This long note is inspired by Bernice Murphy's message on the ICOM Task Force.

1) Bernice writes that "ICOM-L is one of ICOM's internet facilities that
has been sadly little used to date..". True. One of the reasons for this is
perhaps to be found in the formalities cultivated within ICOM: a viewpoint
should first be communicated to your national representative, who in turn
communicates the viewpoint at the Advisory, who in turn addresses the issue
to especially appointed committees, who in turn addresses the Advisory
again, who in turn addresses the Executive. Formalities are necessary, but
they may through habit shape our minds in such a way that we become formal
in situations were it is not necessary to be so (Modest as I am, I have
been awestruck by the formalities and the etiquette of ICOM, but perhaps I
am the only one to feel like this).

Another reason might be that - perhaps for most of us - the official
languages of ICOM are not our own. It may be hard to find the right words
for the nuances of our arguments, especially when writing, and this may be
a sufficient obstacle for not starting or engaging in a debate on the
ICOM-L.

Be that as it may, the ICOM-L is here: why not risk presenting some
viewpoints that may - on second thought - be wrong, ill-considered, or
anything, BUT will result in some fruitful discussion? Let us have (as
Bernice writes) "provisional, ephemeral - even intensely individual or
provocative - exchanges of opinion"!

2) As president of ICME, I am a member of the Advisory. When important
issues are raised for the Advisory, I am very often not sure about the
correct decision. At the meetings, some members present viewpoints, but
since there is always too little time, the viewpoints are left mostly as
statements, and there is no real discussion. Besides, it is difficult to
react immediately to a counter argument: we need time to play back and
forth before the right decision emerges.

The realities of the Advisory meetings are hard to change, but I think the
ICOM-L is ideal for pre-discussions of issues going to be raised at the
Advisory, or post-discussions for issues which are between Advisory and
Executive, or for issues being under debate in special committees - like
the Task Force.

3) Permit me to raise two issues. One is concrete (about an international
committee for university museums), the other deals with principles (about
international committees in general). One is probably to be decided by the
Executive in December, the other is part of a long discussion with
extremely uncertain answers. And the two are intermingled.

Am I trying to influence the Executive? Yes, of course. And I hope some of
you out there will participate with different viewpoints.

When Peter Stanbury raised the question of making an international
committee for university museums, I was sceptical. University museums are
all sorts of museums. What do the university museums have in common besides
being part of a university? What common issues can keep their committee
alive after the initial years?

Working in a university museum myself, and having contacts in other
university museums, I know that at least many of them are suffering because
the universities' resources are spent on teaching masses of students and
very little is left to the museums. Additionally, the museums receive very
little attention, and their services to the public are often badly
developed (typically, many university museums are closed on Saturdays and
Sundays). Their staff are surpisingly often not seeing themselves as part
of the community of museum professionals. And - and this is most important
- there are many, many university museums throughout the world: their
revitalisation is badly needed.

Considering the above, I felt that there might indeed be a need for an
international committee for university museums. This viewpoint I
communicated both to Peter Stanbury and ICOM.

At the last session of the Advisory, the proposal for an international
committee for university museums was met with a series of counter arguments
and it was recommended that the university museums tried to form a separate
organisation affiliated to ICOM. Thereafter the case was handed over to the
Executive (which has not yet made a decision).

In my opinion, the arguments brought forward in this case were not given
time to be examined properly. My own reaction was that some arguments were
very valid, and made me reconsider my own jugdements, while others -
especially when having ripened in the days and weeks following the session
- raised many questions of principle regarding international committees.
And I felt it would have been useful to discuss these questions with other
ICOM members, and particularly with the members of the Advisory and the
Executive in an informal manner, where opinions can be tested out. Which I
am now trying to do.

The counter arguments were:

A) An international committee cannot be based mainly on the fact that the
museums included have a difficult situation.

My comment:
The difficult situation of university museums are highly comparable and are
broadly caused by a lot of shared factors. As such, it is obviously worth
while to organise the university museums globally and through this, try to
improve the situation. On the other hand, is an international ICOM
committee the right tool? I agree that an international committee cannot
just be based on shared problems, but more on shared positive, constructive
museal issues.

