournent autour » du phénomène que
l’on souhaite patrimonialiser, elles en donnent des images, sous différents points de vue. A un
certain moment. C’est l’ensemble de ces traces qui constituera une représentation dynamique
du phénomène et de son évolution. C’est celle-ci qui permettra son exposition.
Enfin, on soulignera que le musée n’est pas l’unique ni même le principal agent de la
préservation du patrimoine immatériel. S’il peut rassembler des collections documentaires de
référence, il faut éviter que celles-ci n’acquièrent un caractère normatif qui fixerait définitivement
les formes du patrimoine immatériel et le fossiliserait.
47
Gob: Keeping trace
Références
Deloche, B. « Le patrimoine immatériel : Héritage spirituel ou culture virtuelle ? », dans ISS 32
(pré-actes), 2000, p. 40–44.
Desvallées, A. « Muséologie et ‘Patrimoine immatériel’ : muséalisation, visualisation » dans ISS
32 (pré-actes), 2000, p. 45–52.
Jadé, M. « Le patrimoine immatériel. Nouveaux paradigmes, nouveaux enjeux. » dans La lettre
de l’OCIM, 93, mai-juin 2004, p. 27–37.
Maroević, I. « Museology and the Intangible Heritage together against the Traditional Museum
or Are we Returning to the Original Museum ?” dans ISS 32 (pré-actes), 2000, p. 84–91.
Rusconi, N. “L’objet muséal et la diversité culturelle” dans ISS 32 (pré-actes), 2000, p. 99–107.
48
Intangible Sources of Ancient Chinese Objects –
a Spiritual & Material Patrimony
Alfonz Lengyel
Introduction
This short paper is presented according to the following requirement for discussion in the 2004
Congress of ICOM-ICOFOM in Seoul, South Korea
(1) Museology and certain type of museums in relation to Intangible Heritage, and
(2) Museology, as an instrument to preserve the Intangible Heritage.
There are some conflicting and contradiction about meaning of the term of tangible and
intangible heritage. Long before ICOM recommended to museums in its 2002 Congress in
Barcelona, the recognition and interpretation of intangible heritages, the Law in the United
States already included it in its National Historic Preservation Act, in 1966. (36 CFR. Chapter
16.) Although the law did not spell out the word of “intangible”, only used its closest synonym by
using the term of “transcendent”.
The following provision of the Act (Paragraph 65.4 (b) (3) reads as:
“A site of a building, or structure no longer standing but a person or event associated with it is
of transcendent importance in the nation’s history and the association consequential”
The definition of “transcendent importance” in fact could be considered in this context as
synonym to “intangible” not only in above quoted text but also in Paragraph 65.4 (a) (3)
“That “ (the Site) represents some great idea or ideal of the American people”
With this consideration the paper was written, about intangible sources of specialized
collections on Ancient Chinese Sexual paraphernalia.
Discussion
There was a private specialized Museum in Shanghai. In this museum was housed various
objects about Chinese sex culture, which included among 3700 erotic toys, images, and other
sensual and sexual object. Among them was about 20 which corresponding with findings which
were discovered, in Xi’an and elsewhere in tombs from Western Han Dynasty (206 BC- 5 AD.)
In Shanghai a retired sociology professor Liu Dalin organized in 2001 from his own collection
the first Chinese Sex Museum. >From his first location in the famous fashion street the Nanging
Lu was for economic reason forced out to a cheaper location in Wuding Lu , then was
transferred to Tongli, a small but scenic village about 60 miles Southwest of Shanghai.
Professor Liu and his partner Hu Hongxia, aided by the village government established his
museum in an abandoned but restored for museum purpose the Li Zi girl’s school.
The Sex Museum in Shanghai intended to be part of a healthy sex education, which is “taboo”
for the Chinese up to date. First Mr. Liu’s Museum was falsely attacked with a prude communist
attitude as being “pornographic”. However, Professor Liu with the principles of the Science of
Sociology, fought against this misconception. Although, in the TV more and more sexually
explicit images appeared, due to the liberalization following the new ideology of Market
Socialism, but it was so far difficult to change the objections of still living members and followers
of the ”Long March”.
It is important to mention that Liu Dalin never had intention to vulgarize the feeling of sex, as
people in Shanghai accused him. He was the author of great number of books in sexual
sociology. In his book on Chronological Research of Sexual Performance in China, Liu Dalin
49
Lengyel: Intangible Sources of Ancient Chinese Objects
explained the gradual development of Human Sexuality from pre historic times created
“Intangible Myth” around the fertility rite, through the appearance of Chinese medical science.
However, during the already existence of medical research, the folklore produced great number
of different fertility symbols, some of them with specific desire, such as having a son. Some of
the symbols still exist today in folk art.
From early Chinese literature it became evident the importance of sexual act for healthy mental
and physical function. It is important to mention that in these literatures the biological description
of sex related terms were rather metaphysical than direct reference to the outcome of a sexual
act. Such as, for the women’s secretion the term used “cloud” and for the men’s ejaculation of
semen was named “rain”.
The scholarly research about sex culture in Ancient China was quite neglected by China
specialists, although popularized and less sensually exploited publication often appeared in the
pornographic market. This is not the direction where scholars want to go.
The first publication appeared the very much-criticized book of Robert Van Gulik in 1960, then
republished in 1974. It was entitled Sexual Life in Ancient China. So far the latest one in this
subject was written by Paul Rikita Goldin, The Culture and Sex in Ancient China . Because lack
of larger volume of scholarly works on this area of research, the state of scholarship in this
subject is still heavily subjected to individual interpretation of the available ancient and modern
text. To understand and then interpret
The symbolism in ancient Chinese text, which related to sensual feeling, or sexual act of that
time, requires a holistic approach to encompass the “intangible” cultural and psychological
fabrics of the period.
In order to examine only the “intangible” value of Ancient Sexual Paraphernalia, those objects
would be discussed in this paper, which had definite Taoist connotation, and never used for any
sex education, or sensual pornographic purposes. In other words, the purpose is to present a
juxtaposition of the spiritual (intangible) with material (tangible) heritage.
Taoism as a “Way “ of philosophy gradually transformed into a quasi religiousbelief without a
“supreme God” idea, from the 6th century B.C. through the Eastern Han Dyn (AD 25 – 200). At
the appearance of the Buddhism the two teaching were inter-mingling. Then following the
Buddhist ideal, a Taoist assembly of Gods was created with great number of Gods and
Goddesses, on the top placed the TRINITY of “Supreme” Gods. The priesthood, from that time,
included some of the ordained members of Imperial family.
According to the Taoist Sexology, it was recommended a healthy balance between the mail
sexual act (Yang) and the female one (Yin). Both sexes have their own ‘QI”, which is a vapor
like undifferentiated substance. However, both have different essence of “Ching”, because man
produces semen, and woman vaginal or ovarian secretion.
In the process of sexual act Qi of the Yang absorbs the Qi of the Yin, and vice versa. In order to
male sexual energy, the Taoist recommended for man to hold back his ejaculation, and let
woman have multiple orgasm. It was also believed that if man abused his “Yang Ching” , it may
cause sickness and perhaps death. Therefore, only female masturbation was recommended,
because according to the Taoists, female have unlimited “Yin Ching”. Therefore, the male
masturbation could result a totally abused “Yang Ching”, because it was not reinforced by
absorbing, through a sexual act the “Yin Ching” of a female.
According to the Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practice, the Taoism proposed if not immortality,
but at least longevity. The Taoist manual mentioned that the legendary Yellow Emperor became
immortal because he had sex in a single night with 20 virgin girls. During the sexual act, he held
back his “Yang Ching” while absorbed the vaginal secretion of these virgins. For this reason, he
lived 3000 years. Perhaps, this is the reason, that in folk art, up to our time, the female organ is
associated with longevity. In embroidery often appears the upper part of a peach (symbol of
longevity) shaped as a vulva.
50
Lengyel: Intangible Sources of Ancient Chinese Objects
The Confucian Sexology took during Qin Dynasty the lead over the sexual theory of the Taoist.
Then, woman became an inferior subject of men’s pleasure. Copulation was used only for
procreation and a tool to create a “sacred” family life. The theory was carried out trough the
Western Han Dynasty, and only in the Eastern Han Dynasty (AD 25-220) the Sexology of
Taoists returned with new sexual guides such as the Admirable Discourses of the Yellow
Emperor and the Plain Girl, and the Art of the Bed Chamber Both literature are advocating
conserving vital energy of “Yang Ching”. In contrary to the earlier sexual manual, in the
Discourses , the Plain Girl encouraged the Emperor to try and enjoy all variety of sexual style
and combinations.
During the Three Kingdom (AD 221-590) a chaotic political situation occurred and the same
time the unified China disintegrated. At that time the Buddhism made a great advancement in
China while in way of life the Confucian ideas mixed with Taoism.
During Sui Dynasty (AD 590-618) the Taoism gained strengyh over the Confucianism, and in
addition to the old Taoist sex manuals some new quite bizarre manuals appeared. Some of
them named the sex position with animal names, and even advocated that some cure of
ailments.
Sexual images even in funerary coins let us to believe, that there is a direct “intangible” line in
the mind of the Taoists between procreation, birth, longevity, and death. The Taoist “sexual
balance” idea also could be translated to that not only could cause death of an individual, but
could threatened the power and the existence of the Empire.
Perhaps this was the fate of Tang Emperor Xuan Zong’ s (r.712-756) sexually unbalanced
relations with his favorite concubine Yang Yuhuan. Hong Sheng (1645-1704) wrote a drama
about this tragic love story in 1688 under the title of Palace of Eternal Youth . Hong Sheng
explained the story in the angle of eternal love story. However, if someone analyzes this
historical event in light of the Taoist sexology, the person would conclude differently. The tragic
end of the life of the concubine and the fate of the Emperor, should be rather connected with the
late Tang period’s Taoist view about unbalanced sex, which could ruin even the Empire, than
envelope it in an emotional love story. The Emperor was accused that the reason they loosing
the battle against the rebellion of An Lushan, because the Emperor only pay attention his sexual
life with his favorite concubine. In order to save the Empire he was forced by his own military
officers to execute his concubine. In spite of this ultimate sacrifice, the Emperor last the battle
and his crown.
Often happened, that eunuch and or disappointed concubines were involved on intrigues and
became instruments of political violent changes in Imperial Palaces. It suggests that sexual
contacts between the “master” and the concubine, not consequently based upon any cohesive
emotion, but on sexual duty. The sexual act in this case, had been making them the same way
biologically satisfied, as did the usage of sexual objects.
Most of the male paraphernalia was discovered in Han Dynasty tombs. They were made of
silver, bronze, porcelain, ivory or some narrow sack like instrument filled with flour, or dried stalk
of plant, which increase in size when moistened.
In 1968 two bronze dual headed sexual tool were discovered in Mancheng, Hebei Province, in
the tomb of Liu Sheng, the elder brother of Han Emperor Wu D in Hebei Province. (Died in 113
B.C.) He was known that he had over hundred children. This fact puzzled archaeologists, why
those sexual objects were buried with him. Why he needed to use these tools? One could
speculate, that these tools were used for pre-sexual play by woman, or used the neglected part
of woman among the numerous young and also aging population of his harem
In 1982 two bronze, in 1987 one bronze, and in 2002 Jianyi Xiao of Shaanxi Institute of
Archaeology discovered two more bronze, and a hybrid bronze and bone male sexual organ in
Xi’an. Previously in 1959 two porcelain sexual tools were discovered in Tongchuan (Shaanxi
province, near Xi’an), and one porcelain tool in a Song Dynasty tomb in Huangling (Shaanxi
Province)..
51
Lengyel: Intangible Sources of Ancient Chinese Objects
Novels, from the Ming and Qing Dynasties suggested to use these tools, that not only the
people at the Royal Court, but also some commoners did use them. . From later illustrated
publications we learned that these single phallic objects were used by women for sex foreplay,
some woman fixed on her waist and placed the artificial male sexual instrument to a man’s
anus. The double phallic image could be used by two woman for the sexual pre-play purpose,
or perhaps placed one end of the artificial phallic image in her sexual organ and the other end in
to the men partner’s anus. More archeological find would be necessary, in light of the
development of Chinese sexual practice, to get more definite answer for the usage of them.
Abraham N. Franzbau, published in 1977, a collection of sexually explicit colored prints. It is
proven fact that Early Chinese sexual manuals before 1570 were only description of positions,
without illustration, only after that date appeared the illustrated one. After the Manchu conquest
in 1644, moist of these albums were destroyed, but few were rescued and smuggled into Japan.
These prints are illustrations sexual encounters in polygynous society, which allow, according to
the economic strength of a man, to have more than one wives, and concubines. Some of the
illustrations depicting, that not consequently the sexual act was in privacy in the bedroom. Some
shows that a third person, helped on sexual act or its pre-play.
For example one print shows a couple, who are engaged in a sexual act in a nowadays,
popularly called “missionary position”. A second female pushes on the buttock of the male, to
help him to achieve a deeper penetration. In another print the help came in a most complicated
manner. The helper, or perhaps the second wife, pushing a female nude sitting on a swing
toward a man who is standing in the front of the swing in erected sexual organ.
Many variety of assisted copulation was illustrated according to the Discourses of The Pain Girl
and the Yellow Emperor. In one of the prints two women embracing one another while lying one
above the other. They are robbing their organ together almost they reaching the orgasm. A man
who is watching this act while his organ became strongly erected take over the job from the
woman who laid above.
Masturbation of women was encouraged. It was used as self-satisfaction, or a preparation for
male–female intercourse. It could be done with or without sexual paraphernalia. Van Gulic
Mentioned in his book, that happened that woman fastened to her hill an artificial male organ
and masturbate with it. Among the illustrations, which were printed in the book of Franzbau, a
woman does it as from ancient sources Gulic described.
Conclusion
The objects, which so far were discovered in ancient tombs, in light of the Taoist sexual
manuals, certainly had their intangible values. One needs not to confuse these objects, with the
erotic images of paintings, prints, small statuettes or ceramics, and even porcelain tea cops, in
the Ming and Qing period., or with the present days porno graphical images. These later ones
had only tangible and monetary values, which now skyrocketing in the so-called antique market.
Even some of the nude images, which were used for medical training purposes, have its high
tangible value. However, if we look at the ancient sexual paraphernalia and understand the
sacred spirit behind it, we should realize the intangible value of them.
The ancient spirit was quite different from that of our own time, then, the mysterious and sacred
feeling and it consequences were explained with the Taoist sex manuals. In our time, started in
the West, it was replaced with modern biological mixed sexological science. Therefore, in the
still prude Chinese society, not even for sociological reason wanted to tolerate the Sex Museum
in Shanghai. However, after some cultural education, certainly its intangible value will prevail,
and specialized museums, as part of the important sex education, will gain respect in every
Chinese community.
52
Lengyel: Intangible Sources of Ancient Chinese Objects
Bibliography
BOKENKAMP, Stephen R., Early Daoist Scriptures, Berkeley: University of California Press,
1997.
FANG, Fu Ruan, Sex in China: Studies in Sexology in Chinese Culture. New York:Plenum
Press, 1991.
FAUCAULT,Michel, The History of Sexuality, New York: Random House, 1980.
FRANZBAU, Abraham, Erotic Art of China, Colored Prints NY. 1977
GOLDIN, Paul Rakita, The Culture of Sex in Ancient China. Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press, 2003
KOHN, Livia, with Yoshinobu Sakade,Ed, Taoist Meditation and Longevity Techniques, Ann
Arbor: CCS.University of Michigan,1989
LENGYEL, Alfonz with XIAO, Jianyi, “Chinese Quest for Immortality” (In press) East Asia
Journal, London (UK): Eastern Art Publishing.
LI Ling and McMAHON, Keith, “ The Contents and Terminology of the Mawangdui Text on the
Arts of the Bedchamber”, Early China, 17 (1992) 145-185.
LITTLE,Stephen, Realm of the Immortals, Daoism in the Arts of China, Cleveland:Cleveland
Museum of art. 1988
STONE, R. Charles, The Fountainhead of Chinese Erotica, Honolulu: Hawaii University Press ,
2003.
VAN GULIK R.H. Sexual Life in Ancient China, Leiden: Broll (Reprint),1974.
WATTSON, Burton, Early Chinese Literature, N.Y.: Columbia U. Press, 1962.
XIAO, Jianyi :” The Sex tools of the Western Han”, Collections, September 2002 .p. 58
XIAO, Jianyi, „Sex Worship and Sex Tools”, Wenbo, May 2002 .p. 18
XIAO,Jianyi and ZHU Sihong, The sex tools unearthed from site M54 at Mingzhuxinjiayuan,
Northern Suburbs, Xi`an and the related issues , Special Edition for The Han and Tang Cultural
relics and Archaeology , 2002, p. 191
53
Samuel Quiccheberg et le patrimoine immateriel
François Mairesse – Belgique
Le concept de patrimoine immatériel tel que défini en 2003 par l’UNESCO comprend
essentiellement les traditions et expressions orales (y compris la langue), les arts du spectacle,
les pratiques sociales, rituels et événements festifs ainsi que les connaissances et pratiques
concernant la nature et l'univers1. C’est souvent à partir de ce contexte que la réflexion sur le
patrimoine immatériel est envisagée. Les contributions du colloque que l’ICOFOM a consacré
en 2000 à ce sujet2 apportent cependant une vision plus large sur ce patrimoine particulier.
D’abord, à l’instar des interventions de Bernard Deloche ou d’Ivo Maroević, force est de
reconnaître qu’il est impossible de séparer matériel et immatériel : l’objet matériel ne se conçoit
qu’à l’aune de l’immatériel qu’il représente et vice-versa. Ensuite, comme le remarquait André
Desvallées, le patrimoine immatériel peut être conçu de manière plus vaste – il est en cela déjà
bien présent dans nombre de musées – englobant notamment les faits sociaux ou scientifiques
(sociofacts et kinétifacts) que l’on peut visualiser par des expériences ou des procédés virtuels ;
en cela, le patrimoine immatériel peut être assimilé aux vraies choses, selon l’expression de
Duncan Cameron. La question fondamentale liée à la présence de ce patrimoine au musée et à
son exploitation touche à sa visualisation, soit les moyens muséographiques permettant de le
communiquer mais également de le préserver.
Si le patrimoine immatériel – dont le terme ne remonte à guère plus loin que le dernier quart du
e
XX siècle – est bel et bien déjà présent dans les musées, à quand remonte son introduction et
comment ont été résolues les questions liées à sa visualisation ? Bien que ce débat soit très
contemporain, la problématique semble avoir toujours existé ; elle est déjà abordée dans le
premier traité de muséologie au monde, rédigé par Samuel Quiccheberg en 15653.
Né à Anvers en 1529, Quiccheberg meurt à Munich à 38 ans, après avoir passé la majeure
partie de sa vie en Allemagne. Il quitte en effet assez rapidement les Pays-Bas espagnols pour
se former à Nuremberg, Bâle et Fribourg où il étudie la médecine, la philosophie, la philologie et
l’histoire. Sa rencontre avec le collectionneur Johann Jakob Fugger semble déterminante. A
cette époque, les Fugger occupent une position dominante au sein du système monétaire
international. Grands capitalistes, les Fugger assoient également leur autorité par le biais des
Sciences et des Arts. Quiccheberg, au service de Johann Jakob, participe au classement de
ses collections de monnaies antiques et de livres. Les éloges de son protecteur le conduisent
chez le duc Albert V de Bavière, qui en fait l’un de ses principaux conseillers culturels,
notamment en charge de l’acquisition et du classement de ses collections4.
1
« On entend par "patrimoine culturel immatériel" les pratiques, représentations, expressions, connaissances et savoirfaire – ainsi que les instruments, objets, artefacts et espaces culturels qui leur sont associés – que les communautés,
les groupes et, le cas échéant, les individus reconnaissent comme faisant partie de leur patrimoine culturel. Ce
patrimoine culturel immatériel, transmis de génération en génération, est recréé en permanence par les communautés
et groupes en fonction de leur milieu, de leur interaction avec la nature et de leur histoire, et leur procure un sentiment
d'identité et de continuité, contribuant ainsi à promouvoir le respect de la diversité culturelle et la créativité humaine.
Aux fins de la présente Convention, seul sera pris en considération le patrimoine culturel immatériel conforme aux
instruments internationaux existants relatifs aux droits de l'homme, ainsi qu'à l'exigence du respect mutuel entre
communautés, groupes et individus, et d'un développement durable ». Convention pour la sauvegarde du patrimoine
culturel immatériel, Paris, 17 octobre 2003 ; http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001325/132540f.pdf
2
Museology and the intangible heritage, Munich and Brno, Nov. 26–Dec 05 2000, Icofom Study Serie 32. Les noms
cités dans ce paragraphe renvoient aux articles de ces auteurs dans l’ISS 32.
3
Cet article est basé sur la traduction française du traité de Samuel Quiccheberg par Nicolette Brout, publiée en 2004
dans le catalogue de l’exposition L’extraordinaire jardin de la mémoire, qui s’est tenue au Musée royal de Mariemont
du 26 mars au 27 septembre 2004. BROUT N., le traité muséologique de Quiccheberg, in MAIRESSE F. et al.,
L’extraordinaire jardin de la mémoire, Morlanwelz, Musée royal de Mariemont, 2004, t. musée, p. 69–135. La seule
autre traduction complète de cet ouvrage est donnée par ROTH H., Der Anfang der Museumslehre in Deutschland
Das Traktat « inscriptiones vel Tituli Theatri Amplissimi » von Samuel Quiccheberg, Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 2000.
4
Sur la vie de Quiccheberg et l’analyse de son traité, voir, outre l’introduction de Nicolette Brout et l’ouvrage de H. Roth,
DONNET F., Quicchelberg, in Biographie Nationale, Bruxelles, Académie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des
Beaux-Arts de Belgique, 1905, t.XVIII, col. 499–501 ; SCHULZ E., Notes on the history of collecting and of museums,
in Journal of the History of Collections, 2, n°2, 1990, p. 205–218; ainsi que JANSEN D.J., Samuel Quicchebergs
« inscriptiones »: de encyclopedische verzameling als hulpmiddel voor de wetenschap, in BERGVELT E. et al.,
54
Mairesse : Samuel Quiccheberg et le patrimoine immatériel
C’est dans ce contexte qu’il écrit, en 1565, les Inscriptiones vel Tituli Theatri, dont le titre
complet peut être traduit par Inscriptions ou titres du théâtre immense comportant toutes les
matières de l’univers et des images extraordinaires si bien qu’il peut à juste titre être appelé
aussi réserve des objets fabriqués avec art et merveilleux ainsi que de tout trésor rare, qu’on a
décidé de réunir tous ensemble dans ce théâtre afin qu’en les regardant et les manipulant
fréquemment on puisse acquérir rapidement, facilement et sûrement une connaissance
singulière des choses et une sagesse admirable.
Le traité des Inscriptions du théâtre immense
L’ouvrage de Quiccheberg est relativement bref : en 56 pages, l’auteur prétend plutôt mettre au
net le premier jet d’un ouvrage qu’il souhaite nettement plus vaste, enrichi par les remarques
que son premier traité aura suscitées. Le cœur du traité est le système de classification qu’il
propose, celles-ci ayant pour but de décrire l’ensemble des merveilles de l’univers. La
classification comprend 53 inscriptions – c’est le titre du livre – réparties en cinq classes : la
première décrit principalement le fondateur du théâtre – le collectionneur – sa généalogie et
l’ensemble de ses possessions ou des faits se rapportant à sa région ; la seconde classe
aborde les ouvrages d’art ou les réalisations humaines : statues, artisanat, vases, mobilier,
monnaies et médailles ; la troisième classe décrit les œuvres de la nature : animaux
merveilleux, animaux, fruits, plantes, pierres et terre ; la quatrième classe recense les outils
nécessaires à l’activité humaine : instruments de musique, outils mathématiques ou de
médecine, armes, vêtements… enfin, la dernière classe énumère les images produites par
l’homme : peintures à l’huile, aquarelles, gravures, blasons, etc.
Cette classification peut sembler de prime abord déroutante. Quiccheberg explique la raison de
ses choix dans la seconde partie de son ouvrage, décrivant certaines des inscriptions qui lui
semblent particulièrement importantes. C’est avant tout en fonction des matières que le
classement a été opéré, et non en fonction des chronologies ou des styles : ainsi, les statues,
modernes ou antiques, de toutes civilisations confondues, figurent dans la même inscription. Au
fil des lectures, une certaine logique transparaît dans cette structure peu ordinaire de nos jours.
Quiccheberg se réfère probablement à d’anciennes classifications, mais aussi à des collections
déjà constituées1 : le savant semble, plutôt que de collectionner l’ensemble du monde, dresser
un inventaire des collections que toute personne peut prétendre rassembler – il remarque par
ailleurs qu’il est loisible à tout un chacun de collectionner, du plus riche au plus modeste, pour
autant qu’il se spécialise dans l’une des inscriptions. Quiccheberg ne destine par ailleurs pas
son ouvrage aux philosophes, mais aux princes, et recense donc plutôt, « suivant les ordres qui
ne soient pas difficiles, la plupart des choses qu’il est plaisant de conserver »2.
Cet inventaire des collections est clairement ordonné de manière à glorifier le collectionneur et
sa famille qui sont seulement précédés par Dieu à qui est attribuée la première inscription.
Toute une classe leur est réservée. Une sorte de hiérarchie apparaît assez clairement dans le
système des inscriptions qui débute avec le divin et le collectionneur démiurge, reproduisant le
monde dans sa chambre, puis énumère les productions humaines, passe ensuite à celles de la
nature et aux outils nécessaires pour les produire. Enfin, la dernière classe est consacrée aux
images – le savant belge semble ainsi s’inscrire à la suite de Platon, pour qui les images ne
constituent que des copies de copies3. A l’opposé des livres qui n’apparaissent pas directement
dans sa classification, Quiccheberg range les images parmi les objets, en leur octroyant
cependant ce statut singulier. Quiccheberg voit dans les images un substitut utile aux livres,
puisque « en effet, la seule vue d’une image est parfois plus profitable à la mémoire qu’une
Verzamelen van rariteitenkabinet tot kunstmuseum, Heerlen, Gaade uitgevers, 1993, p. 57–76; FALGUIERES P.,
Fondation du théâtre ou méthode de l’exposition universelle, les Inscriptiones de Samuel Quicchelberg (1565), in Les
Cahiers du Musée National d’Art Moderne, 40, 1992, p. 91–109.
1
Ainsi, la première inscription de la première classe, relative aux « grandes peintures d’animaux », pour laquelle
Quiccheberg remarque que « dans les palais des princes d’Allemagne et les châteaux des grands personnages, on
voit beaucoup de choses peintes de ce genre dans les salles à manger et les salles de réception » (fol. Eir, BROUT
N., Op. Cit., p. 103.
2
fol D iiii r, BROUT N., Op. Cit., p. 101.
3
Comme le remarque Nicolette Brout dans son article.
55
Mairesse : Samuel Quiccheberg et le patrimoine immatériel
longue lecture de beaucoup de pages. On rendra donc, petit à petit, grâce à ces images, un
grand service aux lettres »1.
Ce principe transparaît dans l’ensemble du programme de Quiccheberg et fonde son projet,
puisque les objets, présentés au regard ou à la disposition du collectionneur, offrent un support
de connaissance direct afin qu’en les regardant et les manipulant fréquemment on puisse
acquérir rapidement, facilement et sûrement une connaissance singulière des choses et une
sagesse admirable (selon le titre de son livre).
L’éloge du collectionneur, inscrit en bonne place au sein de la classification de Quiccheberg, se
retrouve également dans la dernière partie de son ouvrage. Le savant y dresse le portrait des
principaux collectionneurs allemands, se référant essentiellement à la liste établie par Hubert
Goltzius deux ans plus tôt dans son Jules César. Le traité du savant belge se clôt par quelques
citations bibliques, justifiant le fait de collectionner et d’acquérir des connaissances
scientifiques, ainsi que par quelques citations laudatives sur le travail de Quiccheberg luimême. Ce dernier décrit également les autres espaces attenant au musée universel :
bibliothèque et réserve, bien sûr, mais aussi ateliers (de typographie, de fabrication de mobilier,
etc.) pour poursuivre le travail de création auxquels incitent les objets exposés.
Le monde des cabinets à l’époque de Quiccheberg
L’ouvrage de Quiccheberg s’inscrit à la croisée des chemins et peut, à juste titre, être considéré
comme un traité d’un genre nouveau dans lequel les objets et les images, utilisés comme
support de connaissance universelle, prennent la première place.
Malgré les hommages très appuyés de Quiccheberg aux princes et à ses protecteurs,
notamment Albert V de Bavière, son traité illustre aussi l’émergence de l’érudit, à cette époque,
comme troisième pouvoir au sein de la société, entre le pôle de la noblesse et celui de la
religion. On peut en attribuer l’origine au courant humaniste venant d’Italie et se propageant à
travers l’Europe, parallèlement au mouvement des collections2.
Car un grand élan de constitution de collection est en train de s’opérer à l’époque de
Quiccheberg, dont l’activité témoigne des mérites de leur possesseur – et le savant y participe
par son éloge des grands collectionneurs. Les origines de la collection, bien entendu, précèdent
cette époque, puisqu’elle s’inscrit parmi les plus anciennes activités de l’homme et s’est
développée de manière continue, au travers des temples, des églises, des trésors princiers ou
religieux. On observe cependant, jusqu’à la Renaissance, une séparation très nette entre la
collection et l’institution intitulée musée, fondée dans le sillage des grandes écoles
philosophiques de l’Antiquité. Ce qui jusqu’alors est considéré comme musée (Mouseion),
durant l’Antiquité, est un foyer de réflexion philosophique dont Alexandrie établit définitivement
la renommée. Les savants logés au Mouseion ont recours à la bibliothèque ou (peut-être) à des
collections, mais ces dernières sont loin de constituer le centre de l’activité du musée antique,
basé sur la discussion, la méditation et l’enseignement3.
Cependant, dès la seconde moitié du XIVe siècle, la nouvelle attitude face à l’Antiquité aboutit en
Italie à une renaissance du terme musée. Mais ce dernier se voit associé, cette fois-ci et
partiellement, au principe de la collection ou du moins aux objets. Pour retrouver l’Antiquité, il a
fallu chercher, fouiller, creuser, trouver des inscriptions, monnaies ou médailles, qui deviennent
de précieux auxiliaires pour l’étude des textes. Collectionner, c’est pouvoir confronter des idées
et des objets. Bibliothèques et réserves d’objets sont alors peu dissociables : un siècle plus
tard, Comenius, dans son Orbis sensualium pictus (1654), définit encore le musée comme « un
lieu où le savant, séparé des hommes, est assis seul à lire sans arrêt des livres »4.
1
fol E iiii v, Ibid., p. 109.
FINDLEN P., The Museum: its classical etymology and Renaissance genealogy, in Journal of the History of
Collections, 1, n°1, 1989, p. 59–78.
3
BRUWIER M.-C., le Mouseion d’Alexandrie, conservatoire du savoir universel à l’époque hellénistique, in in
MAIRESSE F. et al., L’extraordinaire jardin de la mémoire, Morlanwelz, Musée royal de Mariemont, 2004, t. musée, p.
51–67 ; MAIRESSE F., Le musée, temple spectaculaire, Lyon, Presses Universitaires de Lyon, 2002.
4
Cité par LUGLI A., Naturalia et Mirabilia, Les cabinets de curiosité en Europe, Paris, Adam Biro, 1998, p. 94.
2
56
Mairesse : Samuel Quiccheberg et le patrimoine immatériel
Insensiblement, l’idée de musée liée à celle d’exhibition d’objets commence à s’imposer. Le
fonctionnement de ces nouvelles « institutions » va évidemment transformer radicalement le
principe du Mouseion antique. C’est que le « cabinet d’homme de lettres », que l’on intitule
alors musée, s’emplit progressivement de collections destinées à l’étude et à l’érudition, non
seulement en Italie (on parle alors souvent de Studiolo ou de Musaeum), mais également en
Europe du Nord, qui voit se constituer nombre de cabinets de curiosités, de Kunstkammern et
de Wunderkammern. Quiccheberg traduit le premier de ces termes allemands par « cabinet des
objets fabriqués avec art », le second par « réserve de choses merveilleuses »1.
Le programme de la collection vise la recherche mais aussi l’émerveillement, l’enseignement du
prince, la discussion. Ce principe est très différent de celui des collections antérieures.
Auparavant, la constitution d’une collection était rarement liée avec des projets liés à la
connaissance. Les trésors de temples ou de cathédrales étaient des lieux protégeant de la
concupiscence humaine, tant matérielle que spirituelle. L’activité du musée moderne, à la suite
de Quiccheberg, se recentre de plus en plus sur l’objet lui-même qui devient fonds d’étude alors
qu’il n’était que support de réflexion.
A première vue, Quiccheberg ne parle cependant pas de conservation des objets. Du moins ne
parle-t-il pas de mesures physiques pour les conserver, aussi simples soient-elles. Le savant
belge aurait-il oublié cette notion, si importante de nos jours ? A vrai dire, son système n’est pas
basé sur la rétention physique des objets, mais semble plutôt construit sur la conservation des
connaissances. Quiccheberg prétend d’une certaine manière remplacer un système par un
autre. Bien entendu, la conservation de la connaissance passe surtout, à son époque, par celle
des textes et donc des livres. C’est avant tout par les livres que l’on a redécouvert l’Antiquité ;
Quiccheberg propose à ce titre une méthode spécifique de rangement, mais également
d’organisation typographique des livres. Mais le système le plus ancien sur lequel il semble se
baser est celui de l’art de la mémoire, à l’époque encore très vivant, notamment par le biais de
Giulio Camillo, auquel Quiccheberg se réfère.
L’art de la mémoire
Le Théâtre de la mémoire (L’Idea del Theatro) de Giulio Camillo est le titre d’un ouvrage
posthume publié d’après manuscrit en 1550, six années après la mort de l’auteur, 15 ans avant
le traité de Quiccheberg2. Camillo a réalisé un théâtre, en bois, dans lequel il a disposé des
milliers de citations de grands auteurs de l’Antiquité. Camillo, dans son théâtre, n’expose aucun
objet, sinon quelques images emblématiques. Sa portée est cependant tout aussi universelle et
vise à préserver la totalité des connaissances. Mais le savant italien se réfère directement à l’art
de la mémoire ou mnémonique.
La mnémonique est un aspect fondamental de la rhétorique dont la tradition remonte aux
présocratiques3. Dans une enveloppe architecturale imaginaire, l’auteur dispose en des endroits
spécifiques, intitulés lieux, des images frappantes, merveilleuses, qui lui permettent
instantanément, lorsqu’il parcourt ces lieux par l’imagination, de se remémorer toutes les
connaissances acquises et d’ainsi pouvoir reproduire son discours. Les images de Camillo,
disposées au sein de son théâtre, lui permettent de se souvenir de l’ensemble des citations qu’il
a inscrites et de discourir sur tous les sujets. Mais les objets du monde réel, dérisoires face à
l’idée et la connaissance, ne pourraient y trouver leur place. Cette tradition connaît encore à
l’époque de nombreux spécialistes, tels Ravisius Textor, Théodore Zwinger ou Conrad
Gessner, publiant de longues listes de faits et de lieux communs, structurés parfois hâtivement
en catégories4.
1
fol G iiii r, BROUT N., Op. Cit., p. 122.
CAMILLO G., Le théâtre de la mémoire, Paris, Allia, 2001. Voir également MAIRESSE F., RAGNI F., Préservation ou
Mémoire ?, ICOFOM Study Series, 27, 1997, p. 72–76.
3
On se réfèrera à l’étude fondatrice de YATES F., L’art de la mémoire, Paris, Gallimard, 1975, mais également à
CARRUTHERS M., Machina Memorialis, Paris, Gallimard, 2002, ainsi que Le livre de la mémoire, Paris, Macula,
2002.
4
FALGUIERES P., La chambre des merveilles, Paris, Bayard, 2003.
2
57
Mairesse : Samuel Quiccheberg et le patrimoine immatériel
Le projet de Quiccheberg est fondamentalement différent de celui de Camillo. Le médecin
anversois se positionne comme un héritier de Camillo, dont il mentionne le musée, mais s’en
détache pour se rapprocher du monde sensible. Les Inscriptiones, bien que concentrant des
choses extraordinaires et dignes d’émerveillement, n’ont pas pour objet le rappel d’autres idées
qui leur auraient été associées et ne participent plus directement à l’art de la mémoire. Il ne
s’agit pas d’images mentales, encore moins d’images idéales, mais d’objets matériels.
Cependant, Quiccheberg retient quelques-uns uns des principes de la mnémonique, qui
permettraient à un érudit rompu à ce système de se remémorer l’ensemble du théâtre, une fois
celui-ci visité. D’abord, le savant belge parle d’inscriptions, « comme si un roi, un prince, ou
quelque autre patron avait inscrit de cette façon chacune des choses collectionnées sous des
lieux définis ou avait déjà décidé de les y inscrire »1. Ce système semble se référer directement
à l’activité mentale d’inscription de lieux dans la mémoire. Quiccheberg propose également,
pour ranger les objets, de construire des armoires en forme d’arcs de triomphe, de tours, de
pyramides ou de théâtres antiques, qu’il relie au système de classification des sept planètes,
utilisé par Camillo. Ces éléments remarquables permettront également au savant versé dans la
mnémonique de se souvenir des emplacements dans lequel il a vu un objet spécifique, afin de
se le remémorer le moment venu.
Cette organisation double, sous forme de classification pour l’étude, mais aussi pour la
mémoire, lie chacun des éléments en un tout et modifie totalement le projet muséal. La
collection n’est plus un ensemble d’objets disparates assemblés avec plus ou moins de goût
mais devient une entité indissociable : l’agencement de la présentation rejoint la structure de
pensée. Un collectionneur privé peut vendre l’un de ses spécimens, il en achètera un autre ;
l’érudit ne pourra bientôt plus ; ses recherches fondées sur sa collection entraînent
implicitement l’obligation de garder les « preuves », mais aussi les objets qui entourent cellesci, c’est-à-dire la totalité de sa collection.
Encore cette rupture entre le monde des idées, figuré par Camillo, et celui des objets, initié par
Quiccheberg, n’est-elle pas directement visible. Le changement de direction est encore hésitant
mais il se verra confirmé par la suite, notamment par le biais de Francis Bacon, puis de
Leibniz2. Le museum, pour au moins un siècle encore, procède autant de la pensée de Camillo
que de celle de Quiccheberg. La préservation des collections s’en ressent de la même manière.
S’il existe un nombre grandissant de collections d’objets (cabinets de curiosité,
Wunderkammern, etc.) décrites et définies comme des musées, il en est encore d’autres,
intitulés de la même manière, qui se présentent sous forme de recueils encyclopédiques ou
d’espaces de discussion, rappelant les écoles philosophiques antiques.
L’ouvrage de Quiccheberg, par ailleurs, semble rapidement avoir été oublié. Sans doute la mort
précoce de l’auteur, deux ans après sa parution, contribue-t-elle à son oubli relatif. Quoi qu’il en
soi, les traités ultérieurs relatifs aux collections, soit les Unvorgreiffliches Bedencken von Kunstund Naturalien- Kammern insgemein de Daniel Johan Major, publié en 1674, et le Museum
Museorum de Michael Bernhard Valentini, qui paraît à partir de 1704, ne parlent pas de
Quiccheberg. Neickel, dans son Museographia de 1727, par contre, mentionne le savant belge
dans sa bibliographie3. On retrouve également trace des écrits de Quiccheberg dans les
ouvrages ultérieurs de muséologie, notamment les œuvres pionnières de Graesse et de
Murray4.
Quiccheberg, la muséologie et les musées virtuels
On peut, à juste titre, considérer Samuel Quiccheberg comme le fondateur de la muséologie et
le promoteur du musée moderne classique, fondé sur une collection d’objets. Le concept de
muséologie, bien entendu, n’existe pas encore à l’époque – il semble que ce soit en Allemagne
que l’on trouve son origine, vers la seconde moitié du XIXe siècle. Mais c’est dans l’esprit du
1
Fol D. iii v, BROUT N., Op. Cit., p. 100.
MAIRESSE F., Op. Cit.
3
NEICKELIO C.F., Museographia oder Anleitung zum rechten Begriff und nützlicher Anlegung der Museorum, oder
Raritäten-Kammern, Leipzig, 1727, p. 230 (reprint Routledge, 1999).
4
GRAESSE J. G. Th., Zeitschrift für Museologie und Antiquitätenkunde, Zweiter jahrgang, 1879, p. 14 – 16 ; MURRAY
D., Museums, Their History and Their Use, Glasgow : James Mac Lehose and Sons, 1904, 3 vol. Reprint, Staten
Island : Pober Publishing, 2000
2
58
Mairesse : Samuel Quiccheberg et le patrimoine immatériel
traité de Quiccheberg que le terme semble avoir été utilisé pour la première fois, se confondant
avec celui de muséographie, pour définir, de manière globale, les méthodes de description, de
classement et d’exposition des collections de musée. C’est encore ce principe que l’on retrouve
au début du XXe siècle, notamment dans l’Enciclopedia universal illustrada, publiée à Barcelone
et s’inscrivant dans une logique étymologique parfaite : « Museographia : catalogo o description
de uno o mas museos »1. Quiccheberg est en effet l’un des premiers à proposer, par le biais de
son système de classes et d’inscriptions, une méthode d’inventaire ou de catalogage des
collections – ce qu’il prône d’ailleurs avec vigueur dans son traité.
Mais le projet de Quiccheberg dépasse celui du seul musée classique tel que nous le
connaissons. Sans doute l’un des aspects les plus intéressants, pour notre époque, du
classement de Quiccheberg, réside-t-il dans cette « réserve d’image » que l’on traduirait
aujourd’hui par « cabinet des estampes », mais qui pour le savant belge revêt une importance
documentaire de premier plan. Quiccheberg, on l’a vu plus haut, oppose le livre à l’image. Il
attribue à cette dernière le mérite de pouvoir imprégner la mémoire avec parfois plus d’intensité
que la lecture assidue d’un livre. L’auteur se situe encore sur le plan de la mémoire et de la
conservation des connaissances. Il sait aussi que ces œuvres imprimées sont souvent plus
faciles à conserver ou à se procurer, notamment pour les spécimens d’histoire naturelle – il cite
ainsi Ulysse Aldrovandi, qui faisait dessiner les animaux qu’il ne pouvait conserver en son
cabinet. Quiccheberg propose, au sein de cette inscription, une classification complète des
images en trois régions, chacune de celles-ci étant répartie en dix ou onze titres ; certains de
ces titres étant eux-mêmes encore subdivisés en sections2.
Quiccheberg souligne bien la différence entre « le théâtre qui est notre fameuse institution
illimitée et immense où on collectionne les matières, le mobilier, les images, les livres, etc. et la
réserve d’image qui est en quelque sorte une partie du théâtre, ou un musée, ou quelques
coffres et étagères qui contiennent seulement les feuilles qui, imprimées en nombre incroyable
à partir d’une plaque en cuivre, sont empilées en un seul tas et conservées étalées à plat,
éventuellement sur des étagères »3. Car tous les sujets sont abordés par l’image, laquelle
forme à son tour un musée tout aussi universel.
Ce principe du musée par l’image présente une direction quelque peu différente de celle du
musée classique. Cette acception du musée, qui existe déjà à l’époque de Quiccheberg, sera
abondamment suivie tout au long des siècles par des collectionneurs, tels Cassiano dal Pozzo,
né à la fin du XVIe siècle, qui rassembla une collection de plus de 7000 aquarelles, dessins et
gravures sur tous les sujets, constituant un véritable musée de papier, ou Michel de Marolles,
dont le prodigieux fonds de gravure constitua l’un des premiers fonds du Cabinet des estampes
de la Bibliothèque nationale de France4. On a également souvent parlé du musaeum de Paolo
Giovio, qui réunit durant le second quart du XVIe siècle une collection extraordinaire de portraits
d’hommes d’Etat, de pontifes ou d’artistes. Cette galerie de portraits comportait peu d’originaux,
surtout des copies, des gravures, des peintures d’après des médailles, etc. Le musée de Giovio
ne réside pas seulement au sein de cette collection ou dans les ouvrages qu’il édite à partir de
celles-ci (les « éloges des hommes illustres » qu’il a rédigé en 1546), mais également au sein
de la grande salle de son palais de Côme, donnant sur le lac et dont les murs sont ornés de
peintures représentant Apollon et les neuf muses – qui ramène au musée antique, lieu de
discussion et de contemplation5.
1
Enciclopedia universal illustrada Europeo-American, Barcelona, t.37, sd.
fol E iiii v ; BROUT N., Op. Cit., p. 109. On serait tenté d’inférer, vu le nombre pratiquement toujours identique de
subdivisions qui tourne autour de dix unités, tant pour le théâtre complet que pour la bibliothèque ou pour la réserve
d’images, que ce nombre est considéré comme un maximum à ne pas dépasser pour permettre d’en retenir la
structure.
3
Fol D iiii v, Ibid., p. 102.
4
DELOCHE B., Les contours du musée virtuel, in MAIRESSE F. et al., L’extraordinaire jardin de la mémoire,
Morlanwelz, Musée royal de Mariemont, 2004, t. musée, p. 35–50, ainsi que du même auteur, Le musée virtuel, Paris,
Presses universitaires de France, 2001.
5
ZIMMERMANN P., Paolo Giovio. The Historian and the Crisis of Sixtheenth-Century Italy, Princeton, Princeton
University Press, 1995 ; BAZIN G., Le temps des musées, Liège, Desoer, 1967, p. 56. Le château de Beauregard,
situé non loin de Blois, décoré par l’un des conseillers de Louis XIII et d’Henri IV, possède également une « galerie
d’illustres » composée de plus de 300 portraits. L’importance de cette collection tient moins dans ses qualités
esthétiques que par son aspect documentaire, la rattachant aux bases de donnée actuelles.
2
59
Mairesse : Samuel Quiccheberg et le patrimoine immatériel
On peut rattacher, à la suite de Bernard Deloche1, ces collections avec des entreprises plus
récentes visant à diffuser, par l’image, une connaissance encyclopédique pour tous. De tels
projets sont à la base de nombre de revues populaires du XIXe siècle, comme le Musée des
familles ou le Magasin pittoresque, dont les nombreux volumes dressent, au fil des années, un
inventaire poétique et surprenant du monde et des connaissances, et qui conservent d’étranges
similitudes avec les tentatives d’ordonnancement imaginées dans les premiers cabinets de
curiosité. C’est dans ce même courant d’idée que le projet de musée imaginaire prend sa
source, conçu par Malraux, basé sur la facilité de reproduction des photographies2. C’est, bien
sûr, également dans cette catégorie que l’on peut inscrire tout ce que l’on range actuellement
sous l’étiquette à la mode de « cybermusée ». Le principe du cybermusée, qu’il soit structuré de
manière scientifique ou qu’il propose un parcours erratique, repose avant tout sur une base de
données constituée d’images rassemblées en grand nombre.
Quel patrimoine immatériel ?
L’importance réservée à la réserve d’images traduit la préoccupation de collectionner (et de
visualiser) bien plus que les seuls objets matériels. Si Quiccheberg prend soin de consacrer
une inscription aux instruments de musique ou une autre pour les instruments de jeu, il sait qu’il
ne rassemble dans ces catégories que la seule partie tangible d’un univers plus vaste et
complexe. C’est dans cette perspective que les images (qui sont ici envisagées par le médecin
anversois non comme œuvres d’art mais comme supports visuels) s’attachent à refléter une
réalité moins tangible ; Quiccheberg inscrit dans sa classification d’images des rubriques pour
les danses et les fêtes, les plaisanteries et les obscénités, les partitions musicales, les
aventures des dieux, etc. Le souci de collecte et de documentation du réel dépasse donc, dans
ce premier traité de muséologie, la frontière des seuls objets matériels. Si le musée constitue le
réceptacle de l’univers, tous les moyens devront être mis en œuvre pour constituer un
thésaurus aussi complet que possible. Il ne semble pas trop présomptueux de déduire que si
d’autres moyens que les images peintes ou gravées avaient existé en 1565 pour visualiser
l’intangible, Quiccheberg les aurait introduits dans le classement de son musée. En ce sens, on
peut inférer que tous les moyens susceptibles de dresser l’image la plus complète de l’univers,
en ce compris les images numériques (dites virtuelles), les sons ou les odeurs, participent de
plein droit au projet du musée, et peuvent constituer des musées à part entière.
