Friedrich Waidacher wrote:
>=20
> Dear Jennifer,
>=20
> Thank you for your stimulating meanderings (and the joke which I like).
>=20
> >"capable of proving certain facts without any doubt".
> Take the recently discussed "Enola Gay". There are (have been) numerous
> ORIGINAL "Flying Fortresses" but only one of them is, (in this particul=
ar
> respect!), AUTHENTIC. Take JFK's rocking chair, Dizzy Gillespie's trump=
et,
> Benvenuto Cellini's saliera, Napoleon Buonaparte's coronation robe, a
> certain  olympic torch, your aunt's handkerchief ... they all are evide=
nce,
> as, in the language of law, an "exhibit" gives evidence in a lawcourt.
> Thereby an object can be a proof of meanings which are even not attribu=
ted
> but an intrinsic part of their existence. They have taken part in somet=
hing,
> they were used, they have been indispensable - without them a certain f=
act
> would possibly not have occurred.
>=20
> >unless we attach meanings to it?
> Of course. Ideally, each object selected for a museum collection should=
,
> first of all, meet a basic prerequisite: it should be important for soc=
iety
> - because it gives evidence of something that society values so much th=
at it
> pays museum people to select, accession, preserve, research and communi=
cate
> it. (Otherwise, to maintain museums at the cost of society would be
> irresponsible). A museum object should be, to use a museological term, =
a
> bearer of "museality" (Str=E1nsk=FD 1963). "Museality" is defined as "a=
 specific
> gnoseological and axiological relationship of man with reality which me=
ans
> that man considers selected objects so important as witness for certain
> facts that he wants to indefinitely preserve and communicate them to
> society." Museality, in contrast to museums, is not tied to a certain p=
eriod
> of time but a basic human attitude. This quality is not automatically
> inherent in any object but must be attributed according to an
> intersubjectively acknowledged value system.
>=20
> >the reasons why we cared who painted it ... but I would say much furth=
er
> down >the list of importance
> This may be your subjective (and for you, personally, valid) list of
> importance but it is not necessarily intersubjectively acknowledged.
>=20
> >their interpretive action is influenced by outside forces rather than
> anything intrinsic to the object.
> You are perfectly right: museologists are by no means Creators but shou=
ld
> understand themselves as humble mediators. Not what they see in an obje=
ct
> but what is seen in an object is paramount. Not the importance they
> individually give to an object is decisive but the importance society g=
ives
> to it. (Thus your aunt's handkerchief will have to be questioned very h=
ard
> whether it is a bearer of museality or not. Maybe she was a famous poet=
? Or
> the handkerchief is a typical example for a local craft, etc. etc.)
> Jette Sandahl, a (Danish?) museologist, put it like this: much too ofte=
n
> daddy's birthday present, when entered into a museum collection, become=
s a
> pair of stockings.
>=20
> >the museologist becomes the facilitator
> Museums are institutions in the service of society. Thus museologists a=
re
> not acting in their own right but "per procuram societatis". They do no=
t
> give the object meaning but they attribute the quality of being a beare=
r of
> museality to an object as the result of subject matter research (concer=
ning
> its material identity) as well as museological research (concerning its
> quality as a bearer of meaning). This, by the way, is Krysztof Pomian's
> curtailing mistake, who sees a museum object only as "semiophor" (=3D b=
earer
> of signs) instead of "nouophor" (=3D bearer of meaning). (Waidacher, no=
t yet
> published, apart from this e-mail).
>=20
> Jennifer, your question touches the vital point of all we do (and did -=
 I am
> a director emeritus) in museums. Too many curators, alas!, especially i=
n
> Europe, only look at objects as to their material quality (a mineral, a
> piece of furniture, a steam engine...) Thus so many museums are so dead=
ly
> tedious: they do not tell a story to people like you and me but only ad=
dress
> mineralogists, cabinet makers, engineers - none of which I am and,
> supposedly, you are.
>=20
> Enjoyed to try to answer your questions, even in a language not my own.
>=20
> Greetings,
> Fritz
>=20
> P.S.: If you think our conversation could be of interest to other
> museums-l'ers you can put it into the list.
> P.P.S.: If you want to stay in touch - my pleasure.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> *****************************************************        x
> *                                                   *
> *              Friedrich WAIDACHER                  *
> *                                                   *
> *   >> Klosterwiesgasse 44, A-8010 Graz             *                  =
*
> *      Austria                                      *
> *      Tel/Fax +43 (0)316 826264                    *
> *                                                   *
> *   >> Moenchegg 34, A-8742 St. Wolfgang-Kienberg   *         ***
> *      Austria                                      *         .
> *      Tel/Fax +43 (0)3578 8216                     *        ;
> *                                                   *       ,
> *   >> email: [log in to unmask]                  *
> *                                                   *   *
> *****************************************************                x