B) ICOM does not have any international committee defined through being
part of a spesific structure. The international committees of ICOM are
based on type of museum or museum profession/function. Saying yes to the
university museums would mean saying yes to the establishment of committees
like for municipal museums, for privately owned museums, etc, etc.

My comment:
The first part of the argument is true, but with one modification: ICR
(Regional Museums) comes very close by being a committee for museums
defined by their relation to a community, small or large, rather than being
defined as a spesific type of museum. A regional museum can be both
cultural and natural historical, both ethnological and archaeological,
depending on the museal traditions of each region. It may even have very
specialised collections in circumstances where a certain trade or industry
has dominated a region, like mining, fisheries, steel works, fruit growing,
etc, etc.

Now, university museums may also be seen as being defined by a relation to
a spesific type of community: namely institutions of higher learning and
research.

To me, the relevant question is not whether ICOM already has or has not a
committee based on being part of a spesific structure, but on whether such
a committee is likely to function - for the benefit of museums and the
museum professions. What potential lies in relating the museum to
institutions for higher learning and research? What potential lies in being
a mediator between universities and the public?

The second argument (about opening up for committees like on municipal
museums, etc, etc.) is hard to understand, exept as a purely formal
argument.

My first reaction is: if a committee for municipal museums is likely to
function, based on significant shared issues, why should we not have a
committee for municipal museums?

My second reaction is: look upon the already existing comittees! We have a
committee for glass, why don't we have a committee for textile? Or
ceramics? Or metal? We have a committee for Egyptology, why don't we have a
committee for Sinology? Or Mayology? Or Africanology? Or Greek/Roman
Archaeology? The reason why we don't have such committees must be because
no one has asked for them, or no one has been able to produce an
organisational or otherwise meaningful basis for such committees.

C) We must try to limit the number of international committees within ICOM.

My comment:
This argument could also have been mine - until recently. Now I find the
question extremely complicated. Are the mega committees too large? Is every
excisting committee coherently composed, or do some contain too much
diversity? Is it true that the very small committees function best? Should
committees last forever? Seen from the outside, the variation of
international committees within ICOM appear partly natural, partly
reflecting eurocentric judgements in early phases of ICOM's history, partly
accidental.

D) The university museums should form an organisation affiliated to ICOM.

My comment:
This is the proposal that worries me most. If the university museums are
able to set up a functioning independent organisation, affiliated to ICOM,
why not be an international committee within ICOM, thus making ICOM benefit
from this initiative?

When I look at the list of affiliated organisations, I see many that I miss
as international ICOM committees. Like IAMAM (the military museums), like
IATM (the transport museums), like ICMM (the maritime museums); all
organisations for large and important global groups of museums.

We must watch out, so that important new museum initiatives do not end up
outside ICOM!


Obviously my viewpoints go in favour of establishing a committee for
university museums. And I am strengthened in this belief by the activity
already being displayed by this non-excisting committee. Ok, the activity
is very much based on the initiative of one person, but I really think the
positive challenges connected to being museums that are part of
institutions of higher learning and research will support an international
committee with sufficient shared issues, which in turn may benefit the
museum world at large.

My basic fear is that ICOM - through formalistic arguments about
international committees - more and more leaves the floor to affiliated
organisations, especially if they represent new and unusual initiatives.
The economical problems of the international committees certainly
represents a temptation in forming separate organisations: collecting the
membership fee directly, instead of receiving pennies from Paris would
really make a difference. But the consequence of many separate museum
organisations divided thematically is that the collected amount of
membership fees makes it impossible for us to be members in more than a few
organisations, and we loose the global museal collectivity that ICOM offers.

Well, the above is certainly a mixed bag. Any reactions?

Per B. Rekdal
President ICME



Per B. Rekdal
Museumsleder/Museum Director
Universitetets etnografiske museum
Frederiksgate 2, N-0164 Oslo, Norway

Tel. -47 - 22 85 99 64
Fax -47 - 22 85 99 60
E-mail: [log in to unmask]


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