Si l’immatériel, par le biais de tous les moyens qui lui sont propres pour se manifester, occupe
une place importante au sein du projet muséal, la question de sa transmission semble, pour
Quiccheberg, à la fois simple et complexe. Simple, elle l’est parce qu’il paraît évident, pour
l’auteur des Inscriptions, que tout ne peut être conservé : le vivant ou le règne de l’organique
est promis à une dégradation (à une transformation) inéluctable dont le savant ne se soucie
guère. L’écrit et l’image en préserveront les traces. Complexe, car face à cette certitude,
Quiccheberg paraît encore se référer à l’art de la mémoire – ou au travail en atelier – qui passe
par l’homme pour conserver la connaissance. Une mnémonique qui prend en compte l’étendue
des connaissances – objets mais aussi gestes immatériels – et transite par l’objet ou l’image,
avant de s’inscrire pour un temps dans le cerveau. Patrimoine immatériel s’il en est ! Ce recours
à l’humain pour assurer la préservation sera, au fur et à mesure du développement de la
technologie muséale moderne, progressivement effacé au profit de la conservation des objets
eux-mêmes. Ironie du sort, une partie du patrimoine immatériel, existant dans le fonctionnement
même du musée, a ainsi disparu au profit de technologies et de procédures impliquant moins
l’humain.
La notion de patrimoine immatériel, telle qu’elle ressort de sa confrontation avec le traité de
Quiccheberg, traduit peut-être quelques-uns des plus importants dilemmes auxquels nous
sommes confrontés aujourd’hui. Si l’immatériel joue un rôle prépondérant au musée – tant du
point de vue de l’étude que de la transmission vers les publics – sa conservation partielle passe
par le transfert sur un autre support (papier, enregistrement, etc.), mais sa préservation totale
ne se produit que par le recours à l’intervention humaine, engendrant un processus de création
continue. C’est cette intervention qui, notamment par le biais de l’art de la mémoire, du travail
en atelier ou de toute autre technique de transmission, induit chez Quiccheberg une certaine
1
2
Op. cit.
MALRAUX A., Psychologie de l’art – Le Musée imaginaire, Genève, Albert Skira, 1947.
60
Mairesse : Samuel Quiccheberg et le patrimoine immatériel
légèreté dans le rapport qu’entretient l’homme avec les objets. La focalisation sur les objets
matériels inverse le processus, amenant la crispation de ce rapport et, en corollaire, la
disparition inéluctable d’un patrimoine seulement transmissible par la chaîne des générations
humaines.
61
Museology and intangible Heritage –
the Museum is the Message
Lynn Maranda – Canada
Messages are recognized in accordance with the structure (medium) in which they are
conveyed. Marshall McLuhan’s phrase, “the medium is the message” holds true for the museum
as it does for any other form of communication. In the museological world, the museum itself is
the message. In a didactic sense, the museum presents its message in a manner
commensurate to its ‘museumness’ and by which it can be recognized by its consuming publics.
Over time, the museum has developed it own culture – one of collecting, preserving,
documenting, interpreting and this has become its recognized hallmark of operation.
Historically, this evolution has occurred with the natural ambition of institutions to assemble
objects for showcasing as a form of enlightenment for a curious public and this endeavour has
been successful. There has developed, however, an unintended division between those
cultures which are cataloguing and preserving and those which are supplying the materials for
inclusion. This division is such that it has created distinct sets of ethos: one which pays
allegiance to taxonomy, preservation and display; the other which creates objects for use and
social context. By this interpretation, it is seen that the museum is the product of a particular
intellectual society, mostly Western in stature, which has acquired objects of other societies for
their own uses whether they be for showcasing or as items of intellectual property. In other
words, the museum is ‘our’ institution whereas the objects housed in its confines are mostly
from ‘other’ cultures and having been institutionalized, we assume, they become intellectual
property of ‘our’ culture.
To interpret these remarks in terms of the thesis, from its inception, museums own
(tangible) objects which have been collected because they are deemed to be treasures, both
intellectual and monetary. As such, the museum’s initial mandate, therefore, is as a storehouse
of things of value to be preserved in order to convey important information to present and future
generations. The acquisition, preservation, documentation and display of valued objects is the
premise on which museums are founded. This is the museum’s primary role to society and how
it is perceived by those it seeks to serve. How these tasks are accomplished vary from one
institution to the other, but in the most fundamental sense, the categories of endeavour remain
the same and are no different than what they have always been.
Recently, the museum community has been edging towards embracing an expanded mandate
which would see the acquisition and preservation of intangibles. This would suggest that the
museum is now debating the issue because there is, like the diminished realms of exploration
and ‘discovery’, a diminishing supply of prime physical objects, and is, out of necessity,
compelled to seek secondary level materials to fill the void. Or perhaps it is an alternative route
in an attempt to meet or counteract the ever increasing assaults museums are experiencing in
the face of the growing repatriation aspirations of national and indigenous populations. This
latter issue has caused an angst in the museum community which has, in the extreme,
cautioned museums about collecting anything at all.
With the advent of educational and other types of programming aimed at enlivening the
interpretive function of the museum, the museum moved to balance its object-centric
preoccupation to one inclusive of the visitor. Nevertheless, museum objects remained pivotal to
such presentations, whether either as the focus of or as the inspiration for tangential subject
matter. Regardless of the extent to which museums have gone to revitalize their often static and
forbidding image, the notion and purpose of the museum is still and foremost the object. So too,
museums have reconfigured objects placed on exhibition to communicate different aspects and
associations of cultural, historical, or scientific reality. The act of interpretation, however, is a
closely tied relationship to the object and the information it can impart.
62
Maranda: Museology and intangible heritage – the museum is the message
Museums have focussed on the object – the tangible products of human existence to preserve
the culture and historical inheritance of humankind. Through all of the processes which
comprise the museum culture, intangibles have been created. As these processes are repeated
over and over again, they have become part of the record created by activity and have thus
worked their way into an intangible heritage that is extant in museum institutions.
While museums have become aware of intangible realms of knowledge, they still act in
accordance with their fundamental reflex by finding ways and means to convert intangibles into
tangible objects. Museums are now looking for other ways to solidify the social aspects not only
of objects, but also of cultures by bringing them into their realm of knowledge to showcase. This
requires that the museum goes beyond the recording of information which either accompanies
acquired objects or is assembled through the process of research. Other forms of intangible
heritage are now sought and obtained outside of that which is already associated with objects.
On what basis this should proceed, and whether this is just a product of museum-centric
thought or commensurate with or relevant to the wants of others, especially those from whom
the information comes, are important issues which need to be addressed.
The ‘bring ‘em back alive’ era is long over. The physical items deemed by museums as ‘truly
representative’ of a culture which museums themselves have been guilty of locking into a fixed
point in ‘times passed’, are fast disappearing as are the cultures that have created them. This
has contributed to a sense of necessity to preserve other aspect of cultures which are still
extant or which reside in the memories of still living ‘witnesses’ or ‘culture keepers’. Thus, there
are valid reasons to preserve other aspects of cultures that have created the tangible items.
There is also the responsive fear that something is going from the cultural milieu and the
resultant desire to contain it for posterity.
The paradox of preserving something that was once fluid and alive, is that by encapsulating it,
its viability is ultimately terminated. This is most evident when addressing the issue of oral
traditions. The cultural value of this tradition is that is ‘oral’. How can an oral tradition be written
down and not be changed in so doing? If, however, oral traditions were alive and strong, there
would be no need and thus no compulsion to record them. The fact that there is a move to
record oral traditions would indicate that they are already either fast disappearing or entirely
dead. In any case, the act of recording oral traditions spells its death knell. Under such
circumstances, it is no longer an ‘oral’ tradition, and this essential aspect of indigenous cultures
is destroyed.
These are important ethical issues. Is it acceptable for the museum, a creation of ‘our’ society,
to constantly want the products of another? How would the museum, which is already under
scrutiny and criticism for having been a party to the removal and housing of other peoples’
patrimony, justify this new imposition into indigenous cultural spheres? Is this really in the realm
of preservation or more closely aligned to interference or appropriation? While many cultures
may well approve museum initiatives to preserve their intangible heritage, there are those which
would be vehemently opposed to such an intrusion.
Of course, as museum-cultured people, we feel compelled to acquire the intangible, feeling or
believing that the greater benefit for mankind is to be found in the preservation of such materials
– this we do not think is in doubt – and yet, cultures constantly changing is a natural progression
along the continuum. Why then interrupt this to preserve intangibilities when the recording of
intangibles is a form of translation which converts the temporal quality of a phenomenon into a
tangible quantity which can be stored for reference or other use. The point being that an
intangible, by its very nature, cannot be itself stored, but that only a tangible record, videoaudio-schematic-verbal record which, having been captured, immediately freezes, as it were,
the vitality of the contextual tangents and cultural purposes of the intangible events.
While it can be argued that the need to preserve an intangible is most keenly noticed when
culture has waned and its ability to produce tangible objects would be lost forever, there
remains, however, another area which museums should consider an important source of object
acquisition because, if nothing else, it is certainly representative of the cultural continuum. In
many cultures, the production of objects which museums would consider ‘tourist’ pieces are a
significant indicator of cultural innovation, individuality, and resistence to cultural fusion in a
63
Maranda: Museology and intangible heritage – the museum is the message
changing world, a world McLuhan has referred to as “the global village”. While some of these
objects may appear to be of ‘assembly line’ quality, many are works of art and fetch a
considerable price in the marketplace. In the 21st century, are such pieces any less valid as
products of cultural expression?
To reiterate the premise that the museum is an institution founded upon principles of collecting
physical objects, the tangible stuff of culture, and as it is moving towards the collection of what
is perceived to be ‘intangible’ phenomenon, it is, in reality creating translations of these
phenomenon from their ethereal intangible status into records with physical tangible qualities.
The consequence of making such a record is that though the intent is to preserve something
which is diminishing, the consequence is that the phenomenon is being capsulated and
removed from the vitality of its primal existence. With that conclusion, the museum continues in
its quest to house, categorize and display ‘other’ cultural materials using technologically
superior methods of keeping record. Captain James Cook’s illustrator, John Webber, returned
to England with a visual account of a great voyage to the Pacific, and such renderings held
great intellectual and educational interest among Europeans. The resultant engravings,
however, were for a folio media to inform through print and not to capture the social activities of
peoples to be preserved in the archives of a museum.
Cultures change and the museum’s culture is not exempt. It is to be expected that as the social
context of museums evolve in new directions and find new meanings of existence, the museum
should seek to re-establish its contact with its society. The museum instinctively knows that its
mandate is to collect physical property, unlike a theatre which is mandated for performance, and
sensing that its prime sources of acquisition have been exploited and drained of its resource
and that these areas of collection have also undergone dramatic cultural changes, the museum
seeks to import new ideas into its confines and jurisdiction and has become concerned with
what are intangible phenomenon and thereby converting their existence into tangible forms of
record.
64
Intangible Heritage of “The XXV Century People”
Nina Nikitina – Russian Federation
Museum has become a global metaphor of culture. It is a depository of material memory and
something else. Nonobject activity of a man is, perhaps, one of the most projective
museological realias, demonstrating that there are no such things as a final, an end. As a matter
of fact, death for a museum will not be the end, but the beginning.
Every person has an imaginary museum inside, a museum with no walls. Such a collective
museum is a certain country “Doukhoboriya”, inhabited by people, inspired by their archaic oral
culture, which was not written on paper, but was passed over for almost three centuries, from
mouth to mouth, from generation to generation. All this time they were composing psalms about
their dramatic existence, immortalizing thus the memory about themselves, preserving their
history and culture. Psalms of the doukhobors became a “contemporaneous concord” of life, a
fruit of their collective creativity, a memory about themselves. Thus they encroached upon the
most precious – memory – God’s prerogative power.
The doukhobors movement is a sort peasant, protestant, dissident movement, which appeared
in the XVIII century, and which had its own concept of insight of the world, based on pacifism.
The doukhobors fate was a simple one: they were persecuted by the Czarist government and
sent to Tauria and the Caucasus. L.N. Tolstoy knew many of them. He was attracted by their
pacifist pathos. That is why he even helped them move to Canada, having donated for that
purpose his royalty for the novel “Resurrection”.
Many years have passed since then, and just at the end of the XX century, there opened an
exhibition “People of the XXV century” in L.N. Tolstoy museum-estate “Yasnaya Polyana”
(curator N. Nikitina). The name of the exhibition was not a random choice: Lev Tolstoy used to
call the doukhobors “the people of the XXV century”1. The exposition space held a huge world –
spiritual and physical: books, paintings, memorias, welfare items, photos of traditional
doukhobors rites (bread baking, ploughing without a horse) and shots of their final departure
from Russia. It not by chance that this exhibition was shown in Yasnaya Polyana in particular:
Lev Tolstoy took a direct part in the tragic fate of the people that were in disgrace. Moreover,
the writer’s name became inseparably connected with the doukhobors. They had many things in
common: “communal” view on farm keeping that did not involve private property; rejection of the
official church and military duty, and, of course, wonderful chanting of these simple hardworking
people. Tolstoy could not remain indifferent to their archaic oral culture, which was reflected in
capacious psalms that were addressed mainly to God, the world and man. It is not accidental
that the most attractive, live “exhibit” of that exhibition was the doukhobors themselves – the
performers of psalms. It is them, who became the emotional dominant of this action. Singing
women were dressed in bright clothes with white kerchiefs on their heads. The traditional
doukhobors vests and aprons were decorated with motley bands symbolizing a long journey.
They performed psalms a capella in a strange language that not everyone could understand. It
was difficult to grasp the meaning of these verses. It seemed that here, in Yasnaya Polyana, in
the center of Russia, the strangers were not the doukhobors, who had come here, but we, their
listeners, and we were from different time periods. It looked as if they were envoys of a different
epoch – either past of future. While listening to them it occurred to me that, at times, each of us
is more attracted by the future than the past. But here was a paradoxical phenomenon: all of us
fell in love with the past and submerging in fascination into the lexical world of their ancestors.
1
L.N.Tolstoy. Complete works in 90 volumes. V.71. Page 316.
65
Nikitina: Intangible Heritage of “The XXV Century People”
There were two realities at the same time at the exhibition “The people of the XXV century” –
the past and the future. This was the main intrigue of the exposition. Why did Lev Tolstoy call
the doukhobors, most of whom could not even write, “the people of the XXV century”? Perhaps,
because they were recording their history in an unusual way, by passing it from mouth to mouth,
ignoring some material nature of writing? Collective creativity preserved ontological foundations
of their life: journeys of the doukhobors about vast expanses of Russia, the flight of their spirit.
That was one of the ways to immortalize their distinctive character, their “version” of the
environment. The secluded style of life of the doukhobors gave rise to a special perception of
the world, a special type of archaic culture. Their distinctiveness revealed itself in a original
manner of singing – a plangent singing of words, with mouths almost closed. All this was
imposed the doukhobors wish not to be understood by strangers, those, who could destroy their
secluded communal mode of life that demanded some kind of “encapsulation”. The unusual
manner of singing turned over usual logics, producing a strong effect.
The doukhobors psalms are a sort “cocktail” of folklore styles, religions, and cumulative
memory. They are the very mystery, hidden from strangers eyes. Verses, passed from
generation to generation orally, embodied the “connection” of times, becoming a large Book of
life, without pages and without an end. A naive oral creative work of the doukhobors – an ideal
model of intangible heritage that can be called “Pre-culture”1, presented in a triumphant eternity
of existence.
The plots of the doukhobors’ psalms are very varied. They are about seeing off young men that
go to serve in the army, about two Lazaruses, King David’s incest, taken from the Old
Testament, etc. Their genre is many-sided – from dogmatic to lyrical. Some of them are read
aloud, but most of them are, of course, sung. A soloist’s voice is supported by a harmonious
choir. It should be mentioned that the singing of psalms requires that the performer should have
a certain talent. Free rhythmic creates the sensation of hovering resembling a flight of a crane.
The doukhobors singing is solemn, without any haste and deep. It is not accidental that there
are such words in one of the psalms: “The God created, first of all, singing”. Creative activity
became for the doukhobors a “decoration” of their soul, protection from any evil, penetration into
the origins of their existence, the insurance of wisdom. But the most important achievement was
durability of the traditions, the refusal from which would deprive the doukhobors of the main
meaning of their existence. It is the preservation of the traditions, their kind of “museufication”
that promoted the formation of ancestor worship. Archaic culture eliminated conflicts between
the fathers and the sons. For the children inherited the answers to their existential questions, by
means of psalms, which were passed from mouth to mouth and taught to see the meaning of
life, participate in a cosmic game between life and death. The semantics of these psalms
appeared top be almost global – to fit well into the circulation of time and “fly about” it
organically. The anachronism of the doukhobors culture is, to the present day, moving
relentlessly around a circle, like a hand of a clock on the face of Time. Therefore, listening to the
songs of the doukhobors in Yasnaya Polyana, the visitors of the museum as if relapsed in a
state of eternity, leafing their Book of Fates, a certain token of eternity where all people are
authors and contemporaries. The cultural space of the doukhobors psalms unites the past and
the present, conquering history and enclosing the time and leaving the listener some free space
for co-creative work. Thus, the doukhobors art is not a instant hat has been stopped, but the
one that has been extended.
The doukhobors creative work gave them a chance to live a normal life in an unusual way. That
queerness was also felt by the people listening to the psalms, as they turned out to be on the
territory of their creativity and felt themselves “swimmers” in the river of Time.
In 1909 the creative work of the doukhobors was museuficated and collected in «Living book”,
which embraced a lot of psalms. Nevertheless, one cannot say that we may quit the creative
folklore activity of the doukhobors: there should be further collection and description of their
psalms that came into being during the XX century.
1
Yu.Lotman. Section Semiotics and Culture. Selected articles in 3 volumes. Tallinn, 1992. V. 1.
66
Une proposition pour l’art contemporaine :
le musée de projets
Maria Pugliese – Italy
Art contemporain : un système en pleine expansion
Les années quatre-vingt-dix ont été marquées par une expansion manifeste du système de l’Art
contemporain, expansion dont témoignent le nombre de nouvelles biennales d’Art (Melbourne,
Johannesburg, Taiwan, etc.) et le désir du monde des affaires de lier son image à des
partenariats dans ce domaine, de l’inauguration au niveau international de nouveaux musées,
de galeries d’art et d’espaces consacrés à l’Art. Ce phénomène s’accompagne de la conception
et de la réalisation de nouveaux musées ainsi que de la conversion de zones industrielles
délaissées en espaces d’exposition. L’intérêt pour l’Art contemporain se manifeste également
au niveau muséologique, à travers des études portant sur les diverses façons d’associer les
œuvres entre elles. Elles reconnaissent, aujourd’hui, la nécessité de présenter les collections
par thèmes et non plus suivant l’ordre chronologique propre à la lecture moderniste du
vingtième siècle.
Traditionnellement, le rôle du musée est d’acheter, de conserver, et de faire connaître le
patrimoine historique et culturel de l’humanité. Pourtant, définir en quoi consiste ce patrimoine
dans le temps présent, sans les garde-fous de la distance historique et de la critique, pose des
problèmes au niveau des choix. L’Art contemporain se situe de plus en plus sous le signe de
l’interdisciplinarité, de la “ connivence ” entre des domaines d’expression différents et d’une
relation étroite avec le monde de la communication.
La dématérialisation
La dématérialisation, dont Lucy Lippard et John Chandler ont énoncé les théories à la fin des
années soixante, voit l’art en tant que concept et en tant qu’action. Dans un cas comme dans
l’autre, l’objet perd son aura traditionnelle et c’est l’aspect reproductible de l’œuvre qui prévaut.
La réalisation, d’ailleurs, est souvent déléguée à des tiers qui travaillent sur la base d’un projet.
Pensons aux peintures murales de Sol Lewitt et David Tremlett, tout comme aux néons de Dan
Flavin ou aux installations de jeunes artistes comme Gregor Schneider et Thomas Hirschorn
ou, encore, aux œuvres éphémères de Cornelia Parker et Cai Guo-Qiang.
L’usage exagéré de la technique vidéo, dans les projections ou dans les installations, de même
que les nombreux projets artistiques en réseau, montre à quel point la présence objectuelle est
absente d’une grande partie de la production contemporaine. La présentation d’une œuvre de
Gary Hill ou de Doug Aitken se résume, la plupart du temps, par une division précise des
espaces et par l’utilisation d’un projecteur à fibres optiques et d’un certain type d’écran. C’est-àdire que la seule chose qui se conserve est le disque vidéo.
L’importance accordée à la performance en tant que moyen expressif, souvent confiée à des
tiers (pensons au fakir de Maurizio Cattelan ou aux extra-communautaires de Santiago Serra)
en est un autre exemple. L’artiste vend le projet bien défini de la performance qui, une fois qu’il
fait partie des collections, pourra être reproduit à nouveau sur demande.
La projection d’œuvres in situ s’apparente, elle aussi, souvent à cette tendance et les œuvres
conçues pour un espace précis peuvent être documentées, déplacées et reproduites.
67
Pugliese : Une proposition pour l’art contemporaine : le musée de projets
Un musée de projets réalisables…
La caractéristique principale de la collection du musée de projets pourrait donc être de se limiter
à acheter de simples projets réalisables et reproductibles suivant les instructions précises de
l’artiste, chaque fois que cela s’avère nécessaire, en fonction des expositions prévues et du
renouvellement de l’accrochage.
Il n’existe pas, aujourd’hui, de musée dont les collections soient constituées seulement de
projets. Cette formule, extrêmement novatrice du point de vue muséologique, permettrait
d’utiliser les espaces beaucoup plus librement, en alternant des projets figurant dans la
collection – suivant des critères de différents genres – avec des expositions temporaires. Il y a
pourtant des précédents dans le domaine du collectionnisme privé des projets d’Art
environnemental et d’Art minimal et une célèbre nacquit de la légèreté avec laquelle le contrat
et la définition du projet furent interprétés.
L’archivage et la documentation se substituent, en fait, à l’existence matérielle de l’œuvre, mais
la possibilité de pouvoir effectuer des répliques du projet devra obligatoirement être
réglementée de manière très détaillée par un contrat protégeant à la fois l’œuvre, l’artiste et le
musée. Il existe, d’ailleurs, une très vaste littérature sur le problème épineux de la
désinstallation et de la réinstallation des œuvres ainsi que sur la protection des œuvres entrées
dans les musées et exposées suivant des critères antithétiques par rapport à l’époque de leur
création, où l’on s’aperçoit que, souvent, l’histoire, les instances de l’œuvre et les intentions de
l’artiste ne sont pas respectées.
Et pas réalisables…
En outre, la conservation des projets non réalisés ou non réalisables pour diverses
raisons, constitue un patrimoine important qu’il convient de protéger en tant que témoignage
des processus créatifs et de l’histoire de l’Art : Hans Ulrich Obrist et Guy Tortosa, dans la
préface à l’une de leurs publications où ils présentent 107 projets d’artistes jamais réalisés,
insistent sur la nécessité de conserver ce patrimoine en se demandant d’ailleurs pourquoi, à la
différence de ce qui se passe pour les projets architecturaux, on ne s’intéresse pas à la
documentation des projets artistiques. En Italie, par exemple, il existe un centre d’archives, le
CSAC de Parme, qui, depuis les années quatre-vingt, comprend un département consacré aux
projets de différents type. Il conserve un million de projets d’architecture et de design, 800
maquettes et des archives de mode renfermant 70 000 dessins de vêtements ainsi que des
collections. Il manque, par contre, un espace muséographique consacré à la conservation et à
la documentation des projets d’Art contemporain.
Au niveau muséologique, le fait de collectionner des projets devant être réalisés ou non
réduirait de beaucoup les frais de gestion des dépôts et cela permettrait de résoudre le
problème épineux de la conservation de l’Art contemporain : le matériel en papier, les photos ou
les maquettes d’œuvres non réalisables seraient conservés et exposés suivant les paramètres
requis tandis que les œuvres réalisables seraient reconstruites ex novo à chaque fois, la seule
exigence étant de stocker les parties difficiles à se procurer (par exemple un certain type de
téléviseur ou de néon).
Quant au problème des acquisitions, si, comme nous l’avons déjà dit, le fait de faire entrer au
musée le présent constitue un défi non exempt de risques, acheter un projet est déjà plus
simple par rapport aux coûts de transport et de gestion du patrimoine. C’est aussi moins
coûteux au niveau de sa conservation (les dépôts des musées débordent d’œuvres dites
“ mineures ” et la conservation des projets les moins intéressants ne coûte rien…).
Un musée sans œuvres ? La production contre l’accumulation
Il est évident que la dématérialisation n’épuise pas tout le domaine expressif de l’Art
contemporain et de nombreux artistes seraient donc exclus dans un musée consacré
uniquement aux projets. Il va de soi que tout choix, de quelque type que ce soit, de même que
68
Pugliese : Une proposition pour l’art contemporaine : le musée de projets
l’orientation donnée aux collections entraînerait des exclusions. A l’inverse, une partie du
budget du musée de projets, grâce à d’évidentes réductions sur les coûts de dépôt, de
conservation et de restauration, pourrait être employée à la production d’œuvres inédites.
En effet, en réalisant de nouvelles œuvres, ce musée conserverait son rôle crucial de
promoteur de la culture contemporaine, sans exclure pour autant les formes d’expression liées
à l’objet. Le musée investirait sur le présent en produisant des œuvres de genres variés
(peintures, sculptures, installations ou performances) dont l’importance serait reconnue par la
recherche actuelle.
Cette démarche pourrait, éventuellement, se traduire par des acquisitions soit pour le musée de
projets, dans le cas d’œuvres en syntonie avec le concept à la base de sa création. Par la suite,
on pourrait également, à travers les œuvres non achetées, reconnaître l’activité promotionnelle
du musée par le biais de la courtesy de la légende de l’œuvre.
Un patrimoine d’idées et sa gestion
Comme nous l’avons déjà dit, la gestion d’un patrimoine constitué de projets est, d’une part,
beaucoup plus aisée et elle induit, d’autre part, une réduction des coûts au niveau des
assurances, du gardiennage, des dépôts et de la conservation des œuvres. Par ailleurs, La
réduction des coûts, par rapport à ceux inhérents à la gestion d’un patrimoine traditionnel, sera
due à l’archivage du matériel en papier ou sur support informatique des projets et à la
réalisation ex novo des œuvres et de leur déplacement. En effet, étant donné la nature du
patrimoine qui devra être catalogué et documenté de manière irréprochable et tout aussi bien
reproduit et présenté, le musée devra disposer d’un personnel compétent en mesure de
s’occuper de ces différentes tâches.
Dans le domaine du prêt des œuvres, la gestion sera, ici aussi, notablement avantagée du point
de vue pratique. Le prêt se traduira par la disponibilité à autoriser la réalisation temporaire des
œuvres selon les critères prévus et sous le contrôle du personnel du musée. Il n’y aura aucun
frais de transport et, en aucun cas, les œuvres ne risqueront d’être endommagées par les
déplacements ou les changements de climat. Il ne sera pas non plus nécessaire de contracter
des assurances.
MUSÉE DE PROJETS
Projets -------------------------------------------------installations
installations multimédias
projections vidéo
peintures murales
art en réseau
performances
Documentation et archivage ---------------------projets réalisables
et irréalisables
Expositions -------------------------------------------préparation des projets
hébergement d’expositions
production d’œuvres inédites
sélections d’œuvres sur le présent
Gestion du patrimoine -----------------------------élimination des coûts de restauration
diminution des frais de transport
diminution des frais d’assurances
flexibilité des espaces d’exposition et des dépôts
possibilité de consulter les projets en réseau
69
On Ethics, Museums, Communication and the
Intangible Heritage
Tereza Scheiner – Brazil
Sotdae – South Korea – World Heritage
At the entrance of villages inside South Korea long poles of wood can be seen, topped by
beautiful sculptures of birds. Delicate and fragile, they reign over the landscape, as if in a brief
rest that could be at any moment interrupted, to proceed in an eternal flight towards
unreachable spaces. Those are the sotdae – messenger images which take to the gods the
vows of peace and prosperity of the Korean peasants. Erected at the beginning of each year
amidst ceremonial rites, they also protect against evil and help peasants keep in synchrony with
their deepest wishes and expectations.
The birds are an unquestionably strong representation of the intangible, and the sotdae birds,
an elegant metaphor of the deepest wish of all human beings: the guarantee of a prosperous
and pacific life. No image can better and more beautifully represent the projection of the human
will towards something that is still out of reach, waiting somewhere beyond now – in the future.
Apparently fragile, the bird is able to project itself into space, controlling matter and movement
in different trajectories on the air, a fundamentally intangible medium; when in flight, its very
body is simultaneously essence and movement, a very special mixture which can be only
apprehended at a distance.
It is not by chance that the sotdae have been chosen as the official symbol of the
20th International Conference of Museums, the first one to be organized in Asia. And the theme
‘Museums and the Intangible Cultural Heritage’ is a perfect background to the analysis of the
deep intellectual, psychological and spiritual landscapes of the several cultures and traditions
that will be present in South Korea. This time, we museum professionals will be challenged with
the task of working with the intangible fundament of culture, leaving on second plan its material
expressions. The Conference recognizes and legitimates the communicational character of
heritage, opening our minds towards the realities of culture as a mediation process, which
includes objects and places ‘as spaces of manifestation of human beings and their ideas’1; and
of cultural heritage, as the set of integrated processes of invention, diffusion, acculturation and
retrieval of experiences. It reaffirms the present tendency of the world organizations in the fields
1
Leaflet of the Conference. ICOM, 20
www.icom.org.
th
General Conference of Museums, Seoul, South Korea, 2004. Available in
70
Scheiner: On Ethics, Museums, Communication and the Intangible Heritage
of culture and development, to give special emphasis to the intangible, as a strategy for the
reassignment of cultural difference – under the belief that understanding diversity will certainly
contribute to the advent of an era of peace and social development. Such effort in reconciling
differences reveals a universalistic tendency in trying to find solutions for social crises, building
a global society that is harmonious and pacific – thus realizing the belief in a world of goodness
and justice, where community life is thoroughly possible.
The attention of present societies is thus focused in the domain of ethics: we are still reaching
for models of social practice where each one can be recognized and respected by his/her own
value. There would lie the importance of heritage: in its quality of symbolic complex founded on
the continuity of cultural manifestations, built over values that are essential to the existence of
societies. This is also the essence of ethics, ‘the community effort on the continuity of life and of
the human group on the terms of the desire of their founding principles’1 – a movement that
implies the existence of common values, which defense reassures the continuity of different
cultures. The idea of heritage could be used as a strategy to measure the possibilities of
survival – or redesign – of an ethical conscience in our contemporary society, so overwhelmed
by the rationality of technique and by the omnipotence of the markets. It would be possible to
understand and treat ethics not as a result, but as a (pre)condition2, from which relationships
develop.
Sociocultural analysis is today being oriented towards the recognition of the importance of
everyday life knowledge and practices. This positive emphasis on intangible symbolic exchange
is taken as basis for the establishment of politics of cooperation, at world level. The discourse of
the world organizations calls attention to the ‘unifying aspects of cultures’3 and to the
improvement of information interchange, to promote the recognition of the plural nature of
heritage. The debate on the theme is based on three central questions: a) the social
implications of cultural heritage and the necessity of acceptance of differences; b) the
amplification and diffusion of the concept of heritage; and c) the importance of heritage to the
information society. This implies considering the ‘patrimonial’ aspect of communication: for both
communication and information are viewed today as capital (symbolic capital) – and
consequently, may be treated as heritage.
The tendency to understand the communication media as instruments of the cultural industries
could lead to the conclusion that all cultural production must be subordinated to the laws of
economy. But information cannot be treated as a merchandise or product, given its character of
permanence: although transformed, all information remains as such, through all the processes
in which it takes place. To imagine information as a rentable asset is thus a risk or a clear
mistake. So, it is necessary to review the ethic parameters linked to the production and/or resignification of symbolic assets perceived as ‘heritage’. And it is vital to recognize and
understand the role of the contemporary ‘agoras’: local and regional discussion forums;
transnational organisms; and also the Internet. The recognition of a new ethos will allow that the
new interfaces between communication, heritage and development gain the proper shape to
meet the physical, mental and emotional necessities of the different social groups, in a better
and more just way – at least, in a way less marked by social injustice. Research on Humanities
has proven that what has been considered up to the present as ‘heritage’ is a formidable
significant complex, constituted by dominant ideologies. Today, we know that it is impossible to
guarantee sustainability without facing the convergences and divergences between global
knowledge – which identify every social group as a component of a ‘contemporary humanity’ –
and local knowledge, where the fundamental identities of each social group are defined. And
this cannot be done without honestly and openly facing alterity: it is imperative to review the
concepts of knowledge and information and to put under quest the perception that all reason,
knowledge and truth come from the experience recognized as ‘the occident’.
The importance, to heritage, of local and traditional knowledge must be thoroughly investigated
– not as exoticism, but as a cultural pattern as important as literature. This is the difference to
be made with reference to the 20th century: the design of a new geography of cultural
1
2
3
SODRÉ, Muniz. Anthropology of the Mirror: a theory of linear and net communication. Petrópolis: Vozes, 2002, p. 176
Ibid. Op. Cit, p. 173
UNESCO. Our Common Heritage, 1997. UNESCO: INST-Projekt – The Unifying Aspects of Cultures, 2002/2003 –
including projects such as the congress on the Contemporaneity of the Non-contemporary (Vienna, Dec. 6–8, 2002).
71
Scheiner: On Ethics, Museums, Communication and the Intangible Heritage
transmission, that gives rise to new forms of being and of living in this planet – recovering
relational aspects from folklore and tradition. Although knowledge, capital and political power do
not depend predominantly, today, on territorial grounds, it is still in the territory that culture
develops; and human work still develops on a determined physical space. Not all social
relations occur in the so called virtual space, mediated by the media or by new technologies.
But the amazing capacity of articulation and generation of signs of the virtual media must also
be recognized. New communication technologies have been provoking a return of human
society to the domain of orality1, leaving on second plan the cultural universe based on relations
founded on writing (values over which Modernity was founded). It is imperative, though, to
identify the possibilities of existence of a heritage that is constituted and operates in the virtual
environment, in permanent re-actualization. It is equally relevant to recognize heritages as
nomadic structures of representation2 and as a powerful instance of mediation, specially in what
refer to the new technologies.
Local, regional and virtual media are different experiences of spatiality which have constituted,
through time, the idea of presence – an idea that is at the base of the perception of heritage.
But heritage is also perceived through the affection and feelings which are part of our
physiological, psychological, sensorial and emotional universe: that which museum theory
recognizes as ‘the inner museum’ or ‘the inner heritage’.
Such a wide concept of heritage will lead to the understanding that not everything is realized,
today, by way of the capital: it is still possible to believe in spontaneity as a fundamental
movement for the development of societal values and processes. Heritage may be operated as
a powerful dispositive to help promoting the encounter with alterity, thus diminishing the
immense guilt generated by the many episodes of ‘abomination of the Other’, enacted by
contemporary societies: explicit ones, such as armed conflicts, terrorism, narcotraffic, neoNazism, fundamentalisms and global epidemics; or subliminal ones, such as the social
blindness that makes us immune to neocolonialism and to the pathetic vision of social
exclusion. As a compensatory mechanism, the idea of heritage would help reminding that, after
all, we have another face – a truly humanized face, which allows a creative relationship with the
world. It could also offer some answers to the compulsive tendency of contemporary societies to
consume themselves in consumption; or in getting disconnected from reality, in an attempt to
escape indetermination, contingence and exaggeration (demasia).
Thinking of ethics as a pre-condition opens up the question of collective responsibility and
brings into light some delicate questions. First, it must be remembered that the insertion of
heritage as a privileged concept in the field of culture does not necessarily signify that this
concept is being totally apprehended – or understood. The study of the symbolic dispositives by
which new heritages are being constituted demonstrates that the idea of heritage may be used
in a distorted way, generating more conflicts than synchrony. This becomes clear in the actual
interfaces between heritage and identity, which not always take into account the fluid and
elusive character of these two manifestations, giving way to wrong mechanisms of
apprehension and interpretation of reality. Examples of such distortion are the overexposure of
heritage in the media; or the treatment of heritage references as spectacle – either as
magnificent scenery (natural or historic monuments; huge promotional exhibitions) or exotic
ritual (immaterial manifestations). In both cases, heritage may be used as illustration – a
strategy that drains out the conflicts, substituting homo belicus by homo faber, or homo
aestheticus.
The second question refers to the apprehension of heritage: heritage does not exist as a
separate entity or pre-existent reality, but results from a very special mode of apprehension of
reality – which, in contemporary times, may be operated by means of different strategies of
capture. One of the mistakes of contemporary knowledge is to imagine that the technologies of
information will be able to encompass the formidable plurality of manifestations inscribed today
under the sign of ‘heritage’. And even if it was possible to create the Great Data Bank of Human
Cultural Production, a ‘memory of the world’ operating as the contemporary ‘double’ of the tower
1
2
Here meaning the domain of speech.
An example is the project No’mad – European Foundation for Heritage Skills (FEMP), developed within UNESCO – an
international project that promotes vivencial experiences among youngsters, through voyages and heritage, aiming at
building a new perception of ‘European’ citizenship. Available at www.unesco.org
72
Scheiner: On Ethics, Museums, Communication and the Intangible Heritage
of Babel; even then, the true essence of heritage could not be captured: not the intangible,
complex, delicate and elusive perceptual thread inscribed in the ways and forms by which
culture is manifested. The articulation of meanings around the strategies of capture of heritage
remains, thus, as compensatory mechanisms. New technologies can apprehend heritage as a
flux, but they cannot do it in plenitude: thus, what becomes apparent, more than the essence of
heritage (fundament), is the movement (process) through which such meanings articulate.
The virtual environment masks the complexity of cultural manifestations, specially those linked
to material culture. It also gives an incomplete idea of the intangible character of heritage – now
taken in a simplified way, as a product of the media. Acting over each individual’s desiring
machine, the virtual landscape may present references of heritage as powerful instances of
seduction, covering their true essence, only possible to apprehend by means of affection. The
result is the emphasis on narcissistic relations of individuals with themselves and with the
products of their culture. Heritage is used, tough, as new type of distorting mirror, where
contemporary societies reflect themselves under idealized forms – as has already happened,
during Modernity, with art and the museum. A new example of substitutive mechanism
develops: if, to the industrial society, the narcissistic mirror was the object (or the monument), to
the information society it may be the intangible heritage – presented as enunciative mode of the
new forms of living with alterity and tradition.
It must be remembered that the potential of the networks does not really constitute a potency:
they are nothing else but a mechanism, a mechanical artifice which simulates in a seductive
way the new relational dimensions dreamed by techno-science (or by philosophy). And, even if
around and because of them a new semiosis and a new set of practices and behaviors are
being developed, the core of the question is the cultural id. A critical view to this dynamics will
help understanding the real possibilities and limits of the interfaces between heritage and the
nets, making clear that, anxious to ‘tame’ the potency of the fluxes through method, a new form
of ‘demasia’ has arisen: the hyperbolic proliferation of signs nominated as ‘patrimonial’. Plurality
is being taken for complexity – and repetition for difference.
The advent of cyberspace as a new field for sociocultural interfaces has given way to the belief
in the flourishing of a ‘new culture’, theoretically based in ‘ethics’ and ‘democracy’. But the
possibility of putting into practice a techno-democracy is already under quest: the new
techniques are becoming more and more co-opted by the hegemonic structures. We must not
forget that technique is neither an ontological construction or an effective trans-historical entity:
it must be understood as micro politics in acts, which true agents are individuals situated in time
and space, with all their complex network of feelings and behaviors. Technique would be
precisely the set of material dispositives and objects exchanged among such individuals, with all
the consequent deviations and transformations; although it is taken as a non-human actor, in
the universe of strategies and mechanisms of gathering, interaction and repulsion human
beings still play the leading role. And even Lévy, who some years ago has foreseen the idea of
the cyberspace as a new instance of existence for Humanity, admits now that the Net will not be
accessible to all, considering the different technical and cultural horizons from where societies
speak.
But if the Net does not solve the questions of ethics or democracy, it can be thought of as a
mechanism which introduces new ways of apprehending the world. Its experience has taught us
how to perceive reality as an hypertext or ryzhome, reorganizing our world visions in non-linear
form, starting from multiplicity – and establishing differences between the world scripts
elaborated by different societies, throughout history. We know today that, from cave inscriptions
to the multiple folds of informatics interface, our reading of reality has been somehow
subordinated to the nature and characteristics of each support of information – and to the
possibilities they have to offer significance, through series of sequential meanings. Yes, we can
read the world in many ways: and the virtual experience teaches us to understand things not as
pre-given texts, but as elements from which it will be possible to establish a series of different
scriptures. This ‘metamorphosis of reading’, known today as ‘navigation’, will allow different
pathways of exploration, from the world within ourselves to everyday life experience.
Thus, the new experiences of approach to identities will develop in multiplicity. We must
remember that identity does not constitute a pre-given instance, and that ego and alter are not
73
Scheiner: On Ethics, Museums, Communication and the Intangible Heritage
manifestations that come ready and finished, ‘to be connected by an attractive nexus’1 – on the
contrary, they are dynamic instances of elaboration identity, in permanent mediation. In what
refers to heritage, this means that it is necessary to de-centralize the looks and the narratives,
recovering cultural experiences that have been put in second plan by Modernity: simple and/or
traditional societies; urban tribes; hybrid cultural spaces, such as the Near East, Andalusia,
Latin America; autochthonous societies; and even the everyday experiences of common
people. Yet these must be seen not as ‘ethnic’, but as Other – as in the Other in ourselves. So,
before naming those experiences as ‘heritage’, we must wait until they are identified as such, by
the subjects therein involved. The ethics of heritage ignores, as possibility, the nomination of
references from outside the experience. It must be remembered that heritage is made of times
and spaces very specific of each culture – and that assigned values are linked to complex
mechanisms of subjectivity. Thus, the search for a more pacific and prosperous life would
reside not in the accumulation and consumption of tangible goods, but in the valuation of
immaterial assets linked to the fundamental desires of the human beings, such as security,
peace and self-recognition.
In the process of constitution (or renovation) of heritages, the great risk is to apprehend heritage
references in a reduced form, as a mere figure of language, in which case they would waste
their senses in the act of enunciation (discourse); or under the form of mechanisms of seduction
(appearance), in which case they would soften, through showing, the precision of sense. This is
what happens in the cooptation of heritage by the media or by the cultural industries, as in
tourism – where heritage is used as an ilusional perspective. It is thus necessary to apprehend
heritage not as discourse – a movement that wears out in the act of enunciation – but as
narrative, a movement which describes in continuity, through different forms of language, the
different interfaces between the humane and their worlds: textual and pictured language; poetic
language; scenic language; the language of the object.
But it is also necessary to apprehend heritage beyond language, towards the different
perceptual worlds which configure the universe of the imaginary. Philosophy teaches us that not
all that is absent (from Logos) lacks essence; and not all which invades the field of presence is
truly present: it may be mere appearance. The return of the extra-ordinary as alternative (not
necessarily the wonder, but that which exists beyond commonness and the logic order of
things) would reinstate the possibility of thinking reality by way of ritual, dreams and sentiments,
making possible to understand heritage as a mode of unveiling culture in its Self. Such
mechanism of elaboration of cultural practices may install and legitimate what truly identifies
human beings: the imaginant capacity (cause and consequence of memory) and its organized
expression – the Logos. Such capacity is proper of the individual, but expresses itself
essentially inside the shared world that we call ‘society’.
All this implies a review in the relationships between heritage and community: past the
experience of the ‘salvationist idealism’ in which some communities were expected to have
absolute power to arbitrate over their heritage, we come to a point of balance where it is
fundamental to consider: a) the limits of action in the relationship communities-heritage; b) the
reports made by those communities about their own experiences; c) virtual communities, as
new and true instance of sociocultural representation. May heritage be seen, though, not as a
mode of apprehension of the past or ‘spectacularization’ of the present, but as an alternative of
acting the human capacity of sharing (communion of interests and sense, in difference) – which,
after all, is also the most legitimate fundament of communication. Heritage must also be seen
as a dispositive of reinforcement of ‘the strategic practices of promotion or maintenance of the
social links’2, defined not only by machines but precisely by their opposite: the interactive forms
of communication. Which may even include the mediatic activity, though not wearing itself in it:
because what is in the base of heritage is not the set of logic nexus, but interpersonal
relationships (relations between affections).
Understanding heritage as a manifestation of the creative genius of the humane, expressed in
everyday life through forms which evidence sharing – from ritual and tradition to the movements
of capture and disposal of experiences by means of the nets – will make possible to perceive
that the dynamics of giving and retaining is at the base of the adaptive capacity which allows the
1
2
SODRÉ, Muniz. Antropológica do Espelho. Op. Cit, p. 223.
Ibid., In Op. Cit, p. 234.
74
Scheiner: On Ethics, Museums, Communication and the Intangible Heritage
survival of the humane. This is the source of the experience of constitution of heritages: the
possibility of acting, within cultural production, the experience of democracy as a vivencial
experience of everyday life. It may be expressed not only in the political movements between
governments and communities, as in local open museums and ecomuseus, but also in the
opening of spaces for the manifestation of commonness, in its essence (as in some virtual
museums – of which the Museum of the Individual1, in Brazil, is a good example).
The analysis of the ways through which instituted heritage becomes present in the cyberspace
reveals the incidence of a normative (and somewhat simplifying) discourse which keeps the
receiver at the surface of happenings, pushing away the essential truth of heritage as
manifestation. The same happens with scenically treated heritage, which enunciation (or
showing) may generate contemplative reactions that push aside the spirit of the observer from
social realities, kept behind the show. Heritage may thus appear as a deformative mirror. But it
may also be operated as a dispositive which facilitates the relationships between the humane
and nature, culture, technique, identity and solidarity: after all, looking at a mirror is a form of
self-knowledge… In this case, heritage could also be ‘a conductive thread to sense’ 2, helping
the walk through complexity and indetermination, conducing and giving meaning to our symbolic
territories and enabling us to trace an existential map compatible with our realities – like
geodesic lines, that conduce and give meaning to the occupation of geographic territories.
Tradition could also offer indicators and alternatives, relinking the humane to what is
fundamental and true in culture: the complementary relationship between the imaginary and its
manifestations in the realm of conduct.
Finally, it is necessary to recognize the deontological limits of the world organizations dealing
with culture and heritage (including the natural environment), understanding their essentially
bureaucratic and normative nature, which is put into practice through diplomatic action – thus,
tending towards conciliation. To imagine that world agencies are, or will ever become, fighting
arenas is a serious mistake. Yet they should, and must, become spaces for the exercise of the
complex and difficult art of cohabitation among the different, not only in the field of ideas, but
also in what refers to language: in those agencies, discourse and hearing acts become political
acts by excellence – they refine the capacity of saying things, as well as the art of listening.
