Hello all at Museum-L,

Great to see the current discussion about "museums
wihout collections" and interactive/children's museums
here on the list. As long as discussions like these
occur, at least the intellectual future of museums
should look promising! ("evil MacMuseums" or not!)

There is sometimes a tendency among museum/heritage
professionals, to hide behind "history", "artifacts",
"material objects". As if this would automatically
imply a more "objective" preservation of the cultural
heritage ( with "objective history" as a result? ).
Related to this attitude you often find a slight
distaste for contemporary life, its' society and
cultural issues.
Hiding behind "preservation" can mean unnecessary fear
of change. Some of the views expressed in this current discussion reflect this attitude.

Museums may be about collecting, sharing and spreading
knowledge about collected/assembled culture (places we
visit or use to tap into our "collective memory"). But
museums are not primarily concerned about preserving
"the past" for the peoples of the past! It's primary
concerns lie in presenting it for people of today and
of the future!

I would argue, since museums are made up of both staff
and visitors, they actually belong to contemporary
culture and contemporary society (what is a museum
without staff or visitors? Possibly an unmanned,
temperated storage space.)
There is a distinct social dimension to why, where and
how we interact with our collective past. In my opinion
museums are therefore inseparable from contemporary
life, culture and society - call them art galleries,
childrens' museum/exploratoriums or archaeological
sites. We have yet to see museums with 17th century
original artifacts, curated by original 17th century
staff!! (cloning, anyone?) Is this what the museum
community is striving for?

This is often the dilemma for anyone associating
themselves with interpretation and preservation of
heritage. When and where does history "begin"? Am I
history? What is authenticity? Do computers belong in
museums? The dilemma lies in getting to terms with being
part of a contemporary world. To find that "history" may
also include "the contemporary".

For instance, take the situation in preservation of the
architectural heritage. During post-war times, concrete
tower blocks and shopping centres from the 50's, 60's
and 70's were deemed as being unsightly with no physical
or aesthetical merits whatsoever. Legislation in
European countries has often set up a timespan of at
least 30 years, in order to grant a building "historical
merit" of some kind.

As a result, these post-war buildings and the
architecture and planning efforts associated with them,
are are today (30 years later) regarded as a natural
part of our common arhitectural heritage and are being
preserved (The organisation of DOCOMOMO works under
UNESCO) Suddenly "modern" became "history"! But is
there really such a time-divide? Do we need it?

Here's the point:
being part of contemporary life and culture often makes
it difficult to discern contemporary cultural patterns
in our society. More important; the changing of those
patterns. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try make
out those "patterns" or changes.
Can computers be good for museums and exhibitions? How
do visitors experience and react to information and
knowledge?

Two Swedish ethnologists, Billy Ehn and Orvar Lofgren,
once published the book "Kulturanalys", translated
freely as "Interpretive analysis of cultural patterns".
Ehn and Lofgren have developed a method for studying
contemporary cultural meanings, by working with
themes(not uncommon in exhibitions). The hardest part
when searching for significant cultural meanings in
contemporary life, is to disconnect from your own
cultural being. It envolves going deep in to what seem
to be "trivial aspects" of everyday life. In a way
becoming the observer of yourself. Working with themes
like "male/female", "health/sickness", "wealth/poverty",
may help in the process. The themes are continously
matched with historical data, critically analyzed and
interpreted to form possible patterns.

So where does the museum definition come in?
Without going into lengthy analytical methods like the
one described above, I believe the museum community
should recognize more that as heritage professionals we
are not detached from culture or "history" - we are in
it. And the way in which we shape our institutions and
perform in knowledge-sharing is also a form of culture,
belonging to both "history" and "contemporary society".
Not either or. Then I believe the heritage community
will find it easier to come to terms with contemporary
phenomenons, like the use of "flashy media" and popular
presentation formats to present history - now. Museums
are about change!

Paul Henningsson, Sweden
(freelancer in heritage multimedia)

---------------------------------------------------
Get free personalized email at http://www.iname.com

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://museums.state.nm.us/nmmnh/museum-l.html. You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to
[log in to unmask] The body of the message should read "Signoff
Museum-L" (without the quotes).