Dear all interested in the museum definition

I agree with Steve and Milton  that museums are permanent institutions
with  staff, collections, public, building, etc. (but what about
virtual museums, museums and untangible heritage?), but this is not in
contrast with my proposal "Museums are sites of memory, knowledge,
creation of identity which act through collecting, taking care,
interpreting and  exhibiting the cultural heritage of communities."
You may note that in my proposal all the typical actions of a museum
are included: collecting and preserving (objects and collections),
scientific study, exhibits (including communication), and also
buildings (as without buildings it is difficult to preserve and expose
the collections).
I think we must consider that all such actions are not an end in
themselves, but have an higher aim, that is to contribute to the
creation of cultural heritage of communities. This main role make
museums essential institutions for the communities own existence.
I consider important to stress such a concept as first statement in the
museum definition, (i.e."sites of memory, knowledge, creation of
identity" in my defintion). To that first statement any specifications
may follows: "non profit institutions, permanent institutions, with a
professional staff, budget, inalienability of cultural heritage, etc."
(considering that museums are changing all over the world and some
statement may reflect an outdated vision of museological situation).
Moreover, it seems to me that many proposal I read aims to stress the
not-museological nature of some institution (i.e.archives or
libraries), instead of the real nature of museums.

Anyway the main problem is focused by the French Committee, by Jean
Yves Marin, by Patric Boylan and others : we do need a new museum
definition? Personally I believe
the present definition is too bureaucratic and not stressing the
cultural
and social importance of museums enough, nor the role of museums inside
the communities (this is the reason why I proposed my short statement),
but I also believe that a new definition of museum is a delicate issue.

During the last Executive Council we have taken into consideration the
different proposals on the definition: Pascal Makambila noted that
changing the definition of museums seems to have sense only if the new
definition is better than the old one, and we all noted that all the
suggestions generated during the discussion via email are not better
than the definition they should replace and cannot be accepted, nor be
used as basis for a new definition.
During the same Executive Council I declared that the definition of
Museum given by ICOM Statutes has a very important impact on museums,
on their financing, on their structure and organization. ICOM
definition of Museums is infact often taken for reference during the
creation of Museum rules and guidelines and in the preparation of the
laws related to these institutions (functionality, standards etc.).
And, I asserted  that a new definition of Museum cannot be generated
from a discussion limited only to those ICOM members subscibed to ICOM
List, but it should open instead as much as possible to institutions
and museum professionals. I have already suggested in a former note on
ICOM-L that it is vital to open the discussion to all ICOM Members,
preparing a summary of the discussion and spreading it through ICOM
News.

But this is not enough: I personally believe that the discussion should
be opened  as much as possible also to institutions and museum
professionals: to people who operate and work inside these institutions
(directors, curators etc etc), professionals working outside these
institutions as well (professors, advisors...), and finally to all
those people who are interested in the social role and to the
philosophical aspect  of museums.
This can be achieved through National and International Committees
which should be invited to take part to this important process.
   National Committes should be asked to open the debate on the
definition of museum on a national basis, involving museums and local
cultural bodies, even if not strictly related to ICOM. National
Committees should be required to open the debate in relation to each
single museological subject, with the help of museum professionals and
museums directors.
And finally, a very special action should be undertaken towards all
the important museology schools  (University of Leicester, Ecole du
Patrimoine etc.)
and towards all the important institutions so that they can take part
in the debate.

I believe that the Secretariat can put into action this collection of
information and suggestions. The process can be started by sending
standard
questionnaires, but it should be implemented by a campaign to inform on
the importance of the definition of museums and on the impact that this
definition has on political and organizational life of museums.

I also suggest that ICOM should promote a press campaign to underline
how its new committment (the research of a new definition of museum
shaped
on time evolution) is fundamental to the future development of museums.

Finally, I believe it will be indispensable to create a working group,
as
multicultural as possible,
which will analyse and synthetise all the received suggestions, and
will, on
this basis,
estimate the need for a new definition of "museum".
If this is the case, the working group should suggest a range of
possibilities taking into consideration
all the received inputs.

Giovanni Pinna



-- Giovanni Pinna -----------------------
e-mail:     [log in to unmask]
web page:   http://giovanni.pinna.cx
------------------------------------------------

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Change ICOM-L subscription options, unsubscribe, and search the
archives at:  http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html