Agencies such as UNESCO, ICOM and IUCN act in a significant way in the identification and
nomination of new heritages, giving them diplomatic and legal legitimacy, as well as visibility in
the world forum. They also contribute to the diffusion of new perceptions and new discourses
about heritage, objectifying heritage references as symbols of new social relations. It is through
them that societies may apprehend that what lies in the genesis of new heritages is life –
movement, flux, processes – an idea which breaks the determinism of monumentality,
proposing a new interpretive plan of reality. The concept of ‘new heritages’ values diversity and
the contradictions that lie at the base of social processes, breaking the consensus established
around the paradigm of conservation of tangible references: heritage is no more about knowing
how and why material assets are conserved, but about ‘apprehending the social functions of
memories, within the metamorphoses of societies’3.
This process includes the concept of live heritage 4 – which refers to the perception of the
importance of establishing some form of contact with the everyday flux of transformation of the
constitutive traits of experiences, named or recognized as ‘heritage experiences’. Here, the
communities and social groups are the enunciators of heritage themselves; and the concept of
loss, base of the whole rhetoric of heritage of Modernity, is now substituted by the perception of
transformation as a value. We can thus accept cultural change as part of reality – no more as a
menace, but as a constitutive element of cultural fluxes. In this sense, the constitution of new
heritages may be understood as a product of complex mechanisms of negotiation: in what
refers to the traditional and/or local communities, such dynamics will occur by means of the
articulation, in everyday routine, of the most varied instances, from the official agents to
voluntary action, including the presence of the Church, the media and of other agents of civil
society. This is the dispositive that moves the institution of the references of the total heritage,
1
Museu da Pessoa – São Paulo, Brazil.
Ibid, ibidem, p. 223.
JEUDI, Henri-Pierre. Memórias do Social. RJ: Forense Universitária, 1990. p. 8–9
4
Living heritage, ou patrimoine vivant.
2
3
75
Scheiner: On Ethics, Museums, Communication and the Intangible Heritage
among which are the cities-monument and the Ecomuseums1 In those cases, it is up to the local
articulators to establish to which extent they will accept the inclusion of exogenous influences.
As for virtual heritage, their institution will happen through the articulation between the humane
and the machine, through mechanisms of capture and unraveling of experience, as information.
Here, the navigator will identify him/herself as a constitutive element of heritage – since each
access to hypertext is, in reality, a virtual construction. It is also possible to participate of such
universe creating, at individual or group level, the information while it is made available, by
means of text, image, sound or movement.
There is a third mode of institution of heritages, proper of present times: the recognition, as
World Heritage, of intangible cultural references. In this case, a prevailing role in the process is
played by UNESCO, to where initiatives of identification, nomination, protection and diffusion of
world heritage converge. The theme has such a relevance that the year of 2002 was named
The International Year of Heritage2. The intervention of UNESCO allows a permanent debate
around the theme of heritages and the values through which heritage references are recognized
and legitimated, not only on the official level but among small communities as well. It also
renders to heritage the statute of question in the realm of political science, international law and
diplomacy – recognizing the importance and the role to be filled not only by the agents which
create and give continuity to those experiences, but also by the receptive agents. The notion of
‘public’ is here substituted by the idea of receptor as the one who receives the legacy of
heritage: on a first instance, the communities identified as such – from traditional societies to
the new urban tribes; from the communities in the cyberspace to the globalized society; and as
a consequence, new generations – present and future.
This is where the true ethics of heritage becomes effective: in the projective dimension, where
cultural references gain the dimension of a legacy. In what refers to the intangible, it is
necessary to analyze if and how those references subsist – since it is in the sphere still called
‘the present’ that the cultural traits that will be passed on as heritage gain form and continuity.
We could even question, in the movements of international organizations, which are the
intentions and the hidden agendas lying under the acts of officialization of heritages: since every
preservation movement also implies the shedding of remains, attention must be given to what is
left to oblivion3 Contemporary ethics does not recommend the institution, from above, of predesigned patrimonial frameworks (characteristic of Modernity): it is imperative that such
movements come from the bases, by means of spontaneous dispositives of legitimation. May
the constitution of heritage be not only the result of official choices, but the reinforcement of our
tentatives of leaving, to the future generations, some indicators of what we are, in spontaneity
and diversity – as clues that will enable them to ‘discover’ and interpret us in a more complete
way.
This mechanism has been influencing the identification and the tentative of protection of the
intangible traditional manifestations – specially those which exist in the realm of orality.
Important local initiatives are on the move, such as the project, by the Amazonic Museum in
Venezuela, of incorporating indigenous music to the curricular design of the State of Amazon,
as a strategy of multicultural education – thus giving special emphasis to this millenary tradition,
part of the magic universe of the peoples in the region4 or the project ‘Plays and games’,
1
See SCHEINER, Tereza. Images of the non-place: communication and the new heritages. Doctoral thesis, chapter 01.
2004.
2
In Brazil, this event inspired the commemoration, in 2002, of the Year of the Intangible Heritage.
3
The memory of oblivion, or memory of silence, constitute today a fundamental element of heritage ethics, giving rise to
debates about emblematic situations, such as the ‘re-reading’ of Nazi concentration camps.
4
The indigenous cense, realized in 1992 by OCEI and published in 1995, informs the existence of around 50.000
indians, almost half of the population of the Venezuelan State of Amazon. They represent different ethnic groups, with
different languages and cultures, with predominance of the Yanomami. Of such contingent, 80% are in high degree of
acculturation, having lost an important part of their cultural values. It must be remembered that, in the magic-religious
universe of South-American indians, singing is inseparable from belief. Among the Piaroa there are shamanic songs,
which come from the gods and amplify, in the singer and in the audience, the knowledge of the universe; curative
songs, enunciated to fight diseases; and evocative songs, which remind mythological events. All of them are recited in
ancient languages, with metaphoric structure and specific vocabulary, only dominated by the elder (the wiser) –
leading to the perception that singing is a social privilege and a conquest. The Yanomami songs refer either to hunting
and gathering or to details of social life – such as invitations to visits, news and congratulations. Singing is thus a
natural manifestation of the sentiments, something that enlarges the communicative power of interpersonal
relationships. There are also profane songs, related to bird singing. The insertion of indian music in the universe of
76
Scheiner: On Ethics, Museums, Communication and the Intangible Heritage
developed in the region of Campinas, São Paulo State, Brazil1 National and regional initiatives
are also important – such as the Virtual University, a project established in Kenya, with funds
from the World Bank. This is the main ethical duty of UNESCO and other world organizations: to
detect where such experiences exist and give them room to develop.
It is in the domain of the imaginary, of creation and of affection that heritage gains meaning.
This is its true essence – the creative potency which identifies the existence of the humane.
Heritage is, though, as a bird: it only exists in liberty and spontaneity. It may be apprehended in
form, through the register of its movements and sounds; but having it in our hands does not
make us owners of its potency of flight – its true nature. More wise would be to make as our
Korean fellows: to erect, over the complex thread of everyday life, precise poles of recognition,
safe platforms where such potency may be kept for a brief moment. By doing so, we can
perceive and take knowledge of its presence – letting it reconcile us with the infinite worlds
which exist in and outside ourselves. And then, we will let it go free – to survive in movement,
designing shapes which are only apparently tangible, but which are intangible in essence.
1
official education will contribute to complete the education of young Venezuelans, within a philosophy that implies the
recognition, tolerance and understanding of multicultural relations, with a natural understanding and recognition of the
value of the cultural manifestations of the Different.
The project, developed from 1987 to 1988 by the Catholic University of Campinas, São Paulo State, with funds from
the National Foundation of the Arts – FUNARTE, has received, in1990, the official seal of UNESCO, and amplified to
Latin America. See TAVARES, Regina Márcia M. Brinquedos e Brincadeiras: patrimônio cultural da Humanidade.
Campinas: Pontes, UNESCO, 2004.
77
Lebanese Museology and the
Responsibility towards Society
Lina Tahan – Lebanon
Introduction
Like most academic disciplines, archaeology has generated, as well as become the subject of,
numerous debates and controversies. Despite attempts to achieve objectivity and neutral
scientific rigor, the discipline has inevitably become embroiled in politics, financial concerns, and
human emotions. Operating within the heritage management and the museum environment,
archaeology becomes particularly vulnerable as it is in this realm that the profession most
visibly takes on the mantle of public service, preservation for posterity, and interpretation of the
past. Ideas concerning the nature of the past and the artefacts it left us are diversifying, and
discourse about the past, both academic and popular, is increasing. Unfortunately, as is often
the case, the initial human reaction to such an atmosphere of emerging or newfound diversity is
one of mistrust and conflict. In Lebanon, a pervasive malaise has thus settled among the
archaeologist community, museum professionals and the general public as the struggle unfolds
to correctly understand and handle the diversity of opinions and ideas concerning the past. As
stated by Bray (1996: 441), the “[…] past remains a crucially important and deeply contested
myth and reality […],” with archaeology caught in the centre of the debate, “[…] legitimately
subject to criticism on the level of ‘values,’ not just ‘facts’.”
The interest in archaeological museums is fairly recent and in some parts of the world, such as
Lebanon, archaeological museums have been affected by the recent Western developments.
“The national and racial discourses of the nineteenth century established a self-evident and
‘natural’ tie among identity, history and territory” (Olsen, 2001: 50). The museum becomes a
fixed cultural space where the present frameworks of identities are shaped. The challenge lies
when we reconsider the idea of colonial legacy and its impact on Lebanese archaeological
museums. This involves questioning the meaning and social values of the past and makes us
challenge why colonialism should be re-addressed and re-assessed in modern society in order
to make museums ethically responsible.
The museum becomes a space where constant demand for reform is needed (Bennett, 1995:
90). At the same time, the most important accentuations have remained the same throughout
time and place and this is due to the political constituencies which have been caught up within
the museum space; the discourse of reform which initiated these demands has remained
relatively the same over the last century. This discourse of reform should be characterised by
two principles: first the principle that states that museums should be accessible and equally
open to all members of the public, and second that it should represent adequately the cultures
and values of different sections of the public (Ibid.). This is not the case of Lebanon, where
adequacy is not practised and not all archaeological periods are given the same weight; hence,
we fall into the trap of not being socially and ethically responsible towards the public and in
many ways this is due because of the colonial influences that have infiltrated Lebanon. There
are no definite narratives present in the Lebanese museum space and the content of the
displays remain traditional in that they carry an embedded view of how the past was perceived
by the French. This is not to refer to the technical methods of display, which are very modern.
Ethnic and religious conflicts: the social nature of the problem
Once questions about how, with what and to whom museums should make links, are
recognised, it becomes obvious that the focus of the museum in Lebanon has to shift from
collection to communication. Museums should stop being storehouses of objects and turn into
active learning environments for people (Hooper-Greenhill, 1994: 1). The problem with
78
Tahan: Lebanese Museology and the Responsibility towards Society
Lebanese Museums is that they have never been popular1. The need for marketing a museum
lies in its management process, which confirms the museum’s mission and makes it responsible
for the efficient identification, anticipation and satisfaction of the needs of its users (Lewis, 1991:
26). This is what is missing in Lebanese archaeological museums. It is through museums that
an ‘inclusive history’ of Lebanon could be achieved, where various people of different religious
backgrounds can include their voice(s) towards their understanding of the past. There has never
been a ‘National History of Lebanon’ accepted as such by all Lebanese (Naccache, 1998: 147).
Such a history cannot be achieved by presenting conflicting views of the past, but by presenting
one ‘inclusive history’.
While neglecting more than a millennium of the Muslim past, the emphasis that the Maronite2
Christians in Lebanon have given to ‘Phoenician’ links, allocating supreme importance to this
ancient era, exacerbates sectarian antagonisms and politicises archaeology (Seeden, 1990:
146). The ‘Phoenician/Arab rift’ has torn Lebanese society apart and has imploded under the
pressure of regional factors. This rift is the Lebanese model of the ‘ethnic’ doctrine that has
ruined the country in the last part of the previous century (Naccache, 1998: 146). The so-called
‘Phoenician/Christian’ past has always been represented in museums and the exclusive focus
on this period has been detrimental to the archaeology of Lebanon’s ‘Arab’ and Islamic past
(Seeden, 1990: 146). There is a contrast between ‘Phoenician’ and Christian. Despite this, the
‘Phoenician’ pagan past and Christian monotheism were sublimed to constitute an imagined
ancestry. For the sake of the other communities, how can Muslim Lebanese develop an interest
in a ‘national’ past that excludes their cultural tangible and intangible heritage? As a
consequence, Islamic fundamentalist ideology is, in turn, generally dismissive of archaeology
altogether. These dogmatically exclusive ideologies have uncritically been accepted by many in
the respective local communities (Ibid.).
The body of Lebanese laws reflects the sectarianism of Lebanese society. The executive,
legislative and judiciary powers, along with the public offices are assigned to people according
to religious sects. Sectarianism is present in the Lebanese Constitution and in governmental
and some ordinary employment. As museums reflect societies and communities, Lebanese
museological narratives mirror this sectarianism. The ‘Phoenician/ Arab’ ancestries have always
been in an acute phase, and are recognised as the main ailment of the Lebanese body politic
(Mourad, 2003). This leaves us to wonder whether the archaeological museums in Lebanon
could play a very important role, since different concepts of ancestries are the background to
the representation of heritage. Does Lebanese society demand an ‘inclusive history’? How
should an ‘inclusive history’ be constructed, taking into account the Lebanese archaeological
past?
Lebanese Museums today are making little effort to display the Islamic period. The problem is
that the period is ill-studied in Lebanon. According to the curator of the NMB, there are not
many archaeological artefacts that can represent this period (S. Hakimian, pers. com. 1999);
according to other sources within the Directorate General of Antiquities (DGA) there are Islamic
artefacts in storage (A. Seif, pers. com. 2000). Upon my last visit to Tripoli’s crusader fortress, I
saw many Islamic stelae at the entrance of the site. These could have been placed within the
lapidary section of the ground floor of the NMB to illustrate the Islamic period. Nevertheless,
curators tried to remedy this problem in one regional museum, the Baalbek Museum, where
Islamic art is exhibited through inscriptions, architecture of mosques, ceramics and texts, and
illustrations that explain the art in detail (Farchackh, 1999: 10). It must be noted, that at the time
of its excavation, Baalbek was an ‘Islamic’ site and had a Medieval citadel. Yet, when German
archaeologists came to excavate it in 1898, they destroyed the Islamic layer, though they
recorded it fully, in order to uncover the classical remains (T. O. Mourad, pers. com. 2003).
Indeed, the fact that archaeological museums were initiated by the French and the American
missionaries and that the colonial legacies of the French and Western ideas were still influential
1
A visitors’ survey was conducted in 2002 at the National Museum of Beirut and the American University of Beirut
Archaeological Museum. It showed that very few Lebanese visit their museums. The only Lebanese visitors are
students and their teachers.
2
The Maronite religious denomination refers to the ‘Oriental’ Catholic Church and community present mainly in
Lebanon. In 1510 the Maronites were officially recognised by Pope Leo X. as an Oriental Christian Group of special
historical standing (Salibi 1988: 72).
79
Tahan: Lebanese Museology and the Responsibility towards Society
in the conception of the recently founded museums did not at all erase this ‘cultural imperialism.’
Christian Lebanese considered France as a ‘Mother Nation’ or ‘Puissance Protectrice,’ whereas
the Muslims associated themselves with the other Arab nations as ‘protectors.’ The French
were the ones who initiated research in ‘Phoenician archaeology.’ These ideas appealed to the
Maronite intellectual elites of the Oriental Faculty of the Saint Joseph University and were readapted in order to associate them with a ‘Phoenician’ ancestry. This discourse as we have
seen was perpetuated later on by many other Christian Lebanese to suit their own ideological
needs and fragment the Lebanese society; it became a colonial residue and is still present
among Lebanese museums’ narratives. The responsibility of the curators in nowadays
museums needs to be urgently reviewed and the ‘voices’ of what was the Muslim minority prior
to the Lebanese Civil War, became a Muslim majority in nowadays Lebanese post-Civil War
society. Hence this past needs to be given more weight within the museum exhibits. While
conducting a visitors’ survey at the NMB, visitors were asked whether they thought that the
Islamic period was satisfactorily represented in their national museum, 72% of the 79 Lebanese
visitors responded ‘no’ (NMB visitors’ survey, 2002, Q12). One should bear in mind that most of
those Lebanese visitors seem to be pupils or university students along with their teachers and
professors. Hence one can speculate whether the majority of the Lebanese public do not visit
museums. Perhaps the local Lebanese communities are not as interested with their past as the
Lebanese elites who use it as a symbol of prestige, a symbol of political power and control over
a national heritage that should belong to all Lebanese regardless of religious sects or social
backgrounds.
Museums are known to be institutions that collect, conserve, preserve, document, register,
research and classify the material culture of ‘others,’ but they should be concerned mainly with
the construction of representations in the present1. Despite the number of case studies, some of
the general effects of representations have not been addressed fully, such as the colonial
legacy and its impacts on post-colonial museums. As Merriman (2000: 302) has argued the
archaeological museums are facing a “crisis of representations.” Museums produce knowledge
and this has been widely accepted and recognised by various critical museologists (HooperGreenhill, 1992: 192 and 2000: 3; Macdonald, 1996: 7). However, how they amplify meaning(s)
and what these meanings consist of, is not made clear. It is certain that for the case of
Lebanese museums, artefacts will play an active role in their ability to create and re-create
meanings and are actors in situations of conflicts. The creation of meaning in the Lebanese
museum space should be challenged as it is a very complex and continually unfolding process.
The museum, it has been noted, is probably the main institutional connection between
archaeology as a profession and a discipline, and wider society (Shanks and Tilley, 1992: 68).
In Lebanon, the museum is an institution, like schools and information and communication
networks, represent the dominant ideology and through which the Lebanese state authority is
controlled and propagated. In this respect, Lebanese museums are susceptible to ideological
manipulation. What they present about the past or how they tell their ‘story’ is never neutral;
rather, it may give us insights into concepts or attitudes towards this past, otherwise invisible.
Displays, in particular, are a mode of interpretation which may consciously try to disseminate an
ideological message or may implicitly reflect an ideological system, through certain display
elements or structures. In this way, displays become an entirely new ideological artefact, an
ideological statement which requires analysis in its own right (cf. Pearce 1992: 136-43). It
follows from this that displays are part of the present social and cultural practices which
inevitably have a political or ideological character. It is important to bear in mind that the display
procedure always involves selection and that selection is always culturally a selection of
artefacts to be included in an exhibition display, and is guided by criteria derived from the
political ideology of the curators who, in turn, are conditioned by the specific ideological
orientation of their time, environment and society. One may further comment that, if selection is
a first act of ‘appropriation2,’ in an extended sense, then display is a second one because, as
Baxandall (1991: 34) clearly puts it, “it is not possible to exhibit objects without putting a
construction upon them.” One thus comes to recognise why displays are not a reflection of the
1
2
Stocking, (ed.) 1985; Karp and Lavine (eds.), 1991; Karp, Kreamer and Lavine (eds.) 1992; Kavanagh (ed.) 1996;
Macdonald and Fyfe (eds.), 1996; Simpson, 1996; Clifford, 1997; Barringer and Flynn (eds.) 1998; Macdonald (ed.)
1998; Merriman (ed.) 1999; Hooper-Greenhill, 2000; Merriman, 2000; Kreps, 2003, are analyses of this kind.
What is meant by the term ‘appropriation’ is a cultural appropriation of knowledge and power, western and other,
inclusion and exclusion, identity and difference.
80
Tahan: Lebanese Museology and the Responsibility towards Society
past, but of aspects of the present; they are an act of persuasion intended at spreading a
particular view of the past and so, by implication, a particular view of the present. Pearce (1990:
158) interestingly remarks that “because exhibitions have to be intelligible to the visitors in the
most basic sense, they tend to take a comfortable choice from the range of contemporary
options.” But, in this way, “they usually end up preserving stereotyped ideas about the past, and
confirming a particular political view of the nature of the present.”
This is a point of paramount importance for any discussion of archaeological museums, displays
and interpretation because, as widely acknowledged among contemporary museologists and
archaeologists, there is no such thing as a monolithic, universal and undifferentiated past;
rather, concepts of the past change according to ethnic, cultural and gender political
orientations (Shanks and Tilley 1992: 11; Sørensen, 1999; Olsen, 2001; Kreps, 2003). Thus, the
past has no fixed meaning; rather, meanings are always temporarily constituted (Shanks and
Tilley 1992: 20). “The museum object – selected, displayed and interpreted – has an extra layer
added, fixing it within textual information and/or a guided interpretation or experience. The
object in the museum is never ‘pure,’ unaffected by intentions. It is being spoken for at many
levels, and it becomes imbued with meaning” (Sørensen, 1999: 136).
So, if one accepts the fact that displays are not so much a representation of the past, as they
are a reflection of their own time and culture, an analysis of display form and content could
expose invisible facets of ideology as well as the kind of meaning(s) generated by them (Tilley,
1990: 333). Such an analysis seems reasonable if one considers that contemporary thinkers,
like Foucault (1966 and 1969), have reminded us that the manner in which statements are
elaborated is as important as their propositional content (Tilley, 1990: 333). During the last three
decades or so museums have increasingly become challenged institutions, where the
representation of cultural variation, and the ways in which we perceive ourselves is played out
(Kaplan, 1994). As audiences become more varied, as notions about ‘culture’ become more
complex, and as museums around the world achieve a higher profile, so issues about the
‘appropriation’ and ‘repatriation’ of culture become more acute (Simpson, 1996).
Museums around the world have ‘appropriated’ culture(s) in many ways. All of our collections in
Lebanon were made with political agendas – albeit unconscious ones – in mind, and all bear the
indelible marks of the contexts from which they arose, once one chooses to look for them.
Exhibitions cannot fail to give a particular point(s) of view, and all offer an interesting tool for
investigation. Curatorial practice, in all its aspects, is embedded in past and contemporary
social practice, with all that implies. Museums have an ethical responsibility to try and
understand more clearly what messages they are giving and how these are received by their
visiting public (Pearce, 1994: 1).
Final Thoughts
Archaeology as a discipline is an on-going dialogue between past and present, mediated by
many groups, of individuals and institutions. Inevitably, it becomes political and ideological. The
knowledge it generates does not comprise a body of detached subject matter to be transmitted
and learnt. It is and always will be a form of individual and cultural experience, which is
continuously being changed and modelled (Tilley 1989: 106).
The role of the twenty-first century museum in Lebanon should be to enhance an ‘archaeology
of contact’, not of conflict. Because of the fragmentation of the various Lebanese communities,
we need to represent their various cultures through time. Several different publics exist side by
side, and each one views the past according to its own perceptions. Lebanon’s past can live
only if it makes a contribution to the present as a continuity of experience connected with life
today.
To conclude, one can say, “[…] more often than not museums are replete with decontexualised
objects lacking a consideration of both contexts and historical processes” (Walsh, 1992: 163).
Perhaps the ideal museum would be what Walsh suggested, the ‘ecomuseum’, which
“integrates archaeology, social history, natural history, ecology, in fact any discipline which
contributes to the understanding of peoples and places” (Walsh, 1992: 162). The most
81
Tahan: Lebanese Museology and the Responsibility towards Society
important point for Lebanon, however, is that its people come to terms with the historical
processes that have affected their land. They should become aware of the elements which were
likely to have been instrumental in forming their identity. The museum can help in that by
externalising these elements and allowing the people to interact with them; it allows them to
become consciously and actively aware of the processes that shape and are shaped by
articulations of identities. Museums must be the point where the seemingly immutable past and
the in-the-present-making-future meet: they can tell us about the past, the multifaceted, everchanging past, while inviting people to decide with them what that past should be.
Bibliography
Primary sources:
Interviews and Personal Communications:
Hakimian, S. Head Curator of the National Museum of Beirut, 7 April, 1999. Beirut.
Mourad, T. O., archaeologist and museologist, University College London, London-U.K.
Seif, A., archaeologist, DGA, Beirut-Lebanon.
Secondary Sources:
Barringer, T. and Flynn, T. (eds.). 1998. Colonialism and the Object. Empire, Material Culture
and the Museum. London: Routledge.
Baxandall, M. 1991. “Exhibiting Intention: Some Preconditions of the Visual Display of Culturally
Purposeful Objects,” in Karp, I. and Lavine, S. D. (eds.), Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and
Politics of Museum Display, 33-41. Washington, DC and London: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Bennett, T. 1995. The Birth of the Museum. London: Routledge.
Bray, T. L. 1996. “Repatriation, Power Relations, and the Politics of the Past,” Antiquity 70: 440444.
Clifford, J. 1997. Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century. Cambridge,
Massachussets: Harvard University Press.
Farchakh, J. “Patrimoine – Un travail de Spécialistes pour Expliquer l’Archéologie. Le Site de
Baalbeck S’Enrichit de Deux Musées,” L’Orient-le-Jour, 6 May, 1999:10-11.
Foucault, M. 1966. Les Mots et les Choses. Paris: Editions Gallimard.
Foucault, M. 1969. L’Archéologie du Savoir. Paris: Editions Gallimard.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. 1992. Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge. London: Routledge.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. 1994. “Museum Education,” in Hooper-Greenhill, E. (ed.), The Educational
Role of the Museum, 229-257. London: Routledge.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. 2000. Museums and the Interpretation of Visual Culture. London:
Routledge.
Karp, I. and Lavine, S. D. (eds.). 1991. Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum
Display. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Karp, I., Kreamer, C. M. and Lavine, S. D. (eds.). 1992. Museums and Communities: The
Politics of Public Culture. Washington, DC and London: Smithsonian Institution Press.
82
Tahan: Lebanese Museology and the Responsibility towards Society
Kavanagh, G. (ed.). 1996. Making Histories in Museums. Leicester, London: Leicester
University Press.
Kreps, C. F. 2003. Liberating Culture: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Museums, Curation, and
Heritage Preservation. London: Routledge.
Lewis, P. 1991. “The Role of Marketing,” in Ambrose, T. and Runyard, S. (eds.), Forward
Planning: A Handbook of Business, Corporate and Development Planning for Museums and
Galleries, 26-29. London: Routledge/Museums and Galleries Commission.
Macdonald, S. 1996. “Theorising Museums: An Introduction,” in Macdonald, S. and Fyfe, G.
(eds.), Theorizing Museums: Representing Identity and Diversity in a Changing World, 1-18.
Oxford: Blackwell/ The Sociological Review.
Macdonald, S. and Fyfe, G. (eds.). 1996. Theorizing Museums: Representing Identity and
Diversity in a Changing World. Oxford: Blackwell/ The Sociological Review.
Macdonald, S. (eds.). 1998. The Politics of Display: Museums, Science, Culture. London:
Routledge.
Merriman, N. (ed.). 1999. Making Early Histories in Museums. London: Leicester University
Press.
Merriman, N. 2000. “The Crisis of Representation in Archaeological Museums,” in McManomon,
F. P. and Hatton, A. (eds.), Cultural Resource Management in Contemporary Society:
Perspectives on Managing and Presenting the Past, 300-309. One World Archaeology 33.
London: Routledge.
Mourad, T. O. 2003. Shattering the Myths of Archaeological Ancestries in Lebanon: Identity,
Nationalism and Neglected Stratigraphies. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Department of History and
Archaeology: American University of Beirut.
Naccache, A. F. H. 1998. “Beirut’s Memorycide: Hear no Evil, see no Evil,” in Meskell, L. (ed.),
Archaeology Under Fire: Nationalism, politics and heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and
Middle East, 140-158. London: Routledge.
Olsen, B. J. 2001. “The End of History? Archaeology and the Politics of Identity in a Globalised
World,” in Layton, R., Stone, P. G. and Thomas, J. (eds.), Destruction and Conservation of
Cultural Property, 42-54. One World Archaeology 41. London and New York: Routledge.
Pearce, S. M. 1990. Archaeological Curatorship. London: Leicester University Press.
Pearce, S. M. 1992. Museums, Objects and Collections: A Cultural Study. Leicester: Leicester
University Press.
Pearce, S. M. 1994. “Editorial Introduction,” in Pearce, S. M. (ed.) Museums and the
Appropriation of Culture, 1-2. London and Antlatic Highlands, NJ: The Athlone Press.
Salibi, K. S. 1988. A House of Many Mansions: The history of Lebanon revisited. London:
University of California Press.
Seeden, H. 1990. “Search for the Missing Link: Archaeology and the Public in Lebanon,” in
Gathercole, P. and Lowenthal, D. (eds.), The Politics of the Past, 141-159. One World
Archaeology 12. London: Unwin Hyman.
Shanks, M. and Tilley, C. 1992. Reconstructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice. London:
Routledge (2nd edition).
83
Tahan: Lebanese Museology and the Responsibility towards Society
Simpson, M. G. 1996. Making Representations: Museums in the Post-Colonial Era. London:
Routledge.
Sørensen, M. L. S. 1999. “Archaeology, Gender and the Museum,” in Merriman, N. (ed.),
Making Early Histories in Museums, 136-150. London: Leicester University Press.
Stocking, G. W. Jr. (ed.). 1985. Objects and Others: Essays on Museums and Material Culture.
London: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Tilley, C. 1989. “Archaeology as Socio-Political Action in the Present, “in Pinsky, V. and Wylie,
A. (eds.), Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology, 104-116. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Tilley, C. 1990. “Michel Foucault: Towards an Archareology of Archaeology,” in Tilley, C. (ed.),
Reading Material Culture: Structuralism, Hermeneutics and Post-Structuralism, 281-347.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Walsh, K. 1992. The Representation of the Past: Museums and Heritage in the Post-Modern
World. London: Routledge.
84
The Paradigm of Cosmogenesis and Eschotology in
the mythopoetical Heritage of the Siberian Peoples
Olga Truevtseva – Russian Federation
The swift and accelerating development of the planet civilization leaves no opportunity for the
functioning of the ethnic cultural traditions in those nooks of the planet, where the people have
been reproducing the stereotypes of their mode of life and entity, developed before civilized
period, for centuries.
The historians of culture, ethnographists, archaeologists, museologists realize the threat of loss
of the smallest minorities’ spiritual values, tracing to the global cultures and having archaic
character. The reconstruction of the extinct cultures’ fragments, especially their outlook integrity,
is the problem for the ethnographist, archaeologist as well as for the specialist in folklore. There
is an obvious necessity of the specific museum preservation not only of the material objects, but
also of the spiritual culture, if they have the status of sacred values.
The museum folklore keeping means the written fixation of the most fundamental epic codes,
mythological texts, magic verbal formulae, versions of apocryphal mythic creation and etc.
The subjects about the birth and fall of the world are of great importance among these
questions. Their significance is obvious because of some causes: the comparative analysis of
the similar texts allows to determine for the earthy men the general idea on the life’s beginning,
to understand the connections between the global and naïve cultures and etc.
The idea of recurrence of the universe development, represented in the myth poetical tradition
of the Turkic Siberian peoples, in the capacity of the general sign, supposes the situation of
temporary stopping of the habitual man’s existence. The coincidence of Universe cycles is
analogous to the biological recurrence of the man’s life and other natural objects. But this
analogy is not the only reason for the appearance of cosmogonical and eschatological myths
and their folklore versions. The historical memory of ethnos designs in the artistically – figurative
version the most dramatic moments of its existence, where the moments of world’s birth and fall
are the most important “ points of tension”.
The inspiration of origin as well as the tragedy of end is perceived as one episode in the infinite
whole, where the death is an inevitable stage to the new existence, and birth is the first step to
death. Moreover, the Altai and Yakut heroic epos contains the signs of archaic beliefs, which
are being read through the layers of the latest stratifications. If you try to turn the plot back, the
sequence of eschatology elements will reproduce the picture of the world’s birth: the living water
is thickening, all the indispensable components of existence are polarizing, the oppositional
pairs are uniting, concentrating around the sacred center. The endless great number of
derivatives is being generated; the new world began his movement in the striving for the triumph
of the new life. The eschatological version presents the disappearance of the land under the
water, annulling plurality at the expense of the united one. The fire is an analogue to the water
in the plots, describing the world’s death.
The archaic philosophical and mythological systems unite the elements of water and fire. So
“Rigveda” calls Agni (God of Fire) as “ born in the water”. The tradition of amalgamation of these
elements is characteristic not only of the myth, but also of the folklore, i.e. the water and fire are
considered to be the different sides of one substance. The mythological logic united not united,
from the logical point of view, phenomena, explaining the endless chain of the earthy and
cosmic transformations this way: the death of one thing leads to the birth of the other one, which
is opposed in the shape and characteristics. In the Altai and Yakut folklore the border between
he peoples’ world and monsters’ world is the fiery sea, where the horse – hair serves as a
bridge. The worlds are separated and united simultaneously, and this border is very relative. Its
85
Truetseva: The Paradigm of Cosmogenesis and Eschotology
relative character assumes the possibility of the penetration of destructive elements into the
middle world, built according to the divine direction and intended for the man.
The presence of the border between the worlds in three – layered Universe is taken into
account by the shaman mysteries, showing ritual shaman’s visit of the underworld, overcoming
of all the dangers and reaching the North Star, where the intermediary between the supreme
deity and man lives. Such scheme of journey embodies a number of complicated ideas: firstly,
the idea of ephemerality between the worlds; secondly, the idea of the victory over the doubtful
temptations of the lower world (which is formal in the myth and literal in epos); thirdly, the idea
of principle not destruction of the life in its basic forms (death is fraught with a birth, birth leads
to death). The third idea, in my opinion, means the principle correlation of the concepts and
phenomena “ upper part” and “bottom”, their polysemy.
The category of the opposition « existence – non-existence» is presented in mythical poetics of
these peoples as the category of “ shown existence” and “ non- existence”. The similar situation
is evident in the mythological Egyptian plots (the myth about Osiris and the corresponding
mystery present both a calendar cycle and finding the dead Pharaoh in Osiris’s status in the
way of semantic plan). As for the mythological Greek tradition, the plots about Demetra and
Persephone, Aphrodite and Adonis, Ishtar and Areshkigal, Ishtar and Dumuzi, going back to
Shumero – Babylonian oppositions, illustrate the polysemy of the categories “ life”, “ death” as “
existence” and “ non- existence”.
The Altai and Yakut epos shows the plot frame of this myths’ category, preserving all the
necessary peculiarities of the mythological plots. So, “ Maadai Kara” epos includes not only the
story about Kogyudei Mergen, descending to Erlik’s world, but the associative information about
such chance. The hero’s name speaks for itself: Kogyudei means “ good shot”, Mergen is “ a
grey (blue) dog”. The second name concerns she-wolf, the Ashin’s original mother, whose
underground nature allows the descendant to accustom to the lower world’s mysteries. The first
name clears from the epic context, “ a living red arrow” (a repeating epithet) is undoubtedly not
only the peculiarity of the epic poetics, but it is also the semantic sign of the heroic attribution.
The hero of the Yakut epos Yuryunh Uolan with his attribute “ a living arrow” is depicted in the
similar way. Yuryung Uolan as Kogyudei Mergen can overcome the borders between the
worlds, confirming the ides of interpenetration of the constructive and destructive, for the earthy
existence, elements, which are interpreted in the divine context as the neutral elements. In the
archaic mythologies, cosmogenesis is considered the point of the world’s recreation in the circle
of eternal existence after the death of the former world. The moment of the circle’s completion is
the moment of the new turn; it stimulates the birth of the new God’s generation (such theogonic
generations are characteristic not only of Egypt, Greece, Mesopotamia, but also of the Slav
world, of the Siberian peoples, speaking the Mongolian language). The affirmation of the new
one is the sequence of the victory over the former one, that is the concept “ chaos” for the myth
and “ the world of the dead people” for epos, includes not only the amorphous feature, but also
an underground monster. Taking into account these views of cosmogenesis and eschatology on
the whole, it is recognized that some “ primary substance” existed in not existed world. The
world was being undergone a modification, and Gods gave those shapes to the substance,
which were intelligible to the new generations.
The presented paradigm of cosmogenesis and eschatology in the mythical poetics of the Turkic
peoples of Siberia is the variant of reconstruction so far as sacred archaic information has been
already stated in written form. There is still some doubt; it is our point of view on birth and death
of the world, presented by shamans, wise men, and narrators. Collecting out of folklore,
preservation of the texts, as museum exhibits become gradually a conscious documentation of
the past, a basis for scientific research and for pleasure.
86
Reflection on Intangible Heritage
Hildegard Vieregg – Germany
Museology and Typology of the Intangible Cultural and Natural Heritage. Challenges to
Museums in the Future.
Intangible Heritage is defined as “the practices, representations, expressions, as well as the
knowledge and skills, that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognise as
part of their cultural heritage. It is sometimes called living cultural heritage, and is manifested
inter alia in oral traditions and expressions including language as a vehicle of the intangible
cultural heritage; performing arts; social practices, rituals and festive events; knowledge and
practices concerning nature and the universe; traditional craftsmanship. ”1
(In: Article 2 of “The Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage”. Paris
October 2003)
Starting from the 32nd Convention of UNESCO General Conference in October 2003 in Paris/
France2, from symposia and publications of different Committees of International Council of
Museums (ICOM/UNESCO) – concerning topics of “Intangible Heritage”3 as well as “Shanghai
Charter” 4 – the terminology and the role of Museology shall be examined. Furthermore the
responsibility of museums in regard to conservation and preservation of the cultural and natural
intangible heritage has to be considered in the context of globalisation.
This contribution is dealing with the following main points:
Firstly, the Summary of papers represented in ICOFOM Study Series 2000
This summary signifying general ideas and a classification of the articles in ICOM Study Series
2000 concerning the topic “Museology and the Intangible Heritage”5, that were an important
step for preparing the theme “Museums and Intangible Heritage” for ICOM General Conference
2004, shall be carried out.
Secondly, Intangible Heritage, Proclamations of Masterpieces by UNESCO and the Role of
Museology
Thirdly, “Positive” and “Negative” Intangible Heritage
Fourthly, Challenges to Museums and Museology in the Future
1 Summary of Papers Represented in ICOFOM Study Series 2000
The publication “Museology and the Intangible Heritage”/”Muséologie et le Patrimoine
Immatériel”/”Museologia y Patrimonio Intangible”/”Museologie und das immaterielle Erbe” was
intended to prepare the ICOFOM Annual Meeting 2000 that took place in Munich/Germany and
Brno/Czech Republic. The goal of the publication was to introduce into the various kinds
philosophy of museologists from different parts of the world and to discuss the statements in the
1
UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Article 2 of the Convention for the
th
safeguarding of Intangible Cultural heritage, adopted on 17 October 2003.
http:// www.unesco.org/heritage/intangible/html_eng/index_en.shtml.
2
nd
UNESCO General Conference, 32 session: Report of Commission IV, 32 C/74. Paris 16 October 2003.
Insbesondere: Artikel 2.
3
„Museums, Intangible Heritage and Globalisation“ (Asia Pacific Organisation/Shangai/China 2002). „Preserving
Cultures: Documenting Non Material Heritage” (Documentation/CIDOC/ Porto Alegre/Brazil 2002). “Museology and
Intangible Heritage” (International Committee for Museology/ICOFOM 2000/ Munich/Germany and Brno/Czech
Republic).
4
Vgl. dazu: Wenbin, Zhang/ Perot, Jacques/ Galla, Amareswar: Shanghai Charter. Museums, Intangible Heritage and
Globalisation. In: ICOM’s Activities Intangible Heritage. Shangai 2002. http//icom.museum/shanghai_charter.html)
5
Vieregg, Hildegard K./ Davis, Ann (Eds.): Museology and the Intangible Heritage. ICOFOM Study Series – ISS 32.
Pre-prints. Munich/Germany and Brno/Czech Republic 2000.
87
Vieregg: Reflection on Intangible Heritage
course of the Meeting. The authors were attending various topics in the interrelationship
between Museology, the tangible and the intangible heritage.
The papers represent in a scientific way on the one hand cultural identity and diversity and on
the other hand cultural approach. In the context of museology questions concerning inspiration,
spiritual and cultural heritage, the eventuality of a cyber-world, the association between
musealisation and visualisation as well as modes of the philosophy in different countries and
regions arose.
Additional articles were treating with museums of particular importance concerning the heritage
in contrast to the traditional museum. An up-to-date facet was put by a contribution related to
dialogue between museum and school concerning history, art and culture, nature and
techniques.
Several authors emphasised particularly on the contemporary approach. They tried on the one
hand to define the interrelationship between intangible heritage and contemporary art, on the
other hand possible methods of treatment concerning both “depressing heritage” – relics of the
totalitarian past in 20th century – and the remembrance-culture of our society.
The general topic “Museology and the Intangible Heritage” discussed in those articles was
represented by museologists from Argentina, Australia, Bénin, Brazil, China, Germany, France,
India, Canada, Croatia and in the publication respectively on the occasion of the Meeting with
participants of other countries, too, as Burkina Faso, Finland, Congo, Lagos, Lithuania, Norway,
Russian Federation, Sweden, Switzerland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Venezuela.
2 “Intangible Heritage”, Masterpieces of UNESCO and the Role of Museology
In this concern shall be pointed out in what extent intangible/immaterial heritage is closely
connected to tangible heritage, as well as traditions of communities (festive events), economic
traditions (traditional craft, skills), national customs – as e.g. in correlation with objects,
artefacts, instruments, performances, cultural spaces. In this context ethnological museums and
“Museums of World Cultures” play, on my view, a particularly important role because they are to
be seen in the context of an international evaluation.
Individual and common, cultural, social and creative forms of expression – independent from
any physical form as e.g. language, literature, oral tradition, dance, songs and non-written
music, but also the knowledge of long-established practices – shape a particular group.
Symbolic and metaphorical meanings of objects are to be discussed. Those are making up the
“tangible heritage” as e.g. its outward appearance, size and importance as cultural assets.
In this context is to focus on the important function of museums particularly concerning the
acquisition and conservation of those objects, whose scientific interpretation in a historical
context and an adequate presentation. Additionally, formal principles, exemplary in regard to
exhibitions and the symbolic messages to the visitors shall be mentioned.
In this sphere for example also theatre-museums play an important role because they are
represents of the stage and other kinds of performing arts. They are focusing on performances
which take place on a certain place, at a certain time and in each case with other visitors.
Therefore they are connected to a unique power of statement, nevertheless concerning
“tangible” heritage as e.g. the place of events, theatre-costumes, requisites of various kind.
What remains from a performance to the visitors is only remembrance of immaterial and
intangible nature.
This examination is corresponding from this reason with an adequate context as of new
“theories of heritage”, immaterial, aesthetic and ethic values, virtual “reality”, creativity,
immaterial heritage and communities, the spiritual heritage, the interdependence between
musealisation and visualisation, qualities of art and contemporary methods for art-interpretation,
the relationship with the “negative” and indelible heritage of twentieth century as well as the
commemorative culture of our society at present.
Each type of museum shows in a very impressive way how the “interactivity” on the one hand
between objects as “tangible” and qualities as “intangible” are running.
88
Vieregg: Reflection on Intangible Heritage
Shanghai Charter
Anyway, ‘Shanghai Charter’ is a very good framework clearing up the importance of creativity,
the adaptability of peoples, localities and communities as frame-conditions concerning ethical
and everlasting values, traditions, languages, oral history and the various ways of life.
Shanghai Charter was drawn up after the 7th Regional Assembly of the Asia Pacific
Organisation/ICOM (October 20-25, 2002 in Shanghai/China), refers also to ”Museums,
Intangible Heritage an Globalisation”. It describes in fourteen paragraphs the most important
“contents” and responsibilities of Museums and Museologists in regard to “intangible heritage”
related to Asia Pacific Regions. It also focuses on the significance of “intangible heritage”
defined in the preamble, and moreover gives practical advice and tips for using and carrying out
the various possibilities in order to safeguard the heritage.1 Shanghai Charter is both a model
and a structure – exemplary for other regions of the world, too.
Definitions according to “Thesaurus Museologicus”
Anyway, typology and categorisation of the intangible heritage should be discussed. This is
particularly interesting in regard to the “Thesaurus Museologicus” (definitions) elaborated as a
specific project of ICOFOM since several years – by the expert André Devallées (Paris/France).
In this concern different criteria are involved and classified by museological points of view. They
are – in each case – respectively clarified by examples of museums of various typology that are
relevant for the conservation of the intangible heritage and its process of development.
In this concern the statement of Andrée Devallées, Honorary President and Permanent Adviser
of ICOFOM, as well as an expert in definitions2, is of particular importance. He wrote in his
article “Museology and Immaterial Heritage. Musealisation and Visualisation” (2000):
“Immaterial and virtual contents put some important museological questions:
The translation of the words 'intangible' and 'virtual' in English, 'immateriel' and 'virtuel' in
French, is very delicate, because their meanings are ambiguous in each language. The
question is not settled to know, if all the processes (specially dynamic) which are generally
classified in immaterial range (because we cannot touch them) are not merely part of concrete
and real things which are studied and exhibited with difficulty: These 'real things' that Duncan F.
Cameron has named 'kinetifact' since 1968.
A second question is to know, what we name 'virtual', because it is non visible … (biological,
chemical and electronic processes) but given in reproduction by apparatus complex digital
processes is not also merely real: it is not settled, if these processes have to be classified in the
'real thing' or 'substitute' range.
In this short survey, we might catch a sight of the immense possibilities provided by the new
technology of information and communication leading to a without wall new range of museum
integrating the world heritage.”3
Proclamation of Masterpieces
Each consideration of definitions of “Intangible Heritage” was incomplete without the great
undertaking of UNESCO that is of serious consequences for the sciences of museums.
1998 UNESCO started the international initiative “Proclamation of Masterpieces of the Oral and
Intangible heritage of Humanity” 4 Usually cultural heritage is associated with museums,
memorial sites and monuments. Nevertheless, it includes also “Intangible Heritage” which can
1
Shanghai Charter, drafted by the coalition of participants in the Meeting was signed by Zhang Wenbin, President
ICOM China; Jacques Perrot, President ICOM; Amareswar Galla, President ICOM Asia Pacific.
André Decallées since years is responsible for the ICOFOM project “Thesaurus Museologicus” and Museum-adequate
definitions.
3
Devallées, André: Museology and Immaterial Heritage. Musealisation and Visualisation. In: Vieregg, Hildegard/ Davis,
Ann (Eds.): Museology and the Intangible Heritage. International Committee for Museology. ICOFOM Study Series 32.
Munich/Germany and Brno/Czech Republic 2000. p. 52.
4
2001 19 “Masterpieces” were proclaimed, 2003 28 more; 2005 the proclamation will be continued.
2
89
Vieregg: Reflection on Intangible Heritage
be defined as “the body of cultural and social expressions that characterize communities and
are based on tradition.”1
2001 the First Proclamation was carried out. At that time a list of 19 Masterpieces was
proclaimed that covered the different kinds of Intangible Heritage as e.g. “The cultural Space of
the brotherhood of the Holy Spirit of the Congos of Villa Mella” (Dominican Republic) to “Cross
Crafting and its Symbolism” (Lithuania/Latvia) and “Nôgaku Theatre” (Japan).
2003 the Second Proclamation took place. Already between 2001 and 2003 over 60 member
States evaluated and recommended outstanding examples of intangible cultural heritage of
humanity from the different continents to UNESCO. Finally, twenty-eight Masterpieces were
selected that supplemented the first choice from 2001. They are from Africa (2), e.g. “The Oral
Traditions of the Aka Pygmies of Central Africa”/ Central African Republic; Asia (11), e.g. “The
Wayang Puppet Theatre”/Indonesia; Europe (4), e.g. “The Art of the Meddah, Public
Storytellers”/ Turkey; the Arab States (3), e.g. “Song of Saana”/ Yemen; Latin America and the
Carribean (6), e.g.”The Carneval of Barranquilla”/ Colombia; Multinational (2), e.g.
Shashmaqom Music/ Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Looked at in this way Ritual Music and Songs,
Arts and Creativity, Literature and Poetry play an important role, not only as “Masterpieces” but
also in relationship to exhibits in museums.
At the same time, in October 2003, the “Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible
Cultural Heritage” was adopted on the occasion of the 32nd session of the General Conference
of UNESCO.
This Convention is followed by numerous Festivals and Events in different countries. One of the
up-to-date is the “Children’s Performing Arts Festival” in Suwon/Republic of Korea that children
from five countries brings together: China, Democratic Republic of Korea, Japan, Mongolia and
the Republic of Korea.2 Anyway, those Festivals could easily become connected with Museums
that are most important representatives for the tangible heritage and intangible culture as a
mirror of Cultural Diversity.
3 “Positive” and “Negative” Intangible Heritage
A study of definitions and descriptions of Intangible Heritage leads to the result that the cultural
importance is usually considered with reference to a positive development of culture and
civilisation. In the most cases museums present objects in this positive way – even exhibits in
several War-Memorials or Memorial Museums are presented in an artificial and aesthetic way.
Therefore it seems necessary to focus on examples that elucidate the “positive” and “negative”
approach to Intangible Heritage.
Literature and Stories as Intangible Heritage
In order to show an example for the realisation of a “positive” project concerning intangible
heritage, I would like to relate to “International Museum Day 2004” with the topic “Museums and
Intangible Heritage”.
On this occasion – The International Museum Day 2004 – a very exciting Rading-Festival took
place in Staatliches Museum für Völkerkunde (Governmental Museum for Ethnology) in Munich.
Concerning its museum departments – Africa, India, China, Japan, Orient, North- and South
America and South Seas – the museum is seeing itself as mediator between identifiable and
foreign cultures.
Books – chosen for the target groups of children, youth and adults – fulfil in a specific way the
conditions to bring the public home to the world, and to arouse both the pleasure in reading
exotic literature and stories in context with the museum and in the interest on foreign ways of
life.
On this occasion visitors tried with great pleasure to become well known with museum-objects
by reading and listening to literature.
1
International Jury for the Proclamation by UNESCO of Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity.
(UNESCO: Intangible Heritage Activities Worldwide).
http://www.unesco.org/heritage/intangible/html_eng/index_en.shtml.
2
The Festival is intended to create international friendship, understanding and peace between the five countries which
were for a long period hindered to communicate because of political differences.
90
Vieregg: Reflection on Intangible Heritage
The trial to take museum-objects and appropriate literature in a context is not unusual, rather
more the problem between the Staatliches Museum für Völkerkunde (Governmental Museum
for Ethnology) and the target groups of the museum. Therefore for the reason of the Reading
Festival was intended not only to present literature but also narrative traditions of foreign
cultures in relationship to the exhibitions of the different departments.
In addition to the literature-events and readings an extensive creative supply in the “Workshop
of Cultures” as well as specific information about the foreign countries and a filmlet were
offered. There was also a bookshelf with books of different continents for browsing. Own
reviews could be drawn up, novels could be drafted.
There was also particular information about narrative traditions outside Europe. The visitors
could also have a critical look at book-production here and elsewhere. In this context and in a
specific workshop was also offered to become familiar with various handwritings.
Anyway, the visitors could develop their creativities in drafting of masks, folding of Origamifigures, creating music-instruments and toys, getting known with Chinese and Arabian
characters, adapt a figure for shadow play or knotting a piece of carpet; in this context they
experienced the arduous physical effort of professional carpet-knotting.
”Negative” intangible and “indelible” heritage of 20th century
Identity and remembrance, “negative” intangible and “indelible” heritage of 20th century should
be examined.
While usually Museums of different typology portray the “positive” cultural and natural heritage,
Museums concerning with “Contemporary History” and Documentations on “Memorial Sites” are
closely related to “negative” intangible heritage e.g. Museums: Mémorial in Caen/Normandy;
Musée de la Grand Guerre/Péronne/France;Musée de la Paix/ Verdun. Memorial Sites: War
memorials and commemorative ways; memorial sites on areas of former National Socialistic
Sites (e.g.”Topography of Terror”/Berlin/Germany). Identification and remembrance are in this
context also categories of the intangible heritage.
„Musée de la Civilisation in Quebec“, „Museum of Mankind” in London or „Musée de la
Civilisation Gallo-Romain“ are also characterised by “remembrance” and “identity” as intangible
heritage. Nevertheless, the focus is different: The Museum in Quebec emphasises with the
permanent presentations „Memories“ and „People of my Country“ not on history rather on
identity and character. In Contrary “Museum of Mankind” in London stresses on anthropological
relations, “Musée de la Civilisation Gallo-Romain” in Lyon on identification with a certain level of
civilization.1
A specific focus is on prototypes and authentic areas as well as memorials designed in the five
decades running after Second World War. Memorial sites are much closer to the recent past
than museums with their “Intangible Heritage” are ever able to be. Yet in memorial sites, the
way documentation is conceived museologically plays an important role, and the typology of
such documentation centres is similar to that of classical museums. Beyond, such
documentation is usually integrated in the memorial site.
The memorial sites of Auschwitz, Groß-Rosen, Sobibor, Treblinka (Poland), Bergen Belsen,
Dachau, Flossenbürg, Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen, Mittelbau Dora, Neuengamme (Germany),
Mauthausen (Austria), count as the prototypes of Nazi-terrorism and its increase to the
industrial extermination of individuals.
In contrast to museums, memorial sites as authentic places and environments are particularly
characterised by their relics of the history of former concentration camps or sites of war theatre.
Above all, the “Transition Project”, one of the main projects of ICOFOM stands for dealing with
“negative” Intangible Heritage the conservation and preservation of former GULag Camps and
the remembrance to totalitarian states as intangible and immaterial heritage. But not only the
GULag camps are affected by this unhappy memory rather former and present totalitarian
states all over the world – even countries where genocide is carried out like in Ruanda.
Therefore the programme “From Oppression to Democracy” is the basis for the framework of
1
See: ICOM NEWS: Museums and Intangible Heritage. Vol 56. no. 4. Paris 2003.
91
Vieregg: Reflection on Intangible Heritage
the mission and action of the International Movement – finally established on the occasion of
ICOFOM Annual Meeting 2000 in Brno, Czech Republic. Vinoš Sofka, former President and
now Honorary President of ICOFOM and Permanent Adviser of the Committee
(Stockholm/Sweden) drew attention to the people responsible for heritage care to realize the
fact that former totalitarian regimes are now history. This also transmits important intangible
messages by the kind of memorial sites, written and visual documents, records etc.1
Challenges to Museums and Museology in the Future
The UNESCO „Convention for Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage“ explains in a
very convincing way, how the intangible heritage is as a developing process transmitted from
generation to generation and needs permanent “revival” by communities and teams – in
correspondence with historic conditions and circumstances of life in present. This is the
requirement for the sense of identity and continuity, cultural development and creativity.
People responsible for Museums and Memorial Sites are in this concern asked of ethical
questions related to:
- the transmission of knowledge to younger generations and interactive possibilities
concerning culture and nature
- training programmes and workshops (e.g. “From Tradition to Innovation”)
- dissemination of knowledge concerning immaterial and intangible heritage
- documentation and publications
- exhibitions and museum-presentation.
The role of Museums includes also responsibility for records and transcriptions of immaterial
and intangible heritage which by this way will be both “materialized” and recorded as immaterial
heritage, and musealised independently from time and space.
“The City Network of Cultures” which is propagated by UNESCO and connected with a specific
award could also be an important step to connect tangible and intangible heritage by the
museums.
The interdisciplinary and intercultural dialogue that is enabled by this way is on its part an
important component for a peaceful social life of men and peoples.
Anyway, these thoughts are not completely new and a recognition of our society or our period of
time. Rather Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767 – 1835), the famous philosopher, in his “Theory of
the Education of Human Being” thought about these questions almost two centuries ago.
He was one of the first who developed a “Theory of Museums” with the leitmotif: “The Life itself
Provides the Topics”. The reflection of Humboldt’s ideas is also the starting point to his museum
philosophy including anthropological, aesthetic and philosophical basis. Humboldt’s museumphilosophy is closely connected to the essential imagining of education. That is characterised by
himself as “most tolerant interaction” between receptivity and activity, the human being
herself/himself and the world outside, individual and universe. 2
By this interchange culture is not only protected, rather life and “world” of the human being are
involved into the developing process.
On the origin from education it supports human development and improvement. In this bcontext
particularly art and history, aestheticism and language are of great importance. Individual and
social education without language is impossible, rather language is the most decisive factor
between the human being and the world as a whole.3
1
Sofka, Vinos: From Oppression to Democracy. Changes in the World and European Upheavals – Heritage, Museums,
the Museum Profession and Museology. In: Vieregg, Hildegard (Ed.): Museology – an Instrument for Unity and
Diversity? ICOFOM Study Series pre-prints 34. Munich 2003. pp. 71–79.
2
Vieregg, Hildegard: Wilhelm von Humboldt – Ideas on Education of Human Being: museological, philosophical and
educational contemplation. In: Vieregg, Hildegard (Ed.)/International Committee for Museology: Museology and
Philosophy. Coro/Venezuela 1999. pp. 179–193.
3
Lübbe, Hermann: Wilhelm von Humboldt und die Musealisierung der Kunst. In: Schlerath, Bernfried (Hg.): Wilhelm von
Humboldt. Vortragszyklus zum 150. Todestag. Berlin 1986. S. 169–183.
92
Vieregg: Reflection on Intangible Heritage
Bibliography
Botterill, Rosa / Will, Leonard / Ashby, Helen / ICOM/International Committee for Documentation
(CIDOC) (Eds.): Preserving cultures: documenting non-material heritage. Porto Alegre/Brazil,
September 17–20, 2002. In: ICOM NEWS, No. 63. London 2002. pp. 1014.
Desvallées, André: Muséologie et ‚Patrimoine immateriél’: Héritage spirituel ou culture virtuelle?
In: Vieregg, Hildegard/ Davis, Ann (Eds.) : Museology and the Intangible Heritage. ICOFOM
Study Series 2000. Munich 2000. pp. 45 – 52
ICOM (Ed.): „Shanghai Charter“. In: Museums, Intangible Heritage and Globalisation. 7th
Regional Assembly of the Asia Pacific Organisation. October 20–24, 2002. Shanghai/China.
Final report Paris 2003.
Lamontagne, Sophie-Laurence: Le patrimoine immatériel: méthodologie d’inventaire pour les
savoirs, les savoir-faire et les proteurs et traditions. (Ministère de la Culture et des
Communications. Under supervision of Bernard Genest. Quebec 1994. (156 p. )
Luxen, Jean-Luis: The Intangible Dimension of Monuments and Sites with Reference to the
UNESCO World Heritage List. In: Galia Saouma-Forero (Ed.): Authenticity and Integrity in an
African Context: Expert Meeting. Great Zimbabwe, May 16–29, 2000. Paris. UNESCO 2001.
(pp. 20–29).
Sofka, Vinoš: From Oppression to Democracy. Changes in the World and European Upheavals
– Heritage, Museums, the Museum Profession and Museology. In: Vieregg, Hildegard (Ed.):
Museology – an Instrument for Unity and Diversity? ICOFOM Study Series pre-prints 34.
Munich 2003. pp. 71–79.
UNESCO. General Conference Meeting. 32nd Session. 2003. Preliminary Draft International
Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Paris. UNESCO 2003 (21p.
)
Van Praet, Michel: Patrimoine naturel et culture scientifique: l’intangible au musée. In :
Patrimoines et identités, sous la dir. De Bernard Schiele. Musée de la Civilisation/Quebec.
2002. pp. 65–76.
Vieregg, Hildegard / Davis/Ann (Eds.).ICOM. International Committee for Museology (ICOFOM):
Museology and the Intangible Heritage/Muséologie et patrimoine immaterial/Museología y el
patrimonio intangible/Museologie und das immaterielle Erbe. Pre-prints. Munich/Germany and
Brno/Czech Republic, Nov. 26 – December 5, 2000. ICOFOM Study Series 32. (143 p. )
Vieregg, Hildegard / Sgoff, Brigitte (Eds.) / ICOM. International Committee for Museology
(ICOFOM). Museology and Intangible Heritage – Continuation. Supplement to ICOFOM Study
Series 33 – final version. Munich 2004.
93
To Search in the Exposition and the Intangibility of
the Museums1
Marília Xavier Cury – Brazil2
Summary
To search in a context is different from searching the context, therefore to search in the
museological exposition is not to search the exposition. This observation opens theoretical
perspectives of interest to ICOFOM, because in the context where the museological
communication occurs – exposition and educative action – one finds a profitable field of search
and museological theorization.
This text has two objectives. The first is to discuss the intangibility attainment in the museums,
institutions that have their genesis in material culture. For that, one defends that the intangible
character is intrinsic to the material heritage preservation, because no object, inside or outside
the museum, exists by itself, that is to say, without a collection of values and significations to
qualify them and qualifying the relations among persons – and cultures – mediated by the
material culture.
The second objective is to reflect about the intangibility of the museums, that is to say, the
museums have ritualistic and performing qualities expressing themselves and making them
exist in the museological communication. At the same time, museums can assume the
compromise to discuss, starting from their mass, the rituals of several cultures, inclusive the
occidental, because the rituals are phenomena good to be lived and to think about. This posture
can open new discussions in the field of expology, of expography and of education in museums,
contributing with the theorization in museology.
The commemoration theme of the international day of museums and 20th General Conference
and 21st General Assembly of ICOM in 2004 is "Museums and Intangible Heritage"3. The theme
is not exactly unpublished or provocative in innovation for the professionals of Brazilian
museums, because we are already discussing it and even applying it for some time. Anyway, it
is always possible to seek for new forms to discuss and/or to go deeper in the question.
For example, in the anthropological museums it is almost impossible not to meditate about the
intangibility, because we are confronted with it every moment of the curatorial process:
acquisition, search, conservation, documentation and communication (exposition and
education) of artefacts. This is easy to be understood, because the anthropological collections
have a big intangible appeal: each artefact is related with others and all of them are related with
a way of leaving, feeling and thinking and all this make part of a quite complex cultural system
of communication.
Nowadays in Brazil, the problematic of the intangible and/or of the intangibility of collections is
provoking because it elucidates another problematic in the order of communication, expology,
expography and education. The intangible, in museums, should be transposed to the expositive
and educational discourses. Such being the case, the construction of these discourses must be
faced in this manner, that is to say, new expositive and educational models must be proposed,
because the museological communication of the intangible requires another museological
posture, different from those already known and hegemonic – but failed – transmitting forms of
information. As I understand, the acceptation of these models of communication – without critics
and/or meditations – expresses a lack of deepening in the theory of communication and a
1
This text was elaborated based on the original accessible in www.revistamuseu.com.br.
Museologist and educator of museums. Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia da Universidade de São Paulo.
Av. Prof. Almeida Prado, 1466 – CEP.: 05508-900 – SP – SP – Brasil. e-mail: maxavier@usp. br.
3
"The ´intangible cultural heritage` means the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the
instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some
cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage." UNESCO
2
94
Xavier Cury: To Search in the Exposition and the Intangibility of the Museums
weakened point of the museological theory and this becomes important because the museums
are phenomena of communication. At the other hand, expology, expography and education are
branches of knowledge in museology and, being so, a theoretical and methodological support
for communication in museums and for democratization of these institutions. The
democratization of museums, as we know, is a process that is occurring for decades, but is still
in discussion; that is to say, the museums are still looking for effectual strategies to give access
to the society, and not to some elected, to the musealized cultural heritage. Access, however,
can be understood in different manners. In accordance with the Portuguese1 language
dictionary, access is "approximation, arrival, entrance". This understanding refers to a physical
relation, to have physical access to something and applying it to museums, the physical
approximation to the museological collections. The access that I am referring to goes far
beyond the possibility of approximation between the public and the museological mass,
because it refers to the knowledge one has of this mass and, above all, its universe of
significations. Access, also, refers to make the mass disposable – materiality, knowledge,
significations of argumentative manner and, for being democratic, – the public can counterargument. Access corresponds to the society rights to participate of the processes of cultural
(re)signification as a plain right to the citizenship. The museum must be understood as a right of
the citizen to participate of a social democracy, a right so relevant such as transportation,
lodging, health, alimentation and education. To guarantee these rights to the citizen means to
guarantee to him the right of participation in the process of cultural (re)signification concerning
the cultural heritage, action substratum of museums. The museums facilitate or make difficult to
the society to participate in the cultural dynamics in which the material culture is inserted; in
proportion as the uses the public makes of the museum is what give to it its social form.
Thinking about expositive models in a simple form, we can describe them in two ways. The first
consists in exposition of objects in shop windows, selected starting from criterions of the
curator. In general this type of exposition involves collections of prestige, credited curators,
(some times) sophisticated scientific concepts, competent professionals of conservation and
creative designers. On the other hand, it involves a big budget and a strong work of marketing.
So, this event reaches a big success. We can and must question the criterions of success
evaluation of an exposition. In this evaluation, several aspects should be considered, and some
of them are essential, such as the forms of the public interaction with the expositions. In the
model I am presenting and discussing, the participation of the public is restricted, despite of the
visitation statistics, because the exposition is not intelligible and, worse, does not respect the
public taste and values. There are extreme cases, when the public is subjected to dark
ambiences with lights in their eyes, badly idealized spaces, long texts with academic language
and lack of context elements, etc. The educative action consists in educators trying bravely to
make what the exposition does not succeed: to communicate. In extreme situations, it is the
educator’s duty to assume the responsibility to re-pass the information to the visiting public and,
then, the only thing he can do is to serve as a guide2. Besides, let us take the opportunity and
say that what is made in expositions like this one is everything but education. It is some other
thing, but not education, because to educate implies the construction of mental models and
attitudes. The educators know that this is a process work that respects and invests in the public
participation as agent, as actor.
If we consider the social and educative functions of the museums, we will assume, in
consequence, a quarrelling attitude concerning the model of communication as a way of
transmission. If we address ourselves to the definition of Museology as a study of the
museological fact, that is to say, “’it is the deep relation between the Man, subject who knows,
and the Object, part of the Reality to which the Man also pertains and over which he has the
power to act’, relation that is processed ‘within an institutional scenery, or a museum’”3, we will
observe that the model of information transmission is surpassed, despite of being yet applied in
some museums. I understand that it is up to ICOFOM/ICOM to indicate theoretical ways to the
1
Koogan-Houaiss Digital, 2002.
In Brazil we make difference between educative action and guided visitation and between educator and guide. The
difference is of theoretical-conceptual and methodological nature.
3
GUARNIERI, Waldisa Russio Camargo. Conceito de cultura e sua inter-relação com o patrimônio cultural e a
preservação. Cadernos Museológicos, Rio de Janeiro, n. 3, p. 7, 1990. This definition was firstly presented by the
author in the Encounter of ICOFOM/ICOM in Stockholm on 1981 and can be consulted in RUSSIO, Waldisa P.
L`interdisciplinarité en Muséologie. MuWop/DoTraM, n. 2, 1981, p. 58.
2
95
Xavier Cury: To Search in the Exposition and the Intangibility of the Museums
expological and educational reflection and about expographic processes, starting point to the
theorization about museological communication.
The second simplified expositive model I would like to discuss is that in which the public
participates because understands the exposed ideas. This is the basic objective of the team
that conceives this type of exposition and, therefore, this team actuates inter-disciplinarily. The
process is thought for the public to have participation. However, this model can be enlarged in
such a manner as to offer to the visitor a participative and creative experience. For that, a team
must be formed, composed by searchers, museologists, educators, conservators, designers of
exposition (that is much more than a designer of shop windows in dark ambiences) and, in this
model, curators are all those participating in the conception of expositive and educative
discourses. Some people are still having the conviction that the curatorship of an exposition is
the act of only one, two or three searchers: the searchers elect the theme, the focus, choose the
parts, and define the objectives… On the contrary, the theme, its focus, and the objectives are
collective decisions, this because a cooperative attitude must prevail – and not autocratic – in
the search of an objective of communicational nature. The objectives, and consequently the
expositive and educative discourses, are defined starting from the debate on "what" and "why",
having the public as reference. It is the collective’s duty to define "what" from the knowledge
about the collections will be informed and this decision involves a "why" of communicational
nature. In this perspective the education is plainly present in the exposition as well as in the
actions elaborated for the public, this because it is understood that education is much more than
that collection of activities offered to the visitor after the inauguration of an exposition. The
model I present for discussion integrates a search of basis and museological communication,
enlarging the possibilities of search in museology.
My professional experience is in the field of museological communication. First I reflected about
how to communicate in museums the "moment of beauty" of another social group and I
suggested the symbolic efficacy as an experimental path of expographic representation1, that is
to say, the concept of beauty is not universal, each culture has its conception of what is
beautiful. One ritual is carefully prepared; it happens in an accorded day and time and has its
climax. The climax is the "moment of beauty"2. It is a process that has middle and that
culminates with an end, being an informative event.
"The ritual is a cultural system of symbolic communication. It is made of ordained
and patronized sequences of words and acts, in general expressed by means of
multiple ways. These sequences have contents and arrangements characterized
by varied degrees of formality (conventionality), stereotypy (rigidity), condensation
(fusion) and redundancy (repetition)".3
To present the process and the "feast" in museums is not difficult. To discuss the conception of
beauty of this event and its performative character is very difficult, because it goes beyond the
materiality of the involved artefacts, as a matter of fact, it goes far beyond the materiality and is
difficult for unaware persons to understand it. The symbolic efficacy is the expographic proposal
to handle with cultural turnpikes. It is a path to elaborate the expositive and educative
discourses that consists in elaborating a performative expographic experience – considering our
cultural codes – qualitatively equivalent to the performatic and intangible experience of the
cultural group represented in the museological exposition. I do not understand this as a solution
but as a proposal that needs to be expographically developed, tested many times4 and consists
in the starting point for elaboration of other proposals. What is important in all this is to perceive
that, by means of expositions about rituals, we can understand how other cultures live, think,
transform themselves. As performance and symbolic communication are intangible and
intelligible for the cultural Other, we and the public of museums as well must seek for models of
expositive representation that will not disparage the virtue of the rituals ritualistic character.
1
A arte de comunicar. In: DORTA, Sonia Ferraro; CURY, Marília Xavier. A plumária indígena brasileira no acervo do
MAE/USP. Translation by Elizabeth Ewart. 2 ed. São Paulo: MAE: EDUSP: IMESP, 2001. 544 p. , il. + map. Bilingual
edition Portuguese/English. p. 407–415.
2
VIDAL, Lux apud DORTA, Sônia Ferraro; CURY, Marília Xavier. Ibid. p. 410.
3
TAMBIAH, Stanley apud PEIRANO, Marisa. Rituais: ontem e hoje. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 2003. p. 11.
4
Expologic and/or expographic experimentation must be tested until being exhausted, that is, come to interpretations
constructed after empirical analysis. The construction process of knowledge in museology requires theoretical basis
and a professional protocol that can sustain this construction.
96
Xavier Cury: To Search in the Exposition and the Intangibility of the Museums
Also, to connect explanation to comprehension – considering that not all what is explained is
comprehended -, creating inter-subjectivity among cultures. "Starting from this point, to
comprehend includes a process of identification and of projection from subject to subject".1
Presently, to conceptually enlarge the previous proposal, I will dedicate myself to reflect on how
to communicate rituals, that is to say, how to elaborate expositive and educative discourses that
make people reflect on special and not quotidian events making part of persons’ life, giving
reason to those (social groups) represented and developing a sentiment of alterity: to take into
consideration the reasons of the cultural "Other" represented in relation with the "I" that I
represented this other and/or the "I" that appreciate the exposition. For that, it is important to
develop the sentiments of tolerance and cultural diversity. It is necessary to make clear that
there is not a hierarchy among the special and not quotidian events; qualitatively they are alike.
There is, inclusive, a mutual relation between quotidian and ritual,
"[...] starting from the principle that a society possesses a relatively defined
(although flexible) repertoire, shared and public, of categories, classifications,
forms, values, etc., what is found in the ritual is present in the day by day – and
vice-versa. We consider the ritual as a special phenomenon of the society, that
indicates to us and reveal representations and values of a society, but the ritual
expands, illuminates and projects what is already common to a specified group".2
But, rituals have special characteristics and, I suppose, the most important is, from the
museological communication point of view, its perfomative character. There are several senses
for the performative: a sense of attitude, when to say is also to make; in a second one, persons
live intensely a performance through many ways of communication simultaneously; and a third
sense, when values are created and absorbed by the persons participating of the performance.
The performance and their senses possess big qualities to be explored by exposition and
education3. As in museological communication the ideas gain form (expographic and
educative), the proposal of symbolic efficacy is maintained and aggregates an education,
because a performatic action possesses by itself educational values. And if the symbolic
efficacy is possible, one can create an expographic-educative-performative-experience, the
museum will not only represent the intangible but will also acquire an intangible attitude and,
starting from this point, it will claim back its participation and relevance in cultural dynamics and
in the society.
Returning to the second expositive model, I propose a creative participation for the public
visiting expositions. To live an expographic-educative-performative-experience is a creative
participation that, by its qualities, cannot be analysed by rationality, but by criterions of creativity
and efficacy. As for the analysis of the expographic-educative-performative experience of the
visiting public, this is only possible to empirically apprehend. This would be an important
discussion involving the hegemonic postures of evaluation that will be left to another moment.
However, it is important to register that the discussion on empirical search in exposition is
important because it is the half of a theoretical iceberg interesting to ICOFOM/ICOM.
Back to the proposal, the idea I defend is that the expositive and educative models must
change. It is not enough to contextually expose starting from the artefact origin but to expose
making establish that vinculum among cultures, among groups and among individuals of
different cultures. I believe that only by establishing this vinculum the museum will be able to
establish a dialogic relation between exposition and public. This way we must renown and/or
grow ripe our conceptions and methodologies of work. We have to assume a participative and
also creative attitude and, what seems to be fundamental, to throw down the artificial limits
between expography and education in museum that (try to) fragment the experience of public
and teams. By this I do not want to destroy the conquest of these two fields – expography and
1
MORIN, Edgar. A cabeça bem-feita: repensar a reforma, reformar o pensamento. 8 ed. Rio de Janeiro: Berthand
Brasil, 2003. p. 93.
2
PEIRANO, Marisa. Ibid. p. 10.
3
The educator of the Museum of Folklore Edson Carneiro, Beatriz Muniz Freire, took "as reference the classical theory
of Arnold van Gennep about rituals, because the visit to a museum can be seen as a ritual". O encontro
Museu/Escola: o que se diz e o que se faz. 1992. 134 p. Dissertação (mestrado) – Pontifício Universidade Católica,
Rio de Janeiro.
97
Xavier Cury: To Search in the Exposition and the Intangibility of the Museums
education – but to promote the museological communication face to the public quality of
experience that we all ardently desire. They are the two heads of a single coin.
On the other hand, I understand that mentioning the ritual is of the interest of various typologies
of museums, because the rituals make part of our lives: anniversaries, baptism, carnival, certain
political movements, native Country day, wedding, graduation, signing of a document, a
compromise, a shaking of hands, a discourse, a scientific discovery, the final of the World Cup,
etc. And there are rituals of different natures: profanes, religious, sacred, civics, festive,
scientific, formal or informal, simple or elaborated. From the examples it is possible to
understand that the ritual is a phenomenon of life and not of certain areas of knowledge and,
therefore, must not be restrict to the anthropological museums. I believe even that we must
rescue the ritualistic movements of our lives, or at least make some quotidian events as rituals,
and represent them in the museums, independently of typology. "We consider the ritual a
special phenomenon of the society, that indicates to us and reveal representations of values of
a society, but the ritual expands, illuminates and projects what is already common to a specific
group".1 If an event is considered a ritual is because it has some specific characteristics, and
why not to discuss these characteristics?
"Rituals are, therefore, good to think about and good to live. As starting from them
we get acquainted with our ideal world and with our projects and ambitions; starting
from them some paths, crossways and dilemmas are revealed and, in this process,
one achieves, many times, to guide changes and transformations".2
To know how to distinguish the ritual moments of our lives and to think about their qualities
seams to me a good alternative for museums. Perhaps this path could be less despotic,
because we would not be imposing the importance of a fact but arguing about its importance.
Finally, I would like to make it registered that in museological communication, the expology and
the expography should be treated as a methodological place essential for the search in
museology. Moreover, that the museological language – the expositive – is a condensed
language and, for this reason, highly ingenious and this is the starting point for future analysis in
the exposition.
And because of all that was presented in this text, I invite everyone – when appreciating an
exposition – to answer to the question: What exist of museological knowledge in this
exposition?
References
Translation: Wagner Polveiro.
I dedicate this text with all my fondness to Norma Rusconi. She will be deeply missed.
1
2
PEIRANO, Marisa. Ibid, p. 10.
Ibid, p. 47.
98
Rechercher dans l’exposition et l’immateriélité des
musées1
Marília Xavier Cury – Brasil2
Résumé
Rechercher dans un contexte c’est différent de rechercher le contexte, c’est pourquoi
rechercher dans l’exposition muséologique n’est pas comme rechercher l’exposition. Cette
constatation ouvre des perspectives théoriques d’interêt de ICOFOM, parce que dans le
contexte où arrive la communication muséologique – exposition et action éducative – se trouve
un champs profitable de recherche et théorisation muséologique.
Ce texte a deux objectives. Le premier est de discuter l’atteignement de l’immatérielité dans les
musées, institutions qui ont sa genèse dans la culture matériale. Pour celà, il défende que le
caractère immatériel est intrinsèque à la préservation du patrimoine matérial, car aucun object,
dans ou hors le musée, existe par soi même, c’est-à-dire, sans un ensemble de valeurs et
significations pour les qualifier et que puissent qualifier les relations entre les personnes – et
cultures – partagées par la culture matériale.
Le deuxième objectif est de réfléchir sur l’immatérielité des musées, c’est-à-dire, les musées
possèdent de qualités ritualistiques et perfomatives qui s’expriment et se font exister dans la
communication muséologique. En même temps, les musées peuvent assumer le compromis de
discuter, à partir de son monceau, les rituels de diverses cultures, y compris de l’occidental, car
les rituels sont phénomènes bons à vivre et à penser. Cette attitude peut ouvrir de nouvelles
discussions dans le champ de l’expologie, de l’expografie et de l’éducation en musées, de
façon à contribuer pour la théorisation en muséologie.
Le thème des commémorations du jour international des musées et de la 20e Conférence
Générale et 21re Assemblé Générale du ICOM en 2004 sera "Musées et Patrimoine
Immatériel"3. Le thème n’est pas exactement inédit ou provocatif d’innovation pour les
professionnels de musées brésiliens, car nous le discutons et l’applicont même il fait déjà un
certain temps. De toute façon, il est toujour possible de chercher de nouvelles formes d’aborder
et/ou d’approfondir la question.
Par exemple, aux musées anthropologiques il est presqu’impossible de ne pas réfléchir sur
l’immatérielité, car nous nous confrontons avec elle à chaque moment du procès de la curatelle:
acquisition, recherche, conservation, documentation et communication (exposition et éducation)
des artefacts. Celà est facile à comprendre, car les collections anthropologiques possèdent un
grand appel immatériel: chaque produit manufacturé se rapport à des autres et tous se
rapportent à une façon de vivre, sentir et penser et tout celà fait partie d’un système culturel de
communication assez complexe.
Aujourd’hui au Brésil, la question problématique de l’immatériel et/ou de l’immatérielité des
collections est provocative parce qu’élucide une autre question problématique de l’ordre de la
communication, expologie, expografie et éducation. L’immatériel, dans les musées, doit être
transposé par les discours expositif et d’éducation. Celà étant, la construction de ces discours
doit être afronté de cette façon, c’est à dire, de nouveaux modèles expositifs et d’éducation
doivent être proposés, parce que la communication muséologique de l’immatériel exige une
1
Ce texte a été élaboré à partir de l’original accessible en www.revistamuseu.com.br.
Muséologiste et éducatrice de musées. Musée d’Archéologie et Ethnologie de l’Université de São Paulo.
Av. Prof. Almeida Prado, 1466 – CEP.: 05508-900 – SP – SP – Brasil. e-mail: maxavier@usp. br.
3
"On entend par ´patrimoine culturel immatériel` les pratiques, représentations, expressions, connaissances et savoirfaire – ainsi que les instruments, objects, artefacts et espaces culturels qui leur sont associés – que les communautés,
les groupes et, le cas échéant, les individus reconnaissent comme faisant partie de leur patrimoine culturel." UNESCO
2
99
Xavier Cury: Rechercher dans l’exposition et l’immateriélité des musées
autre attitude muséologique différente de celles-là déjà connues et hégémoniques – mais
faillies – formes transmissives d’information. À mon avis, l’acceptation de ces modèles de
communication – sans critiques et/ou réflexions – dénote un manque d’approfondissement dans
la théorie de la communication et un point de fragilité de la théorie muséologique et celà se
rendre important parce que les musées sont phénomènes de communication. D’autre part,
expologie, expografie et éducation sont branches de connaissance de la muséologie et, de
cette façon, un support théorique et méthodologique pour la communication en musées et pour
la démocratisation de ces institutions. La démocratisation des musées, comme nous savons,
est un procès qui arrive déjà pour décades, mais est encore en discussion, c’est à dire, les
musées sont encore en cherche de stratégies efficaces pour donner accès à la société, et non
à quelques élus, le patrimoine culturel muséalisé. Accès, cependant, peut être entendu de
différentes manières. Selon le dictionnaire de la langue portugaise1 accès est "rapprochement,
arrivée, entrée". Cette compréhension se rapporte à une relation physique, avoir accès
physique à quelque chose et, en l’applicant aux musées, le rapprochement physique aux
collections muséologiques. L’accès dont je me rapport va beaucoup au-delà de la possibilité de
rapprochement entre le public et le monceau muséologique, car il se rapport à la connaissance
qu’on a de ce monceau et, surtout, de son universe de significations. Accès signifie aussi
rendre disponible le monceau – matérialité, connaissance, significations de manière
raisonnante et, pour être démocratique, – le public peut contre-argumenter. Accès correspondre
au droit de la societé de participer des procès de (re)signification culturelle comme plein droit à
la citoyenneté. Le musée doit être entendu comme un droit du citoyen participant d’une
démocratie sociale, un droit aussi important que le transport, l’habitation, la santé, l’alimentation
et l’éducation. Garantir ce droit au citoyen signifie l’assurer le droit à la participation dans le
procès de (re)signification culturelle pour ce qui concerne au patrimoine culturel, substrat de
l’action des musées. Les musées facilitent ou rendent difficile la participation de la societé dans
la dynamique culturelle à laquelle la culture matérielle est insérée, alors que sont les usages qui
le public fait du musée qui lui donnent une forme sociale.
Pour penser d’une forme simple en modèles expositifs, nous pouvons les décrire en deux. Le
premier consiste à l’exposition d’objects dans de vitrines, selectionnés à partir de critères du
curateur. Généralement ce type d’exposition engage collections prestigieuses, curateurs de
créance, (quelques fois) concepts scientifiques sofistiqués, professionnels de conservation
competents et designers créateurs. D’autre part, engage un grand devis et un fort travail de
marketing. De cette façon, cet événement obtient un grand succès. Nous pouvons et devons
questionner les critères d’évaluation du succès d’une exposition. Pour cette évaluation,
plusieurs aspects doivent être considérés, et quelques d’eux sont essentiels, comme les formes
d’action réciproques du public avec les expositions. Dans le modèle qui je presente à la
discussion, la participation du public est restreint, malgré les statistiques de visitation, parce que
l’exposition n’est pas inteligible et, pire, ne respecte pas le goût et les valeurs du public. Il y a
des cas extrèmes, quand le public est assujetti à des ambiances obscures avec lumières sur
ces yeux, spaces mal idéalisés, textes longues dans une langage académique et manque
d’éléments de contexte, etc. L’action éducative consiste à éducateur essayant bravement de
faire ce qui l’exposition ne réussi pas: communiquer. Dans des situations extrèmes, c’est le tour
de l’éducateur d’assumer la responsabilité pour repasser l’information au public visitant et,
donc, il ne peut que jouer le rôle de guide2. Autrement, nous pouvons profiter de l’opportunité et
dire que ce qui est fait en expositions de cette nature peut être tout, excepté éducation. Il peut
être quelqu’une autre chose, mais pas éducation, car éduquer implique la construction de
modèles mentaux et d’attitudes. Les éducateurs savent que ce travail est un travail processif
qui respecte et investit sur la participation du public comme agent, comme acteur.
Si nous considérons les fonctions sociale et éducative des musées, nous assumons, par
conséquence, une attitude de dispute pour ce qui concerne au modèle de communication
comme transmission. Si nous nous rapporttons à la définition de Muséologie comme éttude du
fait muséologique, c’est à dire, "´c’est la relation profonde entre l’Homme, sujet qui connait, et
l’Objet, partie de la Réalité à laquelle l’Homme fait partie aussi et sur l’aquelle il a le pouvoir
1
2
Koogan-Houaiss Digital, 2002.
Au Brésil nous faisons différence entre action éducative and visitation guidée et entre éducateur et guide. La
différence est la nature théorique-conceptuelle et méthodologique.
100
Xavier Cury: Rechercher dans l’exposition et l’immateriélité des musées
d’agir`, relation celle-ci qui vient ´dans une scène institutionnalisée, ou bien le musée`"1, nous
constatons qui le modéle de transmission d’information est surpassé, malgré d’être encore
appliqué dans quelques musées. Je comprends qu’il incombe à ICOFOM/ICOM la
responsabilité d’indiquer de chemins théoriques pour la réflexion expologique et de l’éducation
et sur les procès expografiques, point de départ vers la théorisation sur communication
muséologique.
Le deuxième modèle expositif simplifié qui j’aimerais discuter est celui où le public participe car
il comprend les idées exposées. Celui-là est l’objectif basique de l’équipe qui conçoit ce type
d’exposition et, pour celà, cette équipe actue interdisciplinairement. Le procédure est pensé
pour que le public puisse y avoir une participation. Cependant, ce modèle peut être agrandi de
manière à offrir au visitant une expérience de participation et de création. Pour celà, on forme
une équipe composée de rechercheurs, muséologistes, éducateurs, conservateurs, designers
d’exposition (ce qui est beaucoup plus qu’un dessinateur de vitrines dans des ambiances
obscures) et, dans ce modèle, curateurs sont tous ceux qui participent de la conception des
discourses d’exposition et d’éducation. Quelques personnes ont encore la conviction que la
curatelle d’une exposition c’est l’action de seulement un (deux ou trois) rechercheur: le
rechercheur élit le thème, l’objet d’évidence, sélectionne les pièces, definit les objectifs... Au
contraire, le thème, son objet d’évidence, les objectifs sont décisions collectives, parce que doit
prévaloir une attitude coopérative – et pas autocratique – en recherche d’un objectif de nature
de communicabilité. Les objectifs, et par conséquent les discourses expositif et éducatif, sont
définis à partir du débat sur "le quoi" et "pourquoi", tenant le public comme référence. C’est au
public de définir "le quoi" entre la connaissance sur les collections ce qui sera communiqué et
cette décision engage un "pourquoi" ayant une nature de communicabilité. Dans cette
perspective l’éducation est pleinement présente tant dans l’exposition que dans les actions
élaborées pour le public, parce qu’on entend que l’éducation est beaucoup plus que cet
ensemble d’activités offertes au visitant après l’inauguration de l’exposition. Le modèle qui je
presente à la discussion intègre la recherche de base et de communication muséologique,
augmentant les possibilités de recherche en muséologie.
La mienne expérience professionnelle est dans le champs de la communication muséologique.
En premier lieu, j’ai réfléchis sur comment communiquer en musées le "moment de beauté"
d’un autre groupe social et j’ai suggérais l’efficacité symbolique comme un chemin expérimental
de représentation expografique2, c’est à dire, le concept de beauté n’est pas universel,
chaqu’une des cultures a sa conception de ce qui est beau. Un rituel est soigneusement
préparé, arrive dans un jour et horaire déterminé et a son climax. Le climax est le "moment de
beauté"3. C’est un procès qui possède un moyen et culmine avec un fin, étant un événement
performatif.
"Le rituel est un système culturel de communication symbolique. Il est constitué de
séquences ordonnées et standardisées de mots et d’actions, en général exprimés
par l’intermédiaire de moyens multiples. Ces séquences ont le contenu et les
arrangements caractérisés par degrés variés de formalité (conventionnalité),
stéréotypie (rigidité), condensation (fusion) et redondance (répétition)".4
Présenter le procès et la "fête" en musées n’est pas dificile. Discuter la conception de beauté de
cet événement et son caractère performatif est très dificile, car il va au-delà de la matérialité
des produits manufacturés engagés, d’ailleurs, il va beaucoup au-delà de la matérialité et est
dificile aux personnes d’autruis de le comprendre. L’efficacité symbolique est la proposition
expografique pour traiter avec des barrières culturelles. Il s’agit d’un chemin pour élaborer les
discourses expositif et éducatif qui consiste en élaborer une expérience expografique
performative – prenant en considération nos codes culturels – qualitativement équivalent à
1
GUARNIERI, Waldisa Russio Camargo. Concept de culture et la sienne inter-relation avec le patrimoine culturel et la
préservation. Cahiers Muséologiques, Rio de Janeiro, n.3, 1990, p. 7. Cette définition a été de prime abord présentée
par l’auteur dans l’Encontre de ICOFOM/ICOM en Stockholm en 1981 et peut être consultée en GUARNIERI, W. R. C.
L’Interdisciplinarité en Muséologie. MuWop/DoTraM, n. 2, 1981, p. 58.
2
A arte de comunicar. In: DORTA, Sonia Ferraro; CURY, Marília Xavier. A plumária indígena brasileira no acervo do
MAE/USP. Traduction par Elizabeth Ewart. 2 ed. São Paulo: MAE: EDUSP: IMESP, 2001. il. + mape. Édition bilingue
portugais/anglais. P. 407–415.
3
VIDAL, Lux apud DORTA, Sônia Ferraro; CURY, Marília Xavier. Ibid. p. 410.
4
TAMBIAH, Stanley apud PEIRANO, Marisa. Rituais: ontem e hoje. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 2003. p. 11.
101
Xavier Cury: Rechercher dans l’exposition et l’immateriélité des musées
l’expérience performatique et immatériel du groupe culturel représenté dans l’exposition
muséologique. Je ne comprend pas celà comme une solution mais comme une proposition, qui
doit être développée expografiquement, essayée à plusieurs de fois1, et consister en point de
départ pour l’élaboration d’autres propositions. Ce qui est important dans tout celà est percevoir
que, par l’intermédiaire d’expositions sur rituels, nous pouvons comprendre comme des autres
cultures vivent, pensent, se transforment. Comme la performance et la communication
symbolique sont immatériels et inteligibles pour l’Autre culturel, nous, ainsi que le public des
musées, devons chercher des modèles de représentation expositive qui ne puissent pas
adultérer le caractère ritualistique des rituels. Et aussi, faire connection entre explication et
compréhension – considérant que ni tous ce qui est expliqué est compris –, de façon à créer
intersubjectivité entre cultures. "À partir de ce point, comprendre comporte un procès
d’identification et de projection de sujet à sujet".2
Actuellement, pour agrandir de manière conceptuelle la proposition antérieure, je me dédie à
réfléchir sur comment communiquer rituels, c’est-à-dire, comment élaborer des discourses
expositifs et éducatifs qui fassent réfléchir sur des événements spéciaux et non-quotidiens qui
font partie de la vie des personnes, donnant raison à ceux (groupes sociaux) réprésentés et
développant un sentiment d’altérité: prendre en considération les raisons de "l’Autre" culturel
réprésenté par relation au "Moi" qui j’ai représenté cet autre et/ou le "Moi" qui apprécie
l’exposition. Pour celà, il est important de développer les sens de tolérance et diversité
culturelle. Il faut éclaircir qu’il ny a pas une hiérarchie entre des événements spéciaux et nonquotidiens; qualitativement ils sont égales. Inclusivement, il y a une relation mutuelle entre
quotidien et rituel,
"[...] en partant du principe qu’une société possède un répertoire relativement défini
(bien que flexible), partagé et public de catégories, classifications, formes, valeurs,
etc., ce qui l’on trouve dans le rituel est présent dans au jour le jour – et vice-versa.
Nous considérons le rituel un phénomène spécial de la société, qui nous indique et
révèle représentations et valeurs d’une société, mais le rituel épanche, illumine et
fait sauter aux yeux ce qui est déjà commun à un groupe détérminé."3
Mais, les rituels ont de caractéristiques spéciales et, je suppose, la principale est, du point de
vue de la communication muséologique, son caractère performatif. Il y a plusieurs de sens pour
le performatif: un sens d’attitude, lorsque dire est aussi comme faire; un deuxième, les
personnes vivent intensivement une performance pour différents moyens de communication
simultanément; et un troisième sens, lorsque de valeurs sont créés et absorbés par les
participants de la performance. La performance et ses sens possèdent grandes qualités à être
explorées par l’exposition et par l’éducation4. Comme en communication muséologique les
idées gagnent forme (expografique et éducative), la proposition de l’éfficacité symbolique se
maintient et agrège l’éducation, car une action performatique possède par soi même de valeurs
d’éducation. Et si l’éfficacité symbolique est possible, on peut créer une expérienceexpografique-éducative-performative, le musée ne va pas seulement représenter l’immatériel
mais acquérir une attitude immatériel et, à partir de ce point, va revindiquer sa participation et
importance dans la dynamique culturelle et dans la société.
Revenant au deuxième modèle expositif, je propose une participation créative pour le public
visitant d’expositions. Vivre une expérience-expografique-éducative-performative est une
participation créative que, par ses qualités, ne peut pas être analysée par la rationnalité, mais
par de critères d’ordre créative et d’éfficacité. Pour ce qui concerne à l’analyse de l’expérience
expografique-éducative-performative du public visitant, celle-là seulement poura être saisi
empiriquement. Celle-là serait une importante discussion engageant d’attitudes d’hégémonie
1
Une expérimentation expologique et/ou expografique doit être essayée jusqu’à épuiser, c’est-à-dire, arriver à des
interprétations construites après d’analyses empiriques. Le procès de construction de connaissance en muséologie
exige de bases theoriques et un protocole professionnel qui puisse soutenir cette construction.
2
MORIN, Edgar. A cabeça bem-feita: repensar a reforma, reformar o pensamento. 8 ed. Rio de Janeiro: Berthand
Brasil, 2003. p. 93.
3
PEIRANO, Marisa. Ibid. p. 10.
4
L’éducatrice du Musée du Folklore Edson Carneiro, Beatriz Muniz Freire, a pris “comme référence la théorie classique
d’Arnold van Gennep sur les rituels, car la visite au musée peut être vue comme un rituel". In: O encontro
museu/escola: o que se diz e o que se faz. 1992. 134 p. Dissertação (mestrado) – Pontifício Universidade Católica,
Rio de Janeiro.
102
Xavier Cury: Rechercher dans l’exposition et l’immateriélité des musées
d’évaluation muséologique qui sera laissée pour un autre moment. Cependant, il est important
d’enregistrer que la discussion sur recherche empirique en exposition est importante parce qu’il
s’agit de la pointe d’un iceberg théorique intéressant au ICOFOM/ICOM.
Pour revenir à la proposition, l’idée qui je défends est que les modèles expositif et éducatif
doivent être changés. Il n’est pas suffisant d’exposer en contexte à partir de l’origine du produit
manufacturé mais exposer faisant établir de liens entre cultures, entre groupes et entre
individus de cultures différentes. Je croix que seulement par l’établissement de ces liens le
musée réussira établir une relation de dialogue entre exposition et public. Avec celà nous
devons rénover et/ou mûrir nos conceptions et méthodologies de travail. Nous nécessitons
d’assumer une attitude participative ainsi que créative et, ce qui me semble fondamental,
renverser les limites artificiaux entre expografie et éducation en musée qui fragmentent
(essayent de fragmenter) l’expérience du public et des équipes. Par celà je ne veux pas détruire
les conquêtes de ces deux champs – expografie et éducation – mais promouvoir la
communication muséologique devant la qualité d’expérience du public qui tous nous désirons
ardemment. Sont les deux faces d’une même monnaie.
D’autre part, je comprends que l’abordage du rituel interesse à plusieurs typologies de musées,
parce que les rituels font partie de nos vies: aniversaires, baptême, carnaval, certains
mouvements politiques, jour de la Patrie, mariage, licence, signature d’un document, un
compromis, une poignée de main, un discours, une découverte scientifique, le final de la Coupe
du Monde, etc. Et il y a de rituels de différentes natures: profanes, religieux, sacrés, civiques,
de fête, scientifiques, formels ou non-formels, simple ou élaborés. À partir des exemples il est
possible de comprendre que le rituel est un phénomène de la vie et pas seulement de certaines
aires de connaissance et, donc, ne doit pas être restreint aux musées anthropologiques. Je
croix même qui nous devons racheter les moments ritualistiques de nos vies, ou même rendre
certaines événements du quotidien comme rituels, et les jouer aux musées, indépendant de
typologie. "Nous considerons le rituel un phénomène spécial de la société, qui nous indique et
révèle représentations de valeurs d’une société, mais le rituel épanche, illumine et fait sauter
aux yeux ce qui est déjà commun à un groupe déterminé".1 Si un événement est considéré
c’est parce qu’il possède des caractéristiques spécifiques, et pourquoi ne pas discuter ces
caractéristiques?
"Les rituels sont, de cette façon, bons à penser et bons à vivre. À partir d’eux nous
prendons connaissance de notre monde idéal et de nos projets et ambitions; à
partir d’eux se révèlent des chemins frayés, carrefours et dilemmes et, dans le
procès, on arrive, très souvent, à mettre en chemin des changements et
transformations".2
Savoir discernir les moments rituels de nos vies et penser sur ses qualités me semble une
bonne alternative pour les musées. Peut-être ce chemin pourrait être moins autoritaire, car
nous ne serions pas imposant l’importance d’un fait mais argumentant sur la sienne importance.
Finalement, j’aimerais laisser enregistré que dans la communication muséologique, l’expologie
et l’expografie devraient être traitées commme place méthodologique essentiel à la recherche
en muséologie. Encore, que la langage muséologique – l’expositive – est une langage
condensée et, pour cette raison, hautement ingénieuse et célui-là est le point de départ pour
des analyses futures dans l’exposition.
Et pour tout ce qui a été présenté dans ce texte, j’invite à tous – lors d’apprécier une exposition
– à répondre à la perquisition: Qu’y a-t-il de connaissance muséologique dans cette exposition?
Références
Traduction: Wagner Polveiro.
Je dedie ce texte avec toute m’affection à Norma Rusconi. Elle laissera tendre regret.
1
2
PEIRANO, Marisa. Ibid, p. 10.
Ibid, p. 47.
103
In Search of the Role of Museum for
Preservation of Intangible Heritage in Korea
Hyun Mee Yang – Korea
I want to discuss about the relation between museum and the preservation system of intangible
heritage related to the traditional craft arts in Korea. Korea has managed the most creditable
preservation system of intangible heritage in the world. It was the model when UNESCO
designed "Proclamation of Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity" in
1997.
The Scope of intangible heritage is very broad. It is often difficult to decide what to preserve
because it varies in accordance with what point of view to take. In Korea, Cultural Heritage
Preservation Act defines intangible heritage as "drama, music, dance, and craft skills etc. that
are the outcomes of the intangible culture and have historical, artistic, and academic values".
According to the Act, types of intangible heritage are classified into two categories that are,
performing arts and craft arts. The preservation system of intangible heritage in Korea focuses
on the support of those who have the traditional skills worthy to preserve. The governmental
supports help them to maintain skills and hand over them to their successors.
However, this system has nothing to do with museum. Museum has related to the tangible
moving heritage while the ethnography museums collect instruments, costumes and craft items
that had been made or used by the predecessors. In such museums most secrets of the
traditional skills are hidden in the tangible objects. Fortunately there is a living history of the
traditional craft skills in Korea. It is the national and regional intangible heritages. Museum has
developed methods to conserve the tangible past. How museum can help preserve the living
intangible history? In order to preserve the traditional craft skills, museum has to transfer the
tacit knowledge that masters have obtained through the long experiences into the explicit
knowledge. For examples, that is how to get and treat raw materials, how to make and use
tools, how to design and create craft items etc. In most cases the distribution of this kind of
knowledge has been confined to some successors and academic researchers.
Museum can change this situation. But in order to preserve intangible heritage, museum has to
change its core activity from collecting objects to organizing knowledge through converting the
tacit knowledge into the explicit knowledge. The most important activity related to production of
knowledge is the research on the whole process of craft skills and the life of masters. The
process of systematization of knowledge produces not only the collections - raw materials, tools
and craft works etc. but also the diverse types of documentations - interviews, multi-media
records and research papers etc. The traditional museum regarded the latter as complementary
rather than the former. However in regard of intangible heritage, the latter may be as important
as, or more important than the former. At this respect, museum cannot help being combined
with archive.
This museum/archive is able to help masters to hand over the traditional skills to their
successors, to provide useful information to academic researchers and to inspire contemporary
craft artists. National Heritage Research Institute has been a crucial role in these kinds of
activities. But it is not enough in the era of knowledge-based society, because in such a society
it is important for people’s welfare not only to produce knowledge but also to distribute and
apply knowledge. Here is the essential role of museum. Museum can make intangible heritage
live in the cultural life of people through the diverse communication and marketing techniques
adopted by it - exhibition, education, production of cultural commodity, tourism etc. There is the
reason why museum has to combine with the preservation system of intangible heritage in
Korea. Museum can make a living history live in our everyday life rather than in our memory.
104
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE INDEXÉE
ICOFOM
BIBLIOGRAPHIE
INDEXÉE
Museological Working Papers
ICOFOM Study Series
1980 – 2003
Établie par François Mairesse,
avec l’aide de Francine Thomas
Musée royal de Mariemont, Belgique
Cette bibliographie comprend les contributions des deux numéros MuWop/DoTraM publiés en
1980 et 1981 (il existe une version anglaise de ces documents, c’est la version française qui a
été encodée), ainsi que la série des Icofom Study Series (ISS) qui a suivi, à partir de 1983. Les
seuls numéros qui n’ont pas été encodés sont les ISS 18 et 22 (Athènes, 1993) qui n’ont pu
être retrouvés.
ABRAMO B. & BARRETTO M.L.H. Comments, ISS. 15, 1988, p. 225 – 230.
ABRAMO B., Comments on some ideas about the changing concept of museums. ISS. 11,
1987, p. 35 – 38.
ABRAMO B., Some remarks to Icofom’s symposium at India. ISS.15, 1988, p. 79 .
ADOLFSSON G. & LUNDSTRÖM I., Staccato in space, a medium and its message. ISS. 20,
1991, p. 21 – 23.
ÄGREN P-U., Nordic museums and nordic museology – some introductory remarks. ISS. 25,
1995, p. 179 – 186.
ÄGREN P-U., The double face of the museum. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 39 – 42.
ALENCAR V. de, Museologia e arte no Brasil : da teoria a pratica. ISS. 26, 1995, p. 19 – 23.
ALIAU M., Expositions : language and selection. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 19
ANTZOULATOU-Retsila E., Museums and communities : coping with dilemmas. Or between
museomania and museotherapy. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 21 – 26 ; Musées et communautés : lutter
contre les dilemmes. Ou : entre muséomanie et muséothérapeutique. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 27.
ANTZOULATOU-RETSILA E., Crossroads : what’s next for Euterpe ? ISS. 16, 1989, p. 33 – 35.
ARAUJO M. M. & BRUNO C. O., Museological exhibitions : a language for the future. ISS. 16,
1989, p. 37 – 42 ; L’exposition muséologique : un langage pour le futur. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 43 –
49.
ARAUJO M.M. & BRUNO M.C.O., New trends in brazilian museology. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 31 –
38 ; Muséologie brésilienne : nouveaux chemins . ISS. 14, 1988, p. 39 – 46.
ARDOUIN C. D., Le rôle de la prospective en muséologie. ISS. 16 – 1989, p. 345 – 347.
ARDOUIN C.D., Les musées en Afrique de l’ouest : réflexions sur l’avenir. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 51
– 56; Museums in West Africa : reflections about the future. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 57
ASSOGBA R-P., Muséologie et pays en voie de développement – aide ou manipulation ?
Commentaires et points de vue. ISS.15, 1988, p. 17 – 29.
ASTUDILLO L. Museology and art : the III international biennal of Cuenca. ISS. 26, 1995, p. 35
– 37.
ASTUDILLO, L., The concrete aspects of cultural intangible heritage in Cuenca and the
museum of metals. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 157.
BACHMAN B., Hypothèse et invention en muséologie. Le cas du Musée Agricole et industriel
de l’île de la Réunion – France. ISS.16, 1989, p. 59 – 67.
BAGCHI S.K., Planning museum of science in developing countries. ISS. 15, 1988, p. 31 – 34.
BAILLY J-C. Résurgence. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 25 – 26.
BAILLY J-C., Résurgence et remémoration. ISS. 28, 1997, p. 15 – 21.
BALLE C., Musée et futur. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 67 – 73; Museum and future. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 74.
BARBE N. & THIERRY A., Paradigme scientifique et muséographie. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 87 – 91.
105
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE INDEXÉE
BARBLAN M-A., Identity, museology and development : an instrumental approach for an intercultural dialogue. ISS. 14, 1988. p. 47 – 52 ; Identité, muséologie et développement :
approche instrumentale pour un dialogue interculturel. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 53 – 60.
BARBUY H., Musée et génération de culture. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 75 – 81.
BARRETTO M. H., Museology and museums : building the road through walking. ISS. 13, p.
151 – 159.
BARRETTO M. H., The last alchemist or the museological tarot cards. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 83 –
92.
BARRETTO M.L.H. Museology in developing countries – a basic configuration. ISS. 14, 1988,
p. 61 – 70 ; La muséologie dans les pays en développement – une configuration de base.
ISS. 14, 1988, p. 71 –73.
BARROS de TARAMASCO I., Musées et muséologie en Amérique latine – une invitation au
changement. ISS.12, 1987, p. 43 –45; Museos y museologia en America latina : una
invitacion al cambio. ISS. 12, 1987 , p. 45 – 49.
BARROS de TARAMASCO I., Museologia y paises en desarrollo. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 75 – 80.
BÄRTVEDT R., An industrial community and its heritage. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 195 – 200.
BEDEKAR V. H., Icofom and museum boundaries. ISS. 21, 1992, p. 5 – 11.
BEDEKAR V. H., Museology and developing countries – Help or manipulation ? Comments and
views. ISS.15, 1988, p. 81 – 84.
BEDEKAR V.H., Problems of intangible heritage in Indian community museums. ISS. 32, 2000,
p. 18 – 20.
BEDEKAR V.H., Futurology and the role of museums as”change-agents”. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 93 –
97.
BEDEKAR V.H., On Vasant H. Bedekar, with some additional points. ISS.13, p. 15 – 35.
BEDEKAR V.H., Third world opportunities for expanding museology discipline. ISS. 14, 1988, p.
81 – 87.
BEDEKAR V.H., Topic and method. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 51 –54.
BELLAIGUE M. & NONAS R., Museology and art – provocative paper. ISS. 26, 1995, p. 29 –
30 ; Muséologie et art – premières réflexions. ISS. 26, 1995, p. 31 – 33; Museologia e arte.
ISS. 26, 1996, p. 155 – 156.
BELLAIGUE M. Final remarks. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 123 – 124.
BELLAIGUE M. & MENU M., Une infinie transparence : art et muséologie. ISS. 26, 1995, p. 38
–47; Una infinita transparencia arte y museologia. ISS. 26, 1996. p. 169 – 177.
BELLAIGUE M. & MENU M., Muséologie et les formes de la mémoire. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 173 –
181.
BELLAIGUE M. , MENU M., Objet-document ? ou le voir et le savoir. ISS. 23, 1994, p. 143 –
153.
BELLAIGUE M., Des musées pour quelles communautés ? ISS. 25, 1995, p. 29 – 36.
BELLAIGUE M., Liberté de la mémoire. ISS.28, 1997, p. 143 –146; Memory’s freedom. ISS. 28,
1997, p. 147 – 149.
BELLAIGUE M, DESVALLEES A, MENU M., Mémoires. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 19 – 21; Memories.
ISS. 27, 1997, p. 22 – 24, 43 – 44.
BELLAIGUE M., Analyse 1 & 2. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 373 – 376; Analysis 1 & 2. ISS. 16, 1989, p.
377 – 380.
BELLAIGUE M., Comments about the first batch of basic papers. ISS. 13, 1987, p. 37 – 38.
BELLAIGUE M., Du discours au secret : le langage de l’exposition. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 21 – 26;
From speech to secret : the language of exhibition. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 27 – 32.
BELLAIGUE M., Mémoire pour l’avenir. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 99 –102; Memory for the future. ISS.
16, 1989, p. 103 – 105.
BELLAIGUE M., Mondialisation et mémoire, ISS. 29, 1998, p. 5 – 12.
BELLAIGUE M., Musée et sauvegarde du paysage. ISS.17, 1990 , p. 15 – 24; Museums and
protection of the landscape. ISS. 17, 1990, p. 25 – 28.
BELLAIGUE M., Museology and identity. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 33 – 38; La muséologie et l’identité.
ISS. 10, 1986, p. 39 – 44.
BELLAIGUE M., Quelle muséologie pour un « musée total » ? ISS. 12 ; 1987, p. 55 – 57;
Museology and the « integrated museum ». ISS. 12, 1987, p. 59 – 62.
BELLAIGUE SCALBERT M., Créativité populaire et pédagogie muséale : substituts ou
originaux ? ISS. 8, 1985, p. 27 – 33.
BELLAIGUE- SCALBERT M., Popular creativity and museal pedagogy : substitutes or originals
? ISS. 9 , 1985, p. 87 – 94.
106
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE INDEXÉE
BELLAIGUE SCALBERT M., Territorialité, mémoire et développement – l’Ecomusée de la
Communauté Le Creusot/Montceau les Mines, ISS, 2, 1983, p. 34 – 39.
BELLAIGUE SCALBERT M., Trifling and essential : the ethnographical artefacts. ISS. 6, 1984,
p. 75 –78 ; Dérisoire et essentiel : l’objet ethnographique. ISS. 6, 1984, p. 79 – 86.
BENES J., Contribution à l’éclaircissement du concept de muséologie , MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 10
– 12.
BENES J., Current acquisition policy and its appropriateness for tomorrow’s needs. ISS. 6,
1984, p. 102 – 109.
BENES J., Forecasting – A museological tool ? Museology and futurology. ISS. 16, 1989, p.
107 – 113.
BENES J., La prospective – un outil muséologique ? Muséologie et futurologie. ISS. 16, 1989,
p. 115 – 121.
BENES J., Museological researches and their application. ISS . 21, 1992, p. 34 – 38.
BENES J., Museology and identity. ISS. 101986, p. 45 – 47 ; La muséologie et l’identité. ISS.
10, 1986, p. 49 – 52.
BENES J., On the need of general museology for the museums of developing countries. ISS.
14, 1988, p. 89 – 92 ; Thèses sur la nécessité de la muséologie générale pour les musées
dans les pays en voie de développement. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 93 – 96.
BENES J., The needs, possibilities and limits of using substitutes in museums with regard to
professional ethics. ISS. 8, 1985, p. 71 – 77 ; Nécessités, possibilités et limites de l’emploi
des substituts dans les musées en égard à l’éthique de la profession. ISS. 8, 1985, p. 79 –
85.
BENES J., Thematic differentiation or museum production as reflected by periodical
bibliography. ISS. 21, 1992, p. 39 – 49.
BENES J., Topic and method. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 63 – 70 ; Thème et méthode. ISS. 12, 1987, p.
71 – 79.
BENSA A., Le centre culturel Jean-Marie Tjibaou, Nouméa, Nouvelle-Calédonie, une aventure
architecturale et politique. ISS. 28, 1997, p. 23 – 24.
BESQUES S. Les moulages dans l’antiquité et dans les Temps modernes. ISS. 8, 1985, p. 213
– 215.
BEZZEG M., Museums and communities today. ISS. 24, 1994, p. 17 –26.
BEZZEG M., Analysing summaries of the papers of Bellaigue, Raippalinna, Shah, Sylla and
Tripps. ISS. 23, 1994, p. 131 – 141.
BEZZEG M., Manual Document and specificity. ISS. 20, 1991, p. 5 – 12.
BEZZEG M., On the fundamental problem of museology. ISS. 23, 1994, p. 23 – 32.
BEZZEG M., On the museal document. ISS. 21, 1992, p. 50 – 68.
BEZZEG M., The influence of globalization on museology, ISS. 29, 1998, p. 13 – 18.
BIBIANI R., Numismatique : art, message, document. ISS. 26, 1995, p. 48 – 51; Numismatica :
arte, mensagem, documento. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 178 – 181.
BISHOP C., Kei muri a mua – The past determines the future: the relationship between
museums and Maori people in Aotearoa New Zealand, ISS. 30, 1998, p. 18 – 26.
BISWAS T.K. Retrospect and prospect of museology in India. ISS. 15, 1988, p. 85 – 87.
BOGOESKI K., Presentional communication – Real or virtual. ISS. 33 b, 2002, p. 32 – 34.
BOSCH S., Consideraciones teoricas para la museologia, el patrimonio intangible y la identidad
cultural. ISS. 32, 2000, p. 21 – 26.
BOUCHER L.N., Vivre. S’inspirer du passé pour composer l’avenir. ISS. 32, 2000, p. 27 – 34.
BOUCHER L-N., Performance : un langage éclaté à la croisée des arts d’interprétation et de la
muséologie. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 92 – 96.
BRENNER M., Training for museum and community awareness. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 171 – 175.
BROISE P. de la, L’interprétation du patrimoine industriel : une mémoire sélective. ISS. 27,
1997, p. 103 – 110.
BRO-JORGENSEN M. Substitutes. The implications for the work of museums. ISS. 8, 1985, p.
157 – 160.
BRO-JORGENSEN M., Comments and views on basic papers presented in ISS n° 8, ISS . 9,
1985, p. 15 – 16;
BRUNO, M. C. The change odministration : new theoretical contributions and the practice of
museology. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 20 – 25 ; La muséologie et les changements économiquesociaux : défis et responsabilités. Gestion des changements : des nouveaux apports
théoriques et la pratique muséologique. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 26 – 28.
BURCAW E., Collecting today for tomorrow; ISS. 7 , 1984, p. 16 – 21.
107
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE INDEXÉE
BURCAW G.E., Current acquisition policy and its appropriateness for tomorrow’s needs. ISS. 6,
1984, p. 110 –121.
BURCAW G.E., L’interdisciplinarité en muséologie, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 30 – 31.
BURCAW G.E., Methodology of museology and professional training, ISS, 1, 1983, p. 10 – 23.
BURCAW G.E., Réflexions sur MuWop n°1, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 86 – 88.
BUREN J. af, The collective memory and the art museum. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 53 – 59.
CALONNE C. & GHAFOURI M., From one world to the other : where a museology is in the way
of development. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 97 – 100 ; D’un monde à l’autre : là où une muséologie est
en voie de développement. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 101 – 104.
CARRILLO de SAN SEGUNDO R., Museology and its use or misuse in the world. ISS. 14,
1988, p. 105 – 113. ; La muséologie et son usage dans et par les pays en voie de
développement. ISS.14, 1988, p. 115 – 123.
CARRILLO R., Méthodologie muséologique et formation professionnelle. ISS. 5,1983, p. 52 –
61.
CASSIA de MATTOS R. de, Museologia e arte. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 163 – 168.
CASTELLI GONZALEZ A., Museo y arte. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 182 – 184.
CEDRENIUS G., Collecting today for today and tomorrow. ISS. 6, 1984, p. 41 – 47;
CEDRENIUS G., Collecting today for tomorrow. ISS. 7 , 1984, p. 22 – 25
CELIUS C. A., L’esclavage au musée : chronique d’un refoulement. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 182 –
189.
CHACON A., El museo en la orbita de la identidad cultural. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 53 – 56.
CIALDEA R., La conservation du paysage est-elle un problème muséologique ? ISS.17, 1990,
p. 33 – 35; Is the conservation of the landscape a museological problem ? ISS. 17, 1990, p.
37 – 39.
CLEMENTI H., Museology and identity. ISS. 10, 1986, p . 57 – 59; El museo en la identidad.
ISS. 10, 1986, p. 61 – 64.
CLEMENTI H., One can consider two central ways of reflecting on this subject. ISS. 11, 1986,
p. 15 – 16.
COALDRAKE M., Globalised communications in and among museums, ISS. 30, 1998, p. 42 –
47.
COLLIN G., L’écomusée du Mont Lozère, ISS, 2, 1983, p. 40 – 47.
CORREIA LIMA D. F., Acervos artisticos e pesquisas em artes plasticas : proposta de um
modelo estrutural de informaçao em arte. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 185 – 193.
CORREIA LIMA D. F., Social memory and museum institution : thinking about the
(re)interpretation of cultural heritage. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 202 – 211.
CURY M. X. & RIZZI C., Beyond the exhibition : a reflection about museological communication.
ISS. 27, 1997, p. 97 – 102.
CURY M. X., Museologia e filosofia : Dewey, Pessanha e Platao, Foucault e Habermas. ISS.
31, 1999, p. 202.
CURY M.X., Diversidade e tolerancia cultural: qual é o papel dos museus contemporâneos?;
Diversity and cultural tolerance: which is the role of the contemporaneous museums?, ISS,
34, 2003, p. 54 – 61.
CURY M.X., Museology and philosophy : Dewey, Pessanha and Plato, Foucault and Habermas.
ISS. 31, 1999, p. 203 – 217; Muséologie et philosophie : Dewey, Pessanha et Platon,
Foucault et Habermas. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 218 – 227.
CURY, M. X., The search for autonomy – museology, museums and globalisation. ISS. 33 b,
2002, p. 120 – 126 ; A busca pela autonomia – museologia, museus e globalizaçao. ISS. 33 b
, 2002, p. 127 – 133.
DA MOTA M., Musée – territoire – société, ISS, 4, p. 14 – 18.
DAVALLON J., L’état de la muséologie en France. ISS. 28 , 1997, p. 25 – 31.
DAVALLON J., Nouvelle muséologie V S Muséologie ? ISS. 25, 1995, p. 153 – 167.
DAVIES A.A., Researching communities. ISS. 24, 1994, p. 27 – 31.
DAVIS A., What is creativity ? Eric Cameron asks big questions and replies with unexpected
answers. ISS. 32, 2000, p. 11 – 17.
DAVIS A., Diversity in Museums, Respect and support, ISS, 34, 2003, p. 10 – 13.
DAVIS, A., Museology and sustainable development. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 29 – 31.
DAVIS, A., Museology, social and economic development. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 170 – 172.
DAVIS, A., Provocative paper : museums real and virtual. ISS. 33 b, 2002, p. 19 – 31.
108
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE INDEXÉE
DECAROLIS N. & GORGAS M. R. de, The image of the existent and the restitution of memory
(sub topic 2). ISS. 28, 1997, p. 72 – 78; L’image de l’existant et la restitution de la mémoire
(sous-thème 2). ISS. 28, 1997, p. 79 – 85.
DECAROLIS N., Heritage, museum, territory and community. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 37 – 42.
DECAROLIS N., Reflections on museology, aesthetics and art. ISS. 26, 1995, p. 52 – 57;
Reflexiones sobre museologia, estetica y arte. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 194 – 201.
DECAROLIS N., Relaciones de la filosofia con la museologia contamporanea. ISS. 31, 1999, p.
18; Philosophy in relation to contemporary museology. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 19 – 27;
Zusammenfassung : Philosophie in ihrer Beziehung zur museologie. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 28 –
29.
DECAROLIS N., Memorias para el porvenir. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 190 – 195; Memory for the future.
ISS. 27, 1997, p. 196 – 201.
DECAROLIS N & DOWLING G., Museology and the environment. ISS. 17, 1990, p. 41 – 44.
DECAROLIS N. & DOWLING G., Analysis 1 & 2. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 381 – 384.
DECAROLIS N. & DOWLING G., Museums for a new century. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 123 – 126.
DECAROLIS N. & DOWLING. G., Comment. ISS. 15, 1988, p. 231 – 236.
DECAROLIS N., object – document ? ISS. 23, 1994, p. 83 – 88.
DECAROLIS N., DOWLING de GARRO E.M., ASTESIANO M. Museology and developing
countries – help or manipulation ? ISS. 14, 1988, p. 125 – 127.
DECAROLIS N., Globalization and Diversity, a delicate balance, ISS. 29, 1998, p. 19 – 24.
DECAROLIS N., Museology and museums. ISS. 13, 1987. p. 161 – 164.
DECAROLIS N., The language of exhibitions. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 33 – 36.
DECAROLIS N., The tangible and intangible heritage. ISS. 32, 2000, p. 35 – 39.
DECAROLIS N., Unidad y diversidad: El desafio latinoamericano, Unity within diversit: a latin
American Chalenge, ISS, 34, 2003, p. 14 – 21.
DECAROLIS, N., Museology and presentation – a joint venture of science and arts. ISS. 33 b,
2002, p. 35 – 39 ; Museologia y presentacion : un emprendimiento conunto de ciencia y arte,
p. 40 – 45.
DELOCHE B., Le patrimoine immatériel : héritage spirituel ou culture virtuelle ? ISS. 32, 2000,
p. 40 – 44.
DELOCHE B., Muséologie et philosophie. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 8 – 17.
DELOCHE B., Méfions-nous des débats abstraits ! ISS. 11, 1986, p. 13 – 14.
DELOCHE B., Commentaires et points de vue sur les mémoires de base présentés dans l’ISS.
N° 8, ISS. 9, 1985, p. 17 – 19.
DELOCHE B., La muséologie entre croisade pour la démocratie et actualité de la
mondialisation, ISS, 34, 2003, p. 22 – 31
DELOCHE B., Le multimedia va-t-il faire éclater le musée ?, ISS. 33 b, 2002, p. 46 – 52.
DELOCHE B., Le musée et les ambiguïtés de l’identité patrimoniale. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 65 – 71 .
DELOCHE B., Les musées et la muséologie au regard de l’interdisciplinarité. ISS. 12, 1987, p.
81 – 84.
DELOCHE B., Les substituts dans les musées d’art : de la fonction patrimoniale à la dimension
épistémologique. ISS. 8, 1985, p. 35 –40.
DELOCHE B., Muséologie et institutions muséologiques comme agents actifs du changement :
passé, présent, futur. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 127 – 131.
DELPORTE H. & LAHANIER C., Reconstitution photogrammétrique de la salle des taureaux de
Lascaux. ISS. 9, 1985, p. 137 – 145.
Des PORTES., Notes de lecture. ISS. 15, 1988, p. 89 – 92.
DESCAROLIS N. & SCHEINER T., ICOFOM lam report 1990 – 1995. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 215 –
217.
DESVALLEES A. Objet ou document ? ISS. 23, 1994, p. 89 – 95; Object or document ? ISS.
23, 1994, p. 96 – 102.
DESVALLEES A., Muséologie et “Patrimoine immatériel” : muséalisation, visualisation. ISS. 32,
2000, p. 45 – 52.
DESVALLEES A., La prospective – un outil muséologique ? ISS. 16 , 1989, p. 133 – 137;
Forecasting – a museological tool ? ISS. 16, 1989, p. 139 – 143.
DESVALLEES A., Musée et communauté : des ambiguïtés à éclaircir. ISS. 24, 1994, p. 33 –
37; A. Museum and community : some ambiguities to be cleared up. ISS. 24, 1994, p. 38 –
42.
DESVALLEES A., Commentaires et points de vue sur les mémoires de base présentés dans
l’ISS. N° 8, ISS. 9, 1985, p. 21 – 26.
109
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE INDEXÉE
DESVALLEES A., Identity. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 73 –77 ; L’identité. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 79 – 84.
DESVALLEES A., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?,
MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 17 – 18.
DESVALLEES A., La muséologie et les musées : changements de concepts. ISS. 12, 1987,
DESVALLEES A., Le langage de l’exposition. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 37 – 42; The language of
exhibitions – Abstract. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 43 – 45.
DESVALLEES A., Les écomusées, ISS, 2, 1983, p. 15 – 16.
DESVALLEES A., Let’s learn to live on our planet. ISS. 21, 1992, p. 87 – 91; Aprendamos a
vivir en nuestro planeta. ISS. 21, 1992, p. 92 – 96.
DESVALLEES A., Musée et communauté – Esquisse de synthèse. ISS. 24, 1994, p. 93 – 94.
DESVALLEES A., Musée et patrimoine intégral : le futur du passé, ISS. 29, 1998, p. 25 – 33.
DESVALLEES A., Objets substituts justifiés et injustifiés ; Les implications déontologiques et
aspects juridiques. ISS. 8, 1985, p. 87 –92; Justified and unjustified substitutes. The ethical
implications and legal aspects. ISS. 8, 1985, p. 93 – 99.
DESVALLEES A., Pays en voie de développement ou non : il n’existe qu’une seule muséologie.
ISS. 14, 1988, p. 129 – 136; Developing country or not : there is only one museology. ISS. 14,
1988, p. 137 –
DESVALLEES A., Quelques brutales réflexions préscandinaves. ISS. 13, 1987, p. 39 – 41.
DESVALLEES A., Seulement quelques naïves remarques sur le rapport entre muséologie et
environnement. ISS. 17, 1990, p. 45 – 50.
DESVALLEES A., Y a-t-il des limites au musée ? ISS. 21, 1992, p. 12 – 18.
DESVALLEES, A., Muséologie, patrimoine, changement économique et développement social.
ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 32 – 38.
DESVALLEES,A., Muséologie et expologie : du réel au virtuel. ISS. 33 b, 2002, p. 53 – 61.
DESVALLES A., Muséologie et art : le point de vue du muséologue. ISS. 26, 1995, p. 58 – 60 ;
Museologia y arte el punto de vista del museologo. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 202 – 203.
DEVICENZI J. F., Sociedad e identidad frente al nuevo milenio. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 30 ; Society
and identity facing the new millennium. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 31 – 33.
DIALLO Y., L’inventaire de l’existant et les traces de l’histoire. ISS. 28, 1997, p. 120 – 121.
DIDI-HUBERMAN G., A propos de Pascal Convert : la demeure (apparentement de l’artiste).
ISS. 27, 1997, p. 27 – 29; About Pascal Convert : the abode (apparent kinship of the artist).
ISS. 27, 1997, p. 30 – 32.
DOLAN D., Cultural franchising, imperialism and globalization : what’s new ?, ISS. 29, 1998, p.
34 – 40.
DOLAN D., Museums in Australia, 1998, ISS. 30, 1998, p. 27 – 28.
DOLORS FORRELLAD I DOMENECH S., Current acquisition policy and its appropriateness for
tomorrow’s needs. ISS. 6, 1984, p. 122 – 127 ; Politique courante d’acquisition et adaptation
aux besoins de demain. ISS. 6, 1984, p. 128 – 134.
DOUCET P., Les nouvelles muséologies : approches conceptuelles et pratiques. ISS. 25, 1995,
p. 139 – 151.
DUB M., L’interdisciplinarité en muséologie, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 32 – 33.
DUFRENE B., Comment Beaubourg a créé la mémoire de l’art du Xxe siècle. ISS. 27, 1997, p.
60 – 68.
DUFRENE B., L’expérience de la mémoire (sous-thème 3). ISS. 28, 1997, p. 86 – 93; The
experience of memory (sub-topic 3). ISS. 28, 1997, p. 94 – 101.
EFFIBOLEY P., Muséologie et patrimoine intangible au Bénin : état de la question et
perspectives. ISS 32, 2000, p. 53 – 57.
EFFIBOLLEY, P., Interpretation of the intangible heritage through museums in different
continents. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 158 – 159.
ENNENBACH W., Some notes on principles, possibilities and problems of museal selection.
ISS. 6, 1984, p. 48 – 50.
EVRARD D., Artiste photographe – à propos de son travail. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 33; Photographer
– talks about his work. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 34.
EVRARD M . The ecomuseum : consience of lasting, transitory expression of identity. ISS. 10,
1986, p. 85 – 88 ; L’écomusée : saisie de la durée, expression transitoire de l’identité. ISS.
10, 1986, p. 89 – 91.
FATTOUH N. , SIMEON N., Orientation muséologique et origines géographiques des auteurs.
ISS. 28, 1997, p. 33 – 43.
FERDI S., Comment sont ressenties par les algériens les antiquités de leurs musées ? ISS. 27,
1997, p. 69 –71.
110
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE INDEXÉE
FLOU B., « Community-museums » – local-level museums and « folk-research » in communitydevelopment projects. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 93 – 98 ; Musées rurales et “recherché populaire” en
vue des projets de développement commun. ISS. 10, 1986.
FORMAN V. R. L., The language of the museums as exhibitions. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 47 – 49.
FORRELAD I DOMENECH D., Substitutes. The implications for the work of museums. ISS. 8,
1985, p. 161 – 167 ; Les objets substitutifs. Les implications pour le travail de musée. ISS. 8,
1985, p. 169 –175.
FORRELAD I DOMENECH D., Thème et méthode. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 99 – 107.
FORRELLAD I DOMENECH D., Collecter aujourd’hui pour demain. ISS. 7, 1984 , p. 26 – 28.
FROMM A., Think globally, act locally, ISS. 30, 1998, p. 72 – 74.
GACNIK A., From museums and exhibitions to the museum criticism and criticism of museum
exhibitions / from art to museology of art. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 61 – 69 ; De museos y
exhibiciones a la critica de museos y exhibiciones museologicas del arte a la museologia del
arte. ISS. 26 , 1996, p. 204 – 211.
GACNIK, A., Heritage for development / Developmental function of (ethnological) museology.
ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 39 – 47.
GANASCIA J-G., Les jardins de mémoire d’Albert Kahn. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 212 – 223.
GANSLMAYR H., Museology and identity. The ethics of exhibition. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 101 – 105.
GIESTRUM J., A. Norvegian experiences in the field of ecomuseums and museum
decentralisation. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 201 – 212.
GJESTRUM J., A. Symposium museum and community – summary. ISS. 24, 1994, p. 9 – 12.
GLUZINSKI W ., Remarks on the condition of museology in the light of its relation to
developmental phenoments. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 109 – 119.
GLUZINSKI W, Methodology of museology and professional training, ISS, 1, 1983, p. 24 – 35.
GLUZINSKI W., Museology in relation to changeability. ISS. 15, 1988, p. 93 – 97.
GLUZINSKI W., Comments and views on basic papers presented in ISS n° 8, ISS . 9, 1985, p.
33 – 39.
GLUZINSKI W., Comments, ISS, 5, 1983, p 29 – 31.
GLUZINSKI W., Forecasting – a museological tool ? Museology and futurology. ISS. 16, 1989.
p. 145 – 151.
GLUZINSKI W., Museology and cultural differentiation. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 139 – 145.
GLUZINSKI W., Museology and identity : comments and views. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 17 – 23.
GLUZINSKI W., Museology and identity. ISS. 10, 1985, p. 107 – 114.
GLUZINSKI W., Originals versus substitutes. ISS. 8 , 1985, p. 41 – 47.
GLUZINSKI W., Remarks on papers on the subject methodology of museology and training of
personnel, ISS, 3, 1983, p. 2 – 13.
GLUZINSKI W., The language of exhibitions – a few theorethical remarks. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 51
– 53.
GLUZINSKI W., Typology of substitutes. ISS.8, 1985, p. 113 – 115.
GOB, A, DROUGUET, N., Le musée de la vie locale comme lieu de conscientisation aux
changements économiques et sociaux : le cas du Musée de Wamme (Belgique). ISS. 33 a,
2001, p. 48 – 53.
GOMES PEREIRA S., Museologia e arte. ISS. 26, 1996. p. 2 – 7.
GORAKSHAKAR S., Methodology of museology and professional training, ISS, 1, 1983, p. 36 –
57.
GORGAS M. de, El valor de la diversidad : El patrimonio regional Aportes latinoamericanos ;
The value of diversity : Regional heritage, ISS, 34, 2003, p. 32 – 37.
GORGAS, M. RISNICOFF de, Lo jesuitico en Hispanoamérica. Un desafio para los museos.
ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 150 – 156.
GOURGEL F. A. L., . La préservation et la conservation de l’objet muséologique : contribution à
la connaissance du passé. ISS. 28, 1997, p. 122 – 124.
GOURGEL F., Muséologie et mondialisation, ISS. 30, 1998, p. 68 – 71.
GREGOROVA A., L’interdisciplinarité en muséologie, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 34 – 37.
GREGOROVA A., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?,
MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 19 – 21.
GREGOROVA A., Museology and identity. ISS. 10, 1985, p. 115 –123 ; La muséologie et
l’identité. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 125 – 128.
GREGOROVA A., Museum : idea, establishment, definition. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 121 – 129.
GREGORY K., Intangible heritage and site – specific art in Australian heritage spaces during
the 1990 s. ISS. 32, 2000, p. 69 – 76.
111
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE INDEXÉE
GREGORY, K., Summary : museology, museums and the intangible heritage. ISS. 33 a, 2001,
p. 160 – 161.
GROHMAN BORCHERS., Museology and identity. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 81 – 84.
GROTE A. Hold museums e future ? ISS. 16, 1989, p. 153 – 159.
GROTE A., Current acquisition policy and its appropriateness for tomorrow’s needs. ISS. 6 ,
1984, p. 135 – 138.
GROTE A., Museology in a quandary. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 129 – 134.
GUARNIERI W. R., Critères de sélection des objets de musée. ISS. 6, 1984, p. 51 – 59.
GUARNIERI W. R., La muséologie et l’identité. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 245 – 255.
GUPTE P.G., Collecting today for tomorrow. ISS. 6, 1984, p. 87 – 93.
HAAK B. , The Amsterdam Historical Museum, ISS, 2, 1983, p. 48 – 53.
HARINARAYANA N. Museology and developing countries. ISS. 15, 1988, p. 99 – 100.
HARINARAYANA N., Museology and developing countries – Help or manipulation ? Comments
and views. ISS.15, 1988, p. 35 – 39.
HAUGLID A.Ö., Some reflections. ISS. 20, 1991, p. 47 – 50.
HAWES E. L., Artifacts, myth, and identity in American history museums. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 135
– 139.
HAWES E.L., Living history and its challenges for museology. ISS. 12 , 1987, p. 131 – 137.
HAYDEE VENEGAS P., Collecter aujourd’hui pour demain. ISS. 7, 1984, p. 11 – 15.
HAYDEE VENEGAS. P., Collecting today for tomorrow. ISS. 6, 1984, p. 70 –74.
HEINONEM J., Recent developments in finnish museums. ISS.12, 1987, p. 139 – 143.
HELLSTRÖM P. Equal rights ? No ! ISS. 8, 1985, p. 49 – 52; Egalité ? Non ! ISS. 8, 1985, p. 53
–56.
HELLSTRÖM P., Comments and views on basic papers presented in ISS n° 8, ISS . 9, 1985, p.
41 – 42.
HERREMAN Y., Le musée contemporain et d’identité culturelle. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 141 – 144;
Cultural identity and the contemporary museum. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 145 .
HIHNALA T. & RAIPPALINNA P. N. On art and art museums. ISS. 21, 1992, p. 80 – 83.
HODGE J., Methodology of museology and professional training, ISS, 1, 1983, p. 58 – 70.
HORTA M. de L., Museums and communities : a powerful aquation. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 43 – 55.
HORTA M., “The link from things to objects to subjects to documents to museums, and what
they ‘re all about …”. ISS. 23, 1994, p. 103 – 111.
HORTA M., Analyzing summary on « the object in a more general context ». ISS. 23, 1994, p. 9
– 16.
HORTA M., Museum language and exhibitions speeches – a chicken and egg discussion. ISS.
19, 1991, p. 55 – 60.
HUBENDICK B., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?,
MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 22 – 23.
HUCHARD O.S., L’objet témoin de civilisation, comme concept opératoire muséologique. ISS.
10, 1986, p. 147 – 159.
HUCHARD O.S., Muséologie et pays en voie de développement – aide ou manipulation ?
ISS.14 , 1988, p. 147 – 169.
ICOFOM LAM, Manifesto de Cuenca: Museologia y presentacion en America latina y el Caribe:
Original / Real o Virtual; Cuenca Manifesto: Museology and Presentation in Latin America and
the Carribbean; Original/ Real or Virtual? ISS, 34, 2003, p. 87 – 91.
ICOFOM LAM, Museology, museums, space and power in latin America and the Caribbean.
ISS. 24, 1994, p. 115 – 121.
JACOB G., Preserving and presenting global hybridization: new responsabilities for museums in
the new millenium, ISS. 29, 1998, p. 49 – 51.
JAHN I, Methodology of museology and professional training, ISS, 1, 1983, p. 71 – 80.
JAHN I., L’interdisciplinarité en muséologie – présuppositions et exigences, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p.
38 – 39.
JAHN I., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée , MuWoP, 2, 1981, p.
13.
JELINEK J., Identity : what is it ? ISS.10, 1986, p. 161 – 162.
JELINEK J., Bonne chance, DoTram !, in La muséologie – science ou seulement travail
pratique du musée ?, MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 4 – 5.
JELINEK J., Systématique et systèmes en muséologie – une introduction, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p.
71 – 72.
JLAXIN R., Features and values of cultural relics. ISS. 23, 1994, p. 185 – 187.
112
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE INDEXÉE
KAPLAN F.S., Methodology of museology and training of personnel, ISS,5, 1983, p. 3 – 13.
KAPLAN F. E. S., Conquests, colonialism and memory : museology at the crossroads. ISS. 27,
1997, p. 284.
KAPLAN F. S., Typology of substitutes : system – descriptions – fields of use. ISS. 9, 1985, p.
121 – 129.
KAPLAN F., L’interdisciplinarité en muséologie, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 40 – 42.
KAPLAN F., Vers une science de muséologie : commentaires et supposition, MuWoP, 2, 1981,
p. 14 – 15.
KAPLAN F.S., Museology and museums : reflections on the boundaries of disciplines, social
institutions, and nation-state formation. ISS. 13, 1987, p. 165 – 170.
KATSANIKA-STEFANOU H. & PAPADELI-MARCONI G., Positions et propositions pour une
exposition à Thessalonique de matériel archéologique byzantin ; ISS. 19, 1991, p. 61 – 68.
KAVANAGH G., Are museums for keeps ? ISS. 12, 1987, p. 145 – 150.
KENNEDY S.B., Art, museums and their audiences : the fiction of display. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 75
– 79.
KHAN I.A. Museology and developing countries – Help or manipulation ? Comments and views.
ISS.15, 1988, p. 41 – 45.
KLAUSEWITZ W., The first historical phase of ICOFOM – a review with personal reflections.
ISS. 27, 1997, p. 13 – 15.
KLAUSEWITZ W., Provocations muséologiques 1979, in La muséologie – science ou
seulement travail pratique du musée ?, MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 11.
KOMNENOVIC N., Museum of copies of frescos and plaster forms. ISS. 8, 1985, p. 197 – 205.
KONARE A. O., L’idée du musée. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 151 – 155.
KONARE A. O., Substituts de masques et statuettes au Mali. ISS.8, 1985, p. 57 – 60.
LABRADOR A. M. T. P., Ph. D., Collecting identitiesin museums : locating Bontok ethnicity
(Northern Philippines) in museological spaces. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 34 – 59.
LACOUTURE F., L’écomusée, typologie et caractéristiques, ISS, 4, p. 2 – 5.
LACOUTURE F., Muséologie et formation du personnel. ISS. 5., 1983, p. 40 – 42.
LADKIN N., Museology and globalization, ISS. 29, 1998, p. 52 – 56.
LADKIN N., Museums and communities : an ecological approach. ISS. 25, 1955, p. 57 – 65.
LAENUI P., On museums and indigenous cultures. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 163 – 168.
LAISHUN A., Can we see the light on the other side of the moon ? The value system of cultural
relic as knowledge carrier and how to realize it. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 111 – 116.
LAISHUN A., Museology and policies concerning heritage in China. ISS. 32, 2000, p. 77 – 79.
LAUMONIER I. Deux heures du matin, dans ma cuisine, à Buenos Aires. ISS. 15, 1988, p. 101.
LAUMONIER I., Colloque 1987 : Commentaires et points de vue sur les mémoires de base.
ISS. 13, 1987, p. 43 – 45.
LAUMONIER I., L’identité : une possible explication concernant le “mystère argentin”. ISS. 10,
1986, p. 169 – 171.
LAUMONIER I., La muséologie et l’identité : commentaires et points de vue. ISS. 11, 1986, p.
25 – 29.
LAUMONIER I., Les musées comme agents de transformation. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 161 – 164;
Museological institutions as active agents of change. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 165.
LAUMONIER I., Musée : l’idée, la constitution, la définition. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 157 – 160; Is the
community entitled to make changes ? ISS. 12, 1987, p. 161.
LAUMONIER I., Museology for undeveloped countries. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 171 – 173.
LEMIEUX L., L’interdisciplinarité en muséologie, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 43 – 44.
LEMIEUX L., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?,
MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 24 – 25.
LENGYEL A., Museum of the house of terror, ISS, 34, 2003, p. 62 – 63.
LEWIS G., Some brief notes on the methodological problems of museological research, ISS, 5,
1983, p. 1 – 27.
LEWIS G., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?,
MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 26 – 27.
LEWIS G., Le système de la muséologie, ses applications aux comités internationaux et le rôle
d’ICOFOM, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 76 – 77.
LEYTEN H. M., Museum : in surch of identity . ISS. 10., 1986, p. 173 – 175.
LEYTEN H., A museum is a museum because we call it a museum. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 163 –
165.
LU J. M., Museum education. ISS.24, 1994, p. 87 – 89.
113
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE INDEXÉE
LU J., Museums and museology in China. ISS. 24, 1994, p. 101 – 104.
MA X. & DONG J,. Development of society and educational function of museum. ISS. 24, 1994,
p. 75 – 80.
MA Z., Museums in China and its cultural policy. ISS. 24, 1994, p. 97 – 99.
MAIRESSE F., & RAGNI F., Préservation ou mémoire. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 72 – 76.
MAIRESSE F., Les musées d’artistes. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 85 – 95 ; Los museos de artistas. ISS.
26, 1996, p. 216 – 225.
MAIRESSE F., La relation spécifique. ISS. 31, 1999 , p. 60 – 68.
MAIRESSE F., Muséologie et développement économique. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 54 – 62.
MAIRESSE F., Muséologie et presentation : où sont les varies choses ?, ISS. 33 b, 2002, p. 62
– 68.
MARANDA L., The museum as memory. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 117 – 119.
MARANDA L., Museology and art. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 80 – 84.
MARANDA L., Museology and intangible heritage. ISS. 32, 2000, p. 80 – 83.
MARANDA L., Comments and views on basic papers presented in ISS n° 8, ISS . 9, 1985, p.
43.
MARANDA L., Marketplace ethnology. ISS.6, 1984, p. 94 –100.
MARANDA L., Museological core problem : the material world. ISS. 23, 1994, p. 33 – 38
MARANDA L., Museology and developing countries – help or manipulation ? ISS. 14, 1988, p.
175 – 180.
MARANDA L., Museology and globalization, the supplanting force of globalization culture, ISS.
29, 1998, p. 61 – 65.
MARANDA L., Museology and identity. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 177 – 182.
MARANDA L., Museology and Indegnous Cultures: A new reality for Museums in Canada, ISS,
34, 2003, p. 38 – 42.
MARANDA L., Museology and the environment – natural and cultural . Museology and the
indigenous cultural environment. ISS. 17, 1990, p. 51 – 56.
MARANDA L., Museology and the reality of museum employment. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 167 – 172.
MARANDA L., Museums and the community. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 67 – 71.
MARANDA L., Prediction and museology. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 167 – 170.
MARANDA L., Substitutes in collections and for communication. ISS. 8, 1985, p. 185 – 189.
MARANDA L., The language of exhibitions. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 69 – 72.
MARAOEVIC I., Museology as e part of information sciences. ISS. 5 , 1983,p. 43 – 46.
MARIN C.A., Museology and identity : comments and views. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 31 – 33.
MAROEVIĆ I., Museology and the intangible heritage together against the traditional museum
or Are we returning to the original museum ? ISS. 32, 2000, p. 84 – 91.
MAROEVIĆ I., The museum object as a document. ISS. 23, 1994, p. 113 – 120.
MAROEVIĆ I., Art in museology. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 96 – 103 ; El arte en la museologia. ISS. 26,
1996, p. 226 –233.
MAROEVIĆ I., The role of museality in the preservation of memory. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 120 –
125.
MAROEVIĆ I. The exhibition as presentative communication. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 73 – 80.
MAROEVIĆ I., Symposium museum and communities – analysing summary. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 9
– 15.
MAROEVIĆ I., The object in a more general context. Analysing summary. ISS. 23, 1994, p. 17 –
22.
MAROEVIĆ I., Identity as a constituent part of museality. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 183 – 188.
MAROEVIĆ I., Museum : idea, establishment, definition. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 173 – 179.
MAROEVIĆ I., Substitutes for museum objects. Typology and Definition. ISS.8, 1985, p. 117 –
121.
MAROEVIĆ I., Virtual museums: the challenge of globalization, ISS. 29, 1998, p. 66 – 71.
MAROEVIĆ I., What will museology be in the future ? ISS. 16, 1989, p. 171 – 173.
MAROEVIĆ, I., Managing change : New theoretical approaches to museum practice. ISS. 33 a,
2001, p. 63 – 68.
MAROEVIEC, I., What is it that we are presenting in a museum – objects or ideas ? ISS. 33 b,
2002, p. 69 – 73.
MARTIN C. A., Museology and identity : an American perspective. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 189 – 192 ;
La muséologie et l’identité : une perspective américaine. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 193 – 196.
MARTIN C.A., Museum type and its influence on exhibit display and interpretation. ISS.12,
1987, p. 181 – 185.
114
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE INDEXÉE
MARTINS M. H., Muséologie avec de l’art : un pont entre l’homme et le « faire de l’art ». ISS.
26, 1996, p. 104; Museologia com arte : uma ponte entre o homem e o « fazer artistico ». ISS
26, 1996, p. 234 – 240.
MASAO F.T., Museology and museums from an African perspective. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 187 –
193.
MATTAR D., Museologia e arte. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 15 – 16, Museology and art. ISS. 26, 1996, p.
17 – 18.
MATTOS ARAUJO M. & OLIVEIRA BRUNO M.C., Memory as a construction of the present :
reflections on the seminar “Brazilian museology and the ICOM : convergences or
disagreements?” (Sao Paulo, 1995), a methodological approach. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 167 –
169 ; La mémoire comme élaboration du présent : réflexions sur le séminaire “La muséologie
brésilienne et l’ICOM – convergences ou désaccords ?” (Sao Paulo, 1995) : approche
méthodologique. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 170 – 172.
MAURE M. La nouvelle muséologie – qu’est-ce-que c’est ? ISS. 25, 1995, p. 127 – 132.
MAURE M., La fabrication d’un patrimoine national – le cas de la Norvège. ISS. 25, 1995, p.
187 – 194.
MAURE M., Identités et cultures. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 197 – 199.
MAURE M., La muséologie et l’identité : commentaires et points de vue. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 35
MAURE M., Le musée, objet d’étude de la muséologie. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 195 – 198.
MAURE M., Un siècle avec Lénine en Sibérie – réflections sur la métamorphose des musées
en Russie après la disparition de l’Union soviétique, ISS, 34, 2003, p. 64 – 70.
MAYRAND P., Les défis de l’écomusée. Un cas, celui de la Haute-Beauce, ISS, 3, p. 23 – 27.
MAZURAN-SUBOTIC V., The sculpture – The originals and the substitutes. ISS. 9, 1985, p. 115
– 120.
MAZZINI M., Originals and substitutes in museums of palaeontology. ISS. 8, 1985, p. 177 –
179 ; Originaux et reproductions dans les musées de géologie et paléontologie. ISS. 8, 1985,
p. 181 – 183.
MBONYA P. B., Museums and the community. ISS. 24, 1994, p. 43 – 49.
Mc HALE M.C., The future of the past, present and future. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 9 – 10.
Mc MICHAEL D., The globalization of ecosystems and its impact on natural history museums,
ISS. 29, 1998, p. 57 – 60.
Mc. MICHAEL, D. F., Museums, museology and the intangible heritage. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 146
– 149.
MENSCH P. van, Object – document ? Summary and final remarks. ISS. 23, 1994, p. 195 –
203.
MENSCH P. van, Magpies on Mount Helicon ? ISS. 25, 1995, p. 133 – 138.
MENSCH P . J. A. Van, Collecting today for tomorrow. ISS. 7 , 1984, p. 29 – 32.
MENSCH P. J.A. Van, Society – object – museology. ISS. 6, 1984, p. 18 – 23.
MENSCH P. van, 34 Museologists in a train to Helsinki. First attempt to analyse their
discussion. ISS. 13, 1987, p. 47 – 51.
MENSCH P. van, Annual conference 1990 : Museology and the environment. ISS. 17, 1990, p.
13 – 14.
MENSCH P. Van, Comments and views on basic papers presented in ISS n° 8, ISS . 9, 1985,
p. 45 – 50
MENSCH P. van, ICOFOM ’91 symposium : the language of exhibitions. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 11 –
13.
MENSCH P. van, Museological research. Current affairs in museology. ISS. 21, 1992, p. 3 – 4.
MENSCH P. van, Museological research. ISS. 21, 1992, p. 19 – 33.
MENSCH P. van, Museology and identity : comments and views. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 37 – 39.
MENSCH P. van, Museology and identity. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 201 – 209.
MENSCH P. van, Museums and authenticities : provocative thoughts. ISS. 8, 1985, p. 13 – 20.
MENSCH P. van, Museums in movement. A stimulating dynamic view on the interrelation
museology-museums. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 17 – 20 ; Musées en mouvement. Point de vue
dynamique et provocateur sur l’interrelation muséologie-musées. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 25 – 29.
MENSCH P. van, POUW P., SCHOUTEN F., Methodology of museology and professional
training, ISS, 1, 1983, p. 81 – 96.
MENSCH P. van, Towards a methodology of museology. ISS. 23, 1994, p. 59 – 69.
MENSCH P. van, Towards a typology of copies. ISS. 8, 1985, p. 123 –126.
MENSCH P. van, What contribution has museology to offer to the developing countries ? Some
remarks. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 181 – 185.
115
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE INDEXÉE
MENSCH P., van. Forecasting – a museological tool ? Museology and futurology. ISS. 16,
1989. p. 175 – 178.
MENU M., Conclusions – Les jeux de la mémoire. ISS.28, 1997, p. 102 – 105; Conclusions –
Playing memory. ISS.28, 1997, p. 106 – 109.
MENU M., Mondialisation et muséologie, ISS. 30, 1998, p. 50 – 58.
MERCURI M. B. A distinction proceeding. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 69 – 73.
MERCURI, M., S.O.S. : Patrimonio cultural. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 69 – 74.
MEY W., A museum promotes change. The ambalangoda mask museum, Sri Lanka. ISS. 14,
1988, p. 187 – 192.
MIQUEL D. & MORRAL E., Museology and identity : comments and views. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 41
– 43 ; La muséologie et l’identité : commentaires et points de vue. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 45 – 47.
MIQUEL D. & MORRAL E., Museology and identity. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 211 – 218 ; La
muséologie et l’identité. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 219 – 226.
MIQUEL D. & MORRAL E., Commentaires et points de vue sur les mémoires de base
présentés dans l’ISS. N° 8, ISS. 9, 1985, p .51 – 55.
MIQUEL D., GARCIA A., MORRAL E. et al., Objets de musée : critères de sélection, quelques
réflexions. ISS. 7, 1984, p. 5 – 10.
MIQUEL I SERRA D. & MORRAL I ROMEU E., Museum : idea, establishment, definition. ISS.
12, 1987, p. 199 – 209 ; Musée : l’idée, la constitution, la définition. ISS.12 , 1987, p. 211 –
218.
MIQUEL I SERRA D. & MORRAL I ROMEU E., Symposium 1987 : comments and views on
basic papers presented in ISS.12. ISS. 13, 1987, p. 53 – 55 ; Colloque 1987 : Commentaires
et points de vue sur les mémoires de base présentés dans l’ISS 12. ISS. 13, 1987, p. 57 – 59.
MIQUEL I SERRA D. & MORRAL I ROMEU E., Typology of substitutes. ISS.8 , 1985 , p. 127 –
133. ; Typologie des objets substitutifs. ISS.8 , 1985 , p. 135 – 142.
MIQUEL I SERRA D., La muséologie et les institutions muséales comme agents actifs de
changement. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 179 – 183.
MIQUEL I SERRA D., MORRAL I ROMEU, L’interdisciplinarité en muséologie, MuWoP, 2,
1981, p. 45 – 47.
MITRA B., Museology and globalization, ISS. 29, 1998, p. 72 – 74.
MOHEN J-P., Musées et “arts premiers”. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 35 – 38; Museum and primitive arts.
ISS. 27, 1997, p. 39 – 40.
MONTPETIT R., Les musées, interprètes du patrimoine : l’appropriation communautaire. ISS.
25, 1995, p. 73 – 82.
MORA C.C. et GANDHOUR N., Evolution et extension de la théorie muséologique de
l’ICOFOM . Development and extension of the museological theory of ICOFOM. ISS. 28,
1997, p. 44 – 55.
MORAIS SARMENTO T. de – . A arte do vidro nas joias. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 260 – 263.
MORRAL I ROMEU E., Muséologie, future. Quelques réflexions héterodoxes. ISS. 16 , 1989, p.
185 – 188.
MORRAL I ROMEU E., The museum and development – inside and outside. Trends observed
and forecasted. ISS. 13, 1987 , p. 133 – 135 ; Le musée et le développement – dedans et
dehors. Tendances observées et prévues. ISS. 13, 1987, p. 137 – 139.
MUKELA M., Museology and the third world : Reflexions on the southern African situation, ISS.
15, 1988, p. 47 – 52.
MUKELA M., Thoughts on the “Language of exhibition”. ISS. 20, 1991, p. 45 .
MULONGO A. H., Conservation problems inherent is African leather materials. ISS.17, 1990, p.
57 – 72.
MURPHY B., Museums, globalisation and cultural diversity, ISS. 30, 1998, p. 29 – 36.
MYLES K., Methodology of museology and professional training, ISS, 1, 1983, p. 97.
NAI S. M., Museology and identity. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 227 – 228.
NAIR S. M., Museology and developing countries – Help or manipulation ? Comments and
views. ISS.15, 1988, p. 53 – 55.
NAIR S.M., Ecology and environment, the interpretative role of natural history museums, ISS, 4,
p. 6 – 8.
NAIR S.M., Methodology of museology and professional training, ISS, 1, 1983, p. 98 – 113.
NAIR S.M., The changing concepts of museums with regard to their educational role. ISS.12,
1987, p. 219 –224.
NAIR S.M., The role of national history museums : past, present and future. ISS. 16, 1989, p.
189 – 196.
116
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE INDEXÉE
NAO O., Le concept d’existant et les traces de l’histoire dans un contexte africain (sous-thème
1). ISS. 28, 1997, p. 125 – 132.
NAO O., Les difficultés de la muséologie en Afrique à partir du cas du Musée provincial du
Houet à Bobo-Dioulasso. ISS. 20, 1991, p. 29 – 33.
NAO O., Muséologie, identité et multiculturalisme. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 74 – 79.
NASH, S., “Ceci n’est pas une pipe” : The virtual museum, ISS. 33 b, 2002, p. 74 – 77.
NAZOR O & CARRE F., “Certain groups and others”. The reclaiming and protecting of
intangible heritage in agricultural towns of the so called “Argentine Pampa gringa”. ISS. 32,
2000, p. 93 – 97.
NAZOR O. & GARRE F., Los unos y los otros … Rescate y proteccion del patrimonio intangible
enn localidades agricolas en la llamada « Pampa gringa argentina ». ISS. 32, 2000, p. 92 .
NEUSTUPNY J., De l’homogénéité de la muséologie, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 48 – 49.
NEUSTUPNY J., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?,
MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 28 – 29.
NICOLAS A., Le muséologue est un anthropologue. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 229 – 235.
NICOLAS A., Quelques bonnes vieilles idées … ISS. 14, 1988, p. 197 – 201.
NIGAM A., Museum and community. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 83 – 88.
NIGAM M. L., Analysis 1 & 2. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 349 – 354.
NIGAM M. L., The language of exhibition and Indian museums – Problems and perspective.
ISS. 19, 1991, p. 81 – 87.
NIGAM M., L. Symposium 1987 : comments and views on basic papers presented in ISS.12.
ISS. 13, 1987, p. 61 – 84.
NIGAM M.L,. Museology and the developing countries – Yesterday, today, tomorrow. ISS.14,
1988, p. 203 – 217.
NIGAM M.L. Indian museums and the public – Problems & perspective. I SS. 12, 1987, p. 225 –
232.
NIGAM M.L., Museology and futurology in Indian context. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 197 – 205.
NIKOLAEVA-OINETS V., Museum Projet: Base of future museum in open air at Verkhiniy
Suetuk Village, ISS, 34, 2003, p. 43 – 44.
OBERTI L. J., Museology and identity. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 237 – 241.
OLLIER-TAILLANDIER C., Les musées au service des trois dimensions de la mémoire. ISS.
27, 1997, p. 224 – 226.
OTT R. W., Interdisciplines dans le musée d’art, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 50 – 52.
p. 85 – 95; Museology and museums : a change in concepts. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 97 .
PÄRDI H., Estonian national museum and Estonian people. ISS. 24, 1994, p. 51 – 59.
PASSETTI D.V., Museologia, ética y estética. ISS.31, 1999, p. 195 – 201.
PAVAO H., Museologia e arte : arte sacra, a nossa arte. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 241 – 244.
PEARCE S.M., Museology, museums and material culture. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 233 – 238.
PEARCE S.M., Developing approaches to non-european material in British museums. ISS. 15,
1988, p. 57 – 59.
PEISA O., Reminiscences and memories. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 126 – 133.
PERROT P.N., Thoughts on casts. ISS.8, 1985, p. 61 –62.
PERROT P. N., Some remarks on Tomislav Sola’s paper on „Identity“. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 97 –
98.
PERROT P.N., Some remarks on the topic : museology and museums. ISS. 13, 1987, p. 85 –
86.
PISCHULIN J., Justified and unjustified substitutes. The ethical implications and legal aspects.
ISS. 8, 1985, p. 101 – 103 .
PISCULIN J., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?,
MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 30 – 31.
PISCULIN J., Museology and identity. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 243 – 244.
PISCULIN J., Museum profession and future of museums. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 207 – 210.
PISCULIN J., Museums, environment and museologists. ISS. 17, 1990, p. 73 – 76.
PISCULIN J., The language of exhibition : what is it ? ISS. 19, 1991, p. 89 – 92.
PONNAU D., Muséologie et mémoire. ISS. 28 , 1997, p. 11 – 12; Museology and memory ISS.
28, 1997, p. 13 – 14.
PORTER D., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?,
MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 32 – 33.
PRIOSTI O. M., De la terre de Piracema à l’Ecomusée du « Quarteirao » . ISS. 27, 1997, p. 134
– 142.
117
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE INDEXÉE
PRIOSTI O. M., L’embryon iconographique dans la genèse du musée social. ISS. 26, 1996, p.
105; O embriao iconografico na gênese do museu social . ISS. 26, 1996 , p. 245 – 250.
PRIOSTI O. M., Sociedade, identidade e turismo cultural : o caminho pedagogico do
patrimonio. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 80 – 86.
PRIOSTI O.M., Archéologie d’une collection inachevée, ISS. 29, 1998, p. 75 – 78.
PRÖSLER M., Regional museums and the strengthening of local traditions. The Ambalangoda
mask museum. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 193 – 196.
RAIPPALINNA P.-M., A work of art in an art museum – an object or a document ? ISS. 23,
1994, p. 155 – 160.
RAIPPALINNA P-M., Regional art museums and challenges of community orientation – a case
study. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 89 – 93.
RAIPPALINNA P-M., Roles and functions of the object. ISS. 23, 1994, p. 73 – 77.
RANGEL M., Museologia, apoesia da filosofia. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 87 – 89.
RAO M., Museology in developing countries – help or manipulation ? ISS. 14, 1988, p. 219 –
223.
RASMUSSEN A. H., Current acquisition policy and its appropriateness for tomorrow’s needs.
ISS. 6 , 1984, p. 139 –144.
RAZGON A., La multidisciplinarité en muséologie. Recherche fondamentale et appliquée,
MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 53 – 55.
RAZGON A., Provocations muséologiques 1979, in La muséologie – science ou seulement
travail pratique du musée ?, MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 11 – 12.
REYES, A. M., Comunidad, desarrollo y sabiduria. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 75 – 77.
REYNOLDS B., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?,
MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 34 – 36.
RIBEIRO PINHEIRO L. V., Arte, objeto, artistico, documento e informaçao em museus. ISS. 26,
1996, p. 8 – 14.
RISNICOFF de GORGAS M., The museologist approach to the work of art. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 70
– 74 ; El abordaje museologico a la obra de arte. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 212 – 215.
RISNICOFF de GORGAS M., Los museos en la busqueda de la memoria perdida. ISS. 27,
1997, p. 227 – 229; Museums in the search of their lost memory. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 230 – 235.
RISNICOFF de GORGAS M., Museums and the crisis of peoples’identity, ISS. 30, 1998, p. 61 –
67.
RISNICOFF de GORGAS, M. Museologia y arte. ISS. 26, 1996. p. 158 – 162.
RIVIERE G.H., Dynamique des rôles de l’interdisciplinarité dans l’institution muséale, MuWoP,
2, 1981, p. 56 – 57.
RIZZI C. & CURY M. X., Museu, museologia e arte. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 106; Museu, museologia
e arte. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 251 – 253.
ROBERTS T., Militarisation and museology : examples of globalisation at the Australian War
Memorial, ISS. 30, 1998, p. 59 – 60.
ROLLAND-VILLEMOT B., La conservation et la restauration du patrimoine industriel, les limites
de la muséographie. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 143 – 148.
ROSENBERG P. The language of the exhibition. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 93 – 97.
ROUSSEL C., Originals versus substitutes. ISS. 9, 1985, p. 131 – 135.
RUSCONI N. & CUBILIOS P., The new alliance, dialogue between the object (natural/cultural)
and the spectator.. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 107 – 111 ; Museologia y arte – la nueva alianza :
dialogo entre la obra y el espectador. ISS. 26, 1996. p. 254 – 257.
RUSCONI N., El objeto museal y la diversidad cultural. ISS. 32, 2000, p. 98 ; L’objet muséal et
la diversité culturelle. ISS. 32, 2000, p. 99 – 107.
RUSCONI de MEYER N., Bases para una museologia de futuro. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 211 – 218.
RUSCONI de MEYER N., Musée, muséologie et praxis sociale. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 239 – 240 ; El
museo, la museologia y su praxis social. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 241 – 249.
RUSCONI de MEYER N., Muséologie et pays en voie de développement – aide ou
manipulation ? ISS. 14, 1988, p. 225 – 226 ; Museologia y paises en desarrollo : ayuda o
manipulacion ? ISS. 14, 1988, p. 227 – 232.
RUSCONI N., Logos e identidad : retorica y semiologia de fin de siglo. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 90 ;
Logos et identité : rhétorique et sémiologie de la fin du siècle. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 91 – 102.
RUSCONI N., Los desafios de la museologia contemporanea; Les défis de la muséologie
contemporaine, ISS, 34, 2003, p. 45 – 50.
RUSCONI, N., Museologia y patrimonio intangible : resumen analitico de documentos
latinoamericanos. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 162 – 164.
118
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE INDEXÉE
RUSCONI, N., Museology, social and economic development. ISS. 33 a, p. 78 – 80.
RUSCONI, N., Los museos y las nuevas tecnologias : inmersion, navegacion o interaccion ?
ISS. 33, 2002, p. 78 – 82 ; Les musées et les nouvelles technologies : immersion, navigation
ou interaction ? ISS. 33 b, 2002, p. 83 – 87.
RUSCONI, N., Museologia, nacionalismos y globalizacion. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 12 – 19.
RUSSIO GUARNIERI W., Muséologie et futurologie : esquisse d’idées. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 219 –
226.
RUSSIO W, La muséologie et la formation : une seule méthode. ISS, 5, 1983, p. 32 – 39.
RUSSIO W., L’interdisciplinarité en muséologie, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 58 – 59.
RUSSIO W., Methodology of museology and professional training, ISS, 1, 1983, p. 114 – 125.
SA I. de, Museologia e arte : repensando esta interaçao. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 258 – 259.
SCALA J., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?,
MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 37 – 38.
SCALTSA M., Sculpture in Thessaloniki : Expression of ideology. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 149 –153.
SCHÄRER M. R. The language of exhibitions. ISS. 21, 1992, p. 84 – 86.
SCHÄRER M. R., Analysis 1 & 2. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 355 – 358.
SCHÄRER M. R., Hunger in the showcase. Developing countries and museology – information
and manipulation. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 233 – 239 ; La faim en vitrine. Pays en développement et
muséologie – information et manipulation. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 241 – 247.
SCHARER M., Museology is not an instrument either for unity or for cultural diversity, ISS 34,
2003, p. 7 – 9.
SCHÄRER M., R. Forecasting – a museological tool ? Museology and futurology. ISS. 16, 1989,
p. 227 – 228.
SCHÄRER M., Viewpoint 2 : Cultural and natural heritage, museology and museums in
developed countries. ISS. 15, 1988, p. 121 – 124.
SCHÄRER M.R. The role of the object : theoretical approach and a practical example. ISS. 19,
1991, p. 99 – 108.
SCHEINER T. C., On museum, communities and the relativity of it all. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 95 – 98.
SCHEINER T., Muséologie et art : une relation imprécise. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 112 – 123;
SCHEINER T. Museologia e arte uma imprecise relaçao. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 268 – 278.
SCHEINER T.C., Mémoire et musée : expressions du passé, regards de l’avenir. ISS. 27, 1997,
p. 236 – 244.
SCHEINER T.C., Les bases ontologiques du musée et de la muséologie. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 103
– 126; The ontological bases of the museum and of museology. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 127 – 173.
SCHEINER T. C., Object and document (as cathegories of study within museology). ISS. 23,
1994, p. 79 – 82.
SCHEINER T. C., Museology and identity. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 257 – 263.
SCHEINER T. C., Museum and memory : expressions of the past, images of the future. ISS. 28,
1997, p. 133 – 140.
SCHEINER T. C., Museums and natural heritage : alternatives and limits of action. ISS. 17,
1990, p. 77 – 87.
SCHEINER T. C., Object-document, object-Argument, object-instrument. ISS.23, 1994, p. 39 –
46.
SCHEINER T. M., Forecasting the future in museology. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 229 – 239.
SCHEINER T. Museologia y arte – trayectoria de lo impreciso. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 279 – 289.
SCHEINER T.C. For a typology of substitutes. ISS. 9, 1985, p. 147 – 152.
SCHEINER T.C. Museums and exhibitions : appointments for a theory of feeling. ISS. 19, 1991,
p. 109 – 113.
SCHEINER T.M., Museology and museums – a relationship to build. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 251 –
259.
SCHEINER T.M., Society, culture, heritage and museums in a country called Brazil. ISS.15,
1988, p. 179 – 193.
SCHEINER, T., Museologia, patrimonio integral e desenvolvimento sustentaval : novo seculo –
nova ética ? ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 81 – 93.; Museology, Heritage and sustainable development :
new century – new ethics ? ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 95 – 119.
SCHEINER, T., The exhibition as presentation of reality. ISS. 33 b, 2002, p. 88 – 95 ;
L’exposition comme présentation de la réalité, ISS. 33 b, 2002, p. 96 – 104.
SCHENKER L., Repensando a vocaçao dos museus de arte moderna. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 291 –
295.
119
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE INDEXÉE
SCHNEIDER E., Ecological interests of the Contemporary World and the Part of Museums, ISS,
2, 1983, p. 17 – 26.
SCHREINER K., A worldwide general museology – Applied to different conditions. ISS. 15,
1988, p. 61 – 65.
SCHREINER K., Authentic museum object or/and just auxiliary material – that’s the question,
ISS. 9 , 1985, p. 57 – 60.
SCHREINER K., Authentic objects and auxiliary materials in museums; ISS.8, 1985, p. 63 –68.
SCHREINER K., Collecting today for tomorrow, ISS. 6, 1984, p. 24 –28.
SCHREINER K., L’interdisciplinarité en muséologie, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 60 – 61.
SCHREINER K., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?,
MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 39 – 41.
SCHREINER K., Le pronostic scientifique pour un travail muséologique plus efficace. ISS. 16,
1989, p. 249 – 256.
SCHREINER K., Museology – these. ISS. 5, 1983,p. 47 – 51.
SCHREINER K., Museology and identity. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 265 – 270.
SCHREINER K., Museum – Territory – Society, ISS, 4, p. 11 – 13.
SCHREINER K., Museum : idea, establishment, definition. ISS.12, 1987, p. 261 – 270.
SCHREINER K., Scientific forecasts make our museological work more effective. ISS. 16, 1989,
p. 241 – 247.
SCHREINER K., The reflection of the unity of natural and social processes in „deconcentrated
museums” ISS. 17, 1990, p. 89 – 94; La réflexion de l’unité des processus naturels et sociaux
dans les “musées déconcentrés”. ISS. 17, 1990, p. 95 – 101.
SEGALI M., Future of museums “Christalizers” or generators of culture ? ISS. 16, 1989, p. 257
– 262 ; Le futur du musée –cristalisateur ou générateur de culture ? ISS. 16, 1989, p. 263 –
269.
SEGALL M. & ARAUJO M. M., Integration museology through contradiction in art museums.
ISS. 26, 1996, p. 124 – 130; Museologia da integraçao através da contradiçao nos museus
de arte. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 296 – 301.
SEGLIE D., Art rupestre et archéologie cognitive – du site au musée : parcours de muséologie
appliqué au territoire. ISS. 33 b, 2002, p. 105 – 112.
SEIBT, F. L., Communication : „Un musée de beaucoup de propriétaires“. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p.
176 – 179.
SEKELJ T., L’interdisciplinarité en muséologie, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 62 – 63.
SFB (Sociedade das Florestas do Brazil). Ecomuseum and Ecodevelopment : a Latin-American
Solution. ISS. 17, 1990, p. 105 – 108.
SHAH A. B., Convergence of cultures. ISS. 32, 2000, p. 108 – 110.
SHAH A. B., Museology and art. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 131 – 133; Museologia y arte. ISS. 26, 1996,
p. 264 – 267.
SHAH A.B., Frozen in time and space : museums and memory. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 77 – 78.
SHAH A. B. Communication patterns in Indian museums. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 115 – 119.
SHAH A. B., Analysing summaries – museums and communities. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 17 – 20.
SHAH A. B., Museology and the environment. ISS. 17, 1990, p. 103 – 104.
SHAH A., Cultural diversity : the Indian perspective, ISS, 34, 2003, p. 51 – 53.
SHAH A., Object in space and time. ISS. 23, 1994, p. 161 – 165.
SHAH A., The Different Planes of Reality, ISS, 34, 2003, p. 92 – 97.
SHAH A.B., The museum – a social institution of the community. ISS. 24, 1994, p. 61 – 66.
SHAH A.B., Museology for the future. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 271 – 273.
SHAH A.B., Philosophy – museology – symbols : the connections (the Indian perspective). ISS.
31, 1999, p. 174 – 177.
SHAH, A. B., Museology, social and economic development : summary of the papers
presented. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 173 – 175.
SHAH, A., Museology and contemporary ethics. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 120 – 122.
SHEN Qinglin., Cultural relic and material. ISS. 23, 1994, p. 189 – 191.
SHMYROV, V., Gulag museum. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 123 – 125.
SIACHOONO S., Do exhibitions have a language ? ISS. 20, 1991, p. 25 – 27.
SIEPMANN E., Mnemosyne im technischen Raum. Eine silhouette des Museums in der Epoche
der Virtualisierung. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 245 – 262.
SINGLETON R., Comments on the paper by Tomislav Sola. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 271 – 272.
SIQUEIRA, V. L., A comunicaçao nos museus na era das novas tecnologias , à luz das
metaforas de W. Barnett Pearce. ISS.33 b, 2002, p. 113 – 115.
120
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE INDEXÉE
SMITH J. G., The impact of curation on intangible heritage : the case of Oradour-sur-Glane,
ISS. 32, 2000, p. 58 – 68.
SOFKA V., Éditorial, in La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?,
MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 3.
SOFKA V., Editorial, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 4 – 5.
SOFKA V., Et maintenant ? Avis du rédacteur en chef, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 91 – 93.
SOFKA V., From oppression to democracy. Changes in the World and european upheavals,
Heritage, Museums the Museum Profession and Museology, ISS, 34, 2003, p. 71 – 72.
SOFKA V., Identity in space, in time and in ICOFOM. ISS.11, 1986, p. 7 – 9.
SOFKA V., In the spirit of the theme : substitute for an editorial. ISS. 8, 1985, p. 9 – 11.
SOFKA V., L’identité dans le temps, dans l’espace et dans l’ICOFOM. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 11 –
13.
SOFKA V., La stéréoscopie – un moyen nouveau de communiquer avec les déficients visuels,
MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 84 – 85.
SOFKA V., Le colloque ICOFOM 1980 – Systématique et systèmes en muséologie, MuWoP, 2,
1981, p. 69 – 70.
SOFKA V., Le comité international de l’ICOM pour la muséologie et ses relations avec les
autres comités internationaux de l’ICOM, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 77 – 82.
SOFKA V., Museology and futurology . The topic and its framework. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 13 – 16 ;
Le thème et son cadre. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 17 – 20.
SOFKA V., Museology research marches on : the museum communication on the agenda. ISS.
19, 1991, p. 7 – 8.
SOFKA V., My adventurous life with ICOFOM, museology, museologists and anti-museologists,
giving special reference to ICOFOM Study Series, ISS reprints O, p. 1 – 25.
SOFKA V., Obstinacy in publishing. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 7 – 9.
SOFKA V., Provocations muséologiques 1979, in La muséologie – science ou seulement travail
pratique du musée ?, MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 12 – 13.
SOFKA V., Quantity, quality, or both ?, ISS. 15, 1988, p. 7 – 9.
SOFKA V., Réflexions sur des réflexions par le rédacteur en chef, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 88 – 90.
SOFKA V., Symposium 1984, ses buts et organisation. ISS. 6, 1984, p. 5 – 6.
SOFKA V., The art of making comments. ISS. 13 , 1987, p. 7 – 9.
SOFKA V., The chiken or the egg ? ISS. 12, 1987, p. 7 – 8 ; L’œuf ou la poule ? ISS. 12, 1987,
p. 9 – 10.
SOFKA V., The developed, the developing development and museology. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 7 –
8. ; Etre développé, se développer – développement et muséologie. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 9 – 10.
SOFKA V., The future is not what it used to be. Heritage and the environment. ISS. 17, 1990, p.
7 – 9.
SOFKA V., The topic and its framework – guidelines. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 13 – 15 ; Le thème et
son cadre. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 21 – 23
SOFKA V., The topic and its framework. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 13 –17 ; Le thème et son cadre. ISS.
14, 1988, p. 19 – 24.
SOFKA, V., The discussion on the topic. ISS. 33 a , p. 166 – 169.
SOLA T. Identity. Reflections on a crucial problem for museums. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 15 – 18 ;
L’identité. Réflexions sur un problème crucial pour les musées. ISS. 10, 1985, p. 19 – 22.
SOLA T., Collecting today for tomorrow, ISS. 6, 1984, p. 60 – 69.
SOLA T., Forecasting – a museological tool ? Museology and futurology. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 275
– 280
SOLA T., Musée – territoire – société, ISS, 4, 1983, p. 19 – 36.
SOLA T., On the nature of the museum object. Introductory reflexions to the topic. ISS. 9, 1985,
p. 79 – 86.
SOLA T., The engoing questioning. ISS. 28, 1997, p. 110 – 111; Le questionnement continu.
ISS. 28, 1997, p. 114 – 117.
SOLA T., The kiss of Mnemosyne. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 263 –268.
SOUZA CHAGAS M. de – & MARTINS COELHO D., Discourse and trajectory of the
museological thought in Brazil. As of the knowledge’s production analysis. ISS. 21, 1992, p.
75 – 79.
SOUZA CHAGAS M. de, The object of research in the case of museums. ISS. 21, 1992, p. 69 –
74.
SPIELBAUER J. K., Muséologie et identité. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 85 – 95.
SPIELBAUER J. K., Analysis 1 & 2. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 363 – 365.
121
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE INDEXÉE
SPIELBAUER J. K., Museology and futurology : some background and beginning thoughts. ISS.
16, 1989, p. 21 – 23 ; Muséologie et futurologie : contexte et premières réflexions. ISS. 16,
1989, p. 25 – 26.
SPIELBAUER J. K., Museology and identity. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 273 – 282.
SPIELBAUER J. K., The language of exhibition : interpretation and world view. ISS. 19, 1991, p.
121 – 127.
SPIELBAUER J., Methodology of museology and professional training, ISS, 1, 1983, p. 133 –
145.
SPIELBAUER J.K, La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée, MuWoP,
2, 1981, p. 16 – 18.
SPIELBAUER J.K., Approaches to a museological future. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 281 – 286 ; La
prospective – un outil muséologique ? Muséologie et futurologie. ISS.16, 1989, p. 287 – 294.
SPIELBAUER J.K., Museology and the developing world. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 249 – 256.
SPIELBAUER J.K., Museum and museology : a means to active integrative preservation.
ISS.12, 1987, p. 271 – 277 ; Musées et muséologie : outils de préservation active et
intégrante. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 279 – 286.
SPIELBAUER J.K., Quelques points de vue sur les mémoires présentés au Colloque 1980 de
l’ICOM, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 82 – 83.
SPIELBAUER J.K., Taking responsibility : museum participation in nuturing the natural
environment. ISS. 17, 1990, p. 109 – 114.
STANCEVA M., Brèves remarques et réflexions sur le thème “Muséologie et futurology”. ISS.
16, 1989, p. 295 – 296.
STANSKY Z.Z., A provocative check list. ISS. 6, 1984, p. 7 – 11 ; Une check-list provocatrice.
ISS.6, 1984, p. 12 – 14.
STRANKSY Z.Z., Object – document, or do we know what we are actually collecting ? ISS. 23,
1994, p. 47 – 51.
STRANSKY Z. Z., Comment. ISS. 15, 1988, p. 237 – 240; Commentaires, ISS. 15, 1988, p. 241
– 244
STRANSKY Z. Z., The language of exhibitions. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 129 – 133.
STRANSKY Z.Z., Forecasting – a museological tool ? Museology and futurology. ISS. 16, 1989,
p. 297 – 301 ; La prospective – un outil muséologique ? Muséologie et futurologie. ISS.16,
1989, p. 303 – 308.
STRANSKY Z. Z., Comments and views on basic papers presented in ISS n° 8, ISS . 9, 1985,
p. 61 – 63 ; Commentaires et points de vue sur les mémoires de base présentés dans l’ISS.
N° 8, ISS. 9, 1985, p .65 – 68
STRANSKY Z. Z., Museology and identity : comments and views. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 49 –53 ; La
muséologie et l’identité : commentaires et points de vue. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 55 – 60 .
STRANSKY Z., Current acquisition policy and its appropriateness for tomorrow’s needs. ISS. 6 ,
1984, p. 145 –151 ; Politique courante d’acquisition et adaptation aux besoins de demain.,
ISS. 6, 1984, p. 152 – 160
STRANSKY Z.Z. , Museum – Territory – Society – Comments, ISS, 3, p. 28 – 31.
STRANSKY Z.Z., Is museology a sequel of the existence of museums or did it preceed their
arrival and must museology thus programme their future ? ISS. 12, 1987, p. 287 – 292 ; La
muséologie est-elle une conséquence de l’existence des musées ou les précède-t-elle et
détermine leur avenir ? ISS. 12, 1987, p. 293 – 298.
STRANSKY Z.Z., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?,
MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 42 – 44.
STRANSKY Z.Z., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée, MuWoP, 2,
1981, p. 19 – 22.
STRANSKY Z.Z., La théorie des systèmes et la muséologie, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 72 – 76.
STRANSKY Z.Z., Methodology of museology and professional training, ISS, 1, 1983, p. 126 –
132.
STRANSKY Z.Z., Methodology of museology and training of personnel – Comments, ISS, 3,
1983, p. 14 – 22.
STRANSKY Z.Z., Museologie : deus ex machina. ISS. 15, 1988, p. 207 – 214; Museologie :
deus ex machina. ISS. 15, 1988, p. 215 – 223
STRANSKY Z.Z., Museum – Territory – Society, ISS, 2, 1983, p. 27 – 33.
STRANSKY Z.Z., Originals versus substitutes. ISS. 9, 1985, p. 95 – 102 ; Originaux contre
substitutes. ISS. 9, 1985, p. 103 – 113.
STRANSKY Z.Z., The ontology of memory and museology. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 269 – 272.
122
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE INDEXÉE
STRANSKY ZZ., In memoriam Jiri Neustupny, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 6 – 7.
SU D. Philosophy of Chinese museums. ISS. 24, 1994, p. 105 – 111.
SU D., AN L., China’s first ecomuseum – Soga Miao Community, Guizhou: the first test case of
the international ecomuseum concept in China, ISS. 29, 1998, p. 41 – 48.
SULER P. Comment. ISS.15, 1988, p. 245 – 246; Commentaires, ISS.15, 1988, p. 247 – 248.
SULER P. Typology of substitutes. ISS.8 , 1985 , p. 143 – 147 ; Typologie des objets
substitutifs. ISS.8 , 1985 , p. 149 – 154.
SULER P., Comments and views on basic papers presented in ISS n° 8, ISS . 9, 1985, p. 69 –
71; Commentaires et points de vue sur les mémoires de base présentés dans l’ISS. N° 8,
ISS. 9, 1985, p. 73 – 75.
SULER P., Museology and developing countries – help or manipulation ? ISS. 14, 1988, p. 257
– 260. ; Muséologie et pays en voie de développement – aide ou manipulation ? ISS.14,
1988, p. 261 – 262.
SULER P., Museology and identity : comments and views. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 61 –62 ; La
muséologie et l’identité : commentaires et points de vue. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 63 – 64.
SULER P., On museology before the museums. ISS.12, 1987, p. 299 –301 ; La muséologie
avant le musée. ISS.12, 1987, p. 303 – 304.
SULER P., The role of museology. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 283 – 286 ; Rôle de la muséologie. ISS.
10, 1986, p. 287 – 291.
SUMMARIES of Icofom symposia 1976 – 1991. ISS. 21, 1992, p. 97 – 101.
SURDIC B., Expérience de la mémoire – Expérience pour la mémoire. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 273 –
274; Experience from memory – Experience for memory. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 275 – 277.
SURDIC B., The inventory of the existent and traces of history (sub-topic 1). ISS.28, 1997, p. 59
– 65 ; L’inventaire de l’existant et les traces de la mémoire (sous-thème 1). ISS. 28, 1997, p.
66 – 71.
SUTAARGA M. A., Museology and futurology. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 309 – 326
SWAUGER J.L., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?,
MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 45 – 46.
SWIECIMSKI J., Comments on selected papers. ISS. 13, 1987, p. 87 – 95.
SWIECIMSKI J., L’interdisciplinarité en muséologie, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 64 – 66.
SWIECIMSKI J., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée, MuWoP, 2,
1981, p. 23 – 25.
SWIECIMSKI J., Museology and identity : comments and views. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 65 – 70.
SWIECIMSKI J., Remarks on the problem of identity and correlatively of non-identity of objects
collected, conserved, restored and presented in museum exhibitions. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 293 –
307.
SYLLA A., Objets et documents en Afrique . ISS. 23, 1994, p. 167 – 173.
SYLLA A., Le langage de l’exposition – Aspects théoriques. ISS. 20, 1991, p. 35 – 43.
TARAMASCO (de) I. B., La muséologie et l’identité. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 29 – 32.
TAUA T. W., Museums and the cultural continuity and identity of indigenous peoples. ISS. 10 ,
1986, p. 309 – 313.
TAVARES, R. M. M., Jouets et jeux d’enfants : Patrimoine intangible de l’humanité. ISS. 32,
2000, p. 111 – 114.
TAVARES, R. M. M., Museums furthering the development in Latin America. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p.
126 – 133.
TERRADAS J.A., Ecologie, environnement, éducation. Le rôle des musées, ISS, 2, 1983, p. 8 –
14.
TKAC V., On the relationship. Object – document – musealium – monument. ISS. 23, 1994, p.
53 – 57.
TOFT JENSEN V., Points de vue muséologiques – Europe 1975, in La muséologie – science
ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?, MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 6 – 9.
TOFT JENSEN V., Provocations muséologiques 1979, in La muséologie – science ou
seulement travail pratique du musée ?, MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 11.
TOMA Y., En cas d’oubli, prière d’en faire part. L’abri de l’usine Ouest-Lumière. ISS. 27, 1997,
p. 47 – 52.
TOMIC D., The language of exhibitions on the example of the memorial museum of Ivo Andric
in Belgrade. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 135 – 144 ; Le langage des expositions sur l’exemple du Musée
mémorial Ivo Andric à Belgrade. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 145 – 151.
123
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE INDEXÉE
TRIPPS M ., Too much to read. Too little to see. Exhibition techniques and the 2-D syndrome :
a contribution to current discussions about “Museology and museums”. ISS. 23, 1994, p. 175
– 182.
TRIPPS M.W. Museology and futurology. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 327 – 332.
TRIPPS M., Multimedia für das Museum der Zukunft ? Das Museum und seine Zielgruppe. ISS.
19, 1991, p. 153 – 189.
TRIPPS M., Museological-pedagogical research and its relevance for the complex of problems
related to “museology and identity”. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 315 – 322.
TRUDEL J., Musées et art hors-les-normes. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 134 – 140 ; Museos y arte fuera
de las normas. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 302 – 307.
TRUDEL J., Musées et communautés culturelles au Québec : le cas du musée d’art de SaintLaurent. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 99 – 105.
TRUDEL J., Museums and cultural communities in Quebec. The case of the Musée d’Art de
Saint-Laurent. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 106.
TSURUTA S., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?,
MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 47 – 49.
TSURUTA S., Proposal for the museum material – environment- system . ISS. 6, 1964, p. 29 –
39.
TURNER C., Globalisez museum practice: exhibitions, ISS. 30, 1998, p. 37 – 41.
VAREILLE E., La mémoire : méthode de recherche en muséologie. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 278 – 283.
VARINE (de) H., Rethinking the museum concept. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 323 – 333.
VARINE (de) H., Observations. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 71 – 72.
VARINE (de) H., Quelques remarques sur le thème. ISS. 13, 1987, p. 97 .
VEILLARD J.Y., Le musée de Bretagne, Musée d’histoire, musée de combat, ISS, 2, 1983, p.
54 – 60.
VEILLARD J.Y., Musée – territoire – société, observations et réflexions, ISS, 4, p. 9 – 10.
VIANA REGIS D., Arte naïf no Mian : uma relaçao de amor. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 308 – 309.
VIANA REGIS D., Naïf art at Mian : a lovely relation. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 141 – 142.
VIARO C. B. Vinte anos do museu Guido Viaro. ISS. 26, 1995, p. 24 – 25.
VIEREGG H., Museology and art – the urgency of history. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 143 – 149.
VIEREGG H., Wilhelm von Humboldts ideen zur Bildung des Menschen : museologische,
philosophische und pädagogische Betrachtung. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 178; Wilhelm von Humbold
– Ideas on Education of human being : museological, philosophical and educational
contemplation. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 179 – 193.
VIEREGG H. K., Ideas to the topic : museum – medium between past and future. ISS. 16, 1989,
p. 333 – 342.
VIEREGG H. K., The significance of memory to museums. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 154 – 158.
VIEREGG H., The life itself provides the topics. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 107 – 114.
VIEREGG H., Fiction of History – The museological approach in museums of Contemporary
History, ISS, 34, 2003, p. 73 – 86.
VIEREGG H., The contribution of museology to development of historical conciousness of
museum visitors in the third world. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 267 – 271 ; Un article de muséologie
concernant la culture de la connaissance historique dans les musées du tiers-monde : un
exemple d’exposition comme appui. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 273 – 277.
VIEREGG H.K., Museums : a vision of utopia ?, ISS. 29, 1998, p. 79 – 86.
VIEREGG, H. K. ISS. 33 b, 2002, p. 116 – 119.
VIEREGG, H. K., Museum developments and the code of ethics. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 134 – 140.
VIEREGG, H., Remembrance as intangible heritage. ISS. 32, 2000, p. 115 – 124.
VIEREGG, H., Museology in progress : presentation and education supported by new media.
ISS. 33 b, 2002, p. 9 – 18.
VITALI , V., Museology, social and economic change : challenges and responsibilities. From
museums to menus (and back ?) : museology and the processes of social and economic
change. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 141 – 144.
VITALI V., A post-scriptum: museology and globalisation What is it? Peut-on conclure?, ISS. 30,
1998, p. 48 – 49.
VITALI V., GALE P., Remembering the people : unity and diversity within the global community,
ISS. 29, 1998, p. 87 – 92.
VOGT, A., Museen und Schulen : Neue Perspektiven im Dialog zwischen Museologie und
Didaktik. ISS. 32, 2000, p. 125 – 135.
VOI M., “Living cultures” and museums in the Pacific, ISS. 30, 1998, p. 13 – 17.
124
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE INDEXÉE
WANG H., Museum and regional history and culture also the earliest museum in the world and
the origin of museum. ISS. 24, 1994, p. 69 – 73.
WASSERMANN F., Mémoire et histoire : un difficile dialogue. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 79 – 83.
WATTEYNE D., « Objet – document ? « ou « chose – objet – document ? », ISS. 23, 1994, p.
121 – 128.
WATTEYNE D., Résumé analytique. ISS. 24, 1994, p. 13 – 16.
WATTEYNE D., Musées en Communauté française. Un exemple récent de réalisation
moderne : le Musée de la Famenne. Définition de la muséologie et créations
muséographiques. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 191 – 197
WATTEYNE D., Schéma de communication muséographique. ISS. 20, 1991, p. 13 – 20
WEIL S.E., Legal aspects of the display of imitations in museums of art in the United States.
ISS. 8, 1985, p. 105 – 109.
WESKI E., Original and substitute. ISS. 8, 1985, p. 207 – 212.
WHITLOCK J.J., Museology : preserving the national patrimony. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 263 – 266.
WHITLOCK J.J., Museum : idea, establishment, definition. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 305 – 306.
WILDER G. S., Museu de arte contemporanea e a criança pré-escolar : uma proposta de
musealizaçao dos espaços escolares. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 310 – 314.
WILDER G W., Museology and developing countries : help or manipulation ? The Sao Paulo
international biennial (Brazil). ISS. 15, 1988, p. 67 – 69.
WILDER G. S., The language of exhibition at the Museu de Arte contemporanea da
universidade de Sao Paulo. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 199 – 203.
WILDER, G. S., The intangible heritage inherent to a contemporary art collection and a noncultural prejudice proposition. ISS. 32, 2000, p. 136 – 140.
WITLOCK J.J. , Relativistic thought : changing the future of museums. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 335 –
337.
WITLOCK J.J., Museology and identity – Comment. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 99 – 100.
WITLOCK J.J., The creative use of reproductions in museum exhibits. ISS. 8, 1985, p. 191 –
193.
XIE M. C., Chinese museums : progressive information, dysfunctional, nature. ISS. 14 , 1988, p.
279 – 282 ; Les musées chinois : l’information progressive, le caractère dysfonctionnel. ISS.
14, 1988, p. 283 .
YOUNG L., History and memory in “pioneer village” museums in Australia. ISS. 27, 1997, p.
159 – 163.
YOUNG L., Globalisation, culture and museums, ISS. 29, 1998, p. 93 – 104.
ZAUCHA G., Communities and museums in Africa. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 115 – 122.
ZELJKO L., Is a general theory on museality possible ? ISS. 31, 1999, p. 228 – 233.
ZHANG T., Science museums and communities. ISS. 24, 1994, p. 81 – 86.
ZOUHDI B,. La contribution du musée à la confirmation de l’identité nationale et humaine. ISS.
10, 1986, p. 339 – 343.
ZOUHDI B., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?,
MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 50 – 51.
ZOUHDI B., Muséologie et pays en voie de développement – aide ou manipulation ? ISS. 15,
1988, p. 71 – 75.
ZOUHDI B., Museology and museums : interrelation. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 307 – 312.
ZOUHDI, B., La muséologie et l’identité : commentaires et points de vue. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 73 –
77.
125
ICOFOM
BIBLIOGRAPHIE
Museological Working Papers
ICOFOM Study Series
1980 – 2003
Établie par François Mairesse,
avec l’aide de Francine Thomas
Musée royal de Mariemont, Belgique
Cette bibliographie comprend les contributions des deux numéros MuWop/DoTraM publiés en
1980 et 1981 (il existe une version anglaise de ces documents, c’est la version française qui a
été encodée), ainsi que la série des Icofom Study Series (ISS) qui a suivi, à partir de 1983. Les
seuls numéros qui n’ont pas été encodés sont les ISS 18 et 22 (Athènes, 1993) qui n’ont pu
être retrouvés.
Museological working paper/Documents de Travail de muséologie 1. La muséologie –
science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?, 1980
SOFKA V., Éditorial, in La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?,
MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 3.
JELINEK J., Bonne chance, DoTram !, in La muséologie – science ou seulement travail
pratique du musée ?, MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 4 – 5.
TOFT JENSEN V., Points de vue muséologiques – Europe 1975, in La muséologie – science
ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?, MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 6 – 9.
TOFT JENSEN V., Provocations muséologiques 1979, in La muséologie – science ou
seulement travail pratique du musée ?, MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 11.
KLAUSEWITZ W., Provocations muséologiques 1979, in La muséologie – science ou
seulement travail pratique du musée ?, MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 11.
RAZGON A., Provocations muséologiques 1979, in La muséologie – science ou seulement
travail pratique du musée ?, MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 11 – 12.
SOFKA V., Provocations muséologiques 1979, in La muséologie – science ou seulement travail
pratique du musée ?, MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 12 – 13.
DESVALLEES A., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?,
MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 17 – 18.
GREGOROVA A., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?,
MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 19 – 21.
HUBENDICK B., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?,
MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 22 – 23.
LEMIEUX L., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?,
MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 24 – 25.
LEWIS G., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?,
MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 26 – 27.
NEUSTUPNY J., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?,
MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 28 – 29.
PISCULIN J., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?,
MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 30 – 31.
PORTER D., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?,
MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 32 – 33.
REYNOLDS B., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?,
MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 34 – 36.
SCALA J., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?,
MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 37 – 38.
126
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE
SCHREINER K., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?,
MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 39 – 41.
STRANSKY Z.Z., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?,
MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 42 – 44.
SWAUGER J.L., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?,
MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 45 – 46.
TSURUTA S., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?,
MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 47 – 49.
ZOUHDI B., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée ?,
MuWop/DoTraM, 1, 1980, p. 50 – 51.
Museological working paper/Documents de Travail de muséologie 2. L’interdisciplinarité
en muséologie
SOFKA V., Editorial, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 4 – 5.
STRANSKY ZZ., In memoriam Jiri Neustupny, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 6 – 7.
BENES J., Contribution à l’éclaircissement du concept de muséologie , MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 10
– 12.
JAHN I., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée , MuWoP, 2, 1981, p.
13.
KAPLAN F., Vers une science de muséologie : commentaires et supposition, MuWoP, 2, 1981,
p. 14 – 15.
SPIELBAUER J.K, La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée, MuWoP,
2, 1981, p. 16 – 18.
STRANSKY Z.Z., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée, MuWoP, 2,
1981, p. 19 – 22.
SWIECIMSKI J., La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée, MuWoP, 2,
1981, p. 23 – 25.
BURCAW G.E., L’interdisciplinarité en muséologie, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 30 – 31.
DUB M., L’interdisciplinarité en muséologie, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 32 – 33.
GREGOROVA A., L’interdisciplinarité en muséologie, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 34 – 37.
JAHN I., L’interdisciplinarité en muséologie – présuppositions et exigences, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p.
38 – 39.
KAPLAN F., L’interdisciplinarité en muséologie, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 40 – 42.
LEMIEUX L., L’interdisciplinarité en muséologie, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 43 – 44.
MIQUEL I SERRA D., MORRAL I ROMEU, L’interdisciplinarité en muséologie, MuWoP, 2,
1981, p. 45 – 47.
NEUSTUPNY J., De l’homogénéité de la muséologie, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 48 – 49.
OTT R. W., Interdisciplines dans le musée d’art, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 50 – 52.
RAZGON A., La multidisciplinarité en muséologie. Recherche fondamentale et appliquée,
MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 53 – 55.
RIVIERE G.H., Dynamique des rôles de l’interdisciplinarité dans l’institution muséale, MuWoP,
2, 1981, p. 56 – 57.
RUSSIO W., L’interdisciplinarité en muséologie, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 58 – 59.
SCHREINER K., L’interdisciplinarité en muséologie, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 60 – 61.
SEKELJ T., L’interdisciplinarité en muséologie, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 62 – 63.
SWIECIMSKI J., L’interdisciplinarité en muséologie, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 64 – 66.
SOFKA V., Le colloque ICOFOM 1980 – Systématique et systèmes en muséologie, MuWoP, 2,
1981, p. 69 – 70.
JELINEK J., Systématique et systèmes en muséologie – une introduction, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p.
71 – 72.
STRANSKY Z.Z., La théorie des systèmes et la muséologie, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 72 – 76.
LEWIS G., Le système de la muséologie, ses applications aux comités internationaux et le rôle
d’ICOFOM, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 76 – 77.
SOFKA V., Le comité international de l’ICOM pour la muséologie et ses relations avec les
autres comités internationaux de l’ICOM, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 77 – 82.
SPIELBAUER J.K., Quelques points de vue sur les mémoires présentés au Colloque 1980 de
l’ICOM, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 82 – 83.
SOFKA V., La stéréoscopie – un moyen nouveau de communiquer avec les déficients visuels,
MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 84 – 85.
127
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE
BURCAW G.E., Réflexions sur MuWop n°1, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 86 – 88.
SOFKA V., Réflexions sur des réflexions par le rédacteur en chef, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 88 – 90.
SOFKA V., Et maintenant ? Avis du rédacteur en chef, MuWoP, 2, 1981, p. 91 – 93.
ISS 1 Méthodologie de la muséologie et la formation professionnelle, Londres, 1983
SOFKA V., My adventurous life with ICOFOM, museology, museologists and anti-museologists,
giving special reference to ICOFOM Study Series, ISS reprints O, p. 1 – 25.
BURCAW G.E., Methodology of museology and professional training, ISS, 1, 1983, p. 10 – 23.
GLUZINSKI W, Methodology of museology and professional training, ISS, 1, 1983, p. 24 – 35.
GORAKSHAKAR S., Methodology of museology and professional training, ISS, 1, 1983, p. 36 –
57.
HODGE J., Methodology of museology and professional training, ISS, 1, 1983, p. 58 – 70.
JAHN I, Methodology of museology and professional training, ISS, 1, 1983, p. 71 – 80.
MENSCH P. van, POUW P., SCHOUTEN F., Methodology of museology and professional
training, ISS, 1, 1983, p. 81 – 96.
MYLES K., Methodology of museology and professional training, ISS, 1, 1983, p. 97.
NAIR S.M., Methodology of museology and professional training, ISS, 1, 1983, p. 98 – 113.
RUSSIO W., Methodology of museology and professional training, ISS, 1, 1983, p. 114 – 125.
STRANSKY Z.Z., Methodology of museology and professional training, ISS, 1, 1983, p. 126 –
132.
SPIELBAUER J., Methodology of museology and professional training, ISS, 1, 1983, p. 133 –
145.
ISS 2 Musée – territoire – société, Londres, 1983
TERRADAS J.A., Ecologie, environnement, éducation. Le rôle des musées, ISS, 2, 1983, p. 8 –
14.
DESVALLEES A., Les écomusées, ISS, 2, 1983, p. 15 – 16.
SCHNEIDER E., Ecological interests of the Contemporary World and the Part of Museums, ISS,
2, 1983, p. 17 – 26.
STRANSKY Z.Z., Museum – Territory – Society, ISS, 2, 1983, p. 27 – 33.
BELLAIGUE SCALBERT M., Territorialité, mémoire et développement – l’Ecomusée de la
Communauté Le Creusot/Montceau les Mines, ISS, 2, 1983, p. 34 – 39.
COLLIN G., L’écomusée du Mont Lozère, ISS, 2, 1983, p. 40 – 47.
HAAK B. , The Amsterdam Historical Museum, ISS, 2, 1983, p. 48 – 53.
VEILLARD J.Y., Le musée de Bretagne, Musée d’histoire, musée de combat, ISS, 2, 1983, p.
54 – 60.
ISS 3 Méthodologie de la muséologie et la formation professionnelle, Londres, 1983
GLUZINSKI W., Remarks on papers on the subject methodology of museology and training of
personnel, ISS, 3, 1983, p. 2 – 13.
STRANSKY Z.Z., Methodology of museology and training of personnel – Comments, ISS, 3,
1983, p. 14 – 22.
MAYRAND P., Les défis de l’écomusée. Un cas, celui de la Haute – Beauce, ISS, 3, p. 23 – 27.
STRANSKY Z.Z. , Museum – Territory – Society – Comments, ISS, 3, p. 28 – 31.
ISS 4 Musée – territoire – société, Londres, 1983
LACOUTURE F., L’écomusée, typologie et caractéristiques, ISS, 4, p. 2 – 5.
NAIR S.M., Ecology and environment, the interpretative role of natural history museums, ISS, 4,
p. 6 – 8.
VEILLARD J.Y., Musée – territoire – société, observations et réflexions, ISS, 4, p. 9 – 10.
SCHREINER K., Museum – Territory – Society, ISS, 4, p. 11 – 13.
DA MOTA M., Musée – territoire – société, ISS, 4, p. 14 – 18.
SOLA T., Musée – territoire – société, ISS, 4, 1983, p. 19 – 36.
128
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE
ISS 5 Méthodologie de la muséologie et la formation professionnelle, Londres, 1983
KAPLAN F.S., Methodology of museology and training of personnel, ISS,5, 1983, p. 3 – 13.
LEWIS G., Some brief notes on the methodological problems of museological research, ISS, 5,
1983, p. 1 – 27.
GLUZINSKI W., Comments, ISS, 5, 1983, p 29 – 31.
RUSSIO W, La muséologie et la formation : une seule méthode. ISS, 5, 1983, p. 32 – 39.
LACOUTURE F., Muséologie et formation du personnel. ISS. 5., 1983, p. 40 – 42.
MARAOEVIC I., Museology as e part of information sciences. ISS. 5 , 1983,p. 43 – 46.
SCHREINER K., Museology – these. ISS. 5, 1983,p. 47 – 51.
CARRILLO R., Méthodologie muséologique et formation professionnelle. ISS. 5,1983, p. 52 –
61.
ISS 6 Collectionner aujourd’hui pour demain, Leiden, 1984
SOFKA V., Symposium 1984, ses buts et organisation. ISS. 6, 1984, p. 5 – 6.
STANSKY Z.Z., A provocative check list. ISS. 6, 1984, p. 7 – 11 ; Une check-list provocatrice.
ISS.6, 1984, p. 12 – 14.
MENSCH P. J.A. Van, Society – object – museology. ISS. 6, 1984, p. 18 – 23.
SCHREINER K., Collecting today for tomorrow, ISS. 6, 1984, p. 24 –28.
TSURUTA S., Proposal for the museum material – environment – system . ISS. 6, 1964, p. 29 –
39.
CEDRENIUS G., Collecting today for today and tomorrow. ISS. 6, 1984, p. 41 – 47;
ENNENBACH W., Some notes on principles, possibilities and problems of museal selection.
ISS. 6, 1984, p. 48 – 50.
GUARNIERI W. R., Critères de sélection des objets de musée. ISS. 6, 1984, p. 51 – 59.
SOLA T., Collecting today for tomorrow, ISS. 6, 1984, p. 60 – 69.
HAYDEE VENEGAS. P., Collecting today for tomorrow. ISS. 6, 1984, p. 70 –74.
BELLAIGUE SCALBERT M., Trifling and essential : the ethnographical artefacts. ISS. 6, 1984,
p. 75 –78 ; Dérisoire et essentiel : l’objet ethnographique. ISS. 6, 1984, p. 79 – 86.
GUPTE P.G., Collecting today for tomorrow. ISS. 6, 1984, p. 87 – 93.
MARANDA L., Marketplace ethnology. ISS.6, 1984, p. 94 –100.
BENES J., Current acquisition policy and its appropriateness for tomorrow’s needs. ISS. 6,
1984, p. 102 – 109.
BURCAW G.E., Current acquisition policy and its appropriateness for tomorrow’s needs. ISS. 6,
1984, p. 110 –121.
DOLORS FORRELLAD I DOMENECH S., Current acquisition policy and its appropriateness for
tomorrow’s needs. ISS. 6, 1984, p. 122 – 127 ; Politique courante d’acquisition et adaptation
aux besoins de demain. ISS. 6, 1984, p. 128 – 134.
GROTE A., Current acquisition policy and its appropriateness for tomorrow’s needs. ISS. 6 ,
1984, p. 135 – 138.
RASMUSSEN A. H., Current acquisition policy and its appropriateness for tomorrow’s needs.
ISS. 6 , 1984, p. 139 –144.
STRANSKY Z., Current acquisition policy and its appropriateness for tomorrow’s needs. ISS. 6 ,
1984, p. 145 –151 ; Politique courante d’acquisition et adaptation aux besoins de demain.,
ISS. 6, 1984, p. 152 – 160
ISS 7 Collectionner aujourd’hui pour demain, Leiden, 1984
MIQUEL D., GARCIA A., MORRAL E. et al., Objets de musée : critères de sélection, quelques
réflexions. ISS. 7, 1984, p. 5 – 10.
HAYDEE VENEGAS P., Collecter aujourd’hui pour demain. ISS. 7, 1984, p. 11 – 15.
BURCAW E., Collecting today for tomorrow; ISS. 7 , 1984, p. 16 – 21.
CEDRENIUS G., Collecting today for tomorrow. ISS. 7 , 1984, p. 22 – 25
FORRELLAD I DOMENECH D., Collecter aujourd’hui pour demain. ISS. 7, 1984 , p. 26 – 28.
MENSCH P . J. A. Van, Collecting today for tomorrow. ISS. 7 , 1984, p. 29 – 32.
ISS 8 Originaux et substituts dans les musées, Zagreb, 1985
SOFKA V., In the spirit of the theme : substitute for an editorial. ISS. 8, 1985, p. 9 – 11.
129
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE
MENSCH P. van, Museums and authenticities : provocative thoughts. ISS. 8, 1985, p. 13 – 20.
BELLAIGUE SCALBERT M., Créativité populaire et pédagogie muséale : substituts ou
originaux ? ISS. 8, 1985, p. 27 – 33.
DELOCHE B., Les substituts dans les musées d’art : de la fonction patrimoniale à la dimension
épistémologique. ISS. 8, 1985, p. 35 –40.
GLUZINSKI W., Originals versus substitutes. ISS. 8 , 1985, p. 41 – 47.
HELLSTRÖM P. Equal rights ? No ! ISS. 8, 1985, p. 49 – 52; Egalité ? Non ! ISS. 8, 1985, p. 53
–56.
KONARE A. O., Substituts de masques et statuettes au Mali. ISS.8, 1985, p. 57 – 60.
PERROT P.N., Thoughts on casts. ISS.8, 1985, p. 61 –62.
SCHREINER K., Authentic objects and auxiliary materials in museums; ISS.8, 1985, p. 63 –68.
BENES J., The needs, possibilities and limits of using substitutes in museums with regard to
professional ethics. ISS. 8, 1985, p. 71 – 77 ; Nécessités, possibilités et limites de l’emploi
des substituts dans les musées en égard à l’éthique de la profession. ISS. 8, 1985, p. 79 –
85.
DESVALLEES A., Objets substituts justifiés et injustifiés ; Les implications déontologiques et
aspects juridiques. ISS. 8, 1985, p. 87 –92; Justified and unjustified substitutes. The ethical
implications and legal aspects. ISS. 8, 1985, p. 93 – 99.
PISCHULIN J., Justified and unjustified substitutes. The ethical implications and legal aspects.
ISS. 8, 1985, p. 101 – 103 .
WEIL S.E., Legal aspects of the display of imitations in museums of art in the United States.
ISS. 8, 1985, p. 105 – 109.
GLUZINSKI W., Typology of substitutes. ISS.8, 1985, p. 113 – 115.
MAROEVIĆ I., Substitutes for museum objects. Typology and Definition. ISS.8, 1985, p. 117 –
121.
MENSCH P. van, Towards a typology of copies. ISS. 8, 1985, p. 123 –126.
MIQUEL I SERRA D. & MORRAL I ROMEU E., Typology of substitutes. ISS.8 , 1985 , p. 127 –
133. ; Typologie des objets substitutifs. ISS.8 , 1985 , p. 135 – 142.
SULER P. Typology of substitutes. ISS.8 , 1985 , p. 143 – 147 ; Typologie des objets
substitutifs. ISS.8 , 1985 , p. 149 – 154.
BRO-JORGENSEN M. Substitutes. The implications for the work of museums. ISS. 8, 1985, p.
157 – 160.
FORRELAD I DOMENECH D., Substitutes. The implications for the work of museums. ISS. 8,
1985, p. 161 – 167 ; Les objets substitutifs. Les implications pour le travail de musée. ISS. 8,
1985, p. 169 –175.
MAZZINI M., Originals and substitutes in museums of palaeontology. ISS. 8, 1985, p. 177 –
179 ; Originaux et reproductions dans les musées de géologie et paléontologie. ISS. 8, 1985,
p. 181 – 183.
MARANDA L., Substitutes in collections and for communication. ISS. 8, 1985, p. 185 – 189.
WITLOCK J.J., The creative use of reproductions in museum exhibits. ISS. 8, 1985, p. 191 –
193.
KOMNENOVIC N., Museum of copies of frescos and plaster forms. ISS. 8, 1985, p. 197 – 205.
WESKI E., Original and substitute. ISS. 8, 1985, p. 207 – 212.
BESQUES S. Les moulages dans l’antiquité et dans les Temps modernes. ISS. 8, 1985, p. 213
– 215.
ISS 9 Originaux et substituts dans les musées, Zagreb, 1985
BRO-JORGENSEN M., Comments and views on basic papers presented in ISS n° 8, ISS . 9,
1985, p. 15 – 16;
DELOCHE B., Commentaires et points de vue sur les mémoires de base présentés dans l’ISS.
N° 8, ISS. 9, 1985, p. 17 – 19.
DESVALLEES A., Commentaires et points de vue sur les mémoires de base présentés dans
l’ISS. N° 8, ISS. 9, 1985, p. 21 – 26.
GLUZINSKI W., Comments and views on basic papers presented in ISS n° 8, ISS . 9, 1985, p.
33 – 39.
HELLSTRÖM P., Comments and views on basic papers presented in ISS n° 8, ISS . 9, 1985, p.
41 – 42.
MARANDA L., Comments and views on basic papers presented in ISS n° 8, ISS . 9, 1985, p.
43.
130
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE
MENSCH P. Van, Comments and views on basic papers presented in ISS n° 8, ISS . 9, 1985,
p. 45 – 50
MIQUEL D. & MORRAL E., Commentaires et points de vue sur les mémoires de base
présentés dans l’ISS. N° 8, ISS. 9, 1985, p .51 – 55.
SCHREINER K., Authentic museum object or/and just auxiliary material – that’s the question,
ISS. 9 , 1985, p. 57 – 60.
STRANSKY Z. Z., Comments and views on basic papers presented in ISS n° 8, ISS . 9, 1985,
p. 61 – 63 ; Commentaires et points de vue sur les mémoires de base présentés dans l’ISS.
N° 8, ISS. 9, 1985, p .65 – 68
SULER P., Comments and views on basic papers presented in ISS n° 8, ISS . 9, 1985, p. 69 –
71; Commentaires et points de vue sur les mémoires de base présentés dans l’ISS. N° 8,
ISS. 9, 1985, p. 73 – 75.
SOLA T., On the nature of the museum object. Introductory reflexions to the topic. ISS. 9, 1985,
p. 79 – 86.
BELLAIGUE- SCALBERT M., Popular creativity and museal pedagogy : substitutes or originals
? ISS. 9 , 1985, p. 87 – 94.
STRANSKY Z.Z., Originals versus substitutes. ISS. 9, 1985, p. 95 – 102 ; Originaux contre
substitutes. ISS. 9, 1985, p. 103 – 113.
MAZURAN-SUBOTIC V., The sculpture – The originals and the substitutes. ISS. 9, 1985, p. 115
– 120.
KAPLAN F. S., Typology of substitutes : system – descriptions – fields of use. ISS. 9, 1985, p.
121 – 129.
ROUSSEL C., Originals versus substitutes. ISS. 9, 1985, p. 131 – 135.
DELPORTE H. & LAHANIER C., Reconstitution photogrammétrique de la salle des taureaux de
Lascaux. ISS. 9, 1985, p. 137 – 145.
SCHEINER T.C. For a typology of substitutes. ISS. 9, 1985, p. 147 – 152.
ISS 10 Muséologie et identité, Buenos Aires, 1986
SOFKA V., Obstinacy in publishing. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 7 – 9.
SOFKA V., L’identité dans le temps, dans l’espace et dans l’ICOFOM. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 11 –
13.
SOLA T. Identity. Reflections on a crucial problem for museums. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 15 – 18 ;
L’identité. Réflexions sur un problème crucial pour les musées. ISS. 10, 1985, p. 19 – 22.
TARAMASCO (de) I. B., La muséologie et l’identité. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 29 – 32.
BELLAIGUE M., Museology and identity. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 33 – 38; La muséologie et l’identité.
ISS. 10, 1986, p. 39 – 44.
BENES J., Museology and identity. ISS. 101986, p. 45 – 47 ; La muséologie et l’identité. ISS.
10, 1986, p. 49 – 52.
CHACON A., El museo en la orbita de la identidad cultural. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 53 – 56.
CLEMENTI H., Museology and identity. ISS. 10, 1986, p . 57 – 59; El museo en la identidad.
ISS. 10, 1986, p. 61 – 64.
DELOCHE B., Le musée et les ambiguïtés de l’identité patrimoniale. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 65 – 71 .
DESVALLEES A., Identity. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 73 –77 ; L’identité. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 79 – 84.
EVRARD M . The ecomuseum : consience of lasting, transitory expression of identity. ISS. 10,
1986, p. 85 – 88 ; L’écomusée : saisie de la durée, expression transitoire de l’identité. ISS.
10, 1986, p. 89 – 91.
FLOU B., « Community-museums » – local-level museums and « folk-research » in communitydevelopment projects. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 93 – 98 ; Musées rurales et “recherché populaire” en
vue des projets de développement commun. ISS. 10, 1986.
GANSLMAYR H., Museology and identity. The ethics of exhibition. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 101 – 105.
GLUZINSKI W., Museology and identity. ISS. 10, 1985, p. 107 – 114.
GREGOROVA A., Museology and identity. ISS. 10, 1985, p. 115 –123 ; La muséologie et
l’identité. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 125 – 128.
GROTE A., Museology in a quandary. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 129 – 134.
HAWES E. L., Artifacts, myth, and identity in American history museums. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 135
– 139.
HERREMAN Y., Le musée contemporain et d’identité culturelle. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 141 – 144;
Cultural identity and the contemporary museum. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 145 .
131
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE
HUCHARD O.S., L’objet témoin de civilisation, comme concept opératoire muséologique. ISS.
10, 1986, p. 147 – 159.
JALINEK J., Identity : what is it ? ISS.10, 1986, p. 161 – 162.
LAENUI P., On museums and indigenous cultures. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 163 – 168.
LAUMONIER I., L’identité : une possible explication concernant le “mystère argentin”. ISS. 10,
1986, p. 169 – 171.
LEYTEN H. M., Museum : in surch of identity . ISS. 10., 1986, p. 173 – 175.
MARANDA L., Museology and identity. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 177 – 182.
MAROEVIĆ I., Identity as a constituent part of museality. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 183 – 188.
MARTIN C. A., Museology and identity : an American perspective. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 189 – 192 ;
La muséologie et l’identité : une perspective américaine. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 193 – 196.
MAURE M., Identités et cultures. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 197 – 199.
MENSCH P. van, Museology and identity. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 201 – 209.
MIQUEL D. & MORRAL E., Museology and identity. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 211 – 218 ; La
muséologie et l’identité. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 219 – 226.
NAI S. M., Museology and identity. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 227 – 228.
NICOLAS A., Le muséologue est un anthropologue. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 229 – 235.
OBERTI L. J., Museology and identity. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 237 – 241.
PISCULIN J., Museology and identity. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 243 – 244.
GUARNIERI W. R., La muséologie et l’identité. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 245 – 255.
SCHEINER T. C., Museology and identity. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 257 – 263.
SCHREINER K., Museology and identity. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 265 – 270.
SINGLETON R., Comments on the paper by Tomislav Sola. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 271 – 272.
SPIELBAUER J. K., Museology and identity. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 273 – 282.
SULER P., The role of museology. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 283 – 286 ; Rôle de la muséologie. ISS.
10, 1986, p. 287 – 291.
SWIECIMSKI J., Remarks on the problem of identity and correlatively of non-identity of objects
collected, conserved, restored and presented in museum exhibitions. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 293 –
307.
TAUA T. W., Museums and the cultural continuity and identity of indigenous peoples. ISS. 10 ,
1986, p. 309 – 313.
TRIPPS M., Museological-pedagogical research and its relevance for the complex of problems
related to “museology and identity”. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 315 – 322.
VARINE (de) H., Rethinking the museum concept. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 323 – 333.
WITLOCK J.J. , Relativistic thought : changing the future of museums. ISS. 10, 1986, p. 335 –
337.
ZOUHDI B,. La contribution du musée à la confirmation de l’identité nationale et humaine. ISS.
10, 1986, p. 339 – 343.
ISS 11 Muséologie et identité, Buenos Aires, 1986
SOFKA V., Identity in space, in time and in ICOFOM. ISS.11, 1986, p. 7 – 9.
DELOCHE B., Méfions-nous des débats abstraits ! ISS. 11, 1986, p. 13 – 14.
CLEMENTI H., One can consider two central ways of reflecting on this subject. ISS. 11, 1986,
p. 15 – 16.
GLUZINSKI W., Museology and identity : comments and views. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 17 – 23.
LAUMONIER I., La muséologie et l’identité : commentaires et points de vue. ISS. 11, 1986, p.
25 – 29.
MARIN C.A., Museology and identity : comments and views. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 31 – 33.
MAURE M., La muséologie et l’identité : commentaires et points de vue. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 35
MENSCH P. van, Museology and identity : comments and views. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 37 – 39.
MIQUEL D. & MORRAL E., Museology and identity : comments and views. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 41
– 43 ; La muséologie et l’identité : commentaires et points de vue. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 45 – 47.
STRANSKY Z. Z., Museology and identity : comments and views. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 49 –53 ; La
muséologie et l’identité : commentaires et points de vue. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 55 – 60 .
SULER P., Museology and identity : comments and views. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 61 –62 ; La
muséologie et l’identité : commentaires et points de vue. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 63 – 64.
SWIECIMSKI J., Museology and identity : comments and views. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 65 – 70.
VARINE (de) H., Observations. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 71 – 72.
132
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE
ZOUHDI, B., La muséologie et l’identité : commentaires et points de vue. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 73 –
77.
GROHMAN BORCHERS., Museology and identity. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 81 – 84.
SPIELBAUER J. K., Muséologie et identité. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 85 – 95.
PERROT P. N., Some remarks on Tomislav Sola’s paper on „Identity“. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 97 –
98.
WITLOCK J.J., Museology and identity – Comment. ISS. 11, 1986, p. 99 – 100.
ISS 12 Muséologie et musées, Helsinki, 1987
SOFKA V., The chiken or the egg ? ISS. 12, 1987, p. 7 – 8 ; L’œuf ou la poule ? ISS. 12, 1987,
p. 9 – 10.
SOFKA V., The topic and its framework – guidelines. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 13 – 15 ; Le thème et
son cadre. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 21 – 23
MENSCH P. van, Museums in movement. A stimulating dynamic view on the interrelation
museology-museums. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 17 – 20 ; Musées en mouvement. Point de vue
dynamique et provocateur sur l’interrelation muséologie-musées. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 25 – 29.
ABRAMO B., Comments on some ideas about the changing concept of museums. ISS. 11,
1987, p. 35 – 38.
ÄGREN P-U., The double face of the museum. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 39 – 42.
BARROS de TARAMASCO I., Musées et muséologie en Amérique latine – une invitation au
changement. ISS.12, 1987, p. 43 –45; Museos y museologia en America latina : una
invitacion al cambio. ISS. 12, 1987 , p. 45 – 49.
BEDEKAR V.H., Topic and method. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 51 –54.
BELLAIGUE M., Quelle muséologie pour un « musée total » ? ISS. 12 ; 1987, p. 55 – 57;
Museology and the « integrated museum ». ISS. 12, 1987, p. 59 – 62.
BENES J. Topic and method. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 63 – 70 ; Thème et méthode. ISS. 12, 1987, p.
71 – 79.
DELOCHE B., Les musées et la muséologie au regard de l’interdisciplinarité. ISS. 12, 1987, p.
81 – 84.
DESVALLEES A., La muséologie et les musées : changements de concepts. ISS. 12, 1987,
p. 85 – 95; Museology and museums : a change in concepts. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 97 .
FORRELAD I DOMENECH D., Thème et méthode. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 99 – 107.
GLUZINSKI W ., Remarks on the condition of museology in the light of its relation to
developmental phenoments. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 109 – 119.
GREGOROVA A., Museum : idea, establishment, definition. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 121 – 129.
HAWES E.L., Living history and its challenges for museology. ISS. 12 , 1987, p. 131 – 137.
HEINONEM J., Recent developments in finnish museums. ISS.12, 1987, p. 139 – 143.
KAVANAGH G., Are museums for keeps ? ISS. 12, 1987, p. 145 – 150.
KONARE A. O., L’idée du musée. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 151 – 155.
LAUMONIER I., Musée : l’idée, la constitution, la définition. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 157 – 160; Is the
community entitled to make changes ? ISS. 12, 1987, p. 161.
LEYTEN H., A museum is a museum because we call it a museum. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 163 –
165.
MARANDA L., Museology and the reality of museum employment. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 167 – 172.
MAROEVIĆ I., Museum : idea, establishment, definition. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 173 – 179.
MARTIN C.A., Museum type and its influence on exhibit display and interpretation. ISS.12,
1987, p. 181 – 185.
MASAO F.T., Museology and museums from an African perspective. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 187 –
193.
MAURE M., Le musée, objet d’étude de la muséologie. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 195 – 198.
MIQUEL I SERRA D. & MORRAL I ROMEU E., Museum : idea, establishment, definition. ISS.
12, 1987, p. 199 – 209 ; Musée : l’idée, la constitution, la définition. ISS.12 , 1987, p. 211 –
218.
NAIR S.M., The changing concepts of museums with regard to their educational role. ISS.12,
1987, p. 219 –224.
NIGAM M.L. Indian museums and the public – Problems & perspective. I SS. 12, 1987, p. 225 –
232.
PEARCE S.M., Museology, museums and material culture. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 233 – 238.
133
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE
RUSCONI de MEYER N., Musée, muséologie et praxis sociale. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 239 – 240 ; El
museo, la museologia y su praxis social. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 241 – 249.
SCHEINER T.M., Museology and museums – a relationship to build. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 251 –
259.
SCHREINER K., Museum : idea, establishment, definition. ISS.12, 1987, p. 261 – 270.
SPIELBAUER J.K., Museum and museology : a means to active integrative preservation.
ISS.12, 1987, p. 271 – 277 ; Musées et muséologie : outils de préservation active et
intégrante. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 279 – 286.
STRANSKY Z.Z., Is museology a sequel of the existence of museums or did it preceed their
arrival and must museology thus programme their future ? ISS. 12, 1987, p. 287 – 292 ; La
muséologie est-elle une conséquence de l’existence des musées ou les précède-t-elle et
détermine leur avenir ? ISS. 12, 1987, p. 293 – 298.
SULER P., On museology before the museums. ISS.12, 1987, p. 299 –301 ; La muséologie
avant le musée. ISS.12, 1987, p. 303 – 304.
WHITLOCK J.J., Museum : idea, establishment, definition. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 305 – 306.
ZOUHDI B., Museology and museums : interrelation. ISS. 12, 1987, p. 307 – 312.
ISS 13 Muséologie et musées, Helsinki, 1987
SOFKA V., The art of making comments. ISS. 13 , 1987, p. 7 – 9.
BEDEKAR V.H., On Vasant H. Bedekar, with some additional points. ISS.13, p. 15 – 35.
BELLAIGUE M., Comments about the first batch of basic papers. ISS. 13, 1987, p. 37 – 38.
DESVALLEES A., Quelques brutales réflexions préscandinaves. ISS. 13, 1987, p. 39 – 41.
LAUMONIER I., Colloque 1987 : Commentaires et points de vue sur les mémoires de base.
ISS. 13, 1987, p. 43 – 45.
MENSCH P. van, 34 Museologists in a train to Helsinki. First attempt to analyse their
discussion. ISS. 13, 1987, p. 47 – 51.
MIQUEL I SERRA D. & MORRAL I ROMEU E., Symposium 1987 : comments and views on
basic papers presented in ISS.12. ISS. 13, 1987, p. 53 – 55 ; Colloque 1987 : Commentaires
et points de vue sur les mémoires de base présentés dans l’ISS 12. ISS. 13, 1987, p. 57 – 59.
NIGAM M., L. Symposium 1987 : comments and views on basic papers presented in ISS.12.
ISS. 13, 1987, p. 61 – 84.
PERROT P.N., Some remarks on the topic : museology and museums. ISS. 13, 1987, p. 85 –
86.
SWIECIMSKI J., Comments on selected papers. ISS. 13, 1987, p. 87 – 95.
VARINE (de) H., Quelques remarques sur le thème. ISS. 13, 1987, p. 97 .
MORRAL I ROMEU E., The museum and development – inside and outside. Trends observed
and forecasted. ISS. 13, 1987 , p. 133 – 135 ; Le musée et le développement – dedans et
dehors. Tendances observées et prévues. ISS. 13, 1987, p. 137 – 139.
BARRETTO M. H., Museology and museums : building the road through walking. ISS. 13, p.
151 – 159.
DECAROLIS N., Museology and museums. ISS. 13, 1987. p. 161 – 164.
KAPLAN F.S., Museology and museums : reflections on the boundaries of disciplines, social
institutions, and nation-state formation. ISS. 13, 1987, p. 165 – 170.
ISS 14 Muséologie et pays en voie de développement, Hyderabad, 1988
SOFKA V., The developed, the developing development and museology. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 7 –
8. ; Etre développé, se développer – développement et muséologie. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 9 – 10.
SOFKA V., The topic and its framework. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 13 –17 ; Le thème et son cadre. ISS.
14, 1988, p. 19 – 24.
ARAUJO M.M. & BRUNO M.C.O., New trends in brazilian museology. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 31 –
38 ; Muséologie brésilienne : nouveaux chemins . ISS. 14, 1988, p. 39 – 46.
BARBLAN M-A., Identity, museology and development : an instrumental approach for an intercultural dialogue. ISS. 14, 1988. p. 47 – 52 ; Identité, muséologie et développement :
approche instrumentale pour un dialogue interculturel. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 53 – 60.
BARRETTO M.L.H. Museology in developing countries – a basic configuration. ISS. 14, 1988,
p. 61 – 70 ; La muséologie dans les pays en développement – une configuration de base.
ISS. 14, 1988, p. 71 –73.
BARROS de TARAMASCO I., Museologia y paises en desarrollo. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 75 – 80.
134
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE
BEDEKAR V.H., Third world opportunities for expanding museology discipline. ISS. 14, 1988, p.
81 – 87.
BENES J., On the need of general museology for the museums of developing countries. ISS.
14, 1988, p. 89 – 92 ; Thèses sur la nécessité de la muséologie générale pour les musées
dans les pays en voie de développement. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 93 – 96.
CALONNE C. & GHAFOURI M., From one world to the other : where a museology is in the way
of development. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 97 – 100 ; D’un monde à l’autre : là où une muséologie est
en voie de développement. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 101 – 104.
CARRILLO de SAN SEGUNDO R., Museology and its use or misuse in the world. ISS. 14,
1988, p. 105 – 113. ; La muséologie et son usage dans et par les pays en voie de
développement. ISS.14, 1988, p. 115 – 123.
DECAROLIS N., DOWLING de GARRO E.M., ASTESIANO M. Museology and developing
countries – help or manipulation ? ISS. 14, 1988, p. 125 – 127.
DESVALLEES A., Pays en voie de développement ou non : il n’existe qu’une seule muséologie.
ISS. 14, 1988, p. 129 – 136; Developing country or not : there is only one museology. ISS. 14,
1988, p. 137 –
GLUZINSKI W., Museology and cultural differentiation. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 139 – 145.
HUCHARD O.S., Muséologie et pays en voie de développement – aide ou manipulation ?
ISS.14 , 1988, p. 147 – 169.
LAUMONIER I., Museology for undeveloped countries. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 171 – 173.
MARANDA L., Museology and developing countries – help or manipulation ? ISS. 14, 1988, p.
175 – 180.
MENSCH P. van, What contribution has museology to offer to the developing countries ? Some
remarks. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 181 – 185.
MEY W., A museum promotes change. The ambalangoda mask museum, Sri Lanka. ISS. 14,
1988, p. 187 – 192.
PRÖSLER M., Regional museums and the strengthening of local traditions. The Ambalangoda
mask museum. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 193 – 196.
NICOLAS A., Quelques bonnes vieilles idées … ISS. 14, 1988, p. 197 – 201.
NIGAM M.L,. Museology and the developing countries – Yesterday, today, tomorrow. ISS.14,
1988, p. 203 – 217.
RAO M., Museology in developing countries – help or manipulation ? ISS. 14, 1988, p. 219 –
223.
RUSCONI de MEYER N., Muséologie et pays en voie de développement – aide ou
manipulation ? ISS. 14, 1988, p. 225 – 226 ; Museologia y paises en desarrollo : ayuda o
manipulacion ? ISS. 14, 1988, p. 227 – 232.
SCHÄRER M. R., Hunger in the showcase. Developing countries and museology – information
and manipulation. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 233 – 239 ; La faim en vitrine. Pays en développement et
muséologie – information et manipulation. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 241 – 247.
SPIELBAUER J.K., Museology and the developing world. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 249 – 256.
SULER P., Museology and developing countries – help or manipulation ? ISS. 14, 1988, p. 257
– 260. ; Muséologie et pays en voie de développement – aide ou manipulation ? ISS.14,
1988, p. 261 – 262.
WHITLOCK J.J., Museology : preserving the national patrimony. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 263 – 266.
VIEREGG H., The contribution of museology to development of historical conciousness of
museum visitors in the third world. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 267 – 271 ; Un article de muséologie
concernant la culture de la connaissance historique dans les musées du tiers-monde : un
exemple d’exposition comme appui. ISS. 14, 1988, p. 273 – 277.
XIE M. C., Chinese museums : progressive information, dysfunctional, nature. ISS. 14 , 1988, p.
279 – 282 ; Les musées chinois : l’information progressive, le caractère dysfonctionnel. ISS.
14, 1988, p. 283 .
ISS 15 Muséologie et pays en voie de développement, Hyderabad, 1988
SOFKA V., Quantity, quality, or both ?, ISS. 15, 1988, p. 7 – 9.
ASSOGBA R-P., Muséologie et pays en voie de développement – aide ou manipulation ?
Commentaires et points de vue. ISS.15, 1988, p. 17 – 29.
BAGCHI S.K., Planning museum of science in developing countries. ISS. 15, 1988, p. 31 – 34.
HARINARAYANA N., Museology and developing countries – Help or manipulation ? Comments
and views. ISS.15, 1988, p. 35 – 39.
135
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE
KHAN I.A. Museology and developing countries – Help or manipulation ? Comments and views.
ISS.15, 1988, p. 41 – 45.
MUKELA M., Museology and the third world : Reflexions on the southern African situation, ISS.
15, 1988, p. 47 – 52.
NAIR S. M., Museology and developing countries – Help or manipulation ? Comments and
views. ISS.15, 1988, p. 53 – 55.
PEARCE S.M., Developing approaches to non-european material in British museums. ISS. 15,
1988, p. 57 – 59.
SCHREINER K., A worldwide general museology – Applied to different conditions. ISS. 15,
1988, p. 61 – 65.
WILDER G W., Museology and developing countries : help or manipulation ? The Sao Paulo
international biennial (Brazil). ISS. 15, 1988, p. 67 – 69.
ZOUHDI B., Muséologie et pays en voie de développement – aide ou manipulation ? ISS. 15,
1988, p. 71 – 75.
ABRAMO B., Some remarks to Icofom’s symposium at India. ISS.15, 1988, p. 79 .
BEDEKAR V. H., Museology and developing countries – Help or manipulation ? Comments and
views. ISS.15, 1988, p. 81 – 84.
BISWAS T.K. Retrospect and prospect of museology in India. ISS. 15, 1988, p. 85 – 87.
Des PORTES., Notes de lecture. ISS. 15, 1988, p. 89 – 92.
GLUZINSKI W., Museology in relation to changeability. ISS. 15, 1988, p. 93 – 97.
HARINARAYANA N. Museology and developing countries. ISS. 15, 1988, p. 99 – 100.
LAUMONIER I. Deux heures du matin, dans ma cuisine, à Buenos Aires. ISS. 15, 1988, p. 101.
SCHÄRER M., Viewpoint 2 : Cultural and natural heritage, museology and museums in
developed countries. ISS. 15, 1988, p. 121 – 124.
SCHEINER T.M., Society, culture, heritage and museums in a country called Brazil. ISS.15,
1988, p. 179 – 193.
STRANSKY Z.Z., Museologie : deus ex machina. ISS. 15, 1988, p. 207 – 214; Museologie :
deus ex machina. ISS. 15, 1988, p. 215 – 223
ABRAMO B. & BARRETTO M.L.H. Comments, ISS. 15, 1988, p. 225 – 230.
DECAROLIS N. & DOWLING. G., Comment. ISS. 15, 1988, p. 231 – 236.
STRANSKY Z. Z., Comment. ISS. 15, 1988, p. 237 – 240; Commentaires, ISS. 15, 1988, p. 241
– 244
SULER P. Comment. ISS.15, 1988, p. 245 – 246; Commentaires, ISS.15, 1988, p. 247 – 248.
ISS 16 La prospective – un outil muséologique ? Muséologie et futurologie, Den Haag,
1989
Mc HALE M.C., The future of the past, present and future. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 9 – 10.
SOFKA V., Museology and futurology . The topic and its framework. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 13 – 16 ;
Le thème et son cadre. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 17 – 20.
SPIELBAUER J. K., Museology and futurology : some background and beginning thoughts. ISS.
16, 1989, p. 21 – 23 ; Muséologie et futurologie : contexte et premières réflexions. ISS. 16,
1989, p. 25 – 26.
ANTZOULATOU-RETSILA E., Crossroads : what’s next for Euterpe ? ISS. 16, 1989, p. 33 – 35.
ARAUJO M. M. & BRUNO C. O., Museological exhibitions : a language for the future. ISS. 16,
1989, p. 37 – 42 ; L’exposition muséologique : un langage pour le futur. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 43 –
49.
ARDOUIN C.D., Les musées en Afrique de l’ouest : réflexions sur l’avenir. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 51
– 56; Museums in West Africa : reflections about the future. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 57
BACHMAN B., Hypothèse et invention en muséologie. Le cas du Musée Agricole et industriel
de l’île de la Réunion – France. ISS.16, 1989, p. 59 – 67.
BALLE C., Musée et futur. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 67 – 73; Museum and future. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 74.
BARBUY H., Musée et génération de culture. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 75 – 81.
BARRETTO M. H., The last alchemist or the museological tarot cards. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 83 –
92.
BEDEKAR V.H., Futurology and the role of museums as”change-agents”. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 93 –
97.
BELLAIGUE M., Mémoire pour l’avenir. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 99 –102; Memory for the future. ISS.
16, 1989, p. 103 – 105.
136
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE
BENES J., Forecasting – A museological tool ? Museology and futurology. ISS. 16, 1989, p.
107 – 113.
BENES J., La prospective – un outil muséologique ? Muséologie et futurologie. ISS. 16, 1989,
p. 115 – 121.
DECAROLIS N. & DOWLING G., Museums for a new century. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 123 – 126.
DELOCHE B., Muséologie et institutions muséologiques comme agents actifs du changement :
passé, présent, futur. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 127 – 131.
DESVALLEES A., La prospective – un outil muséologique ? ISS. 16 , 1989, p. 133 – 137;
Forecasting – a museological tool ? ISS. 16, 1989, p. 139 – 143.
GLUZINSKI W., Forecasting – a museological tool ? Museology and futurology. ISS. 16, 1989.
p. 145 – 151.
GROTE A. Hold museums e future ? ISS. 16, 1989, p. 153 – 159.
LAUMONIER I., Les musées comme agents de transformation. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 161 – 164;
Museological institutions as active agents of change. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 165.
MARANDA L., Prediction and museology. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 167 – 170.
MAROEVIĆ I., What will museology be in the future ? ISS. 16, 1989, p. 171 – 173.
MENSCH P., van. Forecasting – a museological tool ? Museology and futurology. ISS. 16,
1989. p. 175 – 178.
MIQUEL I SERRA D., La muséologie et les institutions muséales comme agents actifs de
changement. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 179 – 183.
MORRAL I ROMEU E., Muséologie, future. Quelques réflexions héterodoxes. ISS. 16 , 1989, p.
185 – 188.
NAIR S.M., The role of national history museums : past, present and future. ISS. 16, 1989, p.
189 – 196.
NIGAM M.L., Museology and futurology in Indian context. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 197 – 205.
PISCULIN J., Museum profession and future of museums. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 207 – 210.
RUSCONI de MEYER N., Bases para una museologia de futuro. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 211 – 218.
RUSSIO GUARNIERI W., Muséologie et futurologie : esquisse d’idées. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 219 –
226.
SCHÄRER M., R. Forecasting – a museological tool ? Museology and futurology. ISS. 16, 1989,
p. 227 – 228.
SCHEINER T. M., Forecasting the future in museology. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 229 – 239.
SCHREINER K., Scientific forecasts make our museological work more effective. ISS. 16, 1989,
p. 241 – 247.
SCHREINER K., Le pronostic scientifique pour un travail muséologique plus efficace. ISS. 16,
1989, p. 249 – 256.
SEGALI M., Future of museums “Christalizers” or generators of culture ? ISS. 16, 1989, p. 257
– 262 ; Le futur du musée –cristalisateur ou générateur de culture ? ISS. 16, 1989, p. 263 –
269.
SHAH A.B., Museology for the future. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 271 – 273.
SOLA T., Forecasting – a museological tool ? Museology and futurology. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 275
– 280
SPIELBAUER J.K., Approaches to a museological future. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 281 – 286 ; La
prospective – un outil muséologique ? Muséologie et futurologie. ISS.16, 1989, p. 287 – 294.
STANCEVA M., Brèves remarques et réflexions sur le thème “Muséologie et futurology”. ISS.
16, 1989, p. 295 – 296.
STRANSKY Z.Z., Forecasting – a museological tool ? Museology and futurology. ISS. 16, 1989,
p. 297 – 301 ; La prospective – un outil muséologique ? Muséologie et futurologie. ISS.16,
1989, p. 303 – 308.
SUTAARGA M. A., Museology and futurology. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 309 – 326
TRIPPS M.W. Museology and futurology. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 327 – 332.
VIEREGG H. K., Ideas to the topic : museum – medium between past and future. ISS. 16, 1989,
p. 333 – 342.
ARDOUIN C. D., Le rôle de la prospective en muséologie. ISS. 16 – 1989, p. 345 – 347.
NIGAM M. L., Analysis 1 & 2. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 349 – 354.
SCHÄRER M. R., Analysis 1 & 2. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 355 – 358.
SPIELBAUER J. K., Analysis 1 & 2. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 363 – 365.
BELLAIGUE M., Analyse 1 & 2. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 373 – 376; Analysis 1 & 2. ISS. 16, 1989, p.
377 – 380.
DECAROLIS N. & DOWLING G., Analysis 1 & 2. ISS. 16, 1989, p. 381 – 384.
137
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE
ISS 17 Muséologie et environnement, Livingstone, 1990
SOFKA V., The future is not what it used to be. Heritage and the environment. ISS. 17, 1990, p.
7 – 9.
MENSCH P. van, Annual conference 1990 : Museology and the environment. ISS. 17, 1990, p.
13 – 14.
BELLAIGUE M., Musée et sauvegarde du paysage. ISS.17, 1990 , p. 15 – 24; Museums and
protection of the landscape. ISS. 17, 1990, p. 25 – 28.
CIALDEA R., La conservation du paysage est-elle un problème muséologique ? ISS.17, 1990,
p. 33 – 35; Is the conservation of the landscape a museological problem ? ISS. 17, 1990, p.
37 – 39.
DECAROLIS N & DOWLING G., Museology and the environment. ISS. 17, 1990, p. 41 – 44.
DESVALLEES A., Seulement quelques naïves remarques sur le rapport entre muséologie et
environnement. ISS. 17, 1990, p. 45 – 50.
MARANDA L., Museology and the environment – natural and cultural . Museology and the
indigenous cultural environment. ISS. 17, 1990, p. 51 – 56.
MULONGO A. H., Conservation problems inherent is African leather materials. ISS.17, 1990, p.
57 – 72.
PISCULIN J., Museums, environment and museologists. ISS. 17, 1990, p. 73 – 76.
SCHEINER T. C., Museums and natural heritage : alternatives and limits of action. ISS. 17,
1990, p. 77 – 87.
SCHREINER K., The reflection of the unity of natural and social processes in „deconcentrated
museums” ISS. 17, 1990, p. 89 – 94; La réflexion de l’unité des processus naturels et sociaux
dans les “musées déconcentrés”. ISS. 17, 1990, p. 95 – 101.
SHAH A. B., Museology and the environment. ISS. 17, 1990, p. 103 – 104.
SFB (Sociedade das Florestas do Brazil). Ecomuseum and Ecodevelopment : a Latin-American
Solution. ISS. 17, 1990, p. 105 – 108.
SPIELBAUER J.K., Taking responsibility : museum participation in nuturing the natural
environment. ISS. 17, 1990, p. 109 – 114.
ISS 19 Le langage de l’exposition, Vevey, 1991
SOFKA V., Museology research marches on : the museum communication on the agenda. ISS.
19, 1991, p. 7 – 8.
MENSCH P. van, ICOFOM ’91 symposium : the language of exhibitions. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 11 –
13.
ALIAU M., Expositions : language and selection. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 19
BELLAIGUE M., Du discours au secret : le langage de l’exposition. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 21 – 26;
From speech to secret : the language of exhibition. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 27 – 32.
DECAROLIS N., The language of exhibitions. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 33 – 36.
DESVALLEES A., Le langage de l’exposition. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 37 – 42; The language of
exhibitions – Abstract. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 43 – 45.
FORMAN V. R. L., The language of the museums as exhibitions. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 47 – 49.
GLUZINSKI W., The language of exhibitions – a few theorethical remarks. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 51
– 53.
HORTA M., Museum language and exhibitions speeches – a chicken and egg discussion. ISS.
19, 1991, p. 55 – 60.
KATSANIKA-STEFANOU H. & PAPADELI-MARCONI G., Positions et propositions pour une
exposition à Thessalonique de matériel archéologique byzantin ; ISS. 19, 1991, p. 61 – 68.
MARANDA L., The language of exhibitions. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 69 – 72.
MAROEVIĆ I. The exhibition as presentative communication. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 73 – 80.
NIGAM M. L., The language of exhibition and Indian museums – Problems and perspective.
ISS. 19, 1991, p. 81 – 87.
PISCULIN J., The language of exhibition : what is it ? ISS. 19, 1991, p. 89 – 92.
ROSENBERG P. The language of the exhibition. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 93 – 97.
SCHÄRER M.R. The role of the object : theoretical approach and a practical example. ISS. 19,
1991, p. 99 – 108.
SCHEINER T.C. Museums and exhibitions : appointments for a theory of feeling. ISS. 19, 1991,
p. 109 – 113.
SHAH A. B. Communication patterns in Indian museums. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 115 – 119.
138
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE
SPIELBAUER J. K., The language of exhibition : interpretation and world view. ISS. 19, 1991, p.
121 – 127.
STRANSKY Z. Z., The language of exhibitions. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 129 – 133.
TOMIC D., The language of exhibitions on the example of the memorial museum of Ivo Andric
in Belgrade. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 135 – 144 ; Le langage des expositions sur l’exemple du Musée
mémorial Ivo Andric à Belgrade. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 145 – 151.
TRIPPS M., Multimedia für das Museum der Zukunft ? Das Museum und seine Zielgruppe. ISS.
19, 1991, p. 153 – 189.
WATTEYNE D., Musées en Communauté française. Un exemple récent de réalisation
moderne : le Musée de la Famenne. Définition de la muséologie et créations
muséographiques. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 191 – 197
WILDER G. S., The language of exhibition at the Museu de Arte contemporanea da
universidade de Sao Paulo. ISS. 19, 1991, p. 199 – 203.
ISS 20 Le langage de l’exposition, Vevey, 1991
BEZZEG M., Manual Document and specificity. ISS. 20, 1991, p. 5 – 12.
WATTEYNE D., Schéma de communication muséographique. ISS. 20, 1991, p. 13 – 20
ADOLFSSON G. & LUNDSTRÖM I., Staccato in space, a medium and its message. ISS. 20,
1991, p. 21 – 23.
SIACHOONO S., Do exhibitions have a language ? ISS. 20, 1991, p. 25 – 27.
NAO O., Les difficultés de la muséologie en Afrique à partir du cas du Musée provincial du
Houet à Bobo-Dioulasso. ISS. 20, 1991, p. 29 – 33.
SYLLA A., Le langage de l’exposition – Aspects théoriques. ISS. 20, 1991, p. 35 – 43.
MUKELA M., Thoughts on the “Language of exhibition”. ISS. 20, 1991, p. 45 .
HAUGLID A.Ö., Some reflections. ISS. 20, 1991, p. 47 – 50.
ISS 21 La recherche muséologique, Québec, 1992
MENSCH P. van, Museological research. Current affairs in museology. ISS. 21, 1992, p. 3 – 4.
BEDEKAR V. H., Icofom and museum boundaries. ISS. 21, 1992, p. 5 – 11.
DESVALLEES A., Y a-t-il des limites au musée ? ISS. 21, 1992, p. 12 – 18.
MENSCH P. van, Museological research. ISS. 21, 1992, p. 19 – 33.
BENES J., Museological researches and their application. ISS . 21, 1992, p. 34 – 38.
BENES J., Thematic differentiation or museum production as reflected by periodical
bibliography. ISS. 21, 1992, p. 39 – 49.
BEZZEG M., On the museal document. ISS. 21, 1992, p. 50 – 68.
SOUZA CHAGAS M. de, The object of research in the case of museums. ISS. 21, 1992, p. 69 –
74.
SOUZA CHAGAS M. de – & MARTINS COELHO D., Discourse and trajectory of the
museological thought in Brazil. As of the knowledge’s production analysis. ISS. 21, 1992, p.
75 – 79.
HIHNALA T. & RAIPPALINNA P. N. On art and art museums. ISS. 21, 1992, p. 80 – 83.
SCHÄRER M. R. The language of exhibitions. ISS. 21, 1992, p. 84 – 86.
DESVALLEES A., Let’s learn to live on our planet. ISS. 21, 1992, p. 87 – 91; Aprendamos a
vivir en nuestro planeta. ISS. 21, 1992, p. 92 – 96.
SUMMARIES of Icofom symposia 1976 – 1991. ISS. 21, 1992, p. 97 – 101.
ISS 23 Objet-Document ?, Beijing, 1994
HORTA M., Analyzing summary on « the object in a more general context ». ISS. 23, 1994, p. 9
– 16.
MAROEVIĆ I., The object in a more general context. Analysing summary. ISS. 23, 1994, p. 17 –
22.
BEZZEG M., On the fundamental problem of museology. ISS. 23, 1994, p. 23 – 32.
MARANDA L., Museological core problem : the material world. ISS. 23, 1994, p. 33 – 38
SCHEINER T. C., Object-document, object-Argument, object-instrument. ISS.23, 1994, p. 39 –
46.
STRANKSY Z.Z., Object – document, or do we know what we are actually collecting ? ISS. 23,
1994, p. 47 – 51.
139
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE
TKAC V., On the relationship. Object – document – musealium – monument. ISS. 23, 1994, p.
53 – 57.
MENSCH P. van, Towards a methodology of museology. ISS. 23, 1994, p. 59 – 69.
RAIPPALINNA P-M., Roles and functions of the object. ISS. 23, 1994, p. 73 – 77.
SCHEINER T. C., Object and document (as cathegories of study within museology). ISS. 23,
1994, p. 79 – 82.
DECAROLIS N., object – document ? ISS. 23, 1994, p. 83 – 88.
DESVALLEES A. Objet ou document ? ISS. 23, 1994, p. 89 – 95; Object or document ? ISS.
23, 1994, p. 96 – 102.
HORTA M., “The link from things to objects to subjects to documents to museums, and what
they ‘re all about …”. ISS. 23, 1994, p. 103 – 111.
MAROEVIĆ I., The museum object as a document. ISS. 23, 1994, p. 113 – 120.
WATTEYNE D., « Objet – document ? « ou « chose – objet – document ? », ISS. 23, 1994, p.
121 – 128.
BEZZEG M., Analysing summaries of the papers of Bellaigue, Raippalinna, Shah, Sylla and
Tripps. ISS. 23, 1994, p. 131 – 141.
BELLAIGUE M. , MENU M., Objet-document ? ou le voir et le savoir. ISS. 23, 1994, p. 143 –
153.
RAIPPALINNA P.-M., A work of art in an art museum – an object or a document ? ISS. 23,
1994, p. 155 – 160.
SHAH A., Object in space and time. ISS. 23, 1994, p. 161 – 165.
SYLLA A., Objets et documents en Afrique . ISS. 23, 1994, p. 167 – 173.
TRIPPS M ., Too much to read. Too little to see. Exhibition techniques and the 2-D syndrome :
a contribution to current discussions about “Museology and museums”. ISS. 23, 1994, p. 175
– 182.
JLAXIN R., Features and values of cultural relics. ISS. 23, 1994, p. 185 – 187.
SHEN Qinglin., Cultural relic and material. ISS. 23, 1994, p. 189 – 191.
MENSCH P. van, Object – document ? Summary and final remarks. ISS. 23, 1994, p. 195 –
203.
ISS 24 Musée et communauté, Stavanger, 1995
GJESTRUM J., A. Symposium museum and community – summary. ISS. 24, 1994, p. 9 – 12.
WATTEYNE D., Résumé analytique. ISS. 24, 1994, p. 13 – 16.
BEZZEG M., Museums and communities today. ISS. 24, 1994, p. 17 –26.
DAVIES A.A., Researching communities. ISS. 24, 1994, p. 27 – 31.
DESVALLEES A., Musée et communauté : des ambiguïtés à éclaircir. ISS. 24, 1994, p. 33 –
37; A. Museum and community : some ambiguities to be cleared up. ISS. 24, 1994, p. 38 –
42.
MBONYA P. B., Museums and the community. ISS. 24, 1994, p. 43 – 49.
PÄRDI H., Estonian national museum and Estonian people. ISS. 24, 1994, p. 51 – 59.
SHAH A.B., The museum – a social institution of the community. ISS. 24, 1994, p. 61 – 66.
WANG H., Museum and regional history and culture also the earliest museum in the world and
the origin of museum. ISS. 24, 1994, p. 69 – 73.
MA X. & DONG J,. Development of society and educational function of museum. ISS. 24, 1994,
p. 75 – 80.
ZHANG T., Science museums and communities. ISS. 24, 1994, p. 81 – 86.
LU J. M., Museum education. ISS.24, 1994, p. 87 – 89.
DESVALLEES A., Musée et communauté – Esquisse de synthèse. ISS. 24, 1994, p. 93 – 94.
MA Z., Museums in China and its cultural policy. ISS. 24, 1994, p. 97 – 99.
LU J., Museums and museology in China. ISS. 24, 1994, p. 101 – 104.
SU D. Philosophy of Chinese museums. ISS. 24, 1994, p. 105 – 111.
ICOFOM LAM, Museology, museums, space and power in latin America and the Caribbean.
ISS. 24, 1994, p. 115 – 121.
ISS 25 Musée et communauté, Stavanger, 1995
MAROEVIĆ I., Symposium museum and communities – analysing summary. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 9
– 15.
SHAH A. B., Analysing summaries – museums and communities. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 17 – 20.
140
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE
ANTZOULATOU-Retsila E., Museums and communities : coping with dilemmas. Or between
museomania and museotherapy. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 21 – 26 ; Musées et communautés : lutter
contre les dilemmes. Ou : entre muséomanie et muséothérapeutique. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 27.
BELLAIGUE M., Des musées pour quelles communautés ? ISS. 25, 1995, p. 29 – 36.
DECAROLIS N., Heritage, museum, territory and community. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 37 – 42.
HORTA M. de L., Museums and communities : a powerful aquation. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 43 – 55.
LADKIN N., Museums and communities : an ecological approach. ISS. 25, 1955, p. 57 – 65.
MARANDA L., Museums and the community. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 67 – 71.
MONTPETIT R., Les musées, interprètes du patrimoine : l’appropriation communautaire. ISS.
25, 1995, p. 73 – 82.
NIGAM A., Museum and community. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 83 – 88.
RAIPPALINNA P-M., Regional art museums and challenges of community orientation – a case
study. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 89 – 93.
SCHEINER T. C., On museum, communities and the relativity of it all. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 95 – 98.
TRUDEL J., Musées et communautés culturelles au Québec : le cas du musée d’art de SaintLaurent. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 99 – 105.
TRUDEL J., Museums and cultural communities in Quebec. The case of the Musée d’Art de
Saint-Laurent. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 106.
VIEREGG H., The life itself provides the topics. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 107 – 114.
ZAUCHA G., Communities and museums in Africa. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 115 – 122.
BELLAIGUE M. Final remarks. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 123 – 124.
MAURE M. La nouvelle muséologie – qu’est-ce-que c’est ? ISS. 25, 1995, p. 127 – 132.
MENSCH P. van, Magpies on Mount Helicon ? ISS. 25, 1995, p. 133 – 138.
DOUCET P., Les nouvelles muséologies : approches conceptuelles et pratiques. ISS. 25, 1995,
p. 139 – 151.
DAVALLON J., Nouvelle muséologie V S Muséologie ? ISS. 25, 1995, p. 153 – 167.
BRENNER M., Training for museum and community awareness. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 171 – 175.
ÄGREN P-U., Nordic museums and nordic museology – some introductory remarks. ISS. 25,
1995, p. 179 – 186.
MAURE M., La fabrication d’un patrimoine national – le cas de la Norvège. ISS. 25, 1995, p.
187 – 194.
BÄRTVEDT R., An industrial community and its heritage. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 195 – 200.
GIESTRUM J., A. Norvegian experiences in the field of ecomuseums and museum
decentralisation. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 201 – 212.
DESCAROLIS N. & SCHEINER T., ICOFOM lam report 1990 – 1995. ISS. 25, 1995, p. 215 –
217.
ISS 26 Muséologie et Art, Rio de Janeiro, 1996
GOMES PEREIRA S., Museologia e arte. ISS. 26, 1996. p. 2 – 7.
RIBEIRO PINHEIRO L. V., Arte, objeto, artistico, documento e informaçao em museus. ISS. 26,
1996, p. 8 – 14.
MATTAR D., Museologia e arte. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 15 – 16, Museology and art. ISS. 26, 1996, p.
17 – 18.
ALENCAR V. de, Museologia e arte no Brasil : da teoria a pratica. ISS. 26, 1995, p. 19 – 23.
VIARO C. B. Vinte anos do museu Guido Viaro. ISS. 26, 1995, p. 24 – 25.
BELLAIGUE M. & NONAS R., Museology and art – provocative paper. ISS. 26, 1995, p. 29 –
30 ; Muséologie et art – premières réflexions. ISS. 26, 1995, p. 31 – 33; Museologia e arte.
ISS. 26, 1996, p. 155 – 156.
ASTUDILLO L. Museology and art : the III international biennal of Cuenca. ISS. 26, 1995, p. 35
– 37.
BELLAIGUE M. & MENU M., Une infinie transparence : art et muséologie. ISS. 26, 1995, p. 38
–47; Una infinita transparencia arte y museologia. ISS. 26, 1996. p. 169 – 177.
BIBIANI R., Numismatique : art, message, document. ISS. 26, 1995, p. 48 – 51; Numismatica :
arte, mensagem, documento. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 178 – 181.
DECAROLIS N., Reflections on museology, aesthetics and art. ISS. 26, 1995, p. 52 – 57;
Reflexiones sobre museologia, estetica y arte. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 194 – 201.
DESVALLES A., Muséologie et art : le point de vue du muséologue. ISS. 26, 1995, p. 58 – 60 ;
Museologia y arte el punto de vista del museologo. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 202 – 203.
141
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE
GACNIK A., From museums and exhibitions to the museum criticism and criticism of museum
exhibitions / from art to museology of art. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 61 – 69 ; De museos y
exhibiciones a la critica de museos y exhibiciones museologicas del arte a la museologia del
arte. ISS. 26 , 1996, p. 204 – 211.
RISNICOFF de GORGAS M., The museologist approach to the work of art. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 70
– 74 ; El abordaje museologico a la obra de arte. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 212 – 215.
KENNEDY S.B., Art, museums and their audiences : the fiction of display. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 75
– 79.
MARANDA L., Museology and art. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 80 – 84.
MAIRESSE F., Les musées d’artistes. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 85 – 95 ; Los museos de artistas. ISS.
26, 1996, p. 216 – 225.
MAROEVIĆ I., Art in museology. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 96 – 103 ; El arte en la museologia. ISS. 26,
1996, p. 226 –233.
MARTINS M. H., Muséologie avec de l’art : un pont entre l’homme et le « faire de l’art ». ISS.
26, 1996, p. 104; Museologia com arte : uma ponte entre o homem e o « fazer artistico ». ISS
26, 1996, p. 234 – 240.
PRIOSTI O. M., L’embryon iconographique dans la genèse du musée social. ISS. 26, 1996, p.
105; O embriao iconografico na gênese do museu social . ISS. 26, 1996 , p. 245 – 250.
RIZZI C. & CURY M. X., Museu, museologia e arte. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 106; Museu, museologia
e arte. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 251 – 253.
RUSCONI N. & CUBILIOS P., The new alliance, dialogue between the object (natural/cultural)
and the spectator.. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 107 – 111 ; Museologia y arte – la nueva alianza :
dialogo entre la obra y el espectador. ISS. 26, 1996. p. 254 – 257.
SCHEINER T., Muséologie et art : une relation imprécise. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 112 – 123;
SCHEINER T. Museologia e arte uma imprecise relaçao. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 268 – 278.
SEGALL M. & ARAUJO M. M., Integration museology through contradiction in art museums.
ISS. 26, 1996, p. 124 – 130; Museologia da integraçao através da contradiçao nos museus
de arte. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 296 – 301.
SHAH A. B., Museology and art. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 131 – 133; Museologia y arte. ISS. 26, 1996,
p. 264 – 267.
TRUDEL J., Musées et art hors-les-normes. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 134 – 140 ; Museos y arte fuera
de las normas. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 302 – 307.
VIANA REGIS D., Naïf art at Mian : a lovely relation. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 141 – 142.
VIEREGG H., Museology and art – the urgency of history. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 143 – 149.
RISNICOFF de GORGAS, M. Museologia y arte. ISS. 26, 1996. p. 158 – 162.
CASSIA de MATTOS R. de, Museologia e arte. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 163 – 168.
CASTELLI GONZALEZ A., Museo y arte. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 182 – 184.
CORREIA LIMA D. F., Acervos artisticos e pesquisas em artes plasticas : proposta de um
modelo estrutural de informaçao em arte. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 185 – 193.
PAVAO H., Museologia e arte : arte sacra, a nossa arte. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 241 – 244.
SA I. de, Museologia e arte : repensando esta interaçao. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 258 – 259.
MORAIS SARMENTO T. de – . A arte do vidro nas joias. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 260 – 263.
SCHEINER T. Museologia y arte – trayectoria de lo impreciso. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 279 – 289.
SCHENKER L., Repensando a vocaçao dos museus de arte moderna. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 291 –
295.
VIANA REGIS D., Arte naïf no Mian : uma relaçao de amor. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 308 – 309.
WILDER G. S., Museu de arte contemporanea e a criança pré-escolar : uma proposta de
musealizaçao dos espaços escolares. ISS. 26, 1996, p. 310 – 314.
ISS 27 Muséologie et mémoire, Paris, 1997
KLAUSEWITZ W., The first historical phase of ICOFOM – a review with personal reflections.
ISS. 27, 1997, p. 13 – 15.
BELLAIGUE M, DESVALLEES A, MENU M., Mémoires. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 19 – 21; Memories.
ISS. 27, 1997, p. 22 – 24, 43 – 44.
BAILLY J-C. Résurgence. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 25 – 26.
DIDI-HUBERMAN G., A propos de Pascal Convert : la demeure (apparentement de l’artiste).
ISS. 27, 1997, p. 27 – 29; About Pascal Convert : the abode (apparent kinship of the artist).
ISS. 27, 1997, p. 30 – 32.
142
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE
EVRARD D., Artiste photographe – à propos de son travail. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 33; Photographer
– talks about his work. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 34.
MOHEN J-P., Musées et “arts premiers”. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 35 – 38; Museum and primitive arts.
ISS. 27, 1997, p. 39 – 40.
TOMA Y., En cas d’oubli, prière d’en faire part. L’abri de l’usine Ouest-Lumière. ISS. 27, 1997,
p. 47 – 52.
BUREN J. af, The collective memory and the art museum. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 53 – 59.
DUFRENE B., Comment Beaubourg a créé la mémoire de l’art du Xxe siècle. ISS. 27, 1997, p.
60 – 68.
FERDI S., Comment sont ressenties par les algériens les antiquités de leurs musées ? ISS. 27,
1997, p. 69 –71.
MAIRESSE F. & RAGNI F., Préservation ou mémoire. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 72 – 76.
SHAH A.B., Frozen in time and space : museums and memory. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 77 – 78.
WASSERMANN F., Mémoire et histoire : un difficile dialogue. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 79 – 83.
BARBE N. & THIERRY A., Paradigme scientifique et muséographie. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 87 – 91.
BOUCHER L-N., Performance : un langage éclaté à la croisée des arts d’interprétation et de la
muséologie. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 92 – 96.
CURY M. X. & RIZZI C., Beyond the exhibition : a reflection about museological communication.
ISS. 27, 1997, p. 97 – 102.
BROISE P. de la, L’interprétation du patrimoine industriel : une mémoire sélective. ISS. 27,
1997, p. 103 – 110.
LAISHUN A., Can we see the light on the other side of the moon ? The value system of cultural
relic as knowledge carrier and how to realize it. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 111 – 116.
MARANDA L., The museum as memory. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 117 – 119.
MAROEVIĆ I., The role of museality in the preservation of memory. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 120 –
125.
PEISA O., Reminiscences and memories. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 126 – 133.
PRIOSTI O. M., De la terre de Piracema à l’Ecomusée du « Quarteirao » . ISS. 27, 1997, p. 134
– 142.
ROLLAND-VILLEMOT B., La conservation et la restauration du patrimoine industriel, les limites
de la muséographie. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 143 – 148.
SCALTSA M., Sculpture in Thessaloniki : Expression of ideology. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 149 –153.
VIEREGG H. K., The significance of memory to museums. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 154 – 158.
YOUNG L., History and memory in “pioneer village” museums in Australia. ISS. 27, 1997, p.
159 – 163.
MATTOS ARAUJO M. & OLIVEIRA BRUNO M.C., Memory as a construction of the present :
reflections on the seminar “Brazilian museology and the ICOM : convergences or
disagreements?” (Sao Paulo, 1995), a methodological approach. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 167 –
169 ; La mémoire comme élaboration du présent : réflexions sur le séminaire “La muséologie
brésilienne et l’ICOM – convergences ou désaccords ?” (Sao Paulo, 1995) : approche
méthodologique. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 170 – 172.
BELLAIGUE M. & MENU M., Muséologie et les formes de la mémoire. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 173 –
181.
CELIUS C. A., L’esclavage au musée : chronique d’un refoulement. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 182 –
189.
DECAROLIS N., Memorias para el porvenir. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 190 – 195; Memory for the future.
ISS. 27, 1997, p. 196 – 201.
CORREIA LIMA D. F., Social memory and museum institution : thinking about the
(re)interpretation of cultural heritage. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 202 – 211.
GANASCIA J-G., Les jardins de mémoire d’Albert Kahn. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 212 – 223.
OLLIER-TAILLANDIER C., Les musées au service des trois dimensions de la mémoire. ISS.
27, 1997, p. 224 – 226.
RISNICOFF de GORGAS M., Los museos en la busqueda de la memoria perdida. ISS. 27,
1997, p. 227 – 229; Museums in the search of their lost memory. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 230 – 235.
SCHEINER T.C., Mémoire et musée : expressions du passé, regards de l’avenir. ISS. 27, 1997,
p. 236 – 244.
SIEPMANN E., Mnemosyne im technischen Raum. Eine silhouette des Museums in der Epoche
der Virtualisierung. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 245 – 262.
SOLA T., The kiss of Mnemosyne. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 263 –268.
STRANSKY Z.Z., The ontology of memory and museology. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 269 – 272.
143
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE
SURDIC B., Expérience de la mémoire – Expérience pour la mémoire. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 273 –
274; Experience from memory – Experience for memory. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 275 – 277.
VAREILLE E., La mémoire : méthode de recherche en muséologie. ISS. 27, 1997, p. 278 – 283.
KAPLAN F. E. S., Conquests, colonialism and memory : museology at the crossroads. ISS. 27,
1997, p. 284.
ISS 28 Muséologie et mémoire, Paris, 1997
PONNAU D., Muséologie et mémoire. ISS. 28 , 1997, p. 11 – 12; Museology and memory ISS.
28, 1997, p. 13 – 14.
BAILLY J-C., Résurgence et remémoration. ISS. 28, 1997, p. 15 – 21.
BENSA A., Le centre culturel Jean-Marie Tjibaou, Nouméa, Nouvelle-Calédonie, une aventure
architecturale et politique. ISS. 28, 1997, p. 23 – 24.
DAVALLON J., L’état de la muséologie en France. ISS. 28 , 1997, p. 25 – 31.
FATTOUH N. , SIMEON N., Orientation muséologique et origines géographiques des auteurs.
ISS. 28, 1997, p. 33 – 43.
MORA C.C. et GANDHOUR N., Evolution et extension de la théorie muséologique de
l’ICOFOM . Development and extension of the museological theory of ICOFOM. ISS. 28,
1997, p. 44 – 55.
SURDIC B., The inventory of the existent and traces of history (sub-topic 1). ISS.28, 1997, p. 59
– 65 ; L’inventaire de l’existant et les traces de la mémoire (sous-thème 1). ISS. 28, 1997, p.
66 – 71.
DECAROLIS N. & GORGAS M. R. de, The image of the existent and the restitution of memory
(sub topic 2). ISS. 28, 1997, p. 72 – 78; L’image de l’existant et la restitution de la mémoire
(sous-thème 2). ISS. 28, 1997, p. 79 – 85.
DUFRENE B., L’expérience de la mémoire (sous-thème 3). ISS. 28, 1997, p. 86 – 93; The
experience of memory (sub-topic 3). ISS. 28, 1997, p. 94 – 101.
MENU M., Conclusions – Les jeux de la mémoire. ISS.28, 1997, p. 102 – 105; Conclusions –
Playing memory. ISS.28, 1997, p. 106 – 109.
SOLA T., The engoing questioning. ISS. 28, 1997, p. 110 – 111; Le questionnement continu.
ISS. 28, 1997, p. 114 – 117.
DIALLO Y., L’inventaire de l’existant et les traces de l’histoire. ISS. 28, 1997, p. 120 – 121.
GOURGEL F. A. L., . La préservation et la conservation de l’objet muséologique : contribution à
la connaissance du passé. ISS. 28, 1997, p. 122 – 124.
NAO O., Le concept d’existant et les traces de l’histoire dans un contexte africain (sous-thème
1). ISS. 28, 1997, p. 125 – 132.
SCHEINER T. C., Museum and memory : expressions of the past, images of the future. ISS. 28,
1997, p. 133 – 140.
BELLAIGUE M., Liberté de la mémoire. ISS.28, 1997, p. 143 –146; Memory’s freedom. ISS. 28,
1997, p. 147 – 149.
ISS 29 Muséologie et mondialisation, Melbourne, 1998
BELLAIGUE M., Mondialisation et mémoire, ISS. 29, 1998, p. 5 – 12.
BEZZEG M., The influence of globalization on museology, ISS. 29, 1998, p. 13 – 18.
DECAROLIS N., Globalization and Diversity, a delicate balance, ISS. 29, 1998, p. 19 – 24.
DESVALLEES A., Musée et patrimoine intégral : le futur du passé, ISS. 29, 1998, p. 25 – 33.
DOLAN D., Cultural franchising, imperialism and globalization : what’s new ?, ISS. 29, 1998, p.
34 – 40.
SU D., AN L., China’s first ecomuseum – Soga Miao Community, Guizhou: the first test case of
the international ecomuseum concept in China, ISS. 29, 1998, p. 41 – 48.
JACOB G., Preserving and presenting global hybridization: new responsabilities for museums in
the new millenium, ISS. 29, 1998, p. 49 – 51.
LADKIN N., Museology and globalization, ISS. 29, 1998, p. 52 – 56.
Mc MICHAEL D., The globalization of ecosystems and its impact on natural history museums,
ISS. 29, 1998, p. 57 – 60.
MARANDA L., Museology and globalization, the supplanting force of globalization culture, ISS.
29, 1998, p. 61 – 65.
MAROEVIĆ I., Virtual museums: the challenge of globalization, ISS. 29, 1998, p. 66 – 71.
MITRA B., Museology and globalization, ISS. 29, 1998, p. 72 – 74.
144
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE
PRIOSTI O.M., Archéologie d’une collection inachevée, ISS. 29, 1998, p. 75 – 78.
VIEREGG H.K., Museums : a vision of utopia ?, ISS. 29, 1998, p. 79 – 86.
VITALI V., GALE P., Remembering the people : unity and diversity within the global community,
ISS. 29, 1998, p. 87 – 92.
YOUNG L., Globalisation, culture and museums, ISS. 29, 1998, p. 93 – 104.
ISS 30 Muséologie et mondialisation, Melbourne, 1998
VOI M., “Living cultures” and museums in the Pacific, ISS. 30, 1998, p. 13 – 17.
BISHOP C., Kei muri a mua – The past determines the future: the relationship between
museums and Maori people in Aotearoa New Zealand, ISS. 30, 1998, p. 18 – 26.
DOLAN D., Museums in Australia, 1998, ISS. 30, 1998, p. 27 – 28.
MURPHY B., Museums, globalisation and cultural diversity, ISS. 30, 1998, p. 29 – 36.
TURNER C., Globalisez museum practice: exhibitions, ISS. 30, 1998, p. 37 – 41.
COALDRAKE M., Globalised communications in and among museums, ISS. 30, 1998, p. 42 –
47.
VITALI V., A post-scriptum: museology and globalisation What is it? Peut-on conclure?, ISS. 30,
1998, p. 48 – 49.
MENU M., Mondialisation et muséologie, ISS. 30, 1998, p. 50 – 58.
ROBERTS T., Militarisation and museology : examples of globalisation at the Australian War
Memorial, ISS. 30, 1998, p. 59 – 60.
RISNICOFF de GORGAS M., Museums and the crisis of peoples’identity, ISS. 30, 1998, p. 61 –
67.
GOURGEL F., Muséologie et mondialisation, ISS. 30, 1998, p. 68 – 71.
FROMM A., Think globally, act locally, ISS. 30, 1998, p. 72 – 74.
ISS 31 Muséologie et Philosophie, Coro, 1999
DELOCHE B., Muséologie et philosophie. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 8 – 17.
DECAROLIS N., Relaciones de la filosofia con la museologia contamporanea. ISS. 31, 1999, p.
18; Philosophy in relation to contemporary museology. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 19 – 27;
Zusammenfassung : Philosophie in ihrer Beziehung zur museologie. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 28 –
29.
DEVICENZI J. F., Sociedad e identidad frente al nuevo milenio. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 30 ; Society
and identity facing the new millennium. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 31 – 33.
LABRADOR A. M. T. P., Ph. D., Collecting identitiesin museums : locating Bontok ethnicity
(Northern Philippines) in museological spaces. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 34 – 59.
MAIRESSE F., La relation spécifique. ISS. 31, 1999 , p. 60 – 68.
MERCURI M. B. A distinction proceeding. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 69 – 73.
NAO O., Muséologie, identité et multiculturalisme. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 74 – 79.
PRIOSTI O. M., Sociedade, identidade e turismo cultural : o caminho pedagogico do
patrimonio. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 80 – 86.
RANGEL M., Museologia, apoesia da filosofia. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 87 – 89.
RUSCONI N., Logos e identidad : retorica y semiologia de fin de siglo. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 90 ;
Logos et identité : rhétorique et sémiologie de la fin du siècle. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 91 – 102.
SCHEINER T.C., Les bases ontologiques du musée et de la muséologie. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 103
– 126; The ontological bases of the museum and of museology. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 127 – 173.
SHAH A.B., Philosophy – museology – symbols : the connections (the Indian perspective). ISS.
31, 1999, p. 174 – 177.
VIEREGG H., Wilhelm von Humboldts ideen zur Bildung des Menschen : museologische,
philosophische und pädagogische Betrachtung. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 178; Wilhelm von Humbold
– Ideas on Education of human being : museological, philosophical and educational
contemplation. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 179 – 193.
PASSETTI D.V., Museologia, ética y estética. ISS.31, 1999, p. 195 – 201.
CURY M. X., Museologia e filosofia : Dewey, Pessanha e Platao, Foucault e Habermas. ISS.
31, 1999, p. 202.
CURY M.X., Museology and philosophy : Dewey, Pessanha and Plato, Foucault and Habermas.
ISS. 31, 1999, p. 203 – 217; Muséologie et philosophie : Dewey, Pessanha et Platon,
Foucault et Habermas. ISS. 31, 1999, p. 218 – 227.
ZELJKO L., Is a general theory on museality possible ? ISS. 31, 1999, p. 228 – 233.
145
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE
ISS 32 Muséologie et le Patrimoine immatériel, Munich, 2000
DAVIS A., What is creativity ? Eric Cameron asks big questions and replies with unexpected
answers. ISS. 32, 2000, p. 11 – 17.
BEDEKAR V.H., Problems of intangible heritage in Indian community museums. ISS. 32, 2000,
p. 18 – 20.
BOSCH S., Consideraciones teoricas para la museologia, el patrimonio intangible y la identidad
cultural. ISS. 32, 2000, p. 21 – 26.
BOUCHER L.N., Vivre. S’inspirer du passé pour composer l’avenir. ISS. 32, 2000, p. 27 – 34.
DECAROLIS N., The tangible and intangible heritage. ISS. 32, 2000, p. 35 – 39.
DELOCHE B., Le patrimoine immatériel : héritage spirituel ou culture virtuelle ? ISS. 32, 2000,
p. 40 – 44.
DESVALLEES A., Muséologie et “Patrimoine immatériel” : muséalisation, visualisation. ISS. 32,
2000, p. 45 – 52.
EFFIBOLEY P., Muséologie et patrimoine intangible au Bénin : état de la question et
perspectives. ISS 32, 2000, p. 53 – 57.
SMITH J. G., The impact of curation on intangible heritage : the case of Oradour-sur-Glane,
ISS. 32, 2000, p. 58 – 68.
GREGORY K., Intangible heritage and site-specific art in Australian heritage spaces during the
1990 s. ISS. 32, 2000, p. 69 – 76.
LAISHUN A., Museology and policies concerning heritage in China. ISS. 32, 2000, p. 77 – 79.
MARANDA L., Museology and intangible heritage. ISS. 32, 2000, p. 80 – 83.
MAROEVIĆ I., Museology and the intangible heritage together against the traditional museum
or Are we returning to the original museum ? ISS. 32, 2000, p. 84 – 91.
NAZOR O. & GARRE F., Los unos y los otros … Rescate y proteccion del patrimonio intangible
enn localidades agricolas en la llamada « Pampa gringa argentina ». ISS. 32, 2000, p. 92 .
NAZOR O & CARRE F., “Certain groups and others”. The reclaiming and protecting of
intangible heritage in agricultural towns of the so called “Argentine Pampa gringa”. ISS. 32,
2000, p. 93 – 97.
RUSCONI N., El objeto museal y la diversidad cultural. ISS. 32, 2000, p. 98 ; L’objet muséal et
la diversité culturelle. ISS. 32, 2000, p. 99 – 107.
SHAH A. B., Convergence of cultures. ISS. 32, 2000, p. 108 – 110.
TAVARES, R. M. M., Jouets et jeux d’enfants : Patrimoine intangible de l’humanité. ISS. 32,
2000, p. 111 – 114.
VIEREGG, H., Remembrance as intangible heritage. ISS. 32, 2000, p. 115 – 124.
VOGT, A., Museen und Schulen : Neue Perspektiven im Dialog zwischen Museologie und
Didaktik. ISS. 32, 2000, p. 125 – 135.
WILDER, G. S., The intangible heritage inherent to a contemporary art collection and a noncultural prejudice proposition. ISS. 32, 2000, p. 136 – 140.
ISS 33a Muséologie, développement social et économique, Barcelone, 2001
RUSCONI, N., Museologia, nacionalismos y globalizacion. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 12 – 19.
BRUNO, M. C. The change odministration : new theoretical contributions and the practice of
museology. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 20 – 25 ; La muséologie et les changements économiquesociaux : défis et responsabilités. Gestion des changements : des nouveaux apports
théoriques et la pratique muséologique. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 26 – 28.
DAVIS, A., Museology and sustainable development. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 29 – 31.
DESVALLEES, A., Muséologie, patrimoine, changement économique et développement social.
ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 32 – 38.
GACNIK, A., Heritage for development / Developmental function of (ethnological) museology.
ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 39 – 47.
GOB, A, DROUGUET, N., Le musée de la vie locale comme lieu de conscientisation aux
changements économiques et sociaux : le cas du Musée de Wamme (Belgique). ISS. 33 a,
2001, p. 48 – 53.
MAIRESSE, F., Muséologie et développement économique. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 54 – 62.
MAROEVIĆ, I., Managing change : New theoretical approaches to museum practice. ISS. 33 a,
2001, p. 63 – 68.
MERCURI, M., S.O.S. : Patrimonio cultural. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 69 – 74.
146
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE
REYES, A. M., Comunidad, desarrollo y sabiduria. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 75 – 77.
RUSCONI, N., Museology, social and economic development. ISS. 33 a, p. 78 – 80.
SCHEINER, T., Museologia, patrimonio integral e desenvolvimento sustentaval : novo seculo –
nova ética ? ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 81 – 93.; Museology, Heritage and sustainable development :
new century – new ethics ? ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 95 – 119.
SHAH, A., Museology and contemporary ethics. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 120 – 122.
SHMYROV, V., Gulag museum. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 123 – 125.
TAVARES, R. M. M., Museums furthering the development in Latin America. ISS. 33 a,
2001, p. 126 – 133.
VIEREGG, H. K., Museum developments and the code of ethics. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 134 – 140.
VITALI , V., Museology, social and economic change : challenges and responsibilities. From
museums to menus (and back ?) : museology and the processes of social and economic
change. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 141 – 144.
Mc. MICHAEL, D. F., Museums, museology and the intangible heritage. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 146
– 149.
GORGAS, M. RISNICOFF de, Lo jesuitico en Hispanoamérica. Un desafio para los museos.
ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 150 – 156.
ASTUDILLO, L., The concrete aspects of cultural intangible heritage in Cuenca and the
museum of metals. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 157.
EFFIBOLLEY, P., Interpretation of the intangible heritage through museums in different
continents. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 158 – 159.
GREGORY, K., Summary : museology, museums and the intangible heritage. ISS. 33 a, 2001,
p. 160 – 161.
RUSCONI, N., Museologia y patrimonio intangible : resumen analitico de documentos
latinoamericanos. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 162 – 164.
SOFKA, V., The discussion on the topic. ISS. 33 a , p. 166 – 169.
DAVIS, A., Museology, social and economic development. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 170 – 172.
SHAH, A. B., Museology, social and economic development : summary of the papers
presented. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p. 173 – 175.
SEIBT, F. L., Communication : „Un musée de beaucoup de propriétaires“. ISS. 33 a, 2001, p.
176 – 179.
ISS 33b Muséologie et présentation : original ou virtuel, Cuenca, 2002
VIEREGG, H., Museology in progress : presentation and education supported by new media.
ISS. 33 b, 2002, p. 9 – 18.
DAVIS, A., Provocative paper : museums real and virtual. ISS. 33 b, 2002, p. 19 – 31.
BOGOESKI K., Presentional communication – Real or virtual. ISS. 33 b, 2002, p. 32 – 34.
DECAROLIS, N., Museology and presentation – a joint venture of science and arts. ISS. 33 b,
2002, p. 35 – 39 ; Museologia y presentacion : un emprendimiento conunto de ciencia y arte,
p. 40 – 45.
DELOCHE B., Le multimedia va-t-il faire éclater le musée ?, ISS. 33 b, 2002, p. 46 – 52.
DESVALLEES,A., Muséologie et expologie : du réel au virtuel. ISS. 33 b, 2002, p. 53 – 61.
MAIRESSE, F. Muséologie et presentation : où sont les varies choses ?, ISS. 33 b, 2002, p. 62
– 68.
MAROEVIEC, I., What is it that we are presenting in a museum – objects or ideas ? ISS. 33 b,
2002, p. 69 – 73.
NASH, S., “Ceci n’est pas une pipe” : The virtual museum, ISS. 33 b, 2002, p. 74 – 77.
RUSCONI, N., Los museos y las nuevas tecnologias : inmersion, navegacion o interaccion ?
ISS. 33, 2002, p. 78 – 82 ; Les musées et les nouvelles technologies : immersion, navigation
ou interaction ? ISS. 33 b, 2002, p. 83 – 87.
SCHEINER, T., The exhibition as presentation of reality. ISS. 33 b, 2002, p. 88 – 95 ;
L’exposition comme présentation de la réalité, ISS. 33 b, 2002, p. 96 – 104.
SEGLIE D., Art rupestre et archéologie cognitive – du site au musée : parcours de muséologie
appliqué au territoire. ISS. 33 b, 2002, p. 105 – 112.
SIQUEIRA, V. L., A comunicaçao nos museus na era das novas tecnologias , à luz das
metaforas de W. Barnett Pearce. ISS.33 b, 2002, p. 113 – 115.
VIEREGG, H. K. ISS. 33 b, 2002, p. 116 – 119.
147
ICOFOM BIBLIOGRAPHIE
CURY, M. X., The search for autonomy – museology, museums and globalisation. ISS. 33 b,
2002, p. 120 – 126 ; A busca pela autonomia – museologia, museus e globalizaçao. ISS. 33 b
, 2002, p. 127 – 133.
ISS 34 Muséologie un instrument d’unité et de diversité ?, Krasnoyarsk, 2003
SCHARER M., Museology is not an instrument either for unity or for cultural diversity, ISS 34,
2003, p. 7 – 9.
DAVIS A., Diversity in Museums, Respect and support, ISS, 34, 2003, p. 10 – 13.
DECAROLIS N., Unidad y diversidad: El desafio latinoamericano, Unity within diversit: a latin
American Chalenge, ISS, 34, 2003, p. 14 – 21.
DELOCHE B., La muséologie entre croisade pour la démocratie et actualité de la
mondialisation, ISS, 34, 2003, p. 22 – 31
GORGAS M. de, El valor de la diversidad : El patrimonio regional Aportes latinoamericanos ;
The value of diversity : Regional heritage, ISS, 34, 2003, p. 32 – 37.
MARANDA L., Museology and Indegnous Cultures: A new reality for Museums in Canada, ISS,
34, 2003, p. 38 – 42.
NIKOLAEVA-OINETS V., Museum Projet: Base of future museum in open air at Verkhiniy
Suetuk Village, ISS, 34, 2003, p. 43 – 44.
RUSCONI N., Los desafios de la museologia contemporanea; Les défis de la muséologie
contemporaine, ISS, 34, 2003, p. 45 – 50.
SHAH A., Cultural diversity : the Indian perspective, ISS, 34, 2003, p. 51 – 53.
CURY M.X., Diversidade e tolerancia cultural: qual é o papel dos museus contemporâneos?;
Diversity and cultural tolerance: which is the role of the contemporaneous museums?, ISS,
34, 2003, p. 54 – 61.
LENGYEL A., Museum of the house of terror, ISS, 34, 2003, p. 62 – 63.
MAURE M., Un siècle avec Lénine en Sibérie – réflections sur la métamorphose des musées
en Russie après la disparition de l’Union soviétique, ISS, 34, 2003, p. 64 – 70.
SOFKA V., From oppression to democracy. Changes in the World and european upheavals,
Heritage, Museums the Museum Profession and Museology, ISS, 34, 2003, p. 71 – 72.
VIEREGG H., Fiction of History – The museological approach in museums of Contemporary
History, ISS, 34, 2003, p. 73 – 86.
ICOFOM LAM, Manifesto de Cuenca: Museologia y presentacion en America latina y el Caribe:
Original / Real o Virtual; Cuenca Manifesto: Museology and Presentation in Latin America and
the Carribbean; Original/ Real or Virtual? ISS, 34, 2003, p. 87 – 91.
SHAH A., The Different Planes of Reality, ISS, 34, 2003, p. 92 – 97.
148